World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Posted: January 4th, 2023

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Author’s Name

Student’s ID Number

Abstract

The study elaborates how WIPO serves as an actor and source on matters regarding the applicability of the Nairobi Treaty that seeks to protect the use of the Olympic symbol. The UN agency plays crucial roles in formulating and refining the policy that protects the violation of the five Olympic rings. Other than being an active actor on matters relating to the Treaty, WIPO is a vital source on all information regarding the nature and applicability of the pact. The drafters of the agreement divide it into three Chapters that contain Articles elaborating how State parties should relate with the Treaty. The attempts by WIPO to protect the Olympic symbol pass vital lessons to organizations that seek to strengthen the protection their trademarks enjoy by informing them that failure to secure enough protection could lead to infringement and other loses.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) acts in accordance with the priority development agendas set by the United Nations (UN), which is the parent organization. Since its formation in 1967, WIPO has continued to promote creative operations, and to safeguard the production of intellectual property across the globe. WIPO runs its operations from the headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland where all its development agenda is administered with participation from all current 192 members, with each member state equaling a vote during the administering of all the 26 global treaties (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). Prior to the formation of WIPO by the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization in 1970, the UN Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property protected the producers of intellectual properties from possible harm or infringement (World Intellectual Property Organization). WIPO performs its activities based on Article 3 of the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, and is dedicated to safeguard intellectual property across the globe. Article 1 that illustrates the pact between the UN and WIPO informs that the latter is in charge of intellectual property rights related to creative and literacy arts, scientific works, and industrial activities in a bid to safeguard the economy and the cultural development of the member states, in line with the development agenda set by the UN and the agencies that serve within the UN (World Intellectual Property Organization). More essentially, WIPO is committed to forming a balanced and reachable global intellectual property system that promote and stimulates innovation and creativity, and add to economic growth while protecting the public’s interest. The report pays attention to how WIPO serves as an actor and resource on matter regarding the Nairobi Treaty that seeks to protect the Olympic symbol.

WIPO an Actor and a Source

WIPO served essential roles as an actor and a resource during the adoption of the Nairobi Treaty in 1981. WIPO organized and facilitated the convention in Nairobi, Kenya with the motive of making clear the guidelines that protect the Olympic rings. WIPO served as an actor through the release of a report on Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol adopted at Nairobi on September 26, 1981 that aimed to make clear the provisions of the treaty. Article 1 (Obligation of States) of the pact informs that any signatory to the pact shall be compelled, as provided for in Articles 2 and 3, to invalidate or decline the registration as a trademark and to forbid by effective measures the utilization as a mark or other signs, for commercial reasons, of any symbol or sign comprising of bearing the Olympic symbol, as enshrined in the Charter of the International Olympic Committee, unless permitted by the Committee.

WIPO further serves as an actor and a resource in the Nairobi Treaty in the way it develops regulations to define obligation of states to the rule. Other than its active involvement in creation of Article I that defines the obligation of State parties, the team in charge of drafting and reviewing the policy created Article 2 (Exceptions to the Obligation) and all other 8 Articles to regulate how States, corporations, and individuals relate with the Olympic symbol that comprises of five interconnected rings that are arranged in the order of blue, yellow, black, green, and red from left to right (Seguin & O’Reilly, 2008 and Cassell & Shorter, 2015). WIPO tries to cover as many as aspects as possible regarding the Olympic rings that are protected whether delineated in different colors or in a single color, and organizes the policy in three major chapters. The composers of the Nairobi Treaty in Chapter I include Article 1, Article 2, Article 3 (Suspension of the Obligation). Chapter II that mainly addresses the groupings of states only has Article 4 that elaborates the exception to Chapter I (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). Chapter III has the most Articles that touch on the final clauses. Article 5 stipulates the condition for becoming a party to the Treaty, Article 6 defines entry into force of the pact, Article 7 outlines the conditions for the denunciation of the Treaty, Article 8 offers the conditions for signature and official languages of the agreement, Article 9 focuses on the deposition of the accord, and finally Article 10 elaborates the roles of the Director General in notifying the State parties (Jennings, 2006 and World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). WIPO plays a central role updating the Articles, and has the sole mandate of making alterations following consultations with the affiliates.

WIPO acts as a resource in this case because people may acquire all the information they want concerning the protection of the Olympic rings by logging onto the group’s website, and retrieving all the necessary information regarding the Treaty. Visiting WIPO’s website, for instance, makes readers aware of the 21 signatories to the agreement. The reader gets to learn that countries such as Senegal, Kenya, Hungary, Chile, Argentina, Trinidad and Tobago, Romania, Mexico, Israel, Greece, Poland, Spain, the Soviet Union, and Indonesia among others accepted and signed the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). WIPO also serves as a resource to the pact because by visiting the agency’s website, people get to understand that following the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the Nairobi Treaty, any signatory of WIPO or member of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property in Paris may become an affiliate to the agreement by appending their signature after which they submit their ratification form, or otherwise deposit the approval or acceptance form (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). Still WIPO offers information that informs how based on the provisions of Article 5%2) of the Treaty adopted in Nairobi that any group not member of the Paris Union or WIPO, but is an affiliate of the UN or any of the agencies that has some connection with the UN may become signatory to the Nairobi Treaty by submitting a show of accession (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). The groups seeking to become signatories to the Treaty get to learn by visiting the website that they may submit their instruments of accession, approval, acceptance, or ratification with the Director General of WIPO, thereby getting to eradicate the hiccups that could affect registration.

Other than acquiring so much information on how a country can become a signatory to the Treaty, WIPO serves as a source to the pact reached upon in Nairobi because interested parties can acquire other valuable information from the agency’s website regarding the applicability of policy. States and parties willing to become signatories to the pact, for instance, can learn from WIPO the terms and conditions that would lead to exception for the obligations outlined in Article 1 (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). WIPO informs that the obligation stated in Article 1 shall not apply to any State party in the Treaty with regard to any mark containing or consisting of the Olympic symbol where the mark was enlisted in the state before the date on which the Nairobi Treaty came into effect in respect of the country or during any time during which, in that region, the responsibility availed for in Article 1 is deemed as suspended in Article 3 (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). WIPO also informs that a State party may be excepted from the obligations set in Article 1 if the continued utilization for commercial reasons of any sign or mark, containing or comprising of the Olympic mark, in that region by an organization or person which or who has legally began such use in the said region prior to the time on which the pact entered into force in respect of that place, or during any time during which, in that country, the mandate provided for in Article 1 is deemed as suspended in Article 3 (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). WIPO also acts a source on matters regarding the Nairobi Treaty because through its website and other publications, the public and all stakeholders get to know that no State member to the pact shall have the mandate to forbid the utilization of the Olympic symbol where sign is utilized in mass media for the purposes of informing the public about the Olympic Committee, movement, and its operations.

The many other information States and individuals can get from WIPO further sale the agency as a good source on the information about Nairobi Treaty. The various groups, for instance, may refer to WIPO as a resource on information regarding the denunciation of the pact as stipulated in Article 7 of the Treaty. Interested groups get to learn that any State wishing to denounce the Treaty could do so by forwarding a notification to the Director General (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). The parties seeking to understand the denunciation process also get to learn from WIPO’s website and other publications that the process shall become effective one year after the Director General has gotten the notification. The website also informs about the official languages that may be used to relay the Treaty’s content as enshrined in Chapter III, Article 8 (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019). The interested parties get to know that the pact shall be signed in a one original in the French, Spanish, Russian, and English languages, all texts equally essential. The various groups seeking to learn the details of the Treaty get to know from WIPO’s archives that official texts and publications shall be created by the Director General, after discussions with the interested parties, in the Portuguese, Italian, German, and Arabic languages, and other applicable languages as designated by the Assembly of the Paris Union or the Conference of the Organization (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2019).

Applicability and Relevance to Organizations

The initiatives by WIPO to safeguard trademarks and other intellectual properties come at a time when violations of such products and the possible repercussions receive much global attention. The group seems to understand that from growth of all corporations and organizations, including start-ups, safeguarding the logo or symbol should not be overlooked. The agency tries to create a situation where the owner of the registered trademark or logo will have the sole authority and right to utilize their trademark in activities and operations of their choice (Barney et al., 2002). WIPO through its development of policies such as the Nairobi Treaty seeks to equip owners with tools that prevent violators and competitors from infringing the trademark and benefitting from the reputation that took so much time and energy to develop (Barney et al., 2002). WIPO seems to appreciate that for most organizations, the logo or the name are likely to be the center stage of the registration processes (Brown et al., 2016). It is the reason the group pays much attention to the images and words that are projected or displayed to the public to differentiate the services and goods from those of other operators, and to develop goodwill and organizational recognition.

WIPO is committed to safeguarding the trademark as provided for in the Nairobi Treaty and other regulations knowing very well the benefits and demerits of failing to enforce proper protection mechanisms. The need to protect the group’s assets serves as one of the reasons WIPO is working hard to develop mechanisms that prevent any form of misuse of violation (Brown et al., 2016). Such measures notify third parties or competitors who may try to come up with or register a similar trademark with the objective of causing confusion or using the mark or symbol in connection with their organizational practices.

The study on the attempts by WIPO to protect the Olympic symbol passes vital insight to organizations that seek to safeguard their activities through the existence of a strong trademark that is not exposed to threats or violations. Organizations learn the need to defend the weakening of their mark while going about their operations. Kongolo (2013) writes that when another group or person violates the trademark, the group mainly becomes less distinctive. The more the violated symbol or marks gets established with application and the real owner does not take any measures to stop its spread, the weaker it becomes, and enforcing its protection becomes much difficult (World Trade Organization, 1988). Organizations would not want to present their case as abandonment where they no longer put enough effort to protect the mark or symbol. Organizations that rely on trademarks should know that the marks or symbols are only valid as long as they utilize the mark as a representative (World Trade Organization, 1988). Operators should understand that it is deemed that they have abandoned the trademark when they stop using it, and consequently the protection it enjoys disappears. More importantly, the attempts by WIPO to safeguard the Olympic symbol inform organizations to put more focus on this area because violation could lead to loss of income and reputational damage (World Trade Organization, 1988). Mostly, trademark violation can affect the organization’s bottom line in two significant ways; reduced sales – when the purchasers become confused and the purchase or ascribe to the violator’s products or services when they think they are buying the authentic ones, and disappointment and ultimate withdrawal of patrons when, having the perception they got a given product or service, they are disheartened by the quality of the violator’s product they purchased without their knowledge.   

Conclusion

The study pays considerable attention to the influence of WIPO on the formation and execution of the Nairobi Treaty that was adopted in 1981 with the objecting of protecting the Olympics rings from any violation. The study presents WIPO as an active actor in the policy in the way it commissions a team to draft and review the ten Articles that outline relationship with the Olympic symbol. The agency has the authority to make alterations to the policy after conducting consultations with the State parties, which further illustrates its nature as an important actor. The agency serves a source on the Nairobi Treaty in the way various parties can acquire a lot of information concerning the applicability of the pact that brings together at least 21 State members.

References

Barney, R., et al. (2002). Selling the five rings: The International Olympic Committee and the

            Rise of Olympic commercialism. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Brown, K., et al. (2016). Power within the Olympic rings? Nationalism, Olympic media

            consumption, and comparative cases in Germany and the USA. doi:

            10.1080/13216597.2015.1106961

Cassell, O., & Shorter, F. (2015). Inside the five ring circus: Changing global sports and the

            modern Olympics. London: Ollan Cassell LLC.

Jennings, A. (2006). The new lords of the rings: Olympic corruption and how to buy gold

            medals. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Kongolo, T. (2013). African contributions in shaping the worldwide intellectual property system.

            London: Routledge.

Seguin, B., & O’Reilly, N. (2008). The Olympic brand, ambush marketing and clutter.

            International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 4(1-2), 62-84.

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2019). Development Agenda for WIPO. Retrieved

            from https://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/agenda/

World Trade Organization. (1988). Existence, scope and form of generally internationally

            accepted and applied standards/norms for the protection of intellectual property.

            Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/92040090.pdf