Lone inventors and small companies often come face to face with bureaucracy and barriers to successfully market their merchandise. One such obstacle to overcome is the need to CE mark a product if it is to be marketed together with the European Union EU. CE marking is in broad terms meant to confirm that the product is safe to use, when used as intended. However the approach to CE marking and the burden of proof of product conformance or otherwise, can be decided in distinctly different ways with differing levels of business risk.
The most recognized and pricey Path for achieving CE marking is via outside certification. This entails selecting a licensed certifying company or body for the type of merchandise in question, and after their strict protocol to attain certification. Accreditation businesses are obligated through international standards that are essentially considered EU laws, and so offer the highest assurance that the product does or does not, confirm with the CE marking requirements. The manufacturer can therefore rely on this as prima facie proof of conformance in which a CE mark is given by an accredited certification body. This also provides the cheapest commercial risk as specialist accredited businesses have determined compliance. However the financial burden to small companies can become significant.
Another option open to the lone Creator or small business would be to self-declare CE conformance. From a legal standpoint the burden of proof as to self-declare conformance now rests with the signatory to the ce marking certification malaysia in addition to any resulting legal actions should merchandise related injuries arise. This might be regarded as a greater risk which some might not want to attract.
To many this might seem a very large Risk strategy yet to others, still counting the growth costs of the invention or new solution, an essential step when demonstrating the sales potential of this product possibly through test marketing or mining of distribution channels. However with proper attention and supporting documentation there’s absolutely not any reason why this should not be a reasonable, if not higher risk, course of action.