English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Opinion

Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the Review of EU Legislation on Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons51200

Jaeger,  Thomas
Intellectual Property and Competition Law, MPI for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons51193

Grosse Ruse-Khan,  Henning
Intellectual Property and Competition Law, MPI for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons51178

Drexl,  Josef
Intellectual Property and Competition Law, MPI for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons51199

Hilty,  Reto M.
Intellectual Property and Competition Law, MPI for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Jaeger, T., Grosse Ruse-Khan, H., Drexl, J., & Hilty, R. M. (2010). Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the Review of EU Legislation on Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0011-3DA2-1
Abstract
Between March and June 2010, the European Commission has conducted a consultation on the review of Council Regulation 1383/2003, concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing IP rights (the so-called Border Measures Regulation; BMR). The Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich, participatet in that consultation with a statement. In that statement, the Institute proposes several amendments to the definitions, scope and procedural provisions of the BMR. The proposals go into much detail, yet their main line can be generalized int wo ways: In terms of the scope of the BMR, firstly, the Intitute sees a need to distinguish between genuine acts of transit and other forms of passage. Genuine acts of transit should be excluded from the scope of the BMR. However, the transit definition or genuinity-requirement is not demed to be fulfilled wehere, in particular, there is a substantiated threat of either trade diversion onto any of the markets of the EU member states or of a misuse of the transit procedure for conduct of an illicit activity. In view of the special nature of such transits, a specific exclusion from the scope is also proposed for specific public health-related transits. In terms of procedural rights under the BMR, secondly, the Institute proposes several amendments with a view to achieving a better balancing of rights and enhanced TRIPS-conformity.