Vol. 515 No. 2
98 Mr. Stanton asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of cases, under copyright law, being considered by the controller of patents, designs and trademarks; the action, if any, taken; the outcome in this regard; the cost of the office in each of the past three years; the plans, if any, she has for the further development or expansion of the office; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5716/00]
Total expenses of the Patents Office, as reported in the annual reports of the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, amounted to £3,229,006.85 in 1997 and £3,763,901.64 in 1998. I am advised that the figure for 1999 is in course of preparation in the Patents Office in the context of its forthcoming annual report for that year.
As regards the development or expansion of the office, the organisational and resource requirements of the Patents Office are kept under ongoing review in the light of current demands on its services.
Regarding the number of copyright referrals currently before the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, the Controller has reported to me as follows: under section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1963, disputes between persons using sound recordings in public and the owner of copyright subsisting in the recordings regarding the equitable remuneration payable to the copyright owner may be referred to the Controller for determination. In the period September 1989 to December 1995 62 references under section 31 were made by establishments using sound recordings, mainly discos and hotels.
Early in 1991, while the procedures preliminary to hearings of the earliest referred disputes were in train, the licensing body, Phonographic Performance, Ireland, Limited – the respondent in the proceedings, put the legal basis upon which the references had been made, section 31 at issue. The controller's findings that such references had properly been made under section 31 gave rise to judicial review proceedings before the High Court, initiated by the licensing body. The respondents in these proceedings included certain of the establishments which had made references to the controller. In October 1992 the High Court found that the references should have been made under section 32 of the Act – not section 31 – and prohibited the controller from proceeding further with the applications. Judicial review of the High Court's finding was sought of the Supreme Court by one of the respondents. In a judgment delivered on 1 October 1995 the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court, leaving the controller free to proceed with the references on hand.
Following further consideration and consultations with the parties, the controller, by order dated July 1996, appointed an arbitrator in relation to the disputes between Phonographic Performance, Ireland, Limited and the various discos and hotels.
During the period where proceedings were before the courts and prior to the appointment of the arbitrator, several of the discos and hotels involved either ceased trading or settled with the respondent.. At the time of the arbitrator's appointment, 55 of the references remained.
