RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/13
27June1997
ORGANIZATION(97-2661)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
from 26to30May1997
Chairperson: Ambassador Carmen LuzGuarda (Chile)
Subjects discussed:
A. Observer status forinternational intergovernmental organizations
B. Notifications under provisions oftheAgreement
C. Follow-up tothereview oflegislation:
(i) Copyright andrelated rights
(ii) Trademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs
D. Implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9
E. Technical cooperation
F. Information onrelevant developments elsewhere intheWTO
G. Review oflegislation intheareasofpatents, layout-designs (topographies) ofintegrated
circuits, protection ofundisclosed information andcontrol ofanti-competitive
practices incontractual licences
A. Observer Status forInternational Intergovernmental Organizations
1. TheChairperson reported oninformal consultations thatshehadheldconcerning thepending
requests forobserver status from EFTA, theOAS, theOIV, SELA andSIECA. Those hadshown
thatsome Members wereoftheviewthatfurther information should beprovided bytheorganizations
inquestion soastoallow aproper assessment oftheirrequests bytheCouncil. Shewould consult
withtheChairperson oftheGeneral Council about asuggestion thatageneral questionnaire might
bedeveloped forthispurpose. Thefiveorganizations which hadrequested observer status intheTRIPS
Council would beapproached forfurther information, either through thequestionnaire ifitwere
developed bytheGeneral Council orthrough aletter tobesenttoeachoftheseorganizations onbehalf
oftheTRIPS Council.
2. TheCouncil soagreed.IP/C/M/13
Page2
B. Notifications under Provisions oftheAgreement
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
3. TheChairperson informed Members thatnewnotifications hadbeenreceived fromBulgaria
andMacau. These notifications were being processed andwould beavailable asdocuments
IP/N/1/BGR/1 andIP/N/1/MAC/1. Macau hadmade itsnotification without prejudice toArticle 65.2.
Apart from these newnotifications, anumber ofMembers hadcommunicated totheCouncil under
Article 63.2andparagraph 2.2oftheprocedures forthenotification oflegislation (document IP/C/2)
amendments tolawsandregulations thattheyhadinitially notified under Article 63.2ortheadoption
ofanewlawintheareaofintellectual property. Suchnotifications hadbeenreceived fromAustria,
Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Norway andtheSlovak Republic.
4. Asregardsthenotificationofresponsestothechecklistofissuesonenforcement,theChairperson
recalled that,attheprevious meeting, theChair hadreported thatsuchnotifications hadbeenreceived
from16Members. Since thatmeeting, Belgium hadnotified arevised version ofitsresponses, which
hadbeencirculatedasdocumentIP/N/6/BEL/1/Rev.1,whileIrelandhadsubmittedadditionalresponses,
which could befound indocument IP/N/6/IRL/1/Add.1. Apart fromthese updates ofearlier notified
responses tothechecklist, newnotifications hadonlybeenreceived fromGermany, Spain andtheUnited
States. Thenotifications fromGermany andSpain hadbeenmade available indocuments IP/N/6/DEU/1
andIP/N/6/ESP/1; thenotification from theUnited States wasbeing processed. Shestressed the
importance ofthese notifications andurged those Members thatstillhadtomake thisnotification to
dosowithout delay. Although thereview ofthelegislation intheenforcement areawasmore than
fivemonths away, thesubmission ofquestions inthecontext ofthatreview would beduesoonafter
thesummer break; consequently, ifthenotifications inquestion were notmade soon, thechecklist
would losemuch ofitspurpose asatoolforthepreparation ofthereview exercise inNovember.
(ii) Notifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,4and5
5. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation wasanxiously awaiting
notifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,4and5oftheAgreement. Heunderlined the
importance ofthenational treatment andMFN obligations under theAgreement andtheirparticular
significance, atthispoint intime, fortheprotection ofintellectual property indeveloping countries.
Therefore,heurgeddelegationstomakethosenotificationsassoonaspossibleandenableotherMembers
intheCouncil toassess whether national andmost-favoured-nation treatment wasprovided toright
holders asrequired bytheAgreement.
6. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation fullysupported the
statement made bytheUnited States onnotifications ofnational implementing legislation relating to
Articles 3,4and5oftheAgreement. Atseveral previous meetings, Members haddiscussed aformat
forsuchnotifications anditwasnowimportant thattheywere effectively presented totheCouncil.
Induecourse, Members would havetodecide intheCouncil howtoreview those notifications.
7. Therepresentative ofSingapore saidthathisdelegation wasintheprocess offinalizing its
notification relating toArticles 3,4and5,which would besubmitted assoonasitwasready.
8. Therepresentative ofKorea informed theCouncil thatconsultations hadcommenced onthe
preparation oftheKorean notification, inparticular onwhich option referred toindocument IP/C/9
tofollow. Hesaidthathisdelegation would make itsnotification assoonaspossible.IP/C/M/13
Page3
9. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthathiscountry wasintheprocess ofpreparing thenotification
relating toArticles 3,4and5andthanked theSecretariat forthetechnical assistance provided toEgypt
inthisregard. Thenotification would besubmitted assoonasitwasready.
10. Therepresentative ofIsrael informed theCouncil thattheIsraeli notification relating to
Articles 3,4and5oftheAgreement wasbeing prepared.
(iii) Notifications under Article 69
11. TheChairperson saidthat,sincethelastCouncil meeting, newnotifications hadbeenreceived
fromEgypt andtheUnited Arab Emirates. Updated information concerning theircontact points had
beenreceived fromCuba andtheCzech Republic. ShesaidthatMembers would beinformed about
thedetails ofthesenotifications inathirdaddendum tothecompilation ofcontact points notified under
Article 69which would becirculated shortly. Notifications ofcontact points under Article 69had
nowbeenreceived from 77Members.
(iv) Notifications under Article 4(d)
12. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed hisdelegation 'ssatisfaction withthetemplate
thathadbeen developed atthelastmeeting fornotifications under Article 4(d). Hereiterated his
delegation 'sconcern thatsome ofthenotifications under Article 4(d)weretoobroad tobeofanyuse,
while other notifications werepuzzling since theywereseeking anMFN exemption forallprovisions
oftheParis Convention thattheMembers inquestion wereobliged tocomply withunder Article 2.1
oftheAgreement. Article 4(d)would onlybeauseful provision ifnotifications under itcould indicate
which provisions intheagreements thatwerebeing notified werethesubject oftheexemption sought
under Article 4(d). Herecalled thedetailed discussion onthismatter attheprevious meeting, which
hadresulted intheCouncil calling upon those delegations which hadmade broad notifications under
Article 4(d)torefine those notifications asappropriate andassoonaspossible.
13. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under thisagenda item.
C. Follow-up totheReview ofLegislation
(i) Copyright andrelated rights
14. TheChairperson recalled thattheCouncil hadsought tofocus thefollow-up tothereview of
legislation oncopyright andrelated rights onitsmeeting of27February 1997. Further follow-up
questions hadbeenposed byBrazil toAustralia, Canada, Japan andtheUnited States; bytheEuropean
Communities andtheirMember States totheUnited States; andbyKorea totheUnited States. The
Secretariat hadreceived responses tothesequestions fromCanada, Japan andtheUnited States, which
hadbeen circulated, respectively, indocuments IP/Q/JPN/1/Add.1, IP/Q/USA/1/Add.1 and
IP/Q/CAN/1/Add.1. Responses from Australia hadnotyetbeenreceived.
15. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthathisdelegation wasclose tofinalizing thereplies to
thequestions fromBrazil andwould undertake tocomplete andpresent them before thenextCouncil
meeting inJuly.
16. Therepresentative ofKorea thanked thedelegation oftheUnited States foritsresponses which
hadbeencirculated indocument IP/Q/USA/1/Add.1 and,while reserving hisdelegation 'srighttopose
other follow-up questions tothose responses, posed thefollowing preliminary follow-up question.
According totheUnited States 'answers, ifawork hadbeenpublished before 1922, itwould notbeIP/C/M/13
Page4
protected under theUnited States Copyright Act,eventhough itsauthor wasanational ofanother WTO
Member, ifthatauthor haddiedafter1947, i.e.lessthan50years ago; howcould thisbeexplained
inthelightofArticle 9oftheTRIPS Agreement andArticle 18oftheBerne Convention?
17. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathepreferred torespond afterhewould have
received thequestion inwriting, while indicating thathewasunaware ofanyindividual whohadfailed
togetfullretroactive protection ofcopyright inaccordance withArticles 9.1,14.6and70.2ofthe
TRIPS Agreement.
18. TheChairperson proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made andrevert tothe
matter atthenextmeeting.
19. TheCouncil soagreed.
(ii) Trademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs
20. TheChairperson recalled that,attheprevious Council meeting inFebruary, follow-up questions
hadbeenposed bythedelegation ofIndia toboththeEuropean Communities andtheUnited States.
These questions hadbeendistributed indocument IP/C/W/54. Noresponses hadbeenreceived to
datefromtheEuropean Communities andtheUnited States. Since thatmeeting, follow-up questions
hadbeenreceived fromtheEuropean Communities tothedelegations oftheCzech Republic andSouth
Africa. Both these delegations hadprovided answers tothese questions, which could befound in
documents IP/Q2/CZE/1/Add.1 andIP/Q2/ZAF/1.
21. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthereplies ofhisdelegation would
bemade available shortly.
22. TheChairperson proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made andrevert tothe
matter atthenextmeeting.
23. TheCouncil soagreed.
D. Implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9
24. TheChairperson saidthat,attheprevious Council meeting, therepresentative ofPakistan had
informed theCouncil thatlegislation hadbeenissued inhiscountry on4February 1997 concerning
theimplementation ofobligations under Articles 70.8and70.9oftheAgreement. Thislegislation
hadbeen notified byPakistan under Article 63.2 oftheAgreement andhadbeen distributed in
document IP/N/1/PAK/1. Anotification concerning information onthefiling ofapplications for
pharmaceuticalandagriculturalchemicalproductshadalsobeenreceivedfromtheUnitedArabEmirates.
Thisinformation could befound indocument IP/N/1/ARE/1.
25. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatPakistan andtheUnited States hadnotified
totheDisputeSettlementBodyamutuallyagreedsolutiontothematterconcerningArticles70.8and70.9
onwhich theUnited States hadinitiated consultations withPakistan inApril 1996.1Through that
notification, Pakistan hadmade itclearthat,since obligations under Article 70.8hadarisen foriton
1January 1995butanofficial mailbox filing system hadnotbeenestablished untilearly 1997, ithad
hadtoestablish asystem whereby persons whowould havefiled, hadsuchasystem beeninplace
1Seealsounder agenda itemFbelow.IP/C/M/13
Page5
ontime, could infactfileandreceive thefiling dates theywould havereceived under suchasystem.
Heunderlined theimportance ofthispoint, aswellasofthefactthatthemailbox system wasmeant
topreserve future benefits under theTRIPS Agreement. Those countries which hadnotyetestablished
amailboxsystemshouldestablish,asPakistanhaddone,asystemwhichwouldpermitalsothosepersons
whowould havefiledhadthesystem beenputinplace earlier toreceive theirproper filing dates.
Secondly, Pakistan hadmade quite clear initsnotification totheDispute Settlement Body that
Article 70.9obliged ittoprovide exclusive marketing rights which weretrulyexclusive, without any
qualification orlimitation, i.e.would allow theowner ofthose rights toprevent other persons from
marketing theparticular product inquestion untiltheendoftheperiod during which exclusive marketing
rights would beavailable. Hecommended theapproach thatPakistan hadtaken withrespect toits
obligations under Article 70.8and70.9which wasexactly inlinewiththeobligations under the
Agreement. Turning toother Members thathisdelegation believed, based onitsinformal research,
would seem tobeobliged toestablish mailbox systems buthadnotnotified suchsystems totheTRIPS
Council, heinformed theCouncil thathisdelegation hadapproached those countries withtherequest
totakethenecessary action assoonaspossible. Healsowished toreiterate that,withrespect tothe
notifications thathadbeenreceived regarding themailbox system, therehadbeenverylittlespecificity
astoMembers 'compliance withArticle 70.9. Right holders needed toknow howtheyweretoapply
forexclusive marketing rights incountries thathadestablished asystem fortheirgrant. Hestressed
theurgency ofthismatter byindicating thathisdelegation knew thatthere wasatleastonecompany
which hadatleasttwoproducts forwhich itwasready tosubmit requests forexclusive marketing rights
under Article 70.9butdidnotknow theprocedures fordoing soinmany WTO Members. Ifprocedures
were inplace, theywere unknown topotential applicants. Heasked allthose Members which had
alreadynotifiedunderArticle70.8toenhanceandclarifytheirnotificationswithrespecttotheprocedures
forrequesting exclusive marketing rights andthose Members which hadnotyetnotified under
Article 70.8and70.9toalsoinclude intheirnotification some information ontheprocedures for
requesting exclusive marketing rights under Article 70.9.
26. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities informed theCouncil thatconsultations under
theDSUhadbeenheldbetween theEuropean Communities andtheirMember States ontheonehand,
andIndia ontheother, regarding theimplementation ofArticle 70.8andArticle 70.9. While still
intheprocess ofanalysing thePakistani situation, hewaspleased withtheaction taken byPakistan
concerning theimplementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9. Hisdelegation shared theconcerns expressed
bytheUnited States delegation withrespect toArticle 70.8and70.9ingeneral, adding thattheremight
evenbeanumber ofcountries which werenotfullyaware oftheexistence ofArticle 70oftheTRIPS
Agreement andoftheobligations flowing fromitsparagraphs 8and9.Hisdelegation wasconsidering
amore systematic approach tothismatter induecourse. Areview oftheimplementation of
paragraphs 8and9ofArticle 70would probably beagood exercise inorder togainclarity onwhat
hadbeendoneandhadnotbeendoneinthisarea. Heconcurred withtheUnited States 'statement
onparagraph 9ofArticle 70thatobligations withrespect totheimplementation ofexclusive marketing
rights hadbeeninplace forsome timealready andthatright holders must beenabled tomake the
necessary preparations wellinadvance ofanactual application.
27. Therepresentative ofMorocco informed theCouncil thathiscountry hadrecently submitted
anewnotificationconcerningthismatter,complementingitspreviousnotification.Anindustrialproperty
billwasbeing reviewed byParliament andwould, ifadopted, provide forthepatentability ofinventions
concerning pharmaceutical andagricultural chemical products.
28. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.IP/C/M/13
Page6
E. Technical Cooperation
29. TheChairperson saidthat,since theCouncil meeting inFebruary, Ireland hadcomplemented
itsearlier notification ofacontact point fortechnical cooperation purposes relating totheTRIPS
Agreement byproviding aseparate contact pointforcopyright andrelated rights matters. Thisadditional
information would beincluded inthenextupdated version ofdocument IP/N/7. Notifications ofcontact
points fortechnical cooperation hadnowbeenreceived from 18developed country Members.
30. TheChairperson,recallingthattheSecretariathadorganizedjointlywiththeInternationalBureau
ofWIPO aworkshop onborder enforcement ontheafternoon of17September 1996, informed Members
thattheSecretariat intended toorganize, again jointly withWIPO, asecond suchworkshop, onthe
afternoon of14July1997, i.e.theafternoon before theTRIPS Council meeting scheduled for15July.
Thistimethesubject oftheworkshop would be"technical cooperation aimed atimproving human
resources andinstitutional capacities required toimplement theTRIPS provisions ondomestic
enforcement".
31. TherepresentativeofJapansaidthat,atthepreviousCouncilmeeting,interesthadbeenexpressed
inobtaining information about theRoundtable which hadbeenheldinSingapore inJanuary 1997with
theassistance oftheJapanese Patent Office andtheInternational Bureau ofWIPO. ThisRoundtable,
which hadfocused onTRIPS implementation, hadbeenverysuccessful andinformative andhadhad
theparticipation ofseveral policy-making officials from more than20countries intheAsia-Pacific
region. Speakers hadbeeninvited fromtheWTO Secretariat, theInternational Bureau ofWIPO, the
United States andseveral European countries. Theproceedings ofthediscussions would bemade
available soonbytheInternational Bureau ofWIPO. Delegates whowished toreceive more detailed
information ontheRoundtable werewelcome tocontact thedelegation ofJapan. Another roundtable
would takeplace inTokyo, from 10to12September 1997, withtheassistance oftheInternational
Bureau ofWIPO, todiscuss "TheIntellectual Property System Towards the21stCentury" andwould
include thepromotion oftechnical cooperation fordeveloping countries intheirefforts toimplement
theTRIPS Agreement.
32. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
F. Information onRelevant Developments Elsewhere intheWTO
33. TheChairperson informed Members thatthemutually satisfactory solution tothematter raised
bytheUnited States inApril 1996 concerning patent protection forpharmaceutical andagricultural
chemical products, thattheUnited States hadmentioned under agenda itemD,asnotified bytheUnited
States andPakistan totheCouncil forTRIPS, hadbeencirculated indocument IP/D/2/Add.1.
34. Shealsodrewtheattention ofMembers todocuments IP/D/7 to9,through which theCouncil
hadbeen informed about thefollowing requests forconsultations under theDispute Settlement
Understanding: firstly, asalready referred tobytheEuropean Communities under agenda itemD,
theEuropean Communities andtheirMember States hadrequested, bymeans ofacommunication dated
28April 1997, consultations withIndiaregarding patent protection forpharmaceutical andagricultural
chemical products; secondly, theUnited States hadrequested, bymeans ofacommunication dated
14May1997, consultations withIreland regarding measures affecting thegrant ofcopyright and
neighbouring rights; andthirdly, theUnited States hadrequested, alsobymeans ofacommunication
dated 14May1997, consultations withDenmark regarding measures affecting theenforcement of
intellectual property rights.IP/C/M/13
Page7
G. Review ofLegislation intheAreas ofPatents, Layout-designs (Topographies) ofIntegrated
Circuits, Protection ofUndisclosed Information andControl ofAnti-competitive Practices in
Contractual Licences
35. TheChairperson recalled thattheprocedures forthisreview could befound intheminutes
oftheCouncil meeting of9May1996(document IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6),withtheadjustments agreed
atthemeetings of22to25July1996 (document IP/C/M/8, paragraphs 69and70)and11to
15November 1996 (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 44).Inaccordance withthese procedures, the
Secretariat hadcirculated aproposed timetable inaninformal noteof2May1997. Theprocedures
forthereview hadbeenannexed tothatnote. Prior tothemeeting, written questions concerning other
Members 'legislation hadbeenreceived from theEuropean Communities andtheirMember States,
NewZealand, Japan, theUnited States, andIndia, while written responses hadbeenreceived from
theEuropeanCommunities,Hungary,NewZealand,Bulgaria,Iceland,Slovenia,Australia,Switzerland,
theUnited States, Liechtenstein, Japan, theCzech Republic, Norway andCanada. Shesuggested to
proceed ashadbeendoneattheJulyandNovember 1996meetings andinvited eachMember toprovide,
inintroducing itslegislation, abriefoverview ofthestructure ofitslegislation onpatents, layout-designs
(topographies)ofintegratedcircuits,protectionofundisclosedinformationandcontrolofanti-competitive
practices incontractual licences andofthechanges, ifany,thatithadhadtobring about inorder to
make thelegislation compatible withtheTRIPS Agreement. After having doneso,anintroduction
might beprovided totheresponses tothequestions puttothembyother Members. Where responses
hadalready beenmade available inthethree WTO languages, theMember inquestion might limit
itself toabrief summary, drawing attention toanypoints thatitwanted tohighlight. After these
presentations andintroductions ofresponses, shewould thenoffer thefloor toother delegations for
anycomments orother questions.
36. Therecord oftheintroductory statements made bydelegations, thequestions puttothemand
theresponses given (including certain written responses provided afterthemeeting) willbecirculated
inthefollowing documents:
IP/Q3/AUS/1 Australia
IP/Q3/BGR/1 Bulgaria
IP/Q3/CAN/1 Canada
IP/Q3/CZE/1 Czech Republic
IP/Q3/EEC/1 European Communities
IP/Q3/AUT/1 Austria
IP/Q3/BEL/1 Belgium
IP/Q3/DNK/1 Denmark
IP/Q3/FIN/1 Finland
IP/Q3/FRA/1 France
IP/Q3/DEU/1 Germany
IP/Q3/GRC/1 Greece
IP/Q3/IRL/1 Ireland
IP/Q3/ITA/1 Italy
IP/Q3/LUX/1 Luxembourg
IP/Q3/NLD/1 Netherlands
IP/Q3/PRT/1 Portugal
IP/Q3/ESP/1 Spain
IP/Q3/SWE/1 Sweden
IP/Q3/GBR/1 United Kingdom
IP/Q3/HUN/1 Hungary
IP/Q3/ISL/1 Iceland
IP/Q3/JPN/1 JapanIP/C/M/13
Page8
IP/Q3/LIE/1 Liechtenstein
IP/Q3/NZL/1 NewZealand
IP/Q3/NOR/1 Norway
IP/Q3/POL/1 Poland2
IP/Q3/ROM/1 Romania
IP/Q3/SVK/1 Slovak Republic
IP/Q3/SVN/1 Slovenia
IP/Q3/ZAF/1 South Africa
IP/Q3/CHE/1 Switzerland
IP/Q3/USA/1 United States
37. After theconsideration ofthelegislation oftheabove countries, therepresentative ofBrazil
saidthatthereview exercise hadproved tobealearning process forhercountry aswellasforother
developing countries intheprocess ofadjusting theirnational legislation towards progressive compliance
withtheTRIPS Agreement. Hercountry hadnotbeeninaposition toofferquestions during thepresent
meeting because theBrazilian National Industrial Property Office hadbeenfullyoccupied withthe
implementation ofthenewIndustrial Property Law, which hadentered intoforce on15May1997.
Nevertheless, herdelegation would wishtoavailitselfoftherightsetforthintheprocedures established
bytheCouncil, which provided thatatsubsequent meetings oftheCouncil anopportunity would be
given tofollow upanypoint emerging fromthereview sessions which delegations considered hadnot
beenadequately addressed.
38. TheChairperson saidthatanumber ofdelegations hadindicated thattheywould provide
responses tosome questions puttothem inwriting subsequent tothemeeting. According tothe
procedures forthereview, responses should besubmitted within eight weeks afterthemeeting. She
hoped thatthose responses, together withanecessary fine-tuning ofpreliminary responses already
provided, would bemade available totheSecretariat bythetimeoftheCouncil 'snextmeeting scheduled
for15July1997, sothattherecords ofthereview could beproduced without undue delay.
39. TheChairperson saidthat,inthecontext ofthereview ofnational implementing legislation
notified under Article 63.2oftheAgreement, Members hadaddressed thefollowing question: "Does
yourcountry recognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application filedinany
other WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?" Asimilar question hadbeenposed toWTO
Members withrespect topatents. Itappeared thatinevery caseMembers didorwould (when the
amendments torelevant national lawsand/or regulations wereinforce) recognize priority rights based
onanearlier application inanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member. Acompilation
ofthereplies received would becirculated asdocument IP/C/W/73. Thequestion hadalsoarisen as
towhether WTO Members currently bound toapply allprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement were
obligated toextend protection under Article 6teroftheParis Convention tothose WTO Members that
werenotmembers oftheParis Convention andwereavailing themselves ofatransitional period under
Article 65orArticle 66oftheTRIPS Agreement. Allevidence suggested thatthisobligation currently
existed.
40. Continuing, theChairperson saidthatshewould notattempt tosummarize thework under
thisagenda itemandtookitthatdelegations would needtimetodigest thelargevolume ofinformation
obtained through thereview process. Insome cases, ithadbecome clear thatsome Members still
2Therepresentative ofPoland saidthat,although hiscountry hadinvoked itsentitlement tothetransitional
periodunderArticle65.3oftheAgreemen tandwasnotamongthecountrieswhoselegislationwastobereviewed,
hisdelegation hadreceived questions from three Members. Hesaidthathisdelegation would beinaposition
toanswer onlyapartofthequestions received, namely those relating theareas ofundisclosed information and
anti-competitive practices.IP/C/M/13
Page9
hadsome work todotoadapt theirlegislation fullyanditwasimportant thatthisshould bedonewith
aminimum ofdelay. Insuchcases, itmight bepossible thattheCouncil needed tocome backto
consider thelegislation ofagiven country oncetheamended textofitslegislation hadbeenreceived.
Sherecalled thattheprocedures adopted forthese reviews provided thatatsubsequent meetings of
theCouncil anopportunity would begiven tofollow upanypoint emerging fromthereview sessions
which delegations considered hadnotbeenadequately addressed.
41. Turning totheCouncil 'snextreview meeting, theChairperson recalled thattheweek of
17to21November 1997hadbeensetasideforaCouncil meeting during which thereview oflegislation
intheareaofenforcement would beundertaken. Sheproposed thattheCouncil usethesame basic
procedures asemployed sofar.TheCouncil had,however, toagree ondates fortheadvance notice
ofquestions andthesubmission ofreplies. Shesuggested asimilar timepathasagreed toforthereview
thatMembers hadcarried outthistimeand,therefore, proposed thefollowing dates:
- submission ofadvance notice ofquestions toMember concerned andtotheSecretariat:
12September 1997;
- submission ofresponses toquestions: 24October 1997.
Furthermore, sheinvited Members, asagreed forthepresent review, tomake aneffort togivesome
formofadvance notice offollow-up questions, prior tothereview meeting. Ifthese proposals were
agreeable toMembers, shewished tostress whatshehadsaidearlier about thenotifications ofresponses
tothechecklist onenforcement stillduebysome Members. Inmany cases, these responses would
beamain source ofinformation about theenforcement procedures intheMember inquestion, since
theywould identify therelevant provisions in,forexample, theCode ofCivil Procedure; inthecase
ofcountries where thisareaoflawwasmainly governed bycaselaw,itmight beeventheonlysource
ofinformation thatcould benotified bythecountry inquestion. Iftheresponses duewould notbe
notified without delay, thechecklist would losemuch ofitspurpose asatoolforthepreparation of
theNovember review exercise. Ofthecountries whose legislation hadbeenreviewed atthepresent
meeting, responses hadnotyetbeenreceived fromAustralia, Bulgaria, theCzech Republic, Finland,
France, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, theSlovak Republic, South Africa and
Switzerland.
42. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed toproceed asproposed bythe
Chairperson.
43. TheChairperson recalled thattheCouncil hadagreed inNovember 1996thattheChair would
consult in1997withindividual Members whose legislation hadnotbeensubject tothepresent review,
butwhose legislation hadalready been, inwhole orinlarge part,brought intoconformity withthe
TRIPS Agreement. Thepurpose ofthese consultations would betoseethescope forthelegislation
ofsuchMembers tobeprogressively incorporated intothereview process bytheCouncil afterthe
conclusion ofthepresent review programme, i.e.attheearliest in1998. Itwasunderstood thatthe
agreement ofaMember tothiswould bewithout prejudice tothelegalsituation regarding itsentitlements
under Article 65andwould beintended asapractical contribution tothework oftheCouncil, in
particular toeven outitsfuture workload. Sheinformed theCouncil thatshehadinitiated such
consultations withindividual delegations, withaviewtodeveloping aschedule forreviews in1998
and1999. Inthisregard, shewasincontact notonlywiththose Members whose legislation had,in
whole orinlarge part,beenbrought intoconformity inadvance, butalsowiththose Members who
hadjoined thepresent review exercise lateandwhose legislation therefore would nothavebeenfully
reviewed bytheendofthisyearandthose Members whohadrecently acceded totheWTO. Shehoped
tobeabletoinform Members oftheresults ofthese consultations attheCouncil 'smeeting inJuly.
44. TheCouncil tooknoteofthisstatement.