In the interests of transparency, WIPO ALERT Authorized Contributors provide details of their operating procedures in compiling their lists of websites which deliberately infringe copyright.
|
Authorized contributor |
National Council for Combating Piracy (CNCP) – Ministry of Justice and Public Security |
|
Description |
National Council for Combating Piracy and Crimes against Intellectual Property. Rodrigo Roca, President. |
|
Contact |
CNCP/SENACON – Esplanada dos Ministérios, |
|
Criteria |
The Inspection Authority (SFI) of the Brazilian Film Agency (ANCINE) will be responsible for assessing applications and submitting the approved list of infringing websites to the National Council for Combating Piracy to be sent to WIPO. When sending the list to WIPO, the National Council for Combating Piracy will ensure that it is clearly stated, by whatever means are necessary, that the Brazilian Film Agency did the work. The criteria for listing of a website will be in line with the Memorandum of Understanding on online advertising and intellectual property rights (2018): “websites and mobile applications... which have no substantial legitimate uses... [and] infringe copyright... on a commercial scale” (MoU, para. 1). The Anti-Piracy Coordination Office (CCP) will be the point of contact for communication between right holders and for communication with website operators. The Anti-Piracy Coordination Office will be responsible for the procedures for drawing up the provisional list and will, every 30 days, submit it for assessment by the Inspection Authority for submission of the approved list of infringing websites to WIPO. |
|
Procedure |
The procedure is as described in the Technical Cooperation Agreement concluded between the National Council for Combating Piracy and the Brazilian Film Agency. (a) Right holders prepare and submit applications: • Right holders investigate infringing websites and identify those that contain advertisements. Upon identifying an infringing website, they must send a standard message to (i) any contact email address found on that website; (ii) any contact email found in the relevant who.is record; and (iii) the Anti-Piracy Coordination Office of the Brazilian Film Agency. • The standard message informs the website operator that the right holder (or right-holder organization) believes, having examined the website, that it meets the criteria for inclusion on the list of infringing websites and that, therefore, the Brazilian Film Agency may identify the website for inclusion on the list. The message gives the contact address for the Anti-Piracy Coordination Office and asks the operator to send its comments to that address within five days. The message must also explain the possibility of review, should the operator intend to review any decision of the Anti-Piracy Coordination Office to include the website on the list of infringing websites. • The applicant submits a set of evidence to the Anti-Piracy Coordination Office, along with (i) a request for inclusion of the URL(s) in question on the list of infringing websites and (ii) a declaration that, on a given date, it sent the standard message to the contact email addresses found during the investigation (or that no contact address was found during the investigation) and did not receive a response (or, where a response was a received, a copy of it). (b) Authority assesses an application: • The Anti-Piracy Coordination Office assesses the evidence supporting the application and any comments received in opposition to the listing of the website and decides (i) if the website meets the inclusion criteria and (ii) whether there is any reason why the website should not be included on the list of infringing websites. • Where the response to (i) is negative, the responsible party must inform the applicant that the application has been rejected. The applicant may appeal to the Inspection Authority to have the decision revoked. • Where the responses to (i) and (ii) are both positive, the responsible party must inform the applicant of that fact, explaining the reasons why the website must not be listed, which could include the fact that a prosecution or complaint is currently before the courts. • The applicant may resubmit its application with additional evidence or appeal to the Inspection Authority, in order to have the website included on the list of infringing websites. (c) The Inspection Authority approves/updates the list of infringing websites: • Every 30 days, the Anti-Piracy Coordination Office must submit the provisional list of infringing websites to the Inspection Authority, recommending that the websites be included on the list of infringing websites. The Inspection Authority will decide whether websites should be listed, with the relevant data being forwarded to the National Council for Combating Piracy for subsequent uploading to the Building Respect for Intellectual Property Database. • The Inspection Authority must send the list to the National Council for Combating Piracy as a spreadsheet, which will be uploaded to the Building Respect for Intellectual Property Database. (d) Website operator requests review: • If, once a website has been listed, the operator requests a review of the decision (whether on the ground that the decision was incorrect or that the website is no longer of an infringing nature), the National Council for Combating Piracy sends the review request to the Inspection Authority. Where the Inspection Authority concludes that the listing was unjustified, the website will be removed from the list. Where the Inspection Authority is convinced that there are grounds for re-examining whether a website infringes intellectual property rights, it returns the matter to the Anti-Piracy Coordination Office, which must prepare a report for the Inspection Authority. On the basis of that report, the Inspection Authority decides whether to keep the website on the list of infringing websites or to remove it. The period for analysis of review requests is 60 days |
|
Status |
Public for advertising agencies and payment intermediaries |
|
Summary of the operational procedure for public dissemination |
The updated list of websites infringing intellectual property rights is circulated to advertising agencies that have signed a technical cooperation agreement with the National Council for Combating Piracy and to payment intermediaries that follow the Council’s Guide to Best Practice. |
|
Authorized contributor |
Hellenic Copyright Organization (Organismos Pneymatikhs Idioktisias (OPI)) |
|
Description |
The Hellenic Copyright Organization (OPI) constitutes the sole national competent authority for copyright and related rights’ issues. It was established under Art. 69 of the Law No. 2121/1993, entitled “Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural Issues» (Official Government Gazette Α/25/1993). The HCO is a legal entity under private law operating for the public benefit, which is supervised by the Ministry of Culture and Sports. Its Governing Board consists of seven members, while its Director is competent for the overall administration of the Organization according to its Statute, namely the Presidential Decree No. 311/1994 (Official Government Gazette A/165/1994). The principal purposes of the HCO are indicatively as follows: (i) the protection within its field of competences of copyright and related rights holders; ii) the undertaking of legislative preparatory work in relation to any issue pertaining to copyright law; iii) the proposal of legislative amendments; iv) the supervision of collecting societies operating into the national territory; v) the representation of Greece before the EU and international bodies and authorities and the monitoring of the respective developments; vi) the support with its experts of the Committee for the Notification of Copyright and Related Rights Infringement on the Internet (EDPPI) as related to the enforcement of the said rights on the digital environment; vii) the provision of time-stamping (certain date) services; viii) the organization of training seminars which mostly address to the educational community but also to stakeholders and other interested parties; and ix) the overall promotion of a culture respectful copyright, in alignment with the enhancement of cultural development and progress |
|
Contact |
Address: |
|
Criteria |
Listing is aligned with the issuing of EDDPI’s Decisions/Orders and in particular those ordering the blocking of access to infringing content. The relevant legal basis does not provide for specific criteria in relation to the infringement (such as number of works etc.) per se. There are specific conditions which are related though to the procedure to be followed. For instance, it must be assessed that the applicant is the holder of the rights which have been allegedly infringed on the digital environment or are going to be infringed in relation to sport and cultural events. More specifically, these main criteria/prerequisites are as follows: 1. a copyright and/or a related rights infringement on the Internet; 2. a copyright and/or a related rights infringement which takes place through the offer of products or services on the Internet either through advertising or promotion; 3. a recurrence of the violation of the protected content; 4.a) in the case where a large–scale infringement is imminent of the rights in events of national or global viewing that are going to be transmitted simultaneously with their occurrence; b) such an infringement will indicatively take place via certain URLs or IP addresses or domain names via any means, and in particular by the means of the use of passwords or of decoders; c) there is an urgent case for preventing an immediate, serious and imminent danger or an irreparable damage to the public interest or to the right holder. In this case (4) the said (a), (b) and (c) conditions must be cumulatively fulfilled. 5. transfer by any technical means of the (already determined) unlawful transmission, meaning following the issuance of one or more Decisions of EFPPI to new URLs, IP addresses or domain names. If EDDPI determines that there had been a copyright and/or a related rights infringement on the Internet or that there is such an imminent danger (in conjunction with other prerequisites as provided under para. 10A of the respective provision), it may order the blocking of access to the infringing content (irrespectively of whether it takes place via IP addresses or domain names or URLs). These blocking orders may be accompanied by any other measure that EDPPI considers appropriate for the discontinuation of the infringement, the prevention of recurrence or/and the prevention of infringement. In conclusion, listing is aligned with the operative part of EDPPI’s Decisions. |
|
Procedure |
There are currently four (4) procedures that may be followed before EDPPI. 1. Right holders submit the pro-forma application to EDPPI which must be accompanied by the mandatory documents specified therein, while it may also be complemented by any additional evidence to support the relevant claims. Within ten (10) working days after receipt of the said application and documents, EDPPI either (a) puts the case on file (in the events provided by the law) or (b) follows through the procedure. Within the same time-period (if the procedure continues), EDPPI notifies simultaneously internet access providers and, where possible, host providers, administrators and/or proprietors of the websites and/or of the domain names referred to in the application with regard to the latter. The said recipients may voluntarily comply within five (5) working days or obtain the necessary license within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Within five (5) working days from expiration of the above deadlines EDPPI reviews the case and in no later than forty (40) working days from the submission of the application, it issues its respective Decision. In relation to Decisions: a. If an infringement is not substantiated, EDPPI puts the case on file in accordance with a reasoned opinion. b. if an infringement is substantiated, EDPPI issues its blocking order asking for compliance within (3) working days at the latest from the date of the notification of the Decision. 1. If, following the issuance and the execution of one or more Decisions of EDPPI, there is again a violation or a repetition of the infringement is threatened in relation to the content referred to in the Decision(s) in any technical way, the right holder may file an application with supporting evidence asking for the issuance of a new Decision. In this case, EDPPI informs the administrator or the proprietor of the websites or/and domain names referred to in the application regarding this new request and provides for a deadline of five (5) days in order for the said persons to submit their views. Within the next ten (10) working days, EDPPI issues the respective Decision. 2. Following the filing of an application from the right holder and provided that: a) A large–scale violation of protected copyright and related rights on the internet is imminent in relation to events of either national or global viewing which are going to be transmitted simultaneously with their occurrence, b) the violation will take place, indicatively through certain uniform resource locators (URLs), IP addresses or domain names which support the unauthorized subscription connection by any means, and, in particular, by the use of passwords or of a decoder and c) there is an urgent case for preventing an immediate, serious and imminent danger or an irreparable damage to the public interest or to the right holder, EDPPI may order the blocking of access to the specified uniform resource locators (URLs), IP addresses or domain names for a period of at least 15 days. This period of access blocking could be decided by EDPPI up to six (6) months for IP addresses and up to three (3) years for domain names. This application must be submitted to the Committee fifteen (15) days at the latest before the scheduled transmission of the event or in the case where the application includes more events 15 days at the latest before the first in time scheduled transmission. If substantiated, EDPPI orders the blocking of access. In this case, the time–limit for compliance cannot be less than (6) hours and no longer that twelve (12) hours from the dispatching of the said Decision. Within the abovementioned deadline, Internet Access Providers shall send statements of compliance to the respective authority. This order may impose the blocking of access to domain names of second level even if the access to content is allowed by domain names of third or other level. In addition, it shall be issued and communicated twenty–four (24) hours at the latest before the (first) transmission of the event(s). 3. In the case where the Decision issued under the procedure No. 3 is circumvented, as well as in the case of recurrence of the infringement of the content referred to in the said Decision by any technical means, the offended right holder may submit additional evidence to EDPPI without paying a new fee as a review fee. If substantiated, EDDPI issues a supplementary order. 4. EDDPI’s blocking orders (under the procedure No. 3) are extended beyond the URLs, IP addresses or domain names which are explicitly mentioned into their operative part to any other such means to which the illegal transmission may be transferred following the issuance of the said orders. Consequently, in the case where the illegal transmission is transferred (by any technical means) to a new URL, IP address or domain name (or more than one), right holders may submit to the relevant department of the Hellenic Telecommunications and Post Commission (EETT), notifying simultaneously EDPPI, any supplementary evidence regarding the infringement of EDPPI’s prior Decision(s) or the recurrence of the infringement, without any time-limit in relation to such a submission which may take place even during the transmission and without paying a new fee as a review fee. If the alleged infringement of EDPPI’s prior Decision(s) or the recurrence of the infringement of the rights or of the content referred to in the said Decision - by any technical means- is anticipated, the relevant department of EETT sends (by e-mail) immediately an order to ISPs requiring them to block the access to the additional URLs, IP addresses or domain names. EDPPI is also simultaneously respectively notified. This order is effective until the issuance of the relevant supplementary decision of EDPPI, which is issued within a month. ISPs with more than fifty thousand (50,000) subscribers, are obliged to block the access to the content within the time-limit set out by the EETT’s notification and which cannot be longer than thirty (30) minutes from the dispatching of the EETT’s order. EDPPI, following and in accordance with the respective EETT recommendation, and taking into consideration especially the supplementary evidence submitted by the right holder and the said order, issues a supplementary act, based on its prior Decision(s). |
|
Status |
Public |
|
Authorized contributor |
Italian Communication Regulatory Authority (AGCOM) |
|
Description |
AGCOM is a public body accountable to Parliament which has established its powers, defined its statutes and elected its members. |
|
Contact |
Via Isonzo, 21/b - 00198 Rome, Italy |
|
Criteria |
a) The amount of digital works provided by the web site. AGCOM considers the profile of the violation in order to identify the massive character. b) The release window of the digital works. c) The economic value of the copyright violated and the extent of the damage for right holders. d) Encouraging, even indirectly, the use of digital works disseminated in violation of copyright law. e) Misleading claims by the site to be a legal site. f) The provision of technical information in order to enable access to digital works without the authority of the right holder. g) The revenues obtained by the site. h) Similar cases already decided by AGCOM after previous complaints. |
|
Procedure |
An aggrieved person who considers that a digital work is made available on an internet page in violation of copyright is entitled to file a request of removal with AGCOM. AGCOM shall communicate the start of the proceeding to the service providers identified, as well as, if traceable, to the uploader and the internet page manager and website manager. If the service providers, or the uploader, or the internet page manager or the website manager takes down the works, they shall give concurrent notice to AGCOM which shall dismiss the case. If the service providers, or the uploader, or the internet page manager or the website manager wish to contest the alleged infringement, they shall transmit to AGCOM, within five days of receipt of AGCOM’s communication to them, any element useful for the verification of the complaint. If the infringement is confirmed, AGCOM may order access providers established in Italy to disable the access to the website. Like all AGCOM decisions, the orders regarding copyright can be opposed by presenting complaints to the Administrative Court (TAR -Regional Administrative Court). |
|
Status |
Public |
|
Authorized contributor |
Content Overseas Distribution Association（CODA） |
|
Description |
CODA was founded in 2002 at the instance of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the Agency for Cultural Affairs (ACA) as an organization through which content holders and copyright-related organizations could cooperate to reduce piracy around the world, and to actively promote the international distribution of Japanese content, such as music, films, animation, TV programs and video games. In 2013, the Association merged its secretariat office with that of the Anti-Counterfeiting Association (ACA) in order to strengthen its capability to protect copyright and offer comprehensive measures against copyright infringement in Japan as well as overseas. |
|
Contact |
No. 29 Kowa Building Annex 2F 2-11-24 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan |
|
Criteria |
The Infringing Website List (IWL) was created for the purpose of preventing placement of advertisements on infringing website and smartphone apps and reducing advertising revenue to the operators of such illicit services. The IWL comprises websites and smartphone apps which contain or provide links to multiple infringing copies of copyright-protected works. Sites are listed on the basis of an assessment of the scale and seriousness of the infringements and the willingness of the site operators to remove infringing content on request. Sites which are mirrors of existing listed sites are added to the list when discovered. |
|
Procedure |
The Content Overseas Distribution Association (CODA) updates its Infringing Website List (IWL) approximately once every two months with data provided by its member companies and associations. |
|
Status |
Non-public – for use by advertising sector |
|
Authorized contributor |
Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania (RTCL) |
|
Description |
The RTCL is an independent body accountable to the Seimas (Parliament), which regulates and supervises activities of broadcasters of radio and television programmes and providers of on-demand audiovisual media services, video-sharing platform providers, re-broadcasters and other persons providing users in Lithuania with television programming or individual programmes via the Internet. Since 1 April 2019, it enforces copyright protection on the Internet |
|
Contact |
Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania |
| Criteria |
The RTCL examines applications received from the right holder, its authorized person or a collective management organization in relation to infringements of copyright–protected content in accordance with its Decision No. KS-130 of June 30, 2021 and makes decisions on website blocking in accordance with the presumption of authorship and related rights provided for in the Law on Copyright and Related Rights. A website may be listed on WIPO ALERT if mandatory instructions for the blocking of its domain name have been issued in accordance with Decision No. KS-130 of June 30, 2021. Such instructions may be issued in respect of a website if: - it is a publicly accessible website created and used for illegal publishing of copyright–protected content; or - it is a publicly accessible website which directly or indirectly encourages users to illegally publish copyright–protected content, download, reproduce or otherwise use it; and - the person administering the publicly accessible website has not taken measures in response to a request submitted by the right holder, his authorized person or a collective management organization to remove the unlawfully published copyright-protected content. Before submitting a blocking request to the RTCL, the applicant must seek extrajudicial measures to stop the publication of the copyright–protected content on the Internet, namely: (i) applying in writing, including by e-mail, to the administrator of the website where the copyright–protected content has been unlawfully made public, requesting that the content be permanently removed from the website and that such content is not unlawfully republished on the website; (ii) applying in writing, including by e-mail, to the hosting provider of the website hosting the copyright–protected content, requesting the permanent removal of the content or termination of access thereto and ensuring that such content is not unlawfully republished. The requirement to seek extrajudicial measures is deemed satisfied if the copyright-protected content unlawfully made public on the website has not been removed or access to it has not been revoked within 5 working days from the date of the applicant's contact with the site administrator and hosting provider. If the applicant demonstrates in his application that he does not have the information required to contact the site administrator or hosting provider and cannot obtain such information without unreasonably high costs or other difficulties, the applicant has the right to submit the application without seeking extrajudicial measures. The RTCL will also take into account the following considerations: - the purpose and principles of operation, i.e. whether the website was created and used for illegal public disclosure of copyright–protected content; - the proportion of illegal content on the website; - the nature of the information published on the website, i.e. whether only copyright-protected information (films, music, computer programs, photographs, paintings, literary works, etc.) is published on the website, or also other types of information that are not covered by copyright protection; - the attitude of the website operators, i.e. whether users are directly or indirectly encouraged unlawfully to publish, upload, reproduce or otherwise use copyright-protected content (e.g., a rating system); - the introduction of additional measures to initiate the cessation of the illegal publication of copyright–protected content on the website; - whether the activities carried out on the website are for commercial gain (works are distributed for a fee, a privileged membership can be obtained for an additional fee, enabling access to additional services, etc.); - whether the removal of access to the website referred to by the applicant will diminish an individual's right to information; - whether the copyright-protected content unlawfully made available to the public on the website to which access is requested is publicly available in lawful distribution locations. |
|
Procedure |
The RTCL, having assessed the application by the right holder, its authorized person or a collective management organization for the issuing of mandatory instructions to Internet access service providers to remove access to illegally published copyright-protected content, is required to make its decision within 14 calendar days after the day of receipt of all the relevant documents. The procedure for making the decision is performed in accordance with the provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Provision of Information to the Public. The decision must be approved by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court. The RTCL’s request to the Court to approve its decision must be based on objective facts, supporting documents and legal norms, it must indicate the domain name identifying the website and the actions planned to be taken (mandatory instructions to Internet Service Providers). The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court examines the RTCL’s request to approve its decision and makes a reasoned ruling to satisfy or reject this request no later than within 3 calendar days from the date of receipt of the request. If the RTCL does not agree with the decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court to reject the application, it has the right to appeal this decision to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania within 7 calendar days from the date of adoption of such decision. If the site operators do not agree with the RTCL’s decision to block the website, they have the right to appeal this decision to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court within 30 calendar days from the date of adoption of such decision. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania must examine the appeal against the ruling of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court not later than within 7 calendar days from the day of acceptance of the appeal. After eliminating the copyright infringement and submitting information to the RTCL, access to the blocked Internet domain name identifying the website shall be renewed within 5 working days from the date of receipt of the information on the termination of the copyright infringement. |
|
Status |
Public |
|
Authorized contributor |
Korea Copyright Protection Agency (KCOPA) |
|
Description of Authorized Contributor |
KCOPA is a government-affiliated institution under the Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST). KCOPA pursues a unique identity as public institution in charge of copyright protection matters. Its mission is to take charge of copyright protection matters and to establish a strong yet flexible protection infrastructure for Korea's copyrighted materials at home abroad. To fulfill the mission, KCOPA is working closely with relevant agencies in both domestic and international arena, in particular the Korea Communication Standards Commission (KCSC) in order to conduct systematic and effective copyright protection measures. |
|
Contact |
Korea Copyright Protection Agency (KCOPA) |
|
Criteria |
The Infringing Website List (IWL) was created by KCOPA for the purpose of preventing placement of advertisements on infringing websites and reducing advertising revenue to the operators of such illicit services. The IWL comprises websites which contain or provide links to multiple infringing copies of copyright-protected works. Sites which have been blocked at the direction of the KOCSC on the grounds of large-scale copyright infringement are listed by KCOPA. KCSC selects a site for blocking according to its own judgment criteria, based on a quantitative assessment, if the purpose of the website is to distribute copyright infringing content. |
|
Procedure |
When a serious violation of copyright is identified on a website, the Copyright Protection Deliberation Committee of KCOPA may decide that the website should be added to the IWL. KCOPA identifies copyright-infringing websites through its monitoring activity. In deciding whether to include a site on the IWL it takes into account the decisions of the KCSC as to the blocking of websites on grounds of copyright infringement. The KCSC will evaluate the alleged copyright infringing status of a website on the basis of information provided by KCOPA, relevant right holders and the website operator, depending on the type of contents. If it is feasible, KCSC will seek the comments of the website operator. KCSC selects a site for blocking if its contents comprise more than 70% of copyright infringing content and the purpose of the website is to distribute such copyright infringing content. In accordance with Article 25(2)(2) of the Law on the Establishment and Operation of the Korea Communications Commission, KCSC provides an opportunity for the site operator to state his or her opinion on the proposal to block access to the website, unless:
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Korea Communications Commission (Presidential Decree No. 28888, May 15, 2018), the site operator is entitled to submit an objection to the blocking order within 15 days of being notified of the order. If an objection is submitted, the KCSC must rule upon it within 15 days of filing. KCOPA’s monitoring system identifies sites which are mirrors of sites blocked by KCSC, adds them to the IWL and informs KCSC which may then block access to them if so advised. |
|
Status |
Non-public – for use by advertising sector only. |
|
Authorized contributor |
Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), Moscow, Russian Federation |
|
Description |
Roskomnadzor is a federal executive authority, responsible for the control and supervision of telecommunications, information technology, and mass communications in the Russian Federation. |
|
Contact |
Address: 7, bldg 2, Kitaigorodskiy proezd, |
|
Criteria |
A website will be included in the Authorized Contributor’s list of sites of concern where: The site has repeatedly and unlawfully published information protected by copyright and/or neighboring rights or information enabling access to such information by means of IT networks, including the Internet; and The Moscow City Court has rendered a ruling for permanent restriction of access to that site, in accordance with Federal Law No. 149-FZ of July 27, 2006, on Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information (as amended). For permanent blocking to be applicable, a right holder must have prevailed twice in infringement proceedings against the infringing website owner. |
|
Procedure |
Right holders may protect their rights online by applying to the Moscow City Court for an interim order requiring the removal of content infringing copyright or related rights, pursuant to Federal Law No. 149-FZ of July 27, 2006, as amended. The Court considers the right holder’s application and, if satisfied that the grounds are established, orders Roskomnadzor and other relevant persons to terminate the provision of technical facilities allowing the making available of the copyright work on the specific website. Roskomnadzor then sends an electronic notification of the finding of infringement to the hosting provider of the website in Russian and English, indicating the name of the copyright work, its author, the name of the copyright holder, and the domain name and network address of the site concerned. Within one business day, the hosting provider must notify the site owner of the need to remove the infringing content. The site owner must remove or prevent access to the infringing content within one further business day. If the site owner fails to comply with the notice, the hosting provider must prevent access to the infringing content within three business days of the notification sent to him by Roskomnadzor. The site owner, the hosting provider or an internet access provider may appeal against the order within three months or such period as the Moscow City Court may direct. Where the right holder has brought one or more successful applications for removal of infringing content against the site owner, the site is eligible for permanent blocking in the Russian Federation. If an application is made to the Moscow City Court for the prevention of access to a work protected by copyright or related rights after the entry into force of a prior decision made by the same court in favor of the same right holder in another case on the protection of copyright or related rights and the Court grants an order on the application requiring Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the site, the site will be permanently blocked. Within 24 hours of receiving the court decision, Roskomnadzor sends an instruction to Russian internet access providers to block the website in question on a permanent basis. As sites are permanently blocked under this procedure, Roskomnadzor adds their domains to its list of sites on the WIPO ALERT platform. |
|
Status |
Public Roskomnadzor index of blocked sites |
|
Authorized contributor |
Directorate General for Cultural Industries, Intellectual Property and Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and Sport of Spain (Dirección General de Industrias Culturales, Propiedad Intelectual y Cooperación del Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte del Reino de España). |
|
Description |
The Authorized Contributor is a department of the Ministry of Culture and Sport of Spain responsible, among other things, for all matters relating to copyright and related rights. It participates in WIPO ALERT through the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission, a national collegiate body under its supervision. |
|
Contact |
Address: Plaza del Rey, 1, 28004, Madrid, España |
| Criteria |
The Authorized Contributor is responsible under Royal Decree No. 1889/2011, of December 30, 2011, on the Operation of the Intellectual Property Commission (“Royal Decree”) for safeguarding intellectual property rights pursuant to Article 195 (ex 158ter) of Consolidated Text of the Law on Intellectual Property, Regularizing, Clarifying and Harmonizing the Applicable Statutory Provisions (approved by Royal Legislative Decree No. 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended up to Royal Decree-Law No. 26/2020 of July 7, 2020) (“TRLPI”). The responsibilities of the Authorized Contributor include the administration of a procedure under judicial control to require Internet access providers in Spain to suspend access to websites which fail to remove copyright-infringing content after requests to do so. The procedure is undertaken by the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission. URLs are included in the Authorized Contributor’s list if the online location in question has been the subject of a blocking direction in accordance with Article 195 (ex 158ter) of TRLPI. Websites are eligible for blocking if:
|
|
Procedure |
The right holder or its authorized representative must make an application to the Second Section using a prescribed form set out in Annex IV of the Royal Decree. The Applicant must:
The Applicant must also provide reasonable proof of a previous unsuccessful attempt to request the Respondent to remove the content offered without authorization within three days. This requirement does not apply where the Respondent fails to provide a valid email address for communication with it (Article 195(3), TRLPI). Where the person in charge of the Respondent is not sufficiently identified, the Second Section may seek a judicial order requiring a relevant intermediary service provider to supply identifying information, so as to enable it to communicate with the Respondent (Article 18, Royal Decree). After the identification of the person in charge of the Respondent, the Second Section will then send a notice to the Respondent and any intermediary service provider specifying the reasons for the request and requesting the Respondent within 48 hours voluntarily to remove the allegedly illegal content from its service. If the content is removed by the Respondent, no further action is taken. The file may, however, be reopened in case the Respondent resumes infringing activity in relation to the same or other works of the Applicant. After the expiry of the period of 48 hours the Respondent has not ceased the activity complained of, the Second Section will within two days carry out a test or tests to confirm whether an infringement of the Applicant’s rights is continuing and will report its findings and its proposed order to the interested parties, so that they can request a hearing if they so wish within a maximum period of five days (Article 21, Royal Decree). When the period for requesting a hearing has expired, the Second Section will issue a reasoned direction within three days and will declare the infringement of the Applicant’s rights proved or unproven. If proven, the direction will require the person in charge of the Respondent to terminate the infringement within 24 hours. Any intermediary service provider will also be informed of the direction. If the Respondent fails to comply with the direction, the Second Section may apply for an order from the Central Contentious-Administrative Court for an order directing any intermediary service provider to suspend access to the Respondent’s services within 72 hours from notification of the order to it (Article 22, Royal Decree). The order will be notified to the Applicant, the person in charge of the Respondent’s service, to any relevant intermediary service provider and all other interested parties. The order shall cease to apply in case the Second Section finds that infringement has been terminated or in any event after one year (Article 24, Royal Decree). The Respondent is entitled throughout the procedure to the general guarantees of due process set out in Articles 35 and 135 of Law 30/1992, of November 26, on the legal regime of public administrations and the common administrative procedure. After the reform of the Consolidated Text of the Law on Intellectual Property carried out by Law 2/2019, 1st March 2019, and, according to Article 195.4, last paragraph, of the above mentioned Consolidated Text, when the Respondent does not identify itself sufficiently, the Second Section may directly seek a judicial preventive order for the Internet access providers in Spain to suspend access to those websites for a year, as an extraordinary remedy of urgent injunction. The judicial order is communicated to all parties and collaborators |
|
Status |
Public – published in the quarterly report of the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission |