REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Evaluation of the Application of the Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of 19 April 2012
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, application of EU law, intellectual property, operation of the Institutions

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.11.2020  COM(2020) 755 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Evaluation of the Application of the Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of 19 April 2012 {SWD(2020) 282 final}  
 
 
I. 

CONTEXT OF THE EVALUATION 

Intellectual property rights  (IPR) support entrepreneurs and creators developing new, better, 
and more efficient, products, technology and services. IPR also provide incentives to produce 
and  share  academic  and  scientific  research,  artistic  works  and  entertainment.  IPR  help 
inventors,  authors  and  local  communities  receiving  a  retribution  for  their  work  and 
contribution  to  societal  progress.  IPR  can  help  small  businesses  and  start-ups  in  seeking 
investment  and  helps  companies  in  expanding  and  exporting,  making  a  wider  choice  of 
products available to more consumers, while creating new and well-paid jobs1. In addition, IP 
offers reassurance to consumers of the quality and origin of the products they purchase. 

IP is particularly important for the EU. Europe excels in know-how, creativity and innovation. 
In 2016, EU IPR-intensive industries2 generated 82% of EU exports, which translates into a 
trade surplus of around €182 billion3. Patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and geographic 
indications, protect EU industry from unfair copying carried out by competitors that have not 
invested  in  creativity,  research  and  development.  The  IP  system  also  provides  protection 
against the activity of criminal organisations that deceive consumers and businesses with ill-
manufactured (and often dangerous) knock-offs.  Counterfeited goods can have serious impact 
on  the  health  and  safety  of  consumers,  as  well  as  negative  environmental  consequences. 
Counterfeiting  and piracy  is  operated by criminal  organisations with  a  global  reach and can 
only be fought through the joint efforts between the public, private and civil society sectors, 
within the EU but also in cooperation with non-EU countries. 

In  2009,  the  Commission  set  up  an  informal  network  of  private  and  public  stakeholders 
concerned  by  infringements  of  IPR,  under  the  name  ‘Observatory  on  Counterfeiting  and 
Piracy’ (‘the Observatory’). Its main goals were to:  

improve cooperation between those engaged in protecting and enforcing IPR;  

  assess the scope, scale and impact of infringements of IPR in the EU;  
 
  share best practice in enforcement; and  
 
raise awareness among consumers.  

In 2010, the Council of the European Union invited the Commission to elaborate further on 
the  scope  of  competences,  tasks  and  role  of  the  Observatory4,  leading  the  Commission  to 
propose  the  transfer  of  the  Observatory  to  the  European  Union  Intellectual  Property  Office 
(EUIPO). 

1 On average, companies that own IPR generate 29 per cent higher revenue per employee, and they pay 20 per 
cent higher wages, than firms that do not use IPR - Intellectual property rights intensive industries: contribution 
to economic performance and employment in the European Union,, third edition, EPO and EUIPO  (2019). 
2 Intellectual property rights intensive industries: contribution to economic performance and employment in the 
European Union, third edition, EPO and EUIPO (2019). The OECD - EUIPO report considers as IPR-intensive, 
the industries that have more IPRs per employee, than the average of all industries. According to the report the 
IPR intensive industries are concentrated in the manufacturing, technology and business services sectors  
3 Report on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries, Commission Staff 
Working Document, 8 January 2020, SWD(2019) 452. 
4 Council Resolution of 1 March 2010 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal  market 
(2010/C 56/01). 

EN 

1 

EN 

 
                                                           
In 2012, Regulation No 386/20125 (‘the Regulation’) entrusted the Observatory, now renamed 
European  Observatory  on  Infringements  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights,  to  the  EUIPO, 
together  with  a  set  of  tasks  aimed  at  facilitating  the  activities  of  national  authorities,  the 
private sector  and the EU institutions in  the fight  against infringements of  IPR. These tasks 
were  added  to  the  EUIPO’s  main  mission  of  managing  the  EU  trade  marks  and  designs 
systems and offering registration of such rights at EU level.  

The  Regulation  further  specifies  that  “the  Office  shall  organise,  administer  and  support  the 
gathering  of  experts,  authorities  and  stakeholders  assembled  under  the  name  ‘European 
Observatory  on  Infringements  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights’  (‘the  Observatory’)”.  By  31 
December  2019,  the  Observatory  was  composed  of  123  representatives  from  national 
authorities,  industry,  consumer  organisations  and  civil  society,  and  various  international 
organisations and institutional bodies, such as the OECD, the World Customs Organisations, 
the  European  Patent  Office,  the  European  Parliament  and  Europol.  Officials  from  various 
departments of the Commission also participate at the meetings of the Observatory.  

In  this  report,  the  Commission  evaluates  the  implementation  and  functioning  of  the 
Regulation, assessing whether its initial objectives are still valid and whether they were met in 
an efficient and coherent way6. The report does not cover the activities of the EUIPO outside 
the Regulation, that is, the registration of trade marks and designs, and the overall functioning 
of the EUIPO. 

The Commission initiated the evaluation in 2016. An external contractor carried out a study 
published  on  20187.  The  most  significant  limitation  identified  in  the  study  was  that  the 
evaluation started too early, as the first results started to emerge between 2015 and 2017. To 
improve the evaluation, the Commission extended its scope to all activities carried out by the 
EUIPO, under the Regulation, until 31 December 2019. 

The  present  report  summarises  the  conclusions  of  the  evaluation  and  the  Commission  will 
submit  it  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee. The accompanying Staff Working Document gives a detailed explanation of the 
method, baseline scenario and the findings of the evaluation. 

II.  

FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION 

The evaluation assessed the Regulation, and its implementation by the EUIPO, along the five 
standard  evaluation  criteria:  (i)  effectiveness,  (ii)  efficiency,  (iii)  coherence,  (iv)  relevance 
and (v) EU added value. 

A. 

Relevance 

The relevance criterion examined the extent to which the initial objectives of the Regulation 
are appropriate and still correspond to the present needs. 

5  Regulation  No  386/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  April  2012  on  entrusting  the 
Office  for  Harmonization  in  the  Internal  Market  (Trade  Marks  and  Designs)  with  tasks  related  to  the 
enforcement of intellectual property rights, including the assembling of public and private-sector representatives 
as a European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights (OJ EC No L 129 of 16.5.2012, p. 
1). 
6 The evaluation is required by Article 8 of the Regulation. 
7 Technopolis, Evaluation of the application of Regulation 386/2012, 2017 available online at 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f92d8b87-1dce-11e8-ac73-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

EN 

2 

EN 

 
                                                           
 
The tasks assigned to the EUIPO can be grouped in four main areas: 

(1)  research  and  knowledge  sharing  on  the  role  of  IP,  on  the  volume  and  impact  of  IP 
infringements, as well as on best practice to enforce IPR and prevent infringements; 

(2) awareness on IP including the risks and negative impact of counterfeiting and piracy; 

(3)  cooperation  between  authorities,  as  well  as  between  authorities  and  owners  of  IPR, 
including  through  the  development  of  tools  and  promotion  of  technologies  to  support 
enforcement of IPR; and 

(4) cooperation with IP offices in non-EU countries on enforcement of IPR. 

The evaluation concluded that the tasks assigned to the EUIPO are all relevant today. 

Online  illegal  offer  and  consumption  of  copyright  content  such  as  movies,  music  and  live 
sport events continues to be widespread. Between 2012 and 2016, piracy in the EU caused the 
recorded music industry an annual average loss of EUR 200 million and 1,300 jobs. Imports 
of counterfeit goods into the EU rose in value from EUR 85 billion in 2013 (equivalent to 5% 
of total EU imports) to EUR 121 billion (6.8% of total EU imports) in 20168, causing losses 
of business revenue, tax revenue and jobs.  

The  interviews  carried  out  by  the  contractor  and  the  feedback  received  through  the  public 
consultation  showed  a  large  consensus  on  the  relevance  of  the  tasks  that  the  Regulation 
assigned to the EUIPO. 

While  some  stakeholders,  in  particular  some  representing  trade  mark  owners,  expressed 
doubts  on  cooperation  with  authorities  of  non-EU  countries,  such  cooperation  was 
nevertheless  considered  important  by  62%  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation. 
Stakeholders  interviewed  by  the  contractor  agreed  in  that  “(…)  many  counterfeited  goods 
come  from  third  countries.  Much  could  be  done  to  better  understand  and  thus  address 
counterfeiting  in  third  countries,  especially  in  China,  South  East  Asia  or  South  America.” 
Indeed,  counterfeiting  and  piracy  cannot  be  effectively  tackled  by  acting  in  the  Internal 
Market  only  and  ignoring  the  places  of  manufacture  or  the  routes  used  to  distribute 
counterfeits.  In  addition,  counterfeiting  European  brands  and  illegally  distributing  EU 
copyright protected content in non-EU countries also harm European businesses. 

Not  all  stakeholders  are  equally  supportive  of  the  EUIPO’s  task  of  promoting  tracking  and 
tracing  systems  that  help  to  distinguish  genuine  products  from  counterfeits.  Some  citizens 
expressed  concerns  relating  to  privacy,  whereas  right  holders  generally  see  such  systems  as 
unfit  for  standardisation,  as  there  is  no  one-size-fits-all  solution.  While  track  and  trace 
solutions  should  be  left  free  to  compete,  SMEs  and  consumers  should  have  easy  access  to 
information  on the different  technical  solutions  in use. The EUIPO can raise awareness  and 
improve  transparency  without  favouring  particular  products.  Half  of  the  respondents  to  the 
public  consultation  (54%),  and  82%  of  those  within  the  category  of  professionals  and 
organisations, consider that the tasks of the EUIPO in this area are important. 

The evaluation did not reveal any gaps in the tasks assigned to the EUIPO by the Regulation. 

8 “Trends in Trade in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods”, Illicit Trade, OECD Publishing, Paris/European Union 
Intellectual Property Office, 2019. The study in reference does not include domestically produced and consumed 
counterfeit and pirated products, or pirated digital products distributed online. 

EN 

3 

EN 

 
                                                           
B. 

Effectiveness 

The  immediate  operational  objective  sought  by  the  Commission  was  ensuring  that  the 
Observatory  had the necessary infrastructure to perform its activities effectively. Before the 
adoption  of  the  Regulation,  the  departments  of  the  Commission  had  three  members  of  staff 
managing the Observatory. By the end of 2019, the EUIPO’s Observatory Department had 55 
members  of  staff.  The  EUIPO’s  expenditure  with  the  activities  under  the  Regulation  was 
EUR 2.4 million in 2012 and EUR 11.7 million in 2019. 

The EUIPO expanded the Observatory network, filling gaps in its earlier composition, adding 
civil society organisations and a number of organisations with relevant expertise. By the end 
of  2019  it  was  formed  by  123  representatives,  eight  of  which  representing  consumers  and 
other civil society organisations. As a rule, the EUIPO maintains its network of stakeholders 
well  engaged  in  the  planning  and  implementation  of  its  work  programmes.  Nevertheless, 
some  stakeholders  have  pointed  out  that  in  a  few  exceptional  cases  the  EUIPO  did  not 
consulted them enough. 

The  evaluation  is  also  positive  on  activities  carried  out  by  the  EUIPO.  However,  while  the 
EUIPO’s  keeps  good  record  of  its  activities,  it  should  establish  monitoring  mechanisms  to 
estimate their impact and cost-benefit, improve prioritisation and planning, and support future 
evaluations. 

The  contractor’s  study  concluded  that  the  EUIPO  clearly  contributed  to  the  effective 
protection  of  IPR  by  delivering  on  all  different  objectives,  in  a  manner  that  is  independent 
from  industry.  Likewise,  43%  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  believe  that  the 
EUIPO has achieved  good or very  good results in  helping to  improve the protection of  IPR 
The rate of approval is higher among professionals and organisations (68%). 

The EUIPO developed a transparent methodology for determining the volume and impact of 
infringements of IPR, a task of fundamental importance. The EUIPO has also delivered on its 
research into the contribution of IP intensive industries to the economy and the role of IP in 
the  performance  of  businesses.  Among  many  other  topics,  the  EUIPO  has  also  provided 
valuable insights into the extent to which SMEs hold IPR, and the difficulties that they face in 
fully benefiting from the  IP system,  as well  as  on the perception that consumers and  young 
people  have  of  IP  and  their  behaviour  towards  counterfeits  and  piracy.  The  EUIPO’s 
extensive  research  and  publication  activities  feed  into  policy  making  at  EU  and  national 
levels. The publications of the EUIPO under the Regulation are available online9. However, 
the  EUIPO  needs  to  improve  the  access  to  its  extensive  library.  The  current  display  of 
publications and associated search functionality are not satisfactory. 

The  publishing  activity  of  the  EUIPO  contributes  to  raise  awareness.  The  EUIPO’s  studies 
were mentioned in nearly 2,000 published articles and generated a value of EUR 8.3 million 
in  advertising  value  equivalency.  In  addition,  the  EUIPO  has  invested  EUR 1.5  million  in 
different  awareness  campaigns  with  high  outreach  levels.  The  campaigns  implemented  in 
2018 and 2019 reached 60 million Europeans. 

The  EUIPO  provides  training  for  law  enforcement  officials  involved  in  combating 
counterfeiting  and  piracy.  The  training  is  delivered  in  collaboration  with  the  relevant  law 
enforcement departments of the Commission, such as, for example, the European Anti-Fraud 

9 https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/observatory-publications. 
EN 

4 

EN 

 
                                                           
Office  (OLAF),  and  other  EU  bodies  (such  as  CEPOL,  Europol  or  Eurojust)  and  various 
national and international authorities and organisations. The EUIPO’s training programme has 
filled a gap in the development of the necessary expertise. Today, training on IP enforcement 
is  no  longer  limited  to  customs  officials.  It  also  reaches  police  officials,  judges  and 
prosecutors, with an average satisfaction rate of 97.4% among attendants.  

The  EUIPO  achieved  meaningful  results  in  developing  tools  for  IP  right  holders  and 
enforcement  authorities.  By  the  end  of  2019,  there  were  63  enforcement  authorities  with 
access  to  the  EUIPO’s  Intellectual  Property  Enforcement  Portal,  including  all  EU  Customs, 
Europol, OLAF, and police forces from 17 Member States. Among other features, the Portal 
assembles  data  collected  by  the  departments  of  the  Commission  on  border  detentions,  data 
transmitted by national enforcement authorities on internal market detentions, as well as data 
transmitted by more than 800 businesses.  

The EUIPO plays an important role in implementing EU funded projects in non-EU countries. 
The  public  consultation  and  the  study  revealed  globally  positive  approval  rates  on  the 
EUIPO’s  international  cooperation,  but  less  than  in  other  areas  of  its  activity.  According  to 
the  contractor  “Some  stakeholders  lacked  awareness  of  the  Observatory’s  responsibilities 
towards  international  cooperation  with  third  countries.”  The  EUIPO  should  therefore 
reinforce  the  input  to  and  follow-up  by  representatives  to  the  Observatory  of  its  activities 
related to non-EU countries.  

The Regulation  requires  Member States to  inform  the EUIPO of their policies on enforcing 
IPR, provide statistical  data on  IP infringements  as well as information  on in  case-law. The 
EUIPO has agreed with Member States representatives on a procedure that has improved the 
situation,  but  in  general,  data  collection  from  Member  States  remains  a  challenge,  in 
particular as regards seizures of IPR infringing goods in the internal market, and case law. 

Overall, the EUIPO has been able to implement its work programmes as planned. However, a 
small  proportion  of  projects  faced  delays  due  to  changes  in  priorities.  The  EUIPO  should 
therefore ensure that all agreed projects are supported by sufficient resources in order to meet 
its commitments. 

The  overall  result  of  the  evaluation  is  positive.  Both  the  study  by  the  contractor  and  the 
feedback  received  through  the  public  consultation  indicate  that  the  EUIPO  contributed  to 
improve enforcement of IPR and delivered on the objectives of the Regulation. 

C. 

Efficiency 

The  Regulation  aims  at  reinforcing  and  extending  the  activities  of  the  Observatory,  while 
ensuring its sustainable financing with no costs to the EU budget. Entrusting the Observatory 
to the EUIPO achieved both these aims. All of the EUIPO’s activities are financed by the fees 
paid  by  the  users  of  the  EU  trade  mark  and  designs  systems.  In  order  to  pursue  the  tasks 
entrusted by the Regulation, the EUIPO allocates to its Observatory department around 5% of 
its annual spending. 

The  average  budget  of  the  Observatory  department  between  2012  and  2019  was  EUR  9.25 
million, including average staff costs EUR 3.75 million. The level of spending is comparable 

EN 

5 

EN 

 
with  similar  EU  bodies,  such  as  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug 
Addiction, which was given a positive evaluation in 201910. 

The  benefits  achieved  through  the  Regulation  include  the  availability  of  objective,  reliable 
and comparable data on the value of  IP, on the volume and impact  of IP  infringements,  the 
tools made available under the IP enforcement portal, the extensive training programmes for 
enforcement officials, and a permanent  framework for public awareness  actions  coordinated 
at EU level. In addition, the Observatory enables the sharing of information, knowledge and 
best  practices and it has a valuable network effect,  which facilitates cross-border and cross-
sector  cooperation,  generated  by  the  bringing  together,  on  a  regular  basis,  of  a  substantial 
number of authorities and stakeholders under a stable and durable collaborative framework. 

The EUIPO provides good value for money. Increases in budget and staff generated increases 
in outputs and the cost of managing its activities, under the Regulation, is in line with those of 
other EU bodies carrying out similar activities. A single national body could not deliver the 
same benefits  at  European level,  and representatives from  the public and private sector find 
that participating in the Observatory’s work is cost effective. 

The evaluation carried out by the contractor concluded, “the Regulation under evaluation was 
implemented in an efficient manner. There are differences of views by different stakeholders 
on  some  particularities  of  the  EUIPO’s  work  under  the  Regulation.  However,  the  activities 
and projects carried out by the EUIPO are in general viewed as positive contributions to the 
enforcement  of  IPR,  to  raising  awareness,  to  generate  knowledge  and  expertise,  and  to 
strengthen  cooperation  between  all  relevant  stakeholders,  while  keeping  to  a  minimum  the 
costs  incurred  by  all  involved  in  the  work  of  the  Observatory  (such  as  time  expenditure). 
There  are  no  indications  that  the  Observatory  team  is  over  resourced  or  incurring  in 
disproportionate  expenditure  in  the  pursuit  of  the  tasks  that  were  attributed  to  it  by  the 
Regulation”11. 

As  mentioned  above,  the  EUIPO  should  increase  its  efforts  on  monitoring  the  impact  of  its 
different initiatives, including a cost-benefit analysis. 

D. 

Coherence 

The  tasks  attributed  to  the  EUIPO  under  the  Regulation  are  mutually  supportive  and 
consistent with the overall policy objective of lowering levels of IP infringements. More fact-
based  knowledge  serves  training  and  awareness,  better  enforcement  tools  reinforces 
cooperation  and  efficiency,  more  enforcement  efforts  helps  tackling  the  supply  of  IP 
infringing  products  and  awareness  raising  addresses  demand.  Reducing  IP  infringements 
within  the  EU  also  requires  reaching  out  to  countries  and  regions  where  most  counterfeits 
originate. The views collected by the contractor and the public consultation indicate that there 
is a broad consensus on the coherence of the tasks assigned by the Regulation to the EUIPO.  

The  EUIPO  prepares  and  implements  its  annual  work  programmes  in  consultation  with  the 
departments of the Commission. As a result, the EUIPO’s activities complement and support 

10  Evaluation  of  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug  Addiction  (EMCDDA),  14  May  2019, 
COM(2019) 228. The EMCDDA has been operating with an average of 105 full-time equivalents staff per year 
and  an  average  annual  budget  of  EUR  16  million.  Unlike  the  Observatory  department  of  the  EUIPO,  the 
EMCDDA,  being  an  agency  on  its  own,  needs  additional  staff  for  support  services  (management  human 
resources, infrastructure, IT systems, etc.). 
11 Technopolis, page 70. 
EN 

EN 

6 

 
                                                           
the activities of the Commission in this area, be it on copyright or industrial property rights 
(such as patents, trade marks; designs, or geographic indications) and whether focused on the 
internal market, the EU border or on non-EU countries and regions. The EUIPO is providing 
valuable  support  to  several  Commission  initiatives.  For  example,  the  EUIPO  holds  training 
programmes to the experts that are performing the IP pre-diagnostics that the Commission has 
been making available to innovative SMEs. The EUIPO also supports the departments of the 
Commission  in  facilitating  collaboration between right  holders and internet  platforms in  the 
fight  against  online  sale  of  counterfeits.  The  EUIPO  helps  the  Commission  in  organising 
events for customs authorities, focused on stopping imports of counterfeits. The EUIPO also 
complements the Commission’s work in the fight against piracy, through different databases 
and  tools  (Agorateka,  orphan  works  database,  etc.).  In  addition,  it  implements  EU  funded 
projects  on  IP  in  non-EU  countries.  The  EUIPO’s  published  studies  are  often  referenced  in 
EU policy documents, such as the 2015 Single market strategy, the 2016 Copyright package, 
the  2016  Start-up  initiative,  the  2017  IP  package.  The  EUIPO  has  also  ensured  cooperation 
with the relevant EU bodies such as Europol12, Cepol13 and Eurojust14 in particular in the area 
of  training.  The  close  cooperation  between  the  departments  of  the  Commission  and  the 
EUIPO has ensured that its activities are aligned with the Commission’s priorities. However, 
it is important that, in its communications, the EUIPO makes such links clear to stakeholders.  

E. 

EU added value 

The results achieved with the creation of the Observatory and the adoption of the Regulation 
would  not  have  been  possible  without  EU  intervention.  The  EUIPO  holds  substantial 
expertise  and  resources,  but  it  is  also  informed  by  the  input  that  it  regularly  receives  from 
stakeholders  and  different  national  and  EU  authorities.  Such  a  wealth  of  resources  are  not 
available to Member States working independently. Member States would not have been able 
to draw on the same level of data, and in particular would not have been able to collect and 
assess it under one commonly agreed methodology. Fragmentation of resources and the lack 
of a platform to join forces and share best practices would mean that national authorities and 
stakeholders  would  not  have,  as  much  information,  tools,  databases  and  support  as  they 
currently have. The economy of scale generated by the gathering of all relevant parties around 
the EUIPO enabled a series of initiatives that would not otherwise materialise. 

Both  the study  and the  public consultation  showed very strong indications that stakeholders 
see the clear added value of the Regulation and of the EUIPO.  

Repealing  the  Regulation  would  put  an  end  to  the  EUIPO’s  multi-disciplinary  and  multi-
stakeholder approach. It would terminate the EU-wide knowledge base and networking of the 
Observatory and increase the burden on national authorities. 

III.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

The  evaluation,  supported  by  the  study  and  a  public  consultation,  concludes  that  the 
Regulation is working well and that the EUIPO has been carrying out its tasks satisfactorily. 
The evaluation is positive on all five evaluation criteria, even if some improvements can still 
be made in areas that are set out below and covered in more detail in the accompanying Staff 
Working Document. 

12 European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation. 
13 European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training. 
14 European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation. 

EN 

7 

EN 

 
                                                           
The  EUIPO  took  up  its  new  tasks  with  determination  and  provided  the  Observatory  with  a 
solid infrastructure in terms of budget, expertise, meeting facilities, communication tools and 
other  necessary  resources.  The  EUIPO  has  also  widened  the  network  of  stakeholders 
participating  at  the  activities  of  the  Observatory,  ensuring  the  engagement  of  the  national 
authorities  most  concerned  by  IP  infringements,  at  both  EU  and  national  level,  and  the 
participation of private sector stakeholders and civil society organisations. 

With the help of the representatives to the Observatory, the EUIPO has delivered on all the 
tasks  covered  by  the  Regulation.  It  developed  transparent  and  objective  methodologies  and 
regularly  conducted  valuable  research.  The  information  produced  by  the  EUIPO  and  its 
partners, such as the OECD and Europol, is considered factual, objective, reliable and robust. 
As a result, it informs not only training of enforcement officials, awareness-raising initiatives 
and campaigns, but  also enforcement strategies  and  IP policy actions such as SME support. 
The EUIPO has also developed tools to facilitate the fight against counterfeiting and piracy.  

The  increasing  volume  of  counterfeits  being  imported  into  the  EU  show  that  the  EUIPO’s 
tasks  are  even  more  relevant  today  than  they  were  on  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation.  The 
EUIPO’s work is coherent with the EU’s overall policy objectives of promoting innovation, 
well-being  and  job  creation.  The  fight  against  illegal  manufacturing  and  dissemination  of 
counterfeits by criminal  organisations is also a fight for the health and safety of consumers, 
and  for  compliance  with  environmental  and  social  regulations.  The  EU  added  value  of  the 
EUIPO’s work is high. Concentrating resources and expertise in one single body at EU level 
created an opportunity to reach a much higher output than it would have reached at national 
level only. The activities carried out by the EUIPO under the Regulation are entirely funded 
by the EUIPO’s own revenues and therefore without costs to the general EU budget. Within 
the  limitations  of  the  available  data,  the  evaluation  concluded  that  the  EUIPO  has  used  the 
available human and financial resources efficiently. 

The evaluation has also revealed that there is room for improvement. The EUIPO should step 
up  its  efforts  to  implement  a  transparent  and  comprehensive  monitoring  of  the  possible 
impact,  but  also  cost-benefit,  of  its  activities  under  the  Regulation,  in  particular  on  its 
awareness-raising  actions.  Accordingly,  the  EUIPO’s  annual  reports  should  provide  a  good 
overview  of  the  activities  carried  out  and  results  obtained  in  the  areas  covered  by  the 
Regulation.  The EUIPO should seek to  involve the representatives from national  authorities 
and  other  stakeholders  earlier  in  the  planning  of  its  activities  under  the  Regulation.  This  is 
particularly  true  for  the  EUIPO’s  activities  in  non-EU  countries.  The  evaluation  has  shown 
that there is a certain deficit in stakeholders’ awareness on the activities of the EUIPO in third 
countries.  It  is  also  important  that  the  planning  and  communication  of  the  EUIPO’s  actions 
under  the  Regulation  take  account  of  the  broader  EU  IP  policy  context.  In  particular,  the 
actions  of the EUIPO in non-EU countries  need  to  be well communicated and in  alignment 
with  the  relevant  Commission  policies.  The  access  to  the  EUIPO’s  valuable  publishing 
activity could be improved, as the current system is not satisfactory. By embracing an ever-
growing number of projects, the EUIPO has occasionally failed to deliver results on time, and 
therefore it should make sure to allocate sufficient resources to each of the projects covered 
by its annual work programmes in order to meet its commitments. This will help the EUIPO 
in  avoiding  that  certain  agreed  actions  suffer  delays  for  lack  of  resources.  Finally,  the 
collection  of  data  from  national  authorities  is  still  a  challenge,  and  the  EUIPO  should 
therefore continue its efforts to encourage national authorities to share relevant information as 
required by the Regulation, and to the extent possible support the work of the representatives 
of Member States to the Observatory in collecting such data at national level.  

EN 

8 

EN 

 
The  overall  conclusion  of  the  evaluation  is  that  the  Regulation  has  met  its  objectives.  The 
EUIPO’s close cooperation with the members of the Observatory and the departments of the 
Commission  means  that the  work  of  EU  bodies,  national  authorities  and  right  holders  in  IP 
enforcement is now made easier. 

The  EUIPO  has  become  a  hub  of  excellence  on  IP  infringements,  a  central  source  of 
knowledge,  development  and  sharing  of  best  practice  in  the  EU  and  internationally.  The 
EUIPO acts as a facilitator and driver for cooperation between national authorities and right 
holders across the EU, and is an important contributor to the Commission’s initiatives in  IP 
within the EU and further afield. 

EN 

9 

EN