9 September2026. Bounded acquisition CLOSED. Five official originals retained; no accounts, applications, list searches, list entries, API calls, operational actions or outreach. No case/atlas/ZIP/current-work/forest edits. This packet establishes a distribution mechanism and its published limits; an actual PIPCU IWL feed into WIPO was not established.
The [current public landing page](http[local research file] says authorized bodies in member states supply lists of websites/apps assessed under national rules. WIPO distributes the information, does not itself determine infringement, and directs listing concerns to the national agency. Advertisers, agencies and technical providers can apply to use aggregated lists in automated advertising systems. This is WIPO's undated public description as observed today, not a finding that every listing rests on a final judicial judgment.
The [public user FAQ](http[local research file] gives actual gatekeeping choices. WIPO may examine a genuine advertising business before approving access. Users can select particular contributors/countries rather than every list; contributors can refuse particular users, although access to all lists is the stated default. Manual download and API access are described. The user agreement is summarized as confining use to preventing misplaced advertising, with best-endeavours confidentiality. Access is currently described as free; this is not evidence of a subsidy amount or paid contract. Contributors remain responsible for accuracy. A described facility notifies contributors when another list deletes a site present on multiple lists. That does not establish automatic deletion from every list or restoration of advertising. No executed agreement, current versioned contractual schedule, recipient refresh deadline or tested runtime was acquired.
[WIPO/ACE/14/9](http[local research file] is prepared by the Secretariat. The current landing links it as its explanation of the original BRIP Database project. Paragraphs9–14 describe contributor Letters of Understanding and user agreements, contributor-controlled lists, advertiser eligibility screening, and retained national review/appeal rights. The inclusion definition is a contributor's reasonable suspicion of deliberate infringement or facilitation, including outside the contributor's territory; WIPO presents itself as a distributor. Paragraph12 describes prompt contributor updates when a national entry is removed. Paragraph20 says advertising users cannot add/remove entries. Paragraph22's automated ad-suppression sequence is the preferred implementation, not proof any named recipient deployed it. Paragraphs25–27 describe the2019 startup/test-data stage, not current adoption counts.
This is the important distinction: a national classification can acquire cross-border commercial reach through a shared feed without becoming a WIPO adjudication. Whether a particular recipient must or chooses to suppress an ad still needs its own applicable instrument. The platform is described as voluntary cooperation; that does not establish that every recipient faces no separate legal or contractual duty.
[WIPO's contributor-supplied operating-procedures page](http[local research file] undated and observed9September2026, provides two useful contrasts. Brazil's table describes rightsholder evidence/notice with a five-day comment opportunity, CCP assessment, SFI approval and CNCP upload. An operator may seek review for an incorrect listing or changed conduct; the stated analysis period is60days. Removal depends on the specified authorities' review. The underlying executed cooperation agreement and proof of these safeguards in a case were not acquired. Its separate reference to domestic circulation to payment intermediaries must not be treated as WIPO advertising-user permission to freeze bank accounts.
Japan's table identifies CODA, an association formed at the instance of Japanese ministries, using member-company/association data and updates approximately every two months. Its own list is also called the Infringing Website List (IWL). The table supplies criteria but no detailed operator-appeal mechanism. CODA's IWL is not PIPCU's IWL. The presence of this association also prevents simplification of every contributor into a government ministry. Neither table's dated/undated operating summary proves current execution of every step.
The2019 framework paragraph3 describes PIPCU's IWL as a national precedent: rightsholder evidence verified by police, then shared via a portal. The FAQ likewise cites a2017 OperationCreative effectiveness claim as rationale. Neither passage says PIPCU signed a contributor agreement, uploaded its list or supplied an ongoing WIPO feed. The currently posted procedures page has eight country headings and none for theUK, but it is not established as an exhaustive or current roster. Its omission does not prove non-participation.
Before acquisition, reused retained2019 IPO report scoped text (../pipcu-resources-wave-2026-09-09/referral-delivery2019.scoped-derived.txt, OperationCreative section) and the2022 strategy's OperationCreative paragraph in referral-strategy2022.html. They describe IWL distribution to advertisers/brands and industry-intelligence input. They do not identify WIPO as the recipient. This was a narrow reread, not a new audit of those reports or their cumulative outcomes. Root's separate recipient lane and Carver's police lane own named uses and PIPCU process details.
The defensible relation is PIPCU/IWL -> cited precedent for WIPO's coordination project. An operational IWL -> WIPO feed remains OPEN. A signed contributor LoU, official dated admission/upload account or a named recipient's explicit feed provenance would change that result. Co-appearance in a blocklist discussion, a shared acronym, or access to both systems does not.
Candidate typed relations, not case additions: WIPO -> advertising users [access approval]; national contributors -> national lists [classification and maintenance]; contributor -> selected user [data-access permission/refusal]; user -> selected national lists [selection]; WIPO -> aggregated distribution service [resource provision]; user -> advertising-placement system [permitted purpose, implemented use requires separate evidence]; affected operator -> national contributor [review route]; national removal -> contributor WIPO update [dated prescribed process]; cross-list removal -> other contributors [published notification capability]. Keep notification, actual propagation and downstream restoration as distinct states.
The most consequential missing public instruments are a current versioned user agreement/LoU, a cross-border correction/removal propagation requirement, and an exercised correction showing what recipients did after an entry changed. No WIPO-wide challenge tribunal or compensation obligation was found in the finite inspected sources; national remedies remain source-specific. This does not claim that no additional contractual instruments exist.
Exact discovery URL: [WIPO Webcast, Advisory Committee on Enforcement,4June2026 afternoon](http[local research file] Search result title was WIPO Webcast; the URL identifies the session/date. A displayed search extract attributes to a WIPO speaker an update describing WIPO ALERT Pay, a reported pilot with rightsholders/payment providers and movement into development. The full webcast/transcript and underlying report were NOT opened/read, the video was not watched, no original was captured, names/figures/stages were not verified, and no fact or case edge is promoted from it. It is a candidate for the next forest because payment distribution might differ materially from the ad-user agreement. It must not be folded into the present WIPO ALERT rules.
AllfivecapturedURLs returned200 on one ordinary publicGET each. Manifest wipo-captures.json records exactURLs, acquisitiontimes, bytecounts, hashes and derivative ancestry. No source-access failure needed recovery in this lane.
wipo-index.html — SHA256 39f87737f0633818b2d726aeb24d24081f3883e0d394afad88b37870f1b930dc. Complete substantive public landing text from title through roles/warning/procedures link read via official reader; original DOM inspected for project source href. No database search/API/form/video used. Undated page observed9September2026; latest visible news dates are not publication dates for the page.
wipo-faq.html — SHA256 ba3e517615565ef9f865343b45c10698b00bbc17ae24c1481568392bf1bef5f9. Complete substantive FAQ read, including eligibility, listselection/contributoraccess, useagreement/confidentiality/freeaccess, accuracydisclaimer and crosslistdeletionnotice. Undated public account; not an executed useragreement.
wipo-procedures.html — SHA256 ab8bb5196d50f0d5664438cd7059020565e056f77e16c383e8d831966f7b7e3f. Country heading inventory inspected; complete Brazil and Japan tables read directly from original. Other country tables not systematically reviewed. These are contributor-supplied summaries hostedbyWIPO, not underlying executed agreements or complete currentnationallegalaudit. Undated; historical officeholder details not promoted ascurrent.
wipo-project-index.html — SHA256 a07fe913e2a571051127031b3a6e2b4ed17cbf5f9d56d8f5c7d27ac06ac13d6f. Documentcode/title/publicationdate/preparedbySecretariat/Englishlink verified; navigation not substantive. Publication18June2019.
wipo-project2019.pdf — SHA256 103b26be0b382778579688a170db1078f24d462301e50dfef18b56168827f535. Entire8-page substantive text read from officialreader and directoriginalPDF extraction, including background/PIPCUprecedent, paras6-27, LoUs/UserAgreements, sitesofconcern, appeals/updates, country/list controls and testdata/currentstatus. Embedded UI screenshots/figures not independently visually inspected. Source date18June2019; documented design/reportatthatdate, not evidenceofcurrentruntimeexecution.
Discovery was limited to two initial officialWIPOqueries for rules/agreements, followed by three targeted questions for UK/contributor/appeal joins. Their results led to the current pages and the projectdocument linked byWIPO itself. The 2025EUIPO discussionpaper, Ukraine legislative accounts, WIPO2026report/webcast, secondaryblog and academic results were discoveryonly and did not become findings. No wholesale globalIP survey or underlying national statute/appeal-case acquisition was attempted. Fulltext extraction is not proof of visual inspection or runtime execution. Acquisition closed pending combinedforest.