Please see the response to question 43.

Please refer to Bahrain's responses to questions 5 and 24 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/BHR/1).

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

Please refer to Bahrain's responses to questions 3 and 4 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/BHR/1).

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

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."

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."

Please refer to Bahrain's responses to questions 15 and 24 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/BHR/1).

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.

Please refer to Bahrain's responses to questions 10 to 12 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/BHR/1).

The General Directorate of Customs or alternatively the court.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.