I'm posting the EC report on Copyright and Industrial property rights in Macedonia every year for the past 3-4 years. Here is the latest. For the full text visit: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/

4.7. Chapter 7: Intellectual property law

The law on copyright and neighbouring rights is not aligned with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The exclusion of phonogram rights and several disputes impeded the work of the two licensed collective rights management societies. The head of unit for copyright and neighbouring rights in the Ministry
of Culture was dismissed, reducing the capacity of the unit, and co-operation between the unit and relevant institutions remains limited.

In the area of industrial property rights, WIPO’s electronic document management system was customised for the State Office for Industrial Property and linked with the automated court case management information system applied in all courts. In 2012, the Academy for Judges and Prosecutors trained 218 members of the judiciary on protection of intellectual property rights (IPR). In the area of industrial property rights, the country is on track.

As regards enforcement, a methodology for collecting data on was adopted; the improved statistics on IPR enforcement will be available from 2013 onwards. The Law on Customs Measures for the Protection of IPR was amended in May 2013 to introduce fines for counterfeit recidivism and to allow use of seized counterfeit clothing items for disaster
recovery or social assistance packages. A user manual for the platform of the World Customs Organisation for IPR infringements was adopted, allowing recognition of originality of products. The Coordination Body for Intellectual Property undertook 25 coordinated actions in 2012, twice as many as in 2011; co-operation with the Agency for Managing Confiscated Property continued. In 2012, a total of 126 court proceedings were brought for violations of IPR. Courts imposed some 15 prison sentences and a number of fines for criminal offences on individuals. Counterfeit foodstuffs, cosmetics, hygiene products, medicines, toys, technical and electronic equipment are still widely available and awareness of their threats to health and safety is limited. Laboratory results confirming that medicines are counterfeit are not allowed as court evidence, which hampers the prosecution of counterfeiters. The IPR enforcement system remains complex rather than effective. Counterfeiting is not considered organised crime and efforts to combat it are insufficient. Co-operation at both national and international level has yet to be promoted. Preparations in this area are moderately advanced.

Conclusion

Some progress was made in the area of intellectual property law. A track record on investigation, prosecution and trial for IPR offences has been established. There are shortcomings in the procedures for prosecuting counterfeiters, with laboratory results on counterfeit medicines excluded as court evidence. There is no legal basis for collective management of phonogram rights. Awareness of IPR among institutions and the public remains low. Overall, preparations in the field of IPR are moderately advanced.