The Foreign Service Journal, February 2011

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 1 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 33 The Role of the IPEC Demonstrating its commitment to this issue, the Obama administra- tion appointed an Intellectual Prop- erty Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, inDecember 2009. A key element of the Joint Strategic Plan on IP Enforcement that she re- leased this past June is aimed at unit- ing the efforts of all federal agencies with a stake in intellectual property to pursue several joint initiatives, both domestically and overseas, through the establishment of various working groups. The working group on overseas staffing is chaired by IPE and recently directed 17 key posts to create IPR work- ing groups and develop a yearly IP action plan. At em- bassies and consulates worldwide, State economic officers are on the front line of the battle to protect U.S. intellec- tual property rights, responding to complaints raised by U.S. companies and vigorously pressing foreign govern- ments to combat piracy and counterfeiting. Six posts also are staffed by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office IP attachés, as mandated by the Pro-IP Act of 2008, and two posts have Department of Justice IP Law En- forcement Coordinators to assist in developing cases re- lated to IP infringement. Both USPTO and DOJ are interested in expanding these programs and their presence overseas. State’s Role A great example of interagency cooperation in combat- ing piracy and counterfeiting is found in State’s implemen- tation of a $4 million congressional “soft” earmark for IPR criminal enforcement training and technical assistance. In this program, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and the Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs collaborate to target INL funds for long-term capacity-building programs in less de- veloped nations through cooperation with other agencies. Examples include a multiyear program in Paraguay, which established new enforcement units and capabilities that did not exist before; regional training for sub-Saharan Africa enforcement units designed to increase cross-bor- der cooperation, with particular emphasis on combating the health and human safety threat of counterfeit medi- cines; and long-term capacity building for Mexican law en- forcement, which led to a World Customs Organization award rec- ognizing substantial progress. The State Department criminal enforcement training program is de- signed to complement private-sec- tor training initiatives by addressing gaps that can only be filled by deliv- ery of government-to-government assistance. A strong criminal en- forcement deterrent is required to address the increasing involvement of sophisticated trans-national or- ganized crime groups in IPR crimes. IPE does not go after IP infringers “one DVD at a time,” but there are steps that all posts can take to raise awareness of IP protection. Many have implemented an anti-piracy policy explicitly stating that purchasing coun- terfeit and pirated goods is not allowed. Others have up- dated the Country-Specific Information pages at http:// travel.state.gov to include information for American citi- zens about the dangers associated with purchasing coun- terfeit and pirated goods. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is launching a campaign linking posts to the National IPR Coordination Center, another group that State’s office cooperates with, from the embassy Internet page to report IP infringements and infringers all over the world. The center (www. ice.gov/iprcenter) co ordinates the efforts of 13 agencies to combat piracy and counterfeiting and ensure that coun- terfeit products do not find their way into the U.S. gov- ernment supply chain. On “Cyber Monday” (the Monday after Thanksgiving —Nov. 29 last year) the National IPR Center announced seizure orders against 82 domain names of commercial Web sites as part of their ongoing investigation, “Opera- tion In Our Sites.” These sites were all found to be en- gaged in the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works. Countries that do not offer “adequate and effective” protection of IPR or “fair and equitable market access to United States persons that rely upon intellectual property rights” are “named and shamed” in the annual Special 301 Report prepared by the Office of the U.S. Trade Repre- sentative. The preparation of the report relies heavily on analysis from posts around the world and coordination by State’s IPE office. F O C U S State’s use of a $4 million fund for IPR criminal enforcement training and technical assistance is a great example of interagency cooperation.