Article L.716-7-1 of the Code of intellectual property is often presented as a major input of the Act of October 29, 2007. This article provides a right to information allowing the applicant to obtain the court orders it to third parties in dispute to provide evidence to help trace the networks involved. Including the names and addresses of suppliers and other previous holders of the products and their quantities and prices.
As a rule governing the types of evidence and on the procedure, it is applicable since it came into force October 29, 2007, even if the acts were committed before.
At a time when trade in counterfeit goods is growing exponentially by through websites, this right to information is particularly useful and is especially sites of auctions. They indeed provide services that can be used in infringing activities.
Even if these sites would claim the protection status of the host introduced by the Act on Confidence in the Digital Economy of 21 June 2004, they are required to respond to every request that the judge analyzed as justified and proportionate.
This will most often be one of readiness, on the basis of Article 770 of the Code of Procedure civil, that: "the judge of the pretrial jurisdiction shall have all powers necessary for communication, procurement and production parts."
However, it appears that this same code already offered on the basis of common law, means to achieve such a result. Indeed, both Articles 11 and 138 allowed to obtain evidence held by third parties during the proceedings. This is a straightforward application of the rule by law of 5 July 1972: "Everyone is obliged to provide assistance to justice for the event of truth. "
Should we then consider the right to information of Article L.716-7-1 as useless? It is possible to respond in the negative as applications based on this article seem to be multiplying. It should therefore be seen as the stimulating effect of lights in the fashion and that the beneficial effect it provides details about the nature of information that can be searched.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of the fight against counterfeiting has become stronger and the legislature has reached its goal.
However, the assessment by the judge likely character of counterfeiting remains decisive: it is a prerequisite for investigations. It is therefore important to make sure to gather all possible evidence before trial, including the seizure of alleged counterfeit products and any related document.
0 comments:
Post a Comment