The 1992 Trademarks law No. 37 states in Article 41 that the owner of a trademark may, at any time, and even before initiating any civil or criminal action, obtain from the court, upon a petition accompanied by an official certificate establishing the registration of the mark, an order directing the necessary preventive measures be taken, including in particular the following: - Preparing a detailed descriptive inventory of the articles and equipments indented to be used or actually used in committing any of the crimes provided in the law. The said inventory shall also include the products and goods, manufactured locally or imported, addresses of the establishment or packaging, papers or any other articles on which the counterfeit mark or statement was affixed. - Seizure of the articles mentioned above after the plaintiff shall have submitted a financial security determined by the court to identify the defendant if that becomes necessary. The 1992 Patent law Article 58 provides for preventive remedies available to right holder in stating that the owner of the patent can request the competent court before or during the civil or penal action, to issue an order for the precautionary seizure on the invention, the industrial design or on the establishment using or exploiting any of industrial property in relation to which an infringement or an unlawful act has been committed that contravenes the law or contracts or license. The amendment of this Article envisages adding provision to determine the affectivity of the same rule on the application of patent as well. The amendment to the 1992 Copyright law will provide for precautionary procedures and penalties authorizing the competent court to take decision in order to prevent any fraud or suspend publication, exhibition, reproduction or impose seizure on the copies of the works, performances, phonograms or the broadcasting programs published without prior permission from the right holder.

Yes the three intellectual property laws provide for such measures. Article 61 of the 1992 Patent law No. 44 states that the competent court may decide to confiscate the property or dispose of the property in whatever manner it deems appropriate. It may also order the destruction of the equipment used in committing the act of imitation, and remove the effects of any illegal act. Article 43 of the 1992 Trademarks law No. 37 provides for the confiscation of the articles seized and the destruction of the illegal marks, the products, packaging and equipments as well as other articles bearing the illegal marks and counterfeiting. The 1992 Copyrights Law No. 40, Article 43, provides for confiscation and the closing of the institution violating copyright. The draft amendment will confirm these measures and introduce destruction measures in order to ensure that the infringing products and the materials for making them be outside of the channels of commerce as referred to in the TRIPS Agreement.

Customs Departments are authorized to take measures at the borders to prevent any violation of trademarks-related rights and copyright piracy in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations as well as under Customs regulations. These measures could be taken either following the demand of the right holder or the judicial order

Customs Departments are authorized to take measures at the borders to prevent any violation of all other forms of intellectual property rights protected under TRIPS Agreement and the national relevant laws and regulations, in accordance with the above-mentioned laws as well as under Customs regulations. These measures could be taken either following the demand of the right holder or the judicial order.

Customs regulations allow for such measures.

Articles 37 and 38 of the 1992 Trademarks law No. 37 determine the illegal acts to be sanctioned by imprisonment and monetary fine or by either of the two penalties. Article 60 of the 1992 Patent law No. 44 lays down criminal sanctions and monetary penalties to be imposed to whom infringe any right protected by the law. The draft amendment of this provision intends to put a maximum to the fine that increases what is defined in the misdemeanor for the penalty to suit with the importance of the contravention. The 1992 Copyrights law No. 40 lays down the same procedures (Article 37 to 42).

The 1992 Trademarks, Patent and Copyrights laws provide for remedy measures like preventive seizure, destruction of products and, confiscation of equipments as well as removing of the effects of the illegal acts and compensation. Article 41 and 43 of the Trademarks law provide for precautionary measures, seizure as well as destruction of illegal marks, products and packaging and tools and the article bearing the illegal marks. Article 58 of the Patent law provides for the precautionary seizure. The related amendment will determine the affectivity of the measure on the application of the patent as well. Article 61 of the same law provides for confiscation of the seized objects, destruction or effacing of the impacts of the violating actions, as well as the equipments and tools used in the falsification. The 1992 Copyrights law provides for the same measures. The amendments to the copyright law envisage enhancing these measures.

The provisions cited above are applicable to the other forms of intellectual property. The 1992 Patent law No. 44 for instance covers, in its Article 60, patents, utility certificates, know-how, inventions, processes or an element of know-how, industrial designs or any right protected by the law as rights protected against falsification or infringement. These illegal acts against the mentioned protected rights are subject the criminal procedures and monetary fines.

The Ministry of Information and Culture, which is responsible for copyrights, has received during the biennium (2000-2001) 128 claims categorized as follows: - vendors: 23 cases - video films : 33 cases - computer programs: 18 cases - smart cards concerning TV broadcasting by satellite: 8 cases - electronic games: 6 cases In addition to the natural persons, the claimants were from various concerned parties such as the Arab Union for Anti-Piracy, the Union of Computer Programs Producers, International Union for Audio products, etc. The procedure followed in dealing with such claims use to start with verifying the claimed cases by the Inspection Division in the Ministry of Information and Culture in order to ensure a minimum of certainty of the elements being claimed. After the inspection action, coordination is made with the police authorities in order to engage necessary raids and seizure. The case is then presented before the competent court. The Ministry of Information and Culture has also the competency to decide the closing of the establishments taking part in infringement and piracy under the Law. As far as the trademarks infringement is concerned, there is a few cases received in the Ministry of Economy and Commerce to date (35 claims) since 1992, which are dealt with in the same way explained for the Copyrights infringement. The United Arab Emirates will provide the US delegation with further statistics very soon regarding civil and criminal enforcement.

The Ministry of Information and Culture, which is responsible for copyrights, has received during the biennium (2000-2001) 128 claims categorized as follows: - vendors: 23 cases - video films : 33 cases - computer programs: 18 cases - smart cards concerning TV broadcasting by satellite: 8 cases - electronic games: 6 cases In addition to the natural persons, the claimants were from various concerned parties such as the Arab Union for Anti-Piracy, the Union of Computer Programs Producers, International Union for Audio products, etc. The procedure followed in dealing with such claims use to start with verifying the claimed cases by the Inspection Division in the Ministry of Information and Culture in order to ensure a minimum of certainty of the elements being claimed. After the inspection action, coordination is made with the police authorities in order to engage necessary raids and seizure. The case is then presented before the competent court. The Ministry of Information and Culture has also the competency to decide the closing of the establishments taking part in infringement and piracy under the Law. As far as the trademarks infringement is concerned, there is a few cases received in the Ministry of Economy and Commerce to date (35 claims) since 1992, which are dealt with in the same way explained for the Copyrights infringement. The United Arab Emirates will provide the US delegation with further statistics very soon regarding civil and criminal enforcement.

The exception related to the national security, public order and morality is applied to all natural persons or institutions, be they nationals or foreigners.

Geographical indications are protected through the 1992 Trade Marks Law No 37. Article 3 paragraphs 6 and 9 exclude from the registration (protection) geographical indications which have the purpose to mislead the public on the veritable origin of the product. Geographical indications related to the wine and spirituous are not registered in the UAE in pursuance of the 1992 Trade Marks Law Article 3 paragraph 2 (Public order and Morality).

The 1992 Patent and Design Law provide for the protection of patent which is granted for any new invention that is the result of an innovative idea or an innovative improvement on a patented invention whether in relation to new industrial product, to industrial processes or methods or to the applications of known industrial processes or methods (Article 4 of the 1992 Patent and Design Law No. 44). The draft amendment, when adopted, will extend the coverage of the protection of innovations in all fields of technology, including agriculture, hunting, fishing, handicrafts and services. The 1992 Patent Law in its current form excludes from that protection the product in the field of chemical invention in foodstuffs and pharmaceutical compositions (Article 6 of the 1992 Patent Law). Therefore the draft amendment will enable the UAE to extend the protection to these fields, regarding both product and method of processing. After the adoption of the above-mentioned amendment, the exceptions will be as follows: (i) plant and animal research, or biological processes for the production of plants or animals, with the exception of microbiological processes and products; (ii) scientific principles and discoveries; (iii) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals; in addition to inventions related to national defence or which would be contrary to public order and morality. Article 4 of the 1992 Patent Law considers patentable any new applications of known industrial processes or methods.

The micro-organisms are patentable in conformity with Article 6 of the 1992 Patent Law as mentioned above.

The 1992 Patent Law provides for compulsory licences (Articles 23 33). Article 23 determines in which cases compulsory licences are granted. For one or more of the following reasons, compulsory licence could be granted: (i) the invention covered by the patent is not being exploited; (ii) the exploitation of the invention is not sufficient to respond reasonably to the demand for the product; (ii) the exploitation has been suspended by the beneficiary for two consecutive years; (iv) the refusal of the owner of the patent to conclude a licence contract under fair terms has seriously impeded the development of industrial or commercial activities in the UAE. The draft amendment will provide measures to take into account the public interest and remedies to prevent anti-competitive practices and to reflect the drafting of the TRIPS Agreement.

Articles 23-24-25 of the Patent and Designs Law as recently amended state out that: If the owner of a patent or a utility certificate have not used the invention or have used it in an insufficient manner, any interested party may apply for a compulsory licence pursuant to the procedures indicated in article (29) of the law herein, according to the following conditions: - the lapse of at least three years after granting the patent; - the applicant for licensing should prove that he exerted, within a reasonable period of time, efforts for obtaining a licence from the patent owner with a reasonable compensation and under reasonable commercial conditions; - the licence shall be non-exclusive; - the licence should be basically for the purpose of fulfilling the demands of the local market; - the licensing decision should determine the scope and period of licensing pursuant to the purpose for which it was granted; - if the invention is related to semiconductors technology the licensing should only be granted for public and non-commercial use or to remedy a practice determined after Judicial or administrative process to be anti-competitive; - the granting of a compulsory licence shall not preclude granting of other compulsory licences. The competent court shall decide pursuant to the request of the interested parties, either to prevent the owner of the letters patent or the utility certificate, from using the invention itself, or otherwise grant him other licences for using thereof; - the competent court may not disregard the first and second item if the compulsory licence was granted as a result of public emergency, the dire need of the public for such, or for public and non-commercial uses; - a compulsory licence for exploiting the patent may be issued if the invention is important for the public interest; - pursuant to a decree by the Minister, a compulsory licence for exploiting the patent or utility certificate protected invention may be issued if the invention is important for the public interest; - the licensee shall have the right to use the civil and penal rights of the owner of the patent or the utility certificate to protect or to use the invention if such owner had omitted such use in spite of notifying or informing him of any illegal action; - article 25 of the above-mentioned Law provides that if it is impossible to use an invention protected by a patent or a utility certificate in the United Arab Emirates without violating rights derived from a patent or a utility certificate granted by virtue of a previous application, then it is permissible to grant the owner of the letters patent or the utility certificate a compulsory licence according to the conditions set forth in article (28) of such law to the degree necessary to use his invention if such invention serves industrial purposes different from such purposes related to the invention of the former patent or utility certificate or represents a marked technical advance in relation thereto; - if the two inventions serve the same industrial purpose, the compulsory licence shall be granted to the subsequent patent or utility certificate while keeping the right for the owner of the former patent or utility certificate to obtain a licence for the subsequent patent or utility certificate, if he applies for such; - the two parties may also agree in writing between them and notify the Administration of their agreement to record it in the related register. Article 29 of the same Law states out the following: - the application for the compulsory licence shall be submitted to the competent court in the form of an action filed against the owner of the patent or utility certificate, and the Administration shall be informed to arrange for the attendance of an administration representative. The court may grant the two parties a period of time it determines for them to come to an agreement and it is permissible to extend the period if the court recognizes a reason to do so. Upon the termination of the period, the court shall examine the application for either rejecting or granting the compulsory licence. If granted the court shall define the conditions and the scope thereof and determine the compensation for the owner of the patent or the utility certificate according to the provision of article (23) of such act, and the judgment shall be served to the other party and to the Administration to register it in the related register and to be published in the official gazette after paying the fixed fee, and the judgment shall have no impact concerning the third party except from the date of publication.

The current Law does not indicate the notion of anti-competitive practices as referred to in Article 31(k) of the TRIPS Agreement. However the draft amendment indicates that if the invention is related to semiconductors technology, the licensing should only be granted for public and non-commercial use or to remedy a practice determined after Judicial or administrative process to be anti-competitive. The notion of anti-competitive practices is indicated in various laws such as the Industrial Law and the Anti-fraud and Defraud Law.

The 1992 Patent and Industrial Design Law in its Article 35 provides for judicial review of the legal validity of any decision by administrative authorities relating to the compulsory licence.

In defending its position, the owner of the patent cannot introduce imported product as a valid ground. It does not present a legitimate reason for avoiding compulsory licensing if one or more of the reasons referred to in the above-mentioned Article 23 (Patent Law) are meet.

The Patent and Designs Law does not provide for any provision aimed at discriminating patents on the basis of the place of invention, the field of technology and whether the products are imported or locally produced. The approved amendment of the Article 23 of the Patent and Designs Law doesn’t stipulate any more that the importation of the product is not considered legal justification for the owner to avoid compulsory licence. Therefore, the Patent law related provisions are now in conformity with Article 27 and 31 of the TRIPS Agreement.