What other measures can the court order to effectively enforce IP rights?

In addition to injunctive relief, provisional measures and damages, national civil procedures provide for additional expedient measures that a court can order. While conditions vary from country to country, some general standards exist.

In many cases, upon the filing for injunctive relief, a plaintiff also asks the court to seize or destroy the stocks of the infringing goods. If a court grants the order, the defendant must - without compensation - deliver or destroy any infringing goods in his possession. This may have an important economic impact both on the plaintiff, who is ensured that the infringing goods will not be used in the future, and the defendant, who may have invested in the production or acquaintance of the goods. As a result, such orders also remove economic incentives for IP infringes. Many countries provide for such remedies, in accordance with their obligation under Art. 46 of the TRIPS Agreement.

Additionally, the courts of a number of countries may grant orders for the disclosure of information. This remedy, which is optional under the TRIPS Agreement (Art. 47), has been introduced in various national legal systems. The right of information can be a powerful instrument, particularly in situations where the defendant is only a part of a distribution chain of infringing goods. In such a case the plaintiff may apply for a court order to force disclosure of information about the defendant's suppliers and customers.

Another significant court order addresses the question of compensation for legal costs of the parties, including fees for lawyers, expert witnesses, court fees, etc. In many countries, this order follows the decision on the merits of the case; in other words, the losing litigant will in principle have to pay both his own legal costs and those of the other party.