RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/IP/M/1
22 March 2002
(02-2276)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsSpecial Session
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 8 March 2002
Chairperson:  Ambassador Eui-yong Chung (Korea)
Subjects discussed:           Para. Nos
ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 1
ADOPTION OF AGENDA 2-3
DATES OF MEETINGS 4-5
ORGANIZATION OF WORK 6-40
OTHER BUSINESS 41-44
_______________
A.  E LECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON
1. The Special Session elected Ambassador Eui-yong Chung (Korea) as Chairperson of the
Special Session of the Council for TRIPS.
B. A DOPTION OF AGENDA
2. The Special Session agreed to adopt the agenda as set out in WTO/AIR/1721.
3. The Chairperson proposed to address the issue of observer status under "Other business".
C. D ATES OF MEETINGS
4. The Chairman recalled that in the informal consultations held by Ambassador  Chidyausiku
on 15 February 2002, delegations indicated a preference for holding the regular Council meetings and
Special Sessions back-to-back.  The TRIPS Council had agreed to hold three further regular sessions
this year, in June, September and November.  Taking into account the desire of delegations for themeetings of the two bodies to be held back-to-back and the other rules relating to the timing of
meetings, including those as laid down by the TNC, he suggested the dates of 28 June, 20 September
and 28 November for the Special Sessions.  This would not rule out the possibility of the Special
Session deciding, after consultations and taking into account the scheduling of the meetings of the
various negotiating and other WTO bodies, to hold additional meetings if necessary.TN/IP/M/1
Page 2
5. The  Special Session so agreed.
D. O RGANIZATION OF WORK
6. The Chairperson said that, based on the consultations he had had, he would like to start by
making some suggestions on the organization of the work of the Special Sessions.  He recalled that
Members were required by the Doha Ministerial Declaration (document WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1) tocomplete their work by the Fifth Ministerial Conference, that is to have negotiated a multilateral
system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits.  While the
exact date of the Fifth Ministerial Conference was not known, it seemed that Members would have to
plan on the basis that it would occur some time in the second half of 2003.  The best way of
considering the organization of the work in this body would seem to move backwards from the Fifth
Ministerial Conference and consider what would n eed to be done in order to have completed the
negotiations by that time.  He said that the approach he was suggesting was based on threeconsiderations.  First, the time constraint, that is to say a clear mandate from Ministers to have
negotiated a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications by the
Fifth Ministerial Conference.  Second, there were constraints regarding the frequency of meetings due
to the need for scheduling meetings of the various negotiating and other WTO bodies.  Third, the
Special Session of the Council for TRIPS had the advantage that Members had already discussed theissue for some time;  it should build on the past discussions and ideas in the work during 2002.
7. He suggested that in the interest of the effici ency of the negotiations, the work be split into
two phases.  The first would be based on the discussions and ideas already put forward;  if necessary,
new ideas would have to be injected.  In this phase, the discussions and ideas might help Members
identify the options before moving into the second phase, that is the final negotiating phase aimed atfinding mutually agreed solutions to points on wh ich differences remain.  Factual information might
be needed to help Members in the process.
8. With regard to the first phase, he suggested three issues for consideration:
- First, how could Members organize a more structured and engaged discussion of the
proposals on the table than had been possible so far in the Council?  To that end, he proposedto submit to Members a brief note in advance of the June meeting of the Special Session that
would identify a number of points and topics which he would invite participants to address at
that meeting.  While he intended to consult closely with delegations in the preparation of this
informal note, the note would, of course, be on his own responsibility and without prejudice
to the different positions that delegations held.  The purpose would be to facilitate a more
organized and engaged discussion.
- Second, it would be desirable that, to the extent possible, all the main proposals that
delegations might put forward should have been tabled and fully discussed before the final
negotiating phase got under way.  The Special Session might establish a target of no later than
the third meeting in 2002 for the submission of the delegations' main proposals, while
encouraging Members to table their ideas before that time if possible and not ruling out thepossibility of subsequent new or revised proposal s at a later stage.  Indeed, proposals aimed at
bridging gaps would be an essential part of the final negotiating stage.
- Third, there was also the question as to whether Members might wish to ask the Secretariat to
prepare any further factual information.
9. With regard to the second phase - namely the final negotiating phase - the Chairperson
pointed out that this phase might take place in the last few months before the deadline for the
negotiations.  Usually, the final  phase of a negotiation took place on the basis of a text which was
treated by the various parties as a common basis for the negotiations.  Given the deadline of the FifthTN/IP/M/1
Page 3
Ministerial Conference, he suggested trying to ensure that such a common negotiating basis be
available by the end of 2002 or early 2003, depending on the timing of the Ministerial Conference.
By a common negotiating basis, he meant a single document which contained common language on
the various areas where there would be essential commonality of position and identified options, for
example through square brackets or alternatives, in regard to areas where significant differencesremained.  There were two ways in which such a text  could come into being:  one would be through a
paper presented by some delegations which all delegations were willing to treat as a common
negotiating basis;  the other was through the Chairman, with the help of the Secretariat, tabling such a
paper as a basis for the work.  Obviously the former approach had many advantages.  But if it did not
prove possible, then he, in his capacity as Chair, would be ready to assume his responsibility and table
such a paper.
10. The representative of Morocco  said that it would be necessary to respect certain target dates
so as to speed up the process.  He agreed that the Special Session should use existing material and
make progress.  While he agreed that participants would have to show some flexibility in relation to
deadlines, he held the view that this flexibility should benefit developing countries which had small
delegations and had to cover negotiations in other negotiating bodies.  Developing countries had great
interest in relation to the establishment of a multilateral system.  Perhaps their interests had not yetbeen clearly spelt out but they would become clearer when the issue of extension of protection of
geographical indications for products other than wines and spirits would be discussed.  He urged that
developing countries' concerns be taken into account in the informal consultations and that these
countries be kept informed of what was happening "in the corridors".
11. The Chairperson assured delegations of his intention to give due consideration to developing
countries' concerns with regard to the timing, frequency of meetings and informal consultations.
12.  The representative of Australia stated that, regarding the organization of work, his delegation
had no major difficulty with the approach outlined for a period of further study based on a list of
issues.  It would, however, be most reluctant to impose deadlines for the submission of proposals,
which it would regard as pre-emptive.  In this respect, most of the qualifications used by theChairperson were agreeable to Australia.  It would not, however, be prepared to agree on when a
comprehensive text should be prepared.  This w ould depend very much on how the discussions would
progress in 2002.  It might not be until year 2003 that some text should be brought out.  He was
mindful of the risks associated with coming out wi th a negotiating text which would simply encourage
the authors of texts to load them up with extrane ous issues in the hope that they could trade them
away in the process of negotiation;  they would be on the defensive and be forced to defend them to
their death.  Those who experienced what happened in Seattle knew how a heavily square-bracketed
text frustrated, rather than facilitated, negotiations.  Australia believed it would be better, therefore, to
gain some better understanding and agreement on the substance before rushing prematurely into a
text.
13. With regard to commissioning any further technical work, the representative of Australia said
that there was one area where there would be value in getting some more information for allparticipants.  He suggested that the WTO Secretariat, in consultation, if necessary, with the
International Bureau of WIPO, prepare an inventory describing in summary form how each of the
developed and developing country Members of the WTO had implemented their obligations under
Article 23.  That summary should include a definiti on of a geographical indication and the relevant
exceptions these countries had provided under Article 24.  This would be helpful for the followingreasons:  (a) it would give all participants a better idea of how a multilateral system of notification and
registration would be implemented;  (b) it would give participants a better idea of whether the
proposals they had in mind would be capable of attracting broad support;  (c) it would help
developing countries better assess the costs of implementing the outcome of any negotiations.  He was
aware that around 40 countries had already submitted to the WTO Secretariat information in responseTN/IP/M/1
Page 4
to the questionnaire under Article 24.2, but that no record of experience had yet been received from
some 60 countries.  It would be helpful if such information could be received for the June meeting.
14. The representative of the European Communities emphasized that several delegations had
already put on the table proposals and communications  quite a long time ago, and that there had been
many discussions and interventions.  Looking back at the content of the proposals andcommunications, including the comparative table submitted by the EC and their member States
(document IP/C/W/259), he believed there was alread y so much material that a significant amount of
preparatory work would not be necessary.  For his delegation, from this session until the Fifth
Ministerial Conference, the process would be a sing le one, in other words there would be one round of
negotiations.  There was no question that a study phase should be entered.  It was a negotiating
process;  if there were a need for study, it should have been asked for earlier since the issue had
already been discussed for several years in the Council.  The Special Session should not shy awayfrom imposing target dates and it would be helpfu l for the Chair to remind participants that they
should try to meet such dates.  To his knowledge, it was also not uncommon in other areas to proceed
in that way.  Target dates were important for getting the process going and for getting end results
some time in the Summer or Autumn of 2003, and also in  light of target dates in other areas.  It would
be useful for the Special Session to know what was going on in these areas and to make sure thatprogress occurred in parallel.  For these reasons he appreciated the Chair's efforts to be constructive in
order to make sure that in the June meeting there would be a focused discussion that would help make
progress.
15. With regard to the note identifying  issues, he held the view that this was certainly one useful
way of proceeding, but that another more ambitious way would be via an annotated agenda, whichwas not an uncommon way of proceeding in the WTO.  He wished to add another element for
consideration, namely the comparative table made by the EC and their member States.  He recalled
that, in order to be constructive, his delegation had suggested to have the Secretariat make a
comparative table of the various proposals;  this had apparently not been acceptable to the entire
membership.  The EC and their member States had themselves, therefore, decided to produce a tablein an objective and neutral manner.  No delegation had indicated to the EC that the table was biased
and did not reflect the content of the various proposals.  Inspiration could be drawn from this table for
the drafting of the note on issues ahead of the June meeting - by the end of May, so that delegations
would have enough time to prepare themselves in orde r to effectively use the paper.  If Members had
difficulties with the EC table, he would not object if the WTO Secretariat were asked to make such a
table on an objective basis.  With regard to the timing of papers, he would urge that proposals, if any,
be made available as from this Session or at the latest by early September so that participants wouldhave time to study them.  With regard to the common negotiating basis for the final phase of the
negotiations, he said it would be useful if the text could be produced for the November meeting,
whether by the Chairperson on his own responsibility or on the basis of a paper by a group of
delegations.
16. The representative of Bulgaria said that the future list of points and issues should be relevant
to the mandate of the Special Session and not distract it from its main task.  The proposal to have the
Secretariat prepare a paper on the implementation of obligations under Article 23.4 by developed and
developing country Members would indeed distract the Special Session from the work mandated.
This kind of information could well be addressed under the review provisions of Article 24.2 in the
regular session of the TRIPS Council.
17. The representative of Canada said that the Council had already had long and intensive
discussions on the issue and positions were well understood.  Canada shared the concerns about the
additional burden that might be placed on individual Members and for this reason was fully
supportive of a system that was voluntary, facili tative, simple, low-cost, and limited to wines and
spirits only.  The TRIPS Agreement clearly indicated a requirement for Members to negotiate aregistration system to facilitate protection of geographical indications – not to obligate them.  CanadaTN/IP/M/1
Page 5
was supportive of the Chairperson's suggestion to organize the work in a two-phase approach.  She
would, however, have concerns regarding target date s, and thought that the Special Session should be
flexible in this regard.  Canada also supported Australia's suggestion for the Secretariat, along with
WIPO, to prepare a summary of how Members had implemented their obligations under Article 23.4,
and this would also include an indication of the definition of geographical indication that had beenadopted.  Canada also supported the Chairperson's proposal to prepare a list of topics for discussion or
an annotated agenda to help delegations prepare for the June meeting.  This should not mean that
attention would not be paid to documents that had been previously tabled such as the report referred to
by the EC or document IP/C/W/259.
18. The representative of Switzerland noted that there were already various substantive proposals
on the table which were the result of years of negotiations.  Switzerland therefore did not see the need
for a lengthy phase of study.  While this certainly needed to have its place in the work programme for2002, the Special Session should expeditiously move forward on the proposals already on the table
and not waste time in discussing general issues not directly linked to the mandate of this body.
Proposals for commissioning technical work to the WTO Secretariat on the implementation of
obligations under Section 3 by WTO Members could distract time and resources from the negotiations
mandated for the Special Session.  As far as the suggestion for a brief note on issues or an annotatedagenda was concerned, Switzerland wished to have such a paper for the June meeting and believed
that it could help Members to have a more substantive discussion.  Such a list of issues or annotated
agenda should be oriented along the lines of the proposals already tabled.  Switzerland expressed the
wish to be included in the informal consultations to be conducted by the Chairperson.  With regard to
the real negotiating phase, Switzerland believed, with regard to timing, that this body should not waituntil the beginning of next year.  An earlier target date should be set and as a mental benchmark,
delegations should be invited to submit proposals if not in June then, at the latest, in September so that
a common negotiating basis, by the Chairperson on his own responsibility or by a group of Members,
could be established for the last session in 2002 and then be substantively discussed and amended in
view of the first meeting in 2003, which should be convened early in March.  Such timing wouldallow account to be taken of the state of play and progress of discussions and negotiations in other
WTO bodies and negotiating groups relevant to the negotiations in this body.  Switzerland supported
the suggestion made earlier by the European Communities for a Secretariat table comparing the three
proposals so far received.  He said that the table from the European Communities and the new one
from the United States would probably not be acceptable to all Members as regards objectivity and
neutrality.  It seemed, therefore, that it was only the WTO Secretariat who could produce such a table.
19. The representative of Turkey supported the Chairman's thinking and suggestions.  In this
context, he fully supported the two-phase approach and agreed there was a need for an annotated
agenda and a single paper as the basis for negotiations.  It was Turkey's sincere desire to engage in
substantive negotiations as soon as possible in order to gain more time for this important exercise.
His delegation knew that in order to enter into meaningful negotiations, a sound basis was necessary.
However, taking into account the fact that the negotiations in this field started a long time ago as abuilt-in agenda item, there was already a sound basis which could easily be built on.  Deadlines for
the submission of proposals should be flexible and each delegation should have the opportunity to do
so whenever it wished or deemed necessary.  He underlined the utmost importance his country
attached to the issue of extension of additional protection to geographical indications for products
other than wines and spirits.  His delegation wished to see the negotiations start on this issue as soonas possible.  It associated itself with the statements made by the EC, Switzerland and Bulgaria.
20. The representative of Hungary expressed his delegation's satisfaction that there was a
mandate in the Doha Ministerial Declaration to complete negotiations by the Fifth Ministerial
Conference.  This long overdue issue would be one of the early harvest issues of the round.  Progress
would have to be made to correct the imbalance emerging from the Uruguay Round, that is in thisagriculture-related issue, which was important for Hungary.  No meaningful progress had been made
after so many years.  The proposal for a work programme by the Chairperson to a large extent met theTN/IP/M/1
Page 6
expectations of his delegation;  it had been carefully drafted.  He understood that there was an
opportunity to immediately start discussing the merits of the ideas and proposals that had already been
submitted.  He doubted that there was a need for further study by the Secretariat.  With regard to the
brief note foreseen by the Chairperson, his delegation would be glad to be involved in the informal
consultations.  He believed it would be helpful to see a compilation of the proposals made so far.  Inthis respect, Hungary could support the suggestion to  use the EC table but would also be open to the
idea of having a similar compilation by the Secretaria t.  Regarding target dates, he agreed with the
idea that delegations should be encouraged to submit proposals, if possible before the summer break
or, at the latest, in September.  He agreed with Switzerland about the need to have the opportunity to
see in early March the outcome of the negotiations in a revised version which could serve as a basis
for decision by Ministers.  With reference to Australia's request for the preparation of a compilation
by the Secretariat of the national systems of implementation of obligations under Article 23.4, he saidthe proposal itself was a good idea but should appear under Article 24.2 rather than Article 23.4.
Hungary would not be opposed to having, in the context of the regular sessions, such a paper
supplementing what had already been done by the Secr etariat.  It was, however, of the view that such
a document should not be the subject of negotiations in this body.
21. The representative of New Zealand indicated that this issue was causing a great deal of
concern in his country.  He did not find very convincing the argument that the fact that proposals had
been around for a long time supported  a speedy solution, because everyone knew that there were
substantial differences and there were good reasons why there had been little progress.  He noted that
linkages with other areas were being made.  He wondered whether the kind of concessions certain
delegations had in mind were at all consistent with the underlying WTO objectives.  New Zealandwould therefore adopt a very cautious approach and simply take note of the various procedural
suggestions.
22. The representative of Guatemala said that for his delegation, it was important to have
flexibility, in particular for developing countries and, among them, the small ones.
23. The representative of the United States fully associated himself with the intervention made by
Australia, especially with respect to exercising some caution concerning deadlines.  The WTO had yet
to establish the date for the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  He would be particularly concerned about
any undue speed with which it might be sought to arrive at a common negotiating basis.  In this
respect, he shared Australia's observations about heavily-bracketed texts.  Such a text would emerge
at the appropriate time as one got closer to the actual deadline for concluding the negotiations.  He
was not particularly optimistic that the Special Session could achieve results this year.
24. The representative of Australia recalled, in reply to arguments put forward by some
delegations about his request for information, that many developing countries had made the point
about the cost incurred in implementing the TRIPS Agreement.  The fact was that many of them had
not yet fulfilled the obligations they were formally required to fulfil more than two years ago.
Australia did not know which countries had yet to implement their obligations under Article 23.4 nor
did it have, for the majority of them, an appreciation of their experiences in implementing themeasures that they had enacted.  Regarding the suggestion that the registration system be voluntary,
he pointed out that that was not Australia's interpretation of the EC proposal.  Indeed, as the paper
recently tabled by the United States (document TN/IP/W/1) showed, the EC proposal would oblige all
Members - developed, developing and least-developed countries - to protect notified terms as long as
they did not challenge them or did not challenge them successfully.  Australia's understanding wasthat the WTO Secretariat had the ability to obtain the information as to how WTO Members had
implemented their obligations under Article 23 to extend a higher level protection to geographical
indications for wines and spirits.  Two of the criteria that many delegations had established for a
successful negotiation on geographical indications for wines and spirits was that the outcome should
be capable of securing wide participation, and it should be cost-effective and efficient.  Australia didnot want to risk wasting time negotiating another Lisbon Agreement, which had attracted aTN/IP/M/1
Page 7
participation of 20 countries.  It did not want to wait until March 2003 to find out that 120 Members
would opt out of the multilateral system that was going to be negotiated simply because they would
then realize the onerous obligations that they woul d have to assume.  The matter was therefore highly
relevant to this exercise.  It would help to know how one could implement the outcome of this
negotiation.  In regard to the request that the EC comparison of the proposals on the table become thedebating point for the next meeting, the Chairperson was right in saying that this body should debate
the list of issues;  there were two comparisons of  proposals and participants would need to have a
closer look to see which one was correct.
25. The representative of Malaysia, speaking also on behalf of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia,
Myanmar, and the Philippines, said that the Special Session provided a good opportunity to hear a
number of views from Members on how to carry out the mandate contained in the Doha Ministerial
Declaration.  In this respect, the five countries welcomed the Chairperson's two-phase approach.They held the view that, with sufficient preparat ion in the first phase, they would be in a better
position to participate actively and effectively in the negotiations to achieve the outcome they were
looking for.  They were open to the dates suggested, considering that they were target dates and hence
could be indicative.  As to proposals by some Members that the Secretariat should compile
information available to help delegations obtain the necessary facts, she said that this would help the
Special Session to progress discussions in a constructive way.
26. The representative of Singapore said that his delegation broadly supported the organization of
work, which was to start with a fact-finding stage followed by a negotiating phase.  It was a business-
like method of implementing the Doha mandate.  His delegation agreed to the flexible approach
suggested in regard to timing and could go along with the group, bearing in mind the time constraints.On the shape of the system to be adopted, Singapore's preliminary view was that it should be
restricted to wines and spirits, be voluntary, simple, cost-effective and its implementation should not
unnecessarily burden countries.
27.  The representative of Argentina said that her delegation associated itself with the statements
made by the representative of Australia.  Looking at the problems of implementation facing many
developing countries with respect to the TRIPS Agr eement and the relevance of those issues in terms
of negotiations and taking on board new obligations, it would be essential to bear in mind throughout
the negotiations the costs of the various proposals. Her delegation had no difficulties with the
programme of work proposed.  It also agreed with  other delegations that there should be a certain
realistic level of flexibility both in terms of submission of proposals as well as deadlines.  Like other
delegations, it believed that the final text should follow the achievement of consensus on basic issues
which, for Argentina, focused mainly on the nature and legal effects of the Agreement.  With regard
to documentation from the Secretariat or other organizations, her delegation would follow the
consensus while not excluding the possibility of the need for technical assistance or technical
documents regarding the issues.  This was a completely new area to wine producing countries like
Argentina.  Therefore, it would be even more di fficult to participate in the negotiations and the
discussions for those countries that were not even producers of these kinds of products.  Allparticipants needed to know what they were discussing and negotiating along with what the
implications would be for all of them.  Those who needed to be most aware of the consequences were
developing countries and LDCs.
28. The representative of the European Communities pointed out that neither the mandate under
Article 23.4 nor the one contained in the Doha Declaration concerning that provision was conditional
upon any completion of the review of legislation under Article 24.2 or on further examination of the
implementation of other provisions of Section 3.  Article 23.4 did not refer to other provisions of
Section 3, so it would be difficult to defend the ar gument that other work should be undertaken.  As
far as developed countries and many developing countries were concerned, they had looked for a
considerable period at the way the TRIPS had been implemented, including in the area ofgeographical indications.  He would, therefore, refe r delegations who wished to know more about theTN/IP/M/1
Page 8
implementation of Section 3 by a large number of WTO Members to look into the report prepared by
the Secretariat (document IP/C/W/253) in the context of the review exercise under Article 24.2.
Certainly delegates were also aware of numerous questions answered by Members within the
framework of the Trade Policy Review Mechanism.  He believed, therefore, that there was a lot of
information available and looking at this information should not be a reason for delaying the work inthis body.  With regard to developing countries' concerns, he suggested that Members should look at
the EC comparative table (document IP/C/W/259):  it was simple, straightforward, objective and
neutral, contrary to the table recently circulated by the United States (document TN/IP/W/1).  For
developing countries or LDCs which had difficulties regarding the implementation of Section 3 of the
TRIPS Agreement, these difficulties could be addressed in technical assistance programmes
undertaken by the EC and their Member States, by the WTO and WIPO.  There was plenty of
information to assist Members in their work on this issue.
29. The representative of the United States introduced document TN/IP/W/1.  He explained that a
communication made by the European Communities last year (document IP/C/W/259) had motivated
the United States to produce the paper.  If the EC table presented its perspective on the "Joint
Proposal" by Canada, Chile, Japan and the United  States (document IP/C/W/133/Rev.1), document
TN/IP/W/1 reflected the United States' perspective on the various proposals that had been tabled.  Thefirst couple of pages teased out the principal issues under each of the proposals but, more importantly,
the paper asked a number of very relevant questions about each proposal.  One of the major concerns
was whether or not the system was binding.  It was very clear from the proposals who was free to
participate and what participation actually entailed.  There were other issues such as what happened
when a particular name was challenged or not, and what the grounds for challenging a particular namewere.  Since the Chairperson had invited discussions on the issues to be addressed and suggested that
he might develop an agenda under his own authority in close consultation with Members, the
United States had, therefore, also produced a paper entitled "Issues for Discussion in the Negotiations
Under TRIPS Article 23.4" (document TN/IP/W/2).  Many of the issues included in the list appeared
in the first paper but there were also additional issues, some of which had been raised by otherinterventions in the informal consultations, in partic ular by Malaysia.  He expressed the hope that this
contribution would find support or would attract constructive criticism and would provide the
Chairperson with a concrete basis for the work he intended to bring forward for the next meeting.  The
first item, "Participating Members", was an importa nt issue because it seemed to lead to various
results in the proposals.  The second item, "Notification Procedure", concerned steps to be taken if a
participating Member wanted to notify a particul ar name.  Another fundamental issue was which
geographical indications for wines and spirits would be eligible for notification;  there werediscussions on what was a geographical indication and there was a need to understand what
geographical indication would be eligible to be included in the list.  Members would have to provide a
certain amount of information when seeking a registration.  What system would be put in place or had
been proposed to enable oppositions to any name put on the list, and what would be the grounds for
opposition and its interim effect?  According to one proposal, the name would be allowed to remainon the list if the ground for opposition was of a particular nature.  What would be the final registration
of unopposed names and the legal effects of such registration on WTO Members' rights, namely those
Members who had notified names and sought their registration and those who had not opposed any
particular name?  Under some proposals, it would appear that Members who had chosen not to notify
any name might actually fall under some obligations.  For this reason, the paper contained betweenparentheses the words "Participants/Non-particip ants".  With respect to some proposals, this
participation would rather be extensive, even burdensome.  Finally, the system, if it were developed,
would have to evolve, with membership evolving, so  it would need to be modified and updated.  The
costs associated with any system developed was a relevant topic and those associated with the various
proposals might differ greatly for the Members but also for the WTO Secretariat.
30. The United States supported the suggestions made by others that it was necessary to have a
thorough understanding of the existing systems.  The Secretariat had already given some informationTN/IP/M/1
Page 9
in that regard but it would be necessary as part of these negotiations to develop further understanding
at the national, regional and international levels.
31. The representative of Hungary pointed out that Article 23.4 said:  "Negotiations shall be
undertaken in the Council …".  This provision had been adopted in 1994 as part of the Uruguay
Round outcome.  It was difficult to characterize these negotiations as anything other than mandatednegotiations.  They had been dragging for quite some time.  There was a mandate to complete
negotiations and this had certain implications for the work in the coming months.   At this stage of the
negotiations in the agriculture or services areas, proposals for studies or information on national
systems had not been requested.  It was not unusual to ask the Secretariat to make compilations of
various proposals.  The WTO being a Member-dri ven organization, Members' proposals formed a
good basis on which to start.  With regard to the paper submitted by the United States, Hungary would
have some problems because it was not so much a factual reproduction of the proposals but the UnitedStates' appraisal of the implications of the proposals as that delegation understood them.  As far as
Hungary was concerned, certain aspects of its proposal had been misrepresented.  It might be useful to
work not with secondary but with original sources.
32. The representative of Argentina thanked the United States for its two documents.  Her
delegation thought that the list of issues was a good starting-point for the Special Session's work.
With regard to some other points concerning the development of these negotiations, she said that
Argentina had been an active participant in the negotiations that had taken place so far on a
multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits.
Argentina intended to continue to work constructively.  As for the parameters that should characterize
this system, the procedures should be designed to facilitate protection without generating newobligations that could be an obstacle to the circula tion of products that were the subject of protection.
It was important for Argentina that the registration be voluntary, be based on Article 22.1 and be
transparent.  With regard to future work, it belie ved that, based on the Doha mandate, the work of the
Special Session could be more focused .  Issues that were outside the Doha mandate should also be
outside these negotiations.  The Special Session should respect the deadlines and come up with anegotiated agreement by the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  Argentina had already indicated in the past
that if the negotiating process had not significantly progressed, it was precisely because of the
interference created by incorporating issues  other than those relating to Article 23.
33. She said that Argentina had maintained that Article 23.4 provided that there should be
negotiations for the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of
geographical indications for wines.  Ministers in Doha had adopted a political decision that, in
addition to the system provided for under Article 23.4 for wines, there should be a notification andregistration system in the area of spirits.  For Argentina, at a certain stage, whether in the list of issues
or during the negotiations, the Special Session would have to provide for the modalities under which
the new obligation to establish a register of geographical indications for spirits would be incorporated
into the TRIPS Agreement.  Such incorporation would mean that the obligation to provide for a
register in the field of spirits would have the same status as other obligations deriving from theAgreement, once the negotiations had been finalized.  The text signed after the Uruguay Round was
not a political declaration but was a binding treaty ratified by parliaments, and, in the case of
Argentina, incorporated into the national legislation.  Argentina therefore raised, as a systemic
concern, the question of the need for political decisi ons to be incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement
in order to be legally binding.
34. The representative of Chile agreed with the programme of work suggested by the Chairperson
for the next meeting.  This issue was an important one for Chile, requiring many details to be studied
further.  His delegation hoped that the final result would be simple, would facilitate trade rather than
create barriers.  As regards Australia's proposal for the compilation of national systems of protection
of geographical indications for wines and spirits, the EC had pointed out that information was alreadyavailable, including in the Trade Policy Review documents.  However, his delegation did not knowTN/IP/M/1
Page 10
whether it was possible to check all the Trade Policy Review documents and to ascertain to what
extent the information was correct.  Therefore, it supported Australia's proposal.  This question was
very important for Chile and could not be excluded from the Special Session.  He also found the
United States' arguments very interesting.
35. The representative of Canada said that her country fully associated itself with the comments
offered by the representative of the United States.  It particularly appreciated the structure of the paper
in that it was similar to others that had already been tabled in the Council because this would facilitate
comparative evaluation.  It also shared the perspective taken in the paper, particularly in relation to
the way it had framed the responses to the questions.  With regard to the list of issues for discussion, it
believed it was a fair evaluation of issues covered to date in the Council's discussions.
36.  The representative of the European Communities said that, to date, three different proposals
on a multilateral register had been tabled:  by the European Communities and their member States
(document IP/C/W/107/Rev.1);  by Canada, Chile, Japan and the United States (document
IP/C/W/133/Rev.1);  and by Hungary (document IP/C /W/255).  The EC proposal envisioned a system
where WTO participating Members notified their geographical indications, which would be
subsequently examined and could be opposed by other WTO Members within a time-limit of 18
months following the notification.  Opposition prevented any legal effect in the territory of theopposing country and called for negotiations to resolve the problem causing the opposition.  The
proposal also attempted to tackle a few shortcomings contained in Article 23 such as the lack of
uniformity in the implementation of geographical indication protection and the associated costs of
registering/defending geographical indications abroad by attaching a rebuttable presumption of
validity in relation to WTO-registered geographical indications in WTO participating Members. Italso tackled another shortcoming, namely the lack of predictability in geographical indication
protection by preventing all WTO Members from refusing protection at the national level for
unopposed registered geographical indication on the basis that (i) the name did not comply with the
WTO definition of a geographical indication under Article 22.1, or that in the territory, the name was
either (ii) generic or (iii) homonymous.  Other exceptions such as prior use or prior registeredtrademarks remained unaffected by the operation of registration and, thus, remained available.
Hungary tabled a proposal which largely supplemen ted that of the EC by advancing that issues
causing a country to oppose registration of a geographical indication should be solved through
compulsory arbitration.  It should be noted that the EC proposal, contrary to what some had
suggested, did not impose any definition of wine  and spirit, did not touch upon the question of
oenological practices or manufacturing specifications, and did not attempt to phase out existing
usurpations of geographical indications.  The sy stem was forward-looking and intended to provide
tools to avoid geographical indications being usurped in the future.  Existing usurpations would be left
to bilateral or multilateral negotiations under Article 24.1.  The proposal did not replace a system of
national protection but might facilitate access to it.  It did not create obligations regarding the
available level of substantive protection but only obligations of a procedural nature aimed at
facilitating access by producers to the already existing level of protection under Articles 22 and 23.  Itsurely fell squarely within the TRIPS framework insofar as it only attached procedural mechanisms to
facilitate existing protection.  Furthermore, the phasing out of the use of certain exceptions was
covered by the mandate of Article 24.1.  The system was not costly or cumbersome as it did not
require specific administrative structures and it was up to WTO Members to implement their
provisions in the way they saw fit.
37. With regard to the paper made available by the United States (document TN/IP/W/1), he held
the view that this paper, rather than being objectiv e and neutral, reflected the US vision of the existing
proposals.  On the other hand, the EC table did not treat the elements of the proposals from its
perspective, but only tried to juxtapose them next to each other.  He wished to inform delegations that
the EC could not agree with several aspects of the paper.  Under the section entitled "European UnionProposal", the third bullet wrongly attributed to the EC proposal that names that were not examined
and challenged by a Member must be protected by that Member.  As had already been indicated, theTN/IP/M/1
Page 11
EC proposal had as its main effect a presumption of validity in Members which had not opposed.
This presumption was, however, rebuttable.  In other words, domestic authorities might decide that, in
light of evidence provided, the notified name shoul d not be protected.  Full protection could only be
achieved via national registration.  This was clearly illustrated by point D.3 of the comparative table
prepared by the EC and their Member States (documents IP/C/W/259).  For that reason, the ECproposal did not replace national registration.  In the fifth bullet point, the United States seemed to
claim that thousands of terms would be notified.  The EC did not see why this would be the case
under the EC proposal and not in others.  In  the fifth bullet point, it was also incorrect to say that
reciprocal benefits would not be achieved by all Me mbers;  the EC did not see where in their proposal
this had been stated.  It would seem in any even t that determining whether benefits were reciprocal
could not be determined by the number of notified geographical indications but by their economic and
trade significance.  These were only a few illustrative examples.  The EC would examine the paper infurther detail.  He further noted in the US pape r under the heading "What happens when the term is
not challenged?", the following answer according to the Joint Proposal:  "No effect".  One delegation
had previously said that it would feel frustrated to learn that after months of negotiations a number of
WTO Members would opt out of a voluntary multilateral register;  he too felt frustrated about
discussing a proposal which was meant to have no effect.
38. The representative of Australia stated, in reply to certain questions that had been implicitly
posed by some delegations, that his country was fully committed to fulfilling the decision of Ministers
to complete negotiations envisaged under Article 23.4 on a multilateral system by the Fifth Ministerial
Conference.  Australia's approach would be base d on the following considerations:  (i) that any
system should genuinely facilitate international trade as opposed to protecting national markets ordistorting international trade;  (ii) that it would facilitate the protection of geographical indications
provided for in the TRIPS Agreement;  (iii) that it  would not impose new obligations in relation to the
protection of geographical indications;  (iv) that the system would accommodate the diversity of
national systems which WTO Members utilised to give effect to their obligations under the TRIPS
Agreement;  (v) that the system be capable of attracting broad support from all Members;  and(vi) that the system be administratively simple and cost-effective.  Australia was not able to accept the
proposal put forward by one delegation because that proposal failed to meet most, if not all, of the
above-mentioned considerations.
39. He said that most of the wine producing country Members were well aware of the significant
differences of view which had emerged in recent years regarding the degree of government
intervention and regulation in almost all areas of the production, distribution, labelling and marketing
of wine in some major consuming countries.  Those countries who were members of the OIV (OfficeInternational de la Vigne et du Vin) were aware of the significant differences of view which had
emerged within their industries on the approach to international trade.  New world wine producers had
endeavoured to remove themselves from the yoke of intervention and regulation by formulating new
approaches to standards and compliance systems which would help to facilitate trade, encourage
innovation and investment, stimulate competition and bring to consumers a wider diversity of wines at
competitive prices.  Many countries had witnessed the substantial investments which European wine
companies had made in new world countries in the last years.  As one of those wine countries,
Australia was not interested in seeking to adopt at  a multilateral level a bureaucratic and costly regime
of compulsory registration adopted by one albeit very large group of traditional wine producers whose
approach to wine production, trade and marketing was steeped in a culture, tradition and custom verydifferent from that which prevailed in Australia.  Nor was it ready in the area of intellectual property
rights to adopt an approach which would force substantial new obligations on Members and create a
new form of unqualified intellectual protection.  Australia was prepared to look at an approach based
on the so-called "Joint Proposal" but only if it met the above-mentioned tests.  He complimented the
delegation of the United States for the two papers it  had circulated and said that Australia would like
to reflect on them.TN/IP/M/1
Page 12
40. The Chairperson said that he thought it was important to get, as a first step, a general
understanding on the work programme.  The next step, the fulfilment of the mandate, was a daunting
one and would need concerted efforts by its membership;  he hoped that this could be achieved before
the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  The mandate was very clear and very specific:  the Special Session
of the TRIPS Council was mandated to have negotiated the establishment of a multilateral system ofnotification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits by the Fifth Ministerial
Conference.  He thought at this Session there had been a very useful exchange of views and he took
note of all the various positions not only with respect to the work programme he had suggested but
also with respect to a number of substantive issues.  After listening to various positions, he would not
ask for endorsement of the work programme but would rather note on his own responsibility that there
seemed to be a general understanding among the Members that the suggestions he had made were a
useful way of organizing the work.  These suggestions provided for flexibility, especially with regardto time-frames with soft target dates.  The arrangements that had been suggested could be reviewed
and improved as the work proceeded.  As regards the meeting in June, he thought that the Special
Session could proceed as he had suggested.  He intended to hold informal consultations to prepare the
second Special Session, including on the informal note listing points and issues for discussion at the
next meeting.  With regard to the inventory of information concerning the implementation ofobligations under Article 23, he noted that there was no clear agreement among the Members and
proposed to continue consultations on this issue.
E. O
THER BUSINESS
41. With regard to Ethiopia, the Holy See and Sao Tome & Principe, which had observer status in
the WTO, but were not participants in the negotiations as defined in  paragraph 48 of the Ministerial
Declaration (document WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1), the Chairperson said that the question of observer
status for them was likely to be addressed by the TNC at a later stage, and suggested that the Special
Session wait for the decision of the TNC.
42. The Special Session so agreed.
43. The Chairperson recalled that there were a number of international intergovernmental
organizations which had observer status in the TR IPS Council.  These were:  FAO, IMF, OECD, UN,
UNCTAD, UPOV, World Bank, World Customs Organization, WIPO and WHO.  One way of
handling the issue of observers would be to simply grant these same organizations observer status in
the Special Sessions of the TRIPS Council.  It mi ght be that not all of them would have a close
interest in the subject-matter of the deliberations of the Special Sessions, but then such organizations
would be unlikely to attend the meetings.  This approach would have the merit of simplicity.  An
alternative approach would be for delegations to identify those organizations which they consideredmight be in a position to contribute towards the Special Session's work and for only those
organizations to be invited.  Another consideration that he wished to highlight was the special status
of WIPO under the TRIPS Agreement as well as its extensive work and experience relevant to this
mandate.  The informal consultations indicated substantial support for the first of the options, but the
view had also been expressed that this matter should be dealt with as a horizontal matter by the TNC.He, therefore, proposed that the Special Session come back to this matter at its next meeting in the
light of any action taken by the TNC in the interval.
44. The Special Session so agreed.
____________