Recently, the European Commission has published the annual report about the results achieved during 2016 by European Customs Authorities in the fight against counterfeiting industry and in intellectual property rights protection. This document represents an opportunity for a brief reflection on this issue, almost four years after the EU Regulation 608/2013 entered into force. Under this Regulation, right-holders need to lodge an application in order to request the intervention of European Customs Authorities for the protection of industrial property rights. On this regard, the report highlights that in 2016 the number of applications increased from 33.191 during 2015 to 35.815 during 2016. Nevertheless, please consider that the requests for the intervention of European Customs Authorities have been steadily rising since 2009 (with the only exception of the year 2014, when the EU Regulation 608/2013 entered into force). We believe that the above mentioned data are very significant because they show, on the one hand, an increasing attention of right-holders towards the need to protect their intellectual property rights due to their economic value. On the other, they show an increasing confidence of the right-holders in the action of European Customs Authorities, and such increasing confidence seems justified also in light of the following. In fact, the total number of cases concerning counterfeit goods is significantly lower than in the past (63.184 cases in 2016 vs. 81.098 cases in 2015). Nevertheless, the total number of products detained by European Customs Authorities in 2016 appears higher than in the previous four years; anyhow, such number stands on quantities of goods significantly lower than those detained in the past, under the EU Regulation 1383/2003 (e.g., in 2011 European Customs Authorities detained 114.722.812 of goods). The overall decrease of the cases reported by the European Customs Authorities confirms the growing effectiveness of their action in the fight against counterfeiting and the deterrent effect achieved over the years. Such deterrent effect is probably due to the sanctions provided under EU Regulation 608/2013 for counterfeit products: in fact, more than half of the goods detained in 2016 (i.e. 27.107.818 goods upon a total of 41.387.132) has been destroyed, in accordance with the procedure set forth under such EU Regulation. Despite the severity of the sanctions, China is still the most active country in counterfeiting industry, since almost all the goods suspected to infringe intellectual property rights came from there (about 81%). China is followed by Hong Kong (7,79%), Turkey, Vietnam, Pakistan and Cambodia (with about 1% of goods suspected of being counterfeited from each of them). Given the considerable amount of counterfeit products came from Asia, European Customs Authorities initiated almost all the proceedings at the time of goods’ importation within the borders of European Union (i.e. in 86% of cases). Even though the European Commission’s report did not emphasize the growth of the economic value of products detained by Customs Authorities (equal to Euro 672.899.102 in 2016 vs. Euro 642.108.323 in 2015), in our opinion, this number needs to be analyzed because it does show a progressive shift of the counterfeit market to goods with a highest unit value. In fact, despite in 2016 European Customs Authorities detained about one million products more than in 2015, the reflection of such difference in terms of economic value is about thirty million. Moreover, reading these numbers in light of the most seized product categories (shoes, clothing and handbags) and in light of the most violated intellectual property rights (trademarks), we might conclude that the counterfeiting industry is active especially in the fashion industry. Nevertheless, the number of cases initiated due to the seizure of bags and shoes is lower than in the past and it confirms the deterrent effect of the action of the Customs Authorities in the fight against counterfeiting. It is probably for this reason that counterfeiting industry is moving towards new horizons, with a significant increase in counterfeiting of food and beverages (over 50% more than 2015). In our opinion, the numbers just mentioned show why the European Commission’s report is useful. On the one hand, it represents a “picture” of the state of the art but, on the other hand, it is helpful in order to intercept counterfeiting industry trends and therefore to react as effectively as possible, having regard to the effective protection of intellectual property rights and to the economic value they represent for right-holders.
Links
Related
