Problems relating to Trade and Investment on Canada
17. Implementation of intellectual property rights ("IPRs") |
|||
Issue |
Issue details |
Requests |
Reference |
| (1) Disallowance of Temporary Reproductions even on Maintenance and Repair of Machineries, etc. | - Reproduction should be permitted to the extent regarded as necessary in maintaining, repairing and replacing machineries, as is provided in Article 47-4 of Japan Copyright Act. Transfer of ownership of reproductions is made pursuant to the provisions of limitations on the right of reproduction. | - It is requested that GOC takes steps to introduce a provision that allows reproductions in the case of maintenance, repair, etc. of machineries, etc. | |
| (Info) - In the U.S., the owner or lessee of machineries are authorised to replicate temporarily the computer programme for the purpose of maintenance and / or repair of machineries, "if such new copy is used in no other manner and is to be destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed" (U.S. Copyright Act Section 117c), with a leeway applied under Section 107, 'Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair use.' |
|||
| (2) Removal of Complaint Requirement from Criminal Penalty on Copyright Infringements | - As long as copyright infringements remain infringement of a private property, there is no necessity for recovery when the injured party does not wish to seek recovery. In terms of its deterrent effect, the needs remain at a low level. Conversely, the negative aspect of only the chilling effect remains. In addition, creation and expression in most cases originate from the imitation. Consequently, tightening of the deterrent requires a scrupulous care and deliberation. As regards copyright, the border surrounding the restricted right/indirect infringement is ambiguous. It requires a careful deliberation (for example, from the viewpoint of the chilling effect) in cases where predictability is not crystal clear. | - It is requested that Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks takes steps to remove the Complaint Requirement from Criminal Penalty on Copyright Infringements. | |
| (Action) - On 4 February 2016, all 12-Participating States signed Transpacific Partnership Agreement, the Chapter 18 of which introduces the notion of "For greater certainty, that ex officio action does not require a formal complaint from a third party or right holder," and "Its competent authorities may act upon their own initiative to initiate legal action without the need for a formal complaint by a third person or right holder," excluding from the scope of the 'subject coverage' those that have no substantial impact upon profitability of the copyrighted products in the market. |
|||
| (3) Denial of Patent by Canadian Court | - Canadian Courts could deny the evidence for usefulness, which had been held as useful in Japan, the U.S., EU, etc. As a result the patent could be held invalid. In addition, the evidence submitted after the filing date of patent application cannot form the basis for determining the usefulness. The Canadian judgement basis is extremely rigorous compared to Japan, the U.S., EU, etc. | - It is requested that GOC takes step to adopt the criteria comparable to those adopted in Japan, the U.S., EU, etc. | |
<<BACK |