RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/6
10April 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-1248)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on22February 1996
Chairman: Mr.S.Harbinson (Hong Kong)
Subjects discussed:
A. Notifications under Articles 1.3and3.1
B. Notifications under Article 63.2
C. Notifications under Article 69
D. Notifications under Article 4(d)
E. Notifications under other provisions oftheAgreement
F. Derestriction ofdocuments
G. Implementation ofArticle 70.8
H. Technical cooperation
I. Other business
J. Election oftheChairperson fortheCouncil forTRIPS
1. Inaccordancewiththeinterimproceduresonobserverstatusforintergovernmentalorganizations,
theCouncil agreed toinvite WIPO, theIMF, theFAO, theOECD, United Nations, UNCTAD, UPOV,
theWCO andtheWorld Bank toitsnextmeeting.
A. Notifications under Articles 1.3and3.1
2. TheChairman informed theCouncil that,since thismatter hadlastbeenconsidered bythe
Council atitsmeeting of21November 1995, additional notifications hadbeenreceived fromPoland
andZimbabwe andhadbeencirculated intheIP/N/2/- series.
3. TheCouncil tooknoteofthisinformation.IP/C/M/6
Page2
B. Notifications under Article 63.2
4. TheChairman saidthat,atitsmeeting of21November 1995, theCouncil hadadopted aseries
ofdecisions relating toprocedures forgiving effect totherequirement tonotify national lawsand
regulations under Article 63.2andtotheconsideration thatitwould subsequently givetonotifications
made under thisrequirement (documents IP/C/2-5). Subsequently, theSecretariat hadissued anairgram
(WTO/AIR/240) drawing attention tothetime-frame forthesubmission ofthese notifications. As
regards thestatus ofnotifications actually received sofarunder Article 63.2, hesaidthat,excluding
thenotifications already made relevant toArticle 70.8, 21Members hadnotified their laws and
regulations pertaining tothesubject matter oftheTRIPS Agreement sofar.Inafewcases, the
notification had,asyet,beenpartial only. Most Members hadattempted tofollow theguidelines in
theabove-mentioned procedures. Thebasic notification forsome ofthese Members hadalready been
circulated andforothers wasbeing processed. Insome cases, thetextsofthemainlawsandregulations
hadalsobeencirculated; insome others, thetextswere presently being processed andshould be
available fairly soon; andinafewcases theprocessing wasbeing helduppending clarification of
some points withthenotifying delegation. Most notifications hadnot,asyet,included responses to
thechecklist ofissues onenforcement (document IP/C/5). None ofthenotifications received sofar
hadrelated onlytothose parts ofnational legislation which gaveeffect tothenational treatment and
MFN obligations ofArticles 3,4and5oftheTRIPS Agreement, which obligations hadentered into
force forallMembers witheffect from 1January 1996.
5. Continuing, theChairman recalled thattheCouncil hadadopted aschedule fortheconsideration
ofnational implementing legislation starting inJuly1996 (document IP/C/3). Thisschedule already
includedproceduresfortheposingofquestionsandfordiscussionintheCouncil.However,hesuspected
thatitmight behelpful fortheCouncil toprovide todelegations inadvance somewhat clearer guidelines
astohowthereview would beundertaken. Therefore, heproposed thattheCouncil askhissuccessor
asChairperson toholdinformal consultations, taking intoaccount anycomments delegations would
haveandexperience inother WTO bodies which hadundertaken reviews ofnational implementing
legislation, andcome forward withsuggestions attheCouncil 'snextmeeting.
6. Therepresentative ofPoland, introducing document IP/N/1/POL/1, saidthatthePolish
notification ofmain lawsandregulations pertaining tothesubject matter oftheTRIPS Agreement,
reproduced inthatdocument, wasapartial notification andanadvance one. ThePolish authorities
hadavailed themselves oftheright, under Article 65.3oftheTRIPS Agreement, todelay thedate
ofapplication oftheprovisions oftheAgreement other thanArticles 3,4and5beyond thedateof
1January 1996. Poland wasundergoing theprocess oftransformation fromacentrally-planned into
amarket, free-enterprise economy. Oneelement ofthisprocess oftransformation wasastructural
reformoftheintellectualpropertysystem.Hisdelegationhad,however,beenencouragedbythedecision
oftheCouncil of21November 1995, assetforth inparagraph 3ofdocument IP/C/2, which invited
WTO Members tonotify inadvance lawsandregulations thatwere incompliance withtheTRIPS
Agreement. Poland haddecided, thus,tosubmit itsnotification oftheeightlawsandregulations that
were already inlinewiththeprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement. Theintention was,furthermore,
tosubmit soonthetextoftwoother regulations pertaining torulesgoverning faircompetition. Turning
tothelawsthathadnotyetbeenbrought intoconformity withtheprovisions oftheAgreement, he
saidthatlawsintheareaofcopyright werecurrently inanadvanced stage ofdrafting. Astoother
lawsdedicated totheprotection ofintellectual property, hewasnotinaposition tostatewhen the
Polish authorities would complete theirwork butheexpected thatthiswould bethecasebefore the
endofthetransitional period assetforth inArticle 65.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
7. Therepresentative oftheSlovak Republic saidthathisdelegation waspreparing itsnotification
under Article 63.2. Thisnotification would comprise allmainlawsandregulations except intheareaIP/C/M/6
Page3
ofcopyright. Thecopyright lawwasinthefinalstage ofdrafting andwould bethesubject ofan
additional notification afterfinalapproval which heexpected within aperiod ofmonths.
8. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation hadnotyetsubmitted its
notification duetoaGovernment shutdown ofaperiod ofonemonth uptomid-January 1996, but
would dososhortly. Inpreparing thelisting of"other lawsandregulations" asrequired bytherelevant
decisions oftheCouncil of21November 1995 (documents IP/C/2 and4),hisdelegation hadtaken
verymuch toheart theobligation inthese decisions toindicate theconnection between theprovisions
ofthenational lawsandregulations notified andthecorresponding provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Inthenearfuture, suchalisting withcross-references would besubmitted inrespect ofalltheirnotified
lawsandregulations, notonly"other lawsandregulations". Alsohisdelegation 'sresponses tothe
checklist ofissues onenforcement (document IP/C/5) werebeing prepared andcould beexpected soon.
Heexpressed thehopethatalarge number ofMembers would submit notifications andwaspleased
withthenotifications made and/or announced byPoland andtheSlovak Republic. Hewished to
encourage, inparticular, those Members which, inhisdelegation 'sview, were "recently developed
countries" tomake notifications atthetimerequired fordeveloped country Members. Asregards the
preparationofthereviewofnotifiedlegislationinJuly1996,hesupportedtheproposalthattheChairman
holdinformal consultations.
9. Therepresentative ofNorway informed theCouncil thatherdelegation would submit its
notification totheSecretariat inthecourse oftheday.
10. Therepresentative ofJapan, addressing theChairman 'sproposal forholding informal
consultations concerning thereview ofnational legislation, recalled hisdelegation 'ssuggestion atthe
meeting oftheCouncil inNovember 1995 thateachMember prepare aroadmapindicating cross-
references between theprovisions ofitsnational lawandtheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Given thehugevolume oftextsnotified totheCouncil, hisdelegation wished tostress andrecommend
theusefulness ofsuchcross-references inpreparation ofthereview ofthese texts bytheCouncil.
Models foraroadmaphadbeenprepared byhisdelegation concerning theareas oftrademarks and
industrial designs, copies ofwhich could beobtained from theSecretariat.
11. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthat,intheprocesses oflegislative review conducted under
other bodies oftheWTO, hisdelegation hadnotified itslaws, andamendments tothose laws, existing
atthetimethatthenotification wasrequired. However, inorder tofacilitate thetransparency ofthe
notification, subsequently aconsolidated textoftheappropriate Canadian lawhadbeensubmitted.
Hisdelegation intended tofollow thesame procedure inrelation toitsnotification under Article 63.2.
Heexpected consolidated textstobeavailable shortly. However, hisdelegation didnotwishtointerfere
withthetime-table setforth forthereview oflegislation andwould submit thecopyright legislation
initscurrent form ifaconsolidated textwould notbeavailable intime.
12. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation wasinasomewhat
similar situation astheUnited States. TheCommunity itselfhadnotified itslawsandregulations but
anumber ofitsMember States hadnotyetdoneso.These outstanding notifications would, however,
besubmitted soon. Asregards theJapanese suggestion foraroadmap, hewished tore-state his
delegation 'sposition thatthereview process would beverymuch facilitated byhaving available cross-
references between theprovisions ofaMember 'slawandtheprovisions oftheAgreement, butthat
there wasnoobligation intheTRIPS Agreement toprovide sucharoadmap.
13. Inconclusion, theChairman saidthatthere appeared tobesupport fortheideathatinformal
consultations beheldbyhissuccessor onguidelines fortheprocedures forthereview ofnational laws
andregulations. Healsodrew attention todocument IP/C/3, according towhich advance notice ofIP/C/M/6
Page4
questions inregard tonotified lawsandregulations intheareaofcopyright andrelated rights wasto
begiven bytheendofApril 1996.
14. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed thattheChairman holdinformal
consultations asproposed.
C. Notifications under Article 69
15. TheChairman saidthattheSecretariat hadissued indocument IP/N/3 alistofthecontact points
notified under Article 69oftheTRIPS Agreement. Since thatdocument hadbeenprepared, notifications
hadbeenreceived fromtheUnited States andZimbabwe. ItwastheSecretariat 'sintention toprepare
arevision ofdocument IP/N/3, taking intoaccount these additional notifications andthose thatwould
bereceived prior to22March 1996, forcirculation endMarch. Hetherefore urged those Members
which hadyettonotify contact points todosoassoonaspossible.
D. Notifications under Article 4(d)
16. TheChairman saidthat, sofar,notifications under Article 4(d)hadbeen received from
18Members. While mostofthese hadalready beencirculated, intheIP/N/4/- series ofdocuments,
afewwere stillbeing processed.
17. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthattheTRIPS Agreement didnotseem togive
much guidance astowhatnotifications under Article 4(d)should contain. Thiscould beoneexplanation
forthedifferences intheextent ofthenotifications. Hisdelegation hadbeensomewhat dismayed to
seethatsome Members appeared tohave sought MFN exemptions onthebasis ofinternational
instruments thatcontained fundamental components oftheTRIPS Agreement itself, suchastheBerne
Convention, theParis Convention, theMadrid Agreement anditsProtocol andtheRome Convention.
Such MFN exemptions didnotmake sense andwere, inanycase, unacceptable tohisdelegation.
Other Members hadarighttoknow whatintheinstruments notified under Article 4(d)wasviewed
asbeing discriminatory andwasthesubject ofthenotification under Article 4(d). Ifthiswasnotclear
from thenotification, thenotifying Member would, inhisdelegation 'sview, notbeentitled torely
ontheexemption inquestion ifadispute were toariseoverit.
18. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatintensive discussions hadtaken place
between theCommunity anditsMember States before adecision could betaken onwhich international
agreements theEuropean Communities assuchwould notify under Article 4(d). These discussions
hadrevealed awidedifference ofviewranging fromoneextreme, which wastonotify allthatexisted
onthebilateral andmultilateral level, totheother, namely nottonotify anything. Hewished tonote
that,intheintellectual property area,littleexperience existed withMFN. Clarification ofitsfunctioning
inrelation tointellectual property wasneeded, sothatMembers would beabletoindicate moreprecisely
theexemption notified under Article 4(d).
19. TherepresentativeofAustraliasharedtheconcernsexpressedbytheUnitedStatesandwelcomed
thestatement made bytheEuropean Communities. Shelooked forward tofurther discussions onthe
issue ofnotifications under Article 4(d)inorder toclarify thenotifications tobemade under that
provision. Herdelegation would notmake anotification under Article 4(d).
20. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland suggested thatthematter betaken upbytheChairman in
informal consultations.
21. Inconclusion, theChairman saidthatthere appeared tobeadegree ofdissatisfaction withthe
lackofguidelinesfornotificationsunderArticle4(d).HeproposedthattheCouncilfollowthesuggestionIP/C/M/6
Page5
made bySwitzerland andaskhissuccessor toconsult informally withaviewtofinding amutually
satisfactory wayofhandling thismatter andreport tothenextmeeting oftheCouncil.
22. TheCouncil soagreed.
E. Notifications Under Other Provisions oftheAgreement
(i) Notification provisions oftheBerne Convention andtheRome Convention
incorporated byreference intotheTRIPS Agreement butnotexplicitly referred
toinit
23. TheChairmansaidthat,asagreedattheCouncil'smeetingof21September1995,theSecretariat
hadprepared abackground noteaimed atexplaining thenature ofthevarious notification provisions
inquestion, which hadbeencirculated asdocument IP/C/W/15. Thisdocument hadbeenbriefly
discussed attheCouncil 'smeeting of21November 1995, butsince ithad,atthattime, onlyjustbeen
made available, theCouncil hadagreed torevert tothematter atitsfirstmeeting in1996. Theannex
tothedocument showed thatthere wereveryfewcountries whohadavailed themselves oftheoptions
inthecorresponding provisions oftheBerne Convention ortheRome Convention themselves.
24. TheChairman drew attention toparagraph 15ofthedocument, inwhich itwaspointed out
thattheCouncil hadalready dealtwithsimilar notification procedures under certain provisions ofthe
Berne Convention andtheRome Convention incorporated intotheTRIPS Agreement byreference,
when ithadtaken thedecision concerning notifications under Articles 1.3and3.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement.1Hesuggested thattheCouncil handle questions relating tonotifications addressed in
document IP/C/W/15 inasimilar low-key way,andwould simply invite eachMember wishing tomake
suchnotifications tomake themtotheCouncil forTRIPS, eveniftheMember inquestion hadalready
madeanotificationundertheBerneorRomeConventioninregardtothesameissue,anddrawMembers'
attention tothediscussion inparagraphs 16through 21ofthedocument ofquestions relating tothe
timing ofthese notifications.
25. TheCouncil soagreed.
(ii) NotificationsunderArticle6teroftheParisConventionasincorporatedbyreference
intotheTRIPS Agreement
26. TheChairman drew theattention ofMembers totheprocedures thattheCouncil hadadopted
regarding thecommunication ofnational emblems under Article 6teroftheParis Convention. He
recalled thattheAgreement thathadbeenconcluded withWIPO (document IP/C/6) andthedecision
adopted bytheCouncil giving legal effect under theTRIPS Agreement totheprovisions ofthat
AgreementrelatingtoArticle6teroftheParisConvention(documentIP/C/7)providedthatsuchemblems
andanyobjections tothemwould becommunicated between WTO Members through theintermediary
oftheInternational Bureau ofWIPO. MostWTO Members whoweremembers oftheParisConvention
would already havecommunicated emblems toWIPO andthesewould automatically becommunicated
bytheInternational Bureau toallWTO Members thatwere notmembers oftheParis Convention.
Theparticular point thathewished todrawtotheCouncil 'sattention wasthatitwasnowopentothose
WTO Members whowere notmembers oftheParis Convention tomake notifications, through the
International Bureau, oftheirnational emblems thattheywould wishtoseeprotected inother WTO
Members inaccordance withtheprovisions ofArticle 6teroftheParis Convention astheyapplied
under theTRIPS Agreement.
1IP/C/M/2, paragraphs 11-12IP/C/M/6
Page6
(iii) Other
27. TheChairman drew theCouncil 'sattention todocument IP/C/W/19 which contained a
communication from Chile concerning thequestion ofwhether anyformal notification wasrequired
byadeveloping country Member inorder toinvoke thetransitional period under Article 65.2ofthe
Agreement. Given thatthiswasamatter ofpossible wider interest, heinformed theCouncil thatthe
Secretariat, towhich theletter from Chile hadbeenaddressed, hadresponded confirming thatthere
wasnorequirement intheTRIPS Agreement ondeveloping country Members toprovide anyformal
notification oftheirinvocation ofthetransitional period forwhich theywereeligible under Article 65.2.
Ofcourse, oncemore intheinterest oftransparency, hebelieved thattheCouncil would appreciate
anyinformation thatsuchMembers were willing toshare regarding theirintentions.
28. While notdisputing theresponse given bytheSecretariat, therepresentative oftheEuropean
Communities welcomed thecommunication from Chile andthequestion thatChile hadput. Inhis
delegation 'sopinion, itwould beuseful, forpurposes oftransparency, ifMembers thatclaimed
developing country status would inform other Members oftheCouncil oftheirintentions regarding
thetransitional arrangements laiddown inArticle 65.
29. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed hissupport forthestatement made bythe
delegation oftheEuropean Communities.
30. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthathewould report tohisGovernment that,although there
wasnoobligation tonotify under Article 65.2, theEuropean Communities andtheUnited States would
encourage Members concerned, forthepurposes oftransparency, toprovide information regarding
theirinvocation oftheprovisions inquestion, inanyform theyliked.
31. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
F. Derestriction ofDocuments
32. TheChairman recalled thattheGeneral Council hadnoted atitsmeeting inDecember 19952
that,pending theagreement onalong-term policy oftheWTO onderestriction ofdocuments, the
procedures andcustomary practices regarding document derestriction followed under theGATT would
beapplied. Pursuant tothis,theChairman proposed thattheCouncil decide toderestrict notifications
ofnational legislation under Article 63.2aswellasnotifications made under Articles 1.3and3.1that
hadalready beenissued, andthat,infuture, suchnotifications would becirculated asunrestricted
documents.
33. TheCouncil soagreed.
G. Implementation ofArticle 70.8
34. TheChairman informed theCouncil that,since thismatter hadlastbeendiscussed, atthe
Council'smeetingof21November1995,nofurthernotificationshadbeenreceivedofnationallegislation
giving effect totherequirements ofArticle 70.8andtherelated requirements ofArticle 70.9. Todate,
nineMembers hadmade notifications related toArticle 70.8.
35. Therepresentative oftheUnited States recalled thatallMembers thatdidnotprovide product
patent protection forpharmaceutical andagricultural chemical products asof1January 1995 were
2WT/GC/M/9, page 4IP/C/M/6
Page7
obliged toimplement theprovisions ofArticles 70.8and70.9andtostartreceiving patent applications
under theimplementing legislation concerned asofthatdate. They werealsoobliged tonotify this
implementing legislation promptly totheCouncil. Inhisdelegation 'sview, inimplementing these
provisions, theMembers inquestion hadtoestablish, first, alegalright ofpriority toallow patent
applications toclaim thebenefit ofthefiling dateofapplications filedunder the"mailbox" eventhough
examination ofthepatent applications would notoccur untilsome future date. Heemphasized in
particular theimportance ofArticle 70.9which obliged Members concerned toprovide thepossibility
ofmarketing exclusivity forinventions which were thesubject ofapplications under Article 70.8.
Inbilateral consultations, hisdelegation hadnoticed thatsome countries hadnotappreciated this. In
duecourse, inventors thathadfiledpatent applications under Article 70.8would receive marketing
approval intheirhome country andshould, oncemarketing approval hadbeenobtained incountries
wheretheyhadfiledtheseapplications,beentitledtoclaimexclusivemarketingrightsunderArticle70.9.
Thisshould notberegarded asonlysomething forthedistant future butmight happen quite soon.
Hereferred tothestatement byhisdelegation during themeeting oftheGeneral Council of6February
1996. Although hedidnothaveacomplete picture astowhich WTO Members didnotprovide patent
protection forpharmaceutical andagricultural chemical products, according totheinformation available
tohisdelegation Pakistan, Kuwait, Nicaragua, Myanmar, Qatar andTanzania were suchMembers
thathadnotnotified thattheyhadestablished thenecessary means under Articles 70.8and70.9. He
called upon these countries toinform theCouncil that,infact,theydidprovide patent protection for
these forms oftechnology, ortoendtheirviolation oftheTRIPS Agreement andmake thenecessary
notification totheCouncil.
36. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation fullysupported the
statement made bytheUnited States. Obligations under Articles 70.8and70.9hadstarted applying
more thanayearagoandstillsome Members hadnotcome forward withinformation onwhatthey
haddonetoimplement theseprovisions. Heinformed theCouncil thathisdelegation hadunsuccessfully
pursued thismatter withanumber ofcountries onabilateral basis. Asregards Article 70.9, heagreed
withtheUnited States thatitcould notbeentirely excluded that,inindividual cases, exclusive marketing
rights would havetobegranted inthenearfuture.
37. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed torevert totheissue atitsnext
meeting.
H. Technical Cooperation
38. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil hadrequested, atitsmeeting on21November 1995,
thatheprepare, withthehelpoftheSecretariat, forthefirstmeeting oftheCouncil in1996, ashort
informal discussion noteoutlining andstructuring theissues which hadbeen raised initsvarious
discussions onthesubject oftechnical cooperation andidentifying possible options forcarrying forward
theCouncil 'swork inthisarea. Accordingly, hehadcirculated aninformal discussion note, dated
7February 1996 (subsequently distributed asdocument IP/C/W/21), inwhich hehadsuggested four
types ofissues thattheCouncil might wishtoconsider further incarrying forward itswork inthis
area:
- thesystematic provision ofinformation ontechnical cooperation activities;
- howtheCouncil could contribute toensuring thatneeds fortechnical cooperation were
adequately met;
- thetechnical cooperation activities ofintergovernmental organizations, inparticular
WIPO andtheWTO itself, especially inthelightoftherecently concluded agreement
between thetwoOrganizations; andIP/C/M/6
Page8
- whether, intheframework oftheTRIPS Council, there would beaninterest inmore
in-depth discussion ofparticular themes inregard totechnical cooperation.
Asmentioned inthedocument, thelistwasnotintended tobeexhaustive; Members werefreetoraise
anyother aspects fordiscussion iftheysowished.
39. Incommenting generally onthesubject, therepresentative ofEgypt stressed theimportance
herdelegation attached toArticle 67oftheAgreement andtotheclearcommitments contained therein
onthepartofdeveloped country Members tofacilitate theimplementation bydeveloping country
Members oftheirobligations under theAgreement. While itwastruethattheArticle envisaged bilateral
cooperation, asitstipulated clearly thattechnical andfinancial cooperation should beprovided onrequest
andonmutually agreed terms, noonecould undermine ordenytheTRIPS Council 'sroleinmonitoring
theoperation oftheArticle. Therepresentatives ofParaguay, thePhilippines, Uruguay, theEuropean
Communities, Canada andCuba alsoemphasized theimportance oftechnical cooperation. The
representatives ofSwitzerland, Uruguay, NewZealand andCuba saidthattheCouncil should remain
practical initsapproach totechnical cooperation. Therepresentatives ofSwitzerland, Norway and
NewZealand underlined theneedtostayfocused ontheneeds ofthedeveloping countries andthe
implementation oftheTRIPS Agreement.
40. Some Members provided information ontheirowntechnical cooperation programmes. The
representative oftheEuropean Communities explained thattheEuropean Communities hadpursued
technical assistance onintellectual property matters formany years andthattheywereoneofthebiggest
providers ofsuchassistance. Thefunds made available forsuchassistance hadincreased more than
theirbudgets ingeneral, andfurther increases might bepossible given theimportance theyattached
tointellectual property. Therepresentative ofJapan explained thatJapan wasoneofthemostactive
countries inproviding technical assistance andthatitwasgoing toexpand itscooperation programmes
soastomeet theincreasing demand from those developing countries which were implementing or
preparingtoimplementtheTRIPSAgreement.HebelievedthatitwasimportantfortheWTOSecretariat
tosurvey andprovide information ontechnical cooperation activities, inorder tofacilitate carrying
outcooperation programmes inthemostadequate andeffective manner. Therepresentative ofNorway
explained thathercountry wasinterested inestablishing asound andbalanced cooperation with
developing countries under theTRIPS Agreement. HerGovernment wasaware ofthecommitment
oftheWTO toprovide special attention totheleast-developed countries inestablishing adetailed work
programme tailored totheirneeds andrequirements, andofthepressing needs oftheleast-developed
countries, including theneedfortechnical assistance inhelping tobuilduptheirhuman andinstitutional
resources andexpertise. Thiswasnecessary ifthese countries were tobebetter integrated inthe
international trading system and,inparticular, todraw fullbenefits from itandtobeinposition to
meettheirobligations under theWTO Agreements. ShesaidthatNorway hadmade acontribution
ofUS$2.5 million tocreate aWTO technical assistance fundforthebenefit oftheleast-developed
countries inthesaidareas. These funds weretocover activities tobeconducted within athree-year
implementation period. Under theproject proposal, theTRIPS Agreement wasidentified asonerelevant
areainthefollowing way: oneseminar tobeheldinGeneva onTRIPS matters forintellectual property
officials from least-developed countries togetthese countries acquainted withthebasic concepts,
principles andobligations laiddown intheAgreement. Inviewofthetransition periods foreseen in
theTRIPS Agreement forleastdeveloped countries, theopportunity forholding suchaseminar should
beseized attheearliest stagepossible, soastoprovide sufficient timetoadapt orintroduce appropriate
legislation. Therepresentative ofAustralia recognized theneedtopromote technical assistance inthe
areaofintellectual property andtheTRIPS Agreement, inparticular onmutually agreed terms. She
explained thatAustralia 'sactivities hadbeenrecently documented indocument IP/C/W/12/Add.7 and
thatAustralia would continue tobeactive inthisarea.IP/C/M/6
Page9
41. Inregard tothequestion ofthesystematic provision ofinformation (document IP/C/W/21,
paragraphs 5-7), therepresentatives ofEgypt, Paraguay, India, thePhilippines, theEuropean
Communities, Norway, NewZealand, Australia, Canada andCuba wereinfavour ofseeking periodic
updating ofinformation from developed country Members ontheirtechnical cooperation activities,
asmentioned inparagraph 7ofdocument IP/C/W/21. Most ofthese delegations were oftheview
thatsuchupdating should bedoneannually. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthathisdelegation was
willing toupdate periodically itsinformation ifsorequired. Therepresentative ofNorway wished
thatalsodeveloping country Members would provide information ontheirneeds inorder toallow the
donors ofassistance toevaluate whatkindofprojects would beuseful.
42. Therepresentative ofEgypt wasoftheviewthattheupdating should bedoneintimeforthe
Council'sSeptember1996meeting,whichshouldbedevotedtotechnicalcooperation,withoutexcluding
thepossibility oftaking uptheissue whenever theneedarose. Therepresentatives ofJapan andthe
United States believed thatthemeeting inSeptember should notbededicated exclusively totechnical
cooperation, andthatatevery Council meeting thereshould beanopportunity toaddress allnecessary
topics.
43. Therepresentatives ofthePhilippines andParaguay were interested alsointhefuture plans
thatthedeveloped country Members hadconcerning technical cooperation. Therepresentative ofthe
United States saidthattheSecretariat might wishtoconsider producing acalender offuture activities
planned bytheWTO, WIPO, other international organizations andbyMembers, which could beuseful
interms ofproviding information sothateveryone thatcould benefit from these activities would be
abletotakeadvantage ofthem. Thisideawassupported bytherepresentatives oftheEuropean
Communities, Norway andCanada.
44. Therepresentatives ofEgypt, Paraguay, India, Peru, thePhilippines, Norway, NewZealand
andCubawereinfavourofrequestingtheSecretariattoprepareananalyticalsummaryoftheinformation
already presented, asmentioned inindent 3ofparagraph 7ofdocument IP/C/W/21. Therepresentative
oftheUnited States washesitant about thedesirability ofsuchanalytical reports, asanalysing therelative
degree ofassistance would beverydifficult, atleastinpartbecause assistance wasgenerally provided
onacontractual basis andtargeted tothespecific needs ofaspecific country. Therepresentatives
oftheEuropean Communities, Australia andCanada wondered whatthenotion of"analytical" meant.
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities explained that,totheextent thisnotion referred to
theevaluation ofthesuccess ofaprogramme, suchevaluation should bedonebilaterally.
45. Inregard tothesecond indent ofparagraph 7ofdocument IP/C/W/21, theideaofalistof
basic headings which delegations might useforpresenting anoverview oftheirtechnical cooperation
activities wassupported bytherepresentatives ofEgypt andCuba. Therepresentative ofEgypt
explained that,inherdelegation 'sopinion, information onthevarious activities which wereclearly
indicated inArticle 67should notbelostingeneralities, andmight include, inaddition toitsmore
structured presentation, anassessment ofwhathadbeenachieved bysuchtargeted assistance. The
representative ofIndiawasinfavour ofconsidering thepossibility ofhaving aformat fortheprovision
ofinformation, perhaps along thelinessuggested inthedocument asalistofbasicheadings. Expressing
theirwishtoavoid rigid formats, therepresentatives ofJapan, Peru, thePhilippines andNorway
believed thatalistofbasic headings would besufficient inthisregard.
46. Therepresentatives ofParaguay, Uruguay, theEuropean Communities, NewZealand, Australia
andCanada believed thatitwasnotnecessary ordesirable forreports ontechnical cooperation activities
tobesubmitted onthebasisofaformat. Rather those providing information should befreetodescribe
theircooperation activities aswidely andclearly aspossible. Therepresentative oftheEuropean
Communities believed thatthose providing assistance didnotneedanyincitation toprovide detailedIP/C/M/6
Page10
information ontheiractivities. However, therepresentative ofAustralia saidthatherdelegation was
flexible ifthere wasawidespread viewthatsome kindofgeneral format should befollowed.
47. Inregard tothequestion ofhowtoensure thattheneeds fortechnical cooperation were
adequately met(document IP/C/W/21, paragraphs 8-9),therepresentatives ofParaguay, Japan, Peru,
theUnited States, Uruguay, theEuropean Communities, Norway, NewZealand andAustralia were
notinfavour oftheSecretariat acting asanintermediary between those providing andthose requesting
technical cooperation. Delegations wereoftheviewthatcooperation should beadministered bilaterally
between theMembers concerned; or,asadded bytherepresentative ofParaguay, between adeveloping
country Member concerned andWIPO, inaccordance withArticle 4oftheAgreement between WIPO
andtheWTO,theWTOSecretariatorotherintergovernmentalorganization.Somedelegationssupported
theconcerns expressed indocument IP/C/W/21: theneedtoavoid unnecessary bureaucratic burdens
andtousetheSecretariat 'slimited resources asefficiently aspossible. Therepresentatives ofJapan
andUruguay believed thatitwassufficient fortheSecretariat toprovide information ontechnical
cooperation inorder tofacilitate bilateral cooperation between theparties concerned. Therepresentative
oftheEuropean Communities added that,asfarasmultilateral technical cooperation wasconcerned,
themain discussions should probably takeplace inWIPO.
48. Commenting onthepossibility forMembers toraiseintheCouncil thequestion ofgapsof
amore general nature inthetechnical andfinancial cooperation available, therepresentatives ofJapan,
Switzerland andAustralia were oftheview thattechnical cooperation should beputontheagenda
whenever aneedforthatarose anditwasconsidered appropriate. Therepresentative oftheUnited
States hadnoobjections toperiodic discussions ontechnical cooperation, andtherepresentatives of
thePhilippines, PeruandCuba supported regular inclusion ofitontheagenda. Therepresentative
ofUruguay believed thatitwould beuseful toputitontheagenda onceayearforameeting which
should preferably bededicated tothissubject. Therepresentative ofCanada agreed, except thathe
believed thattheagenda should beopenforother items aswell.
49. Inregard tothetechnical cooperation activities ofintergovernmental organizations including
WIPO/WTO cooperation, therepresentative ofEgypt, commenting onparagraph 3ofdocument
IP/C/W/21, saidthattheCouncil 'smainobjective should remain howtorender Article 67operational
atthemultilateral level; other technical cooperation activities, inparticular those ofintergovernmental
organizations andtechnical cooperation infavour ofcountries intransition from acentrally-planned
toamarket, free-enterprise economy, should beaddressed inacontext different fromArticle 67,which
wasveryclear inthisrespect. These concerns were shared bytherepresentative ofIndia.
50. Therepresentative ofParaguay expressed hissatisfaction withthedecisions adopted inthe
framework ofWIPO tocarry forward technical cooperation infavour ofdeveloping countries, aswell
aswiththecooperation agreement recently signed between theWTO andWIPO, which interalia
provided forcomplementary action between thetwoOrganizations intechnical cooperation. Hebelieved
thattheCouncil should takethesematters intoconsideration initswork andavoid overlapping activities
withWIPO. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted theusefulness oftherecently concluded
agreement between theWTO andWIPO, which ensured closecooperation between theWTO andWIPO
intheareaoftechnical assistance, which wasveryvaluable given thelimited resources oftheWTO.
Healsodrewattention tothedecision bytheGeneral Assembly ofWIPO toallocate additional financing
ofSwF6million toTRIPS implementation issues fordeveloping countries. Therepresentative ofCuba
expressed hissatisfaction overtheagreement, which would nodoubt strengthen thecooperation between
theOrganizations inthefieldoftechnical cooperation.
51. According totherepresentatives ofSwitzerland andAustralia, duplication should beavoided
ofthework done byother organizations, inparticular WIPO. Therepresentative ofNewZealand
saidthattheCouncil should consider howtomake bestuseofcooperation withotherintergovernmentalIP/C/M/6
Page11
organizations, especially withWIPO, inthisregard. Therepresentatives oftheEuropean Communities,
Norway andAustralia drew attention totheusefulness oftheresources ofWIPO fortechnical
cooperation. Therepresentatives oftheEuropean Communities andNorway saidthatthese resources
were indirectly financed mostly from developed countries.
52. TherepresentativeofJapanexpressedhisgratitudetotheWTOSecretariatforhavingparticipated
inasymposium inManila, organized bytheGovernment ofthePhilippines, theInternational Bureau
ofWIPO andtheGovernment ofJapan, which hadmanifested theclose cooperation between the
International Bureau ofWIPO andtheWTO Secretariat.
53. Inregard tothequestion raised inparagraph 12ofdocument IP/C/W/21 onthedesirability
ofoccasional discussions onspecific aspects oftechnical cooperation withaviewtoamore in-depth
exploration ofthepossibilities available andtheexperience ofMembers, interest inorganizing such
thematic discussions wasshown bytherepresentatives ofEgypt, India, Japan, Peru, theUnited States,
thePhilippines, Switzerland, Uruguay, theEuropean Communities, NewZealand andAustralia. The
representatives ofIndia andSwitzerland believed thatitmight beuseful tohave suchdiscussions
immediately priortoaCouncil meeting. Agreeing withthis,therepresentatives ofPeruandtheUnited
States added thatperhaps thefirstdiscussion could beorganized already before theCouncil 'smeeting
scheduled forSeptember 1996. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthat,totheextent thatdiscussions
might entail political decisions byMembers, theyshould takeplace intheCouncil; discussions for
thepurposes ofinformation andeducation could beorganized asworkshops opentoallMembers.
54. Asregardspossibletopics,therepresentativeofEgyptmentionedestablishmentandreinforcement
ofindustrial property offices, establishment andoperation ofborder enforcement, other topics related
toenforcement, andtopics suchasthepreparation oflawsandregulations andestablishment ofplant
variety protection systems, which were essential todeveloping countries. Shebelieved thatsuch
workshops, theobjective ofwhich should betotrigger freeandopendiscussion onvarious specific
topics, would helpinidentifying theneeds ofdeveloping countries andhelptarget technical assistance
tomeetthose needs. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatalightconsultation process opento
Members andinvolving atalaterstage alsorelevant intergovernmental organizations suchasWIPO
andtheWCO would helptoappreciate theneeds andtheavailability oftechnical assistance. Hedid
notwanttoexclude more theme-oriented workshops, which could focus onthethemes mentioned in
document IP/C/W/21, aswellassome other relevant themes, suchasgeographical indications. The
representative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatitwasimportant tofindappropriate topics, as
discussing technical cooperation ingeneral would beoflittlehelp. Therepresentative ofJapan said
thattheCouncil should avoid additional financial contributions inthisconnection, andsuggested that
theWTO should lookintothepossibility ofmaking useofexisting cooperation schemes, suchasthe
WIPOdevelopmentcooperationprogramme,whichcouldbeextendedtocovertopicsrelevanttoTRIPS.
TheWTO Secretariat could cooperate withtheInternational Bureau ofWIPO inorganizing workshops
forthepurposes ofeducation andinformation. Therepresentative ofAustralia mentioned thepossibility
ofrequesting papers from developed ordeveloping countries onparticular areas asinputs intosuch
workshops.
55. Therepresentative ofParaguay believed thattheideaofholding workshops waspremature
andthatitmight bepreferable toconsider workshops lateroninthelightofexperience gained on
technical cooperation.
56. Insummarizing thediscussion, theChairman expressed satisfaction withthecomprehensive
andsubstantive discussion theCouncil hadhadontheissue oftechnical cooperation. Henoted that
there seemed tobegeneral agreement thattheCouncil should seektheannual updating bydeveloped
country Members ofinformation ontheirtechnical cooperation activities, andthatthisyeartheupdating
should besought intimefortheCouncil 'smeeting scheduled forSeptember 1996. There seemed toIP/C/M/6
Page12
bewidespread support forgiving aspecial, butnotexclusive, focus atthatmeeting totheissue of
technical cooperation. Ithadalsobeenmentioned thatinformation relating toanyfuture plans would
beuseful, andthere wasasuggestion thattheSecretariat might compile acalender ofcoming events.
Furthermore, thepoint hadbeenmade thatanyinput fromdeveloping countries ontheirneeds would
alsobeveryhelpful tothefuture deliberations oftheCouncil.
57. Hehadsensed agenerally favourable disposition totheideathattheSecretariat might beasked
toprepareananalyticalsummaryoftheinformationontechnicalcooperationactivitiesalreadypresented,
although some concerns hadbeenexpressed astowhatsuchananalytical summary would entail. The
suggestion indocument IP/C/W/21 hadbeenthattheSecretariat prepare astructured summary ofthe
information already presented, notacomparative orevaluative study. Asregards theideaofalist
ofbasicheadings thatMembers should usewhile presenting anoverview oftheirtechnical cooperation
activities,somedelegationshadbeenratherhesitant.Hesuggested,therefore,thattheSecretariatexplore
whether itwould bepossible, onthebasis ofthestructured summary, todraw upsuchalistofbasic
headings thatwould leave sufficient flexibility todelegations inpresenting their information. If
necessary, thisissue could beadded totheitems onwhich hissuccessor would holdinformal
consultations, before apossible listwould bepresented totheCouncil forfurther consideration.
58. TheChairmannotedthatdelegationswere,generally,notinfavouroftheideathattheSecretariat
might actasanintermediary between thoseproviding andthoserequesting technical cooperation, mainly
forthereasons thathadbeenmentioned indocument IP/C/W/21. Ofcourse, theSecretariat would
remainavailabletoanydevelopingcountriesthatsoughtadviceonthepossibilitiesforobtainingtechnical
assistance. Italsoremained opentodeveloping country Members toidentify atanytimeintheCouncil
areas where theyfeltthere were gapsintheprovision oftechnical andfinancial cooperation.
59. TheChairman noted thatthere waswidespread interest inthepossibility oforganizing some
in-depth thematic discussions, perhaps inthemargins ofaCouncil meeting. Thedesirability ofpossible
cooperation withWIPO inthisrespect hadalsobeenmentioned. Hebelieved thatonewaytocarry
thisideaforward wastorequest theSecretariat tocome forward withasuggestion foraspecific pilot
project interms ofaseminar oraworkshop inthemargins ofaCouncil meeting. Ifnecessary, such
asuggestion could also,first,betaken upininformal consultations. Healsonoted withappreciation
thetechnical cooperation activities ofWIPO andtheNorwegian fundinfavour ofleast-developed
countries.
I. Other Business
(i) Compliance withArticle 70.2
60. Therepresentative oftheUnited States informed theCouncil thathisdelegation wasconsulting
withanother Member onthatMember 'sapplication oftheprovisions ofArticle 70.2oftheAgreement
inrelation toexisting patents. Onefeature ofArticle 70.2wasthatitrequired aMember toapply
theprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement toexisting intellectual property thatwasstillunder protection
atthetimethattheseprovisions came intoeffect inthatMember. Consequently, existing patents should
benefit from protection inaccordance withthepatent provisions oftheAgreement. Ifapatent had
beengranted before theapplication ofTRIPS implementing legislation under alawthatprovided for
apatent termoftenyears, andthatpatent would stillbeunder protection atthetimethatTRIPS
obligationsbecameeffective,thepatentshould,underArticle70.2,benefitfromthepatenttermstipulated
inArticle 33oftheTRIPS Agreement, i.e.20years fromthefiling dateofthepatent application on
which thepatent inquestion hadbeengranted.
61. Healsowished toaddress another issue related toArticle 70.2. Hisdelegation hadstarted
adispute settlement procedure withtheGovernment ofJapan concerning theapplication ofArticle 70.2IP/C/M/6
Page13
inrespect ofrights insound recordings.3Article 70.2referred, inthisregard, toArticle 14.6ofthe
Agreement which laiddown thatprotection ofrights insound recordings under theAgreement should
extend toexisting sound recordings inaccordance withtheprovisions ofArticle 18oftheBerne
Convention. Given thattheAgreement laiddown atermofprotection of50years inrespect ofrights
insound recordings, thismeant, inhisdelegation 'sview, thatTRIPS-consistent legislation inthisarea
thatapplied asof1January 1996 should extend protection toallsound recordings thatexisted since
1946.
62. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities informed theCouncil thattheCommunity
anditsMember States hadrequested tobejoined intheconsultations thattheUnited States washolding
withJapan, under Article 4oftheDispute Settlement Understanding.
63. TherepresentativeofJapansaidthathisdelegation,afterthoroughanalysisofthisissueincluding
examination ofthenegotiating history oftheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement concerned, believed
thatitsinterpretation oftherelevant provisions, including those oftheBerne Convention, wasvalid
andJapan'scurrent copyright lawwasconsistent withtheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement.
64. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
J. Election oftheChairperson for1996
65. TheChairman recalled thattheChairman oftheGeneral Council hadcarried outinformal
consultations onaslateofnames forappointment aschairpersons tothedifferent WTO standing bodies
inaccordance withtheestablished guidelines forappointment ofofficers. These proposed nominations
hadbeenapproved bytheGeneral Council atitsmeeting inDecember 1995. Heproposed, onthe
basisoftheunderstandingsreached,thattheCouncilforTRIPSelectH.E.AmbassadorWadeArmstrong
ofNewZealand asChairman ofthisbody byacclamation.
66. TheCouncil soagreed.
67. TheCouncil expressed itsappreciation toMr.Stuart Harbinson forhisimportant, successful
andhigh-quality work asitsfirstChairperson.
3IP/D/1