Intellectual Property Crimes And Enforcement In Finland
Intellectual Property Crimes in Finland
Intellectual Property crimes in Finland primarily involve the unauthorized use, reproduction, or distribution of protected works. The legal framework covers:
Copyright Infringement
Unauthorized copying, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted material.
Governed by the Copyright Act (Tekijänoikeuslaki 404/1961).
Trademark Infringement
Unauthorized use of registered trademarks in commerce.
Governed by the Trademarks Act (Tavaramerkkilaki 7/1964).
Patent Infringement
Unauthorized use, manufacture, or sale of patented inventions.
Governed by the Patents Act (Patenttilaki 550/1967).
Counterfeiting & Piracy
Production or sale of counterfeit goods, including software, fashion items, and media.
Criminalized under the Criminal Code of Finland, sections on fraud, forgery, and intellectual property offenses.
Enforcement Authorities
Police and customs handle IP crime investigations.
Prosecution under the Office of the Prosecutor General; courts impose penalties including fines, imprisonment, and confiscation.
Case Law Examples in Finland
Here are seven cases illustrating IP crimes and enforcement in Finland:
Case 1: Helsinki District Court – Software Piracy (2010)
Facts:
Two individuals sold pirated computer software online.
The software was widely used by Finnish small businesses.
Legal Basis:
Copyright Act, Criminal Code sections on unauthorized reproduction and distribution.
Outcome:
The court imposed prison sentences of 6–12 months (suspended for one defendant) and fines for illegal profits.
Confiscation of pirated copies and computers used for production.
Significance:
Demonstrates that software piracy is treated as a serious criminal offense in Finland.
Emphasized both deterrence and recovery of illicit profits.
Case 2: Supreme Court of Finland, KK 2012:37 – Trademark Counterfeiting
Facts:
A company sold counterfeit luxury handbags bearing a famous international brand.
Counterfeits were sold both online and in retail stores.
Legal Basis:
Trademark Act and Criminal Code section 50 (counterfeiting).
Outcome:
Supreme Court upheld imprisonment of 8 months for the company owner and ordered destruction of counterfeit goods.
Civil claims for damages were also allowed by the trademark owner.
Significance:
Confirms that both criminal and civil remedies are available in trademark infringement cases.
Establishes that intent to profit aggravates sentencing.
Case 3: Turku District Court – Patent Infringement (2015)
Facts:
A Finnish startup produced medical devices similar to a patented device without license.
Patent holder filed a complaint; devices had already been sold to hospitals.
Legal Basis:
Patents Act, Criminal Code provisions on unlawful use of inventions.
Outcome:
Court ordered immediate cessation of production, seizure of infringing devices, and payment of damages.
No prison sentence; the offense was considered commercial infringement with limited intent to defraud.
Significance:
Illustrates enforcement measures for patent violations, emphasizing cease-and-desist orders and compensation.
Case 4: Rovaniemi Court of Appeal – Music Piracy (2016)
Facts:
Individual uploaded copyrighted music files for free download on a public website.
Thousands of downloads occurred, including international users.
Legal Basis:
Copyright Act, Criminal Code sections on distribution without authorization.
Outcome:
Court imposed 6 months suspended imprisonment and ordered payment of €20,000 in damages to copyright holders.
Court highlighted the economic harm to rights holders, even if files were offered free.
Significance:
Reinforces Finland’s strict stance on digital copyright infringement.
Even non-commercial distribution can incur damages and criminal liability.
Case 5: Helsinki District Court – Counterfeit Fashion Goods (2018)
Facts:
Customs intercepted shipments of counterfeit clothing from abroad.
Imported goods bore well-known trademarks but were not registered.
Legal Basis:
Trademark Act, Customs Act, Criminal Code section 50 (counterfeiting).
Outcome:
Court sentenced the importer to fines equivalent to profits and ordered destruction of all goods.
Reinforced that importing counterfeit goods, even if not sold domestically, is illegal.
Significance:
Shows the role of customs enforcement in IP crime prevention.
Confirms that intent to distribute can suffice for criminal liability.
Case 6: Supreme Court of Finland, KK 2020:12 – Streaming Copyright Violation
Facts:
Defendant operated an illegal streaming service hosting copyrighted movies and TV shows.
Revenue came from subscriptions and advertisements.
Legal Basis:
Copyright Act, Criminal Code section 50 (profit-motivated infringement).
Outcome:
Supreme Court imposed 1 year prison sentence (suspended) and mandatory restitution.
Service was immediately shut down; domain names seized.
Significance:
Establishes liability for online streaming services.
Demonstrates that digital distribution is treated as seriously as physical piracy.
Case 7: Tampere Court of Appeal – Counterfeit Software Sales (2021)
Facts:
Company sold unlicensed copies of design software to Finnish clients.
Clients were unaware that software licenses were invalid.
Legal Basis:
Copyright Act, Criminal Code provisions on fraud and unauthorized distribution.
Outcome:
Court imposed fines proportional to profits, suspended prison terms for managers.
Confiscation of computers used for copying software.
Significance:
Highlights commercial-scale software piracy enforcement.
Reinforces civil and criminal remedies in tandem.
Key Principles from Finnish IP Case Law
| Principle | Case Illustration |
|---|---|
| Criminal liability for software piracy | Helsinki District Court 2010 |
| Counterfeit goods and trademark enforcement | KK 2012:37 |
| Patent infringement remedies | Turku District Court 2015 |
| Digital music piracy enforcement | Rovaniemi Court of Appeal 2016 |
| Customs enforcement against counterfeit goods | Helsinki District Court 2018 |
| Streaming service liability | KK 2020:12 |
| Commercial software piracy penalties | Tampere Court of Appeal 2021 |
Enforcement Mechanisms in Finland
Police Investigations: Specialized IP crime units handle investigations of software, music, and product counterfeiting.
Customs: Intercepts imports of counterfeit goods; works with police and prosecutors.
Prosecution: Office of the Prosecutor General can take high-profile IP crime cases to court.
Civil Remedies: Rights holders can claim damages, injunctions, and destruction of infringing goods.
Penalties: Range from fines, suspended sentences, to imprisonment depending on commercial intent and scale.
Conclusion
Finland treats IP crimes seriously, whether physical goods or digital content.
Enforcement includes criminal sanctions, civil remedies, and preventive customs measures.
Case law shows that courts consider profit motive, scale of infringement, and economic harm in sentencing.
Finland is aligned with EU directives on copyright, trademarks, and digital piracy enforcement, balancing deterrence with fair trial protections.
RELATED Blog
comments