EU IP news
EU member ecommerce-a closer look at the problems
There are two main issues confronting the EU member states with regards to ecommerce, one of them is the different language issue and the other is trade regulatory, enacted from the pre-EU days. Generally, ecommerce has been increasing at a healthy rate in most of the countries, but there has been no significant increase among member states. This is in spite of a report that citizens of EU member states indicated they are willing to buy across the border where it is cheaper and of a better quality. Almost a third of respondents indicated their willingness to buy from other countries from a recent survey.
Another third of European consumers are reported willing to buy online even though it may be of a different language, but it is not clear as to whether this third actually understand a foreign language from their own native language. Retailers are better of as almost halve of them surveyed said that they are ready to include other languages on their website in order to attract foreign buyers. EU ecommerce increased from 27 to 33 percent from 2006 to 2008, but only 7 percent had purchased from other member states. There is definitely a great potential, said Meglena Kuneva, EU consumer commissioner and efforts should be made towards this end as intra European trade is a means to obviate the increasingly protective trade practices brought about by the world economic slowdown.
"We must see to it that adoption of the internet platform will not be unnecessarily slowed down by a failure to remove important regulatory barriers, or to address important trust issues for consumers," commented Meglena. Languages and regulatory issues, including consumer law, VAT requirements, selective distribution law and intellectual property protection, waste disposals and interstate transports were the main barriers to cross-border online trade. Besides the regular problems associated with ecommerce like delivery issues, refunds and complaints, there was also a need to have in place a body to arbitrate on multi language transactions.
New EPO provision.
There has been a change to the European Patent Office (EPO) with regards to Rule 36 EPC that was enacted on March 26, 2009 by its Administrative Council. The rule change is expected to limit the opportunities for divisional application filings in Europe, relative to the current rule, in an effort to curtail the current "abusive" practice of divisional application filing in Europe. This change will take effect on April 2010 with a six month grace period if filed outside the two year window provision.
Basically what has changed is a two year window provision within which applicants must file any and all divisional applications based off of an original application. There are two possible scenarios, one of which if the EPO does not make an objection based on unity of invention the two year window starts on the date of the first communication from the examining division. In the other scenario, if the EPO raises an objection based on a lack of unity, the two year window starts on the date of the first communication from the EPO which asserts that the claims encompass more than one invention (with the exception when it acts as the International Search Authority). The EPO is also expected to further clarify the provision on a later date.
The EU has managed to work out on many issues that have brought the diverse group acting in unison. But it still is unable to work out a common front as far as intellectual property issues are concerned. Chief among the issue is having a common interpretation on the many diverse interpretations of the law when there is patent and copy right civil actions. Issues have been made worse when parties concerned have to deal with different languages. Such issues normally escalate the cost of bringing them to the courts.
Fortunately, after many years of intense deliberations, the EU's executive European Commission has formally asked member states for a mandate to set up a new court system, the intention of which is to institute a common jurisdiction over existing European patents and a future single EU community patent system. The benefits will include a faster administration of law and a reduction in cost for the litigants. It is stipulated that by 2013 a unified court system would save an annual 150 million Euros to 290 million Euros ($203-395 million). However, much work will have to be done in order to determine which language, and which court would take precedence over the others when implementing IP cases.
June 9th 2009
Is the Pirate Bay Party a romantic party attracting the young and the protesting?
Jean Grenier, AEPOC’s (Europe’s Anti-Piracy Association) Director General, says “Piracy is not a sport, it remains a theft,” referring to the convicted Swedish Pirate Bay group which got themselves elected to a European Parliamentary seat, telling the rest of Europe’s government that it is a wake-up call for them to prepare themselves for a hard fight ahead. The Pirate Bay Party’s clarion call had been to overhaul the laws on copyright infringements such that there is a degree of ‘fail usage’ for the masses (read the younger set) without having to being branded as thieves.
He further urged that existing European Members of Parliament enact laws that will clearly define what constitutes as piracy and that they are abhorred as something that is morally wrong, no matter how the rights of copyrights holders are being defined. He further stressed that “the creative industry and political decision makers should draw a very clear line against cyber crime, as our society and economy relies increasingly on internet-based or other digital services.” “The internet must not be a lawless territory that excuses or condones crime, be it theft, counterfeiting or child abuse.” Grenier continued: “This is particularly relevant with regard to the younger members of our society who are susceptible to the message of the Pirate Party, a message which appears romantic, yet is criminal at its core.”
Indeed, Parliamentarians should really come to enact laws that can prevent the status quo of the present anti-piracy policies from being overturned in a future scenario that has as its majority a younger set of leaders that is more sympathetic to disbanding of accepted copy right laws. Copyright holders around the world will surely watch with abated breadth the things that are unfolding. They will have reason to be concerned as such trends can spread virally through the internet, with the majority of users at the younger end of the age spectrum. These users will also be the future voters of coming elections, and they might just tilt the balance with the older sets expiring from the scene at a faster rate than ever! Where will copyright holders be in another decade, or even sooner?
July 24, 2009.
Are EU residents paying extra twenty percent for their drugs?
According to estimation by the EU Commission, EU residents are paying an extra twenty over percent for their drugs. No, the price of general drugs are the same with other countries, but, because there is suspected foul play by the big pharma companies to force generic firms from bringing out their drugs, residents just have got no choice but to buy the patent medications.
It was suspected all along that the Big 3, consisting of GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-aventis, have in some way cornered the market with their patented drugs by various methods including stalling the introduction of cheaper generic drugs by way of enforcing near expiring patents with questionable litigations. Generally, generic drug firms, mostly manufactured in India and Brazil have faced difficulties selling their drugs via channels that have been targeted with legal suits even though some of those patents are near expirations or are already expired.
And in order to give bite to the EU Commission’s suspicion, just recently, half a dozen of the offices of the big pharma firms were raided by officers from the Commission. It is still early days for the investigations, but it is only time that they will come out with some evidence of foul plays and then there will be ensuing prosecutions after that. Hopefully, the residents of EU will be able to enjoy cheaper drugs as some of these vital medicines have already reached the end of their protections.
October 7, 2009.
No to three strike policy
The European Union has resoundingly adopted a "prior, fair and impartial" hearing for those who are hauled up for copyright infringements. It however has not come up with the mechanism of how the hearings will be accorded, but will allow individual states to administer the decree on their own choosing. Countries like France, UK and Spain are at odds with the agreement as they have chosen the “three strike you are out model” where internet users will have their line terminated on the third infringement warnings. Under the new ruling, governments will still have the right to cut off the internet line if the infringers are suspected of downloading of organized crime, child porn and terrorism activities. The majority of the states felt that the “three strike” policy is too harsh and might inadvertently curtail individual rights. The new ruling will have to go through endorsements from the various governments at a later sitting.
December 16, 2009.
Supermarkets are getting into the infringement game
It has been unbecoming of supermarket chains of late when they are trying every which way to put their own brands of copycat products ranging from household toiletries to cosmetics. And well known brands find themselves in an awkward position competing with the supermarket copycats. Often, they are not in a position to take legal action unless they are ready to risk being taken off the selves by the supermarket chains. But what can they do? However, there is good news for them as a recent court case had shown.
As a result of a recent European Court of Justice (L’Oréal v Bellure, 2009) decision which turns in favor for the plaintiff, the judge opined that trademark owners “need only establish that the copycat branding creates a link in the mind of the consumer to the trade mark, and thus takes unfair advantage of its reputation” to establish a case against the infringers. The repercussions are indeed worrying for supermarket chains as they will find it embarrassing if a small guy were to take them to court for trademark infringements and wins. Their reputation is at stake!
January 22, 2010.
European Parliament says NO to 3 strikes
The European Parliament on Wednesday voted 663 to 13 against the initiative by a group of countries comprising the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, New Zealand, Morocco, Singapore and Mexico to institute new copyright laws known as the ACTA initiatives. One of the prime clauses of recommendation is the infamous “three strikes” you are out ruling, which would force internet service providers to cut off the line of subscribers found to have infringed on copyrights. It seems that the EU parliamentarians will not even tolerate “graduated response” policies that are a watered down version of the three strike ruling. The EU also demanded that the ACTA negotiations be open to the public and not kept a secret.
March 12, 2010