20.5.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 205/33 Thursday 11 November 2021
33.
Notes that design protection for parts used for the repair of complex products is only partially harmonised; points out that some Member States have already introduced a ‘spare parts exception’ or ‘repair clause’ into their legislation, allowing for component parts of complex products to be manufactured and sold without infringing IPRs; notes that this creates fragmentation in the internal market and legal uncertainty; calls on the Commission, therefore, to include a ‘repair clause’ in its future proposal, which will contribute to support the transition towards a more sustainable and greener economy and avoid distortions of competition;
34.
Believes that the EU design protection system should be aligned with the EU trademark system in order to allow for design holders to prevent design infringing goods to enter into the EU’s customs territory, since rights attached to trademarks are enforceable against infringing goods transiting though the EU, while those attached to design are not; calls on the Commission to close this gap in the revision of the design legislation and make it possible for brand owners to put a stop to design counterfeits transiting through the EU;
35.
Is convinced that design protection should be offered in a uniform way throughout the single market and suggests that the Commission thinks about aligning the Design Directive and the Community Design Regulation with a view to creating a greater legal certainty;
Fighting IPR infringements
36.
Points out that counterfeit goods, such as, for example, counterfeit medicines or fake personal protective equipment or masks in the context of health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic pose serious threats to the health and safety of EU citizens and can cause serious harm to public health; argues that although market surveillance activities aim to protect general public interests, while counterfeit products relate to the protection of private IPRs, there is a close relation between counterfeit products and risks to health and safety of consumers;
37.
Highlights that in 2016 up to 6,8 % of EU imports, or a value of EUR 121 billion, were fake goods, and that their availability on the single market caused direct sales losses worth EUR 50 billion and approximately 416 000 direct job losses for the period 2013-2017 (19); points out that IPR infringement entails a low level of risk in terms of both the likelihood of detection and the sanction if detected; urges the Member States, together with the Commission, customs authorities, the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), Interpol, and law enforcement authorities to coordinate strategies and to develop effective and dissuasive sanctions particularly in order to limit the amount of hazardous products made available to the public and to fight counterfeiting and piracy especially when it is connected to organised crime;
38.
Regrets the significant use of the internet for the distribution of counterfeit products, infringing content and IPR-infringing services, with significant adverse effects for EU manufacturing industry as well as for the creative, cultural and sport sectors; welcomes the Commission proposal for a Digital Services Act; highlights the fact that the ‘know your business customer’ principle and the trusted flaggers system, would contribute enormously to the fight against counterfeiting and that AI and blockchain could play an important role in tackling counterfeit and pirated goods available online as well as contributing to enhanced enforcement of IPR in the whole supply chain; supports, therefore, the use of new technologies to combat IP infringements and welcomes evidence-based publications produced by the EUIPO Observatory in this respect;
39.
Recognises the high potential of blockchain technologies for the registration and protection of IPRs; stresses that blockchain systems can help secure the supply chain through traceability, ensuring safety and securing every step against the dangers of counterfeiting at each level of the supply chain; notes, in particular with regard to the registration of IPRs, the need for intellectual property offices (IPOs) to adopt technical standards for their blockchain solutions in order to allow interoperability; underlines that AI and related technologies used for the registration procedure for granting IPRs cannot be a substitute for human review carried out on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure the quality and fairness of decisions;
(19)
EUIPO, 2020 Status Report on IPR infringement: average annual figures, 2013-2017.