RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/1
25April 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-0996)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on9March 1995
Chairman: Mr.S.Harbinson
Subjects discussed:
A. Rules ofprocedure oftheCouncil forTRIPS
B. Arrangements forcooperation withWIPO
C. Notification procedures
D. Organizational matters andwork programme
E. Activities inother international forarelevant totheTRIPS Agreement
F. Other business
1. Inopening themeeting, theChairman noted thatnon-voting participants andgovernment
observers toWTO bodies hadbeen invited asagreed bytheGeneral Council atitsmeeting of
31January 1995. Inaddition, WIPO hadbeeninvited inaccordance withtherecommendation made
tothePreparatory Committee andtheGeneral Council. Asprovided forindocument WT/GC/COM/2,
invitations tothisfirstmeeting hadbeenextended totheUnited Nations, UNCTAD, IMFandtheWorld
Bank. Henoted thattheChairman oftheGeneral Council washolding consultations about more
permanent arrangements regarding observer status forrelevant intergovernmental organizations. He
alsonoted thatinvitations toobservers didnotpreclude theCouncil from holding meetings without
theirpresence ifitshould sowish.
A. Rules ofProcedure oftheCouncil forTRIPS
2. TheChairman recalled thatArticle IV:5oftheWTO Agreement required theCouncil forTRIPS
toestablish itsrulesofprocedure subject totheapproval oftheGeneral Council. Heproposed tohold
informal consultations onthismatter andthat,pending theresults ofthose consultations, thebusiness
oftheCouncil beconducted onthebasis ofestablished GATT practice.
3. TheCouncil soagreed.IP/C/M/1
Page2
B. Arrangements forCooperation withWIPO
4. TheChairman drew attention tothereport oftheContact Group onTRIPS ascontained in
document PC/IPL/7 andAddenda 1and2.Thisreport, which hadbeenremitted totheCouncil for
TRIPS forfurther consideration andaction asappropriate, included astaged programme ofwork on
thequestion ofarrangements forcooperation withWIPO (PC/IPL/7, paragraph 6).Hesuggested that
theCouncil might consider firstwhether anyfurther information wasdesirable forhaving anadequate
basis toconsider thismatter. Thesecond point thatcould beaddressed wastheclarification ofwhat
WTO Members wished toachieve oncertain issues andofwhatforms ofcooperation theymight seek
withWIPO intheimplementation oftheTRIPS Agreement. ItwasfortheTRIPS Council tocome
toaviewonthese matters first, since theissue atthisstage concerned thecooperation thatmight be
sought ofWIPO intheimplementation oftheTRIPS Agreement. Thiswould notbeunderstood to
preclude exploring inconsultations anycontribution thattheTRIPS Council could make tothework
ofWIPO ifWIPO should seekit;thiswould beconsistent withthenotion ofa"mutually supportive
relationship". Thethirdpointthatheinvited delegations toaddress washowtheconsultations between
thetwoOrganizations might bestbeorganized. Healsorequested comments ontheissue raised in
paragraph8oftheContactGroup'sreport,namelythesuggestionthattheTRIPSCouncilshouldconsider
whether WIPO should beinvited tomeetings oftheGeneral Council when matters ofdirect relevance
toitwere under discussion. Hefirstoffered thefloor totheobserver from WIPO sothathecould
update theCouncil onrelevant activities ofthatOrganization.
5. TherepresentativeofWIPOsaidthatWIPOplacedmuchemphasisonthepolicyofgoodrelations
andclosecooperation withtheWTO ingeneral andtheCouncil forTRIPS inparticular, andconveyed
thecontinued desire oftheDirector General ofWIPO forafriendly, productive andcooperative
relationship between thetwoOrganizations. Theappropriate form andsubstance ofthecooperation
between WIPO andtheWTO hadtobecarefully examined andagreed, butstepstoensure thesmooth
establishmentofamutuallysupportiverelationshiphadbeenundertakenbytheSecretariatandGoverning
Bodies ofWIPO. Thisshowed theserious andactive interest oftheMember States ofWIPO inthe
establishment ofacooperative relationship between thetwoOrganizations. Emphasizing theimportance
inthisrespect oftheResolution adopted bytheGeneral Assembly ofWIPO during itssession held
from 26September to4October 1994, taken upinthereport oftheContact Group onTRIPS,
paragraphs 1and2ofwhich readasfollows:
"1. Having noted thatthePreamble oftheAgreement onTrade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights states thattheMembers oftheWorld Trade Organization desire
toestablish amutually supportive relationship between theWorld Trade Organization andthe
World Intellectual Property Organization, theWIPO General Assembly hereby alsoexpresses
thedesire toestablish amutually supportive relationship between theWorld Intellectual Property
Organization andtheWorld Trade Organization.
"2. Inaccordance withitsdesire toestablish amutually supportive relationship between
theWorld Intellectual Property Organization andtheWorld Trade Organization, theWIPO
General Assembly decides toestablish anadhocworking group opentoallMember States
ofWIPO:
(i) toadvise andcooperate withtheDirector General ofWIPO inhiscontacts
withthecompetent organs ofGATT/WTO;
(ii) todiscuss matters concerning possible cooperation between WIPO andWTO;IP/C/M/1
Page3
(iii) toconsider theestablishment ofanadhocinformal WIPO/GATT-WTO
Consultation Group onallmatters concerning possible cooperation between WIPO and
WTO."
6. AstothestepsalreadytakentowardscooperationbetweenWIPOandtheWTO,therepresentative
ofWIPO saidthattheDirector General ofWIPO hadmetseveral times withtheChairman oftheContact
GrouponTRIPSofthePreparatoryCommitteefortheWTOanddiscussedwithhim,interalia,questions
ofnotifications under theTRIPS Agreement. Inaddition, certain informal meetings between staff
members oftheInternational Bureau ofWIPO andtheSecretariat ofGATT hadtaken placeinconnection
withthework oftheContact Group, inparticular todiscuss thecollections oflawsmaintained bythe
International Bureau andnotifications concerning matters other thanthecommunication oflawsand
regulations, which would havetobemade under theTRIPS Agreement byMembers oftheWTO.
Inthiscontext, theInternational Bureau hadalsoprovided information inwritten form, onthe
implementation ofArticle 6teroftheParis Convention fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property1and
hadatthethirdmeeting oftheContact Group on25October 1995, towhich ithadbeenformally invited,
orally responded toquestions onWIPO 'scollections ofintellectual property legislation.2
7. Therepresentative ofWIPO thenreferred tothefirstmeeting thathadtaken place on
8February 1995 oftheadhocWIPO Working Group onCooperation Between WIPO andWTO, in
fulfilment ofthemandate given bytheWIPO General Assembly initsOctober 1994 Resolution.
Representatives of79States aswellasoftheWTO, theEuropean Communities andtheOrganization
ofAfrican Unity hadattended themeeting, chaired bythePermanent Representative ofKenya,
Ambassador Nanjira. Detailed discussions hadledtheWorking Group totheadoption ofthefollowing
conclusions:
"The Working Group invites theDirector General ofWIPO tosubmit toitsnextmeeting
suggestions onmatters forpossible cooperation between WIPO andWTO andconcerning the
questionoftheestablishmentoftheadhocinformalWIPO/WTOConsultationGroupmentioned
intheOctober 1994 decision oftheGeneral Assembly ofWIPO.
"Itisunderstood thattheestablishment, ifany,ofthesaidConsultation Group canbedecided
onlybythecompetent governing bodies ofWIPO andWTO."
8. Therepresentative ofTunisia, speaking onbehalf oftheAfrican Members oftheWTO, referred
toArticle 68oftheTRIPS Agreement andsaidthattheAfrican countries attached great importance
totheestablishment ofanadhocinformal WIPO/WTO Consultation Group asreferred tobythe
representative ofWIPO, which theyhadalsoemphasized attheWIPO meeting of8February 1995.
Cooperation between thetwoOrganizations hadtobeencouraged inorder toavoid duplication ofefforts
andwaste ofresources. TheAfrican countries recognized thattheUruguay Round negotiations had
resulted inthemost extensive package oftrade agreements everachieved inthehistory ofGATT in
terms ofscope, complexity andimpact ontheinternational trading environment aswellasonnational
policies andthattheywerenowmore thanevercalled upontoadapt tothehigher levelofmultilateral
disciplines inthisnewenvironment. They alsohadtoidentify, andtakeadvantage of,thepossibilities
thatthenewtrading system offered, andwere aware oftheimplications oftheTRIPS Agreement,
ofitsimpact ontheworld economy andoftheneedtoadapt tothenewenvironment resulting from
itsentry intoforce. Inthisrespect, henoted thattheAfrican Ministers ofTrade hadmetinTunis
inOctober 1994andexamined theresults oftheUruguay Round negotiations andtheirconsequences
1Annex 3ofdocument PC/IPL/7/Add.2.
2Reflected inAnnex 3ofdocument PC/IPL/7.IP/C/M/1
Page4
fortheAfrican economies. TheMinisters hadexpressed theneedfortechnical assistance inorder
tofacilitate theimplementation ofthevarious agreements which together formed theresults ofthe
Uruguay Round andhadrequested thecompetent international organizations andagencies, inparticular
theWTO, todraw upprogrammes andpolicies inorder totakeupthechallenge arising from the
implementation oftheMarrakesh Agreement. Tunisia hadbeenentrusted withthecoordination and
thefollow-up oftechnical assistance programmes withtheWTO andother international organizations
involved ininternational trade.
9. Continuing, therepresentative ofTunisia saidthattheAfrican countries were aware ofthe
needforharmonization ofnational legislation anditsadaptation tothenewrequirements, andtofacilitate
thenotification ofthislegislation andtoensure thetransparency required through theTRIPS Agreement.
However, theiryoung national administrations werenotalways equipped toachieve whatwasasked
oftheminthisrespect. Therefore, duplication ofefforts andunnecessary overlapping should beavoided.
Intheirview, theestablishment ofanadhocinformal group on,andthedrawing upofanarrangement
for,cooperation between theWTO andWIPO could onlyfacilitate theattainment ofthese objectives.
Inthemeantime, andwithout prejudice totheoutcome ofconsultations between thetwoOrganizations,
tworealistic areas forcooperation could bementioned, namely thenotification ofnational lawsand
regulations andtechnical cooperation. Healsoemphasized thattechnical assistance activities should
notbelimited tolegal advice, butshould alsoextend totheestablishment ofadministrative
infrastructures, theenhancement ofhuman resources andtheconsolidation ofnational structures so
thatrequired functions could befulfilled inthebestpossible way. TheAfrican countries attached the
highest priority totheseissues. Inconclusion, hewished toreaffirm theircommitment toacontinued
active participation intheworkoftheCouncil forTRIPS inorder topromote consensus onthesematters
ofmajor interest toall.
10. Therepresentatives ofEgypt, Kenya andMorocco supported Tunisia 'sstatement.
11. TherepresentativeofKoreaemphasizedtheneedforarrangementsbasedonamutuallysupportive
partnership oftheWTO andWIPO, inorder toavoid anyduplication ofefforts orunnecessary extra
burdens onMembers. Inaddition totheareas already identified bytheContact Group, hereferred
togeographical indications asanareawhere cooperative arrangements between thetwoOrganizations
might beconsidered. While under theTRIPS Agreement negotiations should takeplace onthe
establishment ofamultilateral system fortheregistration ofgeographical indications forwines, WIPO
already hadgained experience inthisrespect through theoperation oftheLisbon Agreement forthe
Protection ofAppellations ofOrigin andtheirInternational Registration. TheWTO could, ontheother
hand, giveuseful input toWIPO inrespect ofthesystem forthesettlement ofdisputes between states
thatwasbeing negotiated under itsauspices. Heexpressed support fortheestablishment ofaninformal
jointbodybytheWTO andWIPO forfurther consultations onmatters concerning possible cooperation.
Hisdelegation alsobelieved thatWIPO should beinvited tomeetings oftheGeneral Council aslong
asmatters ofdirect relevance toWIPO were under discussion butwasoftheopinion thatthisissue
hadtobeconsidered inabroader perspective intheGeneral Council itself.
12. Elaborating onthethreepossible areasofcooperation identified indocument PC/IPL/7/Add.2,
therepresentative ofEgypt believed thatitwasstillpremature toseekanykindofagreed cooperation
between theWTO andWIPO intheareas oftechnical assistance anddispute settlement andthatthe
priority forclose cooperation layintheareaofnotification procedures. Shenoted thatthetypeof
technical assistance thatcould beexpected fromtheWTO Secretariat hadnotyetbeendefined, bearing
inmind itsmodest capacity interms ofmanpower andfinance. Ofcourse, advice andassistance could
besought from theInternational Bureau ofWIPO, since suchwastheprerogative ofeachcountry.
Onlyoneprovision oftheTRIPS Agreement, Article 67,referred totheissueoftechnical cooperation,
addressing solely theobligations ofdeveloped country Members. However, herdelegation would
welcome anexchange ofviews andideas between theSecretariats oftheWTO andoftheWIPO onIP/C/M/1
Page5
aninformal basis concerning theinterpretation ofsome oftheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Intheareaofdispute settlement, seeking information andtechnical advice from WIPO wasthe
prerogative ofpanelists, arbitrators, Appellate Body members, aswellastheparties toanydispute.
There wasnourgency fordesigning themodalities ofanytypeofcooperation between WIPO andthe
WTO inthisrespect, since thedispute settlement mechanism would notbecome really operational in
respect oftheTRIPS Agreement untilJanuary 1996. Moreover, theoutcome oftheforthcoming meeting
oftheWIPO Committee ofExperts ontheSettlement ofDisputes Between States hadtobeawaited.
Astotheareaofpriority where closecooperation should beworked outbetween theWTO andWIPO -
notification requirements -thegeneral ruleshould betoavoid thenotification ofmeasures andlaws
which hadalready beenthesubject ofnotifications inotherfora. Suchavoidance ofdouble notifications
would certainly lessen theburden onMember States aswellasontheSecretariats. Itwould alsoensure
clearer efficiency inthegathering ofinformation anditsdissemination; fragmented distribution usually
ledtouncertainty andconfusion. Asregards thestaged programme ofwork which theContact Group
hadestablished withaviewtodeveloping appropriate arrangements forcooperation between theWTO
andWIPO, itwascertainly truethattheMembers oftheWTO, being theinitiators behind thesearch
forcooperation withtheInternational Bureau ofWIPO, wereentitled, intheframework oftheTRIPS
Council, totakethetimenecessary toformulate firstandinconcrete terms theforms ofcooperation
theywould deem most appropriate andadequate. Tothatend,theCouncil wasgiven onefullyear.
Nevertheless, herdelegation believed thatthereweremany urgent questions which theTRIPS Council
hadtoaddress atthistimeandwhich needed tobedealtwithjointly withWIPO. Inaddition, itwould
seem difficult foronebody todecide unilaterally onissues which fellwithin thepurview ofanother
body. Tothisendandinaccordance withthedesire toestablish amutually supportive relationship
between theOrganizations, ajointadhocinformal working group should beestablished, inorder to
facilitateachievingtheobjectiveofdevelopingappropriatearrangementsforcooperation.Herdelegation
would notsuggest thatsuchaworking group beinstitutionalized, butonlybeestablished forthepurpose
ofservicing stages twoandthree ofthestaged programme ofwork agreed intheContact Group, i.e.
theconsideration offorms ofcooperation andofhowconsultations between thetwoOrganizations
hadbestbeconducted. Such aworking group wasnotanendinitself, butameans ofdeveloping
thedesired appropriate arrangements forcooperation.
13. Therepresentative ofKenya saidthatAfrica attached greatimportance tothequestion ofTRIPS
andthatitwasforthisreason thattheAfrican Ministers ofTrade hadtaken lastOctober apolitical
decision onthismatter aspartoftheirimplementation oftheUruguay Round. Referring tothestatement
oftherepresentative ofWIPO, hesaidthatitwasgratifying tonotethewillingness ofWIPO tocooperate
closely withtheWTO. When theadhocWIPO Working Group hadmeton8February 1995 last
underhischairmanship,arepresentativeofWTOhadalsomadeastatementonbehalfofhisOrganization
which hadalsobeenveryhelpful. Hewastherefore persuaded thattherewould befruitful cooperation.
After all,generally speaking, theWIPO andWTO served thesame continents andstates. While he
wasquiteclearastowhere WIPO stood oncooperation, hehoped tolearn more about themodalities
forcooperation asperceived byWTO Members.
14. Therepresentative ofChile, addressing theissueofpossible cooperation intheareaoftechnical
assistance, suggested thattheSecretariat make aninventory oftheexisting supply ofanddemand for
technical assistance, thushelping theCouncil toorganize a"market" intheareaofsuchtechnical
assistance. Thiswould facilitate theidentification ofwhere technical assistance waslacking andthe
modalities thatneeded tobeworked out. Theguiding principle fordecisions toprovide technical
assistance should bewhich Organization wasthemost aptinproviding theassistance needed. No
institution should haveamonopoly inproviding technical assistance buthaveitsappropriate share as
determined bymarket forces. Astotheissueofcooperation withWIPO, hisdelegation believed that
thisshould belooked atingreater detail withtheSecretariat ofWIPO, focusing onwhich forms of
cooperation would betomutual benefit. Theareaofprime urgency inthisrespect wasthatofnotification
procedures, where technical assistance wasneeded toenable allcountries tomake notifications asIP/C/M/1
Page6
promptly aspossible. Heconcluded byemphasizing thatWIPO andtheWTO should beenabled to
operate inacomplementary fashion soastoensure abeneficial allocation ofresources.
15. Therepresentative ofParaguay pointed tocomplementarity asaguiding principle intrying
tofindthemostpractical andefficient form ofcooperation between thetwoOrganizations andtheir
Secretariats. Inthiscontext, aninformal jointworking group might beconsidered sooner orlater.
Suchagroup could beahelpful means forachieving certain results, inparticular intheareaofprime
urgency,notificationprocedures,sincewiththehelpofWIPO'sinfrastructureandexperienceduplication
ofefforts could beavoided. Also intheareaoftechnical assistance theneed foracooperative
relationship withWIPO wasobvious. WIPO hadbeenoffering technical assistance forsome years
already andasystem ofmutual support between thetwoOrganizations should beconsidered, aimed
atadapting WIPO 'spresent system oftechnical cooperation tocountries 'needs inrespect ofthe
implementation oftheTRIPS Agreement. Thus, countries would beenabled tomeettheirobligations
attheappropriate time.
16. Therepresentative ofUruguay, stressing theimportance ofanexcellent cooperation between
theWTO andWIPO, saidthatthenotifications intheWTO under theTRIPS Agreement could not
bedissociated from thenotifications made under theconventions administered byWIPO. Astothe
issue oftechnical assistance, shesubscribed totheviews expressed byParaguay. WIPO should also
identify, fromitsside,areas inwhich thetwoOrganizations should cooperate. Finally, sheexpressed
support forthecreation ofanadhocinformal jointconsultation body which should bemonitored by
bothOrganizations, ontheunderstanding thatcooperation should beamatter notonlyforthetwo
Secretariats butalsoforthemember countries ofthetwoOrganizations.
17. Therepresentative ofMorocco saidthat,when discussing thebasicquestion ofwhatcooperation
should besought, thefocus should beonnotifications andtechnical cooperation. Astohowcooperation
could bestbeorganized, hisdelegation supported theproposal oftheAfrican countries forthe
establishment ofanadhocinformal WIPO/WTO Consultation Group jointly organized byWIPO and
theWTO.
18. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines, speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, emphasized
theneedforclose andmutually supportive cooperation between theWTO andWIPO, bothbeing
Organizations ofwhich ASEAN countries weremembers. Hewelcomed thepresence atthemeeting
ofarepresentative ofWIPO andsaidthatitwould beindispensable thatthetwoOrganizations would
beinvited asobservers toeachother'smeetings. Accordingly, WIPO should notonlybeinvited to
meetings oftheTRIPS Council butalsotothatofother WTO bodies, including theGeneral Council
andtheMinisterial Conference, insofarasthese would dealwithintellectual property matters. The
WTO should beinvited tomeetings oftheGoverning Bodies ofWIPO. GATT hadalways beeninvited
tomeetings ofCommittees ofExperts andsimilar meetings inWIPO andtheASEAN countries would
expect thiscontinued inrespect oftheWTO. Hethenexpressed thehopethatthecooperation between
thetwoOrganizations would enable theavoidance ofduplication ofefforts andresources, amatter
onwhich ASEAN tookaperennial stand. Thismight beachieved bysetting upmechanisms, whether
administrative orfinancial innature, which would enable WTO Members todrawonWIPO 'sexpertise
andfacilities, wherever andwhenever possible. Forexample, systems forthenotification ofnational
legislation andmatters suchasthose related toArticle 6teroftheParis Convention ashadtobe
considered bytheTRIPS Council could beestablished onthebasisofWIPO 'sexisting arrangements.
Furthermore, asregards legal andtechnical assistance todeveloping countries, fullaccount should
betaken ofWIPO 'sextensive experience, expertise andindispensable non-partisan approach. In
conclusion, hesaidthattheASEAN countries wereoftheviewthatthemeeting oftheadhocWIPO
Working Group onCooperation between WIPO andWTO on8February 1995 hadbeenfruitful and
hadputtheprocess towards cooperation between thetwoOrganizations intherightdirection.IP/C/M/1
Page7
19. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatcooperation between theWTO andWIPO was
indispensable anddesired bybothOrganizations. Henoted thatpreliminary andexploratory work
hadalready started between thetwoSecretariats inthisrespect, which wasuseful fortheestablishment,
eventually, ofrealandeffective cooperation. Consideration ofthematter bytheCouncil should take
place inthree phases. Thefirstconcerned theidentification oftheneeds oftheMembers oftheWTO
thathadtobemetinorder toensure anappropriate implementation oftheAgreement. Hesuggested
thattheChairman holdinformal consultations toenable Members toexpress theirviews astowhat
theybelieved wasneeded toensure anappropriate implementation oftheAgreement andwhat they
believed should bethepriorities. Thesecond phase should betheidentification, bymeans ofinformal
contacts through already-established channels, ofwhatWIPO could, orwould wishto,supply inanswer
tothese identified needs. Inthethird phase itwould beuptotheTRIPS Council toassess the
possibilities forcooperation anddetermine aframework within which cooperation withWIPO would
befinally established. AstoWIPO 'sattendance atmeetings oftheGeneral Council, hepreferred to
await theoutcome oftheon-going consultations onobserver status intheGeneral Council.
20. Therepresentative oftheUnited States agreed withthedelegation ofSwitzerland thatthemost
important issuefortheTRIPS Council initsearlydaysofoperation wastodecide whatitsneeds were.
Inthatrespect, thequestion ofnotification procedures wasofprimary importance. Asothers had
mentioned, technical assistance wasanimportant issue aswell. Thenotification requirements under
theAgreement could beverysubstantial and,while some discussion onthishadalready taken place
intheContact Group, more discussion wasnecessary. Before determining WIPO 'spossible rôlein
thisrespect, theTRIPS Council firsthadtotakesome basic decisions onthecontent ofnotification
requirements.
21. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatthecontacts between theSecretariats oftheWTO and
WIPO hadalready identified some specific issues which required some cooperation, suchasinrespect
ofnotifications. Based onthese findings, theTRIPS Council should firstgivesubstance tothephrase
"mutually supportive relationship", since agreement onthis,forexample ondetails ofnotification
requirements, would facilitate considerably boththeelaboration ofaninstitutional framework and
thecontacts onvarious levels between theWTO andWIPO andtheirSecretariats.
22. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities doubted thatthere hadbeenconcrete ideas
intheminds oftheTRIPS negotiators astowhatcould orshould bethesubject matter of"appropriate
arrangements forcooperation withWIPO" asreferred toinArticle 68oftheAgreement. Itwasnow
uptotheTRIPS Council todefine whatwasmeant bythis;theprime, ifnottheexclusive, responsibility
fordoing sorested withtheTRIPS Council. Asfarasthesubstance ofthatcooperation wasconcerned,
animportant,perhapsprime,candidateforfurtherdiscussionandelucidationwastheissueofnotification
requirements. Others hadalsoreferred totechnical assistance asanareaofpossible cooperation between
theWTO andWIPO. Hisdelegation would alsoliketohaveadiscussion onthatissueinfurther detail,
iffornoother reason thanthatitwasessential that,when technical assistance wasprovided -beit
byWIPO orotherinternational organizations -andcovered matters arising under theTRIPS Agreement,
suchtechnical assistance would beprovided inamanner which wasconsonant withthewayinwhich
theTRIPS provisions should beinterpreted. Inthatcontext theonlysource could be,apart fromthe
collective wisdom oftheTRIPS Council, theWTO Secretariat. When considering thequestion of
cooperation withWIPO, substance should precede procedure. Overthenextseveral months, theTRIPS
Council should firstseekasufficient degree ofconsensus onthesubstance ofpossible cooperation
between theWTO andWIPO. Thereafter, thequestion hadtobeaddressed ofhowsuchpossible
cooperation bebestdiscussed withWIPO. Hisdelegation wasnotconvinced thattheestablishment
ofjointworking parties, working groups orthelikewould necessarily bethebestpossible wayof
approaching these questions atthisstage, although hedidnotnecessarily exclude suchpossibilities
later.IP/C/M/1
Page8
23. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatintrying toensure aconstructive andcooperative
relationship between theWTO andWIPO, thecartshould notbeputbefore thehorse. Itwould be
premature todiscuss institutional arrangements, whether formal orinformal, between theWTO and
WIPO before thesubstantive questions hadbeendealtwithasidentified andreferred tobyprevious
speakers. Firsttheactivities tobeundertaken hadtobedetermined aswellastheappropriate procedures
forpursuing these activities. Intackling thequestions ofsubstance, theTRIPS Council hadtotake
anefficient andpractical approach andshould, therefore, firstdiscuss theissue ofnotification
requirements. Another important areaatthisstage wastechnical cooperation. Ontheissue of
notifications, thefirstorder ofbusiness should betoreach consensus onwhatwasreally required in
therelevant provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement andwhatwasthemostsensible approach inmeeting
theserequirements. Undoubtedly, thiswould involve consideration ofwhether existing WIPO facilities
could beusedinthisrespect. Ofcourse, theWTO wasnotinaposition todetermine unilaterally what
rôleWIPO might play. Options hadtobediscussed withWIPO and,attheappropriate stage, appropriate
channels ofcommunication hadtobeestablished. Informal channels ofcooperation were already
operative inaconstructive wayandshould certainly continue, astheTRIPS Council might build on
thiscooperation when anyarrangements needed tobeformalized.
24. Inconcluding theagenda item, theChairman firstnoted thatthediscussion hadreaffirmed
thedesire ofWTO Members foraclose, cooperative andmutually supportive relationship withWIPO.
Astothequestion ofWIPO 'sattendance atmeetings oftheGeneral Council, hewould convey tothe
Chairman oftheGeneral Council arecommendation thatthismatter beincluded intheconsultations
theChairman oftheGeneral Council washolding ontheissueofobserver status forintergovernmental
organizations. Thediscussion onthesubstance ofcooperation withWIPO andhowsuchcooperation
might bestbeorganized hadrevealed some points ofconvergence butalsosome points ofdivergence
andnodefinite conclusion would seem tobewithin reach atthepresent time. Therefore, heproposed
toholdinformal consultations onthese questions.
25. TheCouncil soagreed.
C. Notification Procedures
26. TheCouncil tookupfirstthegeneral question ofnotification procedures andthenthequestion
ofnotifications inrespect oflegislation togiveeffect toobligations already applicable.
(1) General notification procedures
(i) Article 63.2concerning thenotification oflawsandregulations
27. The Chairman drew attention totheinformation contained inSection IIIofdocument
PC/IPL/7/Add.2 andinAnnex 3ofdocument PC/IPL/7 itself. Asinother rule-based agreements,
bothunder theGATT inthepastandunder theWTO, theefficient functioning oftheprocedure provided
forinArticle 63.2forthenotification oflawsandregulations would beacritical element indetermining
theeffectiveness oftheCouncil incarrying outitstasks. Inthisregard, themainquestion before the
Council washowtheCouncil, while preserving theessential function which thistypeofnotification
procedure wasexpected toperform intheGATT/WTO context, could maximize cooperation and
minimize duplication withWIPO.
28. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatnotifications werethekeytotransparency andtheoperation
ofthesystem asawhole. However, theprovisions onnotification intheTRIPS Agreement werenot
necessarily verydetailed andclear. Several aspects ofthenotification procedures needed tobeclarified,
suchastiming, format andlanguage ofnotifications. Inother areas oftheWTO Agreement detailedIP/C/M/1
Page9
discussions hadalready taken place andnotification formats hadbeendesigned. Heproposed thatthe
Chairman holdinformal consultations onthismatter.
29. Therepresentative oftheUnited States emphasized theconsiderable extent oftheundertaking
flowing from therequirement tonotify lawsandregulations forallcountries, inparticular forthose
withmore advanced intellectual property systems, andconsidered thatthedevelopment ofamechanism
forsuchnotifications under Article 63.2wasanurgent matter. Inthisconnection, henoted thatan
examination ofthenotification formats established inother areas oftheWTO withrespect tothe
notification oflegislation might provide guidance totheCouncil. Hesuggested thattheSecretariat
prepareanotecontainingacompilationofthevariousarrangementsmadeintheWTOforthenotification
oflegislation andthattheSecretariat and/or theChairman develop suggestions foraformat for
notification oflegislation under theTRIPS Agreement.
30. TherepresentativeofSwitzerlandstressedthatitwasoffundamentalimportancethattheCouncil
addressed thenotification procedures under theAgreement. Itwasnecessary fortheCouncil toestablish
priorities inconsidering these various notification procedures. Some ofthenotification requirements
could bedealtwithatalaterstage, butothers hadtobeaddressed urgently, inparticular those which
defined thebeneficiaries under theAgreement orwhich related tolawsandregulations thatwerealready
inforce. Thereason forgiving these matters priority layinthefactthattheveryexistence ofrights
wasinvolved inthenotifications inquestion, i.e.whether ornotrights hadbeenintroduced inthe
Member inquestion inaccordance withtheAgreement orwhich options aMember hadchosen for
thedetermination ofbeneficiaries. Some ofthenotification requirements alsoconcerned thework
ofother international organizations. Inthisregard, aquestion ofcooperation arose inrelation toWIPO
because ofitscollections ofexisting lawsandregulations. Having saidthis,itshould beborne inmind,
however, thatthese collections hadnotbeenestablished onabasiswhich could serve TRIPS purposes
without further ado.Thenotification oflawsandregulations under theTRIPS Agreement hadafunction
intheprevention ofdisputes through themonitoring oftheoperation oftheAgreement andthereview
ofMembers 'laws. InWIPO, thefunction wasonlytoprovide information onMembers 'laws. The
publication oftextsbyWIPO would notseemtobesatisfactory asaworking instrument forthepurposes
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Inlightofthese differences, heconsidered thatnotifications oflawsand
regulations should besubmitted officially totheCouncil forTRIPS. Thiswould notprevent theCouncil
fromsubsequentlymakingsomearrangementswithWIPOontechnicalandmechanicalmattersconcerning
thecollection oftheselawsandregulations. Itwasbothessential andpossible toestablish acleardivision
ofresponsibilities taking intoaccount thedistinct competences andneeds ofbothorganizations.
31. Therepresentative ofParaguay saidthatallintellectual property lawsandregulations inforce
inhiscountry could already befound intheWIPO collections. Although hedidnotdisagree with
theviewexpressed bytherepresentative ofSwitzerland regarding thedifferent purposes ofnotifications
intheWTO andtheWIPO, thekeyissue before theCouncil wastheusethatcould bemade of
notifications already available inWIPO. Henoted thatsoondocumentation could beexpected tobe
produced bytheInternational Bureau ofWIPO onpossible areas ofcooperation between thetwo
Organizations. Hesuggested thattheChairman holdconsultations withaviewtodetermining what
contribution could bemade byWIPO.
32. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthattheviews ofhisdelegation were
similar tothose expressed bytherepresentative ofSwitzerland. TheCouncil firsthadtoagree ona
number ofdetails concerning theinterpretation ofthetransparency andnotification requirements in
Article 63.ThetextofArticle 63already provided asubstantial amount ofguidance andonlyrelatively
littleneeded tobedoneinaddition tothepreparatory work prior tothefirstmeeting oftheCouncil.
Nevertheless, some important questions stillhadtobeaddressed asidentified inPC/IPL/7/Add.2,
including thequestion oflanguages. Hebelieved thatitwasessential thatthebasicandquiteambitious
notification requirement contained inArticle 63beimplemented inasufficiently practical andrapidIP/C/M/1
Page10
fashion astomake thispartoftheAgreement operational. Hesuggested thattheChairman holdinformal
consultations onthenutsandboltswhich stillhadtobediscussed. Onlyaftercompletion ofthattechnical
work could thequestion beaddressed ofhowtheimplementation should becarried outandwhether
suchcould bedone bytheWTO orwhether itcould orshould bedone incooperation withWIPO.
Inthatcontext, hesaidthathisdelegation hadapredisposition infavour ofacooperative relationship
between theWTO andWIPO onthismatter. However, thecartshould notbeputbefore thehorse
andtheCouncil should firstclarify thesubstance ofthenotification requirements before theextent
ofcooperation thatwould bepractical could beidentified.
33. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthatmostobligations under theAgreement would notapply
until1January 1996attheearliest, sothattherewassufficient timetoconsider thevarious notification
issues incombination withtheissue ofcooperation withWIPO. Theissue oftheimplementation of
thenotification requirement contained inArticle 63.2wasclosely related tothequestion ofcooperation
withWIPO. Henoted thattherewereapparent differences between thenotification procedures inWIPO
andthenotification procedures provided forintheTRIPS Agreement. While theWIPO system placed
emphasis ontheprovision ofadatabase foron-going reference, thepurpose ofthenotification system
under theTRIPS Agreement wastofacilitate themonitoring oftheimplementation ofitsprovisions.
Consequently, aharmonized system orcommon register needed tobedeveloped forthecollection and
handling ofdatainthemost effective manner. Hisdelegation hoped thatacooperative mechanism
between theWTO andWIPO, ifestablished, would pursue thismatter asapriority issue. Healso
supported thesuggestion forfurther informal consultations onthematter.
34. Therepresentative ofIndia supported holding informal consultations.
35. Inthelightofthediscussion, theChairman suggested thattheSecretariat berequested tomake
acompilation ofhowsimilar notification requirements regarding thenotification oflegislation were
being handled inother WTO bodies. Healsoproposed thattheCouncil revert atalaterstage tothe
question oftheimplementation ofthenotification requirement ofArticle 63.2andthathewould hold
informal consultations onthismatter inthemeantime.
36. TheCouncil soagreed.
(ii) Article 4(d)
37. TheChairman recalled that,ifaMember sought tojustify anexception tothem.f.n. ruleon
thebasis ofaninternational agreement relating totheprotection ofintellectual property which had
entered intoforce prior totheentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement, Article 4(d)required thatsuch
anagreement benotified totheCouncil forTRIPS. Thefirst part ofparagraph 12of
document PC/IPL/7/Add.2 raised oneortwoquestions related tothisprovision.
38. Astherewerenostatements made onthisissue, theChairman proposed thattheCouncil revert
toArticle 4(d)atalaterstage andthatinformal consultations beheldonthismatter inthemeantime.
39. TheCouncil soagreed.
(iii) Article 69
40. TheChairman recalled thatArticle 69required thenotification ofcontact points established
intheadministrations ofMembers withaviewtocooperation intheelimination oftrade ininfringing
goods, notably through theexchange ofinformation.IP/C/M/1
Page11
41. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland wondered whether these contact points necessarily hadto
beestablishedincustomsadministrations;focusingontherôleofcontactpointsinrelationtocooperation
intheelimination oftradeininfringing goods appeared tosuggest this.Hisdelegation, however, was
oftheviewthatcontact points were, above all,points where information could beobtained, which
existed onanational levelforallquestions relating toTRIPS.
42. Inresponse, therepresentative oftheSecretariat saidthattheintention hadnotbeentolimit
theconcept ofcontact points soastonecessarily relate onlytocustoms administrations. Thiswould
befortheCouncil todecide. However, thewords "Forthispurpose" atthebeginning ofthesecond
sentence ofArticle 69,which laiddown theobligation toestablish contact points, made itclearthat
therewasalinkbetween thatsentence andthefirstsentence ofArticle 69,which addressed thegeneral
question ofcooperation between Members withaviewtoeliminating trade ininfringing goods.
43. TheChairman proposed toholdinformal consultations onprocedures forimplementing the
provisions ofArticle 69.
44. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatthewording ofArticle 69wasclear. Hisdelegation had
noproblem withtheChairman 'sproposal, provided thattheconsultations would bewithin thebroad
scope ofArticle 69.
45. TheCouncil agreed thattheChairman would holdinformal consultations andthatitwould
revert tothematter atalaterstage.
(iv) Articles 1.3and3.1
46. TheChairmanrecalledthatArticles1.3and3.1oftheTRIPSAgreementrelatingtothedefinition
ofbeneficiary persons under theAgreement andtonational treatment allowed certain exceptions to
thenormal rules, provided thatnotifications weremade totheTRIPS Council. Various issues inthis
connection werediscussed inparagraphs 13-17 ofdocument PC/IPL/7/Add.2. Itwould seemimportant
thatanyprocedures forgiving effect tothesenotification requirements bedeveloped withaslittledelay
aspossiblesinceMemberswishingthosenotificationsthatstemfromprovisionsoftheRomeConvention
tobeeffective from1January 1996should make thembefore themiddle of1995. Heinvited delegations
toaddress inparticular thequestion raised inparagraph 14ofdocument PC/IPL/7/Add.2 concerning
possible procedures forhandling thismatter.
47. TheChairman asked whether itwould beacceptable toproceed sothatWTO Members would
beinvited tomake anynotifications theywished tomake under theseprovisions bytheendofJune1995.
Tofacilitate suchnotifications andtoforestall anyunintended differences between notifications under
theTRIPS Agreement ontheonehand andtheBerne andtheRome Conventions ontheother, the
Secretariat would berequested tocompile, withtheassistance ofWIPO andtheUnited Nations Legal
Office, acomplete listing ofthenotifications already made under therelevant provisions oftheBerne
Convention ortheRome Convention andtocirculate thatcompilation totheTRIPS Council. Itwould
beunderstood thatthese arrangements would bewithout prejudice totherightofaMember tomake
notifications atalaterdateifitsowished.
48. TherepresentativeofArgentinabelievedthatitwouldbemostappropriatetohavethisdocument
provided bytheSecretariat. Hisdelegation supported theproposal inthefirstindent ofparagraph 14
ofPC/IPL/7/Add.2, i.e.thatnotifications already made under theBerne Convention andtheRome
Convention should beconsidered alsotohavebeenmade forTRIPS purposes unless there wasan
indication tothecontrary bythestateconcerned.IP/C/M/1
Page12
49. Therepresentative ofMexico shared theviews expressed bytherepresentative ofArgentina.
50. TherepresentativeoftheSecretariatrecalledthatinparagraph14ofPC/IPL/7/Add.2alternative
procedures forpossible decision bytheTRIPS Council hadbeensuggested. Thefirstprovided that,
intheabsence ofanyaction onthepartofaMember whohadalready made notifications under the
Berne Convention ortheRome Convention, itsexisting notifications inthosecontexts would beassumed
tobevalid alsounder theTRIPS Agreement onthebasis ofadecision from theCouncil forTRIPS
thatwould givelegalstatus tothose notifications under theTRIPS Agreement. Thesecond approach
would require eachMember toconfirm anearlier notification ortonotify something different. Under
thisapproach, passivity orfailure todosomething would mean thatnonotification hadbeeneffected
under theTRIPS Agreement. Onreflection, itseemed thatthismore active approach might be
preferable. Oneproblem withthefirstapproach wasthatifaMember tooknoaction, there could be
room fordoubt astowhether theabsence ofaction wasduetothematter having beenoverlooked or
duetoadeliberate policy decision. Also, theobligations intheTRIPS Agreement on"related rights"
weresomewhat different fromthoseunder theRome Convention. Therefore itdidnotnecessarily follow
thatacountry which hadmade certain notifications under theRome Convention would wanttomake
thesame notifications intheTRIPS context.
51. Therepresentative ofParaguay saidthatwhile hesympathized withtheposition expressed by
therepresentative ofArgentina, thepoints made bytheSecretariat indicated thatthematter stillrequired
further reflection andthatonehadtobefairly cautious.
52. Therepresentative ofHong Kong emphasized theimportance ofArticles 1.3and3.1asthey
hadadirect relation tothescope ofobligations. Heshared thecaution expressed bytheSecretariat
andtherepresentative ofParaguay. Hesuggested that,afterexamining thecompilation proposed by
theChairman, agreement might bereached onsomething thatwould notrequire completely new
notifications. Heproposed thatthematter beincluded intheinformal consultations.
53. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities agreed withthecomments made byHong
Kong. Astheobligations under theTRIPS Agreement andtheRome Convention werenotidentical
itwould beappropriate thatgovernments, including those herepresented, would reflect upon the
reservations thattheyhadfound necessary withrespect totheRome Convention. Itwasalsoimportant
thattherespective rights andobligations oftheMembers wereknown precisely. Confusion would arise
fromasituation where some Members would notnotify theirreservations under theRome Convention
astheywould consider themtobevalidunder theTRIPS Agreement, while others would confirm their
earlier notifications ornotify something else.Hewasinfavour ofallMembers notifying reservations
theywished tomaintain.
54. TheChairman proposed thattheSecretariat compile, withtheassistance ofWIPO andtheUnited
Nations Legal Office, acomplete listing ofthenotifications already made under therelevant provisions
oftheBerne Convention andtheRome Convention andthattheCouncil revert atalaterstage tothe
exact course ofaction tobetaken withregard tothenotification requirements ofArticles 1.3and3.1.
Inthemeantime, hewould holdinformal consultations.
55. TheCouncil soagreed.
(v) Article 63.2 concerning notifications pursuant toTRIPS obligations
stemming from theprovisions ofArticle 6teroftheParis Convention
56. Referring toparagraphs 18-21 ofdocument PC/IPL/7/Add.2, theChairman introduced the
agendaitembyaskingwhethertheTRIPSCouncilwouldwishtoseekthecooperationoftheInternational
Bureau ofWIPO tohandle onitsbehalf thenotifications pursuant tothese obligations.IP/C/M/1
Page13
57. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatthere wasarôletobeplayed byWIPO in
thiscontext, given theexisting collection ofnotifications made under Article 6terbymember states
oftheParis Convention, including thereactions tothose notifications thathadbeenmade byother
member states. However, theproblem remained thattheprovisions ofArticle 6terwould beextended
under theTRIPS Agreement toother countries thatwerenotmembers oftheParis Convention. Any
action under Article 6terbyWTO Members inthelatter category could notsimply belefttotheWIPO
alone.
58. TheChairman proposed thatthisquestion alsobethesubject ofinformal consultations and
bereverted toatalaterstage.
59. TheCouncil soagreed.
(vi) Other notification requirements
60. TheChairman drew attention toparagraphs 7-9ofdocument PC/IPL/7/Add.1 which listed
anumber ofnotification requirements under provisions ofother intellectual property conventions that
were incorporated byreference intotheTRIPS Agreement butnotexplicitly referred toinit.He
suggested thattheCouncil leave these provisions aside forthetimebeing.
61. TheCouncil soagreed.
(2) Notification oflegislation giving effect toobligations already applicable
62. TheChairman recalled thattheContact Group hadagreed thatunder Article 63.2national laws
andregulations should benotified promptly asofthetimethatthecorresponding substantive obligation
applied andthatnational lawsandregulations implementing theprovisions ofArticle 70.8should
consequently benotified asofthedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement. Asoftoday,
notifications hadbeenreceived fromIndiaandBrazil indocuments IP/N/1/IND/1 andIP/N/1/BRA/1,
respectively.
63. Inintroducing document IP/N/1/IND/1, therepresentative ofIndia saidthat,through the
Presidential Ordinance of31December 1994reproduced inthatdocument, Indiahadmetitsobligations
under paragraphs 8and9ofArticle 70oftheTRIPS Agreement.
64. Therepresentative ofBrazil introduced document IP/N/1/BRA/1 andsaidthatithadnotbeen
necessary topassanewlawtoenable patent applications tobefiledunder Article 70.8, sincethecurrent
lawdidnotforbid theBrazilian National Institute ofIndustrial Property from receiving suchpatent
applications. Consequently, implementation oftheprovision inquestion hadbeenpossible bythe
administrative measure passed bythePresident oftheBrazilian National Institute ofIndustrial Property
described inthenotification.
65. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthattherewerethreetypes oflegislative
andrelated actions taken byMembers which were relevant asof1January 1995 andwhich should
therefore besubject torapid notification totheTRIPS Council. First, Article 65.5contained an
obligation toensure thatanychanges inlaws, regulations andpractice made during thetransitional
period didnotresult inalesser degree ofconsistency withtheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Hisdelegation deduced from thisobligation that,inorder toallow Members tomonitor compliance
withthisobligation asof1January 1995, anysubsequent changes indomestic lawrelevant tothe
TRIPSAgreementshouldbenotified.Second,hementionednationallegislationenactedforthepurpose
ofensuring conformity withtheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement. Although noMember wasobliged
tosubmit forcirculation suchmodifications oftheirnational legislation before itscorresponding TRIPSIP/C/M/1
Page14
obligation came intoforce, hebelieved thatitwould beveryuseful ifMembers, nevertheless, were
todoso;hisdelegation would dososhortly. Third, hementioned theobligations arising from
Article 70.8. Hewelcomed thenotifications made byBrazil andIndia butnoted withconcern that
quiteanumber ofother Members whoshould haveenacted national legislation ormeasures inorder
toimplement Article 70.8either hadnotdonesoorhadnotsubmitted notifications.
66. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesagreedwithmostofthepointsmadebytherepresentative
oftheEuropean Communities andalsostrongly urged other countries towhich Article 70.8applied
tosubmit notifications assoonaspossible. Heexpressed doubts, though, astothecomments made
bytheEuropean Communities inrelation totheirsecond category oflawsandregulations.
67. Therepresentative ofJapan emphasized theimportance ofArticle 65.5from amonitoring
perspective andexpressed support forthepoints made bytheEuropean Communities andtheUnited
States. Healsosupported these delegations ontheissue ofArticle 70.8andadded thatattempts by
hisGovernment toacquire information through diplomatic channels astohowthecountries concerned
hadimplemented thatprovision hadnotbeenfruitful.
68. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland supported theviews expressed bytherepresentatives of
theEuropean Communities andtheUnited States concerning Article 65.5. Heexpressed concern
regarding thelimited number ofnotifications received sofarunder Article 70.8. Hewaspleased,
however, thattwonotifications hadbeenreceived.
69. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatthemodalities foranynotifications pursuant to
Article 65.5hadfirsttobeclarified andthat,therefore, Article 65.5should beincluded asapriority
itemintheinformal discussions.
70. Therepresentative ofIndia preferred toreflect onthematter andcome backtoitduring the
informal consultations.
71. Therepresentative ofParaguay saidthehehadnodifficulties innotifying anyamendments
tothelegislation ofhiscountry andthatinfactthecollection oflawsinWIPO could beconsulted
inthisrespect, since modifications tothelegislation ofhiscountry were always communicated
automatically toWIPO.
72. TheChairman proposed thatArticle 65.5would bethesubject ofinformal consultations and
thattheCouncil revert tothematter atalaterstage. Astothesecond suggestion oftheEuropean
Communities, relating tothesituation where acountry hadamended itslegislation tobring itslaws
andregulationsintoconformitywiththeprovisionsoftheTRIPSAgreementinadvanceofitsobligations
todoso,hesuggested thatinformation concerning suchlegislation would besubmitted totheTRIPS
Council onabestendeavours basis. Asregards Article 70.8, heproposed thattheTRIPS Council
urgethose Members towhom Article 70.8applied tonotify therelevant legislation prior tothenext
meeting oftheTRIPS Council andthattheCouncil revert tothematter atthenextmeeting.
73. TheCouncil soagreed.
74. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthatthere should benodecision thatwould addorlessen
anyobligations under Article 65.5.
75. TheChairman noted thatnodecision hadbeentaken inrespect ofArticle 65.5other thanto
haveinformal consultations.IP/C/M/1
Page15
D. Organizational Matters andWork Programme
76. TheChairman invited delegations toconsider which other items should beaddressed thisyear
andhowtheTRIPS Council should proceed inthisrespect.
77. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitieshadtwocommentswithrespecttotheactivities
oftheTRIPS Council, inparticular, itsresponsibilities formonitoring theoperation oftheAgreement.
Thefirstcomment concerned thequestion ofpatent applications under Article 70.8. Emphasizing
thegreat importance hisdelegation attached tooperationally relevant procedures under Article 70.8
and70.9inallcountries thatshould haveintroduced suchprocedures witheffect from1January 1995,
heproposed thattheimplementation ofthese provisions beputontheagenda ofthenextmeeting of
theTRIPS Council. Inthiscontext, itwould behelpful tohaveavailable prior tothenextmeeting,
inaddition tothenotifications already received, therelevant legislation ofallparticipants concerned
relating tothese provisions soastopermit examination atthatmeeting. Apart from discussing this
matterintheTRIPSCouncil,hisdelegationremained,ofcourse,fullyopentopursuingrelatedquestions
onabilateral basis, ifcountries inquestion sowished. Hissecond comment related toArticle 23.4
oftheAgreement concerning theestablishment ofamultilateral system ofnotification andregistration
forgeographical indications, which wasamatter thathadbeendiscussed atgreat length during the
negotiations onTRIPS andwhich hisdelegation wished toaddress atanearlyopportunity intheTRIPS
Council, preferably attheCouncil 'snextmeeting.
78. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthatthehighest priority should beattached totheissue of
technical cooperation. Inthisregard, herdelegation believed thattheTRIPS Council might playa
rôleinthecontextofArticle67oftheAgreementbyreviewing,startingthisyear,technicalandfinancial
cooperation andassistance provided bydeveloped countries infavour ofdeveloping andleast-developed
countries withaviewtoassisting them intheimplementation oftheAgreement. Itwould beuseful
ifperiodically adequate information would beprovided toandexamined bytheCouncil withaview
toidentifying areas where additional efforts might benecessary torespond totheneeds ofdeveloping
andleast-developed countries.
79. TherepresentativeofCanada,referringtotheissueofnon-violationnullificationorimpairment
intheTRIPS context, saidthatherdelegation attached considerable importance totheinclusion of
thismatter inthework programme oftheTRIPS Council. While recognizing thetimeavailable for
areview andfurther consultations onthisquestion, shestressed thattheissues concerned were
conceptually difficult andhadnotbeentaken upinsubstance inanyprevious discussions, including
theTRIPS negotiations. Thediscussion ofthese issues should notbedelayed toomuch, soastoleave
anadequate period tocomplete examination ofthematter, ascalled forinArticle 64oftheTRIPS
Agreement. Shesuggested thattheCouncil include thematter initswork programme withaview
to,atleast, setting awork planthisyearonhowtodealwithit.
80. Therepresentative ofKorea referred toArticle 68oftheAgreement, inparticular theCouncil 's
taskofmonitoring theoperation oftheAgreement, andsaidthatthebasic andnecessary information
formonitoring Members 'compliance withtheirobligations under theAgreement would bethelaws
andregulations notified. Considering thevolume ofthisinformation, hisdelegation would suggest
that,thisyear, achecklist orquestionnaire beprepared aswellasamonitoring schedule forthe
submission ofresponses based ontheentry intoforce ofthesubstantive obligations under theTRIPS
Agreement. Aworking group might beestablished toprepare suchachecklist orquestionnaire and
examine theresponses received from Members. Anadditional advantage ofsuchasystem would
bethattheresponsescouldbedistributedtotheMembersinsteadofthelawsandregulationsthemselves.
81. Therepresentative oftheUnited States agreed withthefirstcomment bytheEuropean
Communities, thatArticle 70.8should bekeptontheagenda andshould beanimportant topic forIP/C/M/1
Page16
thenextmeeting oftheTRIPS Council. Heexpressed disagreement, however, withtheCanadian
delegation andbelieved thatitwaspremature tobegin considering questions ofnon-violation dispute
settlement cases. TheCouncil hadfiveyears fortheexamination ofthismatter andthisyearalready
hadmany other important issues toturnitsattention to.
82. Therepresentative ofIndia associated himself withthesuggestion byEgypt onArticle 67and
alsoendorsed theviews expressed bytheCanadian delegation.
83. Therepresentative ofHong Kong wasoftheview that,atthisstage, theCouncil should
concentrate itsefforts ongetting thebusiness going andshould, consequently, focus onthemonitoring
function under Article 68,inparticular inrespect ofArticle 70.8and70.9. Healsosupported the
Egyptian suggestion toconsider theimplementation ofArticle 67.Theissues ofnon-violation disputes
andanotification andregistration system forgeographical indications hadastrong negotiating element:
discussion onthese matters had,therefore, better bereserved forlater.
84. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidthatinherdelegation 'sviewtheearly work ofthe
Council should include theimplementation ofArticle 68oftheAgreement, i.e.arrangements for
monitoring theoperation oftheAgreement andconsideration ofwhatassistance theCouncil might
provide inthecontext ofdispute settlement. Other priorities forfuture work were, inorder, the
implementation ofArticles 23.4, 64.3, 69and67and66.2.
85. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthatitwould notbenecessary totakeuptheissue ofnon-
violation disputes untilthethirdyearafterentry intoforce oftheAgreement.
86. Therepresentative ofJapan agreed withHong Kong thatconsideration thisyearoftheissues
ofnon-violation disputes andgeographical indications would bepremature.
87. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland believed thatitwasnotatallpremature toconsider
Article 23.4 oftheAgreement. Theestablishment ofanotification andregistration system for
geographical indications should beoneofthepriorities fortheCouncil.
88. Inconclusion, theChairman noted thatsome ofthepoints putforward would seemtobemore
readily agreeable asitems forawork programme thanothers. Heproposed totakethisagenda item
upintheinformal consultations hewould beholding.
89. TheCouncil soagreed.
E. Activities inother International Fora Relevant totheTRIPS Agreement
90. TheChairman referred todocument IP/C/W/1 andCorrigendum 1concerning draftmodel
legislationunderconsiderationintheWorldCustomsOrganizationaimedatassistingcountriesingiving
effect totheirobligations onborder enforcement under theTRIPS Agreement andopened thefloor
todelegations wishing tocomment onthisorother matters relating torelevant activities ofother
international fora.
91. Therepresentative oftheUnited States wasconcerned thattheWorld Customs Organization
wasonarather fasttrack. While alldelegations hadtheopportunity toconsult withtheirowncustoms
authorities onthis,hewasconcerned thatmodel legislation interpreting oneaspect oftheTRIPS
Agreement wasabout tobeadopted andthatthere might notbemuch lefttodiscuss intheTRIPS
Council inrelation todocument IP/C/W/1 ifthemodel legislation wereadopted bytheWorld Customs
Organization inJuneofthisyear, asscheduled.IP/C/M/1
Page17
92. TheChairman proposed totakeupthisitemintheinformal consultations hewould beholding
andtoconvey totheChairman oftheGeneral Council thedesire oftheTRIPS Council toinvite the
Secretariat oftheWorld Customs Organization toberepresented inanobserver capacity atthenext
meeting oftheTRIPS Council.
93. TheCouncil soagreed.
F. Other Business
94. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil holditsnextmeeting on24May1995 andthat,in
themeantime, hewould holdinformal consultations onthevarious matters which hadbeendiscussed.
95. TheCouncil soagreed.
96. TheChairman thensuggested thattheCouncil might haveanadditional meeting before the
summer break ifnecessary, forwhich hesuggested some timeintheweek of10July1995, andone
ortwomeetings intheautumn period according totheneeds oftheCouncil, forwhich hesuggested,
onatentative basis, some timeintheweeks of9October and20November.
97. TheCouncil tooknoteofthese suggestions.