Source: https://e-trips.wto.org/En/ChecklistOnIssuesNotifications/View/75
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 14:11:56
Document Index: 573365380

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 381', '§ 183', '§ 318', '§ 172', '§ 219', '§ 41', '§ 257', '§ 179', '§ 275', '§ 44', '§ 48', '§ 142', 'Art. 51', 'Art. 30', 'Art. 57', 'Art. 28', '§ 270', 'Art. 272', 'Art. 68', 'Art. 69', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 68', 'Art. 24', 'Art. 24', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 60', 'Art. 67']

IP/N/6/LIE/1
Liechtenstein has only one Court District. There are three instances: the Landgericht (First instance  District Court), the Obergericht (Court of Appeals) and the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court). In cases touching constitutional questions, the Staatsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court) may be the last instance. Infringement cases fall into the competence of these courts.
Any rightholder may assert his rights. A natural person does not have to be represented in court. A company or other moral person will usually be represented according to her minutes of incorporation, etc. In any case, they may be represented by an attorney admitted in Liechtenstein. If the judge decides to ask the rightholder (or his/her/its organs) personally, failing presence will be at his/her/its charge. According to § 371 ZPO (Civil Procedure Code) the giving of evidence in the form of having a party interrogated may be ordered upon request or ex officio. Taking evidence by a judge requested to do so is permissible only if the personal appearance of a party meets with insurmountable obstacles or would involve out of all proportion high costs. There is no obligation for a party to appear before court. Where a party summoned to appear for an interrogation does not show up without furnishing sufficient reasons in accordance with § 381 ZPO, the court must decide as to what influence this behaviour is to have as regards the discovery of evidence, duly taking into account all circumstances.
(a)In accordance with § 183, para. 1, No. 2 ZPO, the judge may order that a party submits documents or other objects for judicial inspection in its possession. If the party does not meet the order, this can only be taken into consideration at the evaluation of evidence. (b)If a party claims that a document containing an essential piece of evidence is in the hands of the opponent (or a third party), the court may upon the request of the claiming party order the opponent (or the third party) to present such document. Information material and probably also pictures and sound carriers are placed at an equal footing with documents (§ 318 ZPO). In such cases the opponent may refuse presentation of the document only: -if it refers to family matters; -if the presentation would violate an obligation of honour; -if disclosure of the document would be to the detriment of the party or of third persons or might entail danger of prosecution; -if by presenting the document the party would violate its duty to observe secrecy; or -if there are other material obstacles justifying refusal of presentation of the document. But if the opponent (or the third party) is obliged to present the document according to civil law, if the document by its content is a common document of both parties (a document is considered a common one if it is written in the interest of all parties concerned or documents the mutual legal relations) or if also the opponent has referred to it for the purpose of giving evidence, the opponent (or the third party) must submit the document. The order to the opponent to submit the document is not executable (contrary to an order of presentation issued to a third party). If the opponent does not fulfil his duty of disclosure of the document or has on purpose destroyed or otherwise invalidated it, the influence of such a deed on the judgement of the case lies within the discretion of the judge.
Procedural law in Liechtenstein does not provide for any special marking or protection of confidential evidence. In accordance with § 172 ZPO the public is to be excluded ex officio if public morals or public order seem to be in danger or if facts of family life need to be discussed and proven. In accordance with § 219 ZPO the parties may inspect procedural records, also in the case of procedural records of other courts or intellectual property rights material submitted by witnesses. Third parties have access to inspection only upon the consent of both parties or in the event that they can furnish prima facie evidence of their legal interest.
Anyone whose exclusive rights under copyright law were infringed may: -lodge a claim for injunction, also if the infringement is merely to be anticipated; -lodge a claim for discontinuation of the status quo constituting a violation of the law (this includes destruction of the objects of encroachment and also the rendering unusable of the means of encroachment, i.e. the means exclusively used for the illegal duplication); -under certain conditions request the publication of a court decision on the claim for discontinuance and destruction; -where an exploitation right is concerned, request reasonable compensation; -in the case of guilty violation of the law request the replacement of the property damage including the lost profit plus a reasonable compensation for the disadvantages not consisting in loss of money. Furthermore, a person entitled to compensation may request from the person sentenced to pay a reasonable remuneration, a reasonable compensation, damages, and/or profits made.
A right to information is not provided for in the two instances mentioned in the question.
In accordance with § 41 ZPO the party fully losing an action must remunerate all opponents for all the costs incurred for an adequate prosecution and defence during the court proceedings. If the claim seems not to be probable enough, the judge has the discretion to demand security from the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant may claim damages. In case of a malicious suing of the plaintiff, he is punishable by a fine up to SwF. 1,000 additionally. If the endangered party is deprived of the claim for which the interim injunction was granted, if the request is proved unjustified or if the party does not meet the deadline for bringing an action or instituting the execution, the party having obtained the interim injunction must indemnify the opponent for all monetary disadvantages suffered from the interim injunction. If the interim injunction was obviously brought about out of (pure) mischief, the party must be punished with a respective fine to be assessed individually in due consideration of the circumstances of a case upon request of the opponent. As far as the state liability is concerned, as referred to in the second sentence of question 7, it can be pointed out that in accordance with Article 1 of the State Liability Act (AHG), Law Gazette, 1966, No. 24 and according to the provisions of the Civil Law, the government and the other legal entities are liable for damage caused by persons acting as organs executing the law by illegal behaviour towards whomever. This liability also extends to negligence. Damages can only be made in terms of money. No limitation in respect of the amount of the liability is foreseen. The acting organ is not personally liable to the person who suffered the damage.
(a) Duration of proceedings The following concentration measures should be emphasized: the collection of material rests with the first instance; the prohibition of renewal applies to the higher instances. The principle of oral presentation helps to streamline proceedings; in accordance with § 257 ZPO prepared written statements of the case are only permissible up to the start of the dispute proceedings. Hearings and deadlines must be stipulated ex officio. Although in accordance with § 179 ZPO the parties may submit new statements and pieces of evidence until the end of the oral proceedings, such behaviour may be declared improper if the new applications and pieces of evidence were obviously not offered earlier for the purpose of delaying the proceedings and if their admission would, in actual fact, essentially prolong the proceedings. Acceptance of evidence offered may, in accordance with § 275 ZPO, be refused upon request or ex officio, if the court gains the conviction that such evidence is only offered in order to prolong the proceedings. Where the acceptance of a piece of evidence meets with the obstacle of uncertain duration, the court must, upon request, fix a due date after the expiry of which the proceedings are continued irrespective of any evidence not yet furnished. If statements or evidence are furnished out of time, the court may, upon request or ex officio, charge the party concerned, also if the party wins the case, with the indemnification in part or in full of the costs of the proceedings (cost fine) in accordance with § 44 ZPO, or charge it for the costs incurred (cost separation) in accordance with § 48 ZPO. The party having caused a delayed due date or a prolonged hearing must be charged with the costs incurred therefor in accordance with § 142 ZPO. The last case on IPR in Liechtenstein courts was commenced in spring 1995; the first instance sentence rendered in summer 1995, the second instance sentence in December 1995. Actually the case is pending in the third instance. (b) Costs Costs depend on the value in cause. There is a separation between the lawyer's tariff and the court fees. Both are regulated in acts and ordinances respectively. The costs of a proceeding comprise the court fees (including also other costs incurred) and all other costs (in particular the representation costs of the lawyer). The fee to be paid to the state for the execution of the proceedings depends on the value in dispute. It is a lump sum per instance appealed to for the decision and a fee for the protocol depending on the duration of the proceedings, in particular the number and duration of court hearings. To this must be added possibly further costs (in particular the costs incurred for experts and fees paid to witnesses), the amount of which cannot even be approximated in view of the different circumstances encountered in each procedure. The costs of the lawyer are calculated according to a system of rates graded on the basis of the value in dispute. Quota-litis agreements are not permitted. If, in the context of the above-mentioned proceedings, the value in dispute cannot be marked with figures, it usually amounts to SwF. 100,000 as fixed by an ordinance of the Chamber of Attorneys. Due to the lack of respective international agreements, except with Austria and Switzerland, a foreign party usually will be liable to give security for the costs of the proceeding and the attorney.
The IPR laws provide for provisional measures (Art. 51 URG, Art. 30 MSchG [current version of the Trademark Act], Art. 57 nMSchG [revised Trademark Act]2, Art. 28 MMG). In accordance with § 270 EO (Execution Act) the court may, upon request, issue an interim injunction in order to secure the rights of a party before and during proceedings and also during the execution process. Interim injunctions may be issued in order to secure pecuniary claims and also other claims. Interim injunctions in order to secure pecuniary claims are not permissible in as far as the party can, for the same purpose, obtain execution procedures on the property of the opponent. Such interim injunctions may otherwise be issued if there is the probability that in their absence the opponent would behave in a way so as to render the collection of the outstanding money difficult or impossible for the endangered party, or if the sentence would have to be executed abroad. The security measures to be issued may be the following: -the custody and administration of movable physical objects of the opponent of the endangered party; -total prohibition of transfer or pawning of movable physical objects; -inhibition of third parties (the opponent of the endangered party is denied all forms of disposition in respect of the claim and third parties are ordered not to make any payments due to the opponent of the endangered party until further notice, not to hand over objects the opponent is entitled to and do nothing whatsoever which might render an execution difficult or impossible). Interim injunctions to provide security for other rights may be issued if and when it is to be anticipated that in their absence the prosecution or recovery of the claim in question might be rendered very difficult or altogether impossible. One of the complications referred to in this context would be the execution of the sentence abroad. Or also if such an injunction appears necessary in order to prevent the threat of violence or irrecoverable damage. An interim injunction ordering the prevention of a violation of intellectual property rights or related rights, patent rights, trademark rights, model rights or semi-conductor rights may also be issued if these pre-conditions do not exist.
The opponent of an endangered person need not be given the opportunity of commenting on the requested interim injunction prior to its issue. A request for the issue of an interim injunction is, in principle, decided on exclusively on the basis of the evidence furnished by the endangered party. In extremely urgent cases, such measures may be ordered by other instances as, e.g., police officers, communal officers, execution officers, etc. Those measures have to be followed by an action brought to court within two days (Art. 272 EO).
In the request for the issue of an interim injunction, the endangered party must specify the injunction desired, the time period for which it is requested, as well as the claim stated or already adjudicated and truthfully and in detail indicate all facts the application is based on. In the absence of satisfactory evidence for the stated claim, an interim injunction may be issued if the disadvantages the opponent is threatened with may be compensated for by a pecuniary indemnification and the applicant deposits the respective sum as fixed by the court. The court may make the issue of an interim injunction dependent on such a security deposit also if the furnished evidence is satisfactory. In the decision by which an interim injunction is issued, the time period for which the injunction is valid must be indicated. If an interim injunction is granted prior to the effective date for the rights claimed by the applying party or otherwise prior to the instigation of proceedings or of the execution, the decision must indicate a reasonable deadline for filing a claim or for applying for an execution permit. Upon expiry of the due date without any result, the injunction must be revoked upon request or ex officio. The execution of a granted injunction is not permissible, unless it is postponed by an appeal lodged, if more than one month elapsed since the day the permission was announced or forwarded to the applicant. The opponent of the endangered party may, if not heard prior to the decision being taken, lodge opposition within a period of 14 days. This has no effect on the execution of the injunction issued, however.
As regards the costs of proceedings, please see the answer to question 8, lit b. No data are available in respect of the typical duration of proceedings on interim injunctions in matters of intellectual property rights.
No administrative provisional measures are provided for in the intellectual property rights laws.
Border measures will be introduced in Liechtenstein with the new Trademark Act (mentioned in the answer to question 10) which has been adopted by parliament and shall enter into force on 31 March 1997. As the Ordinance on Certain IPRs holds the provisions of the Trademark Act applicable to the Copyright Act and the import and export of topographies, these subjects will be covered as well. The Designs Act is about to be amended with the same stipulation referring to the border measures of the Trademark Act. In patent law, the nearly identical provisions of the Swiss Patent Act apply due to the common patent treaty. The provisions of the new Trademark Act authorize the competent border-control institution to notify the import or export of counterfeited products only (Art. 68). This does not comprise other cases as, e.g., parallel imports. It has to be noted that Liechtenstein and Switzerland form a common customs territory.
The endangered party may apply for the suspension of the release into free circulation by writ. The party may, upon request of the competent instance, have to give security (Art. 69). The competent instance may withhold the goods during ten days. This delay may be extended to another ten days in certain cases (Art. 70). A party wrongfully enjoined may claim damages (Art. 70). Information on the competent authority will be furnished as soon as the relevant ordinance will be adopted.
So far there are no provisions for an ex officio action on the part of the customs authorities (see answer to question 15).
[Answer 15: Border measures will be introduced in Liechtenstein with the new Trademark Act (mentioned in the answer to question 10) which has been adopted by parliament and shall enter into force on 31 March 1997. As the Ordinance on Certain IPRs holds the provisions of the Trademark Act applicable to the Copyright Act and the import and export of topographies, these subjects will be covered as well. The Designs Act is about to be amended with the same stipulation referring to the border measures of the Trademark Act. In patent law, the nearly identical provisions of the Swiss Patent Act apply due to the common patent treaty. The provisions of the new Trademark Act authorize the competent border-control institution to notify the import or export of counterfeited products only (Art. 68). This does not comprise other cases as, e.g., parallel imports. It has to be noted that Liechtenstein and Switzerland form a common customs territory.]
The same as in civil proceedings (see answer to question 1).
[Answer 1: Liechtenstein has only one Court District. There are three instances: the Landgericht (First instance  District Court), the Obergericht (Court of Appeals) and the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court). In cases touching constitutional questions, the Staatsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court) may be the last instance. Infringement cases fall into the competence of these courts.]
A criminal offence according to Arts. 42 and 43 of the Copyright Act (URG) and the Ordinance on Certain Intellectual Property Rights is committed by a person who intentionally and unauthorized makes use of a work of literature or art in a way reserved to the author; presents or performs a work of literature or music contrary to legal provisions or distributes the latter; broadcasts the presentation or performance of a work of literature or music via radio or publicly reproduces it; makes use of a picture or a sound carrier in a way reserved to the owner of the copyright or illicitly makes use of a broadcast; furthermore, infringes the rights in computer programs and does not quote correctly, misuses the name or other designation of an author or publishes a personal picture without the consent of the photographed. A criminal offence according to Art. 24 of the Trademark Act (MSchG) is committed by a person who intentionally, in a way that might cause a confusion in business, and without authorization uses a registered trademark or a sign similar to the trademark for making goods or services, for which the trademark was registered, or goods or services of the same kind of transactions, or offers such goods for sale or puts them on the market; furthermore, who unauthorized uses a name, a company name or the special designation of a company or a sign similar to such designations for marking goods or services, or offers such goods for sale or puts them on the market. The intentional infringement of a model right (Art. 24 MMG) or a semiconductor protection right (Art. 15 Ordinance on Certain Intellectual Property Rights) also constitutes a criminal offence. Liability extends also to organs of a legal person infringing intellectual property rights.
In all the cases quoted, the offender is to be prosecuted only upon request by the person offended; it is always a private criminal offence.
[Answer 22: In all the cases quoted, the offender is to be prosecuted only upon request by the person offended; it is always a private criminal offence.]
Criminal offences in accordance with the intellectual property rights law are punishable by imprisonment of up to six months or fines up to 360 daily rates. Punishment for all other criminal offences referred to above is a fine of up to 360 daily rates. The new Trademark Act (mentioned in the answer to question 10) even provides for imprisonment up to one year and intentional infringement ("trademark fraud"; Art. 60 new Trademark Act) is punishable by imprisonment up to five years. Furthermore, all laws mentioned provide for the destruction and rendering unusable of objects and means encroached upon the request of the plaintiff and authorization of the winning party to publish the decision at the expense of the sentenced party (see Arts. 53 to 55 URG, Arts. 30 and 31 MSchG and Arts. 28 to 30 MMG). The new Trademark Act provides for the forfeiture of the benefits (Art. 67).
2 The revised Trademark Act will enter into force on 31 March 1997.