RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/11
16December 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-5330)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
from 11to15November 1996
Chairman: Ambassador W.Armstrong (New Zealand)
Subjects discussed:
A. Notifications under Article 4(d)
B. Notifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,4and5
C. Other notifications under provisions oftheAgreement
D. Follow-up tothereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights
E. Implementation ofArticle 70.8and70.9
F. Technical cooperation
G. Information onrelevant developments elsewhere intheWTO
H. Review oflegislation intheareasoftrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial
designs
I. Review oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications
under Article 24.2
J. Other business
1. TheCouncil agreed toinvite alsotoitsnextmeeting WIPO, theIMF, theWorld Bank,
UNCTAD, theFAO, theUN,theOECD, UPOV andtheWCO, which hadbeeninvited toattend
thismeeting oftheCouncil pending theongoing consultations bytheChairman oftheGeneral Council
ontheapplication oftheguidelines concerning observer status forintergovernmental organizations
asadopted bytheGeneral Council atitsmeeting of18July1996.IP/C/M/11
Page2
A. Notifications under Article 4(d)
2. TheChairman saidthat, since theCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember, anotification under
Article 4(d)oftheAgreement hadbeenreceived fromZambia. Thenotification hadbeendistributed
indocument IP/N/4/ZMB/1.
3. TheChairman saidthathehadheldfurther informal consultations onthismatter inthelight
oftheagreement attheCouncil 'sSeptember meeting andasreflected intheCouncil 's1996 report
(document IP/C/8) thatfurther consultations should beheld,soastocontinue work onthedevelopment
ofcriteria thatcould assist individual Members inmaking orreviewing theirnotifications, itbeing
understood thatsuchcriteria could notaddtoordiminish therights andobligations ofWTO Members
under theprovisions ofArticle 4(d). These consultations hadshown thatsome Members were not
ready forafurther discussion ofthematter yet,while others hadspecific proposals thattheywould
wishtoadvance. Inthelightofthese consultations, hesuggested thattheCouncil postpone discussion
toitsnextmeeting andatthattimeallocate sufficient timetofocus onthecriteria listed inparagraph 6
oftheSecretariat note(No.2086 of25April 1996) andonproposals from delegations, adding that
itmight behelpful iftheSecretariat were toupdate itsinformal paper prior tothatmeeting, taking
noteoftheadditional proposals made.
4. TheCouncil soagreed.
B. Notifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,4and5
5. TheChairman saidthat,since theCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember, anotification relating to
theprovisions inquestion hadbeenreceived fromZambia. Thisnotification hadbeendistributed as
document IP/N/1/ZMB/1.
6. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil, atitsSeptember meeting, hadconcluded thatthismatter
should beapproached onthebasisofarange ofoptions between which Members could choose inmaking
theirnotifications andthattheSecretariat should prepare aformat foroneofthese options, namely
making ageneral statement thatnationals ofother WTO Members asdefined inArticle 1.3ofthe
AgreementenjoynationalandMFNtreatmentandlistinganyexceptionstothatprinciple.TheSecretariat
hadrecently distributed this(document IP/C/W/48) but,sincecopies werenotyetavailable inallthree
WTO languages, hesuggested thattheCouncil takeadecision ontheproposed draftformat atitsnext
meeting. Herecalled, however, thatthenotification obligation relating tonational legislation
corresponding toArticles 3,4and5wasalready applicable forallMembers andurged delegations
abletodosotomake suchnotifications assoonaspossible, taking advantage oftherange ofoptions
thathadbeenidentified.
7. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed support fordocument IP/C/W/48 and
encouraged itsusebythose WTO Members thathadyettosatisfy theirobligations under theprovisions
inquestion.
8. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed toproceed assuggested bythe
Chairman.IP/C/M/11
Page3
C. Other notifications under provisions oftheAgreement
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
9. TheChairmanrecalledthatthedelegationofHungaryhadinformedtheCouncil,attheSeptember
meeting, thatithadcommunicated Hungary 'smainlawsandregulations intheareaofindustrial property
totheSecretariat. Hungary hadmade itsnotification taking intoaccount theprocedures fornotifications
under Article 63.2asadopted bytheCouncil inNovember 1995. Intheprocessing ofthisnotification
andthedistribution ofthetextsofthelawsandregulations inquestion, priority hadbeengiven tothose
lawsandregulations made available inaWTO language which wererelevant tothereview ofnational
implementing legislation tobecarried outduring thepresent meeting. Notifications hadalsobeen
received from Cyprus, Nigeria, Romania, Swaziland andUganda. Thenotifications from Romania
andUganda, which hadbeenmade withreference totheentitlements these Members claimed under
Article 65oftheAgreement, werebeing processed andwould beavailable asdocuments IP/N/1/ROM/1
andIP/N/1/UGA/1. Theother notifications mentioned stillrequired some clarification andwould be
processed assoonaspossible.
10. TheChairman alsoreferred tothecross-reference tables thatthedelegation ofJapan hadnotified
withaviewtoenhancing theefficiency ofthereview ofnational implementing legislation. Thetable
relating totheareaofcopyright andrelated rights hadbeendistributed indocument IP/Q/JPN/1, as
partoftherecord ofthereview ofthelegislation notified byJapan under Article 63.2. Theother tables,
regarding theareas oftrademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs andpatents, hadbeen
circulated indocument IP/N/1/JPN/1/Add.2.
11. Informing theCouncil about thestatus ofnotifications byMembers asrequired byArticle 63.2
incombination withArticle 65.1oftheAgreement, theChairman saidthat,although mostofthematerial
duehadbeenmade available, there were stillmissing elements. Several main dedicated lawsand
regulations were notyetavailable inaWTO language andinsome cases notifications hadnotbeen
accompanied bythetextsofthelawsandregulations inquestion. Heurged theMembers inquestion
togivethenecessary priority tocomplementing theirnotification under Article 63.2inthisrespect.
Asregards thechecklist ofissues onenforcement, eightMembers hadsubmitted responses. Herecalled
hisstatements attheJulyandSeptember meetings andurged developed country Members which had
notyetdonesotonotify these responses soonandinanycasebefore theendoftheyear.
(ii) Notifications under Article 69
12. TheChairman informed theCouncil that,since itsmeeting inSeptember, newnotifications
hadbeenreceived fromElSalvador, Honduras, Israel, Peru, South Africa andTurkey. Canada and
Spain hadnotified modifications totheinformation ontheircontact points. Anupdated version of
thecompilation ofcontact points would becirculated induecourse. Seventy-three Members hadnow
notified contact points under Article 69.
D. Follow-up tothereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights
13. TheChairman saidthattheSecretariat hadreceived written copies ofallthefollow-up and
other additional questions andreplies thathadbeenpresented orally inthereview oflegislation on
copyright andrelated rights attheCouncil 'sJulymeeting. Therecord oftheintroductory statements
made bydelegations, thequestions puttothem andtheresponses given, including certain written
responses provided afterthemeeting, hadbeencompiled inanewIP/Q/- series ofdocuments. Most
ofthese documents hadalready beencirculated, atleastinonelanguage, andafewwere stillbeing
processed. Hereferred totheprocedures forthereview (document IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6),whichIP/C/M/11
Page4
provided that,atsubsequent meetings oftheCouncil, anopportunity would begiven tofollow upany
pointemergingfromthereviewsessionwhichdelegationsconsideredhadnotbeenadequatelyaddressed.
AttheCouncil 'sSeptember meeting, ithadbeenagreed thattheissue bekeptontheagenda ofthe
Council, asageneral item, soastoallow delegations, astheprocess evolved, toraiseanypoint they
wished.
14. Therepresentative oftheSlovak Republic informed theCouncil thatadraftcopyright lawhad
beensubmittedtotheLegislativeCounciloftheSlovakGovernmenton22October1996.Someelements
ofthedraftrequired inorder tohavefullycompatible legislation hadcaused adelay inthelegislative
process, buthisdelegation hoped tobeinaposition tonotify thefinaltextsoon.
15. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made andrevert tothe
matter atitsnextmeeting. Hesuggested thatMembers focus thefollow-up tothereview oflegislation
oncopyright andrelated rights atthatmeeting. Ifthere wereanyissues thatarose from thatreview
thatMembers wished tofollow up,hesuggested thattheymake aparticular effort tocover them at
thatmeeting. Heinvited Members toprovide advance notice ofanyfollow-up issues thattheywished
toraisetotheSecretariat andtotheMember concerned bytheendofJanuary 1997.
16. TheCouncil soagreed.
E. Implementation ofArticle 70.8and70.9
17. TheChairman saidthatnotifications hadbeenreceived fromKuwait, theSlovak Republic and
thePhilippines (documents IP/N/1/KWT/1, IP/N/1/SVK/2/Add.1 andIP/N/1/PHL/1).
18. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthat,while heappreciated theefforts ofthose
Members whohadmade recent notifications relating toArticle 70.8and70.9, hisdelegation remained
concerned thatanumber ofMembers whoweresubject tothese provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement
hadeither notimplemented thenecessary procedures orhadnotmade therequired notifications. He
alsonoted thatmany ofthenotifications thathadbeenmade onlyconcerned theprocedures toaccept
thefiling ofpatent applications forinventions concerning pharmaceutical andagricultural chemical
products, omitting anyreference totheprocedures thatcould beusedtoobtain theexclusive marketing
rights required under Article 70.9. Theabsence ofinformation made itdifficult, ifnotimpossible,
toascertain whether suchprocedures hadbeenimplemented bytheMembers inquestion. Finally,
hesaidthattheefforts ofhisdelegation toresolve itsdispute withregard tocompliance bythe
Government ofIndia withArticle 70.8and70.9hadnotproven successful todateand,accordingly,
hisdelegation hadrequested theestablishment ofapanel inaccordance withtheprocedures under the
DSU.
19. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
F. Technical cooperation
20. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil, atitsSeptember meeting, haddiscussed theissue of
technical cooperation andthat,inpreparation forthatdiscussion, eachdeveloped country Member
hadbeen invited toupdate theinformation onitstechnical cooperation activities relevant tothe
implementationoftheTRIPSAgreement.Similarly,intergovernmentalorganizationspresentlyobservers
totheTRIPS Council hadbeeninvited todothesame. Theresulting documentation concerning the
technical cooperation activities ofdeveloped country Members hadbeen circulated indocuments
IP/C/W/34 andAddenda 1to5,while thecontributions ofintergovernmental organizations hadbeenIP/C/M/11
Page5
distributedindocumentsIP/C/W/35andAddenda1to5.InformationontheWTOSecretariat'stechnical
cooperationactivitiesintheTRIPSareahadbeencirculatedindocumentIP/C/W/36.Sincethatmeeting,
theSecretariat hadreceived updated information ontechnical cooperation activities from Finland,
Denmark, Germany, Spain andNorway (documents IP/C/W/34/Add.3/Suppl.1-4), aswellasfrom
UNCTAD (document IP/C/W/35/Add.6). Unfortunately therewerestillanumber ofdeveloped country
Members thathadnotyetsubmitted anyinformation ontheirtechnical cooperation activities. Given
theimportance thattheCouncil hadattached tothisissueinthelightoftheneeds ofdeveloping countries
forsuchassistance, hehoped thatthese Members would beabletoprovide suchinformation soon.
21. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil hadinvited eachdeveloped country Member tonotify
acontact point fortechnical cooperation purposes relating toTRIPS atthesametimeasitwould submit
updated information onitstechnical cooperation activities. Thecontact points thathadbeennotified
before theSeptember meeting hadbeencompiled indocument IP/N/7. Since thatmeeting, contact
points hadbeennotified byDenmark, Greece andNorway. Austria andCanada hadnotified minor
changes totheirearlier notifications. Document IP/N/7 would beupdated induecourse toincorporate
thisadditional information. Unfortunately, there werestillanumber ofdeveloped country Members
thathadnotyetnotified theircontact points. Hehoped thatthese Members would notify theircontact
points inthenearfuture.
22. Therepresentative ofJapan informed theCouncil thatJapan wasassisting theInternational
Bureau ofWIPO inorganizing anAsian regional seminar ontheimplementation oftheTRIPS
Agreement, which would beheldinSingapore from15to17January 1997. Anofficial fromtheWTO
Secretariat would beinvited asaspeaker tothatseminar. Asmany Asian countries wereintheprocess
ofpreparing theirimplementation oftheAgreement, theseminar waslikely toprovide aneffective
andadequatecontributiontothisprocessthroughexchangesofviewsandwouldfacilitatefurthertechnical
cooperation intheareaofintellectual property.
23. Therepresentative ofEcuador expressed hiscountry 'sinterest inreceiving thetypesoftechnical
cooperation referred tobytheChairman andbythedelegation ofJapan, andintheprogrammes that
would beundertaken atthebilateral levelinthisregard.
24. TheChairmanbelievedthattheinformationcontainedinthenotificationsontechnicalcooperation
activities would behelpful inthisregard.
25. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed torevert tothematter atitsnext
meeting.
G. Information onrelevant developments elsewhere intheWTO
(i) Dispute settlement
26. TheChairman drew attention todocument IP/D/6 bywhich theCouncil hadbeeninformed
thattheUnited States, bymeans ofacommunication dated 8October 1996 (document IP/D/6), had
requested consultations withIndonesia regarding certain measures affecting theautomobile industry
which, according totheUnited States, wereinviolation withIndonesia 'sobligations under, interalia,
Articles 3,20and65.5oftheTRIPS Agreement.
(ii) Accession
27. TheChairman saidthattheGeneral Council, atitsmeeting on2October 1996, approving the
Protocols ofAccession forBulgaria andPanama andthereports oftheworking parties ontheirrequestsIP/C/M/11
Page6
foraccession (WT/ACC/BGR/5 andWT/ACC/PAN/19 andaddenda andcorrigenda), hadadopted
decisions allowing Bulgaria andPanama toaccede totheWTO Agreement under theterms setout
intheirrespective Protocols ofAccession. Paragraph 2oftheProtocol ofAccession forBulgaria
(WT/ACC/BGR/7) incorporated thecommitment given byBulgaria inrelation tointellectual property
asreproduced inparagraph 85ofthereport oftheWorking Party ontheAccession ofBulgaria.
According tothisparagraph, "[t]he representative ofBulgaria confirmed thathisGovernment would
apply theprovisions oftheAgreement onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights by
thedateofitsaccessiontotheWTO,withoutrecoursetoanytransitionalperiod."Similarly,paragraph2
oftheProtocol fortheAccession ofPanama (WT/ACC/PAN/21) incorporated thecommitment given
byPanama inrelation tointellectual property asreproduced inparagraph 111ofthereport ofthe
Working Party ontheAccession ofPanama. According tothisparagraph, "[t]he representative of
Panama stated thatPanama would fullyapply alltheprovisions oftheAgreement onTrade-Related
Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights bythedateofitsaccession totheWTO, without recourse to
anytransitional period."
H. Review oflegislation intheareas oftrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial
designs
28. TheChairman recalled thattheprocedures forthisreview could befound intheminutes of
theCouncil 'sMaymeeting (document IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6),withtheadjustments agreed atitsJuly
meeting (document IP/C/M/8, paragraphs 69and70). Inaccordance withthese procedures, the
Secretariathadcirculatedaproposedtimetableinaninformalnoteof10October1996.Writtenquestions
concerning other Members 'legislation hadbeenreceived inadvance ofthemeeting fromtheEuropean
Community anditsMember States, NewZealand, theUnited States, Japan andAustralia. Written
responses hadbeenreceived inadvance ofthemeeting from Liechtenstein, Australia, Switzerland,
Norway, Japan, South Africa, theCzech Republic, Hungary andCanada. Hesuggested toproceed
ashadbeendoneattheJulymeeting andinvited eachMember toprovide, inintroducing itslegislation,
abriefoverview ofthestructure ofitslegislation ontrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial
designs andofthechanges, ifany,thatithadhadtobring about inorder tomake thelegislation
compatible withtheTRIPS Agreement. After having doneso,anintroduction might beprovided to
theresponses tothequestions puttothembyother Members. Where responses hadalready beenmade
available inthethree WTO languages, theMember inquestion might limititselftoabriefsummary,
drawing attention toanypoints thatitwanted tohighlight. After these presentations andintroductions
ofresponses, hewould thenofferthefloortoother delegations foranycomments orother questions.
29. Therecord oftheintroductory statements made bydelegations, thequestions puttothemand
theresponses given (including certain written responses provided afterthemeeting) willbecirculated
inthefollowing documents:
IP/Q2/AUS/1 Australia
IP/Q2/CAN/1 Canada
IP/Q2/CZE/1 Czech Republic
IP/Q2/EEC/1 European Community
IP/Q2/AUT/1 Austria
IP/Q2/BEL/1 Belgium
IP/Q2/DNK/1 Denmark
IP/Q2/FIN/1 Finland
IP/Q2/FRA/1 France
IP/Q2/DEU/1 Germany
IP/Q2/GRC/1 Greece
IP/Q2/IRL/1 IrelandIP/C/M/11
Page7
IP/Q2/ITA/1 Italy
IP/Q2/LUX/1 Luxembourg
IP/Q2/NLD/1 Netherlands
IP/Q2/PRT/1 Portugal
IP/Q2/ESP/1 Spain
IP/Q2/SWE/1 Sweden
IP/Q2/GBR/1 United Kingdom
IP/Q2/HUN/1 Hungary
IP/Q2/ISL/1 Iceland
IP/Q2/JPN/1 Japan
IP/Q2/LIE/1 Liechtenstein
IP/Q2/NZL/1 NewZealand
IP/Q2/NOR/1 Norway
IP/Q2/SVK/1 Slovak Republic
IP/Q2/SVN/1 Slovenia
IP/Q2/ZAF/1 South Africa
IP/Q2/CHE/1 Switzerland
IP/Q2/USA/1 United States
30. After theconsideration ofthelegislation oftheabove Members, theChairman recalled that
questions hadbeenasked inadvance ofanumber ofother Members, inaddition tothose whohad
responded sofar.Heoffered thefloor toanydelegation thatmight wishtocomment.
31. Therepresentative oftheUnited States recalled thatadiscussion hadtaken placeattheCouncil 's
Julymeeting onthecircumstances under which Members should provide responses toquestions posed
tothem inthecontext ofthereview ofnational implementing legislation. Atthattime, anumber of
Members hadquestioned thattheyshould betaken upinthereview, given theirclaimed status as
developing country Members oftheWTO orasatransition economy Member oftheWTO entitled
toanextended transitional period under theTRIPS Agreement. Consideration hadalsobeengiven
tothedifficulty thattheCouncil would faceintheyear2000, when alargenumber ofMembers would
beobliged tonotify theirimplementing legislation andwould betaken upinthereview exercise. The
question hadbeenraised, atthattime, whether certain Members, inlightoftheiradvanced status and
advanced implementation oftheTRIPS Agreement, would beabletoparticipate atthistimeinthe
review exercise. Inpresenting advance questions forthisreview exercise, hisdelegation hadanticipated
thattheseMembers would beprepared todosoandhad,consequently, addressed questions toTurkey,
Singapore, Mexico, Kuwait, Korea, Israel, Hong Kong andPoland concerning theirlegislation inthe
areas presently under review.1These questions hadbeenasked ontheunderstanding thattheresponses
tothemwould bemade without prejudice tothequestion astowhether atransitional period under Article
65wasapplicable toaparticular Member. TheUnited States hadalsoasked questions toEcuador
which, pursuant totheterms ofitsProtocol ofAccession, wasobligated tofullyimplement theTRIPS
Agreement by31July1996 andtobetaken upinthereview exercise atthistime.
32. Therepresentative ofKorea acknowledged receipt ofalistofquestions fromtheUnited States
withregard tohiscountry 'slegislation ontrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs
withtherequest toanswer these questions atthepresent meeting oftheCouncil. Hisdelegation had
responded totheUnited States thatKorea 'sposition onthismatter hadnotchanged sincetheCouncil 's
Julymeeting. Neither hadachange occurred inthelegalstatus ofKorea under theTRIPS Agreement,
norhadKorea decided toforgo thelonger transitional period under Article 65.2oftheAgreement.
Furthermore, hewished topoint outthattheCouncil hadagreed attheJulymeeting thatthereview
1These questions canbefound indocuments IP/C/W/39 andIP/C/W/39/Add.1.IP/C/M/11
Page8
procedures applied inthereview exercise atthatmeeting would apply alsoatthepresent meeting.
Korea didnotbelong toeither ofthecategories ofMembers required tobereviewed atthistimeand
wasnotinaposition torespond tothequestions posed toitatthepresent meeting.
33. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitywishedtoreiteratehisdelegation'sencouragement
attheJulymeeting tothose Members whose lawshadbeenbrought inlinewiththeAgreement or
were advanced inimplementing theAgreement tohavethese lawsreviewed asearly aspossible so
astofacilitate thereview ofthelarge number ofMembers thatwere required tocomply fullywith
theprovisions oftheAgreement asof1January 2000. NewWTO Members which hadaccepted in
theirprotocols ofaccession thattheywould notavailthemselves ofanytransitional period provided
forintheAgreement hadtodeliver onthatundertaking andbefullysubject tothepresent review
exercise.
34. Therepresentative ofEcuador confirmed hisdelegation 'sviewthatEcuador, asadeveloping
country Member oftheWTO, wasentitled toinvoke Article 65.2oftheTRIPS Agreement.
35. TheChairmansaidthattheissueconcerningtheinterpretationofEcuador'sProtocolofAccession
would beaddressed separately under agenda itemJ.Asregards theother Members towhich questions
hadbeenaddressed inthecontext ofthepresent review, henoted thattheissuewasnotsomuch whether
theMembers inquestion were obliged tobesubject tothepresent review exercise, butwasmore a
practical issue related tothedesirability ofspreading outthefuture workload thattheCouncil would
faceinreviewing legislation. Atthesame time, itseemed tobeclearthattheMembers inquestion
werenotpresently inaposition torespond tothequestions thathadbeenputtothem. From thepoint
ofviewoftheChair, itwould bedesirable ifsome practical waycould befound ofevening outthe
future workload oftheCouncil, inlightofthefactthatthepresent review exercise would becompleted
bytheendof1997 andsoastoavoid anexcessive bunching ofreview work thatwould otherwise
ariseaftertheyear2000. Hewondered whether, inthese circumstances, theCouncil could agree that
theChair would consult nextyearwithindividual Members whose legislation hadnotbeensubject
tothepresent review exercise, butwhose legislation would havebeen, inwhole orinlargepart,brought
intoconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement inadvance. Thepurpose ofthose consultations bythe
Chair would betoseewhether therewasscope forthelegislation ofsuchMembers tobeprogressively
incorporated intothereview process bytheCouncil after theconclusion ofthepresent review
programme, i.e.attheearliest in1998. Itwould beclearly understood thattheagreement ofaMember
tothiswould bewithout prejudice tothelegal situation regarding itsentitlements under Article 65
andwould beintended asapractical contribution tothework oftheCouncil. AnyMember which
considered thatitmight beabletoassist theCouncil inthiswaywould beinvited toinform theChair,
whowould keeptheCouncil informed oftheprogress intheconsultations.
36. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed support fortheChairman 'ssuggestions.
37. Therepresentative ofSingapore acknowledged thathisdelegation hadreceived questions from
theUnited States andhadindividually sentaresponse totheUnited States inaletter, dated
31October 1996. Inthatletter, hisdelegation hadindicated totheUnited States thatitsposition had
notchanged since theJulymeeting. Thereview exercise didnotapply toSingapore, asthereview,
according totheprocedures adopted bytheCouncil inMayandJuly,onlyapplied toMembers obliged
tocomply withtheTRIPS Agreement under Article 65.1andtoanyother Members notstillavailing
themselves inrespect oftheareaoflegislation under review ofanylonger transitional period towhich
theymight beentitled. Hereassured theUnited States andtheTRIPS Council thatSingapore was
committed tofulfilling itsobligations under theTRIPS Agreement. Asalsostated attheJulymeeting,
Singapore would continue withitsongoing efforts tobring itslegislation intoconformity withthe
Agreement. Hecould support theChairman 'spractical approach tothismatter andtheproposed
consultations, provided thatitwould bemade absolutely clearthattheMembers inquestion remainedIP/C/M/11
Page9
fullyentitled totheirrights under Article 65andthattheirparticipation insuchconsultations wasof
avoluntary nature.
38. TherepresentativeofKoreasaidthathisdelegationwasnotopposedtotheChairman'ssuggestion
tostartconsultations withdeveloping country Members aimed atspreading outthereview exercise,
butwished topoint outthatthisshould notserve asameans tocategorize Members asmore advanced
andlessadvanceddevelopingcountries.Neithershouldtheseconsultationsdiscourageearlynotifications
bydeveloping country Members oftheirlegislation fortransparency purposes. Theconsultations should
beofapurely voluntary nature.
39. Therepresentative ofMexico saidthathisdelegation hadnoted withsurprise thereceipt of
aseries ofquestions about hiscountry 'slegislation intheareas presently under review, given the
transitional arrangements stipulated inArticle 65oftheTRIPS Agreement. Inregard tosome ofthe
questions posed tohisdelegation, namely those relating totheareaofgeographical indications, he
expressed hisdelegation 'swillingness toenterintoanexchange ofinformation, asagreed, inthecontext
ofthepreliminary workreferred toinparagraph 34oftheCouncil 'sreport totheSingapore Ministerial.
40. Therepresentative ofPoland confirmed thathisdelegation hadreceived anumber ofquestions
concerning hiscountry 'slegislation intheareas presently under review, including from theUnited
States. However, Poland wasenjoying thetransitional period towhich itwasentitled under theTRIPS
Agreement. Hisauthorities hadcarefully examined thequestions thathadbeenputtoPoland andhad
come totheconclusion thatitwould bepremature tosubject Poland 'slegislation atthistimetothe
review exercise. TheChairman 'sproposal toholdconsultations concerning anadvance review ofthe
legislation ofanumber ofMembers wasaconstructive one,butitsacceptability hinged oncertain
caveats asindicated byprevious speakers. Hisdelegation would continue withitsefforts tobring
Poland 'slegislation intoconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement.
41. TheChairman saidthatSingapore andKorea, inexpressing theirconcerns withregard tothe
consultations thathehadproposed tohold, hadgiven aprecise description ofthecaveats contained
inthatproposal.
42. TheCouncil agreed toproceed asproposed bytheChairman.
43. Inregard totheprocedures forthefollow-up tothereview exercise, theChairman recalled
thatanumber ofdelegations hadindicated thattheywould provide responses inwriting subsequent
tothemeeting tosome questions puttothem. Insome cases thisincluded thegeneral question
concerning priority rights thatallMembers hadagreed torespond to.2Hesuggested thatsuchresponses,
together withanecessary fine-tuning ofpreliminary responses already provided, bemade available
totheSecretariat by20December 1996, sothattherecords ofthereview could beproduced without
undue delay. Oneotherpointwhich hewished tomention wasthat,inanumber ofcases, theSecretariat
hadnoted thatdelegations, inresponding toquestions, hadreferred tolegislative textsthathadnot
beennotified totheCouncil. TheSecretariat would provide alistofsuchtextstotheMembers concerned
sothattheycould takeanynecessary action inaccordance withtheprocedures thattheCouncil had
adopted fornotifications under Article 63.2. Hesaidthatthework under thisagenda itemhadyielded
oncemore amass ofinformation which would require timefordelegations todigest. Insome cases,
ithadbecome clearthatsome Members stillhadsome work todotoadapt theirlegislation fullyand
itwasimportant thatthisshould bedonewithaminimum ofdelay. Healsorecalled thattheprocedures
2Inthecontext ofthepresent review, Members agreed toprovide aresponse tothefollowing question:
Does yourcountry recognize aright ofpriority onthebasis ofanearlier trademark application filedinanyother
WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?IP/C/M/11
Page10
adopted forthisreview (asreflected indocuments IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6andIP/C/M/8, paragraphs 69
and70)provided thatatsubsequent meetings oftheCouncil anopportunity would begiven tofollow
upanypoint emerging fromthereview sessions which delegations considered hadnotbeenadequately
addressed.
44. Turning totheCouncil 'sreview meeting scheduled forthefirsthalfof1997, theChairman
recalled that,according tothe"Schedule forConsideration ofNational Implementing Legislation in
1996/1997" decided bytheCouncil inNovember 1995 (document IP/C/3), thatreview would relate
totheareas ofpatents, layout-designs ofintegrated circuits andundisclosed information. Theweek
of26to30May1997 hadbeensetaside foraCouncil meeting during which thatreview would be
undertaken.Hesuggestedthatthesamebasicprocedureswouldbeusedasemployedsofarandproposed
thefollowing datesfortheadvance notice ofquestions andthesubmission ofreplies, taking intoaccount
notonlytheexperience withthereview sofarbutalsothatthereview ofthese areas waslikely to
elicit considerable interest andthatthere wasafullsixmonths before thereview wasscheduled:
- submission ofadvance notice ofquestions totheMember concerned andtothe
Secretariat: 15March 1997;
- submission ofresponses toquestions: 30April 1997.
Given thatthetimetable thathewasenvisaging wassomewhat morerelaxed thanthatwhich theCouncil
hadhadforthereviews conducted sofar,healsosuggested thatMembers make aneffort togivesome
form ofadvance notice offollow-up questions, prior tothereview meeting.
45. TheCouncil soagreed.
I. Review oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications under
Article 24.2
46. TheChairman recalled that,attheCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember, therehadbeenadiscussion
ofthismatter onthebasis ofanon-paper provided bytheEuropean Community andthattheCouncil
hadagreed totakeupwork onthismatter byincluding ontheagenda oftheNovember meeting the
present itemwhich would beaddressed afterandtaking intoaccount thereview oflegislation inthe
areasoftrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs, itbeing understood thatthiswould
permit theconsideration oftheproposals putforward inSeptember together withanyother inputs from
delegations.
47. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community saidthatithadbeenuseful thatthisitemhad
beenscheduled afterthereview oflegislation notified under Article 63.2oftheTRIPS Agreement
relating togeographical indications andtrademarks because thework inthatreview exercise had
demonstrated thatagreatvariety ofapproaches existed astohowtoimplement therelevant provisions
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Itwasinthelightofthisfactual situation thathisdelegation hadprepared
thenon-paperreferredtobytheChairman.Hethereforewishedtounderlinehisdelegation'ssuggestions
inthenon-paper forwork bytheCouncil intheframework ofthespecial review under Article 24.2
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Inhisdelegation 'sview, itwould behelpful if,asafirststep,theSecretariat
drewupacomparative paper concerning thedefinitions ofgeographical indications which wereinforce
inthoseWTO Members thathadnotified theirlegislation under Article 63.2. Since itwasalsoimportant
tocompare thesystems fortheacquisition andenforcement ofprotection forgeographical indications
ineachMember oftheWTO, hisdelegation hadalsoproposed thattheSecretariat drawupacomparative
tableshowing these various systems andhighlighting theindividual differences. Finally, itwould beIP/C/M/11
Page11
useful ifbilateral agreements intheareaofgeographical indications werenotified totheSecretariat
inorder toenable thedrawing upofacomprehensive listofsuchagreements.
48. Therepresentative ofIndia expressed theinterest ofhisdelegation infollowing upsome of
theideas contained inthenon-paper submitted bytheEuropean Community attheSeptember meeting
andespecially theproposals thathadjustbeenoutlined bytheCommunity representative. Article 24.2
oftheTRIPS Agreement called forkeeping under review theapplication oftheprovisions ofSection 3
ofPartIIoftheAgreement, withthefirstreview being within twoyears oftheentry intoforce of
theWTO Agreement. Hisdelegation washappy thattheTRIPS Council haddecided, asreflected
initsreport totheSingapore Ministerial Conference, thatsuchareview would include thescope of
theprotection ofgeographical indications. Geographical indications wereprotected under Article 22
against useinamanner which misleads thepublic astothegeographical origin ofthegood orany
usewhich constitutes anactofunfair competition. Under Article 23,geographical indications forwines
andspirits were provided anabsolute protection evenwhere theusewasofsuchanature asnotto
mislead thepublic astothetrueplace oforigin. Itwashisdelegation 'sviewthatitwaswithin the
jurisdiction oftheTRIPS Council tointerpret these Articles harmoniously under thereview envisaged
under Article 24.2. Hiscountry wascommitted toitsobligations under theAgreement regarding
additional protection forthese products andwould benaturally interested inseeking suchadditional
protection forproducts ofinterest toit,suchasfoodproducts. Inhisdelegation 'sview, thisissue
hadtobeaddressed under thecontinuous review proposed under Article 24.2. Itwasimportant that
solutions tohiscountry 'sconcerns should bediscussed intheTRIPS Council evenwhile looking at
thepreliminary work onthemultilateral system ofnotification andregistration forwines under
Article 23.4. Thiswasbecause oneofthesolutions could wellbetoexpand thescope ofArticle 23
tocover products ofinterest toother WTO Members. Insuchacase,Article 23.4would havetotake
intoaccount suchadditional products, asitwasunlikely thattheregistration orjudicial authorities in
different Members would befamiliar withthegeographical indications originating inother Members.
Further, theadministrative burden inexamining eachapplication forregistration asageographical
indication (orasatrademark) could beimmensely reduced bysuchasystem ofnotification. Oneoption
which could beconsidered bytheCouncil wastodevise amethod toentitle Members which afforded
protection togeographical indications originating fromthejurisdiction ofother Members atahigher
level thanthatrequired under Article 22,attheirrequest, toseekandobtain thesame higher level
ofprotection forproducts ofinterest tothemfromthose Members. These werethepreliminary views
ofhisdelegation onthismatter; hewould revert tothisissueinmore detail, withappropriate inputs,
when theCouncil considered theprocess oftheArticle 24.2review atitssubsequent meeting. Atthis
moment, hisdelegation would liketheCouncil toappreciate itsconcern, since itrequired discussion,
andaresolution, wellbefore theexpiration ofthetransitional period allowed tosome Members under
Article 65oftheAgreement.
49. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatunder Article 24.2theTRIPS Council wascalled
upontokeepunder review theapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications
(Articles 22to24oftheAgreement) andemphasized thatthisreview wasscheduled tobeacontinuous
exercise thatassuchcould notbeconcluded bytheendoftheyear. TheTRIPS Council hadjustdecided
thatMembers would havetheopportunity inthecontext oftheArticle 24.2review topresent inputs
ontheissueofscope ofapplication ofgeographical indications. Herdelegation believed thatthiswas
anappropriate andeffective wayofcontributing totheimplementation oftheSection ongeographical
indications. Herdelegation, likeother delegations, hadalways considered thatitwasproper toextend
theadditional protection forwines andspirits toother sectors andhadalready expressed itsinterest
intheextension ofthisadditional protection to,forexample, foodstuffs, handicraft andindustrial
products. Inthisregard, herdelegation hadcarefully listened totheexplanations byMembers ofthe
protection theyoffered toproducts other thanwines andspirits. Thepresent review allowed her
delegation tonotethatsignificant differences andgapsexisted intheprotection offered bythevarious
regimes. Inthiscontext, herdelegation wished tosupport theproposals thathadjustbeenoutlinedIP/C/M/11
Page12
bytheEuropean Community. Furthermore, herdelegation wasconvinced thatitwould benecessary
towork towards improvements inthisarea. Attheappropriate time, herdelegation would submit
itsposition inwriting, inparticular regarding thescope ofapplication ofgeographical indications, on
theobjectives andonherdelegation 'sideas astopossible future action. Inconclusion, shesaidthat
herdelegation would playanactive roleinthepreliminary work tobecarried outin1997, which would
focus ontheestablishment ofamultilateral system ofnotification andregistration ofgeographical
indications forwines andspirits.
50. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthat,inaddressing theissueofthereview indicated
inArticle 24.2oftheTRIPS Agreement, hisdelegation attached importance toadifferentiation between
whatwasrequired bytheAgreement andwhatextra activities oneormore delegations would liketo
seeundertaken bytheTRIPS Council. Article 24.2clearly stated thatMembers weretoreview the
application oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications bytheendof1996. During
thereview ofnational implementing legislation thathadtaken placeatthepresent meeting, allMembers
hadhadtheopportunity toaskasmany primary andfollow-up questions astheydesired inthisarea
andhadlargely availed themselves ofthisopportunity. Although some ofthequestions hadbeenof
ageneral nature, many otherquestions hadbeenveryspecific, asking theMember inquestion toprovide
adetailed interpretation orrespond toadetailed comparison. Asaresult, delegations hadobtained
aconsiderable amount ofdetailed information onthesystems fortheprotection ofgeographical
indications intheMembers concerned andthereview hadbeenasthorough asanyMember could have
reasonably expected. Inhisdelegation 'sview, thismeant thatMembers hadfulfilled theirobligation
under Article 24.2oftheAgreement toreview theapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection on
geographical indications bytheendoftheyear. Healsostressed thatmany ofthequestions posed
onother Members 'legislation hadnotyetbeenanswered andthatitwasconsequently premature to
consider atthistimeanyfurther work. Precious resources should notbeusedtoembark onnew
initiatives untilMembers hadhadachance toabsorb andanalyse thehuge amount ofinformation
generated bythereview exercise. Inconclusion, hesaidthathisdelegation could notagree, atthis
time, totheadditional work suggested bytheEuropean Community thatwentbeyond therequirements
under theAgreement.
51. Therepresentatives ofChile, Canada, Argentina andBrazil supported theviews expressed
bytheUnited States.
52. Therepresentative ofTurkey referred tothephilosophy behind theprovisions ongeographical
indications intheAgreement andexpressed support fortheproposals fromtheEuropean Community,
inparticular concerning thedefinition ofgeographical indications, aswellasthose from India and
Switzerland concerning theextension oftheadditional protection forwines andspirits tootherproducts.
53. Therepresentative oftheCzech Republic saidthathisdelegation supported theproposals
advanced bytheEuropean Community. Referring totheCouncil 's1996report, inparticular theissues
andrecommendations related togeographical indications tobebrought totheattention oftheSingapore
Ministerial Conference andtheanticipated submission ofinputs bydelegations ontheissue ofscope,
hesaidthathisdelegation wasoftheview that,inorder toattain theobjectives oftheSection on
geographical indications, further efforts weredesirable toprovide adequate standards concerning the
availability, scope anduseofintellectual property rights inthisarea. Theprovisions ofthisSection,
inparticular Articles 23and24,provided room andopportunity fortaking action asmight beagreed
inorder tofacilitate theoperation oftheSection andtheattainment ofitsobjectives, including increasing
theprotection ofgeographical indications under Article 23anddealing withproblems arising from
thedifferent levels ofprotection under Articles 22and23.Thecomplexity oftheissues related to
geographical indications required early work aimed atfurther evolution inthisarea. Limitation of
thehigher levelofprotection under Article 23towines andspirits denied anumber ofproducts, and
countries producing these products, theprotection fortheirgeographical indications often urgentlyIP/C/M/11
Page13
needed inorder todealeffectively withimitations, counterfeits andothersuchusesoftheirgeographical
indications. Oneofthepossible approaches toresolve thisproblem could betoenlarge thescope of
Article 23byencompassing other products ofinterest toWTO Members. Hiscountry hadastrong
interest intheadditional protection ofgeographical indications forbeers. Hisdelegation sawthereview
under Article 24.2asacontinuing process requiring theCouncil topayconstant attention tomatters
affecting theoperation oftheSection ongeographical indications andthecompliance withitsobligations.
Thisprocess, which inhisdelegation 'sview corresponded totherecommendations andapproaches
outlined intheCouncil 'sreport totheSingapore Ministerial Conference, should notbeimpaired by
anyimpediments ortimeconstraints andshould proceed stepbystepaiming atsecuring amore absolute
protection alsoinrespect ofother products. Hiscountry intended toparticipate inthisprocess and
would offerappropriate inputs which would address theissueofscope andimprovement oftheprotection
ofgeographical indications under Section 3ofPartIIoftheTRIPS Agreement.
54. Therepresentative ofHungary saidthathisdelegation wasready tostartnegotiations asforeseen
inArticle 24.1oftheTRIPS Agreement. Under thenewlawsofhiscountry, additional protection
wasensured forallgeographical indications, notonlythose forwines andspirits assetforth in
Article 23.1. Therefore, inprinciple, hecould support theproposals made bytheEuropean Community
ascontained initsnon-paper. Hisdelegation favoured theestablishment ofamultilateral system of
registrationofgeographicalindicationsandwishedtodrawattentiontotheexistingmultilateralagreement
concluded under theauspices ofWIPO aswellastosubsequent efforts undertaken inWIPO aimed
atsetting upaninternational treaty inthisfield: these exercises hadgenerated specific knowledge
inWIPO thatmight facilitate thepreparation ofworkintheWTO. Furthermore, theAgreement between
WIPO andtheWTO provided forabasic framework fortheutilization ofthisspecific knowledge.
Therefore, hisdelegation suggested thatthepreparatory work forthesetting upofanewinternational
system should becarried outinassociation withWIPO. Asregards theproposed notification ofbilateral
agreements intheareaofgeographical indications, heexpressed hisdelegation 'sreadiness tonotify
itsbilateral agreements. Finally, hebelieved thatthepreparatory process would beserved bysetting
atimeframe forthese notifications.
55. Therepresentative ofMexico wassupportive oftheCommunity proposals totheextent that
theseprovided more detailed suggestions inrespect ofnotifications andintroduced order intothework.
Shecautioned, however, thattheCouncil should notmove toohastily andrecalled thatthework agreed
uponinthisareaasreflected inparagraph 34inconjunction withparagraph 27ofits1996report had
notevenstarted yet.Herdelegation hadaninterest inthisareaandwas,inprinciple, opentodiscuss
anyrelated issue, butfirstwished toseemore clearly theaimsofother Members.
56. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidthatherdelegation continued tostudy carefully the
material ithadreceived inSeptember anditwould alsostudy carefully anyfuture inputs. Herdelegation
considered itimportant torecall, attheoutset, thenature oftheexercise onwhich Members hadtaken
upwork today and,inthatregard, wished todraw particular attention tothespecific wording in
paragraph 34oftheCouncil 'sreport totheSingapore Ministerial, which stated thatMembers hadagreed
thatthereview oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications asprovided
forinArticle 24.2oftheTRIPS Agreement would taketheformoutlined inparagraph 27ofthatreport
which permitted inputs fromdelegations ontheissueofscope. Inherdelegation 'sview, itwasclear
thatthetaskbefore Members wasthereview oftheapplication ofexisting provisions oftheAgreement,
notanegotiation. Thiswasataskonwhich Members hadalready made substantial progress inthe
review ofnational implementing legislation atthepresent meeting. Alarge number ofquestions on
geographical indications hadbeenasked andanswers, insome instances verydetailed ones, hadbeen
given. These questions addressed arange ofdifferent matters including those raised inthenon-paper
presented bytheEuropean Community attheSeptember meeting andamassofinformation hadbeen
generated which Members stillneeded todigest, while several questions stillhadtobeanswered.
Moreover, inaccordance withthepractice thatMembers hadestablished inthisCouncil, eachMemberIP/C/M/11
Page14
would havetheopportunity toraise, atsubsequent meetings oftheCouncil, anypoint itwished by
wayoffollow-up tothereview ofnational implementing legislation. Thisprocess hadandwould
continue toenable adetailed consideration ofmatters pertinent totheArticle 24.2review, including
those covered inthenon-paper from theEuropean Community. Further consideration oftheideas
putforward bytheCommunity might benecessary, butitwastooearly totakeanydecision onany
ofthematters concerned.
57. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthattwodifferent issues were being addressed inthe
discussions which should bedealtwithseparately. ThefirstissuewastheArticle 24.2review, which
Members were currently undertaking, andwhich wasfarfrom being finalized, andthesecond issue
wasthepreliminary worktobeinitiated in1997onissues relevant tothenegotiations under Article 23.4.
Herdelegation fullysupported theviews expressed byNewZealand regarding, inparticular, thereport
oftheTRIPS Council totheSingapore Ministerial andalsowished toechothecomments made by
previous speakers regarding theoutstanding work oftheCouncil andthenature ofpriorities.
58. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitysaidthathefailedtoseewhatadditionalworkload
hisdelegation 'ssuggestions would bring fordelegations, given thattheideawastoinvite theSecretariat
todocertain initial work, onthebasis ofdatawhich werealready available orwhich would bemade
available asaconsequence ofthereview process.
59. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthathisdelegation needed more timetoanalyse andexamine
theimplications oftheCommunity proposals.
60. Concluding thediscussion, theChairman saidthattheCouncil already hadbefore itanumber
ofproposals andthatothers could beexpected ashadbeenforeshadowed, forexample, inthestatements
byIndia, Switzerland andtheCzech Republic. Atthesametime, aspointed outbyseveral delegations,
Members would alsoneedtimetodigest theinformation which hademerged fromthereview ofnational
implementing legislation relating togeographical indications. Inregard tothenature oftheCouncil 's
future work, there seemed tobeavariety ofdivergent views and,inthecircumstances, heproposed
thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements thathadbeenmade andagree togivefurther consideration
tohowtheissueofreviewing theapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications
under Article 24.2would behandled. Heproposed todothisthrough informal consultations inthe
firstinstance which, inview ofvarious commitments before theSingapore Ministerial, would take
place early nextyear. Thetiming ofthose consultations would alsoneedtotakeintoaccount the
timeframe inwhich delegations which hadpromised totableproposals wereabletomake themavailable.
61. TheCouncil agreed toproceed asproposed bytheChairman.
J. Other business
(i) Protocol ofAccession ofEcuador
62. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation hadbeensurprised when at
theCouncil 'sSeptember meeting Ecuador hadindicated thatitintended toavail itself ofthefull
transitional period fordeveloping country Members under Article 65oftheTRIPS Agreement. It
wastheclearunderstanding ofhiscountry 'sofficials whohadbeeninvolved intheaccession process
ofEcuador thatEcuador hadaccepted theobligation tocomply fullywiththeTRIPS Agreement, without
recourse tothetransitional provisions stipulated inArticle 65,by31July1996. Hisdelegation was
alsooftheunderstanding thattherepresentatives ofEcuador hadfullyunderstood thisobligation and
accepted it.Thisissuehadspecifically beenaddressed during theaccession negotiations andwasclearly
reflected inthedocuments concerning Ecuador 'saccession totheWTO. Thethirdparagraph ofPartIIP/C/M/11
Page15
oftheProtocol ofAccession ofEcuador indicated that,except asotherwise provided inparagraph 81
ofthereport oftheWorking Party ontheAccession ofEcuador, thetransitional provisions oftheTRIPS
Agreement andofanyWTO Agreements would apply toEcuador. Paragraph 78ofthereport ofthe
Working Party saidthat"[t]he representative ofEcuador confirmed thatthedateofapplication ofthe
provisions oftheAgreement onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights forEcuador
willbenolaterthan31July1996". Paragraph 81ofthereport incorporated byreference thisstatement
inparagraph 78.Consequently, itwasclearthatEcuador hadcommitted itselftofullyimplement the
TRIPSAgreementby31July1996.Heexpressedhisdelegation'sdeepconcernwithEcuador'sapparent
unwillingness tomeetthese obligations, which might setanunfortunate precedent.
63. Therepresentative ofEcuador wished topoint out,first,thatEcuador wasnottrying toshirk
itscommitments andobligations asregards theprotection ofintellectual property rights. Ecuador was
aMember ofWIPO andhadsound legislation toprotect intellectual property, having incorporated
thestandards ofthemain international conventions intoitslegislation. ItsCongress hadratified the
WTO Agreement, including theTRIPS Agreement. However, itmust berecognized thatbringing
certain aspects ofitsnational legalsystem intoconformity withtheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement
required time. Incarrying outthisprocess, Ecuador hadtherighttoinvoke thetransitional period
fordeveloping country Members under theTRIPS Agreement andwould welcome technical cooperation
duringthatperiod,fromanysource.Healsorecalledthat,duringtheprocessofaccession,hisdelegation
hadpointed outthatEcuador 'snational legislation fortheprotection ofintellectual property incorporated
thecommon standards oftheAndean Group, ofwhich subregional integration agreement Ecuador was
amember; these common standards provided adequate protection inrespect ofvarious categories of
intellectual property, including patents, industrial designs, utility models, trademarks, trade names
andgeographical indications. Consideration oftheprovisions ofthissetofcommon rules, ascontained
invarious instruments, inparticular Decision 344oftheCartagena Agreement, within theWTO would
besubject tothetransitional period ofArticle 65.2applicable toallmembers oftheAndean Group.
Thesecond aspect thathewished topointoutwasthathisdelegation could notaccept attempts toimpair
itscountry 'srights intheWTO. Thiswasamatter ofprinciple concerning thedefence ofacquired
rights ofdeveloping countries under theWTO Agreement. Lackofrespect fortheprinciple ofequity
andforthespecial anddifferential treatment reserved fordeveloping country Members might jeopardize
anddamage theimage thatother developing countries hadofthemultilateral system oftheWTO.
Longer periods oftransition, asreflected intheTRIPS Agreement, hadbeenagreed inorder toprovide
thecountries inquestion theopportunity tobring theirsystems intoconformity withtherequirements
under thatAgreement within themultilateral system oftheWTO. Itwasnotmerely amatter of
determining thedateasofwhich theprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement hadtobeapplied byEcuador.
What wasatstake herewasthewayinwhich stronger countries perceived theinterests ofdeveloping
countries intheWTO. Thelegal protection thattheWTO system provided wasnottheexclusive
prerogative ofthegreat powers. Ecuador 'sparticipation intheWTO wasjustified ifitcould besure
that,ifitsgovernment wished toexercise legitimately anyright contemplated inaninternational
instrument within theWTO system, forexample under Article 65.2oftheTRIPS Agreement, ithad
therighttodemand thisifnecessary. Turning totheinterpretation ofEcuador 'sProtocol ofAccession,
hewished tomake itclearthatthetextoftheProtocol, atleastinSpanish, didnotimply thatEcuador
wasnowinaposition ofhaving losttheright toinvoke thetransitional period provided forin
Article 65.2oftheTRIPS Agreement. Theposition ofEcuador wasnotcomparable tothatofother
countries thathadrecently acceded totheWTO. Unlike thecountries inquestion, Ecuador hadnot
accepted anunequivocal declaration initsProtocol ofAccession thatitwould notmake useofany
transitional period under theTRIPS Agreement.
64. Therepresentatives ofSwitzerland, Australia, NewZealand andtheEuropean Community
shared theconcerns expressed bytheUnited States inrespect oftheimportance ofstrictly abiding by
commitments inaccession protocols. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatparagraph 78ofthe
report oftheWorking Party ontheAccession ofEcuador, inFrench, provided thatEcuador wouldIP/C/M/11
Page16
apply theprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement on31July1996 atthelatest. Therepresentative of
Australia saidthatspecific derogations fromtransitional periods inaccession protocols tookprecedence
overtheprovisions inquestion oftheWTO Agreement andofitsannexes, suchasArticle 65ofthe
TRIPS Agreement.
65. Therepresentatives ofColombia, Venezuela andCuba supported Ecuador. Acareful reading
ofEcuador 'sProtocol ofAccession ledtotheconclusion thatEcuador hadnotgiven upitsrightto
invoke Article 65.2oftheTRIPS Agreement. Theobjective ofthetransitional arrangements inthat
Article wastoallow developing countries sufficient timetoadapt theirnational lawstotheprovisions
oftheTRIPS Agreement andinthiswaymake surethattheAgreement wasproperly applied. This
wasprecisely thesituation inwhich Ecuador found itself, inparticular since ithadcommon lawson
intellectual property withtheother Andean Group countries.
66. TherepresentativeofEcuadorreiteratedthattheprovisionsofArticle65.2constitutedEcuador's
rights, which could notbediminished bymeans ofasubsequent interpretation ofthescope ofthetext
andoftheconditions, which Ecuador hadnegotiated withWTO Members andagreed toinprecise
terms asreflected initsProtocol ofAccession. Theundertaking contained intheProtocol ofAccession
should bereadinconjunction withparagraph 2ofArticle 65oftheTRIPS Agreement.
67. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made andthatitshould
remain opentoanyMember torevert tothismatter atafuture meeting oftheCouncil.
68. TheCouncil soagreed.
(ii) Dates offuture meetings
69. TheChairman recalled that,attheCouncil 'smeeting of5November 1996, Members hadbeen
informed thattheSecretariat hadprovisionally reserved, intheWTO schedule ofmeetings for1997,
thedates of26February, 26-30 May, 15July, 30September and24-28 November formeetings of
theTRIPS Council in1997. TheMayandNovember meetings would focus onthereview ofnational
implementing legislation. Heproposed thattheCouncil agree topencil inthese dates, onthe
understandingthattheCouncilmightagreetoamendthemorconveneadditionalmeetingsasappropriate.
70. TheCouncil soagreed.