JURISDICTION REPORT: FRANCE
ACTA: TIME TO SIGN? Aurélia Marie
Cabinet Beau de Loménie
Following confidential negotiations, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is now ready for signature once it is implemented.
Tis new agreement, the final draſt of which was signed by the executive committee of the European Union on January 26, 2012, aims to increase the efficiency of the regulations which provide for the respect of intellectual property rights, and to establish international standards in order to strengthen IP rights, specifically on the Internet.
Although the agreement provides a period for signatures up to May 1, 2013, national procedures for authorising the signature look sensitive.
Regarding the EU, ACTA is a mixed agreement and has to be agreed to by the European Parliament and then transposed into national legislation in order to be applicable.
Nevertheless, negotiations on this treaty may not be completely finished, considering the difficulties within the EU itself in getting the treaty signed.
Indeed, the confidential nature of the negotiations held by the European Commission on the peripheries of the dedicated institutional organisations (WIPO, WTO), led the European Parliament to adopt a resolution reminding the Commission of its obligations, notably regarding the “public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents”.
Since the end of February, matters have been accelerating. On February 22, 2012, the European Commission decided to refer the question of potential breaches of the fundamental rights of the Union to the Court of Justice of the EU.
Also on February 28, the European Parliament rapporteur indicated during a press conference: “We feel it is better to submit our own legal request to the Court of Justice instead of trying to agree a text with the European Commission.”
Te European Parliament has, meanwhile, set up a consultation process with different commissions (industry, development, legal affairs, justice, etc) which will have to recommend accepting or rejecting the agreement. Te EU is still, therefore, quite far away from the period of ratification.
As to the treaty itself, this contains six chapters including one titled Legal framework for enforcement of IP rights. Despite a reference to the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of IP Rights (TRIPS) Agreement governing all IP rights, including patents, the vast majority concerns trademarks and copyright.
Tis chapter includes the obligation to put in place civil enforcement measures as well as criminal proceedings and penalties, at least for wilful
www.worldipreview.com
trademark counterfeiting or pirating acts committed on a commercial scale against copyright. Border measures could also apply to goods in transit, notably generic drugs, or any other suspect goods, under the control of the customs authorities and on their own initiative (Section 3). It also provides for the right to obtain information as to the means of production and the distribution channels of counterfeiting products, or allegedly counterfeiting products (Section 2). Te majority of these rules already exist in France. However, ACTA may have some impact on customs’ regulations and powers of inquiries.
Tis chapter also includes the obligation to take measures regarding the protection of IP in the digital environment, including interim measures, which respect economic growth, freedom of speech and privacy. It specifically stipulates that Internet providers can be forced to provide information and that techniques to circumvent effective technological measures that are used by authors, performers or producers of phonograms to prevent unauthorised copies should be punished (Section 5).
Tese stipulations are hotly contested in France, and more widely in Europe. A petition has already been signed by 2.5 million individuals, and several demonstrations have been organised in different towns in France by people wearing the mask of the ‘Anonymous’ group.
Accused of being inimical to freedom, ACTA is the subject of particularly lively controversy and mass mobilisation. Te way it has been negotiated and adopted was certainly not conducive to setting up a peaceful debate between the various stakeholders in the Internet, be they users, rights owners, access-providers or hosting companies. Let us hope that the consultations that have been implemented, and are now continuing, will allow such debate.
Aurélia Marie is a partner at Cabinet Beau de Loménie. She can be contacted at:
amarie@bdl-ip.com
World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2012 49
“THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HAS SET UP A CONSULTATION PROCESS WITH DIFFERENT COMMISSIONS (INDUSTRY, DEVELOPMENT, LEGAL AFFAIRS, JUSTICE, ETC) WHICH WILL HAVE TO RECOMMEND ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE AGREEMENT.”
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