

Currently released so far... 12553 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
APECO
ASEC
AMGT
AFIN
APER
ACABQ
AORC
AEMR
AF
AE
AR
AGMT
AU
AY
ABLD
AS
AG
AJ
APCS
AX
AM
AMEX
ATRN
ADM
AMED
AFGHANISTAN
AZ
AL
ASUP
AND
ARM
ASEAN
AFFAIRS
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AODE
APEC
ACBAQ
AFSI
AFSN
AO
ABUD
AC
ADPM
ADCO
ASIG
ARF
AUC
ASEX
AGAO
AA
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
AIT
AADP
ASCH
AORL
AROC
ACOA
ANET
AID
AMCHAMS
AINF
AMG
AFU
AN
ALOW
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ACS
ADANA
AECL
ACAO
AORG
AGR
BEXP
BR
BM
BG
BL
BA
BTIO
BO
BP
BC
BILAT
BK
BU
BD
BRUSSELS
BB
BF
BBSR
BIDEN
BX
BE
BH
BT
BY
BMGT
BWC
BTIU
BN
CA
CASC
CFED
CO
CH
CS
CU
CE
CI
CM
CMGT
CJAN
COM
CG
CIS
CVIS
CR
CKGR
CHR
CVR
COUNTER
CIA
CLINTON
CY
CPAS
CD
CBW
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CDG
CW
CODEL
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
COE
CN
CARICOM
CB
CONDOLEEZZA
CWC
CACS
CSW
CIDA
CIC
CITT
CONS
CL
CACM
CDB
CDC
CAN
CF
CJUS
CTM
CBSA
CARSON
CT
CLMT
CBC
CEUDA
CV
COPUOS
CTR
CROS
CAPC
CAC
CNARC
CICTE
CBE
ECON
ETRD
EIND
ENRG
EC
ELAB
EAGR
EAID
EFIS
EFIN
EINV
EUN
EG
EPET
EAIR
EU
ELTN
EWWT
ECIN
ERD
EI
ETTC
EUR
EN
EZ
ETC
ENVI
EMIN
ET
ENVR
ER
ECPS
EINT
EAP
ES
ENIV
ECONOMY
EXTERNAL
EINN
EFTA
ECONOMIC
EPA
EXBS
ECA
ELN
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENGR
ECUN
ENGY
ECONOMICS
ELECTIONS
EIAR
EINDETRD
EREL
EUC
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
ENERG
EFIM
EAIDS
EK
ETRDECONWTOCS
EINVETC
ECONCS
EUNCH
ESA
ECINECONCS
EUREM
ESENV
EFINECONCS
ETRC
ENNP
EAIG
EXIM
EEPET
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EUMEM
ETRA
ERNG
ETRO
ETRN
EINVEFIN
ICTY
IN
IS
IR
IC
IZ
IA
INTERPOL
IAEA
IT
IMO
IO
IV
ID
IRAQI
IEA
INRB
IL
IWC
ITU
ICAO
ISRAELI
ICRC
IIP
IMF
IBRD
ISLAMISTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
ILO
IPR
IQ
IRS
IAHRC
IZPREL
IRAJ
IDP
ILC
ITF
ICJ
IF
ITPHUM
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
IACI
IBET
ITRA
INR
IRC
IDA
ICTR
IGAD
INRA
INRO
IEFIN
INTELSAT
INTERNAL
INDO
ITPGOV
KWMN
KSCA
KDEM
KTFN
KIPR
KCRM
KPAL
KE
KPAO
KPKO
KS
KN
KISL
KFRD
KJUS
KIRF
KFLO
KG
KTIP
KTER
KRCM
KTIA
KGHG
KIRC
KU
KPRP
KMCA
KMPI
KSEO
KNNP
KZ
KNEI
KCOR
KOMC
KCFC
KSTC
KMDR
KFLU
KSAF
KSEP
KSAC
KR
KGIC
KSUM
KWBG
KCIP
KDRG
KOLY
KAWC
KCHG
KHDP
KRVC
KBIO
KAWK
KGCC
KHLS
KBCT
KPLS
KREL
KCFE
KMFO
KV
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KVPR
KTDB
KSPR
KIDE
KVRP
KTEX
KBTR
KTRD
KICC
KCOM
KO
KLIG
KDEMAF
KMRS
KRAD
KOCI
KSTH
KUNR
KNSD
KGIT
KFSC
KHIV
KPAI
KICA
KACT
KHUM
KREC
KSEC
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCMR
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KNAR
KNUC
KPWR
KENV
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KPRV
KOM
KBTS
KCRS
KNPP
KWNM
KRFD
KVIR
KTBT
KAID
KRIM
KDDG
KRGY
KHSA
KWMM
KMOC
KSCI
KPAK
KX
KPAONZ
KCGC
KID
KPOA
KIFR
KFIN
KWAC
KOMS
KCRCM
KNUP
KMIG
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KTLA
KCSY
KJUST
MOPS
MARR
MASS
MNUC
MX
MCAP
MO
MR
MI
MD
MK
MA
MP
MY
MTCRE
MOPPS
MASC
MIL
MTS
MLS
MILI
MAR
MU
MEPN
MAPP
MTCR
MEPI
MZ
MEETINGS
MG
MW
MAS
MT
MCC
MIK
ML
MARAD
MV
MERCOSUR
MTRE
MPOS
MEPP
MILITARY
MDC
MQADHAFI
MUCN
MRCRE
MAPS
MEDIA
MASSMNUC
MC
NZ
NZUS
NL
NU
NATO
NP
NO
NIPP
NE
NH
NR
NA
NPT
NI
NSF
NG
NSG
NAFTA
NC
NDP
NEW
NRR
NATIONAL
NT
NS
NASA
NAR
NV
NORAD
NSSP
NK
NPA
NGO
NSC
NATOPREL
NW
NPG
NSFO
OPDC
OTRA
OIIP
OREP
OVIP
OSCE
OEXC
OIE
OPRC
OAS
OPIC
OTR
OMIG
OSAC
OFFICIALS
OECD
OSCI
OBSP
OFDA
OPCW
ODIP
OFDP
OES
OPAD
OCII
OHUM
OVP
ON
OIC
OCS
PHUM
PREL
PGOV
PINR
PTER
PARM
PREF
PM
PE
PINS
PK
PHSA
PBTS
PRGOV
PA
PORG
PP
PS
PGOF
PL
PO
PARMS
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PAK
POL
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PBIO
PINF
PNG
PMIL
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PAO
POLITICS
PHUMBA
PSEPC
PTBS
PCUL
PROP
PNAT
PNR
POLINT
PGOVE
PROG
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PHUMPREL
PGOC
PY
PCI
PLN
PDOV
PREO
PGIV
PHUH
PAS
PU
POGOV
PF
PINL
POV
PAHO
PRL
PG
PRAM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POLICY
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGGV
PHUS
PSA
PHUMPGOV
PEL
PSI
PAIGH
POSTS
PBT
PTERE
RS
RU
RW
RM
RO
RP
REGION
RSP
RF
RICE
RCMP
RFE
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
ROBERT
RUPREL
RELATIONS
ROOD
REACTION
RSO
REPORT
SENV
SNAR
SCUL
SR
SC
SOCI
SMIG
SI
SP
SU
SO
SW
SY
SA
SZ
SAN
SF
SN
STEINBERG
SG
ST
SIPDIS
SNARIZ
SNARN
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SAARC
SL
SEVN
SARS
SIPRS
SHUM
SANC
SWE
SHI
SYR
SNARCS
SPCE
SYRIA
SEN
SH
SCRS
SENVKGHG
TRGY
TSPL
TPHY
TSPA
TBIO
TI
TW
THPY
TX
TU
TS
TZ
TC
TH
TT
TIP
TO
TERRORISM
TRSY
TINT
TN
TURKEY
TBID
TL
TV
TNGD
TD
TF
TP
TFIN
TAGS
TK
TR
UNSC
UK
UNGA
UN
US
UNHRC
UG
UP
UNMIK
UNHCR
UE
USTR
UNVIE
UAE
UZ
UY
UNO
UNESCO
USEU
USOAS
UV
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNEP
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNDP
UNPUOS
UNC
UNAUS
USUN
UNCHC
UNCHR
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCSD
UNDC
USNC
USPS
USAID
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 07MEXICO6229, MEXICO IPR: 301 UPDATE; INTERNATIONAL POSTURE; USG PROGRAMS REF: (A) SECSTATE 158938 (B) SECSTATE 107629 (C) MEXICO 4467 (D) MEXICO 6196
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #07MEXICO6229.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
07MEXICO6229 | 2007-12-19 20:55 | 2011-02-03 16:30 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | Embassy Mexico |
VZCZCXRO6069
PP RUEHCD RUEHGD RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL RUEHRD RUEHRS RUEHTM
DE RUEHME #6229/01 3532055
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 192055Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9967
INFO RUEHXC/ALL US CONSULATES IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEAHLA/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 MEXICO 006229
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
STATE FOR WHA/MEX WOLFSON AND EEB/TPP/MTA/IPC URBAN AND WALLACE
STATE PASS USTR FOR EISSENSTAT/MELLE/SHIGETOMI/BAE/MCCOY/GARDE STATE PASS COPYRIGHT OFFICE
COMMERCE FOR ITA/JACOBS/WORD/WILSON/WRIGHT/ISRAEL
COMMERCE PASS USPTO FOR MORALES/BERDUT/RODRIGUEZ/MERMELSTEIN JUSTICE FOR CCIPS/MERRIAM/KOUAME/GARLAND DHS FOR CBP/RANDAZZO AND ICE/JLOZANO E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIPR ETRD PINS MX
SUBJECT: MEXICO IPR: 301 UPDATE; INTERNATIONAL POSTURE; USG PROGRAMS REF: (A) SECSTATE 158938 (B) SECSTATE 107629 (C) MEXICO 4467 (D) MEXICO 6196
Summary and Comment -------------------
¶1. (SBU) There has been some progress on a number of concerns included in the Mexico Special 301 Initiative demarche (e.g., increased enforcement activity, improved cooperation with local governments, no new patent linkage problems), but other concerns remain unaddressed (e.g., ex officio authority and data protection for pharmaceuticals). Mexican IPR officials have been keen to highlight their increasingly active role in the international arena, stressing their willingness to join the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations and their push-back against Brazilian efforts to undermine IPR in international health organizations. The U.S. Mission, together with Washington-based agencies, recently organized U.S. participation in a judicial event on trademarks and hosted a workshop in Monterrey aimed at encouraging greater federal-local cooperation in IPR protection in northern Mexico. Spring 2008 will be even busier, with a PTO training course on patent issues planned for January, a customs IPR training course scheduled for early February, a State-sponsored voluntary visitor program for Mexican legislators to visit Washington at the invitation of their U.S. congressional counterparts to discuss IPR in mid-February, an international judges forum on IPR issues being hosted by Mexico in late February, and DoJ assistance on computer forensics and writing an IPR handbook for prosecutors to take place sometime in the first half of the year. These exchanges are proving very useful in advancing U.S. interests in Mexico, particularly with regard to raising IPR consciousness among Mexican judges. End summary and comment. 301 Update ----------
¶2. (U) Enforcement: Mexican IPR prosecutors from the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (PGR - rough equivalent of U.S. Department of Justice) have recorded increased arrests and seizures of pirates, counterfeiters, and infringing products this year, and have obtained four convictions as of December 18, 2007, versus two for all of 2006 (see http://pirateria.prg.gob.mx for stats and other IPR info in Spanish). Mexican IPR prosecutors have registered 166 indictments so far this year (including the first ever against an on-line pirate) versus 158 in all 2006. Many of those indicted are in jail while awaiting a judge's final ruling. While these numbers are headed in the right direction, they are still small compared to the rampant scale of commercial piracy and counterfeiting here. Lack of ex officio authority to go after infringers (see following para), conflicting interpretations who has legal standing to represent right-holders, and lack of IPR awareness on the part of many judges continue to hamper criminal enforcement. On the administrative enforcement side, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI - rough equivalent of USPTO) reports that it has conducted 3,642 inspection visits (including an aggressive campaign against cyber-cafes involved in Internet piracy), levied USD 2.8 million in fines, and confiscated another USD 1 million in infringing products through November of this year. We understand that these numbers are higher than last year's (we are still trying to get IMPI's 2006 enforcement statistics) and reflect IMPI's increased enforcement manpower (IMPI hired dozens of new personnel for its enforcement division this year), but administrative enforcement continues to suffer from relatively light fines available under current law, the seemingly endless process of legal appeals that malefactors can take advantage of to avoid penalties for years, and lack of IPR awareness on the part of many judges.
¶3. (SBU) Ex Officio: A legislative amendment to make MEXICO 00006229 002 OF 005 commercial IPR infringement an ex officio offense remains pending in the Chamber of Deputies after having been approved by the Senate earlier this year. The Chamber of Deputies Justice Commission has had its hands full the last several months with a major presidential initiative to overhaul Mexico's criminal justice system, which will be voted on when Congress re-convenes in February 2008 (REF D). PGR and the movie and music industries are strong supporters of the ex officio amendment, which would allow PGR to investigate and prosecute cases even without specific right-holder complaints, which are required under current law. It would also end the currently legal practice whereby a right-holder can settle with and pardon an infringer, regardless of where a PGR case stands in the penal process. Other industry groups and most IPR attorneys are either ambivalent or opposed to the amendment, citing corruption as a good reason to leave the steering wheel in the hands of the right-holders and/or their lawyers. Beyond concerns of official corruption, though not admitted out loud, there is reason to believe that IPR lawyers would lose a bit of business in filing complaints were the amendment to pass. Passage of ex officio will not be a panacea for Mexico's IPR enforcement woes, but Post continues to believe that without more latitude to enforce Mexican IPR laws, we cannot expect PGR to significantly ramp up deterrence. In the meantime, PGR and Customs are reaching out on a more systematic basis to right-holders to seek industry complaints when they encounter infringing goods or suspicious shipments and to discourage pardons for defendants whose cases PGR is already in the process of prosecuting.
¶4. (SBU) State/local cooperation: Mexico has earned strong marks in this area. This past year has seen the State of Mexico and the Municipality of Toluca sign anti-piracy agreements under which they have pledged to work with the federal government and right-holders in combating commercial infringement and re-capturing local markets for legal commerce. In recent months both governments have been actively engaged in IPR protection activities, winning praise from a number of industry representatives. The industry coalition that has been promoting these state and municipal-level agreements is hoping to get several more states to jump on-board in 2008. Mexico City has not signed such an agreement, but has also engaged in unprecedented cooperation this year with federal officials and right-holders in trying to rein in the city's sprawling informal economy. The State of Jalisco, together with the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and IMPI, launched a campaign this year called ""Cleaning House"" under which it has agreed to have an outside auditor check the computer programs being used in state government offices and to work with BSA and its member companies to bring all state government software users into compliance.
¶5. (SBU) WIPO Implementation: The new head of the National Copyright Institute (INDAUTOR), Manuel Guerra, told Post that his agency would analyze current Mexican law to determine whether there are still gaps in implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaties. Guerra would not offer a timeline for the completion of this analysis - it certainly will not be completed in 2007 - but said INDAUTOR would push for legislative fixes if and when gaps were identified. 6. (U) Data protection: Despite pressure from the Embassy, the European Union, the international R and D pharmaceutical industry, and the Ministry of Economy (under which IMPI falls), the Health Ministry did not include data protection rules in recent changes to its health inputs regulations, due in large part to pressure from domestic generic producers. The Health Ministry response has been that, since Mexico considers international treaties to have the force of law, the relevant NAFTA provisions (1711.5 and 1711.6) are self-executing in Mexico and thus data protection does not need to be incorporated into new regulations unless the R and D industry can demonstrate cases in which its data was used MEXICO 00006229 003 OF 005 by third parties to obtain marketing approval. On December 14, the Health Ministry convened representatives of the R and D industry, the national generic makers, the Ministry of Economy, and IMPI to discuss the pros and cons of regulations on data protection. At the meeting, the representative of the R and D industry lobbied for a clearer data protection regime, but failed to identify specific violations of data protection. Embassy awaits further clarification from the R and D industry on whether there have been concrete cases of NAFTA non-compliance.
¶7. (U) Patent link: The pharmaceutical R and D industry reports that there have been no repeat occurrences of the patent link failures that took place in 2006, giving Mexico a good grade on this issue.
International Profile ---------------------
¶8. (SBU) Mexico has been actively engaged in the work of the IPR Working Group under the Security and Prosperity Partnership this year, hosting the WG's trilateral meeting in Cancun earlier this year. Mexico also agreed in 2007 to participate in negotiating an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement for enhanced IPR enforcement. IMPI officials have also stressed to Post that they have taken fire from both domestic critics and other developing countries for their opposition in recent months to Brazilian government initiatives to undermine patent rights in various international health fora, such as the Pan-American Health Organization.
¶9. (SBU) On the other hand, Mexico stayed on the sidelines in the imbroglio involving the tarnished Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization Kamil Idris. Post has heard rumors that Mexico was not averse to seeing Idris resign, but did not want to appear to be ""piling on"" because Jorge Amigo, IMPI's longstanding Director General, might want to throw his hat into the ring as a possible successor. Consequently, Mexico did not want to anger African nations who took exception with the way Idris' indiscretions were handled.
Recent IPR Capacity Building Programs -------------------------------------
¶10. (U) Trademark Roundtable for Judges: The Mexican judiciary and IMPI, together with the Embassy and the Mexican bar association, organized a November 8-9 roundtable in Mexico City on the likelihood of confusion in trademark law. Embassy worked with USPTO to provide three U.S. speakers for the program: U.S. District Court judge Ronald Lew; USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board administrative judge David Mermelstein; and attorney-adviser Jackie Morales from USPTO's Office of Enforcement. Over the course of five panel discussions, consensus emerged on the following critiques of the Mexican system: 1) the criteria Mexican judges use to evaluate likelihood of confusion vary significantly and are insufficiently developed; 2) it is administratively difficult for IMPI to cancel a registered mark that is similar to a pre-existing one; 3) repeated recourse to constitutional appeals (amparos) as currently allowed under the law can delay final resolution of administrative and civil trademark proceedings and imposition of penalties (which are too light in any case) for years, thus fostering impunity; and therefore 4) there is little incentive for parties to settle, as the alleged infringer has little to fear in either the short or medium term. Several of the Mexican speakers, including top IMPI officials and circuit court judges, noted that strong IPR protection is essential for competing in today's global economy and admitted that Mexico is falling short, inasmuch as Mexican trademark proceedings are lengthy, expensive, and highly uncertain. They called for legislative amendments to increase penalties and limit repeat appeals MEXICO 00006229 004 OF 005 (amparos de rebote). Judge Mermelstein explained that in the United States the criteria for examining the similarity of marks are detailed and consistent among USPTO examiners and administrative judges as well as federal appeals judges. Judge Lew commented on how he had used the criteria Judge Mermelstein had described to decide specific civil and criminal trademark cases, and emphasized the importance of making administrative and judicial rulings, as well as their underpinning logic, accessible to the public in order to provide greater transparency and predictability. All the Mexican participants (judges, IMPI officials, right-holders and lawyers) expressed great appreciation for the U.S. speakers and said that they drew very helpful contrasts between the two countries' IPR regimes.
¶11. (U) Workshop on Cooperation in Protecting IPR: The Embassy and Consulate General Monterrey organized a three-day event December 3-5 that brought together PGR, IMPI, tax officials, federal judges, economic and law enforcement officials from Mexico's key northern states and cities, USG experts from DoJ and ICE, and right-holders. The workshop aimed at fostering cooperation among federal IPR agencies, state and local governments, and affected industries. Right-holders and academics expounded on the economic and safety risks that result from widespread IPR violations. Mexican federal officials discussed their respective roles in enforcing IPR, and together with speakers from the BSA, the State of Mexico, and Mexico City, reported on their recent collaborative initiatives described in para 4 above. A week later one of the participants -- the Director of Economic and Financial Affairs for Ciudad Juarez -- announced that the city government would seek to sign a municipal-level anti-piracy agreement with right-holders and the federal IPR agencies in early 2008.
Upcoming IPR Capacity Building Programs ---------------------------------------
¶12. (U) USPTO Patent Course: In January 2008, USPTO will conduct a three-day capacity-building exercise with IMPI counterparts on patent-related issues.
¶13. (U) Customs Training Course: The Embassy will hold a customs training course at the Port of Manzanillo February 5-8, 2008. This course will be patterned on the one we did at the Port of Veracruz in July 2007. In addition to speakers from CBP, ICE, DOJ, and the World Customs Organization, we also plan to have PGR, IMPI, and Customs officials who attended the Veracruz training give presentations. We hope to arrange a live-time tracking exercise of suspicious inbound containers.
¶14. (U) Legislative Exchange Visit: The bicameral, bipartisan U.S. Congressional Anti-Piracy Caucus has invited eight Mexican legislators who head IPR-related committees in both the upper and lower chambers of the National Congress to visit Washington DC February 11-13 to meet with their U.S. legislator counterparts, USG experts, and right-holders to discuss the importance of strong copyright protection and pending legislative issues in the U.S. and Mexico.
¶15. (U) International Judicial IPR Forum: The Mexican Judiciary, IMPI, and INDAUTOR are organizing a forum February 26-29 to which they are inviting judges, IPR officials, right-holders and academics from North America (including the U.S.), Latin America, Europe, and WIPO. The focus will be on international comparative experiences in applying IPR law. We hope to have U.S. federal judges as well as USPTO and DOJ representatives participate.
¶16. (U) DOJ-PGR Activities: DOJ and PGR plan to hold two additional exercises in the first half of 2008. The first will be a technical training course on the use of computer/IT forensics in investigating cybercrimes, including Internet piracy. The second will be a workshop to draft an IPR manual MEXICO 00006229 005 OF 005 for all PGR prosecutors, especially those assigned to the state delegations (rough equivalents of U.S. district attorneys) with little or no background in IPR crimes.
Finally Talking with Judges ---------------------------
¶17. (SBU) As described in paras 10, 11, and 14, we have finally succeeded in re-engaging with Mexican judges on IPR matters. Those who participated in the Trademark Roundtable were all administrative judges, while the two judges who spoke at the Monterrey Workshop were penal judges, both of whom had participated in the December 2006 seminar on IPR enforcement organized by USPTO for Central American and Mexican judges in Miami. The nascent dialogue between the judiciary and other stakeholders is welcome and important, but to date has illustrated the many shortcomings of Mexico's IPR regime. Similar to the problems described in para 10 with regard to administrative trademark enforcement, the penal judges in Monterrey (one of whom had previously been a PGR prosecutor) outlined what they considered to be one of the major impediments to obtaining criminal convictions -- an overly cumbersome burden under the law to prove the plaintiff has legal standing to represent an actual right-holder. On this issue alone the two judges confessed to having thrown out large numbers of cases presented by PGR prosecutors. PGR prosecutors and private IPR attorneys in the audience protested that the criteria used by different penal judges on the issue of standing vary widely, to which the two judges responded that the system is simply designed that way. Since the conclusion of the workshop, Post has been consulting with PGR's IPR unit about setting up a judicial exchange event (perhaps modeled on the Trademark Roundtable format) between U.S. and Mexican IPR prosecutors and penal judges to more fully hash out varying legal interpretations of standing requirements. The February judicial IPR forum in Cancun (which is being organized by the same pro-IPR judges who put together the Trademark Roundtable) will be presided over by the President of Mexico's Supreme Court and might have Mexico's Secretary of Economy and Attorney General in attendance. This high-level event should send a strong signal to the entire Mexican judiciary of the importance of IPR. We hope it will also highlight major problems and generate political momentum to address them. Post will conitnue its efforts to engage both administrative and penal judges in dialogue with enforcement agencies and right-holders. Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / BASSETT