Advertisement

The Rise and Fall of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): Lessons for the European Union

  • Duncan Matthews
  • Petra Žikovská
Article

Abstract

This article revisits the arguments, debates and controversies that led up to the European Parliament’s rejection of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and evaluates the implications for the European Union (EU) of the scrutiny of international agreements with provisions on intellectual property rights in the future. The article undertakes these tasks in four stages. First, it examines how Parliament was able for the first time to exercise its power of veto over a draft international agreement negotiated by the Commission on behalf of the EU under the consent procedure of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Second, it reconsiders the rationale for ACTA in terms of why the agreement was perceived as being necessary in the first place, given that other international fora existed for the intellectual property enforcement issues to be addressed. Third, the article reflects on the reasons why ACTA became so controversial that it became the focus of unprecedented public concern in the EU and its Member States, with particular attention paid to lack of transparency in the negotiating process, concerns that fundamental rights and freedoms in the EU would be undermined by provisions of ACTA, and concerns that the agreement would conflict with the acquis communautaire of the EU and with the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Fourth, the article concludes by considering what lessons can be learnt for the future.

Keywords

ACTA European Union Enforcement Fundamental rights and freedoms 

References

  1. Baraliuc I, Depreeuw S, Gutwirth S (2013) Copyright enforcement in the digital age: a post-ACTA view on the balancing of fundamental rights. Int J Law Inf Technol 21(1):92–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castex F, Roithová Z, Alvaro A, Lambrinidis S (2012) Written Declaration Pursuant to Rule 123 of the rules of procedure on the lack of a transparent process for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and potentially objectionable content, 8 March 2010, (PE439.564v01-00), para. 2. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+WDECL+P7-DCL-2010-0012+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN. Accessed 14 Oct 2012
  3. Gerhardsen TIS (2005) Japan proposes new IP enforcement treaty. Intell Prop Watch, 15 November 2005. http://www.ip-watch.org/2005/11/15/japan-proposes-new-ip-enforcement-treaty/. Accessed 14 Oct 2012
  4. Gerhardsen TIS (2006) G8 outcome has IP implications for enforcement, trade and health. Intell Prop Watch, 19 July 2006. http://www.ip-watch.org/2006/07/19/g8-outcome-has-ip-implications-for-enforcement-trade-and-health/. Accessed 14 Oct 2012
  5. Lee D (2012) European Parliament Rapporteur Quits in ACTA Protest, BBC 27 January. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16757142. Accessed 14 Oct 2012
  6. Levine DS (2011) Transparency soup: the ACTA negotiating process and ‘Black Box’ lawmaking. Am Univ Int Rev 26(3):811Google Scholar
  7. Matthews D (2008) The fight against counterfeiting and piracy in the Bilateral Trade Agreements of the EU. Report for the International Trade Committee of the European ParliamentGoogle Scholar
  8. Matthews D (2010a) The Lisbon treaty, trade agreements and the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 32(3):104Google Scholar
  9. Matthews D (2010b) Patents in the global economy. Report to the United Kingdom Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP)Google Scholar
  10. Matthews D (2011) Intellectual Property, Human Rights and Development: The Role of NGOs and Social Movements. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  11. Matthews D (2012) Counterfeiting and public health. In: Geiger C (ed) Criminal enforcement of intellectual property: a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar, UK, pp 42–58Google Scholar
  12. Matthews D, Munoz-Tellez V (2007) Parallel trade: a user’s guide. In: Krattiger A, Mahoney RT, Nelson L et al (eds) Intellectual property management in health and agriculture innovation: a handbook of best practices. MIHR/PIPRA, Oxford/DavisGoogle Scholar
  13. McManis CR, Pelletier JS (2012) Two tales of a treaty revisited: the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Washington University in St. Louis School of Law Legal Studies research paper series, paper no. 12-04-10Google Scholar
  14. Mercurio B (2012) Beyond the text: the significance of the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement. J Int Econ Law 15(2):361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meyer D (2012) ACTA to get second referral to ECJ, causing new delay. Commun Breakdown, 28 February. http://www.zdnet.com/acta-to-get-second-referral-to-ecj-causing-new-delay-4010025511/. Accessed 14 Oct 2012
  16. Olsen K (2012) Counterfeit and piracy: measurement issues. Background report for the WIPO/OECD expert meeting on measurement and statistical issues, Geneva, 17–18 Oct 2005, OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/44/35651123.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2012
  17. Ruse-Khan HG (2010) From TRIPS to ACTA: towards a new ‘Gold Standard’. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law research paper no. 10-06Google Scholar
  18. Wessels A (2010) EU competence to conclude free trade agreements under the Lisbon Treaty. Found Free Inf Infrastruct. http://action.ffii.org/acta/lisbon. Accessed 14 Oct 2012
  19. Yu PK (2012) Six secret (and now open) fears of ACTA. SMU Law Rev 64:975–1094Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen MaryUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Faculty of LawCharles University in PraguePraha 1Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations