IP/Q/MDV/1, IP/Q2/MDV/1  
IP/Q3/MDV/1, IP/Q4/MDV/1  
 
13 February 2013  
(13-0811)  Page: 1/3  
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights  Original: English  
 
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION 
MALDIVES1 
 
The present document reproduces the introduc tory statement made by the delegation of 
the Maldives, the questions put to it and the re sponses given in connection with the review of 
legislation initiated at the Council's meeting of 5 June 2012. 2 
 1  INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
3 
1.  The representative of Maldives said that, with Maldives' graduation into a middle income 
country (MIC) on 1 January 2011, the Government had initiated steps to comply with the TRIPS 
Agreement. It gave the utmost priority to prot ect, promote and improve the quality of IPRs in 
Maldives and thereby fulfil its international obligations and commitments. In this regard, a lot of 
effort had been initiated in the last few years, especially the last couple of months, to raise the level of understanding and awareness of IPRs within the Maldivian community. The aim, in the 
immediate term, was to foster an environment conducive towards establishing a holistic IP regime 
and an IP culture in Maldives.  
2.  The ratification of the Copyright Law on 21 October 2010 had been the first government step to 
fully implement the provisions of the Agreement. The Copyright registration regulation had also 
been published on April 2011 and the registration se rvice under this regulation was being provided 
by the Intellectual Property Unit of the Ministry of Economic Development. The Industrial Property 
Act had also been drafted. 
3.  The Intellectual Property Unit had initiated a public awareness campaign in September 2011 
that aimed to increase awareness on IPRs. This included awareness sessions in the media to educate consumers to refrain from buying counterfe it and pirated goods. The Intellectual Property 
Unit was also working with key enforcement agencies. Workshops specifically focused on the 
fulfilment of obligations under the Agreement had been conducted for government and private stakeholders in the industry.  
4.  Concurrently, the Intellectual Property Unit was working with WIPO in preparing the national 
industrial property law and necessary regulations to implement it. Work to create capacity and 
information sessions with the Legislature in preparation to the introduction of National Industrial Property Act was also planned.  
5.  While Maldives strived for a complete IPR system, it faced obstacles and difficulties. Chief 
among them were difficulties to strengthening human capital and a computerized system to manage the IPR system. Consequently, Maldives would need technical assistance and continued 
cooperation from partner countries and multilateral agencies. The Government of Maldives stood 
ready to welcome and work with key partners. 
                                               
1 As regards laws and regulations notified by th e Maldives under Article 63.2 of the Agreement, 
reference is made to documents IP/N/1/MDV/1 and IP/N/1/MDV/C/1. 
2 The minutes of this meeting have been  circulated as do cument IP/C/M/70. 
3 As reflected in paragraphs 25-29 of document IP/C/M/70. IP/Q/MDV/1 • IP/Q2/MDV/1 • IP/Q3/MDV/1 • IP/Q4/MDV/1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  RESPONSES FROM THE MALDIVES TO THE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES. 
1.  Articles 7(a) and 8(c) appear to be inconsistent with the Berne prohibition on 
formalities required for an author to enforce copyright. Although the law states that registration is not required, Articles 7(a) an d 8(c) appear to require certain formalities 
in order for a right holder to convey to a court that the work is his creation. The author 
is understood to either need to either regi ster copyright or provide the court with a 
sealed, self-addressed copy of the work ma iled to the author.  Is this a correct 
understanding, and if it is, how are these requirements not formalities under Berne? 
There is no formal requirement that authors are requ ired either to register their rights or provide a 
sealed self-addressed envelope. The reasons for both Articles 7(a) and 8(c) are that in the absence of strong laws on evidence, and other supportive  laws, as well as a general understanding of 
intellectual property rights by members of th e judiciary, the Maldivian stakeholders were 
concerned that even if the Copyright Act recognized automatic protection, they would struggle defending their rights at a Maldivian court of law. Articles 7(a) and 8(c) are by no means 
mandatory – the purpose of those Articles are to encourage the courts to consider certain types of 
evidence. Both provisions were put forward by the stakeholders, and the Ministry of Economic 
development had authorized the inclusion of these pr ovisions. The protection of IP rights would be 
effective in a country which has all the necessary laws in place. By simply allowing the Maldivian 
courts to recognize registration or self-addressed envelopes under the Copyright Act does not mean that such means guarantee protection at the courts. If there is compelling evidence against a piece of work albeit registration, that piece of work should not be recognized as the original 
work.  
2.  Is the right referred to in Articl e 10(a)(IX) a right of  making available? 
Yes, it is a right of making available.  
We further recognize that the use of the word "publicizing" is inconsistent with the local language 
[Dhivehi] wording used in the Copyright Act during translation. We will make the appropriate changes to the submitted text.  
3.  Article 12(b)(5) limits exceptions to cases where "reproduction would affect the 
normal proceedings the work may generate ." It appears that this language is 
substituted for the second clause of the thr ee-step test: "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 ." However, the meaning of the substitute 
language is not clear and does not match the meaning of the TRIPS language. Can you 
please provide further information? 
We recognize that the wording in Article 12(b)(5) of the unofficial English translation of the 
Copyright Act is inconsistent with Dhivehi wording of the Copyright Act which complies with the TRIPS Agreement. We will make the appropriate changes to the submitted text.  
4.  Article 27(b) appears to contain a typogr aphical error "shall be paid by the producer 
to the producer to the performer or performers." 
Yes, there is a typo in the statement. The statemen t should read as "shall be paid by the producer 
to the performer or performers". We will make  the appropriate changes to the submitted text. 
5.  The exceptions in Article 29 should be limited to certain special cases which do not 
conflict with a normal exploitation of the performance, sound recording or broadcast 
and do not unreasonably prejudice the legiti mate interests of th e performer, of the 
producer of the phonogram or of the broadcasting organization. 
We will take due consideration of the expressed opinion. IP/Q/MDV/1 • IP/Q2/MDV/1 • IP/Q3/MDV/1 • IP/Q4/MDV/1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  6.  The meaning of Article 35(b), which is re peated in the Introduc tion, is unclear. This 
Article defines the "registration date, if re gistered, shall be the date the work was 
registered," but the article does not use the registration date to determine the duration 
of copyright. What is the purpose of the registration date? 
Duration of the right is admittedly unclear. The provision was left as it was as there are different 
types of rights and the period of protection for ea ch right varies in the Copyright Act itself. Before 
the Copyright Act, authors enjoyed a system of regi stration, where once a registered work is being 
used by an unauthorized user, they can initiate legal proceedings. Many stakeholders were 
concerned as to what would happen to their exiting rights once the Copyright Act came into force. In consultation with the Ministry of Economic Development and the stakeholders, it was decided that original works should enjoy the duration of protection as provided for in the Copyright Act, but 
the date of protection is to begin on the date that either the work was first registered or when it 
became available to the public. 
Bearing in mind the TRIPS national treatment and MFN rules, none of the articles in the Act are 
solely applicable to Maldivians. Where a foreign author finds that his right has been breached by a 
local author, the former would be entitled to prov e that his right existed first and that includes 
proof of any registration or the date that a work first became publicly available in the country of 
the foreign author. 
__________