{"id":243193,"date":"2020-01-27T03:24:36","date_gmt":"2020-01-27T08:24:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=243193"},"modified":"2020-01-27T03:24:36","modified_gmt":"2020-01-27T08:24:36","slug":"ph-delisted-from-eus-priority-counterfeit-watchlist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/01\/27\/ph-delisted-from-eus-priority-counterfeit-watchlist\/","title":{"rendered":"PH delisted from EU\u2019s priority counterfeit watchlist"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_128651\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-128651\" style=\"width: 960px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/philippines-1195394_960_720.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-128651\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/philippines-1195394_960_720.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"960\" height=\"640\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/philippines-1195394_960_720.jpg 960w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/philippines-1195394_960_720-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/philippines-1195394_960_720-768x512.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 960px) 100vw, 960px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-128651\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">This is the first time the Philippines was delisted from any Priority category. Years prior to 2015, the Philippines was listed in Priority 2 category. (Pixabay photo)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><strong>MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0&#8212; The Philippines is no longer in the priority watchlist of European Union (EU) in terms of threat to its intellectual property rights (IPR), a biennial report of the European Commission shows.<\/p>\n<p>European Commission has released its biennial watchlist titled the \u201cReport on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries\u201d that removed the Philippines from Priority 3 category due to &#8220;very few complaints received from stakeholders and the increase in the relative importance of other countries for EU right holders&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>The priority counterfeit watchlist ranks economies based on the level of concern and threat to EU\u2019s IPR holders, with Priority 1 being the biggest threat and Priority 3 as the least concerning.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Due to the few complaints, IPR holders in EU only deemed it strategic to put the Philippines aside and give more importance in looking after other countries that have an increasing potential to let loose on counterfeiting and piracy activities,&#8221; Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) officer-in-charge Teodoro Pascua said in a statement.<\/p>\n<p>This is the first time the Philippines was delisted from any Priority category. Years prior to 2015, the Philippines was listed in Priority 2 category.<\/p>\n<p>Pascua said the latest report of the European Commission reflects the success of the National Committee on Intellectual Property Rights (NCIPR) to curb piracy and counterfeiting in the country.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNCIPR officials and officers are committed to going after IPR violators, finding it a meaningful duty to protect the country from the sabotage counterfeiting and piracy brings to an economy, culture, and overall national progress,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MANILA\u00a0&#8212; The Philippines is no longer in the priority watchlist of European Union (EU) in terms of threat to its &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":128651,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-business","mauthors-kris-crismundo","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243193","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=243193"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243193\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":243194,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243193\/revisions\/243194"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/128651"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}