TOUGH WORDS FROM COMMISSION ON FIGHT AGAINST PIRACY

This came out today from the European Commission's "The Week in Europe" circular:

EU strengthens fight against piracy and counterfeiting beyond its borders

In an effort to halt the increase in piracy and counterfeiting the European Commission has adopted a strategy for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries. The action plan focuses on vigorous and effective implementation and enforcement of existing intellectual property rights (IPR) laws. It proposes to identify priority countries where enforcement actions should be concentrated. Technical cooperation and assistance to help third countries fight counterfeiting will be highlighted but the Commission will not hesitate to trigger all bilateral and multilateral sanction mechanisms against any country involved in systematic violations.

The Commission will foster awareness raising of users and consumers in third countries and support the creation of public-private partnerships for enforcement. EU trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy said: “Piracy and counterfeiting continue to grow every year and have become industries, increasingly run by criminal organisations. This is a serious problem for us but also for third countries whose companies are also suffering the consequences of violation of their own intellectual property rights. Some of these fakes, like pharmaceuticals and foodstuffs constitute an outright danger to the public, while others undermine the survival of EU’s most innovative sectors. Adopting new legislation on intellectual property is one thing. But devising the right tools to enforce it is another. This is now our priority.”

Click here and here for more information.

The IPKat applauds these fine words, but wonders whether anything will come of them. Will the Commission copy the United States approach and publish regular "most hated nations" lists, or is there some more subtle way? And will the Commission be tripped up by the WTO if it is seen as treating some third countries in a prejudicial manner? Let's watch and wait.