Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52014DC0392

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Towards a renewed consensus on the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: An EU Action Plan /\* COM/2014/0392 final  \*/**

  

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE

Towards a renewed consensus on the
enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights:
An EU Action Plan

1.
Introduction

The
March 2014 European Council reaffirmed the importance of intellectual property as
a key driver for growth and innovation and highlighted the need to fight
against counterfeiting to enhance the EU’s industrial competitiveness globally[1]. Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) are one of the principal means through which companies,
creators and inventors generate returns on their investment in knowledge.

A recent study has estimated that
IPR-intensive sectors account for around 39% of EU GDP (worth some EUR 4.7
trillion annually) and, taking indirect jobs into account, up to 35% of all jobs[2]. In
practical terms, through the granting of temporary exclusive rights, IP is
directly linked to the production and distribution of new and authentic goods
and services, from which all citizens benefit. The key to achieving these goals
is an optimal and economically efficient IP "infrastructure"
which spans the legal recognition, registration, utilisation and balanced
enforcement of all forms of IP rights[3].

The
EU needs innovation and creativity to stay competitive relative to countries
with lower labour, energy and raw materials costs, and must create the
conditions that stimulate innovation so that European businesses can help us
trade our way out of the crisis. This is why knowledge-based industries play a
core role in the 'Global Europe' and ‘Europe 2020’ strategies.

This
Communication focuses on the enforcement of IPRs. It seeks to build upon the
consensus that IP enforcement policy ought to be focussed on the fight against
commercial scale IP infringing activity which is the most harmful. It aims to
propose new enforcement policy tools, such as a so-called “follow the money”
approach seeking to deprive commercial scale infringers of the revenue flows
that draw them into such activities.

Marketed
products, meant as goods and services, that do not respect the intellectual
property created by others concern us all as citizens, consumers, businesses
and taxpayers. Commercial scale IP-infringing activities dissuade investment in
innovation and creativity and thus undermine job creation.

Estimating
the size of this commercial scale IP infringement problem is difficult, but its
economic impact has been widely discussed[4].
A recent global fraud report surveying over 800 senior executives
reported that 11% of their companies in 2013 were victims of IP infringements[5].
At EU level, statistics on customs detentions
for suspected violations of IPR at its external border recorded more than 90,000 cases in 2012[6]. Around 70% of these cases related to postal and courier traffic,
a reflection of the growth of e-commerce. In total, almost 40 million articles
were detained, with an estimated value - in terms of equivalent genuine
products - of just below 1 billion euro. One Member State has
estimated that 81% of IP-infringing products are associated with organised
crime[7].
It calculates that while the illicit revenue generated by organised crime in
these activities was over €100 million, the cost to its economy as a whole - in
terms of direct lost revenue to legitimate businesses, lost revenue to the
exchequer, lost jobs and high enforcement costs - came to almost five times
that amount (€470 million).

Commercial-scale
IP infringements are both insidious and a moving target. However
much is done to dissuade such infringements, including through increasing the
online legal offer of competitive goods and services, the economic returns on
the distribution and sale of IP-infringing products are such that there will
always remain an incentive to engage in such activities. Given the speed with
which these activities can be developed and exploited, precise detection
systems and rapidly implemented preventive measures are essential.

At
the same time, such measures must be proportionate and minimise any risk that
they be abused for anti-competitive practices that could undermine the
emergence of new innovative products and business models and unduly restrict
fundamental freedoms. The required detection necessitates the sharing of
intelligence between stakeholders, and above all between national enforcement
authorities. It follows that in seeking to dissuade commercial scale
infringements, the Commission must apply a holistic, balanced and flexible
system that can react rapidly to the evolving challenges that face the EU
knowledge economy in the 21st century.

In
line with the Europe 2020 Strategy and without prejudice to ongoing legislative
reviews, this Communication sets down a ten point action plan.[8] A
number of the actions will be implemented by the Commission where appropriate in
partnership with the Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market (OHIM), which since June 2012 houses the European Observatory
on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights[9]
(hereinafter referred to as the "Observatory"). These
actions together with the associated flanking activities and studies listed,
constitute a decisive first step in building an effective IP enforcement policy
targeted at commercial scale infringements at EU and national levels. The
objective should be to arrive at a renewed consensus on
how Intellectual Property Rights are exercised, and in a manner which fully
involves all relevant stakeholders. The Commission will monitor the delivery of
this Action Plan, and invites the European Parliament, the Council, the Member
States, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Observatory and
stakeholders to contribute actively to the work ahead.

The
Communication is complemented by a Strategy for the protection and enforcement
of intellectual property rights in third countries and the development of
deeper cooperation between customs authorities in the EU and in third countries
with respect to trade of IP-infringing goods, as foreseen in the EU Customs
Action Plan.

All
these actions seek to ensure that the EU’s existing acquis in terms of IP
rules, including those on civil enforcement, are applied and promoted in an
effective manner. Their common objective is to (i) use all means to effectively
dissuade and impede the entry and diffusion of IP infringing products on markets
(both those of the EU and those with which its markets is increasingly linked)
so as to (ii) stimulate investment, growth and employment in IP reliant sectors
that are so key to our respective economies. Stronger enforcement alone will
not solve this problem, which must be addressed through debate and
awareness-raising on the wider consequences of IPR infringement, targeting
consumers and producers.

2.
A role for all actors along the IP value-chain
2.1.
Fake or not?: raising awareness of consumers,
employees and clients

Consumers,
employees and businesses are not always aware of the scale and economic harm
caused by commercial scale IP-infringing activity. This harm includes the
substantial negative effects of such activities on fiscal revenues, the related
costs for taxpayers, the competitiveness of legitimate businesses and the links
to large-scale criminality. At the same time, consumers are not always aware of
the detriment they could personally suffer by purchasing IPR-infringing
products, particularly with regard to potential risks to their health and
safety.

The
Observatory published on 25 November 2013 the results of an IP perception study
that summarised citizens’ awareness levels of the issue[10]. This
was based on a literature review, a qualitative investigation with 250
Europeans aged between 15 and 65 years and a quantitative stage in which over
26,000 Europeans expressed their views through telephone interviews. Though a
first step, the study nonetheless showed a lack of sensitivity, in particular
among younger respondents, of the scale of the impact of IP infringements in
safeguarding and contributing to IP-based jobs. It also indicated that younger
Europeans felt that the IP infrastructure largely benefited big companies. In
view of this, the Commission considers that there is a need for a more
pronounced and co-ordinated consultation on awareness actions and overarching,
easy-to-access information tools across the EU.[11]

Future
action should involve a multi-targeted approach and an analysis of why IP-infringing
products are increasingly sought after by the digital generation. This should
include continued efforts to address remaining obstacles to the development and
dissemination of IP respecting products in the Single Market in a way that
meets consumers needs in the digital age. It should also build on evidence of
blind spots in consumer awareness and the effectiveness of past awareness
campaigns within Member States. The Observatory’s report on IP perception gives
useful pointers in this regard.

The
Observatory has put together a web-based repository of best practice from past
national awareness campaigns. IP infringements could be considerably reduced by
better informing all actors in the Single Market (citizens, consumers,
employees, businesses and public authorities) of the availability of
attractive, accessible and affordable IP products across the Single Market.
In 2014, drawing on the growing knowledge-base stemming from the studies it has
been undertaking, the Observatory will assist Member States in the development
and launch of communication campaigns to raise awareness amongst Union citizens
on the impact of infringements of IP notably on jobs and the economy. Such
campaigns should also be aimed at facilitating access to IP respecting products
throughout the Single Market and highlighting the benefits for consumers from
choosing IP respecting products, in terms of ensuring compliance with health and
safety standards and consumer protection legislation.

Action
1: The Commission intends to promote the
Observatory’s and national authorities’ efforts to launch and monitor a new
generation of targeted communication campaigns. This should include
campaigns to raise awareness amongst citizens, especially young people on the
economic harm caused by commercial scale IP infringements and on the potential
health and safety risks associated with IPR-infringing products, as well as
campaigns to highlight the benefits for consumers from choosing IP respecting
products and to facilitate access to such products.

2.2.
Rightholder responsibility to ensure the
integrity of supply chains

The diffusion of Information and Communications Technology (ICT)
has facilitated the development of ever longer - and frequently global - supply
chains. It has also allowed for the reduction of inventory costs as operators
have moved to just in time delivery. Furthermore, ICT has allowed for an
increase in direct delivery to the final consumer. While these developments are
positive, they have also been applied by IP-infringing commercial operators. This
manifests itself by the increasing importance of small consignments of
IP-infringing goods, the rapid entry into and exit from a myriad of product
markets by infringers and infiltration into the weakest parts of supply chains
which themselves span many countries. Related to this, given that final
consumers are increasingly conscious of the ethical performance of companies,
supply chain auditing that reduces the risk of IP infringements also offers
marketing and reputational value for IPR-intensive companies trading in or to
the Single Market[12].

The
Commission will initially explore the possibility for a European voluntarily
applied scheme on this issue, and encourage the take up of such due diligence
best practice across IPR-intensive sectors by promoting and informing on the
costs and benefits of systematically applying qualitative auditing schemes that
are already subject to standards established by recognised international
bodies. Specifically, by the end of 2014, the Commission will organise a
stakeholder workshop on applying due diligence in supply chains as a means to
prevent commercial-scale IP infringements. This will include suppliers,
rightholders, intermediaries (including on-line platforms, search engines,
shippers, etc.) Member States, academics and NGOs.

ICT
also plays an essential role in securing retail distribution and logistics
systems and thus helps detect and exclude IP-infringing products from entering
them. In order to ensure that the distribution chains of products are secure
and not infiltrated by IP-infringing products, inventory management
technologies are being applied such as the combination of single product
identifiers (2D bar codes) and the application of Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID).
Through its Joint Research Centre's work in this field, the Commission will
subsequently issue a report on how new technological solutions empowering
consumers will help to fight against counterfeiting and piracy. To
help discover the origin of transported goods and assist the risk assessment
process, security research - funded through the EU Framework Programme on
R&D - is addressing container goods supply chains. The Joint Research
Centre has also developed an IT tool (Contraffic) that allows customs to
analyse routes and movements of cargo containers imported into the EU[13]. The
proposed workshop will assess the applicability of track and trace technologies
to the differing distribution and retail business models relied on by
IPR-intensive sectors and inform firms about best practice.

Action
2: The Commission will launch a series of
consultation actions with all relevant stakeholders including civil society on
applying due diligence throughout supply chains as a means to prevent
commercial scale IP infringements. On the basis of the collected information it
intends to develop an EU due-diligence scheme for this purpose. It will, in the
first instance, seek to encourage the voluntary take-up of the scheme that it
will monitor closely to determine if further initiatives are required.

2.3.
"Follow the money": industry Stakeholder Dialogues to keep infringing products off the
internet

Agreements
between rights-holders and the business partners on whom they rely to source,
promote, distribute and sell their products are important to meet the dual
goals of rapid detection and interruption of commercial scale IP-infringing
activities. Any such memorandum should have well-embedded mechanisms for the
protection of fundamental rights and a competitive environment, focusing in
particular on preventing potential abuses. Such agreements when applied are a
rapid response mechanism to the IP infringement problem. Stakeholder Dialogues
leading to such agreements involve meetings between a representative group of
relevant stakeholders focusing on concrete problems and seeking practical
solutions that are realistic, balanced, proportionate and fair for all
concerned. They have been initiated by the Commission and seek to facilitate
the development of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) that establish the
principles that signatories can apply in bilateral contractual agreements. The
goal is to deprive IP infringers of their revenue streams. The first dialogue,
on limiting the sale of counterfeit items via online platforms, resulted in a
MoU in 2011[14].
An evaluation report in April 2013[15]
concluded that it could usefully be extended to include new parties. Taking
account of all relevant developments, the Commission will establish new
Stakeholder Dialogues in 2014 and 2015, comprising advertising service
providers, payment services and shippers, with the objective of achieving in
the course of 2015 further Memoranda of Understanding that will help keep
IP-infringing products off the Internet. In parallel, the Observatory will
carry out a comparative analysis on existing collaborative practices between
right holders and business partners established in Member States and third
countries.

Action
3: The Commission will facilitate the
development of further voluntary Memoranda of Understanding to reduce the
profits of commercial scale IP infringements in the online environment,
following Stakeholder Dialogues involving advertising service providers,
payment services and shippers.

2.4.
Assisting SMEs to enforce their IP rights

The
EU provides for harmonised rules on civil IP redress systems through the 2004
Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights[16].
Following a Communication in 2010[17],
an extensive public consultation process has been undertaken by the Commission
to assess whether this text is fit for purpose for the numerous challenges
facing IP enforcement. In late 2012, the Commission issued a questionnaire to
stakeholders to gather information on whether existing cross-border IP civil
redress for infringements was accessible to all rightholders, notably SMEs. It
also explored whether the courts system in Member States was fast enough and
endowed with sufficient specialisation. The results of this survey were
published in July 2013[18].
Building on this, the Commission will consider whether further action is needed
to improve civil redress procedures, such as low value claims , for SMEs.
The high costs and complexity of litigation often dissuade innovative SMEs from
enforcing their IP rights, including those stemming from standard essential
patents (SEPs), and may lead to market abuse by larger competitors. At Union
level, several instruments in the area of civil procedure already exist. Most
recently, the Commission proposed[19]
to strengthen and improve the current European small claims procedure, which is
a uniform procedure available across Member States (Regulation (EC) No
861/2007). This action adds to the initiatives by the Commission to assist
Member States in improving the effectiveness of their national justice systems
such as the EU Justice Scoreboard[20].

Action
4: The Commission intends to analyse and
report on existing national initiatives seeking to improve IP civil
enforcement procedures for SMEs, in particular in respect of low value claims
and consider possible action in this field.

The
high costs and complexity of litigation can often dissuade innovative SMEs from
enforcing their IP rights. As a consequence, SMEs’ returns on innovative
investments are not optimised and they fail to expand their research and
development activities. In some Member States, national schemes and funds seek
to redress this situation, e.g. through improved litigation insurance
possibilities. In 2015, with the assistance of the Observatory, the Commission
will, if appropriate, review the effectiveness of such national schemes, as
well as schemes of third countries. On this basis, the Commission will consult
on the results of this review by means of a Green Paper, and leading, if
appropriate, to a policy initiative.

Action
5: The Commission will issue a Green
Paper to consult stakeholders on the need for future EU action
based on the best practice found in nationally financed schemes assisting SMEs
to enforce their IP rights.

The
Observatory could usefully take into account in its various activities the
specificities of SMEs, including their resource constraints, when it comes to
SMEs enforcing their IP rights. As rightholders, SMEs
often need information to adjust their marketing or distribution strategies and
they may also lack skills and expertise to effectively protect their
intellectual property. Thus, the Commission puts efforts in developing a system
of support[21]
that includes enforcement issues: by strengthening and coordinating national
support through the IPorta project; and by advice on IP in transnational
business activities through the European IPR helpdesk and the IPR SME Helpdesks
in third countries[22].
This system cooperates closely with general business support, with national IP
support and with the Observatory's actions.

2.5.
Chargeback systems: a tool for consumers

Certain credit
and debit card providers offer chargeback schemes where, up to a certain value,
consumers can contest and not pay for a service or product that they would not
have wished to purchase had they already known it was not genuine. In certain
Member States these schemes are required by law. Such schemes obviously
mitigate against fraud but can also help ensure that those consumers who
unwittingly receive IP-infringing goods and services either do not end up
having to pay for them or can subsequently seek compensation. These schemes can
play a role in limiting IP-infringing operators of their ill-gotten gains. In
2014, the Commission will launch a consultation exercise on chargeback schemes and
other payment confirmation schemes that would reduce the flow of money going into
commercial scale IP-infringing activities. This public consultation exercise
will explore the scope for taking action in this field.

Action
6: The Commission will issue a Green paper to consult
stakeholders on the impact of chargeback and related schemes to tackle
commercial scale IP infringements. On this basis, it will explore
the need and scope for taking concrete action in this field.

3.
Public authorities
working together
3.1.
Cooperation between national authorities

In
a Europe without internal frontiers, given the transnational nature of
organised crime’s involvement in IP-infringing activities, there is a need to
enhance cooperation between national authorities, EU institutions, the EU
Justice and Home Affairs agencies, relevant third countries and other partners.
In this context, the Justice and Home Affairs Council[23] -
notably based on Europol's Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment -
decided in June 2013 that disruption of organised crime groups involved in the
production and distribution of counterfeit goods violating health, safety and
food regulations and those producing sub-standard goods should be a priority
for the period 2014-2017.

To
deliver on the various priorities of these Council Conclusions on the fight
against serious and organised crime, annual operational action plans are
developed by Member States with the support of the Council Secretariat, the
Commission, Eurojust, Europol and other relevant EU agencies[24]. The
implementation of these actions will be monitored regularly. The Commission is
willing to support Member States through possible co-financing of such actions.

The
EU Customs Action Plan to combat IP infringements for the years 2013-2017[25] sets
out the framework for joint action by the 28 customs administrations in order
to better fight IP infringements at the EU external borders. It foresees the
development of tailor-made approaches to address the delivery of IP-infringing
goods bought on the internet via courier and postal parcels. Further
cross-border and cross-authority cooperation is required. The Commission will hold
a conference in 2015 with customs, police and judicial authorities'
representatives to determine how such enhanced cooperation can be achieved.

The
challenge of how to monitor better
the evolving trends in IP enforcement outside the EU
is being addressed in parallel in a Commission
Communication updating the 2004 "Strategy
for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries"[26].
In the context of negotiations on free trade agreements, the EU aims to obtain
substantial commitments from third country governments to reach a high level of
IPR enforcement to thereby facilitate trade in IPR-intensive products. Deeper
cooperation should also be developed between customs authorities in the EU and
in third countries with respect to trade of IP-infringing goods, as foreseen in
the EU Customs Action Plan[27].

Some
Member States have established within their jurisdictions IP crime units to
avoid duplication in IP enforcement strategies across the relevant authorities within
these Member States. There are shortcoming and similar risks of duplication in
cooperation between Member States. Authorities often have difficulty in
tracking IP-infringing activities across borders within the Union, and they can
thus rarely plan and execute cross-border investigations and operations within
the Single Market.

Without
prejudice to the activities underway[28],
the Commission considers that co-operation between all national authorities
having a role in protecting IP could be enhanced through the setting up of an
Expert Group for all relevant Member State authorities[29].
This forum, which would allow for both the sharing of best practice and
discussions on IP policy orientations, could thereby contribute to increasing
the efficiency of IP enforcement by the EU[30].

Action
7: The Commission will establish a Member
State Expert Group on IP Enforcement, where Member States could share best
practice on the work within the EU of all their concerned authorities
and be informed on the delivery of this Action Plan.

3.2.
Training for national authorities in the Single
Market

Training
of national authorities to address trends and business models associated with
IP-infringing activities and also to share best practice on identification
techniques largely takes place at national level. Moreover, where cross-border
training and knowledge building exists, it is often by type of enforcement
authority and not across authorities. In the context of the Single Market,
there is therefore a need to develop cross-border IP enforcement authority
training programmes. In 2012 and 2013, the Observatory held knowledge building
seminars for enforcement officers on counterfeit pesticides and pharma crime.
Building on this, training sessions should now be envisaged for national
officials involved on the ground in IP enforcement. Meanwhile, the Community
Plant Variety Office (CPVO) held an enforcement seminar in May 2013 on plant
variety rights for all categories of IP practitioners specialised in this
field. In 2014, the Observatory will continue to develop a comprehensive set of
sectoral IP enforcement training programmes for Member State authorities. These
programmes are coordinated with Europol, Eurojust, the European Police College
(CEPOL) and the CPVO.

Meanwhile,
the development of training for legal practitioners on EU IP legislation can
also lead to improvements in effective enforcement of IPRs and award of
redress.

To
this end, the Commission will promote training of legal practitioners on EU IP
legislation, notably by making full use of the European e-Justice Portal[31] via
the dissemination of existing training material.

Action
8: The Commission will support the
Observatory in the development of a comprehensive set of sectoral IP
enforcement related training programmes for Member State authorities in the
context of the Single Market.

3.3.
Public contractors’ responsibility to screen
public procurement for IP-infringing products

Public
procurement contracts within the Union can result in public sector services
being infiltrated with IP-infringing products. In a first step, in 2014, the
Commission shall foster better exchange between Member State public authorities
on these issues, and will organise a consultation to this end in the Member
State Expert Group on Public Procurement. Thematic workshops, organised by the
Observatory, will also allow public authorities from different Member States to
discuss the problems they have encountered and to exchange best practice.
In addition, the Commission will undertake a first sectoral pilot exercise by screening
public purchases in the medical sector to assess the scale of the problem in
that field. On the basis of these activities the Commission shall publish and
promote a guide on methodologies to assist public authorities in detecting and
preventing counterfeit products from entering into public services.

Action
9: The Commission intends to develop,
promote and publish a guide on best practice
for public authorities to avoid purchasing counterfeit products.

4.
Better monitoring and targetting of IP
Enforcement policy 
4.1.
Analysing trends in IP and in IP-infringing
activities

From
a public interest perspective, IP enforcement policies should be targeted at
those IP-commercial scale infringing activities that are most likely to harm
investment in innovation and creativity and do greatest damage to consumer
welfare and economic growth. In this context, those IPR-intensive sectors that
suffer most significant harm from IP-infringing activities need to be
identified objectively and then systematically monitored to ensure that the policy
tools set out in this Communication as well as legislative redress systems work.
In September 2013, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the OHIM published a
study to provide an initial assessment of IPR-intensive sectors within the EU[32]. A
second phase of the OHIM/EPO report of the IP intensive sectors will be
published in Autumn 2014[33].

Once IPR-intensive sectors are identified, the
application of reliable estimation methodologies to gauge the scale of
commercial scale IP infringements in these sectors is required[34]. Together
with the Observatory, the Commission will come forward by 2015 with transparent
and pragmatic models to estimate the trends of IP-infringing activities in
IPR-intensive sectors.

For
IPR-intensive sectors that supply their products online and face the offer of "free"
illicit IP-infringing products, the Commission is undertaking a study to
evaluate the displacement effects of infringing products on licit products.
This will be completed by the end of 2014. With the Observatory, the Commission
will also launch a study on infringements of creative commons licences by
infringers seeking to appropriate public domain works. In addition, the
Observatory will undertake research into the behaviour and attitudes of the
younger generation in respect of consumption patterns of products to which IP
rights apply.

In the context
of its work in the field of customs policy, the Commission will continue to
collect and make available data on customs detentions at the EU external
borders. This information will be completed by the information on IP
infringements registered on the Single Market[35].
In parallel, the Observatory, with the support of the relevant national
authorities, is working on the development of a case law database for IP
infringements.

To
ensure that these data sets are used to good effect in ensuring that IP
enforcement policy is based on transparent economic foundations, starting in
2014, the Commission intends to provide economic reports in this field. These will
serve as the monitoring tool for the Commission’s policies against commercial
scale IP infringement activities.

Action
10: The Commission shall publish a biennial
report on the economic impact of the EU's
IP policy that could serve as a more effective monitoring tool for the EU's new
IP enforcement policy as set out in this Communication.

[1]               European Council Conclusions
20-21.03.2014, p.5. and p. 6.

[2]               Intellectual Property
Rights intensive industries: contribution to economic performance and employment
in Europe. See: oami.europa.eu.

[3]               See: ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/intellectual-property.

[4]              In 2012, RAND Europe, completed a report: Measuring
IPR infringements in the internal market. This report discusses industry
financed studies evaluating this issue and their associated limitations:

                http://ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/iprenforcement/docs/ipr\_infringment-report\_en.pdf

[5]               See: kroll.com.

[6]               See: ec.europa.eu/taxation\_customs.

[7]               https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/246390/horr73.pdf.
Cybercrime is excluded from the estimate.

[8]               The proposed actions do not have any budgetary impact
over and above of what is already foreseen for the years to come in the
official programming of the Commission.

[9]               Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of 19.4.2012 entrusts OHIM with various tasks aimed at
facilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities, the private
sector and EU institutions in the fight against IPR infringements. These tasks
do not extend to participation in individual operations or investigations
carried out by national authorities, nor to matters covered by Title V of Part III of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (e.g. criminal and police
cooperation).

[10]             See: oami.europa.eu.

[11]             It recently took an initiative drawing attention to the
negative economic effects on citizens of both the lost jobs and the lost public
revenue that result from IPR infringmements against legal products, especially
in certain sectors:Too good to be true: The real price of fake goods’, for more
information: http://ec.europa.eu/commission\_2010-2014/tajani/stop-fakes/index\_en.htm

[12]             Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of
20.10.2010 lays down due diligence obligations on operators who place timber products on the market.

[13]             See: ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc.

[14]             See: ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/iprenforcement.

[15]             COM(2013)209 of 18.4.2013.

[16]             Directive 2004/48/EC of 29.4.2004.

[17]             COM (2010)779 of 22.12.2010.

[18]             See: ec.europa.eu/internal\_market/consultations.

[19]             COM(2013)794 final

[20]             http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/files/justice\_scoreboard\_communication\_en.pdf

[21]             http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/initiatives/ipr/what-are-iprs/index\_en.htm

[22]             [For more details, see the Commission's Communication “Trade,
growth and intellectual property - for the protection and enforcement of
intellectual property rights in third countries COM (2014) [… ],]

[23]             Council Conclusions of 7.6.2013 setting priorities for
the fight against serious and organised crime.

[24]             These actions aim notably to improve information and
intelligence for the purposes of strategic and operational analysis, prioritise
and target prominent organised crime groups, develop financial investigation
and asset recovery tools, promote multidisciplinary cooperation within the EU
and improve cooperation with key source and transit countries and relevant
partners.

[25]             Council Resolution of 10.12.2012.

[26]             OJ, C 129 of 26.5.2005, p. 3.

[27]             Ibid

[28]             Notably in the framework of the Customs Action Plan or the EU’s fight
against serious and organised crime, see OJ, C 80 of 19.3.2013, p. 1.

[29]             This could also oversee the use of common tools such as
the Enforcement Database and ACIST developed by the Observatory.

[30]             The scope and mandate of this Expert Group will be set
out in a Commission Decision in 2014.

[31]             See: e-justice.europa.eu.

[32]             Intellectual Property Rights
intensive industries, op. cit.

[33]             By mining company level data, this
will identify IPR-intensive sectors at national level and quantify their
contribution to the economy of each Member State, as well as assess the
reliance of SMEs on IPR.

[34]             In 2012, RAND Europe completed a
report for the Commission (Measuring IPR
infringements in the internal market, cited above.) which reviewed some 200 existing studies and highlighted their
methodological/data strengths and weaknesses. On this basis, it proposed a
peer-reviewed methodology which could be used to estimate the levels of
IP-infringing activity in the economy.

[35]             The data will be stored in the Anti-Counterfeiting
Intelligence Support Tool (ACIST) developed by the OHIM with Europol:
https://www.tmdn.org/enforcementintelligence-webapp/

[Top](#document1)