REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the functioning of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Sale of Counterfeit Goods via the Internet
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: brand name, consumer protection, electronic commerce, industrial counterfeiting, voluntary restraint agreement

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 18.4.2013  
COM(2013) 209 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the functioning of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Sale of Counterfeit 
Goods via the Internet 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the functioning of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Sale of Counterfeit 
Goods via the Internet 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

3.7. 

3.8. 

4. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 

The MoU ...................................................................................................................... 5 

A novel cooperative approach...................................................................................... 5 

Scope and architecture of the MoU.............................................................................. 5 

Self-regulation on the basis of the MoU ...................................................................... 7 

The Functioning and Impact of the MoU..................................................................... 8 

Making the MoU work................................................................................................. 8 

Notice and Take Down procedures — a cornerstone of the MoU............................... 9 

Pro-active and Preventive Measures — a critical measure for effectively fighting 
counterfeiting ............................................................................................................. 10 

Repeat Infringers........................................................................................................ 11 

Cooperation, including sharing of information.......................................................... 13 

Consumer trust, information and protection .............................................................. 13 

External communication and awareness raising ........................................................ 14 

Benchmarking the effects of the MoU ....................................................................... 15 

The way forward ........................................................................................................ 16 

Annex: List of sites and brand names covered by the MoU .................................................... 19 

Brands covered by the MoU..................................................................................................... 19 

Sites covered by the MoU ........................................................................................................ 21 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  evaluates  the  functioning  of  the  Memorandum  of  Understanding  on  the  Sale  of 
Counterfeit Goods via the Internet (May 2011), hereinafter referred to as ‘the MoU’1. 

The  sale  of  counterfeit  goods  over  the  internet  is  damaging  and  harmful  to  all  legitimate 
stakeholders, including Internet Platforms and intellectual property Rights Owners and, most 
importantly,  consumers.  Online  counterfeiting  is  a  dynamic  phenomenon,  which  is 
constantly  changing  and  adapts  to  break  into  new  business  models.  Illicit  counterfeiting 
businesses are sophisticated; they react to anti-counterfeiting protection strategies.  

The  purpose  of  the  MoU  is  to  establish  a  code  of  practice  in  the  fight  against  the  sale  of 
counterfeit goods over the internet and to enhance collaboration among its Signatories, so that 
they  can  effectively  respond  to  this  constant  threat.  There  is  collective  recognition  that 
cooperation  is  much  better  than  litigation,  which  neither  enhances  market  efficiency  nor 
fosters consumer trust. The key aim is to instil trust in the market. The MoU promotes trust 
in the online marketplace by providing detailed measures against online offers of counterfeit 
goods as well as enhanced protection for consumers who unintentionally buy a fake. 

The MoU covers leading e-commerce platforms as well as major brands in the field of fast-
moving  consumer  goods,  consumer  electronics,  fashion,  luxury  goods,  sports  goods,  film, 
software, games and toys, all operating at both global and regional level2. 
During the assessment period3, Signatories met regularly. Summaries of these meetings have 
been published on the website of DG Internal Market and Services4. 

This report analyses the progress, implementation and functioning of the MoU and takes stock 
of Signatories’ evaluation of its effectiveness in reducing the online sale of counterfeit goods 
within the EU. It is strictly limited to the MoU, and does not cover associated general policy 
issues.  

It  shows  that  the  approach  adopted  by  the  MoU  works,  but  also  highlights  the  need  for 
Internet Platforms and Rights Owners to remain alert and vigilant. The report concludes 
that  the  MoU  should  continue  for  another  two  years  and  that  its  membership  should  be 
extended.  The  Commission  is  considering  further  action  to  deal  with  the  fight  against 
counterfeiting more broadly and may propose an initiative later this year. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

of 

41 

for 

under 

MoU, 

Article 

provided 

As 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/memorandum_04052011_en.pdf. 
Signatories  to  the  MoU  are:  the  Adidas  group,  AIM  (European  Brands  Association),  the  Allianz 
Deutscher  Produzenten  —  Film  &  Fernsehen  e.V,  the  Amer  Sports  group,  the  Anti-Counterfeiting 
Group  (ACG),  Amazon,  the  International  Bureau  of  Societies  Managing  Recording  and  Mechanical 
Reproduction Rights (BIEM), Burberry, Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP), 
eBay,  the  European  Textile  and  Clothing  Confederation  (EURATEX),  the  Federation  of  Sports  and 
Play Associations (FSPA), the Federazione Moda Italia, the Federation of the European Sporting Goods 
Industry  (FESI),  Gant  AB,  the  Bundesverband  der  Schuhindustrie  e.V.,  the  Interactive  Software 
Federation (ISFE), the International Video Federation (IVF), the Italian Association of Foreign Trade 
(AICE), Lacoste, the Lego group, the LVMH group, Mattel Inc, Microsoft, the MIH group, the Motion 
Picture Association (MPA) EMEA, Nike, Nokia, Price-Minister — Rakuten group, Procter & Gamble, 
Richemont, the Swedish Anti-Counterfeiting Group (SACG) and Unilever. 
Article  40  of  the  MoU  provides  that  the  signature  of  the  MoU  (4  May  2011)  will  be  followed  by  an 
assessment  period  of  twelve  months.  While  the  initial  assessment  period  had  been  fixed  at  twelve 
months, Signatories unanimously concluded to extend this period by an additional six months in order 
to allow for comprehensive testing of all the measures provided for in the MoU. 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/stakeholders/index_en.htm. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

THE MOU 

2.1. 

A novel cooperative approach 

In both its 2009 Communication on enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights 
in  the  internal  market5  and  its  2011  Communication  on  a  single  market  for  intellectual 
property  rights6,  the  Commission  highlighted  the  importance  of  voluntary  and  collaborative 
approaches  by  intellectual  property  Rights  Owners  and  other  stakeholders  such  as  Internet 
Platforms,  wholesalers,  retailers  and  consumers  as  well  as  trade  associations,  to  combat 
counterfeiting.  

The 2009 Communication considered that cooperation rather than litigation should become 
the prevailing approach among stakeholders operating in a rapidly-evolving technological and 
commercial  environment.  Stakeholder  Dialogues  were  proposed  as  a  working  method 
towards  possible  voluntary  agreements,  i.e.  constructive  dialogues  focusing  on  concrete 
problems and workable and practical solutions that must be realistic, balanced, proportionate 
and fair for all concerned. Such a joint, inclusive and participative approach fits well with the 
Commission’s Better Regulation agenda. 

In the context of this MoU, the European Commission took on a novel function as facilitator 
of  such  Dialogues  by  providing  administrative  and  logistic  support  and  by  safeguarding, 
where necessary, a fair balance among the different interests at stake, notably the legitimate 
rights and expectations of EU citizens. 

The  European  Commission’s  facilitator  role  also  ensures  that  such  Stakeholders’  Dialogues 
and  possible  subsequent  agreements  are  transparent  and  fully  compliant  with  the  existing 
legal framework, scrupulously respecting fundamental rights and freedoms. 
Both the European Parliament7 and the Council8 supported the Commission in this approach. 

As  a  first  example  of  the  cooperative  approach,  the  Commission  launched  a  Stakeholders’ 
Dialogue  on  the  online  sale  of  counterfeit  goods,  which  resulted  in  a  MoU  involving  33 
companies and trade associations, covering 39 different internet sites. 

2.2. 

Scope and architecture of the MoU 

Online  trading  offers  unprecedented  opportunities  to  businesses  and  consumers  to  buy  and 
sell goods, nationally, across the internal borders of the internal market, and internationally. 
Within the internal market, the internet reduces cross-border barriers to trade. 

Unfortunately, the internet has also become one of the major channels for counterfeits. Most 
e-commerce  via  Internet  Platforms  is  completely  legitimate.  However,  illicit  or  fraudulent 
commercial traders in counterfeits are also exploiting the advantages of e-commerce to offer 
counterfeit  products  directly  to  consumers.  For  example,  Signatories  point  to  a  new 
generation  of  (small-scale)  counterfeit  sellers  who  acquire  counterfeits  cheaply  from  online 
sites or via more traditional distribution channels in modest quantities and subsequently offer 

5 

6 

7 

8 

COM(2009) 467final  of  11.9.2009:  enhancing  the  enforcement  of  intellectual  property  rights  in  the 
internal market. 
COM(2011) 287final  of  24.5.2011:  a  single  market  for  intellectual  property  rights  —  Boosting 
creativity  and  innovation  to  provide  economic  growth,  high  quality  jobs  and  first  class  products  and 
services in Europe.  
European Parliament Resolution of 22 September 2010 on enforcement of intellectual property rights in 
the internal market; 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-
0340. 
Council Resolution of 1 March 2010 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal 
market, OJ C56 of 6.3.2010, p. 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
them for sale on internet sites. Neither the initial seller of the goods nor the counterfeit goods 
are  necessarily  located  on  EU  territory.  Legitimate  internet  platforms  and  rights  owners 
offering  services  to  sellers  and  buyers  can  thus  fall  victim  to  counterfeit  dealers,  to  the 
detriment  of  consumers,  Rights  Owners,  e-commerce  service  providers,  the  economy  and 
society. 

Prior  to  the  MoU,  Internet  Platforms  and  Rights  Owners  were  already  taking  action  against 
online offers of counterfeit goods, but as a result of the Stakeholders’ Dialogue starting up, a 
general awareness emerged that more could be achieved. 

The MoU focuses on disrupting and deterring the supply side of the counterfeit market, 
i.e.  it  seeks  to  eliminate  the  online  offer  of  counterfeit  goods  as  quickly  as  possible.  It 
provides  for  proportionate,  dissuasive  action  against  those  who  repeatedly  try  to  sell 
counterfeits.  In  addition,  it  seeks  to  achieve  better  protection  for  consumers  who 
unintentionally  buy  a  fake,  or  for  legitimate  sellers  of  goods  who  may  feel  they  are  unduly 
restricted/delayed in presenting a product to sell online. 

The MoU promotes a strategy based on three lines of defence. These seek to ensure that illicit 
offers do not appear online; and that if they do, they are taken down as quickly as possible, 
and,  in  any  event,  rapidly  enough  to  prevent  further  transactions  from  taking  place.  The 
measures all operate simultaneously and in real-time. 

First,  it  is  very  important  that  customers,  i.e.  sellers  and  buyers,  understand  the 
counterfeiting phenomenon, its inherent risks for consumers and the detrimental effects 
on Rights Owners. Customers can be active parties in the fight against counterfeiting. To this 
end,  Internet  Platforms  are  committed  to  making  appropriate  information  available  to 
potential  sellers  and  buyers,  in  an  easily  accessible  way  and,  where  appropriate,  in 
cooperation  with  the  Rights  Owners.  They  should  explain  that  offering  counterfeit  goods  is 
illegal, and suggest precautions that buyers should take to avoid buying them. Well-informed 
sellers  on  Internet  Platforms  should  make  a  commitment  not  to  offer  such  goods.  Well-
informed consumers should be  aware  of tools and procedures  to follow if they  have bought 
counterfeit goods. The MoU is fully in line with the Commission’s recent Consumer Agenda, 
which  encourages  intermediaries  and  traders  to  move  beyond  mere  compliance  with 
legislation and to develop self-regulatory measures to enhance consumer protection9. 

The  second  line  of  defence  involves  ‘Pro-Active  and  Preventive  Measures’  (PPMs)  as  a 
timely  and  adequate  response  to  attempts  to  sell  counterfeits,  either  before  the  offer  being 
made  available  to  the  public  or  shortly  after.  By  taking  such  measures,  Rights  Owners  and 
Internet Platforms try to reduce online offers of fake goods. Such measures may be technical 
and/or  procedural,  and  often  require  human  intervention.  They  are  often  specific  to  the 
respective  business  models  and  the  organisation  of  the  Rights  Owners  and/or  the  Internet 
Platforms. One example of a PPM is the vetting of sellers prior to allowing them to sell on an 
Internet  Platform  and,  in  certain  instances,  the  continual  assessment  of  their  performance. 
Effective  PPMs  are  often  sophisticated,  requiring  substantial  resources  and  effective 
cooperation between rights owners and internet platforms. PPMs seek to ensure that offers 
of counterfeit goods do not appear online. 

Third, despite customer information and PPMs, offers of counterfeit goods may still become 
available  to  the  public  on  an  Internet  Platform.  In  such  instances,  rights  owners  and 
consumers  can  notify  the  Internet  Platform  concerned  of  the  existence  of  such  offers.  This 
allows the Platform to take appropriate action, including taking down the offer from the site 

9 

Communication  from  the  Commission  ‘A  European  Consumer  Agenda.  Boosting  confidence  and 
growth’ COM(2012 225 final. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
concerned.  Notice  and  Take  Down  procedures  (NTD)  seek  to  offer  a  simple,  fair  and 
expeditious procedure to remove online offers of counterfeit goods. 

The MoU complements these measures by providing better consumer protection, including 
the  possibility  of  receiving  a  replacement  product  or  a  refund  under  certain  conditions.  The 
MoU also includes dissuasive actions against repeat infringers.The Signatories of the MoU 
have  committed  themselves  to  cooperate  in  the  detection  of  repeat  infringers.  The  Internet 
Platforms  undertake  to  implement  and  enforce  deterrents  according  to  their  internal 
guidelines.  Repeat  infringer  policies  have  to  be  objective  and  proportionate  and  take  full 
account of the  circumstances.  Information-sharing on repeat infringers under the MoU fully 
respects data protection laws. 

Consumers  should  use  all  available  information  when  purchasing  on-line  to  avoid  buying 
counterfeits,  but  may  nevertheless  suffer  damage.  They  may  have  been  misled  and 
unintentionally  bought  counterfeit  goods,  resulting  in  economic  or  other  harm.  The  MoU 
includes  a  minimum  set  of  consumer  protection  provisions.  Compensation  for  economic  or 
other harm depends on the policies of the individual Signatories concerned. A consumer may 
also have made an offer to sell an alleged counterfeit good which was taken down, and may 
have suffered harm if such a take-down was proven to be unjustified. 

Finally, the MoU ensures that, during the assessment period, Signatories do not initiate new 
litigation against each other concerning matters covered by the MoU. This moratorium on 
litigation is an important provision that emphasises the mutual commitment of Signatories to 
work together in good faith.  

2.3. 

Self-regulation on the basis of the MoU 

Voluntary cooperation by a large number of stakeholders with different interests and business 
models  is  often  difficult  to  achieve.  It  takes  time  to  build  the  trust  necessary  for  such 
cooperation to work. 

The  process  towards  signing  of  the  MoU  as  well  as  the  signing  itself  have  proven  to  be 
essential steps towards building a climate of mutual trust and confidence among Signatories. 
The structured dialogue enabled stakeholders to gain a better understanding of their respective 
concerns as well as technical, organisational and commercial limitations. Mutual trust and 
confidence is the unifying factor. Without it, voluntary cooperation is doomed to fail.  

Other critical factors for success have been: 

•  A clear incentive for each Signatory resulting from the voluntary agreement; 

•  Safeguards in the agreement to protect the essential interests of each Signatory, to cater for 
different  business  models  and  commercial  policies,  and  to  ensure  legal  certainty  to 
overcome resistance within the respective organisations; 

•  A clearly-focused voluntary agreement including a well-defined objective, combined with 
clearly  formulated,  realistic  obligations,  proportionately  allocated  to  parties  (smart 
enforcement); 

•  A  high  level  of  consent  and  commitment  within  the  companies  signing  up  to  the 

agreement; 

•  Sufficient  built-in  flexibility  to  allow  for  adaptations  due  to  changing  circumstances, 

without having to renegotiate the agreement. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
In  addition,  the  involvement  of  the  European  Commission’s  ‘facilitating’  services  has 
structured and driven the dialogues and negotiations, as well as encouraging stakeholders to 
overcome obstacles. Political support from national  authorities  and  parliaments  may  also  be 
instrumental. 

External  transparency  increases  credibility  and  ensures  accountability  and  responsibility 
towards stakeholders, national authorities and Parliaments as well as to society as a whole. It 
may  also  encourage  new  stakeholders  to  sign  up  to  the  voluntary  agreement  and  the  best 
practice it promotes. 

3. 

THE FUNCTIONING AND IMPACT OF THE MOU 

3.1.  Making the MoU work 

The MoU is limited to Signatories that provide services and goods in the EU/EEA. To clarify 
the  scope  of  application  of  the  MoU,  Signatories  identified  the  web  sites  and  the  brands 
covered by it (see Annex). 

A list of contact points was drawn up to facilitate communication between the Signatories on 
policy matters related to the MoU as well as to enable direct operational contacts between the 
brand protection staff of Rights Owners in different Member States and the sites operated by 
the Internet Platforms.  

The availability of this basic information in a readily available and regularly updated form has 
helped Signatories to apply the MoU under operational circumstances. It also made the local 
organisations of the Signatories aware of the MoU and its potential and capabilities. 

Internet  Platforms  and  Rights  Owners  took  part  in  bilateral  meetings  to  establish  contact, 
exchange  information  and  discuss  operational  issues.  These  meetings,  combined  with 
consistent  use  of  the  respective  rights  protection  programmes  of  the  Internet  Platforms, 
enabled Signatories to pool knowledge, identify trends and, as a result, expedite take-down of 
suspicious offers, thus enhancing prevention. 

In  general,  the  parties  to  the  MoU  have  signalled  that  it  has  significantly  improved 
communication  among  Signatories,  which  has  facilitated  collaboration.  In  specific  cases, 
there  have  been  concerted  actions,  such  as  rapid  reactions  to  cases  of  sudden  increases  in 
specific counterfeits. 

3.2. 

Notice and Take Down procedures — a cornerstone of the MoU 

All Signatories hold that notice and take-down procedures (NTD) are indispensable measures 
in  the  fight  against  the  online  sale  of  counterfeits.  In  the  context  of  this  MoU,  NTD  rules 
provide for:  

(i) a mechanism to remove individual offers of alleged counterfeit items from the sites of the 
Internet Platforms and  

(ii)  a  mechanism  to  notify  Internet  Platforms  about  counterfeit  selling  users  (seller-based 
notifications).  

This is the principal tool to apply when allegedly illicit offers have become available online. 
Further, Signatories noted that the MoU has shown it to be useful; NTD rules should not be 
too  prescriptive  and  must  include  certain  mechanisms  to  deal  with  abuses  of  the  system. 
Companies  have  come  up  with  their  own  tailor-made  methods  to  address  infringements  on 
their online sites. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Signatories  reported  that  Internet  Platforms  receive  thousands  of  NTD  requests  per  year, 
based on all  kinds  of  grounds. In the  context of the MoU, in line with the EU acquis10, the 
purpose of NTD procedures is to remove offers of alleged counterfeit goods from the sites of 
the Internet Platforms in a timely, efficient and effective way. 

All  Internet  Platforms  already  had  some  NTD  mechanism  in  place  prior  to  the  MoU,  to 
enable/  allow  Rights  Owners  and  other  persons  and  organisations  affected  to  notify  alleged 
counterfeits. While some were easy to find on the web sites, many other NTD systems were 
considered  not  to  be  functioning  satisfactorily.  Moreover,  not  all  Rights  Owners  were  even 
using  the  available  NTD.  Notifications  were  incomplete,  not  specific  enough,  difficult  to 
process, sometimes targeting individual items, but also whole catalogues of products. Follow-
up of notices varied across the Internet Platforms and were not always considered satisfactory 
by the notifying Rights Owners. Offers were not taken down at all, took too long to be taken 
down or re-emerged quickly after take down. 

Since the introduction of the MoU, some Internet Platforms have reported that it takes them 
up to 24 hours to remove an online offer (also known as a listing), but occasionally up to 48 
hours; for others, it takes 2 – 5 hours. Others say contested offers are removed the same day 
or early the following day. However, Rights Owners have reported differences in processing 
speed by the same Internet Platform across different Member States. 

Further, the Internet Platforms have pointed out that they have recorded a wide variation in 
the average monthly number of notifications of counterfeit offers (ranging between one and 
several  hundred)  by  given  Rights  Owners.  Since  the  MoU  entered  into  force,  they  very 
seldom reject removal requests and seldom need to ask for additional information to process a 
notification:  requests  for  additional  information  usually  relate  to  notifications  from  Rights 
Owners who are new to the NTD process. Some Rights Owners felt that unnecessary detail 
was  required  in  certain  cases.  Once  an  allegedly  illicit  offer  has  been  taken  off-line,  the 
Internet  Platform  inter  alia  informs  the  seller  concerned,  including  the  reasons  for  the  take 
down. 

Notifications  about  counterfeit  selling  users  —  as  opposed  to  notifications  about  specific 
offers  —  have  been  relatively  rare.  Generally,  seller-based  notifications  are  seen  as 
cumbersome,  as  they  almost  always  require  additional  offer-by-offer  investigation  before  a 
decision can be taken. As repeat infringers (identified bad faith sellers) will be sanctioned in 
any  event  (following  offer-based  notifications),  seller-based  notifications  are  not  seen  as 
offering significant benefits. By contrast, a Rights Owner reported that while the cooperation 
in  NTD  processes  is  working  efficiently  for  item-based  NTD,  the  extent  to  which  Internet 
Platforms  are  taking  measures  in  response  to  notifications  on  sellers  involved  in  the  sale  of 
counterfeit goods is unclear. 

The Terms and Conditions used by the various Internet Platforms clearly prohibit the sale of 
items that infringe third party rights. They also make it clear that infringing items are subject 
to  deletion.  Some  Internet  Platforms  provide  Rights  Owners  with  forms  to  use  for 
notifications,  though  these  are  basic  and  primarily  designed  for  Rights  Owners  who  are  not 
members  of  the  MoU.  Although  the  actual  processing  of  notices  is  an  internal  process,  the 
larger Internet Platforms offer online explanations about the NTD procedure. These serve as a 
point of reference, especially for non-MoU Rights Owners. These explanations may also be 
part of the specific Internet Platform’s rights protection programme or site’s ‘help’ section. 

Since the entry into force of the MoU, all Signatories have reported improvements in all of 
these NTD fields. Several Internet Platforms have reviewed and often streamlined their NTD 

10 

Directive 2000/31/EC, Chapter II, section 4; OJ L178 of 17.7.2000, p. 1. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
tools and procedures. One Internet Platform re-engineered its NTD process and implemented 
a common procedure on all its European sites11. 

Rights Owners reported that by and large NTD is now working well on the sites of the 
Internet  Platforms  covered  by  the  MoU12.  However,  for  Rights  Owners,  maintaining  a 
monitoring programme is often expensive. 

3.3. 

Pro-active and Preventive Measures — a critical measure for effectively fighting 
counterfeiting 

Pro-active  and  Preventive  Measures  (PPMs)  are  the  measures  and  procedures  enabling 
Internet Platforms and Rights Owners to prevent illicit offers from becoming available online 
or limiting that availability to only a short period. These measures and procedures varied not 
only  among  Signatories,  but  sometimes  even  between  the  different  sites  of  a  particular 
Internet Platform. 

According to the Signatories, reactive NTD on its own appears to be insufficient to address 
the  issue  of  counterfeit  sales  on  online  marketplaces.  Adequate  proactive  safeguards  to 
prevent  counterfeit  goods  from  being  offered  for  sale  on  online  marketplaces  are  equally 
important in the fight against online counterfeiting. 

PPMs  are  strongly  linked  to  the  individual  business  models  and  practices  of  the  Internet 
Platforms  and  Rights  Owners  concerned.  They  are  one  of  the  ways  Internet  Platforms  can 
differentiate  themselves  from  their  competitors  on  the  market.  They  may  significantly 
influence customer satisfaction and consumer trust in the offers available on a particular site. 
Several Internet Platforms are relatively transparent about their PPMs. Internet Platforms also 
indicated  that,  to  remain  effective,  PPMs  often  have  to  be  sophisticated  and  able  to  adapt 
rapidly  to  changing  circumstances.  Therefore,  PPMs  are  often  expensive  to  implement.  For 
the Rights Owners, PPMs are part of their brand protection measures and are closely related 
to their brand protection strategies and operations. 

All  Signatories  repeatedly  emphasised  that  the  sharing  of  information  between  Rights 
Owners  and  Internet  Platforms  is  critical  to  the  effectiveness  of  PPMs.  Several 
Signatories  noticed  that  the  efficiency  of  PPMs  seemed  to  fluctuate  over  time  and  over  the 
different sites of the Internet Platforms, which is not surprising, given the agile and adaptive 
nature of those who try to sell counterfeits. It shows that Signatories have to stay permanently 
alert and highlights the need for continued cooperation. 

One  signatory  reported  that  due  to  the  signing  of  the  MoU,  investment  in  PPMs  both 
increased and led to tangible results. One Internet Platform pointed out that it now voluntarily 
and proactively removes more potentially problematic listings than are removed reactively13. 

PPMs range from technical measures, such as the ability for an Internet Platform to detect the 
use  of  certain  keywords  or  on  offers  of  pre-release  content,  to  information-sharing  with 
Internet  Platforms  on  counterfeit  product  indicators  and  the  modus  operandi  of  counterfeit 

11 

12 

13 

This common procedure enabled this Internet Platform to bring additional sites under the umbrella of 
the MoU. 
This conclusion is exclusively valid for NTD in the context of this MoU and is without prejudice to the 
functioning of NTD procedures for other fields of illegal content or for non-signatories of the MoU. In 
particular, it is without prejudice to the conclusions of the Commission in the context of the initiative on 
notice-and-action 
(http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/notice-and-
action/index_en.htm).  
Q3 2011: 65/35, i.e. 65 % of suspicious listings related to MoU Signatory brands removed proactively 
versus 35 % removed reactively. 
Q3 2012: 80/20, i.e. 80 % of suspicious listings relating to MoU Signatory brands removed proactively 
versus 20 % removed reactively.  

procedures 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
sellers. Some Internet Platforms reported that they use certain detection technologies and pre-
emptive takedowns. 

By taking proactive measures to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods, some Signatories were 
concerned that they could be held to have actual knowledge of the illegal activities that would 
put them outside the liability protection regime of the E-commerce Directive.  

3.4. 

Repeat Infringers 

Pursuant  to  paragraph  35  of  the  MoU,  Internet  Platforms  are  to  take  notifications  on  repeat 
infringers into consideration and implement and enforce deterrent repeat infringer policies. 

The repeat infringers’ policies of the various Internet Platforms generally envisage dissuasive 
action  (for  example,  a  temporary  account  suspension)  targeted  against  the  seller  (and  not 
simply the relevant offer) after the second infringement. More severe dissuasive action can be 
applied if a seller is found to be offering counterfeit goods again. All Internet Platforms have 
measures in place to prevent re-registration of banned sellers. 

While dissuasive action is important and even essential, the Internet Platforms maintain that 
there  are  ways  to  remedy  repeat  infringements  other  than  just  the  suspension  of  a  user 
account, such as, for example, education, safety measures, disincentives, or restrictions. 

The dissuasive action policy is outlined by the Internet Platform’s terms and conditions on the 
website  concerned.  Some  Internet  Platforms  additionally  summarise  the  scheme  in  other 
sections of their websites, such as in the rights protection programme or ‘help’ sections. 

Internet  Platforms  do  not  exercise  their  dissuasive  action  policy  in  an  automatic  fashion. 
Individual corrections are sometimes necessary and undertaken as seen fit. A seller obviously 
acting in bad faith may be banned right away, while a repeat infringer whose first low-scale 
infringement occurred long ago may be warned again before the account is suspended. Some 
Internet Platforms handle sanctions purely on a case-by-case basis, albeit with similar results 
and efficiency. When it comes to deciding what dissuasive action to apply, several aspects 
are  taken  into  consideration,  such  as  the  severity  of  the  policy  violation,  the  number  of 
alleged  infringements,  repeat  infringement,  period  of  time  since  prior  infringement,  seller 
feedback,  language  that  indicates  clear  intent,  scale  of  legitimate  business  as  well  as  other 
more  suspicious  behaviour,  such  as  efforts  to  avoid  detection.  As  a  result,  it  has  not  been 
possible to adopt a single uniform definition of dissuasive action. 

Communication  between  the  Rights  Owners  and  the  Internet  Platforms  is  again  key  in 
implementing effective repeat infringer policies. Internet Platforms need information from the 
Rights Owners concerned; otherwise, their repeat infringer policies are less effective. Several 
Internet  Platforms  have  developed  specialised  reporting  tools  and  made  these  available  to 
Rights  Owners  to  facilitate  the  mutual  exchange  of  information,  including  feedback  to  the 
notifying Rights Owner, while respecting the legitimate interest of the persons involved. 

Dissuasive  action  has  an  immediate  impact  on  sellers,  be  they  justified  or  not:  loss  of  sales 
opportunity  for  the  particular  item,  time  investment  in  mandatory  training  or  additional 
security measures; loss of special trust status, leading to lowered consumer trust and, thus, to 
lower average selling prices; sales restrictions limiting business could lead to surplus stocks, 
lost  investments,  economic  losses;  permanent  suspensions  might  put  whole  businesses  (and 
therefore  their  employees  and  business  partners)  at  risk.  Consequently,  Internet  Platforms 
apply dissuasive action reluctantly and with due care. 

Repeat infringer policies are very important for Rights Owners because repeat infringers are 
those that harm them most, particularly if they are able, by deceptive practices, to continue to 
trade  in  counterfeits.  Rights  Owners  continue  to  claim  that  there  are  repeat  infringers 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
that  have  been  selling  counterfeits  on  different  Internet  Platforms  under  a  variety  of 
names  for  quite  some  time.  Rights  Owners  do  notify  the  Internet  Platforms  of  repeat 
infringers  on  the  basis  of  their  own  investigations,  including  the  re-appearance  of  offers 
previously taken down. However, it is not always possible for Rights Owners to detect, and 
subsequently  identify,  repeat  infringers,  for  example,  because  the  site  concerned  does  not 
provide search facilities on sellers’ data. 

Internet Platforms are considered to be taking more vigorous action than before against 
repeat infringers, either on their own initiative or at the instigation of the Rights Owner(s) 
concerned,  but  they  apply  their  own  judgment  and  take  account  of  all  the  specific 
circumstances of the case14. Therefore, not all notifications of repeat infringers are followed 
by  an  account  suspension  or  termination.  Since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  MoU,  Internet 
Platforms have become more transparent towards Rights Owners on their dissuasive actions 
policy  and  its  application.  On  a  bilateral  basis,  some  Internet  Platforms  and  Rights  Owners 
exchange information on individual cases, but this does not seem to be the general practice. 

All  Internet  Platforms  have  introduced  technical  and  procedural  measures  to  detect  repeat 
infringers  and  to  prevent  banned  repeat  infringers  from  re-registering  on  their  sites.  Such 
efforts can only be successful to a certain extent due to the covert tactics of bad-faith sellers. 
Only  more  mutual  information  exchange  and  direct  cooperation  between  Internet  Platforms 
and Rights Owners can improve the situation. 

Signatories are investing in tools and practices to combat repeat infringers. Over the last year, 
these  joint  efforts  are  progressively  showing  better  results.  In  some  instances,  remarkable 
successes have been achieved15. Nevertheless, more effort to clarify practical implementation 
may be useful to improve operational performance of measures against repeat infringers. 

3.5. 

Cooperation, including sharing of information 

Cooperation and sharing of information is crucial to the effectiveness of PPMs. All Internet 
Platforms have adopted and published their IPR policy on their respective sites. All of 
them clearly communicate the details of their policies. These policies are also clearly reflected 
in the Terms and Conditions for the use of the sites concerned, as well in the contracts with 
sellers. All Internet Platforms enforce their IPR policy. 

Several  Internet  Platforms  have  developed  special  rights  protection  cooperation 
programmes,  which  are  often  the  basis  for  enhanced  cooperation  between  the  Internet 
Platform concerned and brand owners in general. Participation in these programmes by Rights 
Owners varies per site. Since the entry into force of the MoU, several Rights Owners have 
joined these programmes, depending on their specific needs16. 

The MoU does not prevent Signatories from exchanging other or more detailed information, 
for example, on a bilateral basis and subject to additional conditions. Some Internet Platforms 

14 

15 

16 

An  Internet  Platform  indicated  in  its  Annual  Report  on  its  fight  against  counterfeiting  that  in  2011  it 
closed  1715  accounts,  which  in  terms  of  numbers  is  an  increase  of  14 %  compared  to  2010.  Another 
Internet  Platform  closed  or  severely  restricted  several  thousand  sellers  of  goods  of  MoU  Signatories 
during  the  third  Quarter  of  2012,  also  suggesting  an  increase  compared  to  the  same  period  the  year 
before. 
Several  Rights  Owners  found  a  decrease  of  repeat  infringers  on  a  number  of  Internet  Platforms.  One 
Rights  Owner  even  indicated  that  on  a  major  Internet  Platform  the  number  of  repeat  infringers  of  its 
brands has been reduced by 50 %. 
For  one  Internet  Platform,  all  Rights  Owners  have  now  joined  the  rights  protection  programme.  For 
another  Internet  Platform,  several  Rights  Owners  seriously  affected  by  counterfeits  have  joined  since 
the entry into force of the MoU; others are using the NTD procedures without formally adhering to the 
rights protection programme itself; a minority is neither adhering to the programme nor using the NTD 
procedure. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
have  disclosed  statistical  analyses  of  offers  removed  (both  proactively  and  on  receipt  of  a 
NTD request) and this information has proved useful. Internet Platforms agreed to disclose, 
upon  request,  the  identity  and  contact  details  of  alleged  infringers,  as  permitted  by  the 
applicable  data  protection  laws.  In  only  one  case  have  issues  been  reported  by  Signatories 
regarding this aspect of the MoU17. 

3.6. 

Consumer trust, information and protection 

Consumer  trust  is  a  critical  success  factor  for  all  Signatories.  Consequently,  all 
Signatories  seek  to  protect  consumers  adequately  against  counterfeits  and  find  ways  to 
compensate bone fide consumers who unintentionally bought counterfeit goods. 

All Internet Platforms inform consumers of best practice on how to use their services safely 
and to be aware of suspicious offers. 

All  major  Internet  Platforms  have  compensation  schemes  for  damages.  However,  these 
Buyer  Protection  Schemes  are  all  very  different  in  terms  of  scope  and  procedures.  For 
example,  one  Internet  Platform  offers  a  full  Anti-Counterfeiting  Guarantee  and  keeps  the 
money in escrow until the transaction has been completed to the full satisfaction of the buyer. 
Other  than  reimbursement  via  the  online  payment  scheme,  Internet  Platforms  compensate 
consumers  via  their  own  buyer’s  protection  programme  or  a  comprehensive  return  policy. 
Several Internet Platforms assist consumers in getting a refund from the seller concerned. In 
this  context,  it  should  be  noted  that  EU  legislation  includes  minimum  rules  protecting 
consumers  who  purchase  counterfeit  goods  from  professional  sellers.  In  instances  where  an 
Internet  Platform  acts  as  a  professional  seller,  Directive  1999/44/EC  on  consumer  sale  of 
goods and associated guarantees gives the consumer the right to have the goods replaced by a 
genuine item or, if this is not possible, to obtain a refund. 

Rights  Owners  not  involved  in  a  particular  sale  are  often  contacted  by  disappointed 
consumers  who  have  bought  counterfeit  goods18.  Clearly,  Rights  Owners  do  not  have  a 
general obligation to offer compensation or to assist the consumer to seek redress. However, 
several Rights Owners undertake special efforts. 

Several  Internet  Platforms  systematically  encourage  consumers  to  report  counterfeits  to  the 
local law enforcement authorities. Some national authorities, such as competition surveillance 
and consumer protection agencies, also tend to report alleged consumer protection violations, 
including misleading advertising, unfair commercial practices and violation of labelling rules. 

All Signatories agreed that one of the principal objectives of the MoU is to improve consumer 
protection. No negative feedback from consumers has been reported by the Signatories19. One 
Internet  Platform  even  reported  that  the  number  of  negative  feedback  reports  on  sellers  and 
claims from dissatisfied buyers had dropped by 30 % since early 2011. 

3.7. 

External communication and awareness raising 

Trade  associations  play  an  important  role  in  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  MoU.  Several 
trade  associations  have  been  instrumental  in  building  constructive  relationships  between 
Rights Owners and Internet Platforms. While some trade associations actually enforce rights 

17 

18 

19 

For  more  background,  see  also  the  EDPS  comments  of  13  September  2012 on  DG  MARKT’s  public 
consultation on procedures for notifying and acting on illegal content hosted by online intermediaries; 
http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Comments
/2012/12-09-13_Comments_DG_MARKT_EN.pdf. 
Typical  examples  are  failing  consumer  electronic  devices  or  badly  tailored  sport  shirts  for  which  the 
buyer complains to the alleged manufacturer. After inspection, it shows that the product concerned has 
not been produced by the manufacturer, but is fake. 
No consumer protection organisation signed up to the MoU.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
on behalf of their members and all of them also represent the interests of their members and 
coordinate the joint positions to be taken on behalf of their members in relation to the MoU, 
trade associations play a pivotal role in disseminating the concepts underlying the MoU and in 
encouraging their members to respect its principles. Most of the trade associations have been 
advertising the progress of the MoU and promoting its benefits in updates via their website, e-
circulars to members and informative sessions during their conferences. 

Signatories recognised the importance of keeping national authorities involved in combating 
online counterfeiting and IPR agencies, as well as the Members of the European Parliament, 
fully informed about the MoU and associated developments. They all highlighted the benefit 
of stepping up such awareness-raising subsequent to the adoption of the current report. 
At EU level, the MoU has been referenced in relevant policy communications20. Also at the 
level  of  the  Member  States,  similar  initiatives  have  emerged21.  At  international  level,  the 
MoU  is  promoted  in  international  fora  such  as  WIPO22  and  the  WTO,  as  well  as  in 
discussions with the EU’s main trading partners. 

3.8. 

Benchmarking the effects of the MoU 

Signatories have provided the Commission with a substantial amount of  data demonstrating 
the functioning of the MoU and its impact on their business for this report. Most of the data 
are considered confidential due to their commercially sensitive nature and cannot therefore be 
directly quoted. 

Despite  all  efforts,  all  Internet  Platforms  still  have  offers  of  counterfeit  goods  on  their 
sites. Sellers of counterfeit goods have become more adept at presenting their offers in such a 
way that it is not always possible to tell from the online offer whether the product is fake or 
genuine. Given this, PPMs based on keywords or pictures as well as prices have shown their 
limitations. 

Many  Signatories  have  invested  in  developing  appropriate  indicators  (so-called  Key 
Performance Indicators) in an attempt to measure progress, implementation and functioning 
of the MoU in a reliable and transparent way. While such indicators have to take account of 
the  particular  characteristics  of  different  business  models,  as  well  as  the  goods  and  sectors 
involved, it was not possible to use a single set of indicators for measurements by the different 
Signatories.  Consequently,  it  has  not  yet  been  possible  to  generate  headline  figures  as  a 
quantitative vector for assessing and communicating the effects of the MoU. 

To  monitor  trends  in  offers  of  counterfeit  goods  on  the  respective  sites  of  the  Internet 
Platforms,  several  Rights  Owners  have  undertaken  systematic  test  purchase  programmes, 
which  have  been  repeated  several  times  under  comparable  circumstances.  These  have  been 
valuable in identifying trends. 

20 

21 

22 

COM(2012) 537final of 26.9.2012: Promoting cultural and creative sectors for growth and jobs in the 
EU 
SWD(2012)286final of 26.9.2012: Competitiveness of the European High End Industries; 
COM(2012) 582final of 10.10.2012: Industrial Policy Communication Update — A Stronger European 
Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery; 
COM(2012) 784final of 18.12.2012: The Digital Agenda for Europe — Driving European growth 
digitally; 
European Parliament Resolution on 11 December 2012 on completing the Digital Single Market . P7-
TA(2012)0468, point 56. 
For  example,  the  French  Charter  on  the  fight  against  counterfeiting  on  the  internet  (2009), 
complemented by special Charters covering small adds sites and postal operators (2012). 
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/2012/sct_info_net_ge_12/index.html. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
One Internet Platform said that since mid-2011, it had observed a noticeable decrease (20 %) 
in the number of NTD reports being filed by Rights Owners, which probably corresponds to a 
decrease in the number of suspicious listings visible on the Platform. Over the same period, it 
noticed  that  proactive  removals  of  suspicious  items  by  its  PPMs  had  almost  doubled.  One 
Rights  Owner  reported  that  last  year,  its  brands  sent  out  nearly  120  000  notifications  of 
infringing content to internet intermediaries, of which only 0.005 % were unjustified. 

Another major Internet Platform reported that in the third quarter of 2012, over 8 600 sellers 
saw  their  accounts  blocked  or  severely  restricted  after  they  were  found  to  have  posted 
suspicious  listings  of  goods  bearing  MoU  Signatories’  brands.  Though  specific  MoU 
signatory-related  statistics  for  the  same  periods  in  previous  years  are  not  available, 
conservative extrapolation of these figures suggests an increase compared to previous years. 
One Rights Owner reported that since the start of the MoU, on a quarterly basis, the number 
of repeat infringers has halved. Another Rights Owner also mentioned a significant decrease 
in  repeat  infringers  still  active  on  the  same  Internet  Platforms.  In  May  2012,  15.7 %  repeat 
infringers had been active, and by August 2012, only 5 % of repeat infringers were recorded. 

The effect of the MoU on the actual presence of counterfeit offers on the sites of the Internet 
Platforms has been variable according to Signatories’ reports. One Rights Owner reported a 
decline from 40 % counterfeits for a specific product category to a consistent 0 % on a 
major Internet Platform. The same Rights Owner reported a general decrease in counterfeits 
on  the  sites  of  another  major  Internet  Platform.  Another  Rights  Owner  reported  a  50 % 
reduction in numbers of fraudulent sellers and a 30 % reduction in illicit offers on the same 
Internet  Platform.  Yet  another  identified  about  12  000  unique  sellers  of  goods  carrying  its 
brand name being active on a particular Internet Platform during one week in Autumn 2012, 
of  which  an  overall  9 %  were  trading  in  counterfeits  across  five  major  EU  markets.  These 
results show that the sale of counterfeits tends to shift to Internet Platforms with a less strict 
enforcement  policy  (mostly  not  covered  by  the  MoU),  which  may  suggest  that  the  MoU 
promotes good practice and needs to be extended to new Signatories to remain effective as a 
voluntary measure. 

Only  one  Internet  Platform  communicated  figures  on  bad  buyer  experience  reports  (30 % 
decrease since early 2011). 

Reports from the Signatories show that companies vary in the priority they attach to actively 
fighting  counterfeits.  The  assigned  financial  and  human  resources  reflect  those  priorities. 
Brand  protection  is  expensive.  A  Rights  Owner  reported  that  it  spends  more  than  3  million 
EUR per year on brand protection measures, including the monitoring of online services and 
the notification of infringing offers. An Internet Platform reported total human resource costs 
for its anti-counterfeiting programme of the same order of magnitude. Another major Rights 
Owner claimed an annual cost of 1 million EUR. At the other end of the spectrum, a Rights 
Owner said it only spent a few thousand euro a year on brand protection measures. Internet 
Platforms  seem  to  invest  a  substantial  amount  of  resources  in  anti-counterfeiting  measures. 
More than one Internet Platform reported that about 40 staff members are involved in one way 
or  another  in  anti-counterfeiting  measures.  One  Platform  has  set  up  a  dedicated  Anti-
Counterfeiting  Operations  team,  which  provides  operational  support  to  the  Rights  Owner 
relations team. All Internet Platforms continue to invest in additional computer functionalities 
in areas such as NTD reporting, PPMs, monitoring of and reporting on repeat infringers, and 
customer  support.  Obviously,  the  amounts  spent  are  proportionate  to  the  size  and 
geographical  coverage  of  the  Platform.  This  applies  mutatis  mutandis  to  individual  Rights 
Owners. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Several  Platforms  mentioned  quite  a  substantial  investment  in  awareness  raising  activities, 
such  as  anti-counterfeiting  campaigns  in  cooperation  with  designers,  educational  workshops 
for  small  and  medium  size  enterprises  as  well  as  an  annual  anti-counterfeiting  conference. 
Trade  Associations  are  also  actively  raising  awareness  among  their  members.  Some 
individual Rights Owners have spoken about the MoU at public conferences. 

4. 

THE WAY FORWARD 

Online  counterfeiting  is  a  moving  target.  The  technology  and  business  models  used  by 
counterfeiters are  constantly changing.  Consequently, Internet Platforms and Rights Owners 
have  to  stay  alert  and  vigilant  to  be  ready  to  take  immediate  and  appropriate  action, 
whenever necessary. 

The MoU has passed its probation period. It is operating satisfactorily due to the commitment 
of the Signatories to make it work. To date, there is no apparent need to amend the text of 
the  MoU.  The  current  provisions  have  been  formulated  in  such  a  way  as  to  accommodate 
swift  actions  against  new  phenomena.  Nevertheless,  improvements  are  still  possible  with 
regard to operational implementation if it is to become the recognised ‘best practice’ standard. 

It appears that progress against the sale of counterfeits can best be achieved by consolidating 
achievements  so  far  and  making  the  MoU  work  even  better.  Consequently,  Signatories 
envisage the following work streams: 

Prolong the MoU and review it after a further two years 

Based on the current version of the MoU, Signatories are committed to continue applying 
it for another two years23. During this period, Signatories wish to meet twice a year under 
the  auspices  of  the  European  Commission.  During  the  spring,  a  plenary  meeting  would 
review  general  policy  issues.  At  the  autumn  meeting,  the  emphasis  would  be  on  more 
operational issues24. 

MoU  Signatories  and  the  European  Commission  agree  they  should  periodically  review 
whether  the  MoU  is  still  adequate  to  combat  online  offers  of  counterfeit  goods.  The 
Commission will therefore plan a second review on the lines of this one at the end of 2014. 
By that time, a common framework on key performance indicators should be fixed, which 
would measure the commitment of the Signatories. 

The  current  assessment  has  shown  there  is  still  room  for  improvement  in  implementing  the 
MoU. Bilateral meetings between Signatories should continue so that they can inform each 
other on specific issues and jointly seek practical solutions. In addition, and if the need arises, 
it  could  be  effective  to  extend  the  role  of  the  Commission  as  facilitator  and  let  it  evolve 
into  a  more  remedial  mediation  function  on  specific  issues.  This  might  be  useful  on 
sensitive issues relevant for a limited group of Signatories. 

Signatories and the European Commission will jointly develop an enhanced communication 
strategy  that  should  help  in  reaping  the  full  benefits  of  the  MoU  as  an  effort  towards  best 
practice for Rights Owners and Internet Platforms to curb online counterfeits. 

Extend membership of the MoU 

On  the  basis  of  their  experiences  so  far,  the  Signatories  agreed  that  it  would  be  useful  to 
extend  membership  of  the  MoU  to  include  new  Internet  Platforms,  distributors,  Rights 

23 

24 

Pursuant  to  Article  44  of  the  MoU,  each  Signatory  may  at  any  time  terminate  its  participation  in  the 
MoU by notification to the other Signatories and the European Commission. 
Article  42  of  the  MoU  envisages  a  prolongation  of  the  MoU,  after  the  assessment  period,  for  an 
indefinite period, combined with biannual meetings and a periodic Commission Report. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Owners  and  trade  associations.  Broadening  the  MoU  by  accepting  new  Signatories, 
particularly  from  additional  sectors  or  territories  willing  and  able  to  comply  with  its 
provisions is seen as an essential next step in making it more effective. The focus should be 
on  companies  and  trade  associations  that  are  potentially  instrumental  for  achieving  the 
objectives of the MoU and that would add value to it. 

To  spread  best  practice  and  facilitate  adherence  to  the  MoU,  Signatories  and  the  European 
Commission  will  endeavour  to  assist  non-signatory  Internet  Platforms  and  Rights 
Owners  to  adapt  their  business  processes  and  support  tools,  where  appropriate.  The  EU 
Observatory on the Infringement of IPR should also play a useful role in this.  

To  continue  improving  the  consumer  protection  dimension  of  the  MoU  and  to  ensure 
that its use rigorously protects fundamental rights, the Commission will continue to seek 
the  involvement,  and  preferably  full  participation,  of  representative  consumer  organisations 
and civil rights groups. Internet Platforms and Rights Owners should also seek new ways to 
improve consumer protection over and above what has already been agreed in the MoU. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
Annex: List of sites and brand names covered by the MoU 

Brands covered by the MoU 

Adidas group 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 

1. 

1. 
2. 

1. 

1. 

1. 
2. 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 

Adidas 

Y-3 

Reebok 

Rockport 

Taylor Made 

CCM 

ARC’TERYX 
MAVIC  
SALOMON  
SUUNTO  
PRECOR  
ATOMIC  
WILSON  
BONFIRE 

Burberry 

GANT 
GANT RUGGER 

Lacoste 

Lego 

Louis Vuitton 
Dior Couture  

Barbie 
Hot Wheels 
Fisher-Price 
Matchbox 
Corolle 
UNO 
Scrabble 

Allianz Amer Sports group  

Burberry 

Gant 

Lacoste 

Lego group 

LVMH group 

Mattel, Inc. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
8. 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 

1. 
2. 
3. 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

1. 
2. 
3. 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 

Monster High 

Microsoft 
XBOX 
Microsoft Windows 
Microsoft Office 
Microsoft Windows Server 

NIKE 
CONVERSE 
UMBRO 

NOKIA 
CONNECTING PEOPLE 
VERTU 
V 

Microsoft 

Nike 

Nokia 

Procter & Gamble 

Richemont 

Unilever 

Gillette 
OralB 
Olay 

Alfred Dunhill 
Azzedine Alaia 
Baume Mercier 
Cartier 
Chloe 
IWC 
Jaeger LeCoultre 
Lancel 
Lange & Sohne 
Montblanc 
Panerai 
Piaget 
Purdey 
Roger Dubuis 
Shanghai Tang 
Vacheron Constantin 
Van Cleef & Arpels 

Dove 
Axe/Lynx 
Sure/Rexona 
Vaseline 
Pond’s 
Radox 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 
26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 

EN 

Duschdas 
St Ives 
Persil (UK, Ireland, France only; owned by Henkel elsewhere) 
Surf 
Omo 
Comfort 
Cif 
Sunsilk 
VO5 
TRESemmé 
Nexxus 
Brylcreem 
Knorr 
Lipton 
PG Tips 
Slimfast 
Signal 
Close Up 
Prodent 
Mentadent 
Pepsodent 
Zwitsal 
Fissan 

Sites covered by the MoU 

MIH group 

allegro.pl 
aukro.bg 
aukro.cz 
aukro.sk 
osta.ee 
qxl.dk 
qxl.no 
ricardo.ch 
ricardo.gr 
teszvesz.hu 
tuktuk.lt 
vatera.hu 

ebay.at 
ebay.be 
ebay.ch 
ebay.cz 
ebay.de 
eim.ebay.dk 
eim.ebay.fi 
ebay.fr (excl. Petites Annonces) 
eim.ebay.gr 

eBay 

20 

   EN 

 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 

1. 
2. 
3. 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 

eim.ebay.hu 
ebay.ie 
ebay.it/classico (excl. classified ads) 
ebay.nl 
eim.ebay.no 
ebay.pl 
eim.ebay.pt 
ebay.es/classico (excl. classified ads) 
eim.eBay.se 
ebay.co.uk 

Price Minister/ Rakuten 

http://www.priceminister.com 
http://www.priceminister.fr 
http://www.priceminister.es 

Amazon 

amazon.co.uk 
amazon.fr 
amazon.de 
amazon.it 
Amazon.es. 

EN 

21 

   EN