{"id":1660,"date":"2017-12-05T02:03:26","date_gmt":"2017-12-05T02:03:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/?p=1660"},"modified":"2017-12-05T02:03:26","modified_gmt":"2017-12-05T02:03:26","slug":"a-balanced-ip-enforcement-system-responding-to-todays-societal-challenges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/2017\/12\/a-balanced-ip-enforcement-system-responding-to-todays-societal-challenges.html","title":{"rendered":"A balanced IP enforcement system responding to today’s societal challenges"},"content":{"rendered":"

Efficient, well-designed and balanced intellectual property (IP) systems are a key lever to promote investment in innovation and growth. Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are one of the principal means through which companies, creators and inventors generate returns on their investment in knowledge and creation.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The digital revolution has opened up a wealth of new opportunities. The internet has brought innovative goods, technology and creative content to a much wider consumer base, thus enabling innovators and creators to reach new markets and audiences. But the digital revolution also exposes the EU\u2019s IP system to greater risks. The on-line environment allows for a much wider and quicker proliferation of IP-infringing goods and content, and makes it often more difficult for consumers to distinguish infringing goods and content from genuine and legal ones. Moreover, infringers of IPRs can hide behind fake identities and are often located outside the EU in jurisdictions with weak enforcement regimes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, profits from counterfeiting and piracy often go to criminal organisations. These organisations typically operate inside and outside the EU, use both regular and clandestine manufacturing plants, infiltrate supply chains, exploit labour, do not pay taxes, launder money and endanger consumers. Whilst there is a clear need for stronger action against IP infringements, at the same time, the EU should have policies to ensure that respect of IPRs is reconciled with the need for a smooth roll-out of new and innovative technologies. This is of particular importance when such technologies are incorporated into standards.<\/span><\/p>\n

There are differences in the way certain IPRED provisions (for instance on injunctions, damages and legal costs) are implemented and applied in practice. These differences often stem from uncertainties and diverging views as to how the provisions should be understood, especially because of the challenges linked to the new digital environment. They may also be due to the minimum harmonisation character of IPRED. Probably most importantly, divergences stem from the fact that IPRED works against the background of very diverse national civil enforcement frameworks and judicial traditions. As a consequence, depending on where judicial proceedings are initiated, outcomes may be very different, both in terms of substance as in terms of efficiency or effectiveness.<\/span><\/p>\n

Transparency about judgments on IPR enforcement is an essential pre-requisite for knowledge exchanges across the single market, more predictability and a cross-border debate among IP practitioners. To date, however, only a few Member States have published IP-related case law on dedicated websites, and rules on availability and publication differ rather widely. The Commission therefore calls on Member States to systematically publish judicial decisions in proceedings relating to IPR infringements, at least from appeal courts and higher.<\/span><\/p>\n

With the view to further improving the system of judicial enforcement in the EU, the Commission:<\/span><\/p>\n