A new draft law, developed by Russian ministry of culture (MinCult), contains amendments to Russian law on information, its protection and informational technologies, aiming to simplify and streamline restriction of access to pirate web-sites and their mirrors. But there is one little detail.
Comments closedCategory: Enforcement
While the Directive does not provide a list of the specific rights which are considered intellectual property rights for its purposes, Recital 13 explains that its scope should be defined as widely as possible to encompass all the IPR covered by provisions of EU law in this field and/or by the national laws of the Member States.
Comments closedThe Department of Communications and the Arts in Australia is seeking views from stakeholders on the questions put forward in published paper. The Department welcomes single, consolidated submissions from organisations or parties, capturing all views on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2015 (Online Infringement Amendment).
Comments closedThe Notorious Markets List highlights prominent and illustrative examples of online and physical marketplaces that reportedly engage in, facilitate, turn a blind eye to, or benefit from substantial piracy and counterfeiting. A goal of the List is to motivate appropriate action by owners, operators, and service providers in the private sector of these and similar markets, as well as governments, to reduce piracy and counterfeiting.
Comments closedWhile it is initially the applicant who is to specify in his application the scope of an injunction he considers appropriate to prevent an imminent infringement or to stop an ongoing one, it is the competent judicial authority which is to decide on that application.
Comments closedThe aim is to identify the marketplaces outside the EU where counterfeiting, piracy or other forms of intellectual property abuse are common practice.
Comments closedAccording to Article 15(1) of the e-Commerce Directive, Member States are prohibited from imposing a general monitoring obligation on online intermediaries within the meaning of Articles 12-14 of that Directive. Such an obligation would also be incompatible with the general requirements of fairness, proportionality and any measures not being excessively costly set out in Article 3 of IPRED.
Comments closedThe European Commission decided to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the EU for failure to notify complete transposition (partial non-transposition) of EU rules on collective management of copyright and related rights, and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use (Directive 2014/26/EU) into national law. The Commission called on the Court to impose financial penalty to Poland – € 87 612.00 per day. Member States had to transpose the Directive into national law by 10 April 2016.
Comments closedIPRED refers in its Articles 9(1)(a) and 11 to the possibility of issuing injunctions against ‘any intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe IPRs’. The Directive does not specify which economic operators are to be considered as intermediaries for the purpose of the Directive.
Comments closedArticle 7(1) of IPRED provides for the possibility, in appropriate cases, to issue measures to preserve evidence without the other party having been heard (i.e. ex parte), in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the rightholder or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.
Comments closed