Examen de la législation d'application de l'Accord sur les ADPIC ‒ Recherche

Réinitialiser
 
 

Aux termes de l'article 63:2 de l'Accord sur les ADPIC, les Membres doivent notifier les lois et réglementations qu'ils auront rendues exécutoires, et qui visent les questions faisant l'objet de l'Accord, au Conseil des ADPIC pour l'aider dans son examen du fonctionnement de l'Accord.

Cette page vous permet d'effectuer une recherche dans les questions et réponses des Membres au sujet des lois et réglementations notifiées. Vous pouvez consulter les résultats de la recherche à l'écran ou les télécharger afin de les imprimer au format Excel. Vous pouvez également télécharger des documents spécifiques.

* Vous n'êtes PAS obligé(e) de sélectionner tous les champs de recherche ci-dessous (uniquement les champs qui sont pertinents pour votre recherche).
* Veuillez noter que les critères de recherche sélectionnés sont cumulatifs et figureront tous dans les résultats de votre recherche.


Page 500 de 677   |   Nombre de documents : 13533

Cote du document Membre notifiant Membre soulevant la question Question Réponse Date de distribution du document  
IP/Q4/ESP/1 Espagne États-Unis d'Amérique 3. Please describe whether and under what circumstances the provisional measures required by Article 50 may be ordered without notice to the defendant.
The reply to the question whether provisional measures can be adopted inaudita altera parte is yes, as explained in the reply by Spain to the Check-List of Issues on Enforcement. In civil proceedings, Article 1428 of the Law on Civil Procedure regarding precautionary measures allows this possibility in general, although the possible damage that may be caused to the defendant because he has not been heard must be covered by a suitable security. The circumstances in which precautionary measures may be permitted without a previous hearing are not specified in the legal texts but the principle followed is that they should be adopted in cases where such action seems fair and when there is urgency or imminent danger of the purposes of Article 50 being frustrated if delay occurs as a result of informing the defendant. Prior notice is therefore laid down as a general rule and the adoption of precautionary measures without giving notice should be regarded as exceptional and should be reserved for situations of pressing need. Specifically, in addition to precautionary measures sensu stricto, Article 137 of the Intellectual Property Law permits the judge, inaudita altera parte, in the specific context of the protection of computer programmes, to demand any reports and order any investigations he considers necessary. Article 25, second paragraph, of the Unfair Competition Law likewise provides the possibility of adopting precautionary measures inaudita altera parte "in cases of serious imminent danger", which must be adopted "within 24 hours after submission of the application", with a secondary reference to the general regime set out in Article 1428 of the Law on Civil Procedure. Article 129 of the Law on Patents and Utility Models also allows the judge to take this type of action during the collection of evidence, to demand reports and to order any investigations he considers necessary. The same measures can be adopted in criminal proceedings, and in addition it is possible to order the preliminary investigation into the case to be kept confidential. It only remains to point out that a preliminary draft of a new Law on Civil Procedure which will regulate precautionary measures inaudita altera parte is currently under study.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 1. Please indicate the "competent authorities" stipulated in Article 51 of the TRIPS Agreement.
The Polish legislation currently in force does not provide for any regulations which would permit the customs authorities to undertake actions in case of suspected infringement of intellectual property rights. As a result, it is not possible for us to provide you with separate answers to each question posed. Legal regulations pursuant to which the customs authorities are obliged to conduct inspections in order to check whether the goods exported and imported from and into the Polish customs area comply with the intellectual property rights, have been included in the Act of 9 January 1997 - Customs Code (Journal of Law No. 23, item 117) which shall become effective as of 1 January 1998, in reliance on their provisions of Part III of the TRIPS Agreement. In regard to the above-mentioned, the Polish delegation is not in a position to answer questions 1 to 21 because the rules regarding Section 4 of Part III of the TRIPS Agreement shall be issued in the rules of implementation to the Customs Code. For the presentation of the rules we quote Articles 2.1 and 57 below. Article 2.1 "Provisions concerning the goods imported to or exported from the Polish customs area shall be applied respectively to the import to and export from the Polish customs area of goods covered under separate regulations by protection of intellectual, trade and industrial property." Article 57 "(1) Goods, regardless of their type, composition, origin, place of shipment or destination may at any time, subject to specified terms and conditions, obtain customs destination admissible for the given goods. "(2) The regulation contained in Section 1 does not exclude the application of international agreements, and prohibitions or limitations arising from separate provisions, in particular those concerning, decency, public security, health care, protection of human or animal life, protection of environment and natural resources, culture goods, intellectual, trade and industrial property, as well as prohibitions and limitations established due to trade. "(3) The Council of Ministers may specify, by an ordinance, the manner of procedure to be adopted by customs authorities in the event of their seizing goods as to which a suspicion has arisen that they have infringed the intellectual, trade and industrial property rights." The protection of intellectual, trade and industrial property rights is subject to the following regulations under the above-mentioned Act. Pursuant to the delegation contained in Article 57, section 3 of the Customs Code, a draft Ordinance of the Council of Ministers specifying the mode of procedure to be adopted by custom authorities in the event of seizing the goods as to which a suspicion has arisen that they have infringed the intellectual, trade and industrial property rights, has been prepared. This draft relies on provisions contained in Section 4 of Part III of the TRIPS Agreement which contains regulations concerning specific requirements referring to measures undertaken during border control. This constitutes the performance by our country of an obligation to adjust provisions of the domestic legislation to international agreements. However, due to the fact that the above-mentioned draft is being discussed now, and its provision may change, it is not possible at the moment to provide independent answers to questions 1 to 21. This can be effected only after the Customs Code, and the secondary legislation which will regulate the competences and mode of procedure to be adopted by customs authorities with respect to the protection of intellectual protection of intellectual property, have come into force, i.e. after 1 January 1998.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 2. Please explain whether "proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case" stipulated in Article 55 of the TRIPS Agreement, are judicial or administrative.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 3. Are there any ways other than the application stipulated in Articles 51 and 52 of the TRIPS Agreement (hereafter referred to as "the Application") which enable a right holder to request the competent authorities to suspend the release of the goods which infringe intellectual property rights or which are suspected to infringe intellectual property rights?
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon the competent authorities shall inform the applicant whether or not they have accepted the Application" stipulated in Article 52 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 5. Please explain the term during which the Application is effective.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 6. Please explain whether a right holder is obliged to pay any fees to lodge the Application.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 7. Please indicate provisions of laws and ordinances which prescribe the "proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case" stipulated in Article 55 of the TRIPS Agreement. And please summarize their contents.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 8. Please explain the specific procedure, if any, to be applied to the goods which are not evident whether or not they infringe intellectual property rights, in Article 55 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 9. Please explain the responsibility that the competent authorities and other related authorities take to the right holders when they fail to suspend the release into free circulation of goods which infringe intellectual property rights with regard to the suspension based on the Application or the Ex Officio Action stipulated in Article 58 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 10. Please explain the responsibility that the competent authorities and other related authorities take to the right holders when they examine goods which infringe intellectual property rights and nevertheless release them into free circulation with regard to the suspension based on the Application or the Ex Officio Action stipulated in Article 58 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 11. Please explain the responsibility that the competent authorities and other related authorities take to the importers when they suspend the release into free circulation of goods which do not infringe intellectual property rights with regard to the suspension based on the Application or the Ex Officio Action stipulated in Article 58 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 12. Is the right holder informed of identities of the importers and consignors when the competent authorities "suspend" the goods which infringe on intellectual property rights or which are suspected to infringe intellectual property rights, as well as the case where the right holder is informed of identities of the importers and consignors stipulated in Article 57 of the TRIPS Agreement?
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 13. Please explain the measures to protect confidential information in the course of the inspection stipulated in Article 57 of the TRIPS Agreement. And please indicate provisions of laws and ordinances which prescribe such measures.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 14. Please explain the procedures of detentions and seizures to be ordered by the competent authorities based on Articles 51 and 55 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 15. Please explain the procedures to appeal against any decisions ordered by the competent authorities based on Articles 51 and 55 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 16. Please explain the basis for calculating the security or equivalent assurance stipulated in Article 53 of the TRIPS Agreement that the competent authorities may require an applicant when they suspend the release into free circulation.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 17. Please explain who shall pay the cost of detentions based on Article 51 of the TRIPS Agreement or destruction stipulated in Article 59 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 18. Please explain what kind of cases are regarded as "the exceptional circumstances" in which the competent authorities may allow re exportation of counterfeit trademark goods stipulated in Article 59 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998
IP/Q4/POL/1 Pologne Japon 19. Please indicate names of laws and ordinances and their provisions in which the suspension of the release of goods which infringe intellectual property rights or which are suspected to infringe intellectual property rights is prescribed, as stipulated in Article 51 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Please see the reply to question 1.
21/09/1998

Page 500 de 677   |   Nombre de documents : 13533

 
Réinitialiser