RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/M/20
15 October 1998
(98-3989)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 17 September 1998
Chairperson:  Ambassador István Major (Hungary)
Subjects discussed:
A. O BSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
B. N OTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
C. I MPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 70.8 A ND 70.9
D. R EVIEW OF LEGISLATION :
(i) Legislation on enforcement (South Africa)
(ii) Follow-up to the reviews already undertaken(iii) Arrangements for future reviews
E. I
MPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 23.4
F. I NFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO
G. T ECHNICAL COOPERATION
H. O THER BUSINESS
A. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
1. The Chairperson informed the Council that a new request for observer status had been
received from the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), an intergovernmental
organization with its headquarters in Rome.
2. In the light of the informal consultations held on the pending requests for observer status, he
suggested that further informal consultations be held on this matter and that the Council revert to it at
the next meeting.  The IPGRI would be requested to provide information relevant to the criteriacontained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the procedures relating to the grant of observer status for
international intergovernmental organiza tions (Annex 3 of document WT/L/161).IP/C/M/20
Page 2
3. The representative of Switzerland said that her delegation did not oppose the Chairperson's
conclusions, but wished to confirm its support for the request by the European Free Trade Association
(EFTA) for observer status.  The TRIPS Council could take a decision on observer status
independently of consultations in other bodies of the WTO and she hoped that the Council would
expeditiously make a decision on EFTA's request.
4. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chairperson and took note  of the statement
of Switzerland.
B. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
5. The Chairperson informed the Council that, since the previous meeting, new notifications of
legislation had been received from Belgium, Ecuador, Germany, Ireland and Papua New Guinea.
Papua New Guinea had informed the Council in its notification of the intellectual property legislationcurrently in place in that country and of the preparations it was taking for full implementation of the
TRIPS Agreement by the year 2000.  All these notifications would be available in the IP/N/1/-
document series as soon as possible.
(ii) Notifications under Article 69
6. The Chairperson informed the Council that, since the previous meeting, a new notification
under Article 69 had been received from Chad, bringing the number of Members that had notified
contact points under this provision to 86.  A notification had also been received from the delegation of
Portugal, which had notified updated information concerning its contact points under Article 69.
Information on these contact points was available in the IP/N/3/- series of documents.
(iii) Notifications under Article 1.3 or 3.1
7. The Chairperson informed the Council that a notification under Article 3.1 had been received
from Jamaica and would be available in the IP/N/2/- series of documents as soon as possible.
(iv) Notifications under Article 4(d)
8. The Chairperson informed the Council that a new notification under Article 4(d) had been
received from Zambia and would be circulated in the IP/N/4/- series of documents in due course.
9. The Council took note of the statements made under this agenda item.
C. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 70.8 AND 70.9
10. The Chairperson said that he had one new notification to report under this agenda item,
namely from Zambia.  Zambia had notified that its patent law already provided for the protection of
inventions of pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals.
11. The representative of the United States recalled that, at the Council's meetings in November
1997 and February 1998, his delegation had supported a proposal made by the European Communities
that the Council conduct a review of the implementation of Article 70.8 and 70.9 by Members
obligated by those provisions.  In light of the Chair's suggestion at the meeting in February 1998, that
concerned Members give questions regarding implementation of these Articles directly to obligated
Members, the United States had distributed such questions to several Members prior to the Council's
meeting in May 1998.  His delegation regretted that to date no responses had been received.  In thelight of this situation, his delegation proposed again that the Council consider the earlier proposal ofIP/C/M/20
Page 3
the European Communities for a systematic review in order that information regarding the manner in
which Members were implementing Article 70.8 and 70.9 could be developed and made known to all
Members.  Such a review could be conducted through the use of a checklist of questions, as in the
review of national implementing legislation on enforcement and in the context of Article 24.2.
12. The representative of the European Communities said that the obligations under Article 70.8
and 70.9 were fundamental and among the first to apply in time under the Agreement, namely as of 1
January 1995, as confirmed by two panels and one Appellate Body report; most provisions of the
Agreement had not applied until 1 January 1996.  After more than three years, it was highly
unsatisfactory that such a high degree of uncertainty still existed concerning the legal situation in the
countries potentially concerned.  This was greatly detrimental to the economic operators who had
relied on their eligibility for the benefits of these provisions.  He supported a systematic review of the
implementation of these obligations along the same  lines as the reviews already undertaken in the
Council.
13. The representative of Japan supported a review of the implementation of Article 70.8 and 70.9
as proposed by the United States.
14. The representative of Morocco said that this subject had been discussed at length and he
believed that it had been exhausted.  If any delegation wished to discuss this subject once again, it
should be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
15. The representative of the Philippines endorsed the suggestion of the representative of
Morocco.  He suggested that, if the Council decided to place on the agenda a review of the
implementation of Article 70.8 and 70.9, it should also place on the agenda the performance by
Members of their obligations under Article 66.2.
16. The representative of Egypt said that this subject  had been raised at previous meetings of the
Council.  He reiterated his delegation's view that there was no provision in the Agreement for a
review concerning Article 70.8 and 70.9.  If the United States had posed questions to some Members
and not received replies, it could raise this with specific Members concerned.  If a systematic review
were held, the Council could also do so in relation to other provisions, for example Articles 66.2 and67.
17. The Chairperson proposed, first, that the United States circulate to all Members the questions
it had posed to individual Members, in the interests of transparency.  Second, he proposed that the
question of a review of the implementation of Article 70.8 and 70.9 be placed on the agenda of the
next meeting, and that the same be done with the suggested review of the implementation of Article
66.2.  With respect to Article 67, he said that this was a standard agenda item and no specific decision
was required to place it on the agenda.
18. The Council agreed to proceed as proposed by the Chairperson.
D. R EVIEW OF LEGISLATION
(i) Legislation on enforcement (South Africa)
19. The Chairperson recalled that, after the Council's meeting in July, answers to initial questions
remained outstanding from South Africa.  The Secretariat had received the texts of these outstanding
responses as well as of South Africa's responses to follow-up questions.  These responses would be
distributed in the IP/Q4/- series of documents in due course.IP/C/M/20
Page 4
20. The representative of South Africa said that, at the previous meeting, his delegation had
promised to do its utmost to deliver all outstanding responses by the present meeting.  His delegation
was pleased that it had delivered as promised in spite of the problems that it had experienced.  He
thanked all delegations which had shown their indu lgence in this matter and hoped that this spirit
would be carried forwar d to future reviews.
21. The Council took note of this statement.
(ii) Follow-up to the reviews already undertaken
- Copyright and related rights
22. The Chairperson recalled that the delegation of Japan, in February 1998, had posed a question
to the delegation of Ireland in relation to a response given by the Government of Ireland in the context
of the review of legislation that the Council had undertaken at its meeting in July 1996.  A response to
this question had been received by the Secretariat and would be circulated in the IP/Q/- series ofdocuments shortly.
23. The representative of Japan said that his delegation appreciated the reply from the European
Communities and Ireland to its question on copyright and related rights and looked forward to
completion of the amendment of Ireland's legislation.
24. The Council took note of this statement.
25. The Chairperson said that the Secretariat had received the text of a follow-up question from
the European Communities and their member States addressed to Hungary.1
- Trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs
26. The Chairperson informed the Council that the S ecretariat had received the text of a number
of follow-up questions from the European Communities and their member States addressed to
Bulgaria.2
- Patents, layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits, protection of
undisclosed information and control of anti-competitive practices in
contractual licences
27. The Chairperson recalled that, at the last meeting, responses to follow-up questions were still
due from South Africa and the United States .  The answers in question had been received from both
these delegations and would be circulated in the IP/Q3/- series of documents as soon as possible.
28. The Chairperson suggested that, since there were no issues outstanding, the item concerning
the follow-up to the review on pate nts, layout-designs of integrated circuits, undisclosed information
and the control of anti-competitive practices in contractual licences be deleted from the agenda, it
being understood that any delegation should feel free to revert to any matter stemming from that
review at any time.
29. The Council so agreed.
                                                     
1 Circulated after the meeting as incorporated in document IP/Q/HUN/1.
2 Circulated after the meeting as incorporated in document IP/Q2/BGR/1.IP/C/M/20
Page 5
- Enforcement
30. The Chairperson recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had urged Members to provide
any outstanding material without delay.  The Secr etariat had informed him that a number of answers
to questions posed in this part of the review exercise were still outstanding.  The Secretariat was in
contact with the delegations in question and he suggested, once again, that the Council urge thesedelegations to do their utmost to provide the material due soon.
31. The Council so agreed.
(iii) Arrangements for future reviews
- Review of the legislation of Ecuador, Mongolia and Panama
32. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its next meeting, on 1 and 2 December 1998, the Council
would review the national implementing legislati on of Ecuador, Mongolia and Panama.  Advance
notices of questions for this review (to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat) were due by15 September.  A set of questions for each of these Members had been received by the Secretariat
from Japan and would be circulated to delegations shortly.
3
33. The Chairperson suggested that the Council urge any other delegation which had questions for
this review exercise to submit their questions as soon as possible and preferably well in advance of the
meeting of 1 and 2 December, so that the countries to be reviewed would have sufficient time toprepare their responses in advance of that  meeting.
34. The Chairperson said that the Secretariat had not yet received responses to the Checklist of
Issues on Enforcement4 from Ecuador or Mongolia and suggested that the Council urge these
delegations, once again, to complete their notifications as soon as they could.
35. The Council so agreed.
- Advance reviews
36. The Chairperson recalled that it had not been possible to reach a consensus among all
Members on the "ground rules" that had been proposed by the Chair last year September for advance
reviews of the legislation of some Members which had already been, in whole or in part, brought into
conformity with the TRIPS Agreement.  In the light  of further consultations that he had held on this
matter, he suggested that he consult with those Members that had been open to advance reviews of
their legislation to see if they would be in a position to have their legislation reviewed in the first part
of 2000, so as to kick off the post-2000 review process.  This suggestion was made against the
background of the fact that, even if it were possible to agree on "ground rules" at the present meeting,
the review in question would not take place until the second half of 1999, i.e. just before the end of
the transition period for developing countries.  Some of these Members had already made advance
notifications of their legislation and others would need to do so during 1999 if this suggestion were towork.  In the consultations that he had held, discussions had also focused on another question
concerning the review of the national implementing legislation of developing countries after 1 January
2000, in particular on the question of the practical arrangements that would need to be put in place for
the review of their legislation.  Further consultations would be held on this matter which would then,
at a later stage, be put on the Council's agenda.
37. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chairperson.
                                                     
3 Document IP/C/W/111.
4 Document IP/C/5.IP/C/M/20
Page 6
E. I MPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 23.4
(i) Proposal from the European Communities and their member States for a multilateral
register of geographical indications for wines and spirits based on Article 23.4 of the
TRIPS Agreement ( document IP/C/W/107)
38. The Chairperson recalled that the discussion on this matter, after the information-gathering
exercise in 1997, had focused on the question of what the next step should be for carrying forward
work concerning negotiations for the establishment of an international system for the notification and
registration of geographical indications under Article 23.4.  A proposal on the matter had been
received from the delegation of the European Communities just prior to the previous meeting of the
Council and briefly discussed during the informal consultations of 16 July 1998.
39. The representative of the European Commun ities said that the proposal circulated in
document IP/C/W/107 was a first step in a process that risked to be long and cumbersome.  He
expected criticisms and suggestions and hoped that these would allow Members to proceed further,
albeit, in all likelihood, by trial and error.  His delegation had relied on the groundwork done by the
Secretariat which, in document IP/C/W/85, had el aborated on a number of existing international
registration systems for geographical indications, namely the Lisbon Agreement and other agreements
which had a bearing on this matter.  His delegation had taken on board as much from that documentas possible.  As regards the legal basis for work under Article 23.4 of the Agreement, Members had
agreed that negotiations should be undertaken in the Council for TRIPS concerning the establishment
of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines eligible
for protection in those Members participating in th e system.  In addition, Members had agreed at the
Singapore Ministerial Conference in 1996 that the Council for TRIPS, in accordance withparagraph 34 of its Report (1996), would initiate in 1997 preliminary work on issues relevant to the
negotiations specified in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement concerning the establishment of a
multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and that
issues relevant to a notification and registration system of geographical indications for spirits would
be part of this preliminary work.  Reacting to comments received at the informal meeting of16 July 1998, he wished to underline that his delegation's intention was not to alter the level of
protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits provided in the TRIPS Agreement.  The
intention was to achieve an administrative system to gain legal clarity and legal certainty as to which
geographical indications were protected in which territories.  No new substantive obligations would
be created, but only a procedural mechanism.
40. The representative of Venezuela said that his delegation was greatly interested in an adequate
and effective registration system for wines and spirits.  Venezuela was aware that negotiations for a
multilateral registration system under Article 23.4 were mandated only for wines and, since the
Singapore Ministerial Conference, spirits, but hoped that very soon an exercise could be initiated to
extend the negotiating mandate on a multilateral register to all sorts of products capable of being
identified by their geographical origin.  This was because of the importance of this type of industrial
property for the development of local industries, in particular food and wine producing businesses.While the EC proposal met many of his delegation's expectations, he wished to highlight the
following points, which were of particular interest  to Venezuela.  As regards costs, it would be
opportune to know what the administrative costs of such a multilateral register would be.  What would
be the costs for applying for the registration of a geographical indication?  Should there be "fees" and,
if so, what would be done with these revenues?  Venezuela would be in favour of international feesfor such a register so long as the revenues derived from it were dedicated to technical cooperation for
developing and least-developed countries.  Notifications of geographical indications, in lists or
individually, and the evidence to be presented should include national certificates of registration,
information on the original characteristics of the product, statistics of production, national regulations
on quality applicable to the product, the existence of producers' associations, etc.  Recordings ofgeographical indications in the future multilateral register should not have automatic effect in MemberIP/C/M/20
Page 7
countries.  The multilateral registration system should include a national phase for recording
indications which were to be protected without the need for a substantive or technical examination.  In
Venezuela, geographical indications were private rights, which required them to be recorded in a
national register and national fees to be paid, so as to allow enjoyment of protection.  Accordingly, the
national office would not examine the nature, the international effect, the legal or technical basis ofthe geographical indication to be recorded;  the national phase would only be for recording purposes
and merely be of a fiscal nature.
41. The representative of the United States found the EC proposal valuable in that it prompted all
delegations to examine in some detail what was the true purpose of Article 23.4.  His comments were
based on a preliminary examination of the proposal.  He recalled that a considerable amount of
information on individual Members' regimes for the protection of geographical indications for wines
and spirits had been submitted last year in preparation for the negotiations to be undertaken underArticle 23.4.  In addition, the Secretariat's analysis of existing international registration systems had
been useful in determining the level of protection th at already existed.  In spite of that information,
much about the protection of geographical indications, including for wines and spirits, remained
unclear, particularly in connection with enforcement, and should be clarified before any negotiations
went forward under Article 23.4.  His delegation believed that information to be developed in thereview under Article 24.2 would provide Members with a clear and detailed picture of the measures
that Members had implemented to fulfil their obli gations.  Once that information was available,
discussion could proceed to develop a multilateral notification and registration system that followed
the true purpose of Article 23.4.  His delegation believed that it was important to examine the EC
proposal in the light of that true purpose.  He wondered whether this purpose was to create new legalobligations for Members, as the EC proposal, in hi s delegation's view, would.  He had noted that the
European Communities had expressed the view that their proposal was not intended to increase the
level of protection.  According to his delegation, the true purpose of Article 23.4 was to create a
voluntary system that would provide transparency about recognized geographical indications and
facilitate their protection under the terms of the TRIPS Agreement.  This system should not imposeadditional legal obligations beyond those already provided in the Agreement.  He also wished to
highlight that the EC proposal as currently draw n up was not compatible with ways used by many
Members, including the United States, to protect geographical indications, such as through
certification marks, unfair competition law and common law.  His delegation was also concerned that
under the EC proposal Members might be needlessly burdened with constantly having to verify
hundreds of individual geographical indications and might, in fact, repeatedly face a significant
number of onerous opposition proceedings.  This burden would be particularly taxing on Memberswith limited resources.  His delegation looked forwar d to continuing the dialogue with Members, in
particular on the issue of the true purpose of Article 23.4, once it had had the opportunity to analyse
fully the information gathered as a result of the review under Article 24.2.
42. The representative of Hong Kong, China, welcoming the EC proposal as an important
contribution to the work under Article 23.4, said that his delegation was studying the proposal in
detail, but wished to make the following observations and comments, without prejudice to his
delegation's eventual position.  First, Article 23.4 referred specifically to the establishment of a
multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines.  He had
noted the clarification made by the European Communities that there was a reference to geographical
indications for spirits in the Council's Report (1996), which had been endorsed by the SingaporeMinisterial Conference.  Nevertheless, Article 23.4 as drafted referred expressly only to wines and not
to spirits.  He wondered, therefore, whether there was a sufficient legal basis for work on spirits at this
particular juncture.  Secondly, the third paragraph of the introduction to the EC proposal referred to
the possibility of launching complementary discussions with the objective of extending the
multilateral register's coverage to other goods in stages.  His delegation had some misgivings aboutthe legal basis, or the lack of one, for extending work under Article 23.4 to other goods.  He noticed in
this connection that there was a provision in Article 24.1 concerning further negotiations aimed at
increasing the protection of individual geographical indications under Article 23.  Since the referenceIP/C/M/20
Page 8
in this provision was, again, to Article 23, which in turn covered wines and to some extent spirits,
how could Article 24.1 provide the legal basis for negotiations concerning geographical indications in
respect of other goods, whether in stages or otherwise?  He would appreciate clarification by the
European Communities on this point.  Further to a point raised by the United States, when looking at
practical aspects, Hong Kong, China's system of pr otecting geographical indications left it to the
owner of the geographical indication to take whatever action he wished to protect it, whether by
registering the indication as a trademark or a certification mark, or by using the common law of
passing off.  He noted that the United States had pointed out that this was part of their practice as well
and he concurred with this delegation on the question as to how the EC proposal would match with a
legal system based on passing off and the registration of trademarks and certification marks.
43. The representative of Mexico considered it enco uraging that this first proposal on the subject
had been made on the basis not only of the Agr eement, but also of the Singapore Ministerial
Declaration, which touched on this matter in respect of spirits.  Generally speaking, and subject to any
further comments she might make in the future, the EC proposal seemed logical and consistent.  It
was indicative of how a multilateral notification and registration system might shape up.  There were
a number of aspects which required further elaboration, such as the administration of the system, the
costs thereof, etc., and should be discussed in more detail.  As indeed the proposal itself pointed out,an important aspect which required further thought concerned the mechanism to apply in order to
settle disputes between Members with opposing views on the protectability of specific indications.
Her delegation hoped that work on the subject could proceed as expeditiously as possible in order to
respect the mandate to set up such a register of wines and spirits.  The EC proposal could be taken as
a reference point to facilitate the exchange of views that might lead to the setting up of such a system,
with a view to ensuring that it would cover the existing systems of protection for geographical
indications as they might exist in Members.
44. The representative of Canada, providing his delegation's preliminary comments, said that,
first, the structure of the EC proposal as outlin ed, especially in section III, "Opposition Procedure",
and section V, "Legal Implications", appeared to contemplate a system in which an entity other thanthe national authority would make the determination of what was registerable and therefore protected.
Did Members not agree that this would go beyond the obligations in the Agreement and potentially
impinge on Members' sovereignty?  Second, while referring to section V.2 of the proposal, he
observed that the effect of the proposed procedure would be the creation of a title of protection which
would imply a requirement for direct enforcement by the State and not merely be a private right, as
was the case in Canada.  The language in section V.1 of the proposal, that Members "will be
responsible for taking the appropriate measures required by the TRIPS Agreement to effectivelyprotect" registered geographical indications, was ambiguous.  This section would further require that
geographical indications in the registration system become "fully and indefinitely protected in all
WTO Members", though adding a name to the register would be at the option of the Member
notifying the geographical indication.  Did Members not agree that this would go beyond the
voluntary nature of a possible register under Ar ticle 23.4, which provision referred to "Members
participating in the system", thereby indicating that  the system would be a voluntary one?  While the
system should allow for a manifold request for protection to be made, Members should still
individually determine whether a geographical indication was protectable according to their
legislation.  Finally, the introductory text of the EC proposal suggested "launching complementary
discussions with the objective of extending the multilateral register's coverage to other goods".Referring to earlier comments on the scope of Article 23.4, his delegation wished to point out that
Article 23.4 dealt only with wines, although it had now been expanded to include spirits, as a result of
the Singapore Ministerial Conference.
45. The representative of Australia said that the EC proposal raised a number of issues which
required careful and thorough analysis.  Her delegation wished to offer its preliminary views and to
seek clarification.  It was encouraged by th e statement by the European Communities that the
proposal was not intended to change the level of protection accorded to geographical indications.  SheIP/C/M/20
Page 9
agreed with the distinction made by the United States between the level of protection and the nature of
the obligations.  Comparing the proposal with the provisions of the Section in the Agreement on
geographical indications, it seemed to reflect, in some respects, a "more or less" relationship:
sometimes more protection, sometimes less.  Her delegation shared Canada's concern about the
proposed effect of registration in relation to the voluntary nature of the system.  If her delegationunderstood it correctly, in this respect, the propo sal would provide more protection than required by
the Agreement.  Some aspects of the proposal would be onerous in practice, in particular the objection
system which, from her delegation's own experience in dealing with these matters, was very resource-
intensive, requiring a judgement on the acceptability of each specific indication notified as a
geographical indication.  As each Member that wished not to protect a particular indication must raise
its own objection, issues of equity arose for those less well-placed to do so.  Members might end up
protecting certain indications by default.  What conditions applied for raising objections?  Was itnecessary to establish a prima facie case, or was it su fficient simply to indicate that there might be a
problem?  She also sought clarification as to whether the proposal envisaged a rolling system where
lists would come in on a fairly regular basis and constantly be updated.  This could become unwieldy
and be difficult for industry planning and not achieve the certainty and clarity hoped for.  She sought
any further information about the arbitration system envisaged and the role of national authorities.She wondered how the proposed system reflec ted the provisions on trademarks and homonymous
geographical indications of the Agreement's Section on geographical indications and the exceptions
provisions of Article 24.  Further, in relation to the comments of Hong Kong, China on the various
modes of protection of geographical indications, she noted that the review of national implementing
legislation in the Council had shown that many a pproaches had been chosen by Members.  She also
signalled her delegation's slight mystification with the reference in the proposal to expansion of the
register to other products, which seemed premature, if not speculative.
46. The representative of Hungary expressed his delegation's great interest in the EC proposal.  It
was thought-provoking and could serve as a basis for further discussions on the implementation of
Article 23.4 of the Agreement, to which Hungary attached great importance as stated by theHungarian Minister for Industry, Trade and Tourism at the Second Ministerial Conference in May
1998.  Regarding the substance of the proposal, he referred, first, to its section V.3 and said that, in
the understanding of his delegation, that section would not exclude a case where a wine-importing
Member not opposing the registration of a misleading geographical indication or failing to provide
appropriate evidence supporting its objection would be obliged to provide full and indefinite
protection for it.  This obligation in turn might damage the legitimate commercial interests of the
Member in which the region or locality to which the original geographical indication referred waslocated.  He asked the European Communities to clarify whether his delegation's understanding in this
respect was correct.  Secondly, he said that, according to section IV of the proposal, in a case of
homonymous geographical indications, the "Members concerned shall undertake negotiations with
each other to seek agreement on the matter".  However, the proposal stopped there and was silent
about what should happen when the Members concer ned could not reach agreement.  An arbitration
or dispute settlement procedure might be necessary to deal with these situations;  his delegation would
be interested in the views of other Members on this matter.
47. The representative of Peru considered the EC proposal for a multilateral register of
geographical indications most interesting and useful.  However, in her delegation's view not only
account should be taken of the elements of Article 22.1 for the definition of geographical indications,but reference should be made to the quality, reputation and other characteristics of the product which
could be attributable to its geographical origin.  In section III of the proposal, "Opposition Procedure",
Article 22.4 and 24.6 were mentioned but, in her delegation's view, these provisions concerned
exceptions and not grounds for opposition.  It would be advisable that once recognition was given to
the original ownership of a geographical indication in the register, an observation be includedclarifying its use in the territory of those Members who had been using the geographical indication in
question in good faith as stipulated in the exceptions provisions of the Agreement.  One might alsoIP/C/M/20
Page 10
mention that the Member concerned should not export the product to third parties where it would
otherwise be violating the rights of the original holder.
48. The representative of New Zealand, providing her delegation's initial comments at this stage,
said that her delegation tended to the view that Article 23.4 did not envisage a system as complex and
legally ambitious as that set out in the EC proposal.  While in the preamble of the proposal emphasiswas placed by the European Communities on the administrative and straightforward character of the
proposal, she noted that further into the document questions arose as to whether the proposal was in
fact of the nature envisaged by Article 23.4.  Giving specific comments on the operative text, she
referred, first, to section I.1, second dash point.  Her delegation was not clear on the intention behind
the reference to "proof of compliance" with th e definition of geographical indications given in
Article 22.1 and would be interested to know what the European Communities envisaged as
appropriate proof of compliance.  There would appear to be the potential for extensive debate amongdifferent Members as to what constituted appropriate  proof of compliance.  In this context, it also
needed to be recalled that the obligation to provid e "legal means" to interested parties to protect
geographical indications was a matter for Members to determine.  Looking at section I.2 regarding
geographical indications protected under regional and multilateral agreements, it was not clear to her
delegation whether proof of compliance would be required for these types of geographical indicationsalong the same lines as under section I.1.  If not, this would appear – for reasons that remained
unclear – to privilege geographical indications appearing in multilateral and bilateral agreements.
With regard to section II, "Notification", the referenc e to the lists of names "to be protected" under the
register seemed unclear.  Article 23.1 and other provisions of the TRIPS Agreement focused on
Members providing the legal means for protection of geographical indications within their ownterritories.  Her delegation had noted the suggestion in section III of the proposal for the establishment
of the concept of an "opposition" procedure.  The relationship between such procedures and the
normal dispute settlement procedures under the prov isions of the DSU remained unclear.  Under the
DSU any Member was free to argue that a Member was not adequately applying the geographical
indications provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.  Was the suggestion here that opposition procedures,once implemented, somehow prevented recourse to the DSU?  If this was the intention, it would raise
some fundamental issues.  Section IV, "Negotiations Between Parties", dealing with homonymous
geographical indications and prior use of trademarks, also raised a number of questions.  The
proposal, by requiring Members to undertake negotiations, did not appear to reflect Article 23.3
which, instead, obliged each Member to determine the practical considerations for differentiating
homonymous geographical indications.  With regard to trademarks, whilst the TRIPS Agreement
dealt with trademarks and gave Members certain rights which could limit geographical indicationsprotection in certain cases, her delegation did not see any provisions in the TRIPS Agreement
requiring international negotiations on trademarks and their status.  Moving on to section V, "Legal
Implications", her delegation would be grateful if the European Communities could clarify the
apparent inconsistency in the proposal between its voluntary nature, as stated in section I, which
referred to those "Members wishing to avail themselves of the … facility", and the fact that, undersection V, the full and indefinite protection which would flow from the facility would in fact be
provided in all WTO Members.  It seemed slight ly odd to her delegation that those Members who did
not elect to participate in the system would be subject to a new raft of legal obligations.  Section V.2,
with its reference to "reasoned opposition", raised is sues regarding dispute settlement.  In whose eyes
was the opposition reasoned?  Was her delegation's understanding correct that the EuropeanCommunities wanted a sui generis  dispute settlement system, applying to certain categories of
disputes on geographical indications, which could possibly circumscribe the current recourse
available under the DSU?  If so, this would be, as far as her delegation knew, the first case since the
conclusion of the Uruguay Round where a category of provisions was separated out and dealt with
through separate means to the DSU.  In addition to the concerns of general principle her delegationhad with the new dispute settlement process envisaged in the EC proposal, she also thought it led to
some rather strange practical results.  For example, the implication of section V.3 regarding the
refusal of recognition was not clear to her delegation.  It seemed to suggest that, even where it was
judged that a particular geographical indication did not qualify for the register, only those countriesIP/C/M/20
Page 11
who had objected to a particular geographical indica tion being registered would be able to refuse it
protection.  This meant that, in effect, there would be two separate categories of geographical
indications:  those on the register that all Members would be required to give some form of total
protection and others, rejected for inclusion on the register, that all Members except those that had
opposed registration were nonetheless obliged to give total protection.  Further clarification as to whatwas intended in this regard would be appreciated.  Aspects of section VI, "Publication", under which
the Secretariat would publish and update lists, would be useful in terms of registration and notification
of those geographical indications protected within  Members.  This notification and dissemination of
information was the type of activity her delegation felt that Article 23.4 envisaged.  However this
section had to be seen in light of the other provisions, which assumed that the inclusion of a certain
geographical indication on these lists would have important legal implications for all Members.
Finally, she noted that the EC proposal dealt with both wines and spirits, and on an equivalent basis.The Singapore Ministerial Declaration, the Report of the Council for TRIPS in 1996 and the minutes
of the February 1997 meeting of the Council referred to preliminary  work being undertaken on issues
relevant  to a system for spirits, and without prejudice to the rights and obligations of Members of the
TRIPS Agreement and the specific provisions of the built-in agenda.  This language should be
accurately reflected in any work in this area.  She also wished to underline that there was currently no
mandate to extend discussions in this area to other goods.
49. The representative of Japan expressed his delegation's concern that the EC proposal seemed to
contain inconsistencies with the Agreement.  While concurring with the requests for clarification
already made by other delegations, he would also appreciate to learn from the European Communitieswhat the relationship was between section IV of its proposal and Articles 23.3 and 24.5 of the
Agreement;  what the relationship was between se ction VII of the proposal and Article 24.9 of the
Agreement;  and to have an explanation about th e management and cost issues of the proposed
system.
50. The representative of Chile said that the EC proposal was being studied closely by his
authorities.  His delegation wished to limit itself, at  this stage, to making some general observations.
In order to facilitate the protection of geographical indications for wines, Article 23.4 required
negotiations to be undertaken in the Council for TRIPS concerning the establishment of a multilateral
system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines eligible for protection in
those Members participating in the system.  The provision in question referred exclusively to wines.
In its Report to the Singapore Ministerial Conference, the Council had made a clear distinction
between work required by Article 23.4, on a register of geographical indications for wines, and otherwork to be started, on a preliminary basis, concerning geographical indications for spirits.  The
possibility of negotiations being undertaken concerning a system for notification and registration of
geographical indications for spirits might be studied but, under Article 23.4, only such a system for
geographical indications for wines had to be negotiated among Members.
51. The representative of Brazil, making preliminary comments on the EC proposal, referred to
section V, "Legal Implications", and said that th e nature of the proposed register needed to be
clarified:  was it a voluntary or information-type register, or a binding register?  It would also be
opportune to underscore the role of the national authorities within the proposed system.
52. The representative of Singapore, making preliminary comments, said that the debate at the
present meeting, in which there had been some very useful and important interventions, had shown
that there were some fundamental points that the Council first needed to determine before it
proceeded to the crux of the work under Article 23.4.  First, one must see what exactly was the scope
of Article 23.4:  what did it require Members to do?  Did it require Members to work only in relation
to wines?  Could the work be extended to spirits, on the basis of the Singapore Ministerial
Declaration, and, if so, was the work in relation to spirits of the same level and nature as that forwines?  Second, did Article 23.4 require Members to have a fully-fledged system as proposed by the
European Communities or something different, which the systems in place under national legislationIP/C/M/20
Page 12
could fulfil?  Another possibility might be, as the United States had mentioned, an information-type
system.  In that connection, one should not forget Article 24.1.  He suggested that a consideration of
the basic questions first would help Members to arrive at a conclusion about many of the points in the
EC proposal.  Once consensus could be achieved about what was exactly required to be done under
Article 23.4, the points in the EC proposal would fa ll into place.  Regarding section V.1 of the
proposal, under which geographical indications were given full and indefinite protection or, as
referred to in the second-last line, effective protection, he pointed out that, under trademark systems,
no full and definite protection was possible if a mark had, for example, been registered, or applied for,
in bad faith;  in such a case, registration could be refused or cancelled.  The other point concerned
section V.3 of the proposal, on which some useful points had already been made.  The question was
whether it was legally correct that there should be two different systems, i.e. whether the legal
situation in one country, which had objected to a particular registration, should be the same as thelegal situation in another country in respect of the same geographical indication, or could be different.
53. The representative of South Africa wished to support the call for establishing clarity on the
scope and purpose of Article 23.4.  It was also important to obtain clarification of the legal
implications of the registration system to be established under the provisions of Article 23.4 and
whether the system was to be voluntary or mandatory.  His delegation was still studying the matter, inparticular the administrative and resource implications at the national level that might result from such
a multilateral registration system.
54. The representative of the European Communities said that some of the questions raised at the
present meeting had also been raised in the inte rnal discussions that the European Communities and
their member States had had in the preparation of the proposal and he accepted that there were manyoptions open as to how to proceed.  Referring in particular to the intervention by New Zealand, he
was fully aware that there were also some areas where further thought was required.  The relationship
between dispute settlement and the administration of a register was not fully developed yet and in an
embryonic stage of thinking.  He was confident that the delegations present would contribute to
advance that thinking and to achieve practical solutions.  He did not think it appropriate to reply at thepresent meeting to every question raised and would limit himself, for the moment, to some systemic
points that had come up repeatedly.  On scope, the coverage of geographical indications for wines was
relatively clear in the text of Article 23.4.  As regards spirits, a high value should be attached to the
Singapore Ministerial Declaration.  As far as other products were concerned, there was no basis to
address them at this point in time but, as his delegation had highlighted in its proposal, once a system
was in place, a registration system for geographical indications for other products might also be
considered.  He realised that this might still be some time off and, at this stage, the discussion couldonly focus on whether spirits were included or not.   The Council needed to reach a solution to that
point.  Another fundamental issue raised concerned the voluntary nature of the system.  Indeed, his
delegation took the view that it should be a voluntary system, but there were several degrees of
voluntariness.  First, would all Members be subject to this system?  An ideal system would require
that all Members be subject to it.  Another approach would have as a consequence that everything thathappened in the system was not legally binding or irrelevant to those Members not participating in it.
There had also been many references to section V.3 of the proposal, under which the refusal of a
registration only benefitted a Member which had opposed the registration and would not apply erga
omnes .  He fully appreciated that the other option could also have been chosen.  However, first, a
decision taken on the registrability of a geographical indication in dispute settlement or by a courtwould not apply erga omnes , but only inter partes .  Further, some of the exceptions in the Agreement
were Member-specific.  For example, the question of whether a geographical indication had become a
generic term was something that might be the case in one Member but not in another.  Whether the
word "Hoover" was a generic term for a vacuum cleaner might be decided differently per country.
The system proposed by his delegation was a voluntary one and, if necessary, this could be clarifiedby honing the text.  In relation to the intervention of Australia, he said that the notification and
objection system proposed seemed perfectly in line with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and
standard legal practice in WTO disputes:  if a party wanted to invoke a benefit, it had to demonstrateIP/C/M/20
Page 13
that it met the requirement.  The party which submitted a geographical indication had to prove that
what it submitted was indeed a geographical indication, in the sense of the TRIPS Agreement.  This
was what was intended by sections I.1 and I.2 of the proposal.  The next step would be for other
Members, who were of the view that one of the exceptions under the TRIPS Agreement applied.
Such a Member had to invoke the exception and had to substantiate the exception by proving itsapplicability, if it and the notifying Member were not in agreement.  He agreed with the United States
that both the process envisaged under Article 23.4 and the process underway for the special review
under Article 24.2, albeit legally separate, in reality operated in parallel.  Certainly, the Council would
be able to benefit from the information gathered fr om the Checklist of Questions that the Council had
developed for the review exercise under Article 24.2.
55. The Chairperson said that the first round of discussion had been very interesting and useful.
He expected that, at the next meeting, there would be an opportunity to revert to this issue, perhaps in
a more systematic way.  In the meantime, the Council might also benefit from information contained
in the responses received to the Checklist of Questio ns (documents IP/C/13 and Add 1) in the context
of the review under Article 24.2 of the Agreement.  He reminded delegations that the deadline for the
submission of these responses was 16 November 1998.
56. The Council took note of the statements made.
(ii) Question from Brazil on the protection of geographical indications in the European
Communities
57. The Chairperson recalled that, at the Council's meeting in May 1998, the delegation of Brazil
had posed a question to the European Communities relating to the protection of geographical
indications.
58. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation had a first draft and
hoped to submit a final answer shortly.
59. The Council took note of this statement.
F. I NFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO
60. The Chairperson informed the Council of devel opments in disputes regarding TRIPS matters.
He recalled, in particular, that at the Council's meeting of 19 September 1997, the Chair had informed
the Council that the DSB had established a panel pursuant to requests by Japan, the European
Communities and the United States concerning measures affecting the automobile industry in
Indonesia.  The US complaint in this case referred to, inter alia , Articles 3, 20 and 65 of the TRIPS
Agreement (see document IP/D/6).  The report of this panel (document WT/DS59/R), circulated to
WTO Members on 2 July 1998, had been adopted by the DSB at its meeting of 23 July 1998.
G. T ECHNICAL COOPERATION
61. The Chairperson first referred to the Symposium on "The Process of Implementation of the
TRIPS Agreement", which had been organized jointly by the International Bureau of WIPO and the
WTO Secretariat and held the day before the present meeting at WIPO headquarters. The Symposium
had been scheduled to take place a day after the Assemblies of the member States of WIPO and one
day before this meeting of the Council for TRIPS, in order to facilitate the widest possibleparticipation of those government delegates and representatives of intergovernmental and non-
governmental organizations that normally attended either of these meetings.  The Symposium was a
follow-up to two joint workshops on specific aspe cts of technical cooperation, one on the "Border
Enforcement Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement", held in September 1996, and the other on
"Technical Cooperation Aimed at Improving Human Resources and Institutional Capacities RequiredIP/C/M/20
Page 14
to Implement the TRIPS Provisions on Domestic Enforcement", held in July 1997.  The Symposium
had provided a forum for discussion and analysis of the challenges and opportunities for developing
countries in the process of implementation of the obligations of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular in
the light of the imminence of 1 January 2000, when the obligations would enter fully into force in
many developing countries.  He thanked the International Bureau of WIPO for its willingness toorganize this Symposium jointly.
62. The Chairperson said that, since the Council's previous meeting, Australia, Iceland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal had notified their contact points for technical cooperation
purposes relating to the TRIPS Agreement.  The Secretariat had circulated a revised compilation of all
notifications of contact points for technical cooperation, and updates thereto, that had been received to
date.  This compilation could be found in document IP/N/7/Rev.2.
63. The Chairperson recalled that the Council had agreed, at its meeting of 12 May 1998, to focus
on technical cooperation at the present meeting.  In preparation for that discussion, it had been agreed
that developed country Members would update information on their technical and financial
cooperation activities relevant to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement in time for the present
meeting.  In addition, intergovernmental organizations observers to the Council had also been invited
to do the same.  The resulting documentation concerning the technical cooperation activities ofdeveloped country Members could be found in  documents IP/C/W/109 and addenda, and of
intergovernmental organizations in documents IP/C/W/108 and addenda.  Updated information on the
WTO Secretariat's technical cooperation activities in the TRIPS area could be found in document
IP/C/W/110.  Paragraphs 8 and 9 of that document contained information on the Joint Initiative on
Technical Cooperation to assist developing countries to meet their commitments under the TRIPSAgreement by the year 2000, that the WIPO and WTO Secretariats had launched in July 1998.
64. The Chairperson said that, as much of this in formation had been received only very recently,
some of it was, thus far, available only in its orig inal language and it was, therefore, his intention to
provide an opportunity, at the next meeting, for the Members of the Council to make further
comments on the information submitted for the present meeting that they might not yet have been ableto study, and any further information provided before that meeting.  As regards the joint WIPO-WTO
Symposium, he invited Members to make comments or to suggest topics for future events of this type.
65. The representative of WIPO thanked the WTO Secretariat for its cooperation at the Joint
Symposium and reiterated WIPO's commitment to provide legal and technical assistance to any
developing country or country in transition which was a member of WIPO and also to those Members
of the WTO which were not members of WIPO , through the WIPO-WTO Cooperation Agreement
and the Joint Initiative which had been launched in July 1998.  WIPO encouraged developingcountries that were facing the year 2000 time-limit, especially those which felt that they might have
problems in meeting this deadline, to contact either WIPO or the WTO or both.  With respect to
WIPO, enquiries could be addressed to the Director General of WIPO or the director of the relevant
regional bureau in the WIPO Secretariat.
66. The representative of Japan said that his country's technical cooperation consisted of three
types: human resources development, computerization and information processing, and assistance in
search and examination.  The main target of its technical cooperation was the Asia-Pacific region.  As
an example of computerization and information processing cooperation, he reported on a project in
one of the major ASEAN countries.  The country had had its internet homepage installed by a
Japanese corporation.  He hoped that the homepage would contribute to the dissemination ofintellectual property rights information to the public.  He expressed his appreciation for the WIPO-
WTO Joint Initiative for technical cooperation and requested the WTO Secretariat to report on the
results of this initiative, in particular how many countries had expressed their need for technical
cooperation under this initiative and what type of cooperation they needed.IP/C/M/20
Page 15
67. The representative of Australia said that his delegation was in the process of compiling its
updated information and would forward this shortly.  He said that Australia was committed to
cooperating with other countries in the delivery of focused technical assistance that addressed areas of
priority need.  Australia took these commitments seriously, reflecting its obligations under Article 67,
sound commercial interests and a spirit of working cooperatively with other countries.  Australia'sspecialized training project with Indonesia embodied all these principles.  It had originated from
careful consultations between Indonesia and Australia to identify priority requirements and the best
ways to address them.  It had led to a tailored process of targeted cooperation that matched the
strengths and needs of the two countries and involved a high degree of personal exchanges and
personal interaction that was effective in enhancing Indonesia's capacity for legislative development,
administration and enforcement in the intellectual property area.  Australia also cooperated bilaterally
in this regard with many other countries, incl uding Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.  Australia had also sought to cooperate at the multilateral and
regional levels.  Earlier in 1998, in conjunction with the Secretariat and the government of
New Zealand, it had hosted a seminar on TRIPS for the least-developed, and certain other, countries
of the Asia-Pacific region.  In March 1998, Australia had held a workshop on the Asia-Pacific IP
Office in the new millenium and had been actively  engaged in the APEC Intellectual Property Group.
He emphasized the importance Australia placed on technical cooperation, particularly in the lead-up
to 1 January 2000.  In so doing, his delegation encouraged Members to continue, and even increase,
their commitment to technical cooperation.
68. The representative of Brazil expressed his delegation's gratitude for the technical cooperation
activities carried out in his country in missions by officials from the WTO Secretariat in cooperation
with WIPO.  He suggested that, for future work, the training of judges was of great importance, in
particular on the enforcement aspects of intellectual property rights.
69. The representative of the United States agreed with the representative of Brazil that the
training of judges was an important part of technical assistance.  He pointed out that the Library of
Congress in the United States provided a thorough and well-established programme in the training ofjudges.  He said that his delegation's submission of its technical assistance activities included a
reference to that programme.  He encouraged Members interested in taking advantage of that
programme to contact his delegation directly for additional details.
70. The representative of Venezuela thanked the Secretariat for its assistance in a symposium
conducted in his country in 1997.  He hoped that this cooperation would be carried out further in 1999
so that his country could ensure full compliance with all its obligations from the year 2000.
71. The representative of Macau welcomed the WIPO-WTO Joint Initiative for technical
cooperation addressed to developing country Members, which permitted them to comply with their
TRIPS obligations.  He said that Macau was one of the Members that had expressed their willingness
to be the subject of an early review of their intellectual property legislation and had made an advance
notification of that legislation.  Over the past several years, significant efforts had been made in
Macau in order to adopt a legal framework with pr ovisions consistent with its obligations under the
TRIPS Agreement, but decisive steps still had to be taken regarding the implementation of the new
legislation.  His delegation therefore stressed the capital importance of this Joint Initiative.  His
delegation would shortly send letters detailing those matters in respect of which it would appreciate
receiving technical and legal assistance, as offered under this Initiative.
72. The representative of Kenya emphasized the importance her delegation attached to the WIPO-
WTO Joint Initiative for technical cooperation.  It had also highly appreciated the Joint WIPO-WTO
Symposium earlier in the week.  It had been an eye-opener as to what was required, particularly for
those developing countries that had to meet the deadline of the year 2000, to have their legislation and
other aspects of TRIPS obligations in place.  She said that WIPO had provided assistance to Kenya in
training and in amending legislation to include the TRIPS requirements.  Her delegation had alsoIP/C/M/20
Page 16
received assistance in attending seminars and workshops to clarify issues concerning the Agreement.
There remained areas where her delegation still needed assistance, particularly in the area of creating
awareness.  Many developing countries were una ware of the urgency of examining and amending
legislation.  She wondered whether there could be an increased number of seminars and workshops to
create such awareness, and targeting the policy-mak ers in various Members to speed up the legislative
amendment process.  She also wondered whether the WTO could assist developing countries in
sending personnel from their capitals to attend meetings of the Council.  This was the first time she
had attended a meeting of the Council and for other representatives it might have been the first
meeting as well.  She asked whether the WTO could allocate some of its technical cooperation
facilities to enable personnel from capitals to attend meetings so that they could relay the urgency of
implementing TRIPS obligations to their governments.
73. The representative of Egypt thanked the Secretariats of the WTO and WIPO for organizing
the Joint Symposium and for all their technical cooperation activities for developing countries.  His
delegation believed that the next activities should focus on training, especially for judges and customs
authorities, in order to meet the obligations of  the TRIPS Agreement and in the meantime enjoy full
rights under the transitional period.  His delegation expressed its appreciation to developed country
Members for submitting updated information on technical cooperation activities.  Given that most ofthis information had been submitted recently, his delegation wished to revert to it at the next meeting
after studying it carefully.
74. The representative of the Secretariat, responding to the question from the representative of
Japan concerning the Joint Initiative, said that a joint letter had been sent by the two Directors General
on 17 July 1998 to the Ministers of each of the WTO developing country Members that had acceptedto comply with the Agreement by the year 2000.  At tached to this letter were two annexes, aimed at
facilitating a stocktaking in the capitals of those Members that wished to do so, in particular of where
they were with TRIPS compliance, how far they n eeded to go in order to comply by the year 2000
and, therefore, what assistance would be useful to them.  One annex concerned a checklist of main
requirements of the Agreement and the other a list of the forms of assistance that could be offered bythe two Secretariats.  While the WTO Secretariat ha d expected that it would take some time for this
stocktaking and therefore some time before concrete reactions to the initiative would be received,
replies had begun to come in from developing country Members.  Three types of reactions could
already be distinguished, namely specific proposals for cooperation; requests for advice on the
cooperation that would be most helpful to the country concerned; and one communication from a
country informing the Secretariat that it was consulting in its capital with all the relevant departments
and would revert to the matter later.  As regards specific types of assistance that had been pointed out,these fell within the classic categories of assistance regarding legislation, human resource
development training, especially in regard to those persons and agencies involved in enforcement, and
institution-building and infrastructure.  It should also be noted that both WIPO and the WTO had
regular contact with their Members on technical cooperation matters so that there was an ongoing
flow of business which took place without necessarily a specific reference to the Joint Initiative.Responding to the comments of Kenya, he suggested that the matter be followed up bilaterally after
the meeting.  He regretted that neither the regular WTO budget nor the trust funds made available on a
voluntary basis by individual countries enabled the WTO to cover the costs of representatives
attending meetings such as the present meeting.
75. The representative of WIPO confirmed that th e WIPO Secretariat had also begun to receive
specific requests in reaction to the Joint Initiative.   By way of example, she referred to a general
request from the ASEAN region in relation to which a consultation would take place the following
day at WIPO.  She strongly encouraged all Members in a similar position to do likewise.
76. The Council took note of the statements made.IP/C/M/20
Page 17
H. O THER BUSINESS
(i) Trade facilitation
77. The Chairperson drew the attention of the C ouncil to the work programme agreed by the
Council for Trade in Goods on the issue of "Trade Faci litation".  As a result of this programme, the
TRIPS Council had been asked to consider this issue, with the purpose of addressing those aspects oftrade facilitation which the Council for TRIPS regarded as being related to the TRIPS Agreement.
The time-frame of the work in the Council fo r Trade in Goods context on the issue of "Trade
Facilitation" allowed the Council for TRIPS until March 1999 to convey the results of its discussions
on the matter.  Following informal consultations that he had held on this matter, his suggestion was
that the Council include the issue of "Trade Facilitation" on the agenda of its next meeting.
78. The Council so agreed.
(ii) TRIPS Council meeting of 1 and 2 December 1998
79. The Chairperson recapitulated the items that would be on the proposed agenda of the next
meeting, on 1 and 2 December and suggested, in the light of informal consultation, certain other
items.  First of all, the Council had agreed to undertake, at its next meeting, the review of the national
implementing legislation of Ecuador, Mongolia and Panama.  Second, as concluded under agenda
item C above, the Council would take up the issue of a review of the implementation of Article 70.8and 70.9, as well as of a review of the implementation of Article 66.2.  Third, Members had been
invited to provide their responses to the Ch ecklist of Questions (documents IP/C/13 and
IP/C/13/Add.1) in the context of  the review under Article 24.2 by 16 November.  The next meeting
would be the first meeting after that deadline on which the Council should take stock of responses
received.  Fourth, as concluded under the previous agenda sub-item, the issue of "Trade Facilitation"would be taken up.  Fifth, the Council should adopt its annual report to the General Council.  Sixth,
drawing attention to the provisions of Article 27.3(b) of the Agreement, which required a review of
these provisions four years after the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, i.e. in 1999, he proposed
that the next meeting would be an appropriate time for an initial exchange of views on how this
review should be carried out.  Seventh, he referred to another built-in agenda item of the TRIPSAgreement which had to be taken up before the end of next year, namely the examination of the scope
and modalities of "non-violation" disputes in the TRIPS context, as required by Article 64.3.  In this
connection, he suggested, on the basis of consultations he had held, that the next meeting would be a
good time to have an initial exchange of views on the work to be done and that the Secretariat be
requested to prepare a factual background note on the experience with disputes so far under the
TRIPS Agreement, including any references made to non-violation issues, the negotiating history of
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 64, the experience with non-violation complaints under theGATT/WTO, and any information available on the use of the non-violation concept in disputes on
intellectual property matters elsewhere.  Apart from these topics, he said that the Council should also
address all the agenda items that were on the agenda of the present meeting as well as any work that
might have to be done as a result of the work programme for next year's Ministerial Conference, for
example in relation to electronic commerce.
80. The Council agreed to the Chairperson's suggestions.
__________