Every quarter WIPO updates IP professionals with all novelties in the Madrid System. Published on 18 April 2017, this year´s first newsletter starts with the recollection of WIPO´s record-breaking 2016 and the statistics behind it (for our summary, click here).
The latest edition of the Nice classification (the 11th edition) brought the next big change to the IP world. It introduced over 300 new terms, made minor changes to Class 15 headings and significant changes to the Explanatory notes. The Madrid Goods and Services Manager (MSG) adapted to the alterations, enabling a precise estimate of the result of your application. Combined with the newly published "Examination Guidelines Concerning the Classification of Goods and Services in International Applications", a detailed guide through the examination principles, applying for an international trademark should be clearer than ever.
Other changes revolve around making the System more customer-friendly. Firstly, the Highlights reminded of the opportunity of obtaining certified copies of extracts, legalized by a non-member of the Madrid System. It only takes one email to Madrid Client Records Unit specifying all the necessary requirements, to get your copy. Secondly, the new year brought the Automatic Call Distribution System (ACD), a system redirecting callers to WIPO customer service staff speaking the customer´s preferred language (the choice being between English, French and Spanish). Finally, a guide on filling out the Madrid forms, called “Making the Most of the Madrid System” has become available in three languages (again in English, French and Spanish.
Marques needs little introduction in the IP community. It is a European association, aiming to educate and help brand and trademark owners to navigate through the demands of the global economy. One of the methods of achieving their goal is through conferences, meetings, and events. Always focusing on a currently problematic topic, the latest series of lectures was on industrial designs, titled “Mastering the Hague Agreement: from Asia to the USA, through the EU”. Additional focus was put on the 2014/2015 newcomers to the Hague family, namely South Korea, Japan and the US.
On 25 April 2017 it was Munich´s IP practitioners’ turn to listen to the amazing, concentrated presentations delivered by Gregoire Bisson, WIPO´s The Hague Registry Brands and Designs Sector Director, and Oliver Nilgen, a member of the Marques Designs Team.
Mr. Bisson introduced us to the “Experiences gained after the accession of South Korea, Japan and the USA”. He outlined the benefits of the Hague system, especially in given the varsity of national systems, usually very different to the European one. Given that, the European lawyers seem to have struggles adapting, resulting in a myriad of refused applications. With a familiar and uniform scheme, the percentage of formal errors was reduced. However, the problem is still persistent with the high number of refusals by the national IPOs. The most common arguments are the lack of novelty or unity of the design and insufficient disclosure (entailing e.g. an inadequate number of angles to create a well-rounded idea of the design or discrepancies among the views). Another factor preventing registration might be a lack of a suitable description, necessary to clarify what exactly is to be protected. Although all of the legislations mentioned above have their own personalized “slippery slopes” (e.g. Korea´s non-acceptance of logo-designs), a common thread with preventing rejection is to make the application as specific and precise as possible, using as many descriptions and tools available (such as legends, etc.)
Mr. Nilgen´s summary perfectly supplemented the previous one, presenting us with the characteristics of the pictures and portrayals which ought to result in a universal acclaim by the national IPOs. The limelight was set on the requirement of precision of the design application, describing several examples of “what-not-to-do”. The value of this presentation was that it was a practical guide, a result of years and years of experience, adding colors to the contours drawn by the previous lecture.
For more information on worldwide design registration and registrability, please consult WIPO´s Guidance on Preparing and Providing Reproductions in Order to Forestall Possible Refusals on the Ground of Insufficient Disclosure of an Industrial Design by Examining Offices and Guide to the International Registration of Industrial Designs.
You probably thought that the Adidas saga reached its end with last year´s European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling (case C‑396/15 P, summary). As it seems, the reality is different. In fact, with the latest EUIPO decisions on the three stripes, in all likelihood, we are at yet another beginning.
Background of the case
Adidas has been sporting their three stripes since their early days in 1949. Even the founder, Adolf Dassler, referred to the company as “the three stripe company”. However, IPOs around the world have been harder to persuade and the cases usually reached national and international courts. In 2016, the ECJ ended a six-year old battle between Adidas and their competitor Shoe Branding Europe BVBA, giving recognition to Adidas´ three-striped shoes. Stating that the popular decoration has acquired distinctiveness through years of use, the decision meant a halt to the production of all sneakers with anything from two to five stripes.
However, the recent case in front of EUIPO´s Board of Appeal might be in discord with this ruling. On 21 May 2014, Adidas registered a figurative mark (EUTM no: 012442166), with the description of “the mark consists of three parallel equidistant stripes of equal width applied to the product in whatever direction”. Their aforementioned rival Shoe Branding Europe contested the mark in December 2014, claiming that the trademark is indistinctive and incorrectly registered, with its description pointing to a position, and not a figurative trademark. Adidas responded that their claims against Adidas were contradicting and baseless, as Shoe Branding itself filed for registration of several two-striped trademarks. In addition, they offered sales figures, advertisements and surveys showing enhanced recognition among sportswear buyers throughout Europe. Nevertheless, EUIPO´s Cancellation Division was not convinced (decision 10 190 C of 30 June 2016). Firstly, they dealt with the topic of the nature of the sign. Due to the confusion the description was causing, the Division was of the opinion that the trademark should not have been registered in the first place. As it was registered, and as a figurative mark, only the sign strictly matching its graphical representation ought to be taken into consideration (meaning “in all positions” part is invalid). Talking about the enhanced distinctiveness, the Cancellation Division stated that the three lines would most likely go unnoticed with most of the consumers, let alone be connected to a specific producer. Labeling them as “banal”, they thought they should be open for use for their competitors as well. The Division made an interesting remark on what might change the simplicity of the mark, and consequently, their opinion. Stating that if the lines were put in front of a different-colored background, or within a geometrical figure, that that might be the deciding element in catching the consumers´ attention. The question that comes to mind is whether that really makes a difference? For example, if the stripes were within a rectangle, would the consumers suddenly connect the lines to Adidas, if they previously have not? Would the color of the background really enhance the recognition rate, compared to the rather famous stripes? The answer to these questions is connected to the next paragraphs of the Division´s decision, tackling the acquired distinctiveness. The Cancellation Division was questioning if the “considerable sums of money invested by the EUTM proprietor in the Adidas brand, or the colossal sales achieved under the different Adidas trade marks (and name), translate into public recognition of the mark in question”. Skeptical, they invalidated Adidas´ trademark.
Decision of the Board of Appeal
Adidas appealed the Division´s decision (decision R 1515/2016-2 of 7 March 2017), claiming that an abundance of evidence showed the lines exactly as graphically represented and, even if the stripes were oriented differently, that would not change the distinctive character of the mark. Also, they pointed out the Division´s indifference, or even a negative attitude, regarding the evidence of enhanced distinctiveness.
The first remark the Board of Appeal made was about the nature of the mark. The controversial wording “in any position” was considered as the liberty of the trademark owner to place the mark on the product as they seem fit. Therefore, they did not share the Division’s opinion of the lines being a position trademark. They continued on to the core questions, whether the trademark was present on the offered evidence and if it had gained enhanced distinctiveness. They discarded all the evidence showing white stripes on a black or colored background, as, in their opinion, they represented two stripes on a white background, instead of three, thus significantly deviating from the graphical representation.
As for the other evidence, mainly showing the stripes accompanied by the word “adidas”, it was rejected on the grounds of serving as a decoration to the word. The Board´s disbelief of the mark being correctly used as a trademark resulted in diminishment of the value of turnover figures. Accompanied by their doubt that the relevant public associates the stripes with Adidas, especially on an EU-wide level, they considered the trademark as devoid of a distinctive character, be it inherent or acquired, upholding the Cancellation Division’s decision in its entirety.
Comment: It is yet to be seen if Adidas is going to take this case to the European General Court. Given their current record, it would not be unperceivable. We will keep you up to date with all the twists and turns of the Adidas saga.
Do you know what is the link between the invention of the telephone and intellectual property? We all know Alexander Graham Bell as the one responsible for creating this groundbreaking item. However, evidence shows that the actual inventor was an Italian, Antonio Meucci. You may wonder, what kind of an upper-hand did Bell have over Meucci? The answer is: a patent, which Meucci could not afford. One 15$ patent application changed the course of history, with Meucci falling into oblivion, and Bell enjoying all the laurels.
Every year we mark April 26 as the World Intellectual Property Day. It is the day when we are invited to take a moment to appreciate all the benefits provided by intellectual property. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) celebrates this day by bringing light to different branches or aspects of IP and the ways they influence our everyday lives. This year, the focus is set on innovation.
So on this year´s World IP day, WIPO decided to celebrate inventors, their work and the novelties they bring to the world. Under the title “Innovation – Improving Lives”, lays an exploration of the influence of inventions in regards to the environment surrounding us. With it, WIPO´s aim is to attract new investments into R&D. Keeping researchers motivated and prolific results in immense benefits for everyone. It does not only satisfy societal needs, it also creates new revenues, bringing the wheel full circle.
About WIPO
WIPO is a global organization under the United Nations dedicated to creating an effective and thriving system for all types of intellectual property. Established in 1967, it counts 189 member states from all over the world. WIPO´s mission demands for a wide array of activities, from shaping policy for an ever-changing world of IP, offering dispute resolution mechanisms, dispersing technical infrastructure to ensure the necessary internationality, to enticing and supporting international cooperation.
For more information on World IP Day, please click here.
For more on WIPO, click here.
Heads up! The new wave of IP legislation changes comes into force in less than six months from now. As we all know, the new Trademark regulation (Regulation (EU) 2015/2424) came into force on 23 March 2016. However, a few crucial articles apply only from 1 October 2017 on.
What are the changes?
Most notably, the graphical representation requirement will be removed. Instead, the stipulation of a clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective representation will be sufficient. To clarify these conditions, EUIPO will offer additional information, as well as samples of acceptable formats.
Another big novelty is the introduction of EU certification marks. This is an EU trademark promising that certain EU-level requirements were fulfilled, differentiating manufacturer or service provider from others. Therefore, while a “regular” trademark indicates origin, a certification mark will indicate quality.
When speaking of procedural changes, filing a priority claim and the application will now have to be done together, as the previously given 2 months grace period has been subtracted. The simplification and modernization of procedural rules will lead to a faster and easier opposition, cancelation and appeal procedures. Also, in case of a parallel surrender of a EUTM and an ongoing revocation proceeding, EUIPO will suspend the surrender.
Smaller but significant changes include new rules on communication methods, translation requirements, structures of annexes, time limits, etc.
Next steps
It was announced that EUIPO is going to publish a first draft of the ever-helpful Guidelines on 02 May 2017, in order to make the transition into the new set of rules smoother. The final version is not foreseen until 1 October 2017, but the interim Guidelines are already expected to be of great help.
Every year in May, one city becomes the melting pot of all IP professionals. The “cause” is the International Trademark Association´s (or INTA, for short) annual meeting. Usually, the event takes place in the US. However, keeping true to the “IN” in “INTA”, the organizers try to leave North America every couple of years, and organize the meeting in another IP crossroads in the world. And after eight years of absence, the event is returning to Europe this year, as the location chosen is Spain, which is also the home of EUIPO. From 20 - 24 May 2017, Barcelona will host professionals from all over the world, introducing a new and diverse range of relevant IP-related topics, where everyone can find something of their interest.
Last year, the INTA Annual Meeting in Florida counted over 10,000 registrants, making it to most visited meeting thus far. However, it is likely that Barcelona will surpass this number, as the number of registrations has already reached 9,500. Like every year, among the attendees are members of LexDellmeier IP Law Firm. Heading the team is the firm´s founder, Mrs. Alexandra Dellmeier, an IP attorney with over 20 years of experience in the field. She also serves as a co-chair of the European division of the Public & Media Relations Committee of INTA. 2017 marks second year of the Committee´s existence, with the goal of bringing IP closer to the non-professionals. Also, another LexDellmeier team member (and a long-time INTA supporter!) coming to Barcelona is Ms. Andrea Breier, an IP attorney with over a decade of trademark experience in prosecution and litigation.
INTA is the largest association for trademark professionals, as well as trademark owners. With the idea of promoting fair competition and commerce, it brings light to the role of trademarks in trade and the reasons why they should be protected. Also, they show the importance and value of the international cooperation in trademark protection, being the gathering place of 7,000 organizations from 190 countries.
To find out more about INTA, click here.
If the INTA Annual Meeting peaked your interest, click here.
In a recent case, the European General Court (EGC) touched upon several hot potatoes: one-letter marks, acquired distinctiveness and the difference between an identical and a similar good and service.
Background of the case
On 16 November 2011, Eolus Vind AB, a Swedish company involved in wind energy industry, applied to register a figurative mark consisting of a stylized letter “e” (EUTM no: 010420941). The registration covered a wide field of goods and services, from electrical energy deriving from wind power, construction and repair of wind power plants and energy distribution, to insurance and legal services.
On 29 February 2012, the trademark was opposed (case B 001981417) by Edison S.p.A., an Italian company. They are known for electrical power production and sale, as well as their involvement in energy efficiency solutions, gas import infrastructures and storage plants. They claimed that Eolus´ “e” provokes a likelihood of confusion in comparison to their trademark, a figurative trademark resembling a letter “e” (EUTM no: 003490851). In addition, given the reputation Edison enjoys as a company, as well as the notoriety of their trademark, Eolus´ “e” should be deleted for all classes.
The Opposition Division of the EUIPO examined the similarity of goods and services, the similarity of the trademarks and the likelihood of confusion. Starting with the similarity of goods and services, the Opposition Division deduced that it varies from identical (for the distribution of electrical energy and the production of electrical energy) to dissimilar.
Next, the visual similarity of the signs consisted of them both being decorated letters “e”. However, while Eolus´ “e” is blue and with an impression of a gush of wind blowing it away, Edison´s “e” is grey and simulating two circles partially overlapping. When spoken, both signs would be pronounced equally, irrespective of the territory of the speaker. Conceptually, the Opposition Division noticed that the analogous note they have is the reference to energy. Therefore, taking all abovementioned into consideration, the signs were similar.
Touching on the topic of the claimed acquired distinctiveness, the Opposition Division stated that the evidence offered by Edison only showed that it was a big company in Italy, and did not demonstrate an enhanced distinctiveness.
In conclusion, the Office mentioned the problematics of a single letter trademark. They stated that the EUIPO does not consider them distinctive, unless sufficiently stylized to overcome the fact that they are, in essence, only one letter. In this case, both “e”s are embellished enough, and done so in a very different manner. Therefore, the likelihood of confusion is small, and the opposition should be rejected.
On 28 November 2013, Edison appealed (decision R2358/2013-1 of 25 February 2015), building the case predominantly around their claim that their goods and services were either identical or highly similar to the applicant´s.
EUIPO´s Board of Appeal stated that Edison´s trademark was more reminiscent of two crescents than the letter “e”, but, given the company´s longstanding presence in the energy business, the sign could have been recognized as a letter. This did not undermine the fact that the trademarks in question were visually quite different, both in color and the font. The question if the sign was perceived as a letter was also relevant for the phonetic and conceptual similarities. If seen as a letter, they are phonetically and conceptually identical. However, the Board of Appeal was of the opinion that the consumer would primarily describe the sign, not pronounce it, making phonetic similarity non-existent. As for the conceptual similarity, single letter marks could be backed by a concept if they maintained a link to the goods or service, which in this case, they did. However, the usage of the letter “e” was descriptive, and therefore, limited its importance. The other possible concept, the concept of motion, was only present with Eolus´ trademark, thus differentiating the signs even further.
The Board of Appeal did not fully agree with Opposition Division regarding the one-letter trademarks. They stated that they are not devoid of any distinctive character, unless proven differently. However, their distinctiveness is harder to establish. What does not help is the common and widespread use of a single letter to abbreviate its owner or service, making them frequent and less special. The saving grace are the add-ons and decorations to the letter, which, just as in this case, can augment the mark´s distinctiveness.
As for the contested goods and services, the Board of Appeal restated that the goods and services range from identical to completely dissimilar. However, even for the goods and services which were similar, Edison failed to show that both undertakings were offering them. Therefore, the only services where the consumer might be led into confusion were the identical “Electricity distribution of wind power energy” and “Energy production of wind power energy”. In this scope, the Opposition Division´s decision was overturned.
Decision of the EGC
Despite the partial success, Edison decided to take the matter to the EGC. The decision (case T-276/15) was brought on 14 March 2017, with no good news for Edison.
When talking about the similarities of the signs, the EGC agreed in the entirety with the Board of Appeal, stating that the visual one was low, phonetic would either not exist or be identical, and the conceptual one existed only if they were both regarded as an “e”, in which case it would also be descriptive.
As for the goods and services, Edison did not offer any additional evidence, but rather relied on the fact that “as a matter of principle” or “is well-known that” the goods were produced or provided by the same undertakings. The ECG could not accept this logic. In addition, the Court argued that, even if they were produced by the same manufacturer, it would make them similar, and not identical.
A second question that Edison raised was the claimed “point-blank” inadmissibility of their evidence showing enhanced distinctiveness. The EGC stated that it was quite the contrary; the Board of Appeal did take all the provided documents into consideration, but deemed them misplaced, as they showed the company´s economic success instead of public recognition of the mark.
All this led the EGC completely to uphold the Board of Appeal´s decision.
On 15 March 2017, WIPO published a press release, showing their 2016 in numbers. And there was a lot to celebrate, as 2016 marked a record-breaking number of patent, trademark and design applications, and a significant growth on all three fronts for the seventh year in a row.
On the gloomier note, the number of cybersquatting disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) broke a record as well, with its 10% rise in comparisom to the number in 2015.
Trademarks
In 2016, 52 550 trademark applications were filed, with 347 544 designations to Madrid Treaty signatory countries (most of which to China (22 314 designations), the European Union (21 526) and the US (20 979)). The US and Germany are the predominant applicants, both with over 7500 applications. The rest of the top five are France, China and Switzerland.
China was the surprise of the day, with its 68.6% growth in comparison to 2015. Also, Russian Federation (+32.7%), Italy (+14.4%) and the Netherlands (+14.1%) had enviable increases in the numbers of applications.
When talking about individual applicants, the top five places go to European companies. French L’Oréal took the lead with its 150 TMAs, closely followed by British Glaxo Group (141), German BMW and Lidl, and Swiss Novartis.
Despite to what may be deduced from the top applicants´ industries, most applications were for the classes covering computers and electronics, services for business and technological services, leisure and educational services and clothing.
Industrial designs
While patents and trademarks showed a similar growth rate, the same cannot be said about designs. In the previous year, 5562 applications were filed, containing 18 716 designs, which means a 35.3% increase.
Most applications come from Germany (3917) and Switzerland (2555). The third place belongs to South Korea, whose Samsung was the last year´s biggest applicant company. However, this year, they were surpassed by Dutch Fonkel Meubelmarketing, with their 953 designs, compared to Samsung´s 862. They are followed by another Korean technology giant, LG Electronics, and their 728 applications.
Unsurprisingly, most design applications cover furnishing (11.3%), communication equipment (10%), vehicles (7.8%) and watches (6.9%).
An interesting thing to see are the biggest improvers. The story here is not equal to China´s boost in TM and patent registrations. At the first glance, Turkey´s 136.5% and Japans 109.2% growths seem far better. However, their starting points were not the same. Turkey and Japan were not at a position to boast about their design protection. Therefore, their numbers should be considered as an excellent start to an elevated registration system.
Patents
Patents filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) show a 7.3% increase from 2015, amounting to 233 000. Predictably, most of them come from digital communication and computer technology companies. Also, the ranking of the countries has remained the same, with the US at the helm, followed by Japan, China and Germany.
However, here is where the biggest surprise comes in. China has marked a staggering 44.7% surge in the number of patent applications. If they continue growing at this rate, within the next two years it can be expected for them to take the reign from the US (which has been in the lead for the past 39 years). Other countries showing significant rise are Italy, Israel and India, all showing approx. 9.5% more international applications.
A lot of the credits for China´s success go to the telecommunications magnates ZTE Corporation and Huawei Technologies, who top the list of the applicants. They are followed by American Qualcomm Inc., Japanese Mitsubishi Electric Group and Korean LG Electronics.
Among educational institutions, there is an equal division of places between Asian and American universities in the top 20. However, the top 10 is predominantly American, with University of California, MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Texas System taking the top positions.
Cybersquatting disputes
With the introduction of 1200 new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), business owners received an opportunity to tailor their websites according to their needs, marketing strategies and wishes. However, the side effect of such freedom is a flourishing market for cybersquatters. In 2016, 3036 cases were brought to WIPO, regarding 5374 domain names. Sometimes, the cases involved a country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD), but a lot more frequently, it was about the new gTLDs (usually .XYZ, .TOP and .CLUB).
According to WIPO´s statistics, most disputes came from the US, almost twice more than the second-placed France, and three times more than the third-placed Germany. Equally alarming are the numbers showing the upsurge of cases, which in France’s case amounts to a high 38%, Australia´s 36%, and Denmark´s and Sweden´s around 30%.
12% of cases evolved around banking and finance, followed by fashion, heavy industry and machinery, Internet and IT and biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, whose numbers vary from 7-9% of all disputes.
American tobacco company Philip Morris can call themselves 2016´s most diligent anti-cybersquatter, with 67 cases brought to WIPO, along with AB Electrolux (51 cases) and Hugo Boss, LEGO, and Michelin (42 disputes each).
Intellectual Property disputes
Solving domain name issues is only a part of WIPO´s attempts to actively resolve IP-related disputes. Another part is the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, aimed at offering Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) options to private parties caught in an international commercial dispute. In 2016, the most favored option was mediation, followed by arbitration and the shorter expedited arbitration.
What characterized the cases was their diversity. Out of the 60 cases WIPO received, the parties involved companies, both large and SMEs, as well as private persons, NGOs, municipalities, etc., deriving from 19 countries. 34% were patent-, 20.5% Information and Communication Technology-, 13.6% copyright-, 13.6% trademark-related, while the other 18% was dispersed between distribution and franchising agreements, design and cultural heritage protection.
Combining the fact that Italy is the third biggest producer of GI products in the EU and that Italian cuisine is cherished across the globe, it is safe to say that IP infringements are imminent. This time the legal battle stems from Tuscany, Italy´s fruitful producer of wine, cheese, cold cuts and, important for this case, extra virgin olive oil.
[[{"type":"media","fid":"4760","view_mode":"default","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"height":827,"width":1000,"style":"width: 800px; height: 414px;"},"field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":""}]]
Background of the case
On 17 November 2003, Roberto Mengozzi registered the wordmark “TOSCORO” (EUTM no: 002752509) with the EUIPO. It was the name of his line of vinegars and vinaigrettes, sold all over France and Monaco.
In 2012, Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP asked EUIPO to invalidate the trademark, due to infringement of their registered geographical indication “Toscano”. The Cancellation Division deemed that there was a possibility of consumer´s confusion and declared the trademark invalid for classes 29 (“edible oils fats; edible vegetable oils, notably olive oils”) and 30 (“products for flavouring or seasoning foodstuffs, salad dressing“).
Mengozzi appealed to EUIPO´s Board of Appeal (decision R0322/2014-2 of 5 June 2015). Consorzio used the opportunity to ask for the terms “green and black olive creams” and “mayonnaise” to be added to the list of the “off-limits” terms. The appeal did not go as Mengozzi planned, as the Board of Appeal partially agreed with Consorzio. They stated that the difference between olive oil and creams deriving from olive oil was not that prominent. However, the same could not be said for mayonnaise.
Decision of the EGC
Mr. Mengozzi proceeded with the attempts to regain his trademark and took the case to the European General Court (EGC), making EUIPO his opponent and the Consorzio the intervener. The decision was rendered on 2 February 2017. The Court stated that, even though “TOSCORO” did not amount to “Toscano”, they were highly visually and phonetically similar. And, despite the applicant´s claims that Toscoro was a made-up word, that did not mean that the word did not evoke the notion of Tuscany. Taking these facts into consideration, the Court thought that the Board of Appeal did not err when thinking that the consumer might be confused when facing these products. Mr. Mengozzi continued to claim that olive oil and olive cream were not the same products. However, the EGC deduced that there was sufficient evidence that the term “olive cream” was vague enough to include creams containing olive oil. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Appeal should be upheld in its entirety.
[[{"type":"media","fid":"4759","view_mode":"default","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"height":2000,"width":3000,"style":"width: 800px; height: 533px;"},"field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":""}]]
After a worrying OECD report last year (more on that here), this year the fight against pirated goods continued with a letter addressed to the president of the European Commission, Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker.
More than 80 companies joined their efforts to alert the Commission of the struggles they are having with counterfeits. All companies are major players in diverse markets, ranging from pharmaceuticals (Bayer, Hermes Pharma), technology (Phillips, HP), food and drinks (Coca Cola, Kellog´s), cosmetics (L´Oreal, Beiersdorf) to vesture (Chanel, Christian Dior Couture).
They reminded of the consequences of pirate trade. Not only does it impact their brands, but also results in job losses. Also, with the lack of security and quality testing, illicit products can have a serious impact on consumers´ safety. Finally, these activities are major contributors and financiers of organized crime.
They pointed out two key points which made counterfeiting easier and more accessible than ever. One is the rise of the Internet, where fakes are presented as the genuine products without investment in time, money or efforts. The second point is the expansion of intermediaries. Nowadays, trade includes more and more middlemen between the seller and the consumer, from social media, search engines, payment and delivery services, etc.
The intermediaries choose their own path: either they join the fight against counterfeits or they take the easier route and sell illicit goods. The companies are of the opinion that the intermediaries can be influenced and that the EU should enable, ease and entice making the right choice. The letter suggests the implementation of an appropriate prevention system, after which the intermediaries would be resolved of liability in case a counterfeit does find its way to the market.
Lastly, the companies urged the Commission to use the upcoming revision of the Directive on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement to include their suggestions and create a concordant chain of counterfeit-fighting actors.