International Instruments Relating To Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property has a dual nature, i.e. it has both a national and international dimension. For
instance, patents are governed by national laws and rules of a given country, while international
conventions on patents ensure minimum rights and provide certain measures for enforcement of rights
by the contracting states. Strong protection for intellectual property rights (IPR) worldwide is vital to
the future economic growth and development of all countries. Because they create common rules and
regulations, international IPR treaties, in turn, are essential to achieving the robust intellectual property
protection that spurs global economic expansion and the growth of new technologies.

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property

During the last century, before the existence of any international convention in the field of industrial
property, it was difficult to obtain protection for industrial property rights in the various countries of
the world because of the diversity of their laws. Moreover, patent applications had to be made roughly
at the same time in all countries in order to avoid a publication in one country destroying the novelty of
the invention in the other countries. These practical problems created a strong desire to overcome such
difficulties. During the second half of the last century the development of a more internationally
oriented flow of technology and the increase of international trade made harmonization of industrial
property laws urgent in both the patent and the trademark field.
The Paris Convention is one of the Intellectual Property Treaties administered by WIPO. It was
launched to provide some international harmonizing and streamlining of intellectual property
laws. Adopted on March 20, 1883 at Paris and entered into force on July 7, 1884. It provides basic
guidelines for the protection of industrial property (patents, utility models, industrial designs,
trademarks, service marks, trade names, indications of source or appellations of origin, and the
repression of unfair competition) and has substantive provisions for national treatment, right of priority
and common rules. This treaty came into force in India from December 7, 1998.
Anti-discrimination Policy
Under the Convention, a member country is obliged to give nationals of other member countries the
same protection and advantages as it grants to its own nationals. This anti-discrimination policy of the
Convention is also a fundamental tenet of many other intellectual property agreements and treaties.
National Treatment: National treatment means that, as regards the protection of industrial property,
each country party to the Paris Convention must grant the same protection to nationals of the other
member countries as it grants to its own nationals. The relevant provisions are contained in Articles 2
and 3 of the Convention. The same national treatment must be granted to nationals of countries which
are not party to the Paris Convention if they are domiciled in a member country or if they have a real
and effective industrial or commercial establishment in such a country. However, no requirement as to
domicile or establishment in the country where protection is claimed may be imposed upon nationals
of member countries as a condition for benefiting from an industrial property right. This national
treatment rule guarantees not only that foreigners will be protected, but also that they will not be
discriminated against in any way. Without this, it would frequently be very difficult and sometimes

Page 1 of 11
 even impossible to obtain adequate protection in foreign countries for inventions, trademarks and other
subjects of industrial property.
Example: A French national applying for a patent in Japan will have the same patent rights and level of
protection in Japan as a Japanese national.
Framework of Priority
The other fundamental tenet of the Paris Convention is a 'framework of priority'. Under the Paris
Convention, an invention can be protected from the same point in time in a variety of countries. It is
also a means of access into national patent systems for foreign applicants. An inventor is able to claim
the filing date of his first patent application in a Convention country as an effective filing date for
further subsequent applications (for the same invention) in any other member country. However, the
later applications must be filed within 12 months of the earliest application in order to claim the
priority date.
Example: A United Kingdom patent application is lodged on 1 January, 2014. On 1 January 2015, the
same patent application is filed in Mexico. Mexico is a Convention member and as a result, the
Mexican application is treated as though it was filed on 1 January 2014.
If, without the treaty, the patent in the example was treated as though it was filed on 1 January 2015 in
Mexico, the invention would likely already have been disclosed and thus un-patentable in Mexico.
The right of priority means that in the foreign Convention country, the patent application will be filed
from the earliest date of filing in the home country for purposes of cited or prior art. This is beneficial
to an inventor, as it allows the inventor to avoid detrimental effects of his or other's public disclosure
that occurred after the earliest application and before filing in foreign countries.
Example: A patent application for a video telephone is lodged in Djibouti. Eight months after lodging
the application, the inventor displays his video telephone at an international conference. As a result of
the conference worldwide publicity is generated for both the invention and the inventor, and the
specifications of the video telephone become widely known. A lot of interest is generated in Australia
and it becomes obvious to the inventor that it would be worthwhile to seek patent protection in
Australia.
In the example above, the inventor has four months in which to seek patent protection in Australia.
Even though he has publicly disclosed his invention throughout the world, he is still able to seek
protection in Australia, provided that he files an application in Australia within twelve months of
lodging his initial application in Djibouti.
Considering that obtaining patent protection can be an expensive process, the twelve month period also
provides the inventor with a reasonable period of time to determine whether his invention is worth
protecting in other countries.

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

Copyright protection on the international level began by about the middle of the nineteenth century on
the basis of bilateral treaties. A number of such treaties providing for mutual recognition of rights were

Page 2 of 11
concluded but they were neither comprehensive enough nor of a uniform pattern. The need for a
uniform system led to the formulation and adoption of the Berne Convention for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works. The Berne Convention is the oldest international treaty in the field of
copyright. It is open to all States.
Adopted on September 9, 1886 at Berne and entered into force on December 4, 1887. Originally signed
in 1886 at Berne, Switzerland, it was revised in 1914, 1928, 1948, 1967, 1971, and 1979.
This Convention on Copyrights rests on three basic principles national treatment, automatic
protection and independence of protection; it also contains a series of provisions determining the
minimum protection to be granted. India became signatory of the Berne Convention on April 1, 1928.
The Berne Convention deals with the protection of works and the rights of their authors. It is based
on three basic principles and contains a series of provisions determining the minimum protection to be
granted, as well as special provisions available to developing countries that want to make use of them.
The three basic principles are the following:
(a) Works originating in one of the Contracting States (that is, works the author of which is a national
of such a State or works first published in such a State) must be given the same protection in each of
the other Contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of "national
treatment") .
(b) Protection must not be conditional upon compliance with any formality (principle of "automatic"
protection).
(c) Protection is independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work
(principle of "independence" of protection). If, however, a Contracting State provides for a longer term
of protection than the minimum prescribed by the Convention and the work ceases to be protected in
the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country of origin ceases.

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

Adopted on June 19, 1970 at Washington D.C. and entered into force on January 24, 1978. It facilitates
patent protection for an invention simultaneously in a large number of countries; it came into force in
India from December 7, 1998.
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is a Global Protection Treaty administered by WIPO. The Patent
Cooperation Treaty aims to provide a simplified and less costly method of preserving the rights to file
a patent application in member countries. It seeks to achieve this by providing what is known as a PCT
application.
The PCT Application Process
A PCT application is NOT a primary patent application. Before a PCT application can be of use, a
priority patent application for an invention must be filed in the inventor's home country. After this
priority date is obtained by the initial filing of the application, a PCT application may be used to
preserve the right to file the same invention in all Patent Cooperation Treaty member countries. Given

Page 3 of 11
that PCT applications claim a priority date from the initial patent application, the PCT application acts
as a placeholder, reserving the patent rights in member states designated on the application.
An inventor can designate as many member states as he desires in which to preserve his filing rights or,
after 1/1/2004, all member countries are automatically chosen.
In order to obtain protection in each individual country the inventor chooses, it is necessary for the
PCT to be converted (filed) in the national patent offices of the selected countries where the invention
will be subject to an examination in order to meet the national requirements for novelty, obviousness
etc. The administrative tasks, including translation if necessary and the fees associated with lodging
patent applications in that country, must be complied with.
The PCT application can therefore act as a way of delaying the costs of filing in multiple national
patent offices, until the inventor has decided whether it is worthwhile seeking protection in many
countries.
Example: An Indian national files a patent application on the 1/1/2015 at the Indian Patent Office. On
the 1/1/2016 he then files a PCT application with WIPO designating Brazil, Egypt and China as
contracting states. After deciding that there are commercial opportunities for his invention in Brazil,
the applicant decides to file in Brazil six months after filing a PCT application (1/7/2016). The filing
date for the Brazilian application will claim priority from the date that it was first filed in India, i.e.
1/1/2015. The 20 year term of patent protection (if granted in Brazil) will extend from the date of the
PCT application (from 1/1/2016 to 1/1/2036). The inventor still has up to 12 months remaining in order
to decide whether or not to file in Egypt and China.
Priority that stems from a PCT application can only be given in those countries which are designated
on the application. In the example above, the inventor would not be able to claim the priority date of
1/1/2015 in Japan, as Japan was not specified as a designated country on the PCT application.
However, under the changes to the PCT process which came into force in January, 2016, there is no
longer a need for countries to be designated on the application as all member countries will
automatically be chosen.
A PCT application is usually filed at any point in time up to 12 months from the initial or priority filing
in the home country. At a period of 18 months after the initial application, the PCT application is
published. It used to be that at 20 months after the initial filing date, the applicant must have entered
the national phase of the application process in the designated states or lose his right to file claiming
the earlier priority date. However, this period could be extended by a further 10 months if the applicant
requested an examination or preliminary report. The examination gives an inventor a preliminary and
non-binding opinion on the patentability of the claimed invention. He is then able to determine whether
or not he should proceed with the conversion of the PCT application into numerous, individual national
patents.
Changes to the PCT Process
We are currently in a transitional period where changes to the PCT process are underway. It is now
becoming possible in some countries for inventors to claim priority for 30 months after the initial
filing, without having to request an examination at 20 months. This has not yet been implemented in all
Page 4 of 11
 PCT member countries, as it requires each member country to change their national patent laws to
reflect this extension of time. There is now one set international filing fee that applies to all
applications, regardless of the number of countries that have been designated by the applicant.
Benefits of the PCT Process
Under the PCT process, an applicant can delay the expenses of filing for up to 30 months, while
evaluating the desirability of filing in a particular country or raising the funds necessary to do so. The
applicant also has the peace of mind of knowing that the application cannot be rejected on 'prior art'
that has emerged in the time between the applicant making a PCT application and filing a national
application.

The Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks

and the Protocol Relating to that Agreement Introduction
The system of international registration of marks is governed by two treaties, the Madrid Agreement
Concerning the International Registration of Marks, which dates from 1891, and the Protocol Relating
to the Madrid Agreement, which was adopted in 1989, entered into force on December 1, 1995, and
came into operation on April 1, 1996. Common Regulations under the Agreement and Protocol also
came into force on that last date. The system is administered by the International Bureau of WIPO,
which maintains the International Register and publishes the WIPO Gazette of International Marks.
The reason for the much more recent Protocol, following the original Madrid Agreement of 1891 (last
amended at Stockholm in 1967), was the absence from the Madrid Union of some of the major
countries in the trademark field for example, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of
America. The Protocol is intended to make the Madrid system acceptable to more countries. It differs
from the Agreement in offering such options as:
a choice for the applicant, allowing international registrations to be based on national applications
and not only on national registrations;
a period of 18 months, instead of one year, for Contracting Parties to refuse protection, with the
possibility of a longer period in the case of a refusal based on an opposition;
the possibility for the office of a designated Contracting Party to receive, instead of a share in the
revenue from the standard fees, an individual fee whose amount may not be higher than the
fees it charges for national or regional registration or renewal, the said amount being diminished
by the savings resulting from the international procedure;
the transformation of an international registration which is no longer protected because the basic
mark has ceased to have effect in the country of origin, international or regional applications in
some or all of the designated Contracting Parties, with the filing date, and where applicable the
priority date, of the international registration;
The possibility for the Protocol to be joined not only by States, but in addition by any
intergovernmental organization which has an office for registering marks with effect in its
territory.

Page 5 of 11
An application for international registration (international application) may be filed only by a natural
person or legal entity having a connection through establishment, domicile or nationality with a
Contracting Party to the Agreement or the Protocol. A mark may be the subject of an international
application only if it has already been registered with the trademark office of the Contracting Party
with which the applicant has the necessary connections (referred to as the office of origin). However,
where all the designations are effected under the Protocol (see below), the international application
may be based simply on an application for registration filed with the office of origin. An international
application must be presented to the International Bureau of WIPO through the intermediary of the
office of origin
The International Application
An application for international registration must designate one or more Contracting Parties in which
protection is sought. Further designations can be effected subsequently. A Contracting Party may be
designated only if it is party to the same treaty as the Contracting Party whose office is the office of
origin. The latter cannot itself be designated in the international application.
The designation of a given Contracting Party is made either under the Agreement or the Protocol,
depending on which treaty is common to the Contracting Parties concerned. If both Contracting Parties
are party to the Agreement and the Protocol, the designation will be governed by the Protocol.
International applications can be filed in English, French or Spanish, irrespective of which treaty or
treaties govern the application, unless the office of origin restricts that choice to one or two of these
languages.
The filing of an international application is subject to the payment of a basic fee (which is reduced to
10 per cent of the prescribed amount for international applications filed by applicants whose country of
origin is an LDC, in accordance with the list established by the United Nations), a supplementary fee
for each class of goods and/or services beyond the first three classes, and a complementary fee for each
Contracting Party designated. However, a Contracting Party to the Protocol may declare that, when it
is designated under the Protocol, the complementary fee is replaced by an individual fee, whose
amount is determined by the Contracting Party concerned but may not be higher than the amount that
would be payable for the registration of a mark, at the national level, with its office.
International Registration
Once the International Bureau receives an international application, it carries out an examination for
compliance with the requirements of the Agreement, the Protocol and their Common Regulations. This
examination is restricted to formalities, including the classification and comprehensibility of the list of
goods and/or services. If there are no irregularities in the application, the International Bureau records
the mark in the International Register, publishes the international registration in the WIPO Gazette of
International Marks (hereinafter referred to as "the Gazette"), and notifies it to each designated
Contracting Party. Any matter of substance, such as whether the mark qualifies for protection or
whether it is in conflict with a mark registered previously in a particular Contracting Party, is
determined by that Contracting Party's trademark office under the applicable domestic legislation. The
Gazette is available in electronic form (e-Gazette) on the Madrid system website.

Page 6 of 11
Grant of Protection or Refusal of Protection
The office of each designated Contracting Party shall issue a statement of grant of protection.
However, when designated Contracting Parties examine the international registration for compliance
with their domestic legislation, and if some substantive provisions are not complied with, they have the
right to refuse protection in their territory. Any such refusal, including an indication of the grounds on
which it is based, must be communicated to the International Bureau, normally within 12 months from
the date of notification. However, a Contracting Party to the Protocol may declare that, when it is
designated under the Protocol, this time limit is extended to 18 months. That Contracting Party may
also declare that a refusal based on an opposition may be communicated to the International Bureau
even after the 18-month time limit. The refusal is communicated to the holder of the registration or the
holder's representative before the International Bureau, recorded in the International Register and
published in the Gazette. The procedure subsequent to a refusal (such as an appeal or a review) is
carried out directly by the competent administration and/or court of the Contracting Party concerned
and the holder, without the involvement of the International Bureau. The final decision concerning the
refusal must, however, be communicated to the International Bureau, which records and publishes it.
Effects of an International Registration
The effects of an international registration in each designated Contracting Party are, from the date of
the international registration, the same as if the mark had been deposited directly with the office of that
Contracting Party. If no refusal is issued within the applicable time limit, or if a refusal originally
notified by a Contracting Party is subsequently withdrawn, the protection of the mark is, from the date
of the international registration, the same as if it had been registered by the office of that Contracting
Party. An international registration is effective for 10 years. It may be renewed for further periods of
10 years on payment of the prescribed fees. Protection may be limited with regard to some or all of the
goods or services or may be renounced with regard to some only of the designated Contracting Parties.
An international registration may be transferred in relation to all or some of the designated Contracting
Parties and all or some of the goods or services indicated.
Advantages of the Madrid System
The Madrid system offers several advantages for trademark owners. Instead of filing a separate
national application in each country of interest, in several different languages, in accordance with
different national or regional procedural rules and regulations and paying several different (and often
higher) fees, an international registration may be obtained by simply filing one application with the
International Bureau (through the office of the home country), in one language (English, French or
Spanish) and paying one set of fees.
Similar advantages exist for maintaining and renewing a registration. Likewise, if the international
registration is assigned to a third party, or is otherwise changed, such as a change in name and/or
address, this may be recorded with effect for all designated Contracting Parties by means of a single
procedural step.
To facilitate the work of the users of the Madrid system, the International Bureau publishes a Guide to
the International Registration of Marks under the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol.

Page 7 of 11
 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to
facilitating worldwide protection of the rights of creators and owners of intellectual property.
Adopted on July 14, 1967 at Stockholm and entered into force on April 26, 1970. WIPO was
established under this Convention with two main objectives - to promote the protection of intellectual
property worldwide and to ensure administrative cooperation among the intellectual property Unions
established by the treaties that WIPO administers. India became a member on May 1, 1975.
WIPO's origin dates back to 1884 when the Paris Convention entered into force with 14 member
States, which set up an International Bureau to carry out administrative tasks, such as organizing
meetings of the member States. Like the Paris Convention, the Berne Convention set up an
International Bureau to carry out administrative tasks. In 1893, these two small bureaux united to form
an international organization called the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual
Property (best known by its French acronym BIRPI). Based in Berne, Switzerland, with a staff of
seven, this small organization was the predecessor of the World Intellectual Property Organization of
today - a dynamic entity with 185 member States, a staff that now numbers some 938, from 95
countries around the world, and with a mission and a mandate that are constantly growing. This
International Bureau evolved over time to become known in 1970 as WIPO. In 1974, WIPO became a
specialized agency of the United Nations and in 1996, WIPO expanded its role into globalized trade by
entering into a cooperation agreement with the World Trade Organization.
WIPO, administers 25 treaties (three of those jointly with other international organizations) and carries
out a rich and varied program of work, through its member States and secretariat that seeks to:

to harmonize national laws and procedures on intellectual property;

to provide an international registration service for industrial property;
to exchange information about intellectual property
to provide legal and technical assistance to the developing countries and others;
to assist the settlement for disputes on intellectual properties among individuals;
to use information technology as an instrument to keep, access and exploit valuable information
about intellectual property.

World Trade Organization (WTO)

Adopted on April 15, 1994 at Marrakesh and entered into force on January 1, 1995. WTO was
established to provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its
Members in matters related to the agreements and associated legal instruments. India became a
member to this agreement on January 1, 1995.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)
The Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations held in the framework of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was concluded on December 15, 1993. The agreement embodying the

Page 8 of 11
results of those negotiations, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO
Agreement), was adopted on April 15, 1994, in Marrakech. Those negotiations included, for the first
time within the GATT, discussions on aspects of intellectual property rights related to international
trade. The result of those negotiations, contained in an Annex to the WTO Agreement, was the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). The
WTO Agreement, including the TRIPS Agreement (which is binding on all WTO Members), entered
into force on January 1, 1995. The former agreement established a new organization, the World Trade
Organization, which began its work on January 1, 1995. Member States of WTO were given certain
periods of time after the entry into force of the Agreement establishing WTO before being obliged to
apply the TRIPS Agreement. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is
arguably the most important and comprehensive international agreement on intellectual property rights.
Member countries of the WTO are automatically bound by the agreement. The Agreement covers most
forms of intellectual property including patents, copyright, trademarks, geographical indications,
industrial designs, trade secrets, and exclusionary rights over new plant varieties.
Obligations under the TRIPS Agreement
The TRIPS agreement outlines several important trade related aspects of intellectual property. More
specifically, it requires signatory countries to adhere to its criteria for intellectual property monopoly
grants of limited duration, along with requiring adherence to the Paris Convention, Berne Convention
and other WTO Conventions. The criteria are minimum standards for granting a monopoly over any
type of IP, as well as duration limits, enforcement provisions and methods of IP dispute settlements.
When the TRIPS Agreement took effect on January 1, 1995, all developed countries were given twelve
months from the date of signing the agreement to implement its provisions. Developing countries and
transition economies (under certain conditions) were given five years, until 2000. Least developed
countries (LDCs) were given 11 years, until 2006, to comply. Some countries have indicated that a
longer period should obtain. For pharmaceutical patents in these LDCs, the term for compliance has
been extended to 2016. There are currently 30 LDCs within the WTO organization bound by TRIPS
and another 10 LDCs are waiting accession.
The Most-Favoured-Nation Principle (MFN) - The TRIPS Agreement contains the most-favoured-
nation principle, which has not traditionally been provided for in the context of intellectual property
rights on the multilateral level. This principle provides that any advantage, favour, privilege or
immunity granted by a Member to the nationals of any other country (whether a Member or not) shall
be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of all other Members, with certain
specified exemptions. As is the case for national treatment, procedures provided in multilateral
agreements concluded under the auspices of WIPO relating to the acquisition or maintenance of
intellectual property rights are exempted from this principle.
Enforcement of IPR - The Agreement was not only aimed at providing minimum standards for
protecting IPR but it was also aimed at providing the enforcement of the same. The Agreement
provides minimum standards for the enforcement of IPR that allows right holders to protect their
legitimate interests through civil court or administrative proceedings. Part III of the Agreement on
Enforcement of IPR sets out the obligations of member nations to establish administrative and judicial
mechanisms through which IPR holders can seek effective protection of their interests. The general
Page 9 of 11
 obligation of member nations to provide enforcement mechanisms requires that enforcement
procedures should be available under their national law so as to permit effective action against any act
of infringement of IPR covered by the Agreement, including expeditious remedies to prevent
infringements and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements. Member nations are
obligated to ensure that enforcement procedures are fair and equitable, and not unnecessarily
complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time limits or unwarranted delays. Regarding the civil
administrative procedures and remedies, the Agreement provides for equal rights for both the
defendant and complaining parties. The rules of the Agreement provide that both parties should have
the opportunity to present and contest evidence, and that adequate remedial measures should be
available. The Agreement permits member nations to exclude the grant of injunctions in circumstances
involving compulsory licenses and other uses. The Agreement obligates member nations to make
provision for the ordering of prompt and effective provisional measures to prevent entry of infringing
goods into channels of commerce and preserve evidence against such infringing goods and their
traders. This means that the IPR holder should be entitled to seek a prompt action against the
infringement, whether or not the party alleged to be acting in an infringing manner can be notified and
given opportunity to be heard. With respect to Border Measures, the Agreement requires member
nations to allow certain right holders to prevent release by customs authorities of infringing goods into
circulation especially, with respect to counterfeit trademarks and pirated copyright goods. The
Agreement also provides for certain Criminal Measures (penalties) for trademark counterfeiting and
copyright piracy on a commercial scale.

The Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012 (Treaty not yet in force)
The Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances was adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on the
Protection of Audiovisual Performances, which took place in Beijing from June 20 to 26, 2012. The
Treaty deals with the intellectual property rights of performers in audiovisual performances.
It grants performers four kinds of economic rights for their performances fixed in audiovisual
fixations, such as motion pictures: (i) the right of reproduction; (ii) the right of distribution; (iii) the
right of rental; and (iv) the right of making available.
The right of reproduction is the right to authorize director or indirect reproduction of the
performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation in any manner or form.
The right of distribution is the right to authorize the making available to the public of the
original and copies of the performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation through sale or other
transfer of ownership.
The right of rental is the right to authorize the commercial rental to the public of the original
and copies of the performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation.
The right of making available is the right to authorize the making available to the public, by
wire or wireless means, of any performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation, in such a way that
members of the public may access the fixed performance from a place and at a time individually
chosen by them. This right covers, in particular, on-demand, interactive making available
through the Internet.
Page 10 of 11
As to unfixed (live) performances, the Treaty grants performers three kinds of economic
rights: (i) the right of broadcasting (except in the case of rebroadcasting); (ii) the right of
communication to the public (except where the performance is a broadcast performance); and (iii) the
right of fixation.
The Treaty also grants performers moral rights, that is, the right to claim to be identified as the
performer (except where such an omission would be dictated by the manner of the use of the
performance); and the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification that would be
prejudicial to the performer's reputation, taking into account the nature of the audiovisual fixations.
The Treaty provides that performers shall enjoy the right to authorize the broadcasting and
communication to the public of their performances fixed in audiovisual fixations. However,
Contracting Parties may notify that instead of the right of authorization, they will establish a right to
equitable remuneration for the direct or indirect use of performances fixed in audiovisual fixations for
broadcasting or communication to the public. Any Contracting Party may restrict or provided that it
makes a reservation to the Treaty deny this right. In the case and to the extent of a reservation by a
Contracting Party, the other Contracting Parties are permitted to deny, vis--vis the reserving
Contracting Party, national treatment ("reciprocity").
As to the transfer of rights, the Treaty provides that Contracting Parties may stipulate in their national
laws that once a performer has consented to the audiovisual fixation of a performance, the exclusive
rights mentioned above are transferred to the producer of the audiovisual fixation (unless a contract
between the performer and producer states otherwise). Independent of such a transfer of rights, national
laws or individual, collective or other agreements may provide the performer with the right to receive
royalties or equitable remuneration for any use of the performance, as provided for under the Treaty.
The term of protection must be at least 50 years.
The enjoyment and exercise of the rights provided for in the Treaty cannot be subject to any formality.
The Treaty obliges Contracting Parties to provide for legal remedies against the circumvention of
technological measures (e.g., encryption) used by performers in connection with the exercise of their
rights, and against the removal or altering of information such as the indication of certain data that
identify the performer, performance and the audiovisual fixation itself necessary for the management
(e.g., licensing, collecting and distribution of royalties) of the said rights ("rights management
information").
The Treaty obliges each Contracting Party to adopt, in accordance with its legal system, the measures
necessary to ensure the application of the Treaty. In particular, each Contracting Party must ensure that
enforcement procedures are available under its law so as to permit effective action against any act of
infringement of rights covered by the Treaty. Such action must include expeditious remedies to prevent
infringement as well as remedies that constitute a deterrent to further infringement.

It is suggested to go through class notes also.

Page 11 of 11