Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State. I also welcome his words. It was interesting to listen and read what he said.

In response to what Senator Cassidy said about mathematics and science, it was interesting to hear the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland speak about the need for mathematics and science graduates last week, and the figures show there are fewer mathematics and science undergraduates attending university, with an increase in the numbers pursuing arts, business and law degrees. We must encourage more students to study those subjects. Senator Cassidy's suggestion of giving extra points for those subjects at leaving certificate is novel and well worth supporting.

I like what the Minister of State said about the need to ensure we can convert the fruits of our research into saleable products. That is the interesting part. They are saleable and there are some great successes. I can think of two such developments I mentioned previously — Senators Cassidy and John Paul Phelan talked about others. One is a development from Trinity College, chaired by Dr. Patrick Cunningham who is the chief scientific adviser. The company is called IdentiGEN and it uses DNA technology to identify the ability to trace animals right back to source at birth. It is usually used for beef but can be used in a much wider way. The product is now being sold in the United States. Another idea which is being sold very successfully in the United States is from a company from Cork called Nualight which provides modern refrigeration lighting. Both were developed from research which took place in universities and are well worth supporting.

I mentioned Dr. Patrick Cunningham. Dublin will be the European City of Science in 2012. I know the Minister of State is fully behind that and it is something we must support and encourage because it can put us to the forefront of where we are going.

Mr. Charles Handy, in 1992, said: "Business today depends largely on intellectual property, which resides inalienably in the hearts and heads of individuals." Mr. Lester Thurow, an American management professor went so far as to suggest in 1997 in an article in the Harvard Business Review that intellectual property rights have become more important than manufacturing products or dealing in commodities. It is fair to say that knowledge is the key to the creation not only of business wealth but also, to a much wider extent, of national wealth.

The recent trend of UK companies moving to Ireland appears to have been prompted in part by the British Government proposals raised last year to change the taxation of UK firms' overseas earnings, in particular passive income such as intellectual property rights. It shows, in some way, the importance many businesses are now placing on intellectual property rights.

It is a major issue, particularly given the massive number of fake goods coming into Europe. The EU reports that 80% of these fake goods were made in China. India has also built up an industry which produces the vast majority of fake pharmaceutical products. In 2006, seizures of such products rose by almost 400%.

I am surprised at the situation in Europe. I was in Italy last year and could not believe the range of fake products being sold. They were being sold openly and there did not seem to be any steps being taken to control the situation. There seem to be European Union regulations and rules which apply in some countries but not in others. I have even heard of instances where the Chinese fakes are so convincing that electronic goods have an EU energy efficiency label and safety stickers on them.

Intellectual property rights are key to our competitiveness. Europe has repeatedly said it needs to see much better protection of intellectual property rights in emerging economies, especially in China and Russia. This is crucial to Irish companies doing business in such countries. We are now seeing China responding to these concerns. It no longer wants to be branded as the world's number one counterfeiting country for such products.

There is an interesting recent case in Ireland regarding intellectual property rights, which is the case of Irish Distillers Limited v. Cooley Distillery plc and is very important to the subject of intellectual property rights. It illustrated that even where a look-alike product is clearly branded with a name that is quite different from the brand it is copying, this may not be enough to defend an application for a temporary injunction where the overall visual impression is very similar.

In the Cooley case, Irish Distillers, which produces Jameson, was granted an injunction preventing Cooley Distillery from using labels on its St Patrick brand that were judged to be so similar to Jameson labels as to lead customers to believe the St Patrick whiskey was part of the Jameson family of products. A lawyer from Matheson Ormbsy Prentice Solicitors said:

This decision highlights the risk of a court restraining the sale of a look-alike product even where the look-alike features a highly distinctive trademark element or brand name of its own, where the product appearance is similar and the method of consumer choice could lead to confusion. From a brand owner's perspective, this decision may make it easier to bring successful temporary injunction applications in respect of look-alike products going forward. For those designing look-alike products that will be sold on supermarket shelves, care must be taken that including a distinctive brand name is not the only distinguishing feature they rely on.

This case shows how businesses now have the power to stop this more subtle type of copying and intellectual property right infringement. It also shows that businesses must be aware that there if there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public between two labels on a product, then a court may grant an injunction against that product. It is a very significant progression for the area of intellectual property rights in this country and shows how importantly we take any infringement of these rights.

Ireland, as part of the European Union, has a major part to play in progressing these rights, particularly in developing economies. Therefore, I welcome what the Minister of State said today and the areas he covered, which he did very well. I can remember when legislation on this issue passed through the House in 2000 and 2006. The Bills took a long time to pass because we took an in-depth look at the issues.

The legislation has been very successful and has placed us at the top and in a high regard for those considering investing here because it has the possibility of being able to protect their investment rather than their losing it as might otherwise have happened. I am pleased to hear the Minister of State's words today. We cannot do any more than encourage him to continue along the line he is going and strengthen the legislation, if it is possible to do so.