Enforcement Directive

Last updated

Directive 2004/48/EC
European Union directive
Flag of Europe.svg
TitleDirective on the enforcement of intellectual property rights
Made by European Parliament & Council
Made underArt. 95
Journal referenceL157, 2004-04-30, pp. 32 – 36
L195, 2004-06-02, pp. 16 – 25
History
Date made2004-04-29
Came into force2004-05-20
Implementation date2006-04-29
Preparative texts
EESC opinionC32, 2004-02-05, p. 15
Reports 
Other legislation
Replaces—
Amends—
Amended by—
Replaced by—
Current legislation

Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (also known as "(IPR) Enforcement Directive" or "IPRED") is a European Union directive in the field of intellectual property law, made under the Single Market provisions of the Treaty of Rome. The directive covers civil remedies only—not criminal ones.

Contents

Under Article 3(1), Member States can be censured in the European Court of Justice if their civil procedures on the infringement of intellectual property rights are "unnecessarily complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted delays". Otherwise the Directive harmonises the rules on standing, evidence, interlocutory measures, seizure and injunctions, damages and costs and judicial publication.

Subject-matter and scope

The Directive requires all Member States to apply effective, dissuasive and proportionate remedies and penalties against those engaged in counterfeiting and piracy. [1] Thus, the purpose of the instrument is to regulate enforcement of intellectual property rights, not the rights themselves. The Directive leaves unaffected the substantive provisions on intellectual property, international obligations of the Member States and national provisions relating to criminal procedure and criminal enforcement.

The subject-matter of the Directive is defined in Article 1. It applies to enforcement of intellectual property rights which include industrial property rights. The scope of the Directive is defined in Article 2. It applies to all infringements of IP rights in Community and national law, without precluding more stringent protection that the Community or national law may otherwise grant.

The general obligation in the Directive is to provide for remedies necessary to enforce intellectual property rights. [2] These shall be "fair and equitable" and must not be "complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted delays". They must furthermore be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and must not act as barriers to trade.

The persons who are entitled to apply for the remedies are primarily the holder of intellectual property right, but also any person authorised to use it, such as licencees and intellectual property rights. [3] Collective rights management and professional defence bodies may also have the right under certain circumstances. [4]

Evidence

Section 2 of the Directive deals with the evidence. Article 6 gives the power to the interested party to apply for evidence regarding an infringement that lies in the hands of the other party to be presented. The only requirement is for that party to present "reasonably available evidence sufficient to support its claim" to courts. In case of an infringement on a commercial scale, Member States must also take steps to ensure that "banking, financial or commercial documents" of the opposing party are presented. In both cases confidential information shall be protected. [5]

Measures for preserving evidence are available even before the proceedings commence. Article 7 provides that such measures may be granted under the same conditions as under Article 6 and include provisional measures such as "the detailed description, with or without the taking of samples, or the physical seizure" not only of the infringing goods (such as hard drives) but also materials used in the production and distribution (e.g., French saisie-contrefaçon ). [6] Such measures may be taken "without the other party having been heard, in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the rights holder or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed". [6] These are interlocutory, ex parte and in personam orders known in the English and Irish jurisdictions as Anton Piller orders and in France as "saisie-contrefaçons".

Provisional and precautionary measures

At the request of an applicant, the judicial authorities may issue an interlocutory injunction to prevent an "imminent infringement" of intellectual property rights or to prevent a continuing infringement. [7] In the latter case, the order may be followed with a recurring penalty payment or lodging of a guarantee intended to compensate the rights holder (paragraph a). An injunction can also be issued, under the same conditions, against an intermediary, but these are covered in Article 8(2) of the Information Society Directive and are, in principle, subject to national law.

Apart from the ordinary injunctions of the previous paragraph there also exist the so-called Mareva injunctions in Article 9(2). In common law, these are ex parte and in personam orders used to freeze assets (including bank accounts) to prevent abuses of process. They can be issued as worldwide injunctions, preventing worldwide dispersal. In that case, their effectiveness depends on their in personam character, as a party who is found to be guilty of disposing of assets will be held to be in contempt of court. [8] Like Anton Piller orders, their use is confined mostly to the UK.

Article 9(2) provides that, in the case of an infringement on a commercial scale, judicial authorities may order a precautionary seizure of "movable and immovable property" which includes freezing the bank accounts and other assets. This may only be done if the applicant demonstrates that it is likely that recovery of damages will be endangered. Further to that, documents relating to banking and other financial transaction may be communicated.

Implementation

The provisions of the Directive were due to be implemented in all member states of the European Union by 29 April 2006. However, a number of states have not completed the necessary steps. [9]

The Directive has been implemented into United Kingdom law by the Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006. [10] The Directive has been implemented into Dutch law, [11] and came into force on 1 May 2007. It has been implemented in France on 27 June 2008. [12] The Swedish parliament voted to implement the Directive on 26 February 2009, and it went into force on 1 April 2009. [13]

Criticism

The Directive has been widely criticised for what opponents called a draconian approach similar to the United States' Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). [14] [15] [16] In fact, the criticism was so strong—especially from the telecommunications industry and parts of computer industry—that the original draft was substantially modified. [17] A number of problems still remain in the final document, according to the international civil liberties organisation IP Justice. [18]

Examples of cases wherein the provisions of the Directive have been applied

In the 2007 Princo Corporation, Ltd v Koninklijke Philips Electronics case before the Court of Genoa, Italy, the Dutch company Philips, owner of patents on CD-R technology, requested and obtained an order of precautionary seizure over all Princo's movable and immovable property, including its bank accounts, with a view to ensuring the recovery of damages to be awarded at the end of the liability proceedings. [23]

A judgement in the case of Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC and others v Delta Center A. S. (2016) extends the European Court of Justice's decision in the L’Oréal v eBay 2011 case (relating to online marketplaces). [24] The Tommy Hilfiger case held that under the third sentence of Article 11 of the Directive, operators of physical marketplaces, in this case Prague Market Halls, who sublet pitches to market-traders, may be forced to stop concluding contracts with market-traders selling counterfeit goods within their facilities, in order to prevent infringements of intellectual property rights by the market-traders. [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trade secret</span> Business information kept secret to gain or maintain a competitive advantage

Trade secrets are a type of intellectual property that includes formulas, practices, processes, designs, instruments, patterns, or compilations of information that have inherent economic value because they are not generally known or readily ascertainable by others, and which the owner takes reasonable measures to keep secret. Intellectual property law gives the owner of a trade secret the right to restrict others from disclosing it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Injunction</span> Legal order to stop doing something

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court.

The copyright law of the European Union is the copyright law applicable within the European Union. Copyright law is largely harmonized in the Union, although country to country differences exist. The body of law was implemented in the EU through a number of directives, which the member states need to enact into their national law. The main copyright directives are the Copyright Term Directive, the Information Society Directive and the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Copyright in the Union is furthermore dependent on international conventions to which the European Union or their member states are part of, such as TRIPS Agreement or the Berne Convention.

In English and English-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. This is intended to prevent the destruction of relevant evidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or patent infringements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent infringement</span> Breach of the rights conferred by a patent

Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or selling the patented invention. In many countries, a use is required to be commercial to constitute patent infringement.

Anti-circumvention refers to laws which prohibit the circumvention of technological barriers for using a digital good in certain ways which the rightsholders do not wish to allow. The requirement for anti-circumvention laws was globalized in 1996 with the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Copyright Treaty.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have been acknowledged and protected in China since 1980. China has acceded to the major international conventions on protection of rights to intellectual property. Domestically, protection of intellectual property law has also been established by government legislation, administrative regulations, and decrees in the areas of trademark, copyright, and patent.

The European Union (EU) proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2005/0127/COD) was a proposal from the European Commission for a directive aimed "to supplement Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights ". The directive was proposed on July 12, 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities.

Statutory damages are a damage award in civil law, in which the amount awarded is stipulated within the statute rather than being calculated based on the degree of harm to the plaintiff. Lawmakers will provide for statutory damages for acts in which it is difficult to determine a precise value of the loss suffered by the victim. This could be because calculation of a value is impractical, such as in intellectual property cases where the volume of the infringement cannot be ascertained. It could also be because the nature of the injury is subjective, such as in cases of a violation of a person's rights. The award might serve not only as compensation but also for deterrence, and it is more likely to succeed in serving a deterrence function when the potential defendants are relatively sophisticated parties. Other functions that can be served by statutory damages include reducing administrative costs and clarifying the consequences of violating the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988</span> United Kingdom law

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, also known as the CDPA, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received royal assent on 15 November 1988. It reformulates almost completely the statutory basis of copyright law in the United Kingdom, which had, until then, been governed by the Copyright Act 1956 (c. 74). It also creates an unregistered design right, and contains a number of modifications to the law of the United Kingdom on Registered Designs and patents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 transpose the Information Society Directive "(Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society)",, into United Kingdom law. As such, its main effects are to modify the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c. 48 with minor consequential modifications to other Acts and secondary legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Customs Regulation 3295/94</span>

Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods, or for short Customs Regulation 3295/94, is a European Union regulation modifying the Community Customs Code.

The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property was an independent review of UK intellectual property (IP) focusing on UK copyright law that was published in December 2006. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown commissioned Andrew Gowers to lead the review in December 2005. The Review was published on 6 December 2006 as part of the Chancellor's annual pre-budget report. The review concludes that the UK's intellectual property system is fundamentally strong but made 54 recommendations for improvements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Customs Regulation 1383/2003</span> European Union customs regulation

Customs Regulation 1383/2003, the full title of which is Regulation concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, is a measure passed under Article 133 of the EC Treaty. The provision is designed to protect the intellectual property rights of constituents of member nations.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 is a United States law that increases both civil and criminal penalties for trademark, patent and copyright infringement. The law also establishes a new executive branch office, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electronic Commerce Directive 2000</span> Directive of the European Parliament

The Electronic Commerce Directive in EU law sets up an Internal Market framework for online services. Its aim is to remove obstacles to cross-border online services in the EU internal market and provide legal certainty for businesses and consumers. It establishes harmonized rules on issues such as the transparency and information requirements for online service providers; commercial communications; and electronic contracts and limitations of liability of intermediary service providers. Finally, the Directive encourages the drawing up of voluntary codes of conduct and includes articles to enhance cooperation between Member States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">TRIPS Agreement</span> International treaty on intellectual property protections

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an international legal agreement between all the member nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It establishes minimum standards for the regulation by national governments of different forms of intellectual property (IP) as applied to nationals of other WTO member nations. TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) between 1989 and 1990 and is administered by the WTO.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright infringement</span> Illegal usage of copyrighted works

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defences and remedies in Canadian patent law</span>

A patent holder in Canada has the exclusive right, privilege and liberty to making, constructing, using and selling the invention for the term of the patent, from the time the patent is granted. Any person who does any of these acts in relation to an invention without permission of the patent owner is liable for patent infringement.

Under French law, the saisie-contrefaçon is a means of proof of the infringement and, more generally, any violation of an intellectual property right. This procedure permits the holder of the intellectual property right, upon receiving the authorisation of a judge, to call upon a bailiff to record an infringement. In France, the saisie-contrefaçon is one of the most widely used means of obtaining evidence of the existence and extent of an infringement of intellectual property rights.

References

  1. ↑ Article 3(2)
  2. ↑ Article 3(1)
  3. ↑ Article 4
  4. ↑ Article 4(c) and (d)
  5. ↑ Article 6
  6. 1 2 Article 7.1
  7. ↑ Article 9(1)
  8. ↑ Social Science Research Network – selected case law
  9. ↑ IPEG blog, Summary of the implementation of Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement. of intellectual property rights (the “Directive”) in EU Member States as per October 2006 Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine , Simmons & Simmons, October 2006. [ needs update ]
  10. ↑ Office of Public Sector Information, Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1028, The Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006 Archived 19 May 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  11. ↑ Staatsblad 2007, 108.
  12. ↑ Décret no 2008-624 du 27 juin 2008 pris pour l'application de la loi no 2007-1544 du 29 octobre 2007 de lutte contre la contrefaçon et portant modification du code de la propriété intellectuelle (in French).
  13. ↑ (in Swedish) Justitiedepartementet, Lagändringar angående civilrättsliga sanktioner på immaterialrättens område Archived 4 April 2009 at the Wayback Machine , regeringen.se, 1 April 2009.
  14. ↑ University of Cambridge Association Electronique Libre (AEL) Archived 25 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine
  15. ↑ The Draft IP Enforcement Directive – A Threat to Competition and to Liberty – Ross Anderson, Foundation for Information Policy Research
  16. ↑ SSRN-Intellectual Property Rights in Digital Media: A Comparative Analysis of Legal Protection, Technological Measures and New Business Models Under E.U. And U.S. Law by Nicola Lucchi
  17. ↑ "0309ma". Archived from the original on 12 February 2007. Retrieved 24 April 2007. and
  18. ↑ IP Justice Archived 2 May 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  19. ↑ Ross Anderson
  20. ↑ "ZDNet News". Archived from the original on 16 January 2007. Retrieved 2 January 2007.
  21. ↑ BBC Analysis
  22. ↑ "fipr.org". Archived from the original on 5 December 2006. Retrieved 2 January 2007.
  23. ↑ Orlando, Laura (2007). "'Piracy' provisions under the Enforcement Directive and patent infringement". Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice . 2 (10): 642–643. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpm149.
  24. ↑ InfoCuria, L’Oréal SA and others v. eBay International AG, 12 July 2011, accessed 1 January 2022
  25. ↑ Palmer Biggs IP Solicitors, Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC & Others v Delta Center A.S. - Case C-494/15, judgment 8 July 2016, accessed 1 January 2022
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.