EU trade ministers communicating ACTA

The trade ministers met in the EU Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) 16 March 2012 (agenda). According to the background note:

Under “any other business” the Council will be briefed on the situation regarding the signature and ratification of the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) between the EU and Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States.

ACTA is aimed at establishing an international framework for improving the enforcement of intellectual property right laws and creating improved international standards for actions against large-scale infringements of intellectual property. Negotiations were concluded in November 2010.

We know that few issues have engaged as many EU citizens as intensely as the anti-piracy treaty ACTA, so we want to share with the public what Mr Didier REYNDERS, Mr Ivo MARINOV, Mr Martin TLAPA, Ms Pia Olsen DYHR, Ms Anne Ruth HERKES, Mr Matti MAASIKAS, Mr Rory MONTGOMERY, Mr Ioannis DRIMOUSSIS, Mr Konstantinos PAPADOPOULOS, Mr Jaime GARCÍA-LEGAZ PONCE, Mr Pierre LELLOUCHE, Mr Ferdinando NELLI FEROCI, Ms Praxoula ANTONIADOU-KYRIACOU, Mr Daniels PAVĻUTS, Mr Egidijus MEILŪNAS, Mr Christian BRAUN, Mr Péter GYÖRKÖS, Mr Tonio FENECH, Mr Henk BLEKER, Mr Walter GRAHAMMER, Mr. Andrzej DYCHA, Mr Miguel MORAIS LEITÃO, Mr Mihnea MOTOC, Mr Rado GENORIO, Mr Peter JAVORČÍK, Mr Jan STORE, Ms Ewa BJÖRLING and Mr Norman LAMB were able to come up with together with the commissioner, Mr Karel DE GUCHT, in order to enlighten the people:

The Council took stock of the situation regarding the signature and ratification of the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) between the EU and Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States.

ACTA establishes an international framework for improving the enforcement of intellectual property right laws and creating improved international standards for actions against large-scale infringements of intellectual property. Negotiations were concluded in November 2010 and the agreement was signed by the EU and 22 member states in Tokyo on 26 January 2012.

On 22 February, the Commission decided to refer ACTA to the Court of Justice to verify its compatibility with the EU treaties and in particular with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Quite enlightening!



Ralf Grahn
public speaker on EU affairs

P.S. The multilingual Bloggingportal.eu already aggregates the posts from 941 Euroblogs. They represent an important part of the emerging European online public space, discussion across national and linguistic borders. One of the most promising fresh entrants is the LSE European Politics and Policy EUROPP blog, where Ronny Patz recently wrote about the EU blogosphere and called for more specialists and academics to widen the debate closer to real life.

Among the Euroblogs on Bloggingportal.eu you find my current blog trio, Grahnlaw (recently ranked fourth among political blogs in Finland), the Nordic Grahnblawg (written in Swedish) and Eurooppaoikeus (meaning European Law, in Finnish). I write and speak about democracy and openness in the European Union, but increasingly about the challenges of growth (EU2020) and the (digital) single market in the making.

ACTA text in 22 languages - Soon a million protesting online

The Anti-Counterfeiting (and much else) Trade Agreement #ACTA is a hot subject on Twitter and the online public sphere in general. Different campaigns aim at defeating the treaty. A short while ago @Avaaz had reached 963,079 online signatures on a global petition for the European Parliament to reject the treaty negotiated between the European Union and the governments of a number of states. (Thousands were added during the writing of this blog entry.)

In the United States a petition to submit ACTA to the Senate for approval had gathered 4,699 signatures, but a total of citizens 25,000 are needed by 21 February 2012 to qualify for an official response.

Some of the assertions made about ACTA, the final text signed and open for signatures, are pretty wild. On the other hand, governments stubbornly excluded the public and built a vast pool of distrust and resentment. Official information has tended to be one-sided, highlighting only positive effects.

Yesterday I collected links to a number of my blog posts in Finnish, Swedish and English about information society legislation issues, including ACTA and copyright, in one Grahnlaw entry. ACTA raises fundamental questions about the relationships between (democratic) governments and the governed.

If you wade through the #ACTA Twitter stream you can find useful assessments, even real gems, regarding the content and effects among the more hyperbolic assertions.


ACTA text in 22 languages

Getting the facts straight would be a good start for those who are still open to reasoned arguments. Beacause of the international character of the debate, one helpful place to go to is Eur-Lex, the legal portal of the EU, where you find 22 language versions of the ACTA proposal and treaty.

Here is the English version:

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America

As the depository, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan offers a note on the signatories to date, as well as other information about its efforts to protect intellectual property internationally.

Through the Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament Oeil you can follow the procedure 2011/0167(NLE) at European level.

The IPEX register with national procedures in EU member states is not very helpful, so here other information sources are needed: media, activists and official.



Ralf Grahn

P.S. Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator of euroblogs, is the hub for the national and thematical blogospheres at the European level, including issues about the information society and online media.

ACTA update (in part)

In October 2011 I wrote a blog post Greens challenge ACTA legality. The two proposals from the Commission (DG Trade) had been published in June. They are:

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the signing, on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 379 final; procedure 2011/0166 (NLE)

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 380 final; procedure 2011/0167 (NLE)

COM(2011) 380 is available in 22 official EU languages. Thus, the text of the annexed agreement is available in most of the European languages.


Formal adoption


As an 'A item', without discussion, the Council (Agriculture and Fisheries, 15 December 2011) adopted a decision to authorise the signing of ACTA:

3137th Council meeting Agriculture and Fisheries; Brussels, 15-16 December 2011 (document 18708/11)

You find the text on page 43, under the headline TRADE POLICY:

Anti-counterfeiting trade agreement

The Council adopted a decision authorising the signing of an anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) with Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States.

ACTA is aimed at establishing an international framework to improve the enforcement of intellectual property right laws and create improved international standards for actions against large-scale infringements of intellectual property. Negotiations were concluded in November 2010.

According to the Legislative Observatory Oeil, the issue of approval of ACTA by the European Parliament is still at a preparatory stage (although for a while the Oeil and committee pages have been impossible to access).



Ralf Grahn

IPR protection: ACTA opinions USA and EU

After the signing ceremony blog post ACTA signed – EU deaf-mute and arguments by proponents in IPR protection in world trade: ACTA signed, we turn to recent and varied opinions about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the quest for more stringent protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) in international trade.


Information Society Project

Margot has posted a note on the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, wondering if ACTA is unconstitutional in the United States as a Sole Executive Agreement.

The post links to four articles, among which Infojustice.org and Techdirt are the most recent ones.


Infojustice.org

Sean Flynn, on Infojustice.org, discusses the Constitutional problem in the USA. Can ACTA be implemented by the executive, or does it need approval by Congress? The post links to a number of articles arguing the need for Congressional consent and doubting if the ACTA provisions are consistent with US law.

The post also discusses potential approval or ratification problems in the European Union and Mexico, with links to detailed opinions and sources.


Techdirt

Ahead of the signing ceremony, Techdirt ran a story with links to a number of articles regarding Constitutional concerns in the United States and EU views corroborating that ACTA is an international treaty. According to the article, intellectual property is clearly a Congressional issue.


USTR

Official US views are expressed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), which was diligent enough to post three news items during the weekend.

Partners Sign Groundbreaking Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, with a link to the USTR ACTA ”fact sheet”

ACTA: Meeting U.S. Objectives

Joint Press Statement of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Negotiating Parties

Due to the lack of recent active information from EU institutions and services, the USTR serves European and other readers as well:

Representatives of the European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland attended the ceremony and confirmed their continuing strong support for and preparations to sign the Agreement as soon as practicable. All participants expressed their firm resolve to work cooperatively to achieve the Agreement’s prompt entry into force, and to support actively its goals.

Ralf Grahn

ACTA signed – EU deaf-mute

According to The Mainichi Daily News the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was signed today, Saturday 1 October 2011, at the Iikura Guest House in Tokyo, by most of the eleven international partners.

Through the web pages of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA) we find the text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (May, 2011; 24 pages)

According to MOFA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was opened for signature on 1 May 2011.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan had announced that it will hold the signing ceremony for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on Saturday, 1 October 2011, at Iikura Guest House, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ahead of the ceremony MOFA reminded that:

The negotiation has been carried out among Australia, Canada, the European Union and its Member States, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States, and reached a general agreement at the negotiation meeting held in Japan in October 2010, followed by the completion of technical and translation work in April 2011.

The signing ceremony will be attended by the representatives of all the participants in the ACTA negotiations, and those that have completed relevant domestic processes will sign the agreement. The agreement is open for signature until May 1, 2013.

European Union

Even if the European Union was only to attend the signing ceremony, not yet to sign ACTA, I would have expected the European Commission's DG Trade, trade commissioner Karel De Gucht, the European External Action Service (EEAS), the Delegation of the European Union to Japan and the Council of the European Union to be sensitive enough to inform the public about the controversial agreement and the next steps ahead of the event in a visible and active manner.

Nada.



Ralf Grahn

European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy

The Commission aims to ensure that a truly efficient and proportionate system of enforcement of intellectual property rights exists, both within and outside the internal market, said the press release of 14 December 2009 (IP/09/1919).



IPRED




Already the European Union already has the directive known as IPRED in place, providing for the (civil) measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights (including industrial property rights):


DIRECTIVE 2004/48/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights


(The corrected version of this text with EEA relevance was published in the Official Journal of the European Union 2.6.2004 L 195/16.)



European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy




However, the European Commission is far from content with progress this far.

Last Spring, the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy was created to spread the best enforcement techniques to combat infringements of intellectual property rights.

Little public information of substance exists about the Observatory, but it is administered by the Commission’s internal market services and designed to join national public officials as well as representatives of IP rights holders experienced in IPR enforcement (designated as stakeholders).

Despite token consumer representation, citizens, consumers and net users, especially youth, mainly seem to have been cast into the role of receivers of awareness and education campaigns.



This meeting report from the sub-group on the legal framework, by the European Communities Trade Mark Association (ECTA), sheds some light on representation and work within the Observatory. The consumer representative (BEUC) was not present, but the following were represented:

Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP; ICC), Union des Fabricants (Unifab, the French anti-counterfeiting and IPR protection association), Istituto di Centromarca per la lotta alla contrafazzione (Indicam; Italian anti-counterfeiting association), the Motion Picture Association, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the Business Software Alliance (promoting IPR protection for the software industry) and (national) representatives of the Global Anti-Counterfeiting Group (GACG) Network.


There is nothing wrong in business associations lobbying openly for their interests during the process of creating regulation, but it becomes problematic when one angle – increasing and enforcing monopoly rights - becomes the driving force behind the public EU Commission machinery, which is supposed to shape balanced rules taking all interests into account.

With an input mechanism totally dominated by IPR enforcement interests, there seems to be practically no real voice for citizens, net users or consumers with an interest in the free flow of information.

The same pattern is discernible in legislative initiatives in EU member states such as France, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Good public policy should build on the markets as much as on the marketeers.




Ralf Grahn

EU IPR enforcement discussion

The Grahnlaw blog post EU enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) and ACTA (10 January 2010) mentioned some of the materials for understanding the current moves to enhance IPR enforcement:




IPRED: Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, as published with corrections in the Official Journal of the European Union 2.6.2004 L 195/16




The Commission's Communication of 11 September 2009 on enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market1; COM(2009) 467 final (12 pages)



EU Conference on Enforcement of IPR




On 15 to16 December 2009 the Swedish government arranged an EU Conference on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (11 December 2009).





Additional information is available through the web page of the Swedish presidency of the Council of the European Union: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, with a Special Focus on Trademarks and Patents (15 December 2009), especially the links to fourteen presentations made in Stockholm by:


Richard D. Heath, Stefan Johansson, Annette Kur, Benoît Lory, Konstantinos Rossoglou, Alvydas Stancikas, Anamaria Stoia, Thierry Sueur, Anne-Charlotte Söderlund, Birte Timm-Wagner, Dariusz Urbanski, Erling Vestergaard, Susanne As Sivborg ja Luc Pierre Devigne.


Even if these are mainly PowerPoint presentations, mainly consisting of bullet points, they offer basic information about legislative and non-legislative actions; internal market, customs and international trade efforts; the agendas of different stakeholder groups etc.





These were all part of the background for the discussion today on the draft Council Resolution on enhancing IPR enforcement (document 5022/10) we mentioned in the earlier post.





Ralf Grahn




P.S. The different language versions of the webzine Le Taurillon are part of an active effort to describe and to improve the European Union from the viewpoint of its citizens. The articles of Le Taurillon (in French) / The New Federalist (in English) / Eurobull (in Italian) / Taurin-Magazin (in German) appear together with blog posts of more than 500 great euroblogs, listed on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, a useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, policies, economics, finance and law.

By the way, euroblogs are an excellent means to brush up your foreign language skills while learning about our common challenges.

ACTA: Whose Digital Agenda for Europe and the world?

The mysterious ways of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiators raise questions about whose Digital Agenda is being pursued. The lack of transparency results in growing mistrust. Here is a sample of recent texts about the problems for citizens and consumers in the digital era.






The Washington Post, Rob Pegoraro: Copyright overreach goes on world tour (15 November 2009)




P2PNet, Jon Newton: ACTA: epic fail (31 December 2009)





Europolitics, Marianne Slegers and Dafydd ab lago: Internal market – Patents and European private company top agenda (4 January 2010)





Googland, Mistique Cano: First 2010 Google D.C. Talk on ACTA: the global treaty that could reshape the Internet (5 January 2010)




The Sheaf, Andrew Olsvik: ACTA puts Canadian copyright law at risk (6 January 2010)




O’Reilly Radar, Andy Oram: The fate of WIPO, ACTA, and other intellectual property pushes in the international economy (6 January 2010)




Wired, David Kravets: Senator Demands IP Treaty Details (7 January 2010)




Christian Engström (in Swedish): Bono har rätt om fildelarjakten (8 January 2010)




Michael Geist: Legislators Worldwide Asking Questions About ACTA (8 January 2010)




The Command Line, Thomas Gideon: Another Senator Writes USTR about ACTA (8 January 2010)




P2PNet.net News: Unlock ACTA secrets, legislators demand (9 January 2010)




Numerama, Julien L. (in French): L’ACTA inquiète de plus en plus de parlementaires dans le monde (9 January 2010)




Bigwobber, Brenno de Winter (in Dutch): De onderhandlingen over ACTA (11 January 2010)



What is the consequence of secrecy? It clearly says that they don’t trust us. Why should we trust them?




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Out of Lightbox displays stunningly beautiful photos by Mehraj Anik, the latest from New Years Eve.

Cross-border communications are easier than ever: More than 500 great euroblogs are listed on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, a useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, policies, economics, finance and law.

EU ACTA addenda

In addition to the blog post EU enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) and ACTA (10 January 2010), there is at least one document I would want to bring to the attention of interested EU citizens, with regard to the trade aspects of intellectual property rights (IPR). It was only cursorily mentioned in a quote in the previous post:



COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IPR Enforcement Report 2009; SEC(2009) 1360.



Some see dangers well beyond pirated and counterfeit goods in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which is possibly near completion without detailed information being available to the public.




The Swedish blogger Henrik Alexandersson has written a post on what he sees as the dangers for democracy: ACTA: En fråga om själva demokratin (10 January 2010).




Ralf Grahn



P.S. James Clive-Matthews is one of the “grand old men” of the euroblogosphere, mentioned by Margot Wallström in her blogging testament. His blog, Nosemonkey’s EUtopia is listed among the more than 500 great euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, a useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, policies, economics, finance and law.

EU enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) and ACTA

The enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) is high on the agenda of the European Union, both in the internal market and in the EU’s external trade.



On Wednesday, 13 January 2010 the Council’s Working Party on Intellectual Property (document CM 1019/10) meets to discuss for a preliminary exchange of views on a Draft Council Resolution enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market, based on a proposal by the Spanish presidency.





The draft Council Resolution on enhancing IPR enforcement (document 5022/10) is a valuable source with references for those who want an overview of actions in force, decisions taken and measures planned in order to combat counterfeiting and piracy, as well as to protect existing business models based on intellectual property rights.


Among the 39 points on the six pages, the draft agrees with the principal lines of action put forward by the Commission, and the Council is expected to adopt i.a. the following proposals:

• The Commission to further define and fulfill the scope of competences of the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy, supporting its activity through existing institutional structures and through the Enforcement Committee mentioned below.


• The Commission to consolidate cooperation with and between Member States through the creation of an IPR Enforcement Committee, encompassing the IPR Enforcement Directive contact points, Member States' representatives to the Observatory and designated National Coordinators.


• The Commission, in close collaboration with the Member States, to analyze the application of the Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including an assessment of the effectiveness, of the measures taken and, while taking account of the rapidly developing digital environment, if necessary propose appropriate amendments.



Commission proposal



The underlying preparatory document is the Commission's Communication of 11 September 2009 on enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market1; COM(2009) 467final (12 pages)

The Commission set the tone for the debate by offering the following conclusions (page 11):

By providing incentives to create, innovate and trade, intellectual property rights are one of the cornerstones of a competitive, wealth-generating, knowledge-based society. IPR infringements cause widespread economic harm and an increasing number of counterfeit products now pose a real threat to consumer health and safety. It is therefore in the interest of stakeholders and consumers alike to have a responsive enforcement system which is robust, proportionate and fair.

The Commission seeks to ensure this by complementing the existing regulatory framework with non-legislative measures to make for more collaborative and focused enforcement across the Internal Market, in particular by:

• supporting enforcement through an EU Counterfeiting and Piracy Observatory;

• fostering administrative cooperation throughout the Internal Market;

• facilitating voluntary arrangements between stakeholders.

The Commission is convinced that these measures will significantly strengthen the fight against counterfeiting and piracy, in the common interest of European citizens, business and the economy as a whole.

Since the non-legislative Commission proposal does not require codecision by the European Parliament, the Legal Committee is preparing an own-initiative report, and it has nominated Marielle Gallo (PPE) as rapporteur; procedure number INI/2009/2178.



ACTA



The external aspect of the matter is the pluri-lateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) being negotiated.



ACTA will be discussed on 12 January 2010, but sadly the European Union has not made the relevant document 17779/09, dated 23 December 2009, available to the public.




The Commission’s 2nd Implementation Report for the Community Lisbon Programme 2008 – 2010 COM(2009) 678 final offers us the following crumbs (page 12):

Continued action is being taken to improve the effectiveness of the IPR enforcement system against counterfeiting and the negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) are now well advanced. In October 2009, the Commissioned issued a report on intellectual property rights (IPR) infringement which targets countries for closer cooperation in the field of IPR enforcements and combating infringements.

The United States Trade Representative USTR has published a 6 page summary on 6 November 2009: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - Summary of Key Elements Under Discussion.

Although the summary starts by mentioning the proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods in international trade as an ever-increasing threat to the sustainable development of the world economy (page 1), it appears on page 4 that rights in the digital environment are included in the scope under discussion:

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in the Digital Environment

This section of the agreement addresses some of the special challenges that new technologies pose for enforcement of intellectual property rights. Elements under discussion in this section include the availability of remedies:

- in cases of third party liability, without prejudice to the availablity of exceptions and limitations;

- related to infringing material online, including limitations on the application of those remedies to online service providers;

- related to the circumvention of technological protection measures, including the availability of exceptions and limitations;

- related to the protection of right management information, including the availability of exceptions and limitations.

To conclude this blog post, we quote the written question E-6094/09 by Christian Engström MEP (Greens-EFA; Pirate Party SE) on 4 December 2009:

Subject: ACTA negotiations and Telecoms Package principles

In the recent agreement on the Telecoms Package it was decided that no measures restricting end-users’ access to the Internet may be taken unless they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society — and never without a prior, fair and impartial procedure that includes the right to be heard and respects the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy.

Are the proposals currently being discussed in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations fully in line with the letter and the spirit of these provisions in the Telecoms Package? If not, when and how will the Commission redress any incompatibilities?

Ralf Grahn



P.S. Netzpolitik.org is a blog and a political platform for freedom and openness in the digital era. Netzpolitik.org (in German) is listed among the more than 500 great euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, a useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, policies, economics, finance and law.

European Counterfeiting and Piracy Observatory launched

The European Counterfeiting and Piracy Observatory was duly launched 2 April 2009. The Commission has now published some additional information on the aims and organisation of the Observatory (Frequently Asked Questions; MEMO/ 09/146).



***

Council’s anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan

The Observatory is part of the European Union’s actions, put into context by the 25 September 2008 Resolution of the Competitiveness Council on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan.



***

EU Customs Action Plan to Combat IPR Infringements 2009-2012

A short while ago we noted another part of the European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan, Council Resolution 2009/C 71/01 of 16 March 2009 on the EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2009 to 2012, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 25.3.2009 C 71/1.



***

Industrial property rights

The Council Resolution, in turn, was based on the Commission’s Communication An Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe (Brussels 16.7.2008; COM(2008) 465 final), dealing with patents and trademarks.



***

Community Trade Mark Regulation

Readers may have noticed the recast Community Trade Mark Regulation, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 24.3.2009 L 78/1. Officially, this text with EEA relevance is called:

Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version).


Ralf Grahn

European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy

On 2 April the Commission of the European Communities is going to launch a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy. This is a new step in the European Union’s fight against fake goods, illegal downloading and other infringements of intellectual property rights (IPR).

The launch takes place at the second High Level Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy, with presentations by industry interests and enforcement agencies.

For more information, see the Commission’s press release (30 March 2009, IP/09/497), including links to the conference programme and the OECD study Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy.


Ralf Grahn

EU customs cooperation: IPR infringements

European Union customs cooperation against counterfeiting and piracy has advanced one step with the new EU customs action plan to combat infringements of intellectual property rights (IPR) for the years 2009 to 2012.


EU Customs Action Plan to Combat IPR Infringements 2009-2012

The new programme strives to take into account the growing threat posed by counterfeit goods to health and safety and to the environment, as well as the latest trends in the area of counterfeiting and piracy, especially with regard to the new challenges posed by the globalisation of world trade and Internet sales.

Council Resolution 2009/C 71/01 of 16 March 2009 on the EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2009 to 2012 has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 25.3.2009 C 71/1.


Ralf Grahn

Euro banknotes and coins If: Protecting the euro

Protecting the euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting is a demanding task for the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Eurosystem.

We look at the legal framework for the protection of the euro.

***

Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, OJ 4.7.2001 L 181/6, aims to protect the euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting. The provisions have effect in the member states which have adopted the euro as their single currency.

***

Council Regulation (EC) No 1339/2001 of 28 June 2001 extending the effects of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency, OJ 4.7.2001 L 181/11, strives to offer the euro the same level of protection in the member states outside the euro area as inside.

***

The Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 6 October 2006 on the adoption of certain measures to protect euro banknotes more effectively against counterfeiting (ECB/2006/13), OJ 25.10.2006 C 257/16, suggested amendments to and common action under Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001.

***

Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 7 July 1998 regarding the adoption of certain measures to enhance the legal protection of euro banknotes and coins (ECB/1998/7), OJ 15.1.1999 C 11/13, sought to discourage misleading euro tokens and the like before the launch of the euro.

***

The Guideline of the European Central Bank of 7 July 1998 on certain provisions regarding euro banknotes, as amended on 26 August 1999, established the Counterfeit Analysis Centre (CAC) and the counterfeit currency database (CCD) of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB).

Under the aegis of the ECB, the CAC was intended to centralise the technical analysis of and data relating to the counterfeiting of euro banknotes issued by the ECB and the NCBs.

All relevant technical and statistical data concerning the counterfeiting of euro banknotes was centrally stored in the CCD.


A consolidated version (26.3.2003) is available at:

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/ecb_1999_3_consolidated_en.pdf

The Decision of the European Central Bank of 8 November 2001 on certain conditions regarding access to the Counterfeit Monitoring System (CMS) (ECB/2001/11), OJ 20.12.2001 L 337/49, renamed the Counterfeit Currency Database (CCD) as the Counterfeit Monitoring System (CMS), and the decision set out detailed provisions concerning the CMS.


***

The European Central Bank has concluded agreements with Europol and Interpol.

The stated purpose of the Agreement between the European Police Office (Europol) and the European Central Bank (ECB) (2002/C 23/07), OJ 25.1.2002 C 23/9, is to provide for effective cooperation to combat the threats arising from counterfeiting of the euro, and to enhance and coordinate any assistance to the national and European authorities and to international organisations.

The purpose of the Cooperation Agreement between The European Central Bank - ECB – and The International Criminal Police Organisation – INTERPOL (2004/C 134/06), OJ 12.5.2004 c 134/6, is to establish a framework for cooperation between the Parties facilitating the prevention and detection of the counterfeiting of euro banknotes throughout the world, in particular in countries not belonging to the European Union.

***

The ECB has published a Template Agreement between the European Central Bank and the (acceding country national central bank), OJ 9.7.2003 C 160/7, the purpose of which is to enhance the cooperation between the parties in the areas of prevention and detection of counterfeiting of euro banknotes.


Such agreements have been concluded with the national central banks of six newish member states: Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia.

The agreements are available at:

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/1004/1019/html/index.en.html


Ralf Grahn