‘No loopholes’ in Omani trademarks law
23 Apr 1994By A Staff Reporter
The Sultanate of Oman will increase its standing in international trade circles with the drafting and implementation of a copyright law.
In an exclusive interview with the Times of Oman, Mr. Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, Chairman of the Arab Society for the Protection of Industrial Property (ASPIP), has stated that the implementation of a copyright law would provide the assurance that foreign traders are looking for in order to get encouraged to deal commercially with the country.
“Many giants in technology and industry who presently hesitate to get involved in commercial activities and trade with Oman would be attracted to the Omani market if protection is assured to their products and technologies,” he said.
In return, Oman will receive the best products and services that match international standards.
Asked if there were any impediments in Oman’s path from drafting the copyright laws, Abu-Ghazaleh pointed out that certain aspects of intellectual property are complex and require adequate experience and wisdom in its handling.
“Developed countries have paid the price for their advancement at least in terms of time,” he added. “The delay is due to four reasons namely, lack of public awareness of the importance of intellectual property and the problems associated with the absence of such awareness; low priority given to intellectual property matters due to the first reason and others; lack of developed legal systems and bureaucratic delay in both enacting and implementing laws.”
At the same time, he pointed out that the Omani trademark laws compared favorably with the trademark laws of other developing countries. The Omani law protects trademarks, service marks, and certification marks. The registrant is deemed the absolute proprietor of a trademark. “The Omani trademark law maintains international standards and has provisions against infringement, but the main question is how effectively or seriously is it applied in the event of violation of its provisions,” he asked.
To that question, he replied that “it is certain that the law by itself does not check rampant piracy, but it depends in its credibility to the extent of its actual application.”
Abu-Ghazaleh went on to say that it is in the result of application of the law that the country is labeled as having an effective protection law otherwise. “For instance, some foreign circles claim that the UAE is prejudiced against foreigners in issues relating to the interest of its national industries. Thus, the question of protecting foreign and national interest equally is an issue that falls foremost in issuing judgment on the application of laws,” he observed.
He also emphatically stated that he did not see any loopholes in the Omani trademark law whereby pirates may make hay. “But I am inclined to agree with critics who have reservations about the punishment of an infringer as provided for by the law.”
It is either imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years and a fine not exceeding RO 500 – or either one of these penalties. Considering the value of industrial property and the efforts and expenses made in bringing an infringer to the court, the punishment afforded by the law is certainly not commensurate.
“Also, some have fears that even after securing a restraining order to prevent the sale of spurious products, strict measures will be taken by the authorities to destroy such products rather than allowing the infringer to sell the remaining stock in his possession.”
The Government of Oman sought the assistance of ASPIP in the formulation and implementation of the Omani trademark law and delegated an experienced member to work with the competent authorities in finalizing the implementation of the proposed law and in setting up the trademark office.
He stated that it is not true that Third World countries have missed the purpose of intellectual property protection.
“Even developed countries such as the United Kingdom have implemented the protection of service marks only recently. But Arab countries have emerged as a new market only in the past two decades.”
Therefore, the slow pace of implementing effective intellectual property protection is quite normal and should be expected to be so, Abu-Ghazaleh said.
But he said that the statement does not apply to the developing countries in the near and far east, especially to those in the Commonwealth. The fact is that there are effective intellectual property systems in countries like, for instance, India.
“However, since such countries are always concerned with protecting the interests of their nationals rather than the interests of western strong competitive forces, especially the US, India is always listed on top of the priority foreign countries in the Special 301 checklist by US trade surveys and reports”, he said, adding that similar instances are manifest in statements which criticize that the UAE – patent law does not provide protection for pharmaceutical products, that patents registered under the law have a validity period of 15 years only and that the patents are subject to compulsory licensing.
He pointed out that the US trading bloc is not happy with the situation, thus it has entered the UAE on its “watch list”.
He said that developing countries have to change the negative reputation about their comprehension of intellectual property rights by compromising between protecting their own rights and those of the foreigners. “The GCC countries are a very good venue for the dumping of pirated copies and spurious products. But I do not think that pirating and infringement are taking place by the GCC countries themselves. They have only become a dumping ground for such products.”
Statistics prepared for the estimated huge US trade loss due to piracy in 1992 with a trade mark for motion pictures, recreation and music, computer games, and books include Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt.
He recommended that “the enforcement of proper intellectual property protection laws in the region, of which we have witnessed a powerful commencement, is undoubtedly the most guaranteed remedy for this problem.”
Although the purpose of industrial property protection is directed straightforwardly to its owner, it still is in indirect protection of the consumer who pays the price of a commodity that bears a certain trademark and, thus, has the value of the money he/she paid for and the satisfaction he/she expects from this deal. In general, computer software, integrated circuits biotechnology, etc. are essentially the creation of the human mind. There is an enormous involvement in terms of highly qualified personnel and large finance which made these technologies. Therefore, protection should certainly be given to the genuine proprietors of such creations, he stated.
Accordingly, industrial property protection does not only serve the purpose of its owner, it also safeguards the interests of the consumers as well. “The general consuming public is protected from deception. The competitors in a trade also form part of the general public. Therefore, protection of industrial property enables them to have a fair chance to carry out their business as well.”
On a concluding note, he added that ASPIP saves no effort in acting under the obligations that it voluntarily imposed on itself for the application of the principles included in the above objectives. The ASPIP has by now acquired a bright record of extending assistance to the Gulf region in the intellectual property field.
Follow us
