This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 005497 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB, EB/TPP/MTA/IPC AND EUR/SE 
DEPT PLEASE PASS USTR FOR BPECK/LERRION 
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/DDEFALCO 
DEPT PASS LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
DEPT PASS USPTO FOR ATTORNEY-ADVISOR MICHAEL SMITH 
DOJ FOR TRIAL ATTORNEY ANDREA SHARRIN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD KIPR TU
SUBJECT: U.S. - Turkey Workshop Focuses Judges and 
Prosecutors on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement 
 
 
Not for Internet Distribution. 
 
Ref:  Ankara 2335 
 
¶1.  Summary:  The September 9 and 10 "Workshop on 
Effective Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in 
the U.S. and Turkey" exposed Turkish judges and 
prosecutors to the U.S. IPR enforcement system, 
highlighted the concerns of U.S. and Turkish 
rightholders, and raised public awareness by generating 
favorable media coverage.  The European Union Affairs 
General Directorate of the Justice Ministry has prepared 
an action plan for improved IPR enforcement as a result 
of the conference.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  The Turkish Justice Ministry, the U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office and the Embassy collaborated on a 
workshop on effective enforcement of intellectual 
property rights (IPR) on September 9 and 10.  The 
principal audience, 37 Turkish judges drawn from 
Turkey's seven specialized IPR courts and 6 prosecutors 
with experience in IPR cases, participated actively in 
the sessions. 
 
¶3.  Key participants in the conference included:  the 
Ambassador and Justice Minister Cicek, who delivered 
opening remarks; Michael Smith, Attorney-Advisor, United 
States Patent and Trademark Office; Marvin Garbis, 
United States District Judge; Andrea Sharrin, Trial 
Attorney, United States Department of Justice; and Dr. 
Ayse Saadet Arikan, Director General for EU Affairs, 
Ministry of Justice. 
 
¶4.  In the opening session, the Ambassador highlighted 
recent positive steps on copyright and trademark 
enforcement in Turkey (reftel), stressing that this was 
a key element of Turkey's effort to attract foreign 
investment.  The Justice Minister emphasized that IPR 
protection is necessary to encourage creativity and 
would support technology transfer and greater FDI in 
Turkey.  Both speeches were picked up by local print 
media, and these themes were further elaborated in a 
media interview given by Smith and Garbis on September 
¶10. 
 
¶5.  The workshop included panels on Turkey's specialized 
courts; comparison of U.S. and Turkish methods of 
prosecution and of the roles of the judiciary in each 
country; a mock hearing on a request for interim relief; 
a fact pattern on civil, criminal and judicial issues; 
and an IPR industry panel.  This last panel included 
speakers from:  AMPEC (representing certain motion 
picture rightholders); the Brand Protection Group 
(selected trademark holders); the Business Software 
Alliance; Mu-YAP (music producers affiliated with IFPI); 
and EDISAM (publishers).  We believe this panel, along 
with a reception hosted by the Ambassador during the 
conference, gave industry useful opportunities to 
educate judges and prosecutors as to their enforcement 
concerns.  There was a particularly useful discussion 
during this panel on difficulties in securing search 
warrants and injunctions against pirates and 
counterfeiters. 
 
¶6.  We have received positive feedback from the Justice 
Ministry, and based on discussions that took place 
during this workshop, the Ministry has developed a plan 
of action for strengthening IPR enforcement.  Dr. Arikan 
told Econ Specialist that the Ministry has shared this 
action plan with the Turkish Patent Institute, the 
Finance Ministry Revenue Department, the Customs 
Undersecretariat, and the Police and Justice Academies. 
Dr. Arikan said the most important action item was a 
Justice Ministry decree which would require the 
prosecutors to notify Tax Crime Information Directorates 
about court decisions in IPR cases.  The Ministry's plan 
of action also includes the following measures: 
 
-- Expanding the specialized IPR courts' scope to cover 
unfair competition, commercial secrecy and know-how; 
 
-- Reviewing industrial property legislation to make 
individuals as well as organizations liable to 
penalties; 
 
-- Continuing training of judges and prosecutors, as 
well as law enforcement officers on IPR issues; 
-- Including more IPR information in the Justice 
Ministry's web page; 
 
-- Budgeting funds to rent warehouses for seized 
products, which would minimize the risk of a custodian 
concealing evidence; 
 
-- Opening the lines of communication to associations 
representing the right owners in IPR seminars, on 
condition that the judicial independence is maintained; 
 
-- Issuing a decree requiring prosecutors to notify Tax 
Crime Information Directorates about court decisions in 
IPR cases.  This would trigger an inspection into tax 
evasion by convicted pirates and counterfeiters. 
 
Edelman