Case study on IPR Infringement in EU ”Teddy Bears” by Jan Oestergaard Chief Prosecutor District of South East Jutland Denmark

Case Study - EU Introduction of Mr. Jan Oestergaard: -Chief Prosecutor from Europe – in Denmark -Head of office for Local Economic Crime in Police District South East Jutland ( inhabitants) -IPR: 2 leading cases in the Police District of Southeast Jutland

Hvad har SKAT med varemærkeforfalskning at gøre? RÅDETS FORORDNING (EF) Nr. 1383/2003 af 22. juli 2003 om toldmyndighedernes indgriben over for varer, der mistænkes for at krænke visse intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder, og om de foranstaltninger, som skal træffes over for varer, der krænker sådanne rettigheder European Union – 27 member states – Denmark in the northern part

The Case about Teddy Bears Import from China Mass Production of several different kinds of Toys/Teddy Bears Worldwide famous brands, ex. Disney Very well organized business relations between the accused Company and Chinese Factories through many years

Case Study on IPR in EU Manager/Owner and his Company was sentenced in City Court in December 2008: 10 months of Prison, not to be served. Company fine of USD High Court in November 2009: 1 year in prison not to be served plus fine of USD

Police Investigation 2005 Danish Tax Authorities stops several Containers from China in the beginning of 2005 – suspicion on illegal goods The assumed infringed Companies informed immediately according to EU-regulation Enquires a warrant in the City Court

Case Study on IPR in EU Search in march 2005 : 4 places: Stores and VG´s private house Seize of approx more Teddy Bears 600 boxes with pieces get stored by the Police (Expensive cost)

Case Study on IPR in EU Preparation before trial: Calculations of market prices? Police/Institution Prosecution says 3,5 mio. USD for all brands Calculation of profit for VG Inc.? - every reasonable doubt shall favours the accusated Agreement during trial on USD

Case Study on IPR in EU Indictment in late -Cut on the number of brands and products (cost benefit and a few rejecting companies) -Market Infringement 3,5 mio. USD -Trade Law concerning Danish trade marks and EU Trademark (first penalty trial ever) -Confiscation and ban of privileges

Case Study on IPR in EU -Summit in VMPS (other authorities) -Consultations with District Attorney -Formulation the Crime and the claims

Case Study on IPR in EU Second Conviction in December 2009: Lamps and Knives – Danish Designs 3 persons convicted: 2 years, 1½ years and 6 months. High Court in October 2010

Perspectives and questions What have we learned from these cases? Results are succesfull Regulation – administrative focus Media – pays high attention High political attention Relatively low priority among police and Institutions of Penalty

Case study on IPR in EU -effectiveness is necessary (investigation and pursuance) – fastness is important -Communication in the system -Civil Cases about compensation (fundamental different proces during penalty cases in Court)

Case Study on IPR in EU -What will make European Justice System to carry on with more cases on IPR Infringement? Experience Specialization (skills) – more experts Cooperation national and international Harms of copied products??

Case Study on IPR in EU Questions

Case Study on IPR in EU Thank you for listening!