Examen de la legislación de aplicación del Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC - Búsqueda

Restablecer
 
 

En el párrafo 2 del artículo 63 del Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC, se exige a los Miembros que notifiquen al Consejo de los ADPIC las leyes y los reglamentos hechos efectivos por el Miembro en cuestión y referentes a la materia del Acuerdo, con el fin de ayudar al Consejo en su examen de la aplicación del Acuerdo.

En esta página puede hacer búsquedas en las preguntas y respuestas de los Miembros sobre las leyes y los reglamentos notificados. Puede consultar los resultados de la búsqueda en la pantalla, descargarlos en formato Excel e imprimirlos. También puede descargar los distintos documentos.

* NO es necesario utilizar todos los campos de búsqueda que figuran a continuación (rellene solo los que sean pertinentes para su consulta).
* Tenga en cuenta que los criterios de búsqueda utilizados son acumulativos. Todos se reflejarán en los resultados de la búsqueda.


Página 16 de 677   |   Número de documentos : 13533

Signatura del documento Miembro que presenta la notificación Miembro que plantea la pregunta Pregunta Respuesta Fecha de distribución del documento  
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 45. Please explain how your legislation defines data submitted to governments or governmental agencies.
Please see the response to question 43.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 46. Please describe how your legislation provides for effective action against infringement of intellectual property rights.
Please refer to Bahrain's responses to questions 5 and 24 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/BHR/1).
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 47. Please explain whether or not your legislation provides for a mechanism to appeal to judicial bodies of final administrative decisions.
Final administrative decisions may be appealed to the court. The mechanism provides that any person with an interest may petition the Minister to object to any administrative decision within 30 days from his knowledge of the decision. The petition is to be decided upon within 30 days and the petitioner is to be advised of the Minister's ruling within 30 days thereafter. After the lapse of 60 days without the petitioner being notified of a ruling, the petition is considered implicitly rejected. A rejection of the petition may be the subject of a challenge to the Supreme Court within 60 days after the petitioner is notified of the decision or the petition is considered implicitly rejected. The legal basis are the following: a) Patents and Utility Models: Article 36 b) Geographical Indications: Article 11 c) Industrial Designs: Article 17 d) Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits: Article 16 e) Protection of Breeder of New Varieties of Plants: Article 32 f) Trademarks: Article 4
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 48. Please describe how your legislation authorizes judges to order production of evidence by the opposing party. Please give precise information on what measures are taken to ensure the protection of confidential information.
Please refer to Bahrain's responses to questions 3 and 4 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/BHR/1).
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 49. Please quote provisions of your legislation that authorize judges to order a defendant to desist from an infringement.
The relevant provisions are the following Articles in the respective draft Laws Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: Article 44 Patents and Utility Models: Article 40 Trade Marks: Article 34 Geographical Indicators: Article 11 Protection of Trade Secrets: Article 6 Industrial Designs: Article 18 Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits: Article 17 Protection of Breeders of New Varieties of Plants: Article 26
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 50. Please quote what provisions of your legislation authorize judges to order the payment to the right holder of adequate damages to compensate the injury he suffered.
As infringement is considered a tort, any party who incurs loss or suffers damage as a result is entitled to damages. The basis for the claim is the relevant IPR Law and Article 158 of the Civil Code which provides: "Every injurious act which causes damage or loss shall render the person by whom it has been committed to be liable for damages."
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 51. Please quote what provisions of your legislation authorize judges to order the payment of the right holder's expenses by the infringer.
Article 192 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Law provides that: "When issuing the final verdict on the litigation before it, the Court shall at its own instance rule on the costs of the case. The court shall award costs of the case, including attorney's fees, to be paid by the litigant who has lost the verdict. If the verdict goes against more than one litigant, the court shall order that costs be shared among them in proportions to the interest of each one in the case as assessed by the court. They shall not be bound by joint liability in this respect unless they were held to be jointly liable in the obligation which has been judged upon."
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 52. Please explain if and how judges have the authority to order that infringing goods are placed outside channels of commerce or destroyed.
Please refer to Bahrain's responses to questions 15 and 24 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/BHR/1).
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 53. Please quote what provisions of your legislation authorize judges to indemnify a defendant in the abuse by the plaintiff.
Article 198 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Law provides that "if the intention of the litigation was merely malice compensation may be awarded against the person thus intending". In addition, all IPR draft Laws provide that the court has the authority to order a provisional measure only upon the provision of a security bond by the party requesting such a measure. Such security is a deterrent to prevent the abuse of provisional measures and may be used to compensate defendants unlawfully enjoined.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 54. Please explain how your legislation implements Article 50 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please refer to Bahrain's responses to questions 10 to 12 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/BHR/1).
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 55. Please identify the competent authorities in your jurisdiction who receive requests from right holders for an application to suspend the release of counterfeit goods by the customs authorities.
The General Directorate of Customs or alternatively the court.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 56. Please indicate whether or not procedures are available to suspend the exporting of counterfeit goods.
It is possible to apply for a suspension by the customs authority for the release into free circulation of goods, which constitute infringements to the IPRs defined in the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights and Trademarks draft Laws. This is possible pursuant to Article 47 of the draft Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law and Article 35 of the draft Trademarks Law respectively. The relevant Articles provide that the General Directorate of Customs (the customs authority) has authority both on its own initiative and upon application by the right holder or the public prosecutor to suspend clearance and release into free circulation of goods if convinced on the basis of prima facie evidence that such goods constitute an infringement of any of the IPRs of the right holder. The authority of the customs authority applies to both imports and exports. The administrative procedure referred to above does not preclude the right to resort to the court in the first place. The authority of the customs authority to suspend the release into free circulation of goods, which constitute infringements of IPRs, 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.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 57. Please quote what provisions of your legislation authorize the competent authorities to order the destruction or disposal of infringing goods.
The relevant provisions are the following Articles in the respective IPR draft Law: a) Patents and Utility Models: Article 41 b) Geographical Indications: Article 12 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 g) Trademarks: Article 38 h) Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: Article 52
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 58. Please indicate whether or not your legislation provides for a de minimis imports exception.
Both Article 47 of the draft Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights and Article 35 of the draft Law on Trademarks exclude de minimis imports.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Unión Europea 59. Please explain how your legislation implements Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Draft Laws for all forms of intellectual property provide for criminal sanctions for infringement of IPRs. 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. The relevant legal provisions within the draft Laws are: a) Patents and Utility Models: Article 41 b) Geographical indications: Articles 2 and 12 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 g) Trademarks: Article 28 h) Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: Articles 49 to 52 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/CAN/1 Canadá Unión Europea 1. Article 9(1) of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) requires that authors enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing "any communication to the public of the performance of their works". Section 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act grants to authors the sole right "in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication". The term "telecommunication" in the Copyright Act is limited to transmissions "by wire, radio, visual, optical or other electromagnetic system". Why does the Copyright Act limit communications to those "by telecommunication"?
Berne "communication" rolls together the aspect of telecommunication, e.g., broadcasting, with the aspect of performance in public. In the Canadian Copyright Act "telecommunication" is used etymologically in the sense of a communication from afar as opposed to a performance in front of the public, i.e. a live audience. The definition of "telecommunication" in Section 2 is so broad as to be technologically neutral. This feature ensures that the Copyright Act's communication right is already well adapted to the exigencies of the digital environment.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canadá Unión Europea 2. Article 9(1) of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) requires that authors enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing communications to the public of the performances of their works. The Copyright Act grants to authors the exclusive right to communicate the work to the public. Is there any distinction to be made between the right to communicate the work to the public and the right to communicate to the public performances of works?
The Copyright Act gives authors the exclusive right to perform the work in public and the exclusive right to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication. These two aspects fully satisfy Berne requirements with respect to providing the author with the exclusive right to communicate his work to the public.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canadá Unión Europea [Follow-up question] Does the exclusive right to communicate the work to the public include the exclusive right to communicate the performance of the work to the public as required by Article 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention?
Berne Convention, Article 11(1)(i), requires authors of dramatic, dramatico-musical and musical works to enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the public performance of their works, including such public performance by any means or process. Section 3(1) of the Copyright Act gives the copyright owner the sole right to perform the work, or any substantial part thereof in public. This is the basis of the right of public performance under the Canadian Copyright Act. The right to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication is provided in Section (3)(1)(f). The act of communicating a work to the public by telecommunication does not constitute the act of performing the work in public, nor does it constitute an authorization to do the act of performing the work in public.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canadá Unión Europea 3. Do broadcasting organizations have the right in Canada to prohibit the rebroadcasting by wireless means of broadcasts, as well as the communication to the public of television broadcasts of the same (Article 14(3) of the TRIPS Agreement)?
No. Canada complies with TRIPS, Article 14(3), via copyright not broadcasters' rights. The Copyright Act does not give broadcasters a right in their broadcasting signals. However, as a copyright owner, the broadcaster may own the copyright in his "broadcast day" as an original compilation of the works making up all or part of the broadcast programming.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canadá Unión Europea 4. Do copyright owners in the subject matter of broadcasts have the exclusive right to rebroadcast by wireless means of broadcasts, as well as the communication to the public of television broadcasts of the same? In particular, do copyright owners have the exclusive right to communicate to the public by telecommunication any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work if the communication is a retransmission of a local signal, the retransmission is lawful under the Broadcasting Act, and the signal is retransmitted simultaneously and in its entirety? If not, is any remuneration required to be paid to the owners of the copyrights of the local signals that are retransmitted (Article 9(1) of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 11bis(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention)?
Under the Copyright Act, the simultaneous retransmission of local signals is not an infringement of copyright in the works carried in the original broadcast. Like many other countries, Canada does not provide copyright protection for the simultaneous retransmission of local signals which, by definition, are already available to the public via the primary transmission. Therefore, under the Canadian Copyright Act, copyright owners do not have any rights arising from the retransmission of local broadcast signals. The simultaneous retransmission of the entirety of local broadcast signals carrying copyright works does not conflict with the author's normal exploitation of his work and does not unreasonably prejudice his legitimate interests. Under the Canadian Copyright Act, the simultaneous retransmission of distant broadcast signals is not an infringement of the copyright in the works carried in the original broadcast if the retransmitter has paid the applicable royalties and complied with any terms and conditions fixed under the authority of the Copyright Act.
24/10/1996

Página 16 de 677   |   Número de documentos : 13533

 
Restablecer