OpenLobby.EU
Explore

AIM - European Brands Association

AIM

AIM is the European Brands Association representing 2,500 manufacturers of branded consumer goods across Europe on regulatory issues affecting product design, distribution and marketing.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Christine Singer (Member of the European Parliament) and Association Internationale de la Savonnerie, de la Détergence et des Produits d'Entretien

12 Nov 2025 · Event on Empowering Consumers

European Brands Association seeks harmonised EPR schemes and recycling infrastructure

6 Nov 2025
Topic — EU legislative proposal on enhancing circular economy and secondary raw materials supply.
Message — The organization requests harmonised EPR schemes with common definitions, EU-wide digital reporting, transparent fee-setting, and producer-managed systems. They seek recognition of all advanced recycling technologies and harmonised end-of-waste criteria. They oppose new recycled content targets in this Act.1234
Why — This would reduce administrative burdens and avoid double EPR payments across Member States.56
Impact — Environmental enforcers lose stronger measures against counterfeit and unsafe products contaminating waste streams.7
Read full response

Meeting with Ekaterina Zaharieva (Commissioner) and

23 Oct 2025 · - EU R&I policy, portfolio-relevant simplification agenda - Startups and scaleups, EIC, Trusted Investors Network - EU Single Market Strategy

Meeting with Arba Kokalari (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Oct 2025 · Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition

Meeting with Stephane Mail Fouilleul (Head of Unit Taxation and Customs Union) and The LEGO Group and

17 Oct 2025 · 12th Joint meeting of customs and right holders on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights

European Brands Association Urges Simpler EU Digital Regulations

14 Oct 2025
Topic — The European Commission is proposing a digital omnibus to simplify rules and assist businesses.
Message — AIM demands a ban on national rule-stacking and a simplified framework for data laws. They also want flexible consumer consent rules and streamlined cybersecurity reporting requirements.12
Why — Unified digital standards would decrease compliance expenses and enhance market stability for brands.3
Impact — National governments lose the authority to implement stricter local digital and security standards.4
Read full response

Meeting with Christine Singer (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Oct 2025 · Empowering Consumers

Meeting with Christine Singer (Member of the European Parliament) and Mondelez Europe GmbH

17 Sept 2025 · Organisation of an event

Meeting with Hanna Anttilainen (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné), Laia Pinos Mataro (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

4 Sept 2025 · Circular Economy and Ecodesign

European Brands Association Urges Focus on Enforcing Existing Rules

29 Aug 2025
Topic — A consultation on the EU's consumer policy strategy and priorities for 2025-2030.
Message — AIM requests that the EU prioritise enforcing existing legislation over creating new regulations. They call for harmonised rules to stop unauthorised sales and tougher action against unfair retail practices. Additionally, they seek clarity on green labelling and stricter accountability for online marketplaces.123
Why — This would reduce operational costs and protect premium distribution networks from competition.4
Impact — Retail alliances and third-party sellers would face tighter restrictions and legal challenges.56
Read full response

AIM Urges Automatic Destruction Approval for All Counterfeit Goods

31 Jul 2025
Topic — EU rules specifying when unsold clothes and footwear can be destroyed.
Message — AIM suggests removing requirements to prove that destroying counterfeits is proportionate. They argue illegal items are dangerous and lack material data for safe recycling. Brand owners should not be responsible for the destruction or reporting of seized fakes.123
Why — Brands would avoid the costs and liability associated with managing seized counterfeit goods.45
Impact — Public authorities would bear the administrative and financial burden of managing seized fakes.6
Read full response

Response to Proposal for a new Regulation on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

30 Jul 2025

AIM, the European Brands Association, would very much support a stronger operational role being given to Europol, in particular to permit it to respond to the most serious organised crime threats facing the EU, including IP crime, under the next EMPACT cycle. We also strongly agree that enhanced intelligence and data sharing with other LEAs, both national and regional, is essential. Please find attached our initial comments.
Read full response

AIM urges EU to scrap third-party audits for unsold goods

10 Jul 2025
Topic — The EU is establishing disclosure rules for companies discarding unsold consumer products.
Message — AIM requests removing third-party verification requirements and relying on national authority oversight. They advocate for aligning reporting formats and implementation timelines.12
Why — Eliminating audits would reduce administrative expenses and prevent the duplication of reporting tasks.3
Read full response

Meeting with Xavier Coget (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen)

2 Jul 2025 · EU digital agenda / AIM activities

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis)

20 Jun 2025 · Sustainability reporting

Response to International Digital Strategy

19 May 2025

When issuing this Joint Communication AIM, the European Brands Association, trusts that due account will be taken of the wider cybercrime landscape. Cybercrime is often predicated on intellectual property theft and brand impersonation. Phishing, pharming, botnets, malware, spam, disinformation and data theft are frequently perpetrated through the misappropriation of legitimate businesses trade marks, other IP assets, corporate names and managers identities which are used to to create fake websites, e-mail addresses, messaging apps and social media accounts to scam citizens and businesses. Public authorities and figures identities are also often misused. This is made possible by (inter alia) largely unregulated hosting providers, and the prevalence of anonymity and the lack of transparency in the domain name system. Most domain name registrars and registries, hosting providers and e-mail providers do not perform KYBC checks; despite their gatekeeping role and access to many available technologies, the market reality is that they permit, indeed countenance, the anonymity of registrants, including the rogue players who perpetrate all forms of DNS abuse and online scams based on IP theft. It is easy to conduct such scams, while the legal consequences, if any, are in practice minimal. While we are both supporters of and active participants in ICANNs multistakeholder model, we stress that DNS abuse predicated on the theft of IP assets and brand impersonation causes very real harm, not least financial and reputational, to the EUs Internet users and businesses. When upgrading the EUs digital policy, this practical reality must be addressed. The NIS2 Directive, specifically Article 28, must be fully transposed in all Member States; the Digital Services Act strictly enforced; the EUs position on IP crime, including cybercrime, strongly articulated in EU positions in all plurilateral and multilateral fora, including ICANN and WIPO; and the EU should seek to implement powerful tools in its external digital policy to protect the EUs citizens and businesses from cybercrime.
Read full response

Meeting with Valentina Schaumburger (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

16 May 2025 · Discuss a leaked version of the Single Market Strategy as regards the proposed action on territorial supply constraints.

Meeting with Arba Kokalari (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

15 May 2025 · Green Claims Directive

Meeting with Gabriela Tschirkova (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis)

15 May 2025 · Single Market Strategy

Meeting with Ruth Paserman (Director Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion) and

8 May 2025 · The place of the mutalist model in the implementation of the Social Economy Action Plan (SEAP).

Meeting with Arba Kokalari (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

7 Apr 2025 · Green Claims Directive

Meeting with Dimitris Tsiodras (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Mar 2025 · Discussion on consumer issues

Meeting with Giulia Del Brenna (Head of Unit Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

18 Mar 2025 · The meeting centered on the organisation and scope of the forthcoming Stakeholder Dialogue on territorial supply constraints scheduled for 7 April in Brussels and online.

Meeting with Bruno Tobback (Member of the European Parliament) and Anheuser-Busch InBev nv/sa

17 Mar 2025 · Introductory meeting on ecodesign and sustainability

Meeting with Ingeborg Ter Laak (Member of the European Parliament)

13 Mar 2025 · Circular economy

Meeting with Jeannette Baljeu (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Mar 2025 · Sustainability policies

Meeting with Dóra Dávid (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Mar 2025 · Legislative priorities for the 10th Legislature

Meeting with Ilhan Kyuchyuk (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Mar 2025 · outlining position on the omnibus 1 proposal

European Brands Association opposes extending geo-blocking rules to wholesale

11 Mar 2025
Topic — The European Commission is evaluating whether the Geo-blocking Regulation has met its objectives.
Message — AIM requests that the regulation remain limited to consumer transactions and exclude business-to-business distribution. They argue that competition law already addresses supply constraints and contractual freedom must be preserved.12
Why — Excluding wholesale transactions preserves the brands' ability to negotiate prices and avoids higher compliance costs.3
Impact — Consumers in high-priced nations lose potential savings if retailers cannot source cheaper products across borders.4
Read full response

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Mar 2025 · Challenges facing the consumer goods sector: counterfeit, circularity, packaging

Meeting with Danuše Nerudová (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

11 Mar 2025 · discussions on Green Claims Directive

Meeting with Maria Grapini (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Mar 2025 · INDUSTRIA BUNURILOR DE CONSUM

Meeting with Aura Salla (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Mar 2025 · Introductory meeting, how future sustainability policies can enable businesses to meet the ambitious environmental targets set by the adopted legislation, leveraging the full potential of technologies and digital solutions

Response to Cooperation for the enforcement of EU rules on unfair trading practices in the agricultural and food supply chain

10 Mar 2025

AIM, the European Brands Association, welcomes and supports the European Commissions proposed Regulation to enhance cross-border enforcement against unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the EU. This initiative marks a significant step towards ensuring greater fairness and transparency in the consumer goods supply chain. However, we call on the Commission to investigate widening the scope of the UTP Directive as part of its ongoing evaluation to further reduce fragmentation and unlock EUs competitiveness. --- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY --- Purpose and scope --- AIM broadly supports the European Commissions proposed Regulation to strengthen cross-border enforcement of unfair trading practices (UTPs). This initiative aims to address enforcement challenges arising when buyers and suppliers are located in different Member States particularly in cases involving European retail alliances (ERAs). --- Need for stronger enforcement --- Recent marketplace shifts and crises have exposed supply-chain vulnerabilities, underscoring the need to enforce fairer and more uniform rules in the agri-food and consumer goods sectors. While the UTP Directive has shown its value, the patchwork of national implementations still leaves room for forum shopping and under-enforcement. --- Key mechanism: mutual assistance --- The proposals mutual assistance mechanism empowers national authorities to collaborate more seamlessly across borders. By standardising procedures and information exchange, it helps ensure that stricter rules in one jurisdiction can be effectively enforced when the buyer is located in another. --- Challenges with European retail alliances --- ERAs often operate across multiple jurisdictions, making them difficult to investigate under national UTP laws. AIM highlights the growing influence of ERAs and calls for more effective cross-border oversight to prevent practices that disrupt fair competition and product choice for consumers. --- Further revision of the UTP Directive --- Beyond supporting this proposed Regulation, AIM recommends a broader revision of the UTP Directive to: - Add an internal market legal base to complement existing agriculture-focused competencies. - Extend UTP protections to all suppliers, regardless of size. - Clarify the extraterritorial application of national UTP laws. - Prohibit self-preferencing on physical shelves, in line with the Digital Markets Acts existing rules for online shelves. --- Benefits for the EU market --- A more harmonised and robust enforcement environment would help level the playing field, promote innovation and foster consumer choice. Through consistent application of UTP laws, brand manufacturers ranging from SMEs to large multinationals can focus on delivering quality, value, and sustainability across the Single Market. --- Conclusion --- AIM believes this Regulation is a timely and necessary step toward stronger, fairer cross-border enforcement. Coupled with targeted revisions of the UTP Directive, it will make Europes supply chain more resilient, bolster EU competitiveness and ensure that European consumers continue to benefit from a diverse, innovative marketplace.
Read full response

Meeting with Arba Kokalari (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

27 Feb 2025 · Green Claims Directive

AIM Urges EU Harmonization to Reinvigorate the Single Market

31 Jan 2025
Topic — European Commission consultation on strengthening the Single Market Strategy for 2025.
Message — AIM calls for harmonized rules and enforcement to prevent national market fragmentation. They recommend using digital solutions like QR codes and creating a single European code for business-to-business trading.123
Why — Harmonization would reduce compliance costs by removing needs for country-specific product packaging.4
Impact — Retail alliances would lose their ability to exploit legal differences between EU states.56
Read full response

Meeting with Jessica Polfjärd (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Jan 2025 · Green policy

Meeting with Hanna Anttilainen (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné), Valentina Schaumburger (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné) and

20 Jan 2025 · Intrododuction Meeting.

Meeting with João Cotrim De Figueiredo (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Oct 2024 · European Brands Association

Meeting with Danuše Nerudová (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and HOTREC, Hotels, Restaurants & Cafés in Europe

1 Oct 2024 · discussion about Green Claims Directive

Meeting with Aura Salla (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Sept 2024 · EU Digital & Consumer Policy

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Sept 2024 · Green claims

Meeting with Laura Ballarín Cereza (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Sept 2024 · Priorities for the mandate 2024-2029

Meeting with Anthony Whelan (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

5 Sept 2024 · on consumers pricing

Meeting with Andreas Schneider (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

15 May 2024 · The need to ensure a more consistent and harmonised implementation/enforcement of the UTP Directive and to share their recommendations to achieve that objective.

Response to Mandatory electronic submission of applications concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights

22 Apr 2024

AIM, the European Brands Association, thanks the Commission for this consultation. While the principle of electronically filing an application for action (AFA) is to be supported, the tools used to do so must be fit for purpose. Although AIMs members have been staunch supporters of the EUIPOs Intellectual Property Enforcement Portal (IPEP) since its inception, some of its basic functionalities continue to present practical issues for right holders. Renewal of an existing AFA in IPEP, with no changes, is straightforward. However, both the creation and amendment (e.g. adding a new IPR or changing the representative) of an AFA through the tool remains complex. To add its IPR to its IPEP account, the right holder must firstly find this right in TMView. (1) The right is not added to the AFA, only to the right holders account. (2) TMView is not updated in real time, so if an IPR has been renewed it may not be included in TMView immediately, thus the right holder cannot complete the application. (3) If an IPR will expire during the annual life of the AFA, the right holder cannot add it to the AFA even though it intends to renew that right. Once the IPR is in the companys IPEP account, the right holder then needs to connect it to each individual product in the product section of its account. (1) Trade marks may cover several classes, so this exercise may have to be carried out multiple times. (2) Only then can the individual IPR-product link be uploaded into the AFA. (3) Members also report that a design right that has been added to the right holders account cannot always be linked to the AFA. 3 separate searches are thus required: the search in TMView; the search to link the right to the individual product; and the search to add or remove the right from the AFA. This extremely time-consuming, multi-click administrative step was not required under Regulation 608/2013. Members report that it can take several hours simply to amend the list of IPRs in an AFA. A direct link from the IPR to the AFA would be far more efficient. Further, as the management account system is not finalised, the roll-out of mandatory AFA filings via IPEP in all EU countries seems unrealistic. How will one company using one IPEP account be able to manage national AFAs for the EU27? Therefore, while the intention of e-filing of AFAs is to be supported, its practical execution needs to be correctly managed with an efficient, user-friendly, well-functioning tool. We thank you for your consideration.
Read full response

Meeting with Erik Poulsen (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Mar 2024 · Green claims

Meeting with Pernille Weiss-Ehler (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

26 Feb 2024 · Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive)

Meeting with Svenja Hahn (Member of the European Parliament) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

21 Feb 2024 · Stakeholder Roundtable on Late Payment Regulation

Meeting with Andreas Schwab (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Feb 2024 · Zahlungsverzug

Response to Revision of the Union Customs Code

3 Nov 2023

The AIM Anti-Counterfeiting Committee thanks the Commission for the opportunity to comment on this extremely important proposal. In order to protect our consumers, creators, innovators, economies and environment, European intellectual property right holders are actively engaged in the global fight against counterfeiting and piracy, in which customs are an essential partner. Our customs officers are a key link in the public and private network (Europol, the EUIPO, OLAF) necessary to combat the menace of IP crime which, due its proven links with cross-border organised crime, is a priority under the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) for 2022-25. AIM fully appreciates the resource constraints under which European customs officers operate, yet as only Law Enforcement Authorities have the powers to control and detain shipments of illegal - including counterfeit, sub-standard and non-compliant - goods to prevent them from reaching the EU market, streamlined processes and new tools are clearly needed. As well as their fiscal duties (payments which illegal trade evades), non-fiscal duties to protect our consumers and market are a vital aspect of our customs officers mandate. We applaud many of the practical improvements laid out in this reform that should help our officers to maximise their efficiency, especially through centralised data and risk management. Please find attached our comments.
Read full response

Meeting with Laura Ballarín Cereza (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

19 Oct 2023 · Green Claims

Meeting with Pernille Weiss-Ehler (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e.V.

11 Oct 2023 · Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive)

Meeting with Petri Sarvamaa (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)

12 Sept 2023 · Green Claims Directive

Meeting with Cyrus Engerer (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

7 Sept 2023 · Green Claims Directive

Meeting with Pernille Weiss-Ehler (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

29 Aug 2023 · Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive)

European Brands Association Urges Longer Transition For Green Claims

20 Jul 2023
Topic — New EU rules to substantiate environmental claims and prevent misleading greenwashing practices.
Message — AIM requests a 36-month implementation period and the removal of requirements to compare products against common industry standards. They also support using digital means like QR codes to provide environmental data to consumers.123
Why — A longer transition and digital tools would reduce immediate compliance costs and packaging burdens.4
Impact — Micro-enterprises would lose their current regulatory advantage if exemptions are removed as requested.5
Read full response

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and HOTREC, Hotels, Restaurants & Cafés in Europe and CEPI Eurokraft

5 Jul 2023 · Green Claims

Meeting with Irène Tolleret (Member of the European Parliament)

23 May 2023 · Viticulture

Meeting with Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

12 May 2023 · Forced Labour

Response to Virtual worlds, such as metaverse

3 May 2023

AIM, the European Brands Association, welcomes the opportunity given to provide feedback on the European Commissions call for evidence with a view to informing its forthcoming non-legislative initiative on virtual worlds. We provide some insight into the key role played by brands in the development of virtual worlds in the paper attached, as well as calls on EU policy makers to: 1. foster open, fair and interoperable virtual worlds rooted in EU laws and values; 2. treat NFTs used for authentication and association differently from securities; and 3. ensure strong IP protection and enforcement in virtual worlds. AIM and its members look forward to engaging with EU institutions over the coming months to achieve these objectives and address policy challenges stemming from the development of virtual worlds.
Read full response

European Brands Association Urges Harmonised Rules and Labelling Delays

24 Apr 2023
Topic — The European Commission is revising rules to reduce packaging waste and improve recyclability.
Message — The group requests a 36-month transition period for new labels. They demand that packaging rules protect brand identity. They also advocate for harmonised EU recycling symbols.123
Why — This would lower compliance costs and protect the distinct design of branded products.45
Impact — Environmental protections are weakened by delayed implementation rules and extended transition periods.6
Read full response

Meeting with Irène Tolleret (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Apr 2023 · Emballages et déchets d'emballages

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

8 Mar 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Meeting with Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques (Member of the European Parliament)

8 Feb 2023 · Barriers in the Internal Market

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

25 Jan 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

European Brands Call for Coherence in Forced Labour Ban

30 Nov 2022
Topic — This initiative aims to prohibit products made with forced labour from the EU market.
Message — AIM calls for alignment with due diligence laws and a 12-month adaptation period. They insist that national authorities must carry the burden of proof when investigating.123
Why — Unified standards would prevent legal uncertainty and lower administrative costs for brand manufacturers.45
Impact — Responsible companies in high-risk areas could suffer from broad, region-wide product bans.6
Read full response

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and EUROPEAN TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION and

7 Nov 2022 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Meeting with Penelope Papandropoulos (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

18 Oct 2022 · Competition policies

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

17 Oct 2022 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Meeting with David Cormand (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion) and Halte à l'obsolescence programmée (HOP)

21 Sept 2022 · Ecodesign Regulation and Empowering consumers in the Green Transition

Meeting with Biljana Borzan (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

20 Sept 2022 · Empowering consumers for the green transition

European Brands Urge Customs Reform to Combat Counterfeit Goods

16 Sept 2022
Topic — The Commission is revising customs rules to address e-commerce and modern security risks.
Message — AIM requests that the EU explicitly prioritize the fight against counterfeiting in the new legislation. They advocate for shifting focus to large cargo shipments and mandatory pre-arrival data sharing. Additionally, they seek harmonized enforcement rules and clear cost-sharing for destroying illegal goods.123
Why — Brand owners would reduce financial losses and see more efficient border enforcement.4
Impact — Shipping and online intermediaries would face increased responsibility and data-sharing requirements.5
Read full response

AIM urges aligned EU rules for forced labor product ban

20 Jun 2022
Topic — EU initiative to prohibit products made with forced labor from entering the single market.
Message — AIM demands that new rules align with the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive for legal certainty. They stress that implementation guidance is essential and responsibility must lie with the first importer.123
Why — Clearer rules would prevent extra administrative burdens and duplication of compliance costs across member states.45
Impact — Producers in high-risk areas may face penalties from blanket bans without actually improving human rights.6
Read full response

Response to Empowering the consumer for the green transition

25 May 2022

AIM, the European Brands Association, welcomes the European Commission’s proposal on consumer empowerment for the green transition. It is broadly aligned with AIM’s position on green claims and sustainability information outlined in our Manifesto “No Data, No Claim”. Eliminating greenwashing is key to create a level playing field for businesses and truly empower consumers. AIM brand manufacturers strongly support the paradigm “No Data, No Claim”: - Environmental/‘Green’ claims should be voluntary, relevant, based on clear rules for businesses who decide to make them, and use robust, commonly recognised and science-based criteria/methodologies and definitions, and, where applicable, per existing and recognised international standards, such as ISO standards. - Any environmental/‘green’ claim made by manufacturers regarding their products should be substantiated with scientific data: In the absence of credible, commonly recognised criteria/methodologies, transparent data and the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny, a claim cannot be made. In the attached AIM contribution, we outline a number of points in the Commission’s consumer empowerment proposal that need further clarification and adjustments. Our focus lies solely on environmental claim issues that are tackled through amendments to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) 2005/29/EC.
Read full response

AIM calls for harmonised EU corporate sustainability due diligence rules

23 May 2022
Topic — The proposal establishes a framework for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence.
Message — AIM advocates for maximum harmonisation to ensure a level playing field across the EU. They want due diligence prioritized by impact severity and clearer civil liability rules. They also seek to restrict legal complaints to those with a direct interest.123
Why — Maximum harmonisation provides legal certainty and shields companies from unpredictable national requirements.45
Impact — NGOs and victims may face higher barriers when bringing complaints against companies.6
Read full response

Response to Fight against counterfeiting

3 Mar 2022

On behalf of the Anti-Counterfeiting Committee of AIM, the European Brands Association, please find attached our feedback.
Read full response

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

16 Feb 2022 · Data Services Act

Meeting with Simona Constantin (Cabinet of Vice-President Věra Jourová)

16 Nov 2021 · Mandatory human rights due diligence

Response to EU strategy for Customs risk management

2 Nov 2021

The members of the Anti-Counterfeiting Committee of AIM, the European Brands Association, thank the Commission for consulting industry on this important strategy. The exponential growth in counterfeits entering the EU renders customs controls at our external border more vital than ever, yet at the same time our customs administrations are responsible for an increasing range of duties with restricted resources. If we are to tackle this real, present and growing threat to the EU’s consumers, state revenues, economic recovery, employment and businesses, pre-arrival information and intelligence is key. Please find attached our comments on this timely and much-welcomed strategy.
Read full response

Meeting with Marc Tarabella (Member of the European Parliament)

25 Oct 2021 · Les alliances internationales de distribution et leurs pratiques commerciales déloyales.

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

31 Aug 2021 · Due diligence; trade and sustainable development

Meeting with Michele Piergiovanni (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

22 Jul 2021 · Reform of the block exemption on dual distribution

Meeting with Michele Piergiovanni (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

22 Jul 2021 · Reform of the block exemption on dual distribution

Response to Revision of the NIS Directive

18 Mar 2021

AIM, the European Brands Association, thanks the Commission for the specific inclusion of domain name registration data in this draft Directive. We fully agree with Recital 59, that “maintaining accurate and complete databases of domain names and registration data (so called ‘WHOIS data’) and providing lawful access to such data is essential to ensure the security, stability and resilience of the DNS, which in turn contributes to a high common level of cybersecurity within the Union”. Please see the attached paper for further details.
Read full response

Response to Digital Services Act: deepening the Internal Market and clarifying responsibilities for digital services

5 Mar 2021

AIM, the European Brands Association, is grateful to the European Commission for its considered draft Digital Services Act (“DSA”), which should help to ensure that the European Union remains at the vanguard of protecting online consumer and business trust, safeguarding both rights and citizens. The digital transformation has indeed brought many benefits but also risks and challenges in recent years, including the exponential growth in online offers of counterfeit and other illegal goods. Protecting consumers and providing them with trusted, safe and innovative goods is in the DNA of every branded goods manufacturer and should also be embedded in any intermediary and retailer, on- or offline. As such, the DSA is the opportunity to ensure that: • European consumers and businesses are protected equally on- and offline against rogue traders and (illegal) unfair competition; • Online service providers play their part in maintaining a clean and fair online ecosystem, in particular by exercising appropriate control over those parts of the value chain that are within their purview. This includes: o reasonable due diligence to know with whom they enter business relationships (“Know Your Business Customer”); o legal obligations to employ proactive, including technical, measures to prevent offers for illegal goods appearing on their sites. Voluntary measures are insufficient to tackle counterfeiting online; o rapidly (and permanently) removing such offers when they are identified and prohibiting repeat offenders from accessing their services; • Information about infringements is provided on a proactive basis to law enforcement, including customs and market surveillance, authorities allowing for effective risk analysis and targeting. Consumers also deserve such transparency, especially being informed when they have previously purchased a product that has since been removed as it was illegal. • Rapid and efficient notice and action procedures are established, including the treatment of brand holders as “trusted flaggers”, given that they alone can authenticate their products. We trust that the detail in the attached paper is of use and look forward to working with the policy makers going forward on this important file.
Read full response

Response to Review of the Community Designs Regulation

18 Dec 2020

AIM, the European Brands Association, thanks the Commission for this consultation. We agree that the design system works well overall, but we also agree that it needs to be updated, including consideration of 3D printing issues, and would very much support control of goods in transit by customs in the EU based on designs. Registered Community Designs (RCDs) are strategic assets for companies creating new and innovative brands, helping to protect such products from counterfeiting and piracy. This holds true for all branded goods, whose designs frequently fall prey to copiers that dupe consumers about origin and quality. Please find attached comments from the AIM Trade Mark Committee.
Read full response

Meeting with Renaud Savignat (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen)

10 Nov 2020 · GA on Africa Strategy

Meeting with Geneviève Tuts (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders), Lucrezia Busa (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders)

27 Oct 2020 · Consumer Agenda and the Consumer Goods Industry

Meeting with Kerstin Jorna (Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

8 Oct 2020 · Introductory virtual meeting

Meeting with Carlos Morais Pires (Cabinet of Commissioner Mariya Gabriel)

16 Sept 2020 · The impact of the COVID-19 crisis

Meeting with Lucrezia Busa (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders)

14 Sept 2020 · Digital Services Act

Response to Environmental claims based on environmental footprint methods

31 Aug 2020

When it comes to the empowerment of consumers to play their part in the Circular Economy and the Green Deal, simple, understandable and EU-harmonised information about the sustainability features of a product is key. Any such information needs to be ‘actionable’ by consumers. Brands inform and connect with consumers through product packaging, and can even nudge them towards more responsible behaviour. To avoid the risk of information overload, the focus on-pack should be on essential and meaningful information. Depending on size, only a limited amount of information may be placed on-pack. Digital communication allows brands to offer consumers additional social, health-related or environmental information about the products they purchase. Brand manufacturers support an EU harmonised approach for calculating the environmental footprint of a product in order to guarantee the free movement of goods in the EU. We are concerned that the absence of a harmonised approach may trigger the multiplication of different and non-mutually recognised approaches for calculating the environmental footprint of a product. The new Circular Economy Action Plan proposes that the PEF method, developed by the European Commission and tested during a pilot phase for different product categories, should be used to substantiate any environmental claims made by manufacturers and also its criteria and rules should feed into the broader sustainable product policy framework. Whilst the PEF LCA methodology provides a basis to identify environmental impact and substantiate green claims, we would caution that PEF is not appropriate to be used for comparing one product against another. Its processes (including those for developing PEFCR Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules) and databases still need further development. Additionally, we would like to emphasise that in the first instance products should apply a minimum performance standard before it makes sense to compare their environmental performances. If this is not the case, a for example diluted, lower performing cleaning product would on average score better than a high performing cleaning product which may sometimes have a higher environmental footprint. The actual means to communicate with consumers on substantiated green claims based on the PEF methodology – on pack, at point of sale and digital – still remains to be determined. Clear guidelines on communication requirements in business-to-consumer settings and development of credible and readily understood communication tools is key and should utilise industry knowledge of the key drivers of consumer behaviour. As AIM members have closely followed, and in many cases actively contributed, to the PEF pilots in the past, brands are eager to be involved in and contribute to this upcoming work. For creating EU-wide PEF product group and sector-specific rules, the private sector with its industry knowledge of product life cycle and environmental hotspots must continue to be on board of these discussions, alongside other important stakeholders (academia, NGOs, etc.). This could be done under the supervision of the European Commission. Another suitable option would be a neutral and officially recognised third party in close cooperation and with input from industry. With regard to green claims, we would like to refer to the 2016 EU multi-stakeholder advice for compliance criteria on environmental claims, to which AIM and other industry representatives contributed. The document outlines concrete criteria that should be followed by businesses to support compliance with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) as regards environmental claims, the improvement of transparency of these environmental claims and ultimately the increase of consumer trust.
Read full response

Response to Intellectual Property Action Plan

14 Aug 2020

AIM, the European Brands Association, thanks the Commission for recognising the importance of intellectual property to the EU as a whole – economies, businesses, citizens and consumers – and developing this Roadmap for the forthcoming IP Action Plan. Please find attached our contribution.
Read full response

Response to Review of the requirements for packaging and feasibility of measures to prevent packaging waste

31 Jul 2020

AIM, the European Brands Association, fully supports the objective of the Green Deal towards a clean, circular and climate neutral economy. Focusing on eco-design for packaging from a holistic point of view has long been a priority for branded goods manufacturers, and at the forefront of many innovative measures and R&D investments in recent years. To retain the benefit of the EU Single Market, packaging design requirements should by default be taken at EU level to ensure harmonisation across 27 Member States’ markets. EU legislation should not encourage Member States to adopt national measures on packaging design as they risk creating a patchwork of diverging requirements. This needs to be prioritised for the implementation of the SUP Directive and any other transposition effort into national laws. For any EU framework on packaging, the PPWD Essential Requirements and related CEN Standards should form the basis. Regarding requirements for packaging, it is essential for brands to be able to fully deploy their core competence: research and innovation in product/packaging design, production, usage and recovery. Constant innovation to anticipate and respond to consumer and societal trends and challenges is critical to achieve a circular economy. Therefore, any legislation for packaging is best set as an overarching framework in order to ensure the necessary flexibility for innovation, and avoid locking industry into short-term solutions that could become outdated very rapidly. Investments already undertaken to improve packaging design need to be also considered – businesses need legal certainty and a long-term vision that do not make those investments void. Regarding eco-design for packaging, there has to be a focus on the needs of the product and its packaging. Packaging protects and preserves products and ensures that consumers benefit from safe, hygienic and high-quality products, as well as preventing waste. Therefore, any packaging measure must be coherent with existing policy requirements on consumer protection, safety, hygiene and environmental concerns, and must look at the full product lifecycle. To empower consumers in the circular economy, simple, understandable and EU-harmonised information about sustainability features of a product, proper waste disposal and recycling is key. Through packaging brands inform and connect with consumers, even nudge them towards more responsible behaviour. To avoid the risk of information overload, the focus on-pack should be on essential and meaningful information. Depending on size, only a limited amount of information may be placed on-pack. We therefore advocate for the development of digital as an alternative/supplement to physical product information, and for a coordinated approach to allow for digital means (e.g. QR codes, digital watermarks) to provide product information (via establishment of a European Stakeholder Forum for Digital Consumer Information). Any measures related to recycled content for packaging need to be carefully evaluated in terms of impact on packaging functionalities, demand and supply of SRMs, feasibility at industrial scale and the consequences on material prices. AIM brands have announced ambitious commitments to increase the amount of recycled content, while consumer protection, safety, hygiene, performance and quality of products/packaging remain the highest priority. Introducing general mandatory requirements for recycled content per se could undermine these essential functions. To boost the SRM market, we would rather support investments into EU (harmonised) collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure, R&D support for new treatment technologies and for innovative tracing technologies for sorting (e.g. digital watermarks), as well as binding EU definitions for “recyclability” and material-specific minimum quality standards for SRM.
Read full response

Meeting with Filomena Chirico (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton)

31 Jul 2020 · Digital services act

Meeting with Lucrezia Busa (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders)

14 Jul 2020 · meeting internal market political priorities

Response to Report on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation

29 Apr 2020

AIM, the European Brands Association, would like to encourage the Commission, European Data Protection Board, Parliament and Council to acknowledge a number of challenges in the application of the GDPR that have a negative impact on the fight against fraud, especially illegal products. We urge all of the relevant institutions to engage as soon as possible in discussions with the main stakeholders for the development of guidance on the scope of the GDPR. AIM members fully support the goal of the GDPR to protect personal data. However, concern about, inter alia, potential fines has resulted in over-implementation with many parties erring on the side of reluctance to share any data whatsoever to the detriment of consumers, authorities and businesses. Of particular importance would be clarity that the GDPR does not apply to commercial data (legal as opposed to natural persons) or prevent the sharing of commercial data with law enforcement (which does not, in our opinion, equate to publication and must surely be regarded as being in the public interest). The GDPR was never intended to provide a safe harbour for illicit actors but in some cases we encounter the GDPR being used as a blanket excuse not to share data, even commercial data, if that would involve any effort on the part of the data controller. It is also being exploited by bad actors, for example by allowing illegal activity to proliferate, especially online. This has been thrown into stark relief in the current crisis where online crime is rampant and the virtual impossibility to access WHOIS data for domain names registrants renders enforcement action, public and private, exceptionally difficult. We would appreciate clarity that the establishment, exercise or defence of a legal claim is expressly permitted within Article 6 (as it is in other Articles of the Regulation). Further, much of the data in the current WHOIS is inaccurate and little attempt is made by some domain name registries and registrars to verify data given by new registrants. We strongly urge the European authorities to clarify that Article 5 should oblige data controllers to proactively verify the accuracy of registration data and to provide a mechanism that allows third parties that rely on that data for legitimate purposes to challenge its accuracy and require its correction where appropriate. Guidance from the European authorities is sorely needed. We thank you in advance for your prompt action.
Read full response

Response to Action Plan on the Customs Union

21 Apr 2020

Thank you for the consultation. Comments from AIM, the European Brands Association, on the text are: "The ECA has regularly, and recently, criticised the effectiveness of customs controls ... areas that are important for EU citizens and that customs deal with such as security, health and safety and IPR protection as well as for Member States’ financial interests with regard notably to VAT." It is essential for Member States to give their customs authorities adequate resources, including IPR expertise and appropriate digital tools (access to the Enforcement Database; access to right holders’ authentication products etc.). IP-infringing imports result in massive losses in state revenue (customs’ primary role) as well as customer deception and damage. As cited in section B, such controls “...would both protect revenues and ensure security and safety of citizens and the internal market”. Currently, some Member States do not notify any (or, very few) IP-infringing detentions; it would be useful to evaluate customs’ activity and actions based on some specific KPIs (e.g. number of detentions, frequency, number of transit cases checked by customs etc.) and to establish clear objectives so that all Member States can equally contribute to the protection of the EU’s customs borders. "For this reason, measures should be taken to allow customs authorities to have all information necessary ... key to increase its effectiveness." Data from intermediaries in the supply chain must be shared with customs. Shippers, freight forwarders, couriers, express delivery providers and e-commerce platforms all have (or should have) data on their customers, thus the sellers, senders and transporters of illegal goods. The GDPR does not apply to the data of legal persons so there is no reason why such data cannot be shared with law enforcement, including customs authorities. Clarity on the application of the GDPR to such data exchanges would be of great practical import. Given the volume of goods arriving every day in the EU, especially in sea freight, we fully agree that pre-arrival risk analysis is vital to enable customs to target their scarce resources on the most worrying consignments. "They should strive for the higher degree in cooperation at strategic and operational levels with the border guards, police, European Integrated Border Management and Europol." OLAF should also be involved given their competence for and experience in organising joint investigations. "This initiative will take into account security initiatives notably in the area of internal security, air cargo security, maritime security, including the fight against any form of trafficking (e.g. firearms, drugs, wildlife, cultural goods and human beings)" ADD: and intellectual property infringements. "d) new initiatives to enhance risk management, to ensure similar levels of customs controls throughout the Customs Union and to provide support to Member States to address new challenges, including for" AMEND: "both small and large consignments ordered through e-commerce platforms." "The Communication will, in parallel ... integrate both revenue and non-revenue (including Intellectual Property Rights and illegal goods) aspects and prioritise major issues." Use of the EUIPO’s Enforcement Database should be maximised to ensure that customs have access to essential information from right holders. We could explore the possibility to develop virtual training for customs officers via the IP Portal. Further vital work would be the sharing of relevant risk analysis and detention data both between customs authorities throughout the EU and with other Law Enforcement Authorities. "Consultation of citizens and stakeholders" Regular consultation with IP rights holders must also be foreseen.
Read full response

Response to A new Circular Economy Action Plan

20 Jan 2020

In the context of the planned sustainable products policy, it is essential that brands can fully deploy their core competence: research and innovation in product and packaging design, production, usage and recovery. Constant innovation to anticipate and respond to consumer and societal trends and challenges is what keeps brands relevant. Therefore, any rules and legislation for product policy are best set as an overarching framework and objectives in order to ensure flexibility for innovation, and to avoid locking industry into short-term solutions which could be outdated very rapidly. In order to avoid the risk of EU Single Market fragmentation, measures under this overarching product policy framework should as default be taken at EU level in order to ensure harmonisation and avoid divergence across 27 Member States’ markets. When it comes to the empowerment of consumers to play their part in the Circular Economy, simple, understandable and EU-harmonised information about the sustainability features of a product, proper waste disposal, anti-littering and recycling is key. Any such information needs to be ‘actionable’ by consumers. For information displayed on-pack, it is important that any label/marking is proportionate to the actual size of the packaging, and relevant and feasible in terms of its positioning on the packaging. Depending on the overall space available on the packaging, only a limited amount of information may be placed on-pack. Consequently, and as highlighted in the European Green Deal, an additional way for better consumer information is through digital means. Digital means offer a great opportunity to effectively communicate product information to consumers as an alternative to labels, packaging or leaflets. It also has potential to reduce packaging waste. The European Commission should aim to support current national, European and international initiatives for the development of digital as an alternative or a supplement to physical product information, and adopt a coordinated approach to allow for digital means to provide product information in EU legislation. In addition to providing better information about sustainability features of a product, the concept of “Nudge” should be considered as an important tool for policy-makers and industry to not only inform citizens about sustainable product choices but to inspire them to change their behaviour towards a more sustainable one. Introduced by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler in 2008, Nudging looks at influencing people’s behaviour positively and without constraints, based on Behavioural Insights. Nudging is becoming a key tool for policy-makers, and is also gaining increased support among the branded goods industry. Based on their strong relationship with consumers, brands are in a unique position to “nudge” them to choose and behave differently. We believe that this concept has a huge potential for the public and private sector to engage citizens in the Circular Economy and empower more sustainable behaviour, notably for litter prevention, and waste sorting and collection. See www.nudgingforgood.com. Regarding reduction of waste generation, the availability of high-quality, safe and reliable recycled secondary raw materials (SRM) at competitive prices is essential. Functional markets with an appropriate infrastructure for SRM collection, production and trading are needed to ensure sufficient scale and material availability. Innovative tools that can help in ‘pushing’ or ‘pulling’ the effective recovery and flow of secondary raw materials should be supported. Effective end-of waste criteria are a pre-requisite to functioning markets for SRM, essential to provide the reassurance to manufacturers, regulators and consumers for the use of recyclates. Any measures related to recycled content need to be carefully evaluated in terms of impact on packaging functionalities, as well as the demand and supply of SRMs and the consequences on material prices.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of EU competition rules on horizontal agreements

3 Oct 2019

1.Introductory remarks AIM, the European Brands Association, representing 2,500 companies in Europe, supports the existing EU level framework for horizontal agreements which overall provided a good framework for legal certainty (Regulation (EC) No 1217/2010 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1218/2010 as well as the Guidelines).In this respect, AIM supports the extension of its application. AIM is keen to contribute and share the experiences and perspectives of our members in the European Commission consultation process of evaluating the Horizontal Regulations and the Guidelines. 2.Issues for consideration a)Block Exemption Regulations on R&D and Specialisation Agreements: The horizontal agreements for research play an important role for brand manufacturers. However, there are concerns that the current framework lacks sufficient clarity. This is an important dimension that can inhibit innovation and competition. b)Horizontal Guidelines Coherence: While the two Regulations and Guidelines contributed to more legal certainty in many areas, the EU Commission should consider the challenges resulting from the fact that the Guidelines are not binding for national courts or national authorities and this can lead to a different interpretation. Retail Alliances: Since 2010, there have been significant developments and changes in the European market, including further concentration of the retail market and a growth of cross-border cooperation models, the impact of which have raised questions by competition authorities in different markets. This category of agreements should fall under chapter 6 on “joint commercialisation agreements”. The current guidelines caution against commercialisation agreements between competitors or potential competitors. A rethinking of how to apply Article 101 TFEU to such agreements is required. Other points in the HGL requiring review in this regard include information exchange, joint purchasing agreements. c)Horizontal cooperations to pursue environmental and societal objectives Fighting climate change, reducing plastics waste or establishing fair working conditions for workers in developing countries are fundamental concerns not only from an EU policy perspective but also for consumer goods companies and their customers. However, the EU framework for horizontal agreements currently lacks the necessary clarity for industry collaboration in the field of sustainability. Statements from Commissioner Vestager (for instance at the Chillin’ Competition conference in November 2018) or NGA heads confirm that this is a critical area that should be considered in the revision. 3.Process Timeframe: AIM welcomes the notice this roadmap provides, which allows stakeholders to prepare more detailed content for the upcoming consultation. Given the technical complexity around the horizontal agreements framework, and on the basis of the recent experience with the consultation on the VBER earlier in 2019, we would respectively request the EU Commission, given the overall timeframe, to consider the benefits of having a slightly longer consultation period than the anticipated 12 weeks. This would enable experts within companies to provide more detailed input and material for this exercise, while broadening the group of companies that would then be able to participate given the limited resources some of the smaller and medium sized companies have at their disposal. In addition, as the EU Commission indicated the end of 2019 as the possible launch of the consultation, we would suggest the Commission avoids the holidays period. Format: AIM would also emphasise the importance of ensuring that the format of the consultation allows for the submission of supporting documentation, in addition to the questions chosen by the Commission. We would consider it useful to be able to comment on a more structured perspective of the EU Commission, following the results of the consultation in 2020, and would
Read full response

Meeting with Stig Joergen Gren (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

1 Apr 2019 · Intellectual property

Response to Evaluation of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation

6 Dec 2018

• AIM, the European Brands Association, representing 2,500 companies in Europe, supports the existing Vertical Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines (Regulation No 330/2010) which overall continue to work well, including in the context of new sales channels. • In this respect, AIM supports the extension of its application. • AIM is keen to contribute and share the experiences and perspectives of our members in the European Commission consultation process of evaluating the VBER and the Guidelines. • In the previous revision in 2009, AIM raised a number of points with the European Commission and we will provide further detail on the impact of the VBER on these points during the consultation expected for Q1 of 2019. 2. Potential issues for consideration An evolved business environment Market conditions have evolved and AIM considers that this evaluation process provides an important opportunity to address the impact of these changes and possible need for adaptation, particularly with regard to enforcement. In this context, we would suggest to pay particular attention to the evolution of (online) business models, including intermediated services, and their impact on the distribution of tangible goods and services; growing buying power of distributors, off and online (e.g. the recent DG COMP Amazon information gathering); increased concentration in the retail environment; upfront access payments requested by buyers; the potential misuse of information in the context of vertical agreements. It would be of interest in this context to review the definition of competitors. Ensuring competition law protects competition and innovation Many of the competition law experts in the AIM membership point to a lack of balance in the VBER and its enforcement, with a bias towards focusing on short-term lower consumer prices, as opposed to taking into account the long-term effects for innovation and quality competitiveness and the increased need for taking on board non-price competition parameters. Role of National Competition Authorities A challenge AIM members have found with the VBER is the non-uniform application of the framework at national level. We perceive this had the effect of decreasing some of the potential for legal certainty and uniform application. The developments at national level show that a more uniform approach would bring the benefit of more legal certainty across the Single Market, particularly considering new developments such as the application of the Geo-blocking Regulation as of December 2018. In some instances, the EU level case law by the ECJ has provided some certainty but this is not seen as sufficient. A potential issue for consideration is the role of the European Commission and whether its role as overseer and coordinator could be strengthened especially in relation to the functioning of the European Competition Network (ECN). 3. Process Timeframe AIM welcomes the notice this roadmap provides, which allows stakeholders to prepare more detailed content for the upcoming consultation. Given the breadth of content of the VBER, we would encourage the EU Commission, given the overall timeframe, to consider the benefits of having a slightly longer consultation period than announced in the roadmap. This would enable experts within companies to provide more detailed input and material for this exercise, while broadening the group of companies that would then be able to participate given the limited resources some of the smaller and medium sized companies have at their disposal. Format AIM would also emphasise the importance of ensuring that the format of the consultation allows for the submission of supporting documentation, in addition to the questions chosen by the Commission. We would consider it useful to be able to comment on a more structured perspective of the EU Commission, following the results of the consultation in Q1 of 2019 and be involved in the following events.
Read full response

Response to Reducing marine litter: action on single use plastics and fishing gear

23 Jul 2018

Avoiding plastic pollution and fostering sustainability is high on brand manufacturers’ agenda. Members of AIM – the European Brands Association – already integrate circular thinking into their strategies through, among others, responsible raw material sourcing, efficient production processes, more sustainable product design, inspiring more sustainable consumer behaviour (“Nudging for Good”), and being at the forefront of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for efficient waste management and recycling. With regard to the Single Use Plastic (SUP) Directive proposal of the European Commission, our attached position raises important points that should be addressed in order to ensure a well-functioning EU Single Market and a fair approach of shared responsibility among all relevant supply chain actors. While brand manufacturers do not oppose, in principle, a contribution to the costs of information campaigns we would like to contest the inclusion of the producer’s full responsibility for awareness raising campaigns and litter clean-up costs. This unlimited obligation to cover the entire costs of waste management and beyond is disproportionate to the producer’s responsibility and level of control, and does not reflect the true cost of collection and sorting of obligated packaging waste. Littering itself is a societal problem and needs multi-faceted and multi-stakeholder approaches and solutions. As the WFD clearly acknowledges: “The fight against litter should be a shared effort between competent authorities, producers and consumers” (recital 34). All relevant actors in society have to take a fair share and clearly defined accountability. It is therefore vital to include the consumer in the list of supply chain actors, as well as public waste management operators who are ultimately responsible for the waste infrastructure and end of life treatment. To just assign the responsibility for covering the costs of litter clean-up to producers goes beyond their role and will not solve the root causes of littering. The focus needs to be on litter prevention, adequate waste management and waste water treatment infrastructure rather than end-of-pipe clean-up. Furthermore, we support a harmonised approach at EU level to limit any risk of Single Market fragmentation. In this context, we firstly advocate for a closed, well-defined product list that cannot be interpreted differently or extended individually by Member States. Secondly, we are concerned that some of the defined measures in the SUP proposal might be implemented in a substantially different manner by Member States. There needs to be a clearer definition of measures, such as the marking requirements and consumption reduction measures, to avoid unjustified barriers to trade. In sum, it is essential that the SUP proposal – with its legal base Article 192(1) on environment – does not undermine the smooth functioning of the EU Single Market. We would suggest that the PPWD with its legal base Article 114 TFEU remains the overriding lex specialis for the packaging items covered within the scope of the SUP proposal. Finally, we are concerned about the consequences that prescriptive design requirements could have on innovation and competitiveness of our sector. Innovation needs flexibility to avoid locking producers into certain solutions which could be outdated very rapidly. The proposal includes a specific packaging design measure for a product category (caps that remain attached to beverage bottles), even though the Commission plans to revise the Essential Requirements in the PPWD. We welcome design improvements that increase the sustainability of packaging and minimise their impact on the environment, but we would urge against taking design measures for specific product categories in isolation.
Read full response

Response to Targeted revision of EU consumer law directives

21 Jun 2018

Since early 2017, our sector actively collaborated with the European Commission to address the issue of alleged “dual quality” of food products. This resulted in what was presented by the Joint Research Centre in April, namely the methodology and the testing initiative that is currently ongoing. Our sector’s key focus is to take this debate very seriously and do the utmost to safeguard the consumers trust and confidence. We would like to focus this reply on the two proposals: The revision of the UCPD/CRD Directives and the revision of the Injunctions Directive. 1. UCPD/CRD: We appreciate the EU Commissions focus to ensure a case by case approach concerning Article 6, aiming to improve legal certainty while at the same time recognising that there are legitimate grounds for which products can be different in composition and ingredients. Differences in composition of products with the same branding can exist for various practical and legitimate reasons. We are against misleading practices and agree with President Juncker who said, in his State of the Union speech of September 2017, that there are no second-class citizens in the EU. We would however contest the procedural choice and urge for caution as this aspect was not included in the Inception Impact Assessment and it is not fully clear what the consequences will be. The scope should be to clarify the existing framework rather than to introduce a new set of rules. We wish to continue playing a constructive and supportive role in this debate. As the branded consumer goods industry, we do our utmost to meet our consumers expectations and aspirations, each and every day, throughout the European Union. It is critical that the key principles of diversity and choice remain options for Europe’s consumers’. 2. Injunctions Directive: We support the EU Commissions goals to ensure a more effective enforcement mechanisms for consumers across the EU. However, from a first assessment of the proposed revision of the Injunctions Directive it seems that the EU Commission did not achieve a good balance in terms of legal certainty, safeguards against abusive actions or the effectiveness of the system. We call on the EU Commission to commit to improving the text rather than to rush the reform due to the very ambitious timeline. There are too many questions left unaddressed in the text that many fear, if adopted as such, will generate a commercially motivated collective redress system, focusing on profits and not on redress and remedies.
Read full response

Response to Initiative to improve the Food Supply Chain

14 Jun 2018

AIM, the European Brands Association supports the European Commission in its efforts to address the imbalance in the supply chain to ensure a fairer environment for the entire chain. We believe we all have a shared responsibility for a sustainable and strong supply chain, which is critical to having a competitive EU. SMEs & farmers are important to our chains, helping us to deliver diverse and innovative products to consumers across Europe but without a comprehensive approach, the effect felt higher up the chain will be transmitted across the entire system and across sectors if some parts of the ecosystem are left unprotected. The links in the supply chains are inter-dependent - where one is not operating efficiently, there is a domino effect felt across the chain as recognised by several reports of the Commission and European Parliament: unfair trading practices can cascade up and down the chain, affecting farmers even indirectly. We consider that an effective solution needs a broader scope: this is why we ask for a ‘fairness for all’ approach. UTPs can be imposed on large players, just as they can be imposed on smaller players. In order to have real effect, and strengthen the competitiveness of the whole supply chain, the scope of legislation should not differentiate by size. This would also ensure consistency with existing legislation across Member States in Europe and facilitate enforcement. Existing legislation at national level does not limit the scope to SMEs only. Limiting the scope of EU legislation will therefore distort its objective of even minimum harmonisation across Europe in its national transposition. The scope limitation to SMEs will exclude co-operatives. This means that whilst some farmers would be included, others would not – and given 1 in 3 brands for food products on shop shelves come from co-operatives, this is a large exclusion (LSA N°2485, 7.12.2017, Les coopératives agricoles: le pari de la valorisation). It is also worth noting that over 25% of agricultural crops are used in products other than food (i.e. oil in cleaning products, cosmetics). Again, this should be a case of ‘fairness for all’, not just fairness for some. UTPs vary and we understand that capturing all UTPs is a challenge. However, we believe the Commission should include the overarching principle it defined on UTPs, that of fair dealing - that undertakings should be prohibited “from imposing on their trading partners, or attempting to obtain from them, any terms and conditions that are unjustified, disproportionate or without consideration” – whatever the specific situation. This should be included in the Directive as it would at least provide some certainty to all links in the supply chain that fairness must prevail at all times, in all situations, during trading relationships. Our experience shows that manifestly unfair trading practices create inefficiencies in the supply chain, which has negative consequences for competitiveness and therefore a negative domino effect throughout the chain. AIM supports a robust set of rules that will have the real effect of addressing unfair trading practices across the supply chain, ensuring a sustainable and strong chain, aimed at promoting fairness for all.
Read full response

Meeting with Carl-Christian Buhr (Cabinet of Commissioner Mariya Gabriel)

4 Jun 2018 · ePrivacy

Response to Measures to further improve the effectiveness of the fight against illegal content online

29 Mar 2018

Please see the attached PDF from AIM, the European Brands Association.
Read full response

Meeting with Michel Barnier (Head of Task Force Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom)

16 Mar 2018 · Meeting with the Task Force for the Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom under Article 50 TEU

Meeting with Jyrki Katainen (Vice-President) and

30 Jan 2018 · Unfair Trading Practices

Meeting with Věra Jourová (Commissioner) and

25 Jan 2018 · Dual Quality

Meeting with Eduard Hulicius (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

16 Jan 2018 · Counterfeited goods

Meeting with Věra Jourová (Commissioner) and

19 Oct 2017 · dual quality, gender equality and women on boards

Meeting with Věra Jourová (Commissioner) and

11 Oct 2017 · Dual quality

Meeting with Eduard Hulicius (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

10 Oct 2017 · Dual quality of food

Response to Initiative to improve the Food Supply Chain

21 Aug 2017

Please find attached the AIM comments in PDF.
Read full response

Meeting with Agnieszka Drzewoska (Cabinet of Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska), Kaius Kristian Hedberg (Cabinet of Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska) and FoodDrinkEurope

3 Aug 2017 · differences in compositions and in alleged quality of food

Meeting with Věra Jourová (Commissioner) and

25 Jul 2017 · dual quality of food

Meeting with Agnieszka Drzewoska (Cabinet of Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska), Rolf Carsten Bermig (Cabinet of Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska) and

25 Jul 2017 · dual quality of food

Meeting with Věra Jourová (Commissioner) and FoodDrinkEurope

11 May 2017 · Dual food quality

Meeting with Eduard Hulicius (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

4 Apr 2017 · Quality of foodstuff

Meeting with Filomena Chirico (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

14 Dec 2016 · Brands in the digital single market

Response to European Union trade mark

5 Nov 2016

On behalf of AIM, the European Brands Association, we would be grateful if the Commission could take into account the following comment. The Office is anticipating the development of electronic/online communications; while this is a positive development, we believe that some clarity is needed. For example, Article 7(2)(f) refers to “evidence accessible online from an official source recognised by the Office” (for evidencing earlier rights in an opposition): does this mean that, for instance, it will be possible to simply provide the link from the site of a National Office rather than providing the copy of a registration certificate? Also, will the Office provide a list of the recognised official sources? Thank you.
Read full response

Meeting with Tiina Astola (Director-General Justice and Consumers)

14 Sept 2016 · Introductory visit

Meeting with Eric Mamer (Digital Economy)

19 Jun 2015 · DSM

Meeting with Eduard Hulicius (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

6 May 2015 · Working lunch on 'nudge' initiatives

Meeting with Eduard Hulicius (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

8 Jan 2015 · Product advertising