| 4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
|
|
From the outset, the CF was a bottom-up initiative based on a true spirit of solidarity and cooperation. The innovative approach of the Cooperation Fund was that the network was at the heart of the initiative.
In fact, the CF helped IP offices move from competition to coexistence and ultimately, towards complementarity. By creating partnerships between national public services, private sector and civil society, EUIPO created an IP network based on common “principles and values, a shared vision, and shared goals” (SDG 17). Workshops brought together professionals involved at national, regional or local level to learn from each other but also to create a sense of professional community, going beyond the usual national frameworks.
Moreover, a progressive achievement of an interoperable and collaborative European network of trade mark and design offices helped create a stronger IP environment in Europe. EUIPO formed active working groups pulling important resources to deliver results. Rather than the countries implementing the results themselves on the basis of grants, EUIPO designed the implementation together with stakeholders, to then implement the strategy hand in hand. New synergies between offices were created as participating countries assisted each other in putting the new tools in place.
|
|
| 5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
|
|
The Cooperation Fund was implemented by the European Trade Mark and Design Network (28 national and regional EU IP offices), plus user associations, other international organisations (including the European Patent Office and the World Intellectual Property Office), and the European Union Intellectual Property Office, (EUIPO) a decentralised agency of the EU. The Cooperation Fund was financed by EUIPO, to the tune of EUR 50 million.
The Fund was project based, with each project being supported by a working group made up of users and EU national and regional IP office experts.
In terms of the size of the population affected, the Fund’s remit was to support each and every user of the intellectual property system in the EU, plus the wider intellectual property community, such as enforcers, policy makers, researchers and other interested parties.
|
| 6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
|
|
Building these advanced tools and rolling them out across the EU has involved more than 100 000 person days of effort, including EUIPO staff, consultants, staff from IPOs and 11 user organisations. During the peak development phase for the tools, the work of up to 250 people (40 from EUIPO, 80-90 from IPOs and the remainder from contracting companies), either full or part-time, was coordinated under the CF.
The CF has delivered throughout its life, on time and on budget. Close cooperation via technical work, inter- organisational staff exchange and focused teamwork on specific projects has shown that governments and IP authorities across the EU could work together to support each other, promoting IP protection and transparency for all users, wherever they are. The various working groups guided project teams composed of experts and consulted companies. This meant that every six months, EUIPO invited experts from public services or companies to attend a sustained week-long workshop together with the technicians and the architectural experts who either built the tool or developed its design.
On average, EUIPO invested €1.88 million in IT projects for each IPO within the CF. Each IPO designated several of its staff members to the development and implementation of the projects. The deployment of project managers in IPOs has been an important component in the success of cooperation efforts. It maximised the number of successful implementations of the different CF tools, and contributed decisively to the modernisation of the IP system in Europe.
The companies hired to implement the different tools were either hired by the National IP Offices and then partially reimbursed by EUIPO or directly contracted by the Office.
The maintenance process for the common tools was launched in 2013 and around 50 requests for change have been proposed by the IPOs and EUIPO, 17 of which are already in production. 2013 marked the peak of the CF’s activity, with an estimated 280 EUIPO staff members working on it full time.
In 2014, the way in which the offices worked together on the development of the Software Package tools improved as a result of a number of initiatives leading to an increase in resources deployed in offices, as well as an enhanced focus on technical consistency in order to help IPOs with implementation. Participants also developed procedures and working methods to facilitate the recording and exchange of information through a change management platform.
The practice of holding on-site workshops lasting several days in the IPOs was extended based on the experience gained in 2012 and 2013, and more than 100 of these took place in 2014.
A large part of the CF efforts were still concentrated in 2015 on the Back Office project for the management of trade marks and/or designs, which 10 out of 12 offices (Benelux, Estonia, Greece OBI & GGE, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, and Finland) put into production in 2015, with other offices (Romania and the United Kingdom) in the process of doing so. By the end of 2015, 17 offices had put these solutions for trade mark applications into production, and 15 offices had also done so for designs. E-services had been implemented by 15 offices. This was a significant change in the IT landscape across the network. Prior to this, only 13 offices of the network had trade mark e-filing and only 9 had e-filing for designs.
|
|
| 7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
|
|
The Management Board, created to advise its progress, and its emphasis on collaborative, cooperative working with partners, was a real engine of change at the heart of the European Trade Mark and Design Network. Public services were not represented on this Board. The board directed and advised on the projects and occasionally took part in missions. These members of the Board were meant to be either neutral or critical of the project so that any mistake or misguidance would be quickly flagged.
The design of the initiative was geared by Heads of IP National Offices and 11 user associations. The implementation of the initiative was achieved by relevant civil servants; representatives of WIPO, EPO; parent Ministries of the IP National Offices; major companies at both national and international level and user associations that represented them; in some cases, local companies; NGOs including a couple of universities; and 20 to 30 companies involved in implementing different parts of the initiative.
Stakeholders were at the heart of the Cooperation Fund. User representatives of European and international user associations were involved in all of the working groups for all of the projects and from the very beginning.
By keeping users at the centre of the project activities, the Office and its partners ensured that the projects they carried out together created value for the IP rights owners.
|
|
| 8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
|
|
2015, 19 tools had been built collaboratively, covering the entire trade mark and design lifecycle, and with a level of uptake across the EU that exceeded all projections, passing 370 IP office implementations in 2015, compared to the initial projection of 140 implementations when the CF was launched. The collaborative work deployed reflects the SDG 17, which supports the target of enhancing global partnerships, and promotes effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.
TMview is one of the flagship tools developed under the Fund. This database contains over 40 million trade marks from 53 offices, including all EU IP offices and many of the most important non-EU economies. It is used as a tool of reference with more than 7 million searches per year and it is the first ever European pre-clearance tool, allowing the user to search simultaneously national, Community and international trade mark registrations, online and free of charge.
DesignView, also developed under the Fund, is the first multi-office search tool on designs ever developed by an IP office. This database contains more than 9 million designs from 47 offices and is used more than 700 000 times each year.
Finally, 58 offices, including all the EU IP offices, have integrated their Goods and Services database lists in TMClass, which now attracts almost 7.5 million searches per year.
The CF’s initiatives have had a clear economic benefit: €48.5 million in estimated economic benefit for both end users and IPOs delivered by the CF tools in 2015, of which it is anticipated that €21 million will be recurrent benefits generated on a yearly basis.
By 2015 more than 360 implementations had already taken place all over the EU- way more than the initial 140 foreseen. These results support the SGD9 to develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.” In fact, it was estimated that end users saved €20.988 in trips and time as they no longer needed to physically travel to their national intellectual property office. In this context, the CF also supports the SDG8 as it allows increased levels of economic productivity through technological upgrade and innovation.
|
|
| 9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
|
|
EUIPO had to grasp the complexity and challenges that came with working with IPOs of different national backgrounds, contexts and objectives. Many had different perceptions of IP from their national governments, different practices or regular changes of government.
A previous attempt to work with national and regional intellectual property offices had been made by a European organisation similar to EUIPO, but which failed, engendering a sense of scepticism which still persisted when EUIPO first approached the offices in 2009. Much effort had to be made to overcome the prejudices of working together as one through the organisation of workshops, a core part of the Fund’s working mechanism.
In addition, very little contact existed at the time between national and regional offices themselves, and between national and regional offices and EUIPO. Building trust and cooperative working took time. But the Fund’s achievements are testament to the professionalism, commitment and focus on end users that is the hallmark of each and every IP office in the EU.
Another obstacle was the different circumstances of offices at national and regional level. Some IPOs were independent (and self-financing) while others were part of a ministry. EUIPO developed different funding mechanisms in different cases, and worked hard to build project management capacity at national level where necessary – a theme that continues today.
|