DOCSLIB.ORG

INTA Criminal Enforcement of Copyrights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
INTA Criminal Enforcement of Copyrights CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS AN ANTHOLOGY FOR IP PRACTITIONERS EDITORS: FAISAL DAUDPOTA TÂNIA AOKI CARNEIRO (ENFORCEMENT SUB-COMMITTEE) COPYRIGHT COMMITTEE MARCH 2021 CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 3 Contributors ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Albania .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Argentina ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Australia ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Belgium ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Brazil ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Bulgaria ................................................................................................................................................. 21 Canada .................................................................................................................................................. 24 Colombia ............................................................................................................................................... 35 Czech Republic ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Dominican Republic ............................................................................................................................. 42 Ecuador ................................................................................................................................................. 45 France .................................................................................................................................................... 48 Germany ................................................................................................................................................ 52 Greece ................................................................................................................................................... 56 Guatemala ............................................................................................................................................. 60 Hong Kong ............................................................................................................................................ 62 Hungary ................................................................................................................................................ 65 India ...................................................................................................................................................... 70 Israel ...................................................................................................................................................... 74 Italy ....................................................................................................................................................... 76 Kosovo .................................................................................................................................................. 80 Luxembourg .......................................................................................................................................... 83 Mexico .................................................................................................................................................. 86 New Zealand ......................................................................................................................................... 89 Nigeria .................................................................................................................................................. 92 Pakistan ................................................................................................................................................. 95 Peru ..................................................................................................................................................... 100 Poland ................................................................................................................................................. 105 Romania .............................................................................................................................................. 109 Serbia .................................................................................................................................................. 112 Singapore ............................................................................................................................................ 116 Slovakia .............................................................................................................................................. 123 1 South Africa ........................................................................................................................................ 126 Spain ................................................................................................................................................... 129 Sweden ................................................................................................................................................ 134 Switzerland ......................................................................................................................................... 140 Taiwan ................................................................................................................................................ 144 Thailand .............................................................................................................................................. 147 The Netherlands .................................................................................................................................. 153 Ukraine ................................................................................................................................................ 157 United Arab Emirates ......................................................................................................................... 160 United Kingdom.................................................................................................................................. 164 United States of America .................................................................................................................... 168 Vietnam ............................................................................................................................................... 171 2 Executive Summary In order to enable IP law practitioners to gather a quick understanding of common as well as diverse themes with regard to criminal enforcement thresholds as to copyrights around the world, the Enforcement Sub-Committee of the Copyright Committee has assembled this anthology, as the sub-committee work product. This anthology was first concluded in 2019 covering twenty (20) countries. In the beginning of the 2020-2021 term, the Enforcement Sub-Committee expanded the report into thirty one (31) countries and now, with the collaboration of the members of the full Copyright Committee, a total of forty four (44) nations are covered. As this anthology gathers the distinctive elements as to criminal procedure schemes of select jurisdictions for copyrights enforcement, IP law practitioners should read the contents hereto as introductory soundbites (and not a substitute of local legal advice). Pragmatic observers will immediately note some interesting facts highlights from this anthology. 3 Contributors 1- Irma Cami, Albanian IP Matters (Albania) 2- Verónica Canese, Marval O'Farrell Mairal (Argentina) 3- Diego Fernandez, Marval O'Farrell Mairal (Argentina) 4- Andrés O’Farrell, Marval O'Farrell Mairal (Argentina) 5- Richard Watts, Simpson Grierson (Australia) 6- Tom Heremans, CMS (Belgium) 7- Françoise Billen, CMS (Belgium) 8- Tânia Aoki Carneiro, T. Aoki Advogados (Brazil) 9- Nevena Radlova, CMS (Bulgaria) 10- Tanya Stefanova, CMS (Bulgaria) 11- Lorne Lipkus, Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP (Canada) 12- María Fernanda Castellanos, Brigard Castro (Colombia) 13- Tomas Matejovsky, CMS (Czech Republic) 14- Jan Jezek Billen, CMS (Czech Republic) 15- Jaime R. Angeles, Angeles Pons (Dominican Republic) 16- María Rosa Fabara Vera, Fabara Abogados (Ecuador) 17- Jehan-Philippe Jacquey, Gilbey Legal (France) 18- Astrid Gérard, Preu Bohlig & Partners (Germany) 19- Micaela Schork, Tigges Rechtsanwalte (Germany) 20- Ulrike Böker, Leo Schmidt-Hollburg Witte & Frank (Germany) 21- Alkisti-Irene Malamis, Malamis & Associates (Greece) 22- Ivon Hernandez, Arias Intellectual Property (Guatemala) 23- Steven Birt, Reed Smith (Hong Kong) 24- Agnes Solyom, CMS (Hungary) 25- Miklos Boros, CMS (Hungary) 26- Xerxes Ranina, Neolegal Associates
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Narcotics Control Strategy Report
    United States Department of State Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs International Narcotics Control Strategy Report Volume I Drug and Chemical Control March 2017 INCSR 2017 Volume 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents Common Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. iii International Agreements .......................................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Policy and Program Developments ......................................................................................................... 17 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Methodology for U.S. Government Estimates of Illegal Drug Production ............................................... 24 (with dates ratified/acceded) ................................................................................................................... 30 USG Assistance ..................................................................................................................................... 36 International Training .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Misuse of Licit Trade for Opiate Trafficking in Western and Central
    MISUSE OF LICIT TRADE FOR OPIATE TRAFFICKING IN WESTERN AND CENTRAL ASIA MISUSE OF LICIT TRADE FOR OPIATE Vienna International Centre, PO Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria Tel: +(43) (1) 26060-0, Fax: +(43) (1) 26060-5866, www.unodc.org MISUSE OF LICIT TRADE FOR OPIATE TRAFFICKING IN WESTERN AND CENTRAL ASIA A Threat Assessment A Threat Assessment United Nations publication printed in Slovenia October 2012 MISUSE OF LICIT TRADE FOR OPIATE TRAFFICKING IN WESTERN AND CENTRAL ASIA Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the UNODC Afghan Opiate Trade Project of the Studies and Threat Analysis Section (STAS), Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs (DPA), within the framework of UNODC Trends Monitoring and Analysis Programme and with the collaboration of the UNODC Country Office in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and the UNODC Regional Office for Central Asia. UNODC is grateful to the national and international institutions that shared their knowledge and data with the report team including, in particular, the Afghan Border Police, the Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan, the Ministry of Counter Narcotics of Afghanistan, the customs offices of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the World Customs Office, the Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Centre, the Customs Service of Tajikistan, the Drug Control Agency of Tajikistan and the State Service on Drug Control of Kyrgyzstan. Report Team Research and report preparation: Hakan Demirbüken (Programme management officer, Afghan Opiate Trade Project, STAS) Natascha Eichinger (Consultant) Platon Nozadze (Consultant) Hayder Mili (Research expert, Afghan Opiate Trade Project, STAS) Yekaterina Spassova (National research officer, Afghan Opiate Trade Project) Hamid Azizi (National research officer, Afghan Opiate Trade Project) Shaukat Ullah Khan (National research officer, Afghan Opiate Trade Project) A.
    [Show full text]
  • Illicit Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts, Components and Ammunition To, from and Across the European Union
    Illicit Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts, Components and Ammunition to, from and across the European Union REGIONAL ANALYSIS REPORT 1 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Illicit Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts, Components and Ammunition to, from and across the European Union UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2020 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Illicit Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts, Components and Ammunition to, from and across the European Union REGIONAL ANALYSIS REPORT UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2020 © United Nations, 2020. All rights reserved, worldwide. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copy- right holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. UNODC would appreciate receiving a copy of any written output that uses this publication as a source at [email protected]. DISCLAIMERS This report was not formally edited. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNODC, nor do they imply any endorsement. Information on uniform resource locators and links to Internet sites contained in the present publication are provided for the convenience of the reader and are correct at the time of issuance. The United Nations takes no responsibility for the continued accuracy of that information or for the content of any external website. This document was produced with the financial support of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect
    [Show full text]
  • Organization Interpol
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. APR ~1976 , INTERNATIONAL' CRIMINAL ,POLICE ORGANIZATION INTERPOL / XXXVlllth GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION MEXICO 13th - 18th OCTOBER 1969 Report submitted by ~he GENERAL SECRETARIAT Subject : POWERS. AND DUTIES OF THE POLICE WITH REGARD TO DETENTION. A INTRODUCTION Backa-FC?1l.?d to. the survey. The Organisation's programme of activities adopted by tho G:~:c9ral Assembly sessions in.1965 and 1967 included an important survey, to be conctucted in several stages 7 of tho powers and duties of the police whon investigating offences against criminal law. The first part of this survey covers thG pm-Ters and dutios of the police with regard to the detention of persons. Circula.r N° 1898-POLNA!112 lias sent oat on 8th April 1968 to all ,'.' Interpol Nation9.l Central Bureaus 7 enclosing a q.uestionnaire on this subject. t. ; The Circular explained that the aim of the survey was to obtain information t~ from each a.ffiliated country on the legal conditions in which "the pOli.ce m~y ~ hold for a certain time for th~ purposes of criminal enquiries a person who • has not boen charged and for whom a 'tITarrant of arrest has nO'b been issued by ~.. \:0 a magistrate". .j. ~ 'r - 2 - - 3 - Power to datal'n or hold a person fO)' qu t' , vTe felt there was little point in dealing with arrests made by order exercise of the power of arrest. Fo~ t es lOnlng ~s subordinate to the of a magistrate with a view to bringing a person to trial, or arrests made in to the power of detaining a parson Whoh~:en~~un~rles therefors 7 with regard execution of a conviction, since the regulations governing such cases are arrest warrant has been; "''''ued 't c arged and for Vlhom no probably of a similar natuy.o in most oountries.
    [Show full text]
  • P. 1 Original Language: English SC65 Doc. 50.2
    Original language: English SC65 Doc. 50.2 (English only / únicamente en inglés / seulement en anglais) CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA ____________________ Sixty-fifth meeting of the Standing Committee Geneva (Switzerland), 7-11 July 2014 Reports of regional representatives ASIA 1. This document has been submitted by Kuwait*. 2. General information: Regional Representative: Indonesia, Japan, Kuwait Alternate Regional Representative: China, Jordan, Saudi Arabia Number of Parties in the Region: 37 Parties providing information for this Report: China, Iraq, Indonesia, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Singapore, Thailand and United Arab Emirates, 3. Introduction: This report summarized the activities of Parties between 64th Standing Committee Meeting (March 2013, Bangkok) and 65th Standing Committee Meeting (July 2014, Geneva). Japan represents Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan. Indonesia: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Leo people’s democratic republic, Myanmar, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam. Kuwait represents Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. 4. Activities within each party 4.1 China Trade and Conservation species A programme on investigation and assessment of sensitive species and species of significant trade has been carried out by the CITES Management Authority
    [Show full text]
  • The Electoral Fortunes of Taiwan's Green Party: 1996–2012
    Japanese Journal of Political Science 17 (1), 63–83 © Cambridge University Press 2016 doi:10.1017/S1468109915000390 . The Electoral Fortunes of Taiwan’s Green Party: 1996–2012 DAFYDD FELL School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London [email protected] YEN-WEN PENG https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Institute of Public Affairs Management, National Sun Yat Sen University, Taiwan [email protected] Abstract The Green Party Taiwan (GPT) represents an important case both for scholars of environmental politics but also Taiwanese politics. Established in 1996, it is the oldest Asian green party and is one of the most active parties in the Asia-Pacific Greens network. The party has enjoyed mixed electoral fortunes. After promising early election results, the GPT virtually ceased contesting elections between 2000 and 2005. However, from 2006 the party began a gradual revival in its vote shares. This process , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at culminated in the January 2012 Legislative Yuan election when the GPT surprised many observers by coming fifth in the proportional party vote. Considering the limited resources at the party’s disposal this was quite an achievement. In this study, we examine and explain the changing electoral fortunes of the GPT since its establishment in 1996. We are interested to see whether standard theories for explaining small or 18 Jan 2020 at 01:12:25 ecological party success, that have been developed in western Europe, work well in the , on Taiwan context. Our research is based on a range of new fieldwork conducted between 2012 and 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Review Report of Brazil
    Country Review Report of Brazil Review by Haiti and Mexico of the implementation by Brazil of articles 15 – 42 of Chapter III. “Criminalization and law enforcement” and articles 44 – 50 of Chapter IV. “International cooperation” of the United Nations Convention against Corruption for the review cycle 2010 - 2015 1 I. Introduction The Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption was established pursuant to article 63 of the Convention to, inter alia, promote and review the implementation of the Convention. In accordance with article 63, paragraph 7, of the Convention, the Conference established at its third session, held in Doha from 9 to 13 November 2009, the Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the Convention. The Mechanism was established also pursuant to article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which states that States parties shall carry out their obligations under the Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States and of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other States. The Review Mechanism is an intergovernmental process whose overall goal is to assist States parties in implementing the Convention. The review process is based on the terms of reference of the Review Mechanism. II. Process The following review of the implementation by Brazil of the Convention is based on the completed response to the comprehensive self-assessment checklist received from Brazil, and any supplementary information provided in accordance
    [Show full text]
  • Sixty-Second Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee
    Original language: English SC65 Doc. 59.2 (Rev. 1) English only / únicamente en inglés / seulement en anglais CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA ____________________ Sixty-sixth meeting of the Standing Committee Geneva (Switzerland), 11-15 January 2016 Reports of regional representatives ASIA 1. This document has been submitted by Kuwait.* 2. General information: Regional Representative: Indonesia, Japan, Kuwait Alternate Regional Representative: China, Jordan, Saudi Arabia Number of Parties in the Region: 37 Parties providing information for this Report: Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and United Arab Emirates, 3. Introduction: This report summarized the activities of Parties between 65th Standing Committee Meeting (July 2014, Geneva) and 66th Standing Committee Meeting (January 2016, Geneva). Japan represents Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan. Indonesia: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Leo people’s democratic republic, Myanmar, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam. Kuwait represents Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. 4. Activities within each party 4.1 Bangladesh 1. Participation in CITES meeting - Representatives of Bangladesh participated in CITES related meetings or workshops in Lion, Singapore and Bangkok organized by INTERPOL this year. 2. Cooperation with the parties and others * The geographical designations employed in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the CITES Secretariat (or the United Nations Environment Programme) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Illicit Trade Report 2018 Table of Contents P
    Illicit Trade Report 2018 Illicit Trade Report · 2018 Illicit Trade www.wcoomd.org ILLICIT TRADE REPORT 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS P. 4 FOREWORD P. 6 INTRODUCTION P. 8 Section 1. CULTURAL HERITAGE P.30 Section 2. DRUGS P. 90 Section 3. ENVIRONMENT P. 114 Section 4. IPR, HEALTH AND SAFETY P. 142 Section 5. REVENUE P. 176 Section 6. SECURITY P. 198 ABBREVIATIONS FOREWORDAVANT-PROPOS Illicit trafficking of different commodities continues to affect global of seizures of various prohibited and restricted commodities. While peace and security, destabilizing economies and threatening the seizures, themselves, cannot prevent or completely stop illicit trade, health and safety of populations. Disrupting illicit trade flows is they can serve as an active deterrent and raise the cost of illicit a very complex, multi-stakeholder process, involving many law transactions. Moreover, enforcement measures tame illicit markets enforcement and other government agencies. The work done when they are a product of smart and well-researched policies, a by all stakeholders, in 2018, dovetails with the World Customs whole-of-government approach, and international cooperation. Organization’s (WCO) theme for this specific year, which encouraged the promotion of “A Secure Business Environment for Economic In 2018, a total of 154 countries reported their seizures to the WCO Development” – an apt theme in the context of illicit trade, given through a specialized channel, namely the Customs Enforcement that illegal cross-border trade can cause financial losses for both Network (CEN). Spanning reports on seizures of cultural objects by legitimate traders and governments, while impacting negatively 20 Customs administrations to 105 reporting seizures of drugs, the on a host of other areas, such as governance and development CEN has accumulated a wealth of information that is analysed in objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • CASE of M1.S.S. V. BELGIUM and GREECE 1
    GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF M.S.S. v. BELGIUM AND GREECE (Application no. 30696/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 January 2011 This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. JUDGMENT – M.S.S. v. BELGIUM AND GREECE 1 In the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Elisabet Fura, Khanlar Hajiyev, Danut ÷ Jo čien ÷, Dragoljub Popovi ć, Mark Villiger, András Sajó, Ledi Bianku, Ann Power, Işıl Karaka ş, Nebojša Vu čini ć, Judges, and Michael O'Boyle, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 September and 15 December 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 30696/09) against the Kingdom of Belgium and the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Afghan national, Mr M.S.S. (“the applicant”), on 11 June 2009. The President of the Chamber to which the case had been assigned acceded to the applicant's request not to have his name disclosed (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). 2. The applicant was represented by Mr Z. Chihaoui, a lawyer practising in Brussels. The Belgian Government were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Tysebaert and their co-Agent, Mrs I. Niedlispacher. The Greek Government were represented by Mrs M.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentencing Laws & Practices in France
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 1995 Sentencing Laws & Practices in France Richard Frase University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard Frase, Sentencing Laws & Practices in France, 7 FED. SENTENCING R. 275 (1995), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/514. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Federal Sentencing Reporter. Vol. 7, No. 6, May / June 1995 275 FRANCE SENTENCING LAWS & PRACTICES Table 1 IN FRANCE Incarceration rates in France and the United States (1991) Richard S. Frase* US. France ratio Inmates per 100,000 residents The French make very sparing use of custodial Convicted inmates only 409.1 50.1 8.2:1 penalties and punish most offenses with fines or All inmates 495.9 84.6 5.9:1 suspended sentences. France's less punitive attitude Inmates per 100 weighted adult arrests is evident not only in its sentencing laws and prac- Convicted inmates only 24.1 7.2 3.3:1 tices, but also at earlier stages of the criminal process: All inmates 29.2 12.2 2.4:1 in the legal definition of crimes; in the use of custo- dial arrest and pretrial detention; and in decisions While the ideal crime-related base for assessing about whether (and on what charges) to prosecute.
    [Show full text]
  • Remedies and Strategies for Permanent Resident Clients July 2011
    Remedies and Strategies for Permanent Resident Clients July 2011 CHAPTER 1 REMEDIES AND STRATEGIES FOR PERMANENT RESIDENT CLIENTS This chapter includes: § 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 § 1.2 How to Use This Manual.................................................................................... 1-2 § 1.3 Which Permanent Residents Are Subject to the Grounds of Inadmissibility and Which Are Subject to the Grounds of Deportability ................................... 1-3 § 1.4 Burdens of Proof ................................................................................................ 1-8 § 1.5 Evidentiary Considerations; Motions to Suppress ........................................... 1-12 § 1.6 When and Whether to Concede Removability ................................................. 1-17 § 1.7 Analyzing Your Client’s Case .......................................................................... 1-19 § 1.8 A Word on Judicial Review ............................................................................. 1-20 § 1.1 Introduction To be an effective immigration advocate, it is essential to have a thorough understanding of the laws affecting your clients. This manual is designed to give practitioners that understanding with respect to Lawful Permanent Residents1 who have been charged with being removable. This manual is designed as a “how to” manual; it contains clear, concise, and detailed explanations of the grounds of removal LPRs are most likely to face, when they do and don’t apply, the remedies for each, and the practicalities of working with clients to elicit the evidence necessary to successfully defend their cases. Although the primary focus of this book is on the remedies available for LPR clients who have been found removable, we wish to emphasize from the outset that the first line of defense in many cases involving LPR clients will be to deny the allegations in the Notice to Appear (NTA) and move for termination of the proceedings.
    [Show full text]