OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Close This Box!

If they are practical, presumably they are intended to achieve something -- and they are non-legislative there's presumably no need to go through all the hoops imposed by judicial scrutiny. So what are these measures? The IPKat clears his throat and reads:

"The European Commission today [14 September] adopted a Communication on enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market. The Communication sets out a series of practical initiatives to respond to the dramatic and damaging effect that counterfeiting and piracy is having on EU economies and on society in general [How curious that 'economies' and 'society' are mentioned, but not 'rights owners' -- it's almost as though IP is a public resource, like water or fuel, rather than private property]. The Commission is proposing to complement the existing legal framework by more focused enforcement through greater collaboration between the private sector, national authorities and consumers, throughout the internal market.

Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said: " The EU is home to some of most successful businesses in the world [and to some of the least successful. So what?] who consider intellectual property rights to be amongst their most precious commercial possessions. Intellectual property rights encourage innovation and creativity which results in an essential cycle of business development, knowledge, further innovation and employment [Anotherstandard recitation]. They also offer consumers a reassurance that the products and services they buy are legitimate, reliable and above all safe. Unfortunately, there are always those who will seek to undermine honest intentions. We need to stop this dangerous trend not by more legislation, but by mobilising stronger collaboration helping us to fight back [Is it really "Not A but B?"  Is there no scope for "Both A and B"? The former is taken as axiomatic]".

Intellectual property rights are a cornerstone of a creative, competitive, wealth-generating, knowledge-based society. Counterfeiting and piracy undermines this position, placing creators, business, jobs and consumers at ever-growing risk through fake products and services that pose a real threat to health and safety [Is the IPKat imagining things, or have the same sentiments just been expressed in the previous paragraph].

The Commission aims to ensure a highly efficient, proportionate and predictable system of enforcement of intellectual property rights, both within and outside the internal market. [Yes, but ...] The current legal framework provides the tools to enforce intellectual property rights in a fair, effective and proportionate way [This rather implies that the current law is fine. No Criminal Enforcement Directive after all, the Kat presumes. And the Commission must be so very, very pleased with the outcome of the ECJ's Class International and Diesel/Montex case law, which guarantees the safe passage of fake and dangerous products over and across the territory of the EU, free from the meddlesome interference of those busybody IP rights owners, so tactlessl disenfranchised in the first paragraph of this missive].

Complementing legislation, the actions in this Communication aim to:

* support enforcement through a new EU Observatory on counterfeiting and piracy which will bring together national representatives, private sector experts and consumers to work to collect data on and analyse the scope and scale of the problem, share information, promote best practices and strategies, raise awareness and propose solutions to key problems [What will this achieve which hasn't been achieved by the past two decades of watching, talking, lobbying, fact-finding, policy-shaping etc between organisations representing rights owners, enforcement agencies etc? Other than to spend more time and resources flying round Europe and eating meals at the consumers' expense, that is];
* foster administrative cooperation across Europe by developing coordination to ensure that more effective exchanges of information and mutual assistance can take place. As a result, Member States are called to designate National Coordinators. An electronic network for information sharing will also need to be available [So long as the Commission doesn't regard information-sharing between victims of infringement as anti-competitive and so long as we can cope with the red-tape of data protection].
* build coalitions between stakeholders to overcome conflicts and disputes, by developing collaborative voluntary arrangements that focus on concrete problems, such as the sale of counterfeit goods over the internet [This assumes that these unspecified voluntary arrangements between stakeholders will be effective against counterfeiters, who will presumably cooperate with them], and are capable to adapt quickly to changing markets and technology. Such agreements can also be more easily extended beyond the EU and become the foundation for best practice at global level.

The Communication results from the Commission's IPR Strategy for Europe adopted last year and builds upon the recent Council Resolution on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan".

The IPKat feels singularly depressed at the thought that this is the best we can come up with.  Merpel goes one step further. Imagine, she says, that the reader of this statement is not a legitimate stakeholder but a trader in counterfeit and pirate products: would such a person not feel assured and comforted by this assortment of pious and waffly sentiments?