Latest leak reveals that review of EU IP enforcement framework is currently in a deadlock

KAT-LEAK:
exclusive image of Brussels cabinet meeting
Leaks of internal EU Commission documents have seemingly become unavoidable events in-between one official release and another from this EU institution.

The latest leak, published by Politico, is that of an internal note to the attention of Commissioner Bieńkowska's Head of Cabinet concerning the forthcoming (?) review of the enforcement framework, including the Enforcement Directive.

As readers will remember, the Commission itself announced that this is part of the agenda when it unveiled its Digital Single Market Strategy (DSMS) two years ago (May 2015). Despite the timeframe indicated in the 2015 DSMS, a more thorough review of the enforcement framework is (or, rather, was?) expected in the first half of 2017, including the release of proposals to review existing EU legislation.

So far nothing has happened on this front. 

The reason - as this latest leak appears to suggest - is that there is no agreement within the Commission itself as to what direction should be taken. In other words, as the document admits, the reform process is currently in a "deadlock".

D(r)eadlock Kat
In addition, there might have been also a change of heart within some of the key players, possibly even including Commission's Vice-President Ansip. 

According to the document, it appears presumable that Commissioner Ansip has gone from strongest supporter to most vocal opponent of a review of the Enforcement Directive. The reason would be that at the beginning it appeared that rightholders would somewhat lose in the reform of the copyright acquis, so that a stronger enforcement would be needed as a "trade-off" [yes, the document employs this term]. Apparently this has not been the case. Hence, "such trade-off is no longer considered necessary given the final scope of the copyright proposals which do not materially cut into right holders positions."

The document then reviews a number of possible options on the table. 

An important (and unsurprising) aspect is the focus on the role intermediaries. According to the note, any proposals to harmonise intermediary liability in the context of a review of the Enforcement Directive and require intermediaries to take more pro-active measures "is a very far reaching call which does not fit into [the Enforcement Directive] systematically and it is at least doubtful if such an initiative would be in line with the E-Commerce Directive and the announcements made by the Commission in the 2016 Communication on platforms to respect the liability regime for platforms."

To be continued ...
[Originally published on The IPKat on 21 May 2017]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AG Szpunar advises CJEU not to extend direct liability for trade mark infringement to operators of online marketplaces

Image
Is the operator of an online marketplace (more specifically: a hybrid marketplace, which also provides logistics assistance to third-party sellers through a fulfilment programme) using third-party trade marks itself, in accordance with Article 9(2)   EUTMR , when it displays, on its marketplace, advertisements of independent sellers’ goods that infringe such trade mark rights, which it also delivers to end customers? Is the perception of a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant internet user relevant when undertaking such an assessment? Gigi was also awaiting her delivery ... These are the key issues on which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been requested to provide guidance.  Joined cases  Louboutin/Amazon , C-148/21 and C-184/21  are referrals for a preliminary ruling made in the context of highly similar proceedings pending before, respectively, Luxembourg’s Tribunal d’arrondissement (C-148/21) and Belgium’s Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Br
Read more

The Louboutin/Amazon cases (C-148/21 and C-184/21) and primary liability under EU trade mark law

Image
Merpel will be also spending the weekend shopping for (stiletto heel) shoes   Last year The IPKat   reported   on a new referral to the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) from Luxembourg’s Tribunal d’arrondissement, asking whether the operator of a hybrid marketplace could be considered directly liable for trade mark infringement due to the presence of third-party listings of infringing goods on its platform. That referral ( C-148/21 ) has now been joined to another one ( C-184/21 ) made in separate but highly similar proceedings pending between the same parties (Louboutin and Amazon) before the Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles. In a nutshell, these joined cases are asking the CJEU to determine whether and, if so, at what conditions the operator of an online marketplace may be found liable under Article 9(2) of the  EU Trade Mark Regulation 2017/1001  (EUTMR) for the display of advertisements and the delivery of infringing goods that are offered for sale and pla
Read more

Image rights and the unauthorized use of one's own portrait on cigarette packs

Image
Plescia's image and the warning that "Smoking causes strokes and disability" Can someone's own image be used without permission? This question may have different answers, depending on both the context in which the relevant image is used and the legal system considered. With particular regard to the latter, in countries that envisage 'image rights' (or publicity rights), the availability of protection may be even irrespective of the context in which one's own image is being used. Italian law This is for instance the case of Italy which, similarly to other continental European jurisdictions, has a long-standing history of protecting image rights.  The relevant provision in the Italian Civil Code, ie  Article 10 , states that if one's own image is displayed or published outside the cases in which the display or publication is allowed by law, or in situations which are prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the person, a court may
Read more