World Trade Organization Organisation Mondiale du Commerce Organización Mundial del Comercio

particulars affecting the scope or the rights conferred by the registration including condition and limitations imposed by Registrar;

priority date, viz. the convention application date to be accorded pursuant to an application from applicants of a convention country made under section 154;

if the mark is a collective or certification mark, that fact;

where the mark is registered pursuant to sub section (4) of Section 11 with the consent of the proprietor of the earlier mark, that fact;

the appropriate office of the Registry in relation to the trade mark;

entry with respect to associated trade marks, including dissolution of association (Rule 60);

entry with respect to renewal of registration, removal for non payment of renewal fee and restoration of removed mark;

assignment of a registered trade mark with entries pertaining to (i) the name and address of the assignee; (ii) the date of assignment; (iii) where the assignment is in respect of any right in the mark, a description of the right assigned; (iv) the basis under which the assignment is made; and (v) the date on which the entry is made in the register;

where a registered user is registered, the date on which the application for registration of user was made, the name, description and principal place of business in India of the registered user or his address for service and other particulars mentioned in paragraph (i) to (iv) of sub clause (b) of clause (1) of Section 49. Particulars of variation or cancellation of entry, if any;

orders pertaining to rectification and correction of register under Section 47, 57, 58, 68 or 77;

alteration of registered trade mark under section 59;

reclassification of goods in respect of existing registration, if any – Rule 101;

e register is dynamic and is being constantly updated with latest request for change incorporated.

(Question 20: Page 117, paragraph 267)

It is mentioned that "As at November 2010, there were approximately 400,000 applications pending at various stages." Please describe what measures CGPDTM has taken or will take in order to deal with the backlog.

Reply: The Government has taken up the filling up of vacancies at various levels in the Trade Marks Registry with utmost expedition and all the vacant posts are likely to be filled up within the next six months to one year. Addition in human resource will enable the trade marks registry to deal with the backlog.

(Question 21: Page 117, paragraph 270)

According to the Secretariat's Report, "the customs authorities promulgated guidelines" and "these guidelines authorize customs officials to seize goods infringing the trade marks of the right holder at the border without a court order." In the same paragraph, the report says that "according to the authorities, there have been no such instances." Please describe why there have been no such instances although the customs officials are authorized to do so. Please also provide the details and conditions of this procedure, including whether a request of a right holder is necessary. Meanwhile, in the same paragraph, the report says "Goods amounting to Rs 434 million were seized by Customs during May 2007 to March 2010''. Please also describe why there are conflicting descriptions in that paragraph. (Japan would like to make sure whether Goods amounting Rs 434 million are seized with a court order or not.) In addition, there are no detailed statistics about intellectual property (trade marks, copyright, etc.) nor about final disposal (the destruction of illegal goods, or handing over to an intellectual property holder, etc.) Please also describe what efforts, if any, the Indian government has been making or will make in order to make seizure of infringing goods more effective, such as through personnel training.

Reply: Notification No. 47/2007 Customs (NT) dated 08.05.2007 read with notification No. 51/2010 Customs (NT) dated 30.06.2010 prohibits import of goods infringing the intellectual property rights. The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 (IPR Rules, 2007), notified under notification No. 47/2007 Customs (NT), details the procedure and conditions for enforcement of IPRs Under the said Rules, action to suspend the clearance of goods suspected to be infringing IPRs is taken at the request of the right holder. The customs officers may also, on their own initiative, suspend the clearance of goods, in respect of which they have prima facie evidence or reasonable grounds to believe that the imported goods are goods infringing IPRs (details may be viewed at www.cbec.gov.in).

The assertion that Customs has not booked any offence case for infringement of IPRs without court order is not correct. The seizure figures indicated in the text are those which have been booked by Customs under the IPR Rules without court orders.

The detailed statistics on disposal, destruction are not available.

Capacity building activities are undertaken through regular training of Customs officers and holding of seminars and work shops in collaboration with trade bodies.

(Question 22: Page 117, paragraph 270)

According to the Secretariat's Report, "[t]he re exportation of goods infringing trade marks in an unaltered State is also prohibited." Since "re exportation" involves importation and exportation, the definition of re exportation and transit could overlap. Japan would like India to describe the difference between re exportation and transit. Please also explain what procedures 'in transit' involves.

Reply: It has been rightly observed that "re exportation" involves importation and exportation. Transit is different from re exportation. Transit is defined under Article V of the GATT 1994 and as per this, goods shall be deemed to be in transit across the territory of a contracting party when the passage across such territory is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the frontier of the contracting party across whose territory the traffic passes. Traffic of this nature is termed "traffic in transit".

Vide Customs notification 51/2010 Customs (NT) dated 30 June 2010 India has excluded transit from the purview of IPR border enforcement.

(Question 23: Page 117, paragraph 270)

The Secretariat's Report doesn't mention who bears the burden of the destruction of infringing goods. Please describe what sort of person (such as an intellectual property right holder, importer, or Indian government) bears the burden.

Reply: Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 (IPR Rules) state that the costs toward destruction, demurrage and detention charges incurred till the time of destruction or disposal, as the case may be, shall be borne by the right holder. The cost of destruction of goods would be borne as decided by the judicial authorities.

(Question 24: Page 118, paragraph 271)

According to the Secretariat's Report, "India has not yet acceded to the Hague System." Please describe what stage the discussions on the possibility of acceding to the Hague Agreement have reached.

Reply: The issue is not under discussion at present.

(Question 25: Page 120, paragraph 283)

The Secretariat's Report mentioned that "upon an application by the right holder, the Registrar of Copyrights conducts an inquiry, and may prohibit the importation of copies made outside of India, which if made inside India would infringe the copyright. In these instances the Registrar of Copyright or a person authorized by him may enter any ship, dock or premises where such infringing copies may be found and examine such copies." Please describe details (about the laws, rules and procedures etc.) for applications．

Reply: Section 53(1), on "Importation of infringing copies", of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that the Registrar of Copyrights, on application by the owner of the copyright in any work or by his duly authorised agent and on payment of the prescribed fee, may, after making such inquiry as he deems fit, order that copies made out of India of the work which if made in India would infringe copyright shall not be imported. Section 53(2) of the Act states that, "Subject to any rules made under this Act, the Registrar of Copyrights or any person authorised by him in this behalf may enter any ship, dock or premises where any such copies as are referred to in sub section (1) may be found and may examine such copies." Section 53(3) of the Act also states that, "All copies to which any order made under sub section (1) applies shall be deemed to be goods of which the import has been prohibited or restricted under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly: provided that all such copies confiscated under the provisions of the said Act shall not vest in the Government but shall be delivered to the owner of the copyright in the work."

The Chapter VIII of the Copyright Rules, 1958 which with "Importation of Infringing Copies". The Rule 22 provides that, "Every application, under sub section (1) of section 53 shall be made in accordance with Form VI and shall be accompanied by the fee specified in the Second Schedule." For an application for prevention of importation of infringing copies (under section 53) a fee of Rs 400 per work, per place of entry has to be paid by the applicant by demand draft or by Indian Postal Order payable to "Registrar of Copyrights", New Delhi. A copy of Application Form VI provided in the Copyright Rules, 1958 is enclosed. However, the section 53 is proposed to be amended in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010. The Copyright Act, 1957, the Copyright Rules, 1958 and the Bill are available at www.copyright.gov.in.

(Question 26: Page 120, paragraph 286)

The Secretariat's Report mentioned that "[a]dditional protection may be provided by the Central Goverment to certain goods or class of goods by notification in the Official Gazette" and "[a]t present wines and spirits are the only class of goods that received higher protection in India." Please describe if there is a future plan to expand scope of additional protection in India to products other than wines and spirits.

Reply: At present there is no proposal before the Government to expand the list of products which could be provided additional protection.

(Question 27: Page 122, paragraph 297)

According to the Secretariat's report, "It is also common to insert a confidentiality clause in a technology transfer or other licence agreement to maintain the confidential nature of the subject matter, not only during the employment period of the employees and contractors but also after its termination, though for a fixed period."

Please indicate how long ''a fixed period'' is. What basis is used for the judgement of major cases?

Reply: There is no such period defined. However the Judiciary has relied on the following criteria to decide major cases:

1. 
   The facts and circumstances of the case.
   
2. 
   The underlined agreement between the parties.
   
3. 
   Principles of reasonableness.
   

(Question 28: Page 123, paragraph 299)

According to the Secretariat Report, "Enforcement is carried out by the police for domestic cases, and by the police and Customs for imports and exports" and the performance of the Customs in 2008/09, 2009/10 are given in the Secretariat Report. So, please describe details of the number of arrest cases. Also, please describe whether these statistics are available to the public or not, and if not, what possibility there is of access.

Reply: The number of persons arrested for contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and other allied acts of the Government of India in 2008 2009, 2009 2010 and 2010 2011 are as under:

Year	No. of persons arrested
2008 2009	464
2009 2010	493
2010 2011	247

The centralized data of arrests made under the Customs Act, 1962 and other relevant allied acts are not available on the departmental website at present.

(Question 29: Page 123, paragraph 300)

According to the Secretariat's Report, "India has made important efforts in the field of enforcement, such as having specially trained IP Judges in general courts, training judges on issues specific to IP litigation." Please provide some statistics, such as the number of civil/criminal lawsuits relating to IPR and the average length of the IPR cases. Also, please describe whether these statistics are available to the public or not, and if not, what possibility there is of access.

Reply: India being a federal structure, the enforcement of IPR Acts is also being carried out by the state authorities. These lawsuits are pending right from the district level to the Apex Court of the country. As on date no centralized system is there to maintain this information and so it is difficult to define the average length of the IPR cases. Information to the party concerned to the case is always available.

IV. DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS

(2) AGRICULTURE

(ii) Agricultural policy objectives

(Question 30: Page 134, paragraph 35, 36)

(1)Would India kindly provide the following information?:

i) The crops subject to minimum support prices (MSPs) each year from 2006/07 to 2009/10

ii) The minimum support prices of each crop from 2006/07 to 2009/10

iii) The purchased quantity of each crop by government designated agencies in the Price Support Scheme(PSS) each year from 2006/07 to 2009/10.

2) Is there any limit to the purchased quantity in the Price Support Scheme (PSS)?

3) Is the intervention in the PSS decided on and implemented in each state/region or throughout the country?

Reply: The crops covered under minimum support price (MSP) operations during 2009 10 are indicated at footnote 26 under paragraph 33 of the Secretariat Report. There is no change in the coverage except exclusion of Tobacco from 2008 09 onwards.

MSPs are available at www.agricoop.nic.

Year wise details of procurement of wheat and rice by the Food Corporation of India (FCI), cotton by the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) and National Agriculture Marketing Federation (NAFED) and oilseeds and pulses crops by NAFED are available at web link http://agricoop.nic.in/Agristatistics.htm, from 1996 97 onwards.

There is no limit to the quantity to be purchased under the Price Support Scheme (PSS). All quantities offered at MSPs are accepted. PSS coverage extends throughout the country.

(Question 31: Page134, paragraph 36)

(1) Would India kindly provide the following information?

i) Specific products subject to the Market Intervention Scheme (MIS).

ii) The market intervention prices (MIP) of specific products in MIS each year from 2006/07 to 2009/10.

iii) The purchased quantity of specific products in MIS each year from 2006/07 to 2009/10.

(2) Is there any limit to the purchased quantity in the Market Intervention Scheme (MIS)?

(3) Is the intervention in the MIS decided on and implemented in each state/region or throughout the country?

Reply: There is no specific list of products subject to Market Intervention Scheme (MIS). All perishables are covered under MIS. A statement detailing specific perishables for which MIS operations were undertaken during 2006 2010, including the procurement price, states where the operations were carried out, procurement made and the cost of procurement has been placed at website www.agricoop.nic.in. MIS is implemented subject to a restriction of 10% of the anticipated production of the commodity for that particular year/season in the State. MIS intervention is decided on the request of specific States and implemented in only such States.

(Question 32: Page134 paragraph 37)

(1) Would India provide information on the actual prices of the statutory minimum price (SMP) and the fair and remunerative price (FRP) for sugarcane from 2006/07 to 2009/10?

(2) Sugarcane is subject not only to SMP, FRP and SAP, but also to the minimum support price (MPS) in specific years (e.g. in 2007). Would India explain the relationship between these price systems?

Reply: There is no procurement of sugarcane by public agencies. The fair and remunerative Price (FRP) for sugarcane is available at http://fcamin.nic.in/sugar/website11.pdf.

(Question 33: Page135, paragraph 41)

Would India explain i) Details of the diesel subsidy, and provide ii) The amount of the diesel subsidy each year from 2006/07 to 2009/10?

Reply: The oil marketing companies had to bear cost of Rs 12647 cr, Rs 18776 cr, 35166 cr and 52286 cr for the years 2005 06, 2006 07, 2007 08 and 2008 09 respectively, on account of under recoveries on sale of Diesel. As India imports about 80% of its crude oil requirement, international oil prices play a decisive role in the domestic pricing of sensitive petroleum products. The Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) viz. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited pay trade parity price to refineries when they buy diesel, and pay import parity price for PDS kerosene and domestic LPG. Accordingly, they ought to fix retail prices based on this cost. However, the retail prices, which are modulated by the Government, are generally lower. The difference between the required price based on trade parity/import parity and the actual selling price realized (excluding taxes and dealer's commission) represents the under recoveries of OMCs.

(Question 34: Page137, paragraph 49)

Would India explain what qualifications farmers need to be eligible for the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme?

Reply: Only small and marginal farmers (i.e. farmers holding up to 2 hectares of land) were eligible for complete waiver of all loans that were overdue on 31 December 2007 and which remained unpaid until 29 February 2008. Other farmers were eligible for a one time settlement (OTS) to get rebate of 25% upon payment of balance of 75% of outstanding loan.

(3) SERVICES

(i) Overview

(Question 35: Page 138, paragraph 52)

What exact measures and policies is India planning to implement in order to further bring in private sector investment so as to improve and expand its infrastructure?

Reply: India has put in place an attractive policy on FDI, under which FDI, up to 100%, on the automatic route, is permitted in almost all the infrastructure sectors.

(ii) Financial Services

(a) Banking

(Question 36: Page 141, paragraph 61)

In legal texts, foreign participation by investment is now allowed up to a threshold of 74% in private banks with government approval. The former level was 49%. Japan would like India to describe how many banks have foreign investment levels exceeding 49%.

Reply: Four out of 20 private sector banks had foreign investment levels exceeding 49% as on 30 June 2011.

(Question 37: Page 145, paragraph 75)

Does the newly established deposit insurance system (Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation) cover deposits made by foreign banks?

Reply: DICGC is the second oldest deposit insurance agency in the world and has been in operation since 1 January 1962. Our deposit insurance system covers deposits raised in India by foreign banks. Any deposits collected outside India are not insured by DICGC.

(b) Insurance

(Question 38: Page 151, paragraph 101)

It is known that there have been some movements towards changing the regulations of Foreign Direct Investment in the Indian insurance industry, which allows foreigners to hold shares in an Indian insurance company of up to 49%. Japan would like to know whether there are any specific issues/problems to be solved for further progress and how soon this regulation of FDI will be amended.

Reply: Government had introduced the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2008 in the Parliament on 2.12.2008. The Bill, inter alia, provides that the aggregate holdings of equity shares by a foreign company, either by itself or through its subsidiary companies or its nominees in Indian Insurance Companies may be increased from 26% to 49% except in case of insurance co operative societies where the limit would continue to be 26% as at present. At present the Bill is under consideration of the parliament Standing Committee on Finance and it will not be possible to specify a time frame.

(Question 39: Page 153, paragraph 108)

Indian insurance companies are restricted from freely arranging their reinsurance due to the regulation on reinsurance that allows them to offer reinsurance arrangement to overseas reinsurers overseas only when if Indian insurance companies cannot arrange reinsurance or they lack the capacity. Japanese insurers are suffering from this added regulation, which is a extra heavy burden on practicing their day to day business. Japan would like to know the prospect of amendment of this regulation.

Reply: According to the reinsurance regulations, Indian insurance companies can place surplus over and above the domestic reinsurance arrangements class wise with any of the reinsurers rated at least BBB subject to a limit of 10% of the total reinsurance premium ceded outside India being placed with any one reinsurer. Further the regulations state that every insurer shall offer an opportunity to other Indian insurers including the Indian Reinsurer to participate in its facultative and treaty surpluses before placement of such cessions outside India. The aforesaid regulations are minimal. They are in good balance between the insurer's reinsurance protection requirements and to optimize retention in the country.

(Question 40: Page 153, paragraph 108)

Japan would like to hear explanations on the following points on "(c) making the underwriting of third party risks concerning motor vehicles obligatory".

(1) The aim/purpose of this regulatory change.

(2) The point the discussions have reached and their future progress.