13 Article 32 Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 10, shall be subject to a fine of not less than 20,000 pounds and not more than 100,000 pounds any party who undertakes: (1) the imitation, for commercialisation purposes, of the subject matter of an invention or a utility model for which a patent has been granted in accordance with the provisions of this Law; (2) the sale, offer for sale or circulation, importation or possession with the intention to trade, of products known to that party as imitations, where the patent for the invention or the utility model for such products is granted and valid in Egypt; (3) the unlawful use, on products, advertisements, trademarks, packaging or others, of indications that may lead to believe that such a party has obtained a patent for an invention or a utility model. Repetition of the offence shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period of no more than two years and by a fine of not less than 40,000 pounds and not more than 200,000 pounds. In all cases, the court shall order the seizure of the infringing imitated products and the implements used in the imitation. The conviction decision shall be published in one or more daily newspapers, at the expense of the convicted party. Article 33 The holder of a patent or a utility model may request the president of the competent court, as may be the case, to order conservatory measures against products or goods that are claimed to imitate a patented product, according tot he detailed description established in the patent or utility model document. The necessary conservatory measures shall be ordered to preserve such products and goods in their state. The aforementioned order may be issued before instituting the proceedings. Such order shall lapse if the proceedings are not instituted within 8 days from the date of the injunction. Article 34 The identical product shall be deemed to be obtained by the patented process, if the plaintiff could prove in his civil proceedings: (1) that the identical product was made by the direct use of the patented process; or (2) that he has exerted reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used in the production. In such a case, the court may require the defendant to provide evidence that the identical product was made by a process other than the patented process owned by the plaintiff. In requiring the production of evidence, the court shall take into account the legitimate interest of the defendant in protecting his manufacturing and business secrets.