This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PRETORIA 003051 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/IPE SWILSON; AF/S; INL 
USDOC FOR 4510/ITA/IEP/ANESA/OA/JDIEMOND 
COMMERCE ALSO FOR HVINEYARD 
TREASURY FOR OWHYCHE-SHAW 
DEPT PASS USPTO FOR MADLIN AND SSCHIFFMAN 
DEPT PASS USTR FOR PCOLEMAN, WJACKSON, AND VESPINEL 
GENEVA FOR USTR 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KIPR ETRD SF USTR
SUBJECT: IPACT Workshops on IPR Enforcement Advance STOP - 
Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy 
 
REF: (A) Pretoria 1697 
 
     (B) 2004 Pretoria 4424 
     (C) State 129471 
 
¶1.  Summary.  This wrap-up cable reports on the seven 
workshops on IPR enforcement funded by INL that the U.S. 
Embassy organized with IPACT.  The workshops succeeded in 
raising awareness of the seriousness of IPR issues and of 
ways to enforce the law more effectively in South Africa. 
Some 244 prosecutors attended the workshops held in seven 
provinces.  The workshops promoted a common cause and good 
relations between the prosecutors and private sector 
defenders of IPR.  Many of the attorneys who made 
presentations represent U.S. companies with IPR interests in 
South Africa.  The workshops established a useful precedent 
for future workshops with South African prosecutors and 
magistrates.  We hope INL will continue to assist with 
funding for future projects.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  South Africa has an advanced legal framework of 
intellectual property rights (IPR) on the books.  Because of 
the demands on prosecutors to deal with the widespread 
vicious and violent crimes occurring daily in South Africa, 
however, it can be difficult to get them to focus on IPR 
crimes.  In order to help remedy this situation, the U.S. 
Embassy brainstormed with the Intellectual Property Action 
Group (IPACT) to come up with a practical way to improve the 
enforcement of IPR laws in South Africa.  Working together, 
we decided to organize a number of workshops on IPR 
enforcement in eight of South Africa's nine provinces 
between September 2004 and May 2005.  (The sparsely 
populated Northwest province was the only one where we did 
not organize a workshop.) 
 
¶3. As we were formulating the project, the former INL 
officer at post raised the proposal generally with South 
Africa's Director of National Prosecutions, who supported 
the idea.  The National Prosecuting Authority of South 
Africa was instrumental in the success of the project. 
Following a meeting with members of IPACT and the U.S. 
Embassy in early 2005, the Deputy Director of the National 
Prosecution Service advised prosecutors throughout the 
country to attend the workshops.  Her active coordination 
accounts for the large turnout of prosecutors (244), which 
roughly ranged from 61% (Port Elizabeth) to 84% (Durban) of 
all the national prosecutors in the seven provinces invited 
to attend.  Some drove over a hundred miles to attend.  Many 
of the absences were due to illness or distance. 
 
¶4.  Microsoft, one of the members of IPACT, hosted the pilot 
workshop for this series at its offices in Johannesburg 
(reftel A) in September 2004, in which scores of prosecutors 
from the Gauteng province attended.  Subsequently, the 
Department of State's Office of International Narcotics and 
Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) provided funding for follow-up 
workshops as follows: 
 
Place                         Date                Number of 
                                                Prosecutors 
 
Polokwane, Northern Province  March 7, 2005            32 
Nelspruit, Mpumulanga         March 8, 2005            18 
Kimberley, Northern Cape      April 6, 2005            28 
Bloemfontein, Free State      April 7, 2005            36 
Cape Town, Western Cape       May 3, 2005              65 
Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape  May 4, 2005              27 
Durban, KwaZuluNatal          May 5, 2005              38 
 
                              Total                   244 
 
¶5.  The local chief prosecutor and an IPACT representative 
opened each workshop with welcoming remarks.  A member of 
the U.S. Embassy's Economic Section also spoke to underscore 
the economic significance of IPR to the United States and to 
South Africa and underlined the Administration's new 
Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP) initiative.  The 
one-day workshop featured IPR attorneys from IPACT speaking 
on particular features of South Africa's intellectual 
property laws, followed by Q&As and a discussion with the 
prosecutors.  Presenters included the Recording Industry of 
South Africa (RISA), the South African Federation Against 
Copyright Theft (SAFACT), the Business Software Alliance 
(BSA), Microsoft, and attorneys from the law firms of Adams 
& Adams, Bowman Gilfillan, DM Kisch, and Spoor and Fisher. 
Presenters also ran various anti-piracy videos, including 
one on counterfeit goods and one currently shown daily in 
cinemas by SAFACT.  The topics covered were: 
-- Copyright 
-- Trade Mark 
-- Procedures under Counterfeit Goods Act of 1997 ("CGA") 
     - Elements of Offence 
     - Time Periods and Sentencing 
-- Presentation on Films and Publications Act 
-- Expert evidence preparation and procedure 
-- Admission of Guilt in terms of S 115A of the Criminal 
    Procedure Act ("CPA")and Plea Bargain 
-- Evidence and presumptions in terms of S 16 of the CGA 
-- Chain of Evidence 
-- Analysis of product 
-- The use of civil orders in criminal proceedings 
-- Sentencing in terms of S 19 of the CGA read with the 
    Adjustment of Fines Act 
-- Section 10 of the CGA 
-- Knowledge in terms of S 2(2) of the CGA 
 
Practical success advancing enforcement 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  The workshops were successful in advancing enforcement 
of IPR law with those responsible for prosecuting the laws 
in the following ways: 
 
-- Clarifying the timetable for actions under the 
Counterfeit Goods Act, e.g., deadlines for issuing seizure 
notices and summons 
 
-- Addressing the issue of how to access court transcripts 
 
-- Encouraging better ways for case planning prior to 
seizures and arrests 
 
-- Developing cases more adequately and sufficiently 
 
-- Eliminating flight risk of defendants 
 
-- Answering questions on practical enforcement issues 
 
-- Delivering counterfeit goods to brand owners for 
destruction to reduce the risk of counterfeit goods making 
their way back to the streets 
 
-- Considering which laws would be most useful to 
prosecutors in pursuing counterfeiters - Financial 
Intelligence Sector Act, Terrorist Prevention Act, or the 
Criminal Procedures Act 
 
-- Addressing issues surrounding the constitutionality of 
the "presumptions" in the Counterfeit Goods Act 
 
-- Reminding prosecutors that the Adjustment of Fines Act 
gives prosecutors additional leverage in the sentencing 
aspects of cases 
 
-- Facilitating cooperation between prosecutors and brand 
owners 
 
-- Explaining techniques for discerning between counterfeit 
and legitimate products 
 
-- Evaluating issues of flexibility between the Criminal 
Procedures Act (CPA) and the Counterfeit Goods Act (CGA) 
 
-- Considering issues of admissibility of statements made by 
suspects to police officers, DTI inspectors, and customs 
officials 
 
-- Clarifying the difference between an "expert statement" 
(CPA) and an "analysis statement" (CGA) 
 
-- Discussing how many samples of counterfeit goods had to 
be analyzed in order to satisfy the requirement that a "fair 
sample" be tested, such as in a case where 5000 CDs/DVDs may 
be seized 
 
-- Describing the difficulty in getting expert testimony 
from overseas witnesses due to distance and expense in 
flying them to South Africa 
 
-- Considering the acceptability of using satellite 
testimony using SABC facilities as well as those of private 
law firms 
 
-- Helping prosecutors become better aware of the tools at 
their disposal to enforce intellectual property rights 
 
-- Providing the public with greater awareness of the issues 
through interviews with the media 
 
-- Promoting the Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP). 
 
Upcoming USPTO Regional Conference 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  In September 2005, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 
(USPTO), with funding from EB and INL, will host a regional 
African conference on counterfeit medicines in Johannesburg 
(reftel C).  Post is currently working with SAG officials 
and various IPACT members to identify appropriate speakers 
and participants for this event.  We attribute much of the 
cooperation that we have received from the SAG and the 
private sector in our request for assistance on this event 
to the goodwill that was established in the course of 
setting up the IPR workshops for prosecutors. 
 
Next steps 
---------- 
 
¶8.  The prosecutors at each workshop recommended that IPACT 
conduct the same workshop with South African magistrates. 
Post has proposed such a project in reftel B.  Prosecutors 
also expressed their hope that this was just the beginning 
of an ongoing effort to provide better training and 
education to prosecutors and that follow-up workshops would 
be available.  Post endorses the idea of follow-up 
workshops.  Prosecutors expressed appreciation for the U.S. 
funding of the events.  IPACT presenters were equally 
generous in their acknowledgement to the United States for 
making these events possible through INL funding.  We want 
to maintain the positive momentum that we have helped to 
develop. 
 
Recent SAG Successes 
-------------------- 
 
¶9.  On May 31, 2005, the Department of Trade and Industry 
(DTI) issued the following press release to announce a 
landmark case in the criminal prosecution under IPR law: 
 
BEGIN TEXT 
 
LANDMARK CASE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT 
 
In  a  watershed  ruling  on  the  criminal  conviction  and 
sentencing of counterfeiters, Mr Ferhard Mohamed  was  found 
guilty  by the Pretoria Specialised Commercial Crimes Court. 
He  was  sentenced R90 000 or 18 months imprisonment with  a 
further 18 months suspended for 5 years. This means  the  18 
month  imprisonment will come into immediate  effect  should 
Mohamed again be convicted of counterfeiting within the next 
five years. 
 
The sentence is the result of the actions by inspectors from 
the  DTI  in  September 2004. The DTI acted on  a  complaint 
lodged  by  Adidas  SA  (Pty) Ltd, Levi  Strauss  (Pty  Ltd, 
Ferrari  S.p.A  and  Nissan South Africa (Pty)  Ltd  against 
Mohamed who operates from the business, City Wholesalers, in 
the Asian Bazaar in Pretoria. 
 
The  DTI inspectors seized more than 440 products. This  was 
not  the  first  time  Mohamed  had  been  found  to  be  in 
possession of counterfeit goods. During a previous  raid  by 
the  DTI  inspectors approximately 1800 counterfeit products 
were  seized.  Counterfeit goods destined for  Mohamed  were 
also previously detained and seized by the customs officials 
from   the   South  African  Revenue  Services.  The   Court 
considered  this to be aggravating circumstances in  handing 
down the sentence. 
 
The  sentence sends a clear message from all law enforcement 
authorities  that counterfeiting will not be  tolerated  and 
speaks  out  about the seriousness with which South  African 
courts view counterfeiting. 
 
END TEXT 
Note:  Ms Lana van Zyl, Director of Investigations, 
Office  of Company and Intellectual Property Enforcement  in 
DTI,  issued this press release.  She has been accepted into 
the  USPTO's  Enforcement Academy class in  September.   Her 
deputy,  Ms.  Amanda Lotheringen, attended  the  Enforcement 
Academy recently.  Both of these SAG officials have attended 
IPACT workshops in the past year. 
 
¶10.  The local media also reported on July 26 that the 
police, working with the South African Federation Against 
Copyright Theft (SAFACT), had raided the Montana flea market 
near Pretoria four times in recent weeks.  The most recent 
raid resulted in the seizure of 1,848 counterfeit DVDs from 
four stalls. 
 
¶11.  Counterfeiting remains a serious issue in South Africa. 
It is an uphill fight.  Still, the recent examples in 
prosecuting IPR criminals and raiding flea markets shows 
that South African government officials are aware of the 
problem and are taking steps to promote IPR protection.  The 
Embassy hopes that INL will continue to assist us in our 
efforts to promote a culture favoring IPR enforcement by 
funding future projects with IPACT. 
 
HARTLEY