eNews
IPR Policy expected to speed up clearances
NEW DELHI: Trademark pendency, which is at three months, is expected to come down further to one month by March 2017 following the shifting of the Intellectual Rights Property portfolio to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion.
Trademarks filing increased by around 10 per cent and Trademark examination increased by around 250 per cent during FY16 till November as compared to FY15.
A comprehensive National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policy was adopted for the first time in May 2016 to lay future roadmap for intellectual property. The aim was to improve Indian intellectual property ecosystem, hoping to create an innovation movement in the country and aspires towards “Creative India; Innovative India.”
This becomes relevant in view of the large number of cases pending in courts on copyright and the emergence of newer vehicles where software can be used, including smartphones and OTT.
The objectives of this policy are to increase IPR awareness; stimulate generation of IPRs; have strong and effective IPR laws; modernize and strengthen service-oriented IPR administration; get value for IPRs through commercialisation; strengthen enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms for combating IPR infringements; and to strengthen and expand human resources, institutions and capacities for teaching, training, research and skill building in IPRs.
Subsequently, a Cell for Intellectual Property Rights Promotion and Management (CIPAM) has been created as a professional body which will be working under the aegis of DIPP for addressing seven identified objectives of the Policy.
During 2016, India signed memorandums of understanding in the field of Intellectual Property signed with U.K, Singapore and the European Union. An India-US Workshop was held on Protection of Trade Secrets organized by CIPAM.
DIPP Secretary Rajiv Aggarwal had recently said India’s IP framework was in the midst of a paradigm shift following the announcement of the National IPR Policy.
Aggarwal said while the Department was spearheading the overall policy, specific recommendations listed in the policy were being taken up for action by concerned ministries and departments.
Also Read
Govt launches IPR toolkit for enforcement agencies
Copyright Force finally here to fight online piracy
India, US should resolve IPR issues at earliest: IACC
eNews
KPMG fines partner for using AI in internal AI exam
Partner fined A$10,000 after uploading training material to AI tool
AUSTRALIA: According to an Australian Financial Review report, a partner at KPMG Australia has been fined A$10,000 ($7,000) for using artificial intelligence tools to cheat on an internal training exam focused on AI itself, underscoring the growing challenges professional services firms face as staff adopt the technology.
The unnamed partner was required to retake the assessment after uploading training material into an AI platform to generate answers. KPMG said more than two dozen employees had been caught misusing AI in internal exams during the current financial year.
KPMG Australia chief executive Andrew Yates, said the firm was struggling to keep pace with the rapid uptake of AI. “Given the everyday use of these tools, some people breach our policy. We take it seriously when they do,” he said, adding that the firm was reviewing safeguards under its self-reporting regime.
The incident adds to broader concerns across the accounting profession. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants last year scrapped remote examinations, citing the growing sophistication of cheating systems. All four Big Four firms have faced penalties linked to cheating scandals across multiple jurisdictions in recent years.
KPMG said it has adopted measures to detect AI misuse and will disclose the number of breaches in its annual results.
The case surfaced during a Senate inquiry into industry governance, where Greens senator Barbara Pocock criticised the lack of tougher consequences. Australia’s corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, said it would not intervene unless disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the profession’s trade bodies.
