Review of TRIPS Implementing Legislation - Search

Reset
 
 

Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement requires Members to notify the laws and regulations made effective by that Member pertaining to the subject matter of the Agreement to the Council for TRIPS in order to assist the Council in its review of the operation of the Agreement.

This page allows you to search Members' questions and answers on notified laws and regulations. You can consult search results on screen, download and print them in Excel format. You can also download individual documents.

* You do NOT have to select all the search fields below (only fill the search fields that are relevant to your query).
* Please note that selected search criteria are cumulative and will all be reflected in your search results.


Page 12 of 677   |   Number of documents : 13533

Document symbol Notifying Member Member raising question Question Answer Date of document distribution  
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrain, Kingdom of United States of America 27. Please describe in detail the procedures under the Laws of Bahrain that provide for border enforcement at least for trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy, identifying the competent Directorate and citing to the relevant provisions of Law or regulation.
The customs authority, which is the General Directorate of Customs, may order the measure pursuant to Article 46 of the draft Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights and Article 35 of the draft Law on Trademarks with respect to goods that constitute any of the infringements defined in those Laws. The measure may be ordered by the customs authority on its own initiative or upon an application by the right holder or the Public Prosecutor. Both Articles provide that the measure may be ordered if the customs authority is convinced on the basis of prima facie evidence that such goods (whether imports or exports) constitute infringements of any of the intellectual property rights of the right holder. However, the procedure does not apply to goods in transit or to de minimis imports or goods put on the market in another country by or with the consent of the right holder. This administrative procedure does not preclude the right to resort to the court in the first place to obtain a court order for the measure . The application if made by the right holder or the Public Prosecutor must include a sufficiently detailed description of the goods to make them readily recognisable by the customs authority. The right holder, if he is the applicant, is required to submit adequate evidence to satisfy the customs authority that there is prima facie an infringement of his intellectual property right. The customs authority has the authority to require the applicant to provide security. The objective is to protect both the defendant and the customs authority and to prevent abuse. The customs authority is required to decide within a period not exceeding 3 days on whether to accept the application. The customs authority is required to promptly notify the applicant and the importer of its decision to suspend the release of the goods. A petition to challenge the decision may be submitted to the court within 10 days. The goods shall be released if within 10 working days after the right holder has been served with a notice of the suspension; the customs authority is not informed that the right holder has initiated proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case. However, the release of the goods will only be authorised if all the conditions for importation or exportation as the case may be have been complied with. The 10 days time limit may be extended in appropriate cases for a further period not exceeding 10 days at the discretion of the General Director of Customs. The customs authority is prohibited from refusing to provide the right holder and the importer or exporter, if the goods are destined for export, to be notified promptly. The decision to suspend the release of the goods remains in force unless subsequently annulled by the court or after the lapse of 10 days without the customs authority being informed that proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case have been initiated. The customs authority is required to provide both the right holder and the importer or exporter, as the case may be, sufficient opportunity to inspect the goods detained. Further regulatory matters with respect to the form, payable fees, manner in which applications are to be submitted and how they are to be processed together with the amount of security to be provided will be the subject of an Implementing Ministerial Regulation. The fee to be determined in the Implementing Regulation is not expected to be more than BD 30 (US$80). The importer or exporter – as the case may be – and the owner of the goods may, through the court, seek equitable compensation based on Article 158 of the Civil Code for any injury caused to them through the wrongful detention of the goods.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrain, Kingdom of United States of America 28. Please indicate if border enforcement is available to owners of other forms of intellectual property and, if so, please describe the procedures and remedies available in relation to each form of intellectual property, citing the relevant provisions of Law.
Border enforcement required under the TRIPS Agreement is available only to trademarks and copyright and neighbouring rights infringement.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrain, Kingdom of United States of America 29. Article 58 of the TRIPS Agreement specifies procedures to be followed where the competent authorities can act ex officio. Please explain whether the competent authorities in Bahrain are empowered to act ex officio and, if so, please identify the intellectual property areas subject to ex officio action.
Article 46 of the draft Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights and Article 35 of the draft Law on Trademarks both provide that the customs authority may act upon its own initiative or upon request by the public prosecutor to suspend the release of goods in respect of which the customs authority has acquired prima facie evidence that the goods constitute an infringement of any of the intellectual property rights provided for under those draft Laws.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrain, Kingdom of United States of America 30. Please describe in detail how the Laws of Bahrain implement Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement that requires Members to have criminal procedures and penalties, including imprisonment and/or monetary fines sufficient to act as a deterrent, at least for cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting and copyright infringement on a commercial scale. Please cite to the relevant provisions of Law and regulation.
Article 38 of the draft Law on Trademarks provides for criminal sanctions to infringement of Trademarks Law. The penalty is imprisonment for a term not less than 3 months and not more than one year or a fine of not less than BD 500 and not more than BD 2000 or to both fine and imprisonment. If the offender repeats an offence, the upper limit of both the fine and imprisonment are doubled and in addition the court has the authority to order the closure of the premises, at which the offence was facilitated, for a period between 15 days to six months and to order the verdict to be published in at least one daily newspaper at the expense of the offender. Articles 49, 50 and 51 of the draft Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights provide for criminal sanctions to infringements of copyright and neighbouring rights. The penalties are identical to those for trademarks outlined above.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrain, Kingdom of United States of America 31. Article 61 also requires that remedies in appropriate cases include the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of infringing goods and any materials and implements the predominant use of which has been the commission of the offence. Please describe the provisions in the Laws of Bahrain that provide for such remedies, and describe the circumstances in which those remedies would be imposed, citing to the relevant provisions of Law or regulation.
Article 52 of the draft Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights and Article 38 of the draft Law on Trademarks provide that the court has the authority to order the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of infringing goods and any materials and implements which has been used for the commission of the offence. The draft Laws do not enumerate the circumstances in which those remedies would be imposed. Hence, such remedies would be imposed subject to the discretion of the court and it is to be expected that the court would impose them where it considers them appropriate and proportionate taking into account the gravity of the offence and the overall circumstances of the offence, type of goods constituting the infringement, damage and losses to the right holder. As to the material and implements used for the infringement, it is to be expected that the court will take into account their intended use and the extent they have been used for committing the infringement. Draft Laws of other forms of intellectual property rights contain identical provisions to those for trademarks and copyright and neighboring rights. These provisions are: a) Patents & Utility Models: Article 41 b) Geographical indications: Article 13 c) Protection of Trade Secrets: Article 7 d) Industrial Designs: Article 19 e) Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits: Article 18 f) Protection of Breeders of New Varieties of Plants: Article 25
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrain, Kingdom of United States of America 32. Article 61 also indicates that Members may provide for criminal procedures and penalties in cases of wilful infringement of other forms of intellectual property. Please describe any provisions of the Laws of Bahrain that provide for such procedures and remedies, citing to the relevant provisions of Law or regulation.
The draft Laws for all forms of intellectual property rights provide for identical criminal sanctions to those for trademarks and copyright and neighbouring rights outlined in the response to questions 30 and 31 above. The legal basis is the following provisions of the respective draft law: a) Patents and Utility Models Article 41 b) Geographical Indications Article 2 and 13 c) Protection of Trade Secrets Article 7 d) Industrial Designs Article 19 e) Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Article 18 f) Protection of Breeders of New Varieties of Plants Article 25 All the above provisions also provide that the court has authority to order the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of infringing goods and any materials and implements, which have been used for the commission of the offence.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrain, Kingdom of United States of America 33. Please provide statistical information related to civil copyright, trademark, geographical indication, industrial design, patent, integrated-circuit layout design, and trade secret enforcement for 2000, including the number of cases filed; injunctions issued; infringing products seized; infringing equipment seized; cases resolved (including settlement); and the amount of damages awarded.
Statistics are not available.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrain, Kingdom of United States of America 34. Please provide statistical information related to criminal enforcement in the area of copyright piracy and trademark infringement for 2000, including the number of raids, prosecutions, convictions, and the amount of fines and/or jail terms (including whether the fines were paid and whether the jail term was actually served or was suspended) and any other information establishing that the criminal system operates effectively to deter copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting.
Statistics are not available.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America 1. Please explain whether and how Canadian law provides protection for works, phonograms and performances from other WTO Members, and whether and how it does so on the basis of national treatment, as required by TRIPS Article 3 (generally, with respect to all copyrights and neighbouring rights) and Article 9.1 (incorporating Berne Article 5(1)).
With respect to copyright works, phonograms and performers' performances, the Canadian Copyright Act provides national treatment to the rightholders of all WTO Members. Section 2 is now equipped with a new definition of "treaty country" which includes "WTO Member" which is also specifically defined. Section 5.(1)(a)(ii) extends copyright protection to any work (including a sound recording), the author of which was, at the date of the making of the work, a citizen or subject of, or a person ordinarily resident in a treaty country. Section 14 on performers' rights specifically rests on a WTO basis. With respect to performances occurring after a Party has joined the WTO, see Section 14.01(1), and with respect to performances before a Party has joined the WTO, see Section 14.01(4).
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America 2. Does Canada apply the “rule of the shorter term” to phonograms and performances from other WTO Members? If so, please explain how you justify such action under TRIPS Article 4.
No.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America 3. Please explain whether and how Canada protects against both the direct and indirect reproduction of phonograms as required by TRIPS Article 14.2, including by digital transmission in the context of interactive services.
Copyright Act, Section 5(3), specifically provides copyright protection for sound recordings. Section 5(4) provides the owner of the copyright in the sound recording with the exclusive right to reproduce the sound recording in any material form. In the WIPO Experts Committees working on the possible Protocol to the Berne Convention and the possible New Instrument for the Protection of the Rights of Performers and Producers of Phonograms, there has yet to be any thorough discussion of the extent to which the reproduction right would apply to specific ephemeral "reproductions" effected as a necessary incident of a digital transmission. Whether such temporary reproductions are covered by the reproduction right is a question on which international consensus is lacking. Similarly, the point was not contemplated during the negotiations for TRIPS, where there is nothing to show that the reproduction right in Article 14(2) applies to a temporary reproduction in random access memory. Nothing in the Canadian Copyright Act precludes such a temporary reproduction from falling under the exclusive reproduction right. However, this point has yet to be clarified with respect to the reproduction right in the Canadian Copyright Act. With reference to the information highway and the new demands of the digital environment, this question has recently been the subject of some domestic discussion in terms of copyright works in general.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America [Follow-up question] The answer to this question focuses primarily on temporary or ephemeral reproductions. Does the reproduction right provided for phonograms under Canadian law apply to digital delivery of a permanent reproduction?
Yes.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America 4. Please explain whether and how Canada provides full retroactive protection to works, phonograms and performances from other WTO Members, as required by TRIPS Articles 9.1, 14.6 and 70.2, each of which incorporate by reference or rely upon Berne Article 18. Please give the date back to which such protection extends with respect to each category of subject matter. Also, please indicate whether there any categories of works that would be protected by copyright in Canada which are not protected due to the operation of Section 77, and if so, please identify such categories.
Canada does provide retroactive protection to pre-existing works, phonograms and performances from WTO Member countries. The term is generally life plus fifty for most works with fifty years for sound recordings and performers' performances. With respect to sound recordings and all original literary, dramatic, artistic and musical works, Copyright Act, Section 5.(1.01) provides that "a country which becomes a [...] WTO Member after the date of the making or publication of a work shall, as of becoming a [...] WTO Member [...] be deemed to have been a [...] WTO Member at the date of the making or publication of the work [...]." However, the foregoing does not apply if copyright protection expired in the country of origin before that country became a WTO Member. A corresponding provision with respect to a performer's performance is contained in Copyright Act, Section 14.01(4). TRIPS, Article 70(7), does not have any effect with respect to Canada because our Copyright Act does not make protection conditional on registration.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America 5. In Section 2 of the Copyright Act, “cinematograph” is defined to exclude, for purposes of Section 11.1 of that Act, “works where the arrangement or acting form or the combination of incidents represented give the work an original character”. Please explain the meaning of this definition and the relationship of these works to Section 11.1, which appears to relate to duration.
The rationale for the definition of "cinematograph" in Section 2 is to permit one copyright term (i.e. life plus fifty) for "scripted" cinematographic works and another copyright term (i.e. fifty years from the end of the calendar year of publication) for "unscripted" cinematographic works, e.g., most news footage and home videos.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America 6. Please explain whether the listing of copyright rights in Section 3(1) of the Copyright Act, which explicitly includes certain types of adaptations, also encompasses the general right “of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations” required by Berne Article 12 (as incorporated through TRIPS Article 9.1)
Although the Canadian Copyright Act lacks a general adaptation right, the statute gives the author the exclusive right to convert a dramatic work into a novel or another non-dramatic work and to adapt a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work by cinematograph. Canada complies with Article 12 of the Berne Convention via these rights and by the domestic reproduction right which has been given a very extensive scope by Canadian courts. Accordingly, the Canadian legal system handles by way of the reproduction right much of what some other countries handle by way of a general adaptation right. With respect to adaptation, it is also pertinent that the Canadian Copyright Act specifically gives the author moral rights to the integrity of his work.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America [Follow-up question] Please explain how Canadian law handles by way of the reproduction right much of the adaptation right required by Berne Article 12, and to what extent.
Copyright Act, Section 3(1)(b), gives the copyright owner the sole right in the case of a dramatic work, to convert it into a novel. In the case of a novel or other non-dramatic work, or of an artistic work, Section 3(1)(c) gives the copyright owner the sole right to convert it into a dramatic work, by way of public performance or otherwise. With respect to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, Section 3(1)(e) gives the copyright owner the sole right to reproduce, adapt and publicly present the work by cinematograph. In Canada there has never been a case in which a defendant successfully argued that his secondary work is beyond the scope of the rights provided by Copyright Act, Section 3(1), where the reference to the sole right to produce or reproduce the work is very broad. To violate the author's reproduction right, the infringing copy does not have to look the same. Similarity and substantial copying are directly at issue in this context. Furthermore, an adaptation almost invariably begins with an act of reproduction. Letting the exception prove the rule, reference can be made to Section 27(2)(l) which establishes that copyright owners in computer programs have an exclusive adaptation right.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America 7. Please explain how Canada reconciles the authority provided with regard to licenses for publication by other than the copyright owner through Sections 16 to 21 and 22 to 26 of the Copyright Act with Berne Article 9(2) and TRIPS Article 13, which require limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to be limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.
Copyright Act, Sections 16-26, were repealed by Section 59 of the World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, the intellectual property provisions of which entered into force on 1 January 1996.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America 8. Please explain how the operation of Sections 27(2)(e), 27(2)(f), 27(2)(h), and 27(3) of the Copyright Act complies with Berne Article 9(2) and TRIPS Article 13, which require limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to be limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.
These are de minimis exceptions of a nature common to the copyright laws of many countries. For example, Copyright Act, Section 27(2)(e), deals with newspaper reports of public lectures which in other countries, e.g., the USA would fall within the broad category of "fair use". It is well known that "fair dealing" under the Canadian Copyright Act is given a narrower interpretation than "fair use" under the corresponding USA statute. Also within the USA category of "fair use" would be the situation provided for by Canadian Copyright Act, Section 27(2)(f), which deals with the public recitation of a reasonable extract of a published work. With reference to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act as cited in Copyright Act, Section 27(2)(h), the relevant exception to the reproduction right is unlikely to affect foreign rightholders and is so limited as to easily meet the economic tests imposed by TRIPS, Article 13. With respect to the public performance of a musical work, Copyright Act, Section 27(3), is much narrower in scope than the classroom exception found in the USA Copyright Law and would accordingly have an easier time meeting the TRIPS, Article 13 tests than would the USA classroom exception.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America [Follow-up question] We understand that every country's system has exceptions to rights. The question is, as to each: does it go too far? Our questions are not directed to "fair dealing" generally, but to specific exceptions in Canada's law. Please explain why these exceptions comply with the permissible limitations on rights in Berne and TRIPS. In particular: -Section 27(2)(e) (dealing with publication in newspaper of report of public lecture). Has the text of this section been limited in operation or application in any way, such as with regard to the topic of the lecture, the amount copied from the lecture, the commerciality of the use, or the effect on the market for the lecture? We note that this exception appears to go beyond "fair dealing" in a newspaper summary, as permitted under section 27(2)(a.1). -Section 27(2)(f) (dealing with public reading or recitation by one person of extract from public work). Has the text of this section been limited in operation or application in any way, such as with regard to purpose of the reading or recitation, or its commercial nature? -Section 17(2)(h) (dealing with reproduction for deposit in institutions). How are permissible reproductions limited by the Culture Property Export and Import Act? -Section 27(3) (complete exemption for public performance of musical works by churches, colleges or schools, and religious, charitable or fraternal organizations, whenever done for religious, educational or charitable objects). This is a big market for a category of commercially valuable works. Has the text of this section been limited in operation or application in any way, such as with regard to the type of the musical work, the place or context of the particular use, or any direct charge to the audience?
With respect to Section 27(2)(e), the relevant Berne/TRIPS test would be the impact on the rightholder not whether the use is commercial or non-commercial. A report in a newspaper is likely to enhance, not diminish, the economic returns from lecturing. In any event, the lecturer can close the exceptions by posting the stipulated notice. Furthermore, the exception is limited to a "report" (i.e., not a verbatim reproduction) in only one medium. To date, there has been no complaint from lecturers with respect to this feature in our Copyright Act. For Section 27(2)(f), the relevant test is again not commercial or non-commercial use, but rather whether the limitation hurts the rightholder. In this regard, the public recitation of an extract from a novel is likely to enhance the author's returns from sales of copies of the book. This practice does not unreasonably interfere with the normal commercial exploitation of the work. The stipulation of a "reasonable extract" is an appropriate limitation in this context where the lost economic value to the rightholder is not significant. It would appear that there is no Canadian case law with respect to this provision. The exception in Section 27(2)(h) is necessary inter alia because our Copyright Act gives perpetual protection to unpublished manuscripts. It is difficult to conceive of a case where the use of this exception would fail to meet the tests set out in Berne, Article 9(2), and TRIPS, Article 13. However, it is possible to conceive of instances where the rightholder would benefit, e.g., via the official preservation of a cinematographic work otherwise totally lost. With respect to Section 27(3), it should be observed that churches tend to use public domain works and, if otherwise, there is a reluctance to interfere with religious worship. Use for an educational object by colleges or schools is comparable to educational exceptions in other countries, e.g., the USA. When a school holds a dance it must apply to the relevant Canadian copyright collective which provides a performance licence on a reduced tariff. There may be some problem with respect to unauthorized use by charitable and fraternal organizations which is an aspect that will be looked at afresh.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada United States of America 9. Please explain the criminal and civil remedies available for copyright infringement and the extent to which they fully implement the obligations in TRIPS Articles 41, 45, 50 and 61. In the response, please specify, inter alia, whether these remedies may include the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of infringing articles and equipment used to make the infringing articles, as required by Article 46 and 61, and the manner in which the grant of civil provisional relief is provided in accordance with TRIPS Article 50.
In an appropriate case, the plaintiff may obtain an ex parte "Anton Piller" order permitting the plaintiff's solicitor to enter the defendant's premises without warning to search for infringing goods and relevant documents. Governed by the same factors as in other actions, interlocutory injunctions are available where just and equitable in the circumstances. A successful plaintiff is generally entitled to a final injunction in addition to the other civil remedies available for infringement of copyright, such as damages and an account of profits. Exemplary damages may be awarded in copyright actions where the defendant has wilfully and flagrantly ignored the plaintiff's legal rights and the process of the court. Copyright Act, Section 38, specifically provides for delivery up and conversion of infringing copies. There are criminal offences and punishment with respect to direct and indirect infringement and prohibitions of making or possessing a plate for the purpose of making infringing reproductions. Furthermore, the court is given power to deal with infringing reproductions, fixations or plates which may be ordered destroyed or delivered up to the copyright owner. Finally, the Criminal Code includes offenses of fraud, conspiracy, and unauthorized use of computers and mischief in relation to computers. These Criminal Code provisions have had some incidental effect with respect to protecting the rights of copyright owners.
24/10/1996

Page 12 of 677   |   Number of documents : 13533

 
Reset