Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) Link to this
I move, That the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill was introduced by the previous Government. It amends the Trade Marks Act 2002 with two clear objectives in mind. The first objective is to ensure that procedures for registering trademarks are aligned with international standards, to minimise regulatory and business compliance costs associated with the protection of trademarks. The bill ensures that trademark registration procedures conform to the international standards set out in the nice agreement—
It was a nice agreement—it was the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks and the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks. Joining these World Intellectual Property Organization treaties is an important step in the process of harmonising our regimes for the protection of trademarks. To further the single economic market with Australia the Ministry of Economic Development is also working with IP Australia to further harmonise our respective trademarks registration procedures not covered by the Nice agreement and the Singapore treaty.
The bill also amends the Trade Marks Act to facilitate the implementation of the international registration regime for trademarks provided for by the so-called Madrid agreement. The aim of the Madrid agreement is to reduce business compliance costs associated with registering trademarks in overseas jurisdictions. Joining the Madrid Protocol will provide New Zealand businesses with the opportunity to have their trademarks protected in up to 84 countries by filing one application, in English, with the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand, and paying one fee.
Hon Rick BarkerOne fee.
The second objective of this bill is to reduce the trade in New Zealand of counterfeit trademarked goods and pirated copyright works. This is particularly timely legislation as we approach the Rugby World Cup and, with it, all the economic opportunities for local producers of merchandise. Counterfeiting and piracy affects the profitability of legitimate businesses, undermines productivity, and threatens the jobs of many honest and hard-working New Zealanders. The bill clarifies that customs officers are able to seize counterfeit goods and pirated works at the border and undertake investigations to gather evidence to enable importers of counterfeit and pirated goods to be prosecuted. Furthermore, the Customs Service will be able to require a person connected with the importation of the goods to produce documents or to appear and answer questions related to those goods. The bill also creates a new enforcement role for the Ministry of Economic Development under the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, enabling so-called enforcement officers to seek and gather evidence to bring criminal prosecutions against counterfeiters and pirates. Enforcement officers will also have—
—not those sorts of pirates—a limited non-warranted search power to enter public places and businesses open to the public, in order to examine and seize illicit goods being displayed for sale.
At this time I thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its consideration of the bill and for its sensible recommendations. These include the insertion of a new clause 13A to clarify section 96(1) of the Trade Marks Act, which provides for no infringement for certain continuous use of an unregistered trademark. The select committee also recommended changes to clause 22A, governing the appointment of the Commissioner of Trade Marks and assistant commissioners, in order to align their functions and powers to their counterparts under the Patents Bill. The Ministry of Economic Development enforcement officers will also be given an additional investigative power to more closely align them with their counterparts in the Customs Service. The select committee recommended that new subsection 134V(1) be amended to give the courts the authority to order seized items found to be infringing to be forfeited to the rights-holders in consistency with the general provisions under section 128 of the Trade Marks Act and sections 134 and 202 of the Copyright Act.
This bill recognises the importance of trademarks as an essential marketing tool for businesses, enabling consumers to recognise their products and services. By providing protection against the unauthorised use of trademarks, the Government is creating incentives for businesses to invest in quality products and services. I commend this bill to the House.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
I have great pleasure in rising to speak on the second reading of the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. I am sure it is a great honour for the Minister of Commerce to finally be delivering the second reading speech given that this bill was introduced by the Hon Judith Tizard on 8 September 2008.
I remind those who are listening, clinging to every word spoken in Parliament this evening under urgency, that this bill was introduced on 8 September 2008. It was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on 7 April 2009, submissions closed on 15 May 2009, and the select committee presented its report on 15 September 2009. This bill is so old that when it went through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee Mr Hayes was twice the size he is now—he is now half the size—and I am twice the size I was then. That is how long ago it is since we put this bill before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.
When we look at the commentary on the bill, it is somewhat odd to see that there was quite a deal of concern—and I recall this in the considerations of the select committee—about the question of some elements being brought into force by Order in Council. In fact, the commentary states: “We accept that these are valid reasons for commencement by Order in Council and urge the Ministry of Economic Development to implement all aspects of the legislation expeditiously.” Well, it has not exactly been an expeditious process. In fact, it has been a very, very slow process. This is not, of course, Mr Power’s area; it is Mr Brownlee’s, and it was his responsibility well before the earthquake lest anyone think I am making any comments on that. This was all in 2009.
So it does seem somewhat odd to be standing here in urgency discussing a matter such as this bill. Of course, on this side of the House we can say that the Labour Party supports the bill. It is a useful bill to, essentially, put in place what New Zealand agrees to internationally.
Jacqui DeanI thank Ms Dean for asking that. The bill allows us to implement the Madrid Protocol, the Nice agreement, and the Singapore treaty. One thing I would note is that if one is an international negotiator in the area of trademarks and copyright, one tends to go to reasonably nice places. I think that is one thing we could deduce from seeing that.
Michael WoodhouseThat is right. We do not see much of the “Khartoum Protocol”, or anything like that do we? It is the Madrid Protocol, the Nice agreement, and the Singapore treaty.
Essentially, as we have already heard, this bill is really about dealing with counterfeiting issues, making sure we have internationally consistent trademark law, and offering an important step forward in making us consistent. It has not been dealt with in the expeditious manner that was previously stated. The second purpose of the bill is to strengthen enforcement. I think it is important to note that the provisions around strengthening enforcement, as already mentioned, were changed by the select committee to be consistent with customs officers.
With those very few words, I can say that the Labour Party is happy to support this bill. It was given thorough consideration by the select committee, and good changes were made. I am happy to commend it to the House.
DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this
I am pleased to take a brief call on the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill, although I am inspired by the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, to perhaps make a more comprehensive statement than I was going to make. Nevertheless, it is nice to stand and support a Government bill, against the trend of the previous few days.
This is very sensible legislation, clearly. It seeks to protect the integrity and the value of New Zealand - designed, manufactured, and produced products, and that is a significant requirement. We are a trading country. I could argue—and I quite often do—that we rely too much on international trade, rather than seeking to meet our needs from our own resources. Nevertheless, we will continue to be a trading nation and, as such, these sorts of agreements are important to us. It is important that we engage with the international community to ensure that to the extent that we can undertake to protect the integrity of its products, it, in turn, will do what it can to protect the integrity of ours.
Trademarks and brands are, of course, significant in terms of the actual market value of a product. As a certain manufacturer of clothing has found to its cost in recent days, a trademark is everything. If one loses public support for that, one has lost a great deal, indeed.
Initially, we saw the sense in this legislation. I am speaking on the basis of my colleagues informing me, because the point has been well made that this bill has taken an extraordinarily long time to get through the House. Our primary concerns—in fact, our only concerns—initially about this draft legislation were issues relating to the enforcement of the conditions and provisions within it by the Ministry of Economic Development.
I am assured that the select committee process satisfied my colleague Mr Locke, who is not an acknowledged champion of excessive powers being assigned to regulatory authorities. On that basis we are very happy to accept that this bill has found the correct balance, and we are happy to support it. Kia ora.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this
I acknowledge Grant Robertson’s comments about the time that it has taken to get the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill back into the House. As a matter of fact, I did query the Minister of Commerce on the very same point and, in all fairness, he explained that he has been extremely busy. I accept that.
The reason this bill is in the House tonight in urgency is that we in the National Government are focused on boosting growth and creating jobs. Only a strong economy can provide financial security for families, real opportunities for young people, safer communities, higher-quality education, and health services for all New Zealanders.
Let me move on from the arcane comments that we have heard from earlier speakers, just to put a little practical bent on this. This bill is hugely important, for example, to Metalcraft Industries in Dannevirke—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that if the member wants to reread the Prime Minister’s speech from the National Party conference, he could just table it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I will not comment on that, but I tell John Hayes that we are actually on a bill about trademarks.
That is why I am talking about Metalcraft Industries in Dannevirke and explaining that it has invented a wheelchair that retails in the United States at $25,000 apiece. If it were not for the possibility of that company getting trademarks and trade protection, there would be no value in research and development for that product, at all. I go further north, to Takapau, where people have invented additions for engines that produce emission-free outputs. They can trademark them, and that is giving them protection, as well.
This trademarks legislation will reduce compliance costs, and the law sends a strong message that New Zealand is not an easy target for illicit trade in counterfeit goods and pirated works. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.