We would like to use cookies to ensure we give you the best experience on our website, privacy policy. If you consent to us using cookies, please click on the tick.

FICPI, The International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys

Official Visits

FICPI President at AIPLA Annual Meeting 2018

25/10/2018 | Julian Crump

FICPI President attended AIPLA Annual Meeting 2018 as part of an ongoing collaboration between the two organisations

FICPI President, Julian Crump (UK), attended the AIPLA’s Annual Meeting 2018 last week in Washington DC as part of an ongoing collaboration between the two organisations. FICPI and AIPLA enjoy a long-standing, friendly relationship and invite each other to attend their regular meetings. Growth of FICPI membership in the United States is a particular goal of the recently adopted FICPI Strategic Plan, and while in Washington, Julian took the opportunity to hold brief discussions with Mark Dickson, Chair of the ABA’s IP Law Section to explore how FICPI and the ABA-IPL might deepen their cooperation towards that end. Julian congratulated new AIPLA President, Sheldon Klein, on his election.

Read More

FICPI Membership Growth Efforts

26/09/2018 | Barry W. Graham

President of Membership Commission meets with and presents at Association of IP Firms’ 2018 Annual Meeting in Chicago

A high priority initiative of FICPI’s new Strategic Plan is membership growth.

Read More


12/12/2017 | Dr. Alexander J. Wyrwoll


Dr. Alexander J. Wyrwoll, President of FICPI’s Communications Commission, represented the Federation at the SCP meeting at WIPO’s headquarters in Geneva from 12-14 December 2017, when the topics “Quality of patents, including opposition systems” and “Confidentiality of Communications between clients and their patent advisors” were discussed.

Download PDF WIPO SCP 2017

JPO 2017

01/12/2017 | Julian Crump

FICPI visits JPO and presses need for local representation, procedural simplicity and fair protection for inventors.

FICPI held its annual visit to the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on 1 December 2017 and urged the JPO to support its recommendation to maintain a requirement for local representation for PCT national phase entry applications.

In the context on ongoing Group B+ patent harmonisation discussions, FICPI urged the JPO to resist proposed “DIU” measures that would unduly complicate the patent system. FICPI also challenged the JPO over its approach to double-patenting that can lead to applicants and inventors being prevented from obtaining fair protection for their inventions.

FICPI and the JPO agreed on the need to take account of the requirements of small and medium size businesses and private applicants in relation to a variety of different IP issues.

Download PDF JPO 2017


28/10/2017 | Petter Rindforth

FICPI at ICANN: Arbitration the best dispute resolution system for International Governmental Organizations.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, generic and country code Top-Level Domain name system management (respectively gTLD and ccTLD), and root server system management functions, held its 60th public meeting in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, from 28 October to 3 November 2017.

The focus of this Annual General Meeting was on outreach, capacity building and to showcase ICANN’s work to a broader global audience.

FICPI was represented at this meeting by Petter Rindforth, CET 1 co-Chair in charge of Domain Names.

Among the topics were:

Whois: It is important to find the appropriate balance between individual rights to privacy and ensuring transparency and accountability which serves to keep the internet secure and reliable and helps guard consumers and users against various types of illegal abuse.

Geographical Terms/Names: The geographic name issue most clearly and directly affects companies that have trademarks which coincide with or call to mind some location, landmark, geographical feature or “sensitive term”. The most notable example of this being “Amazon” (the company vs the geographical name), which is still discussed with no final solution.

International Governmental Organization (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) access to dispute resolution systems: Petter Rindforth has been co-chair of this working group since its start in August 2014. The Final Report is now close to being completed, with the following proposed solution:

“Where a complainant IGO succeeds in a UDRP/URS proceeding, the losing registrant proceeds to file suit in a court of mutual jurisdiction, and the IGO subsequently succeeds in asserting jurisdictional immunity, the registrant shall have the option to transfer the dispute to an arbitration forum, meeting certain pre-established criteria for determination under the national law that the original appeal was based upon, with such action limited to deciding the ownership of the domain name. The respondent shall be given 10 days (or a longer period of time if able to cite a national statute or procedure that grants a period longer than 10 days) to either: (1) inform the UDRP/URS provider [and the registrar] that it intends to seek arbitration under this limited mechanism; or (2) request that the UDRP/URS decision continue to be stayed, as the respondent has filed, or intends to file, a judicial appeal against the IGO’s successful assertion of immunity. An IGO which files a complaint under the UDRP/URS shall be required to agree to this limited arbitration mechanism when filing the complaint. If, subsequently, it refuses to participate in the arbitration, the enforcement of the underlying UDRP/URS decision will be permanently stayed. The parties shall have the option to mutually agree to limit the original judicial proceedings to solely determining the ownership of the domain name. Subject to agreement by the registrant concerned, the parties shall also be free to utilize the limited arbitration mechanism described above at any time prior to the registrant filing suit in a court of mutual jurisdiction. In agreeing to utilize the limited arbitration mechanism, both the complainant and the respondent are required to inform ICANN.”

Cookies are required to display this piece of content, please review our cookie consent request (below).