VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKV #0456/01 0591043
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 281043Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY KYIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5096
INFO RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0316
RUEHSF/AMEMBASSY SOFIA 0024

UNCLAS KYIV 000456 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EB/TPP/IPE - JURBAN 
STATE FOR INL - JVIGIL 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USTR FOR PBURKHEAD/JGROVES 
USDOC FOR 4231/ITA/OEENIS/NISD - CLUCYCK 
COMMERCE PLEASE PASS TO USPTO AND CLDP 
SOFIA FOR DOJ - MLAMBERTI 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD KIPR ECON UP
SUBJECT: UKRAINE: IPR ENFORCEMENT TRAINING FUNDS PROGRAM STARTS WITH 
JUDGES 
 
REFS: A) KYIV 404 
 
      B) 2007 STATE 154669 
      C) 2007 KYIV 1452 
      D) 2007 KYIV 1417 
      E) 2007 STATE 55928 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED; NOT FOR INTERNET PUBLICATION. 
 
¶1. (U) Summary: Post, in cooperation with CLDP (Commerce), launched 
a new IPR training initiative -- funded by STATE/INL -- with an IPR 
enforcement workshop for Ukrainian judges February 12-14.  The event 
drew strong participation from 26 judges representing nearly all of 
Ukraine's geographical regions.  U.S. experts provided a broad 
introduction to IP law and facilitated discussion of problematic 
issues faced by Ukrainian judges.  Participants gave high marks to 
the event, and Post intends to continue to focus on the judiciary as 
this training program moves forward.  End Summary. 
 
IPR Training Program Launch 
--------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) Post launched its intellectual property rights (IPR) training 
initiative "Creating a Sustainable Ukrainian IPR Training 
Capability" (ref D) with an IPR enforcement workshop for Ukrainian 
judges February 12-14.  This initiative is part of the State 
Department's 2007 IPR Enforcement Training Funds Program (ref E), 
administered by the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law 
Enforcement Affairs (INL), which has allocated USD 125,000 for 
Ukraine (ref B).  To implement the training initiative, Embassy 
Economic Section is working closely with the Department of 
Commerce's Commercial Law Development Program (CLDP), which is 
taking the lead in organizing the workshops.  This first workshop 
was co-financed by CLDP, with its regular budget funds, and by Post, 
using the INL fund cite provided in ref B.  Post will provide copies 
of all funding documents to INL/RM. 
 
Strong Participation from Judiciary 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) The Ambassador opened the event, which received some press 
attention from business-oriented media outlets.  Participation by 
the Ukrainian judges was quite strong.  A total of 26 judges, from a 
mix of different courts and representing 20 of the country's 24 
oblasts were in attendance.  Mykola Baliuk, Judge of the Supreme 
Court of Ukraine, made several presentations underlining the 
importance of judicial IPR enforcement.  Judge Marvin Garbis, from 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Debora 
Lashley-Johnson, from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and 
Matthew Lamberti, Department of Justice Intellectual Property Law 
Enforcement Coordinator for Eastern Europe, provided expertise from 
the U.S. side.  Representatives of Ukraine's State Department of 
Intellectual Property also took a lead role in delivering the 
training, in itself a goal of the program.  Representatives of 
Ukraine's Ministry of Interior and Customs Service also 
participated. 
 
IPR 101 for Judges 
------------------ 
 
¶4. (SBU) Presentations covered copyright, trademark, and patent law, 
as well as key international IPR enforcement provisions.  Judge 
Baliuk hit on several troublesome topics, for example urging judges 
never to return pirated or counterfeit goods to the infringer, as 
sometimes happens in administrative cases.  The judges also heard 
complaints from law enforcement officials frustrated with the lack 
of severity of sentences handed down in IPR cases and with the need 
to provide detailed, expert analysis for every pirated optical disk 
seized, rather than just a sample.  Some judges, in their turn, 
expressed frustration about the weak financial penalties authorized 
by current law and noted that the Ministry of Justice's State 
Execution Service did not do a good job enforcing court judgments. 
(Note: Ukrainian judges have no statutory authority to enforce their 
decisions.  End note.) 
 
¶5. (SBU) There were lengthy discussions on how judges should 
calculate damages in IPR cases, a tricky matter in Ukrainian law 
(ref C).  Lamberti commented that the Supreme Court could develop 
guidelines to ensure consistency in the lower courts, and several of 
the Ukrainian judges present agreed.  Judge Baliuk held short of 
promising such guidelines, but said that the Supreme Court was 
planning to issue a resolution on IPR as part of its upcoming 
 
Plenary Session to help clarify some procedural questions. 
 
Comment: Targeting Judges Proves Successful 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Post's input for this year's Special 301 Report (ref A) 
identified judicial training as a continued priority.  Post held one 
training workshop for judges, prosecutors, and police in 2007 (ref 
C); this latest workshop was an attempt to expand such training to 
judges from the regions.  Participants gave very positive feedback 
on the workshop, with one judge encouraging us to hold additional 
events for judges in the regions, particularly from courts of first 
instance, as they tend to be less aware of IPR issues.  Embassy is 
working with CLDP to identify priorities for future workshops, and 
judicial training is likely to remain at the top of the list. 
 
TAYLOR