It contains contributions from Government, industry and enforcement agencies and highlights enforcement activities undertaken in 2004. It provides the current state of play and highlights the key areas of threat for rights holders. From the conclusion:
"[...] Many high profile prosecutions have been carried out throughout 2004 and there have been strong signals of lengthier sentencing, confiscation orders and higher penalties for those convicted of counterfeiting and piracy. In addition, hundreds of illegal criminal rings have been disrupted by anti-counterfeiting squads. However there appears to be a general consensus that the enforcement response in the UK has merely been a hindrance to the organised groups that are now involved.
To avoid control slipping to the criminals there is a critical need for substantially increased co-operation, communication and commitment among the global, regional and national agencies, in partnership with the private sector.
In addition there needs to be a much higher degree of knowledge about the scope and scale of the problem and the specific areas of threat and weakness in enforcement activity. It is essential to develop:
Consistent methodology for measurement and assessment;
An intelligence led strategy where information is shared;
Improved implementation of IP rights and supporting legislative frameworks;
A cohesive strategy to help raise awareness and to educate, enforcers, the judiciary and consumers;
Improved awareness of private sectors of their IP rights and the means available for implementing them;
Better communication and co-operation between rights holders, police, enforcers and local and central Government agencies involved in their protection.
We should also assist in the development of regional Trading Standards IP groups for all regions, such as those currently set up in the North West and Wales. These partnerships will improve the sharing of knowledge between authorities and help to provide a more co-ordinated response.
There are clear benefits in driving a co-ordinated approach. To achieve this there is a critical need for specialised working groups. A control strategy decided by a high level decision making group made up of key decision makers from Government, industry and enforcement who will set priorities for prevention and enforcement. I n conclusion, the report aims to provide initial information that will allow us to develop a suitable co-ordinating mechanism. It is also hoped that alongside the IP Crime Group and the Creative Industries Intellectual Property Forum the structure will facilitate a more coherent approach to enforcement. In the medium term we recognise that these aims will take time to realise and we accept that this report is compiled in a transitional period.
Nevertheless, from the reports presented by the contributors it is evident that there are key elements that we can begin to address as part of our work over the next year. [...]"
A control strategy for the IP Crime group has been formulated in association with the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and various expert groups are being formed to address the problems highlighted in the report.
IP Crime Strategy Annual Enforcement Report has been published by the 