The International Trademark Association (INTA) and International Chamber of Commerce have issued a release on ACTA urging countries to drop the de minimis provision that is designed to allay fears of iPod searching border guards. The two associations argue that the exception "sends the wrong message to consumers."
INTA, ICC Oppose De Minimis Provision in ACTA
Tags: acta / anti-counterfeiting trade agreement / copyrightCounterfeiting / Counterfeit / de minimis / icc / inta
6 Comments
Recent Posts
Skillful Negotiation or Legislative Fail? Taking Stock of the Bill C-18 Deal With Google 
Salvaging Bill C-18: Government Upends Legislation To Bring Google Onside the Online News Act 
Accountability and Antisemitism: The Canadian Heritage Committee Needs To Step Up 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 186: Andy Kaplan-Myrth on the CRTC’s Last Ditch Attempt to Fix Canada’s Internet Competition Problem 
On Media Bailouts and Bias: Why Government Media Policy Is Undermining Public Trust
Wow…
These guys just don’t really get it. “Counterfeit goods”? This has absoultely nothing to do with copyright infringement. In fact, this entire process just proves why making trademark, patent, and copyright laws that are made in one pot is a stupid idea, since they are all different laws and concepts. Since when does a TRADEMARK association have any opinions on COPYRIGHT. God, this situation is so stupid.
Trademark and Copyright
These two legal concepts have ever been seen as effectively “joined at the hip”, not unlike conjoined twins, no?
The release also states that they want to narrow the scope of ACTA to actual counterfeiting rather than “all things to all IP owners”, so it’s not all bad.
RE: Bytowner
“These two legal concepts have ever been seen as effectively “joined at the hip”, not unlike conjoined twins, no?”
No more than murder relates with stealing. Really, trademark/copyright/patent laws are totally different.
Close but no cigar
Counterfeit – passing off something fake as real (“identity theft”, of you like)
Copyright – the right of a rightsholder to commercially exploit their stuff.
As much as the copyright mob would like to lump the two together, they ain’t the same.
The same is true of large-scale commercial piracy and individual downloading… but that’s another story.
Trademark is supposed to be about consumer protection
It started out as legislation to avoid the purchaser being misled about what they’re buying. Which, of course, is the same as “counterfeit”. As long as the buyer doesn’t think that they’re actually getting a Coach purse for $100, it really shouldn’t be either a counterfeiting or a trademark offense.