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 668 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/NZL/1 Nueva Zelandia Estados Unidos de América 11. Please explain how Section 92 of the Copyright Act complies with Berne Article 2(3), which provides that translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.
Section 92 of the Copyright Act 1994 is intended to ensure that where an adaptation which is itself a literary, dramatic or musical work, that any act done in respect to that adaptation will not infringe copyright in the original work. It should be noted that Section 82 does not diminish the rights conferred by Berne Articles 2(3) and 12, in respect of adaptations, to any greater extent than that permitted with respect to the original works from which an adaptation is made.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Nueva Zelandia Estados Unidos de América 12. Please explain whether and how New Zealand law protects computer programmes and other works from being loaded into a computer and displayed on a monitor without authorization, as required by TRIPS Article 10.1, and by Berne Articles 9(1) and 11 to 14, as incorporated through TRIPS Article 9.1.
Computer programmes are protected under the Copyright Act 1994 by virtue of: -being a literary work (Section 2(1)(a) "Literary work" refers); -copyright existing in original literary works (Section 14(1)(a) refers); -copyright owners having exclusive rights including the right to copy a work (Section 16(1)(a) refers) which includes reproducing or recording the work in any material form (Section 2(1) "Copyright" refers) and the right to adapt a work (Section 16(1)(g) refers) which, in the case of a computer programme, includes conversion of it into a different computer language or work (Section 2(1) "Adaptation" refers); and -copyright infringement occurring where a person, other than the copyright owner, does any restricted act (Section 29 refers). These provisions meet the requirements of both Berne and TRIPS.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Nueva Zelandia Estados Unidos de América [Follow-up question] (1) Does the reproduction right for computer programmes and other works under New Zealand law cover temporary reproductions in the memory of a computer? (2) Does New Zealand law provide protection against the unauthorized display of a work on a computer screen or monitor?
It is an infringement of the rights of an owner of copyright to copy the owner's work (Section 30 of the Act). In relation to a literary work (which includes computer programmes) copying is defined as including the storing of a work "in any medium by any means" (Section 2(1) "copying" of the Act refers). This definition of copying would, therefore be applicable to a situation involving the storing of a work in a computer memory or displaying a work on a computer screen.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Nueva Zelandia Estados Unidos de América 13. 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 Articles 46 and 61, and the manner in which the grant of civil provisional relief is provided in accordance with TRIPS Article 50.
The criminal and civil remedies available in New Zealand for copyright infringement and the way in which the TRIPS Articles are implemented are shown in the attached table: [Part of the response is in Table format]
24/10/1996
IP/Q/SVK/1 República Eslovaca Estados Unidos de América 1. Please explain whether and how the law of the Slovak Republic 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)). In particular, please explain how national treatment is afforded with respect to the distribution of levies for private copying under the relevant provisions of the law of the Slovak Republic.
NA
24/10/1996
IP/Q/SVK/1 República Eslovaca Estados Unidos de América 2. Does the Slovak Republic 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.
NA
24/10/1996
IP/Q/SVK/1 República Eslovaca Estados Unidos de América 3. Please explain whether and how the Slovak Republic 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.
NA
24/10/1996
IP/Q/SVK/1 República Eslovaca Estados Unidos de América 4. Please explain whether and how the Slovak Republic 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.
NA
24/10/1996
IP/Q/GBR/1 Reino Unido Estados Unidos de América 1. Please explain whether and how the United Kingdom's 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)). In particular, please indicate how national treatment is afforded with respect to the distribution of levies for private copying under Article 44 of the Copyright Act.
In respect of copyright and those related rights provided for in Section 1 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement, copyright works (and in UK law phonograms are treated as a category of copyright work) from other countries and foreign performances are given the same protection as works and performances of UK origin thus satisfying the national treatment requirements of Articles 3 and 9.1. UK copyright law is applied to works from other countries by orders made under Section 159 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; performers from countries designated in orders made under Section 208 of that Act enjoy protection in respect of their performances. The Copyright (Application to Other Countries) (Amendment) Order 1995 (SI 1995 No. 2987) and the Performances (Reciprocal Protection) (Convention Countries) Order 1995 (SI 1995 No. 2990) made under these Sections respectively gave effect to the UK's obligation to other WTO countries from 1 January 1996 where these obligations were not already met by existing Orders implementing the UK's obligations under other international copyright conventions or otherwise. UK copyright law has no provisions relating to the distribution of levies for private copying.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/GBR/1 Reino Unido Estados Unidos de América [Follow-up question] Please explain whether and how any revenues generated from the imposition of private copying or blank tape levies in the United Kingdom are distributed on the basis of national treatment to rightholders on the basis of national treatment to rightholders from all WTO Members, regardless of the type of rightholder.
The UK has no blank tape, equipment or any other levy for private copying, which is why it answered that there are no provisions relating to the distribution of levies.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/GBR/1 Reino Unido Estados Unidos de América 2. Does the United Kingdom 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.
The UK term of protection for producers of sound recordings and performers is 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made (i.e. fixation) or the performance takes place respectively, that is the minimum term set out in Article 14.5 of TRIPS. If during this period the recording, or a recording of the performance, is released, the term expires 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is released. US producers and performers will only receive a term longer than 50 years, which can apply where a recording is not released in the year it is made or the year of the performance, if the term is not longer than that applying in the US.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/GBR/1 Reino Unido Estados Unidos de América 3. Please explain whether and how the United Kingdom 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 subscription or interactive services.
Under UK law, copyright in a sound recording gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to copy the work (see Section 16(1)(a) of the 1988 Act) and action is possible for copyright infringement where unauthorised copying of the sound recording occurs. Moreover, Section 16(3)(b) specifically states that this restricted Act applies whether done directly or indirectly and regardless of whether any intervening Acts infringe copyright. This will cover copying of a sound recording from a digital transmission.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/GBR/1 Reino Unido Estados Unidos de América [Follow-up question] Does the reproduction right for phonograms under United Kingdom law include in its scope reproductions made from broadcasts?
The UK has already said in its original answer that the reproduction right for an owner of copyright in a sound recording will cover copying of a sound recording from a digital transmission. Copying of a sound recording from a broadcast, whether digital or otherwise, will also be covered by the reproduction right for the same reasons as set out in the original answer.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/GBR/1 Reino Unido Estados Unidos de América 4. Please explain whether and how the United Kingdom 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. Additionally, please describe the way in which Article 7 of the United Kingdom’s Copyright Orders will apply to those who relied on the public domain status of a work after copyright protection is restored, or is provided to a work that is still protected in its country of origin and has not had a full term of protection in the United Kingdom. In particular, we are interested in learning if there are any limitations on the activities of these reliance parties either in scope or duration.
Copyright works, including phonograms (which are treated as such - see answer to question 1), and performers from other countries are protected as explained in answer to Question 1. There is no single date to which the protection extends back since protection is always future protection but is given in respect of an existing copyright work or recording of a particular performance after it has qualified for protection in respect of any period which continues to subsist calculated from the date prior to qualification on which the work or recording of that performance was made, as required by TRIPS. Whether protection exists therefore depends upon whether the term, which would have applied to a particular work or recording of a performance had it always been protected, has expired. Existing sound recordings made from at least as long ago as 1946 may be protected in the UK. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which has been amended by the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995) in paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 confirms the term of protection in the Copyright Act 1956 for sound recordings made before 1 June 1957 (i.e. the date of commencement of the 1956 Act). The 1956 Act in paragraph 11 of Schedule 7 gives a term of 50 years from making for sound recordings made before commencement of the Act. The 1995 Regulations may result in sound recordings made before 1946 being protected. For literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, under the 1995 Regulations mentioned above, protection may apply to existing works where the author died 70 years ago, i.e. in 1926. The 1988 Act, which the 1995 Regulations amend, confirmed the protection for works made before commencement of that Act in paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 by reference to Sections 2 and 3 of the 1956 Act, which should be read in the light of the transitional provisions in Schedule 7 of the 1956 Act with regard to works existing before commencement of the 1956 Act. The Copyright (Application to Other Countries) Order 1993 as amended by the 1995 Order mentioned above gives effect to retroactive protection, subject, of course, to the term of protection having not already ceased, for all copyright works from all WTO countries. The 1995 Order does not restore any copyright because Article 18 of Berne does not require works that have already fallen into the public domain through expiry of copyright protection to be protected. Article 7 of the 1993 Order (amended by the 1995 Order) gives some protection to those who have or may be about to use a work newly protected by copyright. Article 7 allows the continued doing of certain acts unless the copyright owner pays compensation as settled by arbitration in the absence of agreement. How long the Act can be continued would depend on whether the Act fell within the scope of the Article. It would ultimately be for the courts to decide whether this is the case in any particular circumstances. As far as performers rights are concerned, the 1995 Order mentioned above in reply to Question 1 grants reciprocal protection, i.e. the same as that applying under Part II of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to UK performers (except where there are limitations on this reciprocity as is indicated in the relevant Order). TRIPS Article 14.6 requires Article 18 of Berne to extend only to those rights of performers in sound recordings granted by TRIPS. By definition, the only right relevant here is the right to authorise the reproduction of a fixation of a performance. Section 180(3) in Part II of the 1988 Act ensures that insofar as rights in recordings are concerned, those rights apply after qualification to recordings of performances made prior to qualification except that no act carried out in relation to such a recording either prior to qualification, or after qualification but in pursuance of arrangements made before qualification, can be an infringement of rights arising after qualification. As with copyright, the extent to which existing performances are protected depends on whether the term of protection, had the performance always been protected, has already expired.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/GBR/1 Reino Unido Estados Unidos de América 5. 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. Please also explain how civil damages are measured in the case of computer program infringement and when and how attorney’s fees and court costs are awarded.
It is the UK's understanding that questions relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights are to be considered later in the scrutiny process. Nevertheless, we would refer you to the UK's response to the checklist on enforcement which will be circulated shortly for details on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the UK. Should you require any further clarification or if you have any follow-up questions then we would be pleased to discuss them on a bilateral basis or later in the scrutiny process when issues relating to enforcement are addressed.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Japón Please explain exceptions or exemptions of the National Treatment and Most Favoured-Nation Treatment under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law, if any, as permitted in Articles 3 and 4 of the TRIPS Agreement.
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.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Suiza 1. Please explain in detail how your legislation provides protection for geographical indications.
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.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Suiza 2. Does your legislation grant patent protection to all categories of products or are there any exceptions? If so, please explain in detail what kind of exceptions exists and how they comply with Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement.
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.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Suiza 3. Does your legislation, in accordance with Article 27.1 in combination with Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, consider importation as "working" a patent (and therefore preclude compulsory licensing, if a product is being imported)?
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.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/BHR/1, IP/Q2/BHR/1, IP/Q3/BHR/1, IP/Q4/BHR/1 Bahrein, Reino de Suiza 4. Does your legislation make the granting of a compulsory licence subject to all the conditions enumerated in Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement? Please cite the relevant provisions of the 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."
24/10/1996

Página 668 de 677   |   Número de documentos : 13533

 
Restablecer