RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/Q4/DNK/1
8 September 1998
(98-3402)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION ON ENFORCEMENT
DENMARK1
The present document reproduces the introductory statement made by the delegation of
Denmark, the questions put to it and the responses given in the review of legislation on enforcementat the Council's meeting of 17-21 November 1997.
2
_______________
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
The Danish system of enforcement of intellectual property rights contains a variety of
sanctions when an infringement occurs.  The most important sanctions are punishment, compensation
and destruction.  These rules are laid down in the laws on intellectual property, such as the Copyright
Act and the Consolidated Patent Act.
In Denmark there are no special courts which have exclusive jurisdiction over intellectual
property right infringement cases.  As a rule, the enforcement of intellectual property rights takes
place before the ordinary courts and follows the ge neral procedural rules set out in the Administration
of Justice Act.
In civil cases intellectual property right holders often prevail in their request for the
issuance of injunctions to stop the infringement.  The rules concerning the procedures in injunction
cases are found in the Administration of Justice Act and not in the intellectual property rights laws.
In this connection attention should be dr awn to the Danish answers to questions 18
and 19 from the United States and Japan as well as to question 24 from the United States.  In theseanswers the Danish rules on the issuance of injunctions are thoroughly described.
In addition to this attention is drawn to the answer to question 4 from the United
States.  Here it is noted that Denmark in May 1997 made an amendment to the Administration of
Justice Act with the aim of speeding up civil action proceedings.  The amendment involves providingjudges with better powers to control case proceedings.  Among other matters, these new provisions
allow judges greater discretion in dismissing any new claims etc. which arise late in the proceedings.
Another example is that a time-limit of six weeks for delivery of judgements by a city court has been
introduced.
                                                     
1 As regards laws and regulations relevant to the area under review and notified by Denmark under
Article 63.2 of the Agreement, reference is made to documents IP/N/1/DNK/1 and IP/N/6/DNK/1.
2 The minutes of this meeting have been circulated as document IP/C/M/16.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 2
In conclusion, the Danish system of enforcement is effective and expeditious.  It provides a
balanced and inexpensive enforcement system appli cable to intellectual property rights, and the
possibility of the imposition of fines and – possibly – imprisonment – serves as a sufficient deterrent
against infringements.
II. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY JAPAN
1. Please indicate the "competent authorities" stipulated in Article 51 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
The competent authority in Denmark is the local customs and tax office at which the goods
are expected to arrive.
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.
The legal proceedings initiated which may lead to a decision in the case are of a legal nature.
This is due to the fact that the consignee cannot bring the decision of the customs and tax authorities
on suspicion before a higher administrative authority, cf. Danish Act No. 1091, paragraph 5,
subparagraph 2.
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 right or which are suspected to infringe intellectual property rights?
The holder of a right may choose between having an injunction issued against the release of
the goods suspected of being counterfeit or pirated goods, or use the possibility of suspension
provided for in EC Regulation 3295/94.
4. Please explain what term your country regards as "a reasonable period within which
the competent authorities shall inform the applicant whether or not they have accepted theApplication" stipulated in Article 52 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Pursuant to Regulation 3295/94 Article 3, paragraph 5, the holder of the right is to be notified
in writing without undue delay ("forthwith") about a decision made.
5. 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 TRIPSAgreement.  And please summarize their contents.
The relevant laws and regulations are continued in the Danish notifications of "Main
Dedicated Laws and Regulations" and "Other Laws and Regulations" notified under Article 63.2 of
the TRIPS Agreement.
3
See also Denmark's response to question 16(a) of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.4
                                                     
3 Document IP/N/1/DNK/1.
4 Document IP/N/6/DNK/1.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 3
6. 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 TRIPSAgreement.
There are no special procedures for any such goods.
7. 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 circulationof goods which infringe intellectual property rights with regard to the suspension based on theApplication or the Ex Officio Action stipulated in Article 58 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Pursuant to Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, liability to pay damages may only be imposed on
the customs authority in these situations if this appears from national law.
8. Please explain the responsibility that the competent authorities and other related
authorities take to the right holders when they examine goods which infringe intellectualproperty rights and nevertheless release them into free circulation with regard to thesuspension based on the Application or the Ex Officio Action stipulated in Article 58 of theTRIPS Agreement.
Pursuant to Regulation 3295/94, Article 4, the customs authorities can only suspend the
release for free circulation on their own initiative if it can be established sufficiently clearly that thegoods are counterfeit or pirated.
9. 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 goodswhich do not infringe intellectual property rights with regard to the suspension based on theApplication or the Ex Officio Action stipulated in Article 58 of the TRIPS Agreement.
If the customs authorities have accepted a request for suspension of goods, security will have
to be put up for the situation referred to.  The customs authorities may always withhold release of thegoods if they find that there is something suspici ous about these.  So no liability for withholding
goods can be imposed on the customs authorities.  According to the Regulation 3295/94, Article 9,
paragraph 3, the civil liability of the holder of the right shall be governed by the law of the Member
State in which the goods in question were placed in one of the situations referred to in
Regulation 3295/94, Article 1(1)a.
10. 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 rightholder is informed of identities of the importers and consignors stipulated in Article 57 of theTRIPS Agreement?
Whenever the customs authorities have suspended the release of goods, either on their own
initiative or as required by the holder of the right, the holder of the right shall receive information
adequate to enable him or her to bring the case before the Maritime and Commercial Court.
11. 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 oflaws and ordinances which prescribe such measures.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 4
To protect certain information the general secrecy and confidentiality requirement shall apply
in this case as well.
12. 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.
The customs authorities may on their own initiative suspend goods suspected of being
counterfeit or pirated (the holder of the right must, however, subsequently request suspension), or
directly as requested by the holder of the right.
13. Please explain the procedures to appeal against any decisions ordered by the competent
authorities based on Articles 51 and 55 of the TRIPS Agreement.
The holder of the right may bring the negative decision rendered by the local customs and tax
office before the central customs and tax administration.  Consignee would have to bring the decision
of the local customs and tax authorities before the courts.
14. 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 applicantwhen they suspend the release into free circulation.
The security should be adequate to cover any liability in relation to the persons affected by
the intervention and also cover expenses incurred from storage of the goods under customs controls.
The amount will be fixed by governmental customs and tax authorities.
15. 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.
The actual holding of the goods is to be paid by the holder of the right.  Destruction shall be at
no cost to the Treasury so the Maritime and Commercial Court will also have to identify the party
paying for this in its decision.
16. Please explain what kind of cases are regarded as "the exceptional circumstances" in
which the competent authorities may allow re-exportation of counterfeit trademark goodsstipulated in Article 59 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Article 2 of Regulation 3295/94 prohibits to have goods put into free circulation, exported or
re-exported, if by legal proceedings they have been found to be counterfeit or pirated.
17. Please describe to what extent the amount of damages have been estimated by courts in
Denmark since 1 January 1996.  Please explain whether the amount of damages are adequatecompensation for the injury the right holder has suffered, and how such civil procedures areconsistent with Article 45 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Please explain whether the damages theperson who infringes intellectual property rights are ordered to pay include appropriateattorney's fees and expense for investigations.
5
There are no statistics regarding the size of the compensation awarded to right holders by
Danish courts.
                                                     
5 Reference is made to Denmark's response to question 5 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement
(document IP/N/6/DNK/1).IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 5
As described in Denmark's reply to question 5 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement,6 the
basis of the calculation of the compensation is that any loss must be fully compensated.
Other expenses in connection with the case are as far as possible fully compensated by the
party losing the case, cf. Section 312(2) of the Admi nistration of Justice Act.  Lawyers' fees are fixed
by the court at a suitable amount.
18. Please explain the procedure under Section 343 of the Danish Administration of Justice
Act for evidence preservation orders either requires advance notice to the defendant or allowsthe defendant to refuse access to its property.  Please explain whether the procedure isconsistent with Article 50 of the TRIPS Agreement.
In a civil case, the production of evidence usually takes place during the trial,
cf. Section 340(1)(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.
However, the court may in special cases allo w evidence to be produced prior to the trial,
cf. Section 340(1)(2) of the Administration of Justice Act.  The reasons for such extra-judicialproduction of evidence could for instance be that one party is in danger of losing his evidence or that
one party has a special interest in the evid ence being perpetuated prior to the trial.
In case of extra-judicial production of evidence, the party shall inform the opposing party
accordingly giving him one week's notice, cf. subparagraph 2 of Section 340(2) of the Administrationof Justice Act.  However, the court may in urgent  cases exempt the party from this obligation to give
notice, cf. subparagraph 2 of Section 340(2) of the Administration of Justice Act.  In case the
opposing party has not been informed, the court may appoint a lawyer to act for him and the court
may demand that he provide security for the payment of fees to the appointed lawyer.
Depending on the circumstances, extra-judicial production of evidence may take place prior
to the issuing of proceedings and before it is known whether proceedings will be issued, cf.
subparagraph 1 of Section 343(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.  In such cases, the costs of the
production of evidence shall be paid by the party wishing the evidence to be produced.  Here too, the
court may in urgent cases exempt the party from informing the opposing party, cf. Section 343(4) of
the Administration of Justice Act, which refers to the above-mentioned provisions of
subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Section 340(2).
In case one party opposes the production of evidence - for instance by refusing entry to the
premises in question - the court may in assessing the evidence hold this in favour of the opposing
party, cf. Section 344 of the Administration of Justice Act.
19. Denmark's responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement
7 describe that an
interim injunction under Section 646 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act requiresprevious notice to the defendant and allows the defendant to refuse access to its property.Please explain whether the procedure is consistent with Article 50 of the TRIPS Agreement.
The purpose of issuing an injunction is to protect a right holder against another party's actions
which infringe those rights.  The injunction ensures quick and immediate intervention until such time
as the right holder is able to obtain judgement that an opposing party is not entitled to perform
specific actions.
                                                     
6 Document IP/N/6/DNK/1.
7 Reference is made to Denmark's response to question 12 of the Checklist (document IP/N/6/DNK/1).IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 6
Pursuant to Section 642 of the Administration of Justice Act, the issuing of an injunction
presupposes:
(a) that the actions against which the injunction is sought infringe the rights of the
plaintiff;
(b) that the opposing party intends to perform actions against which an injunction is
sought; and
(c) that the opportunity will be forfeited if the plaintiff is forced to assert his rights
through ordinary legal proceedings.
An injunction may be issued in cases where a party is able to prove or render probable his
right to have this legal remedy carried into effect, cf. Section 642 of the Administration of Justice Act.
Consequently, complete proof cannot be required although a certain form of proof of the
circumstances determining the right of the plaintiff cannot be omitted either.
The hearing of injunction cases is regulated in detail by Section 646 of the Administration of
Justice Act where the provisions of subsection 2 refer to a number of provisions regarding ordinary
civil proceedings and cases concerning the levying of execution.
As a consequence of the reference in Section 646(2) to subparagraph 1 of Section 491(1) of
the Administration of Justice Act, the court shall determine the time and place for the hearing ofexecution cases and shall inform the plaintiff accordingly.  The court may - in cases where this is
deemed expedient - determine that the case shall be heard at the opposing party's place of residence or
business.
It appears that from the reference to Section 493(1) and (2) of the Administration of Justice
Act that the court shall also inform the opposing pa rty of the listing of the case unless it is deemed
expedient to levy execution without prior notice or when it must be assumed that the possibility of
obtaining payment will otherwise be considerably reduced.
Depending on the circumstances, it is thus possible to carry out enforcement proceedings
where the bailiff repairs to the debtor's address with a view to issuing an injunction without prior
notice to the opposing party.
The enforcement court may on request assist the right holder in upholding the injunction,
including by preventing the infringement of an inj unction and by vitiating any actions infringing the
injunction, cf. Section 645(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.
Furthermore, the enforcement court may seize objects being used or having been used in
connection with the infringement of the injunction.  In case there are reasons to assume that particular
objects will be used for such purpose, such objects may be seized, cf. Section 645(2) of the
Administration of Justice Act.
Depending on the circumstances, the court officer may at the time of the enforcement
proceedings carry out an inspection of the defendant's property, for instance examination of a
computer.  It shall in each individual case depend upon an assessment of the actual circumstances
within the framework of the above-mentioned provis ions whether - and if so to which extent - the
court officer will assist in such inspections.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 7
During the execution of enforcement proceedings pursuant to Section 645 of the
Administration of Justice Act the police shall at the request of the enforcement court assist in such
proceedings.
See also the reply to question 10, cf. Denmark's response to question 5 of the Checklist of
Issues on Enforcement.8
20. Denmark's responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement9 describe that a
punishment of up to one year of imprisonment may be imposed.  Please explain whether thecriminal remedies are consistent with Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement which requiresprovisions for a sufficient deterrent, consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimesof a corresponding gravity.
Denmark finds that, according to the traditions  of Danish legislation, punishment of up to
one year's imprisonment must be regarded as an appropriate sanction for crimes of this nature.
III. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES
General obligations
1. Articles 41.1 and 42 of the TRIPS Agreement require that procedures be available for
the effective enforcement of the intellectual property rights covered by the Agreement.  Pleasedescribe the structure of the judicial procedures in Denmark in which parties can enforce theirintellectual property rights, at local, provincial and national levels, indicate the jurisdiction ofeach type of court or administrative body, and explain the interrelationships, if any, of thevarious types of courts.
See Denmark's reply to question 1 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.
8
2. Please identify any requirement that a foreign party must meet to initiate a proceeding
in the courts and administrative bodies identified in answer to question 1 that is not requiredof a national or resident of Denmark and cite the legal authorities providing for thosedifferences.
See Denmark's reply to question 2(a) of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.
8
It may be added that a foreign plaintiff at the request of the defendant shall provide security
for any bill of costs that the plaintiff may be ordered to pay to the defendant, unless Danish plaintiffsin the foreign country in question are exempt from giving such security, cf. Section 323 of the Danish
Administration of Justice Act.  If the requested security is not provided, the case is dismissed.
3. Articles 41.1 and 48 of the TRIPS Agreement require establishment of safeguards
against abuse of judicial and administrative enforcement procedures, including provision foradequate compensation for injury suffered because of such abuse.  Please describe the meansavailable under the law of Denmark to prevent abuse of judicial and administrativeprocedures or to remedy damages suffered as a result of such abuse and cite the legalauthorities for those means.
                                                     
8 Document IP/N/6/DNK/1.
9 Reference is made to Denmark's response to question 24 of the Checklist (document IP/N/6/DNK/1).IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 8
The party who loses a civil action shall norm ally compensate the opposing party for the
incurred costs of any legal proceedings, cf. Section 312(1).  See the reply to question 15 below.
Furthermore, a party who was granted an injunction on insufficient grounds shall pay
damages to the opposing party pursuant to Section 648 of the Administration of Justice Act, cf.
Section 639.  The court will often require that the claimant provides security as a condition for theissuance of an injunction, cf. Denmark's reply to question 5(a) of the Checklist of Issues on
Enforcement. 
10
See also Denmark's reply to question 7 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.10
4. Please explain any provisions in the enforcement system in Denmark that ensure
expeditious remedies.  In addition, please explain what provisions are available to preventdeliberate delays by the parties to a proceeding and indicate the circumstances in which suchprovisions will be applied.
 See Denmark's reply to question 5 of th e Checklist of  Issues on Enforcement.
10
It may be added that in May 1997 Denmark made an amendment to the Administration of
Justice Act with the aim of speeding up civil action proceedings.  The amendment involves providing
judges with better powers to control case proceedings and speed up the cases.  Among other matters,
these new provisions allow judges greater discretion in dismissing any new claims etc. which ariselate in the proceedings.
The discretion of the judges to dismiss requests for a stay of proceedings has also been
expanded.  Previously, the court had the right to adjourn case proceedings when this was deemed
appropriate.  Today, the condition for a stay of proceedings is that it must be deemed necessary
, cf.
Section 345 of the Administration of Justice Act.  It may also be noted that sanctions will now be
imposed where there is a failure to submit pleadings by the final date.
Finally, a time-limit of six weeks for delivery of judgements by a city court has been
introduced.  The time-limit is three months for judgements delivered by Danish High Courts.
5. Article 41.2 addresses, among other things, the cost of judicial and administrative
enforcement proceedings.  Please describe any fees charged by judicial or administrativeofficials for filing legal actions involving intellectual property or for pursuing such actions onceinitiated and cite the legal authorities for such fees.
When commencing legal proceedings, the plaintiff shall submit a fee proportional to the
amount at issue.  The minimum fee shall be DKr  500.  If the said amount exceeds DKr 6 000, an
additional one per cent of the excess shall be payable.  In addition, a small supplementary fee (20 per
cent of the original fee) shall be payable for the scheduling of the proceedings.
In connection with enforcement proceedings concerning injunction, a basic fee of DKr 300
shall be payable.  A supplementary levy of DKr 400 shall be payable if the enforcement must be
carried out partly or in whole outside the court office, or if the infringing party has to be produced by
the police.
The provisions concerning payment of court fees etc. can be found in the Danish Act on Court
Fees (Consolidation Act No. 460 of 27 June 1989 as amended).
                                                     
10 Document IP/N/6/DNK/1.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 9
See also Denmark's reply to question 5(b) of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement11 and the
reply to question 15 from the United States below.
6. Article 41.2 also addresses the timeliness of judicial and administrative enforcement
proceedings.  Please cite to the legal authorities establishing any time limits for judicial andadministrative proceedings and, if it has not already been done, provide copies of the laws orregulations in question.
Denmark has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights of which Article 6(1)
provides that any person shall be entitled to  have a trial within a reasonable time-limit.
See also the reply to question 4.
7. Article 41.3 of the TRIPS Agreement requires that decisions on the merits of a case
preferably be in writing, the better to determine the reasoning on which the decision is based.Please state, with regard to each type of court and administrative body identified inquestion 1, whether judges or administrative officials must render their decisions in writingand cite the legal authorities requiring such written opinions.
The decisions and orders of the court must be in writing and reasoned, cf. Sections 35(5) and
218(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.
8. Article 41.3 also requires that decisions on the merits of a case be based only on
evidence in respect of which parties had an opportunity to be heard.  Please state, with regardto each type of court and administrative body identified in question 1, what factors may beconsidered by a judge or administrative official in rendering a decision and cite the legalauthorities establishing the basis on which judges and administrative officials may reachdecisions.
The court shall determine which factual circumstances shall form the basis of the judgement
based on what was adduced during the production of  evidence and the court proceedings,
cf. Section 344(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.
9. Article 41.4 obligates WTO Members to provide for judicial review of certain judicial
and administrative decisions in intellectual property enforcement proceedings.  Please describewhat legal limitations, if any, are placed upon the ability of a party to an intellectual propertyenforcement proceeding to have both procedural rulings and final decisions reviewed by aseparate judicial authority, and cite the legal authorities providing for such reviews.
Section 63 of the Danish Constitution provides that the courts shall be entitled to review the
decisions of administrative authorities.
It should also be noted that the Danish judicature is based on a two-instance system.  In
principle, judgements and other decisions made during proceedings can be appealed to a higher
instance.  This, however, does not apply to cases involving limited amounts (less than DKr 10 000).
Appeal in such cases is subject to leave by  the Danish Applications for Appeal Committee.
                                                     
11 Document IP/N/6/DNK/1.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 10
Civil and administrative procedures and remedies
10. Article 42 requires that defendants be notified of judicial and administrative
intellectual property enforcement proceedings brought against them.  Please describe theprocedures followed by each type of court and administrative body identified in question 1 fornotifying defending parties regarding proceedings that have been initiated against them,indicate the information provided regarding the proceeding and cite the legal authoritiesestablishing these procedures.
A civil action is initiated by submission of a petition to the court, cf. Section 348(1) of the
Administration of Justice Act.
The petition shall contain the name and addresses of the parties, the name of the court at
which the petition is to be filed, the plaintiff's claim, a detailed description of the actual circumstances
on which the claim is based and a specification of documents and other types of evidence on which
the plaintiff intends to rely, cf. Section 348(2) of the Administration of Justice Act.
If the petition does not meet these requirements, the case shall be dismissed pursuant to
Section 349(1).
The court will serve the defendant with a writ of summons based on the information
contained therein.  At the time of the issue of the writ, the defendant shall receive instructions of what
he should do in order to safeguard his interests, cf. Section 350(1) of the Administration of Justice
Act.
Similar rules apply in cases concerning injunctions, cf. Section 646 of the Administration of
Justice Act, cf. Section 348.
11. Under Article 42, parties are to be entitled to substantiate claims and present relevant
evidence.  Please describe any limitations under the law of Denmark on a party’s ability tosubstantiate a claim or to present relevant evidence and cite the legal authority providing suchlimitations.
The main rule of Danish law is that there are no limitations as to the parties' right to document
their claims and produce evidence.  However, Section 341 of the Administration of Justice Act
provides that the court can dismiss evidence which is assessed to be irrelevant to the case in question.
For example, evidence of a circumstance the validity of which the opposing party has alreadyacknowledged or has not contested is generally deemed to be superfluous.  Such evidence shall thus
be inadmissible.
12. Article 43.2 provides that, in the event a party refuses to provide information ordered
by the judicial or administrative officials, those officials may be authorized to makepreliminary and final determinations adverse to that party.  In IP/N/6/DNK/1, Denmark statesthat in the event a party fails to provide evidence the court has ordered be produced, the courtcan take the failure to produce evidence into account in reaching a conclusion in the case.Please describe what "taking into account" might indicate in connection with the litigation andunder what circumstances the court would take action.
Section 344(2) of the Administration of Justice Act provides that if a party's statement
concerning the factual circumstances of the case is unclear or incomplete, or if he refrains from
making a statement responding to the opposing party's statements on these matters or fails to complyIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 11
with the request of such opposing party, the court may in its evaluation of the evidence hold this in
favour of the opposing party.
See also Denmark's reply to question 3 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.12
13. Article 44.1 requires that judicial and administrative officials be able to enjoin or
otherwise prevent infringing activity by a party, including by preventing the entry ofinfringing goods into the channels of commerce in their jurisdiction.  Response 5(a) inIP/N/6/DNK/1 discusses provisional injunctions but does not mention permanent injunctions.Please describe authority of the judges and administrative officials to order parties to stopinfringements and to prevent infringing goods from entering the channels of commerce in theirjurisdictions on a permanent basis.
As described in Denmark's reply to question 5(a) of Checklist of Issues on Enforcement,
13 the
injunction  is of itself interlocutory and the right holder must start formal proceedings within 14 daysin which it shall be decided whether the injunction was lawfully imposed pursuant to Section 648, the
Administration of Justice Act, cf. Section 634.
The purpose of issuing an injunction is to protect a right holder against another party
undertaking actions infringing his or her rights.  The injunction ensures quick and immediateintervention until the right holder is able to obtain  judgement that an opposing party is not entitled to
perform specific actions.
The possibility of obtaining an injunction is thus a legal remedy which is only required when
the injured right holder is unable to await the outcome of a civil action because the damaging effect
would be too comprehensive.
Furthermore, even where there is no interlocutory injunction, an injunction may be granted
during an ordinary civil action.
14. Article 44.2 provides an exception to the requirement in paragraph 1 for government
use or use by third parties authorized by the government, limiting the remedy forinfringement to payment of adequate remuneration as provided in Article 31(h).  Pleasedescribe any such limitations on remedies in the laws of Denmark and cite the legal authoritiesproviding for those limitations.
The Danish Patents Act No. 824 of 13 September 1996 does limit the remedy for
infringement to payment of adequate compensation.  When required by important public interests or if
very special circumstances make it desirable, the Danish Patent Act provides any person the
possibility of obtaining a compulsory licence to exploit the invention, cf. Sections 47 and 48.  A
compulsory licence shall only be granted to persons who by agreement have not been able to obtain a
licence on reasonable terms and who may be regarded as being able to make use of the invention in areasonable manner and in compliance with the licence, cf. Section 49.
The legal authority providing these limitations is the Copenhagen Maritime and Commercial
Court.  The court decides whether a compulsory licence shall be granted, and determines the adequate
remuneration and lays down the other terms of compulsory licences, cf. Section 50.
                                                     
12 Document IP/N/6/DNK/1.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 12
Compulsory licences are very rarely granted in Denmark.  The most recent court cases
concerning compulsory licences date back to 1966 (judgement of the Danish Supreme Court,
page 566) and 1972 (judgement of the Danish Supreme Court, page 325).
With respect to the possibility of an award of compensation during an ordinary civil action,
see Denmark's reply to question 5(b)(i) of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.13
15. Article 45.2 requires that judges and administrative officials be authorized to order
payment of a right holder's expenses, including legal fees.  Response 5(c) of IP/N/6/DNK/1states the losing party must pay to the winning party the costs caused by the proceeding.Please identify each of the expenses, including attorney’s fees, that would be included in suchcosts and explain any limitations on those expenses.  What factors are considered indetermining whether an expense was "necessary for the proceeding.
Section 312(1) of the Administration of Justice Act provides that the losing party shall
compensate the opposing party for costs incurred by him in connection with the proceedings unless
otherwise agreed by the parties or if the court in special circumstances should see a reason to depart
from this rule.
Expenses which were irrelevant to the execution of the proceedings shall not be subject to
compensation, cf. Section 312(2) of the Administration of Justice Act.
Counsel fees are, as such, always considered necessary.
There are no special rules pertaining to an upper limit to the amount of legal costs that may be
imposed on the losing party.
In each individual case the court will assess which costs were necessary.  The cost of legal
proceedings shall be fixed by the court at a specific, lump sum in which the taxation of the legal costs
are usually based on the cost statement of the successful party.
An example of legal costs is expenses in connection with the gathering of expert statements
and the assistance of an interpreter.  In addition, a fee is charged in connection with the filing of the
suit, cf. the Administration of Justice Act (Consolidation Act No. 460 of 27 June 1989 with
subsequent amendments).  See also the reply to question 5 above.
16. Article 47 provides that WTO Members may authorize judges and administrative
officials to order infringers to identify for right holders third parties involved in theproduction and distribution of infringing goods or services and their channels of distribution.In IP/N/6/DNK/1, Denmark states that a court may, "on a concrete basis," impose anobligation on the infringer to supply information on any third parties involved.  Pleasedescribe in greater detail the authority of judges to order infringers to identify for rightholders third parties involved in the production and distribution of infringing goods or servicesand their channels of distribution and describe the circumstances in which this authoritywould be exercised.
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Administration of Justice Act, the court may after hearing the
claim of the opposing party summon a party to a personal meeting to answer questions for the purpose
of elucidating the case.
                                                     
13 Document IP/N/6/DNK/1.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 13
If the party does not comply with the court su mmons, cf. Section 302(1) or refuses to answer
questions pursuant to Section 303 the court may hold this refusal to be in favour of the opposing
party, cf. Section 344(2).  In this connection, see Denmark's reply to question 6 of Checklist of Issues
on Enforcement14 and question 12 above.
17. Article 48.2 permits WTO Members to exempt public authorities and officials from
liability from remedies only where their actions were taken or intended in good faith incarrying out their responsibilities under the law.  Please explain any exemption providedpublic authorities and officials from liability for abuse of enforcement procedures, describe thecircumstances in which such limitations would not apply, and cite the legal authoritiesgranting such exemptions.
With respect to the liability of judges, the standard negligence rules shall apply to damage
suffered during the exercise of the judicial function.  The liability of a serving judge may be enforcedthrough legal proceedings against the judge in the same way as claims for damages against other
persons.  In practice, a claim for damages is made directly to the Danish State (Ministry of Justice).
Provisional measures
18. Articles 50.1 and 50.8 provide that judicial and administrative authorities shall have
the authority to order prompt and effective provisional remedies to preserve relevant evidencein regard to an alleged infringement.  Please identify the provisional measures available topreserve relevant evidence in regard to an alleged infringement and cite the relevant legalauthority establishing those provisional remedies.
In Denmark, the perpetuation of relevant evidence in civil proceedings is mainly effected by
extra-judicial production of evidence pursuant to Sections 340 and 343 of the Administration of
Justice Act.
Evidence in civil proceedings is usually given during the trial, cf. subparagraph 1 of
Section 340(1).
In special circumstances, however, the court may admit evidence before the trial,
cf. subparagraph 1 of Section 340(2) of the Administration of Justice Act.  The reasons for such extra-
judicial production of evidence may for example be th at one party is in danger of losing his evidence
or that a party has some other special interest in  the evidence being perpetuated prior to the trial.
In the case of extra-judicial production of evidence, the party must inform the opposing party
hereof one week in advance, cf. subparagraph 2 of Section 340(1) of the Administration of Justice
Act.  The court may in urgent circumstances exempt the party from such obligation to give notice,
cf. subparagraph 2 of  Section 340(2) of the Admini stration of Justice Act.  If the opposing party has
not been informed, the court can assign counsel to this party and demand that the opposing party
pledges security for payment of the fee of the assigned counsel.
Extra-judicial production of evidence may according to the circumstances be made before the
law suit has been filed or before it is known whether any suit will be filed, cf. subparagraph 1 of
Section 343(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.  Here too, the costs in connection with the
production of the evidence shall be paid by the party who requests the production of the evidence.  In
this case the court may in urgent cases free the party of his obligation to give notice to the opposing
                                                     
14 Document IP/N/6/DNK/1.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 14
party, cf. Section 343(4) of the Administration of Justice Act which refers to the above provisions of
subparagraph 2 Section 340(1and 2).
If a party opposes the production of evidence - for example by denying access to his business
premises - the court may in assessing the eviden ce hold this in favour of the opposing party,
cf. Section 344 of the Administration of Justice Act.
In addition, applications for the imposition of an injunction, perpetuation of evidence can also
be carried out.  When an injunction is granted, th e sheriff shall enter in the court records details of
what was said during the hearing, cf. Sections 35, 186, 209 and 305 of the Administration of Justice
Act.  In particular, the records will show the claims and objections of the parties as well as any
evidence given by the parties and witnesses.  As the court register can be used as evidence in later
proceedings, an injunction imposed by the sheriff can also be a means of perpetuating relevantevidence.
The reply to question 19 below contains a further description of the rules pertaining to
injunctions.
19. Articles 50.2 and 50.8 requires that Members authorize judicial and administrative
authorities to adopt provisional measures inaudita altera parte .  Denmark's response to
question 11 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement
15 states that courts can impose
provisional remedies in absence of the defendant when the defendant has failed to appear  or
can suspend action, depending on the circumstances.  This implies that the courts do not haveauthority to act without having first given notice to the defendant and an opportunity for ahearing, regardless of the urgency of the circumstances.  Please explain in detail the authorityof the courts to provide temporary relief to a right holder when irreparable harm is likely toresult from inaction.
The purpose of issuing an injunction is to protect a right holder against another party's actions
which infringe those rights.  The injunction ensures quick and immediate intervention until the right
holder is able to obtain a judgement that an opposing party is not entitled to perform specific actions.
Pursuant to Section 642 of the Administration of Justice Act, the issuing of an injunction
presupposes:
(a) that the actions against which the injunction is sought infringe the rights of the 
plaintiff;
(b) that the opposing party is likely to perform actions against which an injunction is 
sought; and
(c) that the opportunity will be forfeited if the plaintiff is forced to assert his rights 
through ordinary legal proceedings.
An injunction may be issued in cases where a party can substantiate or render probable his
right to having this legal remedy carried into effect, cf. Section 642 of the Administration of Justice
Act.  Consequently, complete proof cannot be required although certain proof of the circumstances
determining the right of the plaintiff's rights cannot be omitted either.
                                                     
15 Document IP/N/6/DNK/1.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 15
The hearing of injunction cases is regulated in detail by Section 646 of the Administration of
Justice Act, in which the provisions of subsection (2) refer to a number of provisions relating to both
ordinary civil proceedings and the levying of execution.
As a consequence of the reference in Section 646(2) to subparagraph 1 of Section 491(1) of
the Administration of Justice Act, the court shall determine the time and place for the hearing ofexecution cases and notify the plaintiff hereof.  When deemed appropriate, the court may decide that
the proceedings shall take place at the domicile or business address of the opposing party.
Section 493(1 and 2) of the Administration of Justice Act provides that the court shall also
notify the opposing party of the listing of the case unless it is deemed appropriate to levy execution
without prior notice or it must be assumed that the possibility of obtaining compensation will be
considerably reduced.
Depending on the circumstances, it is thus possible to carry out enforcement proceedings
where the bailiff repairs to the debtor's address with a view to issuing an injunction without prior
notice to the opposing party.
The enforcement court may upon request grant the right holder assistance to uphold the
injunction by preventing the injunction from being infringed and by vitiating any action contrary to
such infringement of the injunction, cf. Section 645(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.
Furthermore, the enforcement court may seize objects being used or having been used in
connection with the violation of the injunction.  If there is reason to assume that particular objects will
be used for such purpose, these objects may also be  seized, cf. Section 645(2) of the Administration of
Justice Act.
Depending on the circumstances, the court officer may in connection with the enforcement
proceedings carry out an inspection of the property, for instance examination of a computer.  It shall
in each individual case depend on an assessment of the actual circumstances within the framework of
the above-mentioned provisions whether - and if so to which extent - the court officer will assist in
such inspections.
During the execution of enforcement proceedings, pursuant to Section 645 of the
Administration of Justice Act, the police shall at th e request of the enforcement court assist in such
proceedings.
20. Articles 50.2 and 50.8 require Members to authorize judicial authorities and
administrative bodies to grant provisional remedies when a delay is likely to cause "irreparableharm" to the right holder.  IP/N/6/DNK/1 indicates that such remedies can be issued if thedefendant fails to appear and delay is likely to cause "irreparable damage" to the right holder.Please describe briefly what is required by the authorities to establish that "irreparabledamage" to the right holder will result from delay.
See the replies to questions 18 and 19 above.
21. Articles 50.2 and 50.8 also require Members to authorize judicial authorities and
administrative bodies to grant provisional remedies when there is a "demonstrable risk ofevidence being destroyed".  IP/N/6/DNK/1 indicates that such remedies can be issued if thedefendant fails to appear and there is a likelihood that delay creates a "demonstrable risk ofevidence being destroyed".  Please describe briefly what factors are considered by theIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 16
competent authorities in determining when there is a "demonstrable risk of evidence being
destroyed".
See the replies to questions18 and 19 above.
22. Articles 50.3 and 50.8 authorize judicial and administrative authorities to require
applicant to provide evidence to establish with a sufficient degree of certainty that theapplicant is the right holder and that infringement has occurred or is imminent.  With respectto each intellectual property right defined in Article 1.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, pleasedescribe the evidence required by right holders to establish ownership.
Questions 22 and 23 appear to be connected and therefore a joint reply is provided.
It is not the purpose of provisional measures to determine a right holder's ownership.  It is
therefore not only possible to take provisional measures in cases where the applicant has proven his or
her right completely, but also in cases where evidence has been provided which renders it probablethat he or she is the right holder.  Evidence is therefore not totally dispensable even though complete
evidence is not required.
With regard to patents, utility models, industrial design, trademarks and chips already
registered, the right holder's registration certificate issued by the Danish Patent Office is sufficientdocumentation.
As for trademarks already in use it will be suff icient for the right holder to prove that he or
she has commenced use of the said mark.  This may be done by dated marketing material, use of the
trademark on business stationery or the like.
The Copyright Act does not contain provisions on the nature of the evidence to be presented
for a right holder to prove or render probable that he or she is the right holder.
Enforcement courts may determine that, as a condition for the issuing of the injunction, the
right holder shall provide security for the damage and inconvenience that the injunction may cause the
defendant.  The enforcement court shall determine the form and size of the security, cf. Section 644of the Administration of Justice Act.
23. Articles 50.3 and 50.8 require that authorities be authorized to provide a security or
equivalent assurance to protect the defendant.  Please describe what authority courts have torequire submission of a security or equivalent assurance to protect the defendant whenprovisional relief is provided.
Please see the reply to question 22.
24. Article 50.5 requires that  competent authorities be authorized to require applicants to
supply other  information for the identification of goods concerned by the authority that willexecute the provisional measures.  Please describe briefly what other information may berequired by the authorities and cite the legal authority establishing the basis for thissupplemental information.
According to Section 645(1) of the Administrati on of Justice Act, the enforcement court shall
assist in the enforcement of the injunction by preventing infringement of the injunction and by
vitiating any actions contrary to the injunction.  Fu rthermore, the enforcement court may seize objects
if these have been employed in the infringement of the injunction or there are certain reasons toIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 17
assume that the objects will be used for such purposes, cf. Section 645(2) of the Administration of
Justice Act.
It is not expressly regulated which information the enforcement court shall request from the
right holder before the enforcement court assi sts in the enforcement of an injunction.  The
enforcement court shall thus make a concrete assessment of whether the court has the informationnecessary to provide the desired assistance.  The enforcement court may make seizure conditional
upon the right holder providing security for the damage and inconvenience which may be caused to
the other party.
Special requirements related to border measures
25. Article 57 requires that the competent authorities be able to authorize the right holder
to inspect the detained goods in order to substantiate the claims.  Please explain how rightholders are provided an opportunity to inspect suspect goods that have been detained bycustoms authorities.
In Denmark the holder of the right may inspect the goods with the local customs and tax
office holding the goods.  In specific cases the goods may be sent to the holder of the right or his or
her representative for inspection.
26. Article 57 also requires that, where the decision on the merits favours the right holder,
the competent authorities also may be given authority to give the right holder informationregarding the importer, consignee or consignor.  If competent authorities in Denmark canprovide information regarding the importer, consignee or consignor to the right holder, pleaseexplain how information regarding names and addresses of consignors, importers andconsignees and quantities of goods are provided to the applicant after a positive decision ofinfringement is made, e.g., authorities automatically providing information or by submissionof a written request from the right holder, etc.  Please cite to the law or regulations providingsuch authority.
The customs authority will give the holder of the right the necessary information enabling
him or her to bring the case before the Copenhagen Maritime and Commercial Court.
27. Please identify:
(a) the competent authority that decides the disposition of the goods, i.e., whether
the goods will be destroyed or disposed of outside the stream of commerce; and
(b) the competent authority that carries out the destruction or disposal of the
goods.
(a) For goods which have been found to be counterfeit or pirated goods pursuant to
EC Regulation No. 3295/94, a surrender of these goods shall be made to the Treasury.
(b) Goods surrendered to the Treasury are destroyed at no cost to the Treasury - who is to
bear the expenses for the destruction will appear in the decision of the Maritime and
Commercial Court.
28. Article 60 permits Members to exclude from the provisions for border enforcement
small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature carried by passengers or sent in smallIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 18
consignments.  Please describe what constitutes a de minimis  import that is excluded from the
border measures under the law of Denmark.
Regulation 3295/94, Article 10 permits importation of counterfeit and pirated goods for
private consumption/use if these goods are imported in a traveller's personal luggage.  It will be for
the customs officer to decide whether the quantity is intended for private purposes or is of a
commercial nature.  EC Directive 69/169 and Re gulation 318/83 allow importation of goods of an
amount of ECU 175 which equals DKr 1350.
Criminal procedures
29. Article 61 requires that criminal penalties be sufficient to provide a deterrent at least
for wilful trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy.  Please explain how the penaltiesprovided under the laws of Denmark comply with that obligation.
Punishment of up to one year's imprisonment must be regarded as an appropriate sanction
according to the traditions of Danish legislation.
Criminal penalties available under the Copyright Act include monetary fines cf. Section 76(1)
of the Act and cf. Section 76(2) imprisonment for a term of up to one year in intentional cases underparticularly aggravated circumstances.  Such circumstances are deemed to exist especially where the
offence concerns a substantial number of copies or where the offence is committed to obtain a
considerable profit.
Criminal penalties available under the Consolidated Trademarks Act include monetary fines
as punishment for an intentional infringement of a trademark right, cf. Section 42(1) of the Act.
Under aggravating circumstances, including in particul ar if the purpose of the violation is a significant
and obviously unlawful profit, punishment may increase to ordinary imprisonment of not more than
one year.  The remedies of Part 73 of the Administration of Justice Act concerning search may be
used to the same extent as in proceedings instituted by the Public Prosecutor.
Anyone who intentionally or negligently infrin ges the trademark right of another person shall
be liable to pay a reasonable compensation for the exploitation of the trademark as well as damages
for the further injury which the infringement may have caused, cf. Section 43 of the Act.
Criminal penalties available under the Consolidated Patent Act include monetary fines as a
punishment for intentional infringement of the exclusive right conferred by a patent, cf. Section 57(1)of the Act.  Under aggravating circumstances including, in particular, if by the infringement an
appreciable and clearly wrongful gain is intended, the punishment may be increased to simple
detention or imprisonment up to one year.  The cases shall then be heard as proceedings instituted by
the police, however, the remedies in Part 73 of the Administration of Justice Act may be applied to
the same extent as in the case of proceedings instituted by the Public Prosecutor, cf. Section 57(2)and (3) of the Consolidated Patent Act.
Anyone who intentionally or negligently commits patent infringement shall be liable to pay
reasonable compensation for the exploitation of the invention as well as damages for the further injury
which the infringement may have caused, cf. Section 58(1) of the Act.
See also Denmark's replies to questions 21 and 24 of the Checklist of Issues on
Enforcement.
16
                                                     
16 Document IP/N/6/DNK/1.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 19
[Follow-up questions from the US]
1. Please provide statistical information related  to civil copyright, trademark, geographical
indication, industrial design, patent, inte grated circuit layout-design and trade secret
enforcement for each of the years 1996 and 1997, including the number of cases filed;
injunctions issued; infringing products seized; infringing equipment seized; cases resolved
(including settlement); and the amount of damages awarded.
The Danish statistics on civil cases only contain information on civil cases in general and for
a few broad categories of civil cases, e.g. claims for money, matrimonial cases, paternity cases and
cases concerning leased property.  Consequently, it is not possible – based on the limited and
unspecified information available – to provide information on cases involving intellectual property
rights as requested by the United States.
However, a working group set up by the Ministry of Justice presented a report in December
1997 on the implementation of more detailed statistics in the area of civil cases.  Once implemented,
more detailed statistics will become available.
The available information on infringing goods seized by the Danish customs authorities is set
out in the Annex.
2. Please provide statistical information relat ed to criminal enforcement in the area of
copyright piracy and trademark infringement fo r each of the years 1996 and 1997, including the
number of raids, prosecutions, convictions and the amount of fines and/or jail terms (including
whether the fines were paid and whether the jail term was actu ally served or was suspended)
and any other information establishing that your criminal system operates effectively to deter
copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting.
The Danish statistics on criminal cases do not contain more specified information with regard
to violations of the specialised laws on intellectual property.  Consequently, it is not possible – based
on the limited and unspecified information available – to provide information on cases involving
intellectual property rights as requested by the United States.
The available information on infringing goods seized by the Danish customs authorities is set
out in the Annex.
3. The United States Government has received reports that civil ex parte  search orders are
not available in Denmark for the purpose of preserving relevant evidence.  Please describe
whether search orders may be obtained in ci vil cases without notice to the defendant, and
whether such orders permit a complete search for the purpose of preserving relevant evidence.
If such search orders are available under certain circumstances, please provide practical
examples of the circumstances in which the orders have been granted.
Please refer to the Danish answers to questions 18 and 19 from the United States in which the
relevant provisions of the Danish legislation are described (i.e. extra-judicial production of evidenceand preliminary injunctions).
Given the lack of statistical information (cf. the answer to follow-up question 1 above), the
Kingdom of Denmark is not aware of specific cases involving intellectual property rights in which
extra-judicial production of evidence or the issuance of an injunction has been requested.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 20
Similarly, the Kingdom of Denmark is not aware of civil cases in which a right holder has
requested extra-judicial production of evidence or the issuance of an injunction, or – in a case where
any or both of these remedies have been denied – that the case has subsequently been brought before a
higher judicial authority by the right holder.IP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 21ANNEX
Denmark
European Commission
D.G. XXI/B/3
General Customs LegislationDate
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1367/95 - Application of Article 5.2(b) and 3
ProductPirated goods (rights)
Type Quantity EcuCustoms
regimeDestination/
originDate of
suspensionTrademark Counterfeit
goods Copyright Neighbouring
rightsIndustrial
designs
T-shirts 1600 2560 M.L.P. Thailand   C 25.08.95 Levi Strauss x
Polo shirts 1200 1736 M.L.P. Thailand   C 25.08.95 Levi Strauss x
T-shirts 700 944 M.L.P. Thailand   C 22.09.95 Levi Strauss x
Men's shirts 300 516 M.L.P. Thailand   C 22.09.95 Armani x
T-shirts 500 501 M.L.P. Thailand   C 18.10.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 103 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 136 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 135 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 133 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 131 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 137 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 106 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 107 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 107 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 105 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 109 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 108 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 96 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
Pants 100 114 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 113 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 140 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
Shirts 700 1359 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Calvin Klein x x
T-shirts 100 112 M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
Jeans 24 M.L.P. Thailand   P 20.12.95 Calvin Klein x x
Jeans 48 M.L.P. Thailand   P 22.12.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 230 M.L.P. Thailand   P 22.12.95 Levi Strauss x xIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 22 European Commission
D.G. XXI/B/3
General Customs LegislationDate
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1367/95 - Application of Article 5.2(b) and 3
ProductPirated goods (rights)
Type Quantity EcuCustoms
regimeDestination/
originDate of
suspensionTrademark Counterfeit
goods Copyright Neighbouring
rightsIndustrial
designs
T-shirts 150 M.L.P. Thailand   P 22.12.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 65 M.L.P. Thailand   P 22.12.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 210 M.L.P. Thailand   P 22.12.95 Levi Strauss x x
Jeans 42 M.L.P. Thailand   P 20.12.95 Diesel x x
T-shirts 150 M.L.P. Thailand   P 21.12.95 Armani x x
T-shirts 100 137 M.L.P. Thailand   P 30.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 102 M.L.P. Thailand   P 30.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 137 M.L.P. Thailand   P 30.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 135 M.L.P. Thailand   P 30.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 104 M.L.P. Thailand   P 30.11.95 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 285 443 M.L.P. Thailand   P 08.01.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 90 60 M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.01.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.01.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 64 M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.01.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.01.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 M.L.P. Thailand   P 01.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 50 60 M.L.P. Thailand   P 01.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 50 60 M.L.P. Thailand   P 01.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 80 52 M.L.P. Thailand   P 14.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 50 62 M.L.P. Thailand   P 01.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 100 M.L.P. Thailand   P 01.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 80 M.L.P. Thailand   P 01.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 110 241 M.L.P. Thailand   P 13.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 50 M.L.P. Thailand   P 07.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
Games 159 M.L.P. Thailand   V 12.02.96 Nintendo x x
Watches 19 M.L.P. Thailand   V 07.02.96 Rolex x x
T-shirts 50 M.L.P. Thailand   V 18.03.96 Levi Strauss x xIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 23European Commission
D.G. XXI/B/3
General Customs LegislationDate
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1367/95 - Application of Article 5.2(b) and 3
ProductPirated goods (rights)
Type Quantity EcuCustoms
regimeDestination/
originDate of
suspensionTrademark Counterfeit
goods Copyright Neighbouring
rightsIndustrial
designs
T-shirts 100 80 M.L.P. Thailand   P 25.01.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 150 311 M.L.P. Thailand   V 21.02.96 Armani x x
T-shirts 70 M.L.P. Thailand   P 21.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 70 M.L.P. Thailand   P 21.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 40 M.L.P. Thailand   V 21.02.96 Levi Strauss x x
Trousers 527 2750 M.L.P. Poland      C 28.01.96 Levi Strauss x
Diesel x
Reebok x
Mattel x
Disney x
Adidas xIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 24 European Commission
D.G. XXI/B/3
General Customs LegislationDate:  4 July 1996
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1367/95 - Application of Article 5.2(b) and 3
ProductPirated goods (rights)
Type Quantity EcuCustoms
regimeDestination/
originDate of
suspensionTrademark Counterfeit
goods Copyright Neighbouring
rightsIndustrial
designs
Video-film 24 stk M.L.P. Thailand   V 15.04.96 diverse x
T-shirts 11 stk M.L.P. Thailand   V 15.04.96 Polo x x
T-shirts 6 stk M.L.P. Thailand   V 16.04.96 Adidas x x
T-shirts 6 stk M.L.P. Thailand   V 16.04.96 Champion x x
T-shirts 65 stk 89 M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.04.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 30 stk 42 M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.04.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 140 stk 180 M.L.P. Thailand   P 18.01.96 Levi Strauss x x
Sun glasses 22 stk M.L.P. Thailand   V 06.06.96 Ray-Ban x x
Shirts 58 stk 174 M.L.P. Thailand   P 06.06.96 Calvin Klein x x
T-shirts 100 stk 108 M.L.P. Thailand   P 06.06.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 62 stk 86 M.L.P. Thailand   P 13.06.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 62 stk 86 M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.06.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 66 stk 92 M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.06.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 58 stk 81 M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.06.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 40 stk 56 M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.06.96 Levi Strauss x xIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 25European Commission
D.G. XXI/B/3
General Customs LegislationDate:  8 October 1996
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1367/95 - Application of Article 5.2(b) and 3
ProductPirated goods (rights)
Type Quantity EcuCustoms
regimeDestination/
originDate of
suspensionTrademark Counterfeit
goods Copyright Neighbouring
rightsIndustrial
designs
Jeans 20 pairs M.L.P. Thailand   P 09.07.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 63 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 11.07.96 Levi Strauss x x
Shirts 176 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 23.07.96 Spring x x
T-shirts 126 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.07.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 123 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.07.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 125 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.07.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 63 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 24.07.96 Levi Strauss x x
Watches 6 stk M.L.P. USA 29.07.96 Rolex x
Sunglasses 8 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 29.07.96 Ray-Ban x x
T-shirts/sweatshirts51 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 07.08.96 Levi Strauss x x
Polo shirts 10 stk M.L.P. Thailand   V 02.09.96 Armani x x
Polo shirts 58 stk M.L.P. Thailand   V 02.09.96 Levi Strauss x x
Polo shirts 4 stk M.L.P. Thailand   V 02.09.96 Adidas x x
T-shirts 23 stk M.L.P. Thailand   V 02.09.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 22 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 23.09.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 36 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 23.09.96 Levi Strauss x x
T-shirts 7 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 25.09.96 Armani x x
T-shirts 4 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 25.09.96 Armani x x
T-shirts 19 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 25.09.96 Armani x x
T-shirts 3 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 25.09.96 Calvin Klein x x
T-shirts 5 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 25.09.96 Calvin Klein x x
T-shirts 11 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 25.09.96 Versace x x
T-shirts 1 stk M.L.P. Thailand   P 25.09.96 Versace x xIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 26 European Commission
D.G. XXI/B/3
General Customs LegislationDate:  18 February 1997
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1367/95 - Application of Article 5.2(b) and 3 Pirated goods (rights)
Product Customs
regimeDestination/
originDate of suspension Trademark Counterfeit
goods
Type Quantity Ecu Copyright Neighbouring
rightsIndustrial
designs
Scarves 104 pcs M.L.P. USA 02.10.96 Gianni Versace x x
Scarves 5 pcs M.L.P. USA 03.10.96 Polo by Ralph Lauren x x
Scarves 10 pcs M.L.P. USA 03.10.96 Guccio Gucci x x
Scarves 56 pcs M.L.P. USA 03.10.96 Hermes S.A. x x
Scarves 4 pcs M.L.P. USA 03.10.96 Louis Vuitton x x
Scarves 123 pcs M.L.P. USA 03.10.96 Chanel
Watches 5 pcs M.L.P. Singapore 14.10.96 Rolex x x
Watches 10 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 22.10.96 Rolex x x
El. games 6 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 07.11.96 Nintendo x x
El. games 12 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo x x
El. games 15 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo x x
El. games 12 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo x x
El. games 3 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo x x
El. games 15 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo x x
El. games 6 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo x x
El. games 9 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo x x
El. games 15 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo x x
El. games 9 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo x x
El. games 3 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo
El. games 9 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 12.11.96 Nintendo x x
CD games 12 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 16.12.96 Div. Titles x x
CD music 212 pcs M.L.P. Estonia 18.12.96 Div. Titles x x
Sweat shirts 66 pcs M.L.P. Turkey 30.12.96 Warner Bros. x x
Sweat shirts 21 pcs M.L.P. Turkey 30.12.96 Timberland x x
Sweat shirts 11 pcs M.L.P. Turkey 30.12.96 Caterpillar x xIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 27European Commission
D.G. XXI/B/3
General Customs LegislationDate:  24 June 1997
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1367/95 - Application of Article 5.2(b) and 3
ProductPirated goods (rights)
Type Quantity EcuCustoms
regimeDestination/
originDate of
suspensionTrademark Counterfeit
goods Copyright Neighbouring
rightsIndustrial
designs
Music CDs 74 pcs M.L.P. USA 15.01.97 Diverse x x
Music CDs 74 pcs M.L.P. USA 16.01.97 Diverse x x
Music CDs 212 pcs M.L.P. Estonia 22.01.97 Diverse x x
CD games 40 pcs M.L.P. Hong Kong 04.02.97 Diverse x x
Music CDs 21 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 04.02.97 Diverse x x
Music CDs 14 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 04.02.97 Diverse x x
Polo shirts 666 pcs M.L.P. Hong Kong 14.02.97 Harvest x x
Polo shirts 8 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 24.02.97 Levi Strauss x x
Polo shirts 4 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 24.02.97 Adidas x x
Polo shirts 4 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 25.02.97 Nike x x
Polo shirts 1 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 25.02.97 Reebok x x
Music CDs 7 pcs M.L.P. Latvia 13.03.97 Diverse x x
Watches 10 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 26.02.97 Rolex x x
CD games 14 pcs M.L.P. China 24.03.97 Diverse x x
Music CDs 78 pcs M.L.P. Bulgaria 24.03.97 Diverse x xIP/Q4/DNK/1
Page 28
European Commission
D.G. XXI/B/3
General Customs LegislationDate:  29 September 1997
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1367/95 - Application of Article 5.2(b) and 3 Pirated goods (rights)
Product
Type Quantity EcuCustoms
regimeDestination/
originDate of
suspensionTrademark Counterfeit
goods Copyright Neighbouring
rightsIndustrial
designs
T-shirts 718 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 03.04.97 Nike x x
T-shirts 1,191 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 09.04.97 Adidas x x
T-shirts 881 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 09.04.97 Calvin Klein x x
Trainingshirts144 set M.L.P. Thailand 16.04.97 Walt Disney x x
T-shirts 92 pcs M.L.P. 28.04.97 Alien Workshop x x
T-shirts 136 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 15.05.97 Adidas x x
T-shirts 18 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 15.05.97 Nike x x
Polo shirts 42 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 15.05.97 Adidas x x
Music CD 20 pcs M.L.P. Croatia 02.06.97 Diverse x x
Jeans 12 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 26.06.97 Armani x x
Polo shirts 12 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 26.06.97 Calvin Klein
Polo shirts 12 pcs M.L.P. Thailand 26.06.97 Tommy Hilfiger x x
Music CD 63 pcs M.L.P. Croatia 26.06.97 x x
Players shirts 9 pcs M.L.P. Poland 30.06.97 Juventus x x
__________