RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/W/151/Add.1
30 March 2000
(00-1306)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
Follow-up questions posed by the United States
Addendum
By means of a communication from the Permanent Mission of the United States, dated
21 March 2000, the Secretariat has received a copy of the following follow-up questions that the
United States had addressed to the Kyrgyz Republic and Latvia.
_______________
KYRGYZ REPUBLIC1
1. The Kyrgyz Republic responded to United States question no. 5 by saying that the criteria for
establishing whether a trademark is well-known are established by the Cabinet of Ministers of the
Kyrgyz Republic and that a draft Regulation is being developed that will define these criteria.  Has
this regulation been completed and, if so, please describe the criteria established by the regulation and
provide a copy of the regulation to the WTO pursuant to Article 63 of the TRIPS Agreement.
2. In describing the manner in which the Kyrgyz Republic provides protection for data
submitted to government authorities to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural
chemical products, the Kyrgyz Republic states that when data which meet the requirements
enumerated above (requirements for undisclosed information) is submitted, it shall be protected
against unfair commercial use and against disclosure.  Please describe, in detail, what is meant by"unfair commercial use" in this context, i.e., from what actions is the data protected and how.
3. The response referred to above specifies that it is only data that meets the criteria for
undisclosed information that is protected against such unfair commercial use.  Article 39.3 requires
that "other data," the origination of which involves considerable expense, is also to be protectedagainst unfair commercial use.  Please describe the manner in which the Kyrgyz Republic provides
protection for such "other data."
                                                     
1 The legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic was reviewed at the Council's meeting of 20-21 October 1999.
The introductory statement made by the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Kyrgyz Republic, thequestions put to it and the responses given in the review of its legislation have been circulated in document
IP/Q/KGZ/1.  The follow-up questions and responses to them will be circulated as an addendum to that
document.IP/C/W/151/Add.1
Page 2
LATVIA2
1. The Government of Latvia, in response to U.S. question no. 4 regarding well-known marks,
answered:
Article 4 - "Rights to a Trademark and the Holders of these Rights" - of Latvia's Trademark
Law and in particular Article 4(7) includes the following provisions concerning the protection of well-
known marks:
"(6) The person in whose name the trademark has been registered is entitled to prohibit
other persons from using in the course of trade the following signs:
(1) any sign which is identical to the trademark in relation to goods or services
which are identical to those for which the trademark is registered;
(2) any sign where, because of its identity to, or similarity to, the trademark and
the identity or similarity of the goods or services for which the trademark is registered
and the sign is used, there exists a likelihood of confusion on behalf of the relevant
consumers, which includes the likelihood of association between the sign and thetrademark.
(7) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 6 of this Article, the owner of a
trademark, that is well-known (within the meaning of Article 8) in Latvia, is entitled to
prevent the use, in the course of trade, of any sign which constitutes a reproduction, animitation, a translation or a transliteration, likely to create confusion, of the well-known
trademark, in relation to goods or services, that are identical or similar to those covered by the
well-known trademark.  The owner of a trademark, that is well-known in Latvia, is entitled to
prevent the use, in the course of trade, of a sign which constitutes a reproduction, an
imitation, a translation or a transliteration of the well-known trademark, also in relation togoods or services, that are not similar to those covered by the well-known trademark,
provided that consumers may perceive the use of such a sign as indicating a connection
between these goods or services and the owne r of the well-known trademark, and that such
use may be detrimental to the interests of the owner of the well-known trademark.
(8) In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Article the following
actions may also be prohibited:
(1) use (affixing, attachment) of the said signs on the goods or on the packaging
thereof,
(2) offering the goods for sale, or putting them on the market or stocking them
for these purposes under the said signs;
(3) providing services or offering them under the said signs;(4) importing or exporting the goods under the said signs;
                                                     
2 The legislation of Latvia was reviewed at the Council's meeting of 20-21 October 1999.  The
introductory statement made by the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Latvia, the questions put to it and theresponses given in the review of its legislation have been circulated in document IP/Q/LVA/1.  The follow-up
questions and responses to them will be circulated as an addendum to that document.IP/C/W/151/Add.1
Page 3
(5) using the said signs on business documents and in advertising.
(9) In the application, mutatis mutandis, of the provisions of paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of this
Article, the owner of the trademark is also entitled to prohibit other persons from using signs
that are intended for purposes other than distinguishing goods or services (marking of goods,indication of the origin of goods or services), if it is proven that the use of such a sign in the
absence of appropriate justification gives the impression of connection with this trademark, or
takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the reputation of the
trademark."
The procedure under which the owner of a well-k nown trademark may protect his rights is set
forth by the general rules of Article 27 - "Unlawful Use of a Trademark (Trademark Infringement)" -and Article 28 - "Liability for Unlawful Use of a Trademark" - of the Law, that refer to the protection
of well-known trademarks as well.
Article 27 provides, inter alia, that:
"(1) Unlawful use of a trademark shall be construed as an infringement of the exclusive rights of
the trademark owner, namely, the use, in the course of trade, of the signs referred to in Article 4,
paragraph 6, sub-paragraph 1 or 2 of this Law, or in Article 4, paragraph 7, without the consent of the
owner of the trademark, including use of such signs in the ways specified in Article 4, Paragraph 8."
Article 28 provides, inter alia, that:
"(1) Liability for unlawful use of a trademark pursuant to the provisions of Article 27 of this Law
shall arise, where the fact of trademark infringement is proved.  The burden of proof of the fact ofinfringement lies with the aggrieved party (the owner of the trademark or the licensee).
"(2) The owner of a trademark (or their successo r in title) may bring an action in the Regional
Court of Riga for unlawful use of the trademark.  The licensee is entitled to bring a separate action for
unlawful use of the trademark only with the consent of the owner of the trademark.  The consent of
the owner of the trademark is not necessary if the licensing agreement provides for the right of the
licensee to bring a separate action, or in cases, where the owner of the trademark does not bring suchan action even though the licensee has invited the owne r to do so in writing.  Any of the licensees of
the respective trademark are entitled to intervene in the action and seek damages that have resulted
from unlawful use of the licensed trademark.
"(4) If the fact of infringement is proven, and depending upon the degree of fault, the aggrieved
party may request the court to make a judgement including one or more of the following measures
(sanctions):
(1) cessation of the unlawful use of the trademark;
(2) payment of damages arising from the unlawful use of the trademark, including lost
profits;
(3) recovery of court costs, including also the litigation expenses as prescribed by law,
and the fees paid to the representative.
"(5) The court may, in its judgement, provide for measures to prevent further infringement of the
trademark, including imposing the obligation to destroy the goods with the unlawful marking, or to
convey those goods at cost price to the owner of the trademark (successor in title) or the licensee if
they so agree, or to donate those goods for use for charitable purposes.  The court may, upon theIP/C/W/151/Add.1
Page 4
request of the owner of the trademark (their successor in title) or the licensee, apply the measures
prescribed by law for enforcement of the claim also in those cases when the claim is not of a material
character (damages are not claimed).
"(6) When determining liability for unlawful use of  a trademark, for the purposes of determining
the degree of the infringer's fault, the fact of recei pt of the warning notice referred to in Article 24,
paragraph 3 of this Law may be used as evidence.
"(7) In cases where trademark infringement has been done deliberately or with intent to defraud,
the persons responsible shall also be called to administrative or criminal liability.
"(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 27 and this Article, claims for infringement of
registered and unregistered trademarks, including the cases provided for in Article 4, paragraph 9 of
this Law, may be based upon the provisions of the laws or other statutory enactments of Latvia
pertaining to unfair competition.
"(9) A claim for the infringement of a trademark may be brought within three years from the date
when the aggrieved party became aware, or should have become aware, of the occurrence of
infringement of the mark."
In a recent decision the Regional Court of Riga decided that a trademark consisting primarily
of a translation into another language of a world-famous trademark for particular spirits, registered inLatvia, was not confusingly similar to the world-famous trademark.  This decision followed an earlier
court decision in which registration of the transliterated mark was allowed, in spite of the existence of
earlier registrations for the world-famous mark.  Please describe in detail the manner in which this
decision complies with the provisions of Latvia's law cited above.
2. In responding to the U.S. question no. 6, the Government of Latvia noted that, under
Article of Latvia's patent law, a patent compulsory licence may be granted by a court only in
exceptional cases mentioned in the Law, namely, if a patented product, or an invention, is of vital
importance - to the welfare of the residents of Latvia or for the interests of the economy or national
security of Latvia.  The response also notes that Latvia's courts had no practice in regarding claims
under Article 39 of the Patent Law.  Please describe in detail any factors provided for the courts that
must be considered in determining whether a patented product or an invention is of vital importanceto the welfare of the residents of Latvia or for the interests of the economy or national security of
Latvia.
3. In response to U.S. question no. 7, the Government of Latvia describes the manner in which
data submitted to Latvian government agencies is protected against disclosure.  Please indicatewhether data submitted by an original applicant for approval of a pharmaceutical or agricultural
chemical can be relied upon to approve subsequent applicants for approval of the same chemical,
without the approval of the first applicant.  If so, please explain how long a period of time must pass
before such reliance is permissible.
__________