On Tuesday 7 January, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) published the fourth edition of its report on national case law on intellectual property crime. This document is presented as part of the IPC (Intellectual Property Crime) project, launched in March 2021 with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
In 2018, the EUIPO estimated that counterfeiting and piracy cost the European Union almost €60 billion every year, representing around 7.5% of total sales in key sectors such as fashion, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.
Since then, the proliferation of illegal IPTV services - a system enabling television programmes to be broadcast via an Internet connection - has also led to significant losses for the audiovisual industry. In Spain, for example, a case involving the sale of decoders resulted in an estimated loss of revenue of €700,000 for rights holders.
This edition analyses judgments handed down in several Member States, covering a variety of cases such as the counterfeiting of everyday consumer goods, the illegal broadcasting of audiovisual content via IPTV and the calculation of material and non-material damages. Examples of case law come from the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden and Bulgaria.
The report sets out a range of issues. In a Dutch case, for example, the judges confirmed that it was not necessary to call in an independent expert to assess the authenticity of seized products, based on the declarations of the rights holders. In Spain, a court recognised that the mere display of counterfeit articles caused moral damage to brands, without requiring further proof of such damage.
In addition, some decisions address the question of the proportionality of penalties. In Bulgaria, the value of the counterfeit goods was carefully examined to determine whether it constituted significant damage, thus influencing the classification of the offences.
The report also notes a change in criminal methods. In Sweden, rulings have dealt with cases involving the sale of software to facilitate the piracy of films and TV series, demonstrating the rapid adaptation of criminals to new technologies. In Lithuania, a case involving counterfeit pesticides raised questions about the assessment of non-material damages and consumer protection in the face of health risks.
A case in Finland also illustrates the difficulty of judging the involvement of intermediaries in the logistics of counterfeit products, with a court initially acquitting a defendant before an appeal recognised their partial liability.
The document provides detailed summaries of the judgments, accompanied by keywords and references to the relevant legislation, both national and European. Links to the full decisions are also included.
However, Eurojust stresses that this report is not exhaustive and should be used as a complement to the full texts and not as a substitute.
The IPC project has harmonised judicial practices and strengthened cooperation between Member States. It also encourages a better understanding of the issues involved in intellectual property infringements, from product counterfeiting to the illegal distribution of digital content.
To read the report, go to https://aeur.eu/f/ey4 (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)