RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/W/274/Add.1
7 August 2001
(01-3908)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
Follow-up questions posed by the European Communities and their member States
Addendum
By means of a communication from the Permanent Mission of the European Commission, dated
3 August 2001, the Secretariat has received copies of the following follow-up questions that the European
Communities and their member States have communicated to Argentina, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Georgia,
Honduras, Jamaica, and Suriname, respectively.
_______________
ARGENTINA1
Follow-up to question 14:
Please explain whether or not the notion of "denom inación de origen" of Article 3 of the Trademark
Law N° 22.362 encompasses those of "Indicaciones de Procedencia", "Indicación Geográfica" and
"Denominación de Origen Controlada" of Law N° 25.163.  Please explain how none of the latter three
notions can be used to be part of a registered trademark, totally or in part.
Follow-up to question 16:
Please explain how the provisions of Article 7 ensure that the terminology used as a Geographical
Indication relates to the geographical area where the goods  originate.  Alternatively, explain whether or not
a name unrelated to the way a geographical are is co mmonly known can be used as part of the Geographical
indication.
Follow-up to question 17:
Please provide the definitions pertaining to the notions of IP, IG and DOC.  Please explain the
different fact patterns to which they apply.  Please e xplain their differences, with particular regard to the
difference between IP compared to those of IG and DOC.
                                                     
1 Argentina's responses to initial questions posed by the European Communities and their member States
have been circulated in document IP/C/W/271/Add.3.IP/C/W/274/Add.1
Page 2
Follow-up to question 18:
Article 24.6 of the TRIPS Agreement states that gene ric names shall be appraised in relation to the
"common language (…)  for such goods or services in the territory of that Member."  The plain meaning of
Article 32.2 of Law N° 25.163 seems to i ndicate that the "generic" character needs to be assessed vis-à-vis
the "country of origin".  Yet, the answer to question 18 refers to an evaluation of such "generic" character to
be made with respect to a "limited territory".  Please clarify whether the "country of origin" of Article 32.2
of Law N° 25.163 refers to the country where the goods  originate, the country where the GI was first
protected or simply Argentina.  Please clarify whethe r the "limited territory" to which you referred in your
answer to question 18 implies that the "Generic Charact er" can be recognised in only part of Argentina and
yet apply to (i) all, or (ii) part, of the country.
Follow-up to question 20:
Please explain whether Argentinean law permits th e use of a certain geog raphical indication for
wine which, although literally true as to the territory, region or locality within Argentina in which the wine
is made, falsely represents to the public that the wine  originates in another territory of identical name of
another WTO member in which the GI gained its original, prior reputation.
CÔTE D’IVOIRE2
Follow-up to question 14:
Please clarify whether any domestic legislation impl ements the provisions of Section 3 of Part II of
the TRIPS Agreement.  If none, please explain how th e provisions of the Bangui Agreement have direct
effect in Cote d'Ivoire.  Please e xplain how both nationals of Cote d'Iv oire and WTO nationals benefit from
the protection for GIs.
Follow-up to questions 15 and 16:
Please explain the difference, if any, between both answers.
Follow-up to question 17:
Please explain and quote those general provisions  for the protection of GIs to which you refer.
Please explain how Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement is implemented in Cote d'Ivoire.
CROATIA3
Follow-up to question 18:
Please explain in which circumstances the type of  protection awarded to a trademark in the country
of origin has a bearing on the priority of trademarks over geographical indications in Croatia.  Please explain
                                                     
2 Cote d'Ivoire's responses to initial questions posed  by the European Communities and their member States
will be circulated in an addendum to document IP/C/W/287.
3 Croatia's responses to initial questions posed by th e European Communities and their member States have
been circulated in document IP/C/W/262/Add.2.IP/C/W/274/Add.1
Page 3
whether the characterisation of a name as generic depends  on elements to be mustered in Croatia or in the
country of origin of the said indication.
Follow-up to question 45:
Please explain whether Croatian law considers test  data that, e.g. pharmaceutical companies need to
file for the authorisation of new compounds in Croatia  as undisclosed information.  Please explain whether
such data is object of any type of protection.  Please clarify whether such data shall be subject to the
compulsory governmental disclosure and, if so, in which circumstances.
GEORGIA4
Follow-up to question 15:
Please confirm that the requirements under letters (a), (b) and (c) are applied cumulatively
Follow-up to question 17:
Please clarify whether wines and spir its receive a higher level of prot ection than other goods.  If not,
please explain how the general level of protection comp ly with the requirements of Article 23 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
Follow-up to question 19:
Please confirm that Georgia does not have a sui generis  law on industrial designs.  Please confirm
that the requirement of inventiveness does not apply to  industrial designs if they are to be protected as
patents.  Please clarify how protecting industrial de signs can be protected as patents when the TRIPS
Agreement (Article 25) limits the choice between a sui generis  law or copyright law.
Follow-up to question 45:
Please clarify how the requirement of governmental certification for an information to be secret can
be reconciled with the provisions of Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement, which do not seem to permit any
such precondition.  Please explain in detail in which ci rcumstances information disclosure is prescribed by
law.
HONDURAS5
Follow-up to question 17:
Please explain whether Article 23.2 of the TRIPS Agreement has been explicitly transposed into
Honduras legislation.  If so, please explain how it full y respects the requirements of the this provision.  If
not, please explain how Article 23.2 of the TRIPS Agr eement is directly applicable in Honduras and how
citizens of the WTO Members can directly enjoy its protection.
                                                     
4 Georgia's responses to initial questions posed by the European Communities and their member States
have been circulated in document IP/C/W/290.
5 Honduras's responses to initial questions posed by the European Communities and their member States
have been circulated in document IP/C/W/277/Add.1.IP/C/W/274/Add.1
Page 4
JAMAICA6
Follow-up to question 11:
Please confirm that there is no legal definition of  use for the purposes of trademark registration.
Please provide such definition if existing via case-law.
Follow-up to question 19:
Please explain whether the requirement of "commonpl ace" is determined in relation to the world or
simply to the territory of Jamaica.
Follow-up to question 20:
Please clarify.
Follow-up to questions 43, 44 and 45:
Please explain whether Jamaican authorities have  any specific legislative project/draft aimed to
implement those provisions of the TRIP S Agreement and, if so, in what manner.
SURINAME7
Follow-up to question 14:
Please clarify the reference to Article 6 quinquies  of the Paris Convention.  Please provide, if
existing, an example of a trademark that has b een refused on the basis of a conflicting geographical
indication.  Please explain where in Suriname's law the definition of Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement
has been acknowledged/incorporated.  Please explain the difference, according to Suriname's law, between
geographical origin and geographical indication.
Follow-up to question 15:
Please clarify your answer.
Follow-up to question 16:
Please explain the link between "a certain e xpectation about the quality of a product" and
Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement wording when referring to a "given quality, (…) of the good is
essentially attributable to its geographical origin".
                                                     
6 Jamaica's responses to initial questions posed by the European Communities and their member States
have been circulated in document IP/C/W/266/Add.1.
7 Suriname's responses to initial questions posed by the European Communities and their member States
have been circulated in document IP/C/W/283.IP/C/W/274/Add.1
Page 5
Follow-up to question 17:
Please explain how Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreem ent is implemented by Suriname's legislation.
Follow-up to question 18:
Please provide a definition and/or the criteria to characterise, from a legal perspective, a name as a
"generic".
__________