RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/8
14August 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3212)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
from 22to25July1996
Subjects discussed:
A. Notifications under Article 63.2
B. Notifications under Article 69
C. Notifications under Article 4(d)
D. Notifications under other provisions oftheAgreement
E. Implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9
F. Technical cooperation
G. Review oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications
under Article 24.2
H. Preparation fortheSingapore Ministerial
I. Review oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights
J. Other business
1. TheChairman saidthattheGeneral Council, lastweek, hadadopted guidelines concerning
observer status forinternational intergovernmental organizations intheWTO andsuggested thatthe
issueofobserver status forsuchorganizations intheCouncil forTRIPS beaddressed attheCouncil 's
nextmeeting.
2. TheCouncil agreed toinvite WIPO, theIMF, theWorld Bank, UNCTAD, theFAO, theUN,
theOECD, UPOV andtheWCO, which hadbeeninvited toattend thismeeting inaccordance with
theinterim procedures onobserver status forintergovernmental organizations, alsotoitsnextmeeting
andtoaddress theissue ofobserver status forintergovernmental organizations assuggested bythe
Chairman.IP/C/M/8
Page2
A. Notifications under Article 63.2
(i) Status ofnotifications
3. TheChairman saidthatmostofthematerial duetobenotified byMembers under Article 63.2
incombination withArticle 65.1oftheAgreement hadnowbeenmade available. There were still
gapshowever, notably relating tothechecklist ofissues onenforcement (document IP/C/5). Sofar,
onlyahandful ofcountries hadcommunicated responses tothischecklist. Theprocedures for
notifications under Article 63.2(document IP/C/2, paragraph 12)required thateachMember provide
responses tothischecklist assoonaspossible afterthedateasofwhich theMember wasobliged to
apply theprovisions onenforcement oftheAgreement (Part III).Thus theCouncil hadrecognized
thatthepreparation oftheseresponses might bearelatively time-consuming exercise. However, given
theimportance oftheissueofenforcement, heurged Members tocomplement theirnotification under
Article 63.2inthisrespect soonandinanycasebefore theendoftheyear. With regard totextsof
lawsandregulations andaccompanying information stillduefromsome Members, suchasthelisting
of"other laws" (inaccordance withtheformat reflected indocument IP/C/4), hehadasked the
Secretariat tocontact thedelegations inquestion.
4. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatinthediscussions lastyearMembers hadagreed
inprinciple toinclude so-called "road maps" intheir notifications oflawsandregulations under
Article 63.2, which were tohave served ascorrelation charts showing howaMember 'snational
legislation related toandimplemented theprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement. Hisdelegation had
beenpreparing suchdetailed "road maps" buthadnoticed thatnotifications ofother Members under
Article 63.2didnotcontain suchcorrelation charts; instead, Members hadbeenproviding simple
indexes ofhowMembers 'lawsandregulations under general headings, suchas'Copyright 'or'Patents ',
implemented thegeneral provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement. Heexpressed hisdelegation 's
disappointment about thisandhoped thatMembers would bewilling tocooperate inworking outmore
detailed "road maps" inthefuture. TheUnited States wasawaiting asignal fromitstrading partners
indicating theiragreement withthenotification ofdetailed "road maps" and,atthattime, would be
happy tosubmit itsowndetailed "road map". Healsomade apoint concerning Section 1,paragraph 3
ofdocument IP/C/2 andsaidthatMembers hadagreed, when adopting thetextreflected inthatdocument
on21November 1995, that,asdeveloping country Members implemented theobligations under the
TRIPS Agreement inadvance oftheirobligation todoso,theyought tonotify, totheextent possible,
suchlawsandregulations assoonaspossible aftertheirentry intoforce. Hisdelegation wished to
encourage alldeveloping country Members updating theirlaws, asheunderstood many weredoing,
tonotify those updated lawsassoonaspossible aftertheirentry intoforce.
5. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthat,while there seemed tobeaview
intheCouncil that"road maps" would haveacertain degree ofusefulness inorder tofindone'sway
inacomplex system ofnational legislation, hewished tounderline that,atalltimes thatthisissuehad
beendiscussed, ithadbeenmade clearthattherewasnolegalobligation under theTRIPS Agreement
toprovide such"road maps".
6. Inresponse toaquestion, theChairman recalled thatSection 3,paragraph 10ofdocument
IP/C/2 should bereadinconjunction withdocument IP/C/4, which contained theagreed format for
listings withbriefdescriptions of"other lawsandregulations". Discussion hadtaken place onthe
question ofamore detailed approach totheprovision ofinformation which would belikened toa"road
map", butnoagreement hadbeenreached onsuchanapproach. Asregards theformat reflected in
document IP/C/4, hedrew theattention ofMembers totheworking document thathadbeenproduced
inthecontext ofthediscussions thathadpreceded document IP/C/4, i.e.document IP/C/W/8, which
initsAnnex 2contained ahypothetical illustrative example prepared bytheSecretariat ofthesortof
information which wastobeprovided under theformat.IP/C/M/8
Page3
7. Therepresentative oftheUnited States wondered whata"description oftherelevance ofeach
lawandregulation totheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement" could mean other thanthatMembers
would identify insome wayaconnection between theappropriate lawandsome provision oftheTRIPS
Agreement. Hehadnotseenanynotification yetinwhich thishadbeendone.
8. Inresponse toaquestion astowhether theformat inquestion applied inrespect of"main
dedicated lawsandregulations" aswellas"other lawsandregulations", theChairman saidthat,as
reflected inthetitleofdocument IP/C/4, thedecision ontheformat onlyconcerned "other lawsand
regulations". Hehadunderstood fromtheSecretariat, however, thatanumber ofdelegations hadalso
applied itinrespect of"main dedicated lawsandregulations".
9. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
(ii) Notifications relating toArticles 3,4and5
10. TheChairman saidthat,attheprevious meeting, hehaddrawn attention tothefactthatno
notifications hadbeenreceived under Article 63.2relating specifically tothenational treatment and
MFN obligations ofArticles 3,4and5oftheAgreement, except insofarassuchnotifications formed
partofthecomprehensive notifications ofdeveloped country Members oftheirgeneral implementing
legislation. Herecalled thathehadraised thequestion atthattimewhether there were technical
difficulties with meeting thisnotification requirement which could explain theabsence ofsuch
notifications andwhich should beaddressed bytheCouncil.
11. Therepresentative oftheUnited States recalled thattheobligations under theTRIPS provisions
inquestion hadbecome applicable forallWTO Members asof1January 1996. Asindicated bythe
Chairman, noMember hadnotified lawsrelating specifically tocompliance withtheseprovisions despite
thefactthatthere wasanoutstanding obligation pursuant toArticle 63.2 toprovide thetextof
corresponding national implementing legislation totheCouncil forTRIPS. Hisdelegation hadcomplied
withthisnotification obligation through itsnotification ofmain dedicated lawsandregulations. He
recognized thatmany Members werenotinaposition tonotify alltheirlawsandregulations, including
developing country Members. Healsonoted thattheobligations under theMFN andnational treatment
provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement were ofanature thatdidnoteasily lendthemselves tospecific
legislative orregulatory language. Forthisreason, heproposed thattheCouncil forTRIPS takea
decision thatmade itclearthataMember might satisfy itsobligations tonotify itsnational lawsand
regulations relevant totheMFN andnational treatment provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement bymaking
anotification thattookastandard form. Thisform would consist ofageneral statement thatthe
Member 'slawsandregulations didnotmake distinctions astotheprotection ofintellectual property
between itsnationals andthenationals ofother WTO Members andthatitextended unconditionally
tonationals from allWTO Members anyadvantage, favour, privilege orimmunity thatwasgranted
tonationals fromanyother country. Thesecond element ofthisgeneral notification would comprise
those lawsandregulations oftheMember notnotified independently totheCouncil forTRIPS that
failed toprovide national treatment ormost-favoured-nation treatment. Such anapproach would be
asensible onetofollow andwould notrequire thenotification oftextsoflawsandregulations prior
tothedatethataMember implemented theTRIPS Agreement infull.1
12. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities emphasized theimportance oftheparallelism
between substantive obligations andnotifications ofthelawsandregulations which implemented these
substantive obligations. Notifications ofimplementing legislation relating totheMFN andnational
1Awritten proposal concerning thismatter wasreceived from theUnited States after themeeting andhas
been distributed asdocument IP/C/W/31 .IP/C/M/8
Page4
treatment obligations under Articles 3,4and5oftheTRIPS Agreement needed tobesubmitted to
theCouncil assoonaspossible andinanastransparent awayaspossible. Hesaidthatimplementation
ofthese obligations could, insome instances, beeffected through onespecific provision inagiven
law,inwhich casenotification would notseem toposetremendous problems, butrecognized thatthis
could bemore difficult inother instances. Onewayofdealing withdifficulties which Members might
faceinthisregard wastoproceed asproposed bytheUnited States. Hisdelegation wasprepared to
goalong withthatapproach. Another question thattheCouncil stillhadtoconsider inthisregard
washowitwould goabout reviewing notifications relating toArticles 3,4and5.
13. TheChairmansuggestedthattheCounciltakenoteofthestatementsmade,includingtheproposal
bytheUnited States, andthatthematter betaken upininformal consultations priortothenextmeeting
oftheCouncil.
14. TheCouncil soagreed.
B. Notifications under Article 69
15. TheChairman saidthattheSecretariat hadcirculated anupdated document containing the
notifications ofcontact points ofMembers under Article 69indocument IP/N/3/Rev.2. Since the
preparation ofthatdocument, newnotifications hadbeenreceived fromHungary, Trinidad andTobago
andParaguay, while Chile hadsubmitted acorrection ofitsearlier notification. Sixty-two Members
hadnownotified theircontact points. Heurged Members which hadnotalready donesotonotify
theircontact points assoonaspossible.
C. Notifications under Article 4(d)
16. TheChairman saidthat,since theCouncil 'slastmeeting, theSlovak Republic hadnotified
acorrection tothelistofmultilateral agreements ithadnotified earlier. Ithadalsonotified alistof
bilateral agreements (IP/N/4- series ofdocuments).
17. Herecalled thatthereweresome significant differences inrelation tothenotifications thathad
beenmade under Article 4(d)andthat,inorder tofacilitate informal consultations onthismatter, he
hadcirculated, before theCouncil 'smeeting inMay, aninformal background noteprepared bythe
Secretariat (No.2086of10April 1986) onthedrafting history ofArticle 4,which identified anumber
offactors thatmight berelevant toconsideration astowhether anotification should bemade under
subparagraph (d).After some discussion, inwhich some Members hadindicated thattheyneeded
more timetostudy thematter, theCouncil hadagreed torevert toitatthepresent meeting.
18. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed thehopethattheCouncil could agree that
notifications under Article 4(d)mustbespecific rather thangeneral andshould avoid including those
multilateral treaties thathadbeenincorporated byreference intotheTRIPS Agreement. Healsohoped
thatthose Members thathadsentinovergeneralized notifications under Article 4(d)would submit
revisions tothose notifications, thatreflected theconsiderations setforthintheChairman 'sbackground
note. Revisions tothese notifications were necessary topermit Members toidentify andassess the
provisions thatthenotifying Member hoped tojustify asanexception tomost-favoured-nation treatment
under theterms ofArticle 4(d). Hisdelegation wasinterested inhearing from other Members asto
thestatus oftheirefforts torevise theiroriginal notifications under Article 4(d)inthismanner.IP/C/M/8
Page5
19. TheChairman noted thatsome delegations stillneeded more timetoreflect upon thematter
andindicated hisintention toinclude itintotheinformal consultations thatheintended toholdprior
totheCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember.
20. TheCouncil tooknoteofthese statements.
D. Notifications under Other Provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement
21. TheChairman saidthat,sincetheCouncil 'slastmeeting, nonewnotifications hadbeenreceived
under Articles 1.3or3.1oftheTRIPS Agreement orunder anynotification provisions ofintellectual
property conventions incorporated byreference intotheTRIPS Agreement butnotexplicitly referred
toinit.
E. Implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9
22. TheChairman saidthatanotification hadbeenreceived fromMorocco providing theaddress
where applications under Article 70.8could befiled(document IP/N/1/MAR/1). Notifications had
alsobeenreceived fromKenya andSingapore, bothofwhich stated thatpatent protection wasalready
applied topharmaceutical andagricultural chemical products (documents IP/N/1/KEN/1 and
IP/N/1/SGP/1). TheSlovak Republic hadnotified (asreflected indocument IP/N/1/SVK/2) that"legal
protection forallpharmaceutical products isprovided forintheActonInventions, Industrial Designs
andRationalisation Proposals" (document IP/N/1/SVK/I/2); theSlovak Republic hadalsonotified
that"thelistoflegalregulations withregard totheprotection ofagricultural chemical products isunder
preparation andwillbenotified soon".
23. Therepresentative oftheUnited States informed theCouncil thathisGovernment hadinitiated
theformaldisputesettlementprocesswiththeGovernmentofIndiawithregardtotheissueofcompliance
withtheprovisions ofArticles 70.8and70.9(document IP/D/5). Inthisregard, hesaidthat,although
IndiahadnotifiedtotheCouncilforTRIPScertainadministrativeprovisions,ithadnotmadethechanges
toitslegislative régime necessary toimplement thesubstantive obligations ofArticles 70.8and70.9.
Helooked forward toworking withtheGovernment ofIndia toresolve thisdispute inaprompt and
satisfactory manner. Healsobrought totheattention oftheCouncil thathisGovernment hadrequested
theformation ofapanel under thedispute settlement process initiated inMaywiththeGovernment
ofPakistan (document WT/DS36/3). On30April 1996, theUnited States hadrequested formal
consultationswithPakistanwithregardtoitsfailureeithertoprovidepatentprotectionforpharmaceutical
andagriculturalchemicalproductsortocomplywiththeobligationsofArticles70.8and70.9(document
IP/D/2). TheUnited States hadengaged inconsultations withPakistan withtheaimofresolving this
dispute, buttheconsultations hadnotproduced amutually satisfactory oracceptable solution. His
delegation continued tomonitor closely whatother countries were doing andhadtaken careful note
oftheinformation provided bytheChairman. Hewaspleased tohearthattheGovernment ofMorocco
hadprovided anaddress forthefiling ofpatent applications under Article 70.8, butwondered what
provisions Morocco hadputinplace under Article 70.9. Finally, henoted thattherewerestillseveral
other countries that,inhisdelegation 'sview, wereinbreach oftheirobligations under theprovisions
ofArticle 70.8and/or 70.9, including Guatemala, Kuwait, Madagascar, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Qatar,
Tunisia, Zambia andZimbabwe. Hisdelegation would welcome anyindication ofwhen theseMembers
would bemaking anotification totheCouncil forTRIPS explaining themeasures which theyhad
implemented tocomply withtheprovisions inquestion. Hestressed thatthese notifications should
alsoindicate howtheavailability ofexclusive marketing rights asrequired byArticle 70.9hadbeen
secured. Most ofthenotifications made todatedidnotinclude thisinformation.IP/C/M/8
Page6
24. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities expressed support fortheUnited States and
saidthattheEuropean Communities andtheirMember States attached utmost importance toatimely
andfullimplementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9. Hewished toinform theCouncil thathisdelegation
hadasked tobejoined totheformal consultations between theUnited States andIndia, which would
takeplace laterintheweek (document WT/DS50/2).
25. Therepresentative ofMorocco saidthathewould transmit thecomments made bytheUnited
States tohisauthorities. Heinformed theCouncil thatthelegalsystem ofhiscountry gaveprimacy
tointernational lawoverdomestic legislation, sothatprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement suchasthose
ofArticle 70.9automatically entered intoforce andwere immediately applicable. Article 70.9did
notoblige hiscountry tonotify under these circumstances.
26. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland supported thestatements made bytheUnited States andthe
European Communities. Hisdelegation alsoattached great importance tonotifications relating tothe
provisions ofArticles 70.8and70.9, since theireffect could betheavoidance oftime-consuming
consultations anddisputes under theWTO.
27. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthat,justasfulfilment oftheobligation under
Article 70.8, fulfilment oftheobligation under Article 70.9hadtobenotified totheCouncil forTRIPS.
Heappreciated thatunder Moroccan law,asunder thelawofmany other Members, international
obligations wereautomatically incorporated intodomestic law.Itwould behelpful ifMembers would
notify anyrelevant provisions oftheConstitution orStatute relating tothisprinciple ofdirect
applicability.Inaddition,administrativeprovisionsimplementingtheprinciplewouldneedtobenotified.
28. TheCouncil tooknoteofthese statements.
F. Technical Cooperation
29. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil, atitsmeeting inMay, hadendorsed theSecretariat
proposal forapilotproject forathematic workshop toenable anin-depth discussion ofaspecific aspect
oftechnical cooperation. Ithadalsobeenagreed thatthetopic forthepilotproject would beborder
enforcement andthattheSecretariat should seektoorganize itincooperation withtheInternational
Bureau ofWIPO. TheChairman informed theCouncil thattheWorkshop ontheBorder Enforcement
Provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement hadbeenscheduled forWednesday afternoon, 17September 1996,
from3p.m.to6p.m., which wasimmediately before theCouncil 'smeeting of18September 1996.
TheWorkshop would beorganized jointly bytheSecretariat andtheInternational Bureau ofWIPO
andwould beheldattheheadquarters ofWIPO. Hethanked theInternational Bureau ofWIPO for
itswillingness toparticipate intheorganization ofthisworkshop andtheGovernments ofEgypt, Hong
Kong, Japan andtheUnited States, aswellastheSecretariat oftheWorld Customs Organization, for
theirwillingness toprovide speakers forthisWorkshop, tocomplement thepresentations thatwould
bemade bytherepresentatives oftheWTO andWIPO.
30. TheChairman informed theCouncil thattheWTO Secretariat would organize aworkshop
ontheTRIPSAgreementforofficialsfromtheleast-developedandotherdevelopingSub-SaharanAfrican
countries, which would befinanced fromtheNorwegian Trust Fund. Theobjective oftheworkshop
wastofamiliarizeofficialswiththebasicconcepts,principlesandobligationslaiddownintheAgreement
onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights withaviewtofacilitating itsimplementation.
The workshop would beconducted inEnglish andwould take place inGeneva from
7to11October 1996. Another workshop ontheTRIPS Agreement forthesame group ofcountries,
tobeconducted inFrench, would beorganized in1997. Invitations tothisworkshop hadbeensent
tothecountries concerned lastmonth andthedeadline forapplications was25July1996. HedrewIP/C/M/8
Page7
theattention ofthose Sub-Saharan least-developed anddeveloping countries thatwould wishtobenefit
fromthisworkshop buthadnotyetnominated anycandidates totheneedtodosowithin thecoming
days.
31. TheChairman recalled that,atthelastmeeting, hehadinformed theCouncil about theletter
thathehadreceived from theChairman oftheCommittee onTrade andDevelopment, Ambassador
Benjelloun-Touimi ofMorocco, inwhich hehadbeen asked toprovide information onthework
undertaken intheTRIPS Council regarding theimplementation ofthedevelopment-related provisions
oftheAgreement, asaninput intothereview which theCommittee onTrade andDevelopment was
requiredtoholdontheapplicationofspecialprovisionsinthevariousagreementsinfavourofdeveloping
country Members andinparticular least-developed country Members. Inhisreply tothisletter, dated
21June1996, hehaddrawn theattention ofAmbassador Benjelloun-Touimi totheprovisions ofthe
TRIPS Agreement relating totransitional periods andtechnical cooperation andtothework thatthe
Council haddoneandwasgoing todointheareaoftechnical cooperation. Theinformation contained
intheletter would nodoubt bemade available induecourse byAmbassador Benjelloun-Touimi, but
interested delegations could already obtain copies ofthereply from theSecretariat.
32. TheChairman recalled thattheSecretariat hadprepared, asrequested bytheCouncil, in
document IP/C/W/22, asummary oftheinformation provided ontechnical cooperation. Thisdocument
hadbeenbriefly discussed attheCouncil 'smeeting inMay, butsince ithadnotbeenavailable inall
languages atthattime,theCouncil hadagreed todiscuss thedocument later. Herecalled thattheCouncil
hadagreed thatdeveloped country Members would annually update information ontheirtechnical
cooperation activities relevant totheimplementation oftheTRIPS Agreement andthatin1996 this
would bedoneintimefortheCouncil 'smeeting of18September 1996. Consequently, theSecretariat
hadcirculated anairgram (WTO/AIR/375), dated 2July1996, reminding developed country Members
about theneedtoprovide information andalsorequesting thatsuchcontributions beprovided by
1September 1996, soastoenable theirtimely processing anddistribution toMembers. Hesaidthat
aquestion thathadbeendiscussed waswhether developed country Members, inpresenting anoverview
oftheirtechnical cooperation activities, should berequested tosummarize theiractivities using the
headings asusedinthesummary, i.e.first, human resources; second, assistance inthepreparation
oflawsandregulations;third,institutionbuilding;andfourth,otherassistance.Anumberofdelegations
hadexpressed apreference forsubmitting information ontheirtechnical cooperation activities asthey
haddoneearlier, eventhough views werealsoexpressed thatfurther consideration should begiven
tothequestion ofhowthese headings might bebestusedincommunications about technical assistance
programmes.
33. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthathisdelegation wasinfavour offollowing theheadings
usedinthesummary prepared bytheSecretariat (document IP/C/W/22). There didnotneedtobe
anyrigidformat, butapractical waytocommunicate technical assistance programmes. Hesuggested
asaflexible solution tothisissue thatdeveloped country Members, instead ofusing theheadings of
IP/C/W/22, establish contact points responsible fortechnical assistance; thus, there would bean
opportunity forinteraction between donors oftechnical cooperation andthose searching forspecific
forms oftechnical cooperation. However, hebelieved thattheCouncil should continue tomonitor
thesituation andensure thattechnical andfinancial assistance asrequired byArticle 67wasprovided
andevaluated. Inthiscontext, hestressed theimportance ofanannual up-dating ofinformation on
technical andfinancial assistance bydeveloped country Members andofalinkage oftheproposed contact
points totheprocedures forthecommunication ofsuchinformation.
34. Therepresentative oftheUnited States, Australia, theEuropean Communities, Norway and
Canada saidthattheirdelegations wereintheprocess ofgathering information toupdate their1995
submissions concerning their technical cooperation activities andexpected tobeinaposition to
communicate thisinformation shortly. They supported thesuggestion bythedelegation ofEgypt thatIP/C/M/8
Page8
developed country Members appoint oneormore contact persons forrequests fortechnical cooperation
tobefunnelled through. Thesuggestion wasmade thatthesecontact points could bethesame asthose
established under Article 69oftheAgreement.
35. Therepresentative ofKorea suggested thatthetechnical andfinancial assistance programmes
ofdeveloped country Members should alsoinclude programmes forthepromotion ofpublic awareness
ofintellectual property indeveloping countries, inparticular oftheimportance oftheprotection of
economic rights tothecultural andtechnological advancement ofanygiven country. With regard to
areas ofcooperation, hisdelegation believed thattheCouncil forTRIPS could playarôleinthe
identification ofdeveloping country Members 'specific needs forassistance. TheCouncil might also
provide anopportunity forsharing information from andtheexperience ofMembers intheprocess
ofimproving theprotection ofintellectual property.
36. Therepresentative ofNorway recalled herdelegation 'sinterventions atprevious meetings of
theCouncil concerning theprovision ofinformation bydeveloping countries ontheirspecific needs
forassistance andexpressed support forthesuggestions made byKorea.
37. Inconclusion, theChairman saidthatitwasimportant tohaveafullsetofresponses asearly
aspossible, sothattheinformation could beprocessed andcirculated intimefortheSeptember meeting
andallow aworthwhile discussion ontheissueoftechnical cooperation atthatmeeting. Thesuggestion
fortheestablishment ofcontact points hadbeengenerally welcomed andwould appear tobeauseful
wayofpromoting theexchange ofinformation between donors andrecipients oftechnical assistance.
Hetherefore suggested thatdeveloped country Members berequested, when submitting information
ontheiractivities fortheSeptember meeting, toprovide alsosuchacontact point orcontact points
ifthatwould bemore appropriate interms oftheshape oftheiradministrations. Thiscontact point
could bethesameastheonethattheMember inquestion hadnotified under Article 69oftheAgreement,
oritcould bedifferent, again depending onthestructure oftheadministration oftheMember. As
regards thequestion about requesting developing country Members toidentify gapsintheprovision
ofassistance, hebelieved thatitwould beuseful ifdelegations could reflect upon thismatter and
suggested thattheCouncil revert tothequestion atitsmeeting inSeptember. Atthattime,thepossibility
mightbeexploredofaquestionnairewhichmightbeaddressedtodevelopingandleast-developedcountry
Members bytheSecretariat.
38. TheCouncil soagreed.
39. Therepresentative oftheUnited States suggested thattheCouncil invite otherintergovernmental
organizations toalsoupdate theinformation ontheirtechnical assistance programmes which theyhad
communicated lastyear.
40. TheCouncil soagreed.
G. Review oftheApplication oftheProvisions oftheSection onGeographical Indications
under Article 24.2
41. TheChairman recalled that,attheprevious meeting oftheCouncil, hehadraised thefollowing
questions: when should theTRIPS Council undertake thisreview, which itwasduetodobefore the
endoftheyear, andhowshould itgoabout it,including what documentation might beprepared?
TheCouncil hadscheduled itslastmeeting thisyearfortheweek of11November andhadalready
agreed toundertake atthatmeeting itsreview oflegislation intheareaofgeographical indications
notified under Article 63.2. Atthelastmeeting, several countries hadrequested more timetoreflect
upon thismatter andtorevert toitatthepresent meeting.IP/C/M/8
Page9
42. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthisadditional review process
concerning theSection ongeographical indications wasofparticular importance tohisdelegation.
TheEuropean Communities andtheirMember States hadembarked upon abrainstorming exercise
inorder toidentify thevalue-added ofthereview under Article 24.2ascompared totheordinary review
scheduled fortheweek of11November. Once thisexercise hadgenerated conclusions, hisdelegation
would share these conclusions withtheCouncil.
43. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthatherdelegation hadalsogiven consideration tothe
relationship between thereview ofnational legislation andthereview under Article 24.2. Herdelegation
believed thattherequirement under Article 23.4tocommence "negotiations ontheestablishment of
amultilateral system ofnotification andregistration ofgeographical indications forwines eligible for
protection inthose Members participating inthesystem" wasrelated tothismatter. Without making
aproposal onthis,shewished thisissuetobekeptinmind when discussing whatwork could becarried
outorcommenced inthecontext ofthereview under Article 24.2.
44. TheChairman noted thatthere would beanopportunity fairly early onaftertheAugust break
toreturn tothisitemincasedelegations would have, bythattime, further suggestions orproposals
thattheywished tomake. Healsonoted that,iftheCouncil wastoconduct areview thisyearunder
Article 24.2, itwould havetotakeadecision atitsSeptember meeting atthelatest onhowitwasgoing
todothis.
45. Therepresentative ofCanada agreed thatthere wasnotasyetaclearideaofhowthisreview
would beconducted, butitalready seemed tobeindelegations 'minds that,ifitwasgoing tobedone,
thereview would takeplace inparallel withthelegislative review which hadalready beenscheduled
fortheweek of11November andwould notbeaduplication atanother time.
46. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
H. Preparation fortheSingapore Ministerial
47. TheChairman recalled that,atthelastmeeting, hehadraised thequestion ofthenature and
timing ofthereports thatsubsidiary bodies oftheGeneral Council should make totheSingapore
Ministerial andthattheCouncil hadagreed thatadecision should betaken atthepresent meeting
concerning thegeneral format ofthereport thattheCouncil should sendtotheSingapore Ministerial.
Hemade available todelegations aninformal paper containing adraftoutline onthebasis ofwhich
theCouncil might request theSecretariat toprepare adraftreport forconsideration attheCouncil 's
meeting of18September. After discussion, theChairman distributed arevised outline. Hesaidthat
theSecretariat would circulate adraftreport asearly aspossible inSeptember which heproposed to
takeupininformal consultations priortotheCouncil 'snextmeeting. Heexplained thatthefirstthree
sections ofthereport would beessentially factual anddescriptive innature andthatitwould, therefore,
befortheSecretariat toprepare adraftwhich would ofcourse bewithout prejudice tothepositions
ofdelegations andwhich would takefullyintoaccount thefactsanddevelopments thatwould have
occurred inrelation toallthree ofthose sections, including implementation. Section IVwasin
parentheses since itscontent, ifany,would depend onfurther discussion among Members.
48. TheCouncil agreed torequest theSecretariat toprepare adraft onthebasis oftherevised
outline, subject totheinclusion ofreferences toArticles 24.1and24.2inSection III,relating tothe
in-built agenda.
49. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities introduced anon-paper which hehadmade
available todelegations. Theprime purpose ofthenon-paper wastoprovide some foodforthoughtIP/C/M/8
Page10
and,apart from taking stock ofdevelopments intheTRIPS area, contained some objectives and
perspectives which theEuropean Communities andtheirMember States hadinrespect ofintellectual
property. Moreover, thepreparation oftheCouncil 'scontribution totheSingapore Ministerial might
befacilitated byit.
50. Therepresentative ofNewZealand, inoffering some preliminary comments onthenon-paper
oftheEuropean Communities andtheirMember States, agreed withtheCommunity ontheimportance
ofafullandtimely implementation byMembers ofalltheirWTO obligations, including inthearea
ofTRIPS. With respect totheappropriate levelofprotection inthisregard, hebelieved thatitwas
important toapproach suchquestions from theperspective oftheeffectiveness ofwhatever system
ofprotection aMember hadinplace. Inthecourse of1995 and1996, theCouncil hadworked hard
tofacilitate suchimplementation andtheMinisterial Conference wasagoodopportunity togivefurther
impetus tothisimportant work. Hisdelegation alsohadsome sympathy withthenotion inparagraph 7
ofthenon-paper thatTRIPS Members needed toexamine howbesttheTRIPS Agreement could keep
pacewithneworimproved international intellectual property norms which might emerge intheperiod
ahead toreflect developments intechnology orthecommercial environment. Thebuilt-in agenda of
theTRIPS Agreement didcontain, ofcourse, theprovisions ofArticle 71concerning thepossible review
oftheAgreement inthelightofanyrelevant developments andsome post-Singapore preparatory work
intheformofanalysis andinformation exchange could wellbeuseful inthisregard. Healsowished
tomake thepoint, inrelation totheideaofinitiating thenegotiations ongeographical indications for
wines, thatthere seemed tobesome confusion between thetime-frame specified forthereview under
Article 24.2andthatforfuture negotiations concerning theestablishment ofamultilateral system of
notification andregistration forgeographical indications forwines, inrespect ofwhich notime-frame
hadbeenspecified intheAgreement. Inrespect ofthebuilt-in agenda, hisdelegation wasonrecord
inother bodies oftheWTO assupporting theinitiation attheSingapore Ministerial ofpreparatory
work ontheagreed Uruguay Round built-in agenda across theboard. Thisnaturally meant thathe
could alsosupport theinitiation ofsuchpreparatory work intheTRIPS area, which could consist,
interalia,ofaprocess ofanalysis andinformation exchange toallow Members tounderstand issues
involved andidentify theirinterests inrespect oftheseissues. Atthesametime, however, hisdelegation
wished toconsider carefully theissues involved before itcould beinaposition toagree tothe
commencementofnegotiationsonparticularaspectsofthebuilt-inagendawherenoscheduledtime-frame
hadbeenspecified intheAgreement. With respect tobuilding ontheachievements oftheUruguay
Round embodied intheTRIPS Agreement, hesounded anoteofcaution thatitwould beimportant
totakecarethatthiswasnotdoneattheexpense offullymaintaining Members 'other WTO obligations.
51. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthatherdelegation hadbeenfairly active across theboard
inmaking efforts inpreparation forSingapore and,withrespect tothebuilt-in agenda ofthedifferent
agreements, hadsubmitted papers relating tovarious areas. Herdelegation 'sviews were based on
arecognition ofthevarious commitments foron-going work ascontained intheUruguay Round
agreements. Inthiscontext, shecould generally support theapproach taken inthenon-paper circulated
bytheEuropean Communities, which wasconsistent withherdelegation 'sviews concerning the
preparation forSingapore. Preparatory work should bebased onthebuilt-in agenda ofthedifferent
agreements. Asregards certain specific aspects ofthenon-paper, sheagreed withtheobjective contained
inparagraph 4interms ofthefullandtimely implementation ofMembers 'obligations. Astothesection
dealing withdeveloping country Members, shenoted thatintheAPEC context atleastsome developing
countries hadannounced theirintention toadvance theimplementation dates. Interms ofthereview
under Article 24.2 (paragraph 5ofthenon-paper), sheunderlined thatArticle 23oftheTRIPS
Agreement waslimited towines andspirits. Shewondered what negotiations theCommunity was
referring toandnoted thatArticle 23.4required negotiations totakeplace andthatArticle 24.2required
areview tobedone before theendof1996, butthese were twoseparate provisions. Inrespect of
paragraph 6,shewondered whatwasmeant bytheterm"induecourse"; when didtheCommunity
believe thatthepreparatory work forthereview under Article 27.3(b) should startandwhatshouldIP/C/M/8
Page11
Ministers atSingapore recommend andhowdetailed should these recommendations be?Asregards
paragraph 7,shesaidthattheissues inquestion werecurrently being negotiated inWIPO andwould
notnecessarily beconcluded before theSingapore Ministerial; shewondered whether there would
beanypossibility ofanticipating theoutcome ofthose negotiations inadvance oftheDiplomatic
Conference concerning aProtocol totheBerne Convention andaNew Instrument concerning the
Protection ofPerformers andProducers ofPhonograms. Astoparagraph 8,sheexpressed doubts
astowhether itwould beappropriate forWTO Members tocalloncountries toadhere toWIPO treaties.
52. Therepresentative ofIndia, inmaking preliminary remarks onthenon-paper oftheEuropean
Communities andtheirMember States, shewondered howtheCommunity reconciled thelastsentence
ofparagraph 1ofthedocument withthefactthattheTRIPS Agreement wasaminimum standards
agreement, asfollowed fromArticle 1oftheTRIPS Agreement. Paragraph 2contained afactual error
inthatthedatereferred toshould be1January 1995. Sheagreed fullywithparagraph 3,which stated
thatwork intheTRIPS Council hadforthelast18months concentrated onprocedural matters; she
believed thatthiswaswhatthereport toMinisters should focus on.Asregards paragraph 4,sheasked
forclarification oftheterm"themore advanced developing countries". Asageneral point concerning
thedocument, shewondered whatwould betheeffect ofMinisters notaddressing anyofthesuggested
recommendations since thebuilt-in agenda oftheTRIPS Agreement would stillremain. With regard
toparagraph 7,shebelieved thatitwastooearly tolookatfuture developments; suchissues first
hadtobediscussed thoroughly intheTRIPS Council andthetimebefore thereport totheSingapore
Ministerial hadtobefinalized wastooshort todoso.Onparagraph 8,sheagreed withthedelegation
ofAustralia. Sheasked forclarification ofparagraph 9ofthedocument, inparticular ofthephrase
"efforts arecurrently undertaken totrytoweaken theprovisions contained intheTRIPS Agreement".
IftheTRIPS Agreement wasbeing discussed inanyother body oftheWTO, thiswasbecause such
discussions hadbeenmandated bythework programme ofthatWTO body, byconsensus.
53. Therepresentative ofBrunei Darussalam, speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, said
that,withregard tothepreparation oftheSingapore Ministerial Conference, ASEAN hadpreviously
mentioned onotheroccasions thatimplementation andthebuilt-in agenda formed thecoreofthesubjects
tobediscussed atthatMinisterial Conference. ASEAN hadfurther stated that,asfarasthebuilt-in
agenda wasconcerned, itwassupportive oftheideaofearly preparations toensure thatthespecific
deadlines intheAgreement weremet. Providing preliminary views concerning thenon-paper ofthe
European Communities andtheirMember States, hesaidthatatthisstage ASEAN countries could
goalong insharing thestated objective concerning fullandtimely implementation oftheTRIPS
Agreement. Healsowelcomed theCommunity 'scommitment concerning theprovision oftechnical
assistance infavour ofdeveloping andleast-developed country Members ascalled forinArticle 67
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Insaying that,however, Article 65should beborne inmind concerning
thetransitional arrangements forthesecountries andanypreparatory workasenvisaged inthedocument
should nothavetheeffect ofaccelerating theimplementation ofeither Article 65orArticle 71.ASEAN
countries reserved theirposition andcomments onother matters raised inthedocument untilalater
date. TheCommunity non-paper should innowayprejudice theoutcome oftheSecretariat 'sinitial
draftofthereport oftheCouncil forTRIPS totheSingapore Ministerial.
54. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
I. Review ofLegislation onCopyright andRelated Rights
55. TheChairman recalled thattheprocedures forthisreview could befound intheminutes of
theCouncil 'smeeting of9May1996(IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6).Inaccordance withthese procedures,
theSecretariat hadcirculated aproposed timetable inaninformal noteof1July1996. Most oftheIP/C/M/8
Page12
lawsandregulations tobereviewed hadbeennotified under Article 63.2anddistributed inWTO
documents. Written questions concerning otherMembers 'legislation hadbeenreceived fromtheUnited
States, theEuropean Communities andtheirMember States, Poland andAustralia. TheChairman
suggestedthateachMembermightprovide,inintroducingitslegislation,abriefoverviewofthestructure
ofitslegislation oncopyright andrelated rights andofthechanges, ifany,thatithadhadtobring
about inorder tomake thelegislation compatible withtheTRIPS Agreement. After having doneso,
anintroduction might beprovided totheresponses tothequestions thathadbeenputtothembyother
Members. After these presentations andintroductions ofresponses, hewould thenofferthefloorto
other delegations foranycomments orother questions.
56. Therepresentative oftheUnited States regretted thefactthatsomany ofthequestions had
beensubmitted significantly aftertheagreed deadline. Ithadmade itdifficult forhisdelegation to
respond tothequestions ithadreceived. When replies werenotmade available before themeeting,
there wasverylittletimeforanalysing suchreplies, which made itdifficult tohaveameaningful
dialogue. Heasked Members torespect thedeadlines agreed uponforsubmitting questions andreplying
tothem. Turning totheproposed timetable forthereview, contained intheinformal noteof1July1996,
hesaidthatthequestion ofwhich Members weresubject tothedifferent obligations under theTRIPS
Agreement hadregrettably never beenfullydetermined. Inhisdelegation 'sview, thelistofMembers
obliged tomeettheprovisions oftheAgreement wassomewhat longer thanthelistcontained inthe
note. Hisdelegation hadsubmitted questions toMembers other thanjustthose listed inthenote. He
objected tothefactthattheSecretariat hadnotlisted alltheMembers whose legislation should be
reviewed, inalphabetical order. Inhisview, thecategory "anyothers" attheendofthelistprejudged
thestatus ofsome ofthose Members withrespect totheobligations under theAgreement.
57. Therecord oftheintroductory statements made bydelegations, thequestions puttothemand
theresponses given (including certain written responses provided afterthemeeting) willbecirculated
inthefollowing documents:
IP/Q/AUS/1 Australia
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada
IP/Q/CZE/1 Czech Republic
IP/Q/EEC/1 European Community
IP/Q/AUT/1 Austria
IP/Q/BEL/1 Belgium
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland
IP/Q/FRA/1 France
IP/Q/DEU/1 Germany
IP/Q/GRC/1 Greece
IP/Q/IRL/1 Ireland
IP/Q/ITA/1 Italy
IP/Q/LUX/1 Luxembourg
IP/Q/NLD/1 Netherlands
IP/Q/PRT/1 Portugal
IP/Q/ESP/1 Spain
IP/Q/SWE/1 Sweden
IP/Q/GBR/1 United Kingdom
IP/Q/ISL/1 Iceland
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japan
IP/Q/LIE/1 Liechtenstein
IP/Q/NZL/1 NewZealand
IP/Q/NOR/1 Norway
IP/Q/SVK/1 Slovak RepublicIP/C/M/8
Page13
IP/Q/SVN/1 Slovenia
IP/Q/ZAF/1 South Africa
IP/Q/CHE/1 Switzerland
IP/Q/USA/1 United States
58. After theconsideration ofthelegislation oftheabove countries, therepresentative ofthe
United States reiterated thathisdelegation hadnotaccepted thattherewasadefined listing ofcountries
thatconstituted developed country Members oftheWTO. Therefore, hisdelegation hadsubmitted
questions toMembers thatitbelieved should bereviewed atthistime, without prejudice tohowthe
question concerning thestatus oftheMembers ingeneral might ultimately bedecided. These included
Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Kuwait, Singapore andTurkey.2Heexpressed thehopethatthose Members
would beprepared toreply tothequestions puttothem.
59. Therepresentative ofHong Kong recalled that,attheTRIPS Council meeting of9May1996,
ithadbeenagreed thatthisreview would apply tothecopyright andrelated rights legislation ofMembers
obliged tocomply withtheAgreement under Article 65.1, aswellasofanyother Members notstill
availing themselves ofatransitional period under Article 65.2inrespect ofthisareaoflegislation.
HesaidthatHong Kong wasnotineither ofthese categories. Therefore, hehadproceeded onthe
basisthatHong Kong wasnotsubject tothisreview andwasnotinaposition toanswer anyquestions
atthismeeting. Furthermore, while herespected theUnited States viewthatthere wasnotadefined
listofwhich countries should beregarded asdeveloped ordeveloping, hisdelegation believed that
developing status intheWTO hadtraditionally beendetermined onthebasisofself-election. However,
hedidnotbelieve thattheCouncil forTRIPS wastheright forum todiscuss thismatter. Without
prejudice toHong Kong'sposition, heinformed theCouncil thatHong Kong wasintheprocess of
revising itscopyright lawsinorder tomake themfullyconsistent withtheTRIPS Agreement wellwithin
thetransitional period permitted under Article 65.2. Hewould behappy todiscuss withanydelegation
bilaterally andinformally anyqueries onHong Kong'scopyright legislation. Since Hong Kong's
legislation wasinthecourse ofreview, suchdiscussions would bemost productive when thiswork
would havebeenfinalized, which would hopefully bebytheendofthisyear.
60. TherepresentativeofSingaporeacknowledgedreceiptofaletterfromtheUnitedStatesdelegation
on31May1996 andoftheenclosed listofquestions relating toSingapore 'scopyright laws. He
informed theCouncil thathisdelegation, inresponding totheletter of18July1996, haddrawn the
United States attention totheprocedures forthereview which hadbeenadopted attheTRIPS Council
meeting of9May1996, inparticular tothefirstparagraph oftheagreed procedures contained in
paragraph 6oftheminutes ofthemeeting indocument IP/C/M/7, which stated unequivocally that
this"review willapply tothecopyright andrelated rights legislation ofMembers obliged tocomply
withtheTRIPS Agreement under Article 65.1andofanyother Members notstillavailing themselves
inrespect ofthisareaoflegislation ofanylonger transitional period towhich theymaybeentitled".
Ithadbeenonthebasis ofthisprovision andunderstanding thathisdelegation hadindicated tothe
United States delegation thatthereview exercise currently under waywasnotapplicable toSingapore.
Singapore hadassured theUnited States thatitwascommitted tofulfilling itsobligations under the
TRIPS Agreement. Therepresentative ofSingapore gaveasimilar assurance toallother Members
oftheCouncil. Inthisregard, Singapore hadalready amended itsPatents Acttobring itintoline
withtheTRIPS Agreement. Singapore would continue withitsefforts tobring itslegislation into
conformity withTRIPS obligations.
61. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthathisdelegation hadreceived aletter, dated 14June1996,
fromtheUnited States delegation, which contained anumber ofquestions relating toKorea 'scopyright
legislation. Hisdelegation hadreplied totheletter stating thatKorea hadnotyetdecided thetiming
2IP/C/W/25 andIP/C/W/25/Add.1IP/C/M/8
Page14
andmodalities ofitsnotification ofimplementing legislation relating totheTRIPS Agreement, and
thatKorea wasnotinaposition toreply tothequestions inthisreview meeting. Korea didnotbelong
tothose categories ofMembers thatweresubject tothereview. Korea hadparticipated intheUruguay
Round negotiations asadeveloping country andthushadbeenoperating under Article 65.2oftheTRIPS
Agreement since thedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement. Furthermore, Korea hadneither
expressed anyintention nottoavailitself ofthetransitional period provided under Article 65.2, nor
notified itsintellectual property legislation totheCouncil forreview. Nonetheless, without prejudice
totheentitlement toalonger transitional period, Korea hadpractically completed itsnational legislation
incompliancewiththerelevantprovisionsoftheTRIPSAgreement.MostofKorea'snationallegislation
fortheimplementation oftheAgreement hadentered intoforce before 1July1996. Theexceptions
weretheAgricultural Chemicals Management LawandtheSeedlings Management Law, which would
enter intoforce on7December 1996andon31December 1997, respectively. Inaddition, measures
tocomply withtheprovisions oftheAgreement relating togeographical indications weredulybeing
reviewed.
62. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities agreed withtherepresentative ofHong Kong
thattheCouncil forTRIPS wasprobably nottherightforum toaddress thefundamental question of
which Members should beregarded asdeveloped andwhich asdeveloping. Forpractical reasons,
hewondered whether those Members whose lawswereinlinewiththeAgreement orwereadvanced
inimplementing theAgreement could consider participation inthereviews foreseen for1996and1997;
reviewing suchMembers 'legislation atthistimewould facilitate thereview insome fouryears'time
when thelegislation ofmany Members might havetobeconsidered.
63. Therepresentative ofHong Kong, inresponse, saidthathisdelegation waswilling toconsider
thesuggestion bytheEuropean Communities inthelightofthereasons ofpracticability advanced,
butwasconcerned thatsuchanarrangement might beseentohaveasomewhat broader significance
thanthepurely practical aspects onwhich thesuggestion wasbased.
64. Therepresentative ofBrazil saidthatthereview hadbeenanextraordinary learning process
andhadoffered useful references todeveloping countries nowundertaking abroad revision oftheir
legislation aimed atprogressive compliance withtheTRIPS Agreement. Sheregretted, however, that
theparticipation ofdeveloping countries inthereview, withtheexception ofIndia, hadbeenquite
limited. Ways andmeans should befound forincreasing theirparticipation infuture review meetings
dealing withother subject areas. While thereview hadundoubtedly beenveryuseful, developing
countries would likely stillhavemany questions tobeclarified. Itwasunfortunate thatherdelegation
hadnotbeeninaposition tohaveitscopyright specialists present andshesuggested thattheCouncil
consider theneedtoprovide anopportunity toMembers, inparticular developing country Members,
toaddress questions relating tolegislation reviewed atthismeeting atanother time. Afollow-up review
aftertheadoption oftheWIPO treaties thatwerecurrently being negotiated might beenvisaged. That
would beagoodoccasion toseewhatmeasures countries would adopt asaresult ofpossible newtreaties,
suchasaprotocol totheBerne Convention, anewinstrument fortheprotection ofperformers and
producers ofphonograms andatreaty onsuigeneris protection ofdatabases. Thecooperation between
theWTO andWIPO might include thepossibility offinancing theparticipation ofexperts forthenext
review meetings -either fromtheWIPO programme orfromaspecial programme attheWTO. Finally,
sheasked whether thequestions andreplies presented inthecourse ofthemeeting would bemade
available tothedelegations inwriting.
65. TherepresentativeofIndiasupportedthepointsmadebytherepresentativeofBrazil,inparticular
thatdeveloping countries needed more timetostudy thenotifications, since theyhadlessresources
todevote tothatexercise. Shesuggested atwo-tier process, thesecond partofwhich would consist
ofafollow-up meeting onlyfordeveloping countries toraisequestions. Even more important thanIP/C/M/8
Page15
covering thecostofparticipation ofexperts fromdeveloping countries wastogivethese countries the
financial resources tofacilitate study ofthenotifications, forexample byconsultants.
66. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stressed theeffort andresources required fordelegations
toexamine lawsandregulations ofother countries andsimultaneously respond toquestions puttothem
byother countries; hisdelegation wasnotinaposition todevote similar resources tomore thanone
review exercise percategory ofintellectual property. Hedrewattention toArticle 63.3which provided
thateachMember shallbeprepared tosupply, inresponse toawritten request fromanother Member,
information ofthesortreferred toinArticle 63.1. Atanytime, anyMember could submit awritten
request forinformation toanother Member, which, whether developed ordeveloping, would beobliged
byArticle 63.3tosubmit areply. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities expressed support
fortheviews oftheUnited States while underlining thatthereview hadproved tobeworth theenormous
effort. Therepresentative ofIndia, withregard toArticle 63.3, expressed theviewthattheprovisions
ofthatArticle hadtobereadtogether withArticle 65.2andtherefore didnotapply todeveloping
countries untiltheendoftheirtransition period.
67. TheChairman, responding tothepoints made bytherepresentatives ofBrazil andIndia, drew
attention totheagreed procedures forthereview, according towhich "themain record ofthereview
willbethetranscripts ofthequestions andreplies. There would alsobeabriefrecord ofanyother
discussion atthemeeting, including anyintroductory statements andcomments notreflected inthe
questions andreplies." Inregard tothepossibility fordeveloping countries topresent questions, he
referred tothefinalelement ofthose procedures, according towhich "atsubsequent meetings ofthe
Council anopportunity willbegiven tofollow-up anypoint emerging fromthereview sessions which
delegations consider hadnotbeenadequately addressed". Herecalled thatthereview ofnational
implementing legislation asscheduled indocument IP/C/3 implied quite aheavy workload andthat
itwasimportant toallow anadequate opportunity forafollow-up toallMembers, inparticular to
developing country Members thathadconstraints ontheirresources andontheirability toanalyse
anddigest some ofthematerial. Headded thattheCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember, thatwasgoing
tobeprincipally devoted totechnical cooperation, might provide agoodopportunity toBrazil andIndia
topursue some ofthepoints raised.
68. Inregard totheprocedures astheyrelated tothefollow-up ofthereview exercise, theChairman
recalled thatdelegations should provide theSecretariat withwritten copies offollow-up questions and
oralreplies. Written replies tofollow-up questions towhich oralresponses could notbeprovided
during theCouncil meeting should besubmitted within eight weeks afterthemeeting. Henoted that
theSecretariat hadreceived anumber ofwritten replies described asbeing provisional orpreliminary.
Anumber ofthose replies appeared tobequite complete. Herequested delegations thathadmarked
thewritten replies asprovisional orpreliminary toadvise theSecretariat bytheendofthefollowing
week whether these replies should beregarded asfinal. Otherwise, theSecretariat would proceed to
process suchreplies asprovisional replies only, i.e.theywould remain marked asprovisional replies
unless delegations contacted theSecretariat andasked themtobeconsidered asfinal. Healsorecalled
that,atsubsequent meetings oftheCouncil, anopportunity would begiven tofollow-up anypoint
emerging fromthereview sessions which delegations considered hadnotbeenadequately addressed.
Thefirstsuchoccasion todosowould beattheCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember. Within thecontext
ofsuchfollow-up, delegations might conceivably poseadditional questions oncetheyhaddigested the
substantial amount ofinformation thathadbeenprovided inthecourse ofthepresent meeting. He
urged thatanysuchquestions andwritten replies tothem beprovided assoonaspossible.
69. Turning totheCouncil 'sreview meeting scheduled forNovember, theChairman recalled that,
accordingtothe"ScheduleforConsiderationofNationalImplementingLegislationin1996/1997"decided
bytheCouncil inNovember 1995 (document IP/C/3), thatreview would relate totheareas of
trademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs. Heproposed thattheprocedures fortheIP/C/M/8
Page16
review oflegislation intheareaofcopyright andrelated rights beapplied mutatis mutandis tothereview
scheduled forNovember, withcertain minor adjustments. Firstly, theadvance notice ofquestions
relating tolegislation intheareaoftrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs should
begiven by20September 1996 (instead ofbytheendofAugust, asindicated indocument IP/C/3).
Secondly, written responses should beprovided assoonaspossible andinanyevent oneweek prior
tothereview meeting oftheCouncil forTRIPS, i.e.by4November 1996, atleastinrespect ofthose
questions posed within thedeadline. Written responses should beaddressed directly totheMember
putting thequestion andcopies should besenttotheSecretariat. Ifwritten responses were tobe
translated intoallWTO languages andthencirculated intimefortheNovember review session, they
should bemade available totheSecretariat wellinadvance ofthemeeting, i.e.by18October 1996
atthelatest.
70. TheChairman proposed thatMembers 'legislation inthese three areas would bereviewed in
thesame order aslegislation oncopyright andrelated rights hadbeenreviewed, while allowing for
flexibility totakeaccount ofthespecial needs ofparticular delegations. Thereview meeting would
taketheformofanintroduction bytheMember whose legislation wasunder review ofitslegislation,
providing abriefoverview ofthestructure ofitslegislation intheareasunder review andofthechanges,
ifany,thatithadhadtobring about inorder tomake thelegislation compatible withtheTRIPS
Agreement. Subsequently, theMember concerned would present itsresponses tothequestions put
toitbyother Members. There would thenbeanopportunity forcomments andpossible follow-up
questions from other Members andoralreplies tothose questions. Outoftheweek of11to
15November 1996, atleastfourdayswould besetaside forthereview, withtheremaining time
available forregular Council work. Atsubsequent meetings oftheCouncil, anopportunity would
begiven tofollow-up anypoint emerging from thereview session which delegations considered had
notbeenadequately addressed.
71. TheCounciladoptedtheproceduresasproposedbytheChairmanandtooknoteofthestatements
made.
J. Other Business
(i) Accession
72. TheChairman informed theCouncil ofrecent developments inrelation tointellectual property
inaccession working parties. LastJanuary, Ecuador hadacceded totheWTO under Article XIIof
theWTO Agreement. According totheReport oftheWorking Party ontheAccession ofEcuador
(paragraph 77),"therepresentative ofEcuador confirmed thatthedateofapplication oftheprovisions
oftheTRIPS Agreement forEcuador willbe31July1996". TheWorking Party hadtaken note
(paragraph 80)thatthiscommitment hadbeenincorporated inparagraph 2oftheProtocol ofAccession
ofEcuador totheWTO. Lastweek, theGeneral Council hadadopted theReport oftheWorking Party
onMongolia 'saccession totheWTO andapproved theterms ofaccession forMongolia. Asregards
theprotection ofintellectual property, theReport reflected astatement bytherepresentative ofMongolia
that"hiscountry 'slawsinthefieldofintellectual property rights werealready inconformity withthe
provisions oftheAgreement onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and
thatMongolia would fullyapply theprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement bythedateofitsaccession
totheWTO". Thiscommitment hadbeenincorporated inparagraph 2oftheProtocol ofAccession
ofMongolia totheWTO. TheProtocol ofAccession would beopenforacceptance byMongolia until
31December 1996andwould enterintoforce onthe30thdayfollowing thedayuponwhich Mongolia
would haveaccepted it.IP/C/M/8
Page17
(ii) Revocation ofpatents
73. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathewasraising theissueofrevocation ofpatents
andhowtheobligations under theTRIPS Agreement related tothisissue, since theissue hadbeen
raised inother bodies oftheWTO. TheTRIPS Agreement addressed theissueofrevocation ofpatents
through Articles 27,29and33.Pursuant toArticle 27,WTO Members mustgrant patents forthose
inventions thatwere new, involved aninventive stepandwere capable ofindustrial application.
Article 29required asacondition forthegrant ofapatent thattheapplicant disclosed theinvention
insuchamanner astoenable persons ofordinary skills topractise theinvention. Article 33provided
thatapatent thathadbeengranted byaMember must lastnotlessthan20years from theearliest
effective filing dateclaimed inthepatent. Provisions existed inArticle 27which permitted WTO
Memberstoexcludecertaininventionsfromeligibilityforpatentprotection.Theseprovisions,however,
didnotcontemplate therevocation ofpatents thathadbeengranted forthese inventions forwhich the
WTO Member made protection available. Asaresult, patents could notberevoked byMembers except
ongrounds thatwould havejustified denial ofthegrant ofapatent ontheunderlying application.
74. Therepresentatives ofAustralia andofCanada expressed support fortheviews putforward
bytheUnited States. Therepresentatives oftheEuropean Communities andSwitzerland saidthattheir
initial reactions totheUnited States views were verypositive.
75. Therepresentative ofIndia, supported bytherepresentatives ofBrazil andParaguay, requested
thedelegation oftheUnited States toprovide itsproposal inwriting, sothatothers would havethe
opportunity toreflect upon itandreactinduecourse. Bywayofpreliminary reaction, shesaidthat
theSection onpatents intheTRIPS Agreement contained aseparate Article onrevocation/forfeiture,
i.e.Article 32,which onlyrequired Members toprovide forjudicial review ofdecisions onrevocation
orforfeiture. Article 27laiddown thatpatents "shall beavailable" andnotthatpatents mustbegranted,
asstated bytheUnited States.
76. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthattheissueraised bytheUnited States wasaveryimportant
oneandwished tocome backtoitinthenearfuture, onthebasisofinstructions fromhisauthorities.
Inaddition tothesubstantive arguments putforward bytheUnited States, there wasaquestion asto
which forum wastheappropriate onetodiscuss thisissuegiven itsrelation tomatters under discussion
intheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment. Thought needed tobegiven totherelationship between
theTRIPS Council andtheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment more generally aswell.
77. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathewould submit asummary ofthestatement
made atthismeeting fordistribution toMembers.3Asregards Article 32,hisdelegation wasofthe
view thatthatprovision obliged WTO Members tomake review procedures available anddidnot
represent asubstantive standard.
78. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made andthatthisitem
beplaced ontheagenda forthenextmeeting oftheCouncil.
79. TheCouncil soagreed.
(iii) Nextmeeting
80. TheChairman recalled thatithadbeen agreed thatthefocus ofthenextmeeting, on
18September 1996, should beontheissue oftechnical cooperation andreminded Members ofthe
3Document IP/C/W/32IP/C/M/8
Page18
Workshop onBorder Enforcement scheduled fortheafternoon of17September. Apart fromtechnical
cooperation, theprincipal points fortheagenda ofthe18September meeting appeared tobethe
following: notifications under Article 4(d); notifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,
4and5;other notifications; implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9; review under Article 24.2;
revocation ofpatents; report totheSingapore Ministerial; follow-up tothereview oflegislation on
copyright andrelated rights; andobserver status forintergovernmental organizations. TheCouncil
would alsocontinue tobeinformed ofdevelopments elsewhere intheWTO ofrelevance toTRIPS.
Hebelieved thatduring thepresent meeting aneedhademerged forprior informal consultations, in
particular inrespect ofnotifications under Article 4(d), notifications under Article 63.2relating to
Articles 3,4and5andthereport totheSingapore Ministerial. Heintended tocallthese informal
consultations forthemorning of17September.