Activities of Constance LE GRIP related to 2014/2151(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Intellectual property rights: an EU action plan (A8-0169/2015 - Pavel Svoboda) FR
Amendments (9)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas infringements of IPR cause both non-material and economic damage to European undertakings and bring about heavy economic and fiscal losses to States;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the development of e- commerce and online activities has changed the way IPR enforcement in the digital environment should be considered, particularly because it affords new possibilities for infringement;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there is a certain level of tolerance among Europeans for the idea that IPR infringements could be considered legitimate, especially among the young generation8; whereas this is particularly attributable to the fact that citizens/consumers are insufficiently aware of the disastrous impact of counterfeiting, which has become a global phenomenon with alarming economic and social consequences, with production sites and extensive distribution networks, particularly using the internet; __________________ 8 See OHIM Report ‘European Citizens and intellectual property: perception, awareness and behaviour’, November 2013.
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas law enforcement is essential, and whereas it is of the utmost importance to find effective means of enforcing IPR, particularly on the internet, which has become the prime channel for distribution of counterfeits;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to work to redefine the status of intermediaries in the current digital environment and to formulate proposals for compelling them to shoulder their responsibilities;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes at the same time that consumers should be better able to identify infringing offers so that they can decide not to proceed with a given purchase; dDeplores the fact that the Commission’s action plan does not include any action designed to improve consumers’ ability to identify infringing goods and contents, and calls on the Commission to reflect further on the development of specific tools, including labelling, based on the experiences gathered by the Commission and the European Observatory on Coparticularly the establishment of a harmonised European system of notification/withdrawal of infringing goods and content, so that consumers and untderfeiting and Piracy, especially with regard to the sharing of best practicestakings can take action when they are misled in the same way as they can act to draw attention to undesirable content;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that the lack of aprogress with regard to the competitive supply of non-infringing products and content makes it difficult to deter consumers from buying unlawful goods or using unlawful content; takes the view that sufficient progress has not been made in this area, and reiterates its demand that the Commission and Member States put more pressure on the industry to develop, in all Member States, licit offers that are both diversified and attractive;ust continue, so that citizens/consumers genuinely have every opportunity to purchase licit goods or to use licit content.
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Insists on the important role played by customs and international cooperation in the fight against IPR infringement in cross- border trade and stresses the need to support and facilitate the work performed by customs services in mutual cooperation, by clarifying operational rules, particularly in order that this work may permit the effective performance of inspections on goods in transit within EU territory;