The discussions addressed the concerns of Indonesian IPR consultants about workload and income, as the Madrid Protocol will ultimately enable foreign IPR consultants to enter the Indonesian market. Other issues raised were whether existing Indonesian Trademark laws and regulations could accommodate the change, and resources at the DGIP (infrastructure and HR (examiners)) required to process international registration under the Madrid Protocol system. It was noted that a new Trademark Law that anticipates the Madrid Protocol system is currently being discussed (but has not yet been issued).
Cita Citrawinda highlighted the fact that DGIP has to start dealing with its current problem of around 75.000 back-logged pending trademark applications as of May 2013. Another issue she raised was the setup of DGIP infrastructure such as integrated data base systems, and preparing qualified human resources for the purpose of processing applications, documents and correspondences in foreign languages in particular English, French and Spain – these are the 3 languages that are used in the Madrid Protocol system.
Prof. Philip Griffith shared his experiences in Australia and particularly the impact of ratifying the Madrid Protocol in 2001 – there IP Australia experienced difficulties processing around 10.000 applications received in their first years of Madrid Protocol ratification. A number of other countries also faced difficulties when they signed into Madrid Protocol and entered the system without putting in place: the necessary changes to their domestic trademark laws and regulations, the processes and procedures and work flows for trademark offices, their HR and training, and their trademark attorney professionals.