Support study for the ex-post evaluation and ex-ante impact analysis of the IPR enforcement Directive (IPRED) : executive summary

It is widely regarded that the infringement of IP rights - and here most notably counterfeiting and piracy - is a problem which results in reduced revenues for IP right holders and preventing them from recuperating investments, for example, into R&D. Counterfeiting and piracy are said to endanger jobs, economic welfare and public safety. As regards policy, it is generally recognised that: i) there has been a significant and growing problem with counterfeits and pirated goods and services; and ii), particularly in the past, the means to enforce IP rights have proved too cumbersome for right holders. In Europe, where the issue has demonstrated wide differences in IP enforcement options across the Member States, the Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC from 2004 - also known as IPRED - represents one central piece of legislation. The Directive was initiated to overcome the existing fragmentation of the internal market in the area of IP litigation and to approximate legislative systems to ensure a high, equivalent, and homogenous level of protection and civil enforcement of IP rights within the EU. The Directive aims to provide a level playing field by requiring 'minimum harmonisation'. Against this backdrop, the Directive provides for harmonised legal remedies, such as 'evidence' (Art. 6) to be presented to support a claimant, measures to preserve the evidence (Art. 7), the claimant's right to access information on the infringement (Art. 8), provisional and precautionary measures (Art 9) as well as injunctions (Art. 11), or damages (Art. 13).