RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/M/26
24 May 2000
(00-2113)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 21 March 2000
Chairperson:  Ambassador Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay)
Subjects discussed:
A. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
B. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
C. REVIEW OF LEGISLATION :
(i) Review of the legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic and Latvia
(ii) Reviews in 2000 and 2001
D. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 70.8 AND 70.9
E. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2
F. SECTION 211 OF THE UNITED STATES OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1998
G. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
H. WORK ON ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
I. REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(b)
J. REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1
K. EXAMINATION OF THE SCOPE AND MODALITIES FOR NON-VIOLATION COMPLAINTS
L. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTOIP/C/M/26
Page 2
A. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
1. The Chairperson said that he had held inform al consultations on this matter, in order to
explore whether it would be possible to make progress in coming to decisions on the 15 pending
requests from international intergovernmental organiza tions.  He wished to underline that the delay
that had occurred in this regard did not help in gi ving the WTO a favourable image.  In these informal
consultations, he had proposed that, as a first step, the Council might consider first the requests from
those multilateral organizations which had obtained observer status in other bodies of the WTO, in
particular those which were agencies related to the United Nations.  In this connection, Members had
agreed that additional information should be s ought from the World Health Organization ("WHO").
2. The representative of the United States said that his delegation was of the view that the
information that had been received from the WHO did not fully respond to the guidelines for
considering requests for observer status (Annex 3 of document WT/L/161).  His delegation would be
favourably inclined to consider ad hoc observer st atus for the WHO, if additional information would
be provided that met Members' expectations.
3. The representative of the European Communities supported the United States saying that it
might be useful to have the WHO as an observer in the Council.
4. The Council took note of these statements and agreed  to revert to this item at its next meeting.
B. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
- Notifications of legislation to be reviewed in 2000 and 2001
5. The Chairperson recalled that, on 1 January 2000, the transitional periods of Article 65.2
and 65.3 had expired.  Consequently, obligations had entered into effect on that date for a large
number of Members who had been entitled to avail themselves of these general transitional periods.
Their obligation under Article 63.2 to notify their national implementing legislation had also become
effective.  The procedures adopted by the Council for such notifications were contained in document
IP/C/2 and called for them to be  made within 30 days, i.e. by the end of January 2000.  The
Secretariat had prepared a note1 reflecting the status of the notifications received so far, as it had done
in 1996 when similar obligations had entered into force for developed country Members.  The note
was divided into three sections, one dealing with the notifications due by those Members that had
agreed to have their legislation reviewed in June 2000, a second one concerning the Members to be
reviewed in November 2000, and a third one relatin g to the remaining Members.  The note showed
from which Members notifications had been received and distributed.  In several cases, the Secretariat
was in contact with delegations in order to get the necessary additions to the notifications orclarifications of certain points.  In the distribution of these notifications, the Secretariat had given
priority to those received from delegations whose le gislation was scheduled for review in June 2000.
Virtually all the material received from these Members had been distributed.  However, as the table
concerning these Members in the Secretariat note showed, gaps remained.  Although eight of these
Members had fully or largely completed their notifications, five of these eight had not yet notifiedtheir responses to the Checklist of Issues on En forcement contained in document IP/C/5.  From the
other five Members some material had been receive d, but most of it was still outstanding.  Given that
the deadline for submitting questions to the Members to be reviewed in June was 17 April, he urged
them to submit the outstanding material without delay.  In case some of the material to be notified was
                                                     
1 Job No. 1745, dated 21 March 2000.IP/C/M/26
Page 3
not yet ready, he suggested that the delegations concerned submit whatever could be notified without
delay and complement the notification as soon as other parts of the material were ready for
submission.
6. Continuing, he said that the note also showed  that many Members had not yet submitted any
notification concerning their implementing legislation at all, in particular those whose legislationwould be reviewed at a later stage.  He recalled that Article 63.2 of the Agreement required Members
to notify the laws and regulations pertaining to the subject-matter of the Agreement applicable as of
1 January 2000.  The purpose of this obligation was to assist the Council in its review of the operation
of the Agreement and he, therefore, appealed to those Members which had yet to notify their TRIPS
implementing legislation to do so without delay, pursuant to the Council decision contained in
document IP/C/2.
- Notifications of amendments to legislation notified earlier
7. The Chairperson informed the Council that, since the last meeting, amendments to legislation
notified earlier had been received from Bulgaria, th e Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Portugal,
Slovenia and Spain.  These would be available in the IP/N/1/- series of documents as soon as possible.
(ii) Notifications under Articles 1.3 and 3.1
8. The Chairperson informed the Council that noti fications had been received from Israel and
Estonia, which would be available in the IP/N/2/- series of documents shortly.
(iii) Notifications under Article 69
9. The Chairperson recalled that, since the last meeting, new contact points had been notified by
Estonia under Article 69.  This brought the number of Members that had notified contact points under
this provision to 95.  Modifications to earlier notified contact points had been received from Bolivia,Germany and Tunisia.  All these notifications would be available in the IP/N/3/- series of documents
as soon as possible.
C. R
EVIEW OF LEGISLATION
(i) Review of the legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic and Latvia
10. The Chairperson recalled that both the Kyrgyz Republic and Latvia had received a number of
questions from the delegation of the European Communities just one week before the last meeting,
when the review of their legislation had been taken up, and that these delegations had not had
sufficient time to prepare responses before that meeting.  Responses had subsequently been received
from both Members and distributed in the IP/Q/- series of documents.  Since then, follow-up
questions had been received from the United States addressed to both Members.
11. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation had not yet had an
opportunity to review the responses that had been rece ived and wished to reserve the right to revert to
this review at a later time.
12. The representative of the United States referred to the questions that his delegation had
submitted to both Members and said that his delegation hoped to receive responses, if possible, prior
to the next meeting in order to have an opportunity to consider them.
13. The representative of Latvia noted that this was the second time that questions in the review
of her country's legislation had been posed at very short notice prior to a meeting of the Council so
that her delegation was not in a position to provide the responses at the meeting.  Her delegationIP/C/M/26
Page 4
would provide comprehensive responses to the questions that had been posed by the United States in
due course.
14. The Council took note of these statements and agreed  to revert to the follow-up questions
posed in these reviews at its next meeting.
(ii) Reviews in 2000 and 2001
15. The Chairperson said that this item had been taken up in informal consultations at which,
insofar as the reviews in 2000 were concerned, the order of Members to be reviewed at each of the
two meetings had been determined by drawing lots.  The result was that, at the meeting scheduled for
the week of 26-30 June, the legislation of Trinidad and Tobago would be reviewed first and, at the
meeting scheduled for the week of 27 November to 1 December, the legislation of St. Lucia would be
taken up first.  The other Members, whose legislati on was to be reviewed at these meetings, would be
taken up in alphabetical order after Trinidad and Tobago and St. Lucia, respectively.
16. Turning to the reviews in 2001, he said that it had been suggested that these be conducted at
three meetings:  the first in February/March, the second in June/July and the third in November.  He
had been consulting with the 42 Members concerned on the question as to at which of these meetings
their respective legislation might be reviewed.  Some progress had been made in this regard, although
he was not yet in a position to put forward a complete timetable for the reviews in 2001 for theCouncil's consideration.  Therefore, he proposed that the Chair continue conducting the necessary
consultations with a view to proposing a complete programme by the time of the Council's next
meeting.
17. The representative of Singapore  sought some indication from the Secretariat of the days on
which each Member was likely to be reviewed in order to assist delegations in planning their
attendance at the meetings.
18. The Chairperson said that the Secretariat would circulate an indicative list of dates for the
review of each Member at the June and November meetings drafted on the basis of prior experience.
However, it had to be borne in mind that these lists might not give more than a rough indication,
because the reviews in question would concern the totality of each developing country Member'slegislation, whereas the developed country Member s' legislation had been reviewed subject by
subject.  In any event, he believed that it woul d be prudent for the delegations whose legislation was
going to be reviewed to plan to stay until the end of the review meeting in order to be able to respond
to any follow-up questions, or new questions that might be raised at the meeting.
19. The Council took note of these statements and agreed
 to proceed as proposed by the Chair.
D. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 70.8 AND 70.9
20. The Chairperson said that he had no new developments to report under this item.  He recalled
that, at the Council's previous meeting, the repr esentative of the European Communities had informed
the Council that his delegation, after having carefully studied the information provided by certain
Members in response to questions posed to them, believed that these Members had not clarified their
positions sufficiently and that it would pursue the matter bilaterally.
21. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation had not had the
opportunity to pursue this matter bilaterally with  the Members concerned and, therefore, requested
that this item be kept on the Council's agenda.
22. The Council took note of this statement and agreed  to revert to this item at its next meeting.IP/C/M/26
Page 5
E. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE  66.2
23. The Chairperson said that, since the previous meeting, information had been provided in
writing by Switzerland in response to the Council's  invitation to developed country Members, at its
meeting of 1 and 2 December 1998, to supply information on how Article 66.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement was being implemented.  Such information had been provided earlier in writing byAustralia, Japan, the European Communities and 12 of their member States, New Zealand and the
United States.  This information was available in document IP/C/W/132 and addenda and
supplements.  Information had also been provided orally during the discussion of this agenda item at
Council meetings since December 1998.  He recalled that the Council's discussions had shown that
some delegations had had difficulty in assessing the mass of information made available.  He
suggested that one way of helping in this respect would be to request the Secretariat to prepare a short
note setting out the types of measures that had been notified, with cross references to where furtherdetails could be found.
24. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chair and to revert to this item at its next
meeting.
F. SECTION 211 OF THE UNITED STATES OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1998
25. The Chairperson recalled that this matter had been on the agenda for several meetings.
Additional information had been received from the United States and would be circulated in the
IP/C/W/- document series as soon as possible.
26. The representative of the United States reiterated that Article 63.3 required Members to
supply, in response to a written request from another Member, laws and regulations and final judicial
decisions and administrative rulings of general application pertaining to the subject-matter of the
TRIPS Agreement.  His delegation had provided that  information in response to the written request
submitted to it by the delegation of Cuba under Article 63.3.  It had provided the text of the legislation
and the regulations referred to in that legislation.  As a supplement to the original response, his
delegation was providing Cuba with the text of the revised regulations, the text of the District Courtdecision in Havana Club Holdings SA v Galleon SA et al.  and the opinion of the Appellate Court in
that case.  In the view of his delegation, the materi als it had provided to Cuba fulfilled completely the
obligations of the United States under Article 63.3.  The TRIPS Agreement provided for dispute
settlement procedures to be used when one Member believed that another Member had taken an
action inconsistent with its obligations and he noted that some Members had availed themselves of
that opportunity in this situation.
27. The representative of the European Communities asked the representative of the United States
to indicate in which respect the text of the judgem ent of the United States Court of Appeal clarified
the question of the alleged incompatibility of Se ction 211 with several provisions of the TRIPS
Agreement.
28. The representative of Cuba said that the addi tional information provided by the United States
had only been received the day preceeding this Council meeting.  His delegation had not had time to
study it and, consequently, was not yet in a position to comment on it.  He echoed the comments of
the representative of the European Communities and underlined the need to demonstrate the
compatibility of this legislation with various provisions of the Agreement.  Efforts made by Cuba and
other delegations had, to date, not been fruitful in getting the United States to comment on the issues
raised by his country concerning Section 211.  He reiterated that the delegation of the United Stateshad limited itself to reproducing a compendium of legal texts.  The communications of the United
States, addressed to Cuba and circulated in documents IP/C/W/139 and IP/C/W/139/Add.1, neither
provided sufficient information on, nor showed good faith implementation of, the obligations underIP/C/M/26
Page 6
the TRIPS Agreement.  For these reasons, his delegation did not believe that the United States had
fulfilled its obligation under Article 63.3 to furnish information in sufficient detail concerning the
compatibility of Section 211 with the TRIPS Agreement.   Continuing, he noted that, at the time of the
Council's reviews of the United States' legislation, Section 211 had not yet been promulgated so that it
could not be analysed in the light of the TRIPS Agreement.  Given that the Section had not been
notified in accordance with the obligations under Article 63.2 of the Agreement and the procedure
established by the Council as contained in document IP/C/2, Cuba would take the necessary measures
in the hope that this obligation would be fulfilled.  He therefore requested that this item be kept on the
Council's agenda at its next meeting in the hope that the United States would fulfil its obligations
under Article 63.2.
29. The representative of the United States, responding to the question posed by the
representative of the European Communities, said that the Appellate Court's decision had simply
upheld the decision of the lower court.  His delegation had had an exhaustive discussion of the
consistency of the provisions of the US law in question with the TRIPS Agreement during the
consultations with the European Communities under the DSU.  His delegation's arguments were well
known to the European Communities' delegation.
30. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation had held two rounds
of consultations with the United States which had not brought the two parties closer together.  His
delegation remained convinced that Section 211 was incompatible with several provisions of the
TRIPS Agreement and was considering, since this was a matter of great concern to it, whether further
steps needed to be taken.
31. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this item at its next
meeting.
G. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
32. The Chairperson recalled that the Council, at its  previous meeting, had had a special focus on
technical cooperation and that in that context developed country Members had provided their annual
updates of information on their technical cooperation activities.  Some of that information had beenprovided just prior to that meeting and most of it had only been available in its original language.
Therefore, it had been agreed, as in previous years, to invite Members to make further comments on
these annual reports at the present meeting.  He also informed the Council that, since the previous
meeting, Germany had notified modifications to its contact point for technical cooperation purposes,
circulated in the IP/N/7/- series of documents.
33. The representative of Australia, reporting to the Council on two technical cooperation
activities her delegation had been involved with recently, first drew Members' attention to an
Australian "Informal Survey of Notification and Re view of National Intellectual Property Laws under
the WTO TRIPS Agreement".  Hard copies of this survey had been distributed to all Geneva missions
in December 1999.  It was also available on the Internet.2  The survey had been undertaken to support
developing countries in preparing for the notification and review process after the obligations for
which the general transitional period under Article 65.2 expired in 2000 had become effective.  Thegeneral observations in the survey illustrated how in practice notification and review had been used to
fulfil the intended purpose of promoting transparency under Article 63.  The survey had been intended
both to draw on the experience of others in such a way as to ease the burden of notification and
review for developing countries and also to help facilitate the beneficial flow of information about
national intellectual property systems.
                                                     
2 The survey can be found at http://www.dfat.gov.au/trips.IP/C/M/26
Page 7
34. Secondly, she referred to a statement on cooperation for intellectual property technical
assistance in the Asia/Pacific region, which had recently been issued jointly by the Director General
of WIPO and three Australian Government Ministers.  The statement reaffirmed Australia's
commitment to technical cooperation, which was coordinated so as to serve more effectively the
identified needs of its intended beneficiaries.  During his recent visit to Australia, Dr. Idris had openedthe WIPO/Australia Regional Symposium on the Strategic Management of Intellectual Property in the
21
st Century, which had been attended by over 100 representatives from some 30 countries of the
Asia/Pacific region.  This symposium had underscored the fact that strategic management of
intellectual property was emerging as one of the key factors in ensuring that the economic and social
benefits of intellectual property protection were widely available within the framework of the TRIPS
Agreement and had explored practical ways of securing these benefits.
35. The representative of Korea introduced his country's technical cooperation efforts for
developing and least-developed countries.  He promised to submit a paper in greater detail shortly.
Briefly, in June 1999, in the framework of APEC , Korea had organized a symposium for developing
country APEC economies to help them implement th e TRIPS Agreement.  The participation in this
symposium by the WTO Secretariat had played an important role in the success of the symposium.
Korea was also planning, as a leading member of the Collective Action Plan on IPR, within theCommittee on Trade and Investment of APEC, to hold an international workshop and the
11
th Intellectual Property Eminent Persons Group meeting on Cheju Island in July 2000.
36. The Council took note of  the statements made.
H. WORK ON ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
37. The Chairperson reported to the Council on the discussion that Members had had during
informal consultations that had taken place on this matter and which had focused on the procedural
aspects of the work under the built-in agenda.  It had been agreed that the record of that discussion
would be incorporated into the minutes of this meeting.3  In his report, the Chairperson emphasized
that all delegations which had taken the floor had expressed a readiness to actively participate in
pursuing the built-in agenda both as regards th e negotiations leading to the establishment of a
multilateral system for the notification and registration of geographical indications as well as the
review provided for under Article 24.2.  As regards the notification and registration system, work on
the negotiations was under way.  The European Communities would be tabling a new proposal in the
near future, which would provide a new and needed impetus to the work on Article 23.4.  Work under
Article 24.2 was also under way.  Delegations were awaiting the summary paper from the Secretariat,
which would, in a more systematic manner, set out the different responses to the Checklist (IP/C/13
and Add.1) which the Council had received from Members.  As a result of the Decision taken by theGeneral Council on 7 and 8 February 2000, the review under Article 24.2 must also address the trade
and development impact on developing countries.  Switzerland had announced that it would table a
paper in the near future addressing the issue of the diversity of systems existing for the protection of
geographical indications.  There had been no consensus on the approach to be taken to the issue of the
extension of the scope of protection under Article 23 to other product areas and the Council's mandatein this connection.  The Chairman would hold informal consultations before the Council's next
meeting on the methodology for carrying forward the work on geographical indications.
38. In response to a question from the representative of the European Communities, the
representative of the Secretariat explained that the Secretariat had not been able to finalize its
summary overview of the responses to the Council's Checklist due to resource problems, which had
prevented it from meeting the considerable task of completing the paper in question on the basis of the
detailed outline that had been agreed by the Council.  The Intellectual Property Division of the
Secretariat had been short-staffed over the past months, precisely at a time that it had had to service
                                                     
3 Accordingly, the record of that discussion  is contained in the Annex to these minutes.IP/C/M/26
Page 8
four active panels.  He apologized for the delay and expected the paper to be available, at least in
English, several weeks before the next meeting but noted that translation was beyond his control.
39. The Chairperson then opened the floor for a debate which he believed should focus rather on
the substantive aspects of the work in this area.  He informed the Council that the Secretariat had
received follow-up questions from the United States4 to the responses that had been received from the
European Communities to the Council's Checklist concerning the review under Article 24.2.
40. The representative of Australia wished to ex press some further views, in addition to the
comments she had made during the informal consultations.  She acknowledged the interest of some
countries in securing better protection for geographical indications, which they perceived as
intellectual property assets.  However, in her view, their proposals might not deliver the expected
benefits.  She believed that closer attention to actual national systems would be more productive.  The
TRIPS Agreement established that no protection was required at all unless a geographical indicationwas protected in the country of origin (Article 24.9).  Moreover, much of the notified national
legislation made little practical distinction be tween 'normal' and 'extended' protection.  Actual
implementation by a wide range of Members should be considered as the most reliable guide to
further action and the voluminous information that Members had requested from one another under
Article 24.2 should be given serious attention.  Members might well find that, rather than advancingtheir interests, a rewriting of the rules would simply add to the administrative burdens of TRIPS
implementation with no net benefit.  There was no guarantee that any of the specific geographical
indications that had been mentioned in the debate would actually receive any further protection at a
national level in the event that the TRIPS Agreemen t were rewritten.  Despite Members' demands for
detailed information under Article 24.2, and para llel processes underway in WIPO and the OECD,
there had been no serious endeavour to consider and review that information and draw practical
conclusions from it.  As a priority, the Article 24.2 review should be extended to those developing
countries for whom TRIPS implementation had recently fallen due.  Geographical indication
protection involved a diverse range of legal means, as the number of mechanisms already notified and
reviewed made clear.  In fact, it was not surprising that no synthesis of this information had yetemerged.  In this respect, Australia had cautioned, at the time that such a synthesis had been proposed,
that it would be difficult to force a diverse range of legal means into a single template.  The review
should be informed and shaped by the full range of national approaches taken and not be dominated
by the legal systems of the minority of Members which had notified prior to this year.  This would
ensure a balanced, practical and informed approach to consideration of this item, rather than the
pre-emptive approach which had been evident so far.
41. In relation to the multilateral register to be established under Article 23.4, the representative
of Australia said that the TRIPS Council's mandate was limited to the substantive negotiations already
stipulated in Article 23.4, unless it was given a clear directive otherwise.  This applied equally to any
proposal to broaden the scope of the proposed register.  The TRIPS Council simply had no mandate to
do this and any expanded mandate would need to be established in the appropriate body.  Australia
opposed any proposal that would in itself create new obligations or administrative burdens forMembers and stressed the burdensome nature of such proposals for countries still implementing the
TRIPS Agreement.  It opposed any system that created a presumption that a notified geographical
indication should be protected by participating Members;  that presumed a formality-based
registration system at a national level;  or that expected automaticity of protection beyond existing
national mechanisms.  It had not been considered necessary under the TRIPS Agreement to overrideor pre-empt national decision-making processes on trademark or patent protection to create default
global protection for individual intellectual property rights, even for well-known marks which were
viewed by some as having global reach.  Geographical indications should not become default global
rights without reference to the specific commercial  conditions and legal situation applying in the
jurisdiction of each Member concerned.  Article 23.4 existed only to facilitate the protection of
                                                     
4 Subsequently distributed in document IP/C/W/168.IP/C/M/26
Page 9
existing rights, not to create new rights.  It should not operate to overrule or pre-empt national
geographical indication systems.  It remained the prerogative of Members to choose the legal means
for geographical indication protection that most served their interests.  Many had good reasons for not
choosing the burdensome approach of a pre-emptiv e registration based system, with all the resource
demands of such a system, and might instead choose non-registration systems.  For some countries,the use of general consumer protection or unfair competition law should be sufficient to meet the
TRIPS obligations.
42. The representative of Australia said that she remained engaged in the mandated negotiations
on this issue and committed to moving the negotiations forward.  She suggested that, in moving this
issue forward, Members should concentrate on clarifying some of the more important substantive
questions, such as whether there was any legal basis for using the register to create new obligations or
a presumption that individual geographical indicati ons should be protected;  whether Members would
be obliged to establish formality-based registration systems for geographical indication protection,
beyond their existing obligations to establish legal means;  how Members interpreted and intended to
respect the optional nature of the register; how Members could maintain the distinction between the
Article 23.4 register negotiations - an existing negotiating process initiated some two years ago - and
proposals to expand Article 23.1 protection to products other than wines and spirits;  and why theexisting multilateral register (namely the Lisbon Agreement, dating from 1958) had been unappealing
to the overwhelming majority of WTO Members (only 19 countries had ratified this Agreement over
42 years).  The lack of clarity about the proposed register seemed to be a further consequence of
reversing the natural order of reviewing national im plementation before creating new mechanisms and
new obligations.  The pressing task confronting the TRIPS Council - admittedly more difficult andcomplex than the top-down, prescriptive creation of new obligations on intellectual property rights -
was to review how geographical indications were already protected in WTO Members, and from that
to draw conclusions about how that protection could be facilitated through a multilateral notification
and registration process.
43. The representative of Argentina expressed his delegation's support for the proposal from
Canada, Chile, Japan and the United States with regard to Article 23.4 as contained in document
IP/C/W/133/Rev.1.
44. The representative of Hong Kong, China endorsed that negotiations under Article 23.4 should
go ahead quickly in respect of developing a system of notification and registration in respect of
geographical indications for wines.  He noted that there was doubt as to the mandate for extending
that to geographical indications for spirits.  On the other hand, for the sake of cooperation, his
delegation had no objection to spirits being taken into account in this exercise.  Hong Kong, Chinawas looking forward to the papers which were being prepared by the European Communities and the
Secretariat which it believed would be of great assistance in taking forward this exercise.  As to the
extension of the scope of protection to other categories, his delegation had reservations as to whether
a mandate existed at present to do so.  However, it was, of course, logical and, in a sense, inevitable,
that demands arose for such extensions and it was part of a discussion which had been going on forsome time.  In his view, the process under Article 23.4 should be carried out efficiently and should not
have to be repeated at some future date.  He hoped to see that any process carried out under Article
23.4 in respect of wines should result in a system which was extensible to other categories at some
point in the future without having to be largely rewo rked or rethought.  If this consideration could be
taken into account when such work went ahead, time and resources could be saved in the future.
45. The representative of the United States associated himself with the statement made by
Australia.
46. The representative of Mexico, in addition to the comments she had already made during the
informal consultations, wished to explain Mexico's understanding of the nature of the Council's work
in relation to a multilateral system of notification and registration for geographical indications.  TheIP/C/M/26
Page 10
mandate for the work was contained in Article 23.4 in respect of wines and in the Singapore
Ministerial Declaration in respect of spirits.  Taking the wording of Article 23.4, the purpose of the
system should be to facilitate the protection of geographical indications.  This purpose implied
establishing means to identify and make public in a transparent manner those geographical indications
which Members were already obliged to protect in pursuance of the provisions of the TRIPSAgreement.  The system should not in any way touch on the rights and obligations established in the
Agreement;  the function of the register would simply be to facilitate, through more transparent and
agile procedures, the protection of geographical indications as set out in the Agreement.  The value
added as a result of such procedures would be consistent with the requirement to grant additional
protection to geographical indications for wines and spirits in conformity with Article 23 itself.
Mexico agreed that the system should be voluntary in nature, and it should be open to all Members
wishing to participate in such a system.  This meant, in her delegation's view, that Members were notobliged to register geographical indications in order for these to get the protection in other Members,
since the obligation to grant protection derived from the provisions of the Agreement, not from the
register itself.  Protection in accordance with these provisions should be introduced in the different
systems used by Members themselves, recognizing that it was up to each Member to afford the
protection to geographical indications for wines and spirits according to its own domestic legislation,provided this was in conformity with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.  Geographical
indications which would be eligible for protection under the TRIPS Agreement should, therefore, be
eligible for inclusion in the multilateral register and the system to be established should provide a
procedure to ensure that only those geographical indications which fully met the conditions for
protection established in the Agreement would be registered.
47. In order to illustrate and better understand the way in which the register should operate, she
described a dark room in which there were a few people wearing a red hat and others wearing a green
hat.  The red hatted people would represent geographical indications that met the conditions
established in the Agreement and, therefore, had the right to protection under the Agreement, whereas
those wearing a green hat did not meet the conditions or requirements for such protection.  This wasthe situation in which Members found themselves at present.  In this dark room, there were
geographical indications which, under the conditions of the Agreement, deserved protection and
others which did not, but it was not known which were which.  The establishment of a multilateral
register would be a way of lighting up this dark room, enabling Members to see who were wearing a
green hat and who were wearing a red hat.  Lighting up the room would facilitate the protection of the
red-hatted people because Members would be able to identify them clearly and, thus, the provisions of
Article 23.4 would be met.  This would not involv e the creation of any new rights or obligations
because those wearing red hats already had the right to be protected before they went into this dark
room and it was quite clear that a green-hatted person could not suddenly change to a red-hatted
person simply because the light went on in this dark room.  The system would be voluntary, because
only those who wanted to walk into this room would participate in the system.  To sum up, the
multilateral registration system would enable Members to shed light on the situation in which they allfound themselves, allowing Members to accord the required protection for geographical indications.
Mexico believed that while the system should not increase obligations, neither should it in any way
diminish or limit the rights already acquired under the Agreement.  A multilateral notification and
registration system which did not facilitate the effective protection of geographical indications for
wines and spirits would not meet the mandate that the Council had.  In Mexico's view, any system orscheme which would be limited to the simple collection of information on a database would not fulfil
the purpose of Article 23.4.  Mexico looked forward to participating in future discussions and was
interested to see the proposal which had been announced by the European Communities on this
subject.
48. The representative of Iceland said that his delegation had listened with great interest to the
discussion and legal interpretations concerning the mandate.  However, such discussion was not
bound to take Members forward a lot, bearing in mind that Members were obliged to enter into
negotiations on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration according toIP/C/M/26
Page 11
Article 23.4.  He reminded Members that one of the major reasons for the failure in Seattle might
have been that Members had been trying to swallow too big a bite which got stuck in Members'
throats.  Fortunately, Members had been able to spit it out before getting choked.  He suggested that
the Council concentrate in the coming months on the multilateral system for the notification and
registration of geographical indications.  There were a number of questions unanswered in regard tosuch a system.  For instance, what would be the cost of operating such a system?  What was the
system supposed to cover?  In that connection, there was also the question as to whether Members
should extend the scope.  He tended to agree with those that had said that the mandate was unclear.
The scope was limited to wines and, possibly, spirits.  As regards the costs, he wondered whether the
system would put an additional burden on Members, in particular developing and least developed
countries.  How would the dispute settlement mechanism apply in relation to the system, and
arbitration?  Members should concentrate on the system itself and see if they could reach anyconsensus or agreement to establish such a system, run it for several years and see how successful it
would be.  If it turned out to function well and helped Members, then Members might start discussing
the possibility of extending the system to other types of goods.
49. The representative of India expressed support for the point made by Hong Kong, China
according to which the eventual registration system should be made extensible to other product areas.
He urged the Council to give careful consideration to this point, given the obvious advantages in
terms of time and energy.  The questions posed by Australia were pertinent questions, but could be
best discussed in an informal setting.  While informal consultations should be used by delegations to
explain the various positions they had taken and get into a dialogue, the TRIPS Council meetings
should be used to formally state these positions, for example as to whether a Member was or was notin favour of an extension of the product coverage.
50. The representative of Brazil said that Brazil supported the establishment of a multilateral
system for notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits on a
non-burdensome and voluntary basis, without addition al obligations for Members.  The proposal put
forward by Canada, Chile, Japan and the United States seemed to be more in line with these criteria,but his delegation would consider with an open mind any other proposals that would be presented in
the future by other Members.
51. The representative of Korea expressed support for the thrust of what had been said by the
Australian delegation, especially with respect to the nature of the multilateral system of notification
and registration.  Korea shared the concerns expressed by Australia.  The discussion on the
multilateral system should be conducted with due respect to Members' own legal frameworks, which
varied from Member to Member.  Participation migh t be limited in a system that did not take account
of particular situations in individual Members.  He was looking forward to the proposal announced by
the European Communities.
52. The Chairperson suggested that the Council take due note of the statements made, including
those made during the informal consultations, and revert to the matter at its next meeting.
53. The Council so agreed.
I. REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(b)
54. The Chairperson said that informal consultations held on this matter had provided an
opportunity for an interesting exchange of views concerning the way in which the Council should
organize its future debate.  Different positions had been expressed.  One delegation had said that the
Council did not have a mandate to continue with the review of the provisions of Article 27.3(b);  suchreview could only be undertaken on the basis of a decision from a higher body, which could also give
guidance in this respect.  Some other delegations were  of the view that the review of the provisions of
Article 27.3(b) was continuing and was a topical item.  There were several options for dealing with itIP/C/M/26
Page 12
in the future.  The first would be to continue open debate as at previous meetings.  The second option
would be to further discuss the matter on the basis of a recapitulative list of the substantive questions
raised by Members.  This second approach would make it possible to have a more organized and
systematic debate on the elements which delegations had stated were of fundamental importance to
them.  He, in his capacity as Chairperson, had recalled the main issues that had arisen in thisconnection.
5  No consensus on the approach to be taken had emerged from the discussions during the
informal consultations.  A number of delegations had expressed themselves in favour of a more
organized debate.  Some delegations had said that, if the Council were to opt for such an approach,
there should be additional consultations concerning the content of the list to be established.  He
suggested that the various options of how to approach this matter in the future could be discussed in
further informal consultations.
55. The representative of India said that he attached importance to this review.  He believed that
the substantive review of Article 27.3(b) had begun and should figure on the agenda of all subsequent
meetings of the TRIPS Council during the year 2000.  He said that the flexibility which was presently
available under Article 27.3(b) should not be diluted at any cost;  if anything, it might need to be
enhanced.   India was open to any delegation raising any issue under the rubric of Article 27.3(b).
India itself had raised the issue of the interface between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention onBiological Diversity without any pr esumption of compatibility or otherwise.  Next, India had raised
the issue of the disclosure of the source or origin of any biological resources used in an invention for
which a patent was sought.  Then, India had raised the issue of domestic mechanisms for
benefit-sharing concerning the commercial exploitation of such patented inventions with indigenous
communities and holders of traditional knowledge.  India had also broached the subject ofbenefit-sharing by innovators through either material transfer agreements or transfer of information
agreements.  India believed that, if a patent application mentioned the source of the biological
resources involved and if that was open to full public scrutiny upon filing of the application, this
might alert countries with possible opposition claims to examine the application and state their claims
well in time.  Other issues concerned the patenting of living organisms and the definition of biologicalor non-biological processes.
56. The representative of India said that the Council should attempt to address some of these
issues within the next half year and subsequently.  He was not opposed to a list as had been suggested
by the Chair but, if such a list posed problems, the Council should simply give enough time to
Members to comment on the issues raised by India and others.  India expected a certain engagement
by its trading partners on at least some of the issues that India had raised.  Of course, the list of issues
was not closed.  If Members had other issues, India was perfectly willing to address them.  So far,there had been only one meeting in which comments had been made from various angles and where
papers had been put forward.  Members could now go beyond those papers and make specific and
concrete suggestions.  He urged Members to approach the review in a constructive fashion.  Wanting
to advance the process, he said he was flexible about the modalities and the instrument.
57. The representative of the United States expressed the view that over the past year the Council
had, in fact, had a thorough, substantive and frank discussion and review of the provisions of
Article 27.3(b).  A great deal of information had been developed in that process and a great variety of
views had been expressed about the topic in the course of that discussion.  The information was
reflected in the synoptic table prepared by the Secr etariat and the views were recorded in the minutes
of the four meetings held in the course of 1999.  It was not immediately clear to the United Stateswhat could be said or done at this time that would add to the information that had already developed.
In fact, the United States believed that the Council's last discussion of the issue was something of a
                                                     
5 The link between the provisions of Article 27.3(b) and development;  technical issues relating to
patent protection under Article 27.3(b);  technical issues relating to sui generis  protection of plant varieties;
ethical issues related to the patentability of life-forms;  the relationship to the conservation and sustainable useof genetic material;  and the relationship with the concepts of traditional knowledge and farmers' rights.IP/C/M/26
Page 13
re-hash of the third meeting it had had in 1999.  As the United States had noted earlier, there was
nothing in Article 27.3(b) which required that the review should be extended beyond 1999.  However,
the United States was interested in learning from other Members what purpose further discussions
might serve.  Some views had been expressed during the informal consultations.  He would certainly
consult in the capital regarding the ideas that had been put forward in preparation for the nextmeeting.
58. The representative of Peru said that her delegation had already expressed its preference as to
how to proceed with Article 27.3(b).  Peru was flexible about the procedure to be followed.  Peru did
not believe that a special mandate was necessary for the continuation of the review, because
Article 27.3(b) clearly stated that the provisions of  that subparagraph would be subject to review four
years after the entry into force of the WTO Agreement and did not stipulate a deadline for the review.
59. The representative of Brazil shared the view of many delegations that the language in
Article 27.3(b) indicated that the review should be a substantive exercise of examining and discussing
the basis and contents of the exceptions contained in that Article.  An exercise of information-
gathering and examining the implementation of Article 27.3(b) should serve the purpose of supporting
that substantive analysis.  The representative of Brazil agreed with his Indian colleague insofar as he
had stated that the review had only just started.  The last meeting of the TRIPS Council had been veryproductive in the exchange of views of several Members on the different issues related to the review
of Article 27.3(b).
60. On the issue of patentability of life-forms, the representative of Brazil considered that, in
principle, an optimal outcome of the review of this particular issue would be to maintain the status
quo of Article 27.3(b), given that it provided enough flexibility for Members to decide on the mostappropriate legislation.  On the other hand, Brazil would not refrain from participating in a debate on
the proposals presented by some countries, such as India and the African Group, on the clarification
of the definitions of microorganisms and biological processes.  One noteworthy recent development
on this issue was the call of President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair to make the human genome
freely available to all researchers.  Although the scope of the initiative might not challenge existingpatent legislation (it covered the total of the human DNA, but did not cover the work on the sequences
of patented genes in academic work), it could be understood as an indication of willingness to admit
some limitations to patentability of life-forms and their parts.
61. As regards the protection of plant varieties by an effective sui generis  system, the
representative of Brazil noted that, while some delegations might find it useful, for instance, to have
more guidance as to the concept of "effectiveness" for sui generis  systems, the present language in
Article 27.3(b) seemed to provide enough flexibility for each Member to decide on the mostappropriate form of plant variety protection.  Brazil had established a Law on the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants in 1997. The sui generis  protection in Brazil resulted in an effective protection of
new plant varieties that had been developed in Brazil.  Recently, Brazil had also adhered to the
Convention on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).  The UP OV system should always
be considered as an important reference point, but an attempt to incorporate it into Article 27.3(b)could damage the delicate balance already established in that provision.  The TRIPS Council should
not single out one particular Act of UPOV as a model for implementation.  From the perspective of
developing country Members, for instance, the 1978 UPOV Act remained a useful reference for
discussions, even if that instrument was no longer  open for membership.  In the last TRIPS Council
meeting, the European Communities had recognized the difficulties in creating sui generis  protection
systems and the administrative system for handling the rights under it.  Such recognition found
support in the fact that, so far, few developing countries had adhered to the 1991 UPOV Act.
Likewise, national experiences of other countries in developing other sui generis  systems should not
be excluded as important contributions to the discussions, as the recent notifications of the legislation
from developing country Members might reveal.IP/C/M/26
Page 14
62. On the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological
Diversity, the representative of Brazil said, as he had already stated at the last TRIPS Council
meeting, that Brazil had made its best efforts to implement and enforce the TRIPS Agreement.  At the
same time, Brazil had vested interests in implementing the CBD, as the owner of the greatest
biodiversity on the planet and the first signatory of the Convention.  As a Member of bothinstruments, Brazil understood that both these should be mutually supportive and promote the
sustainable use and exploitation of resources.  In this sense, one of the most relevant issues to be
discussed in the review of Article 27.3(b) should be the compatibility of the TRIPS Agreement with
the relevant provisions of the CBD.  On the one hand, the CBD already set some elements for
supporting adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (as established in
Article 16.2 of that Convention).  Another provis ion that allowed for mutual support with other
international agreements was Article 16.5, which established that "[t]he Contracting Parties,recognizing that patents and other intellectual property rights may have an influence on the
implementation of this Convention, shall cooperate in  this regard subject to national legislation and
international law in order to ensure that such rights are supportive of and do not run counter to its
objectives".  Brazil believed that that provision was closely connected to the exercise of reviewing
Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, by ensuring that TRIPS provisions provided forbenefit-sharing by both providers and users of genetic resources.  At the last meeting of the TRIPS
Council, several Members had made statements under the review of Article 27.3(b), which should be
considered as a meaningful starting point for discussions on the compatibility between the TRIPS
Agreement and Article 8(j) of the CBD.  Brazil had already expressed its appreciation for the proposal
by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru.  The proposal by Cuba, Honduras, Paraguay andVenezuela, as well as the one by the African Group, demonstrated that this issue remained as a
priority for developing country Members.  At the same time, Brazil also wanted to highlight
contributions made by some developed country Members.  Norway, for instance, had presented a very
balanced and open-minded approach as regards the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and
the CBD.  Switzerland had also presented interest ing inputs and ideas to the debate, such as the
creation of a database managed by WIPO in cooperation with organizations which collected
traditional knowledge of communities, in order to facilitate the examination of the novelty of claimed
inventions.  To some extent, Brazil agreed that traditional communities would benefit from the use of
existing intellectual property rights - and such a task would certainly fall within WIPO's mandate.
Nevertheless, Brazil would not necessarily share Switzerland's conclusions that the creation of new
intellectual property rights might be unnecessary, as the discussions at the WTO and other fora
seemed to have just begun.  Finally, Brazil emphasized the importance of the debates undertaken inother international organizations.  Brazil understoo d that the discussion at these fora by no means
resulted in a duplication of work, but rather established a synergy between the WTO and these other
organizations that could contribute with their expertise on specific issues related to the discussions in
this Council.  In this sense, he would like to single out the discussions on access to genetic resources
and traditional knowledge at WIPO.  One of the possible outcomes of the Meeting on IntellectualProperty and Genetic Resources on 17 and 18 April 2000 might be a recommendation for the
establishment of a Standing Committee on Biodiver sity and Traditional Knowledge in WIPO, which
would serve as a significant input for the C ouncil's exercise of reviewing Article 27.3(b).
63. The representative of Pakistan said that th ere seemed to be three issues in relation to
Article 27.3(b), i.e. the question of the mandate, the question of a method of work and that of
substance.  On mandate, the Council could be brief, since everyone agreed that substantive
discussions had already begun under Article 27.3(b) itself and the provision in question was not
time-bound.  Regardless of what had happened in Seattle, the Council could proceed with the
substantive discussions that it had initiated last year.  He was encouraged by the flexibility expressed
by the United States in its statement.  He also noted that the United States had not withdrawn its verysubstantive paper on the matter, on which Pakistan was considering making comments.  In regard to
the method of work, he supported the Chairperson's suggestion to develop a list of possible topics for
discussion.IP/C/M/26
Page 15
64. The representative of Pakistan said that one of the really critical issues that had come up in
the past two months was the scope of patentability in regard to genetic resources and discoveries in
the area of biogenetics.  Brazil had already referr ed to the joint statement by President Clinton and
Prime Minister Blair in which, apparently, the indication was that a discovery of merely DNA
sequences should not be awarded a patent.  This gave rise to the further question as to at what stage ofdiscovery in the area of genetics should patents be awarded, if at all.  One view was that a patent
might be given merely on the basis of a discovery of a certain sequence of the DNA.  There was also a
view that a patent should be given if the function of that sequence of DNA was also described.
Another view was that the patent should be granted only if there was a distinct diagnostic and
therapeutic application identified along with a particular sequence of DNA.  It was extremely
interesting that varying economic interests were behind each of these proposals.  For genomics
companies, the earlier the patent could be given in the discovery process, the better it was.  Forpharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, it was the last stage at which the award of a patent
would make sense.  But from a broader societal perspective, perhaps it was necessary to ask the
question as to what were the implications of these approaches for the flow of scientific knowledge and
research.  These were the sort of issues which th e Council was tangibly confronted with in the rubric
of discussions on exemptions from patentability under Article 27.3(b).  This would possibly bediscussed under one of the points that the Chairperson had identified during the informal
consultations.
65. The representative of Pakistan said that, in the United States paper, there was a most
interesting assertion that the famous Chakrabarthy  case had really spurred the development of a new
industry, i.e., the biotechnology industry.  While it was possible that this assertion could be made, itshould be backed up by some sort of economic analysis as to the exact causal linkage between the
granting of patents and the fostering of an industry.  Would the industry have already formed and
evolved regardless of this decision?  Would the process have been slower or faster?  Could there have
been systems of incentives other than awarding patents on microorganisms and, by implication,
life-forms that would have been explored?  There was also an assertion in this paper that noinconsistencies had been identified between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.  There would be
many present at the Council meeting who would perhap s beg to differ.  He suggested that perhaps the
different view might be in regard to what was meant by inconsistency.  There might not be
inconsistencies in terms of there being an overt co ntradiction between the two instruments, but surely
there were certain areas where the CBD pronounced itself much more clearly than the TRIPS
Agreement did.  This might stem perhaps from differences in initial premises and it might be
necessary to see whether the TRIPS Agreement n eeded to be complemented by similarly clear
provisions in certain areas, for example in relation to prior informed consent or as regards community
rights concerning traditional knowledge, etc.  These were issues which had been identified but which
needed to be kept in mind.  He also referred to a Recommendation by the Council of Europe in
September 1999 regarding biotechnology and intellectual property, which in some of the preambular
paragraphs made assertions such as "[t]he Assembly therefore believes that neither plant, animal norhuman-derived genes, cells, tissues or organs can be considered as inventions nor be subject to
monopolies granted by patents".  In the small operative paragraphs, the Recommendation provided
that there should be further study and there was a whole list of issues which the Council of Europe
had agreed should be studied.  Many of them might coincide with some of the points identified by the
Chairperson during the informal consultations.  The first issue reflected a desire to have a detailedstudy of all aspects linked to the protection of intellectual property in biotechnology innovations with
a view to further improving international legisl ation.  This would necessitate the assessment and
review of the effects of granting patents on a broad scope as regards the progress of research and
development.  The Recommendation also called for the development of a code of conduct for
scientists and scientific units working in the field which would guarantee both a free scientificapproach to worldwide genetic resources and benefit-sharing in developing countries and, more
radically even, to discuss a suitable alternative system of protecting intellectual property in the field of
biotechnology, fitting the purposes of the CBD and meeting the needs of worldwide private as well as
public interests.  He concluded by noting that these issues were being debated at various levels andIP/C/M/26
Page 16
the Council had a mandate to discuss many of them.  The best approach for the Council was clearly
what had been recommended by the Chairperson.
66. The representative of Ecuador stated that, following the Chairperson's suggestion made
during the informal consultations, his delegation had given some thought to the way in which the
Council should tackle this particular issue.  Ecua dor believed that the work which had been carried
out throughout the year 1999 on this issue had been very useful but had, in fact, been limited simply
to a compilation of information.  That was not the entire goal of the mandate.  The Council had to
continue its work with a view to examining the substance of the issue which had still not been dealt
with conclusively.  He gave his delegation's full s upport to the Chairperson's suggestion to draw up a
non-exhaustive list of possible topics for the Council's further discussions in this area.  Ecuador was
ready to look at other issues and topics and it believed that the important thing in this context was to
make progress, to push ahead.  While referring to Ecuador's long statement on aspects of substancerelating to Article 27.3(b) at the last meeting, he expressed support for many of the points the
representatives of Brazil and India had made.
67. The representative of Australia said that her delegation preferred to see discussions proceed in
an open-ended way as suggested in the Chairperson's first proposal.  Australia was concerned that the
other approach might move things away from th e review of implementation that Article 27.3(b)
mandated.  She preferred to see Members tabling their own concerns in whatever way they saw fit,
especially in regard to the way in which they were  actually implementing the existing provisions.  She
noted that, whilst the mandate in Article 27.3(b) was limited, the discussions had already facilitated a
useful and timely information exchange.  Howeve r, the information gathered had concentrated on
quite a small number of Members and now that many more were in the process of notifying theirintellectual property laws under the Agreement, the information gathered should draw on a much
wider range of Members' experiences rather than being dominated by the approaches taken by the first
to implement Article 27.3(b) and notify the legislation in question to the Council.  Australia,
therefore, looked forward to a wider range of information on national approaches to this key
provision.  There was a widely felt need for clear practical information about the operation and effectof existing options for intellectual property rights systems in this area of technology, and Australia
welcomed the opportunity this review provided to share this information.
68. The representative of Australia said that substantive negotiations on the existing TRIPS rules
or amending the existing text would be untimely.  There was no mandate in any case but, setting legal
questions aside, she believed it would be premature and counter-productive to rewrite the rules before
there was any consideration of how the majority of WTO Members had chosen to implement them in
their national systems.  She said that claims of shortcomings should first be taken up with reference tothe range of practical options illustrated in the notification and review of national systems.  The
minimal discussion that had taken place in the TRIPS Council so far had barely touched on this rich
source of information and she felt that that should be given priority given the commonly felt need for
early practical solutions.  Finally, she was willing to share Australia's experience on the interaction of
the existing intellectual property system with these broader issues, not because it wanted to suggestthat its experience was applicable to other Members' situations, but because it attached priority to a
cooperative and collaborative approach to finding practical solutions to common problems.
69. The representative of New Zealand said that the discussions that had occurred during the
informal consultations and this Council meeting had been very productive and useful in helping the
Council approach the issue.  New Zealand concurred with a number of speakers that had stated thatthe mandate of this review was a continuing one.  The Council should build upon the useful
information exchange and analysis that the Council had had last year.  He endorsed Australia's
remarks on the need to gather further information in relation to the vast majority of Members
regarding Article 27.3(b).  In relation to a list as suggested by the Chairperson, New Zealand
recognized the Chairperson's desire to separate out the different issues which had been lumpedtogether under this agenda item over the last year.  However, the Council needed to further considerIP/C/M/26
Page 17
the indicative list.  One or two of the points mentioned appeared to encompass not only
Article 27.3(b) issues but also other issues, which could be addressed separately, possibly under
Article 71.1.  As some speakers had noted, some of the issues the Council had been discussing under
this item, were highly visible in other organizations and other sectors outside the aegis of the TRIPS
Council, such as WIPO and the CBD.  He endorsed hi s Brazilian colleague's remarks in relation to the
synergies between such organizations and the WTO.  In the case of the CBD, he noted that there was
an upcoming meeting in Seville in the week of 22 March 2000 that should be of interest to the TRIPS
Council, and for those that dealt with TRIPS issues.  A large part of the agenda was devoted to
exploring a work programme on legal and other appropriate forms of protection for the knowledge,
innovations and practices of indigenous and lo cal communities embodying traditional lifestyles
relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.  The CBD secretariat had
issued a background document for that meeting and he wished to draw Members' attention to oneparagraph in particular because it explicitly referred to the Article 27.3(b) review.  This paragraph
stated: "In consideration of the high level of multi-agency activity seeking ways and means for the
protection of traditional knowledge, a strong case remains for preserving the status quo with regard to
Article 27, paragraph 3(b), until consensus emerges on the best ways to harmonise policy, legislative
and institutional mechanisms for the protection of traditional biodiversity-related knowledge at theinternational level and which takes into account the aspirations of indigenous and local communities
with regard to such protection."
70. The representative of Korea expressed appreciation for the Chairperson's proposal during the
informal consultations to draw up a list of topics to facilitate discussion on the subject.  He stated that
he would certainly examine its merits carefull y and would consult with his capital in light of
discussions the Council had had so far.  Briefly touching upon some of the topics mentioned by the
Chairperson, he said on the subject of patentability of life-forms that Korea was comfortable with the
present level of protection described in Article 27.3(b).  On the subject of the relationship between the
CBD and the TRIPS Agreement, Korea was basically of the view that intellectual property rights
should and could maintain a mutually supportive relationship with biodiversity for sustainabledevelopment.  The concept of traditional knowledge was yet to be developed further and defined and,
to the extent that it was known, it varied from count ry to country.  In this respect, WIPO would soon
launch exploratory and analytical work.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to further examine the
relationship between intellectual property and th e protection of traditional knowledge after the
concept had been defined and an acceptable scope had been developed at the international level.
71. The representative of the European Communities stated that he had no difficulty in going
along with the Chairperson's first option, i.e. to continue with open-ended discussions.  He recognized
that the other approach suggested by the Chair might be more productive but, although he was
prepared to discuss a number of topics listed by the Chair, he did not want to commit himself now to
such an approach.  Clearly, specific issues had been raised over the past year in the Council, which
deserved further examination and possibly also clarification.  However, it was not clear that all of
them were strictly linked to intellectual property protection or within the scope of Article 27.3(b).Work that was being undertaken in other fora a nd the TRIPS Council should not necessarily act in
parallel.  Finally, he noted that a number of the issues presented had been raised by Members which
had hardly started implementing the provisions of Article 27.3(b).
72. The representative of Egypt said that his delegation considered it important that the
substantive discussion on this issue continue over the year 2000.  Egypt reaffirmed its support for the
paper presented by the African Group on this issue during the preparation for the Seattle Ministerial
Conference.  Egypt wanted to stress that the stabilit y of Article 27.3(b) should be maintained.  There
was no reason for having a special mandate to review the Article.  Article 27.3(b) did not specify a
deadline for finalizing this review.  He expressed support for the Chairperson's proposal to continue
the debate on the basis of a list of key issues, in order to help organize and structure the Council'sdebate and to facilitate its work.  His delegation was open to discuss this issue in a constructive
manner allowing the Council to reach an outcome whic h would be in the interest of all participants.IP/C/M/26
Page 18
73. The representative of Venezuela expressed support for the list of topics that the Chairperson
had suggested for discussion under Article 27.3(b).  His delegation was grateful for the documentation
which had been made available throughout the preparation for the Seattle Ministerial Conference, in
particular the paper put forward by Brazil, as well as the comments that had been made during the
present discussion by Brazil, India, Pakistan and Ne w Zealand.  On the issue of genetic resources and
traditional knowledge, Venezuela wished to note that work had been carried out not only in the TRIPS
Council, but also in, for example, the Committee on Trade and Environment.  The Secretariat had
produced a background note on the relationship be tween the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention
on Biological Diversity, as requested by the CTE.   Venezuela would like that document to be
distributed to the TRIPS Council as well.  The reason for this was that, in the note, there was analysis
of national experiences, two of which were particularly relevant:  that of Costa Rica and that of the
Andean Union.  Venezuela believed that this note would help the Council understand better what washappening in national fora and in other international bodies.  Commenting on the document from the
United States on Article 27.3(b), he said that the paper clearly set out the interests of the United States
in regard to the issues under discussion in the context of Article 27.3(b).  Maybe,  the identification of
biological resources and traditional knowledge would increase the costs of patenting.  But on the other
hand, it must also be recognized that the lack of identification of such information increased the costsof those who had to litigate against attempts to  patent some forms of traditional knowledge.
Venezuela believed that the CBD was not in conflict with the TRIPS Agreement in terms of the
recognition of countries' sovereignty over biological material, genetic resources and benefit-sharing.
Finally, he drew attention to the proposal on the protection of traditional knowledge that it had made
during the Seattle preparatory process in the context of Article 71.1 of the Agreement.
74. The representative of Singapore said that the discussion thus far had been useful because it
was aimed at clarifying how the Council should proceed in regard to Article 27.3(b) and at identifying
what was or was not relevant to Article 27.3(b).  One issue concerned the relationship of this
provision to other international instruments.  The question was whether, since the Agreement had
come into force, developments had taken place which required a re-look at Article 27.3(b).  Areference had been made to the CBD.  Had there b een developments in regard to whether intellectual
property protection should be given to other areas, for example traditional knowledge?  In Singapore's
view, the points mentioned by the Chairperson as possible topics for discussion were merely starting
points for further discussion, helpful for determining what was or was not relevant to the review.
After discussions, a possible conclusion could be that the TRIPS Council was not the most suitable
body to look into, for example, the question of whet her traditional knowledge should or should not be
given protection.  This was an important question on which work was going on at WIPO.
75. The representative of Canada associated his delegation with Australia's intervention, in
particular with respect to a preference for the Chairperson's first option.  He thought that it would be
premature at this point in time to come out with a checklist.  The interventions and papers by various
delegations had raised a number of issues in relation to which Canada would like to contribute.
Therefore, Canada believed that it would be useful for an open-ended discussion under this review tocontinue.  As Australia had pointed out, Canada had, in fact, heard from a fairly small number of
delegations about the issues that had been mentione d,  Given that many Members were in the process
of implementing their TRIPS obligations, Canada would continue to examine this issue in the context
of implementation by those Members.  Canada believed that open discussions at further meetings in
the course of the year would be beneficial.
76. The representative of Mexico said that her delegation had followed the debates in connection
with Article 27.3(b) in the Council with great interest .  In relation to the exemption from patentability,
Mexico believed that Article 27.3(b) represented a very delicate balance.  Indeed, Article 27.3(b)
showed how difficult negotiations had been durin g the Uruguay Round in reaching consensus on the
protection of biotechnological inventions.  The complexity and the ramifications of protection forthese inventions went beyond the domain of intellectual property, since, for instance, human life, food
safety, social, ethical and even religious issues were involved.  Mexico was open to continuing withIP/C/M/26
Page 19
this exercise, if the Council deemed it appropriate, but believed that it was important in the review
process for the Council to be careful to maintain  the delicate balance that the negotiations had
managed to achieve.  Furthermore, in connection with the question of the sui generis  mechanism of
protection for plant varieties, she said that Mexico had acceded to UPOV in 1997 and had
incorporated substantive provisions of that Convention in its national laws and regulations while atthe same time faithfully complying with the requ irements of Article 27.3(b) as currently drafted.
Mexico agreed with those Members that had expressed the view that the UPOV mechanism was an
effective sui generis  mechanism for the protection of plant varieties in accordance with
Article 27.3(b).  In Mexico's view, the UPOV system  could also provide a useful benchmark for the
review exercise given that it had been adopted by a large number of Members.  The UPOV system
was in any event less sui generis  than other mechanisms intended to protect plant varieties.
Therefore, Mexico was open to continuing with this exercise and to studying other systems whichmight be presented by Members as a means of protecting plant varieties, this should not be interpreted
as meaning that Mexico was ready to consider fundamental or radical changes to the provisions of
Article 27.3(b), that would imply additional requirements to the measures that many Members,
including Mexico, had adopted to comply with their obligations under this provision.  As to how the
Council should proceed with this exercise, she was grateful for the proposals made today.  Mexicoacknowledged that the suggestion of working on the basis of an illustrative list would be useful in
making debates on these subjects, which were extremely complex, more systematic.  However, for the
same reason, the Mexican delegation wanted to have more time to think about this and reserved its
position for the time being.  Experts in the capital should first analyse the suggested list of topics for
discussion, in particular as to whether the elements listed should be dealt with under Article 27.3(b) orperhaps in some other context.
77. The representative of Japan said that his delegation needed more time to examine the
indicative list proposed by the Chairperson, partially because some of the items seemed to be outside
the scope of Article 27.3(b).  As regards the relationship between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement,
he noted that the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement had different perspectives which werecomplementary and mutually supportive.  Therefore, they should be implemented and deliberated in
separate frameworks.  Accordingly, his delegation was of the view that it was premature to address
CBD-related issues in depth within the framework of the TRIPS Agreement.  As regards issues
related to traditional knowledge, the concept of  the traditional knowledge of local and indigenous
communities was not yet clearly defined and its relation with intellectual property was not clear.
Therefore, possible inclusion of the protection of the traditional knowledge in the TRIPS Agreement
had not yet reached a suitable stage for discussion in the TRIPS context.  Instead, he suggested thatthe Council should wait for the ongoing work done by  other international fora, such as WIPO and the
FAO.
78. The representative of Hungary said that, on the basis of the language in Article 27.3(b), he
believed that the Council had a mandate to continue the review under that provision of the TRIPS
Agreement.  He shared the view that an open-ended discussion was not a productive approach and feltattracted to the second option put forward by the Chairperson during the informal consultations.
Hungary was ready to look at an indicative list and thought that annotations to that list would be
useful.  Hungary requested the Chairperson to circulate a checklist to Members.
79. Summarizing the discussion, the Chairperson said that, as to how the Council might proceed
with its work, the debate had reaffirmed the need to continue with a review of the provisions of
Article 27.3(b).  On procedure, his interpretation was that most Members supported an approach
which would allow a more orderly, systematic and productive debate than the debates that had
occurred to date.  During the informal consultations he had taken the liberty to mention a number of
possible topics which he felt could help make the debate more orderly and could be taken up one by
one for debate at later meetings.  He stated that his aim had not been to have an exhaustive list of suchpoints.  Neither should how he had described these points be given any weight in terms of to whatever
conclusions discussions on them might eventually lead, nor in terms of whether or not they fell withinIP/C/M/26
Page 20
the purview of the review under Article 27.3(b).  Some delegations felt that the Council when tackling
these topics in the future should have mo re information regarding the implementation of
Article 27.3(b) by Members.  So far, the Council had received information from, mostly, developed
country Members.  Developing countries were now implementing Article 27.3(b) in their legislation.
Consequently, it would be useful in future debates to have information from them as well in thisrespect.  The debate had also revealed that the Council needed to follow the work being done by other
organizations dealing with these topics, in pa rticular WIPO and the Convention on Biological
Diversity, since the Council might not be the most appropriate forum to deal with each and every
topic that had been mentioned in the course of the informal consultations or this Council meeting.
Consequently, the Council needed to develop a work  method for further work on the issues raised in
this regard.  Of course, if any list of topics for discussion were to be developed, it would require
consensus amongst all Members.  He suggested that the Chair might be allowed, on the basis of thediscussions that had taken place, to have further consultations on a specific list of possible topics on
which the Council could have debates at the forthcoming meetings without pre-empting the final
result of course.  If there were no objections to  that suggestion, that would be the way the Council
would proceed.
80. The representative of Venezuela agreed with the Chairperson's summary and conclusion.
However, he reminded the Chairperson that Venezuela would like the background note that the
Secretariat had prepared for the CTE on the relationship between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement
with a focus on Article 27.3(b) and the environment to be circulated as a TRIPS Council document.
81. The Chairperson said that due note had been taken of that request and that there did not
appear to be any objection to it.6
82. The Council agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting, taking note  of the statements
made.
J. REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 71.1
83. The Chairperson recalled that Article 71.1 of the TRIPS Agreement obliged the TRIPS
Council to review the implementation of the Agreement after 1 January 2000.
84. The representative of Venezuela referred to the proposal that his delegation had co-sponsored
in the context of the preparations for the Seattle Ministerial Conference concerning the protection of
intellectual property rights of the traditional knowledge of local and indigenous communities, and that
had been re-circulated as a TRIPS Council document.7  He reiterated Venezuela's interest in the topic,
including future studies and negotiations.  He noted that Venezuela had discussed this topic also in
relation to Article 27.3(b).  Some Members believed that traditional knowledge was related to both
Articles 71.1 and 27.3(b).  He was requesting discus sion of this topic in connection with Article 71.1,
but noted that he was unsure as to whether some elements of folklore should be discussed  under
Article 27.3(b).  Some of these issues were addressed in a decision of the Andean Community
concerning the Common Regime on Genetic Resources, as well as at the national level.  He noted that
in that decision certain elements had been define d, including indigenous, local, and derived resources.
Recognizing the work under way in WIPO, he expresse d his wish that the issues be explored in all
fora.
85. The representative of Paraguay supported the statement made by Venezuela insofar as he had
suggested that the proposal that had initially been made at the preparatory meeting for the Ministerial
Conference at Seattle should be taken forward in the context of Article 71.1 of the TRIPS Agreement,
                                                     
6 The document was, subsequently, circulated as document IP/C/W/175.
7 See document IP/C/W/166.IP/C/M/26
Page 21
while taking into account all of the action concer ning new topics arising in other international
organizations and bodies.
86. The representative of Jamaica said that Jamaica could relate to many of the issues in the
proposal from Cuba, Honduras, Paraguay and Venezuela on the protection of intellectual property
rights for traditional knowledge under the TRIPS Agreement as raised under Article 71.1.  As Jamaicahad a rich heritage of traditional knowledge, it want ed to protect its rights in respect of international
trade and such cultural expressions.  It looked forward to and would participate in future discussions
and negotiations on this issue.
87. The representative of the United States sought a clarification from the delegation of
Venezuela in respect of paragraph 8 of its proposal which requested that the Seattle Ministerial
Conference establish a mandate to carry out a number of items.  He asked whether it was the view of
the delegations that had made the proposal that, in the absence of any mandate coming out of Seattle,there did exist some other mandate to carry out the requested activity and, if so, he wondered where
such a mandate lay.
88. The representative of Venezuela said that a reply to this question had been given at the time
of the Ministerial Conference.  Venezuela considered that, under Article 71.1, the Council was able to
carry out reviews on the basis of new events.  He noted that work had been done on the issue since1992 with the creation of an intellectual property,  folklore and traditional knowledge body within
ECOSOC, and that this issue had been dealt with by WIPO during the last two years.  Venezuela said
that the topic could be considered as a new issu e, in the same sense as issues relating to new
technologies, or the new WIPO copyright treaties.
89. The representative of Peru said that Peru wanted to associate itself with the Venezuelan
proposal to take up the issue and to request studies on traditional knowledge under this particular
heading.  Peru was also a member of the Andean Community and had Community legislation on the
topic.  Peru considered this topic to be of great importance for the Andean countries.
90. The representative of the United States thanked the delegation of Venezuela for its
clarification.  He appreciated the reference that had been made to the third sentence of Article 71.1,
which provided the Council with an opportunity to undertake, at any time, reviews in the light of
relevant new developments which might warrant modifications or amendments to the TRIPS
Agreement.  This was, indeed, one element of the review that the Council was tasked with under
Article 71.1.  He recalled that the Council had had some discussions earlier during the meeting about
the most appropriate way to structure the review of Article 27.3(b), if such a review was to be
continued.  Perhaps a similar discussion should  occur regarding how to structure a review under
Article 71.1.  He noted also that other delegations had identified particular topics for discussion in thecontext of that review.
91. As to how the Council might structure the review, the representative of the United States
pointed out that Article 71.1 directed the TRIPS Council to first review th e implementation of the
Agreement when the transition period for developing country Members ended, i.e. on 1 January 2000.
The Article specified that every two years thereafter , the Council had to review the Agreement in the
light of the experience gained through implementation.  Finally, the Council was authorized to review
implementation at any time in the light of relevant new developments that might warrant modification
or amendment of the Agreement.  He noted that the Council had begun other reviews called for in the
TRIPS Agreement by gathering relevant information.  Much material on implementation was already
available or would be developed over the next two years in the course of the review of implementinglegislation of developing country Members.  In order to assist the Council in the review of the
operation of the Agreement, it might be useful for all Members to keep notifications of all laws and
regulations up-to-date as was required under Article 63.2 of the Agreement.  It would also be useful
for the review of implementation, if each Member that had already been reviewed submitted in dueIP/C/M/26
Page 22
course a brief summary of the significant changes it had made to its laws to implement the obligations
of the TRIPS Agreement.  That information c oupled with the information compiled regarding
implementation by developing country Members over the next two years and the information
developed during other reviews would enable the Counc il to consider how the Agreement was, in fact,
functioning.  As other delegations had already pointed out, there had been changes since the text ofthe Agreement had been completed a number of years ago.  He, therefore, believed that, at the
appropriate time, Members could usefully discuss these new developments for the purpose of
strengthening the Agreement.  He considered that an opportunity should be provided for all Members
to bring forward proposals to strengthen the Agreement based on relevant new developments.
92. The representative of the European Communities felt that the Council was in a slightly
confusing and ambiguous situation.  He noted fi rst that the communication from Cuba, Honduras,
Paraguay and Venezuela was a proposal which, in the title, was linked to Article 71.1 of theAgreement.  On the other hand, as the delegation of the United States had pointed out, a mandate had
been sought from the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  Secondly, he noted that the issue of traditional
knowledge had also been discussed in the context of Article 27.3(b).  He stated that there was some
ambiguity as to how the Council could or should de al with such issues.  He wondered whether the
Council could deal with such issues under the third sentence of Article 71.1, as had been implied inthe discussion.  He requested that the Council reflect further on this situation and revert to the
question of how to deal with Article 71 at its next  meeting.  He stated that he did not see how the
Council could make much progress at the present m eeting and address these issues properly so that it
could reach conclusions.
93. The Chairperson said that, in the light of th e comments made by the European Communities,
the item might require more reflection by all, not only as regards the nature and scope of the review
but also as regards the topics that should come under it and which topics should be dealt with under
reviews of other Articles.  He said that it would be useful if, before the next meeting, written
suggestions could be provided as to how the Coun cil might best approach the review.  This might
enable the Chairperson to consult with Members with a view to structuring the discussions at the nextmeeting.
94. The representative of Ecuador said that he fu lly agreed with the approach suggested by the
Chairperson.  He noted that the consideration of Article 71.1 included a whole series of aspects
whereas the Council had so far only focused on the proposal that had been put forward by the delegate
of Venezuela.  He thought that it was important to give a lot more thought to this and to take up the
item once again at the subsequent meeting.
95. The representative of Australia said that the TRIPS Agreement provided for a sequence of
events to occur and that, in implementing Article 71 and reviews under other provisions, Members
should be following that logical sequence.  The fi rst step in that process was the implementation of
existing TRIPS standards.  The second was a review of their implementation at the national level,
which had already happened for developed countries and was about to happen for developing
countries.  The third was the review of the general implementation as a collective exercise.  Thefourth was a consideration of possible amendments or clarifications.  The fifth was a formulation of
recommendations from 2002 onwards.  She believed that Article 71.1 exemplified this approach in
that it limited the general review of the TRIPS Agreement mandated for 2000 to implementation only,
and required that the reviews as from 2002 should then develop recommendations for amendments to
the Agreement in the light of its implementation.  Because many developing countries were still in theprocess of concluding their implementation of the Agreement, and it was impossible to assess its
actual effect, Australia believed that it would be contrary to the interests of all to circumvent this
established implementation and review sequence.  All Members needed to make the system work, and
come to understand how a wide range of Members had given effect to TRIPS standards as they
currently existed, before they could consider objectively which elements might benefit fromsubstantive revision.  In this regard, she did not agree that there was a mandate for negotiations on anyIP/C/M/26
Page 23
substantive new intellectual property standards in the area of traditional knowledge or in any other
field.
96. The representative of Singapore said that, while delegations were free to raise any matter, at
the end of the day, a decision would need to be taken as to what really was the role of the TRIPS
Council and it might be that some issues that ha d been raised might not be considered proper topics
for the TRIPS Council to pursue.
97. The representative of Brazil shared the view of Australia on the character of this first review
of the TRIPS Agreement.  Brazil considered that Article 71.1 was clear as regards the fact that
implementation was supposed to be the main objective of the review under the TRIPS Agreement and
there seemed to be logical steps in the process of implementation and review of the TRIPS Agreement
two years from now, once experience had been gain ed through the process of implementation.  As
other developing countries, Brazil had endeavoured to adapt its national legislation to the TRIPSstandards in different areas.  It considered that a significant number of developing country Members
might not be ready to undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of the Agreement at this
moment.  In this sense, Brazil would not object to the scope of the review including issues such as
technical cooperation, transfer of technology and other implementation-related issues.
98. The representative of Venezuela noted that, before presenting its document, Venezuela had
welcomed any comments as to whether the review under the Article should be now or in two years
time.  He was interested in the order, the time- frame and the sequence of steps.  He noted that
Australia had proposed a sequence.  There was also the question of compliance with obligations and
transparency.
99. The Chairperson said that it was important to give this matter more thought before the next
meeting.  He invited delegations to put their proposals forward in writing as to how the Council
should conduct the review.  He noted that this woul d be helpful in guiding the Council's discussions at
its next meeting.
100. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
K. EXAMINATION OF THE SCOPE AND MODALITIES FOR NON -VIOLATION COMPLAINTS
101. The Chairperson said that the Council had received from the European Communities a request
that this item be included on the agenda of the pres ent meeting.  He therefore offered the floor to the
European Communities to introduce this item.
102. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation had proposed to put
this point on the agenda because, in its view, the forum of the TRIPS Council had not adequately
addressed the scope and modalities of possible non-violation complaints.  The Community believedthat there were important issues and that the Council should finally undertake that work in a serious
way.  Therefore, the European Communities hoped that the Council could agree to devote more time
to look at this matter, i.e. the scope and modalities of non-violation complaints.  The European
Communities would table a communication in the near future and looked forward to contributions
from other Members of the TRIPS Council in the hope of having a useful discussion at the nextmeeting.
103. The representative of Canada supported the representative of the European Communities.  He
requested that this item be on the agenda because Canada also felt that work on scope and modalities
needed to take place.  Canada would participate in that work in a substantive way.IP/C/M/26
Page 24
104. The representative of Poland took the floor on behalf of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic.  He welcomed and
fully supported the initiative of the European Comm unities because, in the view of the Members on
behalf of whom he was speaking, the complexity of the examination called for in Article 64.3 of the
TRIPS Agreement and the lack of progress on it in the Council last year clearly necessitatedsubstantive further discussions and a more in-depth analysis.   He believed that the discussion should
aim at forging consensus on the recommendations on scope and modalities required in the cited
paragraph.  He was ready to engage in such an exercise with an open mind.  He reiterated the view
that irrespective of the expiration of the five year period provided for in Article 64.2, non-violation
complaints remained inadmissible under the TRIPS Agreement until a decision was made by
consensus at a Ministerial Conference on the approval of the TRIPS Council's recommendations
regarding the scope and the modalities of those complaints.
105. The representative of the United States noted that it would come as no surprise to the
Members of the Council that it was the view of the United States that the moratorium on non-violation
complaints under Article 64.2 had in fact ended on 1 January 2000.  He said that there was nothing in
paragraph 3 of Article 64 that conditioned the expiration of the moratorium on the submission by the
TRIPS Council of a recommendation to the Ministerial Conference on scope and modalities and that,in fact, the paragraph made clear that an extension of the moratorium could only be provided by
consensus.  The United States believed that, now that the moratorium had expired, nothing in
Article 64.3 required the Council to use its precious time to discuss this matter further.  The Council
had spent a considerable amount of time last year thoroughly reviewing country positions on scope
and modalities.  He also pointed out that Article 26 of the Dispute Settlement Understandingaddressed the questions of scope and modalities of such complaints adequately.  While he listened
with interest to the views of other Members regarding the purpose that might be served by continuing
these discussions, the United States was not in a position to agree to continue the discussion of scope
and modalities now that the moratorium had expired.  He stated that he would, of course, take any and
all views expressed on such a purpose back to his capital and return to the next meeting prepared todiscuss them further.  The United States was not preparing to launch any non-violation dispute in the
near future;  rather, the United States was concentrating on laws and practices of Members that
appeared to be inconsistent with the obligations of the Agreement itself.
106. The representative of Korea supported the European Communities' proposal that the Council
should continue to work on scope and modalities.
107. The representative of Australia said that, like Canada, Australia also supported the
continuation of work on scope and modalities on non-violation disputes.  Australia did not consider
that there had been a serious discussion of this issue as yet and was ready and willing to participate
actively in such discussions.
108. The representative of Singapore said that, whilst it was true that paragraph 2 of Article 64
referred to a particular period, one also needed to look at paragraph 3 which referred to work by the
Council on scope and modalities.  Noting that paragraph 3 had not been fully complied with, hesupported the suggestions to continue work.
109. The representative of Japan recalled the Japanese proposal, presented at previous meetings, to
the effect that the examination of the scope and modalities of non-violation complaints provided for in
Article 64.3 should be pursued.  The proposal by the European Communities was in line with the
Japanese proposal.  Japan could support the European Communities' proposal and was ready to makecontributions to the upcoming examination process.  On the other hand, Japan wanted to point out that
the TRIPS Council had failed to reach any consensu s on the issue of the extension of the moratorium
provided in Article 64.2 at its last meeting.IP/C/M/26
Page 25
110. The representative of India said that, without prejudice to its position on this issue, India was
most interested in looking at the European Communities' paper and in pursuing the proposal to
examine the scope and modalities regarding non-violation complaints.
111. The representative of Pakistan said that, like preceding speakers, Pakistan was also interested
in pursuing discussions on this item but, again, with the caveat that this would be without prejudice to
its position, being that Pakistan did not see the need for the use of non-violation complaints in the
TRIPS area in the first place.
112. The Chairperson said that, although he interp reted the situation as being such that most
countries wished to see the continuation of work on this item, the Council could not reach a consensus
on the matter.  However, there were no objections to the inclusion of the item on the agenda for the
next meeting.  He suggested that the Council revert to the issue at its next meeting, without prejudging
the scope of the discussion to he held.
113. The Council so agreed.
L. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO
(i) Accessions
114. The Chairperson noted that, on 17 December 1999, the Government of Jordan had accepted,
subject to ratification, the Protocol of Accession of Jordan to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing
the World Trade Organization, done at Geneva on 17 December 1999 (document WT/Let/323).
Paragraph 2 of the Protocol of Accession for Jordan (document WT/ACC/JOR/33 and Corr.1)
incorporated the commitment given by Jordan in relation to intellectual property rights as reproduced
in paragraph 248 of the report of the Working Party on the Accession of Jordan.  This paragraph said
that "the representative of Jordan stated that Jordan would apply fully all the provisions of theAgreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights from the date of accession to the
WTO, without recourse to any transitional period".
(ii) Dispute Settlement
115. The Chairperson noted that by means of a communication, dated 12 January 2000, the
European Communities and their member States had requested consultations with the United States
regarding Section 337 of the US Tariff Act of 1930 and amendments thereto.  On 17 March 2000, the
report of the panel on Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products (WT/DS114) had been
circulated to Members.IP/C/M/26
Page 26
ANNEX
RECORD OF INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS ON ARTICLES 23.4 AND 24.2
1. The Chairperson recalled that the General Council, at its meeting of 7 and 8 February 2000,
when agreeing to initiate mandated negotiations on agriculture and services, had taken note of a
statement by its Chairperson which, inter alia , noted the importance attached by Members to other
elements of the built-in agenda, including the mandated reviews and the negotiations that were
foreseen under the TRIPS Council in respect of geographical indications.  The Chairperson of the
General Council had said that, while these reviews and negotiations might not pose the same
immediate practical questions as the services and agriculture negotiations, insofar as they were subject
to existing procedures, this did not in any way detract from the need to make serious progress onthem.  The General Council had also agreed that the mandated reviews should address the impact of
the Agreements concerned on the trade and development prospects of developing countries.
2. The representative of the European Commun ities said that, for the European Communities
and their member States, work on the multilateral register for geographical indications was a key
objective.  Substantive discussions on this should continue without delay.  His delegation would betabling a paper, in the near future, that could form an additional and, hopefully, appropriate basis for
reaching consensus in the Council.
3. The representative of Poland, speaking on behalf of the CEFTA countries Members of the
WTO as well as Estonia and Latvia, emphasized the utmost importance these countries attached to
tangible progress in the work of the TRIPS Council on geographical indications.  He believed that themultilateral system of notification and registration called for in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement
needed to be set up expeditiously.  He was also of  the view that, on the basis of the review under
Article 24.2 of the Agreement, negotiations needed to be held under Article 24.1 aimed at extending
the scope of additional protection under Article 23 to products other than wines and spirits.  The
numerous proposals prior to Seattle concerning the product coverage of Article 23, and the work andprogress in the informal consultations held before and at Seattle, showed that negotiations on the
extension of the scope of Article 23 enjoyed the support of a great number of Members from all
geographical regions and at all levels of economic development.  The CEFTA Members as well as
Estonia and Latvia were concerned about the lack of progress achieved so far, recalling that more than
four years had passed since the implementation of TRIPS obligations without any significant progress
on the built-in work in this area.  He hoped that the positive spirit shown on the launch of the
mandated negotiations on agriculture and services would prevail and bring a new impetus also to thenegotiations on geographical indications.  It was in this positive spirit that the CEFTA Members as
well as Estonia and Latvia had given their support, in good faith, to the idea of dealing with
agriculture and services separately.  Most of these delegations had stressed the need for organizational
simultaneity of negotiations on agriculture, services and geographical indications and wished to
reiterate their interest in all built-in agenda negotiations receiving the same treatment.  Early
establishment of reasonable benchmarks in the case of geographical indications would make it easier
for these delegations to consider benchmarks in other mandated areas.  The CEFTA Members,
Estonia and Latvia believed that, if Members were interested in establishing time-frames in other
negotiating areas, they had to be consistent and show the same level of ambition or at least should be
ready to recognize interests of others in the area of geographical indications.  He suggested that the
Chairperson conduct a series of consultations with a view to preparing ground for appropriate
decisions on how to proceed further in this area.
4. The representative of Turkey said that his delegation believed that both the additional
protection under the Agreement for geographical indications for wines and spirits as well as the
multilateral registration system for geographical indica tions to be negotiated should be extended toIP/C/M/26
Page 27
products other than wines and spirits.  He supp orted, therefore, the view of the CEFTA Members,
Estonia and Latvia.
5. The representative of Argentina said that he was somewhat surprised about the statement
made by the representative of Poland, on behalf of the CEFTA countries and others.  In his
delegation's view, their position seemed to be based on an understanding that did not exist.  Membershad already committed themselves to the initiation of the negotiations on services and agriculture at
the end of the Uruguay Round.  It was not a question of any Member supporting this in exchange for
something else, unless a Member did not intend to comply with the mandate which the Ministers had
signed on to at that time.  Of course, as had been expressed in the General Council, Members should
not leave aside some aspects of the built-in agenda.  However, that did not mean that Members had
agreed on parallelism between the current work on the negotiations on services and agriculture,
including in respect of defined deadlines to carry that work forward.  Furthermore, there was aconsiderable divergence of views about how far Members should be going in the context of
Article 23.
6. The representative of India said that his delegation too attached utmost importance to work in
the TRIPS Council on geographical indications.  The multilateral system of notification and
registration, which was mandated in Article 23.4 of the Agreement, should be set up expeditiously.He believed that there was also a mandate for negotiations on extending the scope of additional
protection to products other than wines.  Howeve r, while conceding that negotiations had to be
conducted, the question to be decided in the TRIPS Council was how these negotiations were going to
be conducted.  He recognized that there were differences of view in the Council on this issue, but
these could be discussed and negotiated in the usual way and hopefully a positive outcome could bereached that would be mutually satisfactory for all si des.  Referring to the procedural questions raised
by Argentina, he said that for his delegation the substance of the issue was more important.  The
mandated reviews should address the impact of the TRIPS Agreement on the trade and development
prospects of developing countries and, in the context of geographical indications, it could hardly be
denied that a number of developing countries attached tremendous importance to extending the scopeof protection to products other than wines and spirits.  It was in that spirit that his delegation requested
that the TRIPS Council attempt to address the issu e in substance and see how Members could achieve
an outcome that would be mutually satisfactory for all sides.  He considered the suggestion by
CEFTA Members as well as Estonia and Latvia to request the Chairperson of the TRIPS Council to
conduct consultations a good one.  He also strongly supported the substance of the intervention made
by the CEFTA Members as well as Estonia and Latvia, and requested the TRIPS Council to address
the issue at an early date.
7. The representative of New Zealand agreed with Argentina that the arguments of the CEFTA
countries, Estonia and Latvia in trying to put the negotiations under Article 23.4 on the multilateral
register on par with those on agriculture and services were fanciful, in particular given the clear
language of Article 23.4 itself.  Further, it was also to be noted that the language of progressive
liberalization, as seen in the context of the GATS  and the Agreement on Agriculture, were nowhere to
be seen in Article 23.4 or elsewhere in Section 3 of  Part II of the TRIPS Agreement.  While it was
useful to explore the provisions of Articles 23.4 and 24.2, one should not lose sight of the fact that
Article 23.4 was fairly clear and precise in relation to the scope and nature of the negotiations it
mandated.  The product coverage was wines and, given the Singapore Declaration, possibly spirits.
The question of extending the additional protection for geographical indications under paragraphs 1to 3 of Article 23 to other products did not come within the scope of Article 23.4 but was rather an
issue which Members should consider possibly in the context of the Article 24.2 review.  This Article
24.2 review was still continuing and his delegation was looking forward to the overview paper from
the Secretariat.  He noted that most of the responses to the Council's Checklist in the context of the
Article 24.2 review had been received from devel oped country Members.  In the process of this
continuing review, developing country Members should start sending in their responses as to how
they had implemented Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement.  His delegation did not see theIP/C/M/26
Page 28
Article 24.2 review as having pointed to a need to extend the scope for additional protection.  The
various responses to the Checklist indicated that those Members that had responded had implemented
the provisions on geographical indications, whether those of Article 22 or Article 23, in a variety of
ways and the membership as a whole was still evaluating this broad response to these obligations.
Looking at the road ahead, the TRIPS Council should focus on trying to give some more substance tothe review under Article 24.2 so as to approach it in a methodical way without necessarily saying that
the end point had to be an extension of the scope.
8. The representative of the United States said that the delegations of Argentina and New
Zealand had largely covered the observations he had wanted to make about the discussion on
Articles 23 and 24.2.  His delegation could not associate itself with the observations made by Poland
on behalf of the CEFTA countries as well as Estonia and Latvia with regard to the interpretation of
Article 24.1 and whether or not that provision in fact did provide a mandate for the Council toconsider expanding the scope of protection.  However, this in no way detracted from its willingness
and intention to participate actively in negotiations on a notification and registration system in the
context of Article 23.4.  He expressed his delegation's interest in examining the proposal which the
European Communities had indicated they would be bringing forward.  The United States was
committed to making substantial progress on this issue in the course of the coming year.  Makingprogress on Article 23.4, as it was currently set out in the Agreement, and completing the review
under Article 24.2 was already a rather substantial amount of work for the TRIPS Council.  Leaving
aside the fact that the Council had no mandate for discussions on the issue of scope, expanding that
work for which it had a mandate by considering the issue of scope was probably more than the
Council could handle during the year.
9. The representative of Switzerland expressed support for the statement of the delegation of
Poland on behalf of the CEFTA countries, Estonia and Latvia.  There was a need to extend the
additional protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits to other products and it did not
seem justified to treat certain categories of products better than others.  The logic of the multilateral
trading system, which was to ensure certain coherence between different markets, made it essential tocontinue work in order to extend this type of protection to other product areas.  Article 24, in
particular its first two paragraphs, provided the ba sis for continuing work and negotiations in this
regard.  He hoped that the compilation of the responses to the Checklist that was being prepared by
the Secretariat would soon be available.  As regards the organization of the Council's work, he said
that the statement made by the Chairman of the General Council on 7 February 2000 had highlighted
the importance of the built-in agenda in the area of geographical indications.  Negotiations in the areas
of agriculture and services and negotiations on geographical indications had to be dealt with on anequal footing, both as regards modalities as well as the time-frames to be established.  At a future
Council meeting, Switzerland would present a pape r showing that the diversity of the systems of
protection was not going to be an obstacle to the work to be carried out under Article 24.2.
10. The representative of the European Communitie s welcomed the interventions made by the
representatives of Poland, Switzerland and India to the extent that they called for substantive
discussions and negotiations in the area of geographical indications.  He thought that this was the key
message and was not surprised that these delegations had indeed made this call for substantive
negotiations, given the strong support for such negotiations expressed by a large number of WTO
Members at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle.  He expressed full support for the suggestion
that the Chairperson conduct consultations in order to see how this process could be carried forward.
11. The representative of Australia said that some of the points she wanted to make had already
been covered by Argentina and New Zealand.  From Australia's perspective, there was a clear
difference between the wording of Article 23.4, which clearly called for negotiations, and
Article 24.2.  Australia had shown a commitment to these negotiations and looked forward to the
negotiations progressing.  Her delegation looked fo rward with interest to the paper foreshadowed by
the European Communities.  On the Article 24.2 review, however, like New Zealand, she wished toIP/C/M/26
Page 29
point out that a lot of information had been submitted to date in response to the Council's Checklist
and her delegation looked forward with interest to the Secretariat's paper.  This summary paper would
provide an excellent opportunity to consider, from a practical perspective, how Members had actually
implemented the section on geographical indications at the national level.  Her delegation felt that
there was a need to have such a substantive discussion and in depth consideration of these provisions,in order to help increase the understanding of all Members about this relatively new area of
intellectual property.  She considered this a necessary step before beginning to talk about any
amendments of the Agreement to increase the scope of protection under the Agreement and
questioned the existence of any mandate in Article 24.1 and 24.2 in this regard.
12. The representative of Pakistan said that ther e was an imbalance in the TRIPS Agreement, in
the view of a number of delegations, in regard to the scope of protection offered to some products and
not offered to other products.  In the opinion of a large majority of Members, this imbalance had to berectified.  On how to proceed, he said that the cons tructive approach would be to engage in a serious,
substantive review of the section on geographical indications, keeping in mind the very important
caveat which the General Council had raised in its observation that the developmental impact of
individual agreements would have to be borne in mind when undertaking reviews.  He underlined that
the purpose of this work was the review of a particular section of the TRIPS Agreement and not anacademic exercise.  Therefore, he did not rule out that, as suggested by the CEFTA countries and
others, at an appropriate stage Members should establish time-frames and benchmarks in order to
impart a certain direction and momentum to the discussions in this area.  The discussions should not
merely meander without any end period and without any direction that Members were supposed to
take.  Therefore, he supported the suggestion that the Chairperson undertake consultations on thismatter, keeping in mind the rationale for the exercise.
13. The representative of Singapore said that, in his delegation's view, it might be premature to
consider immediately what exactly was mandated. It would be more productive if one looked at
Articles 23.4, 24.1 and 24.2 closely to see what they were concerned with.  It was quite clear that,
under Article 23.4, work needed to be done on the question of the protection of geographicalindications in relation to wines, i.e. the question of the register, and, since the Singapore Ministerial
Conference, this question would also have to be ta ckled under that provision in relation to spirits.
This work could be looked at independently of Article 24.1 and 24.2, which were of a broader nature
and raised the question of the meaning of the term "review".  Work under these two other provisions
might be more productive if the Council followed the wording of Article 24.2 and not consider the
thorny question of the extension of the scope of the higher level of protection at the outset.  The
review under Article 24.2 could cover a number of areas and he quoted the reference in its secondsentence to "[a]ny matter affecting the compliance with the obligations under these provisions".  The
question of scope, rather than substance, could be included in the review if there were a consensus,
but he suggested an objective look at the terms of Article 24.2.
14. The representative of Canada thought that Me mbers were running the risk of mixing apples
and oranges by confusing between what they liked to have in the Agreement and what they did have
in the Agreement.  It was important for Members to  have a clear understanding of these distinctions
and know when they were departing from what they had already agreed to do.  Echoing the comments
by New Zealand, Australia, the United States and Argentina, he emphasized that, at the moment, there
was no mandate to broaden the scope of protection for geographical indications beyond what was
currently contained in Articles 22, 23 and 24.  The great number of proposals before the SeattleMinisterial Conference to expand the scope of additional protection under Article 23 to products
beyond wines and spirits simply reconfirmed the fact that there was no mandate at the moment to
discuss or to negotiate additional protection for geographical indications for products beyond wines
and spirits.  No such mandate had been achieved at Seattle either.  Thus, the mandate as it currently
existed concerned negotiations on a multilateral register, which were under way, and a quite extensiveongoing work programme under Article 24.2.  In response to the Council's Checklist, extensive
information had already been received from many Members on a variety of protection systems thatIP/C/M/26
Page 30
they had in place for geographical indications.  For the moment, the Council should continue to focus
on work on these items and his delegation looked forward to participating in that work.  Again, while
some had suggested that the Agreement might not be logical or balanced, it was as it currently read.  It
was for the Ministerial Conference to decide whether anything should be added to the mandate of the
Council, including any negotiations, but since currently there was no mandate, at this stage, hisdelegation could not agree to having the Chairperson conduct consultations to negotiate on expanding
the scope of protection for geographical indications.
15. The representative of Mauritius said that his delegation would like to associate itself with the
comments made by Poland on behalf of the CEFTA countries, Estonia and Latvia and supported by
others. There was an urgent need to correct the imbalances in the TRIPS Agreement as pointed out by
other delegations.  He agreed that time-frames needed to be to be spelt out.  He strongly supported the
suggestion that the Chairperson hold consultations with Members on how to proceed further with thework under Article 24.
16. The representative of Argentina wished to comment on the link made between Articles 23
and 24 and said that there was nothing in the General Council Decision of 7 and 8 February 2000
which obliged the TRIPS Council to deal with these together.  It was erroneous to read the situation as
if the General Council had decided, in fact, to broaden the scope of mandated negotiations.  It couldnever have been possible to reach such a decision.  He had no objections to the Chairperson holding
consultations on specific issues regarding Article 23, which, as he understood, were covered by the
General Council mandate, but there was no mandate for consultations on Articles 23 and 24 beyond
that.
17. The representative of Chile said that the negotiations required under Article 23.4, which
concerned the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration for a specific
product, should not be mixed up with demands to br oaden the scope of application of the provision of
the section on geographical indications of the Agreement.  In the view of his delegation, the main
reason which had prevented the Council from making any progress on the notification and registration
system was precisely because Members tended to confuse mandates with ambitions.  His delegationshared the view that there was no mandate for negotiations to extend product coverage and Members
should abide by the mandate that they had in Article 23.4.  He thought it premature to think in terms
of entering into a negotiation that would broaden the scope of application of geographical indications
at the present stage.  There was a lot of legislation still to be reviewed and indeed a lot of work to be
done and concluded.  Therefore, consultations should not be held as yet.  Some delegations had
referred to what they believed was a lack of balance in these provisions of the Agreement since they
referred only to one product and excluded others.  However, in order to be fair in assessing the TRIPSAgreement, one must not look just at the TRIPS Agr eement but indeed look at it in light of the whole
package of Agreements which stemmed from the Uruguay Round, where delegations had established
links between the TRIPS area and other areas of the negotiations.
18. The representative of Sri Lanka supported other delegations which had argued in favour of
extending the scope and coverage of geographical indications to products other than wines or spirits.
Reiterating her position on the issue, she said that there was a logical sequence in the three Articles
contained in Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement.  Article 22 gave the definition of
geographical indications;  Article 23, touched only on two products, i.e. wines and spirits; and
Article 24.1 said in particular that protection c ould be extended to products other than wines and
spirits and provided the mandate for Members to enter into negotiations with an aim to increasing the
protection of individual geographical indications to other products.  As to the modalities under which
the negotiations could be carried out, her delegati on endorsed the view expressed in the Council that
the Chairperson should hold consultations as to how these negotiations should be carried out.
19. The representative of the Czech Republic, while endorsing the statement made by Poland on
behalf of the CEFTA countries, Estonia and Latvia and expressing his appreciation for the interestIP/C/M/26
Page 31
shown by a number of Members on the issues which were under discussion, wished to react to a
number of the interventions made and offer some additional thoughts with a view to clarifying what
was behind his delegation's request for consultations to be conducted by the Chairperson.  Products
with characteristics attributable to geographical origin were often the subject of imitations,
counterfeits and other such practices and for this reason there was a need to have a meaningful andeffective tool to deal with those practices.  For his country, as well as for many others, the lack of a
sufficient level of protection for geographical indications was not an issue of hypothetical or academic
nature, but a real economic problem with concrete negative economic implications.  That was why his
country was interested in putting into effect the commitment undertaken in the Uruguay Round, when
governments had consented to the method for providing additional protection for geographical
indications and the method was to conduct negotiations in the TRIPS Council.  As for wines, in
Marrakesh, governments had agreed to conduct negotiations regarding a multilateral system ofnotification and registration.  Later on, in Singapore, issues relevant to notification and registration of
spirits had been brought on board and, since then, a lot of useful analytical work had been done
enabling a better understanding of practices and approaches developed by different Members.
However, no substantial progress had been achieved so far.  In his delegation's understanding,
Members had never been in full negotiating mode and he believed that that needed to be changed.What was needed was a more structured and result-oriented approach.  Regarding the issue of the
extension of additional protection of geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits,
he had no intention to repeat in length what had been said on earlier occasions by his delegation and
many others.  From his delegation's perspective, the existing provisions of the TRIPS Agreement
together with the Singapore Ministerial Declaration offered a sufficient legal basis for extending legalprotection.  His delegation was of the view that the respective provisions of Article 24 which applied
to all products provided the mandate for extending additional protection also to other products and the
method was the same as for the establishment of a multilateral registration system for wines and
spirits, i.e. negotiations in the TRIPS Council.  Consequently, Members had agreed in 1996 to allow
inputs from delegations on the issue of scope.  Since then, the issue had been addressed in the reviewunder Article 24.2 and in the context of the preparations for the Seattle Ministerial Conference, when
a large number of delegations had attached great importance to the issue of the extension of the
coverage.  His delegation believed, therefore, that the time was ripe to move ahead, to change gear
and to put an end to the endless legal and procedural discussions.  This would be in everyone's interest
and clearly in conformity with the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement.
20. The representative of Egypt said that his delegation's views had already been reflected by the
delegations of the CEFTA countries, India, Pakistan and Switzerland.  The protection of geographical
indications was an investor-friendly measure that should be available for the protection of any
product, whether man-made or natural, that distinguished itself by its quality, reputation and any other
characteristics attributable to its geographical orig in and should not be limited in any way to wines
and spirits.  He agreed that the Council should conduct substantial consultations on this issue during
the year.
21. The representative of Hungary said that, as far as the potential economic impact of mandated
negotiations was concerned, his delegation readily agreed that negotiations in areas like agriculture
and services were by nature more wide-ranging and had larger potential economic implications.
However, as far as the legal status of the establishment of the register under Article 23.4 was
concerned, he took issue with these delegations that believed that such negotiations were at a lowerlevel.  While there were obligations to negotiate fu rther trade liberalization in the area of agriculture
and services, he wished to reiterate that four years had passed since Members had agreed on a clear
mandate under Article 23.4 to set up a register but the progress made, so far, had been disappointing.
He could imagine that Members primarily interested in, for example, agriculture, would be somewhat
irritated if they would be in the same situation in four years time.  As to the extension of the scope of
the product coverage under Article 23, his delegation was ready to start negotiations and believed that
it followed from the logic of the TRIPS Agreement that, at some stage, negotiations had to be started
on this.  He strongly urged the Chairperson to conduct informal consultations on this subject.IP/C/M/26
Page 32
22. The representative of Mexico said that her delegation attached great importance and priority
to the establishment of a multilateral notification and registration system for geographical indications
for wines and spirits under the built-in agenda of the TRIPS Agreement and pursuant to the Singapore
Declaration in which the Ministers had given their support for the work programme of this Council.
Progress should not be delayed because of the lack of results in Seattle.  Nor should there be any formof linkage with the existing proposals to study the possibility of granting additional protection under
Article 23 to other products, apart from wines and spirits.  Her delegation did not agree with the
interpretation currently being given to Article 24.1 and 24.2 according to which there was a mandate
to extend the scope or coverage of additional protection provided for in Article 23.  Article 23 clearly
referred only to wines and spirits.  Proposals for broadening the coverage could be made and studied
in the Council.  However, this did not imply that Members had a mandate for entering into
negotiations for an extension of coverage.  Mexico's position was that the Council should first focuson work for which it had a mandate and her delegation looked forward to the proposal that would
shortly be submitted by the European Communities in this regard.  Consequently, she believed that it
was premature currently for Members to launch into a process of informal consultations for a specific
discussion on the question of a possible extension of the protection to be granted under Article 23.  As
to Article 24.2, Mexico agreed that the Council s hould continue with the review exercise.  The
information that was available to date did not give a full picture and probably the time had come to
collate information and also to obtain information from those who had not yet provided it.  Her
delegation was also awaiting with interest the summary document which the Secretariat was preparing
and which should assist Members in studying the issues more systematically, i.e. how delegations had
been applying Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement.  At the Council meeting held in October
1999, several delegations had expressed the desire for negotiations aimed at setting up a multilateral
notification and registration system to be continued with new impetus this year.  Her delegation
agreed with these delegations and was ready to participate actively in these discussions.
23. The representative of Japan said that his delegation was of the view that the scope of the
negotiations under Article 23.4 was limited to the covered products only and the expansion of the
covered products had to be dealt with under Article 24.2.  Consequently, Japan was looking forward
to the proposal announced by the European Communities. Japan was ready to actively join the
discussion.
24. The representative of Cuba supported the extension of the additional protection for
geographical indications under the Agreement to other product areas and supported the idea of
informal, broad and transparent consultations to be carried out by the Chairperson for this purpose.
25. The representative of Brazil, referring to the statements of the delegations of Argentina,
Canada, Mexico, Australia, the United States and New Zealand, said that the provisions of Articles 23
and 24 had rather different scopes and did not provide a mandate to undertake negotiations at this
stage on extended scope of protection for geographical indications.
26. The Chairperson noted that the work on the negotiations on setting up of a multilateral
notification and registration system for geographical indications for wines was under way.  He
recalled that the European Communities had indicated that they would submit shortly a new proposal.
He noted that work was also under way in regard to Article 24.2, and recalled that the Secretariat was
preparing its summary of the responses to the Checklist.  In accordance with the General Council
decision at its meeting of 7 and 8 February 2000, the TRIPS Council needed to take account in this
work of the impact on the trade and development prospects of developing countries.  He believed thatall Members had shown a willingness to expedite the work on the question of geographical
indications, and recalled that the Swiss delegation had indicated that it would submit a document in
the context of the review under Article 24.2.  He no ted certain divergences in views as regards the
interpretation of the provisions of the Agreemen t concerned and on how to carry the work forward.
More particularly, there were different interpretations concerning the mandate, or absence thereof,currently in the TRIPS Agreement pertaining to the extension of product coverage of Article 23 toIP/C/M/26
Page 33
other products.  While the interpretation of some countries that had taken the floor was that currently
there was no specific mandate for this, it was also true that a series of proposals had been tabled by
some countries on the theme of the possible extension of this protection to other products.  As had
been suggested, the Chairman might be asked to smooth out the path and facilitate the work by having
some further consultations on this subject.  There appeared to be, however, divergences about thenature of those consultations, in particular on whether they should address the possible extension of
the product coverage under the provisions of the Agreement.  The Chair might hold informal
consultations, not on substantive aspects, but to garner those elements which could help to define the
best path to take with this work in the year 2000.
__________