RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/Q/SGP/1
IP/Q2/SGP/1
IP/Q3/SGP/1
IP/Q4/SGP/1
20 September 2000
(00-3738)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
SINGAPORE1
The present document reproduces the introductory statement made by the delegation of
Singapore, the questions put to it and the responses given in connection with the review of legislation
undertaken at the Council's meeting of 26-29 June 2000.2
______________
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
The deadline for Singapore to implement its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement was
31 December 1999.  However, Singapore completed and brought into force its TRIPS implementinglegislation one year ahead of the deadline, as a result of an undertaking it had given to APEC to
accelerate its legislation.
Singapore also adopted a "phased" approach, in relation to the legislation.  Accordingly, each
completed piece of legislation was brought into force immediately after it was passed by Parliament –rather than waiting until all were completed and bringing them into operation together.
A. C
OPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
Copyright and related rights in Singapore are governed by the Copyright Act 1987 (Cap 63).
This legislation was amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1998 to bring it in line with theTRIPS Agreement.  The Copyright (Amendment) Act was passed by Parliament on 19 February 1998
and brought into operation with effect from 16 April 1998.
The following subsidiary legislation was also prepared and brought into force with effect
from 16 April 1998 to implement the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1998: Copyright (Amendment)
Regulations 1998, Copyright Tribunal (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 1998, Copyright
(International Protection) (Amendment) Regulations 1998, Copyright (Border Enforcement)Regulations 1998.
B. T
RADEMARKS
The registration and protection of trademarks in Singapore are governed by the new Trade
Marks Act 1998 (No 46 of 1998) and the Trade Marks Rules 1998 (S 635/1998).  The new Trade
                                                     
1 As regards laws and regulations notified by Singapore under Article 63.2 of the Agreement, reference
is made to documents IP/N/1/SGP/3; IP/N/1/SGP/C/1 to  7; IP/N/1/SGP/G/1; IP/N/1/SGP/L/1; IP/N/1/SGP/P/1,
2 and 3; IP/N/1/SGP/T/1, 2 and 3; IP/N/1/SGP/U/1 and 2 and IP/N/6/SGP/1.
2 The minutes of this meeting have been circulated as document IP/C/M/27.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 2
Marks Act was passed by Parliament on 26 Novemb er 1998 and brought into operation on 15 January
1999.  The registration of a mark is for an indefinite period so long as the renewal fees are paid every
tenth year.  Three-dimensional marks are also protected under the new Trade Marks Act, which also
includes several pro-business features such as (i) less stringent criteria for registrability of trademarks;and (ii) simplification and more rapid action in relation to the examination process.
C. P
ATENTS
The law governing patent protection in Singapore is the Patents Act 1994 (Cap 221).  It was
amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act 1996 to bring it into conformity with the TRIPS
Agreement.  The Patents (Amendment) Act 1996 was passed by Parliament on 1 November 1995 and
brought into operation with effect from 1 January 1996.  Patent protection lasts 20 years from the dateof filing the application.  The patenting of plants varieties is allowed under the Patents Act.
D. I
NDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
The United Kingdom Design (Protection) Act (Cap 339) provides for protection in Singapore
of designs registered in the United Kingdom.  Design protection lasts for 25 years.
It is not necessary to amend the United Kingdom Design (Protection) Act (Cap 339) to enable
Singapore to conform to the TRIPS Agreement in the area of industrial designs. However, Singapore
intends to have new industrial designs legislation. This has been worked out and will be presented to
Parliament on 29 June 2000. It will enable Singapore to have its own industrial design regime, ratherthan be dependent on design registration in the United Kingdom.
E. G
EOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
Singapore has a new Geographical Indica tions Act 1998 (No 44 of 1998) to protect
geographical indications, to fulfil the requirements  of the TRIPS Agreement.  This new legislation
was passed by Parliament on 26 November 1998 a nd brought into operation with effect from
15 January 1999.  The Act seeks to prevent the use of misleading geographical indications, the
registration of misleading geographical indications as trademarks and the use of geographical
indications which would constitute an act of unfair competition.  The protection afforded to
geographical indications is automatic.  Where geographical indications qualify as a trademark,
certification mark or collective mark, it is also possible to register geographical indications under the
Singapore trademark legislation.
F. LAYOUT -DESIGNS OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS
An original layout-design of integrated circuits is protected under the new Layout-Designs of
Integrated Circuits Act 1999 (No 3 of 1999) – pa ssed by Parliament on 20 January 1999 and brought
into operation with effect from 15 February 1999.  Protection is automatic and the duration ofprotection is either 10 years from the first commercial exploitation (if the exploitation takes place
within 5 years after the year it is created) or 15 years from the year it is created.
G. P
ROTECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION
Confidential information is protected under th e common law.  Confidential data/test data is
protected under the Medicines Act and the Control of Plants Act.  This was achieved through the
amendment of these laws by the Medicines (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Control of Plants
(Amendment) Act 1998.  Both the amending legisl ation were passed by Parliament on 19 February
1998 and brought into operation with effect from 16 April 1998.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 3
H. ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement procedures and remedies (including border measures) are available under the
various IPR legislation or under the common law to enable effective action against acts of
infringement.  Both civil and criminal remedies may be resorted to.  In a civil action injunction,damages or account of profits maybe ordered.  The court may also order the delivery up and/or
destruction or other disposal of infringing goods and materials and implements for their production.
In criminal prosecutions imprisonment, monetary fines, seizure, forfeiture and destruction of
infringing goods and materials and implements for their production may be ordered.
I. S
INGAPORE 'S MEMBERSHIP OF IPR T REATIES
In February 1995, Singapore became a party to the Paris Convention (1967) for the Protection
of Industrial Property, the Patent Co-operation Treaty and the Budapest Treaty on the International
Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure.
In December 1998, Singapore became a party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works (1971).  In March 1999, Singapore became a party to the Nice AgreementConcerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration
of Marks (1957).
Singapore hopes to deposit its instrument of accession to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid
Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (1989) in July 2000.
J. Q
UESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
Singapore received, prior to this meeting, 27 questions from the United States, 4 questions
from Australia, 16 questions from Japan, 14 questions from the European Communities and their
member States and 2 questions from Canada.  We have provided written responses to all thesequestions.
3
II. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY AUSTRALIA
A. COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
1. Are there any specific exceptions to copyright under the law of Singapore to allow use of
copyright materials by third parties for permitted purposes (such as research, education, fair
use or fair dealing)?  Are there any significant judi cial decisions with bearing on this issue?  Are
there any specific rules or findings concerning exceptions or limitations to copyright protection
of computer software?
Sections 35 to 72 of the Copyright Act, Cap 63 list the provisions governing acts that would
not constitute infringement of copyright works and governing statutory licences for educationalinstitutions, libraries and educational institutions assisting handicapped readers to do limited copying
for limited purposes.  Section 107 to Section 116 govern corresponding or similar acts that would not
constitute infringement of copyright in sound recordings, films and broadcasts.
There has been one reported case so far in relation to the issue of fair dealing for private study
or research (see the case of Aztech Systems Pte Ltd v Creative Technology Ltd  (High Court of
                                                     
3 Singapore later received follow-up questions from Australia, the European Communities and their
member States,  Japan and the United States, to which it also provided responses.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 4
Singapore) [1996] 1 SLR 683) and Creative Technology Ltd v Aztech Systems Pte Ltd  [1997] 1 SLR
621 (Court of Appeal of Singapore) ).
Apart from what is stated above, there are no specific rules or findings concerning exceptions
or limitations to copyright protection of computer software.
Follow-up questions:
A. Section 114 provides an exception for making copies by way of cinematograph films or
sound recordings of broadcasts or cable programmes for private and domestic use.  The
exception extends to the copyright in the underlyin g literary, artistic, dramatic or musical work,
sound recording or cinematograph film included in the broadcast or programme.  How does
this exception meet the three-step test  in Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement?
The exception in Section 114 of the Copyright Act is confined to the making of
cinematograph film or a sound recording of a television or sound broadcast or a cable programme forthe private and domestic use of the person by whom the cinematograph film or sound recording is
made.  The provision is confined to private and domestic use and the exception is intended to cover
recordings by individuals only.  In addition, there is a qualification in Section 114(3) which states that
a cinematograph film or a sound recording shall not be deemed to be made for the private and
domestic use of the person by whom it is made if it is made for the purpose of –
(a) the sale or letting for hire of the film or the sound recording, as the case may be;(b) broadcasting the film or recording or including it in a cable programme;  or
(c) causing the film or recording to be seen or heard in public.
Being confined to usage by individuals for private and domestic use, the provision is limited
to "special cases" referred to in Article 13.  In view of the qualifications in Section 114(3), the
provision would also meet with the other requirements in Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement as it
does not conflict with the normal exploitation of a work and does not unreasonably prejudice the
legitimate rights of the right holders.
B. We note that there are two decisions in relati on to the fair dealing exception for private
study or research, namely Aztech Systems Pte Ltd v Creative Technology Ltd [1996] 1 SLR 683
and Creative Technology Ltd v Aztech Systems Pte Ltd [1997] 1 SLR 621 .  How do these cases
interpret the legislation?
The case of Aztech Systems Pte Ltd v Creative Technology Ltd [1996] 1 SLR 683  is a first
instance decision by the High Court of Singapore.  The case of Creative Technology Ltd v Aztech
Systems Pte Ltd [1997] 1  SLR 621  is the decision of the aforementioned case on appeal to the Court of
Appeal of Singapore.  In relation to the issue of fair dealing, the High Court of Singapore in the firstinstance case (i.e. Aztech Systems Pte Ltd v Creative Technology Ltd ) held that one of the appropriate
definitions of "study" in the exception for fair dealing for private study under Section 35 of the
Copyright Act was "the devotion of time and attention to acquiring information or knowledge" and a
study was only private if the study and the information and knowledge acquired through it were kept
or removed from public knowledge or observation.  The Court of Appeal did not make any ruling on
this particular issue.
2. To what extent does current copyright protection in Singapore cover the use and
dissemination of copyright works on digital ne tworks such as the Internet?  Are there anyIP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 5
specific provisions in copyright law concerning the digital on-line environment, and are there
any significant judicial or administrative  decisions with bearing on this issue?
This is not a TRIPS-related question.  However, with a view to sharing of information,
Singapore would like to indicate that it has implemented a major portion of the 1996 WIPO Copyright
Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Treaty Phonograms.  The implementing provisions are found
in the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1999 (No. 38 of 1999).  There are as yet no judicial or
administrative decisions bearing on the issue of the use and dissemination of copyright works on
digital networks.
B. TRADEMARKS
3. Are there any specific provisions in Singapor e's laws and regulations, or any significant
judicial decisions, with bearing on the use of tr ademarks or geographical indications on digital
networks such as the Internet?  Are there any relevant decisions or other legal provisions
concerning the relationship betw een internet domain names and trademarks or geographical
indications?
This is not a TRIPS-related question. However, there are no specific provisions in
Singapore’s law or significant judicial decisions de aling with the use of trademarks or geographical
indications on digital networks such as the Internet.  There are also no judicial decisions or legal
provisions concerning the specific issue of the relationship between internet domain names andtrademarks or geographical indications.  Presently, such issues which arise will be dealt with in
accordance with existing legal provisions on trademarks or geographical indications.
C. C
ONTROL OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES
4. Does Singapore law provide for any specific measures concerning practices that
constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights?  Are there any applicable court decisions or
other legal or administrative guidelines?
Article 40 of the TRIPS Agreement allows WTO Member States to have, if they so wish,
legislation dealing with measures which may constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights having
an adverse impact on competition.  Singapore does not presently have such legislation.
III. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY CANADA
1. What recourse do right holders have in respect of wilful trademark counterfeiting or
copyright piracy on a commercial scale, as required by Article 61?
Trademark Counterfeiting
In relation to trademark counterfeiting on a commercial scale, Section 49 of the Trade Marks
Act 1998 provides that any person who imports into Singapore for the purpose of trade or
manufacture, sells or exposes for sale or has in his possession for the purpose of trade or manufacture,
any goods to which a registered trademark is falsely applied is guilty of an offence carrying a fine of$10,000 for each goods or thing which the trademark is falsely applied up to a maximum of $100,000
or a custodial sentence of 5 years or both.  The only exception is when the person can prove that he
has taken all reasonable precautions against committing an offence under the provision and he had, at
the time of the commission of the alleged offence, no reason to suspect the genuineness of the mark
and on demand made by the prosecution, he gave all information in his power with respect to thepersons from whom he obtained his goods or he can prove that he acted innocently.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 6
"Falsely applying a registered trade mark to goods or services" is defined as "without the
consent of the proprietor of the registered trade mark, the person applies the trade mark or a sign
likely to be mistaken for that trade mark to the goods  or services and in the case of an application to
goods, the goods are not the genuine goods of the proprietor or licensee of the registered trade mark".
 In addition, it is also an offence to make or to possess an article specifically designed or
adapted for making copies of a registered trademark or a sign likely to be mistaken for that trademark
knowing or having reason to believe that it has been, or is to be, used for, or in the course of,
committing an offence of counterfeiting a trademark or for falsely applying a registered trademark to
goods or services (see Section 48 of the Trade Marks Act 1998).
Copyright Piracy
In relation to copyright piracy on a commercial scale, Section 136 of the Copyright Act
provides that a person who, at a time when copyright subsists in a work, makes for sale or hire, sells
or lets for hire, or by way of trade offers or exposes for sale or hire or by way of trade exhibits inpublic or imports for the purposes of trade or distributes either for the purpose of trade or for other
purpose but to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner any article which he
knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be an infringi ng copy of the work shall be guilty of an offence
carrying a fine of $10,000 per infringing article up to a maximum of $100,000 and/or an
imprisonment sentence of up to 5 years.
 In addition, it is also an offence carrying a fine up to a maximum of $20,000 and an
imprisonment term of 2 years to make or to have in one’s possession an article specifically designed
or adapted for making infringing copies when the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the
article is to be used for making infringing copies
2. What protection does your copyright legislation afford to foreign works?
Singapore's copyright law is governed by the Copyright Act, Cap 63 (which came into force on
10 April 1987) and the Rules and Regulations made under it.  The Copyright (International
Protection) Regulations 1998 (the "Regulations") which came into effect on 16 April 1998, extend
copyright protection to works, phonograms, perfor mances and broadcasts from other WTO Members
the same protection as that available to citizens or residents of Singapore (national treatment).
In relation to published works, regulation 3 of the Regulations provides that the Copyright
Act shall apply in relation to literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works and published editions first
published in a WTO member country in like manner as those provisions shall apply in relation tothese works first published in Singapore.
In relation to unpublished works, the same Regulations also provides that the Copyright Act
shall apply in relation to persons who are citizens/nationals of or resident in a WTO member country
in like manner as the Act shall apply in relation to persons who are citizens of or resident in Singaporerespectively.
In relation to films and sound recordings (or phonograms), regulation 3 provides that the
Copyright Act shall apply to such works made or first published in a WTO member country in the
same manner as the Act shall apply to such works made or first published in Singapore.
In relation to sound and television broadcasts, regulation 3 extends the protection in the
Copyright Act to broadcasts made by a relevant broadcaster from a place in a WTO country in the
same manner the Act applies in relation to broadcasts made by a broadcasting licensee from a place in
Singapore.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 7
IV. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND
THEIR MEMBER STATES
A. C OPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
1. Please identify the exceptions to copyright and related rights contained in the Copyright
Act, notably for libraries, educational purposes, private use, use by government officials.  Please
explain in detail how they can be justified under the TRIPS Agreement and the Berne
Convention.  Please provide, if any, major judi cial decisions interpreting these provisions.
In relation to exceptions for use by libraries, Section 48 of the Copyright Act, Cap 63
provides that libraries can make a copy of a work in the libraries' collection for the limited purpose of
preservation against loss or deterioration, for the purpose of research, for the purpose of replacing awork which has been lost or damaged, or for replacing a work which has been lost or stolen.
In relation to exceptions for educational use, the exceptions are limited to copying of
insubstantial amounts of less than 5% by educational institutions and for the limited purpose of a
course of education provided by the educational institution.  In addition, for copying of an article in aperiodical publication, there is the requirement (Section 201 of the Copyright Act, Cap 63) to
maintain a record of the amount of copying done.  That record is open to inspection by copyright
owners who may require the payment of equitable remuneration from the educational institution for
the copying done.
In relation to exceptions for research or private use, Section 35 of the Copyright Act, Cap 63
provides that a fair dealing with a work for the limited purpose of research or private study shall not
constitute an infringement of copyright in the work.  In considering whether a dealing is a fair dealing,
Section 35(2) provides that the court shall have  regard to the following non-exclusive matters:
(a) the purpose and character of the dealing, including whether such dealing is of a
commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
(b) the nature of the work or adaptation;
(c) the amount and substantiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole work or
adaptation; and
(d) the effect of the dealing upon the potential market for, or value of, the work or
adaptation.  The fair dealing exception is substantially similar to that found in Article107 of the Copyright Law of the United States of America in Title 17 of the United
States Code.
In relation to exceptions for use by the Government, the exception is confined to usage by the
Government.  In addition, there is the duty on the pa rt of the Government to inform the owner of the
copyright of the usage as soon as possible and to comply with such terms as are worked out betweenthe Government and the copyright owner.
There has been one reported case so far in relation to the issue of fair dealing for private study
or research (see the cases of Aztech Systems Pte Lid v Creative Technology Ltd  [1996] 1 SLR 683
(High Court of Singapore) and Creative Technology Ltd v Aztech Systems Pte Ltd  [1997] 1 SLR 621
(Court of Appeal of Singapore)).IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 8
Follow-up questions:
A. Please explain the term "copying of insubstantial amounts of less than 5% by
educational institutions".  Please clarify to what the 5% relates.
Section 51 of the Copyright Act permits educational institutions to copy, on its premises and
for the purposes of a course of education, a certain amount of a work.  This amount shall not exceed
5% of the total number of pages of a book which contains more than 500 pages.  The 5% relates to the
number of pages in the book which can be copied.
B. In light of the full range of exceptions to  copyright provided in the Copyright Act,
including sections 35 to 72 and sections 107 to 116, what is the basis for interpreting Article 13
of the TRIPS Agreement, especially the referen ce to the obligation to confine limitations or
exceptions to "certain special cases", suffici ently broad to include all such exceptions?
Our check of the legislation of other countries shows that exceptions of the nature in
Sections 35 to 72 and Sections 107 to 116 of the Copyright Act are found in the legislation of most
countries.  The situations which are intended to be covered in these provisions are special cases and
accordingly in line with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement.
2. Does the exception provided in Section 39(3) of the Copyright Act extend beyond
personal use by the program owner?
Section 39(3) of the Copyright Act, Cap. 63 provides that the copy must be created as an
essential step in the utilisation of a computer program in conjunction with a machine and the copy
must not be used in any other manner.  The provision is intended to cover the incidental copying madein a machine such as a computer when a computer program is run in conjunction with the machine.
Follow-up question:
Is the application of Section 39(3) of the Copyright Act limited to use of the copy for the
program owner's own purposes and, if so, by what legal means?
A close reading of Section 39(3) will indicate that the provision deals with the making of a
copy of a computer program as an essential step in the utilisation of the program in conjunction with
the computer.  It is not intended to deal with the making of an additional separate copy by the owner
of a computer program.
3. What is the purpose of Section 40A of the Copyright Act and why is it applicable only to
imported products?
Section 40A of the Copyright Act, Cap 63 deals with the question of product packaging in
relation to imported items. It is applicable to imported items since it is intended to complementSection 32 of the Copyright Act, Cap 63 which deals with the issue of infringement by importation.
4. The Copyright (Import Restrictions) Regu lations in force in Singapore (document
IP/N/1/SGP/C/6) make mention of Section 142 of the Act, but the Copyright Act, revised edition
1988 (document IP/N/1/SGP/C/1) of which the Counc il for TRIPS has been notified, contains no
Section 142.  Please explain this.
The Copyright (Import Restrictions) Regulations and the old Section 142 of the Copyright
Act have both been repealed.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 9
B. TRADEMARKS
5. What guidance is available to rights holder s in the interpretation  of "implied consent
(conditional or otherwise)" referred to in Article 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act?
The expression "implied consent" is a frequently used term in common law jurisprudence. It
means that in the circumstances of the case the consent is taken to be given by implication. In the
event of a dispute, it is a question of fact to be decided on a case by case basis.
C. INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
6. Please explain whether or not your legislat ion extends the protection to designs dictated
essentially by technical or functional considerations.  Please explain how textile designs areprotected.
Industrial design protection in Singapore is presently available through registration of the
design in the United Kingdom.  The governing legislation in Singapore is the United Kingdom
Designs (Protection) Act (Cap 339), which applies to Singapore the United Kingdom’s RegisteredDesign Act (1949), as amended by subsequent legislation in relation to registered designs.  In
accordance with the applicable UK legislation, designs dictated essentially by technical or functional
considerations are not protected.
In addition, Section 70 of the Copyright Act provides that it is not an infringement of an
artistic work if a useful article has been made out of the artistic work and has been industrially applied
for more than 15 years.  A "useful article" is defined in Section 70(3) as an article having only
intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey
information.
Textile designs are protected as industrial designs so far as they are new.
Follow-up question:
Please provide the legal basis for the protectio n of textile designs in terms of the notified
legislation.
The subject of a registered design is dealt with in Section 74 of the Copyright Act and
Section 2 of the Registered Designs Act 2000.
7. Please explain how your legislation protects right holders of a design against importing
of articles bearing embodied or copied design.
The United Kingdom’s Registered Designs Act 1949, as amended by any subsequent
legislation applies in Singapore by virtue of Section 2 of Singapore’s United Kingdom Designs
(Protection) Act. The issue raised is dealt with in  Section 7 of the United Kingdom Registered Design
Act, supplemented by case law.
8. Please mention whether or not your legislation provides for the right to issue a
compulsory licensing for industrial designs.
In the United Kingdom’s Registered Designs Act, Section 10 provides that any interested
person may apply to the UK’s Registrar of Designs for the grant of a compulsory licence in respect of
a registered design on the ground that the design is not applied in the UK by any industrial process orIP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 10
means to the article in respect of which it is registered to such an extent as is reasonable in the
circumstances of the case and the registrar may make such order on the application as he thinks fit.
9. Please indicate for which period of time your legislation grants protection for industrial
designs.
Registration of a design confers protection for a period of 5 years from the date of application
and this protection is renewable with a renewal period of 5 years each, up to a maximum of 25 years.
Follow-up question:
Please notify the specific provisions of UK legislation Singapore is relying on for
protection of intellectual property.
In the context of question 9 posed by the EC, we understand that the question requires
information on the provision dealing with the protection period for industrial designs.  The provisionis Section 8 of the United Kingdom's Registered Designs Act 1949.  This will be replaced by the
corresponding Section 21 of our Registered Designs Act 2000.
D. P
ATENTS
10. On what basis would the Government of Singapore authorize a person to make, use,
exercise or vend a patented invention so that they were not infringing the patent in terms of
Section 61 of the Patents Act?
As no situation necessary for the application of Section 61 has arisen, it is difficult to
visualise the basis that would be applied.  The circumstances of each case would have to beconsidered carefully.  The determining factors would be that the making, using, exercising or vending
of the invention is for the services of the Government, and only a Government department or a person
authorized in writing by the Government may ava il themselves of this provision.  The terms and
conditions laid down in Section 65(a)-(c) of the Patents Act would have to be complied with in
relation to government use.
Follow-up question:
In the absence of any examples of anticipated use of Section 61 in the terms raised by the
question, what is the purpose for its inclusion in the Patents Act?
Legislation is intended to cater for potential so lutions in the future.  Hence, the inclusion of
Section 61 in the Patents Act.
11. What is the basis in TRIPS for limiting process patent infringements to use of the
process by a person without consent only where that person has actual or implied knowledge in
the terms of Section 66(1)(b) of the Patents Act?
Section 66(1)(b) of the Patents Act is along similar lines in other countries (e.g. UK, EC, etc).
Follow-up question:
In terms of the provisions of Article 66(1)(b) of Singapore's Patent Act, what is the basis
in the TRIPS Agreement for limiting process patent infringements to cases of actual or implied
knowledge on behalf of the infringer?IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 11
As has been indicated in response to question 11 posed by the EC, the limitation found in
Section 66(1)(b) of the Patents Act is along similar lines found in legislation of the EC, including the
United Kingdom.  One would imagine that these countries, together with Singapore, have proceeded
on the basis that the "actual or implied knowledge" requirement is fair and in line with the TRIPSAgreement.
12. What is the meaning of the term "(conditiona l or otherwise)" in Section 66(2)(g) of the
Patent Act?  Would any conditions of the consent be respected in Singapore?
The phrase "conditional or otherwise" carries the usual dictionary meaning.  It means "with or
without condition".  The answer to the second question follows from that to the first one.
Follow-up question:
What is the purpose of the reference to "(conditional or otherwise)" and could the
reference to "otherwise" be construed under the law of Singapore to include implied consent?
The purpose of the reference "(conditional or otherwise)" is to state that it does not matter
whether the consent of the right holder is given with or without conditions.  The word "otherwise" is
not relevant to the question of consent but to the question of conditions.
E. L
AYOUT -DESIGNS (TOPOGRAPHIES ) OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS
13. Does the qualified owner of a layout-design bear the burden of providing that an
identical lay-out design was not independently created to avoid a ruling that use of the layout-
design is non-infringing under the terms of Section 10(f) of the Layout-Designs of Integrated
Circuits Act 1999?
The normal rules of evidence in civil cases would apply in relation to the above question.
14. What is the meaning of "independently created" in Section 10(f)(ii) of the Layout-
Designs of Integrated Circuits Act 1999?
The term "independently created" has its usual dictionary meaning.  In the event of a dispute,
the issue would be decided by the Courts.
Follow-up question:
In the event of a dispute, could the Courts conclude on the basis of Section 10(f)(ii) of the
Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Act 1999 th at it would not be an infringement of a
qualified owner's right in the protected layout-de sign to infringe the protected layout-design
merely because the infringing layout-design is "independently created"?
Where it has been successfully proven that the relevant layout-design is "independently
created", the layout-design will not be considered as an infringement.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 12
V. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY JAPAN
A. C OPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
1. Please explain how the protection is provi ded for works, phonograms, performances and
broadcasts from other WTO Members under the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights
of Singapore (hereinafter referred to as the "C opyright and Neighbouring Rights Law"). Please
describe the provisions of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law which provide for the
National Treatment and Most-Favoured-Nation T reatment as required by Articles 3 and 4 of
the TRIPS Agreement as well as Article 9.1 of the Agreement which incorporates Article 5(1) of
the Berne Convention.
Singapore's copyright law is governed by the Copyright Act, Cap 63 (which came into force
on 10 April 1987) and the Rules and Regulations made under it.  The Copyright (International
Protection) Regulations, which came into effect on 16 April 1998, extend copyright protection to
works, phonograms, performances and broadcasts from other WTO Members the same protection as
that available to citizens or residents of Singapore (national treatment).
In relation to published works, Regulation 3 of the Regulations provides that the Copyright
Act shall apply in relation to literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works and published editions first
published in a WTO country in like manner as those provisions shall apply in relation to these works
first published in Singapore.
In relation to unpublished works, the same Regulation also provides that the Copyright Act
shall apply in relation to persons who are citizens/nationals of or resident in a WTO country in like
manner as the Act shall apply in relation to persons who are citizens of or resident in Singapore
respectively.
In relation to films and sound recordings (or phonograms), Regulation 3 also provides that the
Copyright Act shall apply to such works made or first published in a WTO country in the same
manner as the Act shall apply to such works made or first published in Singapore.
In relation to sound and television broadcasts, Regulation 3 extends the protection in the
Copyright Act to broadcasts made by a relevant broadcaster from a place in a WTO country in thesame manner the Act applies in relation to broadcasts made by a broadcasting licensee from a place in
Singapore.
No MFN (most-favoured-nation) issue for Singapore arises in relation to copyright protection.
2. Please explain exceptions or exemptions of  the 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.
There are no exceptions or exemptions from national treatment and most-favoured-nation
treatment under the Singapore Copyright Act.
3. Please explain whether and how Singapore provides retroactive protection to works,
phonograms, performances from other WTO Members as required by Articles 9.1, 14.6 and
70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement which apply, mutatis mutandis , Article 18 of the Berne
Convention.  Please indicate the date to which su ch protection extends back with respect to each
category of subject-matter.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 13
In relation to works, films, phonograms, audio performances and broadcasts, Section 2 of the
Copyright Act provides that the Act applies in relation to things existing on 10 April 1987 in like
manner as it applies in relation to things coming into existence after that date.  Regulation 6 of the
Copyright (International Protection) Regulations also provides that where a work was first publishedbefore 10 April 1987 (the effective date of the Copyright Act of 1987) in any WTO country,
Section 210 of the Act shall apply to the work as if the work was first published in Singapore.
Section 210 of the Copyright Act 1987 extends copyright protection to all existing works in which
copyright subsists by virtue of the Copyright Act 1911.
4. Please explain whether protection of "computer programs" under the Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights Law covers computer programs in both source and object code, asrequired by Article 10.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Are those computer programs protected as
literary works in accordance with Ar ticle 2(1) of the Berne Convention?
Section 7A(1) of the Copyright Act provides that a literary work includes a computer program
and Section 7 defines a computer program as "an expression, in any language, code or notation, of aset of instructions (whether with or without related information) ….".  Thus, both the source code and
object code of a computer program are protected as a literary work in accordance with Article 10.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement.
5. Please clarify whether "database" under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law
includes compilation of data in machine-readab le form.  Please explain how the law complies
with Article 10.2 of the TRIPS Agreement in this respect.
Section 7A of the Copyright Act provides that a literary work includes a compilation in any
form.  Thus a compilation whether in machine readable or other form is protected if it falls within the
definition in the Act.  The Act defines a "compilation" in Section 7(3) as follows:
(a) a compilation, or table, consisting wholly of works or protectable subject matter;
(b) a compilation, or table, consisting partly of relevant materials or parts of works or
other protectable subject matter; or
(c) a compilation, or table, of data other than works or protectable subject matter or parts
thereof;
(d) which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of its contents, constitute an
intellectual creation.
Further, Section 7A(2) provides that protection for a compilation is confined to the selection
or arrangement of materials which constitute an intellectual creation and is without prejudice and
independent of the copyright subsisting in the data or materials itself.
6. Please indicate whether compact discs, such  as CD-ROMs, mainly consisted of music and
accompanied by characters, still images, motion pi ctures or any other types of data than audio
are protected as "databases" under the Copyright Law, if such data, including music, can be
retrieved.
Compact discs such as CD-ROMS containing music, still images, characters, motion pictures
will fall within the definition of "compilation" under Section 7(3) of the Copyright Act as a whole if
the arrangement or selection of the music, still images, characters, etc. constitutes an intellectual
creation.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 14
7. Please explain the term of protection of a work, such as a work by a body corporate,
under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law, as required by Article 12 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
In relation to phonograms, films, broadcasts and cable programs, copyright can vest in a body
corporate (see Section 81 of the Copyright Act read with Regulation 3 of the Copyright (International
Protection) Regulations) and the term of protection is 50 years after the expiration of the calendar year
in which the recording or film is first published, the broadcast was made or the cable programme is
first included in a cable programme service respectively (see Section 92 to 95).
8. Please explain how the exception of Article 35 of the Copyright Act of Singapore has
been strictly interpreted so as to bring them within the permissible limitations on Article 9(2) of
the Berne Convention and Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement.
In conformity with Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention and Article 13 of the TRIPS
Agreement, fair dealing is to be determined under Section 35 on the facts of each case.  Some of thematters to which regard shall be had in determinin g the issue are laid down in Section 35(2) of the
Copyright Act and they are:
(i) the purpose and character of the dealing, including whether such dealing is of a
commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
(ii) the nature of the work or adaptation;
(iii) the amount and substantiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole work or
adaptation;
(iv) the effect of the dealing upon the potential market for, or value of, the work or
adaptation.
9. Please explain how Articles 41, 107 and 198 of the Copyright Act of Singapore comply
with Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention and Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement, which
require limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to be limited to certain special cases which
do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the works and do not unreasonably prejudice the
legitimate interests of the right holder.
Section 41 of the Copyright Act is identical to the corresponding provision in other countries.
It is confined to reading or recitation (a transient activity) of a reasonable length from a published
literary or dramatic work.  The work must be a published work and only an extract of reasonable
length can be read or recited.  In addition, there is the requirement of giving a sufficient
acknowledgement of the copyright in the work.  A "sufficient acknowledgement" is defined in
Section 7 as an acknowledgement identifying the work by its title and identifying the author.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act gives to broadcasters who have the authority to broadcast a
sound recording, whether by licence, assignment or the operation of the Act, the right to make an
ephemeral copy of that recording solely for the purpose of broadcasting without infringing copyright
in that recording.  The following conditions must be met:
(i) the provision applies only if the maker of the copy is concurrently the broadcaster or
if it were not so, the maker must pay to the copyright owner such equitable
remuneration as requested by the copyright owner;IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 15
(ii) all copies of the recording must be destroyed or delivered to the National Archives
within the relevant periods of 6 months or 2 years depending on whether the
broadcasting organisation is a non-profit organisation or not respectively.
Further, the provision is in compliance with Article 15 of the Rome Convention which is
incorporated in the TRIPS Agreement through Article 14.6.
Section 198 of the Copyright Act is confined to usage by the Government.  There is the duty
on the part of the Government to inform the owner of the copyright of the usage as soon as possible
and to comply with such terms as are worked ou t between the Government and the copyright owner.
10. Please explain how Articles 144 to 146 of the Copyright Act of Singapore comply with
Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement which require s that limitations and exceptions to exclusive
rights be confined to certain special cases which do  not conflict with a normal exploitation of the
work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.
As the Berne Convention itself allows the Appendix to the Berne Convention to be used in
appropriate circumstances, Sections 144 to 146 are in accordance with the Article 13 of the TRIPS
Agreement which incorporates Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention and the Appendix
thereto.
B. TRADEMARKS
11. Please explain how the Singaporean Trade Marks Act provides protection of well-known
marks when goods or services are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is
registered, as stipulated in Article 16.3 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Section 8 of the Trade Marks Act, Cap 332 provides that a trademark will not be registered if:
there is an earlier trademark that is well known in Singapore and the use of the first-mentioned
trademark in relation to the goods or services for which the first-mentioned mark is sought to be
registered would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the proprietor of the well-
known mark; there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public because of such use and
the interests of the proprietor of the well-known mark are likely to be damaged by such use.
C. P ROTECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION
12. As a condition of approving the marketing of pharmaceutical or of agricultural
chemical products which utilise new chemical entities, does Singaporean legislation require the
submission of undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable
effort?  If so, please explain how Singapore protects such data against unfair commercial use.
The Medicines Act, Cap 176 and Control of Plants Act, Cap 57A provide a 5-year protection
period of undisclosed information by imposing a duty on government officials not to disclose
confidential information received in the course of licensing regulations for pharmaceutical and
agricultural products.
Follow-up question:
Please explain how a five-year protection period for undisclosed information complies
with Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement.
For this question, it will be noted that there are two aspects to Article 39 of the TRIPS
Agreement.  The first deals with the protection of  undisclosed information in general.  The secondIP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 16
deals with the issue of test data submitted to governments or governmental agencies.  Singapore
wishes to explain that the five year period referred to in Japan's question is in relation to the period of
protection of test data for pharmaceutical and agricultural products, and not for protection of
undisclosed information in general.
13. Please explain how Singapore regulates the acquisition of undisclosed information by
third parties who knew, or were grossly negligent in failing to know, that such practices were
involved in the acquisition, as required by footnote to Article 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Singapore complies with Article 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement by applying the common law.
Under the common law, a civil action may be brought to protect undisclosed information againstunauthorized disclosure and unfair commercial use.
Follow-up question:
Please indicate cases and summaries, if any, where the common law is applied and are
consistent with footnote 10 to Article 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
For this question, Singapore wishes to have a clarification.  If Japan has in mind a recent
specific case of undisclosed information, Singapore wishes to refer to its response to question 25
posed by the United States, in which Singapore provided information that no cases were filed in 1996and 1997 on trade secrets/law of confidence.  In 1998, one case was filed.  This was subsequently
discontinued.
If Japan has in mind any such cases in years much further back, Singapore would need to
check the law reports.  We thus wish to seek clarification from Japan if that is the intention.
Further follow-up questions:
Japan's intention in its earlier follow-up question was to make clear how the protection
for the test data of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical products prescribed in Article 39.3
of the TRIPS Agreement is ensured in Singapor e. In this context, Japan would submit the
following questions.
A.   In relation to Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, are the test data of pharmaceutical
or agricultural chemical products protected against disclosure for at least 5 years under the
Medicine Act, Cap 176 and Control Plant Act, Cap 57A in Singapore?
The answer is in the affirmative.
B.   Article 39.3, as well as Article 39.2, of the TRIPS Agreement does not provide the term
of protection for the test data of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical products. Does
Singapore provide any means to ensure the prot ection of such data against disclosure beyond 5
years? If not, please explain the reason.
Singapore followed the general international trend in relation to the 5 year period.  The
protection of such undisclosed information vis-à-vis  other parties will be determined under the
common law of breach of confidence.
D. E
NFORCEMENT
14. Please indicate the remedies which judici al authorities order regarding intellectual
property rights, including injunctions, damages, expenses, destruction or disposal of infringingIP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 17
goods, materials or implements for their producti on.  Please explain the criteria for and the way
of calculation to decide the amount of the damages which judicial authorities order to the
person who infringes intell ectual property rights to pay to the right holder.
Please see Singapore's answer to question 5 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement
(document IP/N/6/SGP/1).
The guiding principle behind damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the infringement of
his rights.  The basic measure is the damages or loss proved to have been suffered by the intellectual
property rights holder as a result of the infringement.  There are several methods of assessing the loss.
The actual amount would depend on how the plaintiff exploits the intellectual property rights in issue.For example, if the plaintiff copyright owner grants  licences to others to exploit the work on payment
of a royalty or licence fee, then such a licence fee or royalty, as would have been charged, might be
the appropriate basis for the award.  Alternatively, if the plaintiff himself actually exploits his
copyright in the marketplace, so that the defendant's  infringing activities are actually competing with
the plaintiff's business, then damages on a lost sales basis may be more appropriate.
15. Please indicate titles of laws and regulati ons and their provisions in which the suspension
of the release of counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright goods is prescribed, as stipulated in
Article 51 of the TRIPS Agreement. Please explain types of intellectual property rights about
which the suspension can be made upon an application by a right holder.
Please refer to Singapore's response to question 15 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement
(document IP/N/6/SGP/1), relating to the enfor cement of copyrights and trademarks. Suspension on
application is applicable to the copyright and trademark areas as required by the TRIPS Agreement.
16. Please explain the kind and amount of criminal penalties including imprisonment and
fines regarding intellectual property rights. In particular, are the crimes prosecuted only when
the injured party has made a formal accusation? Please explain whether penalties are consistent
with Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement which requires the penalties to be sufficient to provide
a deterrent consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity.
The answers to the above query can be found in the responses to questions 21, 22 and 24 of
the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/SGP/1).  It can be seen from the response to
question 21 of the Checklist that the penalties provided under our legislation are consistent with
Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement.
VI. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES
A. C
OPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
1. Section 48(2) of the Singapore Copyright Act (Copyright Act), as amended in 1999,
allows libraries, without permission from, or compensation to the right holder, to make a
digitized copy of any work in the library collectio n, despite the fact that this copy can provide
the master for additional copies of the work, wh ich can then be disseminated over the digital
network to others.  Please explain how, in view of this amended provision, the Copyright Act
otherwise prevents the improper disseminat ion (dissemination not in compliance with
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement) over the digital network of those works.
The Copyright Act, Cap 63, contains a number of safeguards to prevent improper
dissemination of a digitized copy made by libraries and archives.  This is done by requiring libraries
and archives under Section 201 to make a notation stating:IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 18
(i) that the copy was made on behalf of the person or body administering the library, and
(ii) the date on which the copy was made.
If the notation is not done, the library or archive cannot rely on Section 48 as a defence.  In
addition, Regulation 9 of the Copyright Regulations provides that it is an offence carrying a maximum
fine of $1,000 if the officer-in-charge of a library or archive does not retain the relevant records
required under Section 201 for a period of 4 years thereafter. A copyright owner has the right to
inspect all such records or notation held by libraries.
2. Amendments to the Copyright Act, adopted in 1999, create broad new exceptions for
making copies of works available by educational institutions over a network without thepermission of the copyright owner.  These new provisions do not appear to require that
educational institutions adopt safeguards on their network operations to prevent unauthorized
access and copying of protected materials.  Please explain how controls will be applied to ensure
that unauthorized copying and dissemination of entire works does not occur.
Amendments made in 1999 to Sections 51 and 52 of the Copyright Act merely extend the
exercise of the existing statutory licences for educational institutions therein to networks operated or
controlled by the educational institutions to enable access by persons undertaking a course of
education provided by the educational institution.  Under Section 51, there are certain limitations,
which are as follows:
(i) the copying by the educational institutions must be carried out on the premises of the
educational institutions or on a network operated or controlled by the educational institutions
to enable persons undertaking a course of education provided by the educational institution to
access the work;
(ii) the provision only applies to the making of less than 5 pages of a work containing
less than 500 pages or 5% of a work containing more than 500 pages.
Similarly, the following limitations apply in Section 52:
(i) an educational institution can make copies of a work only for the limited purpose of
the educational purposes of that or another educational institution;
(ii) copies cannot be made of two or more articles in the same periodical publication
unless they relate to the same subject matter.  If a work is separately published, only a
"reasonable portion" of the work may be copied unless new copies of the work cannot
be obtained within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price;
(iii) an educational institution that wishes to rely on Section 52 is required to keep a
record of the number of copies made under Section 52 (see Section 201).  Where thecopy is made on a network, the number of copies made shall be taken as the number
of students enrolled on the relevant course of education (see the amended
Regulation 7 of the Copyright Regulations).  In practice, in view of the notation
requirement, it is reckoned that it is unlikely that copies of works made under the
statutory licence in Section 52 will be made freely available to unauthorized personssince educational institutions have to account for all copies made.  Further, under
Section 52(11), an equitable remuneration mu st be paid to the copyright owner upon
written request made by him during the prescribed period of four years after the
copies are made.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 19
3. The Copyright Act, as amended, provides  for broad exceptions allowing for copying
(without permission of the right holder) by libraries, copying and distribution by educational
institutions, copying by individuals for private and/or domestic use, copying by government
officials, or by private parties acting in the service of the government.  In view of these broadexceptions, please explain how the Copyright Act otherwise prevents the improper
dissemination (dissemination not in compliance with provisions of the TRIPS Agreement) of a
work.
The exceptions for copying by libraries in Sections 45 to 49 are limited to: copying for
specific purposes of preservation against loss or deterioration; to copying by libraries on behalf of a
user of a reasonable portion for private study or research and supported by an appropriate declarationby the user; to unpublished works that have been in existence for more than 50 years after the death of
the author.  In addition, under Section 201, there is the requirement of maintaining records by libraries
of the number of copies made under those provisions and copyright owners have the right to inspect
all relevant declarations and notations held by libraries.
In respect of copying by educational institution, please see the answer to Question 2 posed by
the United States, above.
The exception for copying by private individuals in Section 35 applies only to copying of a
"reasonable portion" for the sole purpose of private study or research.  Section 7 defines "a reasonableportion" as less than 10% of a work.
The exception in Section 198 of the Copyright Act is confined to usage by the Government.
There is the duty on the part of the Government to inform the owner of the copyright of the usage as
soon as possible and to comply with such terms as  are worked out between the Government and the
copyright owner.
B. I
NDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
4. Articles 25 and 26 of the TRIPS Agreement provide for the protection of independently
created industrial designs that are new or original.  Please describe in detail the corresponding
provisions in the Singapore laws or regulations and cite to those provisions.
Industrial design protection in Singapore is presently available through registration of the
design in the United Kingdom.  The governing legislation in Singapore is the United Kingdom
Designs (Protection) Act (Cap 339), which applies to Singapore the United Kingdom's Registered
Designs Act 1949, as amended or substituted by subsequent United Kingdom’s legislation in relation
to registered designs. Section 2 of the Singapore legislation states that once a design owner hasobtained registration of his design in the United Kingdom, he will enjoy all rights in relation to the
design in Singapore, as if the certificate of registration in the United Kingdom had been issued with
an extension to Singapore.  All new or original designs which have secured registration in the
United Kingdom will be protected in Singapore. There is no requirement for re-registration of the
United Kingdom registered design in Singapor e.  A new Registered Designs Bill is under
consideration for introduction to the Singapore Parliament soon.
C. P
ATENTS
5. Article 66 of the Singapore Patents Act (Patents Act), which corresponds to Article 28.1
of the TRIPS Agreement, states that, where the patent is a product, a person that "makes,disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or "imports" the product infringes the patent".  This same
article also states that a person who “disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports” any
product obtained directly by means of a patented process infringes the patent.  Please confirmIP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 20
that the terms “dispose of” and “offers to dispose of” mean “sells” or “offers for sale” as
required by Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement or, if that is not the case, explain the meaning
of the expressions.
The terms "sell" and "offers to sell" used in Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement would fall
within the ambit of "dispose of" and "offers to dispose of" of Section 66 of the Patents Act, Cap 221
respectively.
D. PROTECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION
6. Article 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement provides for the protection of undisclosed
information that is secret, has commercial value because of its secrecy and has been subject to
reasonable steps to keep it secret.  Please descri be in detail that part of the Singapore laws or
regulations that implement Article 39.2, and cite to those provisions.
Singapore complies with Article 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement by applying the common law.
Under the common law, a civil action may be brought to protect undisclosed information againstunauthorized disclosure and unfair commercial use.
7. Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement requires that data submitted to obtain marketing
approval of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemicals utilizing a new chemical entity be
protected against unfair commercial use and from disclosure.  Please describe in detail howSingapore's laws or regulations implement thos e obligations, and cite to those provisions.
With respect to compliance with Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, the Medicines Act,
Cap 176 and Control of Plants Act, Cap 57A provide for a 5-year protection period for undisclosed
information by imposing a duty on government offi cials not to disclose confidential information
received in the course of licensing regulations.
Follow-up question:
In answer to question 7 posed by the United States regarding data protection, Singapore
states that under the Medicines Act and the Control of Plants Act, Singapore prevents
government officials from disclosing information received in the course of licensing procedures.
Please explain whether officials responsible for granting marketing approval can base such
approval of a second or later version of a previously approved pharmaceutical or agricultural
chemical product on the data and other inform ation submitted by the original applicant for
approval.  If such use of the data is possible , please explain how the data is protected against
unfair commercial use;  describe the criteria that must be met by the second and laterapplicants before the data can be used;  and indicate the period of exclusivity provided the
earlier applicant before such use of the data is possible.
In relation to approval for pharmaceutical products and agricultural chemical products,
Singapore does not base the approval for the later applications on the information submitted by theearlier applicant.  Each application is evaluated based on the information submitted in support for that
application.  This being the case, no further response is necessary in relation to the second portion of
the question.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 21
E. ENFORCEMENT - CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES 4
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 2:
8. Please explain "registered licensee" for the purposes of the Trade Marks Act and clarify
whether all licensees authorized to use a trademar k have standing to assert intellectual property
rights.
"Registered licensee" should be understood to mean "licensee of a registered trademark".  All
licensees of a registered trademark have standing to bring proceedings for trademark infringement in
their own name.  However, if the licensee is not an exclusive licensee, the licensee can do so only if
the proprietor does not institute proceedings within 2 months after being called upon and with leave ofcourt.  In addition, he has to join the proprietor either as a plaintiff or a defendant in the action.
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 3:
9. What action may judicial and administrative authorities take if a party refuses to
produce evidence, which lies within its control?
A party who fails to comply with the rules of discovery and production of documents faces
certain consequences.  The court is required to make  any order which it thinks just and this includes
striking out the claim of the defaulting plaintiff, or ordering the defence to be struck out and thatjudgement be entered against the defaulting defendant.   Failure to comply with the rules of governing
discovery and production of documents may also lead to committal for contempt of court.
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 4:
10. What criteria do judges use to determine if it is in the interest of justice, public safety,
etc. to hold proceedings in camera?
The underlying principle is that the administration of justice would be rendered impractical by
the presence of the public, whether because the case could not be effectively tried, or the parties
entitled to justice would be reasonably deterred from seeking it at the hands of the court.
Follow-up questions to the response to Checklist question No. 5:
11. What criteria do courts use to determine that an issue qualifies as "serious" and subject
to an interlocutory injunction?
By "serious", the court must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious.  The
court is concerned with whether the evidence adduced at the hearing reveals issues which may enable
the plaintiff to succeed, rather than the strength of his case.
12. Please provide an example of a "relevant matter" sufficient to warrant additional
damages pursuant to the Copyright Act and the Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Act.
There is no decided Singapore cases on what is meant by "relevant matter" sufficient to
warrant additional damages pursuant to the Copyright Act and the Lay-out Designs of Integrated
Circuits Act.  The expression "all other relevant matter" is intentionally wide so as to enable the Courtto award additional damages in appropriate cases.
                                                     
4 Questions 8 to 24 posed by the United States follow up Singapore's responses to the Checklist of
Issues on Enforcement (document IP/N/6/SGP/1).IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 22
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 6:
13. Please clarify whether courts also have th e authority to order th e infringer to provide
information on the channels of distribution.
The court has inherent and statutory authority to make an order requiring the infringer to
inform the rights holder of the identities of third persons involved in the distribution of the infringing
goods or services.
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 7:
14. What criteria do courts use to determin e the amount of compensation the infringer
should pay to the defendant if no infringement is found?
By the use of the word "infringer" in the question, we assume that this is referring to a
plaintiff whose action for infringement has been unsuccessful.  We have also used "infringer" in this
context in our answer.
Interlocutory Injunction
During the application for the interlocutory injunction, the court does not require the plaintiff
to specify the amount of damages that he ought to pay if the court finds no case of
infringement.  Therefore, the court does not use any criteria at this stage.
Where the infringement action fails, the defendant in the infringement action can take out a
separate action for damages against the plaintiff for groundless threat of intellectual property
rights infringement.  The criteria used by the courts for determining this damages will depend
on the specific intellectual property rights involved, as indicated below.
Copyright
Under section 200(1)(c) of the Copyright Act, th e court may order the infringer to pay to the
defendant such damages that the defendant "has sustained".
Under section 140IA(1) of the Copyright Act, where copies of the supposedly infringing item
has been seized and the objector concerned fails to take infringement action within the
retention period for the copies, a person aggrieved by such seizure may apply to the court foran order of compensation against the objector.  Where the court is satisfied that the applicant
had suffered loss or damage as a result of the seizure of the copies, the court may order the
objector to pay compensation in such amount as the court thinks fit to the applicant.
Trademarks
Under section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, the court may order the infringer to pay to the
defendant such damages in respect of any loss he "has sustained".
Under section 89 of the Trade Marks Act, where goods have been seized and the objector
concerned fails to take infringement action within the retention period for the goods, a person
aggrieved by such seizure may apply to the Court for an order of compensation against the
objector.   Where the Court is satisfied that the applicant had suffered loss or damage as a
result of the seizure of the goods, the Court may order the objector to pay compensation in
such amount as the Court thinks fit to the applicant.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 23
Patents Act
Section 77 of the Patents Act provides that where a person by circulars, advertisements or
otherwise threatens another person with proceedings for any infringement of a patent, a
person aggrieved by the threats may, bring proceedings in the court against the person making
the threats, claiming damages in respect of any loss which the aggrieved person "has
sustained by the threats".
Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Act
Section 17 of the Layout-Designs of Integrated  Circuits Act provides that where a person, by
means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens another person with proceedings in
respect of an infringement, the Court may, on the application of a person aggrieved, award
compensation for damage "sustained".
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 8:
15. Please provide information on the average costs and length of time to process intellectual
cases.
Please see Singapore's answer to Question 8 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement
(document IP/N/6/SGP/1).
Our courts only have information on the average length of time to process civil cases.
Depending on the complexity of the case, for civil cases heard in the High Court, the average waitingperiod from the close of pleading to trial is 1 month.
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 9:
16. Please clarify whether any administrative procedures and remedies are available for
trademark and copyright infringement cases.
In trademark infringement cases, the Registrar of Trade Marks has the power to disallow the
registration of a trademark upon an application by a trademark owner to oppose the registration
thereof during a prescribed period.  There are no administrative procedures and remedies available for
copyright infringement cases.  Persons wishing to take action for copyright infringement need to
institute court proceedings.
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 10:
17. Please explain the conditions imposed on th e execution of an order to prevent possible
injustice to the defendant.
Examples of conditions imposed on the execution of an order (interlocutory injunction,
Anton Piller Order and Mareva injunction) to prevent possible injustice to the defendant are as
follows:
Interlocutory Injunction
After executing the order, if the court finds that the order or carrying the order out has caused
loss to the defendant, and decides that the defendant should be compensated for that loss, theIP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 24
plaintiff shall comply with any order the court may make to pay compensation to the
defendant.
Anton Piller order
1. No item may be removed from the premises until a list of the items to be removed has
been prepared, and a copy of the list has been served on the defendant, and he has
been given a reasonable opportunity to check the list.
2. The premises must not be searched, and items must not be removed from them,
except in the presence of the defendant or his employee.
3. The defendant is entitled to seek legal advice, and to ask the court to vary or discharge
the order, provided he does so at once and that meanwhile he permits the plaintiff's
solicitor to enter the premise, but not to start to search.  (However, except for the
purpose of obtaining legal advice, the defendant must not directly or indirectly informanyone of the proceedings or of the content of the order, or warn anyone that
proceedings have been or may be brought against him by the plaintiff.)
Mareva injunction
1. The order does not prohibit the defendant from using funds necessary for (stipulated
by the plaintiff when he applies for the order) his ordinary living expenses and a
reasonable sum on legal advice and representation. But before spending any money
the defendant must inform the plaintiff's solicitors of the source of the fund.
2. The order does not prohibit the defendant from dealing with or disposing of any of his
assets in the ordinary and proper course of business. The defendant shall account to
the plaintiff for the amount of money spent in this regard.
3. The defendant may agree in writing with the plaintiff's solicitors that the funds
necessary for the defendant's ordinary living expenses as stipulated by the plaintiff
should be increased or that the order for the Mareva injunction should be varied inany other respect.
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 11:
18. Please clarify the difference between an Anto n Piller order, a Mareva injunction and any
other injunctions that courts may impose.
Anton Piller order
The plaintiff will want to apply for an Anton Piller order when there is a grave danger that the
defendant will dispose of or destroy incriminating evidence in his possession, whether
documents, articles or other materials, and their continued existence is necessary for the
purpose of the plaintiff's case.  Apart from being a type of injunction, the Anton Piller order
also involves aspects of the discovery and interrogatory processes.  The order enables the
plaintiff or his representative to enter the defendant's premises to search for, inspect and seizethe materials so that they may be preserved until the trial.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 25
Mareva injunction
The plaintiff will want to apply for a Mareva injunction to prevent the defendant from
removing his assets out of jurisdiction or from disposing of them within the jurisdiction so asto avoid having to comply with a potential judgement in favour of the plaintiff.  The effect of
the injunction, generally, is to freeze the assets of the defendant until the conclusion of the
trial.
Injunctions in general
An injunction is an order of court made at the instance of the applicant (either the plaintiff or
defendant) which either prohibits the other party from acting or continuing to act in a
particular manner or compels the other party to take certain steps.
F. ENFORCEMENT - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO BORDER MEASURES
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 15:
19. What criteria do Customs officials use to  determine that infringing goods are being
imported for personal use?
The general criteria used by Customs officials are based on section 136(7) of the Copyright
Act. Essentially, items would be presumed to be for private use if there are less than 5 copies and they
are not intended to be used for the purposes of trade or distribution.
Follow-up questions to the response to Checklist question No. 16:
20. List the type of information or evidence required in the application to Customs officials.
Application to suspend the import of infringing articles under the Copyright and Trade Marks
Acts is made to the Customs.  The information or evidence required in the application to Customs for
suspension of infringing copyright or trademarks are listed in the Schedule to the Copyright (Border
Enforcement Measures) Regulations 1998 and the Schedule to the Trade Marks (Border Enforcement
Measures) Rules 1999 respectively. They comprise the following:
- name of proprietor or licensee;
- name and address of the importer;
- name of ship, aircraft flight number or vehicle registration number;
- name of place by which the goods are to be imported into Singapore;
- estimated time of arrival;
- country of origin;
- grounds on which the goods are claimed to be infringing goods; and
- full description of the goods (including the quantity and value), number of
packages, marks used, bill of lading/airway bill/consignment referencenumber and any other particulars necessary for their identification.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 26
21. How is the amount of the security dete rmined for the purposes of compliance with
Article 53 of the TRIPS Agreement, and who determines it - customs or judicial officials?
In accordance with Article 53 of the TRIPS Agreement, the amount of security will be fixed
at an amount sufficient to protect the defendant and the Customs Authorities and to prevent abuse of
the procedure. The amount would be determined by Customs on a case by case basis.
22. In cases where the action is dismissed, how is the amount of compensation to the
defendant determined?
See the answer given in question 14 posed by the United States, above.
Follow-up question to the response to Checklist question No. 19:
23. Please describe the remedies that courts (i.e. destruction and disposal) are authorized to
impose in intellectual cases involving infringing shipments.
In cases involving infringing shipments detained by Customs, the Court may order that the
infringing shipments be destroyed or delivered up to the owner of the copyright concerned or
otherwise dealt with in such a manner as the Court deems fit.
G. ENFORCEMENT - CRIMINAL PROCEDURES
24. Please provide a more detailed explanation of the procedures for investigating and
prosecuting copyright and trademark cases.
Please see Singapore's answer to question 22 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement
(document IP/N/6/SGP/1).
The Police will upon the completion of their investigations refer the cases to the Attorney
General Chambers (AGC) for directions. AGC will direct the Police to proceed with the case in court
if AGC is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to proceed. In cases where criminal proceedings
are initiated by way of fiats, the AGC will also have to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to
proceed before authorizing counsel appointed by the intellectual property owners to conduct theprosecution in court.
25. Please provide statistical information related  to civil copyright, trademark, geographical
indication, industrial design, patent, layout-design of in tegrated circuit, and trade secret
enforcement for each of the years 1996, 1997 and 1998, including the number of cases filed;injunction issued; infringing products seized; infringing equipment seized; cases resolved
(including settlement); and the amount of damages awarded.
As a preliminary point, even though this question has been listed under the heading "Criminal
Procedures", we assume that since this question refers to "civil copyright", "injunction" and "amountof damages awarded", it is actually referring to Civil Procedure.
Our courts only have the statistical information on civil copyright, trademark, patent and trade
secret cases as shown below.
Copyright
In 1996, 16 copyright cases were filed. Of these, there were 12 judgements, 3 discontinuances
and 1 settlement. In 1997, 7 cases were filed. Of these, there was 1 judgement, 3IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 27
discontinuances, 2 transfers and 1 settlement. In 1998, 16 cases were filed. Of these, there
were 5 judgements, 6 continuances, 2 transfers, 1 settlement and 2 dismissals.
Trademarks / Service Marks
In 1996, 25 trademark/service marks cases were filed. Of these, there were 21 judgements, 3
discontinuances and 1 order reserved. In 1997, 16 cases were filed. Of these, there was 12
judgements, 2 discontinuances and 2 writs expired. In 1998, 48 cases were filed. Of these,
there were 23 judgements, 18 continuances, 2 writs expired, 3 settlements, 1 dismissal and 1
transfer.
Patents
In 1996, 3 patent cases were filed. Of these, there was 1 judgement issued and 2
discontinuances.  In 1997, 1 case was filed. This was subsequently discontinued. In 1998, 3
cases were filed. Of these, there were 2 judgements issued and 1 discontinuance.
Trade Secrets / Law of Confidence
There were no cases on trade secret/law of confidence filed in 1996 and 1997. In 1998, 1 case
was filed. This was subsequently discontinued.
26. Please provide statistical information relat ed to criminal enforcement in the area of
copyright piracy and trademark infringement for each of the years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999,
including the number of raids, prosecutions, conv ictions and amount of fines and/or jail terms
(including whether the fines were paid and whet her the jail term was actually served or was
suspended) and any other information establishing  that the criminal system operates effectively
to deter copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting.
In 1998, the authorities arrested 157 persons in about 682 raids and inspections. In 1999, the
authorities arrested 1,980 persons in about 2,713 raids and inspections. No figures are available for
1996 and 1997.
In view of the quality of evidence, the conviction rate in copyright and trademark
infringement cases is generally very high. In addition, the Singapore Courts have imposed stiff
penalties for copyright and trademark infringement. Offenders are often given jail terms which may
vary from 3 to 38 months and imposed fines which may go up to S$1.5 million.
In Singapore, fines and imprisonment sentences awarded are required to be paid/served as the
case may be. A person who is unable to pay the fine will have to serve a sentence in default.
According to the 1997 and 1998 surveys conducted by the Political & Economic Risk
Consultancy (PERC), Singapore continues to have th e best level of IPR protection in Asia. A separate
survey by the International Institute of Manageme nt Development (IMD) has also ranked Singapore
as having the best IPR protection regime in Asia for the past 5 consecutive years.
27. Please describe any new initiatives the Government of Singapore might have planned to
improve enforcement, particularly criminal enforcement, of intellectual property rights.
Restructuring the Enforcement Unit
The Singapore Police Force has placed great emphasis in the enforcement and protection of
intellectual property rights. For the year 2000, the Police will enhance this further and will workIP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 28
closely with the right holders. The Police are in the midst of planning the reorganisation and
upgrading of the existing IPR Warrant Unit to a br anch level. For this purpose, the unit will become
the Intellectual Property Rights Branch (IPRB) and will be upgraded under the Specialised Crime
Division, CID.
Amendments to Legislation to Discourage Illegal Replication of CDs
To ensure that there is no illegal manufacturing and replication of optical discs (OD),
Singapore took the initiative to amend legislation to license OD manufacturers (via amendments to
the Control of Manufacturer Act, Cap 57 - CMA) and control the imports of OD manufacturing
equipment (via amendments to the Regulation of Im ports and Exports Regulations - RIER). Singapore
is amongst the few countries in the world to have introduced such controls.
The CMA amendment classifies Compact Discs (CDs), Video Compact Discs (VCDs), CD-
ROMS, DVDs and DVD-ROMs as controlled items. Thus, only approved manufacturers are
permitted to manufacture these items.
The RIER amendments prevent unauthorized manufacturers from importing mastering and
manufacturing equipment into Singapore to manufacture optical discs. Only approved manufacturers
are able to import such equipment. In addition, the RIER also prohibit the transfer of such equipment
to an unauthorized manufacturer.
OD manufacturers have also publicly committed to adhere to a Code of Conduct that requires
them to put in place practices that will prevent piracy of copyright materials in their plants.
IP Education Programme
Singapore realizes that public education in relation to IP is an important factor in the
protection of IPR. Hence it has embarked on a well-planned and co-ordinated programme for this
purpose.
The Singapore Trade Development Board (TDB), in association with the IP owners, launched
an on-going IP Education Programme in December 1998 with the aim of raising the awareness and
educating the public on the importance of protecting IPR.
Besides developing a specially designed anti-piracy logo, a radio campaign and a series of IP
posters distributed to general public areas such as schools, community centres, libraries, etc., the
Programme will continue to organize new initiatives to spread the anti-piracy message through thevarious media channels.
The IP Education Programme is very innovative and successful. This had prompted the
Business Software Alliance (BSA) to present an award to Singapore on the 16 July 1999 to recognize
and compliment its IP education efforts.
Follow-up question:
In answer to question 27 posed by the United States regarding new initiatives in
enforcement of intellectual property rights, Sin gapore refers to its amendments to legislation to
discourage illegal replication of optical discs (ODs ).  We would appreciate having further details
regarding the way in which the system for licen sing OD manufacturers works and regarding the
methods used to control imports of OD manufacturing equipment.  In addition, we would be
interested to learn the details of the Code  of Conduct referred to in the response.IP/Q/SGP/1, IP/Q2/SGP/1,
IP/Q3/SGP/1, IP/Q4/SGP/1
Page 29
The system for licensing OD manufacturers
Under the Control of Manufacture Act (Cap 57),  OD manufacturers are required to obtain a
licence for manufacturing ODs.  Applications are made to the Singapore's Economic DevelopmentBoard (EDB).  In the event that the application is approved, one of the conditions imposed is that the
operations covered by the licence will not involve the infringement of intellectual property rights.
Methods used to control imports of OD manufacturing equipment
Amendments were made to the Regulation of Imports and Exports Regulations (RIER) to
control the import of OD manufacturing equipment.   Under the RIER, only manufacturers licensed by
the EDB under the Control of Manufacture Act (Cap 57) will be permitted to import OD
manufacturing equipment.  As the RIER is under the purview of the Singapore Trade Development
Board (TDB), applications for approval to import must be made to the TD13. Anyone who fails to
obtain an import permit from TDB before importing optical disc manufacturing equipment will be
guilty of a criminal offence.
The penalty for the first conviction is:i) a fine up to S$100,000 or 3 times the value of the goods, whichever is greater; and/or
ii) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years;
For the second and subsequent conviction, the penalty is:i) a fine up to S$200,000 or 4 times the value of the goods, whichever is greater; and/orii) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.
Code of Conduct (CoC)
The Code of Conduct represents an undertaking by OD manufacturers to respect the rights of
intellectual property rights owners.  Under the CoC, manufacturers are encouraged, inter alia , to:
- co-operate and consult with intellectual property right owners and the Government to
prevent piracy;
- manufacture legitimate products only by having a system of internal controls to
ensure that copyright is not infringed;
- verify all orders; satisfy itself that an order is legitimate before accepting it; and reject
orders that are likely to infringe copyrights;
- endeavour to develop verification procedures with intellectual property right owners;
- ensure that production activities are monitored by management.
__________