UNITED NATIONS E

Distr. Economic and Social GENERAL Council TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 3 August 2001

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

COMMITTEE FOR TRADE, INDUSTRY AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT Working Party on International Legal and Commercial Practice Advisory Group on the Protection and Implementation of Intellectual Rights for Investment (Third session, 1 October 2001)

Report of the Consultative Visit to 13-14 November 2000, Riga, Latvia

Introduction

1. The following report presents the conclusions of the Consultative Visit to Latvia by the UNECE Advisory Group on the Protection and Implementation of Rights for Investment. The objective of the Consultative Visit was to discuss with experts from the Latvian Government and local right holders the situation regarding intellectual property rights in Latvia and to develop jointly recommendations for the improvement of intellectual property protection thus facilitating the preparation of an action plan by the Latvian government.

Participation

2. The consultative meeting with the Latvian Government was conducted by members of the Advisory Group (see the list of participants). The meeting was attended by Government representatives from the Ministries of Culture, Foreign Affairs, Interior, Justice, Economy and Welfare as well as by representatives from the Latvian Competition Board, European Integration Bureau, State Customs Administration, Contraband Combating Centre, Economic Police, Latvian Development Agency, National Cinematography Centre and the State Patent Office. Several representatives of the judiciary also attended from the Latvian Supreme Court, Riga and Vidzemes District Courts and the Riga Regional Court. The UNDP Resident Representative in Latvia was also present. The following right holders’ associations attended the meeting: Latvian Performers’ and Producers’ Association, Latvian Agency and Software Copyright Agency.

3. The list of participants is annexed to this report.

GE.01- TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 2

Discussion and Recommendations

4. The meeting was opened by Mr. Uldis Vītoliņš, Head, Foreign Economic Policy Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

5. After the opening session, the meeting was organized in the following five sessions:

I. Status Report on the Intellectual Property Legislation

II. Status Report on the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Legislation

III. Current Situation with Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement and its Effects on Foreign and Domestic Investment

IV. Government Agencies involved in Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement, their Structure and Roles

V. Education and Training in Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement

6. A summary of the major discussion points and recommendations for each of the above sessions is given below.

I. STATUS REPORT ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LEGISLATION

7. At the beginning, the chair for the session, Ms. Irina Savelieva, Chairwoman of the UNECE Advisory Group, highlighted the overall status of the Intellectual Property (IP) legislation in Latvia and made an overview of the legislative and enforcement structure with reference to the background paper prepared by the consultants.

8. They noted that over the last several years, Latvia has implemented a number of laws in the field of IP in line with international standards and has adhered to several international conventions in this area. In general terms, the Latvian laws provide adequate IP protection. At the same time, with reference to the background paper prepared for the Consultative Visit, the representatives of the Advisory Group drew the attention of the meeting to several legal provisions, which either required clarification, or which the Latvian legislature might wish to revise in the future.

9. The Government representatives informed the meeting of forthcoming revisions in the Latvian IP legislation, which were intended to improve its level and foster intellectual property rights (IPR) protection.

Patents

10. The meeting agreed that while the Patent Law was largely in line with the provisions of the existing international standards some changes were needed, particularly in the area of compulsory licensing. The Advisory Group experts also referred to several articles in the existing law and its practice of implementation, which might be worth revising in the future. The Government representatives made several clarifications regarding the legal texts currently TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 3 in force and informed the meeting of forthcoming amendments in the legislation and its interpretation.

11. It was also noted that the Latvian laws included a special provision stipulating that in case of inconsistency between the national law and international agreement to which Latvia was a Party, then the provisions of the international agreement should prevail.

12. The Deputy Director of the Latvian State Patent Office informed the meeting that the existing Latvian Patent Law of March 1993 with further amendments had been enacted before the TRIPs Agreement was signed; while generally in line with the latter, the Patent Law did not incorporate all the TRIPs Agreement provisions, including those on compulsory licensing. Latvia plans to amend the Patent law and include provisions relating to compulsory licensing.

13. The draft amendments to the Patent Law will stipulate that the compulsory licence can be granted when the patented invention has not being used for over four years. Compulsory licensing will be mandatory when a non-used patented invention is vitally important for the national economy. The terms of a compulsory licence will be set by the court and will take into consideration the TRIPs Agreement requirements. The importation of a patent-based product will be considered as a sufficient use so that no compulsory licensing will be applicable.

14. The amended Patent Law will keep the provisions of the 1993 Law referring to the burden of proof in the case of a process patent. The defendant has and will have to prove that the product is manufactured according to a process different from the patented process.

Trademarks

15. A representative of the State Patent Office confirmed that, based on the current legislation, “smells” could be registered as trademarks under condition that these could be represented graphically. Thus far, there have been no applications for such trademarks and a mere description would be insufficient for registration due to the absence of a graphical representation. She also clarified that a trademark was registered with a five-year grace period during which the trademark could be not used. After the grace period expires, a cancellation of a trademark can be sought due to non-use.

16. As for trademark application formalities, when documents, that accompany a trademark application are submitted in a foreign language, the applicant is given three months to have them translated into Latvian.

17. The new Law on Trademarks and Indication of Geographical Origin (Trademarks Law) enacted in 1999 permits a “bad faith” argument to be used as a basis for revoking or invalidating a trademark registration. While the State Patent Office usually registers a “bad faith” trademark, a contestant can then make an opposition in the court and invalidate the registration.

18. The representatives of the State Patent Office clarified that in both trademark infringement cases and in opposition proceedings the “overall impression” was the general standard for determining likelihood of confusion between a registered trademark and one that could be seen as infringing. In civil cases, the courts look for actual confusion to determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists. In addition, the courts may also look at potential association TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 4 with the trademark owner in concluding the existence of likelihood of confusion. However, in administrative proceedings dealing with opposition of an application to register, likelihood of confusion is not dependent upon actual confusion. It was noted that there have been too few relevant court cases and no reliable research into the court practice to help practitioners determine appropriate legislation and the application of the likelihood of confusion standards in the courts.

19. It was noted that the protection of “well-known” trademarks was provided by Article 8.2 of the Trademarks Law. In addition, there is no need to register a “well-known” trademark to obtain protection in relation to dissimilar goods or services.

20. The Advisory Group drew the attention of the meeting to the lack of clarity in the Trademarks Law provision (Article 28.5) which allowed for measures to prevent further infringement with the possibility of destruction of the merchandise. This provision states that goods may be conveyed to the trademark owner “at cost to the owner”. However, it does not clarify, what kind of cost is borne by the owner, why it is incurred, who determines the cost and how it is calculated. In addition, it is not clear who receives the money thus paid by the owner. Therefore, in the opinion of the Advisory Group, the current language taken from a previous version of the Law is ambiguous and open to interpretation by the Courts, risking to cause confusion in the application of this provision.

21. The representatives of the State Patent Office explained that the trademark owner could take possession of the infringing goods to prevent further infringement of his rights. However, in this case he would have to cover the cost of manufacturing the infringing goods (excluding taxes and overhead expenses). The trademark owner would also have to pay for the destruction of the infringing goods.

22. While the court practice in relation to cases mentioned above has been insufficient or non- existent, the meeting agreed that the procedural aspects of the right of possession and destruction of infringing goods were not clear and recommended that the courts should receive guidance to tackle this problem.

Copyright

23. The meeting noted with satisfaction that the Latvian Copyright Law of April 2000 was comprehensive. Latvia has acceded to the major international conventions on copyright, including the for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention), the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (Rome Convention) and the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorised Duplication of their Phonograms (Geneva Phonograms Convention), and WTO/TRIPS. Latvia also ratified two WIPO Treaties.

24. As explained by the representative of the Ministry for Culture, the terminology used in the 2000 Copyright Law fully corresponded to that used in the WIPO Treaties and any confusion which might arise should be attributed to possible inaccuracies of translation (e.g., “communication” means “disclosure” and “communicating to the public” is equivalent to “making public” and “broadcasting”). The Advisory Group nevertheless recommended possible clarification of these definitions in the future.

TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 5

25. The representatives of the Ministry of Justice explained that certain aspects relating to “technical measures” and “rights management information” had not been yet implemented. The Ministry of Transport was currently working on an Information Technology/Internet Service Provider programme and had asked the Ministry of Culture to wait so that both Ministries could cooperate in this area. While enforcement provisions concerning “technical measures” and “rights management information” are not in the Copyright Law, some administrative provisions may be used for IPR enforcement purposes. Finally, it was noted that there was no supervisory body to monitor “technical measures” or “rights management information” in Latvia.

26. The representative of the Ministry of Culture noted that the definition of “public lending” in the 2000 Copyright Law was identical to that in EU Rental Directive, while there were some language differences between the Latvian Copyright Law and the Directive due to efforts to make the former clearer. She also mentioned that Latvia had not had any experience in administrating these rights in practice. The provision on public lending will go into effect only in 2003 due to financial constraints.

27. The meeting noted that the new regulations relating to the “blank tape” levy had been drafted. However, it was informed that the collecting societies were in conflict regarding the administration of that levy. Forthcoming amendments to the Copyright Law are expected to resolve this conflict.

28. The Advisory Group noted that the “presumption of authorship” as formulated by the 2000 Copyright Law had been taken from the old copyright legislation without clarification. It advised the Latvian experts to follow the Irish law on this subject when considering amendments. The representative of the Ministry of Culture explained that the collecting societies maintained internal registration procedures that could be relied upon by authors as evidence of authorship. The meeting agreed that it would be useful to introduce a “presumption of ownership” clause for the neighbouring rights in the same way as it was established for the copyright because this would enhance the ability of enforcement bodies to take action against neighbouring rights infringements.

29. The meeting noted that the authors’ moral rights were defined by the Latvian legislation very broadly, following the German and French models, including so-called right of “inviolability of the work”, i.e. the right to permit or prohibit any changes or additions to the work. In the meantime, it may conflict with the scope of the economic right of adaptation. It was not very clear to the Advisory Group, in this connection, who was entitled to authorise any adaptation or changes of a work after the author’s death if moral right of inviolability could belong only to the author. It was noted that in general terms, moral rights should not preclude changes (right of adaptation) except those, which were prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation (Article 6bis of the Berne Convention). The Advisory Group recommended that the definition of the moral right of inviolability be clarified in line with the Berne Convention.

30. The meeting agreed that in certain instances the economic rights of the authors were not clearly defined; for instance, the right “to make a work public” seemed to include the right of broadcasting, which made it difficult to distinguish between two rights. The Latvian officials indicated that the amendments were needed to clarify a broadcasting right for the authors.

TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 6

31. The scope of broadcasting rights in terms of live performances also raised certain concerns. The representative of the Ministry of Culture confirmed that according to the current legislation the performers had broadcasting rights that covered live and fixed performances, as well as re-broadcasting.

32. In addition, the Latvian representatives informed that there was an intention to lift the reservation on Article 12 of the Rome Convention made by Latvia in the instrument of accession to the Rome Convention.

33. The retroactive protection of copyrighted works and subject matter of neighbouring rights is provided for if, at the date of coming into force of the Copyright Law, the works subject matters of neighbouring rights were still subject to protection. However, it was unclear whether the question of being subject to the protection should be decided based only on expiration of the term of protection and not on any other ground.

34. It was noted that databases were provided sui generis protection. However, there have been no court cases regarding the application of these provisions.

35. According to the Ministry of Culture, fees charged by collecting societies are established without consultations with the users, that is, contrary to the stipulations of the Copyright Law, which requires that fees/royalties to be collected should be negotiated upon by the parties (users and collecting societies). As a result, fees paid by the users turn out to be too high. At the same time, three court cases involving the collecting societies against broadcasters have been initiated, and in all three cases the collecting societies won and received payments.

36. At present, the owners of neighbouring rights are either not compensated or not adequately compensated by the collecting societies. It was also noted that the collecting societies were neither monitoring nor administering Internet activities. The representative of the Ministry of Culture indicated that the Government recognized the problems relating to collecting societies’ activities and that, in the future, an oversight council might be established to help supervise their activities.

37. The meeting noted with satisfaction that all the Government bodies dealing with enforcement were considering a joint programme (Task Force) to enhance IPR protection. Although available funds do not permit the full-scale anti-counterfeit and anti-piracy programme, the enforcement bodies are keen to develop their cooperation, the Ministry of Culture performing a coordinating function in this endeavour.

II. STATUS REPORT ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATION

38. This session, chaired by Mr. Timothy Trainer, IACC, was aimed to provide a general overview of the current status of IPR enforcement legislation and discuss the current enforcement practice, as well as possible measures that needed for more effective IPR enforcement. The areas concerned were principally matters of civil, criminal and administrative law and the procedures under which IP laws were implemented through various TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 7 administrative and enforcement bodies, including the courts. The participants also discussed the powers of recourse (and damages) open to the right holders in the legal process in Latvia.

39. A representative of the Prosecutor-General’s Office described the general situation with regard to IPR enforcement. Although the Latvian legal system provides for civil, administrative and criminal sanctions for IPR violation, most IPR infringements are sanctioned through administrative measures. The majority of cases in the courts concern illegal coping and sale of pirated audio and visual materials. The major problem encountered by the enforcement officials consists of gathering and providing evidence to the courts. For this purpose, each pirated item needs to be described in a very detailed way, while the examination of a sample is not considered as sufficient proof. Other problems include delivering proper seizure protocols, expert reports and witness testimony.

40. A representative of the Ministry of Interior agreed that the evidence gathering and the description of each pirated copy, in particular, was the most difficult obstacle to promptly stopping pirated goods’ shipments. In addition, he mentioned that the Police often did not have enough information about the right holders and sources of origin of pirated goods. In order to overcome this problem the Centre for Expertise of the Ministry of Interior together with the Ministry for Culture started to develop a special procedure for the expertise of pirated products

41. The meeting agreed that it would be advisable to simplify the procedure for identifying pirated goods, so that a random sample technique could be used. In addition, it would be important to rely more on the right holders and to use their statements as the evidence of IPR violation. The elaboration of a new procedure should be one of the priorities of a new Task Force to be established under the Ministry of Culture’s coordination. To facilitate this task, the Advisory Group will provide the Latvian authorities with more information on the practical experience of other jurisdictions regarding this procedure.

42. The meeting noted that the criminal sanctions available in Latvia for IPR infringements included imprisonment of up to 3 and even 5 years (in case of moral rights violations). At the same time, the Latvian Government officials indicated certain reservations that may have existed in relation to extending the term of imprisonment in general and, in particular for criminal IP matters. Administrative sanctions in a form of fines can go up to 160 times the minimum monthly salary.

43. The existing Criminal Code does not require confiscation of the illegal copies, materials and equipment used for their production. In case of copyright and neighbouring rights, this measure is required only when a violation was committed repeatedly or by a group. While not mandatory, the confiscation can be ordered by the court depending on the nature of the crime. Based on the general principles of the Criminal Procedure Code, pirated goods may be confiscated as a weapon of crime. The Administrative Code allows for the counterfeit and pirated goods to be seized (for example in the case of small-scale street vendors). However, in practice, fines are generally used instead. As explained by the representative of the Ministry of Interior, without expertise the declaration by the right holder who did not authorize the manufacturing of goods was not sufficient for making a decision on confiscation. In this connection, the representatives of the Advisory group emphasized that such declaration by the right holder should be regarded as a major evidence of IPR violation. At the same time, the Police has to specifically examine the goods when it has suspicions concerning their origin, regardless of the availability of right holder’s declaration. TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 8

44. It was noted that, in order to initiate a criminal procedure, the investigation needed to prove that a person had committed an IPR violation wilfully and/or with the purpose of commercial gain. This requires gathering evidence through expertise, and complicates and slows down the procedure. The representatives of the Latvian enforcement bodies agreed on the need to amend the criminal procedure rules for more efficient enforcement.

45. The legislation does not also specify the criteria for distinction between criminal and administrative liability; in practice, the amount of pirated goods or their value would justify the initiation of a criminal case as opposed to an administrative case. The meeting agreed that the enforcement officials needed some guidelines regarding the distinction between criminal and administrative liability cases.

46. The meeting agreed that an important legislative improvement would be to shift the burden of proof from a right holder to a counterfeiter. In this case, the accused counterfeiter would then have to prove that he does have a permission to copy a work instead of the current situation where a right holder has to prove that he has not given such a permission. This change in burden of proof has already been successfully implemented in and the Advisory Group thought that it would also be useful to look at French legislation in this area.

47. The participants also agreed that the criminal procedure regarding the seizure of pirated goods needed to be improved. The court should have full authority to both confiscate and destroy these goods.

48. The Advisory Group suggested that it was also important to modify legislation so that even if an IPR infringement was not intentional the counterfeit goods could still be seized and destroyed. If this is not done then the small shopkeepers and retailers will have little incentive to be more careful with regard to their suppliers and compliance with the IPR legislation in relation to the goods they sell.

49. The meeting took note of the information relating to provisional measures available under the Civil Procedure Code. According to this Code, preliminary injunctions are feasible, and there have been several relevant court cases involving such decisions. Also under the civil procedure, the courts have available provisional measures for the preservation of relevant evidence. The representatives of the judiciary explained that the court could issue a pre-trial order to seize the infringing goods without notifying another party if the right holder could present appropriate documents and evidence including confirmation of rights and facts of infringements. In case of non-compliance with its decisions, the courts can initiate a criminal case.

50. A representative of the State Customs Administration informed the meeting of the border control measures available in the case of IPR infringements. According to the Cabinet of Ministers’ Decree enacted on 1 July 1999, the Customs can detain goods either following an application from the right holder or ex officio.

51. The period, during which the Customs should act on the basis of the right holder’s application, was not restricted; in practice, however, it is considered to be the two year period. No specific forms and no fees for such an application were introduced. When the Customs has to stop the infringing goods, the right holder has as many as 3 days to bring a case to the court TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 9

(Riga District Court), and this tern may be extended to 10 days. If the right holder does not initiate an action in the court, the Customs has to release the goods. In the case of ex officio action, the goods are detained for ten days, during which the right holder has to apply to the Customs in order to obtain the right to examine the shipment and to bring a court case.

52. According to the representative of the State Customs Administration it is planned in the future to provide the Customs with the authority to impose administrative sanctions against the infringer on their own (including the decision to destroy infringing goods) with further possibility for the right holder to bring a civil case in the court.

53. The meeting noted that the existing customs regulations allowed for up to 3 kg of goods to be imported into Latvia without customs controls and duties, while there were proposals to change this limit to 3 items instead. It also recalled that the TRIPS Agreement provisions exempted from border measures the goods imported for personal use and that this was, perhaps, a more appropriate measure.

54. It was noted by the meeting that at the moment the Customs had limited power over the goods in transit.

55. The participants found that it would be desirable for the Customs to cooperate more closely with the Police. In particular, a more intensive exchange of information on the delivery chains for counterfeit goods could be productive. The representative of the Police informed the meeting of a special Task Force being set up together with the border guards to tackle this problem.

III. CURRENT SITUATION WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT AND ITS EFFECTS ON FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC INVESTMENT

56. At the beginning, the chair of the session, Ms. Yolanda Smits, IFPI, made a presentation on the effects of IPR enforcement on the investment climate with reference to the music industry. In Europe, the recording industry has annual sales of about USD 13 billion and employs some 600,000 people. About 10-15 percent of the annual turnover is re-invested into artist and repertoire (the music industry’s equivalent of research and development (R&D)).

57. The investment in the R&D based industries is particularly risky. For example, less than 2 projects out of 10 in the recording industry are successful. In countries with high piracy levels, pirates copy only the successful records, depriving record companies of return on their investment into these projects. There is a strong deterrent, therefore, for companies dependent on patents, trademarks and copyright, to invest in economies with high IP piracy rates. This proves that piracy jeopardises culture and new technology development. Unfortunately, Latvia belongs to the economies with high IP piracy rates: this indicator is in the range of 65 – 75 per cent, that is 10 times higher than the average rate in the countries. In the video industry alone, legally operating companies are loosing about LVL 5 – 6 million annually because of illegal imports; in the music industry business operators are losing over USD 1 million every year.

TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 10

58. The Advisory Group representatives and the representatives of industry organizations emphasized that the overwhelming majority of the associations involved in counterfeiting and piracy belonged to organized crime, even if their links with the distribution of drugs, arms sales and prostitution were sometimes difficult to identify.

59. The representatives of the pharmaceuticals industry indicated that there was a clear correlation between the up-to-date IP legislation and consistent enforcement, and the volume of foreign investment in the knowledge-based industries.

60. During the general discussion, participants referred to negative examples and called attention to the detrimental consequences of counterfeiting and piracy. These consequences are true for all countries, even those that are very developed. However, they noted that the effects of counterfeiting and piracy were not well known among the population, and even among some officials. Therefore, they decided that it was worthwhile recalling these consequences which were as follows:

(i) Illegal copies of drugs, food and alcohol products can harm or even cause the death of consumers due to poor quality control and/or the use of illegal or sub-standard ingredients. Illegal copies of replacement parts for cars, trucks and aircraft also can endanger lives;

(ii) The economy loses employment because neither foreign nor domestic companies want to invest in the economies where the return on their investment can not be assured. In addition, companies often either fail to expand or are forced to reduce their workforces due to the sales lost to counterfeit or pirated goods;

(iii) Other losses linked to inadequate IPR enforcement include those of tax revenues from lower and unpaid VAT, unpaid import tariffs (from smuggled goods) and unpaid corporate taxes both from companies whose business was stolen and from the many sellers of such products who operate on the black market. As a result, less money is available for governmental support of local culture, infrastructure development and essential services;

(iv) Local culture suffers because artists lose revenues due to royalty non-payment and cannot support themselves. Even if their own works are not pirated, the pirated copies of international artists’ works become cheaper than legal copies of local artists’ works resulting in lost sales;

(v) Poor enforcement of IPR is detrimental to a country’s ability to fulfil its international obligations under WTO and various international conventions; and

(vi) Counterfeiting and piracy are often linked to organized crime and money laundering from drugs and other illegal activities. In addition, widespread counterfeiting and piracy create a small population of manufacturers and sellers that operate in an environment where illegal and criminal activities are accepted and have a tendency to spread over other areas.

61. The participants agreed that the successful fight against piracy required international cooperation between the countries where the infringing goods were produced and from where TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 11 they were exported, countries which served as convenient transit conduits, and those where the counterfeit and pirated products were distributed. For Latvia, this would imply a close collaboration with the law enforcement agencies in , , the Russian Federation and Belarus.

62. A representative of the Competition Board noted that most cases of unfair competition related to trademarks infringements and not to copyright infringements. Companies suffering from IPR violations rarely report on cases of such infringements to the Competition Board.

63. The representative of the Ministry of Interior noted that the original legal products were considerably more expensive than their pirated counterparts, and the price incentive to buy infringing goods persisted, in particular in countries with low- to moderate incomes. Producers should take this circumstance into consideration in their pricing policy. At the same time, the public at large should be better informed on adverse affects of counterfeiting and piracy – this should be a major objective of industry associations in cooperation with the Government enforcement agencies.

64. The participants recalled the Governments policy measures required to strengthen IPR enforcement and support investment. Those included: (i) adequate IPR legislation; (ii) sufficient staffing of enforcement agencies and adequate technical means to enforce the legislation; (iii) a thorough review of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to allow for speedier enforcement; (iv) support to companies conducting domestic R&D and implementing innovative projects; (v) and programmes of support for domestic culture (composers, film- making, radio and television broadcasting etc.).

65. A representative of IFPI in Latvia indicated that the pirated media carriers (CDs in the first place) were not produced in Latvia but were imported. Therefore, to make the fight against piracy more successful would require stopping the infringing goods at the borders. The efficiency of the Customs needs to be strengthened and training of the Customs officers is a priority. IFPI committed itself to making available to the Customs and Police its database on counterfeit and pirated products.

66. The meeting agreed that better enforcement could contribute to the broadening of the local market, encourage foreign and domestic investment, and increase the tax receipts of the Government.

IV. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INVOLVED IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, THEIR STRUCTURE AND ROLES

67. This session chaired by Mr. Lukas Pfister, Merck Sharp & Dohme, discussed the structure of the enforcement bodies and other governmental agencies involved in IPR protection in Latvia. The participants also exchanged opinions on ways to raise the efficiency of these bodies, including the issue of coordination between enforcement officials belonging to different governmental agencies and the judiciary. The members of the Advisory Group shared their views on the experience of other jurisdictions and suggested some improvements in the Latvian enforcement system.

TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 12

68. The representative of the Ministry of Interior reported that within the Economic Police as the part of the State Police a special unit employing 2 people dealt with IPR infringements. This unit can get assistance from other units of the Economic Police. In addition, the Unit on IP-related crimes gets help from the Centre of Expertise of the Ministry of Interior, which provides some training to the Police officers regarding the identification of counterfeit and pirated goods. In addition to the Economic Police the Financial Police dealt also with IPR infringements for tax evasion purposes. The Municipality Police can also get involved: for example, they can check if operations have the required state licenses. Neither the Financial Police nor the Municipality Police are part of the State Police. The major problems encountered by the Police in its work are insufficient staff, as well as the lack of experience and training.

69. He informed the meeting that the above mentioned inter-ministerial Task Force to combat piracy should include representatives of the Prosecutor General Office, Customs, Ministry of Culture, Economic, Financial and Municipal Police, Expertise Centre of the Ministry of Interior, National Film Centre and Film Register. It should also include representatives of the various right holders’ associations. The Ministry of Culture will coordinate the activities of the Task Force. The latter will advise the Government on required legislative amendments and on the resource implications of stricter enforcement procedures.

70. The meeting was informed on the available means for making court decisions on IP matters known to the public. The Supreme Court has the right to analyse and interpret decisions taken by courts within certain category of court cases, for instance, copyright, and to issue further instruction to the court system on how to properly implement legislation for this category of cases. So far, no court interpretations concerning IPR violations by the Supreme Court have been issued. Actually, there has been no publication of IP cases either. The Advisory Group emphasized the desirability of making court decisions on IP matters publicly available. It also advised the interested enforcement bodies to consult the relevant materials from other jurisdictions using the links on the WWW site of the Advisory Group.

71. A representative of the Ministry of Welfare informed the meeting of its experience with IPR enforcement. The Ministry allocates and withdraws licenses from companies delivering pharmaceuticals. It enjoys excellent working relationships with the enforcement agencies, the Customs and Economic Police, in the first place. To check the authenticity of pharmaceuticals the Ministry of Welfare demands from companies certificates of origin, which permits them to establish the place where those goods were actually manufactured.

72. A representative of the State Customs Administration explained that his institution had the right to detain the goods if there was reason to believe that those goods were counterfeit. According to the present Criminal Procedure Code, the Customs has the right to start criminal investigation in this case. However, no procedure for such Customs action had yet been set up, thus impeding the implementation of the criminal investigation right. For this reason, so far the Customs has not cooperated with the Police on IP matters. In addition, previously the Police was not legally allowed to provide the Customs with information on criminal activities (because the Customs had no criminal investigative powers). Now, this information can be legally passed between the two services but no procedures for this exchange are in place so it is not done in practice. If the required procedures are developed, then the information exchange between the two agencies might become productive. The representative of the Ministry of Interior mentioned that this exchange could be particularly effective if the border-crossing points of counterfeit and pirated goods could be identified. TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 13

73. The goods detained can be destroyed by the Customs if the right holders prove that they are counterfeit. A problem that frequently occurs relates to the difficulty of finding the actual right holders in the case of seizure. If the right holder cannot be found within the time limits set by the Law, the Customs is obliged to return the goods to the importer.

74. The meeting agreed that, to be efficient, the Customs officers must be well trained to technically recognize counterfeit goods. It also noted that both the Customs and Police were understaffed and were not in a position to take effective action against the wide range of piracy and counterfeiting in Latvia. In the same way, the Customs should have the resources to store the detained goods and means of transporting them.

V. EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

75. This session chaired by Ms. Virginia Cram-Martos, UNECE, examined education and training modules available to the enforcement officials in the past, and new training requirements in this area were also discussed. Ways to develop awareness of IP issues in the local private sector and public at large, as well as to educate consumers to inform them of the dangers and hidden costs of counterfeit products were also examined.

76. The meeting noted that training for judges specializing in IPR matters has been provided in Latvia. Since 2000, a Training Centre for judges has been functioning in Riga, where training on IP has been provided to the regional and Supreme Court judges. It was also mentioned that access to the Internet for the judiciary was very limited.

77. The meeting agreed that judges specializing in IPR infringements needed concrete problem- solving training based on case studies and experiences from specific industry sectors (recording industry, pharmaceuticals, etc). Case studies should be tailored to the Latvian legislation. Inter alia, training for judges and prosecutors should draw upon requirements under, and implications of international treaties for court investigations of IP matters.

78. Training of the judiciary should also focus on the appropriate usage of procedural tools such as interlocutory injunctions and remedies, calculation of damages, seizure and destruction of counterfeit, means of enforcement and verification of enforcement.

79. Thought should be given as to how to help make court decisions, at least the Supreme Court decisions, and the logic and reasoning of those decisions available in published form to judges, lawyers, right holders and the interested public at large. This also concerns the texts of international treaties and their translations where required. As was already mentioned access to the Internet for judges is limited. Therefore, if placed on the Advisory Group's Web site, the reference materials could be probably accessed by the judiciary only through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

80. Enforcement officials and the judiciary should be better informed on the rights of right holders. Often, the latter cannot obtain information on the status of investigation on reported infringements, reasons for delays in investigations, etc.

TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 14

81. The meeting agreed that a more systematic training of prosecutors on both general IP matters and concrete cases was needed. Examination of practical cases should train prosecutors to collaborate with the Courts, Police and Customs throughout the entire “case life” – investigating the case, preparing for its submission to the Court and enforcing the judgement.

82. Representatives of the Police and Customs reported to the meeting on the availability of IP- related training programmes and reference materials. Different branches of the Police (economic, financial and municipal) have had some training on general issues of IPR and also on methods of identification of original and pirated products. It was specifically mentioned that low salaries in the Police caused a high turnover of officers and significantly diminished the effects of training.

83. The meeting agreed that the Police needed more both general and applied training on IPRs. The need to build a training capacity within the Police (“training the trainer”) was emphasized. In addition to joint training with judges, prosecutors, and the Customs (see above) and Police officers would benefit from contacts and exchange of experience with the Police of other countries, as well as specialized international organizations (Interpol and Europol). Police officers should be also specifically trained in understanding the rights of the right holders in connection with civil claims of the latter. Right holders should be involved in such training, providing practical examples.

84. The representative of the Customs informed the meeting of the training that had been received by some Customs officials. This training focused on developing primarily a general understanding of IP matters (European Union). In several cases, the Customs officials have been trained in identification of counterfeit goods (REACT). It was emphasized that becoming a Customs official did not require any specific qualifications or training; the Customs officers were overburdened with paper work curbing their efficiency in stopping contraband and counterfeit goods, and that the rank and file Customs officers had not received any practical training in IPR enforcement. Therefore, a specialized school for the Customs officers could be a practical solution. In his view, more practical training on identifying counterfeit goods was also needed. At least one member of each shift/team of the Customs officers (usually four officials) at all border stations should be trained in this area. At least some Customs officers should receive training on criminal investigation. Other training requirements of the Customs are in line with those of the Police.

85. The meeting agreed that training efforts should be oriented toward “training the trainer” and the provision of reference materials such as case studies. The institutions which should be targeted in this context are: the Judicial Training Centre, the Latvian Police Academy and the Expertise Centre in the Ministry of Interior

86. It was decided that the Advisory Group would assist the Latvian authorities in creating a training module for the rank and file Customs officers. The module should train officers to identify counterfeit and pirated products, enforce court orders/judgements to stop, seize and destroy counterfeit intended for import to, or for transit via Latvia. This kind of training should be provided at the main warehouse in Riga, and also at borders, airports and harbours.

87. The meeting also recommended that the higher-ranking Customs officials should be provided with “training the trainer” training drawing on the experience of other countries, the European Union and the World Customs Organization. Finally, a specialized Customs Unit should be trained in conducting criminal investigation and cooperating with the Police, prosecutors and TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 15 right holders to identify counterfeit routes, provide evidence and reporting, and block and seize counterfeit goods.

88. The Ministry of Culture representative informed the meeting on a EU training project in IP matters (PHARE programme) due to be implemented in Latvia. The training project will focus on strengthening cooperation among various branches of the enforcement structure. It will include an introductory course for all enforcement officials; and two group discussions of case studies, one for the Customs officials and judges and the other one for the Police, prosecutors and judges.

89. The meeting believed it desirable that this and similar training programmes be expanded to cover not only trademarks and copyright but also patents, data protection, trade secrets, models and designs, as well as unfair competition and antitrust issues.

90. The meeting requested assistance from the Advisory Group in setting up, maintaining and updating an Information Centre, on broadly defined intellectual property issues and enforcement accessible to all interested parties (prosecutors, judges, police, customs, ministries, lawyers, patent office, unfair competition office, individual right holders, their representatives and associations).

91. The participants noted that the courses on IP were available at the State University. In the same way, various business schools offer courses on that subject. While lawyers and attorneys tend to train themselves (“learning by doing”), it would be beneficial to include methods for estimating and calculating damages, including lost profits, in their formal training. It might also be useful to involve local University experts in follow-up training for enforcement officials.

92. The meeting noted with satisfaction that the recording industry had made considerable efforts in raising public awareness of the detrimental effects of piracy and counterfeit, using open air events, media presence, and speeches. To reinforce these efforts, it requested the assistance of the Advisory Group in making available some already existing anti-piracy materials (video clips, audio clips, short educational videos and radio programmes) to the right holders’ associations. They will be then translated and broadcast on the radio and TV.

93. In participants’ view, governmental support to media promoting better IPR protection could be instrumental in improving enforcement.

94. The meeting called on a closer collaboration between the Police and Customs Boards to make the fight against piracy more successful.

FURTHER ACTION

95. The meeting decided that the draft report of the Consultative Visit would be delivered to the Latvian Government for comments at the beginning of March 2001. The Latvian Government will communicate to the Advisory Group its comments, corrections and clarifications, and provide additional inputs to this report, if required.

96. If so desired by the Latvian Government, several members of the Task Force participating in the Consultative Visit would be prepared to re-visit Latvia for further consultations. TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 16

97. The Latvian Government will consider the recommendations resulting from the Consultative Visit and develop an action plan on the basis of those recommendations, including areas where the Advisory Group could provide further assistance. The Latvian Government will communicate the results of this work to the UNECE secretariat by 1 June 2001.

98. The outcome of this Consultative Visit will be reported to the UNECE Advisory Group for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights for Investment at its third session in September 2001.

______TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 17

Annex I

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION submitted by the Government of Latvia in May-July 2001

1. In December 2000, a "Strategic Development Program on Advancement and Protection of Intellectual Property 2001-2005" was completed by the Patent Office for submission and approval by the Cabinet of Ministers. This program involves provisions on actions that should be taken by institutions responsible for legislation and the enforcement bodies. In the framework of Strategic Development Program, the Ministry of Culture has prepared a detailed "Strategic Action Plan to Ensure Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights 2001-2002". Its aim is to create an effective protection of copyright and neighbouring rights, to ensure and improve activities and cooperation of state institutions, and to raise a public awareness on the role of copyright and neighbouring rights in state economy and development of culture. This Action Plan includes such tasks as examination and improvement of legal basis in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights, implementation of provisions of the Copyright Law and those international conventions and treaties that Latvia is part of. The Action Plan also foresees strengthening of administrative capacity and promoting coordination, strengthening of collective administration system, and education of staff involved in protection of copyright and neighbouring rights.

2. An inter-ministerial working group was established at the beginning of 2001 to analyse necessary amendments and alterations to the Criminal Law, Criminal Procedures Code, Administrative Offences Code and in other laws and regulations that would provide a more effective intellectual property right protection. These amendments are now circulated among the involved Ministries for their approval and will be submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers in August.

3. The Ministry of Finance has prepared new Cabinet of Ministers regulation "On measures of customs authorities for the protection of intellectual property" and it was passed by the Cabinet of Ministers on 24 July 2001.

4. A Twinning Covenant (an EU financed twinning project between the Swedish Patent Office and the Ministry of Culture worked out in 2000) "Integration into the European Union: Law Approximation" includes a chapter on intellectual property. The Swedish Patent Office and the Ministry of Culture will arrange an introductory seminar with in-depth analysis of prepared IPR cases in September 2001. Seminars comprising detailed studies and discussions on practical aspects of IPR with respect to the Customs and judges will be organized in collaboration with the Ministry of Culture and the respective enforcement agencies in October and November 2001. In these seminars it will be discussed how to accept an application (by customs officials) of a right owner, how to send information to the Customs officers, how to detain cargo, how to prepare necessary documents etc. Also, there will be a practical training for judges on how to solve civil cases and seminars for the Police, prosecutors and judges on how to solve criminal cases (organized by the Ministry of Culture, the Judicial Education Centre, the Prosecutor General’s Office etc.). Moreover, intensive training of one judge, one prosecutor and one staff member from the Expertise Centre will be provided. As a practical outcome of these seminars and training courses, there will be a manual published with TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 18 instructions for the Police, Customs officers, prosecutors and judges on how to proceed and solve problems and cases connected with IPR infringement (prepared by the Ministry of Culture).

STATISTICS - ECONOMIC POLICE

5. The Ministry of Interior is responsible for inland activities related to intellectual property right enforcement. According to statistics provided by the Economic Police, in 2000 there were 34 criminal cases on infringes of copyright and neighbouring right objects; 101 administrative protocols was drawn up. During the year 2000, the Economic Police seized:

a) 19,556 audio CDs for a total value of LVL 58,668; b) 865 software CDs for a total value of LVL 2,595; c) 3,658 play CDs for a total value of LVL 10,974; d) 43 DVDs for a total value of LVL 860; e) 23,662 videocassettes for a total value of LVL 59,155; f) 6,656 audiocassettes for a total value of LVL 9,984.

6. The total value of illegal copyright and neighbouring right products seized is LVL 142,236. LVL 5,820 have been collected in the form of administrative fines. These numbers, however, reveal only the actual infringements detained, not a total number of control-raids undertaken by the Economic Police.

7. There have also been 14 raids in collaboration with the Business Software Alliance to check legal software usage in companies. As a result, 2 criminal cases were prosecuted and 6 administrative protocols drawn up. The total value of illegal software detained is LVL 79, 331.

8. In 2000, there were 410 enterprises engaged in film and video distribution and public exhibition, comprising a network of 1,182 market places, including 1,016 market places specializing in videocassettes sales and rental and there were 3,829 films registered for distribution in Latvia. In 2000, the Film Register, which closely cooperates with the Economic Police, made expertise on 11,209 video recordings.

9. The Economic Police has established a good working cooperation in protection of copyright and neighbouring right with the National Cinematography Centre Film Register (expertise of audiovisual products), SIA Fortech (expertise of software and computer systems), SIA Computer Latvia 2000 (expertise of Sony Playstation consoles), Business Software Alliance (software copyright and neighbouring right holders), collecting society AKKA/LAA (copyright holder of major music works).

10. To ensure the exchange of information and to make the fight against infringements of IPR more effective, the Ministry of Interior holds meetings on a monthly basis with other responsible institutions (Customs, Financial and Economic Police etc.). A coordinator for IPR cases was appointed within the Latvian Police, and other coordinators were also appointed at the regional level. It is planned that a number of people directly responsible for IPR cases within the Economic Police will increase from 2 to 10 in the period of 2002-2003.

STATISTICS - CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT

TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 19

11. In accordance with Regulations No. 43 regarding "Customs Control Measures to ensure the Protection of Intellectual Property" and based on the applications by the right holders, in the year 2000, the Customs authorities detained counterfeit and pirated goods with a total value of LVL 150,000 - 2,298 CDs and 3,350 audiocassettes.

12. In 2000, the Intellectual Property Rights Unit of the National Customs Board accepted 14 applications from the right holders. The number of applications has a tendency to increase, as the right holders' become more informed on the Customs authorities' activities in the field of IPR. Also, there have been several notable seizures of counterfeit goods.

13. In 2000, the European Patent Office organized a seminar for 50 Customs officials on intellectual property right protection; representatives from the Police, courts, the prosecutors office and the right holders also participated. In 2001, a special attention will be given to education of the Customs officials due to the planned amendments in the Customs control measures regulations.

COURT SYSTEM

14. It should also be noted that Latvia is continuing the reform of its court system. One of the important aims is to strengthen its capability to enforce the protection of intellectual property rights. The former legislation, education and practice had given Latvia no experience in reviewing intellectual property disputes and the Latvian Government considers as one of its most important tasks to educate and to train a new generation of experts (judges, advocates, patent and trademark attorneys).

15. There are four first instance courts that, according to Article 25 of the Law on Civil Procedure, are responsible for reviewing "intellectual property right cases". The Supreme Court is an appeal and cassation instance, whose decisions are final. The quality of IPR case reviews depends to a high extent on the efficiency of the court system and the knowledge of laws and their practical application by the judges. Therefore, IPR related cases in the Riga District Court are reviewed upon specialization. There are 2 judges that are specfically educated and trained for this purpose.

16. In 2000, the Riga District Court received 56 claims for trademark cancellations (32 cases have been reviewed, of which 15 appealed, 11 rejected, 6 dismissed). There have been 10 claims against the decisions of the Patent Office Board of Appeals (5 have been reviewed, of which 2 rejected and 3 appealed). In 2000, 4 claims against radio stations on copyright compensations were raised by AKKA/LAA (3 appealed, 1 terminated). TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 20

Annex II

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

LATVIAN OFFICIALS

Mr. Zigrīds Aumeisters Mr. Guntis Ramāns Director Head of the Research Division State Patent Office State Patent Office Citadeles 7 - 70 k., Riga Citadeles 7 – 70 k., Riga T: (371) 7027128 T: (371) 7027450 F: (371) 7027208 F: (371) 7027208 Mrs. Dace Liberte Mr. Pēteris Vilks Head of the Industrial and Trademark Department Director State Patent Office Competition Board Citadeles 7 - 70 k., Riga Elizabetes iela 41/43, Riga T: (371) 7027150 T: (371) 7282865 F: (371) 7027208 F: (371) 7242141 Mr. Ainārs Lagons Mr. Raivo Krūmiņš IPR Enforcement Unit Head of the IPR Enforcement Unit State Customs Administration State Customs Administration Valdemara iela 1a, Riga Valdemara iela 1a, Riga T: (371) 7047400 T: (371) 7047400 F: (371) 7322440 F: (371) 7322440 Mr. Ivars Dukāts Mrs. Baiba Vītoliņa Senior Desk Officer of the World Trade Organisation Head of the Consumer Protection Department Department Ministry of Economy Ministry of Economy Brivibas iela 55, Riga Brivibas iela 55, Riga T: (371) 7013214 T: (371) 7013141 F: (371) 7280882 F: (371) 7280882 Mrs. Inese Krastiņa Mr. Sandris Loganovskis Head of the International and Expert of the International Agreement Division Comparative Law Department Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice Brivibas boulevard 36, Riga Brivibas boulevard 36, Riga T: (371) 7284375 T: (371) 7284490 F: (371) 7211720 F: (371) 7211720 Mr. Georgijs Poļakovs Mr. Gatis Eglītis Deputy Director Attaché of the Foreign Economic State Patent Office Policy Department Citadeles 7 - 70 k., Riga Ministry of Foreign Affairs T: (371) 7027180 Brivibas boulevard 36, Riga F: (371) 7027208 T: (371) 7016165 F: (371) 7828121 Mrs. Agita Dmitrenoka Mr. Aigars Evardsons Judge Deputy Head of the Expertise Centre Vidzemes District Court Ministry of Interior Antonijas iela 6 Bruninieku iela 72b T: (371) 7331927 T: (371) 7208275 F: (371) 7331928 F: (371) 7208477 TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 21

Mr. Sandis Voldiņš Ms. Ieva Platpere Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Division Head of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Division Ministry of Culture Ministry of Culture K. Valdemara iela, Riga K. Valdemara iela 11a, Riga T: (371) 7212554 T: (371) 7212554 F: (371) 7227916 F: (371) 7227916 Mr. Uģis Araks Mr. Bruno Aščuks Head of the Deputy Head IPR Protection Unit Economic Police National Cinematography Centre T: (371) 7075304 Šmerļa iela 3 F: (371) 7075014 T: (371) 7520631 F: (371) 7505077 Mrs. Ineta Bebre Mr. Juris Bundulis Head of the Head of the Pharmaceutical Department Operational Analysis and Management Department Ministry of Welfare General Prosecutor’s Office Skolas iela 28 O. Kalpaka boulevard 6, Riga T: (371) 7021608 T: (371) 7044543 F: (371) 7276445 F: (371) 7044449 Mr. Fēlikss Lukins Mr. Raimonds Gravelsins Assistant to the Director Judge Judicial Training Centre Supreme Court Petersalas iela 10, Riga Brivibas iela 36, Riga T: (371) 7382155 T: (371) 7020350 F: (371) 7382155 F: (371) 7020351 Mrs. Solvita Štrausa Mr. Edvīns Repšs Senior Desk Officer Senior Inspector of the Sectoral Policy Department Contraband Combating Centre European Integration Bureau Eksporta iela 6, Riga Basteja boulevard 14, Riga T: (371) 7357201 T: (371) 7503103 F: (371) 7357202 F: (371) 7286672 Mrs. Maija Sibilla Blauberga Chief Legal Reviser Translation and Terminology Centre Elizabetes iela 41/43, Riga T: (371) 7701146 F: (371) 7336038

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Jan Sand Sorensen Resident Representative UNDP Pils iela 21, Riga T: (371) 7503600 F: (371) 7503601

PRIVATE SECTOR

Dr. Uldis Mitenbergs Mrs. Ieva Šneidere Country Manager Director Merck Software Copyright Agency Tel: (371) 7240558 Vienības gatve 75a, Rīga Fax: (371) 7240558 Tel: (371) 7629778 Fax: (371) 7605750

TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 22

Mrs. Anita Sosnovska Mr. Mārcis Kūlis Representative Director of the Board Copyright and Communication Consulting Agency / Latvian Performers’ and Producers’ Association Latvian Copyright Agency (LAMPA) Čaka iela 97, Rīga Mūkusalas iela 41, Rīga Tel: (371) 7506131 Tel: (371) 7027407 Fax: (371) 7243712 Fax: (371) 7063090 Mrs. Anita Trapāne Mrs. Elita Mīlgrāve Trademark Attorney Director of the Board Coca-Cola Dzerieni Latvian Music Producers’ Association Ulbrokas iela 40, Rīga, LV1021 (LAMPA) Tel: (371) 7109900 Mūkusalas iela 41, Rīga Fax: (371) 7109922 Tel: (371) 7027407 Fax: (371) 7063090 Mr. Juris Balodis Mr. Pēteris Tupāns Project Manager Executive Management Latvian Technology Centre JSC Grindeks Aizkraukles iela 21,Rīga, LV1006 Krustpils iela 53, Rīga Tel: (371) 7558771 Tel: (371) 7139458 Fax: (371) 541218 Fax: (371) 7138683 Mr. Uldis Smilts Mrs. Liene Grūtupa Legal Department Trademark Attorney JSC DATI JSC Staburadze Skanstes iela 13, Rīga Artilērijas iela 55, Rīga, LV1009 Tel: (371) 7067777 Tel: (371) 7272545 Fax: (371) 7821457 Fax: (371) 7310536 Mrs. Evija Birztiņa Mrs. Natālija Anohina Category Manger Director Unilever Latvia Tria Robit Merķeļa iela 1,Rīga Aizkraukles iela 23,Rīga Tel: (371) 7503400 Tel: (371) 7543310 Fax: (371) 7503402 Fax: (371) 7821359

UNECE ADVISORY GROUP TASK FORCE

Mr. Iouri Adjoubei Tel +41 22 917 2488 Trade Division Fax +41 22 917 0479/0178/0037 UNECE E-mail [email protected] Palais des Nations, 8-14, Avenue de la Paix CH-1211 GENEVA 10 Switzerland Mrs. Barbara Baker Tel +44 (0)20 7640 0020 Managing Director Fax +44 (0)20 7207 3682 Magpie Links Ltd. E-mail [email protected] PO Box 31313 London, SW11 6NB, UK Ms. Virginia Cram-Martos Tel +41 22 917 2745 Chief of Section, Trade Division Fax +41 22 917 0037 UNECE E-mail [email protected] Palais des Nations CH - 1211Geneva 10, Switzerland Dr. Lukas Pfister Tel +43 1 260 44 232 Director, External Affairs Fax +43 1 260 44 428 Merck Sharp & Dohme GmbH E-mail [email protected] Donau-City Strasse 6 A-1220 Vienna, Ms. Irina Savelieva Tel+7 095 269 2747 TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 Page 23

Deputy Chair Fax +7 095 269 6333 Moscow City Bar Association E-mail: [email protected] ul. Stromynka 21, str. 2 PO Box 450 Moscow 107014 Russian Federation Ms. Yolanda Smits Tel +322 511 9208 International Trade Adviser Fax +322 502 3077 IFPI E-mail Yolanda.Smits@ifpi .org 19 Square de Mecus Brussels B-1050 Mr. Timothy Trainer Tel +1 202 223 6667 President Fax +1 202 223 6668 International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, Inc. E-mail [email protected] 1725 K Street, N.W. Suite 1001 Washington, D.C. 20006 USA