JURISDICTION REPORT: GERMANY
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND CUSTOMS SEARCHES
Jens Künzel Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben
Every two years, the world’s largest trade fair for sanitary goods takes place in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Tis trade fair (the International Trade Fair for Sanitary Wares—ISH) is not only known for its importance to the business sector concerned; it also happens to be a place where criminal prosecutors and customs officials take probes and detain lots of goods on the grounds of suspicion that an IP right (primarily a patent or design right) is infringed. Tis is a good opportunity to turn briefly to criminal prosecution and the activities of the customs authorities apart from border controls.
In Germany and all other European countries, IP infringements regularly are also criminal offences. In addition, German law treats patent or design infringements as criminal offences against customs laws if these products have been brought into Germany under violation of existing laws. Tat is advantageous to IP owners because they can ask customs authorities (Customs Investigation, Mobile Customs Police) to investigate such criminal offences in relation to, for example, trade fairs. Tat has recently led to some very successful customs ‘campaigns’, such as at the ISH in Frankfurt am Main in March 2011, where an entire hall was ‘scanned’ by officers, IP owners and lawyers for design and patent infringements, and other fairs such as the Ambiente and Paper World fairs. All ‘suspicious’ products were taken away from the stands as part of investigations of customs law offences. Tey were stored somewhere else and could not be shown anymore at the trade fair. Business people from all over the world looked as customs took away seemingly infringing products. Many immediately reacted and went back to their booths in order to put away all those products they thought might be ‘dangerous’. From an IP owners’ viewpoint this is very effective and serves as a deterrent against future infringements. Te 2011 activities largely repeated what happened before in 2009 and 2007.
Te criminal investigations following such ‘searches’ will regularly be closed at an early stage because of a lack of interest in prosecuting or an absence of the ‘infringers’. But that may not be important—the ‘psychological effect’ is what counts.
However, normal criminal prosecution, at least from the German point of view, does not play an important part in the enforcement of IP rights. Trademark infringements discovered through border controls may form an exception, as prosecutors may see this as the classic field of ‘product piracy’. But even in this situation, criminal prosecution of trademark infringers only ends in a criminal trial if the amount and value of the goods detained is high enough to merit a trial, and that is not very oſten the case. In patent and design cases, it is quite difficult to prove that infringers acted intentionally to infringe.
www.worldipreview.com
“ GERMAN LAW TREATS PATENT OR DESIGN INFRINGEMENTS AS CRIMINAL OFFENCES AGAINST CUSTOMS LAWS IF THESE PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT INTO GERMANY UNDER VIOLATION OF EXISTING LAWS.”
Te reluctance of IP owners to initiate criminal proceedings is understandable for other reasons as well. Te main goals of IP enforcement cannot be achieved with criminal prosecution. Further, most proceedings do not even generate more information on the infringement. Apart from the fact that in Europe there are or will be effective civil remedies available in order to obtain information, prosecutors—at least in Germany—are reluctant to even investigate IP rights infringements. In Germany, criminal offences relating to IP infringement are subject to private prosecution. Tat means that the ‘infringed person’ himself has to criminally prosecute the infringer and a public prosecutor only takes over the investigation if there is a public interest to prosecute. At least in patent and design cases, that is not very oſten. It may be different in trademark cases, although the recorded trials even in this field are rare.
Apart from these legal ‘hurdles’, patent infringements are sometimes quite complicated to understand for lawyers—like public prosecutors—who are not concerned with such technical facts every day. However, criminal proceedings may exert additional pressure on the infringer for achieving an out-of-court solution while a civil action is underway. Especially in patent cases, these proceedings may only be useful if there is already a civil court judgment that can be relied upon, and in cases of continued, presumably intentional, infringement of one or more patents.
Jens Künzel, LLM, is a partner at Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben. He can be contacted at:
jens.kuenzel@krieger-mes.de.
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2011 55
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84