RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/14
15August 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-3411)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on15July1997
Chairperson: Ambassador Carmen LuzGuarda (Chile)
Subjects discussed:
A. Observer status forinternational intergovernmental organizations
B. Notifications under provisions oftheAgreement
C. Review oflegislation:
(i) Follow-up tothereview oncopyright andrelated rights
(ii) Follow-up tothereview ontrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial
designs
(iii) Follow-up tothereview onpatents, layout-designs ofintegrated circuits,
undisclosed information andcontrol ofanti-competitive practices incontractual
licences
(iv) Future review
D. Implementation ofArticle 70.8and70.9
E. Technical cooperation
F. Information onrelevant developments elsewhere intheWTO
G. Other business
A. Observer Status forInternational Intergovernmental Organizations
1. TheChairperson recalled thatfiveintergovernmental organizations hadrequested observer
status intheTRIPS Council: EFTA, theOAS, theOIV, SELA andSIECA. Reporting ondiscussions
heldamong chairpersons under theauspices oftheChair oftheGeneral Council, shesaidthat,atthis
point intime, itwasenvisaged thateachWTO body takeitsownresponsibility inhandrather than
thatageneral approach bedeveloped forseeking background information from intergovernmentalIP/C/M/14
Page2
organizations concerning theirrequests forobserver status. InlightoftheCouncil 'searlier discussions
onthismatter, sheproposed thataletter besentbytheSecretariat tothefiveOrganizations mentioned
drawing theirattention to,inparticular, paragraphs 3and4oftheprocedures relating tothegrant
ofobserver status forinternational intergovernmental organizations (Annex 3ofdocument WT/L/161)
andasking them toprovide therequired information.
2. TheCouncil soagreed.
B. Notifications under Provisions oftheAgreement
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
3. TheChairperson informed theCouncil thatnotifications oflegislation under Article 63.2had
beenreceived fromSlovenia andCanada. These notifications supplemented theirearlier notifications
oflegislation and would beavailable asdocuments IP/N/1/SVN/1/Rev.1/Add.1 and
IP/N/1/CAN/1/Add.1.
4. Therepresentative ofRomania saidthatherdelegation hadrecently alsosubmitted anadditional
notification supplementing itsearlier notification oflawsandregulations pertaining tothesubject-matter
oftheTRIPS Agreement.
- Responses tothechecklist ofissues onenforcement (IP/C/5)
5. TheChairperson informed theCouncil that,asregards thechecklist ofissues onenforcement,
sincethelastmeeting,responseshadbeennotifiedbyFinlandanddistributedasdocumentIP/N/6/FIN/1.
Sheemphasized again thatthesubmission ofquestions forthereview inNovember ofnational
implementing legislation intheareaofenforcement wasdueby12September 1997; consequently,
iftheresponses tothechecklist werenotnotified without delay, thechecklist would losemuch ofits
purpose asatoolforthepreparation oftheNovember review exercise. TheSecretariat hadnotyet
received responses tothechecklist fromthefollowing Members, whose legislation would bereviewed
inNovember: Australia, Bulgaria, theCzech Republic, France, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg,
Portugal, Romania, theSlovak Republic, South Africa andSwitzerland.
6. TherepresentativeofHungaryindicatedthattheresponseswerebeingpreparedbyhisdelegation
andwould bemade available totheSecretariat verysoon. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthat
responses would benotified bytheendofJuly. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthattheresponses
wereclosetofinalizationandwouldbenotifiedshortly.TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunities
agreed thatthechecklist wasafundamental toolforthereview tobecarried outinNovember and
saidthatthethree Community Member States mentioned bytheChairperson would dotheirutmost
tomake theresponses available soon. Therepresentative ofRomania saidthatadraftofherdelegation 's
notification wasbeing examined bytheMinistry ofTrade andIndustry andwould besubmitted before
12September 1997. Therepresentative ofSouth Africa saidthathisdelegation wasmindful ofthe
deadline forthesubmission oftheresponses tothechecklist aswellasofitsimportance. Hisdelegation
would attempt tohave theresponses notified before theendofJuly. Therepresentative ofthe
Czech Republic saidthathisdelegation wasfinalizing itswork onthenotification regarding the
enforcement checklist, which would besubmitted totheSecretariat before 12September 1997. The
representative oftheSlovak Republic informed theCouncil thathisdelegation wasinthefinalstage
ofthepreparation ofthenotification, which would besubmitted before thenextmeeting oftheCouncil.IP/C/M/14
Page3
- Notifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,4and5
7. TheChairpersonsaidthatanumberofcountrieshadinformedtheCouncilatthepreviousmeeting
about thepreparation bytheirdelegations ofnotifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,
4and5.However, todate,nosuchnotifications hadbeenreceived other thantheonesthathadbeen
made earlier byZambia andRomania andthose made byMembers thathadmade comprehensive
notifications under Article 63.2relating toallprovisions oftheAgreement.
8. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities reiterated theviews ofhisdelegation onthe
importance ofnotifications regarding Articles 3,4and5.Hisdelegation wasquite concerned that,
despite thefactthatMembers hadhadextensive discussions ontheformat fornotifications relating
toArticles 3,4and5andalternative formats hadbeenagreed, solittlehadcome forward sofar.He
called upon Members which should make thisnotification topresent theirnotifications assoon as
possible.
9. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported thecomments made bytherepresentative
oftheEuropean Communities. Hewassurprised thatnoneofthenotifications announced attheprevious
Council meeting hadactually beenreceived yet.Hisdelegation considered itabsolutely critical that
thesenotifications weremade inatimely fashion andprepared inawaythatprovided useful information.
10. Therepresentative ofSingapore saidthathisdelegation would present anotification relating
toArticles 3,4and5verysoon. Therepresentative ofHong Kong, China saidthathisdelegation
wasworking onadraft notification relating toArticles 3,4and5.Thenotification would be
communicated totheCouncil verysoon. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthathisdelegation wasin
contact withtheSecretariat regarding theformulation ofitsnotification relating toArticles 3,4and5
andexpected tosubmit thatnotification before thenextmeeting oftheCouncil.
11. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines saidthathisdelegation wasplanning tomake anotification
relating toArticles 3,4and5oftheAgreement, butwished toreiterate that,ashadalready beenstated
bySingapore onbehalf oftheASEAN Members oftheWTO atprevious meetings, thesubmission
ofthatnotification should notinanymanner beconstrued asawaiver ofanyrightunder theTRIPS
Agreement.
(ii) Notifications under Article 69
12. TheChairperson informed theCouncil that,since thelastmeeting, newnotifications hadbeen
received fromBulgaria, Malawi andMozambique andacomplementary notification fromGermany.
Todate,theCouncil hadreceived notifications from80Members ofcontact points under Article 69,
which meant thattherewerestill51Members which hadnotmade thisnotification. TheChairperson
reminded thedelegations inquestion thatMembers hadagreed attheTRIPS Council meeting of
21September 1995 thattheywould make these notifications by1January 1996.
(iii) Notifications under Article 4(d)
13. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesreiteratedhisdelegation'sunderstandingthatnotifications
madeunderArticle4(d)wouldbereviewedbythenotifyingMembersinquestion,pursuanttodiscussions
intheCouncil, andthatMembers would revert tothistopic again attheSeptember meeting. His
delegation hademphasized onmany occasions theneedfornotifications under Article 4(d)tobeprecise
andclearastotheexceptions toMFN treatment concerned. Many ofthenotifications made didnot
meetthisqualification.IP/C/M/14
Page4
14. Therepresentative ofVenezuela saidthathisdelegation waspreparing anotification, under
Article 4(d), oftheAndean legislation which hadbeenadopted bytherelevant bodies oftheAndean
Pact. Thisnotification would besubmitted totheSecretariat soon.
(iv) Other
15. TheChairperson drewtheattention ofMembers toanotification inwhich Bahrain hadnotified
thatitwould avail itself oftheentitlements under Articles 65.2and65.4oftheAgreement. This
notification could befound indocument IP/C/10. Shealsodrew theattention toarecent notification
from Ecuador, thecontent ofwhich could befound indocument IP/C/W/74.
16. Therepresentative oftheUnited States thanked thedelegation ofEcuador forhaving provided
theclarification contained indocument IP/C/W/74 oftheissue thathadarisen regarding Ecuador 's
terms ofaccession. Hisdelegation waspleased toseethattheGovernment ofEcuador hadindicated
thatthesubstantive provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement hadbecome applicable toEcuador according
totheterms oftheaccession agreement.
17. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under thisagenda item.
C. Review ofLegislation
(i) Follow-up tothereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights
18. TheChairpersoninformedtheCouncilthattheSecretariathadreceivedresponsesfromAustralia
tothequestions posed byBrazil attheCouncil 'smeeting inFebruary andthatthese responses could
befound indocument IP/Q/AUS/1/Add.1. Noresponse hadyetbeenreceived fromtheUnited States
tothefollow-up question thatKorea hadposed attheCouncil 'smeeting inMay.
19. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation would provide itsanswer to
thisfollow-up question intimeforittobecirculated toMembers prior tothenextCouncil meeting.
(ii) Follow-up tothereview oflegislation ontrademarks, geographical indications and
industrial designs
20. TheChairperson saidthat,withregard tosome Members, theprocessing ofthedocuments
intheQ2/-series hadbeendelayed duetothefactthattheSecretariat hadonlyrecently received answers
toquestions andfollow-up questions posed attheNovember review meeting, while insome cases such
answers hadstillnotbeenmade available totheSecretariat. Sheinformed theCouncil thattheSecretariat
would contact thedelegations inquestion soastoclarify thesituation.
(iii) Follow-up tothereview oflegislation onpatents, layout-designs ofintegrated circuits,
undisclosed information andcontrol ofanti-competitive practices incontractual licences
21. TheChairperson recalled that,according totheprocedures forthefollow-up tothisreview,
answers toquestions posed during thereview meeting should besubmitted within eight weeks after
themeeting. Some responses were stilloutstanding. Inorder toallow therecords ofthereview to
beproduced without undue delay, sheurged thedelegations inquestion tomake aneffort tosubmit
these responses, inaccordance withtheagreed procedures, by25July1997.IP/C/M/14
Page5
22. TheChairperson proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made andthatthe
follow-up tothe1996/1997 reviews bekeptontheagenda, aslongasthere werestillquestions and
answers outstanding.
23. TheCouncil soagreed.
(iv) Future review
24. TheChairperson recalled thatshehadinformed Members attheCouncil 'smeeting inMay
thatshehadinitiated consultations withanumber ofindividual delegations whose legislation wasnot
subject tothereview ofnational implementing legislation in1996/1997 butwhose legislation hadalready
been, inwhole orinpart,brought intoconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement. Asagreed bytheCouncil
lastNovember, suchconsultations werebeing heldinorder toseethescope forthelegislation ofsuch
Members tobeprogressively incorporated intothereview process bytheCouncil afterthepresent
review programme, i.e.attheearliest in1998. Such anearly review would bewithout prejudice to
thelegalsituation regarding these Members 'entitlements under Article 65andwould beintended as
apractical contribution, onavoluntary basis, tothework oftheCouncil, inparticular toevenout
itsfuture workload. Inthisregard, shehadalsobeenincontact withthedelegations ofBulgaria,
Hungary, Romania andtheSlovak Republic, whoweresubject tothecurrent review exercise butwhose
legislation would nothavebeenfullyreviewed bytheendofthisyear, because theyhadjoined the
exercise late. Shehadheldthese consultations withindividual Members onthebasisthattheCouncil
might include anitemonthereview ofnational legislation attwoofitsregular meetings in1998, one
inthespring andtheother intheautumn. Atthefirstofthese meetings, theCouncil might complete
itsreview ofthelegislation ofBulgaria, Hungary, Romania andtheSlovak Republic, which countries
hadjoined thecurrent review exercise afterithadstarted. Atthattime, thelegislation ofMongolia,
which hadacceded totheWTO without atransitional period fortheapplication oftheprovisions of
theTRIPS Agreement, would alsobetaken up,ifthetranslations oftheMongolian implementing
legislation would havebeenfinalized andmade available toMembers intime. Asregards theautumn
of1998, shewasconsulting withanumber ofindividual Members onwhether andtowhatextent they
would beprepared tosubject theirlegislation toanearlyreview, without prejudice totheirentitlements
under Article 65andonavoluntary basis. Herimpressions from these consultations weresuchthat
shehadgoodhopethatseveral Members would indeed beready toparticipate insuchanearly review
exercise.
25. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthattheearly review, onwhich theChair washolding
consultations withindividual Members, raised asystemic issue. While taking noteofwhattheChair
hadsaidabout suchareview being without prejudice totheentitlements under Article 65,hisdelegation
hadaconcern regarding thelegalstatus ofthereview itself. Asheunderstood it,thereview should
enableMemberswhichwereavailingthemselvesofentitlementsunderArticle65tohavetheirlegislation
reviewed earlier thanrequired but,justasunder thecurrent review exercise, inonego.However,
ifthereview would reveal shortcomings intheirlegislation, theywould beexpected toamend their
legislation andhaveitreviewed again bytheCouncil. Heexpressed hisdelegation 'sdifficulties with
suchaprocedure which would putanadditional burden, notonlyontheMember inquestion, butalso
ontheCouncil. Hesuggested thattheChair address thisissue ininformal consultations.
26. TheChairperson saidthatitwasherunderstanding thatthose Members which would bewilling
tohavetheirlegislation subject toanearly review would dosowithout prejudice totheirentitlements
toanytransitional period andwithaviewtotaking away theneedforareview intheyear2000. As
regards thetreatment ofinconsistencies withtheTRIPS Agreement thatmight bedetected asaresult
ofthereview exercise, thesame procedures would apply asinthecurrent review exercise. When
delegationsamendedtheirlawsinordertofullycomplywiththeirTRIPSobligations,theywereexpected
tonotify theamended lawsand,ifpoints wereraised intheCouncil, torespond toquestions thatanyIP/C/M/14
Page6
Member might haveabout anamended law,notinthecontext ofareview exercise butunder thegeneral
possibility thatMembers hadtoraisematters intheCouncil.
27. Therepresentative oftheUnited States shared theChairperson 'sviewthatareview prior to
theexpiration ofthetransitional period should notbeduplicated afterthetransitional period andthat
there should beanopportunity tofollow-up anymatter arising untilitwould havebeensatisfactorily
resolved. Inthisregard, herecalled thatthepurpose ofsuchearly review should betoalleviate the
burden fortheCouncil inreviewing thelarge number ofMembers thatwererequired tocomply with
theentire Agreement asof1January 2000. Healsorecalled thatsuchearly reviews wereintended
tocover onlythose partsofthelegislation thattheMember inquestion considered tobeinconformity
withtheAgreement. Other partswould stillneedtobereviewed aftertheexpiration ofthetransitional
period in2000. Healsoexpressed aninterest ininformal consultations onthismatter.
28. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities wished toencourage allthoseMembers which
considered theirlegislation tobeready forreview toagree toanearly review during thetransitional
period towhich theywould continue tobeentitled. Itwashisunderstanding thatthose Members which
would accept tobereviewed earlywould notbesubject toasecond review exercise lateron.Heagreed
withprevious speakers onthispoint. Theobjective should betoreduce theworkload bothoftheCouncil
andoftheMember concerned. Inaddition, hewished tomake aclear distinction between, onthe
onehand, those Members which hadacceded totheWTO while committing themselves nottoavail
themselves ofanytransitional period fortheapplication oftheTRIPS Agreement and,ontheother
hand,Memberswhichwerestillbenefittingfromtransitionalperiods.Withregardtotheformercategory
ofMembers, including Ecuador, consultations should notbenecessary because itwasuptotheCouncil
todecide when theirlegislation should bereviewed. Finally, hereiterated hisdelegation 'sposition
concerning twoother elements thatmight becovered byareview in1998, namely theimplementation
ofparagraphs 8and9ofArticle 70,which already applied asfromtheentry intoforce oftheTRIPS
Agreement andwere notsubject toanytransitional period, andtheimplementation ofArticles 3,4
and5oftheAgreement, which applied asfrom1January 1996 andinrespect ofwhich notifications
hadbeenannounced byseveral delegations.
29. TheChairperson saidthatthesuggestions oftheEuropean Communities could bediscussed
atfuture meetings oftheCouncil.
30. Therepresentative ofRomania expressed support forthestatements made bytheEuropean
Communities andtheUnited States onthereview ofMembers which hadpresented theirlegislation
voluntarily. Itwasherunderstanding thatlegislation thathadbeenreviewed would notbesubject
toasecond review exercise. Withregard toamendments made afterreview ofthelawhadtaken place,
Members were, ofcourse, always freetoposequestions.
31. Therepresentative ofBrazil wondered whether asecond review would belimited tothose points
inrespect ofwhich, during theearly review, further clarification wasrequired astoconformity with
theTRIPS Agreement orcould alsocover other points concerning thelegislation ofthose countries
which hadvolunteered tobereviewed early.
32. TheChairperson saidthatitwasherunderstanding thattheintention wastohaveonesingle
review exercise foreachMember. Whenever clarification ofapointraised inthereview would require
thelawofthatMember tobeamended, suchanamendment would havetobenotified totheCouncil.
Unless astatute orregulation wasamended initsentirety, shedidnotseetheneedforacomplete new
review andstressed thefactthatMembers always hadtheright toposequestions toorrequest
clarifications fromother Members atanytime. However, itmight beuseful iftheCouncil could clarify
thisissue anddevelop appropriate procedures.IP/C/M/14
Page7
33. Therepresentative oftheSlovak Republic saidthathisdelegation hadalready informed the
Council in1996 thatanewSlovak copyright lawwasinpreparation. Hiscountry hadnotinvoked
transitional periods andhoped tobeinaposition tonotify thisnewlawshortly. Duetounforeseen
reasons, thelegislative process wasnotfinished yet.Thebillinquestion wasintheNational Council
forasecond reading andwasexpected tobeenacted soon. Hehadgoodhopethathisdelegation would
beready forareview intheSpring of1998.
34. Therepresentative ofHungary, commenting ontheintervention bytheEuropean Communities,
wished tounderline thatanyoriginal Member which mettheconditions stipulated inArticle 65.2or
65.3remained entitled toinvoke thetransitional period inquestion.
35. Therepresentative ofSingapore wondered whether those Members, whose legislation would
bereviewed in1998, without prejudice totheirrights under Article 65,andwhich might befound
nottobeentirely incompliance withtheAgreement, would berequired toamend theirlegislation before
theendoftheapplicable transitional period. Thiswasanimportant issue forthose Members which
wereconsidering toagree toanearlyreview; hesuggested thatitbetaken upininformal consultations.
36. TheChairperson saidthattheearly review would notprejudice therights ofMembers under
Article 65.Consequently, ifsome inconsistency wasfound inaMember 'slawinsuchareview, that
Member would haveuntiltheexpiration oftheapplicable transitional period tobring itslegislation
intoconformity withtheAgreement.
37. Therepresentative ofHong Kong, China saidthathisdelegation wasamong those delegations
which hadbeen approached individually bytheChair forconsultations onanearly review ofits
legislation. However, further consultations withtheChair andtheSecretariat onsome fundamental
issues relating tosuchareview werenecessary. Hesaidthatitwasheartening tohaveaconfirmation
thattherewould beonlyonereview forthose Members which would agree tocome forward inaspirit
ofcooperation. However, hewished tounderline theimportance ofhaving aclearunderstanding of
theground rulesforearlyreviews. Ontheonehand, heagreed thattherewasaneedforsome Members
tocome forward inanticipation oftheworkload inthereview exercise intheyear2000; ontheother
hand, itwaslegitimate forother Members tohaveaclearunderstanding about theground rules for
early reviews. Astherepresentative ofIndia hadstated, there were some systemic issues, suchas
thequestion ofbeing covered byareview onceonly. Another systemic issue concerned notification
ofnational legislation bythose Members submitting themselves toanearly review; these should be
excused from making asecond notification intheyear2000, i.e.when thetransitional period would
come toanend. Inthisregard, paragraph 3ofdocument IP/C/2 provided, inhisdelegation 'sview,
alegalbasisforMembers which, inadvance ofassuming theirTRIPS obligations infull,hadaccepted
tobesubmitted toanearly review without prejudice totheirrights under Article 65.Hesaidthat
hisdelegation looked forward tofurther consultations withtheChair ontheground rulesfortheearly
review.
38. TheChairperson saidthat,before agreeing ontheearlyreview itself, theCouncil should develop
certain general rules soastogivesecurity toallMembers thatthereview would betaken upona
voluntary basisandwithout prejudice toanyrights ofMembers totransitional periods, andthatreviewed
legislation would notbesubmitted toasecond review exercise intheyear2000.
39. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.IP/C/M/14
Page8
D. Implementation ofArticle 70.8and70.9
40. TheChairpersoninformedtheCouncilthattheSecretariathadreceivedthenotificationmentioned
bytherepresentative ofMorocco attheprevious meeting, which hadbeencirculated asdocument
IP/N/1/MAR/1/Add.1.
41. While thanking thedelegation ofMorocco foritsnotification, therepresentative oftheUnited
States recalled thathisdelegation hadalready, atmany previous meetings oftheCouncil, stressed the
importance ofnotifications bythose countries which were subject toobligations under Article 70.8
and70.9. Hecontinued tobelieve thatanumber ofMembers stillhadanobligation tomake a
notification under Article 70.8and70.9andhoped thattheMembers inquestion wereintheprocess
ofpreparing andproviding those notifications. Inaddition, hewished tohighlight thatthenotifications
inquestion needed tospecify morethanonlytheplacewhere mailbox applications could befiled, notably
thelegal basis forthefiling authority toreceive mailbox applications under Article 70.8aswellas
forthegrant oftheexclusive marketing rights stipulated inArticle 70.9. Hisdelegation knew ofa
number ofUnited States companies thatwereeither preparing requests forexclusive marketing rights
orgoing through theprocedures thatwould beincidental totheprocess ofobtaining those marketing
rights. Hisdelegation would liketobeabletoconfirm tothese companies thatprocedures asrequired
byArticle 70.9 were available andtoprovide information astowhat these procedures were.
Accordingly,hisdelegationurgedthoseMemberswhichweretakingadvantageoftransitionalprovisions
under Article 65.4either tomake anotification ortoclarify theirnotification soastoensure thatall
relevant information regarding implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9would beavailable through
theTRIPS Council.
42. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation fullysupported the
statement oftherepresentative oftheUnited States.
43. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
E. Technical Cooperation
(i) Joint WIPO/WTO Workshop
44. TheChairperson informed Members ofthesecond JointWIPO/WTO Workshop thathadbeen
heldon14July1997, onthetopic "Technical Cooperation Aimed atImproving Human Resources
andInstitutional Capacities Required toImplement theTRIPS Provisions onDomestic Enforcement".
Shethanked again theInternational Bureau ofWIPO foritswillingness toparticipate intheorganization
ofthisWorkshop, andtheEuropean Commission andtheGovernments ofMexico andThailand, as
wellastheSecretariat oftheInternational Federation ofthePhonographic Industry, fortheirwillingness
toprovide speakers fortheWorkshop. Shealsothanked allothers thathadcontributed tothediscussions
intheWorkshop.
45. Therepresentative ofSingapore wondered whether thetextsdelivered bythespeakers andany
papers thathadbeendistributed during theworkshop could bemade available todelegations.
46. TheChairperson saidthatwritten textsproduced fortheworkshop could beobtained from
theSecretariat totheextent thattheywere available. ShesaidthattheSecretariat oftheWTO and
theInternational Bureau ofWIPO intended toschedule alsoin1998 ajointworkshop andasked
delegations tocommunicate totheSecretariat anysuggestions theymight havefortopics forthisfuture
workshop.IP/C/M/14
Page9
(ii) Contact points fortechnical cooperation
47. TheChairperson saidthat,sincetheCouncil 'smeeting inMay, theCzech Republic hadnotified
contact points fortechnical cooperation purposes relating totheTRIPS Agreement. Thisnotification,
together withother additional information thathadbeenreceived since thefirstrevision ofdocument
IP/N/7, hadbeencirculated indocument IP/N/7/Rev.1/Add.1. Contact points fortechnical cooperation
purposes hadnowbeennotified by19developed country Members. Consequently, there were still
anumber ofdeveloped country Members thathadnotyetnotified theircontact points fortechnical
cooperation. TheChairperson urged those Members tonotify theircontact points by1September
1997, sothatacomplete listofcontact points fortechnical cooperation could becirculated before the
Council 'snextmeeting, which wasscheduled for19September 1997.
(iii) Updated information ontechnical cooperation activities
48. TheChairperson recalled that,attheCouncil 'smeetings inFebruary andMay1996, ithad
beenagreed thatdeveloped country Members would annually update information ontheirtechnical
cooperation activities relevant totheimplementation oftheTRIPS Agreement. Lastyear, thishad
beendoneintimefortheCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember 1996. Shesuggested thatalsothisyear
developed country Members update thisinformation intimeforthemeeting scheduled for19September.
Inaddition, shesuggested thattheCouncil invite theintergovernmental organization observers tothe
Council toprovide information ontheirtechnical cooperation activities, astheyhadalsodonelastyear.
Inaddition, theWTO Secretariat might provide, asinprevious years, anoteonitsactivities. This
would enable theCouncil tofocus alsothisyearontechnical cooperation atitsmeeting inSeptember.
Inorder toenable thetimely processing anddistribution toMembers ofthisinformation, theChairperson
suggested thatdeveloped country Members andtheintergovernmental organizations inquestion be
invited toprovide suchwritten contributions by1September. Shealsodrew Members 'attention to
thefactthatlastyeartheCouncil hadreceived information ontechnical cooperation activities from
14developed country Members, while in1995suchinformation hadbeenreceived from13Members.
There werestillanumber ofdeveloped country Members thathadnotyetprovided anyinformation
ontheirtechnicalcooperationactivities.Sheunderlinedthatitwasimportantthateachdevelopedcountry
Member provide information totheCouncil asagreed, andurged those Members thathadnotyet
provided anyinformation tomake aspecial effort tosupply theinformation intimeforthenextmeeting.
49. Therepresentative ofPerusaidthatsome ofthecontributions provided bydeveloped country
Members sofardidnotinclude alltheinformation required byArticle 67.Hisdelegation would
encourage Members toprovide information onalltheforms ofcooperation referred toinArticle 67
andnotonlyonsome.
50. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under thisagenda itemandagreed toproceed
asproposed bytheChair.
F. Information onRelevant Developments Elsewhere intheWTO
Dispute settlement
51. TheChairpersondrewtheattentionofMemberstodocumentIP/D/10throughwhichtheCouncil
hadbeen informed thattheUnited States hadrequested, bymeans ofacommunication dated
28May1997, consultations withSweden regarding measures affecting theenforcement ofintellectual
property rights.IP/C/M/14
Page10
G. Other Business
(i) Review oftheapplication oftheprovisions ofthesection ongeographical indications
under Article 24.2
52. TheChairperson referred tothecommunication from theEuropean Communities contained
indocument IP/C/W/75. Shealsoinformed theCouncil thatnon-papers hadbeenreceived from
Switzerland andHungary. Sherecalled that,attheCouncil 'smeeting of27February 1997, ithad
beenagreed thatfurther consideration tohowtheissue ofconducting thereview under Article 24.2
would behandled would takeplace through informal consultations following thesubmission ofpapers
thathadbeenforeshadowed. Informal consultations onthisissue could nowbeinitiated, taking into
consideration thesuggestions from theEuropean Communities.
53. Inintroducing thedocument inquestion, therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities said
thathisdelegation hadassembled, ingreater detail thanithadinprevious non-papers withrespect
toother developed country Members, synoptic tables showing howtheTRIPS Agreement andthe
protection ofgeographical indications worked intheEuropean Communities andtheirMember States.
Thefirsttable concerned theworking ofthedifferent areas ofgeographical indications within the
Communities while thesecond tablereflected replies tosixquestions posed toallCommunity Member
States.Hisdelegationbelievedsuchsynoptictablestobeusefulforabetterunderstandingofthesituation
intheCommunity, inparticular astothedifferences among itsMember States. Comparing thesetables
withthose presented earlier andreflecting thesituation insome oftheCommunities 'major trading
partnersshowedevenmorediscrepancies.Hereiteratedhissuggestionthat,inordertoassisttheCouncil
intaking uptheissue ofthespecial review under Article 24.2, theSecretariat usethenotified laws
andother information thathadbeenmade available inthereview ofnational implementing legislation
forthepreparation ofsuchsynoptic tables inrespect ofasignificant number ofdeveloped country
Members. Suchaprocedure would result inasignificant value added tothereview exercise, because
theindividual replies toindividual questions would bepresented inasystematic way. Moreover, the
tables might alsoserve asauseful purpose inthecontext ofthepreparatory work fortheestablishment
ofaregistration system forwines, andpossibly other products, under Article 23.4. Forthepurpose
ofaproper assessment ofthefinalobjective ofthework tobedoneunder Section 3ofPartIIofthe
Agreement, theissues tobedealtwithinrelation toArticle 24.2andthose related toArticle 23.4had
better beseeninconjunction witheachother, despite differences astothelegalbasis forthework.
54. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland introduced hisdelegation 'snon-paper andsaidthatitdealt
withthegrowing importance ofgeographical indications inaglobalized trading system. Itdemonstrated
thatgeographical indications wereessential forbothconsumers andproducers inallWTO Members.
Geographical indications allowed consumers todistinguish between various nuances within acategory
ofproducts andtochoose thegenuine products coming from anareaofrepute. Forproducers,
geographical indications played animportant roleasamarketing toolsince theywere linked tothe
characteristics andqualities oftheproducts. Thisreality should bereflected byanadequate recognition
andprotection ofgeographical indications. Switzerland considered thescope ofprotection inSection 3
ofPartIIoftheTRIPS Agreement notfullysatisfactory, asdidafewother Members, since relevant
sectors other thanwines andspirits werenotgiven thenecessary highlevelofprotection. Protection
against themisleading useofgeographical indications asmentioned inArticle 22wasnotasufficient
criterion forprotection. Hisdelegation supported thesuggestion made bytherepresentative ofthe
European Communities thattheSecretariat prepare asynoptic tableofnational lawsandregulations
relating totheprotection ofgeographical indications andidentify themeasures taken toensure effective
enforcement. Hesaidthathisdelegation wasavailable forbilateral andplurilateral contacts inorder
toexchange views andtofindacommon waytoproceed.IP/C/M/14
Page11
55. Therepresentative ofHungary welcomed thecontributions from theEuropean Communities
andSwitzerland. Hesaidthat,attheCouncil meeting of27February 1997, ithadbeenagreed that
theCouncil would address theissue ofreviewing theapplication oftheprovisions ongeographical
indications under Article 24.2early thisyear, while delegations hadalsobeenurged toprovide, in
thecontext ofArticle 23.4, specific information ontheirrelevant national registration systems. Turning
tothenon-paper thathisdelegation hadsubmitted, hesaidthatatable hadbeenprepared inwhich
theprovisions oftheHungarian lawhadbeencategorized onthebasisoftheprovisions oftheAgreement
towhich theycorresponded. Hisdelegation alsosupported theideathattheSecretariat prepare a
comprehensive, comparative table, preferably prior tothenextmeeting oftheCouncil.
56. Therepresentative oftheUnited States thanked thedelegations oftheEuropean Communities,
Switzerland andHungary fortheirwritten contributions which hisdelegation would study overthe
summer break. Withregard tothesuggested correlation charts, hisdelegation would prefer toprepare
itsowntableandwould notwantthetableinthenon-paper thattheEuropean Communities hadmade
available toMembers earlier thisyeartobeused forthatpurpose. Hisdelegation would be
uncomfortable withrelying onathirdparty evaluation oftheUnited States lawasabasis forfurther
work intheTRIPS Council. Article 24.2didnotspeak ofengaging innewwide-ranging discussions
ofadvancing thefrontiers oftheprotection ofgeographical indications, butonlyconcerned areview
oftheimplementation ofobligations andthepossibility toaddress deficiencies. Hisdelegation continued
tobeoftheopinionthatthereviewofnationalimplementinglegislationinNovember1996hadessentially
beensufficient toaddress questions concerning theimplementation oftheAgreement 'sprovisions on
geographical indications andremained unsure astowhatwasthetarget ofadditional work. Thereview
inNovember 1996 hadbeenquite thorough andhisdelegation wasstillanalysing answers tosome
follow-up questions ithadposed totheEuropean Communities, which hadonlyrecently beenreceived.
Thisillustrated thattheinformation generated bytheNovember 1996 review exercise wasstill
incomplete; consequently, itwould bepremature toinvite theSecretariat tostepinandprepare the
suggested synoptic table. Furthermore, before Members would engage inanewreview exercise, his
delegation would prefer theterms thatwould guide theexercise firsttobeidentified. Thesecond table
indocument IP/C/W/75 would seem tobebased onanarbitrary selection ofcriteria regarding the
provisions ofnational systems fortheprotection ofgeographical indications. Before Members would
agree toengage inthedevelopment ofsuchacomparative table, theyfirsthadtoagree onthecriteria
tobeused. Inconclusion, atthispoint intime, hisdelegation could notsupport thesuggestion that
theSecretariat prepare suchasynoptic table.
57. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathisdelegation fullyshared many ofthepoints made
bythedelegation oftheUnited States. Thewritten contributions hadonlyjustbeenreceived andcovered
awiderange ofpoints withmany possible implications. Careful study wasrequired anditwascertainly
premature totasktheSecretariat withanywork inthisregard.
58. Therepresentative ofMexico saidthat,since issues concerning geographical indications were
beingaddressedunderthisagendaitem,shewishedtoinformMembersthatherdelegationwaspreparing
apaper, asagreed inthecontext ofArticle 23.4, withinformation ontheregistration system for
geographical indications usedinMexico. Shethanked thedelegations thathadpresented written
contributions andreiterated theparticular interest herdelegation hadinissues concerning geographical
indications.
59. Therepresentative oftheCzech Republic welcomed thesubmissions from theEuropean
Communities, Switzerland andHungary. Hisdelegation believed thatthose submissions wereuseful
notonlyfortheongoing review process butalsoforfurther advancements oftheCouncil 'swork in
thisarea. Hereiterated theinterest ofhisdelegation inthissubject andsaidthattheCzech contribution
thathadbeenannounced atprevious meetings wasclose tofinalization.IP/C/M/14
Page12
60. Therepresentative ofIndia alsothanked thedelegations oftheEuropean Communities,
Switzerland andHungary fortheircontributions, which hebelieved fulfilled thecriteria thatMembers
hadagreed uponinorder toinitiate consultations onthissubject. Hisdelegation wasalsointhefinal
stage ofpreparing itsowninput. Hesupported theproposal made bytheEuropean Communities for
asynoptic tablebased onthereplies received inconnection withthereview ofnational implementing
legislation intheareaofgeographical indications. Suchatablewould helphisdelegation benefit from
theinformation provided bydelegations, which presently consisted ofrawdata.
61. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthatherdelegation waspreparing itssubmission of
information ontheprotection ofgeographical indications, inthecontext ofwork tobeundertaken under
Article 23.4. Shethanked thedelegations thathadprepared papers onArticle 24.2. Herdelegation
shared theviews expressed bytheUnited States andCanada andbelieved thatitwas,inparticular,
rather earlytotasktheSecretariat withthepreparation ofasynoptic table. Members firsthadtoconsider
theshape, theformat andthecriteria ofanysuchtable. Herdelegation wasinterested inthemodel
putforwardbytheEuropeanCommunitiesbutrecognizedthatotherMembersmightpreferothermodels.
Herdelegation would study carefully thewritten contributions provided bydelegations inpreparation
oftheinformal consultations thatwould begin afterthesummer break.
62. Therepresentative ofNewZealand thanked thedelegations thathadpresented contributions.
However, inviewofthefactthatthose contributions hadonlyjustbeenreceived, hisdelegation would
study theminduecourse. Helooked forward toparticipating intheinformal consultations mentioned
bytheChairperson.
63. Therepresentative ofSingapore alsothanked thedelegations thathadpresented papers. Putting
aside thequestion ofwhatthereview inquestion would entail, hisdelegation would justliketoflag
thatArticle 24.2saidthattheCouncil should keepunder review theapplication oftheprovisions of
Section 3ofPartII.However, thereweremany Members which wereavailing themselves oftransitional
periods during which Section 3didnotyetapply tothem. Therefore, thestanding ofthose Members
during thereview inquestion should alsobeconsidered inthefuture consultations bytheChairperson.
64. TheChairperson saidthatthepractices ofMembers stillenjoying atransitional period would
notbereviewed under Article 24.2. Nonetheless, suchMembers would beentitled toraiseissues.
65. Therepresentative ofPeruthanked theEuropean Communities, Switzerland andHungary for
theircontributions.Giventheimportancethathisdelegationattachedtothissubject-matter,heexpressed
thewishtoparticipate inanyformal orinformal consultations onitandthehope thatanyrelevant
documents would alsobemade available inSpanish prior tosuchconsultations.
66. TheChairpersonthankedthedelegationsoftheEuropeanCommunities,SwitzerlandandHungary
forthecontributions made. Shesaidthatshewould holdinformal consultations inSeptember prior
tothenextmeeting oftheCouncil; consideration would begiven toprocedures forthereview under
Article 24.2, including thepossible preparation ofasynoptic table.
67. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
(ii) Nextmeeting
68. TheChairpersonrecapitulatedtheitemsthatwouldbeontheproposedagendaofthenextCouncil
meeting tobeheldon19September 1997. First, inregard oftheissue oftechnical cooperation, the
Council hadagreed thatitwould focus ontheissueoftechnical cooperation attheSeptember meeting,
asithaddone attheSeptember meeting lastyear. Second, theCouncil hadagreed, atitsmeeting
of27February 1997, inthecontext ofwork tobedoneinrelation toArticle 23.4, toaninformation-IP/C/M/14
Page13
gathering activity concerning systems forthenotification andregistration ofgeographical indications.
Members hadbeenasked tosubmit information onanysuchsystems which theyoperated bytheend
ofJulyforconsideration bytheCouncil atitsmeeting inSeptember. Areminder ofthisinvitation
hadbeencirculated inWTO/AIR/637 of4July1997. TheCouncil hadalsoagreed torevert, in
September, tothepreparation bytheSecretariat ofanoutline ofafactual background noteonexisting
international notification andregistration systems forgeographical indications. Asconcluded atthe
present meeting, inSeptember shewould launch informal consultations ontheissue ofArticle 24.2,
including alltheproposals presented byMembers. TheCouncil hadalsoagreed, atitsmeeting of
27February 1997, torevert totheissue ofnotifications under Article 4(d). Apart from theabove-
mentioned topics, thefollowing items thattheCouncil hadaddressed atthepresent meeting would
continue tobeontheagenda atthenextmeeting: observer status forintergovernmental organizations;
notifications under other provisions oftheAgreement; review oflegislation anditsfollow-up;
implementation ofArticle 70.8and70.9; andinformation onrelevant developments elsewhere inthe
WTO.