BETA

7 Amendments of Sharon BOWLES related to 2008/2133(INI)

Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
A. whereas it is fundamentally important, when considering legal measures, to recognise the substantive difference between intellectual and material property rights, and accordingly between infringement of rights andntellectual property rights or 'choses in action' and material property have generally been established through different legal bases, with resulting different treatment of infringement of rights and theft of property, notes that infringement is often not taken as seriously as theft,
2008/10/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas all intellectual property infringements are damaging to trade and business but commercial scale infringements have additional and widespread effects,
2008/10/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Is concernNotes the concerns expressed about the lack of transparency involved in the negotiation of ACTA, especially with regard to its scope, the range of measures discussed, and its relation to existing international agreements on intellectual property protection, notably the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual property Rights (TRIPS) and the agreements concluded within the framework of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and urges early formal disclosure of the work in progress;
2008/10/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that it is not yet certain if the EC Treaty does not provides a legal basis for Community measures prescribing the naturtype and level of criminal penalties and that, accordingly, the Community has noin consequence, the Commission may not have competence to negotiate on behalf of the Community an international agreement which specifies the nature and level of criminal-law measures to be taken against trademark and copyright violators;
2008/10/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the terms “counterfeiting” and “piracy” do not follow a single agreed definition and are used in various ways;, and so calls on the Commission to clarify those terms before proceeding with the negotiations;
2008/10/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Observes that while use of the two terms overlaps, counterfeiting usually applies to wilful trade mark infringement, and piracy to wilful copyright infringement, and that it would be useful to restrict these particular terms specifically to commercial scale infringements;
2008/10/01
Committee: JURI
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Further suggests that significant aspects of counterfeiting (product imitation/trademark infringement on a commercial scale) differ from those of piracy (copyright infringement on a commercial scale), and that consideration should be given to dealing with them independently and separately, especially having regard to the urgent need to address public health and safety aspects prevalent in counterfeiting;
2008/10/01
Committee: JURI