Under New Zealand law we would not regard a company as having its headquarters or principal place of business in a country unless it was also incorporated in that country.

The Government does not currently have any intention to repeal Section 76 of the Copyright Act 1994.

The Berne Convention does not cover distribution rights. Accordingly, the Berne Convention is not applicable to Section 76.

Yes, New Zealand does so. A film qualifies for copyright if the author is either: a citizen or subject, a domiciled or resident individual, or a body incorporated under the law, of a prescribed foreign country. A work of joint authorship qualifies under this section if any of the authors meet these requirements (Section 18 of the Copyright Act 1994 refers). It should be noted that: -an author is defined as the person who makes the arrangements necessary for making a film and can be a natural person or a body corporate (Section 5); -provision is made for works of joint authorship (Section 6); and -the Copyright (Application to Other Countries) Order is relevant (see response to question 1).

There is a general right for authors to be identified as the author of a work (Section 94) providing the right has been asserted (Section 96). There is only one exception to this right which is education related, namely things to do with examinations (Section 97). The right does, therefore, cover literary and artistic works by way of utilization in publications, broadcasting, and sound or visual recordings for teaching. New Zealand considers that education related exceptions are covered by Berne Article 9(3).

New Zealand complies with Berne Article 15(3) in relation to anonymous or pseudonymous works. Where the name of the publisher appears on copies of the work as first published, the publisher is presumed, until the contrary is proven, to represent the author and is entitled to protect and enforce the author's rights (Section 126 of the Copyright Act 1994). An unknown author is not subsequently to be regarded as unknown if the identity becomes known (Section 7).

New Zealand has not applied, and there are currently no proposals to apply, Section 234(o)(i) and (iii) in relation to the authorization of the rental to the public of computer programmes and/or films. While there is no apparent evidence of widespread copying impairing the exclusive right of reproduction of authors of films, there has been some evidence of this occurring. For this reason, New Zealand has provided authors with the right to authorize or prohibit the commercial rental to the public of originals or copies of their films (Section 9 of the Copyright Act refers).

The owner of copyright has the right to play or show in public broadcasts or cable programmes (Sections 16 and 32 of the Copyright Act 1994). There are, however, limitations to this exclusive right as follows: -Section 47:A broadcast or cable programme, shown at a prescribed educational establishment, is deemed not to be a showing in public. -Section 57:A sound recording or film in an archive maintained by Radio New Zealand Limited, Television New Zealand Limited or the New Zealand Film Archive respectively, may be shown to the public provided any charge to the public is no more than that necessary to recover charges. This does not apply, however, where there is a licensing scheme in operation and the archive is aware of that fact. -Section 87:A broadcast or cable programme may be played or shown in public to an audience who have not paid for admission or, having paid a fee for admission, the fee is not attributable to the playing or showing. The purpose of this provision is to allow clubs, societies and prisons to play broadcasts. -Section 178:Performers' rights: This provision is equivalent in effect to Section 47. -Section 188:Performers' rights: This provision is equivalent in effect to Section 87.

Restrictions on the rights of performers in relation to broadcasts included in a cable programme service are provided for in Section 189 of the Copyright Act 1994. This section provides for the reception and immediate retransmission of a broadcast, made in New Zealand, in a cable service programme. The rights of performers are not infringed if, and to the extent that, the broadcast is made for reception in the area in which the cable programme service is provided. If the broadcast itself infringes any right which a performer may have, then the retransmission shall also be taken into account when assessing damages.

New Zealand has not applied, and there are currently no proposals to apply, Section 234(o)(ii) in relation to the authorization of the rental to the public of sound recordings.

The draft Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights does not provide for any of the exceptions permitted under Article 3 or any of the exemptions permitted under Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement.

Article 3(f) of the draft law on Trademarks prohibits the registration of a trademark where its use is likely to create confusion with respect to the origin or source of the goods or services. The draft Law on the Protection of Geographical Indications implements Article 22 to 24 of the TRIPS Agreement. Also Article 2 of the draft Law on Geographical Indications defines a Geographical Indication and prohibits its unlawful use and provides that such use amounts to unfair competition. The use of any means in the designation or presentation of a good that indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good, is prohibited. Although the draft Law on Geographical Indication provides for registration, it does not require registration for protection except that provisional measures and criminal sanctions are only available to registered Geographical Indications. Article 5 of the draft Law on Geographical Indications provides that any party who has an interest may lodge an application for registration. The provisional measures that may be ordered based on Article 11 of the draft Law include: a) Prevention of an alleged imminent infringement from occurring. b) Injunction to cease an alleged infringement. c) Recording or preserving relevant evidence. Article (12) of the draft Law on Geographical Indications provides for criminal sanctions in the case of unlawful use of a geographical indication. As allowed under Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement, Article 9(c) excludes protection to geographical indications, which are not, or have ceased to be protected in their country of origin, or which have fallen into disuse in that country. Although, the draft Law on Geographical Indications does not explicitly implement the provisions of Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement on Additional Protection for Geographical Indications for Wines and Spirits, such additional protection may be sought based on Article 13 of the draft Law which provides that any person may claim a more favourable protection to a geographical indication if it is provided for by virtue of any agreement, convention or treaty to which Bahrain is party. A claim for an unlawful use of a geographical indication, even if not registered, may also be founded on unfair competition based on the provisions of Article 61 of the Law of Commerce of 1987.

The draft Law on Patents and Utility Models contains exceptions which do not go beyond those allowed under Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement. The exceptions provided by virtue of Article 1 and 3 of the draft Law are: a) Inventions, the prevention of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect public order or morality or to avoid serious damage to the environment. b) Plants and animals, other than micro organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. c) Diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals, excluding products used for such methods. d) Scientific discoveries, theories and mathematical methods. Article 1 of the draft Law provides that patents are available for any inventions, whether products or processes, provided they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Article 1 further provides that an invention is capable of industrial application if it can be applied or exploited in any field of technology.

The draft Law on Patents and Utility Models does not explicitly state whether or not "importation satisfies the working" requirement but may be interpreted to be so. However, it is worth pointing out that Articles 27.1, 27.3 and 31 of the TRIPS Agreement are reflected in the draft Law.

The draft Law on Patents and Utility Models provides for a system of granting compulsory licences subject to certain conditions which are in line with those enumerated under Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement. The relevant provisions of the draft Law are Articles 24, 25, 26, 27 and 36. These are as follows: Article 24 The Minister of Commerce and Industry may issue a non-exclusive compulsory licence for the exploitation of a patent in the following cases: a) National emergency or circumstances of extreme urgency or for public non-commercial use provided that the owner of the patent is notified as soon as possible after the licence is granted. b) Where the owner of the patent has not made sufficient use of the patent to the extent that he has failed to satisfy the needs of the domestic market, at reasonable prices taking into account those prevailing internationally, for 3 years from the date of the grant of the patent or 4 years from the date of the filing of the patent application, whichever is longer. In such a situation, the Minister shall have the right to issue a compulsory licence to any person to whom the patent owner has refused to grant a licence or to whom the owner has imposed unfair commercial terms in order to grant him such a licence. c) Where a patented invention (first patent) involves an important technical advance of considerable economic significance in relation to another patented invention (second patent), and where the first patent can not be exploited without exploiting the second patent, the owner of the first patent may be granted a compulsory licence to exploit the second patent. This is provided that the owner of the second patent has refused to allow such exploitation on reasonable terms. The exploitation of the second patent authorized in this case may not be assigned without the assignment of the first patent. The owner of the second patent may also be granted a compulsory licence to exploit, at reasonable terms, the first patent in respect to which the other compulsory licence was granted. d) Where the owner of the patent exercises his rights for anti-competitive ends. Article 25 The following provisions shall apply to compulsory licences: a) Applications for compulsory licences shall-upon the payment of the prescribed fee-be considered each upon its own merits. The applicant shall pay the prescribed fee in respect of the application b) The licence shall be exploited predominantly for the supply of the domestic market. c) The applicant must be capable of effectively exploiting the invention through an enterprise existing in the State of Bahrain. d) The licence shall only be granted if the applicant has made reasonable efforts to obtain a licence from the patent owner on reasonable commercial terms and conditions, and that such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time. e) The applicant shall agree to limit the exploitation of the invention to the purpose, scope, conditions and period for which the licence is to be granted. f) Where the proposed exploitation relates to semi-conductor technology, authorisation shall only be granted for public non-commercial use or to remedy practices determined to be anti-competitive. g) The proposed user shall not assign the licence except with the enterprise or the part thereof relating to the exploitation of the invention and after the approval of the Minister of Commerce and Industry. h) The patent owner shall be entitled to adequate remuneration taking into account the monetary value of the licence. The need to remedy anti-competitive practices, if applicable, may be taken into account in determining the remuneration. i) The conditions provided for in items (b) and (d) of this Article shall not apply to situations where a licence is granted to remedy anti-competitive practices. j) The Minister of Commerce and Industry shall ex officio or at the request of any interested party have the authority to amend the conditions of a compulsory licence in case of change in circumstances. Article 26 Except in cases of national emergency and other circumstances of extreme urgency as referred to under Article 24(a), the competent Directorate at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry shall provide the patent owner with a copy of the licence application. The patent owner shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing to the application. The processing of the application shall be in accordance with the procedure specified in the Implementing Regulation. The Minister of Commerce and Industry shall issue a decision accepting or rejecting the application and may grant an acceptance subject to any conditions he deems appropriate. In all cases, the Minister shall notify the owner of the patent and the applicant of his decision within 30 days of the issuance of such a decision and the competent Directorate shall enter the decision in the register of patents. The decision shall also be published in the manner specified in the Implementing Regulation. Article 27 The Minister of Commerce and Industry shall ex officio or at the request of the patent owner have the authority to terminate the licence before the end of its term in the following cases: a) The circumstances, which led to the granting of the licence, have ceased to exist and are unlikely to recur. In such case, the legitimate interests of the licensee shall be adequately protected in accordance with the terms and procedures specified in the Implementing Regulation. b) The licensee has not exploited the licence for two years from the date of its issuance. c) The licensee has not complied with any of the conditions of the licence or has failed to fulfil his obligations under this Law and the related Implementing Regulation. The decision of the Minister of Commerce and Industry in respect of the application for a compulsory licence may be challenged based on Article (36) of the draft Law which provides: "Subject to the provisions for challenges provided for under Articles (18) and (19) and without prejudice to the provisions of Article (15) of this Law, any interested party may submit a petition to the Minister of Commerce and Industry in respect of any final decision issued in accordance with this Law within 30 days of its notification to that person. A decision in respect of the petition shall be issued within 30 days of its submission and the interested party shall be notified of the decision in writing within 30 days of its date of issuance. If the interested party is not notified of a decision within 60 days of the date of submission of his petition, such petition shall be deemed rejected. Where a petition has been rejected or deemed rejected, the interested party may appeal such rejection before the High Civil Court within 60 days of its notification or lapse of the period beyond which the petition is deemed rejected as the case may be. An appeal may not be brought before the court until a petition has been filed and a decision has been issued or the period for a decision has lapsed."

Article 12 of the draft Law on Patents and Utility Models provides for the reversal of the burden of proof. Article 12 provides: "With due regards to the defendant's right to protect his industrial and commercial secrets, the civil court may, in a claim relating to the exploitation of a patented industrial process used without the consent of its owner, order the defendant to prove that the process used to obtain an identical product is different from the patented process. This is provided that the plaintiff has been unable to identify the process actually used despite reasonable efforts; and provided the court believes it is likely that the identical product was made using the protected process."

Article 2 of the draft Law on the Protection of Trade Secrets protects undisclosed tests or other data submitted by an applicant to the responsible State agency for market authorisation of a pharmaceutical or of an agricultural chemical product which utilises new chemical entities. The relevant provisions and limitations are contained in Article 2 which states: "The prohibition on disclosure of trade secrets referred to in the preceding Article shall extend to undisclosed tests or data the origination of which involves a considerable effort, and which have been submitted to the competent authorities for the purpose of obtaining approval for marketing of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical products which utilise new chemicals entities. The competent authorities which receive such tests or data shall protect them against disclosure as from the date they are received until they are no longer secret, and shall prohibit their unfair commercial use by preventing any third party not having the consent of the person who submitted them from relying on such data or tests in the marketing of similar drugs or products for 5 years following the date of marketing approval of the drugs or products in Bahrain. Disclosure of the tests or data by the competent authorities shall only be made where necessary to protect the public or unless the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial us."

Criminal Sanctions: All draft Laws of IPRs provide for criminal sanctions against infringement of all categories of IPRs. The penalty for all infringements of the various IPRs is the same. It is a fine between BD 500 to BD 2,000 or a prison term between three months and one year or both fine and imprisonment. If the offender repeats the offence, the upper limits of both the fine and imprisonment are doubled and in addition the court may order the business premises, at which the offence was facilitated, to be closed for a period between 15 days to 6 months and to order the verdict to be published in at least one local daily newspaper at the expense of the convicted offender. In all cases the court has the authority to order the goods that have been found to be infringing to be forfeited and destroyed. This also applies to materials and implements used for the infringement.

The draft Laws, upon enactment, will make infringement of all forms of IPR a criminal offence. Arrangements are being made to increase and train government inspectors to detect and apprehend infringements. Arrangements are also being made to conduct specialized courses to customs officials, public prosecutors, and judges to acquire the necessary relevant skills each according to his profession. WIPO has been approached to assist with conducting a Postgraduate Diploma in IPR and their response is awaited. Contacts have been developed with the concerned sector in the industry and other professional associations to conduct a public awareness campaign and to assist with the implementation of the relevant legislation.

There is nothing in the Canadian Copyright Act that imposes business practice on "les sociétés de gestion canadiennes" with respect to how they organize the distribution of monies owed to foreign authors. Some of the Canadian societies do, however, indicate the process in general terms. Generally, they make payments to foreign collectives which then distribute the revenues to the authors in that country. For example, SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, indicates that "under the terms of the [Canadian] Copyright Act, [it] collects tariff fees from the users on behalf of its members and foreign copyright owners it represents in Canada. These fees are then systematically distributed as performance royalties to creators and publishers whose works have been performed and which SOCAN has identified and credited through its own procedures. When [the Canadian creator's] work is performed and identified overseas, SOCAN forwards the monies received from foreign societies directly to ... the [Canadian] copyright owner. And when a foreign work is performed here, SOCAN sends royalties to the copyright owner's own domestic society". CANCOPY acts on behalf of artists, writers and publishers with respect to the reproduction right. A licensing fee or royalty is collected and given back to the artist, writer or publisher. CANCOPY represents published works from around the world through agreements with international reproduction rights organizations. (As recently as July 1996, CANCOPY signed a reciprocal agreement with a collective in another European country in which the two organizations agreed to represent each other in their own country as well as collect and exchange royalties). Generally, royalties collected in Canada are distributed directly to Canadian affiliates regardless of the country of publication. Royalties collected abroad are distributed to Canadian rightholders through CANCOPY. For further information, SOCAN material can be accessed at its WEB page: httb://www.socan.ca/ and CANCOPY at http://cancopy.com/.