RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/M/32
23 August 2001
(01-4090)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
from 18 to 22 June 2001
Chairperson:  Ambassador Bo niface Chidyausiku (Zimbabwe)
Subjects discussed: Para. Nos .
A. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT 1-7
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2 1-6
(ii) Notifications under Article 69 7
B. REVIEW OF LEGISLATION 8-41
(i) Outstanding initial questions from the review of the legislation 8-12
of Kuwait initiated in November 2000
(ii) Outstanding initial questions fr om reviews initiated in April 2001 13-21
(iii) Follow-up to the reviews already undertaken 22-30
(iv) Legislation of Members scheduled for review in June 2001 31-40
(v) Legislation of Members scheduled for review in November 2001 41
C. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 70.8 AND 70.9 42
D. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2 43-51
E. INFORMATION ON TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY -BUILDING 52-56
F. TECHNICAL COOPERATION 57-67
G. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 23.4 68-88
H. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 24.1 89-115IP/C/M/32
Page 2
Subjects discussed: Para. Nos .
I. REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
SECTION ON GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2 116-121
J. REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(b) 122-144
K. REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
UNDER ARTICLE 71.1 145-150
L. NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS 151-161
M. ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 162-169
N. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES 170
O. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO 171-173
(i) Accessions 171-172
(ii) Dispute settlement 173
P. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 174-181
Q. OTHER BUSINESS 182
_______________
A. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
- Notifications from Members whose transitional periods under Article 65.2 or
65.3 expired on 1 January 2000 or who acceded to the WTO after that date
1. The Chairperson drew the Council's attention to the Secretariat's updated note reflecting the
status of the notifications received from these Members and distributed prior to the present meeting
(JOB(01)/88 of 18 June 2001).  That note showed from which of the Members in questionnotifications had been received by Wednesday, 13 Ju ne 2001.  Since that date, additional notifications
of laws and regulations had been received from  Bahrain, Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire and Morocco.
Although several more notifications had been received compared to when the Council had last met,
many Members whose legislation was scheduled to be reviewed in the year 2001 still had not
submitted any notification concerning their implementing legislation.  He urged those Members tosubmit the outstanding material without delay.  He recalled that Article 63.2 of the Agreement
required these Members to notify the laws and regulations pertaining to the subject-matter of the
Agreement applicable as of 1 January 2000.  He urged the delegations in question, if not all the
material to be notified was ready yet, to submit whatever could be notified at present and complement
the notification as soon as other parts of the material to be notified would be ready for submission.
He reminded delegations that, under the WIPO-WTO Cooperation Agreement and decisions taken byIP/C/M/32
Page 3
WIPO's Governing Bodies, the International Bureau of WIPO was in a position to assist delegations
with the translation of their main dedicated intellectual property laws and regulations, as required.
2. The Council took note of this statement.
- Notifications from other Members
3. The Chairperson informed the Council that, si nce its previous meeting, amendments to
legislation notified earlier had been received from Germany;  Guatemala;  Hong Kong, China;  Japan;
the Kyrgyz Republic;  Mongolia;  Panama;  Romania;  Slovenia;  and Turkey.  These would be
available in the IP/N/1/- series of documents as soon as possible.
4. Continuing, he informed the Council that a no tification had been received from Burundi in
which Burundi informed the Council of its compliance with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the TRIPS
Agreement concerning national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment.  Burundi had also
notified the texts of its current laws on patents and industrial designs but indicated that, since these
laws were being revised and other aspects of the TRIPS Agreement had not yet been regulated inBurundi, it wished to avail itself of the possibility under Article 66.1 of the Agreement for
least-developed country Members to delay the application of the Agreement's provisions other than
those of Articles 3, 4 and 5 until 1 January 2006.  This notification had been circulated in document
IP/N/1/BDI/1.  He said that as a least-devel oped country Member, Burundi was entitled to the
transitional period under Article 66.1 and he suggested that the Secretariat could contact thedelegation of Burundi so as to clarify that.
5. The representative of Senegal recalled that the review of his country's legislation was
scheduled for the November 2001 meeting.  However, two events had occurred which affected this
matter.  First, a new government had been elected, and second, Senegal had become a least-developed
country Member.  Therefore, the question of the presentation of its legislation was still beingconsidered in capital and his delegation reserved the right to invoke the provisions relevant to its new
least-developed country status.  Senegal would notify the Council before the November meeting
whether it would be in a position to be reviewed at that meeting.
6. The Council took note of these statements.
(ii) Notifications under Article 69
7. The Chairperson informed the Council that, si nce its previous meeting, notifications of
contact points under Article 69 of the Agreement had been received from Albania, Burundi,
Guatemala, the Kyrgyz Republic and Panama.  These notifications had been circulated in document
IP/N/3/Rev.5.  There were now 101 Members who ha d notified contact points under Article 69.IP/C/M/32
Page 4
B. REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
(i) Outstanding initial questions from the review  of the legislation of Kuwait initiated in
November 2000
8. The Chairperson recalled that, at its meeting in November 2000, the Council had reviewed the
legislation of eight Members, including Kuwait.  Kuwait had not responded to some initial questions
at the end of the November 2000 meeting, nor at the April 2001 meeting but, since then, it hadsubmitted responses to some initial questions, which had been circulated in document
IP/C/W/232/Add.1, together with a corrigendum.  The Chairperson noted that Kuwait had still not
responded to a number of other outstanding initial questions posed by Canada, the European
Communities and their member States, Switzerland and the United States.
9. The representative of Kuwait welcomed the opportunity for follow-up of the review of its
legislation.  His delegation had provided around 18 further responses to questions posed by Canada,
the European Communities and their member States and Switzerland (circulated in documentIP/C/W/232/Add.1), and he noted that he had rece ived follow-up questions from the latter two
delegations in February 2001.  His delegation had done its utmost to obtain replies from the
competent authorities in capital as soon as possible.  He had provided responses to outstanding
questions during the previous week, but some coul d not be answered in time for technical reasons.
Further, his delegation had also provided an explanatory memorandum on the Copyright LawNo. 64/1999 (reproduced in the annex to IP/C/W/232/A dd.2) as well as a list of achievements of the
Ministry of Information concerning copyright (reproduced in the annex to IP/C/W/232/Add.1).  In
addition, his delegation had that day provided responses to questions posed by the United States in the
fields of trademarks and patents (document IP /C/W/232/Add.3).  His dele gation would appreciate
receiving any further follow-up questions in writ ing and would provide responses to interested
Members with a copy to the Secretariat in the near future.
10. The representatives of the European Communities and the United States
 said that they were
reviewing the responses received from Kuwait, some of which had been received during the meeting.
11. The Chairperson said that the Council looked forward to receiving Kuwait's responses to
outstanding initial questions before the next meeting.  He suggested that the Council take note of the
statements made and revert to this sub-item at its next meeting.
12. The Council so agreed.
(ii) Outstanding initial questions fr om reviews initiated in April 2001
13. The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting in April 2001, the Council had
conducted reviews of the legislation of five Member s.  Four of those Members had yet to respond to
some initial questions at the end of the meeting.  Since that time, outstanding responses to initial
questions had been received from Jordan and Saint Lucia, and these had been circulated in
documents IP/C/W/250/Add.1 and IP/C/W/237/Add.3, respectively, but outstanding responses to
initial questions had not been received from Bolivia and Namibia.
14. The representative of Bolivia said that he hoped to be able to provide the two outstanding
responses to initial questions in the coming days.IP/C/M/32
Page 5
15. The representative of Namibia said that he would provide the outstanding responses to initial
questions posed by Canada and the United States during the meeting.1  He said that he would also
submit responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement later in the meeting.2
16. Turning to those Members whose reviews were initiated at the previous meeting in
April 2001, but which had not provided any responses to questions at that time, namely Cameroon,
Congo, Grenada, Guyana, Papua New Guinea and Suriname, the Chairperson informed the Council
that Grenada and Suriname had provided partial notifications of their implementing legislation prior
to the present meeting, but none of these Members had provided responses to the Checklist of Issues
on Enforcement (document IP/C/5).  Questions posed to these Members had been received prior to the
meeting from Canada, the European Communities and their member States, Japan, Switzerland and
the United States and circulated in documents IP/C/W/245, 244, 238, 239 and 240.  Congo and
Suriname had provided responses to some questions that had been posed shortly before, or during, the
meeting;  these have been circulated in documents IP/C/W/283 and Add.1 and IP/C/W/300,
respectively.
17. In accordance with the procedures for the reviews of legislation, the delegations of Congo and
Suriname each provided a brief introductory overview of the structure of its legislation in the areas
covered by the Agreement and of the changes that it had had to bring about in order to make the
legislation compatible with the TRIPS Agreement.  The records of these introductory statements aswell as the questions put to them and the responses given (including responses to follow-up questions
given after the meeting) will be circulated in the following documents with the following symbols:
Congo IP/Q/COG/1;   IP/Q2/COG/1;  IP/Q 3/COG/1;  IP/Q4/COG/1;
Suriname IP/Q/SUR/1;  IP/Q2/SUR/1;   IP/Q3/SUR/1;   IP/Q4/SUR/1.
18. Responses to questions have also been received from the delegations of Cameroon, Grenada
and Papua New Guinea; these have been circulated in documents IP/C/W/302, 301 and 292,
respectively.
19. The representative of Saint Lucia informed the Council that a representative of Guyana  had
been scheduled to attend the meeting but evidently had been unable to attend.
20. The Chairperson urged the delegations under review who had not yet supplied responses to
certain initial questions to do so without delay, and suggested that the Council revert to this sub-item
at the next meeting.
21. The Council so agreed, while taking note  of the statements made.
(iii) Follow-up to the reviews already undertaken
- June 2000 review
22. The Chairperson recalled that follow-up to the reviews conducted at the June 2000 meeting
had been deleted from the agenda.  However, later, the European Communities and their member
States had posed some questions to Indonesia in document IP/C/W/220.  Indonesia had submitted
responses to those questions and these had been circulated in document IP/C/W/270.
                                                     
1 Namibia's responses to these initial questions ha ve been circulated in document IP/C/W/248/Add.2.
2 Namibia's responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement have been circulated in document
IP/N/6/NAM/1.IP/C/M/32
Page 6
23. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was s till studying
Indonesia's replies and might wish to revert to this item at a later date.
- November 2000 review
24. The Chairperson recalled that Kuwait and Paraguay still had some follow-up questions
outstanding from the November 2000 review meeting.  Since the previous meeting, Kuwait had
provided responses to some of the follow-up questions posed by the European Communities and theirmember States and these had been circulated in document IP/C/W/232/Add.2.  However, it had not
provided responses to other follow-up questions also posed by the European Communities and their
member States and Switzerland, which were ci rculated in documents IP/C/W/219/Add.3 and
IP/C/W/207/Add.3, respectively.  Paraguay had not submitted responses to follow-up questions posed
by the European Communities and their member States which had been circulated in
document IP/C/W/219/Add.3.
25. The representative of Kuwait said that she hoped to be able to provide the outstanding replies
to follow-up questions before the next review meeting.
26. The Chairperson informed the Council that Estonia had submitted some clarifications to the
introductory statement that it made at that meeting,  which will be circulated in the IP/Q/- series of
documents in due course.
- April 2001 review
27. The Chairperson recalled that, since the April 2001 review meeting, Jordan and Saint Lucia
had supplied responses to follow-up questions posed by Switzerland, and these had been circulated in
documents IP/C/W/250/Add.2 and IP/C/W/237/Add.3, re spectively.  Accordingly, responses to all
questions had been received from Jordan, Saint Lucia and Venezuela.
28. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation might have a further question for
Saint Lucia regarding geographical indications.
29. The Chairperson recalled that Bolivia and Namibia had not yet supplied responses to
follow-up questions posed by Japan and the United States, respectively, and suggested that the
Council urge them to supply responses to the outstanding follow-up questions without delay.3  H e
suggested that the item concerning the reviews of Jordan and Venezuela could be deleted from theagenda, it being understood that any delegation should feel free to revert to any matter stemming from
those reviews at any time.
30. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chair.
(iv) Legislation of Members scheduled for review in June 2001
31. Turning to the 24 Members whose legislation was scheduled to be reviewed by the Council at
the present meeting, the Chairperson informed th e Council that 15 of these 24 Members had provided
notifications of their implementing legislation prior to the meeting, although not all of these
notifications were comprehensive.  Nine had provided responses to the Checklist of Issues on
Enforcement (IP/C/5).  The Members under review had received questions from Canada, the
European Communities and their member States, Japan, Switzerland and the United States, which had
been circulated in documents IP/C/W/261, 261/Add.1, 274, 258, 263 and 268, respectively.  Some
                                                     
3 Bolivia and Namibia supplied the outstanding responses to follow-up questions later in the meeting.
These have been circulated in documents IP/C/W/251/Add.1 and IP/C/W/248/Add.2, respectively.IP/C/M/32
Page 7
responses had been received prior to, or during, the meeting from Albania, Argentina, Botswana,
Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Georgia, Honduras,
Jamaica, Kenya, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates;  these
had been circulated in documents IP/C/W/267, 271, 295, 269, 287, 262, 275, 285, 278, 290, 277, 266,
294, 265, 288, 282, 272, 291 and addenda, respectively.
32. In accordance with the procedures for the reviews of legislation, the delegations of Albania,
Argentina, Bahrain , Botswana , Costa Rica , Côte d'Ivoire , Croatia , Dominica , the Dominican
Republic, Egypt , Fiji , Georgia , Honduras , Jamaica , Kenya , Mauritius , Morocco , Nicaragua , Oman ,
the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates  each provided a brief introductory overview of the
structure of their legislation in the areas covered by the Agreement and of the changes that they had
had to bring about in order to make their legislation compatible with the TRIPS Agreement.  The
records of these introductory statements as well as the questions put to them and the responses given
(including responses to follow-up questions given after the meeting) will be circulated in thefollowing documents with  the following symbols:
Albania IP/Q/ALB/1;   IP/Q2/ALB/1;  IP/Q 3/ALB/1;  IP/Q4/ALB/1;
Argentina IP/Q/ARG/1;  IP/Q2/ARG/1;  IP/Q3/ARG/1;  IP/Q4/ARG/1;
Bahrain IP/Q/BHR/1;  IP/Q2/BHR/1;   IP/Q3/BHR/1;   IP/Q4/BHR/1;
Botswana IP/Q/BWA/1;  IP/Q2/BWA/1;  IP/Q3/BWA/1;  IP/Q4/BWA/1;Costa Rica IP/Q/CRI/1;  IP/Q2/CRI/1;  IP/Q3/CRI/1;  IP/Q4/CRI/1;
Cote d'Ivoire IP/Q/CIV/1;  IP/Q2/CI V/1;  IP/Q3/CIV/1;  IP/Q4/CIV/1;
Croatia IP/Q/HRV/1;  IP/Q2/ HRV/ 1;  IP/Q3/HRV/1;  IP/Q4/HRV/1;
Dominica IP/Q/DMA/1;  IP/Q2/DMA/1;  IP/Q3/DMA/1;  IP/Q4/DMA/1;
Dominican Republic IP/Q/DOM/1;  IP/Q2/DOM/1;  IP/Q3/DOM/1;  IP/Q4/DOM/1;Egypt IP/Q/EGY/1;  IP/Q2/EGY/1;   IP/Q3/EGY/1;   IP/Q4/EGY/1;
Fiji IP/Q/FJI/1;  IP/Q2/FJI/1;  IP/Q3/FJI/1;  IP/Q4/FJI/1;
Georgia IP/Q/GEO/1;  IP/Q2/GEO/1;  IP/Q3/GEO/1;  IP/Q4/GEO/1;
Honduras IP/Q/HND/1;  IP/Q2/HND/1;  IP/Q3/HND/1;  IP/Q4/HND/1;
Jamaica IP/Q/JAM/1;  IP/Q2/JAM/1;  IP/Q3/JAM/1;  IP/Q4/JAM/1;Kenya IP/Q/KEN/1;  IP/Q2/KEN/1;   IP/Q3/KEN/1;  IP/Q4/KEN/1;
Mauritius IP/Q/MUS/1;  IP/Q2/MUS/ 1;  IP/Q3/MUS/1;   IP/Q4/MUS/1;
Morocco IP/Q/MAR/1;  IP/Q2/MAR/1;  IP/Q3/MAR/1;  IP/Q4/MAR/1;
Nicaragua IP/Q/NIC/1;  IP/Q2/NIC/1;   IP/Q3/NIC/1;   IP/Q4/NIC/1;
Oman IP/Q/OMN/1;  IP/Q2/OMN/1;  IP/Q3/OMN/1;  IP/Q4/OMN/1;The Philippines IP/Q/PHL/1;  IP/Q2/PHL/1;  IP/Q3/PHL/1;  IP/Q4/PHL/1;
United Arab Emirates IP/Q/ARE/1;  IP/Q2/ARE/1;  IP/Q3/ARE/1;  IP/Q4/ARE/1.
33. With respect to the review of the legislation of Antigua and Barbuda, the Chairperson
informed the Council that the Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, who was not resident in Geneva,
had written to him on 31 May 2001 to explain that there had been several changes in the
Attorney-General's Chambers which had delayed preparation for the review.  The Chairperson hadreplied on 8 June 2001 suggesting that the Ambassador send someone to the present meeting to
explain the situation.  The Ambassador had replied on 14 June 2001 saying that it would not be
possible for anyone to attend the meeting but he had wished to assure the Council that every effort
was being made in Antigua to put his delegation in a position to accommodate a review within the
next few months.  The Chairperson suggested that th e Council revert to the review of the legislation
of Antigua and Barbuda at its next review meeting in November 2001.
34. With respect to the review of the legislation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, the representative of
Saint Lucia informed the Council that, during the recent Trade Policy Review of the Organization of
Eastern Caribbean States WTO Members, the Permanent Secretary of Saint Kitts and Nevis (a state of
44,000 inhabitants) had informed the WTO Secretariat's TPR Division that the single responsibleIP/C/M/32
Page 8
person for these matters in his department had resigned with immediate effect and that therefore it
would be difficult for Saint Kitts and Nevis to respond to any questions.
35. The representative of Saint Lucia commended Dominica and Jamaica for the efforts that they
had made in the review, despite limited resources.  She said that the Council needed to recognize the
extensive regulatory burden imposed by the TRIPS Agreement on Members and that its procedures
should provide time-periods more appropriate for smaller administrations.
36. The representative of Ghana said that his delegation had agreed to be reviewed in
December 2000.  However, it had become evident that the implementing legislation would not be
ready for review even though it had reached the committee stage of Parliament.  His delegation had
therefore requested a rescheduling of the review to June 2001 in the expectation that the legislation
would be ready by that time.  However, it had not been possible to pass it before the dissolution of
Parliament for elections in December 2000, following which Ghana had a new Parliament and new
Government.  Therefore, the legislative processes had to start all over again which had delayed thepassage of the legislation.  Although it was at the top of the new Parliament's legislative agenda, the
legislation had still not been passed.  However, every effort was being made to pass the legislation
under a certificate of urgency.  His authorities had asked him to request the Council to once again
postpone the review to November 2001, by which time the legislation will have been passed.  In
making this request, his authorities were aware that Ghana's obligations in this matter should havebeen fulfilled over one year earlier.  For this reason, they assured the Council that every effort would
be made to have the legislation passed for review in November 2001.  His delegation had received
questions from various other delegations.  He was grateful for those questions and would respond to
them appropriately.
37. The Chairperson suggested that the Council take note of the constraints which Ghana was
under and add it to the list of Members whose legislation was to be reviewed in November 2001.
38. The Council so agreed.
39. The Chairperson suggested the following a rrangements for the subsequent follow-up:
- that outstanding responses to initial questions be submitted to the country concerned
and the Secretariat by 13 July 2001;
- that the texts of any further follow-up questions be submitted to the country
concerned and the Secretariat by 3 August 2001;
- that a target date of 17 August 2001 be set for the submission by the countries under
review of responses to follow-up questions which have already been posed,
fine-tuned versions of responses to questions to which they have given preliminaryreplies and, to the extent possible, responses to any further follow-up questions that
may have been submitted before 3 August 2001;  and
- that the Council revert to the sub-item concerning the reviews of these 24 Members at
its next meeting.
40. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chair.IP/C/M/32
Page 9
(v) Legislation of Members scheduled for review in November 2001
41. The Chairperson recalled that 18 Members, including one newly acceded Member, Lithuania,
were scheduled to be reviewed at the Council's meeting in November 2001.4  He recalled that the
Council had agreed, at its April meeting, that for the reviews in the week of 26 November 2001,
questions to the Members concerned should be submitted by 14 September 2001 and responses to
questions posed within that deadline by 26 October 2001.  He also drew attention to a communicationthat he had received from one of those Members, Gabon, which had been circulated in
document IP/C/W/276 for information.
C. 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 70.8 AND 70.9
42. The Chairperson informed the Council that Oma n, in its notification of national implementing
legislation, had stated that Article 70.8 and 70.9 did not apply to it, because it provided patent
protection in respect of inventions of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.5  Burundi
had made a notification that "the existing legislation does not constitute any obstacle to theapplication of Article 70.8 and 70.9 of the Agreement".  This notification had been circulated in
document IP/N/1/BDI/1, referred to above under agenda item A(ii).
D. 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2
43. The Chairperson recalled that the implementation of Article 66.2 had been under discussion in
the Council since December 1998 and that the Council had received information from 20 developed
country Members on how that provision was being implemented in their territories.  Since June 2000,
the Council had also had before it a Secretariat note (IP/C/W/169) prepared on a request from the
Council, setting out the types of incentive measures that had been notified, with cross references to
where further details could be found,  as well as a proposal from the delegation of Zambia relating to
special and differential treatment in respect of technology transfer (IP/C/W/199).  In relation toArticle 66.2, the Special Session of the General Council had agreed, at its meeting of
18 October 2000, to invite the TRIPS Council, with  a view to facilitating full implementation of
Article 66.2 to give consideration to drawing up an illustrative list of incentives of the sort envisaged
by Article 66.2;  and to put on a regular and systematic basis its procedure for the notification and
monitoring of measures in accordance with the provisions of Article 66.2 and, in doing so, to giveconsideration to avoiding unnecessary burdens in notification procedures;  that the TRIPS Council
invite other intergovernmental organizations to provide information on their activities aimed at
technology capacity-building (dealt with under agenda item E, below).  He also recalled that, at the
previous meeting, least-developed country representatives had indicated that they needed more time to
be able to crystallise their thinking and prepare a proposal for how the work on this matter should becarried forward.  A communication had been received from Zambia (document IP/C/W/298), relevant
to this agenda item as well as agenda items E  – "Information on Technology Capacity-Building" and
K – "Review of the Implementation of the Agreement under Article 71.1".
44. The representative of Zambia expressed his gratitude to developed country Members that had
provided information with regard to this Articl e and said that this information was helpful in
particular when it was targeted specifically to least-developed countries (LDCs) as was provided
under Article 66.2.  However, his delegation would like to see more comprehensive information onthe types of incentives provided.  This might help to  identify the most suitable incentives to fulfil the
objective of this Article.  His delegation understood that identifying incentives right away might not
be an easy task given that there might be many institutions, schemes and actors involved in respective
countries.  Nonetheless, in the process of trying to find effective ways of implementing Article 66.2 of
                                                     
4 The Chairperson referred to the accession of Lithuania under agenda item O(i).
5 This notification will be circulated in document IP/N/1/OMN/1.IP/C/M/32
Page 10
the TRIPS Agreement, his delegation wished to gather more information from developed countries
regarding how they were fulfilling this mandate.  The information that they had already provided in
documents IP/C/W/132 and addenda was a useful resource that should be analysed to show how
Article 66.2 could best be implemented to promote technology transfer to LDCs and further the
objectives and principles of the TRIPS Agreement stated in Articles 7 and 8, respectively.  He
requested developed country Members to provide comprehensive information and in particularindicate the extent to which the transfer of technology had taken place in LDCs.  In doing so, they
should show how the incentives that they notified had operated in practice.  Specifically, they were
requested to provide any information that they had on:  (i) the fields of technology in which each
incentive had been applied in transferring technology to LDCs;  (ii) the modes by which technology
was being transferred to LDCs under each incentive (these could be for instance:  training of
personnel, licensing agreements, commercial establishment, sale of goods, etc);  (iii) any factors
which were perceived to have made some incentives more effective in transferring technology toLDCs than others;  and (iv) how LDCs could have  input into the choice of the fields in which
technology was transferred to them under each incentive.  His delegation awaited the reaction of their
developed countries partners, particularly answers to these four specific points.  His delegation would
appreciate if answers to these questions could be provided both in writing and verbally and, for his
part, he would try to answer any questions arising from their presentation at that meeting or at a laterstage.
45. The representative of the European Communities thanked the delegation of Zambia for having
shared with the Council the results of their reflections on the implementation of Article 66.2 dealing
with incentives in view of ensuring  the transfer of technology.  His delegation considered this to be an
important issue and was reflecting as to how best meaning could be given to this provision.  Theproposals referred to by the Chairperson in his introductory statement merited further examination and
consultation.  Zambia had rightly pointed out to the difficulty of providing additional and detailed
information, given that in many countries there were many institutions schemes and actors involved.
When his delegation had notified the information requested pursuant to Article 62.2 two years earlier,
it had indicated that the programmes which were at the disposal of LDCs were conducted both by theEuropean Communities and also the member States.  Therefore, he could not assure the Council that it
was possible for the European Communities nor its me mber States to provide the information in the
way the representative of Zambia had requested.  They had to investigate to what extent this
information was available.  His delegation took this issue very seriously because the transfer of
technology was an important aspect in the debate on IP and development.
46. The representative of the United States thanked Zambia for its very substantive contribution
on Article 66.2 which helped the Council consider how to carry forward its work on this agenda item.
It was likely that his delegation would find itself in the same situation as the European Communities
as it had numerous programmes relevant to Article 66.2.  He would take up Zambia's proposal in his
capital in order to determine whether or not his delegation was in a position to provide the type of
information requested.  He would provide some indi cation on how feasible this proposal would be for
his delegation at the next meeting.
47. The representative of Japan first addressed the general issue of the need for LDC Members to
be able to create a sound and viable technology base through technology transfer from developed
countries.  It was essential that LDC Members benefit from IP systems, not only for LDC Members
themselves, but also for the credibility and reliability of IP systems under the TRIPS Agreement.  The
vast majority of technology transfer was being conducted by the private sector, so the key issue washow to give incentives to private enterprises.  Without incentives to the private sector, which was the
main supplier of technologies, technology transfer would not be facilitated in an effective manner.
Adequate intellectual property protection for technology was one of the most important factors to
facilitate technology transfer.  Turning to Arti cle 66.2, the Secretariat's note (document IP/C/W/169)
had consolidated information submitted by developed country Members and already providedIP/C/M/32
Page 11
sufficient information.  New procedures for notification and the monitoring of incentive measures
should not impose too great an additional burden on developed country Members nor on the
Secretariat.  If such procedures were to be put on a regular basis, Japan was willing to update the
information on a variety of incentive measures that it had provided and submitted in
document IP/C/W/132/Add.2.  Japan had been providing various incentive measures which were not
described in that document.  Those incentives included not only provision of technical assistance andexpertise to developing countries, but also included various other measures, such as joint research and
development with developing countries, promotion of the use of particular technologies including
technologies that were beneficial to environment, infrastructure projects in developing countries and
investment promotion for developed country enterprises.  Any illustrative list should be
non-exhaustive, and of an information-gathering natu re, so that it did not prejudice incentive measures
which were or would be taken by developed country Members.  This was very important because a
variety of alternatives existed for incentive measures, and Members should be free to choose any oneof those appropriate alternatives.  Finally, with respect to the four requests for specific information
made by Zambia, his delegation was still analysing how it could respond.  He would come back to
this point at the next meeting.
48. The representative of Australia thanked Zambia for its communication and said that she
would respond to it at the next meeting.
49. The representative of Brazil reminded the Council that Article 66.2 provided an unambiguous
mandate to transfer technology to LDC Members.  That provision had to be read in light of the
objectives of the transfer of technology and balance of rights and obligations contained in Article 7 of
the TRIPS Agreement.  His delegation looked forward to hearing more substantial inputs from
developed countries as to how they were implementin g this provision and, in particular, their response
to the specific information requested by Zambia.
50. The representative of Zambia noted that Australia, the European Communities and their
member States, Japan and the United States were looking into this matter and looked forward to a
fruitful and positive engagement in this task.
51. The Council took note of these statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at the next
meeting.
E. INFORMATION ON TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY -BUILDING
52. The Chairperson recalled that the Council had agreed, at its meeting in November 2000, to
invite the Secretariats of  UNCTAD, WIPO, UNIDO, the World Bank and the CBD to provide written
information on their activities on technology capacity -building.  Such information had been received
from WIPO, UNIDO, the CBD Secretariat and UNCTAD and distributed in documents IP/C/W/243
and addenda.  He also recalled that Zambia's communication (document IP/C/W/298) related to this
item as well.
53. The representative of Zambia thanked the Secretariats of the CBD, UNCTAD, UNIDO and
WIPO for the information on technology capacity -building which they had provided.  The
information showed that all of them had programmes of technical assistance for technological
capacity-building.  In his delegation's view, what was important was how these organizations could be
more helpful in the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by developing countries and,
particularly, LDCs, in a balanced manner that placed equal emphasis on these countries' rights and
benefits, on the one hand, and obligations, on the other hand.  For instance, he asked how this could
be enhanced through technical cooperation afforded by the WTO.IP/C/M/32
Page 12
54. The representative of the Secretariat, responding to the representative of Zambia, said that he
would take up this issue with the Director of the Technical Cooperation Division of the Secretariat.
He recalled that the WTO Secretariat had limited resources but, within those limits, it was seeking to
refocus its technical cooperation activities, including those conducted with other organizations.  In the
TRIPS area, this meant not merely helping c ountries implement their obligations under the
Agreement, but also helping them to take advantage of the IP system as a vehicle for promoting their
development.  Under the next agenda item, he would report on the new WIPO-WTO joint initiative
which had these joint objectives.
55. The representative of the European Communities said that the Secretariat's explanation fully
matched the way his delegation was reflecting on technical assistance.  He agreed that there was a
need to refocus technical assistance so that it not only concentrated on the purely technical
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement but that it also helped developing countries and LDCs take
advantage of the benefits of the Agreement.  He reiterated what had been said under agenda item N –"Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines" - that, in providing technical assistance, experts
should give more attention to the need to make sure that developing countries and LDCs could take
account of public health concerns in the implementation process of the TRIPS Agreement.  He urged
close cooperation among the relevant international organizations.
56. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
F. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
57. The Chairperson informed the Council that, since the previous meeting, Korea had notified its
contact point for technical assistance on TRIPS notifications between WTO Members pursuant to
paragraph 11 of document IP/C/W/241.  This contact point had been circulated in documentIP/N/7/Rev.2/Add.5.  The updated list of Me mbers offering technical assistance on TRIPS
notifications under this scheme had been circulat ed in document IP/C/W/256/Rev.1.  Portugal had
provided updated information on its technical and financial cooperation activities relevant to the
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement in the area of industrial property.  This information had been
circulated in document IP/C/W/203/Add.4/Supp.2 a nd supplemented the information contained in
document IP/C/W/203/Add.4/Suppl.1, which containe d information on Portugal's technical and
financial cooperation activities in the area of copyright and related rights as well as on enforcement of
intellectual property rights.
58. Turning to arrangements for the annual review of technical cooperation which the Council
traditionally undertook at its September meeting, the Chairperson suggested that the Council once
more invite developed country Members to supply information on their activities pursuant to
Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Other Members who also made available technical cooperation
were encouraged to share information on these activ ities if they so wished.  He also suggested that
once more the Council invite those intergovernmental organizations that had observer status in the
TRIPS Council to provide information on their activities of relevance and, further, that the Secretariat
might also be instructed to report on its activities.   He suggested that the Council request that this
information be made available by the end of August, in order to allow its circulation before theCouncil's meeting scheduled for 19 to 21 September 2001.
59. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chair.
60. The representative of Romania informed the Council that from 6 to 8 June 2001 a national
seminar on enforcement had been organized in Romania by the Secretariat in cooperation with WIPO.
The seminar had been organized for the judges responsible for the enforcement of intellectualproperty rights, as well as for the customs officials and police, and had had approximatelyIP/C/M/32
Page 13
130 participants.  She thanked the Secretariats of the WTO and WIPO for their excellent contributions
to the seminar, particularly in relation to th e implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.  She
emphasized the importance that Romania attached to the subject of enforcement.
61. The Council took note of this information.
62. Continuing, the Chairperson said that, at previ ous meetings, the Secretariat had informed the
Council of its discussions with the International Bureau of WIPO on how to coordinate and enhance
cooperation between the two Secretariats in the prov ision of assistance for LDCs, bearing in mind that
the transitional period for LDC Members of the WTO would expire on 1 January 2006.
63. The representative of the Secretariat info rmed the Council that, at a ceremony with
representatives of LDCs at the WIPO headquarters held on 14 June 2001, the respective
Directors-General of WTO and WIPO had launched a new joint initiative to provide technical
assistance to LDCs.  This joint initiative was ai med at helping LDC Members to comply with their
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  It was also open to other LDCs and was aimed at helpingLDCs make best use of the intellectual property system for their economic, social and cultural
development.  The new joint initiative was being taken under the auspices of the WIPO-WTO
Cooperation Agreement which entered into force on 1 January 1996 which provided for cooperation,
inter alia , in the provision of technical assistance.  It built on existing cooperation between WIPO and
WTO and their respective technical cooperation programmes, and on their experience from the jointinitiative on technical cooperation launched in July 1998 to assist developing country Members to
meet their commitments under the TRIPS Agreement by  2000.  Under the joint initiative in favour of
LDCs, the two Organizations, together with countries requesting assistance and, where appropriate,
donor countries, would endeavour to maximize the use of available resources in the coming critical
period by ensuring that technical cooperation programmes were efficiently planned and coordinated.The joint initiative envisaged assistance in two phases:  in the first phase, the two Organizations
would organize two regional workshops during the cour se of 2002:  one for the LDCs in sub-Saharan
Africa and Haiti and the other for LDCs in the Asia-Pacific region.  The objective of these workshops
would be to ensure that officials from these countries were fully familiar with the basic concepts,
principles and obligations laid down in the TRIPS Agreement, in particular with a view to facilitatingimplementation and identifying critical implementation challenges.  Invitations to these workshops
would be extended also to LDCs that were not  WTO Members nor WIPO member states.  These
workshops, together with bilateral contacts, would, in a second phase, help in drawing up a list of
priority forms of assistance that would be provid ed under the joint initiative in the form of specific
country action plans.  Requests for technical cooperation under the joint initiative could be sent byLDCs to either the WTO or WIPO.
64. The representative of WIPO said that this joint initiative was aimed particularly at helping
those LDC WTO Members comply with TRIPS obligations but invitations had been sent to all
49 LDCs - which included 30 WTO Members and six countries currently negotiating WTO
membership, as well as 41 LDC member states  of WIPO.  WIPO's development cooperation
programmes went well beyond assistance related to TRIPS implementation.  For this reason,
assistance available from WIPO had been identified and enumerated in the annex to the jointcommunication.  Briefly, these included:  legislative assistance, not only on compatibility with the
TRIPS Agreement but also in the preparation of other draft laws;  translation;  assistance with
notification obligations under the TRIPS Agreement;  and extensive training through courses, study
visits, fellowships and on-the-job training in all areas of intellectual property, including technology
transfer and licensing arrangements.  WIPO also assisted in institution-building where IP offices weremodernized or established from ground up, and this included assistance on information technology,
automation and computerization.  These were just some of the forms of comprehensive assistance
available from WIPO.  Since January 1996, WIPO had provided legislative assistance to around
90 countries and regional offices regarding TRIPS implementation, and more than 130 countries andIP/C/M/32
Page 14
regional offices benefitted from WIPO's technical cooperation activities.  WIPO had duly noted the
expressions of appreciation for the technical assistance received from WIPO from Members,
particularly during the reviews of legislation.  She reiterated WIPO's commitment to assist developing
countries and LDCs, both under and beyond the joint initiative in all matters concerning intellectual
property.
65. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the WTO and WIPO Secretariats'
launch of this joint initiative.  He recalled that he had previously indicated the importance of both
Organizations cooperating in providing technical assistance for developing countries and LDCs with
regard to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.
66. The representative of the United States associated his delegation with the comments made by
the European Communities and suggested that the Council receive regular updates on the progress
made under the joint initiative.
67. The Council took note of the statements made.
G. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 23.4
68. The Chairperson informed the Council that, as fo reshadowed at the last meeting, the European
Communities had submitted a comparative table juxtaposing the proposals that were before the
Council concerning the notification and registration system for geographical indications to be
negotiated under Article 23.4.  The table had been circulated in document IP/C/W/259.  The Councilhad received a second communication from the European Communities and their member States,
which had been circulated as document IP/C/W/260.
69. The representative of the European Commun ities, referring to the comparative table
(document IP/C/W/259), said that there were, so fa r, two comprehensive proposals on the table:  the
EC proposal and the "joint proposal".  There was, in addition, some draft language submitted byHungary on some specific aspects, in particular, possible opposition and challenge procedures.  The
comparative table showed a significant number of common elements between the proposals but also
several points of divergence.  With respect to the terms "notification" and "registration", as used in the
joint proposal, "notification" implied only transparency of information in a voluntary and
administratively simple system, while the term "registration" implied no legal effects.  Consequently,it would appear that the provisions on notification and registration were identical in the joint proposal.
In a number of respects, the joint proposal did not seem to constitute more than a mere database.  It
was not clear to his delegation how the facilitation of the protection of geographical indications, as
requested in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, would be ensured by a system limited to a mere
database.  In that respect, the joint proposal neither made reference to national legislation providingfor protection nor to the date on which each geographical indication first received protection.  He
noted that the proposals submitted by Hungary and the EC, respectively, suggested various ways and
means to allow examination and consultations aiming at an acceptable solution in case of
disagreement among Members.  The joint proposal did not appear to contain anything comparable.
He made the following other remarks on the joint proposal:
- The terms "wines and spirits" had been replaced by "covered products".  It was
understood from the introduction that the discussion of the nature of the system wasto be separated from the discussion of the scope of the system.  His delegation shared
that view and had adopted the same approach in its own revised proposal.  However,
given the continued unwillingness of the United States and its co-sponsors to enter
into a discussion on other products, he asked the United States and its co-sponsors to
clarify their position on this issue.IP/C/M/32
Page 15
- It was not clear why notifications of geog raphical indications "every six months"
should lessen the burden on the Secretariat.
- The joint proposal left open the consequences of a withdrawal or disruption of a
Member’s participation in the system.
- It was not clear what steps were envisaged to ensure a truly multilateral registration
system and not just a compilation of national lists.  Asking the Secretariat to compilenational lists would be burdensome if no added value were created - this should be
limited to the creation of links to the different national web sites.
- It was unclear under the joint proposal whether or not non-participating Members had
the obligation to grant protection under Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement and to
facilitate this protection in the sense of Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement.  It also
seemed that "WTO lists" would not be any different from the "list of domestic
geographical indications".  Taking into account the above comments, he concludedthat the joint proposal could not be considered as fully complying with the mandate
of Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular with respect to the different
elements constituting a multilateral system of notification and registration.
70. The representative of the United States, responding to the European Communities, said that
the terms "notification" and "registration" as used in the joint proposal were not identical.
"Notification" described the steps taken by those WTO Members that wished to participate in a
multilateral system for notification and registration.  Members wishing to participate would notify to
the WTO Secretariat a list of their recognized domestic geographical indications for covered products.
Participating Members would also be responsible for keeping their notifications up to date, in
particular by withdrawing notifications of any indi cations that were no longer eligible for protection
in the Member's territory.  It had been noted that the joint proposal made no express reference to the
date on which recognition of geographical indications had been granted.  That information would help
facilitate protection and could certainly be included when Members worked out the format for
notifications.  "Registration" refered to the compilation by the WTO Secretariat of the database of
notified geographical indications listing the products to which the indications applied, the country oforigin and, if Members agreed, the date on which recognition had been granted in the country of
origin.  Once the database was established, the Secretariat would only need to add new indications
notified and delete those withdrawn by Members.  Registration would have legal effects, but those
would be in accordance with TRIPS-consistent laws of individual Members participating in the
system.  Those Members would refer to the WTO database along with other sources of informationordinarily used in making decisions involving protection of geographical indications for covered
products in accordance with their domestic legislatio n.  Reference to the database would ensure that
information regarding other Members' geographical indications for covered products was factored
into those decisions.  The idea that decisions in volving geographical indications would be made in
accordance with the domestic law of individual Members was in keeping with the protection accorded
other forms of intellectual property covered by Part II of the TRIPS Agreement.  Responding to  the
specific comments made by the European Communities, he said:
- With respect to the use of the term "covered  products" rather than "wines and spirits",
the European Communities' characterization of the United States' position was
incorrect.  The joint proposal used the te rm "covered products" in keeping with
Australia's suggestion that the system of notification and registration be discussed
separately from the issue of product coverage.  However, the United States had saidrepeatedly that, because there was no mandate in the TRIPS Agreement for
considering extension of Article 23 to geographical indications for products other
than wines and spirits, such consideration could only take place in the context of aIP/C/M/32
Page 16
new round of multilateral trade negotiations.  The United States did not support
negotiations on that issue.
- Regarding the frequency with which Members would update notifications, the joint
proposal indicated that there would be a fixed period so that the Secretariat could
schedule its resources appropriately.  If notifications were submitted whenever
Members chose, the possibility of such scheduling was lessened.  In any case, underthe collective proposal, the burden on the Secretariat, once the database was
established, would be minimal.
- The United States believed that the creation of a database of information of
geographical indications recognized by WTO Members created significant value
since that information was not available at that time in any single, easily-searchable
compilation that could be used by WTO Members in making decisions relating to
geographical indications.  Links to national web sites would not offer the same valueas each Member that maintained information related to geographical indications
formatted that information differently and, in many cases, information was contained
in more than one site within individual Members' territories.   In addition, some
Members that might choose to participate in the system might not maintain their
relevant information on publicly available web sites.
- With regard to non-participating Members, the United States first noted that Section 3
of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement provided  standards of protection for geographical
indications that all WTO Members had to meet. However, Section 3 did not require
that particular geographical indications be protected, but rather, as was the case with
respect to other forms of intellectual property, it left to TRIPS-consistent nationallegislation decisions regarding protection of individual geographical indications.  The
joint proposal incorporated that approach by providing that non-participating
Members would be encouraged to refer to the WTO database, along with other
sources of information in making decisions under their national legislation to ensure
that they were using the most complete information available.  It was expected thatmost would do so in any case, precisely because the database would be a useful
source of information that might otherwise not be available to Members.  What
non-participating Members would not have to do would be to adopt a legal regime
expressly protecting particular geographical indications notified by other Members
regardless of whether they had the resources to monitor the hundreds of notificationsof other Members and oppose those that they believed should not be protected.
- The United States disagreed with the EC's view of the joint proposal's compliance
with the mandate of Article 23.4.  Indeed, it believed that the EC and Hungarian
proposals were inconsistent with the mandate of Article 23.4 because they would
impose additional obligations on all Members, obligations for which Members
received no equivalent concessions from those Members receiving the major benefits.
71. The representative of Hungary said that the comparative table (document IP/C/W/259) was a
helpful contribution.  It was neutral and its structure made possible an objective analysis of the
different proposals.  He urged other delegations to use the table when examining the proposals under
this agenda item.  Turning to the other paper submitted by the European Communities
(document IP/C/W/260), his delegation fully shared its comments and conclusions regarding the joint
proposal (IP/C/W/1 33/Rev.1).  He said that registration in the joint proposal would not have any legal
effect and therefore it was fair to say that it would not differ from notification.  Accordingly, the end
result would not seem to constitute more than a mere database and therefore it would not seem to be
in line with Article 23.4 of the Agreement, which mandated negotiations concerning the establishmentIP/C/M/32
Page 17
of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications.  Responding to the
United States, he said that Hungary was not clear as to what exactly would be the legal effect of
registration under the system proposed by the United States and its co-sponsors.  It was important to
note that Article 23.4 provided that the establishment of the multilateral system of notification and
registration should facilitate the protection of geographical indications.  He asked the United States
and its co-sponsors to comment on how their proposed system would effectively do that.  Withoutdiscussing whether there needed to be a procedure to settle disagreements between Members on the
registration of notified geographical indications, he simply noted that the joint proposal did not
provide for such a mechanism.  He found pertinent the points raised in paragraph 5 of the European
Communities' paper (document IP/C/W/260) and looked forward to receiving more comments and
answers to them.
72. The representative of Canada provided a brief preliminary response to the EC paper contained
in document IP/C/W/260.  The TRIPS Agreement clearly left it up to individual Members to
determine the best way to fulfill the minimum standa rds of the Agreement.  It was clear that the EC
and their member States in their communication did not place any value in the merits of a voluntary
system and were pressing delegates to engage in something that was far beyond TRIPS requirements.
Canada was supportive of efforts to prepare a database in an effort to achieve greater understanding
among Members of the various interpretations of this provision.  Canada fully supported an approachas outlined in the joint proposal that was not burdensome and was truly voluntary.  In that regard, she
associated her delegation with many of the comments offered by the representative of the
United States in his previous intervention.
73. The representative of Japan said that, as a co-sponsor of the collective or joint proposal
(document IP/C/W/133/Rev.1), he wanted to react to some of the points made in the EC paper
(document IP/C/W/260).  Japan took the view th at the multilateral system of notification and
registration under Article 23.4 should not create new obligations going beyond the current text of the
TRIPS Agreement.  The second sentence of Article 1.1 provided that "Members shall be free to
determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own
legal system and practice".  In accordance with this provision, Members would have alreadyimplemented in their national legal system or practice the obligation of additional protection provided
under Article 23, paragraphs 1 to 3.  The same would apply to the nature and the scope of the
obligation under the multilateral system of notification and registration, if it were to be established.
The legal effect to be generated by the multilateral system of notification and registration should be
determined by the national law of each Member, in accordance with the provisions of the TRIPSAgreement.  Referring to item (1) of the EC paper, Japan took a different view of the meaning of the
term "registration".  Japan did not believe that the term "registration" itself implied that the
multilateral system had to provide any new kind of legal effect.  In fact, additional protection was
already provided by national laws of Members who had implemented Article 23, paragraphs 1 to 3 of
the TRIPS Agreement.  There was no basis for introducing a new legal effect to the existing scheme
of additional protection.  Item (2) of the EC paper said that the collective proposal was a mere
database and would not ensure the facilitation of the protection of geographical indications requestedin Article 23.4.  However, Japan believed that the additional protection of geographical indications
would be facilitated by the collective proposal.  The main problem which Members faced was that it
was difficult to identify particular geographical indications which were protected in the territories of
other Members.  The joint proposal would make it easy for Members to identify such geographical
indications and facilitate their protection.  Item (4) of the EC paper said that the joint proposal did notsuggest ways and the means to allow examination and consultations aiming at an acceptable solution
in case of disagreement among Members.  This was because the joint proposal did not aim at creating
a multilateral system of a binding nature.  The ways and means of seeking solutions to disagreements
among Members were already set out in the current WTO scheme.  Japan did not feel that there was
any need to create a new legal system for dispute settlement other than the existing one.  Japan did notfavour the idea of multilateral arbitration proposed by Hungary.  Item (5), first bullet, of the EC paperIP/C/M/32
Page 18
sought clarification of the co-sponsors' position regarding the products which were to be the
subject-matters of the multilateral system.  Japan considered that the Council should, at that stage,
concentrate its discussion on the products already covered by Article 23.4, namely wines and possibly
spirits.  Item (5), second bullet, related to the six-month time interval for notifications.  Japan was
open-minded regarding the time interval for notifications, but in any case the administrative burden
should be as small as possible.  Regarding item (5), fourth bullet, it was not clear to Japan what wasmeant by the reference to a "truly multilateral registration system".  The multilateral notification and
registration system proposed by the collective or joint proposal was the most appropriate multilateral
system, considering that the Council should avoid creating any new obligations beyond those
currently in the TRIPS Agreement, while ensuring the facilitation of additional protection of
geographical indications.  Item (5), fifth bullet, asked whether or not non-participating Members had
the obligation to grant protection under Article 23.  He replied that they certainly did.  All WTO
Members were required to fulfill their obligation to provide additional protection under Article 23 ofthe TRIPS Agreement, and Members were supposed to do so by the appropriate method of
implementation within their own legal system and practice, as set out in the second sentence of
Article 1.1.  In conclusion, Japan believed that the multilateral system proposed by the collective or
joint proposal complied with the mandate of Article 23.4.
74. Continuing, he commented on the comparative table prepared by the European Communities
(document IP/C/W/259).  Japan believed that the comparative table would be more useful if it
incorporated not only the three proposals but also all of the views and comments expressed by
Members, and if it were structured in a neutral manner.  He then reiterated his delegation's views on
the EC proposal (document IP/C/W/107/Rev.1).  Firs t, the multilateral system of notification and
registration to be established should not impose on Members any new obligation going beyond thecurrent provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.  The multilateral system proposed by the EC seemed to
introduce new legal obligations which went beyond the existing provisions of the TRIPS Agreement,
because it called for the creation of a uniform legal effect of registration.  The legal effect of
registration should be left to decisions by Members' own administrative or judicial authorities in
accordance with the second sentence on Article 1.1.  Administrative actions set forth in footnote 4 toArticle 23.1 should continue to be allowed as an appropriate enforcement measure.  Second, the
administrative burden and associated costs imposed by the multilateral system should be as small as
possible.  The multilateral system proposed by the EC included an examination procedure as well as
an opposition system based on challenges and negotiations among Members.  The multilateral system
proposed by Hungary included a new multilateral arbitration system in addition to those elementsproposed by the EC.  If those elements of ex amination, opposition and arbitration were to be
associated with a multilateral system, it would be very costly and burdensome, because thousands of
geographical indications could be subject to examination and opposition by all participating Members
within the short time of 18 months.  Third, the multilateral system should be based on voluntary
participation.  The EC proposal claimed to be volu ntary, but it could de facto be a non-voluntary
system if the registration had erga omnes  legal effects in non-participating Members.  If successful
registrations bound non-participating Members, they  too would wish to challenge the registration
within 18 months from publication.  This meant that a ll Members would be forced to participate in the
multilateral system.
75. The representative of Australia supported the comments made by Canada, Japan and the
United States.  The EC's comparative table (document IP/C/W/259) provided a useful compilation of
details of the existing proposals submitted to the TRIPS Council, but it was disappointing that it didnot include any reference to the International Register of Appellations of Origin established under the
Lisbon Agreement (the "Lisbon register").  The Li sbon register was an example of an established
register that could provide practical lessons to Members about the nature of the register that could be
established under the TRIPS Agreement.  Although the Lisbon Agreement had been adopted in 1958,
it had only 20 contracting parties and had failed to gain widespread support.  The TRIPS registercould only truly meet its obligation of facilitating th e protection of geographical indications if it wasIP/C/M/32
Page 19
able to gain the broad support and participation of Members.  For this reason, it was critical that
Members undertook a practical examination of the weaknesses of the Lisbon Agreement that had led
to its limited acceptance.  The failure of the Lisbon register to gain wide support and the voluntary
nature of the Article 23.4 register meant that it was critical that Members gave careful consideration to
the capacity of each proposal to accommodate the diversity of national system to protect geographical
indications.  The answers provided by the European Communities to questions posed by Australia atprevious meetings confirmed that the EC proposal involved a register that would build upon existing
TRIPS obligations by creating a global pre-emptive system which would have direct effect in national
jurisdictions.  This was particularly clear in the comparative table submitted by the EC (document
IP/C/W/259).  The EC proposal clearly went beyond the mandate provided in Article 23.4, which was
the establishment of a register that facilitated existing obligations, to propose the creation of new
obligations.  Under the EC proposal, a failure to oppose a particular geographical indication within a
limited time-frame would lead to automatic protection in a domestic jurisdiction.  However, theTRIPS Agreement did not contain any unqualified requirement to protect specific geographical
indications in advance of any domestic legal or administrative process;  all it required was the
provision of the legal means of protection.  It was well accepted in relation to all other types of
intellectual property that protection was granted at the national level, but under the EC proposal
failure to oppose registration of a particular geographical indication led to protection of thatgeographical indication domestically.  Her delegation had seen no explanation from the EC which
clarified why geographical indications should be given special treatment compared to other
intellectual property rights.
76. The representative of Argentina said that the EC's comparative table (IP/C/W/259) was very
helpful in understanding the fundamental differen ces between the EC proposal and the collective or
joint proposal.  Argentina was pleased that the EC had presented the Hungarian proposal
(IP/C/W/255) separately, without incorporating it into the EC proposal for the time being.  Argentina
would find it very difficult, almost impossible, to  accept a dispute settlement mechanism as proposed
by Hungary for a particular category of intellectual property rights.  This was an additional obligation
beyond that provided under Article 23.4.  The register and its formalities should in fact facilitate thesystem of protection of geographical indications without creating new obligations which might result
in an unjustifiable obstacle to trade in wines and spirits.  Argentina believed that the collective or joint
proposal was compatible with the basic parameters for a system of notification and registration.
Regarding the proposal made by Hungary, she highlighted some elements which had raised questions
and serious reservations for her delegation.  It would not only create additional obligations, but alsotake away certain rights from Members, such as the exceptions under Article 24.4 to 24.6.  It seemed
that, under paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Hungarian proposal, in those Members which did not oppose a
registration, it would be irrelevant whether or not another Member had opposed it, even if that other
Member's opposition had been successful.  The proposal indicated that a geographical indication
would be registered, the only difference being th at a Member who had successfully opposed it would
not be obliged to protect it.  It appeared from paragraph 3 of the proposal that the only geographical
indications which, although successfully opposed, would not be registered nor generate obligationsfor any Member were those successfully opposed on the basis of Article 22.1 (the definition or
conditions of eligibility for protection of a geographical indication) and Article 22.4 (geographical
indications which, although literally true, falsely represented to the public that goods originated in
another territory).  Argentina was concerned that, under the Hungarian proposal, if a Member wished
to exercise its rights under Article 24.4 to 24.6, it could only do so under an opposition procedurewithin an international arbitration framework.  It seemed that it could not exercise its rights under the
Agreement at a later time through its domestic legislation or in any other instance.  In other words, the
proposal seemed to take away important rights which were already provided in the Agreement.
Linking this with the proposals for extension of additional protection under Article 24.1, she recalled
that some Members had given assurances that extension was not so dramatic because the exceptionswould continue to be available.  However, it was possible that the multilateral register might eliminate
some of them.  Argentina also had a serious concern regarding Article 24.9, which exemptedIP/C/M/32
Page 20
Members from protecting geographical indications which were not or ceased to be protected in their
country of origin, or which had fallen into disuse in that country.  Paragraph 7 of Hungary's proposal,
and paragraph D.5 of the EC proposal as it already stood, only mentioned the "suspension" of the
obligation.  This appeared to limit the right contained in Article 24.9.
77. The representative of Korea said that the EC's comparative table (document IP/C/W/259)
provided some comparison of the proposals.  The Secretariat's summary paper (document
IP/C/W/253) showed that Members protected geogra phical indications in different ways through, for
example, laws on business practices, trademark laws or special protection systems.  The variety of
protection systems among Members should be respected in line with Article 1.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement which allowed each Member freely "to determine the appropriate method of implementing
the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice".  Korea believed that the
EC and Hungarian proposals would impose an addi tional burden and obligation on those Members
which had no separate system of registration for geographical indications.  Article 23.4 specificallymentioned the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration for wines eligible
for protection in those Members participating in th e system in order to facilitate the protection of
geographical indications.   There were a couple of points of interpretation to be drawn from this
Article.  First, it did not create any right but rather aimed at facilitating the existing protection.
Second, Members' rights regarding participation should be recognized, as it was about a system forthose Members participating in the system.  As a practical matter, the concept of geographical
indications had yet to be fully digested, except in some European countries.  Under these
circumstances, it would take time for Members to build the necessary capacity to examine the
notifications made by other Members and to raise objections within an 18-month period, as suggested
by the EC.  The Secretariat summary paper also showed some incidence of a mixed use of indicationsof source and appellations of origin.  Paragraph 39 of the paper said that several countries were even
adopting geographical indications without any direct link to product quality.  He recalled that the
United States had pointed out at a previous meet ing that over 6,000 geographical indications were
being notified for wines and spirits through a number of bilateral or regional agreements.  It would be
rather costly to examine all these notifications and to make objections within the prescribedtime-frame.  Korea could not agree to extending the rights and obligations beyond those set out in the
TRIPS Agreement.  Its opposition was based on the lessons learnt from the Lisbon Agreement, which
was an excessively burdensome system.  In view of the short history of protecting geographical
indications in many Members, Korea believed that sharing each Member's database more widely, and
eventually expanding it, would serve Members' purpose in a more effective and appropriate manner.In doing so, the Council would be able to facilitate  voluntary participation of Members in the system.
78. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of ASEAN Members, said that ASEAN
had for some time been following this discussion with interest.  The words of Article 23.4 contained a
number of elements regarding the formation of the multilateral system, namely the elements of
notification, registration and voluntary participation.  In the language of Article 23.4, a multilateral
system would be a system where Members had an  opportunity to notify and register their
geographical indications for wines and spirits.  ASEAN understood that to notify meant to inform, andthat a register denoted a list or catalogue of this information.  The intent of Article 23.4 was to
establish a system which enabled Members that participated to notify geographical indications for
wines and spirits and to place them on a register, but that this system should not have legal effects on
those that had chosen not to participate.  A system that contained these three elements would meet the
requirements of Article 23.4.  Additional elements could go beyond the requirements of the Articleand might increase the obligations of Members under the TRIPS Agreement.
79. The representative of New Zealand, making only preliminary comments on the papers that
had been received, said that her delegation continued to support the joint proposal
(IP/C/W/133/Rev.1) as it believed that it was the one which best fulfilled the mandate of Article 23.4
and that its administrative costs were the most reasonable.  She associated her delegation withIP/C/M/32
Page 21
comments made by the co-sponsors of the joint proposal, Australia and Malaysia on behalf of
ASEAN, that just because the joint proposal did not involve additional legal and burdensome
administrative effects which went beyond Members' current obligations and the mandate of
Article 23.4 itself, did not negate the fact that the joint proposal had a registration effect.  She did not
understand the criticism that the joint proposal did not fulfill both notification and registration
functions.  Some of the points raised in the EC  paper (document IP/C/W/260) underestimated the
value that could be added through the transparency and notification functions of any proposal under
Article 23.4.  It was important to look at the value that was attached to some commercial databases
and the great value that this type of compilation could add, particularly for those with limited
resources.
80. The representative of the European Communities said that he had listened carefully to the
statements made in response to his previous intervention under this agenda item.  He was not
convinced by the arguments put forward by the United States and other delegations which hadintervened along the same lines.  He had not heard much new.  It had been interesting to hear the
United States' definition of registration was a compilation of a database, although he did not find that
definition in the dictionary.  In the view of his delegation, the mere compilation of a database was not
a registration and fell short of the obligation in Article 23.4 to establish a multilateral system of
notification and registration.  He regretted that some delegations, whilst they had appreciated the EC'sefforts in drafting its comparative table, had indicated that they would have liked it to refer to the
Lisbon register.  The comparative table did not refer to the Lisbon register because it was a
comparison of proposals submitted under this agenda item, and no delegation had proposed that the
Lisbon register fulfil the requirements of Article 23.4.  The EC had not intended to start an academic
exercise, since the Council had passed the stage of putting possible texts on the table.  One delegationhad indicated that the table would be more useful if the EC added views and comments made at
previous meetings.  He was not convinced that that would really add much to this process because,
when negotiations started, delegations would remember what positions had been taken on the
different proposals.  He was disappointed th at, although his delegation had submitted its
communications in advance of the meeting, at least one delegation had indicated that it had not hadsufficient time to fully examine it.  He could only deduce that it was probably because they had not
come up with good arguments to refute the points  made in the communications.  The comparative
table had been prepared in an attempt to provide an objective basis which would allow all delegations
to start real negotiations.  He regretted that he had not yet seen any willingness to start negotiations.
81. The representative of Switzerland said that both contributions by the European Communities
and their member States contained highly interesting elements which would permit progress to be
made toward the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration.  His
delegation continued to support the EC and Hungarian proposals.  The EC's comparative table and
paper at last permitted delegations to compare the various proposals that had been made and to ask
questions which merited consideration with a view to having a fruitful debate.
82. The representative of the United States, responding to Hungary's request for clarification as to
the legal effects of registration under the collective or joint proposal, provided an example of the legal
effect of the joint proposal under United States law.  When the United States reviewed an application
for a trademark containing a geographical term, the trademark examining attorney would be obligated
to review the WTO database of geographical indications to determine whether there was a conflict
with pre-existing geographical indications.  If the proposed mark contained a pre-existing
geographical indication, and the goods in the application did not come from the place identified in themark, the application would be refused as a geographically mis-descriptive term.  The database
described in the collective proposal would ensure more accurate determinations in trademark cases
and would prevent the registration of misleading geographical indications by providing a reliable,
easy-to-use source of information.  This clarified that, under the United States system, an examinerIP/C/M/32
Page 22
would be bound to look at the database and use that information in making a legal determination with
respect to an application.
83. The representative of Bulgaria said that th e EC's comparative table (document IP/C/W/259)
would be very helpful.  His delegation support ed the proposals by the EC and Hungary on the
establishment of a register.
84. The representative of Hungary, responded to Argentina regarding the exceptions in Article 24,
paragraphs 4 , 5 and 6.  Those exceptions could only be examined on a case-by-case and
country-by-country basis.  Article 24.4 was about continuous good faith use of a geographical
indication, Article 24.5 referred to good faith use of a trademark and Article 24.6 refered to generic
terms.  Hungary had tried to say, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of its paper, that these exceptions should be
looked at on a case-by-case basis.  For example, a term which was generic in one country was not
necessarily generic in another, and the same line of argument could apply to the two other exceptions.
It was not his delegation's intention to take away the possibility of using the exceptions laid down inArticle 24.  Rather, it wanted to retain and incorporate those exceptions into the register.  It had
mentioned them in a separate paragraph and stated that a successful challenge would only apply in the
Member making a successful challenge in order to re flect the fact that these exceptions were to be
looked at on a case-by-case basis.  Regarding paragraph 7 of Hungary's paper, and Article 24.9 of the
Agreement, he believed that the language in paragraph 7 was in full conformity with Article 24.9,which did not preclude that a geographical indication which ceased to be protected in its country of
origin could gain the benefit of protection as a geographical indication at a later stage.  Paragraph 7
tried to make sure that, if a geographical indication in the multilateral register did not fulfil a
requirement in Section 3, it did not benefit from protection.  Responding to the United States, he
thanked the representative for the useful example that he had given of the legal effect of  thecollective proposal.  He asked other co-sponsors of that proposal to shed more light on the effects that
followed in Members where geographical indications were not protected through certification marks
but, for example, through laws on unfair competition.
85. The representative of India supported the interventions made by Hungary and Switzerland.
86. The representative of Sri Lanka recalled that the cover page of the EC comparative table
(document IP/C/W/259) said that it had been prep ared to allow for an objective comparison of the
main proposals that had been tabled to date and to facilitate further discussions.  She urged Members
to engage in such a discussion.
87. The representative of Turkey  supported the EC proposal for establishment of a multilateral
system of notification and registration.
88. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next
meeting.
H. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 24.1
89. The Chairperson recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had considered a joint proposal
from a number of delegations.  Some Members had indicated at that time their intention to present
further comments after studying this proposal in greater depth.  The proposal in question concerned,
specifically, the extension of additional protection for geographical indications to products other thanwines and spirits, and it was currently sponsored by 17 delegations, namely those of Bulgaria, Cuba,
the Czech Republic, Egypt, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey and Venezuela, as reflected in
document IP/C/W/247/Rev.1.  A new paper addressing the matter had been received, jointlyIP/C/M/32
Page 23
submitted by the delegations of Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand,
Paraguay and the United States (document IP/C/W/289).
90. The representative of Australia introduced the joint paper (document IP/C/W/289).  She
recalled that several papers had been put before the Council advocating particular positions in relation
to the protection of geographical indications.  In particular, a number of Members were advocating an
extension of the scope of Article 23.1 to all goods.  As her delegation and others had statedpreviously, there was no mandate in any of the TRIPS provisions for an extension of the scope of
Article 23.1.  It had been argued by some that Article 24.1 contained such a mandate but, as said
before, Article 24.1 related explicitly to "individual geographical indications" under Article 23.
Article 24.1 did not concern entire product sectors or industries, but rather specific negotiations on
individual wine and spirit geographical indications which were already protected under Article 23.
The joint paper did not constitute tacit support on the part of its co-sponsors for the argument that
Article 24.1 contained a mandate to extend the scope of Article 23.  Rather, the joint paper was asignificant demonstration of their willingness to engage seriously, constructively and substantially in
the extension debate, and an attempt to ensure that Members could make a measured and balanced
assessment of the potential benefits and costs of change to the existing, TRIPS provisions.  To date,
the extension debate had lacked a serious asse ssment of the consequences following from any
proposal that recommended substantial changes to existing provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and,in particular, those proposals to increase the level of geographical indication protection of all
products.  The joint paper sought to redress that imbalance.  The calls for extension of scope had been
based on the assumption that "additional" protection would deliver enhanced trade opportunities for
Members and producers and greater protection to consumers.  A threshold question examined in this
joint submission was whether increasing scope would in  fact lead to increased protection.  Article 22
already obliged Members to facilitate the protection of geographical indications for all goods.  A
Member could therefore already enforce protection of a geographical indication, provided it was
protected domestically, as required under Article 24.9.  Protection under Article 23 was not absolute,
and it was likely that a number of terms that Members wished to protect might not fall within the
definition of a "geographical indication" in the Agr eement, or would fall within one of the exceptions
to protection set out in Article 24.  The joint paper demonstrated a range of these concerns, and
showed that extension of scope might therefore not be the panacea for more effective protection that
some claimed it to be.  It was worth noting that, if Article 23.1 were to be extended to other products,
it would be necessary to extend the grandfathering clause of Article 24.4 to other products, such that if
Members had already been using a particular term for at least 10 years, or in good faith before that,then they would not be obliged to give it up.  Many of the well-known terms that some Members
might be seeking to have protected at the higher level would be likely to fall within this category.  In
the rush to seek increased protection, a number of important issues had also not been raised, let alone
fully discussed.  The debate had failed to give any consideration to the flipside of increasing
geographical indication protection which was increased costs for consumers, producers and Members.
These include costs such as implementing new national laws and administrative procedures to fulfil
new TRIPS obligations, which for Members without  TRIPS-plus systems to protect geographical
indications would involve considerable costs in te rms of money and resources;  the administrative and
financial burden of protecting, at the enhanced level of protection, a large number of other Members'
geographical indications, even if a Member had no, or only a small number of domestic geographical
indications to protect;  the possible closure of future market access opportunities for emerging
industries, and the creation of uncertainty in existing markets due to the loss of the right to use termsthat were familiar to consumers, even where consumers would not be misled about the origin of a
product - this was likely to be felt most acutely by producers in new and emerging dairy and
processed food industries, amongst others;  costs to producers, if they had to give up the right to use
certain terms, of re-labelling, re-packaging and marketing their products;  costs of consumer
confusion caused by the disappearance of terms customarily used to identify products; and heightenedrisk of disputes between WTO Members and between producers in WTO Members concerning the
use of particular geographical indications.  Actual examples of a failure of Article 22 level ofIP/C/M/32
Page 24
protection to protect a geographical indication had also been noticeably absent from the debate.  If the
inadequacy of Article 22 were so clear, there had to be numerous examples of producers failing in
attempts to enforce legitimate rights.  The co-sponsors of the joint paper recognized that geographical
indications provide a means of promoting trade opportunities.  Producers should be able to actively
market their goods and services in a manner that did not impede trade or minimize the intrinsic value
of geographical indications.  WTO Members had a common interest in securing effective protectionfor their geographical indications.  This was why there was an urgent need for an in-depth exploration
of the existing rules.  Members would only be in a position to weigh the relative costs and benefits of
extension if there were a collective understanding of what was required to implement the existing
rules.  The co-sponsors of the joint paper inv ited countries advocating changes to the existing
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement to specifically address the following three questions:  (i) What
costs for Members were associated with altering the existing provisions?  (ii) What would be the
effect on trade of altering the existing provisions?  (iii) What would be the effect on consumers ofaltering the existing provisions?  The onus lay squarely on the demandeurs  to work actively to create
a consensus, as they were proposing changes to the existing rules.
91. The representative of New Zealand said that her delegation had decided to co-sponsor the
joint paper introduced by Australia (document IP/C/W/289) on the potential costs and implications of
extension of geographical indication protection for two key reasons.  First, her delegation stronglysupported the logical, analytical and factual arguments in the paper.  Second, the paper made a
valuable contribution to the Council's discussion in ensuring that Members had the full range of
information before them prior to taking any decisions on this issue.  In the history of the WTO,
outcomes had been negotiated where Members may not  have had a full understanding or full set of
information regarding the practical consequences.  Her delegation did not wish to see that situationrepeated.  She highlighted some points in the paper upon which her delegation placed particular
importance.  Any discussion needed to consider whether extension of scope would in fact achieve any
additional effective protection along the lines envisaged.  Any term eligible for protection first had to
meet the definition of a geographical indication, in particular the test that a particular quality,
reputation or other characteristic was essentially attributable to geographic origin.  Then the variousexceptions had to be applied:  Article 24.4, the "grandfather" clause;  Article 24.6, the "generics"
clause;  and Article 24.9, the requirement to first provide domestic protection.  In addition, the current
projections provided under the Agreement needed to be assessed from the perspective of reality.  In
the view of her delegation, it had not been proven that current protection under Article 22 was
inadequate in terms of protecting the balance of interests of producers, consumers, governments andthe general public.  In the view of her delegation, it had not been proven that the different mechanisms
provided by different Members to implement protection in accordance with their flexibility rights
under the TRIPS Agreement were deficient.  It had not been proven why the minimum standards
approach to intellectual property protection inherent in the TRIPS Agreement should be changed so
that TRIPS-plus protection, which Members were currently free to implement if they so wished,
should be imposed on all Members.  In any policy assessment, one had to balance costs and benefits.
The joint paper referred to additional administra tion costs, trade implications for producers and
consumer costs.  She emphasized that her delega tion did not oppose extension simply on the basis of
increased administration costs, but rather because the balance was not neutral nor weighted in favour
of the benefits, that is, the costs would outweigh the benefits.  She did not understand what the
legitimate objective of extension would be - given the protections that already existed – nor how
extension would be proportional or necessary for the fulfilment of whatever this legitimate objectivemight be.  The joint paper referred only briefly to the question of the legal mandate for possible
extension in recognition that it was important to have information on the table in order for any debate
to be fully informed and constructive.  However, she recalled New Zealand's position on the lack of a
mandate for this issue.  The joint paper challe nged the proponents of extension to address more
directly a number of questions relating to the costs of extending the scope of Article 23.1, includingthe lack of evidence that Article 22 currently provided an inadequate level of protection and to the
potential downsides of extension of scope.IP/C/M/32
Page 25
92. The representative of Hungary said that the joint paper introduced by Australia
(document IP/C/W/289) was thought-provoking and would greatly animate the debate.  The paper
showed how important this issue was even for thos e who were still not yet convinced of the need to
extend the scope of Article 23 to other products.  He welcomed the willingness of the co-sponsors of
the joint paper to move beyond the question of the mandate to substance and offered some
preliminary observations.  He did not understand the assertion in paragraph 5, first bullet, of the jointpaper that the costs of extending the scope of Article 23 would be high and fall disproportionately on
Members which did not already have TRIPS-plus laws and administrative procedures.  Every Member
which already had an obligation to implement the TRIPS Agreement had to provide Article 23 level
protection for wines and spirits.  Therefore, the laws and administrative mechanisms providing that
level protection should be in place and operational already.  The question was not to set up a new
system, which often entailed large costs, but to extend the currently working systems to other
products.  In any case, costs should always be measured against benefits.  Moreover, during theUruguay Round, when the extension of product patent protection was discussed, he did not recall
Members who did not have such protection, such as  Hungary, arguing that the implementation costs
would be disproportionate.  He did not understand the joint paper's argument that extension of the
scope of Article 23 would close off future market access opportunities for emerging industries,
particularly in the area of agriculture.  If a manufacturer used a certain geographical indication forlabelling a good which did not originate from the territory concerned and whose quality, reputation
and other characteristics naturally were not attributable to the geographical location indicated on the
label, the manufacturer simply misappropriated the ri ghts of the producers located in the locality to
which the geographical indication refered to and the goodwill and reputation of the product in
question which had great value.  The line of argument contained in the joint paper, used in relation topatents, trademarks or copyright, could be dangerous.  It would mean that pharmaceutical industries
should be allowed to copy patented drugs, infant food industries should be allowed to use reputable
trademarks and newly established CD makers coul d copy copyright music or software.  He also
pointed out that extension of the scope of Article 23 would not in any way prevent the production and
marketing of goods.  The goods would simply have to be labelled differently and called what they infact were.  If the products were of adequate quality, he was sure that they would find their place on
the market.  He asked to hear more about "commercially significant terms", as used in paragraph 21 of
attachment to the joint paper, and their relationship with geographical indications.  He did not
understand the joint paper's argument that extension of Article 23 protection would result in consumer
confusion.  The whole concept behind geographical indication protection was to prevent situationswhere consumers were mislead as to the true geographical origin of a good.  He did not see how the
additional protection under Article 23.1, that is the prohibition of the use of geographical indications
in translation or accompanied by expressions such as "kind", "type", "style", "imitation" and the like,
could increase the confusion of consumers as to whether the good in fact originated from the territory
referred to in the geographical indication and did have the qualities, reputation and other
characteristics that were essentially attributable to this geographical origin.  The attachment to the
joint paper, in the section on additional protection under Article 23, stated that not all terms fitted thedefinition of geographical indication in Article 22.1 and listed the three examples in Article 24 and
then drew the conclusion that it was unclear whether extending the scope of Article 23 to other
products would result in more effective protection.  He emphasized his delegation's disagreement with
this conclusion.  To the best of his knowledge,  no proponent of extension had ever suggested that
protection should be extended to terms not fitting the definition in Article 22.1.  In any case, suchterms did not enjoy protection under Article 22.  Second, the exceptions did not empty Article 23
completely.  Rather, as the paper submitted by many proponents had pointed out
(document IP/C/W/247/Rev.1) there was a difference between the levels of protection under
Articles 22 and 23.  Indeed, the joint paper introduced by Australia, in paragraphs 10 and 13 of the
attachment, stated that, whilst Article 22 created the optimal balance, Article 23 conferred exclusiverights and created an imbalance.  While he did not agree that there was any imbalance, he found it odd
that the joint paper asserted a difference in levels of protection which created an imbalance on the one
hand, and claimed that it was not clear whether protection would be made more effective by extendingIP/C/M/32
Page 26
the scope of Article 23.  The joint paper, in paragraph 8 of the attachment, last sentence, asserted that
free and fair imitation of a product often enhanced the intrinsic value and premium of the genuine
geographical indication.  He did not think that was true.  To take the example of Tokaj wine, which
went back so far that it had even been the favour ite wine of Louis XIV of France, he did not see how
its intrinsic value could be enhanced by imitations.  Rather, imitations took away part of the market
for the genuine products of considerable reputation.  He asked the co-sponsors for clarification oftheir assertion, and whether they would support the sa me line of argument in respect of other forms of
IP protection.  Paragraph 9 of the attachment to the joint paper, last sentence, seemed to imply that the
extension of Article 23 protection to other products could call into question the provision in
Article 1.1 according to which Members were free to determine the appropriate method of
implementing the provisions of the Agreement within their own legal system and practice.  He did not
see how this could happen, especially since the obligation to provide additional protection already
applied for wines and spirits.  He sought clarification from the co-sponsors of this issue.  He recordedhis delegation's disagreement with the conclusions in paragraph 30 of the attachment to the joint
paper.  The arguments that it had put forth did not provide a sufficient basis to draw such conclusions.
93. The representative of Canada said that her delegation, as a co-sponsor of the joint paper
introduced by Australia (document IP/C/W/289), was of course in full agreement with the ideas and
arguments it put forward.  She stated Canada's rationale for participating in the drafting of the paper.First, her delegation did not feel that the proponents of an expansion of Article 23 to other products
beyond wines and spirits had made the case as to how the existing Article 22 protection, which
covered all geographical indications, was inadequate.  Indeed, the paper provided examples of
geographical indications which were not wines or spirits from developed and developing countries,
that were protected in Canada.  Simply put, her delegation believed that Article 22 was working verywell.  Besides, her delegation did not believe that there was a legal mandate in Article 24.1 to embark
on a negotiation for expanding Article 23-type protection to other products.  Second, even if Members
did embark on an effort to expand enhanced protection to other products, her delegation believed that
Members had to bear in mind that many of the geographical indications Members might seek to
obtain enhanced protection for would be subj ect to the exceptions of Article 24, namely
grandfathering and exceptions for items that had become generic in different national jurisdictions.
Therefore, in addition to not seeing how the existing Article 22 protection is inadequate, her
delegation was concerned that Members might have an overly ambitious impression of what would
change if Article 23 covered all geographical indications.  This meant that the benefits Members
might expect to derive from a change, indeed the benefits that had been told by certain proponentswould derive therefrom, were insignificant when  compared to the costs involved, i.e. consumer
confusion, cost to local industries, administra tive burden and cost of setting up new regulatory
procedures and, of course, the commercial and trade costs of getting enhanced protection which, as
her delegation felt, was not even needed.  In conclusion, she said that the paper was an attempt to
make Members' discussions on the topic more transparent, so that all Members would fully
understand the issues at stake, including the hidden costs, before a radical revision of the TRIPS
provisions on geographical indications would be embarked upon.  Indeed, in working on the paper,her delegation itself had become more concerned that changing the system, which was working well,
would involve overly high costs and a clear imbala nce of benefits between Members.  Her delegation
also looked forward to hearing answers to  the three questions posed by Australia.
94. The representative of Switzerland believed that the specific perspectives presented in the joint
paper introduced by Australia (document IP/C/W/289) on the potential costs of an extension of
protection and of its implications deserved scrutiny.  He made preliminary comments on the three
points raised in the document.  With regard to the costs for Members, he pointed out that this aspect
was not specific to the protection of geographical indications and that the enforcement of any
intellectual property right involved costs.  Howeve r, he admitted the need to examine carefully the
actual costs of such an extension, on one hand, and its advantages, on the other hand.  He recalled thatall Members had already - or were taking measures – to ensure the protection of other Members'IP/C/M/32
Page 27
geographical indications (as provided under Article 22) as well as the "additional" protection for
geographical indications for wines and spirits.  He pointed out that the difference between Articles 22
and 23 was mainly in the criteria for the grant of protection to a geographical indication.  In contrast
to Article 22, Article 23 did not require that the public be misled or that there be an act of unfair
competition in order to prevent the use of a geographical indication for a product not originating from
the indicated region.  The extension of protection and, hence, the removal of these conditions wouldnot necessarily mean the creation of a new system of protection but would only require that, for the
examination of whether the use of a geographical indication was licit or not, the additional criteria of
misleading the public and unfair competition be irrelevant.  Such determination would be based in the
future on objective and predictable criteria, i.e. the proper or wrongful use of a geographical
indication.  To rely on the consumer (or "the public" in the wording of the TRIPS Agreement), as
suggested by Australia and other co-sponsors, to determine the risk of being misled, and hence for
determining the right to protection, could not be considered, in the view of his delegation, as a
sufficient means of protection.  This would entail a subjective and unpredictable element if the
criterion of the knowledge of the public were to be used, since the perception by the public varied
from country to country.  It would lead to differences in protection for the same geographical
indication depending on the country where the protection was  challenged.  The use of the criterion
relating to an "act of unfair competition" would lead a comparable degree of unpredictability.  Theinsecurity and lack of transparency inherently linked to protection under Article 22, would no longer
exist with the extension of the protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits to other
products.  He also pointed out that, in cases of disputes before the courts, this would result in saving
time and money, both for the plaintiffs and for the judicial authorities.  This would by far compensate
the costs which might result from the extension.  If certain delegations were to have any doubt aboutthe costs of such an extension, they should reflect on the statement made by Australia and other
co-sponsors (paragraph 5 of the attachment to document IP/C/W/289) that "Members' governments
are not themselves directly obliged under Article 23 to enforce GI protection, but simply to ensure
that the legal means to do so are available".  In his delegation's view, there was a contradiction
between this statement and the general thrust of the document, i.e. a debate on the costs of anextension.  He recalled that Members were free to choose the way in which they wanted to implement
the minimum level of protection as required by the TRIPS Agreement.  The geographical
representation of countries which had co-sponsored the communications contained in
documents IP/C/W/204/Rev.1 and IP/C/W/247/Rev.1 s howed that the added value of an extension
would be in the interest of all Members.  Some of the co-sponsors were developing countries who, in
spite of the costs of such an extension, had clearl y realized the advantages they would derive from the
worldwide commercialization of their products.   The question of costs related to an extension should
therefore be brought down to just proportions.  The advantages that the various stakeholders -
Members, producers and consumers – could derive from an extension seemed to be sufficient to
significantly counterbalance the costs.  With regard to the effects of the extension of protection on
trade, he pointed out that the protection of geographical indications, as with any other intellectual
property rights, was not intended to be a barrier to trade in goods between countries.  The GATTprovisions would in any event prevent such barriers.  With the extension of the protection, goods
would continue to freely circulate, but consumers could be assured that products would bear
indications which actually correspond to the geographical origin of the products.  Contrary to what
was suggested in the communication made by Australia and other co-sponsors, the protection of
geographical indications was not intended to create an "exclusive right" for a group of producers butto give to producers of a given region a "legitimate right" to use for their products the name of a
region which had given to the products their special and unique qualities, and to prevent competitors
not coming from this region from using the indication.  He asked why competitors should be allowed
to profit from the reputation linked to a geographi cal indication.  The Swiss delegation held the view
that geographical indications were a marketing tool in the same way as  trademarks.  It was a usefulone for numerous countries, including emerging economies which were trying to place their products
on the world market and would not be able to use other more onerous marketing tools.  The extension
of the protection would enable them to ensure that they would be the sole "legitimate users" of aIP/C/M/32
Page 28
geographical indication and that they could prevent any misappropriation by producers of a third
country.  With regard to the impact of the extension of the protection on consumers, he disagreed with
the argument put forward by Australia and other co -sponsors that consumers would be misled by such
an extension.  On the contrary, it would have the opposite effect.  There would be an undeniable
advantage in clarity and in security for the consum ers, who would know the exact origin of a product
bearing a geographical indication.  Their choice for a product would no longer be influenced – aspresently - by the use of a geographical indication for a product not actually originating from the
locality indicated;  although such use would be considered as licit due to the use of correctives or
"de-localizers" was nevertheless improper.  Consumers have the right to have a real choice based on
correct and distinctive indications.   He pointed out that if the use of a geographical indication with a
corrective expression or a "de-localizer" were allowed, the geographical indication would, in the long
run, lose its value and become a generic.  Australia and other Members had said, in a very surprising
way, the contrary when, in paragraph 8 of the attachment to document IP/C/W/289, that "Indeed, farfrom detracting from the market value of a genuine GI, free and fair imitation of the product often
enhances the intrinsic value (and premium) of the genuine GI".  In light of these elements, he said that
his delegation was more than ever convinced that the protection under Article 22 was far from
sufficient and that an extension of the protection under Article 23 would respond to many existing
and, in particular, future problems.  There should be, at least at the international level, a uniformminimum level of protection as for other intellectual property rights in the TRIPS Agreement.   Such
an objective could be achieved through the extension of the protection in a way that, in spite of the
great diversity of systems set up by Members, it would be possible to know that, in each country,
geographical indications of all other countries would be protected against their being used in a manner
which did not correspond to reality, and this without having to go through the misleading or unfaircompetition act tests.  The extension of the protection to other products should be considered as an
opportunity for all countries, developed and developing, as previously indicated in the
communications co-sponsored by Switzer land (documents IP/C/W/204/Rev.1 and
IP/C/W/247/Rev.1).  They would therefore have the means to protect on the world market products
generated on the basis of their own tradition and k now-how and the quality of which was attributable
to its geographical origin.
95. The representative of Bolivia offered preliminary comments on the joint paper introduced by
Australia (document IP/C/W/289) on extension of protection of geographical indications to other
products.  His delegation was very pleased that the paper permitted a substantive debate on extension,
and left behind procedural questions as to whether or not there was a mandate.   This paper wasconstructive and expressed serious preoccupations about an extension of protection.  The first
question presented in the submission was very pertinent and his delegation regretted that this question
had not been posed during the Uruguay Round.  It  should have been posed by some developed
countries at that time and, if it had been, the TRIPS Agreement would now be totally different.  His
delegation encouraged the sponsors of this paper to submit it not only in the TRIPS Council but also
in other WTO subsidiary bodies, in particular, in the preparations for the Ministerial Conference in
Doha.  Bolivia would give such a proposal its fu ll consideration.  Turning to paragraph 24 of the
attachment to the joint paper, regarding the possible relationship between protection of geographical
indications and commercial protectionism, he said that Bolivia, a small economy, had a trade policy
faithful to the principles of liberalization of the multilateral system, and it did not apply any
trade-distorting measure, as had been shown in th e July 1999 trade policy review of Bolivia.  Bolivia
sought an extension of geographical indication protection to products other than wines and spirits butcould never support a protectionist proposal.  Turning to the section of the joint submission on
negotiating history which said that there were im balances in the TRIPS Agreement, his delegation
agreed that there was discrimination regarding intellectual property protection and an imbalance in the
protection of geographical indications between wine and spirits, on the one hand, and other products,
on the other hand, just as there was an imbalance between the protection of individual intellectualproperty and indigenous communities' intellectual property, which was closely linked to the
protection of geographical indications.  He thanked the sponsors of the joint submission for theIP/C/M/32
Page 29
questions that they had presented and said that his delegation would try to respond to them in
subsequent meetings.
96. The representative of Chile said that his delegation had co-sponsored the joint paper
introduced by Australia (document IP/C/W/289) because it went beyond the mere question as to
whether or not there existed a clear provision in the Agreement permitting negotiations for the
extension of the protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits to all other products.  Hereiterated that the difference in levels of protection in Section 3 of Part II had not been a mistake nor
an oversight but rather had been intended by the negotiators and all Members had agreed to it when
they signed the Agreement.  It had been a compromise solution.  The different levels of protection
were part of the architecture not only of Section 3 but also of the whole Agreement.  The joint paper
also considered the negative effects that an extension would have.  He hoped that these arguments
would assist in reaching points of consensus so as to permit progress on this subject.
97. The representative of Argentina said that her delegation was one of the co-sponsors of the
joint paper introduced by Australia (document IP/C /W/289) and she drew attention to the fact that
there were developing countries that supported the view it presented.  In order not to prolong the
discussion on the elements contained in the paper, which Australia had already introduced, she only
highlighted what she believed were the most important points.  The joint paper presented the legal
aspects involved as well as the practical ones in a balanced way.  Various delegations at previousmeetings had referred to these without bringing forth any additional or substantive elements.
Paragraph 3 clearly indicated that the extension of additional protection to other products necessarily
involved a re-opening of the Agreement, that was to say that extension of additional protection could
only be negotiated in a new round when all Members so agreed.  The paper referred to practical
consequences or costs of any extension, its effects on trade and its effects on consumers, and detailedelements which would contribute to a serious and substantive discussion, both to analyse and
understand the subject and its consequences.  The paper presented a non-exhaustive list of practical
consequences, that is the effects on trade and consumers that an extension of protection could
occasion.  The analysis listed issues that had to be taken into account in any discussion of this item.
She then turned to the legal aspects, although some delegations did not think this was appropriate,because in any rules-based organization with a dispute settlement mechanism they could never be left
aside or forgotten.  The TRIPS Agreement established in its Article 1.1 that "Members may, but shall
not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is required by this
Agreement" and that "Members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the
provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice".  As a result, it wasastonishing that paragraph 17 of the earlier joint paper proposal in document IP/C/W/247/Rev.1,
asserted that the fact that Members fulfilled their obligations to protect geographical indications by
means of a variety of systems had led to imbalances and legal uncertainty.  The existence of diversity
among systems was a fundamental element that the negotiators of the TRIPS Agreement took into
account when they drafted the Agreement.  The objective of the Agreement had been to establish
minimum standards of protection and not a harmonized system.  This had not only occurred in the
case of geographical indications but also other rights, including patents.  No-one could doubt thevarious national systems of protection of these other rights.  The earlier joint paper asserted that this
situation generated uncertainty.  If this were so, it affected not only geographical indications but the
whole Agreement.  The eligibility for protection of a geographical indication was a matter for national
legislation and this was one of the important flexibilities, or rights acquired, under the Agreement
about which so much had been said at the present meeting, for example under item N, and whichshould not be lost.  The general rule of protection of geographical indications for the whole universe
of products was in Article 22, that is Article 22 constituted the general principle that determined the
protection for all products protected by geographical indications.  In Article 22, the right granted was
explicit.  Article 23 circumscribed the additional protection to only two products, wines and spirits,
and, as such, it constituted an exception to the general rule which was the protection granted byArticle 22.  Therefore, her delegation understood that to extend the protection granted as an exceptionIP/C/M/32
Page 30
for two products to the whole universe of produ cts represented an alteration of the scheme of
protection established in the Agreement.  In other words, extension of protection meant creating new
rights and this could not be done without a manda te, and without reopening the Agreement.  For
Argentina, it was clear that the creation of new rights could only occur in the context of a new round
of negotiations, if Members agreed to include the subject, and the creation of new rights could not
involve only one section of the Agreement.  During a meeting of the WIPO Programme and BudgetCommittee in April 2001, Argentina had voiced its concern that delegations who pushed this subject
in the WTO systematically refused to discuss technical aspects and cut back on fora for discussion.
Doubtless, it did not assist in reaching common understandings to cut back fora for discussions
especially since in those fora it was possible to deal with subjects in a perspective that permitted
Members, unfamiliar with this type of right, to understand and grasp the issues.  Turning to the
discussion in the present meeting of the joint paper which Argentina had co-sponsored, she had
observed a general tendency in the criticisms to present examples of bad faith use of geographicalindications.  The objective of the joint paper had rather been to deal with legitimate uses of
geographical indications.  She reminded those delegations who had made comments that, in addition
to uses in bad faith or counterfeiting of geographical indications, which no-one was defending, there
was also continuous use, use of generic terms and homonymous geographical indications, all of which
constituted absolutely legitimate uses of the geographical indications of other countries.
98. The representative of Guatemala said that his delegation had co-sponsored the joint paper
introduced by Australia (document IP/C/W/289) be cause the arguments it advanced were cogent.
Due account had to be taken of the costs involved in extending additional protection to other products.
As a developing country, Guatemala was aware of the costs which extension would imply and had to
weigh this carefully against any possible benefits.  Furthermore, the claimed extension would implyaccepting further obligations.  His delegation was prepared to continue the dialogue in order to cover
all details which still needed to be clarified.
99. The representative of Uruguay said that, in connection with an extension of the additional
protection for geographical indications under the Agreement to geographical indications for all
products, her delegation would like to repeat what it had already said at earlier meetings of theCouncil.  The balance in the TRIPS Agreement had resulted from a difficult discussion and
represented a compromise.  Furthermore, Article 23.1 applied to wines and spirits exclusively and the
Agreement did not contain a mandate to explore an extension of the protection under it to other
products.  Her capital was studying the joint paper, which appeared to have the virtue of containing
novel elements of analysis for use by the Council.  She informed the Council that her country'sNational Intellectual Property Directorate and WIPO were jointly organizing a symposium on the
issue of the protection of geographical indications, which would take place at the end of
November 2001 in Montevideo which, it was hoped, would provide a valuable opportunity for all
regions to debate this issue and assist in raisin g awareness, and to the spread of information and
experience and positioning of various national actors in relation to this issue.
100. The representative of Paraguay said that his delegation was a co-sponsor of the joint paper
introduced by Australia (document IP/C/W/289).  Al though it had not participated in the drafting of
the paper, Paraguay fully concurred with its contents.  He expressed support for all the arguments
presented by other co-sponsors of the paper who had already spoken in the present meeting.  Turning
to the intervention by Switzerland, he quoted the definition of "geographical indication" in
Article 22.1.  He noted that the Swiss delegate had referred to know-how - which was the application
of human knowledge in the production of a good.  Throughout the Americas, European immigrants
had brought their know-how with them.  For exam ple, in Paraguay, Swiss migrants made gruyère
cheese even though there was no locality named Gruyère in Paraguay.  Rather, they applied their
know-how in the production of this cheese (which was in fact very good).  He asked the Swiss
delegate if he believed that this characteristic was "attributable to its geographical origin", as he had
said in his intervention.  On another note, the Swiss delegate had spoken not only of the extension ofIP/C/M/32
Page 31
additional protection to products besides wines and spirits, but also of the costs to Members of the
implementation of all the intellectual property rights in the Agreement.  Implementation of all the
Uruguay Round agreements had involved certain costs, and he assured the Council that for Paraguay
this cost had been very high: both political, legislative and economic.  He agreed that there had been
costs in implementing the TRIPS Agreement and Paraguay was not willing to pay additional costs for
the extension of additional protection for geographical indication beyond wines and spirits.  Theextension of this protection to other products would involve the acquisition of new rights and the
assumption of new obligations.  This could only occur in the context of a new round of negotiations
without which he doubted that his delegation could ever support the extension of additional protection
to other products.
101. The representative of Venezuela believed that the joint paper introduced by Australia
(document IP/C/W/289) advanced this debate.  However, she agreed with those delegations that had
said that the level of protection provided by Article 22 was not sufficient and that it was necessary tointroduce, at the international level, a uniform level of protection.  Regarding the costs of modifying
the existing provision, account should also be taken of the benefits.  The relevant relationship was
cost-benefit, not cost-cost.  Extension of protection could permit Venezuelan producers in different
parts of the country to increase the value-added of their products, and improve protection, complying
with the standards of quality to compete better in an  open market without restrictions.  Regarding the
possible effect on trade, protection could be the beginning of a wider process of generating small and
medium enterprises in the processing industry, which would permit the generation of employment and
better living conditions of workers and the diversification of exports.  Based on these premises, the
Ministry of Commerce of Venezuela considered that geographical indications had an important social
and economic dimension, and hoped to promote them as an instrument of industrial, commercial,
economic, cultural and technological development.  It allowed the rescue and promotion of
indigenous products and production processes that currently ran the risk of disappearing.  They could
even promote tourism and tourist routes, for example the Cocoa Route of Chuao.  Geographical
indications allowed the improvement and facilitation of a perception of quality in certain goods in
discriminating markets.  Geographical indications would highlight in local and foreign markets the
special characteristics of products and would limit their use to producers entitled to use them and
prevent abuse by third parties.  Venezuela's experience with Chuao cocoa had shown that producers
were getting organized, becoming aware of the value of their products and their potential, and
beginning to investigate ways of increasing their value.  These producers had found that it was easier
to publicize their products and were advancing in the collective management of marketing.  Of course,this all required great efforts, but it would produce great benefits.  It was hoped that other producers
would organize and register geographical indications for their products.  With respect to the effect on
consumers, they expected to see the true origin of goods and services and the geographical indication
assisted in establishing differentiation and market access for a very specific group.  The consumer
should not be misled and, if he wished to pay more for a product, it should be the one that he meant to
choose.  Geographical indications allowed producers to be accredited and to communicate to
consumers the qualities of their products, thereby protecting consumers' interests.  The consumerexpected that a product offered would have the qualities of the region to which its geographical
indication referred.  To take the example of cocoa in Venezuela, experts had said regarding that the
geographical location of Chuao and natural and human factors, such as the climate, topograhy,
environment and workforce, were the reasons that made this cocoa one whose quality was recognized
internationally.  If this were not the case, there woul d not have been such an interest in registering the
name in other countries.  This discussion had aroused a lot of interest.  Many developing countries
had already identified a large number of products capable of protection by means of geographical
indications and the discussion was therefore bound to move forward.  Her delegation hoped that this
form of protection would give producers the legitimate right to use on their products the name of the
region which had conferred on their products their particular and unique qualities and to preventcompetitors from outside that region from using that geographical indication.IP/C/M/32
Page 32
102. The representative of Turkey considered that the joint paper introduced by Australia
(document IP/C/W/289) was a positive development in the discussion of geographical indications,
although his delegation did not agree with the vi ews it expressed.  He observed that the paper
contained some of the well-known views and argu ments of its sponsors.  His delegation would
respond to these at a later date.  He commented that the discussion of extension of protection of
geographical indications had gone beyond the TRIPS Council and had become a kind of bargainingposition for the forthcoming Ministerial Conference.  The discussions in the TRIPS Council provided
useful inputs into the discussions to be held on th is issue in the General Council in preparations for
Doha.  He associated his delegation with th e statements made by Hungary and Switzerland.
103. The representative of Singapore, speaking on behalf of ASEAN Members, noted that there
was a divergence of views as to whether discussion of an extension of additional protection for
geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits was part of the mandate of the
TRIPS Council.  Without expressing his views on that question, and for the purposes solely of thepresent intervention, he assumed that there was such a mandate.  He noted that the proposal to extend
protection was supported by a broad range of Members, developed, developing and economies in
transition alike.  He noted that the proponents of extension believed that it was consistent with the
goals of the TRIPS Agreement and general WTO principles.  Tacit in this regard is that it is also
beneficial to all Members and in this the proposal deserved utmost attention and serious assessment.As Members afforded the proposal the attention that it merited, it behove them to consider the basic
issue of what they stood to gain from a change of the status quo; that is, what was wrong with the
status quo and why did it have to be changed.  At  present, all products were covered by geographical
indication protection under Article 22.2.  Wines and spirits were protected by additional protection, in
particular, under Article 23.1.  The distinction between the two levels of protection was thatArticle 22.2 was intended to protect the public from being misled as to the geographic origin of the
product covered by the geographic indication.  On the other hand, this element of misleading the
public was not a requirement of Article 23.1.  It could then be said that Article 23.1 provided for
unqualified protection of private rights, but Article 22 provided for a balance between protection of
private rights and the public interest.  The delegations for which he spoke understood that the TRIPSAgreement was intended to strike a balance between private rights and public interests.  They also
understood that Members had not agreed on multilateral governance of private rights which
essentially were otherwise subject to their respective exclusive jurisdiction.  It appeared that a
possible, if unintended, consequence of the propo sal would be that additional protection would be
afforded private rights per se , whilst diluting the public interest requirement.  He was concerned that,
by doing away with the public interest element,  Members might unwittingly be eroding the balance
which the TRIPS Agreement seemed to achieve.  He quoted that balance as a matter of principle as it
was a crucial consideration in respect of other intellectual property rights, in particular the balance
between private rights and public interest with regard to patents for medicines and the rights of
Members to promote public health.  It could be argued that this concern was academic in that
Article 23.1 already provided for unqualified protection for wines and spirits without any reference to
the public interest.  He did not go so far as to say that Article 23.1 was an aberration.  Instead, heconfined himself to saying that, rightly or wrongl y, that was the bargain struck in the Uruguay Round.
Other concerns could be raised, among them were possible unintended consequences of extension,
many of which might not necessarily be positive.    These concerns could be raised at the proper time.
He raised these concerns as a contribution to a frank debate, as the delegations on whose behalf he
spoke remained open to the possibility of extension of geographical indication protection underArticle 23.1 to other products.
104. The representative of Mexico reiterated her delegation's position that none of the provisions
of Section 3 of Part II of the Agreement could be interpreted as providing a mandate for negotiations
on the extension of the protection provided under Article 23 to products other than wines and spirits.
This matter was not "futile", nor procedural, nor a supposition, but rather it was a reality found in thetext of the Agreement.  The more her delegation listened to this debate, the more doubts it harbouredIP/C/M/32
Page 33
about the serious consequences that extension could have.  She had presented arguments on these on
earlier occasions and recalled her delegation's concerns.  The joint paper introduced by Australia was
useful as it put in a clearer perspective the legislative, economic (in terms of impact on trade and
consumers), administrative and other consequences which extension could have.  It presented
fundamental issues which had not been clarified or analysed in any depth to the satisfaction of many
Members.  Her delegation agreed with the joint paper's general conclusions.  It agreed that it had notyet been demonstrated convincingly why the level of protection provided under Article 22 was
inadequate for other products.  It agreed that extension of additional protection under Article 23, if it
were ever agreed, would not necessarily imply greater or more effective protection given various
considerations, which the proponents of extension shoul d evaluate seriously.  It agreed that the costs
of extension appeared to exceed by far the expected benefits, particularly for those Members which
had no, or only a few, products to protect and which perhaps, at the international level, did not have
an economic value which would justify the costs involved in extending additional protection tohundreds or thousands of indications which other Members probably had in mind – although the
Council did not yet know what the universe of those indications was.  It agreed that extension would
also involve costs for those Members which did not currently have national systems capable of
providing this additional protection for products other than wines and spirits.  Regarding costs, the
Council had heard throughout its meeting of the great costs and efforts which many Members hadexpended so as to implement the Agreement in various areas, including this one.  She could not
imagine the situation if the Council attempted to extend existing obligations in the manner proposed if
it was not aware of the implications.  Therefore, her delegation believed that it was indispensable that
these issues be clarified and analysed, and to ca rry out a cost-benefit evaluation, without which the
proposal could not be seriously considered.  Her delegation took a different view in some respectsfrom that expressed in the joint paper introduced by Australia regarding the history of negotiations
and how it should be interpreted.  However, it agreed that the provisions of Section 3 were the result
of a delicate balance reached in the Uruguay Round w ith the consent of all Members in a very specific
negotiating context.  But that was the past.  Now Members had to face the language of the Agreement
as it was, and it was on that basis that Members had to work.  Any change of the text or any initiativeto renegotiate and open that text had to proceed from a mandate on the basis of a consensus of all
Members, which was only possible in another context, not the Council for TRIPS.  Her delegation
remained willing to continue to participate constructively in carrying out the mandate that the Council
did have, which was that in Article 23.4 and the work programme in the Singapore Ministerial
Declaration.
105. The representative of the Czech Republic offered some preliminary remarks on the joint paper
introduced by Australia (document IP/C/W/289).  His delegation did not share the opinions or
approach to the issue that it expressed.  He associated his delegation with the statement made by the
representative of Switzerland.  He commented on the methodology of the joint paper which stated that
its objective was "a serious assessment of consequences flowing from any proposal that recommends
substantial changes to existing provisions of the TRIPS Agreement".  However, this was not what his
delegation and others had proposed in their joint communication (document IP/C/W/247/Rev.1).Rather, their proposal had addressed the difference in treatment according to products which was an
anomaly in the intellectual property system of the TRIPS Agreement.  It came from the Agreement
itself, but the joint paper described it as if it were a strange element which its proponents tried to
incorporate into the Agreement.  Second, a comparison of the levels of protection with the extension
of additional protection for geographical indications with the future market opportunities for emergingindustries methodologically incorrect.  He agreed with the observations of the representative of
Hungary in this regard.  He had doubts about the consistency of the argument made in the joint paper.
A discussion in informal session was anything but  a way out of the present situation and was not
useful.  The joint paper contained questions, presumptions and statements.  It was a basic principle of
a dialogue to respond to the questions and his delegation would do this at a later opportunity in orderto dissipate doubts.  However, given that the joint paper had been submitted without prejudice to the
right to reject the proponents' arguments on the question of the mandate, it was unclear whether, at theIP/C/M/32
Page 34
end of the day, the proponents were expected to restart the whole exercise from the beginning.  He
asked the co-sponsors for clarification of this point.
106. The representative of the United States said that his delegation was a co-sponsor of the joint
paper introduced by Australia (document IP/C/W/289), and he thanked those delegations which had
supported it.  He assured Switzerland and other delegations that he would endeavour to address their
questions and concerns at the next meeting.
107. The representative of Bulgaria, providing preliminary comments on the joint paper introduced
by Australia (document IP/C/W/289), said that, in  his delegation's view, none of the questions and
concerns expressed in this paper were justified.  In most cases, the truth was the contrary to that which
was asserted in the joint paper.  Unlike what the paper claimed, the administrative costs involved as a
result of the extension of the geographical indication protection, if any, would be negligible and, in
any case, compare favourably to other categories of intellectual property.  All that would be required
would be a legislative instrument amending the existing protection, if this were limited to wines andspirits.  This was, for example, different in the copyright area, as Bulgaria had experienced after its
accession to the WTO.  Regarding trade implications, he believed that it was important to bear in
mind that, when it came to genuine negotiations, there would have to be a bargain in which
delegations would have to compare what each side  would win and what it would lose.  Consequently,
it was not at all irrelevant how the sponsors of the joint paper saw those costs and those benefits.  Ifthe countries supporting the extension would not have significant benefits, that would be an advantage
to the supporters of extension, because they would not have to pay that much in the bargain.  In his
delegation's view, there would in fact be a win-win situation, which would not allow the sponsors of
the joint paper (document IP/C/W/289) to ask very mu ch either.  Turning to page 7 of the joint paper,
he had the impression that the costs boiled down to renaming, re-labelling and court actions.  Heaccepted that there were costs of renaming and re-labelling but would comment on court actions later.
Several delegations had pointed out that costs had to be compared with benefits, and that geographical
indications opened important niches for small and medium economic operators.  Those operators did
not need to invest in the intellectual property right as such, because they would have it already.
Rather, they had only to invest in the production of the good itself.  This compared positively with
other IPRs.  For example, it was unlikely that small enterprises would be in a position to invest in
elaborate and expensive pharmaceutical research.  As regards consumer confusion, his delegation
agreed with those who said extension of additional protection to other products would actually reduce
confusion.  It seemed that the joint paper itself tried to create confusion.  He did not understand the
sentence in paragraph 25 of the attachment to the joint paper which said that "This will increasesearch and transaction costs for consumers, at least in the short to medium term, and potentially prices
as well".  No example was given and he could think of none, except perhaps a confused consumer in
Alaska who searched for Paraguayan gruyère or wh ite "Bulgarian-like" cheese and, not finding it, had
to travel long distances and incur heavy petrol costs and create an environmental threat.  Regarding
increased risks of litigation among producers and disputes between WTO Members, he said that any
rules bore the risk of conflict.  This did not mean that one should not have rules.  He asked the
co-sponsors of the joint paper whether they implied that disputes between WTO Members were a badthing and whether they were ready to apply the same  logic to other issues.  He took issue with the
example on page 8 of the joint paper, which was meant to show how Article 22 protection was
sufficient and Article 23 protection was not necessary, because it was disputed that "feta" was a
geographical indication as such and not a generic name.  Bulgarian producers did not sell their
products abroad as "feta" but rather as "Bulgarian white cheese".  Knowledgeable consumersconsidered that Bulgarian white cheese was better than others whatever name it was given.  He gave
an example of the inadequacy of Article 22 protection and the need for extension of Article 23
protection by quoting a conversation in which a cons umer who asked whether a particular cheese was
Bulgarian was told that although the cheese was not Bulgarian, it was "like" Bulgarian cheese.  It was
exactly this kind of situation that the level of protection under Article 23 would address. Article 22level of protection did not prevent others selling their products as "Bulgarian-like feta".  Finally, onIP/C/M/32
Page 35
the issue of mandate, a compromise had been reached some time ago not to discuss mandates but to
move to a substantive discussion of negotiating proposals both on geographical indications and in
agricultural negotiations.  If the TRIPS Council continued to discuss the mandate as an obstacle to
substantive discussions on the extension of the additional protection for geographical indications, it
would have to be seen whether individual negotiating proposals in the Committee on Agriculture fell
under the mandate of Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  He had reserved the right to returnto that issue in the Committee on Agriculture.  The mandate in Article 20 of that Agreement was
rather laconic and there might be similar problems to those which other Members found in
Article 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
108. The representative of Japan said that the joint paper introduced by Australia
(document IP/C/W/289) was a valuable contribution to the discussion.  In the view of his delegation,
Article 22 already provided general protection of geographical indications for all products against use
which misled the public.  In this sense, the additional protection for geographical indications for winesand spirits under Article 23, having no misleading requirement, was exceptional preferential treatment
for certain products.  If such protection were to be extended to other products, Members should
carefully examine whether or not sufficient justification existed for the extension.  Although Japan
had reserved its position regarding extension, it was prepared to participate in the discussion.  The
joint paper introduced by Australia provided very useful material for Members' consideration.  Theextension of protection could have a positive impact, such as enhanced consumer protection or
promotion of production in certain sectors or certain local regions.  On the other hand, it could have
negative impact, such as a possible excess burden to be imposed on normal business transactions in
certain industrial sectors, including uncertainty concerning continued use, and renaming or
re-labelling of products.  Japan therefore wished to examine this issue carefully, weighing both thenegative and positive impacts.  In order to arrive at the best solution, various options had to be
analysed.  The Secretariat's summary paper showed that Members had different means of protecting
geographical indications.  No particular means of protection should be pre-empted.  Japan considered
that Members should consider various policy options before examining a particular approach.  The
ongoing information-gathering exercise based on the checklist of questions should be completed assoon as possible by contributions from Members who had not yet provided their responses.  It was
important to examine how each Member was implementing the provisions of Section 3 of Part II of
the Agreement.  Information on the various means of implementation would provide a useful basis for
close examination of the appropriateness of a possible extension of the additional protection under
Article 23 to products other than wines and spirits.
109. The representative of Sri Lanka thanked the co-sponsors of the joint paper (document
IP/C/W/289) for engaging in a constructive discussion of the issues but regretted that they had raised
the mandate issue since she had thought there was an understanding that it would be set aside.  Her
delegation was prepared to engage in a discussion with the co-sponsors and offered preliminary
comments on the joint paper.  She associated her delegation with the interventions made by
Switzerland, Venezuela, Hungary, Bulgaria and others.  Paragraph 5, first bullet, of the joint paper
referred to the costs for Members of extension of the existing provisions and took as its basic premisethat Members would have to adopt TRIPS-plus laws .  This stemmed from the co-sponsors' view of the
mandate and what the TRIPS Agreement already provided.  However, the co-sponsors of an earlier
communication (document IP/C/W/247/Rev.1), including Sri Lanka, believed that there already was a
mandate and therefore commitments would not be TRIPS-plus.  Paragraph 5, second bullet, of the
joint paper (document IP/C/W/289) alleged that there was no evidence of inadequate protection underArticle 22.  The co-sponsors of the joint paper wanted the demandeurs  of extension to highlight the
products for which they sought additional protection.  However, extension to only some other
products would only aggravate the existing imbalance in levels of protection.  Rather, the demandeurs
wanted to extend additional protection to all products which would remove the imbalance altogether.
The proposals submitted by the demandeurs  had already highlighted amply the rationale for additional
protection.  Paragraph 5, third bullet, of the joint paper claimed that there had been no discussion ofIP/C/M/32
Page 36
potential downsides of extension.  It referred to the additional administrative burden of extension.
However, implementation of the TRIPS Agreement required all Members to assume an additional
administrative burden.  For Sri Lanka this burden was huge.  If one were to deny extension of
protection of geographical indications on this basis, then one would have to set aside the whole TRIPS
Agreement.  It also referred to confusion of consumers but, on the contrary, extension would assist
consumers in making their choices and ensuring that they choose what they really want.  In thisregard, she quoted from the summary and conclusion of the OECD report on appellations of origin
"The fact that every market is characterized by asymmetric information between producers and
consumers puts the latter in a disadvantage.  Consumers cannot be sure that the goods they buy are
actually the ones they would prefer.  One answer  is to use communication tools to improve the
amount of consumer information on product quality.  Another answer is for producers to invest in
building up a sound reputation with consumers.  That reputation hangs both on product quality and the
tools to provide information about that quality. … Geographical origins are just one of thecommunication tools used by the government and enterprises to send this message."  Paragraph 10 of
the joint paper said that Article 23 operated to confer exclusive rights over a particular term.
However, the whole TRIPS Agreement operated to confer exclusive rights.  She did not understand
why this should be a problem just for geographical indications.  She agreed with the comment by the
representative of Argentina that Members had many options as to how to protect their intellectualproperty rights, but said that it was for the Members to decide what was the most appropriate and
suitable method to be used in each area of intellectual property rights.  Sri Lanka believed that
trademarks could not protect some of its geographical indications, so that specific geographical
indication protection was the only way some of them  could be protected.  Therefore, it was not a
question of choosing between alternative methods of protection.  Regarding a cost/benefit analysis,she said that the co-sponsors of the joint paper were putting the cart before the horse.  For example,
the TBT and SPS Agreements placed a heavy burden on producers.  She asked if the co-sponsors
wanted to weigh up the costs and benefits of those and other agreements as well, or whether they only
wanted to raise this issue for geographical indications.
110. The representative of India shared the views expressed by Switzerland, the Czech Republic
and Sri Lanka.  He associated his delegation with the comments made by Hungary and Switzerland on
the joint paper (document IP/C/W/289) and said that  he would provide comments on it at a later date.
111. The representative of the European Comm unities first made some general comments.
Although his delegation had tried to stay away from the issue of the mandate, the question had
cropped up.  Those Members which did not favour extension called upon this argument so that itwould not take place.  He hoped that this question could be sorted out at the Doha Ministerial
Conference; otherwise the Council would be repeatedly confronted with it.  He favoured a balanced
discussion but he did not believe that the joint pa per (document IP/C/W/289) had contributed to one.
It was untrue, unfair and one-sided to say that extension of geographical indication protection only
had to do with costs and not benefits.  Such emphasis on costs showed a lack of comprehension of the
difficulties many Members were having in implementing the TRIPS Agreement.  His delegation
appreciated the efforts undertaken by many Member s to comply with the Agreement.  The costs of
extension of geographical indication protection would not really change the situation.  He subscribed
to many arguments advanced by Bulgaria, Hungary,  Switzerland and others.  Turning to the joint
paper, his delegation regretted that it focused almost exclusively on criticism of the approach by a
very substantial number of Members who advocated extension, rather than on the potential
advantages of extension over the alternative, which was the status quo.  The document missed themark when it stated that there had been no evidence of insufficient protection under Article 22.  The
debate was not about implementation of Article 22 but about improving the level of protection
available under Article  22.  Nor was it accurate to say that contributions to date had only focused on
Article 23.  Rather, it appeared that the earlier communication (document IP/C/W/247/Rev.1) had
contained a full analysis of Article 22 and its evident shortcomings.  The concerns expressed in thejoint paper (document IP/C/W/289) regarding costs were not substantiated.  It appeared that, ifIP/C/M/32
Page 37
countries were already, or were in the process of, providing enhanced protection for geographical
indications for wines and spirits, it would only be a small effort to extend such protection to other
protection.  A minor change in provisions in existing laws that were already required for wines and
spirits would enable national judges to provide such enhanced protection to other products as well.
His delegation was surprised by the assertion that enhancing the level of protection for geographical
indications for other products to the level of those for wines and spirits might foreclose opportunitiesfor emerging industries and bring uncertainty to existing markets.  As for emerging markets,
streamlined protection for geographical indications as provided under Article 23.1, would do nothing
else than boost the development of incipient or infant agricultural quality industries that would, once
and for all, operate in a stable and clear legal framework.  This would, in turn, enable geographical
indication holders to thwart any attempts to cherry-pick on their embryonic, yet substantial,
investments, to gain market entry.  As for existi ng markets, the genuine quality food industry willing
to expand internationally will receive as a blessing the extension of the clearness of Article 23.1 totheir realm and get away from the sometimes capricious results of the "misleading test" of Article 22.
The argument that extension of additional protect ion would lead to consumer confusion was very
difficult to follow.  Rather, his delegation believed that protection as provided under Article 23 would
improve clarity for consumers.  His delegation fundamentally disagreed with the interpretation of the
objectives of Section 3 of Part II of the Agreement in the joint paper.  It seemed quite obvious that theobjectives of Section 3 were to establish, first, an internationally accepted definition of geographical
indications and second, a two-pronged approach to the associated rights of geographical indication
owners for their protection.  He agreed with the co-sponsors of the joint paper that this created an
imbalance which should be resolved but did not understand their approach, which would only
perpetuate such an imbalance unless the co-sponsors were proposing to reduce the level of protectionavailable for wines and spirits to that of Articl e 22.  Conversely, it seemed logical to redress the
imbalance by levelling up protection for all products to that higher and more effective level currently
available for wines and spirits under Article 23.  Finally, one should not assess the benefits of
additional protection under Article 23 only from a historical point of view but also from a
forward-looking perspective.  What mattered above a ll were the potential benefits that such protection
could bring to developing countries and other countries for new geographical indications.
112. The representative of Mauritius acknowledged that not all Members took the same view of
this item but observed that the approach taken at the present meeting was positive as it had moved
from procedure to substance.  She supported the statement made by Switzerland, and other statements
made in favour of extending additional protection for geographical indications.  She then commentedon the joint paper (document IP/C/W/289).  Regardin g costs, she agreed with the representative of
Paraguay that implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements was costly.  Although she believed
that few Members had benefitted from those agreements, this had not stopped Members from
implementing them.  In the same way, it was not valid to say that Members should be careful about
the costs involved in extending protection for geographical indications because only a few people
might benefit from them, and that others, who did not have geographical indications for their
products, might not.  She agreed with those delegati ons that had said that the costs of extension of
additional protection for geographical indications should be measured against the benefits that might
arise for some Members.  There was no reason wh y an extension of additional protection should be
much more expensive than the existing additional protection for wines and spirits.  Regarding
consumer confusion, she believed that extension of additional protection would rather enhance
consumer clarity, by enabling them to make an informed choice, and increasing, rather thandiminishing, that choice.  Informing consumers that a product was gluten-free or GMO-free was no
different from informing a consumer that a product was Bulgarian cheese.  In any event, consumers'
choices were not always directed by name, which was just one relevant factor in making a choice
among other, economic, considerations.  Extension of additional protection should not deprive others
from sales nor, at the same time, people with a genuine reason to use a geographical indication fromgaining benefits.  Regarding trade effects, she believed that the number of Members who were soIP/C/M/32
Page 38
opposed to extension of additional protection indicated that there were trade benefits to be derived
from geographical indications and reputation based on geography.
113. The representative of Switzerland, responding to Argentina, said that a harmonization of
national systems for the protection of geographical indications had never been advocated either in the
earlier communication (document IP/C/W/247/Rev.1) no r in any other instance in the Council's work
on extension.  Rather, that communication advocated extending the level of protection of Article 23 toproducts other than wines and spirits, and thereby providing a single level of protection for
geographical indications at the multilateral level, which could remedy the legal uncertainty regarding
the level of protection granted by WTO Members to a specific geographical indication.  This uniform
level of protection could be implemented by Members at the national level by the individual
protection systems they chose to apply.  In this way, predictability, transparency and legal security for
the protection of geographical indications within the WTO framework would be enhanced.  In
particular, he referred to paragraph 18 of document IP/C/W/247/Rev.1.
114. The representative of Australia thanked all those delegations which had provided comments
on the paper which she had introduced (document IP/C/W/289) and looked forward to responses to
the questions that it raised. She responded to some comments, and said that she would at the next
meeting respond to others.  The paper had argued, in relation to market access for new and emergent
industries, that use by another producer of a geographical term would amount to misappropriation ofanother's right.  Responding to Hungary's comment th at the same argument, applied to patents, would
lead to dangerous waters, she said that this assertion completely ignored the existence of Article 22, a
provision agreed to by all Members at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round.  The paper she had
introduced said that Article 22 contained the optimal balance among various competing interests,
having at its core the legitimate objectives of preventing consumer deception and unfair competition.The paper did not suggest that Article 22 level protection should be weakened.  Indeed, it reaffirmed
the intrinsic value of geographical indications.  In light of Article 22, her delegation did not see how
the use of geographical terms in a manner consistent with that provision could be a misappropriation,
or could in any way be analogous to patent infringement.  The same reasoning applied to any
suggestion that free and fair imitation of products was inappropriate.  Responding to Hungary'srequest for information concerning the application of this principle to other intellectual property
rights, she noted that, for example, fair use exceptions had long been recognized in the field of
copyright.  She noted that Articles 13, 17 and 30 provided for limitations and/or exceptions in each of
the major intellectual property right categories in recognition of the need to strike an appropriate
balance between competing interests.  Responding to those delegations which had said that extensionof Article 23 to other products was necessary to reap the benefits offered by geographical indication
protection.  She highlighted paragraphs 11 and 12 of the joint paper and paragraph 3 of the
attachment, which noted the effectiveness of the protection offered under Article 22 to all goods and
underlined the fact that this provision, far from minimizing the intrinsic value of geographical
indications, operated in a balanced way to allow Members to promote trade opportunities.  Article 22
permitted Members actively to market their products in a manner that did not impede trade or
minimize the authenticity of geographical indications.  The paper she had introduced encouragedMembers to consider very carefully whether, on a cost/benefit analysis, extension of Article 23 to
other products was, in fact, worth it.  It was the co-sponsors' considered view that it was not.  They
would not like to see other Members signing on to change the current TRIPS rules that would not
deliver the advantages that were claimed.
115. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed
 to revert to the matter at its next
meeting.IP/C/M/32
Page 39
I. REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2
116. The Chairperson recalled that, at the last meeting, the Council continued its detailed review of
the experience and practice with the application of the provisions in the TRIPS Agreement on
geographical indications.  The Chair had encouraged Members to use the main headings in the
Secretariat's summary paper (document IP/C/W/253) of the responses to the Article 24.2questionnaire as a way of organizing the discussions and their contributions.  He informed the Council
that, since the last meeting, responses to the Council's questionnaire had been received from Estonia;
these had been circulated in document IP/C/W/117/Add.22.
117. The representative of Australia said that her delegation welcomed the approach suggested by
the Chair at the previous meeting for the Article 24.2 review to progress by working through the main
section headings in the Secretariat's summary pa per.  At the Council's meeting in April 2001, her
delegation had raised a number of questions and queries that had arisen from its examination of theinformation contained in the Secretariat's summar y paper (document IP/C/W/253), in an attempt to
enhance its own and other Members' understanding of the application of Section 3 of Part II of the
TRIPS Agreement in national laws and the impact that  this had on Australian right holders.  For the
Article 24.2 review to be as constructive and useful as possible, her delegation encouraged other
delegations to delve more deeply into the information contained in the paper and to respond to thequestions, comments and queries raised by Australia at the previous meeting.  The use of this agenda
item was an opportunity to raise any concerns arising from the information contained in the
Secretariat's summary paper that any Members might have had so as to enhance the collective
understanding of all Members.  Her delegation hoped that Members would also address the questions
concerning specific provisions of Section 3 of Part II of the Agreement, as set out in Australia's paper(document IP/C/W/211).  That paper sought to engage Members in discussion of the underlying issues
involved in the protection of geographical indications which Members should consider in the course
of the Article 24.2 review.  The paper posed specific questions in Section 7 which she suggested could
be considered with reference to existing national systems and the strong interest expressed by some
Members in better geographical indication protection.  Addressing these questions would greatlyassist Members in better understanding the application of Section 3 of Part II of the Agreement in
national laws.  She highlighted a few questions in Australia's paper in the hope that Members would
look carefully at the paper.  In relation to Article 22.1, Australia asked whether it was possible to
claim geographical indication status for a term when the relevant consumer was not aware of any
geographical connotation?  In relation to Article 23.1, what did it mean for a geographical indicationto identify a product?  What practical limitations did this place on the use of a term which had
descriptive qualities?  How did this provision interact with Article 24.6 regarding descriptive terms
and variety names?  These questions were set out in order to bring about a broader understanding to
the nature of this debate.
118. The representative of the United States responded to comments made by certain delegations at
the previous meeting concerning the difference between trademarks and geographical indications.  He
said that, although trademarks generally identified products or services from a specific manufacturer,producer or service provider in order to differentiate those products from those of other
manufacturers, producers or service providers, collective marks identified, among other things,
products and services of associations, including those overseeing the use of geographical indications.
He disagreed with the view expressed at the previous meeting that geographical indications were
merely related to topographies, human work, climate or other factors and were therefore devoid ofhuman creativity.  There were a few situations in which the quality of a product resulted solely from
its geographical origin, as in the case of certain semi-precious minerals that resulted from geological
conditions.  Even wood taken from trees particular to a certain region had to be carefully prepared to
ensure that the best qualities of the wood were main tained and this required creativity as well as work.
He reiterated that both trademarks and geographical indications were designations of source on whichIP/C/M/32
Page 40
consumers came to rely in purchasing the products with which they were associated.  Geographical
indications that were registered as collective or certification marks would be entitled to border
enforcement and criminal enforcement against tradem ark counterfeiting as provided for in Sections 4
and 5 of Part III of the Agreement, which were voluntary with respect to geographical indications that
were not so registered.  His delegation therefore believed that it was in the interest of the associations
that oversaw the use of particular geographical indications to register them as collective orcertification marks.  The association or party overseeing the use of the geographical indication would
be responsible for ensuring that the elements of the indication were in fact respected.  Failure to do so,
and to ensure the standards, would be grounds to challenge the registration of the geographical
indication.  He agreed with the view expressed by Australia at the previous meeting that the
Article 24.2 review offered an opportunity to increase Members' collective understanding of the
provisions of Section 3 of Part II of the Agreement through a systematic analysis of the application of
these provisions in the domestic laws of Members as reflected in the Secretariat's paper summarizingthese responses.  Such a systematic analysis woul d bring about a clarification of Members' responses
to the checklist since, as noted by the Secretariat in its summary, Members had, in some cases,
interpreted questions differently.  In order to gain a real understanding of the application of Section 3
of Part II, his delegation hoped that all developing country Members would provide responses to the
checklist, as many already had.  He offered the following preliminary observations and conclusions inrelation to the Secretariat's summary paper, although he recognized that, at this stage, it was not
complete.  First, his delegation believed that the Secretariat had been wise in choosing the phrase
"indication of geographical origin" rather than "g eographical indication" throughout the summary for
the reasons given.  Members of the Council were sufficiently knowledgeable not to be confused by
the use of the term, recognizing that not all indi cations of geographical origin conformed to the
definition of geographical indication contained in Article 22.1.  Review of the summary made it
abundantly clear that, unlike other forms of intellectual property covered by Part II, there was
tremendous diversity in the laws through which Members met their obligations under Section 3.  The
Secretariat's summary paper (document IP/C/W/253) showed that, even within categories of laws,
diversity reigned.  For example, under special protection provided by certain Members forgeographical indications, some Members required that geographical indications receive prior approval
and some did not.  Table 2 showed that the special protection was provided by Members for
geographical indications for different products.  Members' responses revealed that in some cases
production methods and product specifications were specified as a condition of use of a protected
IGO, and systems existed for monitoring compliance with these requirements, while in other casesspecial protection for IGOs could exist without specific ations of quality or reputation but rather with a
focus on identifying products from a particular place.  The Secretariat had noted that there was a
diversity among even the qualifiers used by Members in describing the nature of the qualities that
goods related to particular geographical indications must have to be entitled to protection.  It was not
clear whether that diversity represented a real differ ence in standards or just variations in terminology.
The Secretariat's summary paper also pointed out that , with respect to such special protection regimes
for geographical indications and enforcement of rights in such indications, some Members did notextend no less favourable treatment to the geographical indications of other Members, or they
conditioned such extension on the other Member having equivalent special protection regimes.
119. The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting, Australia had posed a number of
questions under the headings of "Definitions a nd criteria for recognition" and "Procedures for
recognition", including some questions specif ically addressed to the European Communities,
Switzerland and Turkey.
120. The representative of the European Communitie s said that, at the previous meeting, his
delegation had responded to a number of questions posed by Australia.  He had no additional
information at the present meeting but would respond further at the next meeting.IP/C/M/32
Page 41
121. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next
meeting.
J. REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(b)
122. The Chairperson recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had received three new
contributions, namely from the European Communities and their member States, Peru and the
United States (documents IP/C/W/254, 246 and 257, respectively), in addition to the documents theCouncil already had had before it from Brazil, India, Japan, Mauritius (on behalf of the African
Group), Singapore and the United States (documents IP/C/W/164, 161, 236 and 206, JOB(00)/7583
and IP/C/W/209, respectively).  Members had continued their discussion on both a number of
substantive issues and a number of procedural questions relating to how the Council should handle its
further work on this matter.  The Council also had had a discussion about the extent to which all the
issues that had been raised under Article 27.3(b) should be pursued in that context or whether some
might more suitably form part of the items to be taken up in the context of the review of theimplementation of the TRIPS Agreement under Article 71.1.  The Council had agreed that the
Secretariat should re-issue the illustrative list of questions it had circulated in December 1998 upon a
request from the Council and invited Members who had not yet done so to provide responses, in
particular developing countries.  He informed the C ouncil that the Secretariat had re-issued this list of
questions as document IP/C/W/273, which also contained the synoptic tables that had been preparedin May 1999 reflecting the responses to the questionnaire received by that time.  The Secretariat had
received one new response to this questionnaire, namely from Estonia, which had been circulated in
document IP/C/W/125/Add.20.  New papers had been received from Switzerland and Norway
(circulated in documents IP/C/W/284 and IP/C/W/293, respectively).
123. The representative of Switzerland introduced his delegation's communication
(document IP/C/W/284).  In the view of his delega tion, the review of Article 27.3(b) should focus on
the scope of the exclusions from patentability as set forth in sentence one of this provision and on the
sui generis  system of protection of plant varieties as set forth in sentence two of this provision.  Other
Members had expressed their views on additional issues  that Switzerland considered to be beyond the
issues to be dealt with in the review of Article 2 7.3(b) as such but, where these additional issues had
been linked to this review, they were also addr essed in his delegation's communication.  In the view
of Switzerland, the review should first focus on the first sentence of Article 27.3(b), which had major
implications on the scope of protection of biotechnological inventions.  These inventions deserved the
same patent protection as was accorded to inventions in other areas of technology.  Therefore, the
review should not lead to any lowering of intellectual property protection of biotechnologicalinnovation.  His delegation was not advocating the deletion of the first sentence of Article 27.3(b)
because, as part of an agreement which established minimum standards at the multilateral level, it was
a balanced provision that preserved Members' flexibility to decide whether or not to exclude from
patentability plants and animals in light of their specific national interests and needs.  Second, the
review should focus on the sui generis protection of plant varieties.  The UPOV system was in the
foreground as an effective sui generis  system of protection for plant varieties, but he agreed that there
may be others that met the requirements of that provision, including sui generis systems of protection
for farmers' varieties.  Concerns had been expressed about the impact of the UPOV system on farmers
and plant breeders especially in developing countries, but his delegation considered the UPOV system
to be flexible enough to allowed Members to adequately address these concerns.  Farmers' privilege
and breeders' exemption were two important features of the UPOV system.  He referred to
paragraphs 26 and 27 of his communication in this respect.
124. Regarding genetic resources and related traditional knowledge in the context of patenting of
biotechnological inventions, he referred to discussions in several international fora, in which
Switzerland was actively participating.  For example, there was the idea of a database on traditional
knowledge related to genetic resources.  Such a database might be of crucial importance whenIP/C/M/32
Page 42
determining the novelty and inventive step of an invention that drew upon traditional knowledge
related to genetic resources.  One of the major problems that patent-granting and judicial authorities
faced was the accessibility of prior art regarding this knowledge.  Often, this form of knowledge was
only transmitted orally and was not accessible at all by these authorities.  If it was documented in
writing, it might be in languages that these authorities were not familiar with.  A database of
traditional knowledge could substantially improve this situation.  In paragraph 17 of its paper(document IP/C/W/284), his delegation had enumerated several features that such a database on
traditional knowledge could have.  For example: the database should be established at the
international level, as only this would ensure that all, national, regional and international patent
authorities and relevant judicial authorities had adequate access to information on traditional
knowledge;  given that the recording of traditional knowledge in a single international database would
likely be a very costly endeavour, it would seem preferable to link electronically existing regional,
national and local databases and create a gateway to these other databases rather than record theknowledge in a single database;  such an international database should be established and
administered by WIPO because it had ongoing similar automation projects;  the recording of
traditional knowledge in the database should be voluntary;  the knowledge recorded in this database
should be organized in standardized classifications; and finally, the traditional knowledge should be
regularly updated to ensure that it was always recorded in its latest form.  Such an internationaldatabase would allow the effective integration of traditional knowledge documentation into searches
of prior art, and could be an important measure to address the issues arising in the context of access to
traditional knowledge related to genetic resources and sharing of the benefits arising from its use.  It
should complement other measures such as the Draft Guidelines proposed by Switzerland in the CBD
as only a comprehensive set of measures taken by the competent international fora would ensure thatthe issues arising could be properly addressed.  Sw itzerland intended to pursue this idea further in the
WIPO.
125. The representative of Norway provided an outline of Norway's paper concerning the
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
(document IP/C/W/293).  Several WTO Members had expressed concern as to whether there was anyconflict between the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and Norway, as a party to both
agreements, had an interest in the outcome of such an analysis.  The CBD recognized the fact that
patents may be granted on genetic resources which the CBD was intended to protect.  The wording of
Article 16.5 of the CBD was a clear recognition of the fact that IPRs, including patents, might have an
influence on efforts to achieve the objectives of the CBD.  Therefore, Article 16.5 included anobligation for contracting parties to cooperate in order to ensure that IPRs were supportive of the
objectives of the CBD.  Since patents gave th e owner the exclusive right to exploit patents
commercially for a limited time-period, it had been claimed that these exclusive rights in certain cases
may reduce access to genetic resources, for example to agricultural plant genetic resources.  He said
that it had also been claimed that patents might undermine attempts to ensure effective conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity, wh ich were the two main objectives of the CBD.
Specifically, it had been argued that developing countries might attach less importance to theconservation of their own genetic resources if IPR regimes allowed for the patenting of genetic
resources and knowledge derived from them.  This might particularly be the case if mechanisms were
not in place to ensure the equitable and fair sharing of benefits arising from the use of these resources.
These were the allegations, which it might be difficult to substantiate, although Norway did not reject
them outright.  These issues, and the fact that the two agreements dealt with genetic resources indifferent ways, did not in themselves indicate that there was a legal conflict between the two
agreements.  Nevertheless, there was a potential for conflict between the two agreements and the
question of safeguarding biodiversity, including the issues of access, transfer and benefit-sharing,
versus the question of intellectual property rights was a complex one.  There seemed to be nothing in
the two agreements that would prevent each from being implemented in a way that was compatible
with the other.  Although the TRIPS Agreement set  minimum standards, the relevant provisions of
both agreements were worded in a way that made it possible to ensure consistency through flexibleIP/C/M/32
Page 43
interpretation.  However, the parties should be awar e of the principles underlying the two agreements
in order to ensure mutually supportive implementation in national law.  Nevertheless, patents might in
certain ways enhance transparency and thereby contribute to benefit-sharing.  When a patent was
applied for, the information would eventually be made available to the public.  This enabled others to
benefit from the invention, for example, through further research.  He referred to the submission by
the European Communities and their member States (document IP/C/W/254), which had pointed outseveral useful aspects of patent protection of geneti c resources.  In Norway's opinion, the key element
in ensuring consistency between the two agreemen ts would be mutually supportive implementation of
the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement.  To this effect, compliance with the relevant CBD provisions
should be ensured through effective implementation in the national legislation of the parties. His
delegation believed that the implementation of one agreement might have a bearing on the
implementation of the other.  It was important that  countries were aware of this when implementing
the two agreements.  As yet, not many parties had implemented both agreements fully.  It wastherefore important that sufficient priority was given to implementing both agreements in national
legislation.  It was especially important to implement effective measures to achieve fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits from the accessed and transferred materials.  In this regard, he would like to
mention that Norway was framing a plan of action to implement the CBD.  In addition, a committee
had been appointed to propose legislation on biological diversity.
126. Regarding the relationship between TRIPS and plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture ("PGRFA"), he said that it was important to note that different sectors might need different
regimes for access and benefit-sharing.  Although the CBD set out certain basic conditions for such
regimes, there was a high degree of flexibility.  "Mutually agreed terms" as stipulated in the CBD did
not necessarily have to mean bilateral terms.  In the field of agricultural biodiversity, in particular,PGRFA, bilateral agreements for the exchange of genetic resources would be highly impractical.  This
was because there was a high degree of interdependence between countries with regard to such
material.  Consequently, a multilateral system was needed for access to, and exchange of, PGRFA,
which was the reason for the ongoing negotiations in the FAO to revise the International Undertaking.
127. Regarding the option available to Members to establish an effective sui generis system for the
protection of plant varieties, as an alternative to patents, there was a need to secure a sufficiently
flexible interpretation of the "effective sui generis " option.  Regarding a requirement to disclose the
origin of genetic resources in patent applications, according to the CBD, all states that provided
genetic resources had the right to make access to th ese resources subject to prior informed consent.
However, the TRIPS Agreement had no provisions making prior informed consent a condition forachieving patent protection.  An obligation under the TRIPS Agreement to disclose the origin of
genetic resources when applying for patent protection could ensure transparency as regards the origin
of biological materials that were to be patented and could make it easier for parties to enforce their
rights to their own genetic resources when they were the subject of a patent application.  An
obligation of this kind could be an appropriate step towards giving effect to the provision of
Article 16.5 of the CBD.  The introduction of such an obligation should therefore be discussed and
further analysed.  He recalled Norway's reference to this question in its earlier communication(document IP/C/W/167), and that the European Communities had indicated their willingness to
discuss this issue (document IP/C/W/254).
128. The representative of Brazil welcomed the circulation of communications by the European
Communities and their member States, Norway, Switzerland and the United States which
demonstrated a willingness by those delegations to engage in a constructive debate in the review ofArticle 27.3(b).  Regarding the United States' co mmunication (document IP/C/W/257), his delegation
hoped that it might be a sign that the United St ates would soon become a Contracting Party of the
CBD.  He believed that the United States' inte rest in the relationship between TRIPS and the CBD
contradicted its opposition to the consensus among other Members to grant observer status to the
CBD Secretariat in the Council.  The United States ' general approach to implementation of the CBDIP/C/M/32
Page 44
seemed to be that contracts would be the most adequate way of regulating access to genetic resources
and ensuring benefit-sharing between the owners and users of genetic resources.  However, the CBD
was clear as regarded the need to ensure that access to genetic resources was regulated by national
legislation, rather than merely through bilateral contracts, in order to ensure that the objectives of
benefit-sharing and prior informed consent of the CBD would be actually fulfilled.  The United States
had expressed its concern with the objective of clarifying rights and obligations on access to geneticresources and providing clear rules to avoid misunderstanding and confusion.  Brazil had proposed, in
document IP/C/W/228, to incorporate in Article  27.3(b) the following requirements:  (a) the
identification of the source of the genetic material;  (b) the related traditional knowledge used to
obtain that material;  (c) evidence of fair and equitable benefit-sharing;  and (d) evidence of prior
informed consent from the Government or the tr aditional community for the exploitation of the
subject-matter of the patent.  Brazil had said in that document, "The proposed amendment would have
the clear benefit of providing a predictable envi ronment for governments, investors, traditional
communities and researchers.  As a consequence, research and development in biotechnology in
developing countries would be encouraged, which would be in line with the objectives of the TRIPS
Agreement to promote technological  innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology."
Modification of Article 27.3(b) in this respect could address concerns on predictability, such as the
one addressed by the United States, and promote biotechnology together with benefit-sharing.Further, in the second paragraph of page 6 of its communication, the United States had mentioned that
"It is possible that a few individuals could ignore the legal requirements and simply put a herb in their
pocket, in the same way that individuals counterfeit trademarks or pirate copyrighted works…"
Besides being an apparent recognition of the notion of bio-piracy, this example appeared to contradict
the United States' own arguments.  International and national legislation required that both biologicalresources and IPRs must be protected, and that such protection must be enforced by governments.
There was no reason to believe that genetic resources should deserve lower levels of protection and
enforcement than those provided to IPRs.  The other side of the United States' analogy would be to
accept that IPRs, such as patents and trademarks, could be protected and enforced merely through
bilateral contracts, without the need for specific protection provided by national legislation.  TheUnited States had also referred to Article 19  of the CBD on "Handling of Biotechnology and
Distribution of its Benefits", and said that "these obligations also are better met through contractual
arrangements".  This appeared to ignore the letter and spirit of Article 19, which stated that "each
Contracting Party shall take legislative, administrative or policy measures, as appropriate, to provide
for the effective participation in biotechnological research activities by those Contracting Parties,especially developing countries which provide the genetic resources for such research, and where
feasible in such Contracting Parties".  This went beyond the mere establishment of contractual
arrangements.  Additionally, the United States had ignored the fact that the provision mandated
effective participation by developing countries in in situ  biotechnological research activities.
129. Regarding the European Communities and their member States' paper (document
IP/C/W/254), Brazil appreciated its flexible approach, although it contained a number of
disappointing elements from the perspective of ensuring that TRIPS and the CBD were mutually
supportive.  For example, the European Communities had stated that "the main objectives of the
TRIPS Agreement are to set minimum standards of intellectual property protection within WTO
Members and to ensure that states make available to right holders judicial and/or administrative
procedures to enforce their intellectual property rights".  However, Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement
provided that the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement were "the promotion of technologicalinnovation", "the transfer and dissemination of t echnology", "the mutual advantage of producers and
users of technological knowledge in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare", and the
"balance of rights and obligations".  The European Communities' misunderstanding of the objectives
of TRIPS had affected its general approach towards the relationship between TRIPS and the CBD.
When Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement was read together with Article 1 of the CBD, which set outthe objectives of the CBD, it became clear that both agreements had several elements in common.
Transfer and dissemination of technology was one of the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement and,IP/C/M/32
Page 45
according to the CBD, transfer of technology was one  of the means of ensure fair and equitable
sharing of benefits.  The objective of a "balance of rights and obligations" in TRIPS was closely
related to the objective of benefit-sharing.  More importantly, such provisions demonstrated that
TRIPS and the CBD could be mutually supportive.  The Council should ensure that, at the
implementation level, they must fulfill this mutually supportive relationship.  His delegation disagreed
with the reference in paragraph 11 of the EC's paper, according to which "the TRIPS Agreement doesnot directly refer to the subject-matter of the CBD.  However, the Preamble of Article 8 refers to
principles such as developmental objectives, and Article 66.2 refers to transfer of technology".  This
overlooked the objectives contained in Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Moreover, the
subject-matter of Article 27.3(b) was plants, an imals and microorganisms, which comprised the
universe of "genetic resources".  Consequently, the subject-matters of Article 27.3(b) and the CBD
were very close, if not the same in many cases.  His delegation generally agreed with the analysis
contained in paragraph 14 of the EC's paper, concerning the interaction between patents overinventions developed on the basis of a biological resour ce and benefit-sharing.  It also agreed that the
Council needed to grant the CBD Secretariat ad hoc observer status.  Regarding disclosure
requirements, paragraph 14 of the EC paper said that IPRs did not aim to regulate the access and use
of genetic resources, the terms and conditions for bio-prospecting or the commercialization of IPR-
protected goods and services.  Certainly, these were not objectives of the TRIPS Agreement.However, his delegation agreed with Norway that IPRs might have negative or positive effects on the
sustainable access and use of genetic resources.  Brazil was concerned that, in the absence of
disclosure requirements, IPRs could negatively affe ct the protection of biodiversity, since biological
resources could be unduly used in inventions patented in another country.  The introduction of
disclosure requirements in Article 27.3(b), as suggested by Brazil, would be an appropriate solution toensure that IPRs had a positive effect on the access and sustainable use of genetic resources.
Disclosure requirements were not a "burden" to patent holders.  Patent rights needed to be properly
exercised, in light of the objective of the TRIPS Agreement to strike a "balance of rights and
obligations", which was closely related to the CBD's objectives.  In the absence of such requirements,
the real burden would fall on countries that had limited means to prevent their plants, animals and
microorganisms being unduly patented outside their country.
130. Regarding the establishment of databases to protect traditional knowledge, which had been
raised in the communications from the European Communities, Switzerland and the United States
(documents IP/C/W/254, 284 and 257, respectively), Brazil agreed that databases could be a useful
way of protecting traditional knowledge, provided that the use of the knowledge contained in such
databases was properly managed.  In no way should th e use of such information facilitate bio-piracy.
In any event, the mere gathering of information would not represent fulfilment of the objectives of
Article 8(j) of the CBD, as it would not result in the "sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of
traditional knowledge, innovation and practices", as was mandated by that provision.  The
documentation should be backed up by specific means governing the use of such knowledge.  Brazil
agreed with the United States that "the provisions of Article 8(j) of the CBD and the provisions of the
TRIPS Agreement, when appropriately implemented are, therefore, mutually supportive".  However,it was not certain that the way in which the United States had described its views on implementation
of Article 8(j) would be consistent even with the CBD's objectives.
131. The representative of the United States said that, after a preliminary review of Switzerland's
paper (document IP/C/W/284), his delegation was likely to associate itself with the majority of its
conclusions.  He wanted to study Norway's paper (document IP/C/W/293) more closely and took note
of certain observations that it contained.  He hoped that Members of the Council agreed with
Norway's observation that the CBD recognized that patents may be granted on genetic resources
which the CBD was intended to protect.  His delegation agreed with Norway that there was no
conflict between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement.   With respect to benefit-sharing and the
disclosure of the source of genetic resources, he referred all Members of the Council to the UnitedStates' paper introduced at the previous meeting (document IP/C/W/257), which suggested that aIP/C/M/32
Page 46
system to accomplish that objective could be established through contractual arrangements.  He said
that he might elaborate further at the next meeting on why his delegation did not believe that the
patent system was a practical means of accomplishing this objective, nor of fulfilling the goals of its
proponents.  Responding to Brazil, he said that the United States believed that a benefit-sharing
arrangement through contracts was more appropriate  than legislation but it did not suggest a less
effective means of protecting genetic resources than intellectual property.  In fact, to establish a legalsystem of contracts for access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge, the United States
envisaged national legislation establishing a legal framework which would indicate what provisions
must be included in each contract.  Countries would be free to determine what obligations parties
would have to undertake if they were given access to countries' genetic resources or the traditional
knowledge of their indigenous communities.  He had referred to the possibility of individuals placing
genetic resources in their pockets because the United States recognized that bio-piracy, and activities
generally associated with that term, did in fact ta ke place.  The question was what was the best means
of addressing them.
132. The representative of Peru said that the number of documents and statements from developing
and developed countries demonstrated the growing interest of WTO Members in this subject.
Regarding the European Communities' paper (document IP/C/W/254), Peru considered that this was a
valuable contribution to the Council's debate on that  issue and agreed with some of the positions it
contained.  Peru agreed that the legal nature and the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD
were rather different.  Nevertheless, because of the interaction of these two agreements, it was
necessary to ensure that the implementation of intelle ctual property rights, particularly the granting of
patents derived from genetic resources or based on traditional knowledge, was consistent with the
CBD.  In this regard, Peru agreed with the Eur opean Communities that the Council should grant
ad hoc observer status to the Secretariat of the CBD and strengthen the links between the WTO and
CBD Secretariats.  With respect to the requirements to include in patent applications a copy of the
contract granting access to genetic resources and/or a copy of the licence to use traditional knowledge
for inventions that incorporated traditional knowledge, Peru believed that these were valid modalities
that governments could use to implement certain provisions of the CBD.  Her delegation appreciatedthe EC's offer of assistance to developing countries to bring into force effective and appropriate
legislation to facilitate access to genetic resources.  This assistance should not be confined to matters
exclusively concerning access to genetic resources but also extend to the protection of traditional
knowledge and the establishment of databases which would facilitate its protection and avoid undue
use.
133. Regarding the United States' paper (document IP/C/W/257), she offered some comments and
posed some questions. The United States said that those seeking information about traditional
knowledge must necessarily request permission and assistance of the local and indigenous
communities possessing such traditional knowledge.  However, this did not always occur in practice.
The United States' paper said that "Seeking such information would also provide an opportunity to
educate any communities that are unfamiliar with the basics of negotiations, contracting, various
forms of intellectual property, etc., that might be relevant to them in marketing their knowledge,innovations, and practices for use by those outside their communities, and for obtaining an equitable
share of the benefits arising from the utilisation of their knowledge, innovations and practices."  She
asked how this objective could effectively be achieved when, in many cases, those seeking
information from communities were the very companies conducting research, whose purpose was to
obtain the best economic and commercial terms and who did not take into account the interests of theholders of this traditional knowledge.  Peru considered that fair and equitable sharing of benefits
should be an obligation and not a voluntary matter.  The United States' paper said that "Suitable
national or local legislation or regulations could establish the legal basis for such contractual
arrangements between those seeking to develop knowledge, innovations and practices into
commercial products and those providing the knowledge, innovations and practices."  Whilst thismight be so, national legislation did not provide the international legal framework necessary for itsIP/C/M/32
Page 47
implementation.  The United States' paper minimized the problem of undue or unauthorized use of
traditional knowledge but this was a great concern to developing countries.  She reiterated Peru's view
that the Council should evaluate the possibility of  protecting traditional knowledge either through
existing intellectual property regimes or through some sort of sui generis  system.
134. The representative of Indonesia commented on the submissions that had been received.
Regarding Peru's paper (document IP/C/W/246), Indonesia shared many of Peru's views on the
protection of traditional knowledge and access to genetic resources.  Indonesia was a mega-centre of
biodiversity, with more than 30,000 plant families and 940 species having therapeutic properties, but
only 100 species being used by national industries.  These potential resources tended to be
under-utilised and under-valued.  Ignorance of intellectual property by stakeholders in Indonesia led
to the use of traditional knowledge without authorization from the holders.  As a consequence,
commercial use of traditional knowledge did not pr ovide equitable benefit-sharing.  Recognizing the
potential of its natural resources, Indonesia attached great importance to promoting the protection ofgenetic resources from misappropriation and unauthorized exploitation.  Indonesia saw merit in
establishing a regime of protection for genetic resources, both at the national and regional levels.
Such protection might not be sufficient without an international arrangement to give effect to the
intellectual property rights of local and indigenous communities, and to regulate access to genetic
resources.  In this context, Indonesia was interested in increasing protection for traditional medicinederived from traditional knowledge.  International recognition of traditional knowledge would limit
misappropriation and unauthorized exploitation of this  traditional medicine.  Although the protection
would not be in the form of patent, it might be equa l to what had been provided in Article 28.1 of the
Agreement, i.e. it would prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from acts of making,
using, offering for sale, or importing for these purposes that product or process, respectively.  It wasimportant to develop a regime of protection for trad itional knowledge, including traditional medicinal
knowledge and traditional medicine, by applying a sui generis  system, new IPR regulations or an
appropriate use of the existing intellectual property mechanism.
135. Regarding the papers submitted by the European Communities and their member States,
Norway and the United States (documents IP/C/W/254, 293 and 257, respectively), Indonesiaappreciated that those delegations had clarified their respective positions on the relationship between
the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement.  She welcomed the European Communities' positive views on
implementation of both the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement, and their recognition of the need to
protect traditional knowledge.  She agreed with Norway that there should be sufficient flexibility in
the implementation of sui generis  plant variety protection to allow effective benefit-sharing with
indigenous and local farming communities.  With the establishment of the CBD, it had been
recognized that local and indigenous communities who had nurtured biological diversity and
depended on it, had  a share in promoting conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.  The CBD
was a legally binding commitment to prevent over-exploitation and secure the conservation and
sustainable use of this biological diversity.  In  Indonesia's view, the relationship between CBD and
the TRIPS Agreement should be mutually supportive.  The implementation of the TRIPS Agreement
should not prevent the implementation of the CBD ensuring conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity.  In order to ensure their compatibility, further thought was required to clarify the
following issues in the process of implementin g both agreements.  First, the implementation of
Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement in relation to biodiversity would justify individual private
property rights.  The TRIPS Agreement could provide rights to those who claimed that they had
invented new plants, animals, microorganisms or a use for them.  On the other hand, the CBDrecognized national sovereignty over biological resources, which subsequently acknowledged the
inherent rights of indigenous and local communities.  Second, under the CBD, the use or exploitation
of biological resources and traditional knowledge gave rise to equitably shared benefits, whilst under
the TRIPS Agreement, patents had to be provided in all fields of technology, so that the use or
exploitation of biological resources and traditional knowledge must be protected by IPRs, without any
requirement to have a mechanism for benefit-shar ing.  Third, the CBD recognized that access toIP/C/M/32
Page 48
biological resources required the prior informed consent of the country of origin.  The TRIPS
Agreement had no provision requiring prior informed consent for access to biological resources.
Implementation of both the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement should be carried out in a comprehensive
manner taking into account coherency among related international organizations, in order to promote
their compatibility and avoid potential conflicts.
136. The representative of Venezuela recalled that her country had enormous genetic resources and
traditional knowledge.  It was a Member of both the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement and had
common legislation with other members of the Andean Community in the areas of intellectual
property, traditional knowledge and genetic resources.  Venezuela's Constitution guaranteed and
protected the collective intellectual property in traditional knowledge and innovations of indigenous
peoples.  All activities related to genetic resources and traditional knowledge were subject to
benefit-sharing.  Traditional knowledge was essential for the discovery, preservation and use of
biological diversity.  It was associated with modern biotechnology and the increase in the use ofgenetic resources for trade purposes.  The means of protection of traditional knowledge had not been
particularly effective and in the majority of the cases it had been utilised without a corresponding
return of benefits to the communities possessing such traditional knowledge.  The Council should
search for mechanisms which made it possible to prevent the illegal use of genetic resources and to
share benefits.  Venezuela supported Peru's proposal in paragraphs 28 and 29 of its paper(document IP/C/W/246).  Venezuela's national legislation was very close to what had been proposed
and it also had Andean legislation. Turning to the EC's paper (document IP/C/W/254), paragraph 4
said that the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement were "of a different legal nature".  Venezuela believed
that, if that were the case, then it was necessary to find common ground to ensure that both
instruments were mutually supportive.  Paragraph 8 dealt with the protection of genetic resources;Venezuela sought protection for genetic resources both in their natural state and those used in the
production of other products.  Paragraph 9 dealt with benefit-sharing;  Venezuela believed that there
should be mutually agreed mechanisms.  Progress had been made in the search for adequate forms of
protection.  Paragraph 12 said that "the CBD di d not prohibit patents on inventions using genetic
material", but she recalled that the CBD indicate d the need for prior informed consent to access to
resources on the basis of national legislation.  Venezuela welcomed the EC's support in paragraph 14
for granting the CBD Secretariat ad hoc observer status in the TRIPS Council.  Paragraph 30 referred
to the role that geographical indications could play in the protection of traditional products; Venezuela
agreed that this was one possible instrument fo r protecting traditional knowledge, and another could
be a database, as Switzerland had said in its paper (document IP/C/W/284).  Access to such a databasehad to be restricted since the inappropriate use of such knowledge had to be prohibited.  Venezuela
was aware that a database was extremely costly as it had considerable experience in this matter.
Keeping the database up-to-date also required enormous financial efforts but was a necessary feature.
Regarding Norway's paper (document IP/C/W/293),  she would comment on it at the next meeting.
She limited herself to observing that under the CBD genetic resources for food and agriculture
deserved special and differential treatment because of the interdependence among countries in relation
to them.  It was important to keep up to date about this and follow the negotiations on the FAOInternational Undertaking.  However, issues of scope, access and farmers' rights were still under
negotiation and the future legal status of the International Undertaking was still unclear.  Venezuela
agreed with Norway that it should be binding.
137. The representative of European Communities, re ferring to the re-issuance by the Secretariat
of the illustrative list of questions (document IP/C/W/273), urged the Chairperson to repeat his request
that developing country Members provide responses to the Council because it would be extremely
useful for this exercise.  He welcomed Switzerland's paper (IP/C/W/284).  He drew attention to its
Section II, which contained useful elements with respect to the definition of the scope of the
exclusions from patentability in Article 27.3(b), first sentence, and agreed on the need to protect
biotechnological inventions adequately.  Paragraph 4 listed some examples where biotechnologymight be of use, including in the development of new pharmaceuticals necessary to treat illnesses,IP/C/M/32
Page 49
which was relevant to agenda item N – "Intellect ual Property and Access to Medicines".  Section III
referred to access and benefit-sharing and traditional knowledge and prior art.  These were very
relevant issues, which his delegation had discussed in its own paper (document IP/C/W/254). The
proposal for a database of traditional knowledge was not a completely new idea.  Switzerland's
suggested parameters for consideration of such a database were useful, if such database were
considered beneficial.  It would not provide a level of protection, but might be a useful instrument incombatting bio-piracy, in particular when the info rmation in the database were available to patent
examiners.  Section IV, which dealt with the protection of plant varieties, was a very useful
elaboration on some key elements which had been underlined earlier in discussions under this agenda
item, particularly at the beginning of the review two years earlier when the Council had discussed the
scope of Article 27.3(b).  His delegation agreed with Switzerland that the UPOV Convention provided
an effective sui generis  system.  Turning to Norway's paper (document IP/C/W/293), much of it was
in parallel with the views expressed by his de legation in its own paper (document IP/C/W/254),
particularly with respect to the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.  Section 3 of
Norway's paper referred to national implementation and suggestions as to what countries could do
within their own legal sphere. In the absence of international rules it was certainly useful that those
countries who believed that it was important to provide protection should start providing it within
their national legislation.  Section 4 dealt with the relationship between plant genetic resources forfood and agriculture and the TRIPS Agreement.  It referred to the ongoing negotiations within FAO to
review or revise the International Undertaking.  This was an important piece of work.  The
negotiations had not yet been concluded, but his delegation would insist that their results be fully
TRIPS-compatible.  Section 6 referred to the question of requiring the disclosure of origin of genetic
resources in patent applications.  His delegation had already explained its position on this issue in abalanced manner.  Further work was indispensable in this area and he wanted to come back to that
issue when the results of that further work were available.
138. Responding to Brazil's comments on paragraph 5 of his delegation's paper
(document IP/C/W/254), he saw absolutely no contradiction between the objectives of the TRIPS
Agreement that it listed and those set out in Article 7 of the Agreement.  His delegation's paper hademphasized some particular aspects but they did not contradict Article 7.  He took note of the positive
comments made by Brazil, Indonesia and Peru on several aspects of the paper.  He also took note of
Brazil's comment that Switzerland's ideas with respect to a database merited exploration.  His
delegation was certainly ready to work with these delegations in order to see whether they could make
further progress.  As Peru had highlighted, the European Communities were willing to work withcountries interested in obtaining technical assistance, and to discuss what sort of technical assistance
could be provided.  Their expression of interest should not be interpreted in a narrow manner.
139. The representative of Singapore referring to his delegation's non-paper on this issue
(JOB(00)/7583) said that there appeared to be a general feeling that the TRIPS Agreement and the
CBD should be looked at in a harmonious fashion, and that the Council should look at how to make
them work together.  Norway's paper (document IP/C/W/293) had made the point that the link
between the two instruments was in the area of pa tents.  Obviously, Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS
Agreement was an important provision.  His delegation believed that it should be maintained and that
there should be no lowering of standards of prot ection of biotechnology.  Another very important
issue for countries with large amounts of  biodiversity and genetic resources, was that there should be
benefit-sharing, which was basically mentioned by the CBD.  Singapore was a party to both
agreements.  There were important ideas to explore further to see how both instruments could beimplemented in a way which was mutually supportive,  that tried to protect biotechnology but at the
same time ensured an equitable system of benefit-shar ing to the countries of origin of these resources.
As to the question of requiring the disclosure of origin of genetic resources in patent applications,
Singapore wanted time to study it further.IP/C/M/32
Page 50
140. The representative of Korea recalled that his delegation, at earlier meetings, had touched on
the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD in general terms.  At the present meeting
he wanted to address some related issues.  First, on the issue of genetic resources and benefit-sharing,
he said that these notions seemed to combine togeth er to constitute essential elements for sustainable
use and continue the development of the biotechnology industry.  It was important to ensure that
intellectual property rights, such as patents, should be based upon a legitimate use of genetic resourcesand that the benefit deriving from such intellectual property rights should be shared with providers of
these genetic resources.  Preventive measures against the possible abuse or misuse of genetic
resources by unauthorized persons should be put in place in order to protect the rights and benefits of
holders of these resources.  All of these efforts required cooperation among Members and relevant
international organizations.  It was vital to collect and share as widely as possible legal, administrative
and policy measures or regulations related to access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing which
were in force in each Member.  In this way, the Council could aim to respect both the rights of holdersof genetic resources and those of inventors, and wo rk out optimal ways at the international level of
facilitating access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing which could be acceptable to all Members.
With regard to technical issues related to patent protection, such as definitions of microorganism and
patentable subject-matter, he said that the distinction between plants, animals and microorganisms
was well established under many international conventions including CBD.  The definition ofmicroorganism seemed to be properly interpreted in light of objectives and intentions.  On the
question of requiring the disclosure of origin of genetic resources in patent applications, whilst it
could ensure transparency and benefit-sharing, it would impose an additional burden on patent
applicants and necessitate a readjustment of the balance of interests established in the TRIPS
Agreement among applicants and other interested parties.  Therefore, further detailed study wasneeded in view of these positive and negative aspects.  Regarding protection of plant varieties, he
noted that the Secretariat summary paper (documen t IP/C/W/273) indicated that most Members who
had responded to the checklist fulfilled the requirements of the UPOV Convention.  Regarding
traditional knowledge, the concept set out in Article 8(j) of the CBD was clear but it was not easy to
apply in practice.  The question of its scope should be given priority, as well as enhancing Members'understanding of specific cases of the protection of traditional knowledge.  Korea believed that it was
useful for the Council to have information on national systems and experience in the protection of
traditional knowledge.  Documentation and establ ishment of a database of traditional knowledge
would give patent examiners easier access to related prior art and enhance the quality of patent
examinations.
141. The representative of Zimbabwe said that the African Group was still studying comments it
had received from other delegations on its paper dealing with, among other issues, the relationship
between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement and the provision in Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS
Agreement (document IP/C/W/206).  The African Group would provide a detailed response to those
comments and also comment on papers submitted by other Members in due course.  He also reiterated
the following points.  First, his delegation was c onvinced that the distinction between plants and
animals and microorganisms for the purposes of patentability in Article 27.3(b) was unscientific andthat Article 27.3(b) should be amended in the manner suggested in its paper.  There was currently an
African Model Law on plant variety protection which the Group considered effective and they
welcomed alternatives to the currently ava ilable international instruments providing for sui generis
plant variety protection.  Second, his delegation remained convinced that the TRIPS Agreement,
especially the criteria for patentability, contradicted and frustrated the provisions of the CBD,particularly as regarded the exploitation of genetic and biological resources.  A more detailed
exploration and elaboration of these ideas would soon be available.
142. The representative of Japan commented on the papers presented by Switzerland and Norway.
The views and the positions expressed by Switzerland in its paper (IP/C/W/284) seemed to be in line
with those expressed by Japan in its paper (IP/C/W/236).  Japan agreed with Switzerland that thereview of Article 27.3(b) should focus on the two issues set out in the first and second sentences ofIP/C/M/32
Page 51
the provision, and that some of the discussion under this agenda item was outside the mandate of the
review. Japan agreed with Switzerland regardin g the need for adequate patent protection for
biotechnology and opposed any lowering of the level of protection.  Regarding the international
database of traditional knowledge related to gene tic resources, Japan agreed with Switzerland that
such a database could improve the current situation.  Oral traditional knowledge was not easily
accessible by patent-granting authorities.  The database should primarily be for the purpose ofconducting searches of prior art, but it should not constitute a prerequisite for the existence of any
rights regarding traditional knowledge nor should it provide any legal basis for benefit-sharing.
Regarding standardized classification within the database, as suggested by Switzerland, Japan
considered that this should be handled at the relevant sub-forum of WIPO, which had already studied
this in preliminary discussions.  Various options should be explored by experts in order to determine
how best such a database could be standardized.  Turning to Norway's paper (document IP/C/W/293),
he made some preliminary observations.  First, Japan agreed with Norway that there was no legalconflict between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement,  although some interactions existed between
them.  Japan also agreed that the consistency between the two agreements must be ensured at the level
of national legislation and practice.  Regarding the disclosure of the origin of genetic resources, Japan
did not favour inserting a provision in the TRIPS Agreement obliging patent applicants to disclose the
origin of genetic resources.  He reiterated the view expressed in his delegation's paper that this kind ofobligation would go beyond the existing TRIPS obligations and implied a rewriting of the Agreement.
Members should be cautious about rewriting the Agreement because the current provisions struck an
appropriate balance between rights and obligations of inventors or applicants and third parties, which
was the result of a long negotiation in the Uruguay Round.
143. The representative of Malaysia said that th e new contributions by the European Communities
and their member States, Norway and Switzerland represented those delegations' interest in
addressing issues that had been raised under this agenda item.  In particular, Malaysia noted the
interest expressed in the area of patentability of biotechnology.  Switzerland's paper (document
IP/C/W/284) had also raised this issue.  While th ey recognized the need to retain the flexibility
regarding patentability of plants and animals in Ar ticle 27.3(b), there was also a need to apply the
criteria of patentability in Article 27.1.  These criteria determined whether something could be
patented.  In the area of biotechnology, the Council needed to continue deliberations to have a clearer
understanding of the issues, for example regarding what stages of "development" of genetic resources,
genetic parts and components constituted "discoveries" and what were "inventions".  The EC paper
(document IP/C/W/254) said that genetic resources must be isolated from their natural environment or
produced by means of a technical process to satisfy the criteria of patentability.  She asked whether
this was a new version of the criteria of patentability or whether it was consistent with those set out in
Article 27.1.  Regarding the study of the relationship between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement,
this had been proposed mainly as an approach to address the issue of bio-piracy and the protection of
traditional knowledge.  Some delegations believed that these issues could be addressed to a large
extent by inclusion of procedures recognized in the CBD in patent procedures, such as disclosure
requirements, prior informed consent and benefit-sharing.  Other delegations had proposed that theserequirements be incorporated in national legislation.  Another approach was a database, as set out in
Switzerland's paper.  She invited delegations to e xpress their views on how effective these approaches
could be toward regulating access to genetic resources and protecting traditional knowledge.
144. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.IP/C/M/32
Page 52
K. REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1
145. The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting, his predecessor as Chair had made
efforts to see whether it would be possible to find a way of initiating this review by organizing the
issues that had been raised under certain headings.  It had seemed that this was considered somewhat
premature, at least by some Members.  At the informal meeting of the Council on 21 May 2001, he
had urged more Members to come forward with their thinking, so that it would be possible to have afuller and more representative picture of the issues that Members thought should be taken up in this
review.  However, only one new paper had been received, from Zambia (document IP/C/W/298).
146. The representative of Zambia agreed with India's statement at the previous meeting that the
Article 71.1 review should be as comprehensive as possible and should not be limited to some
articles.  What was important was to assess somehow the impact of the TRIPS Agreement on
development and, in particular, on the transfer of technology and capacity-building in developing
countries in general and, in particular, LDCs.  He listed some of the important questions and points toconsider in the review:  (i) the extent to which the transfer of technology had taken place;
(ii) specifically, the impact of the Agreement on the creation of a sound and viable technological base
as envisaged in Article 66.2.  Indeed, if the Agr eement was being implemented as many developed
countries had indicated in their notifications, the review should reflect the impact to establish how
LDCs were benefitting in terms of a sound and viable technological base;  (iii) the costs ofimplementing the Agreement in developing countries and particularly LDCs;  (iv) the implication for
developing countries, particularly LDCs, of the 20-year patent rule;  (v)  whether increased protection
of IPRs was jeopardizing developing countries' access to essential drugs;  (vi) whether IPRs had been
misused by the right holders, etc.;  (vii)  clarifying whether the implementation of Article 66.2 by
developed countries was, in fact, not a pre-condition for LDCs' implementation of their TRIPSobligations.  The review should also broaden the discussion to topics that were not clearly included in
the Agreement, such as protection of traditional knowledge and folklore.  The language in Article 8
(Principles) should be strengthened to ensure th at nothing in the Agreement would prevent countries
from taking the necessary measures for achieving public policy objectives, including public health
protection.
147. The representative of Brazil expressed general support for the interventions at the previous
meeting by India and by Malaysia, speaking on behalf of ASEAN Members.  Brazil agreed with India
that the Article 71 review was a review of the TRIPS Agreement itself, so that no subject-matter
should be excluded from its scope.  Brazil lent its general support to the approach expressed by
ASEAN that the review should look at:  how the pr ovisions of the TRIPS Agreement were consistent
with and promoted the objectives and principles of the Agreement;  promotion and transfer of
technology, which was very much in line with th e objectives in Article 7, and also related to
Article 66.2, referred to by Zambia (document IP/C/W/298);  whether there was an appropriate
balance between public interests and private rights in the various fields of intellectual property
protection;  and what were appropriate measures referred to in the context of Article 8 that could be
used to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices that
unreasonably restrained trade and/or adversely affected the transfer of technology.  Brazil agreed withASEAN that discussion of these issues in the revi ew would be helpful in determining whether the
TRIPS Agreement had met the objectives it was intended for and whether there was, indeed, a balance
of benefits.
148. The representative of the United States thanked Zambia for making a contribution to the
Council discussion's of Article 71.1.  His delegation would examine the topics proposed for the
review and react at the next meeting.IP/C/M/32
Page 53
149. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of ASEAN Members, said that ASEAN
agreed with a number of the points that had been raised by Zambia in its paper (document
IP/C/W/298), specifically on issues of the transfer of technology.  Like Brazil, she recalled that, at the
previous meeting, ASEAN had raised the issues of whether the review should look at how the
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement were consistent with and promoted the objectives and principles
of the Agreement, particularly the promotion of te chnological innovation, transfer and dissemination
of technology in the mutual interest of producers and users.  Her delegation had noted a number of
other issues that could be raised during the review and was interested to follow up on them at a later
date and to hear reactions from other Members.
150. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next
meeting.
L. NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS
151. The Chairperson recalled that this agenda item concerned both non-violation and situation
complaints.  He referred to a note that he had circulated suggesting, on the basis of informal
consultations conducted by his predecessor, some headings that could be used as a way of organizing
the further discussion on this matter (JOB(01)/70).
152. The representative of Canada said that the Chairperson's note (JOB(01)/70) provided an
excellent and non-exhaustive method for discussing the important issues raised by the non-violation
nullification and impairment ("NVNI") remedy.  A number of delegations within the TRIPS Council
had raised questions about the application of NVNI.  Canada continued to believe that it was an
important matter for discussion.  Members had voiced legitimate concerns that, without further
guidance on the nature of this remedy, governments might find themselves genuinely constrained in
the development of policy.  Members had to be fully cognizant of the obligations that they assumed.Canada hoped that, through a detailed discussion of the NVNI remedy, the Council would have an
opportunity to eliminate much of the uncertainty surrounding this item.  At this stage, "non-violation"
complaints within the WTO had arisen in the context of trade in goods.  A legitimate starting point for
any analysis therefore was to examine the similarities, as well as differences, between the TRIPS
Agreement and the GATT.  For instance, the results of WTO market access negotiations wererecorded in national schedules of concessions annexed to the Uruguay Round Protocol that formed an
integral part of the Final Act.  This was not the ca se with the TRIPS Agreement.  It set out basic rules
for intellectual property protection, was not principally concerned with questions of market access and
provided no commitments in this regard.  The Counc il needed to take this fact into account when
evaluating the purpose of the TRIPS-related NVNI remedy.  Questions such as these had been raisedin papers tabled by Canada and other Members.  If the Council were to make progress, it needed to
examine each question carefully and come to some conclusions about the nature of the NVNI remedy.
Canada therefore thanked Members for their efforts in moving discussions forward on this item.  In
addition to the items mentioned in the five headings suggested in the Chairperson's note, it would also
be helpful to discuss Articles 7 and 8, and "exceptions".
153. The representative of Brazil agreed with Canada that the TRIPS Agreement set out basic rules
which aimed to ensure that all Members would follow universal minimum standards for intellectual
property protection.  Although specific rights were transferred under contractual licences, there was
no actual trade in intellectual property rights as there was trade in goods.  It was certainly a
sui generis  agreement in the WTO in that respect.  Brazil shared Canada's view that just as too little
protection of intellectual property could impe de innovation and trade so too could too much
protection.  Brazil generally agreed with Canada's remarks on determination of scope and modalitiesregarding non-violation measures and the other elements of the checklist suggested by the
Chairperson.  Brazil generally agreed with Mexico's remarks on that point at the previous meeting.
Brazil believed that the task of assessing the scope and modalities for non-violation complaints shouldIP/C/M/32
Page 54
not be left in the hands of panels or the Appellat e Body which, in accordance with the DSU, were not
able either to increase nor diminish the obligations of Members.  He agreed with India that it was not
clear at all whether non-violation complaints should or should not apply to the TRIPS Agreement.
Application of the remedy to the TRIPS Agreement could give rise to great legal uncertainty as
regards the application of the Agreement itself.  Therefore, Brazil generally agreed with the views
expressed by Canada and Hungary in their communi cations (documents IP/C/W/249 and JOB(01)/43,
respectively).
154. The representative of the European Communities recalled that, some time previously, his
delegation, together with other Members, had proposed that the Council begin to discuss and examine
the scope and modalities of possible non-violation complaints.  His delegation was grateful for the
papers which had been submitted and for the Chairperson's suggested headings (JOB(01)/70).  Those
headings were an illustrative list and not necessarily exhaustive.
155. The representative of Korea supported the views expressed by Canada in its paper
(document IP/C/W/249) on issues including the exceptional nature of non-violation, the contrast
between the GATT and the TRIPS Agreement and the n eed to take into account the objectives and
principles of the TRIPS Agreement when appl ying non-violation.  He appreciated Canada's
reflections in the paper on the unique nature of the TRIPS Agreement and the emphasis it had placed
on remedy issues.  He agreed that judicial judgements or decisions could not be regarded asgovernment measures subject to WTO dispute settlement, as they were made independently only in
line with domestic laws.  Therefore, judgements  or decisions from the judiciary should not be
understood to be the subject of dispute settlement unless governments followed them up with
measures such as amendment of relevant laws and regulations.  He agreed with Canada on the
objective of preventing the abuse of non-violation complaints as much as possible.  The DSU, aspresently drafted, did require a high level of burden  of proof in non-violation cases.  However, dealing
with non-violation by positive consensus seemed to call for an amendment of the DSU, as there was
no specific provision in the present TRIPS Agreement on this issue.
156. The representative of Hungary recalled that his delegation attached great importance to the
in-depth analysis of the applicability of the n on-violation remedy under the TRIPS Agreement.  His
delegation maintained the arguments it had put forward at previous meetings, and commented at the
present meeting only on the benefits that Members can reasonably expect under the TRIPS
Agreement.  Hungary agreed with the Korean non-pa per (JOB(00)/6166) that, in order to ensure legal
consistency and predictability, it was essential that there be a common understanding among the
Members as to what the concept of "benefits" meant in the context of the TRIPS Agreement.
Hungary agreed with the majority of delegations that, insofar as benefits and reasonable expectations
were concerned, the TRIPS Agreement was completely different from the GATT and GATS.  The
TRIPS Agreement was not a market access agreement, but rather a minimum standards agreement,
which provided for the minimum rights that may be acquired by nationals of all Members in all other
Members to protect their intellectual property.  The minimum standards set out by the TRIPS
Agreement were not similar to tariff concessions under the GATT nor to specific commitments under
the GATS.  Therefore, benefits that Members could reasonably expect from the standards weredifferent in nature from the benefits that could be expected under the GATT and the GATS.  In that
respect, he highlighted Section C of Australia's paper (document IP/C/W/212) which said that the
benefits resulting from TRIPS standards should be those that accrue to Members and should not be
mixed with the interests of individual private right holders in the exploitation of their intellectual
property rights.  He agreed with paragraph III(b) of Canada's paper (document IP/C/W/249) whichsaid that the benefit conferred by the TRIPS Agreement was the ability of third parties to acquire,
maintain and enforce intellectual property rights, bu t did not automatically extend to the exploitation
of those rights.  Although intellectual property rights  could be transferred or licensed by contract, the
transfer or licensing of exclusive rights could not be discussed on the same basis as trade in goods and
services.  He drew attention to the fact that GATS, which was obviously an agreement with more of aIP/C/M/32
Page 55
market access character, in its Article XXIII:3, limited non-violation complaints to benefits accruing
from specific commitments undertaken by Members.
157. The representative of Malaysia said that the TRIPS Agreement was a sui generis  agreement.
Non-violation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement had no precedent and were not comparable to
non-violation complaints in relation to trade in goods and services.  She agreed with Hungary that the
TRIPS Agreement was a minimum standards agreement regarding intellectual property protection,whilst the basis of the non-violation provisions were market access provisions in GATT 1994.  She
agreed with Brazil and Canada that the Council should make progress on the issue so as not to leave it
to panels to decide and to ensure greater certainty in the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.
The Chair's note (JOB(01)/70) listed several headings for discussion, namely "nature of the benefit",
"measure", "causality", "burden of demonstration of nullification and impairment" and "remedy".
Some of these had already been raised in the papers submitted by Australia, Canada and other
delegations. These subheadings contributed to the discussion on non-violation complaints althoughMalaysia agreed with the European Communities that work on this issue should not be confined to
those subheadings alone, but rather discussed in the broader context of the scope and modalities of
non-violation.  Turning to the definition of a "measure", he made some preliminary comments.
Canada's paper (document IP/C/W/249) had raised the issue of whether measures should be limited to
government measures or should also include court decisions or actions.  She agreed with Korea thatcourt decisions or actions should not be the object of non-violation complaints, although a court
decision which resulted in measures taken by th e government would be an issue for consideration.
Malaysia was interested in whether measures taken in fulfilment of Articles 7 and 8 could be
interpreted as causing non-violation nullification of benefits.  Articles 7 and 8 should be the
overarching objectives of the Agreement.  In addition, measures taken under exceptions allowed inthe context of certain TRIPS provisions should not be the object of non-violation complaints either.
158. The Chairperson said that delegations could raise issues that did not appear in the
subheadings in his note and the Council would discuss the item in its totality.
159. The representative of the United States said that the Chairperson's note or illustrative list of
issues (JOB(01)/70) would probably help to guide the discussion of the Council on scope and
modalities of non-violation cases.  Although he was prepared to continue this discussion on scope and
modalities, he did not have more concrete comments, in part because he did not share the concerns
and uncertainties others had expressed regarding the ability of panels and the Appellate Body to
handle non-violation complaints involving the TRIPS Agreement.  Both GATT and WTO practice
under the provisions of Article 26 of the DSB seemed to provide ample guidance for those bodies, infact, the same guidance that was available under other Uruguay Round agreements so that any
uncertainty involving TRIPS non-violation complaints should be no greater than uncertainty regarding
those complaints in other areas.  Nevertheless, his delegation was committed to continuing this
discussion with the hope of alleviating the concerns and uncertainties of Members in that area.  Of
course, he recognized that the moratorium on non-violation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement
had expired on 1 January 2000.
160. The representative of India shared the views expressed by Canada in its paper (document
IP/C/W/249) and agreed with Hungary that the TRIPS Agreement was different from the GATT and
GATS.  The Council could not leave interpretation of the non-violation measure to panels and the
Appellate Body.  India supported further discussion on this item and would submit a paper and
comments before the next meeting.
161. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.IP/C/M/32
Page 56
M. ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
162. The Chairperson recalled that the General Council, when it had discussed the issue of
electronic commerce on 8-9 May 2001, had invited the various subsidiary bodies concerned, including
the Council for TRIPS, to continue their work and report back to the General Council.6  Given that a
dedicated discussion on electronic commerce had been held on 15 June 20017 under the auspices of
the General Council, for the purpose of examining cross-cutting issues related to electronic commerce
identified by delegations, he suggested that the TRIPS Council focus more on the TRIPS-specific
issues.  Since the previous meeting, the TRIPS Council had received two communications on
electronic commerce from Cuba and Switzer land (documents IP/C/W/264 and IP/C/W/286,
respectively).
163. The representative of Cuba introduced her delegation's paper titled "Need for Unrestricted
Global Commerce" (document IP/C/W/264).  The Work Programme on Electronic Commerce
established by the General Council on 25 September 19988, paragraph 4.1, raised the issue of "new
technologies and access to technology", taking into account the objectives of the promotion of
technological innovation and transfer and diffusion of technology as set out in Article 7 of the TRIPS
Agreement.  Practices which restrained competition and which could have prejudicial effects on trade
and impede the transfer and diffusion of technology were contrary to the objectives and principles of
the multilateral framework among Members, including non-discrimination and MFN treatment.  Herdelegation reiterated the need to eliminate all types of restrictions, both commercial and technological,
adopted for political reasons, including those related to the spread and free use of encryption
technology and hardware available in the market which limited the development of global electronic
commerce and the full inclusion of all developing countries.
164. The representative of Switzerland introduced his delegation's paper on the Work Programme
on Electronic Commerce (IP/C/W/286).  The TRIPS Council had been dealing with the subject of
electronic commerce for some time.  Those Members which had made written submissions agreed
basically on the need for the TRIPS Council to agree on questions regarding intellectual property
rights which arose from communications via the Internet and other networks.  There was also general
agreement that electronic commerce did not necessitate re-invention of the wheel as regards theapplication of intellectual property law in this new field of technology nor did it necessitate a
re-evaluation of the interests at stake.  The preliminary conclusion was that what was valid off-line
was also valid on-line.  This conclusion had been extended to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement
but, in his delegation's view, it was not sufficient to say that the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement
could be applied to the field of electronic commerce.  One had to ask to what extent the provisions ofthe TRIPS Agreement "must" be applied to electronic commerce and, more importantly, what level of
protection was offered by this agreement in that context and whether it was sufficient.  The Swiss
paper gave examples of subjects which could be l ooked at more closely by Members in this regard.
He highlighted, by way of example, one of these.  In the field of copyright, the Internet created new
ways of exploiting a protected work, such as the communication to the public, including the making
available of the work in such a way that members of the public may access the work from a place and
at a time individually chosen by them.  The question was whether the TRIPS Agreement providedminimum protection at the multilateral level in all fields of intellectual property, including copyright,
protecting these new ways of exploiting copyright works as part of the right of the author, even
though the TRIPS Agreement was negotiated before the Internet revolution.  In order to enable the
Council to answer questions like this, Switzerla nd suggested that the Council ask the Secretariat to
prepare a paper on the manner in which the TRIPS Agreement operated in the context of electronic
                                                     
6 WT/GC/M/65.
7 A summary by the Secretariat of issues raised in  that discussion has been circulated in document
WT/GC/W/436.
8 WT/L/274.IP/C/M/32
Page 57
commerce.  On the basis of this paper, the Council could discuss the issue and whether there was a
need for action and, if so, which measures would be appropriate to reach the desired result.
165. The representative of the United States appreciated the recognition in the papers presented by
Australia and Switzerland that the TRIPS Agreement applied to the on-line environment.  His
delegation hoped to submit a paper of its own before the next meeting which would reflect on the
issues that had been raised by those two delegations.
166. The representative of Japan said that, in order to ensure appropriate and secure circulation of
content through electronic commerce, whether tangible or intangible, appropriate protection was a key
factor.  The language of the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement was generally technology-
neutral, so that the rights and exceptions already provided should continue to be applicable in the new
digital networked environment.  The networking tec hnology would continue to develop so that the IP-
related issues that would arise in this context should also continue to be discussed.  Turning to more
specific issues, the proposed "WIPO Joint Recommendation concerning provisions on the protectionof marks, and other industrial property rights in signs, on the internet"
9 would very likely be adopted
in September 2001.  It could be contemplated that the same type of policy be built into the TRIPS
Agreement to accommodate the conflict between the use of trademarks in cyberspace and the existing
framework of sovereign states which independently granted different trademark rights based on
territoriality.  The proposed WIPO joint recommendation would not be legally binding but Japanintended to work actively towards solutions to th e trademark problems arising from transactions in
cyberspace taking into account this recommendation, and would push for consideration of the
implications for the TRIPS Agreem ent.  Regarding copyright and related rights, Japan believed that
the WIPO Copyright Treaty ("WCT") and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty ("WPPT"),
adopted in 1996, were key instruments relating to the digital networked environment.  Japan had
ratified the WCT in 2000 and had almost completed the development of domestic legislation in
response to the WPPT.  In addition, a couple of new treaties, such as the audiovisual performances
treaty, were under discussion at WIPO, and it could be useful for the Council to watch closely this
discussion in order to consider its own future work.  Regarding international jurisdiction and
applicable law, whilst this subject was being debated in the Hague Conference on PrivateInternational Law, WIPO and various other fora, this issue should also be actively discussed as part of
the WTO effort to develop the TRIPS Agreement a step further, given that the expansion of electronic
commerce was expected to increase the number of IP-related lawsuits in the years ahead.  The Hague
Conference had been considering a preliminary draft convention on jurisdiction and foreign
judgements in civil and commercial matters.  Diplomatic conferences would be held in June 2001 andearly 2002 to adopt the convention.  Depending on whether or not it was successfully adopted, the
TRIPS Council could actively consider the issue and go on to discuss applicable law, which had not
been adequately explored to date.  Although IP-related issues should be examined primarily by the
TRIPS Council, a close communication was needed with other WTO fora which examined the issues
from a general and broader perspective.  He drew attention to Japan's proposal in the General Council
to set up a forum under the General Council to discuss electronic commerce issues from a general and
broader perspective.  His delegation believed that the TRIPS Council should closely communicatewith this body, if established.
167. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was still reflecting
on the suggestion by Switzerland that the Council request the Secretariat to prepare a study.
168. The representative of Uruguay drew attentio n to a submission by MERCOSUR to the General
Council's work programme on electronic commerce titled "Horizontal and sectoral issues which
require further analysis" (WT/GC/W/434).  MERCOSUR members had tried to propose a work
methodology, distinguishing sectoral issues of the subsidiary organs from those which could be
                                                     
9 WIPO document A/36/8.IP/C/M/32
Page 58
considered horizontal issues.  In the case of intellectual property, they had identified two current
issues on the basis of documents submitted to this Council:  one was the question of so-called
technological neutrality and the other was following work in WIPO on the relationship between
electronic commerce and intellectual property.  These had been identified in the TRIPS Council's
report to the General Council (document IP/C/18).  These issues had been identified without prejudice
to the views of MERCOSUR members on them, but wi th the objective of introducing some order and
methodology in the work programme.  Subsequently, in the General Council on 8 March 2001, other
Members had also identified horizontal issues and on 15 June 2001 there had been a special session
on electronic commerce and horizontal issues under the auspices of the General Council.  Various
horizontal issues were now being analysed in the General Council, in which could be grouped, for
example, the issue of classification and technological neutrality.  He wished to convey that, without
prejudice to whether this Council continued to analyse these issues, they should also be analysed in
the General Council as horizontal issues, i.e. they also covered other agreements that were beinganalysed in other subsidiary bodies.  Regarding the Swiss proposal, he understood that any such
Secretariat paper would be factual, but in any case, another delegation had indicated that it wished to
reflect on the proposal.  Regarding Japan's comments on jurisdiction and applicable law, this was
without doubt an important subject which would be of interest to analyse.  It had also been considered
in the General Council meeting on 15 June 2001.  It was of interest but also exceeded the scope of theWTO.  As noted by Japan, it was being considered in the Hague Conference on Private International
Law and in other international fora.  Without prejudice to this, it would perhaps be interesting to
maintain a discussion and analysis of this issue.  Without prejudice to the analysis being conducted by
the TRIPS Council on the issues under this agenda item specifically related to intellectual property,
there was now a process which had identified horizontal issues which were also relevant tointellectual property, and of which the TRIPS Council should not loose sight.  The special session of
the General Council had decided that the Secretariat would prepare a report on those discussions on
horizontal issues which his delegation looked forward to.  He also believed that it was important for
the General Council to decide how it would pursue it s work at the horizontal level, given that some of
these issues were also relevant to intellectual property.
169. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
N. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES
170. Statements made under this agenda item have been circulated separately in
document IP/C/M/31, as agreed by the Council.
O. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO
(i) Accessions
171. The Chairperson informed the Council that, on 31 May 2001, Lithuania had become the 141st
Member of the WTO.  Lithuania had committed itself to apply fully the provisions of the TRIPS
Agreement by the date of its accession to the WTO without recourse to a transitional period.  In
accordance with the procedures for the review of national implementing TRIPS legislation which the
Council had applied thus far in respect of newly acceded Members, he suggested that Lithuania be
added to the list of Members whose national implementing legislation was scheduled to be reviewed
in November 2001.
172. The Council so agreed.IP/C/M/32
Page 59
(ii) Dispute Settlement
173. The Chairperson informed the Council that, by means of a communication dated 7 June 2001,
the United States, Denmark and the European Communities had jointly submitted a mutually agreed
solution reached in the dispute settlement proceedings that the United States had initiated on
14 May 1997 on a matter concerning the obligations of the European Communities and Denmark
under the TRIPS Agreement to make available prompt and effective provisional measuresinaudita altera parte  in civil proceedings involving intellectual property rights (IP/D/9).  This
mutually agreed solution had been circulated in document IP/D/9/Add.1.
P. 
OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
174. The Chairperson informed the Council that a specific request had been received from
UNAIDS to be admitted as an observer to the present meeting of the Council only for the discussion
under agenda item N.  He proposed that the Council agree to this request.
175. The Council so agreed.
176. The Chairperson recalled that the Council had before it 15 outstanding requests from
intergovernmental organizations for observer status.  An up-to-date list of the pending requests was
available in document IP/C/W/52/Rev.9.  He recalled the suggestion that his predecessor as
Chairperson had made to the Council as a way of making headway on this matter.  This was that the
Council might consider, as a first step, accepting the requests from:  (i) multilateral organizationswhich already have observer status elsewhere in the WTO, i.e. the International Plant Genetic
Resources Institute (IPGRI);  the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD);  and
the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP);  a nd (ii) organizations running regional industrial
property offices, i.e. the African Regional Industr ial Property Office (A RIPO) and the Cooperation
Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC).  He  said that it seemed particularly important to
respond to the requests from these Organizations (ARIPO and the GCC), in the light of the fact that
they were directly concerned with implementing th e TRIPS Agreement.  He also recalled that the
Council had been urged by the Special Session of the General Council held on 18 October 2000,
inter alia , to give positive consideration to granting observer status to the CBD Secretariat on an
ad hoc basis pending the conclusion of the wider discussions on observer status for intergovernmentalorganizations in the General Council, but that the TRIPS Council had been unable to reach a
consensus on this point.
177. The representative of the United States informed the Council that his delegation's position on
this matter had not changed since the last discussion that the Council had had on this agenda item.
His delegation was anxious that the General Council complete its work on this matter so as to give theTRIPS Council guidance on granting ad hoc requests for observer status.
178. The representative of Brazil supported the proposal to extend observer status to those
intergovernmental organizations that already had observer status elsewhere in the WTO.  He said that
the situation regarding requests for observer status was most regrettable.  It was not positive for the
WTO to deny observer status to some organizations that were critical to its discussions.  Earlier in the
meeting, the Council had had a positive discussion on public health but it was not able to do so on
requests for observer status, which was a simple issue.  It was not a complex question to allowrepresentatives of other organizations to attend the Council's meetings.  This question should not be
politicized.  If Members were concerned about public opinion and a positive view of the WTO, they
should reach a conclusion on this matter as soon as possible, extending observer status to other
intergovernmental organizations, in particular the Secretariat of the CBD.IP/C/M/32
Page 60
179. The representative of the European Communities reiterated his delegation's position that it
would welcome the grant of observer status to ARIPO, the CBD Secretariat, IPGRI and the OIV.
180. The Chairperson concluded that there was no consensus regarding his suggestion.
181. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next
meeting.
Q. OTHER BUSINESS
182. No other business was raised under this agenda item.
__________