Differences between revisions 2 and 3
Revision 2 as of 2007-02-02 09:37:06
Size: 674
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Revision 3 as of 2007-02-02 09:42:04
Size: 1750
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 17: Line 17:



== Elements of a crime ==

The [http://www.ip.mpg.de/shared/data/pdf/directive_of_the_european_parliament_and_of_the_council_on_criminal_measures_aimed_at_ensuring_the_enforcement_of_intellectual_property_rights.pdf Max Planck Institute] proposed a better definition of the crime:

"15. Indeed, when proper account is taken of the proportionality principle (see above, 6), harmonisation of criminal penalties can only be justified in relation to acts fulfilling the following elements cumulatively:

– Identity with the infringed object of protection (the infringing item emulates the characteristic elements of a protected product or distinctive sign in an unmodified fashion [construction, assembly, etc.]).

– Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit.

– Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis) with regard to the existence of the infringed right."

The above mentioned elements of a crime are the minimal elements. The Commission proposal does not meet these minimal elements. They could be defined more strongly.






http://www.ipred.org/MainPage Introduction http://www.ipred.org/analysis Analysis http://www.ipred.org/howto How To http://www.ipred.org/factsheet Fact sheet http://www.ipred.org/backdoor Backdoor


Art 3

Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights

2005/0127 (COD)

Elements of a crime

The [http://www.ip.mpg.de/shared/data/pdf/directive_of_the_european_parliament_and_of_the_council_on_criminal_measures_aimed_at_ensuring_the_enforcement_of_intellectual_property_rights.pdf Max Planck Institute] proposed a better definition of the crime:

"15. Indeed, when proper account is taken of the proportionality principle (see above, 6), harmonisation of criminal penalties can only be justified in relation to acts fulfilling the following elements cumulatively:

– Identity with the infringed object of protection (the infringing item emulates the characteristic elements of a protected product or distinctive sign in an unmodified fashion [construction, assembly, etc.]).

– Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit.

– Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis) with regard to the existence of the infringed right."

The above mentioned elements of a crime are the minimal elements. The Commission proposal does not meet these minimal elements. They could be defined more strongly.

art3 (last edited 2009-05-30 23:30:40 by localhost)