This is the second installment of a point-by-point look at the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Check out ACTA: Thought for FUD, Part 1 for more details and a comparison of Section 1 of ACTA (civil enforcement) to existing US law.
I’d like to reiterate that the purpose of this is to get a better grasp on what is in the ACTA, since there is a large amount of FUD being circulated online. The comparison to existing US law is only meant to put the scope of the treaty in context. Whether the existing law is good or bad is another discussion entirely, and the same is true about whether or not including similar provisions in an international treaty is good or bad. Indeed, in some situations, US negotiators are actually opposed to specific proposals that would mirror existing US law. 1For example, the provision allowing Parties to seize infringing goods at the border.
Comparing this section to US law is challenging for several reasons. First, I’m not as familiar with border enforcement of copyrighted works as I am with other areas of copyright law. Second, intellectual property border measures are governed by a framework involving international treaties (most notably TRIPS); chapters 6 (domestic security), 17 (copyrights), and 19 (customs duties) of the US Code; and numerous regulatory provisions. Within such an interconnected regulatory framework like this, it can be difficult to pinpoint one specific statute or regulation.
Section 2: Border Measures
The Consolidated Text Prepared for Public Release begins section 2 by laying out the scope of the border measures:
ARTICLE 2.X: SCOPE OF THE BORDER MEASURES
1. This section sets out the conditions for action by the competent authorities when goods are suspected of infringing intellectual property rights, within the meaning of this agreement, when they are imported, exported, in-transit or in other situations where the goods are under customs supervision.
2. For the purposes of this section, “goods infringing an intellectual property right†means goods infringing any of the intellectual property rights covered by TRIPS. However, Parties may decide to exclude from the scope of this section, certain rights other than trade marks, copyrights and GIs when not protected exclusively by copyright and trade mark systems and protected by sui generis systems.
3. Parties shall provide for the provisions related to border measures to be applied at least in cases of trade mark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. Parties may provide for such provisions to be applied in other cases of infringement of intellectual property rights.
Now, let’s take a look at the individual provisions.
ACTA Provision | Corresponding US Law |
---|---|
ARTICLE 2.X: DE MINIMIS PROVISION
Parties may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travelers’ personal luggage or sent in small consignments. |
19 USC § 1321. Administrative exemptions
(a) Disregard of minor discrepancies in collection of taxes and duties; admission of articles free of duty or tax; limit on amount of exemption 17 USC § 602: Infringing importation or exportation of copies or photocopiers (3) Exceptions.— This subsection does not apply to— |
One of the biggest fears when people heard “intellectual property” and “border measures” was that Customs officials would begin searching iPods for pirated materials. |
|
ARTICLE 2.X: PROVISION OF INFORMATION FROM THE RIGHT HOLDER
Each Party shall permit the competent authorities to request a right holder to supply relevant information to assist the competent authorities in taking border measures provided for under this Section. Each Party may also allow a right holder to supply relevant information to the competent authorities. |
19 CFR § 133.32. Application to record copyright.
An application to record a copyright to secure customs protection against the importation of infringing copies or phonorecords shall be in writing addressed to the IPR & Restricted Merchandise Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20229, and shall include the following information: |
ARTICLE 2.6: APPLICATION BY RIGHT HOLDER
Option 1 Option 2 |
17 USC § 603. Importation prohibitions: Enforcement and disposition of excluded articles
(a) The Secretary of the Treasury and the United States Postal Service shall separately or jointly make regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of this title prohibiting importation. |
ARTICLE 2.7: EX-OFFICIO ACTION
Option 1 Option 2 |
19 CFR § 133.42. Infringing copies or phonorecords.
(a) Definition. Infringing copies or phonorecords are “piratical†articles, i.e., copies or phonorecords which are unlawfully made (without the authorization of the copyright owner). |
ARTICLE 2.9: SECURITY OR EQUIVALENT ASSURANCE
Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities shall have the authority to require a right holder requesting procedures described under Article 2.6 to provide a reasonable security or equivalent assurance sufficient to protect the defendant and the competent authorities and to prevent abuse. Each Party shall provide that such security or equivalent assurance shall not unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures. Each Party may provide that such security may be in the form of a bond conditioned to hold the defendant harmless from any loss or damage resulting from any suspension of the release of the goods in the event the competent authorities determine that the good is not a counterfeit trademark good or a pirated copyright good. Only in exceptional circumstances or pursuant to a judicial order may a Party permit a defendant to post a bond or other security to obtain possession of suspected counterfeit trademark goods or suspected pirated copyright goods. |
19 CFR § 133.43. Procedure on suspicion of infringing copies.
(b) Notice to copyright owner. If the importer of suspected infringing copies or phonorecords files a denial as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the port director shall furnish to the copyright owner the following information, if available, within 30 days, excluding weekends and holidays, of the receipt of the importer’s denial: |
ARTICLE 2.10: DETERMINATION AS TO INFRINGEMENT
Each Party shall adopt or maintain a procedure by which competent authorities may determine, within a reasonable period of time after the initiation of the procedures described under Article 2.X or 2.X, whether the suspected infringing goods infringe an intellectual property right. |
19 CFR § 133.43. Procedure on suspicion of infringing copies.
(a) Notice to the importer. If the port director has any reason to believe that an imported article may be an infringing copy or phonorecord of a recorded copyrighted work, he shall withhold delivery, notify the importer of his action, and advise him that if the facts so warrant he may file a statement denying that the article is in fact an infringing copy and alleging that the detention of the article will result in a material depreciation of its value, or a loss or damage to him. The port director also shall advise the importer that in the absence of receipt within 30 days of a denial by the importer that the article constitutes an infringing copy or phonorecord, it shall be considered to be such a copy and shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture. |
ARTICLE 2.11: REMEDIES
1. Each Party shall provide its competent authorities with the authority to order the destruction of goods following a determination under Article 2.10 that the goods are infringing. In cases where such goods are not destroyed, each Party shall ensure such goods are disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm to the right holder. |
19 CFR § 133.43. Procedure on suspicion of infringing copies.
(a) Notice to the importer. If the port director has any reason to believe that an imported article may be an infringing copy or phonorecord of a recorded copyrighted work, he shall withhold delivery, notify the importer of his action, and advise him that if the facts so warrant he may file a statement denying that the article is in fact an infringing copy and alleging that the detention of the article will result in a material depreciation of its value, or a loss or damage to him. The port director also shall advise the importer that in the absence of receipt within 30 days of a denial by the importer that the article constitutes an infringing copy or phonorecord, it shall be considered to be such a copy and shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture. |
ARTICLE 2.12: FEES
1. Each Party shall provide that any application fee, storage fee, or destruction fee to be assessed by competent authorities in connection with procedures described in this Section shall not be used to unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures. |
|
Fees for registering with Customs are set by regulation. While I couldn’t find any explicit provision governing the reasonableness of fees, the US Customs and Border Protection agency generally considers what burden fees have when setting them. See, for example, Notice and request for comments on Agency Information Collection Activities: Regulations Relating to Recordation and Enforcement of Trademarks and Copyrights. |
|
ARTICLE 2.13: DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
Without prejudice to a Party’s laws pertaining to the privacy or confidentiality of information: |
19 CFR § 133.43. Procedure on suspicion of infringing copies.
(a) Notice to the importer. If the port director has any reason to believe that an imported article may be an infringing copy or phonorecord of a recorded copyrighted work, he shall withhold delivery, notify the importer of his action, and advise him that if the facts so warrant he may file a statement denying that the article is in fact an infringing copy and alleging that the detention of the article will result in a material depreciation of its value, or a loss or damage to him. The port director also shall advise the importer that in the absence of receipt within 30 days of a denial by the importer that the article constitutes an infringing copy or phonorecord, it shall be considered to be such a copy and shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture. |
Article 2.X: LIABILITY OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
1. With respect to the border measures covered by this Section, each Party shall provide measures concerning the liability of competent authorities in the execution of their duties. Option 1 Option 2 |
19 USC § 1513. Customs officer’s immunity
No customs officer shall be liable in any way to any person for or on account of— |
Generally, federal government officials are not liable for actions arising out of their duties unless Congress has provided an exception by law. I was unable to find any such exception for failure to detect infringing goods by US customs officials. I’ve included the above provision which seems most on point. Other nations may not follow the doctrine of sovereign immunity, so this provision would ensure that customs officials are exempted from liability in these cases. 2India, for example, has regulations that mirror the proposed ACTA provision. |
Next week, we’ll take a look at Section 3: Criminal Enforcement.
References
↑1 | For example, the provision allowing Parties to seize infringing goods at the border. |
---|---|
↑2 | India, for example, has regulations that mirror the proposed ACTA provision. |