Abstract
Consumer protection plays an increasingly important role in intellectual property law, both as an objective of legislation and as an argument in the political debate. Consumer interests may be protected by intellectual property law, but consumers may also need protection against excessive protection and enforcement. While the TRIPS Agreement does not explicitly mention consumer interests, Articles 7 and 8 provide a basis for taking them into account in the course of interpretation. This chapter identifies three levels of interaction between intellectual property law and consumer interests. First, the interests of users in general and of consumers in particular are one factor in the welfare balance which underlies intellectual property law. Secondly, consumers may be affected in their role as users of intangible subject-matter. Thirdly, some areas of intellectual property law, most notably trade mark law, protect the consumers’ decision making process against distortion. The chapter concludes that while consumer interests have rightly entered the intellectual property arena, they are too often instrumentalised by both intellectual property optimists and pessimists.
Prof. Dr. Ansgar Ohly, LL.M. (Cambridge) is Professor at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich and Visiting Professor at the University of Oxford.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
N. Reich (2003), Verbraucherinteressen und gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, in N. Reich & H.-W. Micklitz (Eds.), Europäisches Verbraucherrecht, pp. 219, 227.
- 2.
See the references infra at Sect. 3.4.
- 3.
Articles 13 (copyright), 17 (trade marks) and 30 (patents).
- 4.
Article 23(3) TRIPS provides that in the case of homonymous geographical indications for wines, protection shall be accorded to each indication, but member states shall take into account the need to ensure equitable treatment of consumers and to make sure that consumers are not misled.
- 5.
See the US Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 and Recital 1 of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Criminal Measures aimed at ensuring the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, COM/2006/0168 final - COD 2005/0127.
- 6.
Infra at Sect. 3.4.
- 7.
See Article 2 of the US Anti-Counterfeit Consumer Protection Act, which provides (italics added):
The counterfeiting of trademarked and copyrighted merchandise—
-
(1)
has been connected with organized crime;
-
(2)
deprives legitimate trademark and copyright owners of substantial revenues and consumer goodwill;
-
(3)
poses health and safety threats to United States consumers;
-
(4)
eliminates United States jobs; and
-
(5)
is a multibillion-dollar drain on the United States economy.
-
(1)
- 8.
T. Kreutzer (2011), Verbraucherschutz im Urheberrecht, pp. 82–98.
- 9.
As is the case in Germany, see § 97a(3) of the German Copyright Act, and T. Kreutzer (2011), Verbraucherschutz im Urheberrecht, pp. 82–98.
- 10.
Available online at http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-037-028.aspx.
- 11.
See Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights, OJ L 304/64 of 22.11.2011; Article 2(a) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC, OJ L 149/22 of 11.6.2005.
- 12.
J. Drexl (1998), Die wirtschaftliche Selbstbestimmung des Verbrauchers, pp. 282–302.
- 13.
J.H. Barton (2001), The Economics of TRIPS: International Trade in Information-Intensive Products, 33 Geo. Wash. Int’l L.R. 2001, 473, 487.
- 14.
On the economic justification of patent law see W.M. Landes & R.A. Posner (2003), The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law, p. 294; R.D. Blair & T.F. Cotter (2005), Intellectual Property – Economic and Legal Dimensions of Rights and Remedies, pp. 13 et seq.; D. Guellec & B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2007), The Economics of the European Patent System, pp. 49–51.
- 15.
As Abraham Lincoln famously put it in his Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions (1858–1859).
- 16.
See Article 9(2) Berne Convention, Article 13 TRIPS and the WTO Panel Report at 7.71.
- 17.
Panel Report, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R, adopted 7 April 2000, DSR 2000:V, p. 25; C.M. Correa (2007), Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, p. 311.
- 18.
S. Reyes-Knoche (2009), in P.-T. Stoll, J. Busche & K. Arend (Eds.), WTO-Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Article 30 para. 39.
- 19.
R.H. Bork (1978), The Antitrust Paradox, p. 405; European Commission, case AT.39985 – Motorola, para. 480; G.J. Werden (2011), Consumer Welfare and Competition Policy, in J. Drexl, W. Kerber, R. Podszun (Eds.), Competition Policy and the Economic Approach, pp. 11–41.
- 20.
ECJ, RTE and ITP v. Commission – Magill, joined cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P, EU:C:1995:98, para. 30; ECJ, IMS Health, C-418/01, EU:C:2004:257, para. 37.
- 21.
The case-law and literature on standardisation cannot be reviewed here. See CJEU, Huawei v. ZTE, case C-170/13, EU:C:2015:477, German Federal Supreme Court (BGH), IIC 2005, 741 – Standard-Spundfass/Standard Tight-Head Drum; IIC 2010, 369 – Orange Book Standard, and R.P. Merges & J.M. Kuhn (2009), An Estoppel Doctrine for Patented Standards, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 2009, 1; P. Picht (2014), Standardsetzung und Patentmissbrauch – Schlagkraft und Entwicklungsbedarf des europäischen Kartellrechts, GRUR Int. 2014, 1; H. Ullrich (2010), Patents and Standards – A Comment on the German Federal Supreme Court Decision Orange Book Standard, IIC 2010, 337.
- 22.
See for example Controller of Patents (Mumbai), Natco v. Bayer, IIC 2012, 597.
- 23.
See, in particular, the chapters by C. Antons, A.A. Machnicka and K.D. Beiter in Part IV of this book.
- 24.
WHO (2006), Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights, pp. 105–106.
- 25.
For a discussion of the areas of law protecting the consumer interest in health and safety see A. Ohly (2012), Counterfeiting and Consumer Protection, in C. Geiger (Ed.), Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property, pp. 24, 32–36.
- 26.
See M. Blakeney (2009), International Proposals for the Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: International Concern with Counterfeiting and Piracy, IPQ 2009, 1, 10; and Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2009), para. 5.112.
- 27.
See A. Ohly (2012), Counterfeiting and Consumer Protection, in C. Geiger (Ed.), Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property, pp. 24, 40.
- 28.
See the criticism by B. Hugenholtz (2000), Caching and Copyright: The Right of Temporary Copying, EIPR 2000, 482–493.
- 29.
See Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167/10 of 22.06.2001, and, on the problems of interpretation surrounding this provision, CJEU, Public Relations Consultants Association, C-360/13, EU:C:2014:1195, and LG Köln MMR 2014, 193 – Redtube (on the issue of whether watching streamed illegal content on the internet amounts to a copyright infringement).
- 30.
See I. Hargreaves (2011), Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, para. 5.10: “Under the European approach to exceptions, new kinds of copying which have become possible due to advancing digital technology are automatically unlawful.”
- 31.
See Ch. Geiger, J. Griffiths & R. Hilty (2008), A Balanced Interpretation of the “Three-Step Test” in Copyright Law; M. Senftleben (2004), Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test.
- 32.
The term was coined by Alvin Toeffler: A. Toeffler (1980), The Third Wave, pp. 284–285.
- 33.
See R. Tushnet (2008), User-Generated Discontent: Transformation in Practice, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 2008, 497; N. Elkin-Koren (2007), Making Room for Consumers under the DCMA, 22 Berk. J.L. & Tech. 2007, 1119, 1142–1146; but see the criticism by J.C. Ginsburg (1995), Putting Cars on the “Information Superhighway”: Authors, Exploiters, and Copyright in Cyberspace, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1995, 1466, 1468, 1484–1488.
- 34.
Section 29.21 Canadian Copyright Act.
- 35.
See, for example, Cariou v. Prince, 134 U.S. 618 (2013): appropriation art as “fair use”.
- 36.
The CJEU has held that the concept of parody must be given an autonomous interpretation, see CJEU, Deckmyn v. Vandersteen, C-201/13, EU:C:2014:2132, paras. 14–17.
- 37.
Section 24 of the German Copyright Act.
- 38.
But see BGH GRUR 1999, 984 – Laras Tochter (sequel to the novel “Doctor Zhivago” as copyright infringement); BGH GRUR 2009, 403 – Metall auf Metall I (digital sampling not justified by Section 24 when infringer could have been expected to produce the sound sequence himself).
- 39.
A. Ohly (2014), Urheberrecht in der digitalen Welt, Gutachten F zum 70. Deutschen Juristentag.
- 40.
See, for example, T. Kreutzer (2011), Verbraucherschutz im Urheberrecht.
- 41.
See for German law M.-O. Mackenrodt (2015), Technologie statt Vertrag; for US law N. Elkin-Koren (2007), Making Room for Consumers under the DCMA, 22 Berk. J.L. & Tech. 2007, 1119, 1125–1138.
- 42.
CJEU, Usedsoft v. Oracle, C-128/11, EU:C:2012:407.
- 43.
See A. Ohly (2015), Exhaustion of Rights: A Concept for the Digital World?, in D. Beldiman (Ed.), Innovation, Competition, Collaboration; H. Haberstumpf (2012), Der Handel mit gebrauchter Software im harmonisierten Urheberrecht, CR 2012, 561; H. Zech, (2013), Vom Buch zur Cloud, 5 ZGE/IPJ 2013, 368, 383.
- 44.
For extension to other types of files M. Grützmacher (2013), Endlich angekommen im digitalen Zeitalter!?, 5 ZGE 2013, 46, 81; R. Hilty, K. Köklü & F. Hafenbrädl (2013), Software Agreements: Stocktaking and Outlook – Lessons from the UsedSoft v. Oracle Case from a Comparative Law Perspective, IIC 2013, 263, 284; against OLG Hamm GRUR 2014, 853 – Hörbuch-AGB; M. Stieper (2012), Anmerkung zu EuGH – Usedsoft, ZUM 2012, 668, 670.
- 45.
M. Stieper (2012), Anmerkung zu EuGH – Usedsoft, ZUM 668, 670; H. Zech (2014), Lizenzen für die Benutzung von Musik, Film und E-Books in der Cloud, ZUM 2014, 3, 9.
- 46.
For an overview see A. Dietz (1995), in F.-K. Beier et al. (Eds.), Urhebervertragsrecht, pp. 1–50.
- 47.
M. Lehmann (1986), Unfair Use of and Damage to the Reputation of Well-Known Marks, Names and Indications of Source in Germany: Some Aspects of Law and Economics, IIC 1986, 746, 761.
- 48.
See, for example, Ty Inc. v. Perryman, 306 F.3d 509, 510 (7th Cir. 2002); S. Dogan & M. Lemley (2004), Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 2004, 777, 786–789.
- 49.
G.A. Akerlof (1970), The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism, 84 Q.J. Econ. 1970, 488.
- 50.
See WIPO (1982), The Role of Industrial Property Law in the Protection of Consumers, WIPO DOC CORP/III/1; J. Drexl (1998), Die wirtschaftliche Selbstbestimmung des Verbrauchers, pp. 595, 628–629.
- 51.
A. Kraft (1980), Verbraucherschutz im Markenrecht, GRUR 1980, 416; see also the references given by J. Drexl (1998), Die wirtschaftliche Selbstbestimmung des Verbrauchers, pp. 593–594; F. Henning-Bodewig & A. Kur (1988), Marke und Verbraucher, pp. 211, 225; A. Sattler (2015), Emanzipation und Expansion des Markenrechts, pp. 372–381.
- 52.
Max Planck Institute (2011), Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System, paras. 1.50–1.51.
- 53.
ECJ, L’Oréal v. Bellure, C-487/07, EU:C:2009:378, para. 58.
- 54.
For example in the case of comparative advertising, see ibid., para. 53; see the criticism by A. Kur, L. Bently & A. Ohly (2009), Sweet Smells and a Sour Taste – The ECJ’s L’Oréal decision; M.E. Paulus (2014), Markenfunktionen und referierende Benutzung, pp. 132–140, 174–182.
- 55.
Ty Inc. v. Perryman, 306 F.3d 509, 511 (7th Cir. 2002); S. Dogan & M. Lemley (2004), Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 2004, 777, 790–792.
- 56.
R. Tushnet (2008), Gone in Sixty Milliseconds: Trademark Law and Cognitive Science, 86 Tex. L.R. 2008, 507–568.
- 57.
See Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights, OJ L 304/64 of 22.11.2011; Article 2(a) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC, OJ L 149/22 of 11.6.2005.
- 58.
BGH GRUR 2013, 1161 – Hard Rock Café.
- 59.
Under a traditional analysis the tests of confusion in trade mark law and unfair competition law are different: Trade mark law adopts a more abstract and normative viewpoint, whereas unfair competition law takes into account all the circumstances of the case. The CJEU, however, has recently shown the tendency to adopt one single approach. See A. Ohly (2014), Interfaces between Trade Mark Protection and Unfair Competition Law: Confusion about Confusion and Misconceptions about Misappropriation?, in N. Lee et al. (Eds.), Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity, pp. 33, 40–47.
- 60.
A possible starting point is the principle of proportionality recognised by Article 13 UCPS, see A. Ohly (2014), Die Interessenabwägung im Rahmen des Irreführungsverbots und ihre Bedeutung für die Wertungseinheit von Lauterkeits- und Kennzeichenrecht, in W. Büscher et al. (Eds.), Festschrift für Joachim Bornkamm zum 65. Geburtstag, pp. 423–442; R. Sack (2014), Irreführungsverbot und Interessenabwägung in der deutschen Rechtsprechung, GRUR 2014, 609–620.
- 61.
J.F. Kennedy (1962), Special Message to the Congress on Protecting the Consumer Interest.
- 62.
See supra, Sect. 2.1.
References
Akerlof, G.A. (1970), The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism, 84 Q.J. Econ. 1970, 488, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press Journals
Barton, J.H. (2001), The Economics of TRIPS: International Trade in Information-Intensive Products, 33 Geo. Wash. Int’l L.R. 2001, 473, Washington: The George Washington International Law Review
Blair, R.D. & Cotter, T.F. (2005), Intellectual Property – Economic and Legal Dimensions of Rights and Remedies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Blakeney, M. (2009), International Proposals for the Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: International Concern with Counterfeiting and Piracy, IPQ 2009, 1, London: Sweet & Maxwell
Bork, R.H. (1978), The Antitrust Paradox, New York: Free Press
Ch. Geiger, J. Griffiths & R. Hilty (2008), Declaration: A Balanced Interpretation of the “Three-Step Test” in Copyright Law, 39 IIC 2008, 707, available at: http://www.ip.mpg.de/en/news/declaration_on_the_three_step_test.html (accessed 20 May 2015)
Drexl, J. (1998), Die wirtschaftliche Selbstbestimmung des Verbrauchers, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
Dietz, A. (1995), in F.-K. Beier et al. (Eds.), Urhebervertragsrecht, München: C. H. Beck
Dogan, S. & Lemley, M. (2004), Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 2004, 777, Houston: Houston Law Review
Elkin-Koren, N. (2007), Making Room for Consumers under the DCMA, 22 Berk. J.L. & Tech. 2007, 1119, Berkeley: UC Berkeley School of Law
Ginsburg, J.C. (1995), Putting Cars on the “Information Superhighway”: Authors, Exploiters, and Copyright in Cyberspace, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1995, 1466, New York: Columbia University School of Law
Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2009), available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228849/0118404830.pdf (accessed 20 May 2015)
Guellec, D. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2007), The Economics of the European Patent System, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Grützmacher, M. (2013), Endlich angekommen im digitalen Zeitalter!?, 5 ZGE 2013, 46, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
Haberstumpf, H. (2012), Der Handel mit gebrauchter Software im harmonisierten Urheberrecht, CR 2012, 561, Köln: Otto Schmidt
Henning-Bodewig, F. & Kur, A. (1988), Marke und Verbraucher. Vol. I., Weinheim: VCH
Hilty, R., Köklü, K. & Hafenbrädl, F. (2013), Software Agreements: Stocktaking and Outlook – Lessons from the UsedSoft v. Oracle Case from a Comparative Law Perspective, IIC 2013, 263, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer
Hugenholtz, B. (2000), Caching and Copyright: The Right of Temporary Copying, EIPR 2000, 482, London: Sweet & Maxwell
Kennedy, J.F. (1962), Special Message to Congress on Protecting Consumer Interest, 15 March 1962, available at: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-037-028.aspx (accessed 20 May 2015)
Kraft, A. (1980), Verbraucherschutz im Markenrecht, GRUR 1980, 416, Munich: C.H. Beck
Kreutzer, T. (2011), Verbraucherschutz im Urheberrecht, available at: http://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/mediapics/urheberrecht_gutachten_2011.pdf (accessed 20 May 2015)
Kur, A., Bently, L. & Ohly, A. (2009), Sweet Smells and a Sour Taste – The ECJ’s L’Oréal decision, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1492032 (accessed 20 May 2015)
Landes, W.M. & Posner, R.A. (2003), The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law, Cambridge (MA): Belknap Press
Lehmann, M. (1986), Unfair Use of and Damage to the Reputation of Well-Known Marks, Names and Indications of Source in Germany: Some Aspects of Law and Economics, IIC 1986, 746, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer
Lincoln, A. (1858–1859), Lectures on Discoveries and Inventions, available at: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/discoveries.htm (accessed 20 May 2015)
Mackenrodt, M.-O. (2015), Technologie statt Vertrag, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
Max Planck Institute (2011), Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System, available at: http://www.ip.mpg.de/files/pdf2/mpi_final_report_with_synopsis.pdf (accessed 20 May 2015)
Merges, R.P. & Kuhn, J.M. (2009), An Estoppel Doctrine for Patented Standards, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 2009, 1–50, Berkeley: UC Berkeley School of Law
Ohly, A. (2012), Counterfeiting and Consumer Protection, in C. Geiger (Ed.), Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Ohly, A. (2014), Die Interessenabwägung im Rahmen des Irreführungsverbots und ihre Bedeutung für die Wertungseinheit von Lauterkeits- und Kennzeichenrecht, in W. Büscher et al. (Eds.), Festschrift für Joachim Bornkamm zum 65. Geburtstag, München: C. H. Beck
Ohly, A. (2014), Interfaces between Trade Mark Protection and Unfair Competition Law: Confusion about Confusion and Misconceptions about Misappropriation?, in: N. Lee et al. (Eds.), Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Ohly, A. (2014), Urheberrecht in der digitalen Welt, Gutachten F zum 70. Deutschen Juristentag, München: C.H. Beck
Ohly, A. (2015), Exhaustion of Rights: A Concept for the Digital World?, in D. Beldiman (Ed.), Innovation, Competition, Collaboration, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Paulus, M.E. (2014), Markenfunktionen und referierende Benutzung, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
Picht, P. (2014), Standardsetzung und Patentmissbrauch – Schlagkraft und Entwicklungsbedarf des europäischen Kartellrechts, GRUR Int. 2014, 1, Munich: C.H. Beck
Reich, N. (2003), Verbraucherinteressen und gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, in N. Reich and H.-W. Micklitz (Eds.), Europäisches Verbraucherrecht, 4th ed., Baden-Baden: Nomos
Reyes-Knoche, S. (2009), in P.-T. Stoll, J. Busche & K. Arend (Eds.), WTO-Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
Sack, R. (2014), Irreführungsverbot und Interessenabwägung in der deutschen Rechtsprechung, GRUR 2014, 60
Sattler, A. (2015), Emanzipation und Expansion des Markenrechts, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
Senftleben, M. (2004), Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test, The Hague, London, New York: Wolters Kluwer
Stieper, M. (2012), Anmerkung zu EuGH – Usedsoft, ZUM 2012, 668, Baden-Baden: Nomos
Toeffler, A. (1980), The Third Wave, New York: Bantam Books
Tushnet, R. (2008), Gone in Sixty Milliseconds: Trademark Law and Cognitive Science, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 2008, 507, Austin: University of Texas School of Law
Tushnet, R. (2008), User-Generated Discontent: Transformation in Practice, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 2008, 497, New York: Columbia University School of Law
Ullrich, H. (2010), Patents and Standards – A Comment on the German Federal Supreme Court Decision Orange Book Standard, IIC 2010, 337, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer
Werden, G.J. (2011), Consumer Welfare and Competition Policy, in J. Drexl, W. Kerber & R. Podszun (Eds.), Competition Policy and the Economic Approach, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
WIPO (1982), The Role of Industrial Property Law in the Protection of Consumers, WIPO DOC CORP/III/1
WHO (2006), Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights, available at: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/documents/thereport/ENPublicHealthReport.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 20 May 2015)
Zech, H. (2013), Vom Buch zur Cloud, 5 ZGE 2013, 368, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
Zech, H. (2014), Lizenzen für die Benutzung von Musik, Film und E-Books in der Cloud, ZUM 2014, 3, Baden-Baden: Nomos
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ohly, A. (2016). TRIPS and Consumer Protection. In: Ullrich, H., Hilty, R., Lamping, M., Drexl, J. (eds) TRIPS plus 20. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 25. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48107-3_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48107-3_22
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-48106-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-48107-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)