Oman is currently standing at the threshold of World Trade Organization (WTO) membership. The Sultanate has submitted its memorandum for membership in October 1996. Oman is one of two Arab countries to yet be granted WTO membership; the other being Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Oman will soon start implementing laws relating to copyright and intellectual property in accordance with WTO regulations.
Oman will make use of the five-year period granted from the day of accession to the WTO to implement the trade related aspects of intellectual property rights as it will not be possible to enforce all aspects of intellectual property rights at once. Some of the areas that will be subject to law enforcement at an early stage will be the illegal outlets of movies, television, and radio and audio-visual works.
The Sultanate of Oman has sought help and advice from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to study its intellectual property laws and their consistency as per the provisions of the TRIPS agreement. A WIPO sub-regional seminar for the Gulf Cooperation Council countries will be held in Oman from December 15-17. This seminar is organized by WIPO in conjunction with the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to educate both the private and public sectors on the important aspects of the TRIPS agreement and its implications on the Omani economy.
SAUDI ARABIA to Meet WTO Requirements
Saudi Arabia is taking the necessary steps to cope with world economic developments. The Commerce Minister of Saudi Arabia declared that Saudi Arabia is reorganizing its sectors in order to meet WTO requirements.
EGYPT: A Decision to Codify Intellectual Property Laws
The Review Committee entrusted with harmonising these laws with the GATT and the final documents of the Uruguay Round has decided to codify the intellectual property laws and to prepare a memo on the reasons for the codification. The committee has also decided to amend the commercial registry law so as to update it in line with recent developments and to amend some provisions to keep up with world technology especially relating to computers. This is something that is very important especially in the dealings of banks, insurance companies, international firms and stock exchanges.
PALESTINE: Meeting with WIPO
A delegation from the Palestinian Ministry of Economy and Trade has visited the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva. The delegation met with the Director General and the Director of Arab countries unit and discussed the basis for cooperation in the field of intellectual property protection.
The WIPO officials promised to provide all technical assistance to the Intellectual Property Protection in Palestine, and in drafting a trademarks law. They said they would send experts to train the staff on the most modern methods used in the filed. Likewise, they discussed Palestine's membership in the WIPO.
UAE: Confiscation and Destruction of Pirated Software Continues
The Ministry of Information, in its determination to eliminate software piracy in the UAE, raided a computer shop in Sharjah and confiscated illegal copies of software along with CD's of pirated programs.
Until today, a few computer hardware shops are still selling illegal software installed on the hard disk in the hopes of attracting customers. The Ministry of Information and the Business Software Alliance are both dedicated to stop such stores and will continue to take suitable actions against them.
And in implementation of the Authorship and Copyright Protection Law No. 14 for the year 1992, the Censorship Administration of the Ministry of Information and Culture destroyed in one day 29520 video and audio tapes in the presence of a number of officials of the ministry and the police.
QATAR Combats Piracy
In May 1997, Qatar implemented the Copyright Law No. 25 of the year 1995 after giving a grace period of two years to the producers of works of art to get rid of the work of art whose copyrights do not belong to them. The law came as a result of years of study and review and went through many stages of reviewing and comparison till it was finalized.
In its present form, the law protects the rights of creators and encourages them to exercise their creative abilities without being concerned that their efforts will be pirated or attributed to others. However, despite the law's implementation, piracy still continues in the markets whether by reproducing audio or video cassettes in addition to computer software.
In this regard, Qatar's Copyright Office spreads awareness among creators and distributors of copyright works on the best methods to protect their rights and lays down bases on dispute settlement. Likewise, the office examines the applications for copyright registration in light of the Qatari Copyright Law.
The Office employs staff who enjoy judiciary police powers to inspect audio and video cassette stores and apprehend those involved in contraventions. The efforts of the staff became more fruitful after implementation of the Law by mid May, 1997.
The computer software and audio and video cassettes sales was on the increase. The public was beginning to understand the importance of using genuine software, which is a clear indicator to the right path. It is expected that piracy in Qatar will come to an end by the beginning of next year.
The Copyright Office has been able to restrain several contraventions in the field of computer software and audio and video cassettes after it received complaints from the copyright on distribution-right holders. With the information that there were small stores in the market that sold pirated copyright cassettes, the office's staff seized and confiscated the cassettes and settled the disputes amicably with an undertaking not to repeat the copying by the perpetrators.
The penalties of the Qatari Copyright Law are stern. An imprisonment term of no less than six months and no more than a year, or a fine of no less than Qatari Riyals 30,000 (US $ 8,250) and no more than QRs 100,000 (US $27,500) or by both of those penalties plus the seizure and confiscation of the pirated copies of the work of art.
The penalties apply to whoever publishes a work of art not belonging to him without obtaining a written authorization from the author or his representative.
South Korea
The Korean Trademark Act was amended on August 22, 1997 as law No. 5,355 and will become effective on March 1, 1998. The amendments were necessary to keep abreast of the international trend of trademark protection and to simplify the filing and examination procedures of trademark applications.
Greece
A new Design and Model Law has come into effect in Greece as of September 19, 1997. This law introduces the protection of industrial designs and models based either on a national or international application.
Guinea-Bissau and Gambia
Guinea-Bissau and Gambia have deposited their instruments of accession to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and will become bound by PCT as of December 12, 1997 and December 9, 1997 respectively. Accordingly, these two countries may be designated in any international application filed after these dates. In addition, nationals and residents of Guinea-Bissau and Gambia will be entitled to file international applications under the PCT.
Malaysia
Amendments to the Malaysian Trade Marks (Amendment) Act of 1994 and the Trademark Regulations of 1997 will come into effect on December 1, 1997.
An Unconventional Decision on Trade Mark Protection in Jordan
On July 2nd, 1997, the High Court of Justice issued an unconventional decision pertaining to protection of famous trademarks in Jordan.
This ruling came after an appeal of the Registrar's decision upholding trademark application (MOUNTAIN DEW) No. (35005) in class (32) in an opposition action filed against the subject application. The trademark application was filed in the name of a Jordanian company (appellee) and in respect of natural juice.
An opposition action was filed by a Jordanian national (appellant) claiming that trademark (MOUNTAIN DEW) is the property of a well-known American corporation. The facts proved that trademark (MOUNTAIN DEW) was not registered in Jordan nor used in the Jordanian market. The Registrar found that trademark (MOUNTAIN DEW) is neither known nor famous amongst Jordanian consumers and thus, application No. (35003) does not cause deceit to the public.
Upon appealing the Registrar's decision, the High Court of Justice found out that trademark (MOUNTAIN DEW) owned by the American company, is used in many parts of the world and particularly in Arab markets which makes the mark a famous one worldwide and, thus, known to the Jordanian public.
The decision did not elaborate on how it was found out that the mark was famous among Jordanian consumers, but a reading through the decision entails that the fame of the trademark worldwide has consequently made it famous in Jordan.
The decision explicitly stated that "the fame of the trademark justifies its protection even though it was neither registered nor used, because protection is not confined to protection of a trademark but rather protecting the public from fraud and so as not to mislead the public into believing that goods produced by the appellee are products of the appellant".
The decision concluded that registration of this trademark causes deceit to the public and, therefore, revocation of the Registrar's decision is in order.
This unconventional decision by the High Court of Justice has broadened the protection of trademarks in Jordan. Protection could not be obtained in the absence of registration or use in Jordan. The Court has exceeded a black-letter reading of the law to provide protection for a famous trademark. Only the future will tell whether this decision would become a trend in the court's rulings making the (Mountain Dew )case a landmark decision.
BAHRAIN: Red Label Vs. Red Able
The decisive factor as for imitation is the similarities not the differences. A judgment is erroneous if it discussed only the issue of differences without discussing similarities.
The Court
After reviewing the papers and hearing the report delivered by the reporter judge and the pleadings and deliberation, the appeal is admitted as a matter of form.
Facts:
Facts can be outlined in that the appellant commenced action No. 2/0/87/617/1 before the High Civil Court (the "First Degree Court") against the first and third appellees demanding injunctive relief against the first appellee and to prevent it from selling the imported products of tea and also to prevent it from importing any further items of the same, and to order the third appellee not to release such items either at the present time or in the future.
The appellant alleged that it is the commercial agent authorized to distribute tea products of the company (Brooke Bond India Ltd.) which bear the trademark "RED LABEL" registered for their client in Bahrain under a Registration Certificate issued by the third appellee. The first appellee imported tea products that bear the trademark "RED ABLE" with packaging of the same colors and lines that distinguish the "RED LABEL" tea bags. This is done in violation to the provisions of the Patents, Designs and Trademarks Rules of 1955.
The first appellee rebutted the claims saying that the action should have been raised against the second appellee in its capacity as the owner of the disputed trademark in India where the second appellee resides.
The first appellee also rebutted the action saying that the High Civil Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter and asked that the claims be rejected without him bearing any expenses.
On April 6, 1988, the appellant filed a third party action requesting introduction of the second appellee as a party in the action. On July 3, 1989, the First Degree Court refused all the defences presented by the appellees and issued its judgment and affirmed the appellant's claims and allegations.
Appellees appealed this judgment and the Court of Appeals reversed the First Degree Court's judgment. Appellant, therefore, appealed to this court asking that the judgment be revised and reversed.
Application:
Appellant alleges that the disputed decision has applied the law erroneously. Clarifying its claims, the appellant alleges that the decision considered only the dissimilarities between both trademarks in the packaging of the tea bags, and assumed that imitation requires the two trademarks to be completely identical, and ignored the fact that the two marks have the same sound when being pronounced.
In addition, the appellant alleges that the criterion set by legislators for the imitation to be present is how the image as a whole is reflected in the minds of the public consumers, without taking the parts of each mark separately into consideration. It is also not required that the confusion is certain, a possibility of the confusion suffices. This allegation is correct.
Paragraph two of Article 45 of the Patents, Designs and Trademarks Rules of Bahrain of 1955 states that a trademark serves as an identifier of the products and goods. This purpose is achieved by making distinctions between Trademarks that identify the products so as to make it easy for consumers not to get deceived or confused.
Therefore, to make a decision on whether a trademark enjoys special distinctive features, it is important to consider all the factors under which a trademark is established without giving any great consideration to each factor standing alone.
A trademark may consist of characters, symbols, or images that other trademarks contain, but consideration is given to whether or not the whole image that resulted from assembling such characters and symbols is distinctive.
Imitation happens when trying to counterfeit a false trademark to resemble a genuine one. Therefore, consideration is given to similarities rather than dissimilarities as to give a false image and deceive consumers.
In addition, imitation does not require that the two trademarks be identical, it is sufficient that there is some kind of similarity or resemblance between the two marks as to deceive the public.
Because the appealed decision did not discuss the issue of similarities and dissimilarities between the two trademarks but considered only the dissimilarities so as to reach the conclusion that the two trademarks are distinct, therefore, the judgment in dispute is erroneous and shall be reversed.
The subject matter of the case on board is adjudicatory, and it was obvious from making a comparison between both disputed trademarks that they are similar in size, colors used, and the name, hence the possibility of confusion to the public consumers is present. Accordingly, the First Degree Court's decision shall be sustained.
PhRMA Representatives in JORDAN
A meeting was held on the 29th and 30th of October 1997, between the Arab Bureau for Legal Services (ABLE) and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Among the attendees on the PhRMA's side were representatives of the American pharmaceutical company Pfizer. The two sides discussed patent protection of pharmaceuticals in Jordan and ways of furthering progress on amendments to the Jordanian Patent and Design Laws. Both parties agreed on continuing cooperation and discussions on this important issue.
IMPORTANT NOTICE - CHANGE OF TELEPHONE & FAX NUMBERS IN JORDAN
We expect telephone and fax numbers to change in our area of Jordan sometime in the first two weeks of January. Unfortunately, we are unable at this point to give any specific date; therefore you are kindly requested to use the following numbers should you encounter difficulty in contacting us at our current numbers.
"Please add a "5" after the country and city code"
REGIONAL OFFICE
From Telephone Number: 962-6 669-603 To New Telephone Number: 962-6 5669-603 From Fax Number: 962-6 603-743 To New Fax Number: 962-6 5603-743
JORDAN OFFICE
From Telephone Number: 962-6 698-282 To New Telephone Number: 962-6 5698-282 From Fax Number: 962-6 603-743 To New Fax Number: 962-6 5603-743
Please note that our e-mail address will remain the same agip@tag.com.jo
Kindly forward this notice to your Telephone and Fax Operator.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.