AIM - European Brands Association

AIM POSITION 1 European Commission proposal for a Regulation on packaging and packaging waste amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC April 2023 Introduction: AIM, the European Brands Association, welcomes the European Commission’s proposal on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). The branded consumer goods industry acknowledges the need for change and wants to be a driving force in the transition to a clean, circular and climate-neutral economy. As outlined in our contribution “Brands for a Clean & Circular Economy”, focusing on the eco-design of packaging from a holistic point of view has been a priority for branded consumer goods manufacturers.

…the eco-design of packaging from a holistic point of view has been a priority for branded consumer goods manufacturers. A Regulation, with a full Single Market legal basis, is the right legal instrument: We strongly welcome the European Commission’s decision to transition the legal instrument from a Directive to a Regulation based on the Single Market legal basis. These are necessary towards ensuring an EU harmonised approach to packaging and packaging waste management and prevention, as well as preserving and strengthening the integrity of the EU Single Market and allowing for the scale-up of circular economy solutions.

…strengthening the integrity of the EU Single Market and allowing for the scale-up of circular economy solutions. Member States must provide an effective packaging waste prevention & management system: Achieving the targets and measures set out for economic operators will only be possible if an effective packaging waste prevention and management system is in place across Member States. Investments in sorting, collecting, and recycling facilities across the EU are necessary to complement brands’ efforts in designing more sustainable products. To ensure a strong EU policy framework that allows the transition towards more sustainably designed packaging, as well as effective and efficient packaging waste prevention and management, we call on the EU policymakers to take the following considerations and recommendations into account.

…and management, we call on the EU policymakers to take the following considerations and recommendations into account. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LABELLING REQUIREMENTS – ARTICLE 11: - Provide a certain and sufficient transition period for manufacturers to ensure the compliance of their packaging with the new rules by: 1) requiring the European Commission to adopt within a shorter time frame of 12 months the implementing acts referred to in Article 11, 2) allowing for a 36-month transition period to apply once the Commission adopts the implementing acts and 3) allowing packaging manufactured or imported before the entry into application of the new measures to be marketed until the stocks of the production are exhausted. - Provide a clear and future-proof framework for the communication of recycled content in plastic packaging through a label.

…a clear and future-proof framework for the communication of recycled content in plastic packaging through a label. - Allow for the use of digital means for labelling requirements and the provision of additional information to the consumer. Ref. Ares(2023)2891600 - 24/04/2023 2 - Ensure maximum harmonisation of the labelling requirements in the EU, without exceptions for national EPR symbols, to preserve the integrity of the EU Single Market. - Ensure clarity for all economic operators on the labels, marks, symbols or inscriptions which are likely to mislead consumers and ensure that such symbols are phased out in accordance with the timeline set out in Article 11(1).

…mislead consumers and ensure that such symbols are phased out in accordance with the timeline set out in Article 11(1). PACKAGING MINIMISATION – ARTICLE 9: - Prevent the risk of standardisation of packaging, which undermines brands’ identity and increases the risk of counterfeiting and other intellectual property infringements facilitated by standard and simple shapes, by ensuring the protection of intellectual property rights for packaging. - Clarify the calculation of the empty space for sales packaging (it should be measured at the filling point) and ensure that the assessment takes into account the capabilities of the machine manufacturing the product. OBLIGATIONS OF DISTRIBUTORS – ARTICLE 17 - Ensure that the obligations of distributors do not result in an effective oversight role in respect of the packaged goods supplied to them by the manufacturers.

…do not result in an effective oversight role in respect of the packaged goods supplied to them by the manufacturers. MINIMUM RECYCLED CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PLASTIC PACKAGING – ARTICLE 7 - Ensure that the responsibility for recycled content targets applies along the material value chain and is shared across economic operators. - Ensure a clear and future-proof framework for the calculation of recycled content (including when content is allocated through mass balance) and support a target calculation for recycled content as an average of all plastic packaging placed on the EU market by an economic operator rather than per unit of plastic packaging. - Provide safeguards in case of low amounts of available recycled plastics and excessive prices.

…plastic packaging. - Provide safeguards in case of low amounts of available recycled plastics and excessive prices. RECYCLABLE PACKAGING – ARTICLE 6 - Define the timeline for the application of the recyclability requirements and ensure the involvement of stakeholders in the development of the delegated acts (e.g., for the establishment of the Design for Recycling criteria). - Allow manufacturers to make claims on the recyclability of the packaging until the essential requirements on recyclability become mandatory. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS - Ensure that unless there is a risk to the health and safety of the user, packaging that is not compliant with the essential requirements should not be recalled.

…health and safety of the user, packaging that is not compliant with the essential requirements should not be recalled. REUSE AND REFILL - Introduce the concept of “system for refill” and extend it to those systems for refill that allow consumers to refill their containers at home, with products purchased through a final distributor. - Exclude B2C transport packaging under the reuse targets set for transport packaging, as well as clarify the scope of the targets for grouped packaging. - Consider an exemption for reusable e-commerce packaging from the empty space requirements, to allow for the development of a harmonised solution for reusable packaging in e-commerce and different sizing options to account for the full variety of products provided via e-commerce.

…in e-commerce and different sizing options to account for the full variety of products provided via e-commerce. 3 AIM COMMENTS  Article 11 - Labelling requirements for packaging Ensuring a certain and sufficient transition period for manufacturers to adjust their products to the new labelling requirements We recommend that the proposal requires the Commission to adopt within 12 months the implementing acts referred to in Article 11, that the transition period for the industry starts to apply when the Commission adopts those implementing acts, and that the packaging manufactured or imported before the entry into application of the new measures can be marketed until the stocks of the products are exhausted. Manufacturers should be allowed 36 months to adjust their product and manufacturing process to be able to comply with the new labelling requirements.

…36 months to adjust their product and manufacturing process to be able to comply with the new labelling requirements. The complexity of the supply chain impacts the time and the process needed for the collection of information from multiple packaging suppliers, the necessary calculations, documentation and the process to change the artwork. According to the type of packaging, there is a specific lead time of up to 2 years from ordering the packaging to the final placing on the market. Additionally, the following elements should be taken into consideration: • Labels are not necessarily changed every year for all products and using up existing stocks of pre- ordered packaging can extend the time needed to roll out the new labels.

…products and using up existing stocks of pre- ordered packaging can extend the time needed to roll out the new labels. • As all economic operators will be implementing the new measures and changing their artworks within the same time frame, we anticipate technical bottlenecks (e.g., a limited number of printers on the market). • Having a longer transition period allows manufacturers to mutualise the changes that will be required with the additional new labelling measures that will be laid down in other product-specific or sectorial EU legislation and initiatives (e.g., Cosmetic Products Regulation, Detergent Regulation, and measures announced under the Farm to Fork Strategy).

48 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

Brands for a Clean & Circular Economy Drivers of Sustainability – through Eco-Design Eco Design Model in action GOAL: Environmentally sound consumer choice and use - Sustainability information for consumers on sustainable product choices, proper waste disposal, recycling, anti-littering, etc.

…information for consumers on sustainable product choices, proper waste disposal, recycling, anti-littering, etc. - AIM Nudging for Good - Brands’ promotion of sustainable lifestyles GOAL: Responsible sourcing - Promoting responsible sourcing practices to drive positive impact on people in brands’ supply chains GOAL: Sustainable production - Reducing greenhouse gas emissions - Transferring to renewable energy - Decreasing water use - Zero waste to landfill - Eliminating waste from production sites GOAL: Optimised resource use & recycling - Reuse solutions - Material reduction - Use of recycled material - Use of bio-based material - Compatibility with existing recycling infrastructure AIM BRANDS & ECO-DESIGN How Brands optimise their Packaging How Brands engage Consumers in Sustainability rPET How Brands work along the Supply Chain How Brands optimise their Production Processes…

Brands work along the Supply Chain How Brands optimise their Production Processes #BRANDS4Sustainability Ref. Ares(2020)4049478 - 31/07/2020 AIM Brands’ Eco-Design Commitments for Packaging Recyclability Recycled content How Brands optimise their Packaging AB InBev 2025: 100% packaging returnable or made from majority recycled content Arla Foods 2025: 100% recyclable packaging Bacardi 2025: 100% recyclable product packaging 2025: 40% recycled content of product packaging materials Barilla 2020: 100% recyclable packaging Beiersdorf 2025: 100% recyclable, reusable or compostable packaging 2025: 25% recycled content in plastic packaging in Europe Bel Group 2020: 88% recyclable and/or biodegradable packaging 2025: 100% recycle-ready and/or biodegradable packaging Coca-Cola 2025: 100% recyclable packaging (World Without Waste global packaging strategy) 2030: Equivalent of 100% sold packaging…

PET bottles Diageo 2020: 100% recyclable packaging 2025: 100% of used plastic designed to be widely recyclable (or reusable/ compostable) 2020: 45% recycled content by weight in packaging 2025: 40% average recycled content in plastic bottles 2030: 100% average recycled content in plastic bottles Essity 2025: 100% recyclable packaging across all product categories 2025: - 85% renewable or recylced material in packaging - 25% recycled plastic in plastic packaging Estee Lauder 2025: 75-100% recyclable, refillable, reusable, recycled or recoverable packaging 2025: 50% post-consumer recycled (PCR) material in packaging Ferrero 2025: 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging General Mills 2030: 100% recyclable packaging by design Henkel 2025: 100% recyclable and reusable packaging 2025: - 30% recycled content globally - 50% reduction of fossil- based virgin plastics in consumer goods…

…an improved environmental (or social) profile 2025: 100% rechargeable, refillable, recyclable or compostable plastic packaging Mars 2025: 100% recyclable packaging 2025: 30% recycled content in plastic packaging McCormick 2025: 100% circular plastics packaging Mondelez 2025: 100% recyclable packaging Nestlé 2025: 100% recyclable or reusable packaging 2025: 25% and 50% recycled material, depending on the packaging type for - PET bottles - PET layer in laminates - PP caps on glass jars and tins - PET trays for meat products - PE shrink films for display trays 2025: - 1/3 reduction of use of virgin plastic in packaging - Sourcing up to 2 million metric tons of food- grade recycled plastic - Allocating more than CHF 1.5 billion to pay a premium for these materials between now and 2025 Nomad Foods Europe 2022: 100% recyclable consumer packaging Orkla 2025: 100% recyclable packaging PepsiCo…

…packaging 2020: Doubling use of recycled resin in plastic packaging 2030: 50% reduction of virgin petroleum plastic in packaging RB 2025: 100% recyclable or reusable packaging 2025: 25% recycled content in plastic packaging SC Johnson 2025: 100% recyclable, reusable or compostable plastic packaging 2025: Triple recycled plastic content in packaging, including 40% recycled content in North American and European plastic bottles Unilever 2025: 100% reusable, recyclable, compostable plastic packaging 2020: Increase recycling and recovery rates on average by 15% in top 14 countries 2025: 25% recycled content in plastic packaging Brands’ Packaging & Product Design Innovations - a selection Nestlé moves from plastic to paper with a new pouch that is made of coated paper instead of plastics and fully recyclable in the normal paper recycling stream Unilever reduces environmental impact of…

…and fully recyclable PepsiCo built up the UK’s first nationwide collection and recycling scheme for potato crisps bags, working with Terracycle Procter & Gamble increases recyclability of bottles by introducing sleeves on transparent recyclable bottles instead of using coloured bottles that are difficult to recycle.

…sleeves on transparent recyclable bottles instead of using coloured bottles that are difficult to recycle. RB increases recyclability of spray bottles by sourcing triggers made out of single polymer, without metal components SC Johnson expands refill options for its cleaning brands to cut plastic pollution Diageo reduces plastic waste by replacing plastic packaging for their multipack beer brands by 100% recyclable and biodegradable cardboard Loop is one of the most advanced initiatives in this field, launched by AIM members Procter & Gamble, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever, Mars Petcare, Coca-Cola European Partners, Mondelēz International, Danone, Jacobs Douwe Egberts, RB, BIC and Beiersdorf in January 2019 with partners TerraCycle, retailers and waste management operators.

Egberts, RB, BIC and Beiersdorf in January 2019 with partners TerraCycle, retailers and waste management operators. Products purchased on the Loop platform are available in customised, durable packaging, which is subsequently collected for reuse rather than recycling. Brands’ Reuse Solutions Loop, a new innovative, online shopping concept challenging single use packaging AIM, the European Brands Association, believes that climate change is one of the greatest challenges we face, as society and as businesses. Tackling the accelerating pace of climate change requires transformational changes to the broader systems in which brands operate. As brands we are committed to mitigate climate change by reaching the global consumer goods industry’s goal of driving down carbon emissions through innovation in our production processes, our supply chains and our products.

…of driving down carbon emissions through innovation in our production processes, our supply chains and our products. We also need government policies that create the right context for change and business action to advance the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees by the end of the century. Only by working together with all concerned stakeholders, in full transparency and with a long-term view, can we embrace what we believe to be the essential purpose of corporations: to improve our society, where CEOs are truly committed to meeting the needs of all stakeholders, not only primary shareholders.

…our society, where CEOs are truly committed to meeting the needs of all stakeholders, not only primary shareholders. AIM Statement on Climate Change AB InBev 2025: 25% CO2 emissions reduction across supply chain (baseline 2017) 2025: 100% purchased electricity from renewable sources Arla Foods 2030: - 30% CO2 emissions absolute reduction (scope 1&2 vs 2015) - 30% CO2 emissions intensity reduction per kg milk (scope 3 vs 2015) - 50% food waste reduction (per kg milk) for own operations (vs 2015) 2050: Carbon net zero across value chain Bacardi 2025: - 50% GHG emissions reduction (scope 1&2) (baseline 2015) - 20% value chain GHG emissions reduction (baseline 2015) Beiersdorf 2025: 70% energy-related CO2 emissions reduction per product manufactured (baseline 2014) 2020: 100% of electricity from renewable energy sources Bel Group 2025: - 17% global GHG emissions reduction per metric ton of…

…reduction (baseline 2015) Colgate-Palmolive 2020: 25% absolute GHG emissions reduction from manufacturing (baseline 2002) 2020: 1/3 manufacturing energy intensity reduction (baseline 2002) Danone 2030: - 30% CO2 emissions absolute reduction (scope 1&2) - 50% CO2 emissions intensity reduction across value chain 2050: Carbon neutral across supply chain 2020: 50% renewable electricity 2030: 100% renewable electricity Diageo 2020: - 50% absolute GHG emissions reduction from direct operations (baseline 2007) - 30% absolute GHG emissions reduction along supply chain (baseline 2007) 2030: 100% electricity from renewable sources Essity 2020: - 20% CO2 emissions reduction from fossil fuels and from purchased electricity and heating - 14% energy consumption reduction per ton of product produced 2030: - 25% GHG emissions reduction for energy use within company and purchased electricity (baseline…

25 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

Avenue de Gaulois 9 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 2 736 0305 TR: 107438267901 www.aim.be Comments on the proposed Revision of the Union Customs Code The AIM Anti-Counterfeiting Committee thanks the Commission for the opportunity to comment on this extremely important proposal. In order to protect our consumers, creators, innovators, economies and environment, European intellectual property right holders are actively engaged in the global fight against counterfeiting and piracy, in which customs are an essential partner. Our customs officers are a key link in the public and private network (Europol, the EUIPO, OLAF…) necessary to combat the menace of IP crime which, due its proven links with cross-border organised crime, is a priority under the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) for 2022-25.

…crime, is a priority under the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) for 2022-25. AIM fully appreciates the resource constraints under which European customs officers operate, yet as only Law Enforcement Authorities have the powers to control and detain shipments of illegal - including counterfeit, sub-standard and non-compliant - goods to prevent them from reaching the EU market, streamlined processes and new tools are clearly needed. As well as their fiscal duties (payments which illegal trade evades), non-fiscal duties to protect our consumers and market are a vital aspect of our customs officers’ mandate. We applaud many of the practical improvements laid out in this reform that should help our officers to maximise their efficiency, especially through centralised data and risk management. A.

…that should help our officers to maximise their efficiency, especially through centralised data and risk management. A. The market reality As highlighted by Commissioner Gentiloni,“our Customs Union facilitates trade with the rest of the world worth €4.3 trillion in 2021 – 14% of global trade”. However, within that is the complexity of targeting illegal trade (Article 2, “protecting the Union from unfair, non-compliant and illegal trade”): counterfeit and pirated goods are estimated by the OECD and EUIPO1 to account for some 2.5% of all world trade and almost 6% of all imports by value into the EU, translating directly into tax and duties evasion. Such volumes are not imported into the EU by means of small consignments.

…directly into tax and duties evasion. Such volumes are not imported into the EU by means of small consignments. Many of the counterfeit, falsified and non-compliant products arrive in large consignments which are then distributed throughout the EU, either directly or via the in-EU fulfilment centres they are imported to stock.

…are then distributed throughout the EU, either directly or via the in-EU fulfilment centres they are imported to stock. Further, we know from the EUIPO and DG TAXUD, that “the products reported as detained at the EU border due to IP rights infringement remain however over the years only a fraction of the estimated counterfeit and pirated goods that entered the EU market”.2 At the same time, multiple studies3 prove the high socio- economic damage of this illicit trade, in direct consumer harm (financial and physical), depletion of national revenues and legal EU employment, environmental degradation and the use of illegally-gained profits to fund many other criminal activities (“poly-criminality”)4.

…degradation and the use of illegally-gained profits to fund many other criminal activities (“poly-criminality”)4. 1 Global Trade in Fakes - A Worrying Threat (June 2021) 2 EU enforcement of intellectual property rights: results at the EU border and in the EU internal market 2021 3 https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/observatory-publications 4 IP crime and its link to other serious crimes, 2020, Europol & EUIPO Ref. Ares(2023)7478856 - 03/11/2023 2 LEAs are also confronted with criminal activity in the EU’s critical infrastructure, including our ports and Free Zones. The recent report on new modus operandi such as container PIN code fraud for Organised Crime Groups in EU ports5 highlights the pressing need for data sharing and cooperation.

PIN code fraud for Organised Crime Groups in EU ports5 highlights the pressing need for data sharing and cooperation. Similarly, the EU’s Free Zones, while positive for many logistical reasons, are often owned and operated by non-EU entities and are unfortunately widely known to facilitate customs and tax fraud, money laundering, terrorism financing and the trade in IP-infringing and other non-compliant goods. We note with some regret that the Commission has chosen to abandon the initiative to evaluate their performance as requested by the European Parliament, but hope that proactive steps will be taken to ensure respect both for EU laws and for the OECD’s Certification Scheme for Clean Free Trade Zones within these Zones to protect our consumers and economies. B. The proposal

…for Clean Free Trade Zones within these Zones to protect our consumers and economies. B. The proposal 1. Prohibitions and restrictions European right holders very much appreciate the introduction of the definition of “other legislation applied by the customs authorities” that will include clarity that “prohibitions and restrictions can be justified on grounds of, inter alia … the protection of industrial or commercial property and … goods infringing certain intellectual property rights” (Recital 8). 2. The EU Customs Data Hub AIM fully supports the Commission’s goal to ensure more integrated data collation and sharing between customs authorities; such centralised databases and data management are key to ensuring pan-European risk assessment.

…authorities; such centralised databases and data management are key to ensuring pan-European risk assessment. Providing customs authorities with “a wide range of advanced data analytics, also including through the use of artificial intelligence” which “should be an enabler for risk analysis, economic analysis, and predictive analysis to anticipate possible risks with consignments coming to or moving from the Union” (Recital 20) will clearly allow them to operate more effectively and target scarce resources on safeguarding the EU market from counterfeits and other illegal goods. The EU Customs Data Hub (Title III) should help to prevent the anomalies and lack of transparency caused by the maintenance of unconnected, individual national databases, as well as duplication both in terms of management and updating such disparate systems.

…individual national databases, as well as duplication both in terms of management and updating such disparate systems. While we understand that the Member States will be free to develop their own systems for connecting to the Data Hub if they choose not to adopt the connecting applications developed by the EU Customs Authority, we strongly suggest that guidelines and minimum, harmonised standards are developed and implemented at EU level to prevent the continuation of the practical problems caused by the current fragmentation. We also hope that in rolling out this mandatory system due attention will be paid not only to facilitating its interoperability with EU systems, e.g. IPEP, as outlined in Recital 20, but also relevant non-EU databases such as the WCO’s CENCOMM.

…with EU systems, e.g. IPEP, as outlined in Recital 20, but also relevant non-EU databases such as the WCO’s CENCOMM. Union-level risk management activities (Recital 32, Title IV, Chapter 3 and Articles 81 and 97), with common risk analysis, Union control recommendations to customs authorities and instructions that goods destined for the Union may not be loaded or transported are all very positive developments. We advocate that the definition of “economic operators” who “should be able to submit to or make available in [the Data Hub] all relevant data required to fulfil customs legislation” (Recital 23) should include right holders, as they have data pertinent to IPR.

…required to fulfil customs legislation” (Recital 23) should include right holders, as they have data pertinent to IPR. Further, we welcome the clarity provided in Article 38 that “customs authorities and economic operators may exchange any information not specifically required under the customs legislation, in particular for the purpose of mutual cooperation in the identification and counteraction of risk.” Similarly, references to access to the data by other EU Law Enforcement Authorities (Recitals 24-26, Article 31) should include the latter’s ability to submit relevant data. This should also include regulators, for example the European Medicines Agency which does not deal with falsified or counterfeit medicines but leaves this to law enforcement, although we are sure that their data could be of great use to customs officers.

29 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

Avenue de Gaulois 9 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 2 736 0305 TR: 107438267901 www.aim.be Comments on the Call for Evidence for an Impact Assessment on the Reform of the Union Customs Legislation Intellectual property right holders rely on customs officers to target, control and detain shipments of illegal - including counterfeit, sub-standard and non-compliant - goods at the EU’s borders. The AIM Anti- Counterfeiting Committee thanks the EU’s Customs Authorities for their excellent cooperation in fighting this global illegal trade over many years and is grateful to the Commission for consulting European industry on the future of the underlying customs legislation. Please note that we have restricted our comments to the fields of IP infringement and IP crime, both here and in our responses to the e-survey.

…restricted our comments to the fields of IP infringement and IP crime, both here and in our responses to the e-survey. The fight against counterfeiting is far from being only the protection of private rights. Due its proven links with cross-border organised crime, IP crime has been reinstated by the Member States as a priority under the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) for 2022-25. Europol’s IP Crime Co-ordination Coalition, with the EUIPO’s support, works with Member States, Law Enforcement Authorities (“LEAs”), OLAF and right holders to organise cross-border operations and intelligence gathering; in some circumstances it can also now receive intelligence directly from industry. Counterfeit goods are estimated by the OECD and EUIPO1 to account for almost 6% of all imports by value into the EU, translating directly into tax and duties evasion.

EUIPO1 to account for almost 6% of all imports by value into the EU, translating directly into tax and duties evasion. Multiple studies2 prove the high socio-economic damage of this illicit trade, in direct consumer harm (financial and physical), depletion of national revenues and legal EU employment and the use of illegally-gained profits to fund many other criminal activities (“poly- criminality”)3. By default, no counterfeit product complies with EU legislation or standards. As such we are collectively engaged in the fight against counterfeits to protect EU citizens.

…legislation or standards. As such we are collectively engaged in the fight against counterfeits to protect EU citizens. The EU’s innovators and creators, on whom we rely for European competitiveness and to rebuild our economies after the current crises, do not only suffer reputational and financial loss, but are forced to divert ever more of their resources away from their core businesses into trying to clean on- and offline markets over which they have no control. Many micro and smaller companies simply cannot do so. Even our environment is endangered with the production and transportation of goods that should never have been made and cannot be sustainably destroyed or recycled as we do not know their raw materials.

…that should never have been made and cannot be sustainably destroyed or recycled as we do not know their raw materials. As such, we are rather concerned about the terminology in this consultation, which may be misinterpreted as downgrading the priority given by EU Customs to the fight against counterfeiting, despite repeated high- level recognition of the importance of IP as one of Europe’s most important intangible assets. 1. Concerns as to the omission of “illegal” and/or “counterfeit” goods in the call for evidence “Intellectual property” is mentioned only once in the call for evidence, and in a negative context as one of the “new tasks” that customs struggle to enforce. “Illegal” products are again mentioned only once. References to “counterfeit” goods are an obvious omission throughout the text.

…products are again mentioned only once. References to “counterfeit” goods are an obvious omission throughout the text. 1 Global Trade in Fakes - A Worrying Threat (June 2021) 2 https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/observatory-publications 3 IP crime and its link to other serious crimes, 2020, Europol & EUIPO Ref.

IP crime and its link to other serious crimes, 2020, Europol & EUIPO Ref. Ares(2022)6399017 - 16/09/2022 2 Looking only at section A: counterfeits, by default, do not comply with EU standards; harm “the environment, jobs and innovation”; and are one of the best-known examples of the “systematic abuse of global e- commerce to bypass EU market controls and target EU consumers directly”, especially during the pandemic, and of cases involving “non-compliant suppliers [that] bypass market surveillance to send non-compliant goods as well as prohibited items directly to EU consumers.” However, these illegal goods are not specifically mentioned. We find this omission to be both surprising and potentially extremely damaging. IPR-infringing goods are not a stand-alone category that can be separated from any of the above abuses.

…damaging. IPR-infringing goods are not a stand-alone category that can be separated from any of the above abuses. If this text were to be misread as EU Customs downgrading the priority given to the fight against counterfeiting, it would risk damaging our international reputation and standing in the IP enforcement field as well as directly contradicting the EU’s strong support for IP protection in many global fora. 2. Refocussing customs’ resources We fully recognise that customs, indeed all LEAs, are over-worked and under-resourced, and that customs officers cannot physically control more than 1-2% of shipments. However, we also know that stopping illegal goods at the border is far more efficient than tracking them down once dispersed throughout the internal market.

…at the border is far more efficient than tracking them down once dispersed throughout the internal market. Further, the official reports published by the Commission and EUIPO show that detentions of counterfeit items at our borders continue to fall, which seems to be due to three main reasons: (1) the focus on small, rather than volume, consignments; (2) the lack of pre-arrival data; and (3) the low political priority afforded to training and deploying IPR-expert officers. In 20204, 85% of customs’ IPR cases were in the post/courier channels, rendering only 5% of detained articles, while sea/road transport accounted for 87% of articles but only 2.8% of cases. Rebalancing towards controls on large volume cargo is essential; many containers are filled with small items, e.g.

Rebalancing towards controls on large volume cargo is essential; many containers are filled with small items, e.g. stock for fulfilment centres, parcels pre-affranchised by the EU’s post offices in third countries or small packages for onward distribution. To be able to target effectively suspect containers, customs need pre-arrival data to feed into their risk analysis. Such targeted controls would maximise their success, reducing the burden on all LEAs and prevent the evasion of tax and duties, thus supporting customs’ main role as collectors of public revenue. More data dots could then be joined together as customs should log and store data on all their detentions, including small consignments, so everyone in the wider law enforcement families could update their own risk analysis and targeting methods.

…so everyone in the wider law enforcement families could update their own risk analysis and targeting methods. Right holders do not have visibility into illicit supply and trading channels; instead, this essential pre-arrival data is owned by, or at least visible to, the supply chain intermediaries, including: shipping and other transport and logistics operators; export, import and freight forwarding agents; customs intermediaries; postal and express courier operators; and online intermediaries, including platforms. Such businesses know, or should know, their business customers, with whom they have contracts. They should be able to verify shipping documentation, have details of repeat offenders and, if they have fulfilment centres and distribution networks, also have manifests and picking lists.

…repeat offenders and, if they have fulfilment centres and distribution networks, also have manifests and picking lists. The proactive, pre-arrival sharing of certain shipping and customer data with law enforcement should be standard commercial practice. Please see AIM’s submission to your customs risk management consultation from 2021 for further detail. Information shared by customs with right holders is also a challenge. In some Member States there is zero visibility on illicit goods being seized; for example, some customs will send counterfeit medicines to the Ministry of Health without reference to pharma companies. These products are then written off as unregistered medicines without ever informing the companies.

24 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗