Miguel Teixeira de Abreu LLM
Miguel Castro Pereira
Carmo Sousa Machado
Miguel de Avillez Pereira LLM
Manuel de Andrade Neves LLM
Rui Peixoto Duarte
Luís de Gouveia Fernandes
João de Freitas e Costa
Bernardo de Arrochela Alegria
José Maria Corrêa de Sampaio
Pedro Pais de Almeida
Armando Martins Ferreira
Guilherme Santos Silva
José Eduardo Martins
Duarte de Athayde
Ana Sofia Batista LLM
Sofia Santos Machado LLM
Marta de Oliveira Pinto Trindade
Paulo Cordeiro de Sousa
Maria Dulce Soares
Nuno Barbosa
Leonor Chastre LLM
Rita Maltez
Rui Pereira de Melo
Natália Garcia Alves
Carlos de Almeida Lemos
Fernando Veiga Gomes
José Carlos Vasconcelos
Patrícia Perestrelo
Melanie Lima Ferreira
Bruno Sampaio Santos
Sofia Castro Caldeira
Manuela Silva Marques
Inês Sequeira Mendes
Luís Fraústo Varona
Simão de Sant'Ana
Francisco Patrício
Alexandra Nascimento Correia
António Juzarte Rolo
Pedro Carreira Albano
Sandra Severino
João Gonçalves de Assunção LLM
Marta Romano de Castro
Susana Molinillo Iñarra
Patricia Viana
Alexandra Courela LLM
Cecília Anacoreta Correia
António Pina
André de Sousa Vieira LLM
Sofia Mendes Martins
Mafalda Teixeira de Abreu LLM
Magda Sousa Gomes
Matilde Brito Eugénio LLM
Mariana Gouveia de Oliveira
Madalena Moreira dos Santos
Eleonora Henriques
Tiago Corrêa do Amaral
Guilherme Mata da Silva LLM
Janine Gomes
Mónica Cayolla da Veiga LLM
Eduardo Peixoto Gomes
Elisa Pereira
Margarida Gonçalves Antunes
Tiago Castanheira Marques
Pedro Sousa Uva
Cristiana Ferreira
Sónia Afonso Vasques
Leonor Monteiro
Margarida Muñoz de Oliveira
Leonardo Marques dos Santos
Filipa Pinto Machado
Hugo Teixeira
Ricardo Martins Alves
Joana Costa Nora
Sofia Neves Taveira
Manuel Maria Braga Monteiro
André Pereira da Fonseca
Paulo Anjo
Ana Raquel Ribeiro
Renata Silva Alves
Paulo Amaral Basílio
TRAINEE LAWYERS
N’Zinga Teixeira Jasse
Marina Andrade
Vera Lopes
David Salgado Areias
José Varanda
Mauro Leonardo
Tiago Gama
Filipe Portela do Vale
Hermínio Branquinho de Almeida
Marina Martins Silveira
Pedro Santiago de Tânger
Raquel Mendes Viegas
Tiago Simão Mestre
Célia Silva
Ana Margarida Frazão
André Pardal
André Santos Rijo
Berta Grilo
Filipa Iglésias
Joana Beja Baptista
Juliana Ferraz Coutinho
Madalena Bernardes Coelho
Márcio Carreira Nobre
Margarida Fernandes Garcia
Margarida de Melo Cardoso
Maria Cabral de Azevedo
Sérgio Gonçalves Dinis
Sofia Serra
Isabel de Alcântara Guerreiro
Rui Rompante
Tiago Moreira da Silva
PARALEGAL
Rui Gonçalves
Nuno Rodrigo Esperança
Vera Correia Saraiva
COUNSELS
Artur Reis e Sousa
João Veiga Gomes
José Henriques da Silva
Luís Freire de Andrade
Paulo Teixeira Pinto
Bruno Cortes Lopes
Law nr.16/2008- Amendments to the Industrial Property Code
Directive 2004/48/CE, of April 29, 2004, required the adoption by Member States of
civil and administrative measures and proceedings for the protection and enforcement
of intellectual property rights (IP rights).
The main purpose of this Enforcement Directive was the harmonisation of the internal
legislation of the Member States on the infringement of IP rights. Such harmonisation is
actually necessary to avoid discrepancies between Member States that would be used by
pirates and counterfeiters to take advantage of those local jurisdictions where protection
of IP rights is less efficient and applicable penalties are not sufficiently dissuasive.
The Enforcement Directive was finally implemented in Portugal through law
nr.16/2008 dated April 1, 2008. In fact, the term for the Member States to implement
the said Directive had lapsed April 29, 2006.
To comply with the Enforcement Directive, law nr. 16/2008 has substantially amended
our Copyrights Code (“Código do Direito de Autor e dos Direitos Conexos”) and our
Industrial Property Code (“Código da Propriedade Industrial”).
In what concerns the Industrial Property Code, the main amendments determined by the
Enforcement Directive may be summarised as follows:
A) Preliminary proceedings
I.
Articles 339 and 340 of said Code (which contained provisions on injunctions and
preliminary proceedings) were completely abolished and replaced by a new set of more
specific and adequate measures, to take action against infringers of IP rights: new
articles 338-A to 338-P.
II.
Abreu & Associados
LISBOA
Sociedade de Advogados, RL
Av. das Forças Armadas, 125 12º
[email protected]
Tel. +351 21 723 18 00
www.abreuadvogados.com
Fax. +351 21 723 18 99
1600-079 Lisboa Portugal
LISBOA
PORTO
MADEIRA
ANGOLA (IN ASSOCIATION)
LISBOA | PORTO
First of all, new articles 338-C and 338-D establish protective measures to obtain and to preserve the
necessary evidence, such as, in case of infringements at a “ commercial level”, the disclosure of
bankary, financial, accountancy or commercial documents owned or controlled by the alleged
infringer or any third party.
In certain cases, the collection of samples and the apprehension of goods, materials and tools are also
provided.
III.
Liability for any losses and damages resulting from unjustified measures relies on the respective
applicants, who may be requested to produce an adequate guaranty or bond (“Caução”) to secure the
payment of the respective indemnification (article 338-G).
IV.
Article 338-H stipulates that the alleged infringer or any third party, in general, are bound to supply
information on the sources and distribution channels related to the goods or services infringing IP
rights.
V.
Articles 338-I and 338-J introduce provisions on injunctions (“providências cautelares” and
“arresto”), namely:
To prevent or to prohibit the alleged infringement;
To secure the indemnification of damages (seizure of immovable and movable assets,
including bank accounts, when the infringement attains a “commercial level”);
To seize counterfeited goods or instruments and tools.
0401.008/AKL/1057814v1
21.07.08
Page 2 of 4
B) Main actions (indemnifications) and final decisions
I.
As to the amount of the indemnifications eventually claimed, important standards are established in
article 338-L:
a) Damages (including moral damages) and loss of profits should be assessed, as well as any costs
related to the protection of rights, including investigation costs;
b) The amount of profit and the amount of the income originated by the infringement are also to be
considered.
c) If the total amount of damages is not fixed through the application of the above referred criteria,
the Court, subject to tacit or express agreement from the applicant, may alternatively fix a lump sum,
as an equitable indemnification, the minimum of which would correspond to the value of the
remuneration (“royalties” for instance) to be paid by the infringer in case he would have entered into
a license agreement with the IP rights owner (the applicant), plus additional costs.
d) Although proper punitive damages are not applicable, the Court is allowed to aggregate part or all
the above referred standards to indemnify the petitioner in case of especially serious and grave
infringement of IP rights, including recurrence of offences (nr.6 of article
338-L);
e) In any case, a sum sufficient to cover the whole expenditure with the investigation and suspension
of infringing activities must be specifically included in the overall amount of the indemnification.
II.
Final Court decisions, which may be published, may also provide measures on the withdrawal and
destruction of goods, equipment and tools related to the infringement (articles 338-M and 338-O);
0401.008/AKL/1057814v1
21.07.08
Page 3 of 4
III.
To prevent the continuation of the unlawful activities, the Court may also finally decide:
To temporarily suspend the exercise of certain activities
To ban the infringer from fairs and markets in general;
To close down the infringer’s industrial or commercial premises;
To apply an “astreinte” (compulsory fine) until the infringer actually terminates the
unlawful activity taking place, as ordered by the Court (article 338-N).
0401.008/AKL/1057814v1
21.07.08
Page 4 of 4