A coalition of major international corporations is to lobby the European Parliament and commission in an attempt to secure better protection for trade secrets, the Gazette has learned.

In-house counsel from the 10-strong coalition of companies assert that trade secrets do not receive adequate protection in the EU compared with other economies, such as the US and Japan. They have instructed US firm White & Case to spearhead their action.

The coalition is seeking legislative amendments to a directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and to a regulation covering customs and counterfeit goods. The coalition claims that the directive, which does not mention trade secrets, is ambiguous about what intellectual property it protects. Approaches will be made to the parliament and commission in the coming months.

The member corporations, many with multi-billion pound revenues, span a range of industries including food, telecoms and chemicals. More companies are expected to join the coalition with its lobbying, which is still in its early stages.

One of the corporate counsel involved said: ‘Thefts of trade secrets are increasing and some of our trade secrets have been sold to competitors. The EU wants to promote innovation and R&D [research and development], so we’re saying that we need improved protection and awareness that trade secrets are another form of intellectual property.’

The counsel said that ‘confidential know-how’, even when not covered by patent or copyright, is ‘a critical element of the value proposition’ in many industries. ‘In the US and Japan, there is legislation that protects trade secrets and an awareness that trade secrets are just another form of intellectual property that needs protection.’

The counsel said that adequate remedies are needed when stolen trade secrets are exploited.

Meanwhile, the European Court of Justice has extended protection for trademarks in the long-running L’Oréal v Bellure case concerning the manufacture and sale of imitations of well-known perfumes. The ECJ decided that a third party seeking to ‘ride on the coat-tails’ of a trademark ‘in order to benefit from the power of attraction’ was in the wrong, even if the trademark owner suffered no direct loss.