IP Law in Palestine

 

Jane Lambert

Gaza and the West Bank of the River Jordan may not be in the Gulf but they are part of the Middle East North Africa region and those districts have plenty of links with the Gulf Cooperation Council states. Right now intellectual property is probably the last thing on the minds of the inhabitants of those areas but it is to be hoped that a time will come when the guns fall silent and their shattered economies can be reconstructed. Such reconstruction will require massive investment much of which could come from the GCC countries.  However, such investors will wish to see that their investments in branding, design, technology and creativity are protected adequately.

Finding information about the legal protection that is available in those territories is not easy because they are among the few parts of the world that are not yet party to the WIPO Convention.  That does not, however, mean that they have no interest in intellectual property.  When I visited the WIPO between 2 and 4 Sept 2019 to address the Advisory Committee on Enforcement I had the honour of sharing a table with the Palestinian observer to the proceedings (see Another Side of the WIPO 5 Sept 2019 NIPC News).  While chatting in the intermissions I learned that he was legally qualified and that he had actually been instructed in IP cases before entering public service.

As he did not seem to know any of the delegates whom I had been addressing I offered to introduce him.  We started with the British delegation which was staffed by Elizabeth Jones of the Intellectual Property Office and District Judge Hart of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court small claims track and had just moved on to the American delegation when the chairperson called the meeting to order and we had to return to our seats.

The only information that I have been able to find out about Palestinian IP law from the WIPO Lex web page is that it is party to 29 treaties none of which seems to relate to IP and that the link to its national intellectual property office leads to An-Najah National University.  Another page on the WIPO website states:

"The term patent protection is four years as from the filing date, renewable for additional three periods of four years each. Palestine is not part of the TRIPS Agreement; therefore it is not obliged to have a minimum 20 year protection term."

I have, however, found a thesis by Ihab G. Samaan entitled A Historical View of Intellectual Property Rights in the Palestinian Territories which states on page 63 that:

"there are a number of laws protecting intellectual property rights. These are inherited from the British Mandate and the period of Jordanian rule in the West Bank. The Patents and Designs Ordinance No. 33 of 1924 and the Trademarks Ordinance No. 35 of 1938 are in force in the Gaza Strip, while the Patents for Inventions and Industrial Designs Law No. 22 of 1953 and the Trademarks Law No. 33 of 1953 are in force in the West Bank. The Copyright Act of 1911, as incorporated in Palestine and amended by the Copyright Ordinance No. 16 of 1924, is in force in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."

This seems to be consistent with information published by law firms with offices in the area.  The reason for the differences between the laws in Gaza and those in the West Bank appears to be that Gaza was administered by Egypt between 1948 and 1967 and the West Bank by Jordan during those years.

If and when I find out more about the laws of those territories I shall publish them here.   In the meantime, anybody who wants to discuss the topic can call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK business hours or send me a message through my contact page,  

Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in the DIFC

 

Jane Lambert

On 14 Nov 2019, the Ruler of Dubai proclaimed the DIFC Intellectual Property Law (DIFC Law No. 4 of 2019) ("the IPL"). That legislation does not create a separate body of intellectual property rights for the Dubai International Financial Centre ("DIFC"). It provides for the enforcement of rights subsisting under Emirati federal law in the financial centre.  I have discussed the IPL in the following articles:

• Introduction to, and Overview of, the New DIFC Intellectual Property Law on 11 Dec 2019; 
• The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Patents and Utility Certificates on 9 Jan 2020;
• The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Designs on 7 June 2020; 
• The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Copyright and Neighbouring Rights on 28 June 2020;
• The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Trade Marks and Trade Names on 20 Sept 2020; and
• DIFC Trade Secrecy Law on 7 July 2021.

One of the most interesting provisions of the IPL is the establishment of a Commissioner of Intellectual Property ("the commissioner").  Art 5 of the enactment provides that the IPL and any legislation made for the purpose of that law shall be administered by that commissioner.  He or she has very extensive powers under art 59 of the IPL.

In accordance with art 56 (1) of the IPL, the President of the DIFC has appointed Dr Tarek Hajjiri as the DIFC's first commissioner.   He has been interviewed on Al-Tamimi & Co's YouTube channel (see Mariam Sabet interviews Dr Tarek Hajjiri, Senior Vice President - #INTA202). One of his most important functions is

"receiving and deciding on all complaints or disputes filed in connection with the Law in the DIFC, and imposing fines for non-compliance with this Law and any related Regulations"

under art 59 (3) (a) of the IPL.  Pursuant to art 60 (1) of the law, the DIFC's directors have made the Intellectual Property Regulations ("IPR") to assist him in exercising that function.

Complaints filed with the commissioner must contain the following information:

"(a) full name, address and capacity of the Complainant;
(b) the name and details of the Respondent;
(c) the details of the complaint;
(d) a detailed statement of the alleged facts which the Complainant believes gives rise to the complaint; and
(e) the relief sought by the Complainant."

The complaint should be  supported by the following documents:

"(a) proof of ownership of intellectual property rights or the right to claim protection pursuant to such ownership, which may include patent registration certificates, trademark registration certificates and agreements evidencing ownership; 

(b) if a complaint is filed on behalf of the owner of the intellectual property or the holder of intellectual property rights, a suitable power of attorney; 

(c) any documents or other evidences, including witness statements, confirming that the infringement, misappropriation or conflict occurred within the DIFC; 

(d) proof of payment of the fees in accordance with Regulation 2.3; and 

(e) an undertaking to cover any costs and expenses incurred by the Commissioner (or his delegate) to investigate the complaint."

Unless the commissioner is of opinion that notifying a respondent of a complaint may pose a risk to the investigation of the complaint or the preservation of evidence relating to the complaint, he must notify the respondent in writing of the details of a complaint filed against him or her, within 10 business days of receiving the complaint or any additional documents, information or other evidence that the commissioner may have requested, whichever may be later.

A respondent has the right to respond to a complaint within 10 business days of receiving it or such other time as the commissioner may allow.  The commissioner should provide the complainant with a copy of the response together with any supporting documents on which the respondent may rely.  The complainant may then file a reply to any further points raised by the Respondent in his or her response. Any such reply must be filed by the complainant within 10 business days of receiving the respondent’s response from the commissioner or such other time as the commissioner may allow. The commissioner must provide the respondent with a copy of any reply that may be submitted by the complainant.

The commissioner may invite one or more of the parties to a meeting to discuss the dispute if he is minded to issue a direction.  He may also visit the respondent's premises with (or in some cases without) notice to inspect or collect evidence.  The parties may be represented in any of these proceedings by a legal practitioner registered on Part I or Part II of the DIFC Courts' Register of Legal Practitioners. My chambers are listed in Part II of that register and my friend Arann Dowling-Hussey who is also a member of the Irish Bar practises in the DIFC courts.  Other members of the English Bar including intellectual property specialists can qualify easily to practise in the DIFC.

After considering a complaint and completing all the investigations and inspections that the commissioner may deem necessary, he must issue a direction in accordance with art 66 of the IPL and art 3.1 of the IPR. If the commissioner is satisfied that a person has violated the IPL, he may issue a direction with 1 or more of the following measures: 

(i) order the respondent to refrain from the violation and carry out all necessary acts to comply with the IPL; 

(ii) request the DIFC Registrar of Companies to suspend temporarily the respondent's DIFC licence; 

(iii) order confiscation of all materials, goods, tools, machines, equipment, signs and advertisements related to the violation and order the transfer, storage and destruction of the same, at the expense of the respondent; 

(iv) impose fines in accordance with art 66 (1) and Sched 3 of the IPL; or 

(v) in case of a repeated infringement, request the DIFC Registrar of Companies to revoke the DIFC licence of the respondent.   The commissioner may also impose up to double the fines stipulated in Sched 3 pursuant to art 66 (2) of the IPL

If the commissioner is not satisfied that a person has violated the Law, he may issue a direction rejecting the complaint.   Alternatively, if the commissioner is unable to decide whether a violation has been committed, he will issue a direction requesting the parties to refer the matter to the DIFC Court of First Instance ("the court").

Should a respondent fail to comply with a direction the commissioner may apply to the court for an order to compel him or her to do so under art 66 (5) of the IPL  Any person aggrieved by the direction of the commissioner may file a request to the court to review the direction within 15 days of receiving a notice of direction from the commissioner.

My Deputy Senior Clerk, Stephen Somerville, has recently returned from a short visit to Dubai where he met several of my readers including some who practise before the DIFC Courts. He was accompanied by Arran and other members of chambers who were there for Dubai Arbitration Week 2023.  Those members have penned Decree No 34 of 2021 Concerning the Dubai International Arbitration Centre: Two Years On: Some Practical Issues which discusses recent changes to arbitration law in that emirate.

Anyone wishing to discuss my article or any of the topics mentioned in it may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.