Katie Graham is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On December 26, 2022, the Japanese IP High Court dismissed an appeal from Christian Louboutin (“Louboutin”), a shoe designer known for its iconic red-bottom heels, in its action against Japanese shoe designer, Eizo Collection Co., Ltd. (“Eizo”), to shut down Eizo’s use of red soles on high-heeled shoes.

In May 2019, Louboutin sued Eizo under the Unfair Competition Prevention Law, seeking a permanent injunction against Eiko’s production of red-soled high heels and damages of approximately CAD 43,500. The Tokyo District Court ruled against Louboutin by finding red soles insufficient as a source indicator, and that the likelihood of confusion among consumers is therefore low. The IP High Court affirmed the judgment and placed particular emphasis on the to assess the likelihood of confusion:

1. The relevant consumers in the Japanese shoe market (women from their 20s to 50s) are likely to try on multiple shoes before purchasing ones that fit in a physical store;
2. The market can be divided into three categories: (i) luxury brand products, (ii) affordable brand products, and (iii) inexpensive no-name products;
3. The shoes in question, as well as most high-heeled shoes, bear a brand name or logo on the insole so that consumers can distinguish between trade sources; and
4. E-commerce websites post images of ladies’ shoes and identify the trade source for the respective goods in advertisements ().

While Louboutin’s products retail for and over and fall within the luxury brand market, Eizo’s shoes occupy the affordable or no-name brand markets, with an average retail price of JPY17,000 ($130). As such, the court ruled that, despite the resemblance of the colour of Louboutin and Eiko’s outsoles, the likelihood of confusion amongst consumers is low since each company occupies a different position in the market.

Relying on the fact that Louboutin is not the exclusive supplier of red-soled high heels in Japan and only 51.6% of targeted women in their 20s to 50s residing in major Japanese cities recognized Louboutin at the sight of a red-soled high-shoe, the IP High Court Louboutin’s assertion of its remarkable reputation amongst consumers. The court also took with Louboutin’s market research. The 3,149 individuals surveyed were luxury retail shoppers and were only presented with Louboutin’s products, not Eizo’s.

This loss for Louboutin follows several years of from the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and JPO Appeal Board to register its trademark for a colour mark consisting of a red (Pantone 18-1663TP) coloured in soles for use in high heels filed on April 1, 2015 (TM App no. ). In April 2015, Japan opened the gate for non-traditional trademarks, including colour, sound, and motion . As of November 2020, however, the JPO only registered out of 543 applications for colour marks. The JPO based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law, stating that Louboutin’s colour mark lacks distinctiveness to be deemed as an indicator of source for Louboutin in the Japanese market.

(Alt Text: EIZO shoes with red soles; Source: ()

The post Japanese IP High Court Steps on Louboutin’s Toes (Again) Over its Red Sole Mark appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Anita Gogia is a IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On May 25, 2021 the Japan Patent Office (JPO) Nobuaki Kurokawa a trademark for his apparel brand named “CUGGL” for class 25 (clothing and footwear). This year, when the t-shirt design  for CUGGL was released, the Italian fashion brand Gucci tried to get the trademark cancelled.

Fast forward a few months, on July 26, 2021, Gucci filed an opposition against the “CUGGL” mark with the JPO. Gucci argued that CUGGL t-shirts would confuse customers because of the font and style of the design. Gucci cited of the Japan trademark law in support of their claim.

Gucci that Kurokawa obtained the trademark with malicious intent to take advantage of the luxury Italian brand’s goodwill and reputation as customers would recognize his design to say “GUCCI” even when they can only see the top half of the word. Even though half of the word “CUGGL” is covered with hand drawn paint, anyone familiar with Gucci’s brand might assume at first glance that the shirt says “GUCCI” underneath the paint.

Unfortunately for Gucci, its claim was not successful. As of July 12, 2022, the JPO found that the two brands were distinct and . Even though the decision makers Gucci’s popularity and reputation, they of a resemblance between Gucci and CUGGL based on visual, phonetic, and conceptual considerations. Overall, the low degree of similarly, according to the JPO, is not enough to accept that consumers would be confused between Gucci and CUGGL.

Kurokawa has other successful trademarks and pending applications for brands that potentially confuse consumers (for , “AZIDES” and “PAPAGORIRA”).

Some that the JPO’s decision against Gucci is a win because large companies have manipulated the law to prevent harmless parodies of their brands and the public would not be confused by such parodies. This decision illustrates that the result of a trademark infringement allegation is not so predictable in Japan as it may be in other jurisdictions.

The post Gucci or CUGGL? The Japan Patent Office dismisses trademark infringement claims by Gucci appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Pankhuri Malik is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and an LLM Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On May 31, 2022, the Federal Court of Canada in favour of the plaintiffs, Janssen and Actelion Pharmaceuticals ("Janssen”) in their action against Sandoz. The Court held that Janssen’s combination therapy patent is valid. is often used to treat ailments and medical conditions where treatment through single-agent therapy has proven to be challenging.

Background

The present case concerns the validity of claims 21 to 31 of Janssen’s Canadian combination therapy patent for treatment of diseases involving , including pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The patent seeks to treat the ailments through a combination of Macitentan (sold under the brand name Opsumit) and phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitor (PDE5-1).

Sandoz sought permission from Health Canada to market generic medicine containing 10mg of Macitentan as the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for use alone, or in combination with PDE5-Is. Janssen filed an action before the Federal Court claiming that Sandoz’s generic medicine will infringe upon claims 21 to 31 of the plaintiffs’ patent.

Defences

Sandoz conceded that its proposed medicine does infringe the alleged claims, but defended against Janssen’s claims by raising four different grounds of invalidity. However, the Court rejected Sandoz’s arguments that the combination therapy invention was obvious, lacked a sound prediction of utility, and that the patent was overbroad, and the specifications were insufficient.

1. Obviousness

The Court in held that whether an invention is “obvious” depends on if the skilled person (without any inventiveness), in view of the state of the art and the common general knowledge on the date of publication, would have directly or without difficulty come to the same conclusion as the patent. Plainly, the test can be understood as:

1. Identify the person of skill in the art (“POSITA”), and their common general knowledge;
2. Identify the inventive concept;
3. Identify the difference between the inventive concept and the “state of the art”; and
4. Determine if the difference is obvious or if it requires inventiveness.

The Federal Court followed the test down to the T and held that the available evidence and prior art do not indicate that the POSITA would have considered the combination of Macitentan with PDE5-I to show effectiveness in treatment of ailments involving vasoconstriction, where monotherapies have failed.

Since Sandoz raised the defence of invalidity, Sandoz had the onus to establish obviousness, which it was unable to do.

2. Utility

The requirements to establish a sound prediction of utility were set out in the case of as:

1. A factual basis for prediction;
2. An articulable and sound line of reasoning; and
3. Proper disclosure.

The Court, having considered the POSITA’s common general knowledge and the test results provided in the patent, concluded that the plaintiffs met the requirements of sound prediction of utility.

3. Overbreadth

Here, Sandoz recycled its argument of utility in claiming that the patent does not disclose a sound line of reasoning and claims overtly broad protections. However, the Court relied on its own analysis under Utility and concluded that a sound line of reasoning is present, thereby invalidating the overbreadth argument.

4. Sufficiency

A patent specification is required to provide sufficient disclosures to enable the POSITA to use the invention. Sandoz claimed that the specification of the patent does not enable the POSITA to put the invention to use. The Court reasoned that Sandoz’s “sufficiency” argument contradicted its “obviousness argument.” Further, Sandoz failed to explain the lacunae in the specification that needed filling for the disclosure to be sufficient.

The Judgment

Unable to find merit in Sandoz’s arguments, the Court declared that Sandoz would infringe the asserted claims if granted permission to market its generic medicine in Canada. As of July 20, 2022 Sandoz has filed an against Federal Court’s judgment.  

The post Federal Court rules in favour of Janssen for its combination therapy patent appeared first on IPOsgoode.

To read the IPilogue's blog and commentary about the lecture, click .

The post IP Osgoode Speaks Series Video: Dr. Matthew Rimmer appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In a timely manner, only three days after the of the conclusion of negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), Prof. Matthew Rimmer accepted our invitation and shared few of the hidden secrets behind the agreement as part of IP Osgoode speaks series.

This ‘blockbuster agreement’—supposedly a jovial landmark in the sphere of diplomatic international relations—was diluted with a mixture of uncertainty and secrecy. According to Prof. Rimmer, the TPP is a controversial agreement for several reasons. First, many concerns were raised regarding the involvement of major companies, via special advisory groups and executives, in drafting parts of the agreement. Consequently, the companies allegedly had more influence over the TPP than the legislators since the latter could not review the agreement that was protected (and still is) under the blinds of confidentiality. Second, a few notable countries are not signatories of the TPP (China and Russia for example). The reasons underlying China and Russia’s exclusions raise questions regarding the TPP’s true nature—is it really a trade agreement or simply, as Prof. Rimmer implied, ‘the coalition of the willing’ that was established as part of a U.S. global trade strategy.

Much of what we know to date about the TPP was retrieved from . Jamie Love, the director of (KEI), who recently shared a into the TPP deliberations, alerted that "[i]n many sections … the TPP would change global norms, restrict access to knowledge, create significant financial risks for persons using and sharing information, and, in some cases, impose new costs on persons producing new knowledge goods."

IP Principles and Objectives

The TPP’s IP chapter covers a wide scope of topics and is positioned to change the normative boundaries of IP and, more specifically, of copyright. The traditional approach, as shaped in the U.S. and the U.K., is rooted in the perception of copyright as a means to inspire creation and proliferate knowledge. However, as Prof. Rimmer explains, it appears that the current vision of the TPP, under the influence of the music and movie industries, seeks to transform the normative balance of IP in order to strengthen the owners’ well-fortified rights. It is not hyperbole to define the TPP as a game changer that could have grave implications to the public domain.

A ‘Mickey Mouse’ Copyright Term Extension

According to Prof. Rimmer, the movie and the music industries have strategically argued for a prolonged extension of copyright terms. The TPP seems to answer their call, as it extends the term of protection to 70 years after the life of the author. This extension will likely have a profound affect in various fields, including Canadian cultural heritage, competition, innovation and the public domain. However, it is unclear if the TPP will include a demand for the revival of copyright works that were previously in the public domain. Prof. Rimmer also indicated that the TPP seeks to for orphan works.

Fair Use/Dealing and Disability Rights

There has been much academic discourse concerning whether the TPP language, in regards to the definition of fair use/dealing, is far too narrow or too broad compared to previous agreements, particularly the , in defining copyright exceptions. The TPP definition will most likely affect the course of this discussion. If the TPP adopts a narrow definition for fair use/dealing, it could set back recent developments in Canada related to the Supreme Court landmark decision in .

Copyright and disability rights stand in the center of recent international progress in copyright law. The —the most prevalent—aims to expand the recognition of the rights and interests of disabled people to access copyright protected materials, ending what was known as the ‘Book Famine’. According to Prof. Rimmer, the TPP makes an effort to recognize the Marrakesh Treaty. However, the Marrakesh Treaty is narrowly limited in scope to the visually impaired. Prof. Rimmer argues for a broader scope that will include other disabilities as well.

DMCA

The TPP seeks to export aspects of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act () and imbed Technological Protection Measures (known as ‘digital Locks’). Such anti-circumvention measures might endanger the fair use/dealing exceptions. The DMCA is a premature regime that was enacted almost two decades ago, in a pre-search engine and social media era, and is not well designed for current challenges. Stressing the absolute DMCA model as part of the TPP seems unreasonable. It should be noted that the DMCA model may have grave consequences to Canada, which in the past decade have defended its copyright laws against the DMCA successfully.

Protection and Enforcement

Protection and enforcement measures play an important role in the implementation of any international agreement. The TPP includes an arsenal of IP enforcement measures such as criminal offences and civil remedies. However, the TPP's rigid structure does not enable the members of the agreement much flexibility in adapting the TPP into their domestic laws. Prof. Rimmer criticized that the TPP ‘locks’ a specific model rigidly; it is uncompromising in regards to changes and modifications to the enforcement measures since it requires the approval of all members.

TPP’s Radical Vision

Prof. Rimmer concluded his lecture by stating that the TPP agreement ‘is radical’ not only in its objectives and purposes, but it also changes some of the fundamental doctrines in copyright such as term extension, fair use/dealing, liability issues etc., while diminishing the public domain in the process.

The TPP agreement is indeed a defining moment in the international effort to consolidate IP laws, however, the shroud of secrecy surrounding the TPP is not an encouraging sign. There is the general concern that the leaked terms of the TPP agreement will cause copyright laws to regress and destabilize the delicate balance between authors' and creators' rights to the public domain, thereby doing more harm than good.

The Sum of All Fears

On the eve of posting this blog, The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) finally published the . Not surprisingly, we discovered that the TPP’s negotiation leaks were, in general terms, accurate. For example, the TPP includes a copyright term extension of ‘not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death’ (Article 18.63(a) to the TPP) as predicted. Obviously, we should read the TPP thoroughly, however—as it seems—it is indeed what we all feared it to be.

Aviv Gaon is a PhD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School

The post IP Osgoode Speaks Series Featuring Prof. Matthew Rimmer appeared first on IPOsgoode.

At the time of the Uruguay Round talks, IP matters . The international diffusion of IP law via the TRIPS Agreement and within the WTO has given prominence to the role that IP law plays with respect to economic and human development in developed and developing nations.

Government negotiators, industry representatives, civil society advocates, and a host of other interested parties are now increasingly active in shaping IP law regimes. This considerable interest is complicating efforts to update legal and governance systems to meet contemporary and future realities.

In the past, large and established industries have effectively lobbied their governments to enact domestic IP reforms and to insert these previsions in international trade agreements in order to preserve their business interests. As , the TRIPS Agreement was the result of concerted lobbying efforts by the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries in the United States. Against the backdrop of an emerging “,” these and other industry groups are likely to continue pressing for changes that support their business practices.

However, coordinated activism against perceptions about increasing levels of IP protections is being led by a host of developing states as well as civil society critics in developed and developing countries. These groups are reacting to what they consider a proprietary ownership system over cultural and communicative processes that is deemed to serve the interests of dominant industries primarily located in developed states. These actors are seeking to ‘rebalance’ the international IP system to meet the socioeconomic development objectives of a diverse set of stakeholders in developed and developing countries. They often advocate for legal and socio-legal reforms that they contend will stimulate public policy objectives for technological innovation and economic growth while addressing the economic, social, cultural, and development needs of users, citizens, and emerging business practices.

The increasingly contested nature of IP negotiations has resulted in a patchwork of international trade and IP agreements that are negotiated outside of established multilateral forums. In particular, the US and EU have been actively seeking arenas where they are better able to reach agreement on complex issues. However, the failure of international discussions - such as the - as well as American legislation - notably the and the - have cast doubt on the viability of these exercises.

ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA have failed (at least for now) for similar reasons;  the effort of creating these policies had been derailed due to sustained civil society and public interest opposition. A number of concerned groups argued that some of the policies within the proposed laws' scopes were too broadly construed, threatened civil liberties and development concerns, did not strike a ‘balance’ between private and public rights, and would have unforeseen consequences for economic growth, creativity, and innovation.

In the case of ACTA, the outcome of two years of negotiations between representatives for nearly 40 countries has been stalled, as the number of signatories required to ratify the treaty for it to come into effect has not been met. To date, only Japan has officially ratified the treaty; support for it has otherwise diminished. The European Parliament the treaty in a landslide decision in 2012. , a Member from the United Kingdom, welcomed the move, “The Treaty was too vague and was open to misinterpretation. I will always support civil liberties over intellectual property rights protection.”

SOPA and PIPA, domestic initiatives in the US, also met concerted backlash. In these cases, civil society groups were joined by corporations in the US technology sector and argued that the bills threatened the viability and functioning of the Internet, which would slow the pace of technological innovation as well as users’ rights. These protests culminated in an ‘Internet blackout’ that had many large websites—including Google and Wikipedia—display messages opposing SOPA and PIPA or  entirely. In total, over 7000 websites joined in . Following these protests, support for the bills dropped in both the House and the Senate and they were withdrawn.

The TPP negotiations have faced similar criticisms and may face similar opposition if and when the treaty is finalized. Opponents of the TPP argue that, as with all other trade agreements, secret negotiations and a lack of official releases of treaty drafts reduces transparency. Wikileaks’ release of the November 2013 negotiating text has provided fodder for the TPP’s critics and accentuated this problem. , the Director of Knowledge Ecology International, responded to the leaked text that “The TPP text shrinks the space for exceptions in all types of intellectual property rights. Negotiated in secret, the proposed text is bad for access to knowledge, bad for access to medicine, and profoundly bad for innovation.” Supporters of the negotiations have been quick to respond with the US Chamber of Commerce “the TPP negotiations represent an opportunity to establish strong rules to protect intellectual property, cultivate the digital economy, and combat trade and investment protectionism.”

It is important to recognize that the text released by Wikileaks is only a working draft of the negotiations. A close reading of the leaked version reveals that there are many unresolved issues that need to be addressed. Tellingly, the US negotiating with the majority of the other parties. As well, the Canadian group has put forward the largest number of proposals for the text and has also been actively opposing so-called controversial provisions and offering alternatives. However, from Wikileaks show that the American negotiators are working to press forward and exert pressure on disagreeing parties.

One proposal that is most indicative of the disagreements taking place during the negotiations surrounds the objectives of the TPP. A group of nine countries (the "Group"), including Canada, has proposed that the treaty should “Enhance the role of intellectual property in promoting economic and social development, particularly in relation to the new digital economy, technological innovation, the [PE: generation,] transfer and dissemination of technology and trade” () and “maintain a balance between the rights of intellectual property holders and the legitimate interests of users and the community in subject matter protected by intellectual property” (). The US and Japan both oppose this proposal as it is written.

The connections between “economic and social development” (emphasis added) as well as the need for a “balance” of IP holders and users highlight a general disagreement between the Group and the US/Japan over the role of IP law. It is unclear why the US and Japan oppose this wording, but it may be due to the fact that these countries are often wary of using language that can be interpreted in a manner that contradicts the primacy of the rights of IP holders. This divide also contributes to disagreements over proposals relating to access to medicines, the extension of copyright terms, and the rejection of exceptions or limitations on digital rights management and technological prevention measures.

Another round of negotiations has been scheduled for early 2014 in the hopes that an agreement can be reached by the end of the year. In order for this to occur, negotiating parties will need to resolve these and other differences. Even if an agreement is reached, the fates of ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA must be considered when trying to move the TPP towards domestic ratification. Having excluded a number of people from the negotiation process, the governments of the TPP signatory nations will need to make steps to assure their citizens that the treaty is beneficial and does not necessitate the opposition that felled the earlier attempts at IP reform.

Joseph F. Turcotte is an IPilogue Editor, a PhD Candidate and SSHRC Doctoral Fellow in the Communication & Culture Program (Politics & Policy) at �첥��Ƶ, and a Nathanson Graduate Fellow at the Jack & Mae Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Going the Way of the Doha? The TPP and Contested Intellectual Property and International Trade Linkages appeared first on IPOsgoode.

If the passage of Canada’s copyright reform bill (covered by IP Osgoode ) after nearly 15 years of lobbying and revision has shown anything, it’s that persistence pays in the field of IP legislation. If copyright reform is a key goal of EU interests, as it has been with Canada, then it is only a matter of time before ACTA 2.0 or its revised equivalent shows up on the horizon. Given this likelihood, here’s a brief recap of the major events and debates in the life of ACTA, which might be useful in helping readers determine what the next EU IP reform treaties might bring.

The European Commission (EC) cited as being trade-related, especially with regards to balancing the rights of the creators of IPRs with those of EU citizens and consumers. It was also quick to point out that ACTA was mostly enforcement-based, and aimed to strengthen existing IP rights, without seeking to add an extra layer. And finally, the EC rebuffed the broad scope of the treaty by justifying it as necessary for the protection of “all European innovators and creators, through a broad range of means,” including ‘best practices’ mechanisms to ensure both civil and criminal enforcement were uniformly applied across EU borders.

Given that the agreement was touted as beneficial for both “developed and emerging economies,” it is interesting that such as Brazil and India had spoken out against ACTA, with the former claiming that the negotiation process was itself , and the latter pointing out that ACTA that developing economies need, by disallowing them the full benefits of efficient IPR-usage. The fact that the original communications around the treaty were on the internet in 2008, ultimately leading to a of the draft treaty being released in December 2010—with even the European Parliament over its (the EC’s) suspicious behaviour— may have served to stir an ever-growing hornet’s nest over ACTA’s .

Margot Kaminski’s highlighted ACTA’s impact on international law on both practical and thematic levels, and pointed out that its acceptance would have led to increased governmental interference in issues of IPR enforcement normally handled by private companies. More importantly, Kaminski emphasized that the current global recession puts an increased strain on cash-strapped governments to pursue IPR enforcement within their own borders, instead of focusing on development issues, which is something that has been commented on as well. Still other critics focused on the , reffering to ACTA as SOPA’s ‘big sister,’ alluding to the fact that ACTA effectively encompassed SOPA’s free-speech limiting provisions and expanded on these to include generic drugs, pharmaceuticals and goods. ACTA had therefore been touted as “part of a ,” with countries being compelled to fall in line with a majority view favouring punitive copyright enforcement, in exchange for trade and economic development prospects.

More interesting perhaps, was the . While civil protests were marked by the , and online awareness that culminated in , it was the retractions by various governments (, , , , among others) in the days following that highlighted just how divisive ACTA had become, creating much , even as it signed the treaty. The of Kader Arif, the rapporteur of the EP for ACTA, followed by his of the process of its negotiation and adoption already circulating in the civil world. All this fracas then led to renewed concerns about whether the rhetoric from the SOPA protests could have affected public perceptions of ACTA’s content and goals, with for being unclear about the treaty’s motives, prompting , at least with respect to . Some members of the EC hit back, by suggesting that the protests “.”

In May 2012, EC had decided to stall the ratification process of the treaty, and by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on ACTA’s legality. The EC deemed this a “” to ensure that the fundamental freedoms of the public were protected, even as would have been put to rest. Even so, the EP decided not to wait for the ECJ’s ruling on ACTA by voting on it before the Court’s judgment was released, reflecting just how unpopular the treaty had become.

For its part, Canada had been embroiled in the ACTA controversy since its and . The government has as being directed towards the internationally cooperative best practices that the treaty would have encouraged, especially with respect to the development of a new legal framework designed to counter mass scale copyright infringement. While the official Canadian stance had been that the country’s , critics highlighted that were in Bill C-11— which has now and will soon become Canadian law— even as they dismissed the actual passage of ACTA as being unlikely. From the Canadian perspective, it seemed as if the treaty’s consequences on the “” debate was one of the with the treaty, although this country has now pre-empted the EU on this aspect by including these provisions in C-11 anyway. Other issues of process and substance that hark back to the nature of democratic dialogue and law-making had also been discussed in connection with ACTA.

Ahead of Wednesday’s vote, the of the MEPs on July 3, 2012 was a , with supporters expressing the concern that a vote on ACTA before ECJ’s ruling would be irresponsible, even going so far as to weaken the and EU’s “defence of IPRs….across the world.” Interestingly, the pro-ACTA opinions seemed to centre purely around the concerns of defence, protection and trade-related enforcement measures, while the anti-ACTA voices considered the importance of public opinion, and the need for increased input from EU citizens to create a balanced treaty that would “allow both business models to exist” – the traditional defensive stance, along with the newer “sharing” one. Ultimately however, the sour taste left in the mouths of many stemmed from the overall approach to the creation of ACTA in first place; as British Labour MEP David Martin stated, .” Perhaps its drafters would do well to take this lesson to heart, and allow for a democratic and cooperative drafting process for the next round of IP reform legislation in the EU. This would be more reflective of the quest to achieve the ideal and ever-elusive balance between the rights of creators versus those of society that IP law is supposed to continuously strive for.

On a grander scale, the fight over global IPR management and enforcement might just be the beginning. Awareness over a , the (TPP), which , has been spreading slowly but surely. The criticisms with this are all-too familiar— ranging from secret negotiations to inadequate representation of all parties and stakeholders, and indicating what is perhaps a sad trend in current international IP law negotiations, but one that is facing stiff criticism from global civil societies and governmental organizations alike.

Mekhala Chaubal is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post R.I.P. ACTA (For Now) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Japanese broadcasters completed the switch to digitized terrestrial TV broadcasting at noon Sunday, July 24, ending the analog transmission in 44 prefectures, except in the three prefectures – Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima – hit by the March 11 quake and tsunami, where the decided to put the switch off. Here the switch will take place at the end of March 2012.

Being aware that people nationwide have yet to prepare for the analog-to-digital, the Ministry of Communications has increased his staff to provide for technical help to the citizens. According to the broadcasting industry, fairly 100 thousand households haven’t bought essential equipment such as digital tuners and antennas yet. Furthermore, the Ministry of Communications distributed free digital terrestrial tuners to low-income families. Moreover, there are many unreported households that have refrained from making the transition, whether intentionally or for other reasons. Despite mass campaigning by the government and terrestrial broadcasters, there’s still concern that many senior citizens and those with disabilities have not made the transition.

Japanese analog broadcasting service began on February 1 1953 at 2 p.m. Although (Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai, Japan’s national public broadcasting corporation) beamed experimental television broadcasts in 1939, it wasn’t until more than 10 years later that regular TV programming started. The NHK opening program was the kabuki classic “Michiyuki Hatsune no Tabi”. The next day the inauguration of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was broadcasted. The first commercial broadcaster was Nippon Television Network Corp. and started its regular programming on August 28 1953, airing a baseball game live the next day. The first satellite broadcast was supposed to be a recorded message by U.S. President John F. Kennedy scheduled for the morning of November 23 1963.

As stated above, NHK is the public broadcasting corporation, but it is not the only Japanese broadcaster. Alongside to NHK there are five nationwide TV networks — , , , , — all of which are affiliated with national newspapers, except for NHK. NTV is affiliated with national daily , while TV Asahi is affiliated with its rival daily, the . Besides the national networks, there are also independent terrestrial commercial stations, not members of the national networks but forming together the Japanese Association of Independent Television Stations.

The first step towards the digitalization of TV transmission started in 2001, after the Diet – on July 25 – passed revisions to the Radio Law to change the frequency of analog broadcasts, providing a 10-year window for users to make the switch to digital.

The first digitalized programs were transmitted in 2003 in Tōkyō, Ōsaka and Nagoya and nationwide in 2006. Until July 24th, 12 p.m., analog TV and digital TV have been simultaneously broadcast.

As in Italy and in other relevant countries, also Japan decided to switch from analog to digital since digital broadcasting provides higher quality images and sound. Moreover, broadcasters can transmit data in a compressed format using only two-thirds of the bandwidth needed for analog broadcasting, meaning that the extra bandwidth can be used for new types of broadcasting.

The post Japan: Farewell Analog, Welcome Digital appeared first on IPOsgoode.