Enforcement Directive

Directive 2004/48/EC is with full title, Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The English title is Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive ( IPRED ). It is aimed primarily from on ensuring equivalent protection of intellectual property rights in the Member States.

Content of the directive

Objectives

The Directive aims to:

• Approximation of rules on the protection of intellectual property rights in the Member States of the EU
• Promotion of innovation and the competitiveness of enterprises
• Preservation of jobs in Europe
• Preventing tax losses and market destabilization
• Protection of consumers
• Maintenance of public order

Scope

The directive is in principle for all violations of intellectual property law applicable, which have been defined by the EU or the Member States. Are not affected, inter alia:

• Provisions on the enforcement of rights in the field of copyright and neighboring areas
• Obligations of Member States through multilateral agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement
• National regulations of the Member States relating to criminal procedures and penalties for intellectual property violations.

Provisions of the Directive

The EU Member States are required to adopt policies and procedures that guarantee the immaterial property rights. However, these measures should not lead to an aggravation of legitimate trade. The application of these measures is carried out by the right holder or his representative. In lawsuits over violations of intellectual property law, the following standards shall be met:

• Parties to a dispute concerning violations of intellectual property rights may be required to produce evidence. On order of a court, this can also mean the communication of banking, financial or commercial records. Furthermore, the courts may order provisional measures to preserve the evidence.
• Courts may commit a person to provide information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods (or services) to indicate if the suspected violation of the intellectual property and is the rights holder has made ​​a request.
• Courts may, upon application by injunctions against the alleged infringer to stop further infringement of intellectual property law.
• Courts have the power to order the recall right infringing goods and the destruction of black copies and imitations. You can grant an injunction against the infringer, if neglected, may, inter alia, have a money penalty.

Criticism

The policy has been widely criticized, among other things because of its allegedly draconian approach that imitates the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA). The criticism was so great that the original design was a significant change on the part of the telecommunications industry and parts of the computer industry. A number of problems are still to be found, according to the international civil rights organization IP Justice in the Directive.