• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Joining the Fight Against Intellectual Property Theft

July 8, 2009 by Adrienne Ng (IPilogue Editor)

The Alliance Against Intellectual Property Theft (AAIPT) is a unique coalition of trade and enforcement organizations, providing a single voice for those who share an interest in preventing counterfeiting and piracy in the UK.

Recently, the AAIPT has campaigned for a national crackdown on the sale of counterfeit goods at street markets and boot fairs. To implement such a crackdown, all councils and market organizers must sign onto a national charter. The reason why this is important is that, currently, if one council takes action, the fake goods sellers simply moves somewhere else. A national charter would be much more effective because it would involve sharing intelligence with the police about illegal trading, and set out consistent principles that all signatories would have to abide by.

Presumably, these principles will draw from Andrew Gowers’ report on his year-long review of the UK’s intellectual property regime. An improved notification scheme would require organizers of markets to notify the local authority a certain number of days in advance as well as place an obligation on organizers to gather, on the day, names, address and vehicle licence details of all dealers at the sale and to note the type of goods or services being sold. Age restrictions that require an adult to be responsible for renting market stalls and to remain within the premises of the sale during trading would prevent the exploitation of youths or children in selling faking products in order to escape prosecution. The ability to prosecute organizers of markets will also add to the effectiveness of regulation of markets with respect to intellectual property theft. If there is no mechanism to prosecute market organizers for allowing known counterfeiters and pirates to trade on their sites, then organizers may not have as much incentive to cooperate.

In a similar fashion, there are many proponents in Canada who are advocating for much tighter regulation on intellectual property theft in Canada. The Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network (CACN) is a coalition of individuals companies, firms and associations that have united in the fight against product counterfeiting and copyright piracy in Canada. In a recent CACN position paper entitled “The Need for Legal Reform in Canada to Address Intellectual Property Crime”, authors Brian Isaac and Carol Osmond highlight the implications of intellectual property theft in Canada, pinpoint the current problems in terms of enforcement and finally suggest the reforms that are needed.

Most obviously, intellectual property theft deprives legitimate rights holders of their rights generally. However, there are profound implications beyond this. Firstly, there are economic implications. According to the CACN position paper, the counterfeit industry in Canada was recently estimated to be worth $20 – $30 billion dollars annually. Specifically, the Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft estimated that in 2002, software theft alone cost Canada over $1.5 billion USD in lost retail sales, $1.4 billion USD in lost wages and over $340 million USD in lost tax revenues. Secondly, there are health and safety implications. For example, in 2006, counterfeit batteries from China, disguised as a Western brand, lacked a near-invisible vent that allows pressure to escape, thus increasing exponentially the risk of the batteries exploding. In 2007, counterfeit Colgate toothpaste tubes from China were found to possibly contain a poison used in antifreeze. Thirdly, intellectual property theft (and undoubtedly any type of illegal activity that must involve many types of people including manufacturers, distributers, etc) necessarily involves organized crime.

On an international level, Canada has agreed to prosecute those who engage in willful trade-mark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on a commercial scale as well as to implement border measures to prevent the importation of counterfeit and pirated goods. Such agreements include both the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the North American Free Trade Agreement. But the burning question is this: how effective have enforcement efforts been? There is a significant amount of indication that enforcement efforts have not been effective enough. One does not have to look very hard to find a market stand or store that sells pirated DVDs or fake Louis Vuitton purses. Why is this? According to the CACN position paper, Canada’s statutory framework and enforcement are not very effective in promoting a societal stigma against dealing in counterfeit or pirated products. As well, there are no cost effective enforcement tools and inadequate deterrence to make a significant impact on the profitability of dealing in such products.

The authors of the CACN position paper recommend that legislation be enacted to provide for simple administrative seizure destruction of products clearly established to be counterfeit or pirated on an absolute liability basis and for criminal penalties for those who knowingly deal with counterfeit and pirated products. The recommended statute would define the activity prohibited by the statute; prescribe offences for manufacture and commercial importation and distribution of counterfeit and pirated products; provide for authority to seize and simple, inexpensive administrative procedures for destruction of counterfeit and pirated products; enact border measures to mandate and facilitate detection, seizure and destruction of imported counterfeit and pirated products; deal with jurisdictional issues in respect of administrative and criminal enforcement and prosecution; provide for disclosure of information to and cooperation with IP owners; and provide summary civil proceedings and statutory damages for clear cases of product counterfeiting and piracy.

Posted in IP, Trademarks, Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« What Jay Leno taught me about domain name disputes | Canada’s New Commitment to Boost the High-Tech Sector through Copyright Reform »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • James Wagner on Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Ken Anderson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Courtney Doagoo on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • Denis Borges Barbosa on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • D Vaver on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Dr. Emir Crowne on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Adam Stevenson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Anonymous on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Aidan Hollis on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Kalen Lumsden on IP Osgoode Speaker Series: Robert Levine and Dr. Brett Danaher
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • One Step Closer: Bill C-11
  • Bergeron Entrepreneurs in Science and Technology (BEST) Program Launches at York
  • Whose Patent is It Anyway?: The Ongoing Legal Legacy Between Samsung and Apple
  • Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Luksan v. Van der Let, Or Rather, EU v. UrhG?
  • Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law
  • Sampling Questions Still Unsettled After Jay-Z/Kanye West Sampling Settlement
  • World Intellectual Property Day 2012
  • The Legal Implications of Commercializing Intellectual Property Rights
  • Announcement: Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law: the 2012 National Health Law Conference

IP Osgoode would like to send out its IPIGRAM at a time when most convenient for you. Please let us know your views by answering a few questions so that we can better serve you.

Click here to take poll.
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Advisory Board (4)
  • Announcements (2)
  • Blogs (4)
  • Book Review (3)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (5)
  • Cloud Services (3)
  • Commercialization (77)
  • Competition (6)
  • Competition Law (7)
  • Contracts (59)
  • copyright reform (136)
  • defamation (15)
  • Design (6)
  • Development (4)
  • European Union (32)
  • events (75)
  • Fashion Industry (13)
  • Feature Post (126)
  • Freedom of Speech (15)
  • Freedom of the Press (14)
  • Gaming (6)
  • General (145)
  • Human Rights (3)
  • Image (2)
  • Innovation (138)
  • Internet (236)
  • IP (1041)
    • Copyright (522)
      • CD Levy (9)
      • Digital Downloads (64)
      • Digital Libraries (1)
      • Digital Locks (28)
      • Fair Dealing (61)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (124)
      • Internet Sharing (92)
      • Literary Works (52)
      • Moral Rights (9)
      • Movies (47)
      • Music Industry (88)
      • Originality (29)
      • Ownership (81)
        • Licensees (31)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (14)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (19)
    • Patents (331)
      • Access to Medicines (12)
      • Cross Border Issues (48)
      • Electronic Processes (18)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Patent Practice (18)
      • Patent Trolls (20)
      • Patentability (97)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (65)
    • Trademarks (201)
      • Domain Names (38)
      • Famous Marks (15)
      • Official Marks (10)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (11)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • IP Intensive (4)
  • IP Litigation Practice (15)
  • Jurisdiction (65)
    • Canada (24)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (1)
    • UK (25)
    • US (28)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (20)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (6)
  • Music Industry (72)
  • Open-Source (16)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (10)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (165)
    • Electronic Databases (36)
    • Human Rights Issues (26)
    • Identity Theft (11)
  • Regulatory Policy (46)
  • Reputation Management (2)
  • Smartphones (10)
  • Social Justice (2)
    • United Nations Development Programme (1)
  • Social Media (23)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (17)
  • Tech Transfer (29)
  • Technology (208)
  • Telecommunications (73)
  • Trade Secrets (3)
  • UK (10)
  • Uncategorized (82)
  • US-Canada Relations (2)
  • WIPO (9)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736