Suchergebnisse

Community activity in this field continues to be extensive. Intellectual property is seen as a key resource for the European Union ('EU'), and crucial to its position in the global economy. The EU's manufacturing sector is much decreased in importance in comparison with the services sector. New information and communications technologies have transformed the economic environment. The Commission repeatedly emphasises the importance of intellectual property rights for innovation, employment, competition, and economic growth. Intellectual assets are regarded as central to success in the new 'knowledge economy'. There are two main strands to the Commission's work with intellectual property. One is the harmonisation of the laws of Member States, in order to eliminate barriers to trade. The other is the creation of unitary systems to protect intellectual property rights throughout the Community on the basis of a single application for protection. The Commission also demonstrates particular concern regarding counterfeiting.

AbstractThis chapter begins by considering the challenges posed to the harmonisation of intellectual property law at the European level by the very different ways in which the law of intellectual property is viewed across Europe. It then goes on to review the various global and historical initiatives in the arena of intellectual property law harmonisation before running through the different areas of intellectual property law—trade marks, designs, copyright and patents—and examining the ways in which each of these has been dealt with at the European level, both by the European Union and by other Europe-wide bodies. In effect, the way in which intellectual property law has been addressed by the European Union represents a microcosm of the various possible approaches to harmonisation. As regards the prospect of future harmonisation of intellectual property law by the European Union, it is hoped that a wide and wise view of the issues will be taken, in order that public confidence in the Community's intellectual property regime may be both justified and strengthened.

Trade marks remain hugely important for the economy of the Community. Enlargement has brought a steep increase in filings for the Community Trade Mark, and the new rate of applications seems likely to be maintained. As always, a balance must be struck between the Community's priorities, and those of the trade mark holder. Considerable harmonization of Community trade mark law has already been achieved by legislative means. There is an abundance of new case law, giving detailed and practical guidance for the interpretation of these measures. As a result, those using trade mark systems throughout the Community will benefit from increased consistency and depth of understanding in the application of the regime. The wider international scene will be given welcome recognition by the Community's accession to the Madrid Protocol. The Community's position on international exhaustion remains essentially unchanged, although the matter is still a controversial one.

EC intellectual property law has now reached a significant level of harmonization, and the Community can take pride in its achievements in this respect. The need to report a wealth of new matters leaves little space for introduction. However, two issues may be highlighted here briefly. The first is that in May 2004 ten new Member States will join the EU. Although enlargement offers immense opportunities, it also presents a considerable practical challenge. The second is the Commission's plan for a directive to harmonize procedure and remedies for intellectual property infringement throughout the EU.1It seeks to go further than the ground rules on enforcement already laid down by TRIPs, and to lay down specific procedural codes for intellectual property infringement of all types—not merely piracy and counterfeiting. This enthusiasm for intervention in the procedural aspects of national law has raised serious concerns in some quarters.

This Journal's previous piece on current developments in EC intellectual property noted that this area of law is dominated by the drive towards harmonisation.1 This drive continues, and its success has been such that it can now begin to be seen in an overarching context of globalisation. The idea of a unified global system for the protection of intellectual property now seems at least conceivable, even if not immediately achievable. It is even possible to state that some stages have been achieved on the journey, most notably the TRIPs Agreement. Since adherence to this is a requirement of World Trade Organization (WTO) membership, the arguments in its favour have suddenly become "persuasive". It represents a tremendous achievement in terms of the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights throughout the world. The World Intellectual Property Organisation's contribution here and elsewhere has been immense.

This area of law is dominated by the drive towards harmonisation, and a considerable body of legislation and case law continues to be generated. The vision is of investment in creativity and innovation, leading to growth and competitiveness of a wide range of European industries. Significant progress—sometimes unexpected—can be recorded in certain areas, but it should also be acknowledged that the scale of the problems precludes easy solutions in others.

The period since the last note on this subject has been eventful.1 There have been some important legislative measures, and a good deal of significant case law. However, contradictory messages are being conveyed. The volume of legislation marks the Community's recognition of the economic value of intellectual property rights in international trade. Its broad aim is, as always, to achieve a level playing-field for competition, and to integrate the market by removing restrictions on the free movement of goods. Yet the unwavering adherence to the principle of free movement is being challenged in several areas, precisely because of its effect on competition, notably in the pharmaceuticals market.