VZCZCXRO9733
PP RUEHDBU RUEHLN RUEHSK RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHKV #0776/01 1281543
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 081543Z MAY 09
FM AMEMBASSY KYIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7765
INFO RHMFIUU/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHSF/AMEMBASSY SOFIA 0057
RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KYIV 000776 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EB/TPP/IPE (TRMCGOWAN/JURBAN) AND EUR/UMB 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USTR FOR PBURKHEAD/JGROVES/RBAE 
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/OIPR - CPETERS 
USDOC FOR 4231/ITA/OEENIS/NISD - CLUCYCK 
COMMERCE PLEASE PASS TO USPTO AND CLDP 
SOFIA FOR MLAMBERTI 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD KIPR ECON UP
SUBJECT: SPECIAL 301 DEMARCHE: UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
HIGHLIGHT KEY IPR PROBLEMS 
 
REF: STATE 42733 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED; NOT FOR INTERNET PUBLICATION. 
 
¶1. (U) Deputy Econ Counselor informed the GOU on April 29 
that Ukraine would remain on the Watch List in this year's 
Special 301 Report.  We delivered reftel points to 
Volodymyr Dmitrishin, Acting Chairman of the State 
Department of Intellectual Property (SDIP, Ukraine's 
coordinating agency for IPR issues), and Valentin 
Chebotaryov, SDIP Deputy Chairman. 
 
¶2. (U) Dmitrishin and Chebotaryov expressed their 
appreciation for our bilateral cooperation on IPR issues. 
Chebotaryov said that, while the GOU had not accomplished 
everything it had hoped, there had been real progress on 
IPR enforcement in recent years, as the Special 301 process 
demonstrated.  The GOU reps made substantive remarks on the 
following issues: 
 
Internet Piracy 
--------------- 
 
¶3. (U) Chebotaryov asked for continued USG assistance and 
cooperation to tackle internet piracy, which he described 
as a priority for Ukraine.  Chebotaryov said he thought 
there needed to be an amendment to current laws in order to 
ensure that internet service providers (ISPs) could be held 
legally responsible for hosting pirated material. 
 
Courts 
------ 
 
¶4. (SBU) Chebotaryov identified the courts as a continued 
source of problems on enforcement.  He said that SDIP's 
inspectors (who are quasi-law enforcement officials and do 
inspections at large markets) were almost never satisfied 
with the rulings handed down by judges in their cases. 
Dmitrishin added that SDIP was still encouraging the 
Supreme Court to hold a plenary session devoted to IPR, and 
internet piracy in particular.  (Comment: The lack of clear 
guidance from the Supreme Court has long been a problem for 
judicial enforcement of IP rights.  We continue to 
encourage the issuance of such guidance in appropriate 
fora, such as USG-funded IPR workshops for judges.  End 
comment.) 
 
Physical Piracy 
--------------- 
 
¶5. (U) Chebotaryov expressed concern that the current 
economic crisis in Ukraine would drive more consumers to 
(cheaper) counterfeit goods.  He also said SDIP was 
frustrated that some rights holders continued to manage 
their Ukraine business through Moscow, making it harder for 
Ukrainian authorities to get the documents they needed to 
prosecute piracy cases. 
 
Software 
--------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Chebotaryov recognized that the GOU had not done 
enough to legalize its own software and expressed SDIP's 
commitment to addressing the problem, noting that SDIP was 
trying to lead by example by ensuring that 100 percent of 
its own software was legal.  Chebotaryov described the 
problem as a "budget issue" and said that, due to the 
government's budget crisis, progress would not come 
quickly.  He added that SDIP was developing a guide for 
businesses to help them ensure that their software was 
legal. 
 
Holograms 
--------- 
 
¶7. (U) In response to our points on the need to improve 
Ukraine's hologram sticker program for optical discs, 
Chebotaryov said SDIP was committed to increasing the 
system's transparency, in particular by allowing rights 
holders access to all hologram applications.  Chebotaryov 
promised that SDIP would continue to work closely with 
 
KYIV 00000776  002 OF 002 
 
 
industry to make these changes. 
 
Organizational Issues 
--------------------- 
 
¶8. (U) Dmitrishin noted that SDIP was examining possible 
institutional changes to improve IPR enforcement, and asked 
for more information on our National Intellectual Property 
Rights Coordination Center, which could serve as a model 
for Ukraine.  (Comment: We have already provided some 
background info on the IPR Center.  We should also look for 
a future opportunity for SDIP leadership to discuss 
organizational issues with an ICE official from the IPR 
Center.  End comment.) 
 
TAYLOR