Summary. EU Observatory Public Sector Representatives Meeting. Athens. 2-3 April 2014

Transcription

1 Summary Public Sector Representatives Meeting Athens 2-3 April 2014 Public Sector Representatives Meeting Location: St George Lycabettus Hotel 2 Kleomenous Street, Athens 1

2 Public sector: Austria Federal Ministry of Finance Gerhard Marosi Belgium Federal Public Service Economy Jannik Grooten Bulgaria Patent Office of the Republic of Bulgaria Evgeni Hristov Bulgaria Patent Office of the Republic of Bulgaria Mariana Tsvyatkova Croatia State Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Marija Šiša Hrlić Croatia Czech Republic General Directorate of Customs Markéta Krčmářová Denmark Danish Patent and Trademark Office Lene Dahl Prahm Estonia Ministry of Finance Piret Liira Germany Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection Harald Schoen Greece Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation Myrto Lambrou Maurer Greece Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation Catherine Margellou Hungary Intellectual Property Office Roberta Pál Ireland Prohibitions, Restrictions,IPR and Customs Capacity Gerry O Flynn Italy Ministry of Economic Development Gianluca Scarponi Latvia Patent Office of the Republic of Latvia Linda Zommere Luxembourg Administration of Customs and Excise Roland Thommes Malta Ministry of Finance - Customs Department George Agius Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs Angela van der Meer Poland Ministry of Culture and National Heritage Kinga Szelenbaum Portugal Instituto Nacional da Propiedade Industrial Ana Bandeira Romania Public Ministry - Prosecutor's Office Monica Pop Slovak Republic Industrial Property Office Ľuboš Knoth Spain Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas Cristina Fernández Sweden Swedish Patent and Registration Office Benjamin Winsner United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Elizabeth Jones Observers: EFTA European Free Trade Association Grímur Jóhannsson Norway Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry Cathrine Fahre Holt Norway Norwegian Industrial Property Office Hedvig Bengston Switzerland Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property Lukas Lüthi Iceland Icelandic Patent Office Borghildur Erlingsdóttir OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Piotr Stryszowski Development WCO World Customs Organization Philippe Vorreux WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization Thomas Dillon EU Presidency: Greece Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation Ioannis Boumparis 2

3 EU Commission: DG MARKT DG MARKT DG TAXUD DG TRADE Bertil Vagnhammar Anne Cools André Berends Lauma Buka OHIM: Director of the Deputy Director of the Deputy Director of the Chief Economist Paul Maier Hugues Bello Andrea Di Carlo Nathan Wajsman Claire Castel Peter Hedin Phil Lewis Vincent O'Reilly Valerio Papajorgji Justyna Petsch Stephanie Rowland Nicole Semjevski Opening Remarks Participants to the meeting were welcomed by Mr Ioannis Boumparis, Deputy Director General of the Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation, as representative of the Greek EU Presidency. Bertil Vagnhammar, DG MARKT, as representative of the European Commission, and Paul Maier, Director of the European Observatory. The meeting was opened and the following points were presented: Review of Observatory activities Paul Maier presented the main results achieved in the Observatory since the Plenary meeting in October 2013, as well as the ongoing work and new initiatives. There was general encouragement of work done so far, and a number of comments, including a need to seek information to help boost employment; the usefulness of the interagency meetings and a query regarding conclusions of the IP contribution study, to which the Office explained that the study is descriptive and provides a first photograph of what the EU economy looks like, but does not provide conclusions. Commission presentation Bertil Vagnhammar presented the initiatives carried out by the Commission, which included the status of the review of copyright rules, for which over 11,000 contributions have been received so far; the ongoing review on IPRED, the directive on enforcement of IPR; MoUs, such as the one on online sales of counterfeit 3

4 products between right holders and online sales platforms; and the IP Action Plan, which is likely to be adopted in May. DG TAXUD and DG TRADE complemented the information provided, by informing about the launching of the e-learning tool for customs, and by encouraging to spread the word about the IPR enforcement survey. Questions from the floor included what would be the follow-up to the IPRED review, to which the reply was that this sensitive issue was being discussed internally; and if there were any new elements for the implementation of the new customs regulation, the response being that the stress was on training and information of all involved. Ongoing work on quantification of infringements Nathan Wajsman presented the ongoing work on quantification of social impact of IP infringements and the results of the pilot project with CEFIC and explained that potentially between 30 and 40 studies in different industries would be needed to complete the picture. Stakeholders presentations A presentation on awareness raising activities and past and future campaigns was carried out by Cristina Fernández of the Spanish Office of Patents and Trademarks, and then Ľuboš Knoth of the IPO of the Slovak Republic presented an awareness campaign for youngsters. Raise awareness Claire Castel presented the proposed approach on awareness raising activities and the IP perception study follow-up activities, that include market research, the creation of focus groups and elaboration of surveys to identify trends, all using a common visual identity. The importance of usage of national media, as opposed to European media, was stressed, as well as the focus on SMEs. A discussion ensued on the type of messaging to focus on, such as a do not steal rather than a loss of jobs focus, or subtle messages with examples to encourage thought and dialogue, instead of giving solutions. An example is given of a campaign that worked well in Slovakia with reference to local products and family. Enforcement databases Peter Hedin and Nicole Semjevski presented the state of play in the deployment of the Enforcement Database (EDB), its integration with COPIS, the existing national systems and the WCO s IPM, and provided examples of practical cases. Further to questions, they explained that leaflets and presentations are available for raising awareness of the tool and they asked for help from Member States in spreading the word; also that thought would be given to the possibility to extend access to EFTA countries and to consult the Commission regarding this. Valerio Papajorgji presented the state of play of ACIST and stressed the lack of harmonisation of data at national level and the need, therefore, to work together. Comments from the floor pointed to the fact that there should be a common understanding on what data is entered, such as how goods are counted. The Romanian representative informed of the existence of a common database that all Romanian enforcement officers and prosecutors share to introduce data on seized goods, by using TAXUD classification. 4

5 Knowledge building activities Phil Lewis and Valerio Papajorgji presented the past and upcoming knowledge building activities, including a briefing on the Europol-OHIM Seminar on Intellectual Property Crimes in Sports that took place in March, the International IP Enforcement Summit that will take place in June and the next joint Europol-OHIM seminar in November. More participants from the judiciary are sought after for the November seminar, so there is contact with Eurojust to achieve this. Reports of the seminars are published on the Observatory website. Hugues Bello provided an overview of the OHIM Academy activities and informed about the different types of training provided, highlighting the OHIM Academy Learning Portal (OALP). He invited representatives to take note of the provided training calendar and to contact the Observatory for further information and for taking part if so wished. Valerio Papajorgji presented the status of the OHIM-Europol joint report and informed that questionnaires to aid the drafting of the report had been sent out. Observatory reports Paul Maier provided an overview on the Online Copyright Infringements report and the Mapping of New Business Models report, indicating that both reports had been done with the help of the IP in the Digital World working group and are intended as a snapshot of the situation and will provide valuable information on the future work to be carried out in this area. Comments from the floor included the need for more time when representatives are asked to provide feedback on such issues, which is duly noted. It was supposed that for further work of this type the Observatory would focus on each IPR as opposed to looking at the rights through a specific sector. In general, the content of the reports, as well as the different views put forward by the members of the working groups, were considered to be valuable. The European Commission underlined the importance of the reports. In accordance with the conclusions of a discussion held on the process to be followed by the Office to publish reports and studies through the Observatory, it was agreed that the two draft reports are to be considered as working documents that indicate areas for future work and invited the Office to further explore the significant amount of fact finding gathered in the process through independent studies based on terms of reference established with the involvement of the working group. Functioning of the Observatory Paul Maier informed of the logistical issues that the Observatory is facing, especially as regards the size of the working groups and the lack of convenient infrastructure of the Brussels office. A number of possible solutions were proposed, and included the following: Stakeholder associations can choose to be in a maximum of three different working groups. There can be a maximum of one person per representative organisation attending the working group meeting. 5

6 If the member appointed to the working group cannot attend the meeting, a substitute for that meeting can be appointed. A maximum of 30 persons can attend a working group meeting. Three of the working groups currently have more than 30 members, so attendees could be limited on a first come first served basis following the issue of the invitation. Participants should be invited to represent two or more stakeholders. Multi representation would be favoured for the participation. Limitation to one working group meeting per year or one of the two meetings to be held in Alicante. A discussion ensued with the general agreement that it is difficult to work with over 30 persons in a group, but that it would not be beneficial to limit to one meeting per year, that it is easier on the whole for meetings to be held in Brussels, and that an option would be to use the subgroups and have the group work ahead of meetings and come better prepared. Videoconferences and exchange were also indicated as optimum options, and it was mentioned that terms of reference need to be set up. The next point to be discussed was the process to produce reports. According to the Observatory Multiannual Plan, the Office, acting through the Observatory, is called upon to work on a number of reports and studies. There is no guidance in Regulation 386/2012 on the procedure the Office should follow to issue "Observatory" reports and studies. Nevertheless, according to article 6(1) of the Regulation, the rules governing the Office shall apply to the carrying out of the tasks and activities provided for under the Regulation. In view of the above, and considering the increasing number of reports and studies, the Office is working on the establishment of a process to produce them. The first step would consist in involving the working groups in the identification of the reports/studies to be included in the annual Work Programme. The Office would whenever advisable in collaboration with the subgroups established in the working groups prepare a first draft of the terms of reference for the identified reports/studies, which is then submitted to the relevant working group. Once the terms of reference have been finalised, the study would be carried out either by an independently chosen external expert, or by the Office if the technical means are available. The Office would keep the working group and all Observatory stakeholders informed of the progress made in the preparation of the report/study and, whenever necessary, ask relevant public and private stakeholders for data and other relevant information needed to complete it. The results of the report/study would be thoroughly discussed with the relevant working group and the final draft would be presented to representatives of the Member States in the public stakeholders meeting of the Observatory and in the OHIM Administrative Board. The President of the Office would finally decide on whether to adopt and publish the report/study. The reports/studies which are prepared following the described procedure would be published as reports/studies of the Office through the European Observatory on Infringements of IP Rights. 6

7 A number of comments were received and it was decided that a written procedure would be sent out for approval and that the issue would also be discussed in the private sector meeting. Inter-agency Cooperation Vincent O Reilly informed about the status of the inter-agency cooperation report and extended thanks to the 23 Member States that had replied to the questionnaire. He highlighted that the situation is not the same throughout the EU, with differences arising from culture and structure, and the fact that in some cases the private sector is involved which is recommended and in some not, but that it is desirable to have one body to coordinate. He suggested looking into cross border activity in the shape of one-to-one or regional activities. There was general consensus from the representatives to publish the questionnaires as annexes in the report with the chance to amend the answers provided if necessary and to publish the whole report. Stakeholders presentations Presentations of initiatives were carried out by Gianluca Scarponi of the Italian Ministry for Economic Development, who informed about the next meeting, on 26 November, of the international platform of Mediterranean countries (CNAC EUMED) and presented a recently launched Italian awareness campaign; Thomas Dillon, of WIPO, who presented the work carried out by WIPO s Building Respect for IP Division; and George Agius from the IPR Enforcement Unit in Malta, who gave a detailed view of the activities of Maltese customs and shared the difficulties encountered by them when dealing with practical cases. Conclusions Paul Maier thanked the Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation for their excellent collaboration in the organisation of the meeting and presented the main conclusions of the meeting, which included the following: Observatory to provide document on the process to follow to adopt reports The Online Copyright Infringements report and the Mapping of New Business Models report not to be published as Observatory reports The Inter-agency report to be published in its entirety The organisation of the working groups to be further discussed 7