As announced by the UK-IPO, a report on the proposed EC Directive on criminal measures for IP infringment (previously noted by the IPKat here) has now been adopted by the European Parliament. Council discussions of the proposal are expected to resume at expert level in June or later this year.
The UK-IPO would like to have any comments on the report ahead of these discussions (i.e. by the end of May).
There are a number of UK concerns with the proposal, which can be seen in a Home Office report by the European Scrutiny Committee and a report by the European Union Committee of the House of Lords.
The UK-IPO say that they will copy any comments received to the Ministry of Justice (previously the Home Office), who will lead the discussions at expert level.
The IPKat says that if you care about the proposed Directive, and the effects of creating new criminal offences for IP infringements, now is the time to speak up.
The UK-IPO would like to have any comments on the report ahead of these discussions (i.e. by the end of May).
There are a number of UK concerns with the proposal, which can be seen in a Home Office report by the European Scrutiny Committee and a report by the European Union Committee of the House of Lords.
The UK-IPO say that they will copy any comments received to the Ministry of Justice (previously the Home Office), who will lead the discussions at expert level.
The IPKat says that if you care about the proposed Directive, and the effects of creating new criminal offences for IP infringements, now is the time to speak up.
IP Criminal Enforcement Directive: Your chance to speak up
![IP Criminal Enforcement Directive: Your chance to speak up]()
Reviewed by David Pearce
on
Monday, May 21, 2007
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html