RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/12
16April 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-1635)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on27February 1997
Chairman: Ambassador W.Armstrong (New Zealand)
Subjects discussed:
A. Notifications under Article 4(d)
B. Guidelines fornotifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,4and5
C. Other notifications under provisions oftheAgreement
D. Follow-up tothereview oflegislation on:
(i) copyright andrelated rights
(ii) trademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs
E. Implementation ofArticle 70.8and70.9
F. Technical cooperation
G. Follow-up toSection IVoftheCouncil 'sreport (1996)
H. Observer status forinternational intergovernmental organizations
I. Information onrelevant developments elsewhere intheWTO
J. Other business
K. Election oftheChairperson oftheCouncil forTRIPS
A. Notifications under Article 4(d)
1. TheChairman saidthat,sincetheCouncil 'sprevious meeting, anotification under Article 4(d)
oftheAgreement hadbeenreceived from theSlovak Republic. Thenotification indicated thattwo
agreements thatwere nolonger valid should bedeleted from thelistofbilateral agreements whichIP/C/M/12
Page2
theSlovak Republic hadnotified earlier. This notification hadbeen distributed indocument
IP/N/4/SVK/2/Corr.1.
2. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil, atitsprevious meeting, hadagreed toallocate sufficient
timeatthepresent meeting tofocus onthecriteria thatmight berelevant todeciding whether a
notification should bemade under Article 4(d), inparticular those listed intheinformal Secretariat
noteof25April 1996andinproposals fromdelegations. Thisnotehadbeenupdated bytheSecretariat
onthebasis oftheconsultations heldonthematter andtheproposals referred toandcirculated as
documentNo.397,dated27January1997.Thecriteriawerecontainedinparagraph7ofthatdocument
andwere intended toassist individual Members inmaking orreviewing theirnotifications, itbeing
understood thatthecriteria could notaddtoordiminish therights andobligations ofWTO Members
under theprovisions ofArticle 4(d). Theonlydifference inthelistofcriteria, compared tothelist
contained intheearlier version ofthenote, wasthatanewpoint hadbeenadded concerning provisions
ofothermultilateralintellectualpropertyagreementswhichwereincorporatedintotheTRIPSAgreement.
TheChairman saidthat,prior tothepresent meeting, hehadheldfurther informal consultations on
thematter andprovided anopportunity todelegations toairanypoints thattheyhadconcerning the
criteria listed inparagraph 7oftheupdated Secretariat note. Asaresult ofthose consultations, and
taking account ofpoints made bydelegations, asecond revision ofthenotehadbeenprepared bythe
Secretariat anddistributed indocument No.930ofFebruary 1997. Inparticular, there-drafted
paragraph 7distinguished between, ontheonehand, criteria flowing directly from theprovisions of
thechapeau ofArticle 4andthetextofsub-paragraph (d)itselfand,ontheother hand, criteria derived
from other provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement.
3. Onthebasisoftheinformal consultations held, theChairman suggested thattheCouncil take
thefollowing action:
- first, thattheCouncil would notetheexistence oftheSecretariat paper, thelast
paragraph ofwhich wasintended asaninformal guideline toassist individual Member
States inmaking orreviewing theirnotifications under Article 4(d);
- second, thattheCouncil would revert totheissue intheautumn soastotakestock
ofthesituation atthattimeandinthelightofanyneworrevised notifications that
hadbeenmade; and
- third, thattheCouncil would notethatinthemeantime itremained open forany
Member toraisespecific points concerning thenotifications under Article 4(d),either
bilaterally oronthefloor oftheCouncil.
4. Therepresentative ofMexico stressed thatthedocument should serve asaninformal guide
toassist Members todetermine whether anotification under Article 4(d)might bewarranted and
expressed support fortheproposal torevert totheissue inthelightofneworrevised notifications.
WhilerecognizingthegeneralrightthatanyMemberhadtoputaquestiontoanotherMember,bilaterally
orinthecourse ofaCouncil meeting, hesaidthatthispossibility should notformpartofadecision
concerning notifications under Article 4(d),because itmight beinterpreted asareference toareview
ofnotifications made andnothing inArticle 4(d)required suchareview. Noting thechanges thathad
beenmade toparagraph 7onthebasisoftheinformal consultations, hesuggested anumber ofadditional
changes tothatparagraph.
5. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported thetextoftheinformal background note
andtheChairman 'sproposal onhowtomove forward onArticle 4(d). Theproposal would provide
foranopportunity torevisit thenotifications thathadbeenmade under thatArticle andthestructure
ofthenotepresented aframework forsuchreviews. Intheinformal discussions, anumber ofMembersIP/C/M/12
Page3
hadexpressed apreference forapproaching theissuebyMembers posing questions toother Members
directly rather thanthrough amoreformal procedure. Therefore, itwasimportant toretain thestatement
thatanyMember maypresent questions toother delegations regarding theirnotifications, whether
bilaterally oronthefloor oftheCouncil. Anincentive wasneeded toensure thatMembers would
review theirnotifications inatimely manner andmake thedetermination astowhether anotification
under Article 4(d)hadbeenappropriate. Inanumber ofcases, Members appeared tohavenotified
every bilateral ormultilateral agreement towhich theywere parties andthatcontained theterm
"intellectual property", disregarding thethreshold inArticle 4(d)itself fornotifications under the
provision. Heencouraged those Members thathadfollowed suchanapproach intheirnotifications
toconsider seriously whether thebreadth ofthose notifications wasinfactappropriate. Finally, the
representative oftheUnited States drew attention tothefactthatcertain governments, including the
governments ofGermany, Portugal andItaly, hadnotified theentire contents oftheParis Convention,
whichhisdelegationfoundconfusinginviewoftheobligationunderArticle2.1oftheTRIPSAgreement
tocomply withArticles 1through 12,and19oftheParis Convention (1967). Thisraised thequestion
astowhether these WTO Members weresuggesting thattheydidnothavetoextend MFN treatment
tonationals ofother WTO Members inrespect oftheobligations contained inArticles 1through 12,
and19,oftheParis Convention (1967).
6. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthepresent textofthenotewas
acceptable tohisdelegation andthatthenotewasahelpful yardstick, notintending tobeaqualitative
interpretation ofArticle 4,inparticular ofitssub-paragraph (d).Referring tothecomments made
bytherepresentative oftheUnited States, herecognized thatsome Community Member States had
made generous useoftheoption tomake notifications under Article 4(d),butitshould alsobeborne
inmind thatArticle 4introduced forthefirsttimeanMFN clause intoamultilateral agreement on
intellectual property andthatsome trialanderror inadvancing thematter could therefore beexpected.
Moreover, hewasnotaware ofanyproblems thathadarisen asaconsequence ofsuchnotifications
but,ifanysuchproblems would emerge, hewould beperfectly prepared toaddress thematanytime.
7. Therepresentative ofMexico saidthathewould notraiseobjections totheChair'sproposals,
including theelement thatdelegations could putquestions toother delegations whenever theyneeded
clarification about anypoint, butitshould beabsolutely clear that,inhisdelegation 'sview, under
Article 4(d)therewasnoobligation, first,tonotify or,second, ascertain provisions inotheragreements
annexed totheWTO Agreement explicitly required, tocarry outareview ofnotifications andtheir
validity.
8. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil taketheaction suggested byhimearlier (paragraph 3
above), withthefollowing additional fourth andfifthpoints:
- fourth, theCouncil would takenoteofthestatements made; and
- fifth, theSecretariat would berequested torevise thelastparagraph oftheinformal
background notetaking intoaccount thepoints raised bytherepresentative ofMexico.1
Healsoemphasized thatthenotewasaninformal background noteintended asahelpful yardstick to
assist individual Members.
9. TheCouncil soagreed.
1Thelastparagraph asrevised toincorporate these suggestions isreproduced intheAnnex tothese minutes.IP/C/M/12
Page4
B. Guidelines fornotifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,4and5
10. TheChairman saidthat,atitsmeeting inSeptember 1996, theCouncil hadconcluded that
thismatter should beapproached onthebasis ofarange ofoptions between which Members could
choose inmaking theirnotifications andthattheSecretariat should prepare aformat foroneofthese
options, namely making ageneral statement thatnationals ofother WTO Members enjoyed national
andMFNtreatmentandlistinganyexceptionstothatprinciple.Atitsmeetingof11-15November1996,
theCouncil hadnoted thatthedocument inquestion prepared bytheSecretariat (IP/C/W/48) hadonly
justbeendistributed andagreed thatitwould takeadecision ontheproposed format atitsmeeting
inFebruary 1997.
11. TheChairman reported thathehadtaken upthisissuewithMembers ininformal consultations
prior tothismeeting. Asaresult ofcomments made bydelegations during those consultations, the
Secretariat hadrevised theAnnex toitsnotecontaining thedraftformat (document IP/C/W/48/Rev.1).
Onthebasisoftherevised note, further informal consultations hadbeenheldandinthelightofthose
consultations heproposed threechanges totheAnnex tothenotecontaining theproposed draftformat:
- attheendofthesecond paragraph onpage3ofthedocument, aftertheword "option",
acomma should beintroduced andthefollowing words added: "without adding toor
subtracting from therights andobligations ofMembers under theAgreement";
- under item1oftheformat, dealing withnational treatment, thelastfourlinesofthe
textunder (a)should bedeleted, i.e.from "Dotheintellectual property lawsand
regulations ..."down to"relevant provisions";
- item2oftheformat onmost-favoured-nation treatment should bechanged inthesame
wayasproposed foritem1.
12. Insubmitting theamended format totheCouncil, theChairman said,first, thatitwas,asit
stated, intended tobenomore thanapractical aidtoassist Members toavailthemselves oftheoption
towhich itrelated. Asnowclearly stated inthetext,itcould notaddtoorsubtract from rights and
obligations ofMembers under theAgreement. Second, thepurpose ofidentifying arange ofoptions
and,inparticular, thegeneral statement approach contained inthesecond option wastofindas
lightweight awayaspossible ofMembers making notifications, while atthesame timeproviding the
transparency required under Article 63.2inorder toassist theCouncil initsreview oftheoperation
oftheAgreement. Third, itwasclear thatmany delegations were waiting fortheoutcome ofthe
discussion onthispoint before making theirnotifications.
13. Therepresentative ofSingapore, speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, saidthat,without
delving intotheunderlying systemic issue, ASEAN wished itplaced onrecord that,innotobjecting
towhatever consensus there might beonthevarious alternatives fornotifications under Articles 3,
4and5oftheTRIPS Agreement, there should benoimplication whatsoever thateachandanyofthe
ASEAN Member states hadthereby waived anyoftheir rights under Article 65.2oftheTRIPS
Agreement, inparticular theright"todelay forafurther period offouryears thedateofapplication"
oftheprovisions oftheAgreement other thanArticles 3,4and5.
14. Therepresentative ofBrazil saidthathisdelegation fullysupported thedocument withthe
amendments proposed bytheChairman.
15. Following some discussion onitsstatus, theChairman suggested thattheCouncil takenote
oftheAnnex todocument IP/C/W/48 withtheproposed amendments asadocument which hadbeen
developed bytheCouncil asapractical aidtoassist delegations making notifications oflawsandIP/C/M/12
Page5
regulations relating toArticles 3,4and5oftheAgreement. Hefurther suggested thattheCouncil
takenoteofthestatements made.
16. TheCouncil soagreed.
C. Other notifications under theprovisions oftheAgreement
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
17. TheChairman recalled thatthereview oflegislation intheareas ofpatents, plant varieties,
integrated circuits, undisclosed information andthecontrol ofanti-competitive practices wasscheduled
fortheCouncil 'snextmeeting attheendofMay inaccordance withtheCouncil 'sdecision of
21November 1995(document IP/C/3). TheCouncil hadagreed attheprevious meeting thatMembers
wishing toaskquestions should provide advance notice ofthem totheMember concerned andtothe
Secretariat by15March 1997 withwritten responses dueby30April 1997. Areminder concerning
thisagreed procedure hadbeencirculated todelegations inWTO/AIR/501, of10January 1997. With
aviewtoassisting Members inthepreparation ofthiswork, theSecretariat hadprepared aninformal
checklist reflecting inwhich WTO documents lawsandregulations intheareas concerned hadbeen
distributed (document No.1130 of27February 1997). Asthechecklist showed, anumber ofthe
Members concerned stillhadnotnotified certain legislation inthese areas. Thesame wasalsotrue
forother areas covered bytheAgreement andwhich theCouncil hadreviewed inJulyandNovember
lastyear. Hetherefore again urged theMembers concerned tomake anyoutstanding notifications
without delay soastomaximize theusefulness oftheCouncil 'sreview exercise ofnational implementing
legislation. Inthiscontext, healsowished torefertothepoint thathehadmade atthereview meeting
inNovember 1996, when hehadmentioned that,inanumber ofcases, delegations hadreferred to
legislative textsintheiranswers toquestions puttothemwhich hadnotbeennotified totheCouncil.
Onlyasmall number ofsuchlawsandregulations hadsubsequently beenreceived bytheSecretariat.
18. While onthesubject ofthereview tobeheldinMay1997, theChairman proposed thatall
Members covered bythereview would respond, inrespect ofpatents, tothesame question onpriority
rights thathadbeenincluded inthetrademark review. Thisquestion would read: "Does yourcountry
recognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier patent application filedinanyother WTO Member
byanational ofaWTO Member?"
19. Asregards newnotifications made under Article 63.2, theChairman informed Members that
thenotifications ofCyprus andRomania thathehadmentioned attheprevious meeting hadbeen
circulated asadvance notifications under paragraph 3ofthedecision oftheCouncil contained in
document IP/C/2. Senegal hadnotified thatitsnational legislation relating toindustrial property was
theBangui Agreement adopted on2March 1977, while informing theCouncil atthesame timethat
therevision ofthatAgreement wasunder way, inparticular withaviewtoharmonizing some ofits
provisions withthose oftheWTO relating toTRIPS (document IP/N/1/SEN/1). NewZealand had
notified asetofrecent amendments toseveral ofthelawsandregulations which ithadinitially notified
under Article 63.2.
20. Finally, theChairman updated Members onthestatus oftheresponses tothechecklist ofissues
onenforcement, which theCouncil hadagreed should havebeennotified by31December 1996. To
date,theSecretariat hadreceived eightnotifications inaddition totheeightthatwerealready available
atthetimeoftheCouncil 'sprevious meeting. Responses hadnowbeennotified byAustria, Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, theEuropean Community, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, the
Netherlands, NewZealand, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden andtheUnited Kingdom. Heurged other
Members which hadnotyetnotified theirresponses tothechecklist todosowithout delay sothattheIP/C/M/12
Page6
Council 'sreview ofnational implementing legislation intheareaofenforcement, which would take
place inNovember 1997, could beasuseful aspossible. Healsonoted thatsome oftheresponses
received didnotaddress allthequestions inthechecklist ordidsoonlyinrelation tocertain categories
ofintellectual property.
21. Therepresentative ofRomania stressed thatthenotification circulated toMembers in
document IP/N/1/ROM/1, of20February 1997, hadbeenmade fortransparency reasons andwithout
prejudice totheprovisions ofArticle 65,paragraphs 2and3,oftheTRIPS Agreement. Even so,
Romania wasinterested inbeing included intheprocess ofexamination oflawsandregulations related
totheTRIPS Agreement andwelcomed thatithadalready beenincluded inthechecklist which had
beenprepared bytheSecretariat. Herdelegation considered thattheexercise oftheexamination of
lawsandregulations intheTRIPS fieldwasavaluable testforthecompatibility oflawsandregulations
withtheTRIPS Agreement. Shealsowished tonotethatitwasherdelegation 'sunderstanding that
through thisnotification itwasmeeting itsobligations under Article 3,4and5oftheTRIPS Agreement.
22. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities expressed hisappreciation forthestatement
made byRomania. Hewelcomed thefactthatacountry which might benefit fromatransition period
under Article 65hadsubmitted itslegislation forreview before theyear2000. Assaidbefore, ahuge
number oflawswould needtobereviewed asfromtheyear2000anditwould, consequently, beuseful
ifotherdelegationsweretofollowtheRomanianexampleandallowreviewoftheirlegislationinadvance
oftheyear2000, without prejudice toArticle 65.Healsowished todraw theCouncil 'sattention to
theissue ofnewnotifications andtheirexamination, inparticular whether theyshould bereviewed
individually oronlyafteracertain number ofsuchnotifications hadbeenreceived.
23. Therepresentative ofNorway, forreasons oftransparency, wished toinform theCouncil that
certain modifications ofrelevant Norwegian laws andregulations hadentered intoforce asof
1January 1997. These modifications concerned thefollowing lawsandregulations: theTrademarks
Act,thePatent Act,theDesigns Actandrelated regulations toallthesethreeacts. These modifications
didnotalterthecomprehensive protection already given. Hesaidthattheauthorities ofhiscountry
wereworking ontranslations intoEnglish andwould notify therevised legaltextsassoonaspossible.
24. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation alsowished tocommend the
delegation ofRomania foritsstatement andthenotification ithadmade, inparticular itsdesire to
participate inareview thatcould feeditwithvaluable information. Hisdelegation supported the
suggestions andcomments made bytheEuropean Communities thattheCouncil should starttoconsider
howitwould tackle thework thatlayahead forMembers asthetransition periods came toanend.
Heemphasized theusefulness oftheideathat,ifpossible, those WTO Members which hadtaken steps
toimplement TRIPS obligations should beencouraged toparticipate voluntarily inthereview process
inadvance oftheexpiration oftheirtransition periods, obviously notchallenging theirentitlement to
thatperiod, butmerely toaidintheprocess ofthereview oflegislation. Thiswould befullyconsistent
withthefirstrecommendation thattheCouncil putinitsreport totheSingapore Ministerial, where
allMembers reaffirmed theimportance offullimplementation oftheTRIPS Agreement within the
applicable transition periods aswellastheimportance ofeachMember taking thesteps which it
considered appropriate sothattheprovisions oftheAgreement would beapplied.
25. TheChairman recalled that,atitsNovember 1996meeting, theCouncil hadidentified acertain
wayforward regarding thisissueofthefuture review oflegislation. TheCouncil hadagreed thatthe
Chair would consult inthecourse of1997 withindividual Members whose legislation hadnotbeen
subject tothepresent review exercise butwhose legislation would havebeeninwhole orinlarge part
brought intoconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement inadvance. Thepurpose ofthose consultations
hadbeenoutlined ashadtheunderstanding thatparticipation byaMember would bewithout prejudiceIP/C/M/12
Page7
toitsentitlements under Article 65andwould beconsidered asapractical contribution tothework
oftheCouncil (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 35).
26. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
(ii) Notifications under Article 69
27. TheChairman saidthat,sincetheCouncil 'smeeting inNovember, newnotifications hadbeen
received from India andfrom Barbados andthatPoland hadnotified modifications toitsearlier
notification under Article 69.TheSecretariat hadcirculated asecond addendum totherevised
compilation ofnotifications under Article 69(document IP/N/3/Rev.2/Add.2), which contained
notifications ofcontact points received since thefirstaddendum tothatlisthadbeen prepared in
September 1996. Since thedistribution ofthesecond addendum, Canada hadsubmitted updated
information concerning itscontact points. Atotalof75Members hadnownotified contact points under
Article 69.
D. Follow-up tothereview oflegislation
(i) Copyright andrelated rights2
28. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil hadagreed, atitsmeeting of11to15November 1996,
tofocus thefollow-up tothereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights atthepresent meeting
andthatMembers should make aparticular effort tocover atthepresent meeting anyissues thatmight
havearisen fromthereview. Further follow-up questions posed totheUnited States hadbeenreceived
from theEuropean Communities andtheirMember States andcirculated indocument IP/C/W/53.
Questions posed toAustralia, Canada, Japan andtheUnited States hadbeenreceived fromBrazil and
circulated indocument IP/C/W/55.
29. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatMembers hadbeeninvited bytheCouncil
toprovide advance notice ofanyfollow-up questions bytheendofJanuary 1997(document IP/C/M/11,
paragraph 15)soastoallow enough timefordelegations toprepare responses prior tothepresent
meeting. Unfortunately, hisdelegation hadreceived some ofthequestions onlytheweek before the
meeting andothers justprior tothemeeting andwasnotinaposition toprovide itsresponses atthis
time, butwould dosoinwriting shortly sothattheycould becirculated inadvance ofthenextmeeting.
Similarly, therepresentatives ofCanada andAustralia saidthattheyhadjustreceived thequestions
posed tothem andwould provide responses induecourse.
30. Therepresentative ofKorea, referring totheresponses given bytheUnited States tothequestion
Korea hadposed totheUnited States atthereview meeting inJuly1996(seedocument IP/Q/USA/1,
PartVI),hadthefollowing follow-up questions fortheUnited States:
"Arethefollowing works, theauthors ofwhich arenationals ofotherWTO Members, protected
under theUSCopyright Law:
- awork published after1922, buttheauthor ofthework diedbefore 1947;
- awork published after1922, andtheauthor ofthework diedafter1947;
2Questions posed inthecontext ofthisfollow-up willbecirculated together withtheanswers given inthe
IP/Q/- series ofdocuments.IP/C/M/12
Page8
- awork published before 1922, buttheauthor ofthework diedafter1947;
- awork published before 1922, andtheauthor ofthework diedbefore 1947?"
31. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made andrevert tothe
matter atitsnextmeeting.
32. TheCouncil soagreed.
(ii) Trademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs3
33. TheChairman saidthattheSecretariat hadreceived written copies ofvirtually allthefollow-up
andotheradditionalquestionsandrepliesthathadbeenpresentedorallyatthereviewmeetingconcerning
legislation ontrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs inNovember 1996. The
record oftheintroductory statements made bydelegations, thequestions puttothemandtheresponses
given werebeing circulated intheIP/Q2/COUNTRY/-series ofdocuments. Thedocuments concerning
thelegislation oftheCzech Republic andIceland hadalready beencirculated, andothers werebeing
processed.
34. Theprocedures forthereview (document IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6andIP/C/M/8, paragraphs 69
and70)provided that,atsubsequent meetings oftheCouncil, anopportunity would begiven tofollow
upanypoint emerging fromthereview session which delegations considered hadnotbeenadequately
addressed. Follow-up questions posed totheEuropean Communities andtheUnited States hadbeen
received from India andcirculated indocument IP/C/W/54.
35. Therepresentatives oftheEuropean Communities andtheUnited States saidthattheywould
provide responses inadvance ofthenextmeeting oftheCouncil.
36. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made andrevert tothe
matter atitsnextmeeting.
37. TheCouncil soagreed.
E. Implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9
38. TheChairman saidthatarevised notification hadbeenreceived fromKuwait, which hadbeen
circulated asdocument IP/N/1/KWT/1/Rev.1. Turkey hadnotified information additional tothatin
itsearliernotificationrelatingtoArticle70.8,whichconcernedstatisticsaboutthenumberofapplications
received inthe"mailbox" since1995(broken down bycountry oforigin) andonthesystem ofexclusive
marketing rights applicable inTurkey asrequired byArticle 70.9oftheAgreement. Thisinformation
would becirculated asdocument IP/N/1/TUR/1/Add.1. Healsodrew Members 'attention tothe
Senegalese notification (document IP/N/1/SEN/1) referred tounder itemCabove which alsocontained
informationfromSenegalonthefilingofpatentapplicationsforpharmaceuticalandagriculturalchemical
products inSenegal.
39. While thanking theWTO Members mentioned fortheirnotifications, therepresentative ofthe
United States saidthat,inrespect ofmany other Members, itstillremained unclear what thelegal
3Questions posed inthecontext ofthisfollow-up willbecirculated together withtheanswers given inthe
IP/Q2/- series ofdocuments.IP/C/M/12
Page9
situation waswithregard tothepatentability ofpharmaceutical andagricultural chemical products or
whether Article 70.8and70.9oftheAgreement hadbeencomplied with. Although thispoint had
beenemphasized atvarious previous Council meetings, theinformation available fromMembers was
stillunsatisfactory andhisdelegation would appreciate thenecessary clarifications from Members
including, inparticular, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Madagascar, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Qatar,
Tanzania, Zambia andZimbabwe. Theother point thathewished tostress again wasthatvirtually
allnotifications received sofarwerelimited toinformation ontheestablishment ofa"mailbox" under
Article 70.8andnotabout theavailability ofexclusive marketing rights asrequired byArticle 70.9.
Finally, heinformed theCouncil ofdevelopments inthedisputes withPakistan andIndia relating to
these provisions, saying thathehoped tobeinaposition tonotify amutually agreed solution tothe
dispute withPakistan totheCouncil shortly andthatthepanel established inthedispute withIndia
hadestablished atimetable foritswork.
40. TherepresentativeofPakistansaidthathiscountryhadfulfilleditsobligationsunderArticle70.8
and70.9oftheTRIPS Agreement withtheissuance bythePresident ofPakistan, on4February 1997,
ofanordinance providing thatallapplications filedafter1January 1995should beconsidered validly
filedandenabling persons whowould havefiledapplications asfrom 1January 1995 untilthedate
theordinance wasissued tostilldosoandreceive afiling date. Withrespect totheobligations under
Article 70.9oftheTRIPS Agreement, theordinance provided thatexclusive marketing rights would
begranted where (a)theapplicant wasgranted apatent andmarketing approval fortheproduct that
wasthesubject ofacorresponding application inanother WTO Member and(b)theapplicant was
granted marketing approval inPakistan. Hesaidthathisdelegation would notify theordinance shortly
andwasworking onthenotification ofamutually agreed solution withtheUnited States delegation.
41. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
F. Technical cooperation
42. TheChairman saidthat,since theprevious meeting, theSecretariat hadreceived updated
information ontechnical cooperation activities fromtheOrganization forEconomic Co-operation and
Development, which hadbeendistributed indocument IP/C/W/35/Add.7. Thefollowing developed
country Members hadsofarprovided updated information ontheirtechnical cooperation activities:
Austria, Canada, Denmark, theEuropean Communities, Finland, Germany, Japan, NewZealand,
Norway,Spain,Sweden,Switzerland,theUnitedKingdomandtheUnitedStates(documentsIP/C/W/34
andaddenda).AsregardsinternationalintergovernmentalorganizationsobserverstotheTRIPSCouncil,
updated information hadbeenprovided bytheFAO, theIMF, theOECD, UNCTAD, UPOV, WIPO,
theWorld Bank andtheWCO ontheirtechnical cooperation activities (documents IP/C/W/35 and
addenda). Since theprevious meeting, contact points fortechnical cooperation purposes relating to
theTRIPS Agreement hadbeen notified byFinland, Germany andLiechtenstein andanupdated
compilation ofsuchcontact points hadbeencirculated asdocument IP/N/7/Rev.1. Since thisdocument
hadbeencirculated, Canada hadnotified some changes concerning itscontact point. 18developed
country Members hadnownotified contact points fortechnical cooperation purposes.
43. Therepresentative ofPerurecalled thatoneoftheareas covered bythecooperation agreement
between WIPO andtheWTO waslegal-technical assistance andtechnical cooperation andwondered
whether theSecretariat could provide, before theCouncil 'snextmeeting, anyinformation ontechnical
cooperation activities under thatagreement.
44. TheChairmanreferredtothecontributionsfromtheinternationalintergovernmentalorganizations
observers totheTRIPS Council thathehadmentioned amoment ago,which included updated
information fromWIPO. Healsoreferred tothecontribution fromtheWTO Secretariat onitstechnicalIP/C/M/12
Page10
cooperation activities intheTRIPS areacirculated indocument IP/C/W/36. Heemphasized the
importance ofthecooperation between WIPO andtheWTO intheareaoftechnical cooperation and
mentioned asanexample theWorkshop ontheBorder Enforcement Provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement
heldinSeptember 1996, which hadbeenjointly organized byWIPO andtheWTO. Hesaidthata
significant amount ofinformation hadbeenmade available ontechnical cooperation activities andthat
theexpectation wasthatsuchinformation would alsobemade available inthefuture.
45. Therepresentative ofIndiasaidthatitwould beuseful togetinformation ontheimplementation
oftheAgreementBetweenWIPOandtheWTO,whichcouldbeconsideredattheCouncil'snextmeeting
inconnection withtechnical cooperation. Herecalled that,according toparagraph 22oftheminutes
oftheCouncil 'smeeting inNovember 1996(document IP/C/M/11), Japan hadinformed theCouncil
thatitwasassisting theInternational Bureau ofWIPO inorganizing anAsian regional seminar onthe
implementation oftheTRIPS Agreement, tobeheldinSingapore from 15to17January 1997, and
thatanofficial fromtheWTO Secretariat would beinvited asaspeaker tothatseminar. Hewondered
whether anofficial fromtheSecretariat hadspoken atthatseminar andexpressed hisinterest inmore
information ontheseminar.
46. Therepresentative oftheSecretariat saidtheseminar inquestion hadbeenorganized inthe
form ofaroundtable, essentially forsenior officials from thepatent offices intheAsia-Pacific area.
SuchaseminarwasorganizedannuallybyWIPOwithfinancialassistancefromtheJapaneseGovernment.
Theroundtable, inwhich hehadparticipated, hadlargely beendevoted toissues ofimplementation
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Herecalled thattworepresentatives from India hadbeenpresent atthe
roundtable, onefrom theprivate sector andtheother from thegovernment. Iftherepresentative of
Indiasowished, additional information ontheseminar including papers presented attheseminar could
bemade available tohim.
47. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatitwould beuseful tomake available thepapers presented
attheseminar, inparticular because oneofthetopics hadbeenhowtofacilitate further technical
cooperation intheareaofintellectual property andoneoftheideas thathadbeenpresented concerned
shifting thetechnical cooperation activities outofGeneva andintothedifferent regions. Thepapers
might helpinunderstanding theconcerns ofthecountries intheregion andhowtheWTO Secretariat
would beabletomeettherequests made bycountries.
48. Therepresentative ofJapan informed theCouncil thathisdelegation would provide information
ontheseminar atthenextmeeting.
49. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
G. Follow-up toSection IVoftheCouncil 'sreport (1996)
(i) Implementation oftheAgreement (paragraph 32ofdocument IP/C/8)
50. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatthediscussions thathadtaken place earlier
thismeeting inrelation tothereview bytheCouncil oftheimplementation oftheAgreement had
strengthened hisdelegation 'sviewthatitmight beworthwhile tospend some timethinking about what
might bedoneasafollow-up toparagraph 32oftheCouncil 'sreport (document IP/C/8). Steps towards
achieving implementation oftheTRIPS Agreement inadvance ofthedates oftheexpiration ofthe
transition periods might warrant some attention inthecontext of,inparticular, thereview ofnational
implementing legislation.IP/C/M/12
Page11
51. Therepresentative ofSingapore, recalling thelongandarduous negotiations onthismatter
lastautumn, believed thatthefollow-up activity wasquite clear: itwasforeachMember todecide
whatsteps itwould taketoimplement theTRIPS Agreement within thetransitional period towhich
itwasentitled.
(ii) Technical andfinancial cooperation (paragraph 33ofdocument IP/C/8)
52. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthattheimplementation oftherecommendations contained
inparagraph 33oftheCouncil 'sreport (document IP/C/8) could beseeninthecontext ofthedecision
taken byMinisters inSingapore toorganize ahigh-level meeting inGeneva inorder tolookatways
toenhance trade opportunities ofleast-developed countries. Thismight require, inthefirstinstance,
some coordination between themembers oftheSecretariat serving theTRIPS Council andthose
responsible fortheorganization ofthatmeeting andwould seem tobeamatter ofurgency, since the
high-level meeting wasexpected totakeplace before thesummer break.
53. Therepresentative oftheSecretariat saidthattheIntellectual Property andInvestment Division
oftheWTO Secretariat wasintouch withthose whowerehandling theSecretariat endofthepreparation
forthehighlevel meeting. Healsoinformed theCouncil inthiscontext thattheSecretariat was
organising asecond workshop ontheTRIPS Agreement specifically directed towards theleast-developed
andother Sub-Saharan African countries, which wasscheduled totakeplace attheendofJuneorthe
beginning ofJulythisyearandtobeconducted inFrench. Likethefirstsuchworkshop, which had
beenheldinOctober 1996 andconducted inEnglish, thesecond workshop would befinanced from
theNorwegian contribution totheWTO Trust Fund. Speakers would include representatives ofWTO
Members, officials oftheInternational Bureau ofWIPO, private practitioners andstaffmembers of
theWTO Secretariat.
54. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthat,however important theobligation toprovide technical
andfinancial assistance onTRIPS related matters was,hisdelegation washesitant toexpand thescope
ofthehigh-level meeting. Ithadbeenagreed thatthemeeting should focus onleast-developed countries
inaserious attempt toenhance theirintegration inthemultilateral trading system. Assistance tomore
advanced developing countries wasalsoveryimportant, butshould bereferred toother fora.
55. Therepresentative ofBrazil saidthathisdelegation could support thesuggestion made byIndia
which, since thehigh-level meeting waslimited toleast-developed countries, would ofcourse only
beapartial follow-up totherecommendation inparagraph 33ofdocument IP/C/8.
(iii) Built-in Agenda (paragraph 34ofdocument IP/C/8)
- Review oftheapplication oftheprovisions ofthesection ongeographical indications
under Article 24.2
56. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil, asagreed inits1996 report (IP/C/8, paragraph 27),
hadtaken upwork onthismatter atitsmeeting of11-15 November 1996afterandtaking intoaccount
thereview oflegislation intheareas oftrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs.
Atthatmeeting, theCouncil hadagreed togivefurther consideration tohowtheissue ofreviewing
theapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications under Article 24.2would
behandled andtodothisthrough informal consultations inthefirstinstance, which would bescheduled
totakeplace atatimeearly in1997. Ithadbeenagreed thatthetiming ofthese consultations would
alsoneedtotakeintoaccount thetimeframe inwhich delegations which hadpromised totableproposals
wereabletomake themavailable (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 60).Members would recall that
thedelegation oftheEuropean Communities hadalready made available lastyearsome proposals for
work tobeundertaken bytheCouncil ongeographical indications inthecontext ofArticle 24.2. AIP/C/M/12
Page12
number ofother delegations hadindicated their intention topresent papers. Inthelight ofthe
consultations thathehadheldprior tothepresent meeting, hewould notpropose toinvite afull-scale
discussion ofthisissue atthistime. Itseemed clear that,astheCouncil hadagreed atitsmeeting
inNovember, thetiming offurther work ontheissue ofhowtheCouncil might handle thereview
under Article 24.2needed totakeintoaccount thetimeframe inwhich delegations which hadindicated
theirintention tomake proposals wereabletodoso.Itwould, however, behelpful ifthose delegations
which intended totablepapers weretoindicate when theyhoped tobeabletomake them available.
57. Therepresentative ofIndiasaidthathisdelegation would beinaposition tocirculate anon-paper
onitsviews onthereview oftheapplication oftheprovisions ofthegeographical indications well
inadvance ofthenextmeeting oftheCouncil. Healsosuggested thattheSecretariat startinitial work
inanalysing thematter onthebasis ofthenon-paper made available lastyearbytheEuropean
Communities, inorder toallow amore meaningful discussion ofthesubject.
58. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation hadconcerns about howthe
work inrelation totopics under Article 24.2might beordered. Atitsmeeting lastNovember, the
Council hadproceeded through averyextensive review process which hadfocused on,interalia,
implementation oftheTRIPS provisions ongeographical indications inMembers obliged tocomply
withthese provisions andhisdelegation wasstillinthemiddle ofdigesting theresults ofthatmeeting,
which hadproduced alarge amount ofinformation. Hisdelegation wasworking ontheassumption
thatitwould beabletocome back, attheCouncil 'smeeting scheduled for15July1997, withany
further questions thatmight seem appropriate onanyissues thathadnotbeen fully addressed in
November. Hebelieved, therefore, thatitwasappropriate tofocus atthatmeeting onrevisiting the
question astowhatcould andshould bedone beyond what hadalready beendone inthereview of
national implementing legislation. Additional thoughts andnon-papers thatmight beforwarded tothe
Council would beconsidered onceobtained. Hisdelegation wasalsolooking forward toadditional
information fromthereview inNovember consisting ofnotifications thatstillneeded tobemade with
respect togeographical indications.
59. While referring tohisdelegation 'sviews onthismatter, which heconsidered well-known,
therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities regretted that,atthemeeting inNovember 1996, it
hadnotbeenpossible toagree onaconcrete wayofhowtogoabout thereview under Article 24.2.
Hisdelegation hadmade available today anewnon-paper inwhich afollow-up waspresented tothe
suggestions made inthenon-paper ithaddistributed lastyear. Anattempt wasmade tocarry outwhat
ithadsuggested inlastyear'snon-paper theSecretariat could beasked todo.Acomparison wasmade
between thetreatment incertain oftheCommunities 'major trading partners intheareaofwines and
spirits, namely Canada, theUnited States, NewZealand andJapan, asregards definitions usedaccording
tothelegislation notified under Article 63.2andreviewed lastNovember aswellastheways inwhich
protectionwasgranted(forexample,througharegistrationsystemorthroughadministrativeenforcement)
andtheexceptions thatapplied asunderstood byhisdelegation. Thisexercise hadresulted inadditional
questions asreflected onpageoneofthenon-paper, which hisdelegation would wishtoform part
ofthework tobecarried outintheinformal consultations agreed totakeplace atatimeearly in1997.
Thenon-paper wasintended tostimulate thediscussion andtobeafirststepinawider exercise which
hisdelegation would expect theSecretariat tocarry out,which would entail anextension ofthenumber
ofcountries andissues covered andtheirconsideration inmore detail. Atanappropriate moment,
thisworkwouldcontributetotheworkwhichhadtobedoneunderArticle23.4pursuanttoparagraph34
oftheCouncil 'sreport (1996) (document IP/C/8).
60. Therepresentative oftheUnited States said,asapreliminary comment onthenon-paper that
hadjustbeenpresented bytheEuropean Communities, thatitillustrated whyhisdelegation believed,
onceitwould havehadtheopportunity togiveafullconsideration totheresponses tothequestionsIP/C/M/12
Page13
posed during thereview ofnational implementing legislation, theCouncil might beabletoidentify
whattypes ofissues would infactberelevant interms offurther work, ifany,under Article 24.2.
Healsowould liketorecall thatArticle 24.2spoke ofareview oftheapplication oftheprovisions
oftheSection ongeographical indications, which contained anumber ofspecific obligations thatWTO
Members hadaccepted aspartofaprolonged negotiation, andthattheEuropean Communities 'non-
paper, atfirstglance, would notseem tohaveanyrelation towhatwasspecifically provided forin
theAgreement. Before engaging inacourse offuture work, hebelieved thatitwould behelpful to
takeasafirsttopic howthatwork should bestructured soastoreflect whattheobligations under the
Agreement were. Themostappropriate firststepthatmight betaken under Article 24.2wastolook
attheJulymeetingoftheCouncil,whichheassumedwouldbedevoted,interalia,tofollow-upquestions
totheNovember 1996review. Atthattime, theCouncil might beabletodiscuss fruitfully whatsteps
would benecessary, ifany,toobtain information which might bemissing. Healsowondered whether
itwould notbemore appropriate fortheEuropean Communities toprovide information regarding the
application oftheprovisions inquestion intheMember States oftheEuropean Communities.
61. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland expressed theviewthatthemutual education andreflection
process should bestarted assoonaspossible. Inthisregard, shewelcomed thenon-paper presented
bytheEuropean Communities which, together withother proposals onthematter, suchastheone
herdelegation would submit shortly, would givestructure tothediscussion. Shesaidthatitwentwithout
saying thattheSecretariat hadarôletoplayinthisprocess, asitusually hadinaprocess likethis.
Asregards thetimetable forthework, shebelieved thatthere wasnoneedtosetanydeadlines atthis
time. Whenever submissions were made bydelegations, theyshould bediscussed inaninformal
framework firstand,ifrequested, theitemcould beputontheagenda ofthenextCouncil meeting.
62. Therepresentative ofBrazil saidthatalonger timeframe wasneeded todiscuss themodalities
ofthereview under Article 24.2. Hisdelegation hadtheintention tosubmit follow-up questions in
thecontext ofthereview ofnational implementing legislation thattheCouncil hadcarried outin
November 1996 andheassumed thatother developing countries werecontemplating thesame. The
suggestion made bytheUnited States tocome backtothismatter attheJulymeeting seemed appropriate
tohisdelegation.
63. Therepresentative ofHungary thanked theEuropean Communities fortheirnon-paper and
looked forward totheother proposals foreshadowed, recalling thatthemodalities forthereview under
Article 24.2were asoutlined bytheCouncil inparagraph 27ofdocument IP/C/8.
64. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthattheEuropean Communities andtheir
Member States would nothaveanyobjection tothepreparation ofacomparative tablecovering their
system fortheprotection ofgeographical indications andwould bepleased tocomment onsuchatable
when confronted withit.
65. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidthatherdelegation would examine withinterest the
non-paper presented bytheEuropean Communities. Herdelegation wasoftheviewthatanalytical
work should beundertaken byMembers rather thanbytheSecretariat anditsunderstanding wasthat
theCouncil hadagreed thattheagreement inprevious discussions onthismatter hadbeenthatthis
wasamatter tobetaken up,inthefirstinstance, ininformal consultations andthatthetiming forthese
needed tointoaccount thetimeframe fortheprovision ofinputs from delegations.
66. Therepresentative ofCanada shared theviewexpressed byother delegations thatthematter
wasnotripetobetaken upintheCouncil atthistime. Given theoverlap between thework thatmight
beneeded under Article 24.2andthatunder wayinthecontext ofthereview ofnational implementing
legislation, hebelieved thattheappropriate procedure would benottostartanewprocess untilanIP/C/M/12
Page14
on-going onewasfinished andthatsometime thisSummer, ifthatwork would appear tobeclose to
conclusion, thematter might betaken upagain, initially ininformal consultations.
67. Therepresentative oftheCzech Republic welcomed theEuropean Communities 'follow-up
totheirearlier non-paper oflastSummer andinformed theCouncil thathisdelegation waspreparing
thepaper announced attheprevious meeting andwasaiming atmaking thisavailable forthenextmeeting
oftheCouncil.
68. Therepresentative ofAustralia wished toendorse thecomments made byNewZealand and
Canada, underlining thatitwaspremature todiscuss therôlethattheSecretariat might have. Inher
delegation 'sview, there were many issues tobediscussed asafollow-up tothereview ofnational
implementing legislation andalotmoreinformation tobeexpected. Onlyafterthesediscussions, would
itbesensible totalkabout anytimetable forthebroader work or,indeed, theSecretariat 'srôletherein.
69. TherepresentativeofTurkeysaidthathisdelegationsupportedthesuggestiontostarttheinformal
consultations shortly andwasintheprocess ofpreparing itscontribution tothework onthismatter
thattheCouncil hadagreed toundertake.
70. While echoing thecomments made byCanada andAustralia thatthetopics under discussion
werepremature andthattheresponses tofollow-up questions inthecontext ofthereview ofnational
implementing legislation attheJulymeeting should beawaited before theCouncil could address the
issueofthereview under Article 24.2, therepresentative ofSingapore emphasized thatanydiscussions
onthismatter should takeplace essentially through informal consultations andthatanypapers tobe
submitted should focus onhowthereview should beconducted.
71. Concluding thediscussions under thisagenda itemasreflected above, theChairman proposed
thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made bydelegations concerning Section IVoftheCouncil 's
report (1996), including inrelation tothehighlevelmeeting onleast-developed countries. Withregard
tothereview oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications under
Article 24.2, heproposed torecall theCouncil 'sagreement inNovember 1996 thatitgivefurther
consideration tohowtheissue ofconducting thereview under Article 24.2would behandled andto
dothisthroughinformalconsultations,thetimingofwhichwouldneedtotakeintoaccountthetimeframe
inwhich proposals promised bydelegations would bemade available. Inthelightofthediscussion,
heproposed thattheCouncil might, inthisrespect, proceed onastep-by-step basis. First, thepapers
thathadbeen foreshadowed should besubmitted; then, theCouncil would schedule informal
consultations, thetiming ofwhich would depend ontheavailability ofthepapers inquestion. Given
thediffering views thathadbeenexpressed, hedidnotthink thatthemoment hadcome toagree on
amore concrete schedule.
72. TheCouncil soagreed.
- Implementation ofArticle 23.4
73. TheChairman saidthat,initsreport (1996), theCouncil hadagreed toinitiate in1997
preliminary workonissues relevant tothenegotiations specified inArticle 23.4oftheTRIPS Agreement
concerning theestablishment ofamultilateral system ofnotification andregistration ofgeographical
indications forwines. Ithadalsoagreed thatissues relevant toanotification andregistration system
forspirits would bepartofthispreliminary work (document IP/C/8, paragraph 34). Hehadheld
informal consultations onthismatter, which hadindicated broad support forinitiating thispreliminaryIP/C/M/12
Page15
work through aninformation-gathering activity. Inthelightofthese consultations, hesuggested the
following:
- TheCouncil would invite Members tosubmit information onanysystems forthe
registration ofgeographical indications which theyoperated. Thetarget dateforthese
submissions would beendJuly1997;
- TheCouncil would consider thisinformation atitsmeeting inSeptember 1997 and
would, atthattime, alsorevert tothepreparation bytheSecretariat ofanoutline of
afactual background noteonexisting international notification andregistration systems
forgeographical indications;
- While thisinformation-gathering activity might cover systems thatwereapplicable to
other product areas, theexclusive purpose would betogather information thatwould
beuseful tothework thattheCouncil hadagreed toundertake concerning wines and
alsoissues relevant toanotification andregistration system forspirits, inparticular
whattypes ofnotification andregistration systems already existed.
74. TheCouncil soagreed.
H. Observer status forintergovernmental organizations
75. TheChairman recalled thattheGeneral Council, inJuly1996, hadadopted procedures for
observer status forinternational intergovernmental organizations intheWTO (Annex 3of
document WT/L/161). According totheseprocedures, requests forobserver status would beconsidered
onacase-by-case basisbyeachWTO bodytowhich arequest hadbeenaddressed, taking intoaccount
suchcriteria asthenature ofthework oftheorganization concerned, thenature ofitsmembership,
thenumber ofWTO Members intheorganization, reciprocity withrespect toaccess toproceedings,
documents andother aspects ofobservership, andwhether theorganization hadbeeninvolved inthe
pastwiththework oftheGATT. After consultations onhowtoapply these procedures, theGeneral
Council, atitsmeeting of7February 1997, hadnoted thattheIMFandtheWorld Bank hadbeengiven
observer status intheGeneral Council andotherWTO bodies asprovided forintheAgreements between
theWTO andthesetwoinstitutions. Withregard tootherinternational intergovernmental organizations,
theGeneral Council hadagreed: (a)thattheorganizations which already hadobserver status inthe
General Council onanadhocbasisbegranted observer status immediately; (b)thatforinternational
intergovernmentalorganizationswhoserequestshadnotyetbeenconsideredtheChairmanwouldconduct
consultations; (c)toinvite theother WTO bodies toproceed inasimilar way.
76. TheChairmanreferredtodocumentIP/C/W/52,whichlistedtheintergovernmentalorganizations
thathadsought observer status intheTRIPS Council, dividing them intotwocategories: first,those
which already hadobserver status onanadhocbasis; and,second, those whose requests werepending.
Hesuggested thattheCouncil grant regular observer status totheorganizations inthefirstcategory,
those thattheCouncil hadinvited toitsmeetings in1995 and1996 onanadhocbasis, andtodoso
onthebasisthatthere would bereciprocity withrespect toproceedings, documents andother aspects
ofobservership.
77. TheCouncil soagreed.
78. Inconsidering theorganizations inthesecond category, theChairman saidthatEFTA, OAS
andSIECA were regional organizations andwere among those thattheGeneral Council wasinthe
process ofconsidering inthelightoftheirrequests forobserver status atitsmeetings. TheCouncilIP/C/M/12
Page16
forTRIPS might therefore wishtopostpone action ontheirrequests untilsuchtimeastheGeneral
Councilhadcometoaconclusion.TheOIV,however,wasamultilateralintergovernmentalorganization
andwasnotrequesting observer status intheGeneral Council: ithadlimited itsrequests forobserver
status tothree WTO bodies inwhose work itconsidered ithadparticular interest, namely theTRIPS
Council andtheSPSandTBTCommittees. Therefore, itmight bepossible fortheTRIPS Council
toactonthisrequest without waiting fortheGeneral Council, having regard tothecriteria provided
forintheprocedures concerning observer status.
79. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthattheinformation thathisdelegation hadreceived
fromitsrepresentative totheOIVindicated thatthequestion astowhether toseekobserver status to
theWTO, inparticular totheTRIPS Council, wasstillamatter under discussion within theOIV, and
thatitmight, therefore, bepremature totakeadecision ontheOIV'srequest.
80. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made andtorevert tothe
pending requests forobserver status atitsnextmeeting.
81. TheCouncil soagreed.
I. Information onrelevant developments elsewhere intheWTO
(i) Dispute settlement
82. TheChairman saidthattheUnited States andJapan hadnotified totheCouncil andtheDispute
Settlement Body, bymeans ofacommunication dated 24January 1997, thattheyhadreached amutually
satisfactory solution tothematter raised bytheUnited States inFebruary 1996concerning theprotection
ofpast performances andexisting sound recordings pursuant totheTRIPS Agreement
(documentIP/D/1/Add.1).HealsodrewMembers'attentiontodocumentWT/DS50/5,whichcontained
information ontheconstitution ofthepanel established bytheDSBatitsmeeting of20November 1996
inthedispute between theUnited States andIndia concerning patent protection forpharmaceutical
andagricultural chemical products inIndia, towhich theUnited States hadreferred under agenda itemE
above andinwhich theEuropean Communities hadreserved third-party rights toparticipate inthe
panel proceedings.
(ii) Accession
83. TheChairman saidthatBulgaria andMongolia hadacceded totheWTO under Article XII
oftheWTO Agreement. Theeffective dates oftheiraccession were, respectively, 1December 1996
and29January 1997 (documents WT/Let/117 andWT/Let/130). Paragraph 2oftheProtocol of
Accession forBulgaria (WT/ACC/BGR/7) incorporated thecommitment given byBulgaria inrelation
tointellectual property asreproduced inparagraph 85ofthereport oftheWorking Party onthe
Accession ofBulgaria. According tothisparagraph, "[t]he representative ofBulgaria confirmed that
hisGovernment would apply theprovisions oftheAgreement onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual
Property Rights bythedateofitsaccession totheWTO, without recourse toanytransitional period."
Paragraph 2oftheProtocol fortheAccession ofMongolia (WT/ACC/MNG/11) incorporated the
commitment given byMongolia inrelation tointellectual property asreproduced inparagraph 54of
thereport oftheWorking Party ontheAccession ofMongolia. According tothisparagraph "[t]he
representative ofMongolia stated thathiscountry 'slawsinthefieldofintellectual property rights were
already inconformity withtheprovisions oftheAgreement onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS), andthatMongolia would fullyapply theprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement
bythedateofitsaccession totheWTO".IP/C/M/12
Page17
J. Other business
Timing offurther meetings oftheCouncil
84. TheChairman saidthattheCouncil, atitsmeeting inNovember 1996, hadagreed toreserve
provisionally thedatesof26-30 May, 15July,30September and24-28 November forfurther meetings
in1997. Hesuggested thattheCouncil confirm thedatesforMayandJuly. Asregards theSeptember
andNovember dates, hesuggested some modifications inthelightofdevelopments, namely thatthe
September meeting beheldon19September rather than30September andtheNovember meeting
bebrought forward byoneweek tothedates of17-21 November.
85. TheCouncil soagreed.
K. Election oftheChairperson oftheCouncil forTRIPS
86. TheChairman saidthat,before moving ontotheelection ofhissuccessor, hehoped that
delegations would permit him,astheoutgoing Chairperson, theliberty ofsome briefremarks about
thework thattheCouncil hadperformed overthelastyear. Herecalled thathispredecessor,
Mr.Stuart Harbinson, hadoncedescribed thework oftheCouncil during hisperiod intheChair as
essentially oneof"pump priming" -putting intoplace certain arrangements asabasis forthefuture
work oftheCouncil. Hebelieved thattheCouncil overthepastyearhadmade useful progress in
carrying outthetasksbefore it.Inthisconnection, hewould liketohighlight fouraspects ofthiswork:
- Thepastyearhadbeencharacterized bythe"bedding-in" oftheworking arrangements
thathadbeen established in1995 -giving concrete expression tothem andtheir
development. Examples tobementioned were thenotification procedures, the
procedures forthereview ofnational implementing legislation andthecooperation
agreement withWIPO. Hebelieved thattheCouncil hadbeensuccessful inbeginning
toputfleshonthebones.
- Thesecond aspect towhich hewished todrawattention wasthevalue thathebelieved
Members hadfound inthereviews ofnational implementing legislation, starting in
Julylastyearwiththeareas ofcopyright andrelated rights andcontinuing with
trademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs inNovember. Thereview
process hadentailed averysubstantive examination ofthewaythatthose countries
already obliged tocomply withtheTRIPS Agreement asawhole wereimplementing
theirobligations. Thereviews hadbeenimportant asavehicle fortheCouncil tocarry
outitstaskofreviewing theoperation oftheTRIPS Agreement andmonitoring
compliance withitsprovisions. Hewasconfident thatequal value would beyielded
bytheup-coming reviews in1997. Hewished toaddthathehadnoted thevalue that
developing country Members stillintheprocess ofimplementing theirobligations had,
astheyhadindicated tohim,beenabletodraw fromthereview process, withaneye
tothefuture. Hesaidthat,inthatsense, hehaddrawn aparticular satisfaction from
thatprocess.
- Another prominent feature oftheCouncil 'swork during thecourse ofthepastyear
hadbeentheissue oftechnical cooperation, inparticular ensuring anexpanded and
updated information baseonpossibilities, together withrelevant contact points. The
Council 'sreport totheSingapore Ministerial underlined theimportance oftechnical
andfinancial cooperation inaccordance withArticle 67oftheTRIPS Agreement,
inorder tofacilitate implementation. Healsowished totaketheopportunity toexpressIP/C/M/12
Page18
appreciation forthevery extensive activities oftheWorld Intellectual Property
Organization inhelping developing countries implement theTRIPS Agreement. In
addition, herecalled thepilotworkshop onaspecific aspect oftechnical cooperation
organized jointly withWIPO. Heexpressed hishope thatthecooperative spirit in
theCouncil could becontinued.
- Finally, hebelieved thatthestress onthebuilt-in agenda intheCouncil 'sreport to
theSingapore Ministerial showed animportant forward-looking component toitswork
andprovided agood platform forthefurther development ofthisaspect asforeseen
intheTRIPS Agreement itself.
87. Turning thentotheissue athand, namely theelection oftheCouncil 'snewChairperson, he
recalled thattheChairman oftheGeneral Council hadcarried outinformal consultations onaslate
ofnames forappointment asChairpersons ofvarious WTO standing bodies, inaccordance withthe
established guidelines forappointment ofofficers. These proposed nominations hadbeenapproved
bytheGeneral Council earlier thismonth. Onthebasis oftheunderstandings reached, heproposed
thattheCouncil forTRIPS electH.E.Ambassador Carmen LuzGuarda ofChile asChair ofthisbody
byacclamation.
88. TheCouncil soagreed.
89. TheCouncil expressed itsappreciation andgratitude toH.E. Ambassador Wade Armstrong
forhisimportant andefficient work inthepastyearandthebalanced andhigh-quality results hisefforts
hadenabled theCouncil toachieve.IP/C/M/12
Page19
ANNEX
Paragraph 6oftheRevised Informal Background Note bytheSecretariat
ontheMost-Favoured-Nation Treatment Clause ofthe
TRIPS Agreement (Article 4)(Document No.1548)
6. AMember, when examining whether anelement ofdiscrimination between thenationals of
other Members -an"advantage, favour, privilege orimmunity" accorded tothenationals ofsome
Membersandnotaccordedtothenationalsofothers-couldbejustifiableunderArticle4(d)andtherefore
anotification might bewarranted, might wishtoaskitself thefollowing questions. Onthefaceof
it,itwould seemthatonlywhen theresponse toeachofthesequestions isasindicated insquare brackets
would anArticle 4(d)notification beappropriate.
(i) Certain ofthesequestions derive directly fromtheprovisions ofthechapeau ofArticle 4
andofsub-paragraph (d)ofthatArticle:
- Whether thediscrimination inquestion involves discrimination onthebasis ofthe
nationality ofpersons.4[Yes]
- Whether thespecific conditions ofArticle 4(d)canbesatisfied:
- Whether thediscrimination derives from aninternational agreement andnot
simply from autonomous action.5[Yes]
- Doestheentryintoforceoftheagreement predate thatoftheWTO Agreement?
[Yes]
- Isthediscrimination against nationals ofsome other Members arbitrary or
unjustifiable? [No]
(ii) SomeotherquestionsderivefromotherprovisionsoftheTRIPSAgreementofrelevance:
- Whether thediscrimination canbejustified under sub-paragraphs (a),(b)or(c)of
Article 4orunder Article 5.[No]
- Would thenotification include provisions ofother multilateral intellectual property
agreements withwhich yourcountry isobliged tocomply under theTRIPS Agreement?
[No]
- Whether according the"more favourable" treatment ofthenationals ofsome Members
tothenationals ofallother Members canberefused without breaching other TRIPS
obligations -theminimum standards required byArticle 2.1andParts II,IIIandIV,
including thecommitment tocomply withsubstantive provisions ofcertain WIPO
conventions notably ParisandBerne, andthenational treatment obligation ofArticle 3.6
[Yes]
4Discrimination onother grounds (such astheorigin ofgoods ortheplace ofinvention) would notberelevant unless,
dejureordefacto,itamounts alsotodiscrimination onthebasis ofnationality.
5Article 4(d)isrelevant onlyintheformer case.
6Sub-paragraph (d)ofArticle 4onlyprovides anexception totheMFN obligation ofArticle 4.Itcannot justify treatment
lessfavourable thantheminimum standards required bytheTRIPS Agreement.