ROMANIA
Economic turmoil and the resulting budget cuts have played havoc with Romania’s fragile IP system, but forthcoming changes to the legislation and cooperation with customs and other agencies provide some light in the gloom.
It was New Year’s Day, 2007, and thousands of Romanians were partying in the streets. Tey were celebrating because, along with Bulgaria, their country had finally joined the European Union (EU).
While the people took to the streets,
businesses began wondering how the changes would affect them. On the face of it, they had little to worry about. Most of the intellectual property legislation was already harmonised and,
following minor changes since, all IP
legislation now falls into line with the EU’s. But five-and-a-half years on, there are still major challenges facing the Romanian IP system, challenges under the surface that IP owners must be wary about.
“Although the tools to fight infringement are in place, the procedures to make these tools effective are lacking, or they are not working properly,” says Dragosh Marginean of law firm Razta & Ratza in Bucharest.
Preliminary injunctions, for example, are just a “theoretical option”, he says. Tey can be granted—there is no mistake about that. But in reality, it can take three to four months to grant an injunction, and the courts “almost never” grant ex parte injunctions. Although legislation provides that ex parte injunctions can be granted, courts are not obliged to issue them. Marginean says that judges are “very cautious” about being accused of favouring one party over another, and are unwilling to become embroiled in these disputes.
Even when they are granted, injunctions are “impossible” to enforce. He says that should a court demand that an infringer stop selling counterfeit products, there are no realistic deterrents to reoffending. Te only sanction for not complying with the order is a civil fine of around €10 per day. “And this fine is not paid automatically,” he says.
It is a highly inefficient process. In civil law, trademark owners must retain the services of a judicial officer who notifies the infringer. Should the infringer fail to respond or comply with the order, the judicial officer must request another court order demanding that
the infringer pay the fine. “As you will
appreciate, this is not an effective way to stop any potential infringements,” says Marginean.
Trademark owners can turn to the criminal system, but this process has its own disadvantages. Once
www.worldipreview.com
World Intellectual Property Review July/August 2012
41
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