ACTA: What went wrong?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

ACTA: What went wrong?

IP lawyers lamented the public’s misunderstanding about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and discussed the future for the treaty in a workshop at the AIPPI Congress

ACTA drew an unprecedented response on the internet and street protests in Europe, with critics alleging lack of transparency in its negotiations and infringement of fundamental rights. Bryan Mercurio of the Chinese University of Hong Kong said that one thing that many critics failed to grasp is that ACTA was a permissive treaty, rather than one that required signatories to make significant, if any, changes to their laws.

In fact, he believes that this, rather than the criticisms of the protestors, was the real weakness. Countries such as the US, EU and Canada just looked at the treaty and said “nothing in ACTA requires us to change our laws”, he explains. Because of this, one of the treaty’s goals, which was to increase harmonisation, would not have been realised even if most countries ratified it.

Manon Rieger-Jansen of Bird & Bird in the Netherlands agreed, saying that it appears that many of the critics were responding to earlier drafts of the treaty, before some of the more controversial provisions were removed or watered down. Likewise, she argued that many of the concerns were unfounded, given the permissive nature of the treaty.

One example that Rieger-Jansen pointed to concerns the so-called digital environment provisions relating to internet service provider liability and graduated responses to serial internet copyright infringers. The text in ACTA states that signatories “may”, rather than “shall”, implement graduated response regimes, and that any system implemented should be provided “in accordance with its laws”.

Yusun Woo of Louis Vuitton Korea cited another example where she thinks misunderstandings fuelled the critics. Article 27(3) of ACTA contains language encouraging “cooperative efforts within the business community”, and those opposing the treaty appeared to have read it as mandatory.

What went wrong?

The panellists said that ACTA ran into serious opposition only because of the provisions concerning infringement on the internet. Concerns about internet access and what Mercurio refers as “an apparent fundamental right commit infringement” galvanised the protestors, the panellists suggested.

If those provisions were left out, ACTA would likely be ratified in the EU by now, Rieger-Jansen said.

The lessons learned from ACTA may have had a fundamental effect on how future trade treaties will be negotiated. Future treaties, including IP-related ones, will likely omit provisions involving internet infringement.

Mercurio, who has experience negotiating trade agreements in the past, also says that leaks are inevitable, so the parties may benefit from releasing information more frequently, in order to prevent the transparency arguments levelled against ACTA.


Download the AIPPI Congress News, published by Managing IP from Seoul, Korea, from our conference newspapers page.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Tim Gilman, who joined Kasowitz alongside three other partners, says he is excited to be part of the firm’s ‘elite’ litigation team
A backlash against a White House video promoting deportation and Casalonga opening a new office in Düsseldorf were also among the top talking points
The firm has brought on board two counsel and an associate to complement two previously revealed partner hires
Bradford Newman, who has joined the firm’s new Silicon Valley office as head of complex technology disputes, discusses plans to build the practice group and attract local talent
Managing IP summarises the highlights from the IP STARS rankings for copyright and IP transactions work, the final firm rankings release of the year
Developments included the first judgment from the Nordic Baltic division, an injunction covering the UK, and a new code of conduct
Alston & Bird acted for InterDigital, while Samsung was represented by Fish & Richardson, during the arbitration process
Powell Gilbert lawyers reveal how they navigated parallel EPO proceedings and collaborated with European peers to come out on top in the Nordic-Baltic Division’s first judgment
The firms posted increases in revenue and profit per equity partner, with both giving a nod to their IP expertise
EasyGroup, the owner of the easyJet airline, said in a press release that UK-based first-instance judges are “less experienced”, bringing a long-running debate back to the fore
Gift this article