RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/2
5July1995
ORGANIZATION(95-1851)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on24May1995
Chairman: Mr.S.Harbinson (Hong Kong)
Subjects discussed:
A. Rules ofprocedure oftheCouncil forTRIPS
B. Notification Procedures:
(1) Notifications under Articles 1.3and3.1
(2) Notifications under Article 63.2concerning national lawsandregulations
(3) Article 69:Notification ofcontact points
(4) Notifications under Article 4(d)
(5) Notifications related toArticle 6teroftheParis Convention
C. Implementation ofArticle 70.8
D. Implementation ofArticle 65.5
E. Technical cooperation
F. Assistance oftheCouncil inthecontext ofdispute settlement
G. Arrangements forcooperation withWIPO
H. Draft model legislation oftheWorld Customs Organization
I. Other business
1. Pursuanttotheinterimprocedureonobserverstatusforintergovernmentalorganizationsevolved
under theauspices oftheGeneral Council, theCouncil invited theIMF, theWorld Bank, theFAO,
theOECD, UNCTAD andtheUnited Nations toberepresented asobservers atthepresent andnext
meetings oftheCouncil. TheCouncil alsonoted thatWIPO hadbeeninvited tothemeeting, in
accordance withtherecommendation oftheContact Group under thePreparatory Committee, as
confirmed bytheGeneral Council, and,astheCouncil hadagreed atitsprevious meeting, theWorld
Customs Organization hadalsobeeninvited, given itswork onmodel legislation aimed atassisting
countries togiveeffect totheirTRIPS border enforcement obligations.IP/C/M/2
Page2
A. Rules ofProcedure oftheCouncil forTRIPS
2. TheChairmaninformedtheCounciloftheresultsoftheinformalconsultationswhichtheCouncil
hadagreed heshould holdonthismatter. Indocument IP/C/W/2, hehadmade suggestions forthe
rules ofprocedure oftheCouncil forTRIPS. These were thattheCouncil should adopt, subject to
confirmation bytheGeneral Council, rulesofprocedure which followed those fortheGeneral Council
itself, withthesame modifications ashadbeenagreed fortheCouncil forGoods, plusoneother point:
Rule5,which would require asecond circulation oftheproposed agenda oneortwodaysbefore the
meeting, could bedropped, asbeing abureaucratic burden which added littlethatwasofvalue to
delegations. Since theproposed Rules ofProcedure fortheCouncil forTRIPS hadbeencirculated
asdocument IP/C/W/2, thequestion hadarisen whether Rule33wasconsistent withArticle 71.2of
theTRIPS Agreement. ThisArticle provided that,under thespecial circumstances setoutinthat
provision, aproposal foramendment oftheTRIPS Agreement could onlybereferred forfurther action
onthebasis ofconsensus intheCouncil forTRIPS. Thepoint hadbeenmade thatRule33might,
however, appear toallow forfurther action alsoifnoconsensus onsuchaproposal could bearrived
atintheCouncil forTRIPS. During thecourse oftheconsultations, ithadbeenthought desirable
toobtain alegalopinion onthismatter fromthelegalservices oftheSecretariat. Asaresult, theLegal
Affairs Division oftheWTO Secretariat hadprovided thefollowing opinion:
"According toArticle IV:1and2oftheWTO Agreement theGeneral Council has
theauthority totakedecisions onallmatters under anyoftheMultilateral Trade
Agreements, ifsorequested byaMember. TheGeneral Council mayexercise this
authority notonlyattherequest ofanindividual Member butalsoatthejointrequest
ofMembers expressed inadecision ofoneoftheCouncils overseeing thefunctioning
oftheMultilateral Trade Agreements. Article IV:1, second sentence oftheWTO
Agreement makes clearthattheGeneral Council, when responding tosucharequest,
must act"inaccordance withthespecific requirements fordecision-making inthis
Agreement andintherelevant Multilateral Trade Agreement". Themere factthat
amatter isreferred bytheCouncil forTRIPS totheGeneral Council fordecision thus
doesnotchange theapplicable decision making requirements. Thismeans thatthe
General Council, ifamatter weretobereferred toitinaccordance withRule33of
theproposed Rules ofProcedure forMeetings oftheCouncil forTRIPS, would have
totakeitsdecision inaccordance withthespecific requirements fordecision-making
thattheTRIPS Agreement imposes inrespect ofthatmatter."
Further consultations onthismatter hadindicated thatthere might nonetheless besome outstanding
issues. Inlightofthesituation, hesuggested thattheCouncil adopt therulesofprocedure ascontained
indocument IP/C/W/2, subject totheconclusion ofamutually agreeable solution totheparticular
issue concerning Rule33anditsrelationship toArticle 71.2andsubject ofcourse totheapproval of
theGeneral Council. Since ithadseemed from hisconsultations thatthisparticular problem had
implicationswhichwentbeyondthescopeoftheTRIPSAgreementassuch,hesuggestedthattheCouncil
mandatehimtodrawthemattertotheattentionofAmbassadorKesavapany,theChairmanoftheGeneral
Council, andtodiscuss withhimthemost appropriate wayofsolving theissue.
3. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthat,while understanding thesubstance ofthelegalopinion,
itslogic andreasoning were notveryclear tohim. Hisdelegation 'spreference would betoadda
footnote toRule33which would make itclearthatthistypeofrulecould notinanymanner undermine
therequirement ofaprovision inanyagreement under theWTO thatadecision could onlybetaken
byconsensus. There were provisions intheWTO Agreement relating tothepowers oftheGeneral
Council.AsfarasthesubordinateCouncilswereconcerned,whenanAgreementprovidedforadecision
byconsensus, suchaprovision hadtoberespected andconfusion should notbecreated byaprocedure
which would imply thatamatter could bereferred toanother body evenifthere wasnoconsensus.
Thesecond point hewished tomake wasthattheappropriate course would notbetoadopt theRulesIP/C/M/2
Page3
ofProcedure intheircurrent draftandholdconsultations thereafter. Heproposed thattheRules of
Procedure beadopted withtheexception ofRule33.Rule33could betaken upatsome laterstage
anddelegations should begiven timeforreflection andbilateral consultations onthematter.
4. Therepresentative ofKorea expressed hisdelegation 'ssupport forthesuggestion byIndia to
adopt theRules ofProcedure withtheexception ofRule33.According toArticle 71.2, unless there
wasaproposal made onthebasis ofconsensus intheCouncil forTRIPS, there wasnoproposal to
bereferred totheGeneral Council forfurther discussions. Hebelieved thatthelegalopinion wasunclear
andthattheissue should bediscussed insubsequent informal consultations.
5. TheChairman suggested thattheCouncil takenoteoftheviews expressed andadopt theRules
ofProcedure withtheexception ofRule33subject, ofcourse, totheapproval oftheGeneral Council.
Hefurther suggested thathetakeupthematter ofRule33withAmbassador Kesavapany, theChairman
oftheGeneral Council, todiscuss withhimthemost appropriate wayofaddressing theissue. He
would report totheCouncil anyprogress onfurther deliberations onthisissue induecourse.
6. TheCouncil soagreed.
B. Notification Procedures
(1) Notifications under Articles 1.3and3.1
7. TheChairman recalled thatArticles 1.3and3.1oftheTRIPS Agreement allowed Members
tolimitthebeneficiaries ofTRIPS treatment andthescope ofnational treatment inways permitted
under certain provisions oftheBerne Convention ortheRome Convention. TheCouncil hadatits
meeting of9March 1995agreed thatheshould holdinformal consultations onthismatter. Document
IP/C/W/3, which theSecretariat, asagreed attheCouncil 'smeeting of9March 1995, haddrawn up
withtheassistance ofWIPO andtheUnited Nations Legal Office, contained acomplete listing ofthe
notifications already made under thecorresponding provisions oftheBerne Convention andtheRome
Convention themselves. Inresponse torequests fromdelegations, theSecretariat hadalsocirculated
indocument IP/C/W/5 abackground noteaimed atexplaining thenature oftheoptions available to
allWTO Members under theprovisions ofArticles 1.3and3.1andofthenotifications required if
aMember would wishtoavailitself ofanysuchoption. Inaddition, theSecretariat hadissued an
airgram, WTO/AIR/70, reminding alldelegations oftheimportance ofconsidering whether theywished
tomake notifications under theprovisions inquestion by1July1995.
8. Therepresentative ofPoland referred tothelastsentence ofparagraph 5ofdocument IP/C/W/5,
according towhich aMember thatdidnotmake anynotification hadtoprotect eachphonogram producer
which metanyoneofthethree criteria inArticle 5(3)oftheRome Convention asincorporated into
theTRIPS Agreement. Hewasnotconvinced whether thissentence related alsotodeveloping countries
andcountries intransition since, under Article 65oftheTRIPS Agreement, theywereentitled todelay
theapplication ofthewhole Agreement, except forthree Articles, forafurther fouryears counted
from1January 1996, which wasthegeneral dateofapplication according toparagraph 1ofArticle 65.
Countries inthese categories, therefore, inhisview hadnoobligation tomake thenotifications in
question by1January 1996. While recognizing theusefulness ofArticle 1which defined which persons
wereeligible forprotection under Article 3,inhisview, these countries werefreenottonotify until
thetransitional period ofafurther fouryears hadexpired. Healsohaddoubts about thereference
to"WTO Members" inthedocument. While theTRIPS Agreement normally referred to"Members",
thisnotion seemed tohavebeenextended inthedocument to"WTO Members". Aquestion hehad
inrelation tothiswas,given theadditional transitional period inArticle 65applicable todeveloping
countries andcountries intransition, what wasthelegal status forthose countries which availedIP/C/M/2
Page4
themselves ofanadditional transitional period under Article 65,notably whether theywereMembers
oftheAgreement orsome kindofobservers untilthetimeoffullapplication oftheAgreement tothem.
9. Therepresentative oftheSecretariat saidthatthedocument attempted tosetoutwhat were
theconsequences ofmaking notifications ornotinrespect oftheobligations inquestion. Inthepart
ofthedocument referred tobytherepresentative ofPoland, thequestion ofwhen theobligations entered
intoforce wasnotaddressed; theaspect oftiming hadbeen dealt withinanother section ofthe
document. Ofcourse, forsome Members oftheWTO theobligations inrespect of,e.g.,copyright
andrelated rights would enter intoforce generally speaking afterfiveyears. Nevertheless, assetout
inparagraphs 17through 20ofthedocument onthetiming ofnotifications, itmight beuseful forall
Members oftheWTO toconsider whether theywished tomake anynotifications by1July1995.
Thepoint thatwasmade there wasthatthenotifications inquestion would berelevant tothescope
oftheobligations onnational treatment andm.f.n. treatment under theAgreement, which entered into
force forallMembers oftheWTO asof1January 1996. After thatdate,eachproducer ofphonograms
thatmetanyoneoftherelevant criteria would havetobenefit from national treatment andm.f.n.
treatment, butthesubstantive standards ofprotection would onlyhavetobemetbysome Members
oftheWTO attheendofatransitional period offiveyears towhich theywere entitled.
10. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland reserved therighttocome backtotheissueafterhisdelegation
hadanalysed theissue bearing inmind theprovisions ofArticle 65,inparticular thereferences to
Articles 3,4and5inparagraphs 2and3thereof.
11. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made anddrawtheattention
ofMembers tothedesirability ofconsidering whether theywished tomake notifications under the
provisions ofArticles 1.3and3.1by1July1995, while recognizing thatitwould remain open for
Members tomake notifications atalaterstage iftheysowished.
12. TheCouncil soagreed.
(2) Notifications under Article 63.2concerning national lawsandregulations
(i) Procedures forgiving effect totheobligation tonotify implementing
legislation under Article 63.2
13. TheChairmanrecalledthat,atitsmeetingof9March1995,theCouncilforTRIPShadrequested
theSecretariat tomake acompilation ofhowsimilar requirements regarding thenotification of
implementing legislation were being handled under other agreements intheWTO system andthat
informal consultations should beheldonthematter oftheimplementation ofArticle 63.2priortotoday's
meeting oftheCouncil. Thenoteprepared bytheSecretariat hadbeencirculated indocument IP/C/W/4.
TheChairman saidthat,asaresult oftheinformal consultations, hehadcirculated aninformal paper
dated 24May1995(subsequently distributed asdocument IP/C/W/6) which wasdescribed asaworking
hypothesisforproceduresfornotificationof,andpossibleestablishmentofacommonregisterof,national
lawsandregulations under Article 63.2. Theterm"working hypothesis" hadbeenusedinorder to
reflect asaccurately aspossible thestatus thathebelieved, asaresult ofhisinformal consultations,
Members would beprepared togivethetextatthisstage, inparticular inthecontext ofconsultations
withWIPO. Hehadsensed that,whereas most Members were happy withthebasic approach and
many ofitsdetails, theywould notwanttobe,atthisstage, onrecord asbeing wedded toitinevery
respect. Moreover, there hadalsobeenaviewthatitwould beinappropriate toinitiate consultations
withWIPO onthebasis ofatextwhich represented afinalviewoftheWTO. Hebelieved thatthis
wassensible notonlyfrom thepoint ofview ofrelations withWIPO, butalsobecause additional
information andinsights might beobtained inthecourse oftheconsultations which would leadto
improvements totheproposed procedures. Healsobelieved thatitwasimportant toinitiate discussions
withWIPO without toomuch delay andthatthetextrepresented thebestbasis fordoing so.IP/C/M/2
Page5
14. Continuing, theChairman saidthatonepoint thathadarisen inhisconsultations waswhether
theCouncil forTRIPS should waive theobligation fornotifications tobemade directly totheCouncil,
ifconsultations onacommon register were successful, which possibility wasanoption available to
theCouncil under Article 63.2. Hisconsultations onthismatter hadindicated thattheviewofmost
delegations wasthattheywould not,atleastatthisstage, envisage using thisoption. There appeared
tobetwomain reasons forthis. First, thepoint hadbeenmade thatnotifications ofimplementing
legislation under GATT/WTO practice constituted more thanthemerecommunication ofinformation
totheSecretariat; infact,theyconstituted astatement byeachMember totheother Members, through
theCouncil, thatthiswasthewayinwhich theMember wasgiving effect toitsobligations under the
agreement inquestion. Thesecond reason wasthatthenotification requirements under theTRIPS
Agreement werebroader thanthose under theconventions intheWIPO context. Whereas acountry
which metitsTRIPS notification obligations would alsohavecommunicated theinformation necessary
tomeetitsWIPO obligations, thereverse would notbetrue. TheChairman saidthatconcerns had
been expressed intheinformal consultations about thetranslation burdens thatmight beputon
governments whose national language wasnotanofficial language oftheWTO, especially attheoutset
when alarge volume oflegislation might havetobenotified atthesame time, forexample afterthe
beginning ofnextyearwhen thebulkofobligations would come intoforce fordeveloped countries.
Thelastsentence ofparagraph 11andthepenultimate sentence ofparagraph 14wereintended tohelp
respond tothisconcern. Inhisconsultations, hehadalsodetected afairly general viewthatitwould
besensible, from thepoint ofviewbothofhelping delegations copewithtranslation burdens andof
helping theCouncil toorganize itswork mosteffectively, todraw upaschedule fortheexamination
ofthenational implementing legislation ofdeveloped countries in1996, andthatthismight mostsensibly
bestructured onasubject-by-subject basis following essentially themain headings ofParts IIandIII
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Ifthistypeofapproach would beacceptable, hewaswilling tosubmit at
thenextmeeting aproposed draftschedule. Turning tothesuggestion inparagraph 10according to
which eachMember might provide alisting ofits"other lawsandregulations" together withabrief
description oftherelevance ofeachlawandregulation totheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement,
hesaidthatafairly simple two-column typeofpresentation, withthetitleofthelaworregulation in
question inonecolumn andabriefdescription ofthesubject ofthelaworregulation andofitsrelevance
totheTRIPS Agreement intheother column, might beenvisaged. Hesuggested thattheSecretariat
might beasked toproduce aformat forthispurpose. There wasalsoasuggestion inparagraph 11
thatachecklist ofissues indicating hownational legislation responded totheenforcement requirements
oftheTRIPS Agreement might beprepared. IftheCouncil would agree, theSecretariat might be
asked toprepare afirstdraftofwhatsuchachecklist might looklike.
15. Therepresentative ofJapan expressed hisappreciation ofthework undertaken toprepare the
"working hypothesis" which attempted tominimize theburden onMembers intranslating theirlaws
andregulations. Inhisview, thepaper represented agoodbasisforfurther discussions, bothincapitals
andintheCouncil. Asfarasthemainlawsandregulations wereconcerned, hehoped thathisdelegation
would beabletonotify them intherelevant WTO language, although suchnotifications should not
beconsidered asauthentic texts. Hewished tostress, however, afewpoints thatwereimportant to
hisdelegation. Atthisstage, hisdelegation wasstillthinking along thelines ofconsidering the
preparation ofacomprehensive listwhich would include thetitlesofallnational lawsandregulations
andofaformat ofcross references tothespecific provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement. EachMember
should notify suchalisttotheCouncil forTRIPS forcirculation toother Members. Atthesametime,
eachMember should alsonotify thelawsandregulations concerned initsnational language. Onthe
basis ofthecross references, Members could berequested totranslate anyrelevant partofanational
lawatanytime. Hebelieved thatsuchaprocedure would balance theneedtominimize burdens and
tomonitor theoperation oftheAgreement.
16. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland agreed thatthedocument formed agood basis forfurther
work. Asfarasthecommon register andtheobligation tonotify directly totheCouncil forTRIPS
wereconcerned, hereferred tohisintervention attheprevious meeting oftheCouncil. HisdelegationIP/C/M/2
Page6
favoured apragmatic andflexible approach inorder tosimplify theprocedure asmuch aspossible.
While heappreciated theconcerns expressed withregard totranslations, itshould beclear that
notification inoneoftheWTO languages should berequired inrespect ofamendments oflaws
implementing provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement aswellasinrespect ofmain lawsonintellectual
property. Only inother cases should textsbetranslated onrequest. Theproposals inparagraph 10
oftheworking hypothesis concerning listings anddescriptions oflawsandregulations needed some
further study.
17. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines, speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, expressed
hisappreciation fortheinitiative thattheChairman hadtaken todevelop anotification system that
would minimize theenormous burden onMembers andtheCouncil. Hesupported thebasic approach
intheworking hypothesis andbelieved ittobethebestpossible. AstheASEAN countries were
members ofboththeWTO andWIPO, itwasimportant intheirviewtofullyexplore theideaofa
common register inorder toavoid onerous andneedless duplication ofefforts intheareaofnotifications.
There appeared tobenoclearandsingle notion ofwhatacommon register would be.Consultations
inthisregard should continue and,atanappropriate stage, perhaps anoptions paper could bedrawn
upfortheCouncil toconsider anddecide upon. Withregard tolanguages, heexpressed hisfullsupport
forasystem according towhich eachMember should notify lawsandregulations inanational language
andprovide alisting ofthese lawsandregulations together withabriefdescription oftherelevance
ofeachlawandregulation totheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement.
18. Therepresentative ofUruguay thanked theChairman forsubmitting theworking hypothesis.
While hisdelegation needed some timetoanalyse itandwished torevert toitatalaterstage, hisfirst
impression wasthattheapproach taken wascorrect. Hehadnoobjection toitbeing usedasaworking
hypothesis andasabasis forcontacts withtheInternational Bureau ofWIPO orbetween thetwo
Secretariats. Thepossibility ofacommon register orsome similar mechanism forcooperation inthe
areaofnotifications between thetwoOrganizations should belooked intorapidly. Heemphasized
thatitwasnecessary toavoid duplication andnottooverburden Members. Heexpressed hisdelegation 's
support foraschedule fordealing withthenotifications, taking intoaccount thedifficulties ofthose
Members whose national language wasnotoneoftheWTO languages andthelarge volume of
notifications duenextyear. Healsodrew attention totheburden fortheSecretariat inthiscontext
andtheimmediate budgetary implications thatthismight havewhich, inhisdelegation 'sview, were
anadditional reason tospeed upthework andcontacts withtheWIPO withaviewtoseeking acommon
mechanism fornotifications. Thiswould bebeneficial notonlyfortheMembers oftheWTO butalso
fortheoperation oftheSecretariat andtheCouncil. There should alsobeanoption touselawsincluded
intheWIPO collections incomplying withthenotification requirements.
19. TherepresentativeofKoreaexpressedhisdelegation'ssympathyforthepositionofthedelegation
ofJapan.
20. Therepresentative ofParaguay wasgrateful forthesubmission oftheworking hypothesis.
However, hisdelegation needed more timetoanalyse it.Itshould alsobeconsidered inthecontext
ofarrangements forcooperation withWIPO. Astheissue ofnotifications wasbecoming aserious
andcritical problem within theWTO, heinsisted onattempting torationalize notifications inthisarea
asfaraspossible, inwhich context acommon register seemed tobeessential. Theworking hypothesis
andotherdocumentation prepared bytheSecretariat would beveryuseful tomove forward inthesearch
forarational andpractical system fornotifications oflawsandregulations.
21. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities supported thesuggestions made bythe
Chairman. However, hewished toflagonesubstantive issue. Assuggested inparagraph 2.2ofthe
paper, anysubsequent amendments ofaMember 'slawsandregulations should benotified without
delay aftertheirpromulgation, while inparagraph 2.1thegeneral principle hadbeenreflected that
theobligation tonotify would onlystartwhen thecorresponding substantive obligation kicked in.ThisIP/C/M/2
Page7
meant thatforthose countries which would availthemselves oftheadditional transitional period of
fouryears therewould onlybeanotification obligation aftertheexpiration ofthatperiod. Paragraph 2.2
could therefore imply, asitwasdrafted, thatfuture changes inlegislation inthose countries would
onlyhavetobenotified afterthelapseofthisadditional period offouryears, withtheobvious exception
ofnotifications relating toobligations onnational andm.f.n. treatment which would enter intoeffect
on1January 1996. Hedidnotconsider thatsatisfactory, sincetherewasanobligation thathadalready
entered intoforce, Article 65.5, which laiddown thegeneral rulethatchanges inlegislation should
notresult inalesser degree ofconsistency withtheprovisions oftheAgreement. Common sense should
leadtotheconclusion thatthisimplied thatanychanges inlegislation after1January 1995 byany
Member oftheWTO should benotified. Otherwise itwould beverydifficult forother Members to
examine whether others hadacted inconformity withtheirobligations under Article 65.5.
22. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatthepaper contained agood approach for
proceeding ontheissue. Oneshould keep inmind theprimary objective, which wastohave a
notification system thatwould worksothatMembers could ensure thatallMembers wereimplementing
theAgreement astheywereobligated todo.There wasanumber ofsubsidiary issues thatrelated to
minimizing theburden oncountries interms ofmeeting thisobligation. While heagreed thatwork
hadtobedoneonthese issues, noneofthem should supersede theprimary objective. Therefore, if
things suchaschecklists wereturned to,itshould beensured thatthese listsweresufficient tomeet
theprimary objective.
23. TheChairman noted thatthere wasgeneral support fortheoverall approach oftheworking
hypothesis, while recognizing thatcertain issues needed further exploration andthatsome delegations
wanted more timetostudy thepaper. Hesuggested thattheCouncil continue towork onthepaper
anduseitasabasisforconsultations withWIPO. Healsoreiterated hissuggestions forcarrying forward
thework inother respects inthisareaandthattheSecretariat beasked toprepare adraftschedule
forconsideration ofnational legislation in1996 onasubject-by-subject basis, aformat forthelisting
of"other lawsandregulations", andafirstdraftofachecklist onenforcement.
24. TheCouncil soagreed.
(ii) Notifications oflegislation already received under Article 63.2
25. TheChairman recalled thatithadbeenagreed thatnational lawsandregulations should be
notified asofthetimethatthecorresponding substantive obligation started applying under theprovisions
oftheAgreement. However, attheprevious meeting oftheCouncil, ithadalsobeenagreed that,
where acountry amended itslegislation tobring itslawsandregulations intoconformity withtheTRIPS
Agreement inadvance ofitsobligation todoso,suchlegislation should besubmitted totheCouncil
forTRIPS inadvance ofthedateofapplication ofthecorresponding provisions oftheAgreement on
abest-endeavours basis. Inpursuance ofthis,theCouncil hadreceived indocument IP/N/1/EEC/1
anotification fromtheEuropean Communities ofamendments topre-existing Community legislation
aimed atgiving effect toTRIPS obligations. Henoted that,while theCommunity hadonlynotified
theamendments atthisstage, ithadindicated thatitwould notify thecomplete textsofthelegislation
inquestion induecourse, inaccordance withtheprocedures tobeadopted bytheCouncil forTRIPS
forgiving effect toArticle 63.2oftheTRIPS Agreement. TheSecretariat hadalsoreceived notifications
fromAustralia ofitscopyright legislation, which werebeing processed andwould bemade available
toMembers shortly.
26. TheCouncil tooknoteofthisinformation.IP/C/M/2
Page8
(3) Article 69:Notifications ofcontact points
27. TheChairman recalled thatArticle 69required Members toestablish andnotify contact points
intheiradministrations forthepurposes ofcooperation witheachother aimed attheelimination of
internationaltradeininfringinggoods.Thesecontactpointswereessentiallyavehicleforthecooperation
incombating trade ininfringing goods thatArticle 69called for.Therefore, thestarting-point could
betodiscuss whattypeofcooperation Members wished tosee.Hesuggested that,inthediscussion,
delegations might make adistinction between twoelements: first, theexchange ofinformation and
cooperation between customs authorities withregard totrade incounterfeit andpirated goods, which
washighlighted inthelastsentence ofArticle 69,and,second, theother aspects ofcooperation aimed
ateliminating international trade ininfringing goods thatMembers feltshould betaken up.
28. Therepresentative oftheWorld Customs Organization (WCO) saidthattheWCO hadhad
foranumberofyearsaninternationalenforcementdatabaseonallenforcementissuesrelatingtocustoms.
Within thatcontext, theWCO hadrecently builtaseparate database forintellectual property rights
infringements which contained information thattheWCO hadobtained bothfrommembers andfrom
thetrade about violations, non-violations, patterns ofoperation, trafficking patterns andviolators.
Inaddition, aspartofthisdatabase, theWCO hadalistofcontact points thatcustoms administrations
hadprovided ofpersons responsible within theiradministrations fortheenforcement ofintellectual
property rights. Thislistincluded alistofpeople inthetradewhocould provide information, ifneeded
bycustoms, about thespecifics ofproducts. Thisdatabase wasinthecourse ofbeing builtup.There
wasseparately acontact point listforallinformation onenforcement matters withcustoms. The
experience oftheWCO wasthatcustoms contacted eachother andcooperated onthese matters and
thattheycommunicated toeachother thedifficulties theyhadhadinthiscontext andwhich their
counterparts might come across aswell.
29. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteoftheinformation provided bythe
representative oftheWCO andrevert tothematter atthenextmeeting andthatinthemeantime he
would holdinformal consultations onhowtheprovisions ofArticle 69might beimplemented.
30. TheCouncil soagreed.
(4) Notifications under Article 4(d)
31. TheChairman recalled thatArticle 4(d)allowed aMember tojustify notextending anadvantage
accorded tothenationals ofacountry tothenationals ofallother Members, asnormally required by
them.f.n. clause, where thatadvantage derived fromaninternational agreement related totheprotection
ofintellectual property which entered intoforce prior totheentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement.
Theconditions forinvoking thism.f.n. exemption were thattheagreement inquestion wasnotified
totheCouncil forTRIPS anddidnotconstitute anarbitrary orunjustifiable discrimination against
nationals ofother Members. Inhisconsultations hehadobtained some feedback astothenature of
notifications thatmight beenvisaged andastotheirtiming, butfurther discussion wasclearly necessary.
Heproposed topursue hisinformal consultations onthematter andreport totheCouncil induecourse.
32. TheCouncil soagreed.
(5) Notifications related toArticle 6teroftheParis Convention
33. TheChairman recalled thatArticle 63.2required theCouncil forTRIPS toconsider, in
connection withtheconsultations withWIPO onthenotification ofnational lawsandregulations, any
action required regarding notifications pursuant toobligations under theTRIPS Agreement stemming
fromtheprovisions ofArticle 6teroftheParisConvention. Article 6terconcerned protection against
theuseorregistration astrademarks without authorization ofstateemblems, official hallmarks andIP/C/M/2
Page9
theemblems ofintergovernmental organizations. Inthisregard, hedrew attention tothediscussion
ofthismatter contained inparagraphs 18-21 ofdocument PC/IPL/7/Add.2. Assuggested inthat
document, there would appear tobemuch sense inexploring thepossibility ofrequesting WIPO to
handle these notification functions under thesystem thatithadalready established fordealing with
suchnotifications under theParis Convention. Given thatallthesubstantive provisions oftheParis
Convention initslatest version hadtobecomplied withbyWTO Members, itcould beexpected that
thelarge majority ofMembers would inanyevent bemembers oftheParis Convention andtherefore
making notifications totheInternational Bureau. Asingle comprehensive system fortheadministration
ofnotifications relating totheprovisions ofArticle 6terwould notonlyavoid wasteful duplication
butalsofacilitate thelifeofgovernments andbusiness. Some ideas astotheelements ofsuchasystem
thatmight beexplored withWIPO were contained inparagraph 21ofdocument PC/IPL/7/Add.2.
34. TheChairman saidthatthiswasamatter onwhich hehadsensed, inhisconsultations, agreat
dealofcommonality ofthinking, namely support forthegeneral thrust oftheideas putforward in
document PC/IPL/7/Add.2 andfortheinitiation ofconsultations withWIPO assoonaspossible on
thatbasis.
35. TheCouncil agreed totheapproach suggested bytheChairman.
C. Implementation ofArticle 70.8
36. TheChairman recalled that,attheprevious meeting oftheCouncil, India andBrazil had
introduced thelegislation which theyhadputinplace toimplement theprovisions ofArticle 70.8and
which theyhadnotified totheCouncil under Article 63.2. Onthebasis ofthediscussion thathad
followed, theCouncil hadagreed thatother Members towhom Article 70.8alsoapplied beurged to
notify theirrelevant legislation prior totoday'smeeting. TheSecretariat hadcirculated anairgram,
WTO/AIR/71, reminding delegations oftheneedtonotify thelegislation inquestion. Since theprevious
Council meeting, three more notifications hadbeen received concerning legislation toimplement
Article 70.8. Notifications fromUruguay andTurkey hadbeencirculated asdocuments IP/N/1/URY/1
andIP/N/1/TUR/1. Anotification from Argentina hadalsobeenreceived andwould becirculated
asdocument IP/N/1/ARG/1 induecourse.
37. Inintroducing document IP/N/1/TUR/1, therepresentative ofTurkey saidthattheTurkish
Patent Institute wastheresponsible agency fortheprocessing ofpatent applications forpharmaceutical
products andprocesses. Thepresent Turkish patent lawexcluded patent protection ofpharmaceutical
processes andproducts. Since agricultural chemical products andprocesses were protectable under
thecurrent law,therewasnoneedtosubject thesetotheprovisions enacted inpursuance ofArticle 70.8
oftheTRIPS Agreement; thoseprovisions would onlybeapplied inrespect ofpharmaceutical processes
andproducts foranimal andhuman health. Turkey hadstarted receiving patent applications under
these provisions asof1January 1995and,asoftoday, more than50applications hadbeenreceived.
38. Therepresentative ofUruguay introduced document IP/N/1/URY/1 andsaidthat, since
1January 1995, patent applications under Article 70.8hadbeen received forpharmaceutical and
agricultural chemical products; onlyprocess inventions intheseareaswerepatentable under thecurrent
Uruguayan patent law. Under Uruguayan law,theprovisions ofArticle 70.8weredirectly included
indomestic legislation andtheobligation under thisprovision hadbeenmeton30December 1994
bytheissuanceofaresolutionoftheNationalDirectorateofIndustrialProperty,underwhichapplications
under Article 70.8could befiledwiththeauthority responsible forpatents, theNational Directorate
ofIndustrial Property under theMinistry ofIndustry, Energy andMining, asof1January 1995. The
requirements forthese applications wereexactly thesame asthose which applied inrespect ofpatent
applications foranyothertypesofproducts. Inaccordance withArticle 70.8, theapplications inquestionIP/C/M/2
Page10
could befiledinorder todetermine priority offiling butwould obviously notbegranted untilthelaw
would stipulate thetypes ofproducts concerned aspatentable subject matter inUruguay.
39. Therepresentative ofArgentina saidthatapplications under Article 70.8werehandled inhis
country bythesame authority which wasresponsible fortheprocessing ofpatent applications relating
tootherareas.Therequirementsfortheseapplicationsweresimilartothoseforotherpatentapplications.
40. Whilethankingthedelegationsthathadmadenotificationstodatefordoingso,therepresentative
oftheUnited States wished toremind them, andanyother delegation thatwasutilizing Article 70.8,
oftheprovisions ofArticle 70.9, thebenefits ofwhich alsohadtobemade available topatent applicants.
Healsowished tourgeallsuchcountries toconsider seriously implementing fullpatent protection
more rapidly andassoonaspossible. Recalling thatattheprevious meeting oftheCouncil delegations
hadbeenurged tomake notifications bytoday'smeeting, henoted thatnotallthedelegations concerned
haddoneso.Although itwasnotentirely clearwhich wereallthecountries towhich theprovisions
inquestion applied, hisdelegation believed onthebasis ofsome research ithaddonethatthere were
stillatleastsome tencountries which didnotcurrently provide fullpatent protection andhadnotmade
therequired notifications. Hewondered when thenotifications fromthesecountries could beexpected
andexpressed thehope thatallofthem would check without delay whether therequired protection
wasavailable andwould make thenecessary submissions.
41. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed torevert tothematter atthenext
meeting.
D. Implementation ofArticle 65.5
42. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthatArticle 65oftheAgreement contained transitional
arrangements fordeveloping countries andcountries intransition and,initsparagraph 5,alsostipulated
thataMember benefiting fromatransitional period should ensure thatanychanges during thatperiod
didnotresult inalesser degree ofconsistency withtheprovisions oftheAgreement. Asherdelegation
readtheArticle, itdidnotputanyobligation onaMember tonotify suchchanges; itsimply requested
theMembers toensure thatsuchchanges wereconsistent withtheprovisions oftheAgreement. The
Article required neither theCouncil northeSecretariat tomonitor suchchanges. Herdelegation did
notseethepoint ofanyadditional notification burdens atthispoint, ifthiswasnotrequired bythe
Agreement itself. ItwasclearthatArticle 65.5wasmerely oriented towards theMembers themselves
andthatitwasuptoeachofthem toensure consistency. Herdelegation believed thatnothing else
could bededuced from Article 65.5andthatitsviews onthematter coincided withparagraphs 2.1
and2.2oftheworking hypothesis inrelation tonotifications under Article 63.2, towhich the
representative oftheEuropean Communities hadreferred earlier today.
43. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatfurther consultations wererequired onthismatter. She
wished tonoteatthistimethat,pursuant toArticle 68oftheAgreement, theCouncil forTRIPS was
charged withmonitoring theoperation oftheAgreement and,inparticular, Members 'compliance with
theirobligations thereunder. Clearly, allMembers oftheWTO faced obligations asofthedaythat
theTRIPS Agreement hadcome intoforce withrespect totherequirements ofArticle 65.5. There
wasneedforameans toenable theCouncil forTRIPS tofulfilitsrôleinmonitoring compliance with
obligations under theTRIPS Agreement. Howthatmight beaccomplished, andwithreference towhich
particular provisions oftheAgreement, wassomething thatprobably required further consideration
anddiscussion. Shedidnotthink thatanydelegation would wishtosuggest notification burdens if
these were notnecessary; asapractical matter, allhadacknowledged inthevarious consultations
thathadtaken place todateonthequestion ofnotification thatquite alarge volume ofwork would
befaced simply dealing withthebasicrequirements ofArticle 63.2withrespect tolawsandregulations
indeveloped country Members. However, shebelieved thattherepresentative oftheEuropeanIP/C/M/2
Page11
Communities hadraised animportant andvalid point which needed tobepursued inorder tofind
reasonable means fortheCouncil tocarry outitsrôleasexpressed inArticle 68.
44. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatinhisdelegation 'sviewtherecould
notbeanydoubt thatArticle 65.5laiddown asubstantive obligation. Ashisdelegation sawit,to
theextent thatArticle 65.5laiddown asubstantive obligation relating tothecontents ofdomestic law,
theprovision concerned anobligation which referred tothesubject matter covered byArticle 63.1,
i.e.laws,regulations,etc.madeeffectivebyaMemberpertainingtothesubjectmatteroftheAgreement;
Article 63.2saidthatMembers should notify suchlawsandregulations totheCouncil forTRIPS.
Consequently, itseemed tohisdelegation thatthere wasastraightforward logical linkbetween the
application ofArticle 65.5andthenotification requirement inArticle 63.
45. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatessaidthatArticle65.5wasaprovisionwhichhisdelegation
tookveryseriously andwhich itconsidered veryimportant forthesuccessful operation oftheCouncil
forTRIPS. Some monitoring andnotification process seemed toberequired andshould beestablished
bytheCouncil, sothattheCouncil could fulfilitsobligations anditsmandate under Article 68toensure
thatallMembers wereimplementing theAgreement inlinewiththeirobligations. Thisdidnothave
tobesuchanonerous burden onindividual Members, since itcould bepresumed thatnodelegation
hadtheintention ofenacting legislation thatwould lessen thedegree ofconsistency oftheirintellectual
property policies andlawswithregard totheTRIPS Agreement. However, inanycase, some more
consultations were required onthequestion ofhowtogiveeffect totheprovision ofArticle 65.5.
Itseemed tohisdelegation thatonethought thatmight beexplored inthiscontext wasthat,ata
minimum, whenever anyMember made achange initslawsafter1January 1995, thatfactshould
benotified together withanindication ofwhatthelawhadbeenandhadbecome, sothatother Members
could satisfy themselves thatArticle 65.5hadbeenhonoured. Thelegislation would, thus, nothave
tobenotified initsentirety; itwould suffice tonotify themodifications.
46. Therepresentative ofParaguay agreed withtheUnited States thatthepresumption should be
thatnodelegation hadtheintention ofdiminishing protection ofintellectual property atthistime.
Article 65.5neither explicitly norimplicitly imposed anobligation tonotify changes inlegislation.
Additional notification requirements should notbesought. Heinformed theCouncil ofthefactthat
hiscountry hadalready started, withthecooperation ofWIPO, thepreparation oflegislation inline
withtheobligations under theTRIPS Agreement. Once legislation would havebeenenacted, acopy
ofitwould ofcourse becommunicated toWIPO. Hiscountry didnotwishtorelinquish anyofthe
rights itenjoyed under theTRIPS Agreement andwould usethetransitional period towhich itwas
entitled under thatAgreement.
47. Therepresentative ofPoland saidthatthefullobligation tonotify lawsandregulations aslaid
down inArticle 63would notapply fordeveloping countries andcountries intransition until
1January 2000andthatthere wasnoobligation onthemtonotify amendments during thetransitional
period. Ofcourse, itcould beuseful tohavesuchnotifications aswellifaMember wasinaposition
tomake thembut,fromalegalperspective, there wasnoobligation todoso.Thishadbeenreflected
inpoint 2.1oftheworking hypothesis discussed earlier today, which saidthatasofthetimethata
Member wasobliged tostartapplying aprovision oftheTRIPS Agreement thecorresponding laws
andregulations mustbenotified without delay. Consequently, alldeveloping countries andcountries
intransition mustnotify lawsandregulations pertaining toArticles 3,4and5asof1January 1996
andfouryears laterlawsandregulations relating toother Articles. While agreeing withCanada that
theCouncil forTRIPS hadtheobligation tomonitor theoperation oftheAgreement, hethought that
theCouncil would alsobeinaposition todosowithout Members having tonotify lawsandregulations,
forexample through consultations orbyusing other sources ofinformation.
48. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatinsome caseslawshadbeenamended after1January 1995
andthat,therefore, monitoring wasveryimportant. Inthiscontext, heshared theviewexpressed byIP/C/M/2
Page12
theUnited States. Hewished tonotethatanyMember hadtherighttoraiseanyissue, ifnecessary,
atanymeeting oftheCouncil forTRIPS, evenintheabsence ofaformal mechanism formonitoring.
49. Therepresentative ofIndonesia saidthathisdelegation hadlooked atArticle 65.5verycarefully
and,ifitwasnotmistaken about thediscussion thathadtaken place onthedraftoftheprovision, it
wasveryclearthattheprovision didnotlaydown anobligation tonotify. Inthatrespect, heshared
theviewexpressed byEgypt. Furthermore, inhisdelegation 'sview, theissueunder discussion should
notbeaddressed under Article 65.5butrather under Article 63,inparticular paragraph 1thereof,
asindicated bytheEuropean Communities. Heagreed withCanada thatitwascrucial tohavesome
kindofrules andprocedures onhowtheCouncil forTRIPS should undertake itsmonitoring work.
50. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland supported theanalysis oftherepresentative oftheEuropean
Communities. Hesaidthattheviews expressed bytherepresentative oftheUnited States werealso
mostinteresting; asystem along thelinesindicated bythatdelegation would enable Members todevelop
reasonable measures forensuring transparency. Theideas, however, needed tobeexamined ingreater
depth, inparticular toensure atthesame timethattheburdens onMembers werekepttoaminimum.
51. Inconcluding theagenda item, theChairman, noting thedifferent views, proposed tofollow
thesuggestion made bymany speakers, namely toholdinformal consultations ontheissue ofthe
implementation ofArticle 65.5andtorevert tothematter atthenextmeeting oftheCouncil.
52. TheCouncil soagreed.
E. Technical Cooperation
53. TheChairman recalled that,atthemeeting oftheCouncil on9March 1995, hehadbeenasked
toconsult ontheitems thatshould betaken upbytheCouncil initswork programme thisyear. One
oftheitems onwhich there hadappeared tobeageneral viewthatitwasimportant toinitiate work
atanearly stage wasthatoftechnical cooperation. Hehadsensed agood dealofinterest inputting
togetherascompleteapictureaspossibleofthetechnicalcooperationpossibilitiesavailabletodeveloping
countries toassist themimplement theirTRIPS obligations. Thepoint hadbeenmade thatthismatter
wasalsorelevant tothecooperation thatwasbeing envisaged between theWTO andWIPO. Inaddition,
ithadbeensaidthatitwould behelpful fortheCouncil toreflect onthetypeoftechnical cooperation
activities thatitwould wishtoseetheWTO Secretariat undertake. Bearing allthisinmind, hesuggested
therefore thattheCouncil forTRIPS haveanin-depth consideration ofthevarious aspects ofthisissue
atitsfirstmeeting intheautumn andthatacertain amount ofdocumentation might beprepared to
provide abasisfordiscussion. Hesuggested that,first,eachdeveloped country beinvited toprovide,
inwriting andwellinadvance ofthemeeting, adescription ofitstechnical andfinancial cooperation
programmes intheareaofintellectual property relevant totheimplementation oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Second, theCouncil might askeachoftheintergovernmental organizations which wereobservers to
theCouncil forTRIPS todothesame. TheCouncil might alsoseekinformation fromUPOV inrelation
toitsactivities intheareaofplant variety protection. Andthird, theWTO Secretariat could provide
information onitstechnical cooperation activities andalsomake suggestions about whatmight bethe
future policy inthisarea.
54. TheCouncil soagreed.
F. Assistance oftheCouncil intheContext ofDispute Settlement
55. TheChairman recalled thatthequestion hadbeenraised atthemeeting oftheCouncil forTRIPS
on9March 1995oftheassistance thattheCouncil might provide inthecontext ofdispute settlement,IP/C/M/2
Page13
inparticular whether there wasanyneedforaction onthepartoftheCouncil tohelpensure thatthe
central indicative listorroster ofpanelists included persons withsuitable knowledge ofintellectual
property matters. Inthecontacts thathehadhad,hehadnotsensed enthusiasm forestablishing a
separate roster intheTRIPS area, similar tothatalready foreseen intheservices area, which would
befolded intothecentral roster. Hesuggested, therefore, thattheCouncil forTRIPS might simply
drawtotheattention ofMembers thedesirability ofensuring thatthenominations theymade ofpotential
panelists tobeplaced onthecentral roster include persons withexperience ofintellectual property
matters viewed from atrade orcommercial perspective.
56. TheCouncil soagreed.
G. Arrangements forCooperation withWIPO
57. TheChairman invited Ambassador Mohamed Ennaceur ofTunisia totakethefloor inorder
toinform theCouncil about thedeliberations thathadtaken place attherecent meeting oftheAdHoc
WIPO Working Group onCooperation Between WIPO andtheWTO chaired bytheAmbassador.
58. Ambassador Mohamed Ennaceur ofTunisia saidthatthemeeting oftheWIPO Working Group
thathehadchaired on12May1995 hadbeenattended bytheChairman oftheCouncil forTRIPS
andrepresentatives oftheWTO Secretariat. Insummarizing thediscussion thathadtaken place at
themeeting, hesaidthataconsensus hademerged fromthedebate thatmembers ofWIPO shared the
viewofWTO Members regarding theneedforcooperation between thetwoOrganizations. However,
astothecontents andmodalities forsuchcooperation, noconsensus hadbeenreached yetintheWorking
Group. Inrespect ofthecontents ofsuchcooperation, reference should bemade tothepossible
establishmentofacommonregisterforlawsandregulationsunderArticle63.2oftheTRIPSAgreement,
which hadbeenaddressed inadocument thathadbeensubmitted totheWorking Group bytheDirector
General ofWIPO. Further, several delegations atthemeeting hadreferred totheareaoftechnical
cooperation. WIPO already hadaprogramme fortechnical cooperation and,asannounced bythe
DirectorGeneralofWIPOatthemeeting,thestudiesregardingtheimplicationsoftheTRIPSAgreement
fortheconventions administered byWIPO, ascalled forbytheGeneral Assembly ofWIPO atits1994
Session, wereabout tobeaccomplished andwould bepresented totheGeneral Assembly inthecontext
ofitsnextSession intheautumn of1995. Furthermore, aprogramme fortechnical assistance inthe
areaofintellectual property forAfrican countries waswellunder wayinWIPO. WIPO wasthus
continuing itstechnical assistance programmes. Itwaspossible tohavecooperation between WIPO
andtheWTO inthecontext oftechnical assistance, buttheWTO hadtospecify firstinwhat areas
suchcooperationwasdesirable.RegardingthemodalitiesofcooperationbetweenthetwoOrganizations,
mention hadbeenmade atboththefirstandthesecond meeting oftheWorking Group, on8February
and12May1995 respectively, ofthepossibility ofsetting upaninformal Consultation Group onall
matters concerning possible cooperation between WIPO andtheWTO. Thispossibility remained open
inthecontext ofbothWIPO andtheWTO. Several delegations hadsupported theideaforsucha
Consultation Group atthemeeting on12May. Other delegations hadindicated, however, thatthey
werenotyetready totakeadecision onthisanddidnotconsider thematter, atthisstage, asanurgent
issue. Furthermore, contacts between theSecretariats ofthetwoOrganizations hadbeenencouraged
byall.According tocertain member States ofWIPO, suchcontacts should takeplacewiththeassistance
ofrepresentatives ofmember States ofWIPO, without thepresence ofthese delegations implying a
mandate tonegotiate; contacts between WIPO andtheWTO hadtoremain informal. Member States
ofWIPO would consult onwhoshould accompany theInternational Bureau initsfuture contacts with
theWTO.
59. TheChairman informed theCouncil oftheconsultations hehadheld,asagreed bytheCouncil
atitsmeeting on9March 1995, ontheissue ofcooperation withWIPO. Onequestion concerned
theareas inwhich thecooperation ofWIPO might besought bytheCouncil forTRIPS. ThefeedbackIP/C/M/2
Page14
hehadreceived hadconfirmed thattheMembers oftheCouncil wished tobeclearastotheareas and
nature ofcooperation tobesought from WIPO before entering intoconsultations. Thefocus should
beonthespecific possible areas ofcooperation. Inthisregard, hisconsultations hadconfirmed that
there were twoareas where, atleastatthisstage, there wasawidebelief thatcooperation might be
desirable. Onewasthequestion ofnotification procedures, inparticular inrelation tonational laws
andregulations andTRIPS obligations stemming fromArticle 6teroftheParisConvention. Theother
areawasthatoftechnical cooperation. Inthisregard, hehoped tohavemore detailed advice from
delegations astothesortofcooperation between thetwoOrganizations which might needtobetaken
upintheconsultations withWIPO. Asagreed, ageneral discussion ofthequestion oftechnical
cooperation would beheldintheautumn inthisregard. Another aspect oftheissue ofcooperation
withWIPO concerned thewayinwhich theconsultations between thetwoOrganizations might be
organized. Inthisregard, thefeedback thathehadbeenreceiving suggested thatthere wasageneral
viewthatitwould beagood ideatoapproach WIPO sooner rather thanlater, although hehadalso
sensed thatitwould bepremature tosetupaformal process forthispurpose. Hesuggested, inthe
lightofhisconsultations onthisissue, thattheCouncil might authorize himasitsChairman andwith
theassistance oftheSecretariat toenterintoinformal contacts withWIPO, toinform themofthestate
ofthinking intheCouncil, inparticular withregard tothetypes ofcooperation itmight suggest. He
would ofcourse keepMembers informed ofanyreaction from WIPO.
60. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatherdelegation endorsed thesuggestion thattheChairman
begin informal consultations withrepresentatives ofWIPO. Itwasimportant andtimely tobegin a
process ofconsultations, which should beinformal atthisstage, sothatviews could beexchanged
withtheInternational Bureau andreactions could beobtained tosome oftheoptions thathadbeen
developed inthecontext oftheCouncil forTRIPS, inparticular withrespect totheworking hypothesis
onnotification procedures forlawsandregulations. Indeed, anumber ofthedelegations present today
hadparticipated alsointhemeeting oftheWIPO Working Group on12May1995, which hadjust
beensummarized fortheCouncil bytheAmbassador ofTunisia, andhadanticipated atthatmeeting
thatthepossibility ofinformal consultations bytheChairman oftheCouncil forTRIPS would be
discussed andsupported attoday'smeeting. Many delegations, including theCanadian delegation,
while continuing toexpress serious reservations about theproposal fortheestablishment ofaJoint
Consultative Group between WIPO andtheWTO, hadstated astrong preference forthepursuit at
thisstageofjustthetypeofinformal contacts assuggested bytheChairman. Shealsowished toclarify
thatthesuggestion hadbeenmade atthemeeting oftheWIPO Working Group thattheChairperson
ofthatWorking Group might participate insuchinformal consultations andmany delegations had
expressed support fortheideathatthiscould beconsidered ininformal consultations thatwould be
undertaken withrespect towhotheChairperson would beforfuture meetings oftheWorking Group
andtherôlethattheChairperson might possibly play. However, many delegations hadnotsupported
atthetimetheideathatmember States ofWIPO might alsoparticipate intheinformal consultations,
assuggested bytheDirector General ofWIPO.
61. Therepresentative ofUruguay supported theideaofauthorizing theChairman toenter into
consultations withWIPO, withtheassistance oftheWTO Secretariat, toenable progress onmany of
theissues, inparticular inrelation tonotification procedures andtechnical cooperation. Hisdelegation
wished tohighlight thatitagreed totheideaofmaking progress informally without involving directly
representatives ofgovernments; ithadsupported thesame ideainthecontext oftheWIPO Working
Group bysuggesting participation onthesamebasisininformal consultations oftheInternational Bureau
andtheChairman oftheWIPO Working Group ortheChairman ofanother competent WIPO body.
Thefinalgoalhad,inanycase, tobeborne inmind, which wastoachieve satisfactory cooperation
between thetwoOrganizations tothebenefit ofthemember States ofbothofthem. With regard to
technical cooperation, hisdelegation believed thatitwasagood ideatoexplore theareas which were
being dealtwithbyWIPO atpresent andthatinformation onthiscould beuseful forthepurposes of
theCouncil forTRIPS. Complementarity should belooked fortotheextent possible aswellasthe
strengthening ofthetechnical cooperation programmes ofbothOrganizations.IP/C/M/2
Page15
62. Therepresentative ofParaguay expressed hissupport forthesuggestions made bytheChairman.
63. TheCouncil agreed toproceed assuggested bytheChairman.
H. Draft Model Legislation oftheWCO
64. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil hadagreed, atitsprevious meeting, torevert tothe
question ofthedraftmodel legislation being drawn upbytheWCO withaviewtoassisting countries
ingiving effect totheirTRIPS border enforcement obligations. Acopyofthisdrafthadbeenmade
available indocument IP/C/W/1. Heexpressed appreciation forthepresence ofarepresentative of
theWorld Customs Organization andoffered herthefloortointroduce itandexplain itspresent status
within theWCO.
65. Therepresentative oftheWorld Customs Organization saidthatthedraftmodel legislation
onintellectual property rights, ofwhich theWCO hadprovided acopytotheWTO Secretariat and
which wascontained inthedocument referred to,hadbeenprepared withtheactive participation of
customs administrations, WIPO, theWTO andthetrade. Afewslight modifications hadbeenadopted
lastweek bythePermanent Technical Committee oftheWCO andtheWCO Secretariat wasatthis
timeintheprocess ofprinting thefinaldraftofthemodel legislation inpreparation oftheannual WCO
Council meeting which would begin on19June1995inBrussels fortheDirectors General ofCustoms;
atthatmeeting thedraft waslikely tobeaccepted andbecome afinaldocument fortheuseofthe
members oftheWCO. Inaddition, shealsosaidthat,inanticipation oftheadoption ofthemodel
legislation, theWCO Secretariat hadstarted thepreparation ofavideotape andbrochure toexplain
themodel legislation andtheissues relating tointellectual property rights ingeneral tothemembers
oftheWCO. Moreover, aseries oftraining seminars hadbeenorganized, oneofwhich wastobe
heldnextweek inBrussels fortheBenelux countries.
66. TheChairman suggested thattheCouncil, first, welcome theinterest andtheactivity ofthe
WCO inregard tothecustoms enforcement ofintellectual property rights andalsoitsconcern totake
intoaccount theprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement; second, express theimportance thatitattached
toamutually supportive relationship between theWTO andtheWCO inthisregard; and,third, take
noteofthedraftmodel legislation being developed bytheWCO. Henoted thatitwasnotthejob
oftheCouncil forTRIPS oftheWTO toapprove ordisapprove suchatext,which didnotconstitute
anofficial interpretation oftheTRIPS Agreement, thisbeing ataskthatonlytheWTO could undertake.
67. TheCouncil soagreed.
I. Other Business
68. Inlightoftheprogress made atthemeeting andgiven thework programme drawn up,the
Chairman suggested holding thenextmeeting oftheCouncil on21and22September 1995.
69. TheCouncil soagreed.