ix w ix ÏX ix 
is vV £ COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 28.01.1998 
COM(1998) 25 final 
98/0018 (ACC) 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 as 
regards border controls on trade in goods which may be counterfeit or pirated 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
amending Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 laying down measures to prohibit 
the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a 
suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods 
(presented by the Commission) 

SUMMARY 
On 22 December 1994 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 concerning the role of 
customs in combating counterfeit and pirated goods. This document puts into effect the 
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement with regard to intellectual property rights. This Agreement 
was one of the results of the Uruguay Round and represents one of the most important 
international treaties in the field. 
Operation of the system 
The main purpose of the Regulation is to allow the customs authorities to suspend customs 
operations in cases where the goods concerned are suspected of being counterfeit or pirated 
goods covered by an intellectual property right (brand or trade mark, design right, copyright or 
neighbouring right) in respect of which the right holder has requested "customs protection". 
During the period of suspension, the right holder may petition the competent national authorities 
(normally the judiciary) to take action on the matter. If there is no referral to the courts, the 
goods are released. 
The system set up by the Regulation has produced some very good results in the field. In the 
two-year period July 1995-June 1997 customs took action in 4 133 cases as compared to fewer 
than 2 000 during the seven and a half years (1 January 1988 to 30 June 1995) of application of 
the previous Regulation. 
Operations were carried out on freight, passenger and postal traffic but the most significant 
cases, in terms of counterfeit goods seized, involved freight. These mainly concerned counterfeit 
trade marks but a growing number of cases has involved goods which infringed copyright, 
neighbouring rights or design rights. Although checks were carried out mainly on imports 
(release for free circulation), they have gradually increased in relation to export, re-export and 
transit operations to the point that they are now producing some very encouraging results in 
those fields too. 
The improvements proposed by the Commission 
Since the results have proved satisfactory, the Commission now proposes to extend the scope of 
the Regulation and modify it to reflect the development of Community legislation on intellectual 
property rights. The improvements envisaged by the Commission have already been favourably 
received by the main trade associations concerned at a meeting in Brussels on 23 July of this 
year. 
The Commission would therefore like to introduce amendments in relation to the following 
aspects: 
* extension of the scope of the Regulation to cover a new intellectual property right, 
i.e. some patents; 
* extension of the customs authorities' scope for action to cover free zones and free 
warehouses and all suspect goods from the moment that they come under 
customs supervision; 
updating (simplifying) the Regulation to take account of the Community trade mark 
(fully operational since 1 April of 1996) through the introduction, for the benefit of holders 
of such marks, of a single system for applying for "customs protection" which is valid in a 
number of Member States. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. The content of Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 
2. The implementation of Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 
3. Statistics on the operation of the system 
4. Trade flows detected under Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 
5. The economic and social impact of counterfeiting 
6. Amendments and additions proposed by the Commission 
(a) Extending the scope of the Regulation to patented inventions 
(b) Extending the scope of the Regulation to all customs statuses 
(c) Updating the Regulation to take account of the Community trade mark 
7. The demands of the trade associations concerned 
(a) Non-commercial imports in travellers ' baggage 
(b) Excluding parallel imports from the scope of the Regulation 
(c) Fees and guarantees 
(d) The cost of destroying counterfeit or pirated goods 
(e) Access to samples 
if) Penalties 
8. Conclusion 
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 has applied since 1 July 19951. 
Article 15 of the Regulation requires the Commission to report regularly to the 
European Parliament and the Commission on the operation of the system, and in particular the 
economic and social consequences of counterfeiting, and to propose, within two years of the 
Regulation's implementation, any amendments or additions required. This communication 
accompanies the report drawn up by the Commission on this subject. 
It takes stock of the first two years of application and contains a list of measures likely not only 
to strengthen the part played by the Regulation in countering counterfeiting and pirating but to 
streamline the administrative procedures necessary for its implementation, thereby benefiting 
holders of certain intellectual property rights. 
1. The content of Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 
1.1. 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 is intended to protect the Community's 
external frontier and applies solely to trade with third countries. It complements 
national machinery for the protection of intellectual property rights. 
1.2. It repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC) No 3842/86 of 1 December 1986 
laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation of counterfeit 
goods2 in order to: 
* extend the protection afforded by customs to other intellectual property rights 
and customs procedures; 
* enhance the effectiveness of the system of customs protection provided for in 
that Regulation; 
* take account of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization 
signed in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994, the annexes to which include the 
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 
(TRIPS), one of the most important international treaties on intellectual 
property3. Part III of the TRIPS Agreement is entitled "Enforcement of 
intellectual property rights" and contains a section on special requirements 
related to border measures (Articles 51 to 60 of the Agreement): Regulation 
No 3295/94 is in conformity with this section. 
1 OJL341, 30.12.1994, p. 8. 
2 OJ L 357, 18.12.1986, p. 1. 
3 Annex lC;OJL 336, 23.12.1994, p. 213. 
1.3. The Regulation entitles the holders of certain intellectual property rights 
(trade marks or brands, copyright and related rights and designs), persons authorized 
to exercise such rights and their representatives to apply to customs to detain or 
suspend the release of suspected counterfeit or pirated goods for a fixed period 
(normally ten days) to give the applicant time to petition the competent authorities 
(normally the judiciary) for a substantive decision on whether the intellectual 
property rights in question have indeed been infringed. In Germany, where the 
customs authorities themselves are competent to take substantive decisions, recourse 
to the judiciary is necessary only in cases where the importer has first appealed 
against the detention measure. 
1.4. Customs may also act on their own initiative, i.e. without a prior application, where 
goods are suspected to be counterfeit or pirated. In this case, the period for which 
release may be suspended or goods detained is shorter (three days), simply 
permitting the right holder concerned to apply for customs protection. 
1.5. The Regulation has the following structure: 
Chapter I sets out the scope of the Regulation and the definitions necessary 
for its implementation. 
Chapter II expressly prohibits the release for free circulation (i.e. the import), 
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and 
pirated goods found to be counterfeit or pirated in the wake of action by 
customs under the Regulation. 
Chapter III covers the triggering of the mechanism either in response to 
an application from the holder of a right or on the customs authorities' 
own initiative. 
Chapter IV lays down the conditions governing action by the customs 
authorities and the authority competent to take a substantive decision. 
Chapter V stipulates what is to be done with goods found to be counterfeit 
or pirated. 
Chapter VI (Final provisions) covers such aspects as liability, excludes from 
the scope of the Regulation goods of a non-commercial nature contained in 
travellers' personal luggage within the limits laid down in respect of relief from 
customs duty (ECU 175) and binds the Member States to impose penalties in 
the event of breaches of the Regulation. It likewise obliges the Member States 
to communicate to the Commission all relevant information on the 
implementation of the Regulation and requires the Commission, within 
two years of the Regulation's implementation, to report to Parliament and the 
Council on the operation of the system and propose any amendments or 
additions required. Such is the purpose of this report. 
2. The implementation of Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 
2.1. The Commission has adopted implementing measures under Commission Regulation 
(EC) No 1367/95 of 16 June 19954. 
2.2. Though directly applicable, the Regulation also called for the adoption of a number 
of measures at national level, including the appointment of a national authority 
competent to handle holders' applications for protection or the adoption of penalties. 
The Member States were given six months from the publication of the Regulation to 
its entry into application. 
2.3. It should be noted that, although the Regulation is addressed directly to the national 
customs authorities, particularly as they are the only authorities competent to deal 
with applications within the meaning of the Regulation, collaboration and 
cooperation with other national administrative departments has not been ruled out in 
practice. 
2.4. By 1 July 1995 most Member States had adopted the national measures needed for 
the implementation of the new rules. In Belgium, however, though an authority 
competent to handle right holders' applications for protection was appointed early 
on, a Royal Decree laying down the national measures necessary for the 
implementation of the Regulation did not come into force until 14 December 1996. 
Though this delay was something of an inconvenience to right holders, the 
Belgian authorities nevertheless performed checks and obtained some significant 
results during the period in question. 
2.5. There are still problems with the implementation of the Regulation by some 
Member States. 
Belgium (legislation in preparation) and Greece, for example, have still to comply 
with the obligation to adopt effective, proportionate and deterrent penalties to 
protect designs. 
Furthermore, while the Regulation does not preclude a Member State from 
appointing several authorities to handle applications for protection, an application is 
supposed to cover the entirety of the national territory (single application). This is 
not currently the case in Greece where ten competent authorities have been 
appointed, each of them dealing with a given region. Contrary to the provisions of 
the Regulation, a right holder has to complete ten applications to obtain customs 
protection throughout Greek territory. 
3. Statistics on the opération of the system 
3.1. The system introduced by the Council provides for the monitoring of its application 
in the Member States. 
3.2. Data for the two-year period 1 July 1995-30 June 1997 show that the 
Member States suspended release or detained goods in 4 133 cases. 
OJ L 133, 17.6.1995, p. 2. 
3.3. This figure shows that the system introduced by the Regulation is not only 
operational but working well. Customs have intervened far more often in the two 
years since Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 has applied than in the entire seven and a 
half years of Regulation (EC) No 3842/86 ( 1 842 cases in total). 
3.4. The 4133 cases of action under the new Regulation can be broken down as follows: 
Germany: 1 844 
France: 527 
United Kingdom: 487 
Spain: 459 
Netherlands: 390 
Denmark: 139 
Belgium: 127 
Italy: 71 
Finland: 63 
Luxembourg: 18 
Sweden: 5 
Ireland: 3 
3.5. The Commission has received no statistics concerning the other Member States. 
Austria says that it has so far received only three applications and that no action had 
been taken prior to 30 June 1997. Portugal says that it has taken no action as it has 
received only one application for protection. However, the Commission has been 
unable to obtain any information concerning Greece, where no action would appear 
to have been taken during the period in question. Whatever the case may be, the 
application system set up by Greece (described in 2.5) would appear to have 
deterred holders. 
3.6. A more detailed analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States can be found 
in Annex 2. 
4. Trade flows detected under Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 
4.1. As the statistics communicated by the Member States bear out, the system is 
working well and producing encouraging, even highly satisfactory, results. It 
is therefore worth looking at these figures in terms of the types of 
movements concerned. 
4.2. It should be noted, however, that the rules governing the single market mean that 
this customs act applies only to goods moving between third countries and the 
Community. The Regulation, by its very nature, precludes the detection of 
counterfeit or pirated goods manufactured inside the Community or circulating 
between Member States. Nevertheless, comparable provisions (controls carried out 
by customs) exist in national law in some Member States. 
Moreover, the Commission is continuing to follow closely questions concerning the 
fight against counterfeiting and pirating within the Community. This action is of 
prime importance in achieving the eradication of - or at least a substantial reduction 
in - counterfeiting and pirating. 
4.3. Not all Member States break down their statistics by freight, passenger and postal 
traffic. Where this information is provided, however, it is very interesting. For 
instance, of the 657 cases recorded by German customs in the first six months of 
1997, 347 (52%) concerned travellers and only twelve goods sent by post. Of 
527 cases reported by France, 265 (50%) involved travellers and 22 the post. In 
Spain, 243 (53%) out of a total 459 cases involved travellers and two the post. Of 
390 cases in the Netherlands, 161 (41%) concerned travellers and 129 the post. In 
terms of the quantities seized, however, most searches of travellers' baggage 
revealed fewer than ten articles. Thus, in terms of efficiency, checks on freight 
operations obviously produce the best results, given that a single seizure may involve 
thousands of articles of various kinds (see Annex 2 for noteworthy cases). Postal 
checks too can sometimes yield very interesting results. The customs authorities in 
the Netherlands, for example, were able to seize more than 3 000 pirate CDs 
originating in Bosnia-Herzegovina as the result of an operation involving a 
consignment sent by post. 
4.4. Most of the products seized are consumer goods (clothing and watches in the main). 
While articles bearing a prestigious label, be they clothes, watches or leather goods5, 
remain prone to counterfeiting, there is increasing counterfeiting of "in" brands, 
particularly in the field of sports (sportswear, sports shoes, caps with the logos of 
leading football or basketball teams, a wide range of objects bearing brands 
specializing in sports goods), articles for children (clothing and gadgets bearing 
brands targeted at children) and computer products and video games 
(microprocessors, CD-ROM's, consoles and games for them). The brands concerned 
are mainly European or, in the case of sports goods, articles for children and 
computer products, American. 
4.5. In addition to spare parts for motor vehicles and toys, the diverse products 
concerned include sunglasses, pens, garden gnomes, garden chairs, playing cards, 
biscuits, switches and pans. 
4.6. Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 also covers "parts" for counterfeit goods, i.e. trade 
mark symbols (logos, labels, stickers, brochures, instructions for use or guarantee 
documents) or packaging (even empty), enabling customs to deal with another form 
of counterfeiting: unlabelled goods are imported into the Community in a number of 
consignments while trade mark symbols such as labels or buttons are brought in with 
a traveller's luggage, the counterfeit goods then being assembled in the Community. 
The large quantities of labels, buttons and rivets detected, particularly in the 
United Kingdom (see Annex 2), show the scale of the problem and how important it 
is for customs to pay particular attention to trade mark symbols. 
Note that very few cases involved perfumes or toilet waters. 
4.7. The statistics provided by the Member States also show that the Regulation is used 
mainly to seize goods at the point of release (70%» of cases), action at other stages of 
the customs process being far less frequent, though not unknown. Furthermore, 
some seizures in Finland in the course of export/re-export show the benefits of being 
able to act at a stage other than release. In ten operations, Finnish customs 
intercepted 130 576 shoes, 104 316 shirts, 32 400 video games, 15 487 pairs of jeans 
and 13 650 coats, all of which were destined for Russia. 
4.8. In most cases customs acted against goods bearing a counterfeit brand or trade mark 
(over 90% of cases). This is not surprising, given that the implementation of 
Regulation (EC) No 3842/86 provided customs with some experience of counterfeit 
goods, which are also somewhat easier to detect than abuses of other forms of 
intellectual property. 
4.9. The results in respect of pirated goods are encouraging none the less. Customs are 
increasingly active on this front. One intervention in ten now involves goods 
protected by copyright. There is therefore every reason to believe that results will 
continue to improve in spite of the fact that it is far harder for customs to detect 
breaches of copyright or a related right than offences against a brand or trade mark, 
which are far more visual. 
4.10. Results on designs have been poorer, though not negligible (5.8% of interventions). 
Apart from the fact that this is a new area for customs, it should be borne in mind 
that, in most cases, goods seized by customs combine the counterfeiting of a brand 
with the pirating of a design. In such cases, customs administrations usually prefer to 
act on the basis of the counterfeiting, which is far easier to detect. 
5. The economic and social impact of counterfeiting 
5.1. Since Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 only concerns specific trade flows (import/export 
deals with third countries), it is in no way a suitable tool for gauging the economic 
and social impact of counterfeiting in the Community. 
5.2. It is not easy to discern the scale of the counterfeiting and pirating phenomenon. 
Numerous professional organizations at national, European or international level 
regularly produce estimates of counterfeiting and pirating. These do give a better 
idea of the phenomenon, but still only a small insight. 
The adverse effects of counterfeiting and pirating on employment in the 
Member States, on the collection of direct and indirect taxes and on product quality, 
to the detriment of consumers, are incontestable. However, it is currently not 
possible to put precise figures on these. 
6. Amendments and additions proposed by the Commission 
6.1. Apart from a few problems with implementation in a certain Member States (see 2), 
the Commission has observed no particular difficulties regarding the application of 
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94. The structural problems affecting the previous 
Regulation (EEC) No 3842/86 were resolved in the drafting of Regulation (EC) 
No 3295/94, the system is now operational and its effectiveness is hampered neither 
by structural problems nor by divergent interpretations of its provisions. 
10 
6.2. The Commission therefore proposes to go further, extending the system to cover 
another intellectual property right and goods with other customs statuses and 
adjusting the Regulation to take account of the Community trade mark. 
(a) Extending the scope of the Regulation to patented inventions 
6.3 Patents are a vital aspect of intellectual property and at the heart of the machinery 
available for safeguarding innovation. They allow people to profit from their own 
ideas and creativity. A patent protects an inventor from competitors seeking to profit 
unfairly from his work. It legally guarantees a return on investment in research and 
development. Protecting patents is therefore vital to the Community: safeguarding 
innovation enables European products to develop in the face of international 
competition and so helps the European economy hold its own internationally. 
6.4. The inclusion of patents was discussed during the drafting of Regulation (EC) 
No 3295/94, but it was decided at that time to reconsider the matter later, notably in 
the light of the results achieved in the matter of copyrights and designs. 
6.5. In view of the statistics supplied by the Member States, it now seems worth a try. 
Admittedly, it will not be easy for customs officers to spot goods breaching a patent 
inasmuch as the offence is not immediately visible to the naked eye and may require 
officials to examine complex scientific documentation. These difficulties must not, 
however, be allowed to stand in the way of the experiment, especially one 
that reflects frequent requests from the trade associations concerned. 
Moreover, while the TRIPS Agreement does not bind contracting parties to apply 
the "border measures" in Articles 51 to 61 to goods in breach of patents, it does 
make provision for them to do so. 
Nevertheless it seems appropriate to limit the extension of the scope of the 
Regulation to patents on products, excluding those on processes. The latter do not 
lend themselves easily to a system of frontier-based measures. Of course there is 
nothing to prevent the holder of a patent on a process from going to the national 
courts when he considers that his patent has been improperly used and benefiting in 
this content from the "reversal of the burden of proof. 
On the other hand, supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for medicinal and 
plant protection products should be included. In these cases, customs' action - and 
the information the holder must provide - is virtually the same as for a patent on a 
product. Furthermore, in the case of SPCs, counterfeiting these products puts basic 
interests such as human or animal health at stake. 
(b) Extending the scope of the Regulation to all customs statuses 
6.6. Endorsing the request from both the Member States, and in particular Belgium and 
France, and certain trade associations, the Commission believes that the Regulation 
should cover all counterfeit or pirated goods, whatever their customs status. 
Customs would then be able to intervene in cases other than release for free 
circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure. 
11 
6.7. In practice, this extension would cover the following specific scenarios: goods in a 
free zone or warehouse and goods under customs supervision, including those in 
temporary storage, i.e. goods that have been brought into the Community customs 
territory and placed in temporary storage areas or facilities pending assignment to a 
customs-approved treatment or use (release for free circulation, export etc.)6. 
6.8. Even if the Regulation, in its current form, permits such goods to be intercepted 
when their status changes, customs nevertheless need to be able to act when or while 
goods are being stored. Customs officials often discover goods likely to be 
counterfeit or pirated and find themselves having to wait until the goods either leave 
the free zone or warehouse or cease to be in temporary storage (through assignment 
to a customs-approved treatment or use). Yet the goods in question might very well 
be spirited away in the meantime, especially if the culprit has reason to believe that 
customs harbour suspicions about the goods. 
(c) Updating the Regulation to take account of the Community trade mark 
6.9. Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade 
mark7 provides for the establishment of Community arrangements for trade marks 
whereby undertakings can by means of one procedural system obtain Community 
trade marks to which uniform protection is given and which produce their effects 
throughout the entire area of the Community. The Community trade mark has been 
fully operational since 1 April 1996. 
6.10 The Community trade mark is governed by a single Community regulation, which is 
directly applicable in all Member States. It constitutes a single right conferring 
uniform protection throughout the Community. It does not, however, replace 
Member States' trade marks. 
6.11 In order to let the Community trade mark flourish, the Commission intends to 
simplify the administrative side of protecting the Community trade mark under 
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 by allowing a single application for customs protection 
to be lodged instead of the fifteen currently required to cover the whole of the 
Community's territory. 
6.12 Though retaining the option of using the current system and lodging a series of 
applications, the holder of a Community trade mark could alternatively apply for 
action in a Member State of his choice and specify the other Member States in which 
action is sought. 
6.13 The application would be handled by the competent authority of the Member State 
concerned. Acceptance (or rejection) would be valid for all the Member States 
specified; it would be for the competent authority of the Member State in which the 
application has been lodged to notify the relevant authorities of the other 
Member States concerned of the decision taken. 
Goods may spend 45 days in temporary storage if they arrive by sea and 20 days in all other cases. 
OJL 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1. 
12 
6.14 However, in the absence of a unified Community customs administration, any fees 
and guarantees required in the individual Member States concerned by an application 
would continue to be dealt with nationally. 
6.15 A uniform period of protection would have to be introduced for Community 
trademarks together with standard forms for applying for the protection of a 
Community trade mark and for the processing of such applications by the 
Member States. 
6.16 The advantage of this system is that it slots easily into the current one since it 
requires the setting-up neither of a central authority nor of a unified guarantee 
system, which would pose insurmountable legal and practical problems. It would 
also serve as an example and a precedent once a Community design8 has 
been created. 
7. The demands of the trade associations concerned 
7.1. The Commission has had several meetings with trade associations working in 
the field of intellectual property and right holders to discuss the implementation 
and operation of the Regulation. Their comments have also been relayed by 
the Member States' delegates to the Customs Code Committee-Counterfeit 
Goods Section. 
7.2. For the purposes of drafting this report the Commission met the main trade 
associations concerned on 23 July 1997 to give them an opportunity to make known 
their views and wishes. 
7.3. At this meeting the Commission's representatives outlined the three ways in which 
they believed the Regulation could be amended (see 6). Apart from the objections of 
one association present at the meeting to extending the scope of the Regulation to 
encompass patents, these proposals were very well received since they reflected 
demands that the associations had made or wished to make. 
7.4. Various other issues were touched on, with the Commission adopting the 
following positions: 
(a) Non-commercial imports in travellers' baggage 
7.5. Business circles concerned have long been arguing for the abolition of the 
exclusion in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 3295/94. This clause excludes from 
the scope of the Regulation goods of a non-commercial nature contained in 
travellers' personal baggage within the limits of the duty-free allowance (ECU 175). 
This "tolerance" is held to foster small-scale trafficking and send inappropriate 
signals to travellers and tourists. 
7.6. While acknowledging the existence of small-scale trafficking, the Commission feels it 
does not alter the principle that intellectual property rights are limited to commercial 
transactions, a position which is, moreover, consistent with Article 60 of the 
TRIPS Agreement. Furthermore, the relatively flexible concept of "goods of a 
OJC 29, 31.1.1994, p. 20. 
13 
non-commercial nature" affords customs scope for handling a wide range of 
situations. The considerable number of seizures from travellers shown in the statistics 
provided by the Member States (see 4 above and Annex 2) should reassure business 
circles that customs' hands are not tied in this respect. 
7.7. The Commission therefore believes that Article 10 should be retained in its 
present wording. 
7.8. In order to stay the fears of business circles, the Member States should adopt 
measures to publicise the rules in force more widely and raise the awareness of 
travellers, particularly tourists. 
(b) Excluding parallel imports from the scope of the Regulation 
7.9. Business circles have long been calling for the extension of the Regulation to cover 
parallel imports, i.e. goods manufactured with the right holder's consent but 
imported without his consent. 
7.10. The Commission has always opposed this demand. In the case of parallel imports, 
the goods cannot strictly speaking be termed counterfeit, given that, within the law 
of the exporting country, the goods have used an intellectual property right. 
Furthermore, the holder of an intellectual property right in the Community merely 
has the option of opposing their importation into the Community, not an obligation. 
Moreover, in this case the task of customs officials would be extremely difficult, 
since the goods are physically identical to approved imports. The Commission 
therefore believes that the Regulation should not be amended in this respect. 
(c) Fees and guarantees 
7.11. The Regulation permits Member States to collect a fee for customs protection to 
cover the administrative costs incurred through handling the application and seek a 
guarantee to cover any liability for damage and/or storage costs. 
7.12. In practice, the level of fees and guarantees differs greatly from one Member State to 
another. Some business circles would like to see these sums harmonized. The 
Commission sees no need for this. The fact that these sums differ from one 
Member State to another in no way affects the operation of the system provided for 
in the Regulation. Were a Member State to set these amounts at a level deterring 
applications for customs protection, the Commission would obviously have to step in 
and deal with the Member State concerned. 
(d) The cost of destroying counterfeit or pirated goods 
7.13. Who bears the cost of destroying counterfeit or pirated goods varies from one 
Member State to another. Depending on the Member State concerned, the costs are 
borne by the perpetrator of the offence, the owner of the goods, the right holder or 
the State itself. In most cases, however, it is for the judge who rules that goods are 
counterfeit or pirated to determine the person or authority liable for the cost of 
destroying them. Business circles are calling for the Regulation to resolve this point 
by specifying who is to cover the costs in question. 
14 
7.14. The Commission believes that a degree of flexibility should be allowed here so 
. that each Member State can adopt the solution that suits it the best as, in any 
event, goods found to be counterfeit or pirated must be removed from 
commercial channels. 
(e) Access to samples 
7.15. While goods are detained or their release suspended, customs may take samples for 
the purposes of the procedure. 
7.16. Several organizations representing right holders have asked for the Regulation to be 
amended to allow customs to send them some of the samples directly to help them 
draw up their own reports. 
7.17. The Commission believes that the Member States should be allowed some room for 
manoeuvre here and that it is up to them, under their own national legislation, to 
assess the best means, in view of time and cost constraints in particular, of allowing 
right holders to inspect goods that have been detained or whose release has been 
suspended. The Commission therefore considers that there are no grounds to amend 
the Regulation in this respect. 
(f) Penalties 
7.18. The Regulation requires the Member States to impose penalties where goods which 
have been detained or whose release has been suspended prove to be counterfeit or 
pirated. Under Article 5 of the EC Treaty and the case law of the Court of Justice, 
these penalties must be effective, proportionate and deterrent. 
7.19. Some in the trade have called for the Regulation to include guidelines for deciding 
between administrative and criminal penalties, for a degree of harmonization 
concerning the type of criminal penalties applied (imprisonment, fines, etc.) and for 
all Member States to make counterfeiting and pirating a specific customs offence. 
7.20. As regards the calls concerning criminal penalties as such, Article 113 of the 
EC Treaty, the legal basis of the Regulation, is not an appropriate legal basis 
7.21. As for administrative penalties, the Commission feels that they would not be useful in 
this case because they are not an alternative to criminal penalties, if only because 
Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement requires contracting parties to introduce 
criminal penalties. 
S. Conclusion 
8.1. While the initial statistics are very encouraging and the improvements to the system 
set up under the previous Regulation (EEC) No 3842/86 mean that the system set up 
by Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 is operational, the system should nevertheless be 
updated to take account of developments in Community rules on intellectual 
property rights (the establishment of a Community trade mark) and customs given 
greater scope for action (extending the scope of the Regulation to protect patents 
and cover counterfeit or pirated goods whatever their customs status). 
15 
8.2. Such amendments will help step up action against fraud at the Community's 
external frontiers, ensure the effective and uniform application of Community rules 
and offer the Community's citizens and traders an equivalent level of protection 
throughout the Community customs territory, without detriment to the throughflow 
necessary for international trade. These objectives figure among those set out in 
Decision No 210/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
19 December 1996 adopting an action programme for customs in the Community 
(Customs 2000)9. 
8.3. The Commission therefore proposes that Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 be amended 
in the manner set out in Annex 1 to this report. 
OJL 33, 4.2.1997, p. 24. 
16 
ANNEX I 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
amending Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 laying down measures to prohibit 
the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a 
suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods 
17 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
Point 1 (Title) 
As the proposal involves extending the scope of the Regulation, its current title is no longer 
correct and needs to be changed. More general wording should be used. 
Point 2 (Article 1(1)) 
In order to improve the customs authorities' scope for action, they should be allowed to take 
advantage of the provisions of the Regulation either when the goods are placed in a free zone or 
warehouse or as soon as they are under customs supervision within the meaning of the 
Community Customs Code, i.e. on entry into the Community. This will enable the customs 
authorities to seize suspect goods, in accordance with the Regulation, when they are placed in 
temporary storage areas or facilities pending assignment to a customs-approved treatment or 
use (release for free circulation, export, etc.). 
(ArtiçieJi2Xa)) 
In the light of the experience gained by the customs authorities in their efforts to stem the flow 
of goods infringing copyright and related rights or design rights, the scope of the Regulation 
should now be extended to the protection of patents on products and of supplementary 
protection certificates for medicinal products and plant protection products. A new indent 
therefore needs to be inserted in this paragraph so as to extend the definition of counterfeit 
goods, for the purposes of this Regulation only, to include goods which infringe patents on 
products or supplementary protection certificates. 
(Article l(2)(c)) 
The aim of this amendment is to adapt the definition of the "holder of a right" to take account of 
the extension of the scope of the Regulation to cover protection for patents on products and for 
supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products and for plant protection products. 
(Article l(2)(e)) 
One of the aims of the proposal is to establish a simplified procedure which can be used to apply 
for action by holders of Community trade marks registered with the Office for Harmonisation in 
the Internal Market (trade marks, design rights) in Alicante. The aim of this new point is to 
define the "Community trade mark" by reference to the Regulation which introduced it. 
(Article 1(2X0) 
To facilitate reading of the text, it must be specified that the term "certificate" used in the 
Regulation means supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products and for plant 
protection products. 
18 
(Article 1(3)) 
This amendment takes account of the extension of the Regulation's scope to the protection of 
patents on products and of supplementary protection certificates and indicates that moulds or 
matrices intended for the manufacture of goods which infringe a patent on a product or a 
supplementary protection certificate are also deemed to be counterfeit goods within the 
meaning of the Regulation. 
(Article 1(4)) 
This amendment takes account of the extension of the Regulation's scope to the protection of 
patents on products and of supplementary protection certificates by specifying that the 
exclusion from its scope of parallel imports in particular also applies to goods covered by a 
patent on a product or by a supplementary protection certificate. 
Point 3 (Article 2) 
Goods found to be counterfeit or pirated cannot be marketed. Their entry into the Community, 
release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure is therefore 
prohibited. In so far as the customs authorities are allowed to act when goods are placed in free 
zones and free warehouses, the placing of goods found to be counterfeit or pirated in such 
zones or warehouses should be prohibited. 
Point 4 (Article 3(D) 
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark10 -
fully operational since 1 April 1996 - has enabled natural and legal persons to obtain, by means 
of a single procedural system, Community trade marks which enjoy uniform protection and 
produce their effects throughout the entire area of the Community. 
The conclusions in relation to the customs protection of such trade marks should now therefore 
be drawn and a simplified procedure for applying for action introduced. Under such a system, 
the holder of a Community trade mark should be able to make a single application for action, 
lodged in one Member State and valid in one or more Member States. 
(Article 3(3)) 
Since Community-wide coverage is not systematically required and as fees have to be paid in 
some Member States, simplified applications for action (Community trade marks) need not 
automatically cover all Member States; applicants should be free to choose the Member 
State(s) in which protection is required. To facilitate applications relating to Community trade 
marks, standard forms should be introduced based on a specimen form laid down in a 
Commission implementing regulation. 
OJL 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1. 
19 
(Article 3(4)) 
The Member State in which the application for action is lodged may request the payment of a 
fee to cover the administrative costs arising from the processing of the application. In the case 
of a single application for action relating to Community trade marks, the Member States in 
which the application would apply (other than the one in which it was lodged) would no longer 
be able to charge fees despite incurring costs when putting the decision to take action into 
effect. Provision should therefore be made for the States concerned to charge a fee to the 
applicant or the applicant's representative so as to cover costs incurred in implementing a 
decision approved in another Member State. The fees must not in any case be disproportionate 
to the service provided. 
(Article 3(5)) 
In the interests of simplification, decisions to take action relating to a Community trade mark 
which apply in several Member States should take effect for the same period of time in each 
Member State concerned. In order to take account of the variety of periods of validity 
which normally apply in the Member States, a compromise would be a period of one year, 
renewable once. 
(Article 3(9)) 
To make the wording clearer, it should be specified that applications for extension should be 
treated the same way as the original application for action. 
Point 5 (Article 5) 
To avoid the lodging and processing of a single application for action in more than one 
Member State, the State in which the application was lodged should process it and then 
forward its decision to the competent authorities of the other Member States in which customs 
protection has been requested. Those States would then be bound by the original decision. 
However, the States concerned may suspend implementation of the decision until any fees or 
securities they require have been paid or lodged. 
Point 6 (Article 7(2)) 
This amendment follows on logically from the extension of the scope of the Regulation to the 
protection of patents on products and of supplementary protection certificates, by specifying 
that, in certain circumstances, goods suspected of infringing a patent on a product or a 
supplementary protection certificate may be released or their detention revoked against 
provision of a security. It also specifies the terms for the release of such a security. These 
provisions correspond to an obligation laid down in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)11. 
Annex 1 C; OJ L 336, 23.12.1994, p. 213. 
20 
Point 7 (Article 8(D) 
This amendment follows on from the extension of the scope of the Regulation to the protection 
of patents on products and of supplementary protection certificates. It extends the rules already 
applicable to other counterfeit or pirated goods to goods infringing a patent on a product or a 
supplementary protection certificate. 
Point 8 (Article 9(1)) 
The rules relating to compensation for the right holder in cases where counterfeit or pirated 
goods escape detection by a customs office, even though an application for customs protection 
was made, are a matter for the jurisdiction of the Member State in which that application was 
made. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that, in cases where applications for action relate 
to a Community trade mark and therefore apply in several Member States, the Member State in 
which the goods escaped detection by a customs office has jurisdiction in this respect. 
(Article 9(2)) 
The laws relating to responsibility in the event of damage caused by the competent authorities in 
the course of action by them pursuant to this Regulation fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Member State in which the application was made. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that, 
in cases where applications for action relate to a Community trade mark and therefore apply in 
several Member States, the Member State in which the damage was caused has jurisdiction in 
this respect. 
21 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
amending Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 laying down measures to prohibit 
the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a 
suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular 
Article 113 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission12, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament13, 
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee14, 
Whereas, pursuant to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/9415, conclusions should 
be drawn from the experience gained during the early years of its implementation with a view 
to improving the operation of the system it set up; 
Whereas the marketing of counterfeit goods infringing patents on products or, where they 
concern patents on products, supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products as 
provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the 
creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products16, as amended by the 
Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, or supplementary protection certificates 
for plant protection products, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a 
supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products17 causes serious injury to 
their holders and constitutes an unfair and unlawful business activity; whereas such goods 
should as far as possible be prevented from being placed on the market and measures should be 
adopted to that end to deal effectively with this unlawful activity without impeding the freedom 
of legitimate trade; whereas this objective is also being pursued through efforts being made 
along the same lines at international level; 
Whereas, in order to guarantee the integrity of the Community's external frontier, the customs 
authorities should be permitted to take action against counterfeit, pirated and associated goods 
whatever their customs status; whereas the release for free circulation in the Community, entry 
for a suspensive procedure, re-export or placing in a free zone or free warehouse of such goods 
should therefore be prohibited; whereas moreover the customs authorities should be authorized 
to take action as soon as the said goods are brought into the Community; 
12 OJ 
13 OJ 
14 OJ 
15 OJL 341, 30.12.1994, p. 8. 
16 OJL 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1. 
17 OJL 198, 8.8.1996, p. 30. 
22 
Whereas, as regards suspensive procedures, free zones and free warehouses, re-export subject 
to notification and temporary storage, the customs authorities will act only where goods 
suspected to be counterfeit or pirated are discovered during a check; 
Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community 
trade mark18, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3288/9419, has established a system whereby 
right holders can, by means of a single procedure, obtain Community trade marks enjoying 
uniform protection and producing their effects throughout the Community; 
Whereas to enhance the Community dimension of the said trade mark the administrative 
procedure for obtaining customs protection should be simplified; 
Whereas trade mark holders should have access to a system whereby the granting of a single 
application for action by the competent authority in one Member State can bind one or more 
other Member States as well; 
Whereas a single period of validity should be set in the interests of the uniform application of 
such decisions in the Member States concerned, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 is hereby amended as follows: 
1. The title is replaced by the following: 
"Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down measures 
concerning the entry into the Community and the export and re-export from the 
Community of goods infringing certain intellectual property rights". 
2. Article 1 is amended as follows: 
(a) The second indent of paragraph 1(a) is replaced by the following: 
"- found in the course of checks on goods under customs supervision within the 
meaning of Article 37 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code placed under a 
suspensive procedure within the meaning of Article 84(1 )(a) of that 
Regulation, re-exported subject to notification or placed in a free zone or free 
warehouse within the meaning of Article 166 thereof; 
OJL 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1." 
18 OJL 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1. 
19 OJL 349, 31.12.1994, p. 83. 
23 
(b) Paragraph 2 is amended as follows: 
(i) a fourth indent is added to point (a) as follows: 
"- goods infringing, in the Member State in which the application for 
action by the customs authorities is made, a patent on a product 
under the law of that Member State or a supplementary protection 
certificate as provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 
or Council Regulation (EC) No 1610/96** ; 
OJL 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1. 
OJL 198, 8.8.1996,p. 30." 
(ii) Point (c) is replaced by the following: 
"(c) "holder of a right": means the holder of a trade mark, a patent on a 
product or a certificate, as referred to in (a), and/or one of the rights 
referred to in (b), or any other person authorized to use that trade mark, 
patent on a product, certificate and/or right, or a representative thereof. 
(iii) The following points (e) and (f) are added: 
"(e) "Community trade mark" means the trade mark defined in Article 1 of 
Regulation (EC) No 40/94****. 
(f) "certificate" means the supplementary protection certificate provided 
for by Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 or by Regulation (EC) No 
1610/96." 
nn 
OJL 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1." 
(c) Paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 
"3. Any mould or matrix which is specifically designed or adapted for the 
manufacture of a counterfeit trade mark or of goods bearing such a trade 
mark, of goods infringing a patent on a product or a certificate or of pirated 
goods shall be treated as 'counterfeit or pirated goods', as the case may be, 
provided that the use of. such moulds or matrices infringes the rights of the 
holder of the right in question under Community law or the law of the 
Member State in which the application for action by the customs authorities 
is made." 
(d) The first subparagraph of paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: 
"This Regulation shall not apply to goods which bear a trade mark with the consent 
of the holder of that trade mark or which are protected by a patent on a product or a 
certificate, copyright or related right or a design right and which have been 
manufactured with the consent of the holder of the right but are placed in one of the 
situations referred to in paragraph 1(a) without the latter's consent." 
24 
3. Article 2 is replaced by the following. 
"Article 2 
The entry into the Community, release for free circulation, export, re-export, placing 
under a suspensive procedure or placing in a free zone or free warehouse of goods found 
to be counterfeit or pirated on completion of the procedure provided for in Article 6 shall 
be prohibited." 
4. Article 3 is amended as follows: 
(a) The following text is added as the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 : 
"Where the applicant holds a Community trade mark, the application may seek 
action not only by the customs authorities of the Member State in which 
the application is lodged but by the customs authorities of one or more other 
Member States as well." 
(b) Paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following: 
"3. Save where the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 is applied, the application 
must specify the length of the period during which the customs authorities are 
requested to take action. 
Applications under the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall indicate the 
Member State or States in which the customs authorities are requested to 
take action. 
4. The applicant may be charged a fee to cover the administrative costs incurred 
in dealing with the application. 
The applicant or his representative may also be charged a fee in each of the 
Member States where the decision granting the application is effective to 
cover the costs incurred in implementing the said decision. 
Such fees shall not be disproportionate to the service provided." 
(c) The following third subparagraph shall be inserted into paragraph 5: 
"Where an application is submitted under the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 
the said period shall be set at one year, but may be extended for a further year, at the 
right holder's request, by the service which took the original decision". 
(d) The following paragraph 9 is added: 
"9. The provisions of paragraphs 1 to 8 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the 
extension of the decision on the original application." 
25 
5. Article 5 is replaced by the following: 
"Article 5 
1. The decision granting the application by the holder of the right shall be forwarded 
immediately to the customs offices of the Member State which are liable to be 
concerned with the goods alleged in the application to be counterfeit or pirated. 
2. Where an application is submitted under the second subparagraph of Article 3(1), 
the first indent of Article 250 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 shall apply 
mutatis mutandis to the decision granting the said application and the decisions 
extending or repealing it. 
The service which adopted those decisions shall forward certified copies thereof to 
the relevant service of the customs authority in the Member State or States where 
the applicant has requested that action be taken. 
The Member State or States so notified shall immediately acknowledge receipt of 
the decisions referred to in the first subparagraph. 
The period referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 3(5) shall run from the 
date on which the decision granting the application was adopted The 
Member States to which the said decision is addressed may suspend implementation 
until the fee referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3(4) has been paid and 
the security referred to in Article 3(6) has been provided." 
6. Article 7(2) is replaced by the following: 
"2 In the case of goods suspected of infringing patents on products, certificates or 
design rights, the owner, the importer or the consignee of the goods shall be able to 
have the goods in question released or their detention revoked against provision of a 
security, provided that: 
the customs service or office referred to in Article 6(1) has been informed, 
within the time limit referred to in paragraph I, that the matter has been 
referred to the authority competent to take a substantive decision referred to 
in the aforesaid paragraph 1, 
on expiry of the time limit, the authority empowered for this purpose has not 
imposed interim measures, and 
all the customs formalities have been completed. 
The security must be sufficient to protect the interests of the holder of the right. Payment 
of the security shall be without prejudice to the other remedies open to the holder of the 
right. Where the matter has been referred to the authority competent to take a substantive 
decision other than on the initiative of the holder of the patent on a product, certificate or 
design right, the security shall be released if that person does not exercise his right to 
institute legal proceedings within 20 working days of the date on which he is notified of 
the suspension of release or detention. Where the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 
applies, this period may be extended to a maximum of 30 working days." 
26 
7. The introductory wording of Article 8(1 ) is replaced by the following: 
"Without prejudice to the other forms of legal recourse open to the right holder, 
Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to allow the competent authorities:" 
8. In Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following. 
"1. Save as provided by the law of the Member State in which an application in 
accordance with Article 3(2) is lodged or, in the case of an application under the 
second subparagraph of Article 3(1), in which counterfeit or pirated goods escape 
detection by a customs office, the acceptance of an application shall not entitle the 
holder of a right to compensation where such goods are not detected by a customs 
office and are released or no action is taken to detain them in accordance with 
Article 6(1). 
2. Save as provided by the law of the Member State in which the application is made 
or, in the case of an application under the second subparagraph of Article 3(1), in 
which loss or damage is incurred, exercise by a customs office or by another duly 
empowered authority of the powers conferred on them in regard to combating 
counterfeit or pirated goods shall not render them liable to the persons involved in 
the operations referred to in Article 1(1 )(a) or Article 4, in the event of their 
suffering loss or damage as a result of their action." 
Article 2 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the 
OffwialJournal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
The President 
27 
Number of cases since 1 July 1995 ANNEX II 
Member State Latter half of 
1995 First half of 
1996 Latter half of 
1996 First half of 
1997 TOTAL 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
The Netherlands 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 17 
39 inc. 
34 P and 0 T 
214 inc. 
11 P 
12 inc. 
2 P and 2 T 
196 inc 
7Pand 159 1 
0 
NC 
65 28 
23 inc. 
17 P and 5 T 
432 inc. 
34 P 
61 inc. 
OP and 10 T 
86 inc. 
4 P and 23 T 
21 
117 inc. 
26 P and 54 T 
1 
137 40 
48 inc. 
18 P and 4 T 
541 inc. 
20 P 
219 inc. 
OP and 127 T 
105 inc. 
0 P and 23 T 
3 
18 
135 inc. 
40 P and 61 T 
16 
108 42 
29 
657 inc. 
12 P and 347 T 
167 inc. 
OP and 104 T 
140 inc. 
11 P and 60 T 
0 
27 
138 inc. 
63 P and 46 T 
46 inc. 
1 Pandl2T 127 
139 inc. 
69 P and 9 T 
1 844 inc. 
77 P and 347 T 
459 inc. 
2 P and 243 T 
527 inc. 
22 P and 265 I 
3 
71 
18 
390 inc. 
129 P and 161 T 
63 inc. 
1 Pand 12 T 
177 487 
TOTAL 548 inc. 
54 Pand 161 T 914 inc. 
81 Pand 92 T 1 239 inc. 
78 Pand 215 T 1 432 inc. 
87 P and 569 T 4 133 inc. 
300 P and 1 037 T 
NC = Not communicated 
P = Postal consignments 
T = Travellers' baggage 
28 
Number of cases by type of goods concerned since 1 July 1995 
Type of 
goods BE DK DE ES FR IR IT LU NL FI SV UK Total 
Clothing 51 
Footwear 
Watches 12 
Audio 
cassettes 
Logos, 
pendants, 
badges, 
emblems, 
labels, 
stickers 
Bags 
Motor 0 
vehicle parts 119 
Sunglasses 
Toys 
Caps 
Video games 
Micro­
processors 
CDs 
Video 
cassettes 5 
3 
12 
6 
2 2 
1 
0 
15 
0 
10 
1 1 215 
52 
79 
122 
13 
13 
18 
5 
47 
56 
34 
8 123 
26 
234 
9 
4 
34 
3 
0 305 
20 
99 24 
13 
19 
9 
19 
0 
0 0 
6 
2 
10 
0 
16 195 
49 44 
12 
11 
0 
6 
0 
22 
2 
12 
22 330 E 413 
20 
2S 
15 10 
0 506 
127 
70 
57 
23 
48 
79 
155 
73 
25 
79 
21 
29 
BRIEF OVERVIEW 
1. 4 133 cases were reported during the period in question (July 1995-June 1997) 
1 844 ^> 
527^ 
487 <^> 
459 O 
390 => 
139^> 
1270 
71* 
63 O 
18* 
50 
3* DE 
FR 
UK * 
ES •=> 
NL * 
DK * 
BE O 
IT * 
FI * 
LU 
SV 
IR (44.6%) 
(12.7%) 
(11.7%) 
(11.1%) 
(9.4%) 
(3.3%) 
(3%) 
(1.7%) 
(1.5%) 
Type of trafficking 
Of the 4 133 cases: 
300 * postal consignments (7.2%) 
1 037 * travellers' baggage (25%) 
Type of products 
Of the 4 133 cases: 
2 413 ^ clothing (mainly T-shirts, shirts, jeans and sportswear) (58.3%) 
506* watches (12.2%) 
155* caps (3.7%) 
127 * music cassettes (3%) 
120* footwear (2.9%) 
NB: 
* 70 cases involved trade mark symbols (logos, labels, sticker, badges, etc.) 
(an innovation of Regulation (EC) No 3295/94). Most involved considerable 
quantities. For instance, seizures in the UK included: 
20 400 "Lacoste" logos (7 May 1996) 
24 500 "Versace" logos (6 December 1995) 
60 000 "Nike", "Ralph Lauren" and "Yves Saint-Laurent" labels from 
Pakistan ( 17 October 1996) 
75 000 "Levi's" logos, buttons and rivets (5 October 1995) 
75 000 "Ralph Lauren" and "Yves St-Laurent" labels from Turkey 
(14 March 1997) 
79 900 "Calvin Klein", "Timberland Ltd", "Kickers" and "Ellesse" labels from 
Pakistan (15 January 1997). 
* 79 cases involved toys (mainly scale models, balls, cuddly toys etc.). 
30 
4. Noteworthy cases 
800 000 MBicM pens (15 November 1996, Belgium) 
483 000 "Clipper Flamagas" lighters from Hong Kong (27 May 1997, Spain) 
150 000 "Bic" pens from Hong Kong (12 February 1997, France) 
144 000 "Christian Dior" shirts (September1996, Belgium) 
More than 140 000 CDs have been seized in Luxembourg 
135 000 "Disney" badges from China (26 March 1997, France) 
129 000 caps counterfeiting a number of sports firms (6 May 1996, Belgium) 
100 000 "Christian Dior" shirts destined for Russia (12 November 1996, 
Finland) 
87 000 "Disney" scarves from Korea (22 July 1996, France) 
60 000 "Bugs Bunny" and "Tweety Pie" key-rings ("Warner Bros") from 
China (26 September 1996, Germany) 
65 000 teddy bears from China ( 1 October 1996, France) 
60 000 "Armani" shirts destined for Russia (23 January 1997, Finland) 
58 000 "Nike", "Armani", "W. Bros", "Disney", "Adidas", "Boy London", 
"Casio", "Levi's", "Guess", "Coca" and "Ralph Lauren" watches from 
Hong Kong (21 January 1997, France) 
55 000 "Walt Disney" cotton ensembles from China (29 April 1997, Spain) 
50 000 litres of "Newman" toilet water from Algeria (24 June 1996, France) 
58 000 "Nokia", "Coca Cola", "Marlboro" and "Motorola" lighters from 
China (final quarter of 1996, Netherlands) 
42 000 "Versace" women's shoes destined for Russia (2 February 1997, 
Finland) 
41 000 "Armani" shirts destined for Russia (14 January 1997, Finland) 
37 000 "Nintendo" video games from Japan (date not reported, Netherlands) 
34 000 "Tweety" key-rings from China (second quarter of 1997, Netherlands) 
34 000 "Michael Jordan" sports shoes destined for Russia 
(14 March 1997, Finland) 
33 000 "Smurf ' garden gnomes from China destined for France 
(11 April 1997, Belgium) 
33 000 "Reebok" sports shoes destined for Russia (3 January 1997, Finland) 
33 000 pairs of "Calvin Klein" underwear from the USA (24 July 1996, Spain) 
32 000 "Nintendo" video games destined for Russia 
(21 February 1997, Finland) 
30 000 pairs of "Dunlop" socks from Turkey (25 January 1996, Germany) 
28 000 footballs from Pakistan (10 November 1996, Germany) 
27 000 CDs from Israel (first quarter of 1996, Italy) 
25 000 "Levi Strauss" and "Calvin Klein" jeans from China 
(15 November 1996, Italy) 
24 000 CDs from the Czech Republic (22 April 1997,-Luxembourg) 
22 000 "Mattel" watches from Hong Kong (23 December 1996, France) 
22 000 "Walt Disney" rings from South Korea destined for Poland 
(26 May 1997, Germany) v 
21 000 pairs of "Levi's" (23 August 1996, Belgium) 
21 000 "Happy Baron" pans (14 containers) (July 1996, Belgium) 
21 000 "Nintendo" video games from Hong Kong (January 1996, Belgium) 
20 000 watches and 10 000 caps ("Nike", "Fila" et "Boy London") from the 
USA (June 1996, Belgium) 
20 000 T-shirts (various brands) from Thailand (June 1996, Belgium) 
31 
* 20 000 "Lewis" and "Diesel" sweatshirts (6 November 1996, Belgium) 
* 19 000 "Walt Disney" balls from the Czech Republic on 13 February 1996 and 
15 000 more on 24 September 1996 (Germany) 
* 19 000 "Peugeot" motor vehicle parts from Taiwan (29 March 1996, France) 
* 18 000 pairs of "Levi's" jeans (30 April 1996, Belgium) 
* 16 700 "Walt Disney" balls from Taiwan (21 May 1996, Spain) 
* 16 000 "Nintendo" video games (6 November 1996, Belgium) 
* 16 000 "FC Bayern" footballs from Pakistan (11 November 1996, Germany) 
* 15 000 pairs of "Calvin Klein" jeans and 3000 shirts destined for Russia 
(24 January 1997, Finland) 
* 15 000 pairs of "Ray Ban" sunglasses from China (15 February 1996, France) 
* 15 000 pairs of "Ray Ban", "Sting" and "Police" sunglasses from China 
(April 1996, Belgium) 
* 15 containers of pottery "Walt Disney" characters from China destined for 
France (April-May 1997, Belgium) 
* 8 cases in Germany involved garden gnomes (175 items) (copyright or design 
rights, depending on the case) 
* 3 cases in Germany involved 2 200 litres of vodka from Latvia. 
5. The customs procedures and intellectual property rights concerned 
NB: 
Such figures are available only for Italy from 1 July 1995, Germany, France and 
Ireland from 1 January 1996, Belgium from 1 January 1997 and Denmark, Spain 
and Finland from 1 April 1997. 
Of the 2 165 cases concerned: 
1517* release for free circulation (70%) 
383* unlawful import (17.6%) 
190* re-export (8.7%) 
64* placing under a suspensive procedure (2.9%) 
6* export (0.2%) 
1 962 * trade marks (90.6%) 
206 * copyright and related rights (9.5%) 
126 * design rights (5.8%) 
32 
6. Source of the counterfeit goods 
Of the 4 133 cases: 
740 
724 
497 
438 
243 * 
* 
* 
* 
* 
195 * 
151 * 
98 * 
53 * 
46 * Poland * 
Thailand * 
Turkey * 
USA * 
Hong Kong * 
China * 
Czech Republic * 
South Korea * 
Indonesia * 
Taiwan * 17.9%) 
17.5%) 
12%) 
10.5%) 
5.8%) 
4.7%) 
3.6%) 
2.3%) 
1.2%) 
1.1%) 
NB: 
In Germany most cases involved products arriving from Poland, Turkey and 
the Czech Republic. 
In Spain most cases involved products arriving from the United States. 
33 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 25 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 10 11 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-028-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-30270-8 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
34