This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
JURISDICTION REPORT: GERMANY


ACTA: IS THE CRITICISM FAIR? Jens Künzel


Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben


On February 11, 2012, more than 100,000 people in 55 cities demonstrated against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in Germany, an international trade agreement which has not been ratified in many countries, including Germany. Demonstrations took place on the same day in many other European countries such as France, Austria, Switzerland and Poland. Te widespread German protest is noteworthy, not only because of the high turnout in spite of very low temperatures, and the traditional German ‘reluctance’ to utter any kind of protest by going on the streets, but first and foremost because the criticism from the organisers—Germany’s Pirate Party (which seeks to promote ‘transparency’ in the Internet world) and the local Internet community—largely ignores the fact that the content of the ACTA agreement is already law in Germany.


Te critics may have a point when they target the lack of appropriate transparency in the ACTA negotiations. Te subject seems to stir emotion among interest groups (users and bloggers, the Internet business community), so more publicity and explanation would have defused much of the commotion from the outset.


However, the public criticism may not be justified as far as it concerns the content of ACTA. It is the express intention of the ACTA agreement to “complement” the existing Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement in the area of enforcement of IP rights. It also expressly addresses the enforcement of IP rights “in the digital environment”, which is the subject matter of Section 5 (Article 27) of ACTA. Tis section in particular has spurred public protests. Many critics allege that the ACTA agreement contains authorisations for the states (the parties to the agreement) which may serve as the first step to ‘Internet blocking’, and a ‘surveillance regime’ for the purpose of ‘censoring’ the Internet community in the interest of the ‘copyright industry’. Te agreement should be modified so that it deals exclusively with the enforcement of IP rights. Also, Internet business groups bemoaned that, according to ACTA, Internet service providers (ISPs) will be made to act as ‘deputies’ for the ‘copyright industry’, because the agreement provided that these providers had to disclose information about potential infringers using their services.


First, there is nothing in the ACTA draſt agreement indicating that states can exercise ‘control’ or ‘blocking’ of the Internet on a whim. From a German legal perspective, paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 27 in the ACTA repeat the basic principle that IP rights will be enforced with the same remedies and procedures available in ‘normal’ infringement cases if the infringement takes place in the digital environment. It is even expressly provided that “these procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce and, consistent with that party’s law, preserves fundamental


74


“THE WIDESPREAD GERMAN PROTEST IS NOTEWORTHY BECAUSE IT LARGELY IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE CONTENT OF THE ACTA AGREEMENT IS ALREADY LAW IN GERMANY.”


principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy”. Tis programmatic sentence explicitly addresses any legitimate concern which groups involved with the Internet might have with regard to adverse effects of IP rights enforcement.


Furthermore, any criticism that alleges the ACTA agreement should be modified in order to reflect that it ‘only concerns IP rights’ can be countered with the express text of the agreement.


Finally, it is currently the law in Germany that in certain circumstances ISPs have to disclose information to the owner of an IP right about potential infringers using their services. Provisions to that effect implement the EU Enforcement Directive, Article 8 (1)), which is—of course—also directly relevant for the infringement of copyright in the digital environment. Te requirements of such a claim, for instance in the German Copyrights Act or the Patents Act or the Designs Act, are precisely laid down in the relevant law. For instance, such a claim requires the “obvious” infringement of an IP right and that the ISP has provided services to the infringer “on a commercial scale” which have been used for infringing activities.


It may be concluded that the political unrest in the Internet community about ACTA—especially in Germany—is not warranted by the actual draſt text of the agreement.


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 January/February 2012 www.worldipreview.com


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  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100