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
Why the Government’s Plan for a Social Media Ban in Bill C-34 Is Unconstitutional 
Outdated Data and Dubious Comparisons: Digging into the Government’s AI Strategy Adoption Claims 
Why Being Locked Out of Frontier AI is The Sovereignty Threat Canada Missed 
Blocked Twice: How Bill C-34’s Kids’ Social Media Ban Would Compound the Online News Act’s Harm to Young Canadians’ News Access 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 275: David Loukidelis on Why Stripping Privacy Enforcement from Canada’s Privacy Commissioner in Bill C-36 is Unnecessarily Risky Policy
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.