As Jonathan Ames points out in his article this development will make it much easier for Western firms to set up joint ventures with local law firms. One firm that already has an alliance with a Saudi law firm is Simmons & Simmons. Their local ally is Hammad & Al-Mehdar of Jeddah which already employs Ms. Arwa Al-Hujaili as a trainee lawyer.
Monday, 14 October 2013
Saudi Women can now practise Law
As Jonathan Ames points out in his article this development will make it much easier for Western firms to set up joint ventures with local law firms. One firm that already has an alliance with a Saudi law firm is Simmons & Simmons. Their local ally is Hammad & Al-Mehdar of Jeddah which already employs Ms. Arwa Al-Hujaili as a trainee lawyer.
Saturday, 28 September 2013
Dubai Music Week 24 - 29 Sep 2013
MIDEM (Marché International du Disque et de l'Edition Musicale) is holding the first music industry trade show for the Middle East and North Africa in Dubai between the 24 and 29 Sept 2013, The event includes conferences, concerts and an exhibition. According to the event website, it is taking place in Dubai because of the diversity of its population and its importance as a business hub and centre of tourism.
The event has been reported by the BBC which asks in its clip "US music stars attend Dubai music industry conference" 28 Sept 2013 whether new Arabic language bands can really make money with "file-sharing and piracy prevalent in the region." Apparently the answer is yes and artists and their managers are developing business models that take advantage of those technologies.
A lesson for the rest of the world perhaps.
Sunday, 15 September 2013
Saudi Arabia Trade Mark Law
In my Overview of Saudi IP law of 22 May 2011 I noted that Saudi Arabia does not have an intellectual property as such and that responsibility for protecting brands, technology and works of art and literature is shared by the Ministry of Commerce and Indutry, The King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology and the Ministry of Culture respectively.
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry is in Riyadh. There is a Trade Marks section which can be contacted at +(966 1) 206 9449. The Ministry has now translated into English some of the relevant legislation. WIPO has published statistics for patent, designs and trade mark grants and applications up to 2011.
Monday, 19 August 2013
Ambush Marketing and the World Cup 2022
Ambush marketing has been defined as "a marketing strategy that consists in a company hitching a ride on the back of the sponsor of a sports event whose programme of sponsorship is particularly ill conceived and/or poorly executed" (see Jean-Michel Marmayou "Major Sports Events: How to Prevent Ambush Marketing" African Sports Law and Business Bulletin, 1/2013). A good example of ambush marketing was the distribution of clothing by a Dutch brewery in the 2006 and 2010 World Cups ostensibly in the colours of the Dutch national team that just happened to be the same as those of the brewery (see Jon Kelly "How ambush marketing ambushed sport" 17 June 2009 BBC News Magazine). The brewery which had not sponsored the event got free TV advertising in the Netherlands much to the consternation of another brewery that had sponsored the event.
The mischief of ambush marketing, so it is said, is that it discourages sponsorship and thus increases the expense and risk of hosting the event. At least that is the justification for the draconian legislation proposed by the Scottish government in its Consultation on Draft Glasgow Commonwealth Games (Trading and Advertising) (Scotland) Regulations 2013
"Games sponsors provide a vital source of funding for the Commonwealth Games, without which Scotland would not be able to host the Games."My answer to that is that if it is true then maybe we should re-think the way sporting competitions are organized and consider less expensive ways of staging them (see my article "Olympics Association Right and London Olympics Association Right" 31 July 2012 NIPClaw in respect of the notorious London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and the far more strident criticism of Brian Perlanda in
"The Anti-Competitive Olympic Games" 1 July 2012 54 Orange County Lawyer, No 7, 32).
Nevertheless, we are where we are and the host city contract by which the Qatari Local Organizing Committee and each municipality hosting a match will contain clauses that would inhibit ambush marketing. That may well require special legislation in Qatar along the lines of the legislation for the London Olympics and Glasgow Commonwealth Games. In his article "Qatar! 2022!" in Al-Tamini's Law Update for March 2011 Stephen Jiew wrote:
"It remains to be seen whether Qatar will be enacting legislation specific to the FIFA World Cup to combat ambush marketing as did South Africa as hosts in 2010. If past enforcement efforts are anything to go by, the following could be key features of the event organiser’s program in the combat ahead with ambush marketers:The problem of ambush marketing and the response of host governments will be one of the many topics that we shall discuss at a conference on IP and sports that we plan to hold in London early in the new year. Though the immediate emphasis will be on Brazil as it is holding the World Cup next year and the Olympics in 2016 there will be lots to interest Qataris and others from the Gulf and indeed wider Middle East North Africa Area. If anyone wants to be involved in this project give me a ring on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 or contact me through Facebook, Linkedin, twitter or Xing, or fill in my contact page.
- Charge a special purpose vehicle with the authority to investigate and sue ambush marketers and infringers.
- Embark on an education campaign on the basics of intellectual property and ambush marketing including advertisements in consumer and trade publications targeting the public, retailers, potential sponsors, suppliers, licensees and athlete agents.
- Publicise legal actions filed alleging IP infringements.
- Conduct market surveillance of unlicensed merchandise and infringements.
- Put in place strict regulations at the official venues regulating the rules of entry such that non sponsor merchandise is banned.- See more at: http://www.tamimi.com/en/magazine/law-update/section-7/march-6/qatar-2022.html#sthash.6hBavwwc.dpuf"
Sunday, 28 July 2013
The UAE's Bilateral Investment Treaties
A bilateral investment treaty ("BIT") is an agreement between two governments on the terms by which the nationals of each contracting party may invest in the territory of the other. A typical BIT will oblige each government to accept investments from the nationals of the other, to treat such investments no less favourably than those of its own nationals or those of the investors of any other country, not to expropriate such investments without adequate compensation and to submit any dispute with an investor to arbitration through the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID").
BITs have existed for over 40 years but their potency first emerged in a claim by the US waste disposal company Metalclad Insulation Corporation ("Metalclad") against the Mexican government for compensation for the the refusal by the local and state authorities of permission to use a landfill site that Metalclad had acquired near the small town of Guadalcázar, San Luis Potosi for the disposal of toxic waste. Metalclad claimed that the refusal of planning permission amounted to "expropriation" of the landfill site and in their award of 30 Aug 2013 the arbitrators held that the company was right. They ordered the Mexican government to pay Metalclad US$16,685,000. Mexico challenged the award in the courts of British Columbia which was the province in which the arbitrators had sat and won a modest reduction of the damages but the result was seen as a victory for a medium size company against a sovereign government.
Since Metalclad there has been a spate of claims by private companies against states under BITs and some of these relate to intellectual property. Legislation by the governments of Uruguay and Australia to discourage smoking by requiring cigarette companies to package cigarettes with graphic warnings in the case of Uruguay and plain packaging in the case of Australia have been challenged by the tobacco giant Philip Morris under Uruguay's BIT with Switzerland and Australia's with Hong Kong for expropriation of the multinational's trade marks in those countries. In the claim against Uruguay the arbitrators have recently decided that they have jurisdiction to entertain the claim (see their decision of 2 July 2013 to that effect). In the claim against Australia the case is proceeding in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. Both sides have instructed counsel, the claimants members of the English Bar and the Australians barristers from Australia (see the notice on the PCA's website and Philip Morris's press release of 21 Nov 2011.
The latest claim for compensation in respect of intellectual property is Eli Lilly & Co's for C$500 million against the Canadian government for the invalidation by the Canadian courts of two of its Canadian pharmaceutical patents. Eli Lilly complains that the Canadian courts have developed a doctrine on utility called the "promise doctrine" which exists nowhere else in the world and results in the invalidation of patents that would be allowed elsewhere. In Eli Lilly's submission such invalidation amounts to expropriation of its patents without adequate compensation and it has served a notice of intent to claim dated 13 June 2013. I have written a short article on the claim in "Biting Back: Claiming Compensation from Foreign Governments under Bilateral Investment Treaties for Failing to provide Adequate IP Protection" 27 July 2013 as well as a more detailed article that has been accepted for publication in the EIPR.
In my article for the EIPR I have argued that if the invalidation of Eli Lilly's patents and indeed the refusal of planning permission for the use of Metlclad's landfill site amounts to "expropriation" then so too would the failure by a government to provide adequate intellectual property protection. In this regard, it is worth remembering that the United Arab Emirates has 24 BITs including agreements with the following brand owing and design and technology exporting states:
BITs have existed for over 40 years but their potency first emerged in a claim by the US waste disposal company Metalclad Insulation Corporation ("Metalclad") against the Mexican government for compensation for the the refusal by the local and state authorities of permission to use a landfill site that Metalclad had acquired near the small town of Guadalcázar, San Luis Potosi for the disposal of toxic waste. Metalclad claimed that the refusal of planning permission amounted to "expropriation" of the landfill site and in their award of 30 Aug 2013 the arbitrators held that the company was right. They ordered the Mexican government to pay Metalclad US$16,685,000. Mexico challenged the award in the courts of British Columbia which was the province in which the arbitrators had sat and won a modest reduction of the damages but the result was seen as a victory for a medium size company against a sovereign government.
Since Metalclad there has been a spate of claims by private companies against states under BITs and some of these relate to intellectual property. Legislation by the governments of Uruguay and Australia to discourage smoking by requiring cigarette companies to package cigarettes with graphic warnings in the case of Uruguay and plain packaging in the case of Australia have been challenged by the tobacco giant Philip Morris under Uruguay's BIT with Switzerland and Australia's with Hong Kong for expropriation of the multinational's trade marks in those countries. In the claim against Uruguay the arbitrators have recently decided that they have jurisdiction to entertain the claim (see their decision of 2 July 2013 to that effect). In the claim against Australia the case is proceeding in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. Both sides have instructed counsel, the claimants members of the English Bar and the Australians barristers from Australia (see the notice on the PCA's website and Philip Morris's press release of 21 Nov 2011.
The latest claim for compensation in respect of intellectual property is Eli Lilly & Co's for C$500 million against the Canadian government for the invalidation by the Canadian courts of two of its Canadian pharmaceutical patents. Eli Lilly complains that the Canadian courts have developed a doctrine on utility called the "promise doctrine" which exists nowhere else in the world and results in the invalidation of patents that would be allowed elsewhere. In Eli Lilly's submission such invalidation amounts to expropriation of its patents without adequate compensation and it has served a notice of intent to claim dated 13 June 2013. I have written a short article on the claim in "Biting Back: Claiming Compensation from Foreign Governments under Bilateral Investment Treaties for Failing to provide Adequate IP Protection" 27 July 2013 as well as a more detailed article that has been accepted for publication in the EIPR.
In my article for the EIPR I have argued that if the invalidation of Eli Lilly's patents and indeed the refusal of planning permission for the use of Metlclad's landfill site amounts to "expropriation" then so too would the failure by a government to provide adequate intellectual property protection. In this regard, it is worth remembering that the United Arab Emirates has 24 BITs including agreements with the following brand owing and design and technology exporting states:
It is of course worth remembering that BITs can work both ways. The UAE has BITs with newly industrializing countries such as Bangladesh, Malaysia, Turkey and Vietnam where the Emirati interest is likely to be similar to those of investors from developed states. Similarly, Emiratis have substantial investments in stocks and real estate in London and other European capitals to which these BITs apply.
Should anyone wish to discuss this article, BITs in general or a particular issue call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours London time or fill out my contact form. You can also follow me on Facebook, Linkedin, twitter or Xing.
Sunday, 30 June 2013
Saudi Arabia accedes to the Patent Law Treaty and PCT
On 3 May 2013 Saudi Arabia acceded to the Patent Law Treaty and the Patent Co-operation Treaty with effect from 3 August 2013. The Patent Law Treaty harmonizes the procedures and formalities for patent applications. The Patent Co-operation Treaty enables applications for patents for several countries or groups of countries to be made simultaneously.
The only other intellectual property conventions to which Saudi Arabia had previously been party (other than the WIPO Convention and TRIPS) were Paris and Berne. The Saudi government had notified its accession to those treaties on 11 Dec 2003 and they came into effect on 11 March 204.
For a short overview of Saudi intellectual property law see my article of 22 May 2011. If you require specific information on intellectual property or technology law anywhere in the Middle East North Africa region or representation members of my chambers will be glad to advise you where we can or refer you to our connections in the region where appropriate. Call us on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 or complete our contact form.
Saturday, 8 June 2013
Dubai Courts
I have written extensively about the DIFC Courts in this blog ever since I uploaded my article on the DIFC Courts to the JD Supra site on 7 Jan 2011. These are the English speaking common law courts with judges who have held high judicial office in the UK and other Commonwealth countries which administer the commercial and property laws of the Dubai International Financial Centre. Although the jurisdiction of those courts has recently been extended by the ruler's decree of 31 Oct 2011 which I noted in "DIFC Courts Spread their Wings" 7 Dec 2011, it is important to remember that they are not the courts of the United Arab Emirates or even of the Emirate of Dubai. Dubai, each of the other Emirates and the Federal Government have their own court systems which are quite different.
The Dubai Courts now have an English language website with a schematic diagram on the organization of those courts and information on their work and services many of which are accessible online. The history of those courts is introduced in almost poetic terms:
"The judiciary in Dubai has a beautiful story mixed with fragrance of Arab history that reminds us the stories of earlier judges, such as, Justice Ayyadh Ben Moussa Ben Ayyadh, Justice Abdul Aziz Al Jorjani, Juge Abdel Rahman Bin Qudaamah Al Maqhdussy, whom whenever you mention them you would feel a whiff of breeze carrying aroma of history wherein chastity, piety, Godliness and Personal Affairs knowledge originating from the folds of the Book that has been wore out throughout the ages but did not fade its knowledge, jurisprudence, verses and wisdom."
Though the court system traces its origins to those judges it has developed considerably since the 1970s with the establishment of separate courts of first instance, appeal and cassation. The First Instance Court has general jurisdiction but sits in specialist divisions known respectively as the Civil Court, Commercial Court, Personal Status Court, Criminal Court, Labour Court and Real Estate Court. Appeals from the First Instance Court lie to the Appeals Court and from there to the Court of Cassation. Many of the services of those courts are available online and may be operated through the website.
There appears to be considerable co-operation between the Dubai courts and those of the DIFC as is clear from the DIFC Courts' Activities and Business Plan for 2013 to 2015.
Our chambers will shortly have permanent representation in Dubai through a resident member. In the meantime, I can respond to any enquiries about this article or the DIDC courts generally. You can contact me in London on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or through my contact form. You can also follow me on Facebook,Linkedin, twitter or Xing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)