Jairo Rubio Escobar
Colombian Superintendent of Trade and Industry.

Hon. Mr Antonio Marzano, Minister for Productive Activities; Hon Mr Paolo Costa, Mayor City of Venice; Dr Kamil Idris, Director General, World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO; Mr Paolo Baratta, President, Venice International Committee; Directors of government institutions; special guests; ladies and gentlemen.

I am very pleased to be here at this conference on international legal protection of designs. Sharing views with such highly regarded experts in that field from all over the world is encouraging. For that reason, as a Colombian Superintendent of Trade and Industry, I would like to thank the organizers of this conference for inviting someone like myself, from the Andean Region, to take part on it.

I will try, within the time limit available, to give first a broad picture of the Andean Community law in the field of industrial designs. Then, I would like to present some figures illustrating the actual demand for protection in that field in the Andean Region. Finally, I will make some comments on the Hague Agreement Concerning Industrial Designs.

1. It is worthwhile indicating that Colombia is a member of the Andean Free Trade Community Area. Hence, it has a common legal framework in the field of intellectual property rights, IPR. Because of that, I will be mainly focused on the way in which the Andean Community law deals with industrial designs.

2. Colombia began in 1931 to protect drawings and industrial models. However, since 1978 the intellectual property rights law has been adopted at Andean Community level. Thus Bolivia , Colombia , Ecuador , Peru and Venezuela have had a common legal framework in that field. It means that over the last twenty five years Andean Community law froze the IPR legislation of each Andean Community member state. Currently, the Andean law applicable to IPR in general is the Decision 486 enacted in September 2000.

3. Under Andean Community law, the concept of industrial designs covers both industrial drawings and industrial models.

4. Once TRIPS Agreement came into effect on January 1 st 1995, within the context of WTO commitments, Andean Community member states took steps in order to make legislation on IPR compatible with TRIPS obligations. As a result, the former Andean Community legislation, contained in Decision 344, was amended.

5. Those aspects of industrial designs law that we had to harmonize with TRIPS Agreement were:

5.1. Protecting drawings and textile designs. That was necessary because under former Andean industrial designs law, textile designs were unprotected.

5.2. Establishing more appropriate procedures for the registry of industrial designs. Under the current legislation, the novelty assessment is only necessary if there are objections to the application.

Under the former legislation, the novelty assessment was always necessary whether or not there were objections to the application. For that reason, the duration of the process was reduced.

5.3. Extending the period of protection to ten years. Under former legislation, the period of protection was for eight years.

Harmonizing Andean legislation was necessary in order to fulfill TRIPS obligations. Nevertheless, it seems to be useful to look at the actual demand for industrial design protection in the Andean market. That brings me to the second part of my presentation.

6. Some industrial design figures.

It is now worthwhile indicating some figures from 1994 to 2003.

6.1. The average applications were 289 per year. However, on average the industrial design applications granted were 259.

6.2. During the same period, 72% of applicants were non-residents whereas 28% were residents.

6.3. 2221 industrial design registrations were granted: 80% to non-residents and 20% to residents.

6.4. Colombia is by far the Andean country where more applications have been filed. As matter of fact, the Colombian Office received 2221 applications whereas in Peru were 1217, in Ecuador 489 and in Bolivia 196.

6.5. If Colombia were party to the Hague Agreement, considering the number of applications, it would be ranked fourteenth above countries such as Croacia, Eslovenia , Bulgaria and others.

It seems necessary to assess such figures to see what they indicate. Such analysis brings me to the final part of my presentation.

7. Those figures reflect low industrial design demand for registration. However, they signal the way forward. What they reveal is the need of adopting a political framework to encourage innovation, specially in those areas where we know how to produce best, efficiently.

We share the premise that in an information society protecting innovation is the key to economy growth. It is based on that premise that we are reinforcing an IPR culture. We believe that granting industrial designs protection and enforcing it, will encourage creativity. If creativity in its turn means meeting consumer needs, it will lead to put new products in our markets. Because it means economic growth, protecting industrial designers would finally bring economic and social development. That is in the end what we are looking for.

It is for such reasons that adopting some WIPO-administered treaties seems to be in our best interest. Two of them are the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs and the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks.

8. However, there is another reason why we are in the process of evaluating the convenience of becoming party to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement. As it is known, Colombia as well as other countries from the Andean region are about to begin negotiations this month with the United States of America on free trade agreement. In similar agreements the USA has urged its partners to make reasonable efforts to become party to WIPO-administered treaties, including the Hague Agreement.

Because of that and bearing in mind that such specific instruments facilitate industrial design protection at low cost and by means of an efficient procedure, the Colombian Government together with the Business Community are evaluating the convenience of becoming party to the Hague Agreement.

In any event, our commitment to industrial design protection does not depend on obligations accepted by free trade agreements. In fact, such commitment is the result of our beliefs. They lead us to protect what results from innovation and effort.

 

Many thanks.

Venice , Italy , May 14 2004.