Corporate India, Regulators 'stunned' by Satyam fraud [India]

Terming disclosures of financial wrong-doings at Satyam as an event of 'horrifying magnitude,' the Securities and Exchange Board of India on Wednesday said it would take all steps under the law for which it has started discussions with government and bourses. "We are in touch with Ministry of Corporate Affairs. We are also in discussion with them as to what steps need to be taken from the perspective of power they have under the law and Sebi has under the law," Sebi chairman C B Bhave said.

Sebi was also forwarding the letter written by Satyam's chairman B Ramalinga Raju on his stepping down with the confession that the profits in the company were inflated over the years, leading to wide gap between real and imaginary assets.

Govt to refer Satyam case to Serious Fraud Investigation Office
The government has decided to refer the Satyam case to Serious Fraud Investigation Office, an official of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs said.
All regulators and government agencies will make coordinated efforts to get to the bottom of the Satyam wrongdoings, the official said, adding that the 'company management not been fair to the shareholders'.

Satyam plunges to all-time low
Meanwhile, the Satyam Computer stock nosedived nearly 70 per cent to an all-time low of Rs 58, following the resignation of the company's chairman B Ramalinga Raju and Managing Director B Rama Raju.

Shares of Satyam plunged as much as 67.71 per cent to a low of Rs 58, but was later trading at Rs 73.50, down 58.96 per cent in the afternoon trade on the Bombay Stock Exchange.
The scrip, which had opened at Rs 179.10, plunged within minutes of Satyam chairman and managing director tendering their resignation.

Raju had been under attack over the $1.6-billion acquisition fiasco of firms promoted by his family. The counter saw frantic selling after the announcement and nearly 13 crore (130 million) shares had changed hands on both the bourses within an hour.
Satyam stock holds a 1.56 per cent weight in the 30-share bluechip index Sensex. Following the same, the benchmark index also plunged over 400 points and was trading down nearly 4 per cent at 9,922 points in the noon trade on the BSE.

On the National Stock Exchange, the scrip plunged 55.63 per cent to an all time low of Rs 79.40. It was later trading at Rs 80, down 55.29 per cent in the afternoon trade.
In a regulatory filing, the company said Raju would continue to be the chairman till the board is expanded.

Satyam Chairman Raju resigns, admits to fraud [India]

Satyam Computers founder and chairman Ramalinga Raju had resigned from the Satyam board.
Raju has written a letter to the board giving details of the balance sheet. Balance Sheet has inflated cash balances of Rs 5040 crore and accrued interest of Rs 376 crore is non-existent. Rs 1230 crore was arranged to Satyam and is not reflected in the books.

While Ram Myanpati will act as Interim CEO, Merrill Lynch can be entrusted to explore. As per the revelations, second Quarter numbers were inflated to Rs 2700 crore vs Rs 2112 crore actual numbers. No board member had any knowledge of the real situation of the books. Shares in Satyam Computer shed all gains to turn negative after the embattled Indian outsourcer said its chairman has resigned from the board. Shares were down 16.81 percent at 149 rupees. (11.22 a.m.)

HC relief for foreign law firms on tax payment [India]

In a significant order, a division bench of the Bombay high court has ruled that foreign law firms, even though working as solicitors for multinational corporations with operations in India, will pay tax only in those countries where they give legal advice and not in India.

The appelant before court was Clifford Chance, a top-notch legal firm from London which acted as solicitors for several multinational corporations interested in four major power projects in India. The clients included big names such as GEC Alsthom Group, and Electricite de France. Clifford Chance told court that it billed its clients on an hourly basis and maintained detailed "time sheets'' that showed whether the legal advice was given in India or abroad.

On that basis, the firm calculated that it had earned a little over Rs 5 crore from its India operations during 1996-97. Ispat Industries was the only Indian firm involved in one of the four power projects. On the contrary, the income tax department said that Clifford Chance had received more than Rs 17 crore in legal fee for acting as advisors on the four power projects and it was immaterial whether the advice was given in India, UK or any other country. It said that the whole income was taxable in India as the projects from which it was derived were in India. However, Salve argued that legal service given by a solicitor from his home country to a client who was overseas could be taxed only in the country of residence of the solicitor. Finally, justice S Radhakrishnan and V C Daga ruled that under statutory provisions, services which are to be taxed must be both "rendered in India'' and "utilized in India'' for them to fall under the income tax bracket. The court held that this was not the case with Clifford Chance's earnings which came from giving legal advice to its clients in other countries, even though the power projects were in India. Thus it said that tax could be levied only on Rs 5 crore that the solicitors had earned by giving legal advice to firms in India.

From Assets to Profits: New Book on Intellectual Property

If intellectual property never comes of age as a mainstream topic for investors and corporate strategists, it won't be Bruce Berman's fault.

As CEO of Brody Berman Associates in New York, a communications and management consulting firm that focuses on innovative businesses and intellectual assets, Berman has been a tireless proponent of the importance of IP and attendant issues. Not coincidentally, he's also quite a networker in the community of IP thinkers and practitioners.

Those two characteristics have enabled Berman to assemble some of the better books on the subject of IP -- including his new offering, From Assets to Profits, which follows Making Innovation Pay (2005) and From Ideas to Assets (2002), all from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Contributors to the current volume (along with Berman himself) include the heads of IP business at Hewlett-Packard Co. and Goldman Sachs; the former head of IP business at Lucent and IBM Research; and IBM Corp.'s former VP of IP strategy, among others. Each in turn examines a facet of IP. A few highlights:

Berman kicks things off with a chapter on IP investing and the spectrum of people--some controversial, some less so--who do it. "Has today's more contentious, bottom-line approach for managing IP rights improved innovation, patent quality, or increased shareholder value?" he asks. "Probably. But you won't hear most strategic IP owners admitting that."
John A. Squires chief IP counsel for Goldman Sachs & Co., contributes a chapter on IP in financial services. In finance, Squires says, "patents are generally designed for, and deployed primarily by, the founders of the venture as a functional edge for the operational risk that the venture may incur in the future." Squires goes on to show how patent issues figured in the formation and launch of Regulatory DataCorp LLC (RDC), a for-profit database and interdiction software venture now owned by twenty of the world ' s leading financial institutions.

Another interesting chapter is "The Evolving Role of IP in M&A: From deal-breaker to deal-maker." This one was written by Ron Laurie, the veteran silicon valley IP lawyer who wrote the first internet business-method patent, for Priceline's reverse auction. "IP," he writes, "was traditionally viewed in M&A transactions as a possible deal-breaker, effectively an afterthought that IP lawyers attended to. When it came to consummating a transaction, these professionals were much more likely to regard all news as bad news."

Today, Laurie says, IP in M&A is starting to be seen as an important deal facilitator that bankers, private equity capital providers, and others need to understand from the start.

You can find out more about the book (and about Berman) on the Brody Berman website.

Evalueserve Study: India to Emerge as Global Innovation Hub

India will emerge as the next global hub for innovation, according to a study on "R&D Ecosystem in India" conducted by Evalueserve and released by the British High Commission and the Canadian High Commission in India.

India targets to increase its R&D spend from less than 1 percent of GDP to 2 percent by 2012 under the 11th Five-Year Plan. The move will catapult India to the league of developed nations that spend 2.5 percent of their GDP on R&D on an average.

The Indian R&D ecosystem comprises various supporting infrastructure, government departments, research organisations, funding institutions and industry associations. The government is focusing on public-private partnerships, such as knowledge parks and incubator programmes, to promote commercialisation, transfer and diffusion of technology.

Angel investors and venture capitalists also have an important role in the commercialisation process, given the limited availability of funding for early stage companies and innovators. Further, venture capitalists are also providing a lot of late-stage funding. The number of private equity/venture capitalist deals in late-stage funding rose from 33 in 2005 to 104 in 2006, while the number of early stage funding deals rose from 19 in 2005 to 59 in 2006.

That India is becoming increasingly conducive to innovation is evident from the fact that the total number of patents filed in the country has increased significantly. The number of patent applications filed grew at a CAGR of 23.3 percent, from 10,592 in 2001-02 to 24,505 in 2005-06. The growth accelerated after India became Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) compliant in 2005.

Some IPR issues currently faced by India include low awareness on IP protection and longer patenting process. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) drafted the Public Funded Research and Development (Protection, Utilisation and Regulation of Intellectual Property) Bill, 2007, an indigenous version of the Bayh-dole Act, to address these issues. The new legislation will emphasise education opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and help R&D institutions and scientists to own the intellectual property they create.

Access the complete report at http://www.evalueserve.com/Media-And-Reports/WhitePapers.aspx.

Evalueserve provides custom research and analytics services to a client base of Global 5000 companies, in the following areas - Financial and Investment Research, Business Research, Market Research, Intellectual Property, Expert Network, Data Analytics and Modelling and Knowledge Technology Services. We currently have 2,475+ professionals in our research centres in India, China, Chile & Romania.

L'Oreal takes MyDollarStore to High Court over illegal imports [India]

French cosmetics and toiletries giant L’Oreal has hauled discount retailer MyDollarStore to court over issues relating to intellectual property rights (IPR) and illegal imports, it is learnt. The company has filed a case against MyDollarStore in the Delhi High Court recently.

In recent times, MNCs have been upset over the move by retailers to import top global brands, claiming that this leads to loss of business opportunity, unfair competition and product cannibalisation. However, sources said hectic parleys are on between the two parties and the talks could lead to an out-of-court settlement.

MyDollarStore is a discount store chain which set up shop in 2004 and now has 47 stores across several cities. Most of the stores are located in malls and near Big Bazaar outlets. The chain plans to scale up presence across most Big Bazaar outlets. The discount store is associated with basement bargains in the US. MyDollarStore formats price products at Rs 99 and above in India, and are perceived as expensive by bargain seekers. While products are priced at $1 (approximately Rs 48.9) at a MyDollarStore outlet in the US, the same products sell at a higher rate in India owing to transportation costs and import tariffs. L’Oreal source said the company was concerned about protecting the properties of its brands, which include quality and consumer perception. “We distribute the brand in a way that ensures a certain value around it. An unplanned distribution creates confusion or leads to an unpleasant consumer experience which may work against our brand,” the source said. L’Oreal India has recorded an attractive growth rate of over 40% plus in the country, and globally it has identified India as one of its top five markets. Sources said the company fiercely guards its right to market and distribute its brands in India.

Several MNCs have invoked the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules 2007 Act to stop retailers from importing their foreign brands. Companies like Hindustan Unilever, L’Oreal, Lancome Perfumes, Oakley, Nivea and Mico have already registered several brands under notification No.47/2007 of the IPR Act with the Customs. Recently, Future Capital picked up 28% in Sankalp Retail Value Stores, a franchisee of the US-based discount format MyDollarStore. The format is expected to help scale up profit margins at Big Bazaar and is being set up as a ‘shop-in-shop’ concept. MyDollarStore outlets usually stock limited top brands like Coke and generally sell other lesser-known brands. But lately they have been stocking well-known brands, including that of L’Oreal like Garnier, etc. Big Bazaar & Food Bazaar, Reliance Retail, Spencer’s and MyDollarStore import sizeable consignments of top consumer brands and their variants from markets like Taiwan, Thailand, Gulf and the US. L’Oreal operates in India through its wholly-owned subsidiary L’Oreal India and has four divisions—consumer products, professional products, active cosmetics and luxury products.

Patent officers should coordinate to bring uniformity in standards [India]

Many of India’s pharma companies, including even the big and transnational ones who themselves have some stake in innovation and R&D, are alleging that patent authorities in India have become very liberal when it comes to grant of patents. Many frivolous patents have been granted and even bogus applications are being entertained, they say. The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, a group of big India-born drug companies, is mulling a thorough study of the patents granted since 2005 to find out how many of these are in fact ‘bad patents.’ At the other end of the scale, the foreign pharma companies not only brush aside the allegation of granting patents for ‘trivial inventions’ but also aver that “a lot of important applications” have in fact been turned down by India’s patent authorities. The question that underlies this row is what’s a ‘patentable invention’. At a very general and non-codified level, the newness or rather the surprise element of an invention should be the deciding factor.

The World Trade Organisation’s Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement defines the term ‘patentable subject matter’ with due considerations to present-day commercial realities—it says an invention should be “new, involve an inventive step and capable of industrial application” to be deserving of a patent. National governments have drawn a lot of freedom from the TRIPS agreement itself and even autonomously to elaborate on the TRIPS definition. However, national laws of many countries, including the US, are framed in such a way that even “incremental, adaptive or cumulative” inventions could qualify for patents if such invention has a definitive industrial use and thereby considerable commercial value. Indian government has been chary about unfair patenting—thanks to lobbying by domestic industry and the unrelenting stand of leftist outfits. It introduced an additional provision—Section 3(d)—in Patents Act to make patenting criteria more stringent in the pharmaceutical space. This provision was introduced through the third amendment to the Act, which also introduced product patenting for pharma and agrochem inventions.

While the Big Pharma—the large pharmaceutical companies based in the US and EU who hold most of the patents—have been a strident critic of Section 3(d), international organisations like the World Intellectual Property Organisation endorsed it and termed it TRIPS-compliant. According to this provision, incremental inventions (like salts, isomers etc of known molecules) can be patented only if they have contributed to improve the efficacy of the (known) substance. And the patent authorities—read the examiners—would decide if efficacy has really been improved. The current strife over the allegation of the patent authorities practically becoming very liberal in grant of patents would need to be viewed in this context. The fact is India’s Patent Act, even with the fairly elaborate rules notified under it including those to support the Section 3(d), bestows substantial discretionary authority with the patent authorities. Patent examiners in India are still grappling with the complexity of the world of pharmaceutical inventions—the area is abstruse and dynamic enough to baffle even the seasoned examiners. Leaving a lot of things to the discretion of a group of patent examiners is therefore bound to generate conflicts. Here, what the government can do is to create many layers of examiners so that the probability of genuine error can be minimised. But the patent examination, search and grant system in India is currently highly unorganised. The four patent offices—Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai—are yet to achieve a fair degree of cohesiveness among them. These offices, manned by patent controllers and scores of patent examiners who assist them, are allegedly employing separate yardsticks and this is what caused the current allegations and counter-allegations. Clearly, there is a case for a very high degree of coordination between the four patent offices. Patents are anyway prone to contestation. Some disputes would inevitably reach the courts. Such disputes can however be minimised by bringing as much uniformity as possible in standards of patent grant. The Patent Act already provides for pre and post grant opposition and making a review plea before the controller who granted/denied the patent. And there’s the intellectual property appellate board, which is the body for the aggrieved to appeal to. What is lacking is proper coordination among the patent controllers and examiners. The government would do well to address the issue immediately.

ICANN to allow new top-level domains – warning to brand owners

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for the allocation of all top-level domain names. There are presently only a limited number of top-level domains (e.g. .com, .net, .org etc) but ICANN has announced it intends to open the market for any person to create new top-level domains of their choosing.

ICANN has issued a draft "Applicant Guidebook" on which it is inviting comments. The draft guidebook may be seen here. ICANN is inviting comments from the public on the draft guidebook, and states that it will receive comments for 45 days (from 24 October 2008). The draft guidebook states that, during the (as yet undetermined) application period, any "established entity" from any country may apply to operate a top-level domain. The top-level domain proposed may either be an "open" domain, which is available to any type of applicant, or a "community based" domain, which must relate to an identifiable and pre-established community that has endorsed the registration of the domain. The application must show that the applicant will have a dedicated registration and use policy, and that the applicant has the operational, technical, financial and organisational capability to maintain the top-level domain proposed. The draft guidebook states that the proposed registration fee for the new top-level domain will be $185,000. Of particular interest to brand owners, the draft guidebook contains details of the proposed objection mechanism which will allow interested parties to challenge the registration of a new top-level domain. The proposed grounds of objection are:String Confusion Objection – existing operators of top-level domains can complain that a domain applied for is confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain; Legal Rights Objection – a "rightsholder" (which is not defined, but this is likely to mean a trade mark owner or someone with unregistered trade mark rights/reputation) may complain that a domain applied for infringes their rights; Morality and Public Order Objection – the parties who may complain about a domain applied for which is contrary to morality and public order are yet to be determined by ICANN, but they may be limited to Government bodies; and Community Objection – an "established institution" within a defined community may complain about a domain applied for which may be targeted at such community if a significant part of that community substantially objects to the application. The draft guidebook contains a long description of the proposed procedure to be followed if objections are raised to top-level domain applications. The procedure will involve arbitration with set rules similar to a UDRP arbitration that is operated by one of a number of providers (e.g. WIPO). The cost of the procedure is not outlined in the draft guidebook, but it is proposed that String Confusion and Legal Rights Objections should be dealt with by the arbitration provider for payment of a fixed fee, and other Objections should be dealt with for payment of an hourly rate. There is no procedure proposed to notify brand owners if a top-level domain is applied for which features a registered trade mark. As a result, brand owners will need proactively to monitor ICANN's website to see the applications that have been made. There is only a limited time period proposed in the guidebook during which objections may be made to applications. It is therefore very important that brand owners wishing to object to applications do so within the required time period. Otherwise, costly court action might be the only remedy available to brand owners after the new top-level domain is approved. Further information about the proposals may be seen on ICANN's website.

Congress Gets Tough On Intellectual Property [United States]

Lawmakers have approved sweeping legislation that is designed to bolster the federal government's ability to protect patents, trademarks, and other intellectual property (IP). The bipartisan legislation, the Prioritizing Resources & Organization for Intellectual Property Act (S. 3325), passed the Senate by unanimous consent on Sept. 26 and cleared the House by a vote of 381-41 two days later.

The bill significantly toughens civil and criminal laws against counterfeiting and piracy, provides law enforcement agencies with increased funding for investigations and prosecutions, and creates a new White House office of IP enforcement coordinator.

"IP makes up some of the most valuable and most vulnerable property we have," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement. "We need to do more to protect it from theft and abuse if we hope to continue being a world leader in innovation."

The bill is strongly supported by pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers, and others in the business community. "This is a win for both parties and, more important, for America's innovators, workers whose jobs rely on IP, and consumers who depend on safe and effective products," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and Chief Executive Officer Thomas J. Donohue says.

It's unclear whether President George W. Bush will sign the legislation into law because the Administration opposes the provision that creates a new Cabinet-level post for IP coordination. According to the bill, the IP coordinator will be chair of an interagency committee tasked with devising a worldwide strategic plan to combat piracy and counterfeiting. However, in a joint letter sent to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 23, the Justice and Commerce Departments says the establishment of an IP coordinator within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) is "objectionable" on constitutional grounds as a violation of separation of powers.

"While the Administration has been a longtime supporter of strong inter-agency coordination...the statutory creation of an EOP coordinator with the duties described in the bill constitutes a legislative intrusion into the internal structure and composition of the President's Administration," the letter states.

India - United States - Copyright Treaty [Intellectual Property]

Protections granted under the Indian Copyright Act apply to U.S. citizens just as it applies to Indian nationals. The current Indian Copyright Act entered into force in 1957 but it is based on the 1911 Copyright Act, which in turn was based on United Kingdom copyright laws. Traditional international copyright principles are part of the Indian copyright legislation. For instance, India grants automatic copyright protection (no registration is required) to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, computer software, and cinematograph films and sound recordings for sixty years- some term variations apply. Even though copyrights are automatic, authors may register their works in the Copyrights Register maintained by the Copyright Office of the Department of Education. Ideas are not protected under Indian copyright law nor are titles or names, short word combinations, slogans, short phrases, methods, news, and plots or factual information. To receive protection, works must be original; the joint authorship concept is recognized; and copyrights may be assigned for 5 year if no other time-limit is set. Usually, the author is the owner of the copyrighted work; the government is considered the author of government works. An author is the creator, composer, producer, or photographer -depending on the case, - of the work. In the case of employment-related works under contract of service or apprenticeships, the employer will be the copyright owner unless otherwise provided. Translations are afforded copyright protection just as the original work provided that they are authorized by the author of the original work. Computer programs are protected under Indian law as literary works, and their authors enjoy the right to sell, offer to sell, or give on hire "regardless of whether such a copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier occasion." In general, foreign works mentioned on the International Copyright Order are protected in India as well.

As opposed to the U.S., India grants protection of moral rights. This means, infringement exists when a copyrighted work is distorted, mutilated, modified and these or similar acts affect the author's honor or reputation. Moral rights remain with the author even after the author's death or assignment of the work.

India is signatory to the following international copyright agreements- this means U.S. citizens enjoy the rights and privileges afforded by these international agreements adopted by the Indian legislature,- (a) the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic works; (b) the Universal Copyright Convention; (c) the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorized Duplication of their Phonograms; (d) Multilateral Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation of Copyright Royalties; and (e) the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.

Indian International Copyright Order grants protection to foreign works from the following 116 countries. Indian protection of foreign works from these countries is relevant for U.S. businesses registered under the laws of any of them. E.g. if a U.S. business registered in St. Kitts & Nevis produces a copyrighted work and outsources some activity related to this work to India, India is going to protect that work as a foreign work. The International Copyright Order includes Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzogovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica , Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia , Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras ,Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania , Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname ,Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Mattel blocks 'Scrabulous' in India [Intellectual Property]

The networking site, Facebook, has restricted the popular “add-on” application, ‘Scrabulous’ to most users. Mattel Inc. owns Scrabble rights outside Canada and the United States of America and had approached the Indian courts in February 2008, seeking an order for taking down Scrabulous from Facebook and other servers.

The brothers, Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla, and their web-design and technology company, R J Software, were previously served a lawsuit by game-making giant Hasbro Inc., owner of Scrabble rights in Canada and the U.S. , at a New York federal court for violating its copyright and trademarks. Hasbro also sent a notice demanding that Facebook remove the application from the site. “Facebook took the unfortunate decision to restrict most users from accessing Scrabulous on August 22, in response to a ‘take down notice’ from Mattel on August 14,” said Mr. Jayant.

Mr. Jayant said, “The High Court had reserved judgement in this matter after hearing both parties. It surprises us that Mattel chose to direct Facebook to take down Scrabulous without waiting for the High Court’s decision.” He also sounded disappointed with Facebook as he said, “It is even more astonishing that Facebook, which claims to be fair and neutral party, took the step even though they were fully aware of the circumstances under which the Mattel letter was sent.”

“We now await the decision of the High Court and shall accordingly decide our future course of action regarding Scrabulous,” Mr. Jayant asserted.

First Arab Satellite Channel On IP Rights Launched In Egypt

In a bid to promote awareness of intellectual property rights issues and provide information about IP in the Arab world, the first dedicated IP Arab satellite channel has been launched.
Based in Smart Village in Cairo with offices in most major cities of the world, the first independent IPR satellite channel will have exclusive programmes that tackle IPR issues regionally and globally.

The new channel, launched on 7 July and reporting in both Arabic and English, will broadcast on NileSat.

‘The idea behind establishing a satellite channel dedicated to IP rights is to strengthen awareness in IP issues and give a clearer image of the IP situation in the Arab world. The new satellite channel is intended to a credible source of information that satisfies the growing interest in issues relating to IP. It will also contribute to the promotion of IP awareness in the region and around the world,” said Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, chairman of the Talal Abu-Ghazaleh organisation, an Arab organisation for global professional services including intellectual property rights. Abu-Ghazaleh is owner of the new channel.

In 2004, Abu-Ghazaleh launched a one-of-a-kind project, the ag-IP-news agency, a specialised global intellectual property news agency.