Counterfeiting in the Canadian Market - Manitoba Chambers of ...

In 2009, the OECD completed a comprehensive paperwherein it tried to quantify the economic impact ofcounterfeit crime on a global scale. It accounted forthe fact that seizures do not reflect the full scope ofthe problem and for the fact that each counterfeitproduct does not represent a lost sale of the authenticgood. According to this study, the internationaltrade in counterfeit and pirated goods was valuedat USD 250 billion in 2007, 20 which, according to theInternational Monetary Fund, is an amount greaterthan the individual GDP of 148 countries. 21 This issimply a calculation of the value of tangible counterfeitgoods traded on the global market. It does not takeinto account the economic impact of lost tax revenuesin government coffers, the impact of intangible goods(e.g. digital copies), the cost of rebuilding a housewhen a counterfeit electrical cord causes a fire or thecost of human life taken by counterfeit medications.The lack of clear and credible data makes it difficultto drive policy makers to action and can compoundthe problem. Both the American and UK governmentshave acknowledged that there is a lack of clear andcredible data on the scope and scale of IP crime. TheUK IP Crime Strategy 2011 stated “the lack of clear andcredible data is a problem which needs to be urgentlyaddressed. The lack of a clear picture on the scope andscale of IP crime and its impact poses a real problemfor policy makers and for operations decision makerswho must decide how to prioritise IP crime alongsideother issues.” 22The most reliable data on the impact of counterfeitingand the prevalence of counterfeit goods is oftencollected by governments themselves. The challenge ofmeasuring the effect of counterfeiting in Canada is notonly impacted by the fact that it is impossible to painta picture that captures the full scale of counterfeiting;the Canadian system has no tools to track and reporton the instances of counterfeiting that are actuallydetected in the country. According to EuropeanCommission regulation 1891/2004, customs authoritiesin all EU member states are obliged to report statisticson customs seizures. This data should include thedescription and quantity of goods detained, their placeof origin, the means of transport used and the type ofIPR infringed. 23 To the contrary, the CBSA does nothave a mandate for reporting on IP crime at the border,and even if this information was maintained andwas accurate, the statistics would not account for theimpact of shipments that went undetected includingsmall shipments that are sent directly to the consumer.While recognizing that IP crime is difficult to detect,the RCMP in Project STRIDER – a National IntellectualProperty Crime Threat Assessment, 2005 to 2008 estimatedreported annual seizures at $63.6 million. 2420 OECD, Magnitude of Counterfeiting and Piracy of Tangible Products: An Update. November, 2009. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/27/44088872.pdf21 Nominal GDP list of countries for the year 2010. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/index.aspx22 “Prevention and Cure: The UK IP Crime Strategy 2011”, UK Intellectual Property Office, 2011. Available at: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipcrimestrategy2011.pdf23 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1891/200424 Royal Canadian Mounted Police, “Project STRIDER- a National Intellectual Property Crime Threat Assessment, 2005 to 2008”, Ottawa,Communications Canada, 2010. Available at http://publications.gc.ca/collections_2011/grc-rcmp/PS64-79-2010-eng.pdfCounterfeiting in the Canadian Market | The Canadian Intellectual Property Council 9