Months from implementing IP Enforcement Directive, Sweden swamped by fake Abbas

Via the Intellectual Asset Management magazine's holiday email circular comes potentially good news for Swedish IP infringers. The circular carries a short feature, "Implementation of EU IP Enforcement Directive delayed … again" by Jenny Holmén and Stefan Widmark (Mannheimer Swartling). According to the authors:

"The Swedish implementation of the EU IP Enforcement Directive ... is severely delayed. The original implementation deadline was 29 April 2006 and the government’s failure to implement on time recently caused the European Court of Justice ... to find Sweden guilty of breaching its treaty obligations [as chronicled by the IPKat here] ... Sweden also failed to meet the new deadline of 1 July 2008 and implementation is now scheduled for 1 January 2009.

The directive and Swedish law

Although most of the minimum enforcement standards set out in the directive are already met by existing laws, a few features require the legislature’s attention. The issue that has apparently caused the delay is the right for IP rights holders to obtain information regarding the origin and distribution networks of infringing goods (Article 8). The Swedish government has explained that it needed to await the ECJ’s decision in the Promusicae Case (Case 275/06) [see IPKat note here], which considered whether the provision is an absolute requirement imposed on member states. The ECJ rendered its decision in the Promusicae Case in January 2008, finding that Article 8 does not require member states to lay down an obligation to communicate personal data in order to ensure the effective protection of intellectual property in the context of civil proceedings. However, the ECJ declared that Community law does require that, when transposing the directive, the authorities and courts of the member states must not only interpret national law in a manner consistent with the directive, but also ensure that they do not rely on an interpretation which would conflict with fundamental rights or with other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality. Sweden has also claimed that Article 8 of the directive is hard to interpret and hence difficult to implement; however, according to ECJ case law these are not valid excuses for failing to implement a directive in due time.

Other required amendments include:

* amendments to the provisions on civil search orders to facilitate the protection of confidential information and to enable orders to be granted in respect of anticipated IP infringements; and
* a new power for the courts to order the recall of infringing goods and the publication of judicial decisions and corrective notices.

Next steps

The Swedish government is planning to publish its bill on the required amendments in September 2008 and to implement the directive on 1 January 2009".

The IPKat says, hmm ... other Member States were able to implement the Directive without awaiting the outcome of Promusicae. Did they do something wrong? Merpel says, I'd always wondered why there were so many Abba tribute bands around; can it be traceable to Sweden's failure to provide a sufficiently high level of protection for its valuable intellectual assets?

Abba's earnings here
Number of Google hits for 'Abba' + 'tribute' = 223,000
Months from implementing IP Enforcement Directive, Sweden swamped by fake Abbas Months from implementing IP Enforcement Directive, Sweden swamped by fake Abbas Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, August 21, 2008 Rating: 5

1 comment:

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:

Powered by Blogger.