Committee on International Trade Ordinary meeting

14:03 - 21:28

Speaker 2

The first submissions received are then published, and the stakeholders are given the possibility to respond to some of the submissions made. And the conclusions are then drawn from this exchange. All of these submissions are publicly available, including both the initial ones and the responses. So the watch list reflects not only the enforcement concerns, but it is also meant to raise risk awareness for consumers. As we know, IP infringements are also related to issues such as environmental damage, product safety hazards, and public health risks linked to counterfeit goods.

So the data that is reported is quite worrying. In 2024, almost 20,000,000 individual items infringing IP rights were seized at EU external borders. Piracy levels remain high. It is estimated that around 10 illegal accesses per Internet user per month happen on average in the EU. And the visits to piracy websites have actually increased by more than 6% compared to the previous year, particularly in software and music.

One point to make is, in particular, the live sports piracy IPTV, which has increased by 10%, reflecting how the services are becoming more professional and monetized by illegal streaming services. So these figures matter not only because of the direct economic harm to the European creators, innovators, and investors, but also because they point to systemic risks, unsafe products, loss of tax revenue, links to organized crime, and erosion of trust in the digital economy. So, the watch list distinguishes between several categories of these service providers, particularly online service providers. So first would be online services offering or facilitating access to copyright-protected content. So, these would be mostly directly infringing websites.

So, this includes the so-called cyber lockers, stream-ripping services, linking and referral sites, peer-to-peer and BitTorrent index platforms, unlicensed dollar sites, piracy applications, hosting services, and unlicensed IPTV services. So, this is the more straightforward group, let's say, of the types of websites that are considered to be facilitating or benefiting from IP infringement. Then, the second category is e-commerce platforms and social media services. So these, in our report, are addressed with particular care because, of course, they are legitimate sites that are not accused of infringing activity as such, but they are included when we have established that they are lagging behind industry standards and best practices in preventing the availability of counterfeit goods and unauthorized content. So then, the third category is the physical marketplaces in many countries around the world, where the sale of counterfeit goods is still very high.

And here, just also in terms of methodology, we have our delegations in all these different countries verifying the sites physically and confirming the presence of the counterfeits. So, compared to the previous report, this time there was less prominence given to online pharmacies. This was one of our major focuses in some of the earlier reports. It looks like some of the efforts to limit the availability of counterfeits through online pharmacies have worked, and the targeted enforcement has worked. And there are some concrete examples of how they have become less available.

So, maybe a word about how these instruments are used by the Commission. So, the publication of these reports is not an end in itself. They are operational tools for the Commission. So their main purpose is really for the commission to be able to set the priorities and to inform the numerous IP dialogues and committees that we hold with third countries. With some countries like China, we have an informal IP dialogue that we run every year, and many of the issues reported are raised there.

With some other countries, we, of course, have much more structured exchanges through the free trade agreement frameworks, and we are able to raise these issues through that channel. We also use the information that we collect through these reports to support our technical cooperation programs. So, IP area is quite special in that sense. We are very much supported by the EU IP Office as well as around the world. It's a new agency based in Alicante, Spain.

And we work together to target the specific EU actions under the programs that are implemented by the EUIPO around the world. And now we have covered most of the world with these programs. We cover China, Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Caribbean, and the neighborhood. So, all of this is being channeled basically into these technical cooperation programs. So, of course, the report provides us a kind of shared factual basis for engagement with partner countries.

In the case of the watch list, specific operators of the websites and platforms also reach out to us and provide information on their efforts to limit IP infringements on their sites. So the message of this report is quite consistent. Just maybe to finish this presentation, we do not believe that IP protection is a kind of abstract legal issue. It is a core policy instrument, an economic instrument directly linked to innovation, competitiveness, consumer safety, and, of course, the integrity of this single market. So the challenges with IP involve, in particular, the digital sphere, and they are very often cross-border.

So, our response must remain evidence-based, cooperative where possible, and firm where necessary. So, with these reports, the commission is allocating attention where it matters most. And in doing so, we seek to better protect European creativity, investment, and technological leadership. Thank you.

21:31 - 21:43

Bernd Lange

So, thanks a lot. Firm, if necessary, and cooperative, if possible. Yeah? Okay. Great.

So, Young, you have the floor for 2 minutes.

21:45 - 24:19

Speaker 4

Thank you very much, and thank you for this report. A very interesting and important report, I have to say. I am all for a very strong IP regime. We know that companies that invest in IP grow faster, have stronger competitiveness, and create good-paying jobs for Europeans. So, of course, we have to defend the IP rights of European companies.

I think my main question to the commission is to get a better grasp of what we will do now. So now, with this report, we have a good sense of where the problem is. But I'd like to go into more detail about how we can work to make sure that it doesn't look as bad next year and the year after. More specifically, it is interesting to see that, both for priority two and priority three countries, several of the countries have FTA agreements that we have recently signed or are in the process of negotiating. So one of the questions is, how do you see that, for example, we have, of course, Argentina and Brazil here?

We also have Indonesia. How will our FTAs help in this process? More specifically, I see that we have this entire Invest Verde program in the Mercosur countries. So maybe you can expand a bit on how this has helped us in that case. And then I know we have the IP SME Help Desk.

And, of course, this is an issue that is important for all companies. But for SMEs, it's even harder to deal with all the issues, especially if there are counterfeits. So maybe, how can you expand a bit on how active this is? How many SMEs are reaching out? Are there ways we can improve this?

My third question would be how we can increase the pressure on our trading partners, especially those that have not yet joined key international IP conventions, because I imagine that it is even harder if they have not joined; then we have a sense of pressuring them. But if they haven't, how do we act then? I guess that would be my main question for now. Thank you.

24:19 - 24:21

Thanks a lot. Paulo?

24:24 - 25:46

Brando Benifei

Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, protecting intellectual property in third countries is, first and foremost, a fairness issue in trade. When Europeans know how and brands are copied abroad, it's our jobs, innovation, and local value chains that pay the price. From Italian winemakers and protected geographical indications to designers, engineers, and creators. That's why strong IP provisions in FTAs and in the WTO agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights must translate into real-world protection.

Unfortunately, enforcement is where the system too often breaks down. Counterfeits move fast through online marketplaces and flood the EU market, harming EU brands. Customs and market surveillance struggle to keep pace. What concrete steps will the Commission take, together with customs platforms and other actors in the supply chain, to make enforcement faster, more coordinated, and SME-friendly? Finally, China remains a systemic problem, not only an IP challenge but also part of a broader geopolitical competition over technology and standards.

How will the Commission use trade tools and bilateral dialogue with China to secure measurable improvements and protect Europe's strategic industries? Thank you.

25:46 - 27:39

Bernd Lange

Thanks a lot. Are there any further requests for the floor? Then, from my side, two elements. One, a bit going in the direction of. So, we have some trade agreements, and we also have some elements regarding IPR protection in the trade agreement.

Going to one of these countries, at the airport, I got offers for bags and shoes from Italy and other places. It is totally clear that they are not real. So, what is the mechanism to motivate our partners, with whom we have a trade agreement to execute, and what is included in the agreement? And secondly, Jorg mentioned Indonesia. This is on the list: three, but also Thailand.

And we are negotiating with Thailand on how we can really integrate better enforcement in such an agreement. And my second item is going a little bit in the direction of China. Of course, we know all the issues and problems of misuse of IPR, and also the situation that China is trying to avoid going to court, even in a foreign country. What about these standard essential patterns where China is trying to misuse market power to put pressure on consumers in this direction and therefore also harming the IPR of companies? So, some small questions for you.

27:42 - 35:42

Speaker 2

Thank you very much, and thank you as well for the questions. All very relevant, and also thank you for your comments supporting our efforts to ensure stronger IP protection enforcement in third countries. So we couldn't agree more, of course, with that statement. How to make it better in practice? That is, of course, the key question.

So, as I said, the report is meant to be more of a diagnostic tool that allows us to see which issues are priority issues, and then we have to develop a plan on how to address them. I think the FTAs were mentioned a few times, and this indeed has been one of our key ways of trying to improve, in particular, the legislative frameworks in the different countries. If I give examples, for example, a country like Vietnam that used to be quite high on our priority list. And following an FTA, they have made huge intellectual property reforms. They have actually amended their laws and improved the enforcement.

Not to say that there are no issues. There are always issues. But there are ways to improve the framework through our FDA negotiations. So the IP chapters, as such, are quite complex. They have a kind of substantive IP rights, but they have a very strong section on IP enforcement.

Then, of course, what we can agree on in FTAs are the actual rules, the minimum standards that the countries have to follow. Then what happens in reality, then it's quite a separate story. So, we try to work, let's say, through several aspects. First of all, we want strong rules in our FTAs. We want a good structure of engagement through committees, and in particular, we have our regular IP committees where we raise issues with the countries concerned.

And, as I said, this is also supported by our technical cooperation programs. If I can give an example, on plant varieties, that is quite a niche IP right, but very important for IP right holders. We have made very good progress in countries like Colombia, which are very famous exporters of fake roses. So, roses that are basically grown in breach of the plant variety protection. And this issue, working together basically through the technical assistance programs through NFTA, we have managed to really diminish that problem and get engagement of the Colombian authorities to address this issue.

Then, the countries that were mentioned as priorities are three countries: Brazil, Argentina, and Indonesia. So both Mercosur and the FDA with Indonesia have a comprehensive IP chapter. So, it is really up to a very high level of standards. So we are hoping that this will give us a kind of new impetus, once agreements are in place, of course, to be able to engage with those countries and improve their IP regimes further. On the IPSME help desk, this is indeed something that is actually well, it's not run by trade.

It's a wider project, and it runs in different regions of the world. I think there are, of course, limitations to how much the help desk can do because it cannot provide legal advice that may be needed by specific companies in specific situations, but it does give a first, let's say, port of call for anybody that needs to get some of the basics right. Then I think the international conventions, like you mentioned, are indeed a key point because the IP area is very much harmonized already by various conventions around the world. And getting some of our FTA partners to join these treaties is quite key. So, for example, Thailand, which we are negotiating with, has already committed to joining some of the treaties that they are not yet part of, and that will really help our right holders there as well.

What else did I miss? So, China. So China is, of course, as you can imagine, special. It's our priority one country, but we have, of course, more limited tools that we can engage China with on these issues. And as I mentioned, and as the report really explains, China has basically improved its IP regime on paper to an extent that it could become quite equivalent to the highest standards of IP.

The problem is that their regime is applied in very clearly discriminatory ways. So they managed to use the regime to basically push and build up their own companies while, of course, discriminating against foreign right holders. And this is very much the key point on which we are focusing. And the two cases were mentioned. Just to let you know that the commission has decided to launch a second case that is a follow-up.

Well, not a follow-up. It's a separate case, but it is related. That is about the global rate setting where the Chinese courts have taken jurisdiction and decided on the global rates that the companies, including European companies, would have to pay for their standard essential patents, to the detriment of the European innovators. So we are taking this very seriously, and we are going ahead with this case at the WTO. I think I went through your questions.

I think GIs were mentioned as well. That, of course, remains our key priority as well. And this is where the FDA negotiations really help us to make strong breakthroughs in GI protection for the European right holders. Maybe the final point on the counterfeits coming into the EU and the complexity of the issue. So the legal framework that we have in the EU is pretty strong.

The customs authorities can take action. Very often, the issue is the administrative capacity to deal with this because we all know now the numbers, about the millions and millions of these packages that come in, and for the customs authorities to be able to spot and seize them is quite an issue. And this is, of course, part of where the commission is looking in the future of customs reform, including the regulation that we have on IPR enforcement at customs. So, this is one of the issues that will be looked at. But the issue is, of course, wider because some of these products that come through customs are not only IPR infringing or not even IPR infringing, but they can still cause dangers to consumers.

And there are basically other parts of this kind of wider illicit rate issue that need to be addressed more comprehensively. So I hope I answered the questions, and thank you very much again for having us here to be able to talk about this. Thank you.

35:43 - 49:19

Bernd Lange

Yeah. Thanks a lot. Quite interesting, and that is really a key element of our industrial policy: that we have proper protection of IPR. And this Tmall and Xi'an issue is quite relevant. Euros 4,600,000,000 in packages last year. It's not easy to control, and therefore, it's a big challenge.

Thanks a lot. This concludes item 10 of our agenda. Then we have item eleven, first vote. Before going into the subject, I would like to make a test vote. Are you happy that wintertime is now coming to an end?

The vote is open. We missed seven votes. So many people, oh, now it's coming. Five votes are missing. Okay.

The vote is closed, and it's a clear majority, with a much stronger preference for summer. Good. Thanks a lot. Vote 11 is on: the revision of the fund investment screening regulation, the agreement with the Council. So, one vote.

The vote is open. Foreign direct investment regulation. The vote is open. And the vote is closed, and the result is clear: a big majority for the result of the twilight negotiations. So then we switch to point 14, one of the Brexit issues: the tariff rate quota with China based on the negotiated letter.

And it's only one vote, and the vote is open. And the vote is closed, and it is clearly adopted. And then we switch to point 15, our resolution for the WTO. And the first amendment we have to vote on is Amendment 32. Who is in favor?

Against. Abstention rejected. Compromise three in favor? Against abstention, adopted. 30, excuse me.

Compromise 8 in favor, against, abstention adopted. 37 in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 38 in favor?

Against abstention. Let's check. 38, the vote is open. And the vote is closed, and it has been rejected. And then we switch to compromise six in favor, against abstention adopted.

Then we switch to 41 in favor, against abstention adopted. 42 in favor, against, abstention, rejected. Com 43 in favor. Against. Abstention has been adopted.

Compromise one in favor. Against. Abstention is adopted. 44 in favor. Against.

Abstention rejected. 48 in favor. Against. Abstention is rejected. Compromise two in favor.

Against. Abstention is adopted. Then we come to compromise four, adopted in favor against abstention. Then we switch to compromise five: in favor, against, abstention. Adopted. 65 in favor, against, abstention rejected.

67 in favor, against and abstentions rejected. Compromise seven was adopted in favor, against, and abstention. 69 in favor, against, abstention, rejected. 78 in favor, against, abstention adopted. Thanks a lot.

79 in favor, against, abstention, rejected. Compromise nine in favor, against, abstention adopted. 85 in favor, against, abstention, rejected. 86 in favor. Against.

Abstention. Rejected. 87 in favor. Against. Abstention.

I think it was rejected. But let's check. The vote is open, and then it is closed. It is clearly rejected. 88 in favor, against, abstention rejected; 90 in favor, against, abstention rejected; 89 in favor, against, abstention rejected.

Compromise 11 was adopted with 11 votes in favor, against, and abstentions. Compromise 10 was adopted with 10 votes in favor, against, and abstentions. 95 in favor, against, abstention rejected. Then we switch to 96 in favor, against, abstention rejected; 97 in favor, against, abstention rejected; 98 in favor, against, abstention rejected; 99 in favor, against, abstention rejected; one in favor, against, abstention rejected; two in favor, against, abstention rejected; three in favor, against, abstention rejected; four in favor, against? Abstention rejected.

Five in favor? Against? Abstention is rejected. Six in favor? Against?

Once again, seven in favor, against, abstention rejected, and nine in favor against. Abstention rejected. Eight in favor? Against. Abstention, check.

9. The vote is open. Excuse me. 8. Excuse me.

8. The vote is open. And it is adopted. Compromise 14 in favor, against abstention, adopted. Then we switch to compromise 12.

Logic. Yeah. In favor: against abstention adopted, and compromise 13 in favor, against abstention adopted. And then we switch to 17 in favor against abstention once again: 17 in favor, against abstention. Check. 17, the vote is open.

And the vote is closed, and it is adopted. 18 in favor. Against. Abstention. Rejected.

19 in favor? Against. Abstention. Rejected. 20 in favor?

Against. Abstention. Rejected? 23 in favor? Was the motion against abstention rejected?

22 in favor? Was the motion against abstention rejected? 25 in favor? Against. Abstention.

Rejected. 24 in favor? Against. Abstention. I think it was rejected.

Check. 24. Yes. And the vote is closed, and it has been rejected. And then we come to 26 in favor, against, abstention rejected.

27 in favor, against, abstention adopted. 28 in favor, against, abstention, rejected. 29 in favor, against, abstention, rejected; 30 in favor, against, abstention, rejected; and 31 in favor, against, abstention, rejected. And the final vote is electronic; the vote is open. And the vote is closed.

Clearly adopted, so we have a wonderful mandate for the conference in Jahunde. Thanks a lot. Thanks a lot. We had the monitoring groups, and the monitoring group on the United Arab Emirates took place on the 28th. Please be quiet.

I could roughly understand, but I could understand if you are leaving the room. But please do it quietly. So, monitoring groups are an integrated part of our work as a committee and are really relevant, and it's a duty to report back. We had the monitoring group on the United Arab Emirates on January 28. Our rapporteur can't be here, but it was an important monitoring group because, as you know, we now have negotiations with the UAE.

On parts of the negotiations, the progress is quite good, but on other parts, it is quite limited. And this was discussed. We had a monetary group meeting on Maghreb on January 28, where we discussed the situation in the EU-Morocco protocol, and we also discussed this with the coordinators. And we will come back to the full committee quite soon. That was it.

Thanks a lot. We will see each other in the plenary quite soon. And, of course, at 03:00 here again, together with Mauro Safkovich. Thanks.