October 2021- Anti Copying in Design (ACID) shares its latest three consultations with the BFC on:
1. Exhaustion of IP Rights – post Brexit
2. The UK IP Enforcement Strategy
3. Calls for Views following the Repeal of section 52 CDPA and related Amendments
1) Exhaustion of IP Rights
Now that the UK has left the EU, the UK has an opportunity to decide its future regime for the exhaustion of intellectual property rights. This decision is vitally important for the UK as it will govern future rules on parallel imports into the UK.
Exhaustion of IP rights underpins parallel trade. Parallel trade is the cross-border movement of genuine physical goods that have already been put on the market. This is the import and export of IP-protected goods that have already been first sold in a specific market, for example moving a good that has been sold in another country and importing that good into the UK.
The question of what our future exhaustion regime is an important one as it underpins the rules on parallel trade of goods into the UK. While parallel importation of goods that have been first sold in other EEA countries is currently permitted, it is right to examine whether these current arrangements best serve the UK’s interests.
Given the potential impact across many business sectors, the government appreciate that any change from the current system that came into force on 1 January 2021 could have far-reaching effects. They sought views on what exhaustion regime should be implemented, and if there is to be a change, how any change should be implemented.
2) The UK Enforcement Strategy
The IPO develops policies to ensure that the IP enforcement legal framework is up-to-date and fit for purpose. The framework can be used to seek appropriate redress when IP rights are used without the owner’s consent in a manner that constitutes infringement of those rights.
The government believes having a framework for the effective, proportionate, and accessible enforcement of IP rights is important. It helps to reduce IP crime and infringement, whilst promoting innovation and creativity.
This is why in their IP Enforcement 2020 Strategy, they committed to review existing methods of legal recourse for IP infringement. they want to ensure rights holders have access to proportionate and effective methods to tackle IP infringement and resolve IP disputes. The call for evidence formed part of this review.
The aim of the call for evidence was to gain evidence regarding the issues rights holders may face enforcing their IP rights. We also wanted to understand which parts of the framework work well. The evidence collected would be used to decide on any improvements that could be made to the existing framework.
3) Calls for Views following the Repeal of section 52 CDPA and related Amendments
Government is reviewing the impact of the repeal of section 52 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and related amendments made in 2016. The government held a call for views as part of a post-implementation review (PIR) of the legislation. The IPO reviews the impact of the legislation within 5 years of coming into force.
The legislation affected the term of copyright protection for artistic works and removed compulsory licensing for works where copyright was revived. The main affected groups are artists and designers; publishers; educational institutions and museums; and manufacturers and retailers of replicas. The affected works are most likely furniture, lighting, jewellery and ceramics and other works of artistic craftsmanship.
About Anti Copying in Design (ACID)
Anti Copying in Design (ACID) was founded in 1997 and is the UK’s leading design and intellectual property campaigning organisation. It is a forward-thinking membership trade association for designers and manufacturers; a not-for-profit organisation funded by membership fees.
For nearly a quarter of a century, ACID has been a consistent voice calling for design law reform and influential in providing evidence to support many of the IP and design reforms which have taken place in the UK before and since the Hargreaves Review. ACID spearheaded a UK campaign for the introduction of criminal sanctions for the intentional infringement of both registered and unregistered designs. This campaign resulted in a partial success with the criminalisation of intentional of a registered design (included in the 2014 IP Act). ACID continues to campaign for intentional infringement of unregistered designs to attract criminal sanctions as the ultimate deterrent against copying.