Article 58 of Patent Law provides that the owner of the patent may request the competent court, either before or during the civil or criminal proceeding, to issue a writ of attachment on the invention or industrial design, or on the establishment or the part of establishment using or exploiting a patent, in relation to which an infringement or an unlawful act has been committed. Temporary and rapid measures against any violation of intellectual property rights are provided in the other laws. Customs department is allowed to take measures at the borders to prevent any violation of intellectual property rights in accordance the above-mentioned laws as well as under Customs regulations. These measures are taken either following the demand of the right holder or on the basis of judicial order.

The competent court is responsible to decide on preventive seizure. Customs are also responsible for suspension of customs release for a fixed period in response to an application by the rights holder or the public prosecution or by its own initiative.

The same rules mentioned in the answer the question no. 56 are applied to this question.

The Patent Law Article 61 allows the court to order the destruction of the equipment used in committing the act of imitation and remove the effects of any illegal act. The Copyright Law provides for the same measures. The Trademarks Law Article 43 provides for the destruction of the illegal marks and the products and packaging and tools of packaging and other articles bearing in the illegal marks.

There is no indication in the three intellectual property federal laws of the de minimis imports exception.

Punishment related to illegal acts that affect intellectual property rights are provided in the three intellectual property rights laws. Imprisonment and a fine are provided as sanctions in Article 37 of the 1992 Trademarks Law No. 37, Article 60 of the 1992 Patent Law No. 44 and in the 1992 Copyright Law Article 37.

The first question refers to issues dealt with at the following consultations with the United States within the framework of the DSU: "Argentina - Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data Protection for Agricultural Chemicals" (WT/DS171) and "Argentina - Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test Data" (WT/DS196). In order to protect its rights at the said consultations, Argentina will not be answering the first question posed by Canada within the framework of the review of national implementing legislation by the Council for TRIPS. Argentina wishes to take this opportunity to point out to Canada that, although it confirms its willingness to fulfil its obligations with regard to the review of national implementing legislation by the Council for TRIPS, it is in its interest to ensure that the review process does not prejudice or affect either the course or outcome of the consultations being held under the DSU.

Argentine legislation affords foreign works the same degree of protection as domestic works. With regard to administrative formalities, foreign works are actually in a better position than domestic works since they are exempt from all formalities.

Argentina implements the principles of national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment through Law No. 24.425, ratifying the Uruguay Round Agreements, including the TRIPS Agreement, and Law No. 17.011 of 10 November 1966, which incorporates the Paris Convention (Lisbon Act of 1958). These principles cover all forms of intellectual property, patents and utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, appellations of origin and indications of source, ranging from the acquisition of rights, on equal grounds, to the maintenance and defence of such rights through administrative and judicial procedures laid down in the relevant special laws and in the general legislation governing civil, commercial and/or criminal procedure. As regards copyright and related rights, the protection afforded by domestic legislation likewise makes no distinction between national and foreign creations, thus guaranteeing national treatment to all right holders. The specific rules on the subject do not provide for most-favourednation treatment, since there is no difference in terms of the protection granted. In the case of plant varieties, the applicable legislation in this sphere is the 1978 Act of the Convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), which was ratified by Law No. 24.376, and the provisions of Law No. 20.247 on Seeds and Phytogenetic Developments, which lays down the national treatment principle in its Article 3. The intellectual property laws make no distinction between nationals and foreigners, or between foreigners from different countries, apart from the exceptions allowed under the TRIPS Agreement.

Law No. 25.036 amending Law No. 11.723 incorporates, in the list of protected works in Article 1 of the latter, computer programs in the form of either source or object codes and compilations of data or other material, thus protecting them on the same terms as literary works.

Pursuant to Article 2 of Law No. 11.723, copyright in a work listed in Article 1 of the Law includes the right to dispose of the work, which in turn includes rental rights in respect of computer programs and cinematographic works.

As works protected under Article 1 of Law No. 11.723, phonograms are fully covered by the provisions of Article 2 of the Law. Hence, producers are entitled to authorize or prohibit the direct or indirect reproduction of their works and to authorize or prohibit the rental of carrier media for commercial purposes. The term of protection is 50 (fifty) years, counted from the date of publication of the works.

The incorporation into a domain name of a registered trademark belonging to another party may be challenged by the affected trademark owner under Trademark Law No. 22.362 (published in the Boletín Oficial of 2 January 1981), inasmuch as it allows the owner to register an exclusive right entitling him to prevent others from using this sign or any other sign liable to cause confusion. The situations covered by so-called "cybersquatting" have to do with wilful appropriation of someone else's trademark, entailing the application by analogy of Article 24(b) of the Trademark Law. This provision establishes that a trademark shall be null and void where it was registered by someone who knew or should have known that the trademark belonged to a third party. The protection of well-known trademarks is also regulated by Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention, Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement, Articles 953, 1109 and 1071 of the Civil Code and the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. Argentine case law in this respect may be summarized by the criteria set forth in the following court decisions: - Heladerías Freddo S.A. vs. Spot Network regarding misappropriation of the name FREDDO on the Internet (Case No. 5354/97, National Federal Civil and Commercial Court No. 7, of 26 November 1997); - Pugliese Francisco Nicolás vs. Pérez Carlos Enrique regarding precautionary measures

Article 3(c) of Trademark Law No. 22.362 prohibits the registration of both domestic and foreign appellations of origin. The following provisions also apply: - Article 7 of Law No. 22.802 on Fair Trade stipulates that a domestic or foreign appellation of origin may not be used to identify fruit or any other goods not originating in the indicated area, except where the appellation has been registered as a trademark prior to the entry into force of the Law. - Article 1135 of the Argentine Food Code (Law No. 18.284) stipulates that geographical names designating or characterizing distilled spirits or liqueurs may not be used for goods originating in places other than the regions indicated by the names. A case in point was the judgment of 15 February 2000 handed down by the Court II of the Federal Civil and Commercial Chamber in the case The Scotch Whisky Association et al. vs. García José.

Argentina has enacted the following legal protection instruments to implement Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement: - Trademark Law No. 22.362, published in the Boletín Oficial of 2 January 1981. The provisions of Article 3(c) and (d) stipulate that neither domestic nor foreign appellations of origin nor appellations that might cause confusion as to the origin of the goods may be registered as trademarks. - Law No. 25.163 on Wines and Spirits, relating to the protection of indications of source, geographical indications and registered appellations of origin, Chapter V, Scope and Obligations. - Article 1135 of the Argentine Food Code prohibits appellations of origin using names other than the true places of production of distilled spirits or liqueurs. - Article 4 of Consumer Protection Law No. 24.240 on information provided to consumers. - Article 5 of Law No. 22.802 on Fair Trade. - Article 4 of Law No. 24.420 on Consumer Protection. The other applicable provisions are Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention (Law No. 17.011) and those of Law No. 25.156 on Competition.

The additional protection for wines and spirits under Article 23.1 of the TRIPS Agreement was established in Argentina through the enactment of Law No. 25.163 of 15 October 1999, laying down general rules concerning the designation and presentation of wines and spirits obtained from wine of Argentine origin.

There is no specific legislation for the protection of textile designs. However, these are covered by the legislation governing industrial designs (Decree Law No. 6.673/63, Decree No. 5682/65 and Resolution No. 21/74 of the National Directorate of Industrial Property).

No reply is given to this question, as it refers to issues that are being dealt with in consultations with the United States in the framework of the WTO or to matters which – because they relate to such issues – may have a direct impact on the consultations.

Integrated circuits are not protected by specific legislation but are covered by the various intellectual property laws, depending on the context in which they are used.

No reply is given to this question, as it refers to issues that are being dealt with in consultations with the United States in the framework of the WTO or to matters which – because they relate to such issues – may have a direct impact on the consultations.