The Governmental Communications Office issued a statement today, in response to the statement of the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property, on the ruling issued by the World Trade Organization in which it said that the Kingdom violated its obligations under the agreement of the organization on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS Agreement), and that it failed to protect Intellectual property rights when it refused to take measures against piracy carried out by the “B out Q” channel from Saudi Arabia, and above that it supported and encouraged this piracy.
In his statement, the Governmental Communications Office said:
The State of Qatar confirms that the statement issued by the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property on Tuesday, June 23, includes a series of incorrect allegations about the results of the ruling issued by the WTO dispute settlement committee in its report titled: Saudi Arabia – Procedures related to the protection of property rights Intellectual (DS567).
These false allegations are part of a systematic Saudi campaign that seeks to promote misleading information and divert attention from the actual results of the report of the WTO Conflict Resolution Committee, and this is not the first time that Saudi Arabia has resorted to these methods instead of taking the necessary measures to combat the theft of intellectual property rights And you hack it.
It is worth noting that the ruling issued by the Dispute Resolution Committee is published on the organization’s website and is available to the public for review, as the ruling concluded that Saudi Arabia had failed to protect intellectual property rights, and it must correct its measures to bring them in line with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
In response to the misleading information contained in the Saudi statement, the report of the Conflict Resolution Committee indicated the following:
The report of the WTO Dispute Resolution Committee concluded that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with the exception of national security, does not justify the violation of its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). In addition, the committee concluded in its report that “Saudi Arabia’s failure to take criminal measures against B.O. (Report of the Committee, Paragraph 7.293).
o Despite the conclusion of the dispute resolution committee that the “emergency” condition – one of the necessary conditions for invoking the defense of national security according to the “TRIPS” agreement – was present, this is due to Saudi behavior, particularly its decision to cut ties with the State of Qatar and repeat its false allegations About “terrorism and extremism”. The Conflict Resolution Committee concluded that Saudi allegations were not supported, and stated in its report: “The committee reserves reservations about expressing any position – whether public or implicit – regarding any of these allegations, and the committee noted Qatar’s absolute rejection of the allegations issued by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the committee’s report, Paragraphs 7.262 and 7.263)
o The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the only member state in the World Trade Organization whose organization has refused to invoke it to defend its national security in order to escape its obligations (Commission report, paragraphs 7.294 and 8.1 (c) (ii))
The dispute resolution committee found no exception to justify the failure of Saudi Arabia to take criminal measures against B.O.Q (Commission report, paras. 7.286 and 7.288)
o The dispute resolution committee considered that “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has taken measures that have directly or indirectly prevented the BN channel from obtaining legal advice in Saudi Arabia to protect its intellectual property rights by filing a civil lawsuit before the Saudi courts, which is inconsistent with Articles 42 And 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement (Report of the Committee, Paragraph 8.1 (b) (i)).
o The report of the Conflict Resolution Committee concluded that “Saudi Arabia has not taken any criminal measures against B out Q despite the evidence confirming the operation of B out Q by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which confirms that Saudi Arabia has acted in a manner contrary to Article 61 of TRIPS Agreement (Report of the Committee, Paragraph 8.1 (b) (i)).
In fact, the committee noted that “in addition to the failure to take any criminal measures against B out Q, the Saudi authorities have been involved in sponsoring public rallies accompanying unofficial Bout Q offers for the 2018 World Cup matches” (Commission report, paragraph 7.219).
The committee concluded that “BN and international rights holders have repeatedly sent detailed information to the Saudi authorities to brief them on piracy activities for B outQ, in addition to a broad body of evidence confirming the operation of B outQ by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (Commission report , Paragraph 7.219).
o The dispute resolution committee indicated in its report that the aforementioned information was sent to the Saudi Ministry of Information and the Audiovisual Public Authority from 2018, that is, with the start of piracy activities by B.O. It should be noted that the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property was not established until 2019.
o I or any of the international rights holders have not received any correspondence from the General Authority for Audiovisual Media, noting that complaints should be addressed to the Saudi Intellectual Property Authority or to any other Saudi authority.
The Saudi authorities issued a statement confirming their commitment to “doing their part” to end the piracy of intellectual property rights. If this is true, Saudi Arabia should accept the results of the report issued by the Dispute Resolution Committee and take corrective action immediately. Unfortunately, however, we conclude from Saudi Arabia’s statement that it has not yet been considered one of the findings and judgment reached by the committee in its report, and it appears that it is continuing with the same approach it has taken on B-Q in the past.