mopdf.com

But I'm happy that our writtentestimony provided many of the good argumentsthat I think folks on the outside who alsolooked at what the IG found had made, and thathelped us to get the good story of all thethings that we've been doing over the lastcouple of years out.The hearing itself was agreat forum for that, but I think the writtenstory will be able to highlight all of thegood things that we have done, certainly, toaddress these issues and not get mired down onsome of the politics.I included this slide just to give asense that we're currently in a continuingresolution.Our appropriations -- this isvery common, and certainly in an election yearwith a new president as they come in.This isa bit longer than other CRs we've seen inrecent history, about 210 days.I think thatleans towards probably having a full yearcontinuing resolution at the end.It's hardto conceive that the incoming president wouldthen pass a full budget in that remainder.think they'll look and spend their effort onI

proposing a budget for the next fiscal year.But, this just gives you a sense ofwhere we are.The last time allAppropriations bills were passed individuallywas 1994.So, Congress continues to try towork back towards that but they've been unableto achieve that.Leadership changes in the 115thCongress.Not much in the House ofRepresentatives.Darrell Issa, the Chairmanof our IP Subcommittee, had a tough race, avery borderline race that continued -- hiscount continued for quite a long time, so itwas unclear whether he would be re-elected.He was.So, no changes at all in the Houseleadership on the Judiciary Committee.On the Senate side, after having theopportunity two or three times, Patrick Leahyfrom Vermont, the ranking member of the SenateJudiciary Committee, opted to become theranking member of the Senate AppropriationsCommittee, leaving space for Senator Feinsteinfrom California to take the ranking slot.Many of you have probably seen her during some

of the hearings on the nominees, alreadyplaying that role.She has been on theCommittee for many years and knows our issues.She certainly has a constituency that'sinterested in IP issues.Patrick Leahycontinues on the Committee but just not as theranking member anymore.So, that's the Senate Judiciarychanges.There are also some changes thatcome along with that, changes in staff.So,we're still trying to get a handle on thestaff that will really be taking the lead onour issues and trying to create some of therelationships there.It's criticallyimportant for us because we put a lot ofeffort and time into helping the previousstaff understand our issues, so we'll continueto do that now with the new staff.On other committees -- there arecertainly some changes in the Appropriationsside.So, those are still both beingannounced and coming together, so we'll bekeeping an eye open for those changes.I'll end out with a little bit of

speculation on IP issues likely to beaddressed in the 115th Congress.As I'vesaid, there are a number of issues that werediscussed particularly on the patent side, alot of time on copyright issues as well, alittle bit on trademark issues and reaction tothe Supreme Court cases.I expect patent litigation reform tocome up again, the question is when.Copyright issues, we expect will come upagain, the question is when, although we havesome indication that both the House and theSenate committees have some interest in movingforward sooner on copyright issues than later.In particular, as the new Library of Congressreplaces the register of copyright.She isgoing through a process right now where theyare looking to replace that position.Congress certainly wants to have some say intothat process. Depending on how much say theyhave, I think will depend on how soon theyact.But at least on the House side we'veseen over two years of hearings, lots of

written comments and discussion of bothstructural changes and substantive changes tothe copyright system and identifying thingsthat should be done and things that shouldn't,things that should be left to the businesscommunity.continue.I think that conversation willI think that also indicates thatthey've put in enough time and effort andenergy that they're going to want to dosomething.So, we'll be watching that.The last two things under copyright,Small Claims Court.That was proposed in twopieces of legislation at the end of the lastCongress and we expect them to start off withthat in any package that they move forward onin copyright.And then two treaties that thisAgency helped to negotiate in WIPO have beensitting there.We've sent up implementationlegislation last Congress and seeking theSenate to take action on ratifying that treatyand then our judiciary committees to introduceand enact the implementing legislation.As I said in the very beginning, wemight see some reaction to Supreme Court cases

on trademarks depending on what happens there.And certainly, I think we'll continue to seeoversight on our workforce issues.There is a good story to be toldabout the actions that USPTO has taken to makesure that we're managing our workforce.Ithink, certainly, if you look at the scope ofthe IG's report, I think it says some goodthings about the extent to which we're able tocreate physical digital footprints of all ofour employees.And we need to continue to say, andcertainly my team is, that telework is a greatbusiness option for PTO.It's working forPTO, it can work for other agencies.And thatcertainly is not causing problems that the IGis pointing out.So, we'll continue to heraldthat as a success as we move forward.Certainly, we'll see what happenswith TEAPP.2017.TEAPP expires in December ofWe've started discussions.We'reunclear whether Congress will be able to pickup legislation and extend it, but we're makingpreparations here at the Agency for either

situation.I think that's all I have.I'mhappy to answer any questions that you have.I apologize for my stuffy nose, I'm fighting acold.CHAIRPERSON WELDON-WILSON:Well, wehope you feel better soon.MR. COLARULLI:Thank you very much.CHAIRPERSON WELDON-WILSON:Ibelieve Lisa Dunner has a question.MR. COLARULLI:MS. DUNNER:Hi Lisa.Hi Dana.Justwondering if any names have been publiclydiscussed for the new register of copyrights.Are you aware of any?MR. COLARULLI:any.I'm not aware ofI know that a number of the associationshave been creating lists.The librarian tooka unique move of asking for comments both onthe characteristics and names as well.that process is still ongoing.So,Otherwise Ihaven't heard any specific names, but I knowthat there is an active discussion with a lotof our stakeholders.

I also know that -- I think she didreach out to Congress.As I said, unclear asto what role she's asking Congress to play inher selection, but it seems as if she's movingforward and likely would move forward beforeCongress is able to act.CHAIRPERSON WELDON-WILSON:you.ThankAnd Jonathan Hudis has a question.MR. COLARULLI:MR. HUDIS:Hi Jon.Hi Dana.Looking atyour slides, one piece of testimony I rememberfrom the last Congress was the independence ofthe Copyright Office from the Library.Thatwasn't among the bullet points in your slides.Is that effort going to continue?MR. COLARULLI:I think it will.Iincluded kind of a vague mention of Officestructure.There are at least three distinctoptions on the table.One is to keep theCopyright Office exactly where it is but giveit a little bit more independence.And that'sthe option that I think at least theCongressional staff have discussed mostthoroughly.The House Judiciary Committee

came out with a set of principles at the endof the Congress, mirroring in many waysprinciples set up by the Senate.Both saidkeep it where it is but let's look at someautonomy.A second option would be to make itan independent agency, either within thelegislative branch or the executive branch.Athird option would be to combine it with theexecutive branch.And certainly, one optionwould be to create a US IPO and put all threetypes of IP protection under one roof in theexecutive branch.So, I think those conversations docontinue.I think the most likely legislationto move forward is the most minimal option,depending on how Congress responds to theLibrarian of Congress and the selection thatshe makes in the new register.I think thatcould fuel interest in looking at other,broader proposals.So, that's where we are right now.But to answer your question, I think it willcontinue.And I think it is certainly a

viable option and models other countriesaround the world which have one governmententity that looks at all these IP rights.So,I think both Congress and the stakeholders arekeeping that open as a potential move for theU.S. long- term.CHAIRPERSON WELDON-WILSON:you very much.ThankIf there are no otherquestions, then we'll thank Dana for his timeand move on with our agenda.Thank you somuch, we appreciate you're coming to us today.MR. COLARULLI:You got it.Happyto be here.CHAIRPERSON WELDON-WILSON:you.ThankOur next presented is Amy Cotton, who isSenior Leader of the Office of Policy andInternational Affairs.You have someinteresting things to tell us as well, don'tyou?MS. COTTON:interesting to me.to you as well.Hopefully.They'reI hope they're interestingShira couldn't be with ustoday so I am filling in for her.I know that I have shared in the

past -- Shira and I have both shared -- OPIA'smultilateral policy work with TPAC, such asthe WIPO geographical indications issues, andother food labelling law issues. BBut today Iwanted to focus more on our regional work.Each member of the OPIA Trademark team, andthere are seven of us, are assigned to aspecific region of the world.We have aprimary person assigned and then a partnerassigned.My colleagues John Rodriguez andHelene Liwinski -- where did Helene go?there.Oh,They prepared for you today a tour ofLatin America, starting with Brazil thenArgentina, Paraguay, Chile, Peru, Columbia,Central American, and the Caribbean.John and Helene work with our threeIP attachés in the region.We have Todd Revesin Mexico City, who covers Mexico, CentralAmerica, and the Caribbean.We have AnnChaitovitz in Lima, Peru, who covers theAndean region.And we have Laura Hammel,posted in Rio de Janeiro, who covers Braziland the rest of Mercosur.Laura was formerlyin the OPIAOPIA Trademark group, so we

certainly know we have a trademark expertaround there.I'll start with Brazil and Mercosurand work north.Over the years in Brazilwe've developed a very strong relationshipwith Brazil's IP Office.We have collaboratedjointly in many areas including trademarkexamination training, examination qualityissues, as well as sharing experiences oninitiatives such as teleworking or trademarkIT systems.In fact, we do have a memorandumof understanding on office to officecooperation with INPIINPI.Our efforts have been mainly focusedon helping INPIINPI address the serious issuesthat have been plaguing it for the last fewyears, and particularly the large backlog ofapplications.Reports have the backlogs fromabout three years from filing to initialexamination.The INPIINPI has stated thatit's planning to ultimately get the backlogdown to 18 months or less by the end of 2018.In November 2016, the INPIINPI hired40 additional examiners.That will bring the

total number of examiners to 150.Certainly,they are incentivized to get to 18 monthsbecause they plan to join the Madrid Protocol.We don't have a timeline yet, but theycertainly are positioning themselves for that.Moving on to Argentina.pretty excited about this.We'reA new opportunityfor engagement has emerged with Argentina.Achange of government has recently taken placeand we find now that they're much more readyto collaborate with us than they have been inthe pass.Our attaché, Laura Hammel, hasalready met with Argentina IP Office (INPI)officials including its director general todiscuss future possibilities between ouroffices.Areas of future cooperation withINPIINPI include trademark examinationtraining as well as working on WIPO issuessuch as geographical indications.We plan toenter into a memorandum of understanding onoffice to office cooperation with INPIINPIthis year.In Paraguay, Laura has been

instrumental in engaging with IP officials atParaguay's Office (DINAPI).).We haveprovided trademark examination training oncertification marks and collective marks toDINAPI trademark officials.And all this hasbeen in due part to efforts by Paraguay toupdate and modernize its trademark regime toaccept these new types of trademarks, at leastnew to them.In addition, we're planning to workwith DINAPI on additional trademarkexamination training, specifically on tradedress and other types of non-traditionaltrademarks this calendar year.Actually, inFebruary.In Chile, we have a greatrelationship with the IP Office (INAPI) andhave worked with the head of their Office, MaxSanta Cruz, for many years.INAPI is activelyparticipating in the TM5 ID List Projectreviewing the proposed identifications, makingsuggestions for new identifications to be usedby applicants who are filing in TM5 countriesor TM5 ID list participant countries.They've

been very interested in how USPTO handlesnon-traditionaltraditional marks, includingsound and scent.TheyThey don't know how tohandle the non- visually perceptible marks, sowe're helping with that.However, on a less positive note, atroubling issue in Chile that I wanted to flagfor you is a recent food labeling law thataffects trademarks in Chile.Chile issuedregulations concerning the labeling ofnutritional composition of food products.Under the law, when a food product exceeds thespecified limits of sodium, sugar, calories,saturated fats, then such products cannot beadvertised in a way that targets childrenunder 14 years of age, such as advertising onproducts in schools and certain forms of mediaor through children's products.Due to theambiguous implementation of the regulations,images and characters that were being used astrademarks--Tony the Tiger, the M&M guys-they're being caught up in this advertisingban.TheThe regulations have now resulted

in the producers of these goods being requiredto alter their packaging by removing thetrademark characters.If not removed, thosegoods cannot be sold and they are blocked onimportation.CertainlyCertainly, we are alarmedby this.This is very much in line with theinfant formula discussion that we had severalmeetings ago.We're currently working withthe U.S. government interagency--this is USTR,State, HHS, and others, and the U.S. Embassyin Chile--to seek clarification onimplementation of the new food labelingregulations.We're raising concerns about thenegative impact on trademarks.In Peru, we have a new attachéposted in Lima covering the Andean region,that's Ann Chaitovitz.OPIA.She also was fromSimilar to other IP offices, we have anMOU with Peru on office to office cooperation.We'reWe're currently renewing it for anotherthree years.We're focusing on this increasedoffice collaboration.We've done IP roadshowsin Peru, and we've shared information on

trademark examination quality initiatives.In Columbia, we have had a greatrelationship there for a long time.They'vebeen an active participant in the TM5 ID ListProject.And, by the way, we're alsoextending invitations to Peru and Brazil forthe TM5 ID List.Columbia was of course oneof the first Latin American countries to jointhe Madrid Protocol.We've provided a lot ofexpertise in that process as they wereacceding to it.Other areas ofcollaboratingcollaborationcollaborationincluded providing training on examination ofnon-visual marks and certification marks.Now, let's turn to Mexico, CentralAmerica, and the Caribbean.Reves is our attaché.In Mexico, ToddWe have a positiverelationship, of course, with Mexico.Werenewed the MOU on cooperation with INPI, theMexican IP Office, last year.You may haveheard that Mexico recently established atrademark opposition system.We were in closeconsultations with them on that.We hadindicated to them how the TTAB operated and we

participated in various seminars in Mexico.We provided information to INPIINPI on theU.S. experience in Madrid when Mexico was inthe middle of its own implementation.Mexicohas been an active participant since 2011 onthe TM5 ID List Project.They've been votingon proposals and making submissions.And, of course, bad faith filingscontinue to be an issue, not only in Mexicobut everywhere.We're continuously sharinginformation as to how we handle such mattersand are raising concerns with the relevant IPgovernment authorities as appropriate whencases are brought to our attention.In Central America, we've beendealing a lot with geographical indicationsissues because there was a recent tradeagreement between Central America and the EU.That has raised a lot of concerns for ourdairy industries.For example, in Costa Ricawe've been working with USTR colleagues to getclarification on how Costa Rica will treatgeographical indications consisting ofcompound names.An example, Provolone

Valpadana.We want to make sure that anyindividual generic component, likeprovoloneprovolone, remains freely availablefor all producers to use.But, of course, we know overly broadprotection for GIs has resulted in loss ofexport markets for U.S. producers, and for thedairy industry in particular.They're nolonger able to export goods to those countriesthat are implementing the EU's version of GIprotection, this overly broad protection.But, of course, we're continuing to work tokeep our export markets open.Also in Costa Rica, we providedtrademark examination training on geographicsigns to try and help with this effort.We'vehad similar exchanges on GI issues with the IPoffices and trade officials in Honduras,Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.Now, in the Caribbean we've providedtrademark examination training to countrieslike Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and theBahamas.In addition, this is kind ofinteresting, we've been collaborating with

WIPO providing guidance on efforts to developa regional trademark examination manual.don't have one.TheyWIPO is devoting some timethere and asking for our help in developing aregional one.The manual will be a first stepto harmonize trademark examination and policyin the region with these small offices.Of particular positive news, webegan to engage with Cuba and their IP office,OCPI, this past year for the first time in 50years.These engagements were mainly toestablish an initial contact and beginpreliminary and informal exchanges ofinformation, mainly on office organization andgeneral examination procedures.Whilelimitations on full engagement andcollaboration still existexist, we hope thatthese preliminary engagements will lay afoundation for additional and more fruitfulexchanges.So, that concludes your tour ofLatin America for today.But one final pointI wanted to emphasize, we have a very closecollaboration between our IP attachés on the

ground around the world and the OPIA trademarkteam members.The IP attaché does not work ona trademark matter in the region withoutsomeone from the trademark team here directingor scripting the attaché's engagement with aforeign government.We collect informationfrom our IP attachés about problems that U.S.companies are having in various regions, andthen we devise and implement regional actionplans for addressing those systemic problemsin foreign trademark regimes.So, we would encourage you toconsult with us here at headquarters or withthe attachés regarding problems that you'rehaving around the world so we can get a bettersense of where we should be focusing ourefforts.Now, we are looking more at systemicissues, not individual office actions orindividual cases.But if there is a pat

attorney and an examining attorney. She has served as a chair of the Trademark Relations Committee for AIPLA, and has chaired INTA and D.C. Bar Association trademark committees. Then we have Lisa Dunner over here to my right. This is her first term. She is founder and managing partner for a D.C. firm called Dunner Law. She practices trademark,