Journal

A sign the government is taking IP seriously?

At the end of March, the government announced with a big flourish that it had reached agreement for the UK to join the CPTPP: this stands for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and is a free-trade agreement between countries that span the Pacific: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Ever since Brexit, the government has been making frantic efforts to enter into new trading agreements with countries all around the world; and the CPTPP was very high on its list of desired agreements. It would of course have been far better for us to continue as a member of the EU, with the trading advantages that come automatically with that; but having left the EU, it was important to try and establish new relationships. This is one of them.

In many of the earlier negotiations the government undertook (including with countries like Japan and Australia, who are part of the CPTPP) it was almost as if intellectual property had been totally forgotten. This was little short of disastrous, as intellectual property is absolutely crucial for our economic future. (I don’t need to remind patent and trade mark attorneys of that fundamental truth.) But a very effective lobbying campaign by CIPA has transformed the picture with the CPTPP agreement.

Not only is IP mentioned, but it has a central place in the text of the agreement. The document states ‘The UK will not make any domestic changes regarding grace periods until the necessary amendments to the relevant international conventions have been made. The UK has, therefore, ensured that its accession to the CPTPP is consistent with its existing international obligations, such as the European Patent Convention.’ This is especially important for patent attorneys, as any clash between the CPTPP and the European Patent Convention would have produced all sorts of problems. But the recognition – at last – that IP is rather important is vital for both patent attorneys and trade mark attorneys. There should be much rejoicing that this has finally emerged as a priority in these new trade deals.

The problem up to now has been a simple one. The government have been desperate to show that trade deals can be established, rapidly, in order to enable us to make our way in a post-Brexit world. As a result they’ve tended to sign up to not-very-good deals just because it was better to be able to claim they’d reached agreements than to have spent time making sure they were good ones. The CPTPP agreement is in a different category. It may well reveal that the government is now, under a new Prime Minister, approaching trade agreements in a more considered and mature way. Making sure that sufficient credit is given to IP, and that agreements include very specific reference to it, is really important. Perhaps, just perhaps, this latest agreement is a sign that the government is taking IP seriously. I certainly hope so.

Lord Chris Smith, Chair of IPReg