Commission Communication on civil enforcement of IP within the Internal Market, MARKT/D3, 03/2013.
“This consultation process started with the publication of the Report from the Commission on the application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights ("Directive 2004/48/EC") in December 2010. The main conclusion drawn from the first evaluation is that the Directive has had a substantial and positive effect on the protection of intellectual property rights by civil law in Europe. However, the Directive was not designed with the challenge posed by the internet and several other issues deserve attention. This is in particular the case for the use of provisional and precautionary measures such as injunctions, procedures to gather and preserve evidence (including the relationship between the right of information and protection of privacy), clarification of the meaning of various corrective measures, including the costs of destruction, and calculation of damages.
[...] The application report regarding Directive 2004/48/ EC and the subsequent public consultation revealed a certain number of shortcomings in the IPR enforcement system in the internal market (e.g. unclear legal provisions, diverging national interpretations/practices, uneven access to justice for SMEs, unsuitability of the legal framework for the digital age etc.). The Communication will give a structured overview of the issues identified, so that they can be addressed by appropriate initiatives subsequently.”
Lees hier meer.
Commission Communication on better valuation and utilisation of IPRs in the Internal Market, MARKT D3, 04/2013.
“The Single Market Act II recognises the need to encourage investment in intangible assets and to help EU based innovative companies to transform their R&D efforts into competitive gains. While the EU intellectual property acquis establishes measures for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs), it does not provide guidelines on the cross-border management of these rights that would increase commercial benefits for both innovative enterprises and consumers. The latter could be achieved i.a. by encouraging (i) proper valuation (estimating value) of intellectual property so as to encourage cross-border public and private investment by accepting the use of IP-related assets as collateral, and (ii) cross-border valorisation (maximising...