RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/4
6December 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-3980)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on21November 1995
Chairman: Mr.S.Harbinson (Hong Kong)
Subjects discussed:
A. Notification procedures:
(1) Notifications under Articles 1.3and3.1
(2) Notifications under Article 63.2concerning national lawsandregulations
(3) Notifications under Article 4(d)
(4) Other notification provisions under theTRIPS Agreement
B. Implementation ofArticle 70.8
C. Implementation ofArticle 65.5
D. Technical cooperation
E. Arrangements forcooperation withWIPO
F. Report totheGeneral Council
G. Other business
A. Notification procedures
(1) Notifications under Articles 1.3and3.1
1. TheChairman informed theCouncil that,sinceitsmeeting inSeptember, twomorenotifications
hadbeenreceived relating totheseArticles, namely fromKorea (IP/N/2/KOR/1) andIreland, ofwhich
thelatterhadnotyetbeencirculated (subsequently distributed asdocument IP/N/2/IRL/1). Inaddition,
theCouncil hadreceived fromPortugal acorrection toitsearlier notification (IP/N/2/PRT/1/Corr.1).
2. TheCouncil tooknoteofthisinformation.IP/C/M/4
Page2
(2) Notifications under Article 63.2concerning national lawsandregulations
(i) Procedures forgiving effect totheobligation tonotify implementing
legislation under Article 63.2
3. TheChairman saidthathehadcirculated indocuments IP/C/W/6/Rev.1 (basic procedures),
IP/C/W/7/Rev.1 (theschedule for1996/1997) andIP/C/W/8/Rev.1 (theformat forthelisting of"other
lawsandregulations") draft decisions which reflected theinformal consultations thathehadheld.
Withregard todocument IP/C/W/9 (thechecklist ofissues onenforcement), heproposed, onthebasis
offurther consultations heldonthismatter, thefollowing amendments:
- theinsertion inline2ofthechapeau, afterthewords "issues below", ofthewords
"assoon aspossible afterthetimethataMember isobliged tostartapplying the
provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement onenforcement";
- anewparagraph 2inthechapeau which would read: "Thechecklist willbereviewed
bytheCouncil, inthelightofexperience, attheendof1997, interaliatoidentify
anyelements which haveproved unduly burdensome inrelation totheusefulness of
theinformation provided";
- thesubstitution ofthelanguage inpoint 13bythatinpoint 8;
- thesubstitution ofthelanguage inpoint 17bythatinpoint 8together withthephrase
"How longisthevalidity ofdecisions bythecompetent authorities forthesuspension
oftherelease ofgoods intofreecirculation?";
- theamendment ofthesecond sentence ofpoint 22toread"Are theyrequired todo
thisontheirowninitiative and/or inresponse tocomplaints?"
Turning todocument IP/C/W/6/Rev.1, hebelieved thattheproposals thathehadmade ondocument
IP/C/W/9 hadresponded totheconcerns expressed inrelation toparagraph 12. Inregard to
paragraph 11,heopened thefloor forcomments.
4. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthatdeveloping countries stillhadtimetohaveasecond look
atthedecision indocument IP/C/W/6/Rev.1, given thetransitional periods applying tothem under
theAgreement andastheprevailing understanding wasthatthedecision inquestion would notbeset
instone andthattheCouncil would havetoconsider theentire system ofnotification procedures again
when, induecourse, obligations would startapplying fordeveloping countries, inthelightofexperience
gained. Therefore, shebelieved thatitwould beappropriate tostatealsointhisdecision thatthe
procedure inquestion wasopen forreview. Such areview might alsobewarranted inthelightof
anagreement thatmight bereached onacommon register. Sheproposed toinsert apreambular
paragraph inthedecision withsimilar language tothatproposed forthechecklist onenforcement.
Herdelegation wished toreserve itsposition onparagraph 11ofthedecision withregard totranslation
of"other lawsandregulations". Herdelegation fully agreed andconcurred withparagraph 10of
Section 3ofthedecision, requiring thatalisting ofthese lawsandregulations beprovided together
withabriefdescription oftherelevance ofeachlawandregulation totheprovisions oftheAgreement,
butbelieved thattheonusforanyfurther andadditional requests asdescribed inparagraph 11ofthe
decision should beontherequesting Members. Withregard toparagraph 12,shesaidthatherdelegation
wasnotgoing tostand inthewayofreaching aconsensus onthechecklist either, butreserved itsright,
inaccordance withtheunderstanding reached, asanintegral partofthedecision, toconsider that
checklist again when, induecourse, obligations would startapplying fordeveloping countries, not
onlyinthelightofthenotificationspresentedbydevelopedcountriesandtheexperiencegainedtherefromIP/C/M/4
Page3
butalsoonthebasis ofherdelegation 'sownevaluation andassessment oftheimportance ofsuch
achecklist anditseffectiveness, especially inviewofthefactthatherdelegation wasgoing tonotify
itsenforcement lawinitsentirety. Inconclusion, shereiterated thatherdelegation wasnotgoing to
stand inthewayofaconsensus, butwished tostress thatitwasentitled torenegotiate thischecklist,
attheappropriate time, soastoadapt ittotheneeds, requirements andcapacity ofdeveloping countries
tonotify while bearing inmind thenecessity oflightening theburdens concerned.
5. Therepresentative ofIndia expressed hisdelegation 'ssupport fortheEgyptian intervention.
6. TheChairman saidthattheCouncil seemed tohave reached aconsensus withregard to
paragraph 12ofdocument IP/C/W/6/Rev.1 andthechecklist ofissues onenforcement ascontained
indocument IP/C/W/9 withtheamendments which hehadreadout,while taking noteoftheviews
expressed byEgypt andIndia. AstotheEgyptian proposal regarding paragraph 11ofdocument
IP/C/W/6/Rev.1, hesuggested that,between theheading andSection 1ofthatdocument, asproposed
byEgypt, ageneral review clause beinserted along thelinesofthatintheamended document IP/C/W/9.
Ifthiswasagreeable totheCouncil, suchachapeau would read: "These procedures willbereviewed
bytheCouncil, inthelightofexperience, attheendof1997, interaliatoidentify anyelements which
have proved unduly burdensome inrelation totheusefulness oftheinformation provided." The
Chairman asked thedelegation ofEgypt whether, withsuchachapeau, itwould bewilling tojointhe
consensus ondocument IP/C/W/6/Rev.1.
7. TherepresentativeofEgyptsaidthatherdelegationdidnotstandagainstaconsensusbutbelieved
thatparagraph11necessitatedfurtherwork,especiallyfordevelopingcountriesasregardsthetranslations
required bythatparagraph.
8. TheChairman suggested thattheCouncil, subject tothechanges discussed andagreed, endorse
documents IP/C/W/6/Rev.1, IP/C/W/7/Rev.1, IP/C/W/8/Rev.1 andIP/C/W/9.
9. TheCouncil soagreed.1
(ii) Notifications oflegislation received under Article 63.2
10. TheChairman informed theCouncil that,sinceitsmeeting inSeptember, thelegislation notified
under Article 63.2bySlovenia hadbeendistributed indocuments IP/N/1/SVN/1 andAdd.1-3. A
notification hadbeenreceived from NewZealand, which wasbeing processed andwould bemade
available toMembers assoonaspossible.
(3) Notifications under Article 4(d)
11. TheChairman saidthathehadcontinued hisconsultations onthismatter since themeeting
oftheCouncil inSeptember. Inthelightofthese consultations, hedrew theattention ofMembers
totheneedtomake notifications under Article 4(d)by1January 1996 ifMembers wished tohave
legalcover fromthatdateforanyexceptions tom.f.n. treatment thattheysought tojustify byreference
totheprovisions ofArticle 4(d).
(4) Other notification provisions under theTRIPS Agreement
12. TheChairman recalled thatthissub-item inrespect ofnotification procedures concerned those
notification provisions ofintellectual property conventions incorporated intotheTRIPS Agreement
1These decisions were subsequently distributed asdocuments IP/C/2, 3,4and5.IP/C/M/4
Page4
butnotexplicitly referred toinit.AstheCouncil hadagreed atitsmeeting inSeptember, theSecretariat
hadprepared abackground note(IP/C/W/15), aimed atexplaining thenature ofthevarious notification
provisions inquestion. Annex 1tothisdocument contained alistofthose notifications already made
pursuant totherelevant provisions oftheBerne Convention andtheRome Convention andcurrently
effective, which theSecretariat hadcompiled withtheassistance ofWIPO andtheUnited Nations Legal
Office. TheAnnex showed thatthere were onlyveryfewcountries thathadavailed themselves of
these provisions under theBerne andRome Conventions. Infact,there werethree countries thathad
made notifications which werecurrently effective under therelevant provisions oftheBerne Convention:
onecountry under Article 14bis(2)(c) oftheBerne Convention, onecountry under Articles 14bis(3)
and15(4) oftheBerne Convention, andonecountry under Article IoftheAppendix totheBerne
Convention. Four countries hadnotified under Article 17oftheRome Convention. Healsodrew
attention toparagraph 15ofthedocument, inwhich itwaspointed outthattheCouncil hadalready
dealt withnotification procedures under certain provisions oftheBerne andRome Conventions
incorporatedintotheTRIPSAgreementbyreferencesimilartotheprovisionsdiscussedinthedocument,
when ithadtaken thedecision concerning notifications under Articles 1.3and3.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement. IftheCouncil wished tohandle questions relating tonotifications addressed inthedocument
inthesame way, Members wishing tomake suchnotifications under theTRIPS Agreement would
beinvited tomake them totheCouncil forTRIPS, eveniftheMember inquestion hadalready made
anotification under theBerne Convention ortheRome Convention inregard tothesame issue.
Paragraphs 16through 21ofthedocument contained asection which dealtwithcertain questions relating
tothetiming ofthese notifications. Since theSecretariat notehadonlyrecently beendistributed in
English, andFrench andSpanish textswerenotyetavailable, theChairman proposed thattheCouncil
revert tothismatter atitsfirstmeeting in1996.
13. TheCouncil soagreed.
B. Implementation ofArticle 70.8
14. TheChairmaninformedtheCouncilthat,sinceitsmeetinginSeptember,thenotificationreceived
fromCuba relating toArticle 70.8hadbeendistributed indocument IP/N/1/CUB/1. Altogether, the
Council hadreceived ninenotifications relating tothisArticle.
15. Therepresentative oftheUnited States, while appreciating thenotifications thathadalready
beenmade, pointed outthatalmost afullyearhadpassed since theprovisions inquestion hadcome
intoeffect butthattherewerestillafewcountries thathadnotmade therequired notification. Helooked
forward tothemoment when allnotifications would havebeenmade bythose countries thatdidnot
provide patent protection forpharmaceutical products oragricultural chemicals.
C. Implementation ofArticle 65.5
16. TheChairman recalled that,attheCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember, hehadtabled aproposal
onthismatter which hadbeenannexed totheminutes ofthatmeeting. Thatproposal hadbeenan
attempt tofindaslightweight aprocedure aspossible consistent withtheprovision ofuseful information.
Unfortunately, theconsultations hehadheldhadnotresulted inaconsensus onthismatter. Heproposed
thattheCouncil leave thematter asitstood, while noting thatitremained openfortheCouncil torevert
toitatanytimeiftheCouncil should sowish.
D. Technical cooperation
17. TheChairmansaidthatinformalconsultationshadbeenheldontheissueoftechnicalcooperation
andthatanumber ofinteresting ideas hadbeenputforward. Hesuggested thattheChairman, with
thehelpoftheSecretariat, prepare, forthefirstmeeting oftheCouncil in1996, ashort informalIP/C/M/4
Page5
discussion noteoutlining andstructuring theissues which hadbeenraised onthesubject oftechnical
cooperation andidentifying possible options forcarrying forward theCouncil 'swork inthisarea.
18. Therepresentative ofPeru, while agreeing withtheChairman 'ssuggestion, expressed his
delegation 'sinterest inanotewhich would cover allaspects ofArticle 67oftheAgreement andreferred,
inparticular, tothelastpartofthatprovision concerning thesetting upofdomestic offices andagencies
competent inthefieldofintellectual property, including thetraining ofpersonnel.
19. TheCouncil tooknoteofthisstatement andagreed toproceed assuggested bytheChairman.
E. Arrangements forcooperation withWIPO
20. TheChairman drew attention todocument IP/C/W/17, which contained thedraftagreement
oncooperation withWIPO thathehaddrawn upinconsultation withtherepresentative ofWIPO,
Ambassador Loizaga ofParaguay, Chairman oftheWIPO Coordination Committee. Both heand
Ambassador Loizaga hadbeenassisted bytherespective secretariats. Thetextcontained inthedocument
wastheresult ofintensive consultations which hadbeenconcluded on17November. Heunderlined
thecooperative andhelpful spirit inwhich theconsultations hadbeenundertaken. There hadbeen
anumber ofpoints where theinitial positions ofthetwoparties hadbeendifferent, butbothsideshad
made significant efforts tocompromise toclose thegapandtofindlanguage thatwould beacceptable.
Both sides hadtaken theview thattheagreement should belimited towhat wasnecessary forthe
purposes ofcooperation between thetwoOrganizations. OntheWTO side,thefactthatWIPO had
already gonefarinresponding tothesuggestions oftheTRIPS Council when itsGoverning Bodies
hadtaken adecision oncooperation withtheWTO inearly October (IP/C/W/14) hadbeentaken into
account.
21. Continuing, theChairman saidthateachOrganization would needtotakecertain autonomous
decisions inresponse totheagreement. TheInternational Bureau ofWIPO hadinformed himthat
itwouldproposetotheAssembliesoftheParisandBerneUnionsdecisionsrecognizingthatrequirements
under theParisandBerne Conventions tocommunicate national lawstotheInternational Bureau could
befulfilled bycommunication ofsuchlawsthrough theWTO Secretariat. Toaccompany Article 3
ofthedraftagreement, concerning theimplementation ofArticle 6teroftheParis Convention forthe
purposes oftheTRIPS Agreement, hepresented totheCouncil adraftdecision oftheCouncil forTRIPS
(subsequently distributed asdocument IP/C/W/18), which would recognize thatthecommunication
ofemblems andofobjections thereto among WTO Members, through theInternational Bureau, would
beconsidered ascommunications forthepurposes oftheTRIPS Agreement; thattheexisting stock
ofemblems communicated among WTO Members under theParisConvention would alsobeconsidered
communications under theTRIPS Agreement; andthattheperiod of12months forobjections would
startonthedateofapplication ofArticle 2oftheTRIPS Agreement fortheobjecting country where
either thecommunicating WTO Member ortheobjecting WTO Member wasnotaMember ofthe
Paris Convention. Inrelation toparagraph 3ofArticle 3ofthedraftagreement, which concerned
theprovisionofinformationtotheWTOSecretariataboutcommunicationsofemblems,theInternational
Bureau hadinformed himthatitwould propose totheParisUnion Assembly thatitabandon itspresent
practice bywhich ittreats asconfidential anyobjection lodged against anemblem.
22. Recognizing thatdelegations needed timetostudy thetextthathadonlyjustbeenputbefore
them, theChairman saidthatitwasnothisintention toseekendorsement ofitatthismeeting. The
Council would havetomeetagain before theendoftheyearforthepurpose ofendorsing theagreement
andalsotoadopt adecision regarding Article 6teroftheParis Convention. Since theproposed
agreement wasonebetween twoorganizations, hebelieved thatthetextshould alsobesubmitted to
theGeneral Council, atitsmeeting of13-14 December 1995, foritsapproval, before being signed.IP/C/M/4
Page6
23. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthat,onaninitial analysis, Australia already wished to
airsome difficulties thatithadwithArticle 5(2)(b) ofthedraft, which called foranamendment of
theagreement intheevent thatthere would beanewWTO Member which wasneither aMember
State oftheUnited Nations noraMember State ofWIPO. These difficulties werebothofageneral
nature, astheprovision ledtodifferent treatment ofacertain category ofWTO Members, andofa
more specific nature, astheprovision would affect anumber ofcountries inthePacific region, such
asTonga, which wascurrently intheprocess ofacceding totheWTO andwasneither aMember State
oftheUnited Nations norofWIPO.
24. Therepresentative ofNewZealand shared theconcern raised byAustralia, given thepossible
implications forcountries intheSouth Pacific region.
F. Report totheGeneral Council
25. TheChairman saidthattheGeneral Council, atitsmeeting of15November 1995, haddecided
thatthesectoral Councils should report inNovember eachyeartotheGeneral Council ontheiractivities.
Inorder tohelptorespond tothisrequirement, theSecretariat hadcirculated adraftreport (IP/C/W/16).
Heproposed thattheSecretariat berequested toupdate thatdocument inthelightofthediscussions
thathadtaken placetoday andrecirculate theupdated version immediately toMembers. Anycomments
Members might havecould besubmitted untiltheendofNovember totheSecretariat, afterwhich
thedocument would beredrafted, asappropriate, andsubmitted directly totheGeneral Council, unless
comments were controversial innature. Ofcourse, there would alsobeanopportunity tocomment
onthereport atthemeeting oftheGeneral Council of13-14 December.
26. TheCouncil soagreed.
G. Other business
(i) Next meeting
27. TheCouncil agreed toholditsnextmeeting on11December 1995, toconsider thedraft
agreement between theWorld Intellectual Property Organization andtheWorld Trade Organization
andthedraftdecision relating toArticle 6teroftheParis Convention.
(ii) Future meetings
28. TheChairman saidthatprocedures hadrecently beendevised which called upon eachWTO
body toestablish acalendar forits1996 meetings bytheendofNovember thisyear. Hesuggested
thefollowing dates: 22-23 February, 9-10May, 22-26 July, 18September and4-8November. At
themeetings inJulyandNovember theCouncil would takeuptheimplementing legislation ofdeveloped
countries. Inevitably, these dates would havetobetentative andsubject tomodification inthelight
ofevents. Theyalsocould notexclude therightofcountries toseekspecial meetings inorder toconsider
specific issues.
29. TherepresentativeofEgyptexpressedherdelegation'sinterestinhavingameetingoftheCouncil
devoted totheissue oftechnical cooperation. Shesuggested thattheone-day meeting proposed for
September nextyearbechosen forthatpurpose, subject tothediscussions thatwould takeplace on
theissue onthebasis ofthepaper tobeprepared bytheSecretariat fortheCouncil 'sfirstmeeting
nextyear.
30. TheCouncil tooknoteofthisstatement andagreed totheschedule ofmeetings assuggested.