RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/Q/LVA/1
IP/Q2/LVA/1
IP/Q3/LVA/1
IP/Q4/LVA/1
3 February 2000
(00-0421)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
LATVIA1
The present document reproduces the introductory statement made by the Permanent Mission
of the Republic of Latvia, the questions put to it and the responses given in the review of itslegislation at the Council's meeting of 20 - 21 October 1999.
2
_______________
I. INTRODUCTION
The conformity of Latvia's national legislatio n with the WTO requirements has been ensured
already during the accession process.  All national legal acts regarding the protection of intellectual
property rights have been amended and changed in order to comply with the WTO TRIPS
requirements.  Enforcement of existing legislation in the area of Intellectual Property RightsProtection has been a constant priority of the Latvian Government.
A. C
OPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
The Law "On copyright and neighbouring rights"  of the Republic of Latvia was passed on
11 May 1993 and it ensures compliance with WTO TRIPS requirements.  A new draft law which
harmonizes current legislation with the relevant EU directives has been submitted to the Saeima
(Parliament).
The new Criminal Law  was passed on 17 June 1998 and entered into force on 1 April 1999,
incorporating and refining provisions of criminal responsibility on infringement of, and illegal
operations with, objects of copyright and neighbouring rights.
In the Administrative Offences Code  the administrative responsibility in the field of
protection of audiovisual works is provided si nce 11 April 1996, for example, punishment for the
distribution of audiovisual works and public demons tration without licences (also known as piracy).
Since 14 October 1998, amendments in the above mentioned Code on responsibility for
illegal distribution of neighbouring rights objects and on use of copyright objects without licence are
enforced.
                                                     
1 As regards laws and regulations relevant to the area under review and notified by Latvia under Article
63.2 of the Agreement, reference is made to documents IP/N/1/LVA/1, IP/N/1/LVA/1/Add.1, IP/N/1/LVA/C/1,IP/N/1/LVA/C/2, IP/N/1/LVA/D/1, IP/N/1/LVA/E/1, IP/N/1/LVA/E/2, IP/N/1/LVA/I/1, IP/N/1/LVA/L/1,IP/N/1/LVA/P/1 and IP/N/1/LVA/T/1.
2 The minutes of this meeting have been circulated as document IP/C/M/25.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 2
The Cabinet of Ministers' Regulation "On measures of customs authorities for the protection
of intellectual property"  was passed on 9 February 1999 and came into force on 1 July 1999.  The new
Regulation ensures full conformity with TRIPS Agreement and EU Council regulation requirements.
Latvia is also a member of following international conventions:
- the Berne Convention on Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, since 1995;  and
- the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against
Unauthorized Duplication of their Phonograms, since 1997.
Parliament has passed the Law "On joining the Rome Convention for the protection of
performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations" on 26 March 1998.  Latvia has
joined the Rome Convention with a reservation no t to apply Article 12 regarding the phonograms of
producers which are not nationals of another contracting state.  The law is in force since
1 January 1999.
Latvia is planning to join the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty at the end of 1999.  These treaties are already translated in Latvian and
preparatory works on joining them are underway.
Responsible institutions
The responsible institution for copyright and neighbouring rights is the Ministry of Culture of
Latvia.  In particular the main responsibilities are: drafting legislation and resolutions in the sphere of
copyright and neighbouring rights, policy making, co-ordinating the activities of governmentalinstitutions and non-govern mental organizations.
The question of establishment of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Division in the
Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Interior is included in National Programme for European
Integration.
Non-governmental orqanizations
Since 1993 collective administration organizations (collecting societies) have been acting in
Latvia.  As the result of successful cooperation among these organizations, the state and international
institutions, the all-embracing organization AKKA/LAA (Copyright and Communication Consulting
Agency/Latvian Copyright Agency) has been created.  AKKA/LAA has concluded agreements with61 related foreign organizations.  It represents more than 1200 Latvian authors, as well as the authors
of 61 foreign organizations mentioned above.  AKKA/LAA represents drama and literary rights,
visual art rights as well as audiovisual rights and others.  In 1997 AKKA/LAA has collected 22,46%
more royalties than in 1996 (1996 489.7480 USID, 1997 -599,765).
Since September 1994, LAMPa (Latvian Music Producers' Association) has been acting in
Latvia.  The main responsibilities of this association are to provide enterprises and organizations with
methodological and practical assistance and also to fight against piracy i.e.  to provide expertise on
pirated sound recordings.  They have a good cooperation with the Economic and Municipal Police in
Latvia, the State Revenue Service and the Ministry of Culture.  Many court proceedings were initiateddue to its work.
Since November 1997, the Computer Programs C opyright Agency has been acting (two big
campaigns were organized in Latvia).  The members of this organization are the five largest computer
companies.  They also help police in combating piracy of computer programs.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 3
In cooperation with AEPO (Association of Euro pean Performers' Organizations) the Ministry
of Culture is assisting (consultations, experts, materials) performers to establish performers' collective
administration organization.  It is expected to be created by the end of this year.
B. TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
The Trademark Law  of 9 March 1993 ensured in general compliance with WTO TRIPS
requirements.  On 16 June 1999 a new Law on Trad emarks and Geographical Indications was adopted
by the Saeima (Parliament) and has entered into force.  It refines some definitions of the current law
and includes new provisions concerning international registration of marks and protection of
geographical indications.
Latvia has been a Member of the Madrid Agreement Concerning International Registration of
Trademarks since 1995.  On 2 September 1999 the law on accession to the Protocol to the Madrid
Agreement and Trademark Law Treaty was adopted by the Saeima (Parliament).
Responsible institutions
The responsible institution is the Latvian Patent Board.
C. INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS ; PATENTS ; LAYOUT - D ESIGNS (TOPOGRAPHIES ) OF INTEGRATED
CIRCUITS ; CONTROL OF ANTI -COMPETITIVE PRACTICES IN CONTRACTUAL LICENCES
The Law on Industrial Design Protection  of 4 May 1993 ensures full compliance with WTO
TRIPS requirements.
The Patent Law  of 2 March 1993 as amended on 30 March 1995 also ensures full compliance
with WTO TRIPS requirements.
On 31 March 1998 Latvia adopted the Law on Protection of Topographies of Semiconductor
Products, based on Council Directive (87/54/EEC) of the European Communities on the legal
protection of topographies of semiconductor products of 16 December 1986 and therefore full
compliance with WTO TRIPS requirements is ensured.
Regarding the control of anti-competitive practices in contractual licences full compliance
with WTO TRIPS requirements is ensured by the respective provisions of the Patent Law.
Regarding Protection of Intellectual (Industrial) Property Rights Latvia is also a member of
following international conventions and Treaties:
- Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organisation, since 1993;- Stockholm Act of 14 July 1967 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property, since 1993;
- Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT), since 1993;- Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, since 1995;
- Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms
for the Purposes of Patent Procedure, since 1994;IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 4
- Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services
for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, since 1995.
Responsible institutions
The responsible institution is the Latvian Patent Board.
D. PROTECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION
Currently, the protection of undisclosed information is generally provided for by the Civil
Code.  Protection of undisclosed information in accordance with the requirements of Part II, section 7
of the TRIPS Agreement is covered in the draft Law "on personal data protection"  (approved by the
Government and submitted for adoption to the Saeima  (Parliament) - accepted in first reading), which
had been elaborated in order to ensure rights of any person to protect her rights and freedoms
processing personal data manually or electronically and by the Law "on publicity of information"  of
20 November 1998.
Responsible institutions
The responsible institutions are the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Justice.
E. ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
The new Law on Competition of 18 June 1997 includes provisions on unfair competition in
the field of intellectual property rights.  In accordance with the new Customs Law (Code) of
11 June 1997 the Cabinet of Ministers has adopted secondary legislation relating to border measures
(Part III, section 4 of the TRIPS Agreement).  As mentioned before the Cabinet of Ministers'
Regulation "On measures of customs authorities for the protection of intellectual property"  was
passed on 9 February 1999 and came into force on 1 July 1999.  Currently it is planned to establish a
separate division at the Customs Administration dealing with all the issues related to the enforcement
of the above mentioned regulation.
Provisions in existing legislation relating to enforcement of intellectual property rights
include:
- Part 4, Articles 54 to 57 of the Copyright Law which specified the notion of
infringement of copyright and related rights as well as civil procedures provided for
under this law and relating to enforcemen t of the said rights, and (Article 57)
administrative and civil liability and criminal responsibility in case of infringement of
copyright or related rights;
- Chapter 9 (Articles 40 and 41) of the Patent Law on patent infringement and
responsibility thereof, Chapter 10 (Articles 42 to 45) on protection of rights derived
from a patent, and Chapter 11 (Articles 46 to 49) on review of disputes in court;
- Articles 16, 18, 21 and 24 of the new Competition Law on responsibility for unfair
competition;
- similar provisions in the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications and the
Law on Design Protection; and
- provisions in the said Laws referring to procedures and measures provided for by
civil or criminal law.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 5
The new Latvian Civil Procedural Law was adopted by the Saeima (Parliament) on
14 October 1998 and entered into force on 1 March 1999 provides for the use of provisional
measures.  The new Criminal Law provides for more severe measures in a case of infringement ofintellectual property rights and, in particular, c opyright and neighbouring rights.  As mentioned above
the amendments to the Administrative Offences Code on illegal distribution of neighbouring rights to
the work and use of copyrighted work without licence are enforced.
In 1998 - 1999 the Ministry of the Interior of Latvia took appropriate measures to ensure the
enforcement of protection of intellectual property rights - 18 criminal procedures were initiated (5
cases completed) and a number of administrative protocols compiled (more than 100).  During theprevious year 11,802 video tapes, 692 audio tapes, 9,836 audio CDs, 12,478 CD-computer game-
software worth a total amount of 300,124 USD were  confiscated and fines in the amount of 21,293
USD were collected.
To ensure the exchange of information and to make the fight against infringements of IPR
more effective, the Ministry of the Interior on a monthly basis holds meetings with other responsible
institutions (Customs, Financial and Economic Police, Borderguard).
It should also be noted that Latvia is continuing the reform of its court system.  One of the
important aims is to strengthen its capability to enforce the protection of intellectual property rights.The former judiciary law, education and practice had given Latvia no experience in reviewing
intellectual property disputes and Latvian Government  considers as one of its most important tasks to
educate a new generation of experts in the area of intellectual property protection and enforcement
and to train the practitioners (judges, advocates, patent attorneys and trademark agents).
By Cabinet Regulation No. 45 of 9 February 1999 an Advisory Board on Latvia's membership
in the WTO composed of senior ministerial offici als, lead by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs  and
involving participation of the private sector has been established.  The Advisory Board is the main
co-ordinator of the internal implementation of La tvia's commitments in the WTO and it formulates
Latvia's position in the new trade negotiations round as well as in all the issues raised in the WTO
bodies.  One of the main tasks of the Advisory Board on Latvia's membership in the WTO is to work
out recommendations for the Government to ensure efficient coordination in the area of IPR where
several Ministries and other institutions are involved.
As a general point, it should also be noted that each law pertaining to intellectual property
included a general clause stating that the provisions of an international agreement adopted by the
Saeima (Parliament) prevailed over national legislation in cases of contradiction.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 6
II. QUESTIONS POSED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THEIR
MEMBER STATES3
1. Please explain in detail how and through which provisions Latvia accords to the
nationals of other WTO Members treatment no less favourable than that which it accords to its
own nationals in compliance with Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement in respect of the protection
of works, producers of phonograms, performers and broadcasting organizations.  Apart from
the TRIPS Agreement, to what other 'internatio nal agreements' do Articles 2, paragraph 4, and
49, paragraph 4, of the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights refer?
In Article 2, paragraph 4 (second sentence) of the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights
it is stated that "Other persons are accorded c opyright to works communicated or introduced in some
material in the territory of a foreign State in accordance with international treaties of the Republic of
Latvia" and that means that Latvia also accords to the nationals of other WTO members treatment no
less favourable than that which it accords to its own nationals in compliance with Article 3 of the
TRIPS Agreement in respect of protection of works.  With regard producers of phonograms,performers and broadcasting organisations it is stated in Article 49, paragraph 4, that "The rights
specified in this Section (neighbouring rights) are recognised as to foreign natural and legal persons
who have made the first performance, production, fixation of sounds, broadcast, transmission by wire
outside the territory of the Republic of Latvia in  accordance with the international agreements of the
Republic of Latvia".
Regarding collective administration of copyright and neighbouring rights in Article 51,
paragraph 3 it is stated that "foreign authors and owners of neighbouring rights in the Republic of
Latvia are represented by organisations in the Republic of Latvia that administer economic rights on a
collective basis, pursuant to authorisation agreements with foreign authors and owners ofneighbouring rights or their authorised organisations".
Article 2, paragraph 4, and Article 49, paragraph 4 of the Law  on Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights refer to the following international agreements:
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act, 1971) –
member since 11 September 1995;
Geneva Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorised
Duplication of Their Phonograms – member since 23 August 1997;
Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and
Broadcasting Organisations (with reservation (Article 16 (a) (iii)) that provides that Latvia,
regarding phonograms the producer of which is not a national of another Contracting State,
will not apply Article 12) – member since 20 August 1999.
2. Please explain in detail how and through which provisions Latvia restores the protection
for works, performers and producers of phonograms which, in their country of origin, have not
yet fallen into public domain in accordance with Articles 9, paragraph 1, and 14, paragraph 6,
of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction wi th Article 18 of the Berne Convention.
In Article 28, paragraph 1, of Law on Copyrigh t and Neighbouring Rights it is stated that
copyright shall remain in force throughout the author's life and for 50 years after the author's death.
And in Article 48 in is stated that rights of performers are effective for 50 years after the first
                                                     
3 Document IP/C/W/158.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 7
performance or production, and that rights of producers of sound recordings are effective for 50 years
after the first sound recording is released.
In Article 36, paragraph 1, of draft "Copyright Law" it is provided that "Copyright shall
remain in force throughout the author's life and for 70 years after the author’s death".
Regarding works, performers and producers of phonograms which, in their country of origin,
have not yet fallen into public domain Latvia applies protection in accordance with Articles 2,
paragraph 4, and 49, paragraph 4, of the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights.
3. Please explain in detail how and through which provisions Latvia provides for the
protection of compilations of data as intelle ctual creations in accordance with Articles 9,
paragraph 1, and 10, paragraph 2, of the TRIPS Agreement.
The protection of compilations of data is provided in the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring
Rights under Article 5 "Derivative works".  Unfort unately, the English translation of Article 5,
paragraph 1, point 2 is not precise.  The literal translation of the Latvian text runs as follows: "(2)
collections of works, for instance, encyclopedias, anthologies and atlases as well as, data bases and
other compiled works which, in terms of selection of materials and arrangement, are the result of
creative work".
Regarding copyright of compilers of collections and other composite works Article 10
provides that "Unless otherwise agreed between the compilers of collections and other composite
works and the individual authors, the compilers, as a result of whose creative effort there is a selection
and arrangement of the material, have copyright to the collection or other composite works as a
whole, with the condition that the rights of each of the authors in each of their respective works
included in the collection or other composite works are respected".  Article 10, paragraph 2 provides
that "The authors of works included in collections  and other composite works retain the copyright to
their respective work and can use it independently of the collection or the composite work".
4. Please explain in detail how and through which provisions Latvia provides for rental
rights for authors of computer programmes and cinematographic works and producers of
phonograms in accordance with Articles 11 and 14, paragraph 4, of the TRIPS Agreement.
Rental rights for authors of computer programs and cinematographic works are provided
under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights and runs as follows
"Exclusive rights to use the work means the author's  right to perform or permit the following activities
regarding his work: [2] rental or public lending of the original or a copy of an audiovisual work, asound recording, a computer program a data base, or a musical work in graphic form, irrespective of
the ownership rights to the original or the copy".
Regarding successors in title Article 15, paragraph 2 provides that "The author's heirs receive
the rights to make the work available to the public , to use the work and to receive compensation for
granting permission to use the work and for the use of the work".  And paragraph 3 provides that
"Only the rights referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 14 may be transferred to other successors
in interest of the author, including legal persons".
Provisions for rental rights for producers of phonograms are provided in Article 43 of the Law
on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights and is as follows.  Producers of sound recordings have the
exclusive rights concerning their sound recordings, with the exception of published sound recordings,
to permit or prohibit direct or indirect distribution of the sound recordings and copies thereof, and also
to receive compensation for granting permission to use the sound recordings and their copies and for
their use.  The rights of distribution include the right to rental of the sound recordings and copiesIP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 8
thereof.  Producer of sound recordings continue to exercise their exclusive rights to the rental of their
sound recordings and copies thereof, regardless of the rights of the owner of the copy of the sound
recording.
5. Please confirm that the new draft law on copyright will provide for rental rights in
accordance with Articles 11 and 14 of the TRIPS Agreement.
The draft Copyright Law will provide for rental rights in accordance with Articles 11 and 14
TRIPS Agreement.  Also provisions of the EC dir ective "On Rental Rights and Lending Rights and on
Certain Rights Related to Copyright in the Fi eld of Intellectual Property" 92/100/EEC are
implemented in the draft Copyright Law.
6. Please confirm that the new draft law on copyright will provide for new effective
cross-border enforcement measures, including an  obligation on Customs authorities to take
ex officio  action against cross-border trade, wh ere prima facie evidence of copyright
infringement has been acquired (Article 58 of the TRIPS Agreement).
Cross-border enforcement measures are provided by the Regulations of the Cabinet of
Ministers "On Measures of Customs Authorities for the Protection of Intellectual Property" which are
in force since July 1, 1999.  The Regulations are pr epared in conformity w ith EU Council Regulation
3295/94/EEC laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export orentry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods.
The draft Copyright Law provides general provisions on copyright and neighbouring rights
protection against infringement.
7. Please explain how Article 12(2) of the Latvian Law on Trademarks complies with
Article 18 of the TRIPS Agreement that provides for indefinite renewable registration.
4
Though the Latvian Laws does not contain the wording "indefinite renewable registration",
the provisions of both Laws explicitly provide for implementation of Article 18 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
E.g.  Article 21(1) of the new Law provides that "the registration of a trademark is valid for a
period of 10 years from the filing date..", while Article 21 (2) says that "the registration may, every 10
years, be renewed (the trademark may be re-registered) for another (following) 10 year period."
The Law of 1993 provides for almost identical provisions.  Unfortunately, the English
translation of Article 12(2) is not precise.  The literal translation of the Latvian text runs as follows:
"The registration may, on expiration of each 10 years, be renewed each time  for another 10 year
period."
Since Article 21 (1) and (2) provides for no limitations with regard to renewal of trademark
registration, it should be concluded that its provis ions are in compliance with Article 18 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
                                                     
4 Note:  Questions 7  to 11 refer to the Latvian Trademark Law of 1993 repealed from the date of the
entry into force of the new Trademark Law of 16 June 1999 (entry into force - 15 July 1999).  For that reasonanswers to Questions 7 to 11 are given mainly with reference to the relevant provisions of the Trademark  Lawof 1999.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 9
8. Please clarify if the protection of Article 19(3) is granted only to registered well-known
trademarks.4
According to the Latvian law the protection is granted both to registered and un-registered
well-known trademarks.
Article 4(7) of the new Law provides that "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, an imitation, 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 inLatvia, 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 to goods 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 owner of the well-known trademark, and that such  use may be detrimental to the interests of the
owner of the well-known trademark."
The above provisions cover both registered and un-registered well-known trademarks.As for Article 19 of the Law of 1993, it does not relate to the scope of  protection of marks
but defines the notion of the illegal use of any trademark.
9. Article 22(3)(2) of the Latvian law on Competition provides for unfair competition in the
form of trademarks misleading as to the origin  of the goods.  Please explain how it complies
with Article 22.3 of the TRIPS Agreement.
4
Article 22(3)(2) of the Latvian Law on Competition  as well as its Article 22 as a whole is not
the Article that is to be compared with Article 22.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, because the purpose of
the Article in question is  not to provide for the protection of anything against unfair competition.  Its
purpose is just to show some examples (forms) of manifestation of unfair competition.  The list of
these examples of manifestation of unfair  competition is not, of course, complete.
For the correct interpretation of Article 22(3)(2) it should be considered together with the
general clause of Article 22(1) (which says that unfair competition is prohibited in Latvia) and
Article 22(2) in which a reference is made to legal acts non-observance of which is, inter alia ,
regarded as violation of  rules of fair competition.
The reference in Article 22(2) to other laws should be understood also as a reference to the
current Trademark Law.
In particular, Article 2(2) of the Trademark Law of 1993 that was in force when the Law on
Competition was enacted provided that "any sign which can be considered as a geographicalindication, may only be included in a mark with the stipulation that it will not mislead the public and
that its use does not contradict the law and local legal acts."
The new Law of 1999 contains rele vant provisions as well;  e.g.  its Article 6 ("Absolute
Grounds for Refusal and Invalidation of a Trademark Registration") provides, inter alia , that:
"the following signs shall not be registered as trademarks (if they have been registered, these
registrations may be declared invalid pursuant to the provisions of this Law)":IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 10
"3) which consist solely of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the
kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or the time of production
of the goods or of providing the services, or other characteristics of the goods or services";
"7) those which are of such a nature as to mislead the consumers, for example, as to the
nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services".
Besides, the new Law stipulates that:- "a trademark registration may also be revoked by a judgement of the court if... the
public may be misled, especially as to the nature, quality or geographical origin ofthose goods or services" (Article 32 (4)); and
- false indications of geographical origin or any other such geographical names or
designations of geographical nature or similar signs may not be used in the course of
trade, if their use may mislead consumers as to the geographical origin of the goodsor services" (Article 41(1)).
10. Please explain how the additi onal protection for geographical indications for wines and
spirits is provided in Latvia.
4
The above cited Article 6 ("Absolute Grounds for Refusal and Invalidation of a Trademark
Registration")  of the Law of 1999 prohibits the registration of signs:
"10) with respect to wines - those which contai n or consist of an indication of geographical
origin identifying wines of particular origin, or with respect to spirits which contain or consistof an indication of geographical origin identifying spirits of particular origin, if such is not the
genuine place of origin of the wines or spirits for which the trademark registration has been
applied for."
The Law provides as well that “Pursuant to the provisions of international treaties that are
binding to Latvia, special protective measures pertaining to specific types of indications of
geographical origin or a list of specific indications of geographical origin may be prescribed."(Article 40(2)).
11. Please clarify what is non-registerable under Article 2(2) of the Law on Trademarks in
respect to geographical indications.  Please explain how this article complies with Articles 22.3,
22.4, 23.1 and 23.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
4
Explanations to the question are, to a certain extent, given in that part of the answer to
Question 9 where the provisions of the Trademark Law are referred to.
It is  to be added that according to the Trademark Law of 1999 the geographical indications
are protected in Latvia without their registration.  Yet, a geographical indication may be registered as
a trademark, or as an element of a trademark, if and where the provisions of the Law are observed.
Article 1(10) of the Trademark Law of 1999 defines that for the purposes of the Law an
indication of geographical origin is understood as "a  geographic name or other indication or sign used
to indicate, directly or indirectly, the geographical origin of goods or services, including indications of
the characteristics or features thereof, which are attributable to this origin."
Thus, with respect to geographical indications the Law prohibits registration of any trademark
that includes an indication as defined in the Law if it is "... of such a nature as to mislead theIP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 11
consumers, for example, as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services"
(Article 6(7)).
The provisions of Article 6(7) of the Law of 1999 may serve as grounds for an opposition
(Article 18(2)) as well as for invalidation (Article 31(1)).
The above references to the Law of 1999 testify that its provisions under question are in
compliance with those of Articles 22.3 and 22.4 of the TRIPS Agreement.
In so far as Articles 23.1 and 23.2 of the TRIPS Agreement are concerned the Law provides
that with respect to wines and spirits those signs shall not be registered as trademarks (if they havebeen registered, these registrations may be declared invalid pursuant to the provisions of this Law)
"which contain or consist of an indication of geographical origin identifying wines of particular
origin, or with respect to spirits which contain or  consist of an indication of geographical origin
identifying spirits of particular origin, if such is not the genuine place of origin of the wines or spirits
for which the trademark registration has been applied for" (Article 6(10)).
12. Please explain how the requirement in Article 2, paragraph 7, stating "An invention
shall be considered as industrially applicable if the object of the invention may be manufactured
or used in  any field of the national economy" fulfils  the requirements of Article 27.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement that patents shall be availa ble and patent rights enjoyable without
discrimination as to the place of invention.
The wording "in any field of the national economy" in Article 2(7) of the Patent Law ("LPL")
should be understood, in the context of Latvian laws, as "in any field of technology regardless of  the
place of invention".
13. Please explain whether or not non-biologi cal processes are patentable in Latvia ?
Subject to the general rule of Article 3(1) of the Patent Law any process shall be patentable,
except those with regard to which the Law explicitly says that:
- they are not patentable (e.g. methods for the surgical or therapeutic treatment of
human or animal organisms/body/ - Article 2(8)); or
- patent shall not be granted for a certain process (e.g. essentially biological processes
for the production of plants or animals - Article 3(4)(2)).
14. According to Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, a patent shall confer on its owner the
following exclusive rights: the right to prevent third parties not having the owner's consent
from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or  importing for all these purposes that product or
process.
An assertion that Article 30(1)(1)-(3) of the Latvian Patent Law refers only to the exclusive
rights to  use the invention and not to the rights of making, offering for sale, selling or importation,
seems to be a sort of misunderstanding.
Commenting on Article 30(1)(1)-(3) of the Latvian Patent Law (LPL) it is useful to point out
that:
1) the wording "the patent owner shall have  the exclusive rights to use the invention"
should be understood in its broader sense.  The second sentence of Article 30(1) ("Third parties shallIP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 12
not be allowed, without the consent of the patent  owner, to perform the following acts .." etc.)
explains the real meaning of the wording in question.
The same wording  is used, in the meaning explained above, not only in the Latvian Law.  It
is widely used in the Laws of other countries as well as in the EU directives.  For example, it is used
in Article 12(1) ("Rights conferred by the design right") of the Directive 98/71/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs:
"1.  The registration of a design shall confer on its holder the exclusive rights to use it  and to
prevent any third party not having his consent from using it..."
2) Article 30 of the LPL mentions, inter alia , such an action as putting of a patented
product into economic circulation.  Putting of a product into economic circulation should be
understood, according to Latvian laws, as its  making, offering for sale, selling or importation,
stocking for the above purposes and any other the like actions.
A table of comparison, below, of the provisions of the  LPL and the TRIPS Agreement
testifies that, taking into account the above elucidations, the relevant provisions of both acts  are
almost identical (in  essence) or very similar (as to the language).  The language of the comparable
provisions differs, indeed, to a certain extent, but these language differences do not affect the
substance of the provisions.
A table of comparison of the Latvian Patent Law and the TRIPS Agreement
LPL:       Article 30.  Exclusive rights TRIPS: Article 28.  Rights Conferred
(1) The patent shall ensure that the patent owner
shall have the exclusive rights to use the
invention.  Third parties shall not be allowed,
without the consent of the patent owner, to
perform the following acts:
1) to make a patented product  (device,
substance, microorganism, etc.), to offer it on
the market, to put it into economic circulation or
to use the product, as well as to import or stock
it for the above purposes;
2) to use a patented process ; or
3) to offer on the market, to put into
economic circulation, to use, as well as to
import and stock for the above purposes, a
product which has been obtained by using
the patented process .1.  A patent shall confer on its owner the following
exclusive rights:
(a) where the subject matter of a patent is a
product , to prevent third parties not having the
owner’s consent from the acts of: making, using,
offering for sale, selling, or importing for these
purposes that product;
(b) where the subject matter of a patent is a
process , to prevent third parties not having the
owner’s consent from the act of using the process,
and from the acts of: using, offering for sale,
selling, or importing for these purposes  at least the
product obtained directly by that process .IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 13
15. Please explain how Article 30(1)(1)-(3) of the Latvian Patent Law complies with
Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement as it refers only to the exclusive rights to use the invention
and not to the rights of making, offering for sale, selling or importation.
Please see the reply to question 14 above.
16. Please explain how Article 30(3) of the Latvian Patent Law complies with Article 28 of
the TRIPS Agreement.
Article 30(3) of the Latvian Patent Law ("LPL") pertains directly to exclusive rights of a
patent owner.  Its purpose is to further support th ese rights by preventing the third parties "..  from
supplying and offering to supply essential elements of the patented invention .., where the supply of
such elements creates real opportunity to perform acts referred to in Paragraph 1 of this Article andinfringe the rights of the patent owner."
For better understanding of the essence of Article 30(3) of the LPL a reference can be made to
Article 30  "Prohibition of indirect use of the invention" of the Community Patent Convention
(76/76/EEC: Convention for the European Patent for the Common Market) which includes provisions
similar to those of Article 30(3) of the Latv ian Patent Law.  Article 30 of the CPC says:
"1. A Community patent shall also confer on its proprietor the right to prevent all third
parties not having his consent from supplying or offering to supply within the territories of the
Contracting States a person, other than a party entitl ed to exploit the patented invention, with means
relating to an essential element of that invention, for putting it into effect therein, when the third party
knows, or it is obvious in the circumstances, th at these means are suitable and intended for putting
that invention into effect.".
It should be noted in addition that Article 30(3) of the LPL does not cover "...  elements
which are widely known in economic circulation…"
Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement does not include provisions similar to those of
Article 30(3) of the LPL.  However, taking into consideration the general principles set forth by the
TRIPS Agreement and, in particular, by Article 1 thereof,  Latvia is inclined to consider thatArticle 30(3) of the LPL does not contravene the TRIPS Agreement.
17. Please explain how Article 32(2) of the Latvian Patent Law complies with Articles 27.1,
28 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Article 32(2) of the Latvian Patent Law ("LPL") provides for a limited exception to the
exclusive rights conferred by a patent which, in Latvia’s opinion, is to be evaluated  in the light of
Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement.
The use of a patented invention (without authorization of the patent owner) in scientific
experiments or for research purposes as well as in the testing thereof has been always considered as a
use for non-commercial (non-profit) purposes which is, in principle,  allowed by many industrial
property laws of many countries.
Latvia is inclined to consider that Article 32(2) of the LPL does not contravene the TRIPS
Agreement.  In particular, it cannot contravene:
- Article 27.1: a limited exception to the exclusive rights as provided by Article 32(2)
cannot be regarded as a "discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of tech-
nology and whether products are imported or locally produced";IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 14
- Article 28: the limited exception mentioned in Article 32(2) of the LPL may be
regarded as one of such exceptions which  "do not unreasonably conflict with a
normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimateinterests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third
parties" (Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement);
- Article 33:  the limited exception mentioned in Article 32(2) of the LPL does not and
cannot affect the term of protection of the patented invention.
Besides which, Article 32(2) of the LPL should be regarded in the same sense as provisions of
Article 31 of the Community Patent Convention (76/76/EEC: Convention for the European Patent for
the Common Market), or Article 5(3) of the 87/54/EEC: Council Directive of 16 December 1986 on
the legal protection of topographies of semiconduct or products, or Article 13(1)(b) of the Directive
98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection
of designs.  e.g.  Article 31 ("Limitation of the effects of the Community patent") of the CPC provides
that:
"The rights conferred by a Community patent shall not extend to:....(b) acts done for experimental purposes relating to the subject-matter of the patented
invention."
18. Please explain how Article 39 of the Latvian Patent Law complies with Article 31 of the
TRIPS Agreement, in particular Article 31(b), (f) and (h) the TRIPS Agreement.
The provisions of Article 39 of the Latvian Patent Law are intended to regulate certain
exceptional cases where the grant of a compulsory licence is allowed.
It should be mentioned, first of all, that a compulsory patent licence may be, under Article 39
of LPL, granted only by court and only in exceptional cases, namely, in the cases where a patented
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.  This part of Article 39 of the LPL deems to be in
convenience with relevant provision of Article 31(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, namely:  "This
requirement may be waived by a Member in the cas e of a national emergency or other circumstances of
extreme urgency ."
Another precondition for the grant of a compulsory license is non-use (or insufficient use) of
the patented invention by its owner within four years from the date a patent is granted.  The above
provisions of the LPL are to be, in Latvia’s understanding, interpreted in the meaning of Article 31 (b)
of the TRIPS Agreement.  In particular, the precondition "if within four years time from the date a
patent is granted .., the patented invention has not been used or has been insufficiently used .."
mentioned in the LPL, must be interpreted as in cluding the provision of the TRIPS Agreement: "the
proposed user has made efforts to obtain authoriz ation from the right holder on reasonable commercial
terms and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time".
Taking into consideration, that a compulsory patent licence may be, under Article 39 of LPL,
granted only by a civil court, it should be considered that the provision of Article 31(b) of the TRIPSAgreement that "the right holder shall...be notified as soon as reasonably practicable" is also fulfilled by
the LPL.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 15
In so far as Article 31(f) of the TRIPS Agreement is concerned, a compulsory licence under
the LPL and, in particular, in the context of its Article 39, may be authorized only for the s upply of the
domestic market.
Finally, the LPL provides that the conditions of the use of the patented invention shall be in
accordance with the terms set by court.  This LPL provision means that "the right holder shall be paid
adequate remuneration in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the economic value of the
authorization" (Article 31(f) of the TRIPS Agreement).
Latvia would like to refer as well to its answer to Question 6 posed earlier by the United
States of America and relating also to Article 31(f) of the TRIPS Agreement (See below).
III. REPLIES FROM LATVIA TO QUESTIONS POSED BY JAPAN5
A. LAW ON COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS
1. Please explain how protection is provided for works, phonograms, performances and
broadcasts of other WTO Members under the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights ofLatvia (hereinafter referred to as the "Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law").
Please also describe the provisions of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law
which provide for national treatment and mo st-favoured-nation treatment as required by
Articles 3 and 4 of the TRIPS Agreement and by Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, whichincorporates Article 5(1) of the Berne Convention.
Concerning the protection of works, phonograms, performances and broadcasts of other WTO
Members, paragraph 4 of Article 49 of the Copy right and Neighbouring Rights Law states that:
"The rights specified in this Section are recognised as to foreign natural and legal persons
who have made the first perfomance, production, fixation of sounds broadcast, transmission
by wire outside the territory of the Republic of Latvia in accordance with the international
agreements of the Republic of Latvia."
With respect to provisions of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law regarding national
treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment, see the answer to question 2 below.
2. Please explain exceptions to or exemptions  from national treatment and most-favoured-
nation treatment under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law, if any, as permitted in
Articles 3 and 4 of the TRIPS Agreement.
The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law does not contain any special provisions with
respect to exceptions or exemptions from national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment .
However Article 58 states that:
"If an international agreement which has been entered into by the Republic of Latvia includes
provisions which are different from the norms in this Law, the provisions of the international
agreement prevail."
                                                     
5 Document IP/C/W/150.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 16
3. With regard to Article 4.1 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law, which
stipulates the protection of "computer program s", please explain whether such protection
covers computer programs in both source code and object code, as required by Article 10.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement.
Yes, the protection for computer programs set out in Article 4.1 of the Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights Law covers computer programs in both source code and object code, as required
by Article 10.1 of the Agreement.
4. Please explain whether "databases and other compilations" under Article 5 of the
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law include compilations of data in machine-readableform.  Please also explain how the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law complies with
Article 10.2 of the TRIPS Agreement in this respect.
Yes, "databases and other compilations" under Article 5 of the Copyright and Neighbouring
Rights Law include compilations of data in machine readable form .  In this respect, new amendments
have been prepared in the text of the Law in order to make these provisions clearer in relation to
Article 10.2 of the TRIPS  Agreement.
B. L
AW ON TRADEMARKS
5. Article 23.2 of the TRIPS Agreement prohibits the "registration of a trademark for
wines which contains or consists of a geographi cal indication identifying wines or for spirits
which contains or consists of a geographical indication identifying spirits."  Please explain how
the Law on Trademarks of Latvia (hereinaft er referred to as the "Trademark Law") complies
with Article 23.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, since we have not been able to find any provisions of
the Trademark Law that correspond to that Article.
Otherwise, should we understand that such prohibition is secured by Article 22 of the
Trademark Law, which stipulates that "If an international agreement, to which the Republic of
Latvia is a party, provides for provisions which differ from those in this Law, the provisions of
the international agreement shall apply"?
The provisions of Article 23.2 of the TRIPS Agreement to their full extent are incorporated in
the new Law on Trademarks and Indications of Ge ographical Origin, which entered into force on
15 July 1999 .  Paragraph 1 and subparagraph 10 of Article 6 of the said law provide that:
''The following signs shall not be registered as trademarks (if they have been registered, these
registrations may be declared invalid pursuant to the provisions of this Law):
"with respect to wines - those which contain or consist of an indication of geographical origin
identifying wines of particular origin, or - with respect to spirits - which contain or consist of
an indication of geographical origin identifying spirits of particular origin, if such is not the
genuine place of origin of the wines or spirits for which the trademark registration has beenapplied for''.
It must be noted that the term ''indication of  geographical origin'' under Article 1 of the Law
on Trademarks and Indications of Geographical Origin is defined as:
''a geographic name or other indication or sign used to indicate, directly or indirectly, the
geographical origin of goods or services, including indications of the characteristics or features
thereof, which are attributable to this origin''.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 17
Thus the term ''indication of geographical origin'' covers the term ''geographical indication''
used for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement.   
Under the Law on Trademarks of 1993, the provisions of Article 23.2 of the TRIPS Agreement
to a great extent are covered by the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2 which stipulate that:
''[...]Any sign which can be considered as a geographical indication, may only be included in a
mark with the stipulation that it will not mislead the public and that its use does not contradict
the law and local legal acts''.
According to the provisions of Article 7, paragraph 1 and Article 10, paragraph 1, if the
trademark falls under the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2, that constitutes the ground for refusal or
invalidation.
In addition, the provisions of Article 23.2 of the TRIPS Agreement may be ensured by virtue
of Article 22 of the Law on Trademarks of 1993, as well.
C. PATENT LAW
6. Article 3(4) of the Patent Law of Latvia (hereinafter referred to as the "Patent Law")
provides that plant and animal varieties are unpatentable subject-matter.  Please explain how
Latvia provides protection for plant and animal varieties.
The protection of plant varieties is provided in the Republic of Latvia by the Law on the
Protection of Plant Varieties, which entered into force on 3 June 1993 .  In accordance with the
provisions of Article 9, paragraph 3 of the said law, the Latvian State Plant Variety Testing Center is
responsible for the registration of plant varieties.
The protection of animal varieties is not provided for in the Republic of  Latvia at this time.
7. Article 31(4) of the Patent Law stipulates that "Exclusive rights come into force to their
full extent as of the date a patent is granted and expire no later than 20 years from the filing
date of the application."  On the other hand, Article 33 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that
"The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of twenty yearscounted from the filing date."  Please expl ain the compatibility of these two provisions.
The term of protection of rights in Latvia shall be 20 years from the filing date of the patent
application .  It is necessary to take into consideration the beginning of Article 3, paragraph 4, in
conjunction with Article 31, paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and Article 45, paragraph 3 .  Thus the wording ofArticle 31, paragraph 4, ''...to their full extent...''  means that only from the date of the grant of the
patent the owner has rights to submit a claim to the court in case of a patent infringement and has the
possibility after this date to receive a reasonable compensation from the user of the invention.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 18
IV. REPLIES FROM LATVIA TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES6
1. With respect to each form of intellectual property right covered by Part II of the TRIPS
Agreement and with respect to enforcement, please describe the manner in which the Republic
of Latvia has assured that nationals of other WTO Members receive treatment no less
favourable than Latvian nationals with regard to  matters affecting the availability, acquisition,
scope, maintenance and enforcement of such rights.
With regard to matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and
enforcement of intellectual property rights, nationals of other WTO Members receive treatment no
less favourable than Latvian nationals .  Such treatment of nationals of other WTO Members is
ensured in Latvia on the basis of international agr eements which Latvia has concluded or to which it
has adhered (e.g .  the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Berne Convention
for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Work s and the WTO/TRIPS Agreement), as according to
Latvia's principles of law the provisions of intern ational agreements have direct effect in Latvia.
These principles are reflected in many laws of Latvia.  For example, Article 50 "Priority of
international agreements" of the Patent Law says th at "if an international agreement signed by the
Republic of Latvia contains provisions other than those laid down by this Law, the provisions of the
international agreement shall be applicable." The like provisions are included in other Latvian laws on
intellectual property rights.
The practice of Latvia's courts testifies as well that the rule of Article 50 is interpreted by
courts also as follows: "if this Law does not contain provisions laid down by an international
agreement signed by the Republic of Latvia, the provisions of the international agreement shall be
applicable."
The nationals of other WTO Members receive treatment no less favourable than Latvian
nationals with regard to matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and
enforcement of such rights according to the Crim inal Procedure Code, which determines that "in
criminal cases justice is administered based on person’s equality before the law and court irrespective
of their origin, social and material status, race and nationality, sex, education, language, religion,profession, place of residence and other circumstances" as well as the Civil Procedure Law, which
determines that "every private person or legal entity has the rights to protection in the court of its own
infringed or disputed civil right or interests protected by the Law" as well as providing equal
procedural rights for parties.
2. Please describe in detail the manner in which the Republic of Latvia has implemented
its obligation to restore protection for copyrights and sound recordings that are still underprotection in their country of origin and have no t had a full term of protection in the territory
of the Republic of Latvia.
The terms of protection for copyrights and sound recordings are determined under the Law on
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Articles 28-32, 48) .  The term of protection for copyrights and
sound recordings for international bodies are dete rmined under international agreements (Law on
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, Article 58).
                                                     
6 Document IP/C/W/151.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 19
3. Are computer programmes protected as literary works under the copyright law of the
Republic of Latvia?
Yes, under the copyright law of the Republic of  Latvia computer programs are protected as
literary works.
4. Article 8 of Latvia's trademark law provides for the rejection of applications for
trademark registrations and for cancellation of registered trademarks that are identical with or
similar to a well-known trademark.  Please describe in detail the manner in which well-known
trademarks are protected in the Republic of Latvia against use by unauthorized parties.
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 andthe 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 the
trademark.
(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, an
imitation, 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, animitation, a translation or a transliteration of the well-known trademark, also in relation to
goods 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;
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 theIP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 20
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 of infringement lies with the aggrieved party (the owner of the trademark or the
licensee).
"(2) The owner of a trademark (or their suc cessor 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 tradem ark 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 such an action even though the licensee has invitedthe owner 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 unlawfulmarking, 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 the request of the owner of th e trademark (their successor in title) or the
licensee, apply the measures prescribed by la w for enforcement of the claim also in those
cases when the claim is not of a material character (damages are not claimed).IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 21
"(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 receipt 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.
5. Please describe what is envisioned by the limited exception to exclusive patent rights
contained in Article 32(1) of Latvia's Patent Law allowing others to use an invention for "non-
commercial" (non-profit) purposes and provide specific examples.
Taking into consideration that Latvia's courts have not yet examined any case involving a
dispute over the use of an invention for non-comm ercial (non-profit) purposes and, respectively, have
not devised their understanding of the provision of Article 32(1) of Latvia's Patent Law, it may be
presumed that this provision mainly refers to a private non-commercial use of a patented product .  For
example, it may refer to educational purposes, an experimental use by a person  who is not a scientificorganisation (Article 32(2)), but an individual
.  The provision may refer as well to a person -
individual - who legally obtains a patented product (i.e .  the product that has already been put on the
market by the owner of the patent for invention, or with his authorisation) and who, thus, has the right
to repair it or have it repaired (Article 32(3)) .
6. Please describe in detail the manner in which a court in the Republic of Latvia might
grant a compulsory patent licence under Article 39 of Latvia's Patent Law, indicating how each
of the required circumstances under Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement is established.
It should be mentioned, first of all, that a patent compulsory license may be granted by court
under Article 39 of Latvia's Patent Law only in exceptional cases which are mentioned in the Law,
namely, in the cases 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 provisions above are to be considered additional restrictive limitations of "the other use"
which are not mentioned in the TRIPS Agreement.
Besides, the Law allows the grant of a patent compulsory licence in the case where a patented
invention is of great economic significance  while the TRIPS Agreement refers to " an important
technical advance of considerable economic significance " (Article 31 (l)(i)).
Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that the other use "(b) ...  may only be permitted
if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made e fforts to obtain authorization from the right holder on
reasonable commercial terms and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful within a
reasonable period of time."
According to the relevant Article 39(1) of Latvia's  Patent Law:  "If within four years time from
the date a patent is granted [...], the patented invention has not been used or has been insufficientlyIP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 22
used in the territory of the Republic of Latvia, any person may appeal to court with a request that the
court grant a licence (compulsory licence) to use the patented invention in accordance with the terms
set by court .  This provision does not apply in cases when the patent owner is able to substantiate the
non-use or inadequate use of the invention."
When regarding a claim for a compulsory patent licence, Latvia's court, besides provisions of
the national Patent Law, should take into consideration factors (required circumstances) under
Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement .  Such an approach follows from the principles of Latvia’s law
mentioned in the answer to question 1 from the US above .  
Since Latvia's courts had no practice in regarding claims under Article 39 of the Patent Law, it
may be presumed that in establishing circumstances required under Article 31 of the TRIPS
Agreement the courts may, at least,  take evidence of the person claiming the grant of a patent
compulsory licence and the patent holder, evaluate the opinions of competent authorities
(e.g. governmental bodies, research centres and the like).
7. Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement requires that WTO Members protect data
submitted to obtain marketing approval for agricultural chemicals and pharmaceutical
products against unfair commercial use and against disclosure.  Please explain in detail the
manner in which the Republic of Latvia provides such protection.
In general, paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Information Publicity Law states that:
"Information shall be qualified as secret of enterpreneurship, if an institution betraying this
information can prejudice to competitiveness of the person submitting it."
In specifics, Article 36 of the Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 341 of
5 October 1999, the Order of Registration of  Plant Protection Chemicals states that:
"The State Service for Plant Protection and the Registration Commission is not allowed to use
information on plant protection chemicals, the active substances of plant protection
chemicals, and information on plant protection chemicals which contain parasitic and fierce
organisms for the benefit of other applicant to registration in the absence of written agreementbetween the person who initially submitted the information and the that other applicant."
Article 37 of the same Regulations also states that the State Service for Plant Protection and
the Registration Commission secure limited availability to the information at their disposal if so
requested by the applicant for the registration.
With respect to pharmaceutical products, Article 4 of the Order of the Ministry of Welfare,
No.155, the Order of Registration of Pharmaceutical Products states that:
"The State Drug Agency shall secure the confidentiality of the information submitted by the
applicant to registration, if the applicant has indicated this fact when submitting the
registration application."IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 23
8. Article 41.3 of the TRIPS Agreement requires that decisions on the merits of a case
preferably be in writing the better to determin e the reasoning on which the decision is based.
Please state, in regard to each court or admini strative body with jurisdiction over intellectual
property disputes, whether judges or administrative officials must render their decisions inwriting and cite the legal authorities requiring such written opinions.
According to Latvia's laws, all decisions of courts or administrative bodies with jurisdiction
over intellectual property disputes must be prepared in written form
.  The legal authorities that require
such written opinions are Latvia's Law on Civil Procedure, Article 193 ("The form and contents of the
decision") and Regulations of the Board of Appeals of the Latvian Patent Office approved by the
Minister of Justice, Section 7.9.
9. Under Article 42, parties are to be entitled  to substantiate their claims and present
relevant evidence.  Please describe any limitatio ns under the law of the Republic of Latvia on a
party's ability to substantiate a claim or present relevant evidence and cite the legal authority
providing such limitation.
Under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Law:
- each party shall prove the facts it makes reference to as substantiation of its own
claim and objection. Claimant shall prove it’s claim.  Defendant shall prove validityof its objections.  If the parties to the case have no possibility to receive necessary
evidence, the court shall require it on its own after receiving request from the parties.
- the court accepts only evidence with significance for the case.
- the court estimates evidence according to its own conviction, which is substantiated
with completely, generally and appropriately proved evidence in assize to be guidedby juridical sense which is based on logic, science recognition and observations
acquired in life.
- the court admits only means of proof stated in law.
- no evidence has previously stated force that commits the court.
Under Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
- evidence in criminal case is established by testimonies of witnesses, victim, marked
man, defendant, expert’s adjudgement, bodies of evidence, protocols of investigation
and court and other documents.
- investigator (depositor of reference), public prosecutor, judge and court according to
the procedure stated in this Code can in cases being at their disposal invite any person
to cross-examine or require expert adjudg ement from it; can require from enterprises,
institutions, organisations, officials and other private persons to present material
evidence and documents from which the necessary evidence for the case can be
acquired; require enterprise, institutions and organisations to make documentaryaudits.
- marked man, defendant, victim, civil claimant, civil defendant and their
representatives as well as any person, enterprise, institution and organisation can also
present evidence at their own initiative.
- estimation of evidence is made according to the same principles as in civil process.IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 24
10. Article 43.2 provides that, in the event a party refuses to provide information ordered
by the judicial or administrative officials, thos e officials may be authorized to make preliminary
and final determinations adverse to that party.  Please describe what sanctions may be imposed
on a party that refused to provide ordered information and under what circumstances those
sanctions are imposed, citing the legal authority for those sanctions.
Section 14(d) of the Administrative Offence Code  constitutes administrative offences which
find expressions as contempt against the court, in particular, in respect to not rendering information,
Article 41 is referable which provides that "public authority which does not consider judge’s side
decision or application of judge or do not take measures in order to prevent law offences mentioned in
the above documents as well as do not provide answer in time to the side decision or application shallbe fined up to 100Ls" (appr. 170 USD).
Article 272 of the Criminal Law provides cr iminal liability for not providing requested
information and for providing untruthful information to a State institution which is authorised by theLaw to require such information.
11. Article 44.2 authorizes WTO Members to excep t from the authority of courts to enjoin
infringements of intellectual property for government use and for third parties' use on behalf of
governments, limiting the remedy for infringement to payment of adequate remuneration.Please describe any such limitations on remedies under the laws of the Republic of Latvia and
cite the legal authorities pr oviding for those limitations.
The Latvian laws do not contain such special exceptions.
12. Please provide statistical information related  to civil copyright, trademark, geographical
indication, industrial design, patent, inte grated circuit layout-design and trade secret
enforcement for 1998, including the number of ca ses filed;  injunctions issued;  infringing
products seized;  infringing equipment seized;  cases resolved (including settlement);  and the
amount of damages awarded.
Statistical information on cases related to the intellectual property:
(In accordance with the report on civil cases in the first instance in 1998)
Incoming cases 14
Finished cases 10
Resolved cases by judgement   5Dismissed cases   4
Not resolved cases before 1998 11
Not resolved cases after 1998 15
In 1998 the courts examined eight appeals against decisions of the Board of Appeals of the
Latvian Patent Office relating to oppositions to trademark registrations:
Number of cases
examinedTrademarks
cancelled
Riga District Court 5 3
Supreme Court 1 2
Supreme Court'sCassation Department22
Total 8 5IP/Q/LVA/1, IP/Q2/LVA/1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1, IP/Q4/LVA/1
Page 25
13. Please provide statistical information relat ed to criminal enforcement in the area of
copyright piracy and trademark infringeme nt for 1998, 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 actually served or was suspended)  and any otherinformation establishing that your criminal system operates effectively to deter copyright piracy
and trademark counterfeiting.
There is no such collected information available in the Republic of Latvia.
__________