Comment from INTA on the UNHLP Report
Submitted to: digitalcooperation@EuroDIG.org
September 30, 2019
EuroDIG Support Association
c/o Sandra Hoferichter
Secretary General
Holbeinstrasse 6
D-04229 Leipzig
Re: EuroDIG ’s platform to collate views on the Report of the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation
Dear Ms. Hoferichter:
The International Trademark Association (INTA) is pleased to provide its views on the Report of the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation published this past June. We participated in the 2019 EURODIG program at The Hague and welcome to continue our participation in support of EURODIG’s efforts to educate the public about the report’s recommendations.
As the world’s leading organization focused on matters of trademark law, INTA supports efforts to expand the opportunities of the Internet and to provide greater access in new or remote regions and to ensure that the rights of end users are respected and all human rights are protected in cyberspace as well as in the brick and mortar world.
As a proponent for consumer protection and internet safety, INTA supports emphasis on issues of trust and security and appreciates the efforts by the 2015 United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security and other bodies to bring international norms and legal rights into cyberspace.
Trust and security are paramount within the expansion and flourishing of internet norms. Accordingly, intellectual property and rights protections mechanisms should be maintained and improved to combat the growing incidence of consumer harms through abuse such as identity theft, spoofing, phishing, cybersquatting, counterfeiting and other criminal activities on the Internet that harm brands and consumers alike. As further described below, such harms lead to economic and physical injury and organized criminal activities such as human trafficking and terrorism.
INTA’s previous participation
In January 2019, INTA submitted comments as part of the consultation for the report. A copy of
INTA’s comments is annexed to this letter for reference. The key messages of INTA’s earlier comments included:
- Safety, trust, and fair competition are crucial considerations in the development of digital policy and should not be sacrificed in favour of economic growth and innovation. If the right policies and systems of redress are in place, all of these aims can be mutually reinforcing.
- The digital economy offers many opportunities, but also poses risks. These include the potential for fraud, including by sale of counterfeit or pirated goods. In addition to depriving the consumer of his or her intended purchase, such products can be unsafe (such as counterfeit pharmaceuticals, cosmetic products, or toys not manufactured in accordance with safety requirements or that contain harmful materials), are often not manufactured in accordance with environmental or fair labour standards and may be a tool for organized crime. This risk of harm is greater now than ever before because economic actors no longer have to transact face-to-face.
- Trademarks play a crucial role in combating online fraud. For consumers, they act as a guarantee of the origin of goods or services. For businesses, they can be enforced to help prevent unfair competition, and to protect consumers.
- There is much more to do in this respect. Consumers, particularly vulnerable ones, require more far-reaching education regarding online fraud, including mechanisms large ecommerce platforms provide to combat infringement and protect buyers. But platforms and brand owners need a functioning means of identifying dishonest sellers to protect consumers. This requires increased transparency regarding who owns and operates websites, subject to a fair balance with privacy concerns. Access to redress for small businesses and individuals (perhaps via cooperatives or trade associations) needs to be improved.
Comments on the Final Report
In general, INTA endorses the contents and recommendations of the report. However, aside from mentioning the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), the report does not discuss intellectual property concerns at all, including the role of trademarks, in the digital ecosystem, even though the issues of trust and security feature prominently. INTA suggests that a discussion of the importance of intellectual property would naturally fit in connection with Section 5’s “Recommendations.” Ensuring adequate protection of intellectual property rights is a fundamental element of making it easy to create, run, and grow small business, the first of four factors identified to promote inclusivity and minimize risks. Streamlined processes of enforcement, with low barriers to entry are critical to assist marginalised populations’ participation in the digital economy, consistent with the third factor mentioned. And the need for some transparency in economic transactions to facilitate enforcement and protect consumers should be accounted for in connection with the privacy concerns of the fourth factor.
INTA supports the development of a Global Commitment on Digital Trust and Security. The process of discussing and setting norms would be helpful, and the final written Commitment can provide a clear “north star” for all stakeholders. However, it is vital that the Commitment recognize and account for the importance of trademarks in establishing trust online.
INTA wholly supports the multi-stakeholder model proposed. The reality of the digital world is that many issues now cross national boundaries, different sectors, and various competencies. A piecemeal approach of national legislation will not be sufficient, and even if it were, it would likely be implemented too slowly and unevenly. Therefore, a multi-stakeholder “soft governance” approach is a crucial part of the puzzle. Multi-stakeholder models have in the past produced concrete results in this arena. For example, the report rightly cites WIPO’s Domain Name Resolution policies as a success story of cooperation.
This is not to say that national governments are absolved of responsibility for legislating at a national level. Indeed, trademark rights are territorial in scope, and what is enforceable in one country may not be in another. Soft governance should not operate without regard to these limits. Further, soft governance is insufficient to remedy all abuses of the digital ecosystem. For example, the sale of counterfeit goods online will always have a physical source somewhere in the world. It is crucial that this physical source can be identified and addressed. Otherwise, brand owners and regulators will always be addressing the symptoms of a problem rather than the root cause, and ultimately incapable of best protecting consumers. Therefore, individual nations must also have adequate enforcement mechanisms in place.
INTA thanks EuroDIG and the UNHLP for its consideration of our comments. If you require further information relating to this submission, please contact Lori Schulman, Senior Director, Internet Policy at lschulman@inta.org.
Sincerely,
Etienne Sanz de Acedo
Chief Executive Officer
____
About INTA and the Internet Committee
INTA is a 140-year-old global not for profit association with more than 7,200-member organizations from over 191 countries. One of INTA’s goals is the promotion and protection of trademarks as a primary means for consumers to make informed choices regarding the products and services they purchase. During the last decade, INTA has also been the leading voice of trademark owners within the Internet Community, serving as a founding member of the Intellectual Property Constituency of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). INTA’s Internet Committee is a group of over 200 trademark owners and professionals from around the world charged with evaluating treaties, laws, regulations and procedures relating to domain name assignment, use of trademarks on the Internet, and unfair competition on the Internet, whose mission is to advance the balanced protection of trademarks on the Internet.
Recent Comments on this Site
3rd July 2023 at 2:58 pm
I agree with Michael’s comment.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 2:56 pm
This first message makes no sense. Please take into consideration the comment made by Torsen.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 2:37 pm
3 The Ukrainian Internet resilience is impossible without worldwide cooperation, help and support. There are very good examples of such cooperation, and not very good. These lessons also have to be documented and analysed.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 12:14 am
In responding to the points around the impact encryption, I would ask that the comments I made around the UK’s Online Safety Tech Challenge Fund and academic paper by Ian Levy and Crispin Robinson are added to the key messages.
I referenced a paper by Ian Levy and Crispin Robinson, two internationally respected cryptographers from the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, which set out possible solutions to detecting child sexual abuse within End-to-End Encrypted Environments that companies could be exploring to balance both the rights to privacy and the rights of children to grow up in a safe and secure environment free from child sexual abuse.
The link to the paper is copied below:
[2207.09506] Thoughts on child safety on commodity platforms (arxiv.org)
And the UK Safety Tech Challenge Fund:
Lessons from Innovation in Safety Tech: The Data Protection Perspective – Safety Tech (safetytechnetwork.org.uk)
It is important that we balance the concerns about the breaking of encryption, with the possibilities that should be being explored to prevent child sexual abuse from entering or leaving these environments.
Andrew Campling also made points about the right to privacy not being an absolute right and the need to balance this right, with other rights- another point I think that is worth reflecting in this final paragraph.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 12:00 am
I agree with the amendment Torsten has proposed to the initial text.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 11:58 pm
I would be careful about saying these images have been created consensually. Just because an image is “self-generated” it does not mean it has been created through “sexting”. Children are being “groomed” and “coerced” into creating these images as well.
I agree- however, with the rewritten text above regarding what companies currently do and what they will be required to do if the EU proposal becomes law and is clearer than what was written in the initial text.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 3:21 pm
The Internet has changed how war is fought, and how it is covered by media. At
the same time, the war has put “One world, one Internet” to a stress test. The foundations of global and interoperable Internet should not be affected by the deepening geopolitical divide, even though it has fragmented the content layer.
No one has the right to disrupt the global network that exists as a result of voluntary cooperation by thousands of networks. The mission of Internet actors is to promote and uphold the network, and to help restore it if destroyed by armed aggression.
The war has been accompanied by heightened weaponization of the content layer of the Internet. New EU legislation is expected to curb at least the role of very large platforms in spreading disinformation and hate speech.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 2:36 pm
I kindly suggest the following changes:
Please add these two important points that were said by the speakers/audience:
– There is an initiative on the Nordic level to protect children from the harms of the Internet, and this initiative has already been promulgated into legislation in Denmark.
– As the role of parents is crucial in educating children to use the Internet in a savvy way, also parents need education. That’s why we need adult education also from beyond the formal education system, just like the adult education system in Finland already provides training in basic digital skills.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 2:35 pm
I kindly suggest the following changes:
– governs => governments
– Replace this: ”Therefore, the contemporary political landscape requires three-level trust: political power; knowledge organisations; and individual.”
– By this:
– ”Therefore, the contemporary political landscape requires three levels of trust: trust in basic societal functions and structures of the society, trust in knowledge organizations, and trust between one another as individuals.”
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 2:32 pm
I kindly suggest the following changes:
Replace this: ”Thus, one of the key priorities is to enhance citizens digital literacy and education going beyond only digital competencies and including cultural aspects.”
with this: ”Thus, one of the key priorities is to enhance citizens’ digital literacy and education by going beyond just digital competencies and including also ethical, social and cultural dimensions.”
Add this important point that was said by the speaker: Responsibility for digital information literacy education lies not only with the formal education system, but also cultural institutions, NGOs, youth work play a key role.
See in context