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. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are one of the principal means through which companies, creators and inventors generate returns on their investment in knowledge. 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. 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.
As reported Vedomosti, deputy of minister of communication, Alexey Volin, stated at the conference “Kinoekspo”, that MinCom will publish list of advertisers, who promote themselves through the Russian pirate websites. However he named some brands before the entire list is to be revealed. Among them he named Ford, Nissan, Volvo, Mazda, Toyota, Microsoft, Gillette.
In light of the evolution of commercial scale IP infringing behavior, the Commission highlighted in recently adopted Action Plan that it would seek with the MS to re-orientate its policy for IP enforcement towards a better compliance of IP right by all economic actors. Rather than penalizing the citizen for infringing – often unknowingly – IP rights, the non-legislative actions set out in this Action Plan pave the way towards a “follow the money approach”, seeking to deprive commercial scale infringers of the revenue flows that draw them into such activities.
Law enforcement authorities inspect business activity of four companies founded by Russian Authors’ Society. Three of these four companies were wound up within two years. As reported Izvestia, main department on economic defense and fight corruption inspects these companies in connection with possible misappropriation of assets. The reason for such interest from relevant authorities is anonymous letter. As reported RBC, the subject of inspection is whether RAO has stolen royalty due to its members and authors by means of acquisition and sale of non-movable property through front companies. Presumable sum of damages is about a half billion roubles. Member of RAO Authors’ board confirmed, she was asked about some deals with non-movable property in question. But she does not remember details. Deals in question were made in 2011 and now is 2015. She told about the letter – reason for inspection. But the author of this letter is known. “All country knows him. This man is very offended, he wants to receive money for his music but no radio station broadcast his compositions.”
Moscow commercial court refused to abolish state accreditation to exercise the rights of authors of musical works (with or without text) used in audiovisual work in order to receive remuneration for public performance or broadcast or cablecast of such work. Russian authors Society has been granted this accreditation about year ago. What this case is about? Let’s start from the beginning. In 2014 has entered into force new amendments in Russian copyright law in the field of non-contractual collective rights management.
This autumn Russian State duma plans to consider issue of illegal copy paste.
In a DSM, the rights and obligations arising between e-commerce traders and their customers should be governed by a common set of rules and principles. EU law provides protection for EU consumers, irrespective of how goods are purchased. Harmonized EU legislation ensures safety of the goods being placed on the market. Moreover, the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EC) has fully harmonised certain aspects of consumer and contract law applicable to online sales to consumers, such as pre-contractual information the customer should receive and the right of withdrawal from the contract. However, in other areas there are only minimum EU rules, which Member States may supplement with stricter requirements. For example, the Consumer Sales Directive (1999/44/EC) has set a minimum level of harmonisation for the remedies available when tangible goods are not in conformity with the contract of sale. Member States can also go beyond the requirements of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC), which provides protection against unfair clauses which have not been individually negotiated in B2C contracts relating to both tangible goods and digital content products.