RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/Q/LVA/1/Add.1
IP/Q2/LVA/1/Add.1
IP/Q3/LVA/1/Add.1
IP/Q4/LVA/1/Add.1
26 May 2000
(00-2135)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
LATVIA
Addendum
The present document reproduces the follow-up questions posed to Latvia by the United
States of America in a communication dated 21 March 20001, and the answers supplied by the
Permanent Mission of the Republic of Latvia by means of a communication dated 23 May 2000.
_______________
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 tradem ark has been registered is entitled to
prohibit other persons from using in th e 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 identi ty to, or similarity to, the trademark
and the identity or similarity of the go ods or services for which the trademark is
registered and the sign is used, there exis ts 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 toprevent 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 us e, 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 cons umers may perceive the use of such a sign
as indicating a connection between these goods or services and the owner of the well-
                                                     
1 Document IP/C/W/151/Add.1.IP/Q/LVA/1/Add.1, IP/Q2/LVA/1/Add.1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1/Add.1, IP/Q4/LVA/1/Add.1
Page 2
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 putt ing 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 busin ess 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-known 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 th is Law, or in Article 4, paragraph 7, without
the consent of the owner of the trademark, includ ing 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 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 aseparate action for unlawful use of the trademar k 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 ac tion even though the licensee has invited the
owner to do so in writing.  Any of the licensees of the respective trademark are entitled toIP/Q/LVA/1/Add.1, IP/Q2/LVA/1/Add.1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1/Add.1, IP/Q4/LVA/1/Add.1
Page 3
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 un lawful 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 obli gation 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 the request of the owner of the trademark (their successor in title) or thelicensee, apply the measures prescribed by law fo r 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 unlawfu l use of a trademark, for the purposes of
determining the degree of the infringer's fault, th e 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 tradem ark may be brought within three years from
the date when the aggrieved party became awa re, 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 in Latvia, was not confusingly similar to the world-famous trademark.  Thisdecision followed an earlier cour t 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.
There are five cases being reviewed at this stage that relate to world-famous trademarks for
particular spirits.  Two cases started already in 1998, but are still under review at the Senate of the
Supreme Court and are now integrated in one case as both have the same claimant.IP/Q/LVA/1/Add.1, IP/Q2/LVA/1/Add.1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1/Add.1, IP/Q4/LVA/1/Add.1
Page 4
This year, there are three cases initiated at the Regional Court of Riga.  Two of them are
appealed at the House of the High Court.  One case regarding the appeal of Patent Board decision will
be reviewed at the Regional Court of Riga in the coming days.
More detailed information can be provided concerning each particular case.
2. In responding to the U.S. question no. 6, the Government of Latvia noted that, under
Article 39 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 inregarding 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 importance to the welfare of the residents of Latvia or for the interests of
the economy or national security of Latvia.
Latvia considers that the description of the factors provided for the courts that must be
considered in determining whether a patented produc t 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 can
be determined only on the basis of particular cases.
There has been no practice so far in Latvia regarding claims under Article 39 of the Patent
Law, therefore, currently, it is not possible to describe in detail these factors.
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.  Pleaseindicate whether data submitted by an origin al 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 befo re such reliance is permissible.
Data submitted to Latvian government agencies is protected against disclosure, as in
accordance with the General Rules for the Registration of Drugs and Pharmaceutical Products,adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers No. 24, 20 January 1998, point 17, the results of pharmacological
and toxicological test and clinical studies should not be submitted if the medicinal product
(pharmaceutical) is essentially like the original medicinal product (contains the same active
substances as the original medicinal product in the same amount, pharmaceutical form and dosage,
intended for the same therapeutic use and the bio-availability is proven to be identical to the originalmedicine), registered and distributed in Latvia, and if the registration applicant for approval the
subsequent application for the same pharmaceutical has received the permission of the original
medicinal product registration licence holder to use the test results – of pharmacological and
toxicological test and clinical studies.
More precisely, these cases are stipulated in the new draft Regulation on Registration of
Medicinal Products (issuing of marketing authorizations) which includes the requirements in which
the results of pharmacological and toxicological tests or clinical trials do not have to be provided from
the side of a subsequent applicant if he can demonstrate:
(1) with a view to obtain authorization of a medicinal product which is essentially similar
to an authorized product in Latvia, including a requirement that the person
responsible for the marketing of the original medicinal product has consented in the
file on the original medicinal product being used for the purpose of examining theIP/Q/LVA/1/Add.1, IP/Q2/LVA/1/Add.1,
IP/Q3/LVA/1/Add.1, IP/Q4/LVA/1/Add.1
Page 5
application in question.  An application can only be submitted after the first
marketing authorization (original) has been granted;  or
(2) by detailed references to published scientific literature presented that the
constituent(s) of medicinal product have a well-established medicinal use, with
recognized efficacy and an acceptable level of safety (detailed reference to the
requirements of Directive 75/318/EEC and its amendments);  or
(3) that the medicinal product is essentially similar to a product which has been
authorized within the Community or Latvia for not less than six years and is
authorized and distributed in Latvia.  This period is extended to 10 years in the caseof high–technology medicinal products (within the meaning of the Annex of
Regulation 2309/93/EC).  However, where the medicinal product is intended for a
different therapeutic use from that of the other medicinal product marketed or is to be
administered by different routes or in different doses, the results of appropriate
pharmacological and toxicological tests and/or of appropriate clinical trials must beprovided.
These requirements conform with EU Council Directive requirements 65/65/EEC on the
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to
proprietary medicinal products and its amendments, and are without prejudice to the law relating tothe protection of industrial and commercial property, ensures that innovative firms are not placed at a
disadvantage.
The change in Latvian legislation is not considered as a change in Latvian intellectual
property protection law, as well as free movement of goods, and requires protection of the firstapplicant's data against "unfair" commercial use.
The proposed date of adoption is June 2000.Regarding plant protection products, data submitted by an original applicant for approval of a
plant protection product cannot be relied upon to approve subsequent applicants, without the approval
of the first applicant.  Data protection is constant.  The approval of the first applicant stands for Letterof access, issued by the first applicant, submitted to the State Plant Protection Service, and indicating
any conditions for the access to the data.
__________