The three intellectual property rights-related laws provide for measures aimed at preventing violation of intellectual property rights. The 1992 Trade Marks Law No. 37 in its chapter VI on Penalty (Articles 37-43), the 1992 Copyright Law in its chapter VIII (Articles 38-44 on Penalty), and the 1992 Patent and Design Law in its chapter V on Preventive Measures, Offences and Penalty (Articles 58-61) lay down measures to prevent any infringement or unlawful act which violate rights of the owner of intellectual property. These laws also provides for remedy measures like preventive seizure, confiscation, destruction of products and equipment as well as removing of the effects of the illegal acts and compensation.

The 1992 Trademarks law No. 37 states in Article 41 that the owner of a trademark may, at any time, and even before initiating any civil or criminal action, obtain from the court, upon a petition accompanied by an official certificate establishing the registration of the mark, an order directing the necessary preventive measures be taken, including in particular the following: - Preparing a detailed descriptive inventory of the articles and equipments indented to be used or actually used in committing any of the crimes provided in the law. The said inventory shall also include the products and goods, manufactured locally or imported, addresses of the establishment or packaging, papers or any other articles on which the counterfeit mark or statement was affixed. - Seizure of the articles mentioned above after the plaintiff shall have submitted a financial security determined by the court to identify the defendant if that becomes necessary. The 1992 Patent law Article 58 provides for preventive remedies available to right holder in stating that the owner of the patent can request the competent court before or during the civil or penal action, to issue an order for the precautionary seizure on the invention, the industrial design or on the establishment using or exploiting any of industrial property in relation to which an infringement or an unlawful act has been committed that contravenes the law or contracts or license. The amendment of this Article envisages adding provision to determine the affectivity of the same rule on the application of patent as well. The amendment to the 1992 Copyright law will provide for precautionary procedures and penalties authorizing the competent court to take decision in order to prevent any fraud or suspend publication, exhibition, reproduction or impose seizure on the copies of the works, performances, phonograms or the broadcasting programs published without prior permission from the right holder.

Yes the three intellectual property laws provide for such measures. Article 61 of the 1992 Patent law No. 44 states that the competent court may decide to confiscate the property or dispose of the property in whatever manner it deems appropriate. It may also order the destruction of the equipment used in committing the act of imitation, and remove the effects of any illegal act. Article 43 of the 1992 Trademarks law No. 37 provides for the confiscation of the articles seized and the destruction of the illegal marks, the products, packaging and equipments as well as other articles bearing the illegal marks and counterfeiting. The 1992 Copyrights Law No. 40, Article 43, provides for confiscation and the closing of the institution violating copyright. The draft amendment will confirm these measures and introduce destruction measures in order to ensure that the infringing products and the materials for making them be outside of the channels of commerce as referred to in the TRIPS Agreement.

Customs Departments are authorized to take measures at the borders to prevent any violation of trademarks-related rights and copyright piracy in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations as well as under Customs regulations. These measures could be taken either following the demand of the right holder or the judicial order

Customs Departments are authorized to take measures at the borders to prevent any violation of all other forms of intellectual property rights protected under TRIPS Agreement and the national relevant laws and regulations, in accordance with the above-mentioned laws as well as under Customs regulations. These measures could be taken either following the demand of the right holder or the judicial order.

Customs regulations allow for such measures.

Articles 37 and 38 of the 1992 Trademarks law No. 37 determine the illegal acts to be sanctioned by imprisonment and monetary fine or by either of the two penalties. Article 60 of the 1992 Patent law No. 44 lays down criminal sanctions and monetary penalties to be imposed to whom infringe any right protected by the law. The draft amendment of this provision intends to put a maximum to the fine that increases what is defined in the misdemeanor for the penalty to suit with the importance of the contravention. The 1992 Copyrights law No. 40 lays down the same procedures (Article 37 to 42).

The 1992 Trademarks, Patent and Copyrights laws provide for remedy measures like preventive seizure, destruction of products and, confiscation of equipments as well as removing of the effects of the illegal acts and compensation. Article 41 and 43 of the Trademarks law provide for precautionary measures, seizure as well as destruction of illegal marks, products and packaging and tools and the article bearing the illegal marks. Article 58 of the Patent law provides for the precautionary seizure. The related amendment will determine the affectivity of the measure on the application of the patent as well. Article 61 of the same law provides for confiscation of the seized objects, destruction or effacing of the impacts of the violating actions, as well as the equipments and tools used in the falsification. The 1992 Copyrights law provides for the same measures. The amendments to the copyright law envisage enhancing these measures.

The provisions cited above are applicable to the other forms of intellectual property. The 1992 Patent law No. 44 for instance covers, in its Article 60, patents, utility certificates, know-how, inventions, processes or an element of know-how, industrial designs or any right protected by the law as rights protected against falsification or infringement. These illegal acts against the mentioned protected rights are subject the criminal procedures and monetary fines.

The Ministry of Information and Culture, which is responsible for copyrights, has received during the biennium (2000-2001) 128 claims categorized as follows: - vendors: 23 cases - video films : 33 cases - computer programs: 18 cases - smart cards concerning TV broadcasting by satellite: 8 cases - electronic games: 6 cases In addition to the natural persons, the claimants were from various concerned parties such as the Arab Union for Anti-Piracy, the Union of Computer Programs Producers, International Union for Audio products, etc. The procedure followed in dealing with such claims use to start with verifying the claimed cases by the Inspection Division in the Ministry of Information and Culture in order to ensure a minimum of certainty of the elements being claimed. After the inspection action, coordination is made with the police authorities in order to engage necessary raids and seizure. The case is then presented before the competent court. The Ministry of Information and Culture has also the competency to decide the closing of the establishments taking part in infringement and piracy under the Law. As far as the trademarks infringement is concerned, there is a few cases received in the Ministry of Economy and Commerce to date (35 claims) since 1992, which are dealt with in the same way explained for the Copyrights infringement. The United Arab Emirates will provide the US delegation with further statistics very soon regarding civil and criminal enforcement.

The Ministry of Information and Culture, which is responsible for copyrights, has received during the biennium (2000-2001) 128 claims categorized as follows: - vendors: 23 cases - video films : 33 cases - computer programs: 18 cases - smart cards concerning TV broadcasting by satellite: 8 cases - electronic games: 6 cases In addition to the natural persons, the claimants were from various concerned parties such as the Arab Union for Anti-Piracy, the Union of Computer Programs Producers, International Union for Audio products, etc. The procedure followed in dealing with such claims use to start with verifying the claimed cases by the Inspection Division in the Ministry of Information and Culture in order to ensure a minimum of certainty of the elements being claimed. After the inspection action, coordination is made with the police authorities in order to engage necessary raids and seizure. The case is then presented before the competent court. The Ministry of Information and Culture has also the competency to decide the closing of the establishments taking part in infringement and piracy under the Law. As far as the trademarks infringement is concerned, there is a few cases received in the Ministry of Economy and Commerce to date (35 claims) since 1992, which are dealt with in the same way explained for the Copyrights infringement. The United Arab Emirates will provide the US delegation with further statistics very soon regarding civil and criminal enforcement.

In Barbados, the protection of plant varieties as contemplated in Article 27.3 is not considered under the Patents Act, 2001-18 but instead under the sui generis provisions of the Protection of New Plant Varieties Act 2001-17. Section 11 of the Patents Act 2001-18 provides that "(1) Whether or not they constitute an invention within the meaning of this Act, the following are not patentable under this Act, namely, (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; (b) schemes, rules or methods for (i) the carrying on of business; (ii) the performing of acts of a mental nature only; or (iii) the playing of games; (c) methods for treatment of human beings or animals by surgery or therapy; (d) diagnostic methods practised on human beings or animals; (e) plant varieties, animal varieties and essentially biological processed for the production of plants other than microbiological processes and the products of those processes; or (f) an invention, the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to public order or morality or which is prejudicial to human or animal health or to plant life or the environment. (2) Paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) do not extend to products invented for use in the methods referred to in those paragraphs." The exceptions contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) do not fall within the definition of patentable development as set out in Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Paragraphs (c) to (f) were drafted in accordance with the provisions of Article 27.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. The text of the Patents Act 2001-18 has been notified to the World Trade Organization. Having regard to the foregoing Act, there is sui generis provision in the Protection of New Plant Varieties Act 2001-17 for new plant variety protection. The procedures for obtaining plant variety protection are specifically based on the UPOV Model Law for Small Developing Countries obtained through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Other aspects have been modelled on the Trinidad & Tobago Protection of New Plant Varieties Act. The text of the Protection of New Plant Varieties Act 2001-17 has been notified to the World Trade Organization and is available for examination by Member states. Barbados is not a party to either of the UPOV Conventions.

Plant varieties in Ghana are to be protected by a sui generis system. In this regard a draft protection of Plant Varieties Act is to be laid before Parliament soon. The draft Plant Varieties Act was modelled on the 1978 UPOV Act. A new plant variety cannot be protected by patent.

All rights holders may seek redress for any infringement of their legal rights through civil proceedings in the Supreme Court as outlined in Barbados' response to question 1 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement. Further, please refer to our response to question 24 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.1 This response reads as follows: It is an offence under section 48 of the Trade Marks Act, for a person to apply to goods or their packaging a trademark identical to or capable of being confused with a registered trademark. It is also an offence to sell or let for hire, offer or expose of sale or hire, or to distribute, goods that bear such an infringing trademark. Possession of such goods with the intent to do any of the acts mentioned above will also constitute an offence. It is an offence for a person to apply an infringing mark to goods without consent of the registered owner of the mark, with a view to enriching himself or causing loss to another. This applies to use of any item used in the reproduction of that infringing mark. It is also an offence to make an item that will enable a person to make copies of an infringing mark. Under section 49(1) of the Trade Marks Act it is an offence for a person to knowingly infringe any rights in a registered trademark vested in a person under the Act. The penalty for infringement under section 50 of the Act before a Court of summary jurisdiction is a fine of BD$10,000.00 or a term of imprisonment of two years, or both; in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine of BD$1,000.00 for each day the offence continues may be imposed. Under section 46 of the Copyright Act, the penalty for infringement for profit-making purposes by a person knowing or having reason to believe that he is committing an infringement, in summary conviction is a fine of BD$25,000.00 and/or to one year's imprisonment. The defendant convicted on indictment may receive a fine of BD$100,000 and/or three years imprisonment. Where there has been no decision on such remedies in civil proceedings, the Magistrate or Judge has the inherent jurisdiction to order the impounding of suspected copies of works on sound recordings, as well as the implements that could be used for the making of such copies; to order the forfeiture and seizure of all copies of works or sound recordings manufactured, reproduced, distributed, sold or otherwise use, intended for use or possessed with intent to use in contravention of the rights of the owner and all plates, moulds, masters, tapes, film negatives or other articles by means of which such copies of works or sound recordings may be reproduced and all electronic mechanical or other devices for manufacturing, reproducing or assembling such copies of works or sound recordings; to order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of infringing copies. Where an offence under section 46 committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance or attributable to neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or person purporting to act in any capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty and liable to the above penalties. The court retains inherent jurisdiction to forfeit counterfeit goods on the application of a person under the section. On such forfeiture, the court can order the destruction of any such goods; or cause the offending sign to be erased or obliterated and make an order for costs.

Section 142 of the Barbados Copyright Act provides that: "(1) Subject to this section, the Minister may, by order, provide for reciprocal treatment to be given to any country that provides protection in respect of Barbados: (a) in relation to persons who are citizens or permanent residents of that country as they apply to persons who are citizens or permanent residents of Barbados; (b) in relation to bodies incorporated or established under the laws of that country as they apply in relation to bodies incorporated or established under the laws of Barbados; (c) in relation to literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, sound recordings, films and editions first published in that country as they apply in relation to such work, sound recordings, films and editions first published in Barbados; (d) in relation to broadcasts made from or cable programmes sent from that country as they apply in relation to broadcasts made from or cable programmes sent from Barbados; (e) in relation: (i) to performances taking place in that country or given by an individual who is a citizen or habitual resident of that country; (ii) to performances incorporated in a phonogram which is protected by Article 5 of the Rome Convention; or (iii) to performances; not being fixed on a phonogram that are carried by a broadcast which is protected by Article 6 of the Rome Convention, as they apply in relation to performances taking place in Barbados or given by an individual who is a citizen or habitual resident of Barbados. (2) An order made under subsection (1) may apply any provision of this Act in relation to any country: (a) without exception or modification or subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the order; (b) generally or in relation to such classes of works or other classes of case as may be so specified. (3) An order shall not be made under subsection (1) in relation to any country unless: (a) the Country is a Convention country; or (b) a country as to which the Minister is satisfied that provision has been made or will be made under the law in respect of the class of works or, as the case may be, the performances, to which the order relates, giving adequate protection to the owner of copyright under this Act or, as the case may be, to Barbadian performances as defined in section 143(4). (4) In this section 'Convention country' means a country that is party to a Convention relating to copyright or performers rights, as the case may be, to which Barbados is also a party." In light of this section, the relevant Minister may enter into reciprocal agreements with other countries in order to make protective arrangements for copyrighted works created by non-Barbadians. At common law, Barbados treats all copyrighted work, whether indigenous or imported, as protected.

Draft legislation on various aspects of Intellectual property have been prepared and are soon to be laid before Parliament. The provisions in the draft legislation fully comply with the obligation under the TRIPS Agreement including the enforcement obligations under Articles 41-61.

Ghana is presently a Member of the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention, (UCC) and the TRIPS Agreement. Ghana has reciprocal obligations under the foregoing Convention to protect works of Ghanaian citizens in a like manner as protection is extended to works of citizens of the member countries to those conventions. This obligation is explicitly provided for under section 2(2)(iii) of the Copyright Law, Provisional National Defence Council ("PNDC") Law 110 of 1985.

(i) Please see section 49 (1) of the Patents Act 2001-18. This section, concerning the circumstances in which the Crown may exploit a patent, is fully compliant with the provisions of Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement. Section 11 of the Act is also compliant with Article 27.3 of the Agreement. (ii) Sections 51-84 and sections 142- 151 of the Copyright Act 1998 respectively make provision, inter alia, for the use of copyrighted works for public use, fair dealing and in libraries; for the purpose of reporting of current events, reading or recitation of published literary or dramatic works in public, the playing of sound recordings for the benefit of a club or other charitable organization and the reciprocal treatment and/or protection of such works in other territories. (iii) Section 40 of the Protection of New Plant Varieties Act 2001-17 makes provision for the issuing of compulsory licenses in circumstances similar to those set out in section 49(1) of the Patents Act (see above). (iv) Section 18 of the Integrated Circuits Act 1998 (as amended) makes provision for the exploitation of integrated circuits in particular circumstances.

In Barbados, compilations and computer programmes are protected in section 2 as literary works. (Please refer to the definitions of "literary works" and "computer programme" in the Act.) Protection of "literary works" is provided under the terms of section 6. No explicit definition of "database" is contained in the Act. Nonetheless, the term "compilation", given its ordinary dictionary meaning, will extend to all databases whatever their mode or form of expression.

In section 2 of the Barbados Copyright Act, 1998-4, "sound recordings" are defined as: (a) a recording of sounds from which sounds may be reproduced, or (b) a recording of the whole or any part of a literary, dramatic or musical work from which sounds reproducing the work or part thereof may be produced regardless of the medium on which the recording is made or the method by which the sounds are reproduced or produced. (emphasis added) The protection afforded under the Act for sound recordings therefore applies to all sound recordings, however fixed or recorded. The rental right in section 76(c) applies to cinematographic images whether recorded on film, electronic or other medium capable of producing a moving image having regard to the definition of "film" in section 2 which means "a recording on any medium from which a moving image may by any means be produced".