Proposition 51K2852

Projet de loi relatif à la répression de la contrefaçon et de la piraterie de droits de propriété intellectuelle.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Jan. 18, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Regulation copyright customs inspection fraud industrial property intellectual property industrial counterfeiting patent patent law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 8, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

U bent also ingeschreven in general speaking. Wie wenst sich noch in te schrijven in de algemene bespreking? by Mevrouw Pieters. Who else?

Let me start with Mrs. Peterson.

Mr Peterson, you have the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will be very brief.

Protecting intellectual property rights, patents, trademarks, drawings and models, supplementary protection certificates for medicines is, in our opinion, an absolute necessity. The protection of innovation is an important aspect for the creation and viability of enterprises.

Of course, the fight against counterfeiting and piracy is an extremely important and at the same time ⁇ difficult struggle, which can only be won if it is conducted at European level and, better yet, at global level. We see a lot of counterfeit occurring in non-EU countries within and outside Europe. It is therefore of the utmost importance that an adequate fight against counterfeiting and piracy is also undertaken in the WTO.

We fully support the purpose of the law. Counterfeiting and piracy cause great damage to the economic order and sometimes pose a danger to public health, thus justifying a more severe punishment.

Again, Mr. Minister, we consider it important that you, as a competent minister, put the fight against piracy and counterfeiting on the agenda at the Belgian level – Belgium is still an important turntable for counterfeiting – as well as at the European level and at the global level. Otherwise, much of the existing legislation threatens to become a dead letter in practice.

Mr. Speaker, it is of course a good thing that Minister Verwilghen enhances the fight against counterfeiting and piracy with the present bill.

The phenomenon is widespread. Counterfeiting and piracy do not only affect branded clothing, luxury goods and the film or music industry. Other economic sectors are also affected. According to the Minister, the economic and social consequences of counterfeiting are catastrophic.

What now presents, reforms and eases the regulations for seizure in case of counterfeit, for the claim to strike and for the claim to recovery. On the other hand, it will enable customs and courts to detect and punish counterfeiting and piracy more efficiently.

Specifically, the draft aims to enable intellectual property rights holders and the government to fight more effectively against the production and marketing of goods infringing certain intellectual property rights.

In our country, the criminal law currently sanctions only for the counterfeiting of copyright and trademarks. The measures relating to trademarks appear to be insufficient to effectively combat counterfeiting and piracy. Falsification of drawings and models is not punishable by criminal law. However, the impact of the above-mentioned infringements is not minor, in particular for the textile sector, the furniture sector and the leather products sector.

Falsification of patents or supplementary protection certificates is not punished, nor are there sanctions concerning the breeder’s right.

The draft law follows a horizontal logic, which requires that the strengthened sanctions for cases of counterfeiting and piracy apply to all intellectual property rights. In addition to better defining the concepts of “imaging” and “piracy”, sanctions are established and the various stakeholders are involved in preventing and punishing infringements of those rights.

An interministerial committee will be established for the follow-up and application of the new legislation. The injury caused by the infringement of intellectual property rights shall be recovered by the civil proceedings; the holder of those rights may also bring a strike claim in order to bring the infringement to an end and to limit the damage.

Finally, the criminal sanction is intended to mitigate infringements of intellectual property and consumer fraud, while the introduction of a customs procedure is intended to deter any import of counterfeit goods into the Belgian territory.

The struggle against piracy and counterfeiting is also a struggle – Ms. Pieters also stressed this – which the European Commission takes very closely. For example, a strategy for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries was adopted several years ago. The action plan is aimed at enforcing existing intellectual property legislation. It is proposed to identify the countries to which enforcement measures should be primarily targeted. The emphasis is placed on technical cooperation and assistance to assist third countries in the fight against counterfeiting. The Commission would not hesitate to use bilateral and multilateral sanctions mechanisms against countries that systematically commit infringements of intellectual property rights. The Commission will support the campaign to raise awareness among companies and consumers in third countries and encourage partnerships between government and business to enforce relevant legislation.

Is the problem so large? In recent years there has been a sharp increase in the number of seizures at the European borders. Between 1998 and 2002, the number of articles increased by more than 800%. It is about tens of millions of articles and goods per year for an amount of around 2 billion euros. Counterfeiting and piracy account for an estimated 5 to 7% of global trade and would be responsible for the loss of approximately 200,000 jobs per year. As mentioned, it is not limited to a small number of sectors such as clothing, luxury goods or software, but it covers the entire economy. Almost every form of intellectual property is violated. It ranges from plants and seeds to sunglasses and cigarettes to even aircraft parts. The fight against the phenomenon becomes important, not just for economic reasons.

After all, there is no control of such products, which could pose a risk to public health, the environment and the safety of consumers. This includes products such as toys and medicines. There is also a link to international crime. Therefore, the Open VLD group will fully support the bill.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, ik kan mij aansluiten bij content van what is said by both sprekers. We can absolutely not underestimate the phenomenon. It is a global phenomenon in it goes much further than what we initially thought, namely that it is a formerly named name of luxegoederen. Alle goederen kunnen worden nagemaakt in worden ook in het namaakcircuit opgenomen.

So we sought solutions. In fact, unfair competition is created, jobs are removed, health and safety are compromised, which leads to a lack of confidence in the consumer’s head.

Of course, last but not least, it is through clandestine networks and organized crime that all this happens.

The figures quoted by colleague Hove speak book parts. This has a huge impact. In a country that is committed to achieving the Lisbon objective, it must be taken into account that this has a ⁇ significant impact.

We did not go on ice with this law overnight. We have published them on the website of the Federal Public Service Economy. The world of those interested in combating this phenomenon has eagerly used it. There was also a colloquium that received a lot of feedback.

Let me repeat the main characteristics of the draft law. First, a customs emission operation is initiated. Secondly, not only is the punishment for the imitation of trademarks the only thing that has been prosecuted, but there is now also an extension to drawings, models, breeder rights, invention patents and the supplementary protection certificates. There is also a new incrimination.

I will mention other peculiarities. Thus, the filing of a complaint by the injured party will no longer be a prerequisite as in the past. We have also aggravated penalties so that they are a deterrent element. A warning procedure has also been planned; it will be primarily of a preventive nature. The problem must be addressed in a multidisciplinary way.

I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, because we have been able to finish the work well. I will probably submit the second part of the law to Parliament next week. There is also a civil aspect, namely the civil measures taken against counterfeiting and piracy and the adjustments to the Judicial Code. It may be put on the agenda next week. However, they live a different life, because they are a pure transposition of European Union directives.