The right to information in accordance with Article 47 of the TRIPS Agreement is provided to the right holder by Section 25 (2) and (3) of the Law on Trademarks No. 55/1997, according to which the right holder can request the above information through the court.

The right to information according to Article 47 of the TRIPS Agreement regulates the Trademark Law No. 55/1997 Coll. only. But considering the planned total recodification of the legislation in the field of the protection of industrial property rights (in the frame of approximation of the law), this authority will also be extended to other areas of intellectual property rights.

See the reply to the follow-up question to question 6.

The regulations regarding trademarks and customs at present do not entitle the right holder to officially request intervention by the customs authorities in the matters regarding imitated or counterfeit products in relation to trademarks and copyright. According to Section 60 of the Law on Customs No. 180/1996 Coll. the customs authorities are obliged to take into consideration prohibitions and restrictions with regard to the intellectual property protection in the customs proceedings. The right holder can initiate the suspension of goods at the border and in case of his right the customs authorities are obliged to respect this. This amendment, though, is not sufficient as the right holder does not become a party to a proceeding through this action and has no procedural rights which he would have if he was a party to a proceeding. On the other hand a financial guarantee cannot be required in cases where the suspension of goods would be established as unjustified and would result in damage or material loss. The present amendment does not comply with the provisions of Articles 52 through 57 and 59 of the TRIPS Agreement. Specific new legislation for the border measures addressing among other things the provisions of Articles 52 through 57 and 59 of the TRIPS Agreement is under consideration.

This question was partly answered in the answer to question 8 which means that if the customs authorities obtain knowledge in any manner that goods cleared through customs infringe an intellectual property right they are obliged to respect this fact and act accordingly. It usually results in the release into circulation of goods being suspended.

The required statistical data is not available directly in the Office. The Office has asked the Ministry of Justice and the Central Customs Administration for the provision of the above-mentioned information. In order to answer the question regarding the criminal aspects of the intellectual property protection it would be best to quote the concrete provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 150 through 152. Section 150 Infringement of the rights to a trademark, trade name and protected appellation of origin (1) The person who has put on the market products or provided services marked with a mark identical to a trademark, the exclusive right for which belongs to another person, or a sign confusingly similar to this trademark, is punished by imprisonment for the period of one year, or by a monetary fine, or forfeiture of a thing. (2) Equal punishment is imposed on a person who in order to achieve economic benefit: (a) unlawfully uses a trade name or whatever sign confusingly similar with this name, or (b) puts into circulation products unlawfully marked with an appellation of origin to which the exclusive right belongs to another person, or with an appellation of origin confusingly similar. Section 151 Infringement of industrial rights The person who unlawfully infringes the right to a protected invention, industrial design, utility model or topography of semiconductor products is punished by imprisonment for the period of up to three years, or a monetary fine. Section 152 Infringement of copyright (1) The person who unlawfully disposes with a work which is the subject matter of the protection according to the copyright, or with a performance of a performing artist, with a sound or visual recording, with a broadcast or television programme which are the subject matter of the right similar to the copyright, in the manner which belongs to the author, performing artist, maker of a sound or visual recording, a broadcast or television organisation or other holder of this right, or the person who infringes the above-mentioned rights in some other manner, is punished by imprisonment for the period of up to two years, or by a monetary fine, or by forfeiture of a thing. (2) The perpetrator is punished by imprisonment for a period from six months up to five years, or by a monetary fine, or forfeiture of a thing, if: (a) this person gains by the action stated in paragraph 1 considerable benefit, or (b) this person commits an act of a large scope. When considering unlawful actions in terms of their intensity and thus establishing a criminal act it should be stressed that it is a matter for the judge’s discretion and before him that of the prosecutor. As for Section 150 the condition is the release of goods into free circulation, or the release of a service with a direct unlawful use of a protected sign. Experience which could be generalised, above all by the judiciary, has not yet been gained in the Slovak Republic. Second part In any case the determination of the amount of damage is a matter for the plaintiff. In case the amount of damage is adequately and reliably justified and proved the court has the grounds to adjudicate on the claimed damage. In cases where the right holder suffers material loss which does not have the character of damage from the legal point of view, as it was not caused by an illegal action, or in case of the occurrence of non material loss, the court can assign the right to adequate satisfaction to an injured party which can also be monetary performance. In such case the amount of monetary equivalent representing the satisfaction is determined in the judge’s discretion which is obviously based on the submitted request and, although it is not an objectively established fact but the fact modelled on the basis of a discretion, it must have a rational basis. We consider the above-mentioned facts answer the question as to what would be regarded as expenses of the right holder which have to be reimbursed pursuant to Article 45.1. A party to a proceeding who is successful, or partly successful, can be adjudicated the right to compensation for costs of the proceedings to the extent of his success. These include apart from legal fees, attorney’s fees and also other fees which were provable and purposefully expended in relation to the enforcement of the right in court. The reimbursement of attorney’s fees is objectively calculated according to the tariffs given by the Decree of the Ministry of Justice determining the remuneration of attorneys for individual acts according to their kind, amount of claim and number. As for the implementation of Article 45.2, second sentence of the TRIPS Agreement, according to our opinion it is included in Section 26 (3) of the Law on Trademarks No. 55/1997 Coll., which adjudicates the right to compensation for damage, or the right to adequate satisfaction, which can also be monetary performance regardless of whether the infringer infringed the rights of the right holder and caused, knowingly or unknowingly, damage or other loss. Criminal Procedures [Part of the response is in table format] Statistics on Civil Actions [Part of the response is in table format]

The "competent authorities", stipulated in Article 51 of the TRIPS Agreement, are a particular Customs Office which is subordinate to the Customs Directorate of the Slovak Republic in Bratislava.

The proceeding specified in Article 55 of the TRIPS Agreement is an administrative proceeding performed by customs authorities. It is necessary to note that the legal system of the Slovak Republic (Law No. 180/1996 Coll.) currently does not include any special provision on the time limits for legal action in this context.

According to Section 60 of Law No. 180/1996 Coll. the customs authorities have the obligation, when releasing the goods, to observe other rights, particularly intellectual property rights. The right holder has no possibility of submitting a formal application based on which the administrative authority (customs authority) should begin a proceeding. The right holder may submit exclusively an inducement according to which the administrative body may act ex officio if it accepts that the inducement is justified.

The general terms for decision making, according to Section 49 of Law No. 71/1967 Coll., are applicable. In simple matters, the administrative authority should make a decision immediately or within 30 days. In case of difficulties, the stipulated term is extended to 60 days with possibilities to extend the term by the appeal authority. If the term is extended for 60 days or more, the participant in the procedure must be informed about it.

This provision is not relevant in our legal system since each case should be officially resolved.

Inducement that has not a form of due proposal for an opening of proceeding is not subject to payment. (See reply to question 3)

The Slovak legislation does not currently address these proceedings, however new specific regulation is under consideration.

As has been said above, the special course of legal action is not fixed. If the infringement of rights is not apparent, the custom authorities will ask the Industrial Property Office for its opinion.

In case that the customs authorities did not fulfil their obligation stipulated in Section 60 of Law No. 180/1996 Coll. (see point 3) although they have known about the infringement of the intellectual property right or they should have known under the circumstances and consequently the damage has arisen, the State is responsible for the damage caused by inappropriate administrative proceedings according to Law No. 58/1969 Coll, Section 18 and following (Law on liability for injury suffered because of a State authority decision or because of wrong administrative procedure No. 58/1969 Coll.)

See the answer to question no. 9. It is necessary to add that the precondition for responsibility is an occurrence of damage as a loss of the property which can be objectively expressed in monetary terms. Jointly with the damages the party may also claim loss of profit.

Also in this case the responsibilities may be considered in a sense of the answer to question no. 9 if it is possible to state and prove an incorrect administrative course of action, the presence of damage and nexus causalis between the action of a State body and damage inception.

The Law does not contain special provision. In the practice, the customs authorities will require an opinion of the right holder and the Industrial Property Office. The right holder’s right to information on the origin of goods and documents attached are included in Section 25(2) of the Law on Trademarks No. 55/1997 Coll. This right can be enforced by the Court as well.

Generally, the obligation of confidentiality of customs authorities is laid down in Section 12 of Law No. 180/1996 Coll. In this way trade secrecy and confidential information are protected. The trade secrecy is defined by the Commercial Code in Sections 17 and 20 and determines also the circle of responsible persons, including third parties besides customs authorities. Revealing of or abusing trade secrecy may be considered as an act of unfair competition. This may also create the basis for compensation in damages as well as for penal sanction (Section 149 of the Penal Code).

The Slovak legislation does not currently address the issues contained in Articles 51 55 and 59 of the TRIPS Agreement. Relevant legislation in this context is under consideration.