RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/15
15October 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4465)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on19September 1997
Chairperson: Ambassador Carmen LuzGuarda (Chile)
Subjects discussed:
A. Observer status forinternational intergovernmental organizations
B. Notifications under Article 4(d)
C. Notifications under other provisions oftheAgreement
D. Information onrelevant developments elsewhere intheWTO
E. Review oflegislation:
(i) Follow-up tothereview oncopyright andrelated rights
(ii) Follow-up tothereview ontrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial
designs
(iii) Follow-up tothereview onpatents, layout-designs ofintegrated circuits,
undisclosed information andcontrol ofanti-competitive practices incontractual
licences
(iv) Completion ofthecurrent review exercise andthereview ofnewly acceded
Members
(v) Advance reviews
F. Implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9
G. Preliminary work onissues relevant tothenegotiations specified inArticle 23.4
H. Technical cooperation
I. Other businessIP/C/M/15
Page2
A. Observer Status forInternational Intergovernmental Organizations
1. TheChairperson recalled thatfiveintergovernmental organizations hadrequested observer
status intheTRIPS Council: EFTA, theOAS, theOIV, SELA andSIECA. Asagreed attheCouncil 's
meeting of15July1997, theSecretariat hadsentaletter toeachofthese organizations, inwhich their
attention hadbeendrawn to,inparticular, paragraphs 3and4oftheprocedures relating tothegrant
ofobserver status forinternational intergovernmental organizations, andinwhich theyhadbeenasked
toprovide therequired information. Todate, onlyEFTA hadresponded.
2. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation needed timetoexamine EFTA 's
response, which hadjustbeenreceived.
3. TheCounciltooknoteofthestatementmadeandagreedtoreverttothisitematthenextmeeting.
B. Notifications under Article 4(d)
4. TheChairperson recalled thattheCouncil, atitsmeeting of27February 1997, hadagreed
torevert totheissue ofnotifications under Article 4(d)intheautumn while noting theexistence of
theinformal background notebytheSecretariat entitled "TheMost-Favoured-Nation Treatment Clause
oftheTRIPS Agreement (Article 4)".Inthelightofthediscussions atthatCouncil meeting, athird
revision ofthenotehadbeencirculated on20March 1997, asdocument No.1548. Thelastparagraph
ofthisnotewasintended asaninformal guideline toassist individual Members inmaking orreviewing
theirnotifications under Article 4(d). Asagreed, theCouncil would takestock ofthesituation atthe
present meeting inthelightofanyneworrevised notifications thathadbeenmade.
5. Sheinformed theCouncil that,while theSecretariat hadnotreceived anyrevised versions of
notifications thathadalready beenmade priortotheCouncil meeting inFebruary, ajointnotification,
under Article 4(d), hadbeenreceived from Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, PeruandVenezuela. This
notification concerned theCartagena Agreement andhadbeendistributed asdocument IP/N/4/BOL/1,
IP/N/4/COL/1, IP/N/4/ECU/1, IP/N/4/PER/1 andIP/N/4/VEN/2.
6. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthat,according tothesecond paragraph ofthejointnotification
fromtheAndean Pactcountries, thenotification didnotonlyrelate totheCartagena Agreement "but
alsototheregulations which havebeenormayinthefuture beadopted bytheAndean Community
oritsMember countries". Inhisdelegation 'sview, thespirit ofArticle 4(d)wastoavoid anyconflict
foraWTO Member between obligations assumed asaWTO Member andspecific obligations which
thatMember already hadunder existing international agreements inthefieldofintellectual property.
Although hehadnotlooked indetail intothenature, scope andconditions ofthespecial treatment,
intheareaofintellectual property, accorded toother countries under theCartagena Agreement, itwas
theviewofhisdelegation thataregional (economic integration ortrade) agreement, unless itspecified
suchspecial treatment inthefieldofintellectual property andunless ithadbeennotified indetail to
theTRIPS Council, could notalways bereferred toasagrandfathering agreement inregard toany
newadditional special treatment which hadbeenormight beadopted aftertheentry intoforce ofthe
WTO Agreement. Hisdelegation wished toreserve itsrights topursue thismatter further intheCouncil.
7. Therepresentative ofVenezuela, giving hisdelegation 'spreliminary reaction tothequestion
fromKorea while requesting thatthequestion besubmitted inwriting, saidthatArticle 4(d)applied
toanytypeofinternational agreement andstressed thattheCartagena Agreement wasasuigeneris
regional agreement andnotafreetrade agreement. There wasonlyoneprecedent foranotification
ofsucharegional integration agreement totheCouncil under Article 4(d), namely thenotification
bytheEuropean Communities oftheTreaty ofRome; thisnotification hadnotmetanyparticularIP/C/M/15
Page3
objection intheCouncil. Thenotification bytheAndean countries oftheCartagena Agreement had
beenmodelled afterthisECnotification. Ithadbeenpresented bytheAndean countries individually,
given thattheywere onlyindividually Members oftheWTO. Andean laws, suchasthelawson
intellectualproperty,beingsupranationallegislationandnotinternationalagreements,onlytheCartagena
Agreement hadbeenincluded inthenotification.
8. Therepresentative oftheUnited States wished toechotheconcerns ofKorea andexpressed
hisdelegation 'sinterest intheanswer tothequestion fromKorea. Healsoreiterated hisdelegation 's
difficulties withthenature ofmany ofthenotifications made under Article 4(d). Article 4(d)hadbeen
devised asalimited exception totherequirement thateachMember afford thenationals ofallother
Members most-favoured nation treatment inrespect oftheprotection andenjoyment ofintellectual
property rights. Ashadbeenexplained intheSecretariat noteconcerning theapplication ofArticle 4(d),
thepurpose ofArticle 4(d)wastolimitexemptions ofpre-existing intellectual property agreements
tothose which hadnotonlybeennotified totheCouncil forTRIPS, butalsodidnotconstitute an
arbitrary orunjustifiable discrimination against nationals ofother Members. Hisdelegation believed
thatmany agreements thathadbeennotified didnotsatisfy thislatter requirement ofArticle 4(d).
Itwasapparent fromthenotifications made thatmany Members hadtaken anover-inclusive approach
bynotifying notonlydiscrete bilateral agreements onspecific topics, butbasically every agreement
towhich theywere party. Some ofthese treaties could notpossibly justify anexception under
Article 4(d). Inthisregard, hereferred, inparticular, tonotifications oftheParis Convention, the
WIPO Convention ortheBerne Convention. Despite theapparent recognition ofthevitality ofthese
arguments,manyMembershadnotmodifiedtheirnotificationsasoriginallymadeand,indeed,anumber
ofMembers hadprovided newnotifications thatwere similarly flawed. Asaresult, hisdelegation
believed thattheonlyappropriate course ofaction available tocorrect these deficiencies wastodirect
questions tothose Members concerning theirnotifications under Article 4(d), under theauthority of
Article 63.3. Hisdelegation would beproviding these questions toselected Members overthecourse
ofthecoming months.
9. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities recalled thatthissubject hadbeenonthe
agenda many times andthattheSecretariat hadestablished achecklist which hadbeendiscussed by
Members extensively. Heinformed theCouncil thattheMember States oftheEuropean Communities
werepresently working onareview oftheirnotifications withthehelpofthedocument prepared by
theSecretariat andthatthefirstresults ofthatexercise might beavailable before thenextCouncil
meeting.
10. Therepresentative ofIndia referred totheintervention made bythedelegation oftheUnited
States andsaidthattheprovisions ofArticle 63.3, which established abilateral system forobtaining
information, would havetobefollowed infullbytheMember interested inobtaining theinformation
referred to.Ifthedelegation oftheUnited States wished totransform thatsystem intoamultilateral
one,thenhisdelegation would liketohaveinformal consultations onhowtodealwiththat.
11. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatitwashisdelegation 'sintention topursue these
questions onabilateral basis atthisstage.
12. TheChairperson suggested thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made, while indicating
thatthere didnotseem tobeaneedtohaveaspecific itemonthematter ontheagenda ofthenext
Council meeting.
13. TheCouncil soagreed.IP/C/M/15
Page4
C. Notifications under other provisions oftheAgreement
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
14. TheChairperson informed theCouncil that,apart fromthenotification already announced at
theCouncil 'slastmeeting byRomania, notifications oflegislation under Article 63.2hadbeenreceived
from France, Greece, Japan andNorway. These notifications supplemented these Members 'earlier
notifications oflegislation andwould becirculated intheIP/N/1/- document series assoonaspossible.
- Responses tothechecklist ofissues onenforcement (IP/C/5)
15. Asregardsthechecklistofissuesonenforcement,theChairpersonsaidthatmostoftheresponses
thatwere stilldueatthetimeoftheCouncil 'slastmeeting hadnowbeennotified andcirculated in
theIP/N/6/- series ofdocuments. Asregards thefewthatwerestilloutstanding, theSecretariat had
beeninformed thatthese could beexpected anydaynow. Thismeant thatthebasic material forthe
review exercise ofnational implementing legislation intheareaofenforcement coming November would
shortly belargely available. Asregards thepreparation ofthatreview exercise, theChairperson recalled
thattheCouncil hadalready agreed inMaythatadvance notices ofquestions should besubmitted to
theMember concerned andtotheSecretariat by12September, while advance notices ofresponses
were expected by24October. Areminder concerning these deadlines hadbeen circulated in
WTO/AIR/666. Questions fromtheEuropean Communities andtheirMember States hadbeenreceived
andwould becirculated shortly.
16. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidthatherdelegation hadbeensomewhat hampered in
itspreparation ofquestions fortheenforcement review. Duetothelatesubmission ofanumber of
notifications inthisarea,notably theresponses totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement, herdelegation
hadtocomplete itspreparation ofquestions without sufficient timetoexamine those notifications.
Herdelegation would urgeallMembers which stillhadnotifications outstanding toexpedite their
submissions, because thereview exercise would bemore complicated ifthenecessary information was
notavailable.
17. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatquestions posed byhisdelegation inthecontext
oftheenforcement review would besubmitted laterintheday.
- Notifications relating toArticles 3,4and5
18. TheChairpersonrecalledthat,whileatthetimeoftheCouncil'slastmeetingnonewnotifications
hadbeenreceived bytheSecretariat relating totheimplementation oftheprovisions oftheAgreement
onnational andMFN treatment, suchanotification hadbeenreceived, since thatmeeting, fromHong
Kong,China, which hadbeencirculated indocument IP/N/1/HKG/1.
19. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities expressed theconcern ofhisdelegation that
thenotification ofHong Kong, China wassuchalonely event. Hestressed thatMembers hadagreed
onalternative formats forthese notifications andthatthere wasalegal obligation under theTRIPS
Agreement tomake these notifications. Hesuggested thattheSecretariat startthinking about aformat
forareview oftheimplementation ofArticles 3,4and5,which theCouncil might undertake next
yearafterthecompletion ofthecurrent review exercise concerning national implementing legislation.
Itwasimportant thattheCouncil agree, before theendof1997, onhowtopursue thismatter andhow
touseitstimeinthemostefficient wayin1998inreviewing theimplementation ofexisting obligations.
20. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed support fortheproposal fromtheEuropean
Communities.IP/C/M/15
Page5
21. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthathisdelegation would beabletomake itsnotification under
Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,4and5inthenearfuture.
22. Therepresentative ofMexico saidthatshewould needtoconsult withhercapital before taking
aposition ontheproposal fromtheEuropean Communities. Asapreliminary comment, shedidnot
think thataspecial procedure reviewing these notifications wasnecessary, because Members could
atanytimeaskquestions about andcomment onnotifications submitted totheCouncil.
23. Therepresentative ofSingapore expressed support forMexico. While hewould notobject
tothesuggestion thattheSecretariat startthinking astohowtheCouncil might proceed inreviewing
these notifications, hewould havetoconsult withhiscapital toseewhathisdelegation 'sobligations
were before anycommitments could beassumed inthatregard.
24. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed torevert tothematter atnextmeeting.
(ii) Notifications under Article 69
25. TheChairperson informed theCouncil that,sincethelastmeeting, Belgium hadnotified some
changes totheinformation onitscontact points andanewnotification under Article 69hadbeenreceived
fromBahrain. Thisbrought thenumber ofMembers which hadmade notifications ofcontact points
under thisprovision to81.Shereiterated herreminder toother delegations, which hadnotyetmade
suchanotification, thatithadbeenagreed attheCouncil meeting of21September 1995thatallMembers
would make these notifications by1January 1996.
D. Information onrelevant developments elsewhere intheWTO
(i) Accessions
26. TheChairperson informed theCouncil thatPanama hadacceded totheWTO under Article XII
oftheWTO Agreement. The effective date ofitsaccession was 6September 1997
(documentWT/Let/161).Paragraph2oftheProtocolfortheAccessionofPanama(WT/ACC/PAN/21)
incorporated thecommitment given byPanama inrelation tointellectual property asreproduced in
paragraph 111ofthereport oftheWorking Party ontheAccession ofPanama. According tothis
paragraph, "[t]he representative ofPanama stated thatPanama would fullyapply alltheprovisions
oftheAgreement onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights bythedateofitsaccession
totheWTO, without recourse toanytransitional period".
27. Therepresentative ofPanama saidthathisdelegation hadtheintention tobeanactive Member
oftheWTO aswellastocomply fullywiththecommitments established intheaccession protocol.
(ii) Dispute settlement
28. TheChairperson informed theCouncil that,atitsmeeting on12June1997, theDispute
Settlement Body hadestablished apanel pursuant torequests byJapan andtheEuropean Communities
concerning measures affecting theautomobile industry inIndonesia (WT/DS55/6-WT/DS64/4, and
WT/DS54/6, respectively). Atitsmeeting of30July1997, theDSBhadagreed totheUnited States '
request fortheestablishment ofapanel (WT/DS59/6) alsoconcerning suchmeasures inIndonesia.
Inaccordance withArticle 9oftheDSU inrespect ofmultiple complainants, thepanel established
on12June1997toexamine thecomplaints byJapan andtheEuropean Communities would alsoexamine
theUnited States 'complaint. TheUnited States 'complaint referred to,interalia,Articles 3,20and65IP/C/M/15
Page6
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Information ontheconstitution ofthepanel wascontained indocument
WT/DS59/7. India andKorea hadreserved theirrights asthirdparties tothedispute.
29. TheChairperson alsoinformed theCouncil thatthePanel onIndia -Patent Protection for
Pharmaceutical andAgricultural Chemical Products, established bytheDSBon20November 1996,
hadterminated itswork anditsReport hadbeen circulated asanunrestricted document on
5September 1997(WT/DS50/R). According toArticle 16oftheDSU, adoption ofthePanel Report
bytheDispute Settlement Body should takeplace within 60daysafteritscirculation unless aparty
tothedispute decided toappeal ortheDSBdecided byconsensus nottoadopt thereport.
30. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under thisagenda item.
E. Review oflegislation
(i) Follow-up tothereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights
31. TheChairperson recalled that,attheCouncil 'smeeting of26-30 May1997, Korea hadposed
afollow-up question totheUnited States, towhich aresponse hadnotyetbeengiven.
32. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation would endeavour toprovide
ananswer tothequestion byKorea before thenextmeeting.
(ii) Follow-up tothereview oflegislation ontrademarks, geographical indications and
industrial designs
33. TheChairperson saidthat,asreported totheCouncil atthelastmeeting, therewerestillsome
answers toquestions andfollow-up questions ofwhich theSecretariat hadnotyetreceived copies from
theMembers inquestion. Although anumber ofdelegations hadcorrected thissituation, notallof
them haddone so.Sheurged theMembers concerned toprovide theoutstanding material without
delay.
(iii) Follow-up tothereview oflegislation onpatents, layout-designs ofintegrated circuits,
undisclosed information andcontrol ofanti-competitive practices incontractual licences
34. TheChairperson recalled that,according totheprocedures forthefollow-up ofthereview,
answers toquestions posed during thereview meeting should besubmitted within eight weeks ofthe
meeting. TheSecretariat hadinformed herthat,todate, some responses were stilloutstanding. In
order toallow therecords ofthereview tobeproduced without delay, theChairperson urged the
delegations inquestion tomake aneffort tosubmit these responses, which, inaccordance withthe
procedures, should havebeensubmitted by25July1997.
(iv) Completion ofthecurrent review exercise andthereview ofnewly acceded Members
35. TheChairperson saidthat,according totheschedule forthereview ofnational implementing
legislation currently taking place, asadopted inNovember 1995(document IP/C/3), theCouncil would
terminate thisexercise bytheendof1997. However, Members would recall thatthere were four
Members whose legislation wasalready subject totheon-going review butforwhom thereview would
nothavebeencompleted bytheendoftheyear, because theyhadjoined theexercise late. These
Members wereBulgaria, Hungary, Romania andtheSlovak Republic. Shesuggested thattheCouncil
complete thereview oftheseMembers inthespring of1998. Furthermore, therewerethreeMembers
whohadacceded totheWTO during theperiod ofthecurrent review andwho, while notapplyingIP/C/M/15
Page7
aTRIPS transition period, hadnotyetbeensubject tothereview. Thereview ofthese countries could
beontheagenda intheautumn of1998.
36. TheCouncil soagreed.
(v) Advance reviews
37. TheChairpersonalsoinformedtheCouncilofthestatusofherinformalconsultationsconcerning
theearly review oflegislation withanumber ofother delegations whose legislation wasnotsubject
tothecurrent review ofnational implementing legislation butwhose legislation hadalready been, in
whole orinpart,brought intoconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement. Sherecalled thediscussions
onthisissue attheCouncil meeting inJuly(document IP/C/M/14, paragraphs 24to39),where she
hadreported onherconsultations withthese delegations andwhere shehadconcluded thediscussion
saying thattheCouncil should develop certain ground rulessoastogivesecurity toallMembers that
thereview would betaken uponavoluntary basis andwithout prejudice totheirentitlements under
Article 65.Allshecould report onthefurther consultations thatshehadheldwasthat,although possible
ground rulesforsuchadvance reviews hadbeendeveloped inherconsultations, theyhadnotyetyielded
thenecessary consensus. Shewould becontinuing herconsultations onthematter.
38. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under thisagenda item.
F. Implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9
39. TheChairpersoninformedtheCouncilthattheSecretariathadnotreceivedanynewnotifications
relating toArticles 70.8and70.9.
40. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthesituation withrespect tothe
implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9wassimilar tothatwithrespect toArticles 3,4and5,except
thattheimplementationdeadlineforArticles70.8and70.9hadpassedin1995insteadof1996.Knowing
thattherewerestillanumber ofcountries which hadnottaken thenecessary measures ornotified duly
measures taken totheCouncil, hecalled uponthose countries tomeettheirobligations without delay.
Hesuggested thattheSecretariat startthinking about thetiming, inthenearfuture, ofareview of
theimplementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9. Since themodalities forsuchareview would clearly
follow theprocedures forreviewing lawsandregulations notified under Article 63.2inlinewiththe
Council Decision of21November 1995 (document IP/C/2), onlythe"when" stillneeded tobefilled
in.Hisdelegation wasoftheviewthatareview would bemore systematic andorderly ifitweredone
intheCouncil rather thanonlybeing lefttotheinitiative ofsome WTO Members onaunilateral basis
under Article 63.Although theEuropean Communities andtheirMember States might ofcourse also
wishtopursue matters onabilateral basis, theybelieved thatthetimehadcome fortheCouncil to
lookintotheimplementation ofthese veryspecific provisions inasystematic way.
41. While supporting theproposal oftheEuropean Communities foraneventual andsystematic
review,therepresentativeoftheUnitedStatessaidthathisdelegationhadreceivedexpressionsofconcern
andinterest from United States 'industries concerning specific Members relevant toimplementation
ofArticles 70.8and70.9, which hisdelegation wasintending topursue onabilateral basis. Moreover,
ashisdelegation hadmentioned many times before intheCouncil, many ofthenotifications made
byMembers relating tothese provisions didnotmention measures taken toimplement theobligations
under Article 70.9concerning exclusive marketing rights.
42. Therepresentative ofMorocco saidthathisdelegation needed timetostudy theproposal made
bytheEuropean Communities.IP/C/M/15
Page8
43. Therepresentative ofMalaysia reserved hisdelegation 'sposition onthematter.
44. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed torevert tothematter atthenext
meeting oftheCouncil.
G. Preliminary Work onIssues Relevant totheNegotiations Specified inArticle 23.4
45. TheChairperson recalled thattheCouncil hadagreed, atitsmeeting on27February 1997,
inthecontext ofwork tobedone inrelation toArticle 23.4, toaninformation-gathering activity
concerning systems forthenotification andregistration ofgeographical indications. Asafirststep
inthisexercise, Members hadbeeninvited tosubmit, withatarget-date ofJuly1997, information
onanysystems fortheregistration ofgeographical indications which theyoperated. Information had
beenreceived fromeleven Members: namely Egypt, Poland, Mexico, Peru, Japan, Switzerland, Cuba,
theCzech Republic, theEuropean Communities, Hong Kong-China andtheUnited States. The
contributions ofthese Members could befound indocuments IP/C/W/76 andAdd.1-10. TheCouncil
hadagreedtoconsiderthisinformationatthepresentmeeting.Thepurposeofthisinformation-gathering
exercise wassolely togather information useful towork onissues relevant tothenegotiations specified
inArticle 23.4concerning wines thattheCouncil hadagreed toundertake, including issues relevant
toanotification andregistration system forspirits, inparticular togetapicture ofwhattypes ofsuch
systems already existed inMembers.
46. TheChairperson saidthattheCouncil hadalsoagreed torevert atthepresent meeting tothe
preparation ofanoutline ofafactual background noteonexisting international notification and
registration systems forgeographical indications. Adraftoutline ofsuchanotehadbeenmade available
toMembers; thenotewould principally focus onmultilateral agreements relevant totheissueconcerned
butwhich would alsoaddress those elements ofregional andbilateral agreements thatrelated to
notification andregistrations systems. Inpreparing thisnotetheSecretariat would, ofcourse, consult
withWIPO andanyother relevant organizations asnecessary.
47. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities welcomed thedraftoutline prepared bythe
Secretariat. Regional andbilateral agreements wereimportant elements inthisareaandtheCouncil
should lookaswidely asitcould toseekadvice andguidance onwhatitmight wishtodointhefuture.
While underlining thattheCouncil wasmerely gathering information atthisstage, hesaidthathis
delegation would have preferred thatnational systems beincluded inthenote, asthismight help
consideration ofthematter; however, hisdelegation could accept thedraft outline, which wasa
reasonable starting point.
48. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation could support thedraftoutline,
butsuggested oneminor change inthetitleoftheoutline sothatitwould read"Overview ofexisting
international notification andregistration systems forgeographical indications relating towines and
spirits". TheSecretariat 'snoteshould onlyinclude those registration systems thataddressed, insome
fashion,winesorspirits.Registrationsystemsthatconcernedotherproductscouldbetakenup,provided
thattheyaddressed wines orspirits aswell.
49. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthathisdelegation wasready toagree thattheSecretariat should
prepare abackground notebased uponthedraftoutline andalsofeltsympathy fortheproposal ofthe
United States. Heemphasised thatthisnoteshould justbeforinformation-gathering purposes and
wasconcerned thatitmight gobeyond thescope oftheTRIPS Agreement ifitwereintended asastarting
pointforfurthernegotiationstowardaninternationalnotificationandregistrationsystemforgeographical
indications ofproducts other thanwines andspirits. Ofcourse, itwastruethatareview ofthe
application oftheprovisions ongeographical indications would takeplace aspartoftheTRIPS built-inIP/C/M/15
Page9
agenda, asapproved bytheMinisterial Conference inSingapore, butitshould beborne inmind that
implementation ofthework agreed should beconsistent withexisting obligations under theTRIPS
Agreement, taking intoaccount thebalanced package oftheAgreement. Intheviewofhisdelegation,
itwaspremature todiscuss theexpansion ofthescope ofprotection ofgeographical indications for
wines andspirits toother products.
50. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatthedraftoutline wasagoodbasisforabackground
note. Hesaidthathisdelegation believed thattheCouncil should notunnecessarily complicate this
straightforward task,given theclear mandate totheTRIPS Council inArticle 23.4. Hisdelegation
believed thattheCouncil should takeadvantage ofanyuseful information which permitted aproper
andefficient implementation ofthatmandate andshared theviews expressed bytherepresentative of
theEuropean Communities tothateffect.
51. Therepresentative ofMexico saidthatherdelegation feltthatthedraftoutline wasagood
basis forpreparing thebackground noteandpresenting theinformation thatMembers wereseeking.
Herdelegation hadnodifficulties withtheamendment proposed bytheUnited States inthelightof
theCouncil 'smandate concerning theestablishment ofasystem fortheregistration ofgeographical
indications forwines andspirits.
52. Therepresentative ofHungary recalled thathisdelegation wasoneofthose which hadcalled
forthepreparation ofabackground noteandwelcomed theconsensus onthedraftoutline.
53. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand agreed thattheSecretariat should prepare afactual
background noteonexisting international notification andregistration systems inaccordance withthe
parameters laiddown attheCouncil 'smeeting inFebruary 1997. Sheexpressed herdelegation 's
dissatisfaction withthepurported draftoutline circulated theprevious dayduring theinformal meeting
oftheCouncil, asherdelegation didnotbelieve thatitwassufficiently indicative ofthefinalproduct
thattheSecretariat would prepare northatitcould serve asabasisformeaningful input anddiscussion
byMembers. Shesupported theproposal oftheUnited States andJapan thatthebackground note
should address onlysystems which related, insomeway,towines andspirits. Inlinewiththediscussion
thatwasheldinFebruary 1997, theCouncil hadinitiated aninformation-gathering exercise forthe
exclusive purpose ofassisting inthework thattheCouncil hadagreed toundertake concerning wines
andalsoissues relevant tonotification andregistration systems forspirits.
54. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthatherdelegation wasalsoready toagree tothedraft
outline forthepreparation oftheproposed factual background notebytheSecretariat andbelieved
thatitwould beauseful contribution towork under Article 23.4. However, inviewofthepurpose
oftheregister under Article 23.4, theclear scope ofthatprovision andtheCouncil 'sagreement
concerning thepurpose oftheinformation tobegathered, herdelegation supported theproposal by
theUnited States toamend theoutline proposed bytheUnited States soastolimitthebackground
notetoagreements related towines orspirits.
55. Therepresentative oftheCzech Republic supported theoutline asagood basis forwork to
becarried outinaccordance withArticle 23.4. Hisdelegation hadnoproblems withtheparameters
ofthework assuggested bytheUnited States 'delegation.
56. TheChairperson concluded thatthere wasaconsensus among Members thattheSecretariat
prepare thebackground noteonnotification andregistration systems fortheCouncil 'swork under
Article 23.4 inaccordance with thedraft outline amended asproposed bytheUnited States.1
1Seetheannex tothepresent document.IP/C/M/15
Page10
Consequently, thenotewould cover those registration systems which, insome fashion, covered wines
andspirits, i.e.including those which, apart from wines andspirits, alsocovered other products.
57. TheCouncil soagreed.
H. Technical Cooperation
58. TheChairperson informed Members thatBelgium hadnotified itscontact points fortechnical
cooperation (document IP/N/7/Rev.1/Add.2). Shesaidthat20developed country Members hadnotified
suchcontact points, which meant thatsome stillhadnot. Further, sherecalled that,atitsmeeting
on15July1997, theCouncil hadagreed tofocus atthepresent meeting ontechnical cooperation and
that,inorder toprepare forthediscussion, developed country Members would update information
ontheirtechnical cooperation activities relevant totheimplementation oftheTRIPS Agreement in
timeforthepresent meeting. Inaddition, intergovernmental organizations observers totheTRIPS
Council hadbeen invited todothesame. Theresulting documentation concerning thetechnical
cooperation activities ofdeveloped country Members could befound indocuments IP/C/W/77 and
addenda; similar activities ofintergovernmental organizations indocuments IP/C/W/78 andaddenda;
andupdated information onthetechnical cooperation activities oftheWTO Secretariat in
document IP/C/W/79. While thanking theMembers andOrganizations thathadprovided this
information, shesaidthatmany ofthedocuments were atthistimeonlyavailable intheiroriginal
language. Sheexpressed regret thatthere werestillanumber ofdeveloped country Members which
hadnotyetprovided information ontheirtechnical cooperation activities. Given theimportance that
Members oftheCouncil attached tothisissue, inthelightoftheneeds ofdeveloping countries for
suchassistance, shewould hopethatthose Members would beabletoprovide theinformation before
theCouncil 'snextmeeting inNovember 1997. Itwasherintention toprovide anopportunity atthat
meeting forMembers tomake further comments ontheinformation submitted forthepresent meeting
which theymight nothavehadtimetostudy andonanyfurther information provided before the
November meeting.
59. Therepresentative ofBangladesh informed theCouncil thathiscountry wasintheprocess
ofdrafting newlegislation onintellectual property rights andwasreceiving technical cooperation,
especially fromWIPO andJapan. Heexpressed concern withregard totheinformation provided by
NewZealand andtheEuropean Communities (documents IP/C/W/77/Add.1 andAdd.2) thatappeared
toexclude South Asian countries from their technical cooperation andhecalled upon those two
delegations toextend theirtechnical cooperation activities tocountries inthatregion. Further, hedrew
theattention ofthedeveloped country Members totheirobligations under Article 66.2oftheAgreement
to"provide incentives toenterprises andinstitutions intheirterritories forthepurpose ofpromoting
andencouraging technology transfer toleast-developed country Members inorder toenable them to
create asound andviable technological base". Healsoinformed theCouncil thathiscountry wasgoing
toratify theBerne Convention fortheProtection ofLiterary andArtistic Works. Given theneeds
ofhiscountry inthefieldofintellectual property, hewondered what technical assistance theWTO
could provide forleastdeveloped countries.
60. Therepresentative oftheUnited States informed theCouncil thathisdelegation wasabout
tosubmit anextensive update ontechnical cooperation thatithadbeenengaged inoverthepastyear.
BoththeUnited States government andcorporate andassociation officials hadtravelled tooverthirty
developing countries toofferdirect bilateral technical assistance onvirtually every aspect ofintellectual
property protection, i.e.fromassistance indrafting legislation toassistance indeveloping enforcement
techniques anddiscussion ontheimplementation ofthetwoWIPO treaties intheareaofcopyright
concluded inDecember 1996.IP/C/M/15
Page11
61. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland informed theCouncil thathisdelegation hadjustsubmitted
totheSecretariat itsinformation ontechnical andfinancial cooperation activities relevant totheTRIPS
Agreement.
62. Therepresentative ofCanada informed theCouncil thatherdelegation would alsoshortly
communicateupdatedinformationaboutthetechnicalcooperationthathercountryprovidedtodeveloping
countries.
63. Responding totheintervention oftherepresentative ofBangladesh, therepresentative ofthe
European Communities stressed thattheEuropean Communities andtheirMember States hadalong
tradition ofproviding extensive technical assistance onintellectual property todeveloping countries.
Bywayofexample, hereferred tothetechnical cooperation made available totheMember States of
ASEAN bytheECinitssingle biggest assistance programme, thevalue ofwhich amounted toabout
US$fivetosixmillion; anewprogramme ofasimilar sizewasunder preparation. Hewished to
underline that,ifacountry wasnotonthelistofrecipient countries atpresent, thatshould notbetaken
tomean thatthecountry wasexcluded fromECtechnical assistance. Hesaidthattechnical cooperation
wasprovided onabilateral basis andinvited Bangladesh tocontact theEuropean Communities if
assistance wasneeded.
64. Therepresentative ofJapan provided asummary ofthetechnical cooperation activities, inthe
fieldofintellectual property, oftheJapanese Patent Office andother Japanese government intellectual
property authorities since April 1996. HesaidthatJapan'stechnical cooperation activities werenot
limitedtotheAsianregionandthatJapanwasverymuchattachedtothedevelopmentofglobalprotection
ofintellectual property rights asafundamental measure tostimulate domestic science andtechnology
andtofacilitate trade andinvestment. Outlining Japan'stechnical cooperation activities hereferred,
firstly, tothe"1000/2000 program", which entailed inviting 1000people working forthegovernment
ortheprivate sector toatraining programme bytheyear2000, i.e.thetimeforimplementation of
theTRIPS Agreement. Thisprogramme wasdesigned fordeveloping countries inthefinalprocess
ofimplementing theTRIPS Agreement; inthepastyear, Japan hadinvited 250experts foravisit.
Secondly, theJapanese Patent Office hadestablished, tenyears previously, avoluntary contribution
totheInternational Bureau ofWIPO, known asthe"Japan Trust Fund"; inthepastyear, theamount
hadbeendoubled inorder torespond toincreasing demand fromtheregion. Thirdly, Japan hadbeen
making greater useofnewinformation technology suchasCD-ROMs andinternet technology to
disseminateintellectualpropertyinformationamongusers,bothdomesticandworldwide,i.e.notlimited
toAsia. Heinvited Members toobtain further details fromthehome pageontheinternet oftheJapanese
Patent Office.
65. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed toproceed assuggested bythe
Chairperson.
G. Other Business
(i) Review oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications
under Article 24.2
66. TheChairperson informed theCouncil thatshehadheldinformal consultations concerning
thereview under Article 24.2oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical
indications. Sheintended tocontinue those consultations before theCouncil meeting scheduled for
November 1997. Inthemeantime, shecalled ondelegations tocontribute either byposing questions
orbysubmitting suggestions onthepurpose of,andtheprocedures for,thisspecial review.IP/C/M/15
Page12
(ii) Nextmeeting
67. TheChairperson recalled thattheCouncil, atitsnextmeeting, which wasscheduled for
17to21November 1997, would cover, inaddition totheregular agenda items, thereview ofnational
legislation intheareaofenforcement. Moreover, sheinformed theCouncil thattheSecretariat would
prepare adraftoftheCouncil 'sannual report totheGeneral Council, which should beadopted atthe
nextmeeting.
(iii) Meetings in1998
68. TheChairperson informed theCouncil thattheSecretariat hadprovisionally reserved the
following dates intheschedule ofmeetings for1998:
24and25February 1998
12and13May1998
16and17July1998
17and18September 1998
18and19November 1998
Sheproposed thattheCouncil pencil inthese dates, ontheunderstanding thattheCouncil might agree
toamend them orconvene additional meetings asappropriate.
69. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under thisagenda itemandagreed toproceed
asproposed bytheChairperson.IP/C/M/15
Page13
ANNEX
Outline
OVERVIEW OFEXISTING INTERNATIONAL NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION SYSTEMS FOR
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS RELATING TOWINES AND SPIRITS
Background Note bytheSecretariat
I. INTRODUCTION
II. MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS
(i) Lisbon Agreement fortheProtection ofAppellations ofOrigin andtheirInternational Registration
(ii) Other
III. BILATERAL AND REGIONAL AGREEMENTS