17
In light of this, the two main obstacles are the ability to identify the scam and
then report it, or share it with the relevant stakeholders.
Also, as mentioned previously, the overall damage caused by fake invoice fraud
is difficult to determine in precise numbers, since many Legal Business
Structures unknowingly pay fake invoices, or do not want to make it publicly
known or report that they were defrauded. In addition, many Legal Business
Structures adopt a policy of not checking the authenticity of invoices below a
certain threshold. These Legal Business Structures are prepared to take the risk
of paying invoices that may turn out to be fake, rather than incurring the cost of
extensive invoice controls.
Another important vulnerability relies on the legal obligation that ties the IP
offices to make the details of their relationships with their customers publicly
available. The online availability of customer data on IPR applied for and
registered, the names and addresses of owners and representatives, and the
expiration date of the registration, creates a substantial vulnerability that is used
by the fraudsters to retrieve useful data for their scam.
Criminals specialised in invoice fraud exploit these vulnerabilities and are able
to gain profits from this criminal business.
Based on discussions with several law firms representatives, most of the Legal
Business Structures that spotted the scam did not pay the fees and threw away
the misleading invoice, with or without reporting it to EUIPO and the Anti-Scam
Network. However, the exchange of communication between IPR owners and
EUIPO (or the Anti-Scam Network member) mainly relies on the request for
IPR
owner nor their IP counsellor clearly spotted the scam.
document was not sent from official agencies offering private registration or IP
monitoring. In that case, they were willing to pay the requested fees to add
additional protection to their IP. After being informed of the scam, (no actual IP
monitoring or registration renewal was performed by the rogue company or the
registration into a private register was irrelevant) many Legal Business
Structures filed a complaint to their local LEA. However, some Legal Business
Structures simply decided not to bother the LEA with a complaint, having little
faith in stopping the scheme or simply blaming bad luck for being caught in a
scam.
IPR owners in the EU especially
when the scam is based on a proposal of service. Police agencies might be
reluctant to consider these facts as criminal, whereas it remains a question if the
IPR owner may be considered as a consumer, thereby relying on consumer
protection and able to share the information with consumer protection
agencies.
For example, in France, the General Directorate for Competition Policy,
Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control and its various Departmental Directorates
for the Protection of Populations receive complaints from business owners and