USTR released its Special 301 Report that assessed “the adequacy and effectiveness of US trading partners’ protection and enforcement” of IPR. The review covered 72 trading partners, of whom 37 were included on the watch list.

US laws allow Washington to impose economic sanctions on trading partners or eliminate tariff perks if they fail to improve IPR protection regimes.

The Philippines was first tagged in 1989 and was on the watch list since 1994. It was taken out of the watch list last year, with the USTR citing improved Philippine government commitment to protect IPR “and the results”, even as it noted that “significant challenges remain.”

In the 2015 report posted on its web site, the USTR cited positive developments in the Philippines that kept it out of the watch list.

“Paraguay and the Philippines have committed to a whole-of-government approach to IPR enforcement that has been critical to enhancing the effectiveness of IPR enforcement and resulted in positive reports from a number of affected stakeholder groups,” a statement on the report read.

The report itself noted that “[a]dministrative enforcement reforms in the Philippines have resulted in streamlined procedures, enhanced inter-agency cooperation, and more enforcement action, including increased seizures of pirated and counterfeit goods.”

Sought for comment, Allan B. Gepty, officer-in-charge at the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), said in a text message: “This is a recognition of hard work and sustained drive to improve the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in the country.”

“It means that our national government gives priority to IP as a tool for economic development.”

Mr. Gepty also said that being out of watch list for the second straight year shows acknowledgement of “good coordination and working relationship of various government agencies involved in IP enforcement”, as well as “productive partnership with the private sector.”

“With a reliable IP regime, we can expect more foreign investments --particularly IP-intensive industries -- in the country and improved competitiveness,” said Mr. Gepty.

Business leaders also welcomed this year’s report.

Alfredo M. Yao, president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), said the country should continue its efforts to protect IPR.

“It’s good that we’re still out of the watch list. We are really catching up on IPR protection efforts. IPR concerns here are very minimal compared to other countries,” Mr. Yao said in a phone interview.

“We are enforcing strict rules IPR. We also support efforts of the government. We have a dedicated committee in PCCI in charge of monitoring IPR,” he added, noting: “We are now one of the good boys as far as IPR is concerned.”

Sought also for comment, American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines Senior Adviser John D. Forbes said: “It is encouraging to see that the Philippines is not on the list when China, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are”, adding that “[t]he Department of Trade and Industry, IPO(PHL) and Department of Justice should maintain efforts to stay off the list.”

The European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines (ECCP) also regards the report as a feather on the Philippines’ cap, with ECCP Executive Vice-President Henry J. Schumacher saying via separate text: “Businesses recognize that the Intellectual Property Office did a good job in becoming more effective in protecting IPR and going after offenders.”

“At the same time, however, these reforms need to be further strengthened throughout the country, also as part of ASEAN integration,” he added, referring to the formal declaration of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations as an economic community this December that, in turn, will usher in a progressive regime of borderless intra-regional trade and investment flows.

Just last February, six US-based business groups said the Philippines’ IPR regime continues to be hounded by slow case resolution, lax punitive measures and market access restrictions. 

Source: Business World Online