RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/16
5December 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-5342)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
from 17to21November 1997
Chairperson: Ambassador Carmen LuzGuarda (Chile)
Subjects discussed:
A. Observer status forinternational intergovernmental organizations
B. Information onrelevant developments elsewhere intheWTO
C. Notifications under provisions oftheAgreement
D. Implementation ofArticle 70.8and70.9
E. Technical cooperation
F. Work onissues relevant totheprotection ofgeographical indications:
(i) Review oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical
indications under Article 24.2
(ii) Implementation ofArticle 23.4
G. Review oflegislation:
(i) Follow-up toparts ofthereview already taken up
(ii) Review oflegislation onenforcement
(iii) Future reviews
H. Draft annual report
A. Observer status forinternational intergovernmental organizations
1. TheChairperson saidthat, inaddition tothefiverequests forobserver status from
intergovernmental organizations thattheCouncil hadalready received, namely fromEFTA, theOAS,
theOIV, SELA andSIECA, newrequests hadbeenreceived from theCooperation Council fortheIP/C/M/16
Page2
ArabStates oftheGulfandfromtheOrganisation oftheIslamic Conference. Inthelightofherinformal
consultations onthematter, shesuggested thattheCouncil revert tothematter atitsnextmeeting.
2. TheCouncil soagreed.
B. Information onrelevant developments elsewhere intheWTO
3. TheChairperson informed theCouncil that,inacommunication dated 15October 1997
(WT/DS50/6), India hadnotified itsdecision toappeal totheAppellate Body certain findings and
conclusions ofthePanel onIndia -Patent Protection forPharmaceutical andAgricultural Chemical
Products (WT/DS50/R).
4. Continuing, shesaidthat,atitsmeeting on16October 1997, theDispute Settlement Body
hadagreed toformapanel toinvestigate thecomplaint oftheEuropean Communities andtheirmember
States regarding patent protection forpharmaceutical andagricultural chemical products inIndia. The
request fortheestablishment ofthepanel wascontained indocument WT/DS/79/2. TheUnited States
hadreserved itsrights asathirdparty tothedispute.
5. Finally, theEuropean Communities andtheirmember States andJapan hadnotified theDispute
SettlementBody,bymeansofacommunicationdated7November1997,thattheyhadreachedamutually
satisfactory solution tothematter raised bytheEuropean Communities andtheir member States
concerning theprotection inJapan ofperformers andproducers ofsound recordings pursuant tothe
TRIPS Agreement (IP/D/4/Add.1).
6. TheCouncil tooknoteofthisinformation.
C. Notifications under provisions oftheAgreement
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
7. TheChairperson saidthatnewnotifications oflegislation under Article 63.2hadbeenreceived
from Greece, Iceland andSwitzerland. These notifications supplemented these Members 'earlier
notifications oflegislation andwould becirculated intheIP/N/1/- document series assoonaspossible.
8. Inregard tonotifications relating specifically toArticles 3,4and5,theChairperson saidthat,
inadditiontothenotificationfromHongKong,Chinaonwhichshehadreportedatthepreviousmeeting,
anewnotification hadbeenreceived from Egypt (IP/N/1/EGY/2).
(ii) Notifications under Article 4(d)
9. TheChairperson saidthattheSecretariat hadreceived revised notifications fromDenmark and
Germany withdrawing theirearlier notifications ofcertain multilateral agreements under Article 4(d)
(documentsIP/N/4/DNK/1/Rev.3andIP/N/4/DEU/3,respectively).Inaddition,Francehadwithdrawn
twobilateral treaties fromitsearlier notification, which werenolonger inforce(IP/N/4/FRA/1/Corr.1).
10. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesexpressedhisappreciationtothedelegationsofDenmark,
Germany andFrance fortheirnotifications. Hereminded theCouncil ofhisconcern regarding what
appeared tobeblanket notifications bysome Members ofevery agreement concerning intellectual
property towhich those Members wereparties, andencouraged Members torevise theirnotifications
soastoidentify thespecific provisions forwhich theywereclaiming anexemption under Article 4(d).IP/C/M/16
Page3
(iii) Notifications under Article 69
11. TheChairperson saidthatnonewnotifications under Article 69hadbeenreceived, andthat
thenumber ofMembers having made suchnotifications remained at81.
(iv) Other communications concerning implementation
12. TheChairperson saidthatBrazil hadsubmitted acommunication stating thatitwasexercising
itsrightunder Article 65.2oftheAgreement todelay theapplication oftheprovisions oftheTRIPS
Agreement other thanArticles 3,4and5(IP/C/11).
13. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under thisagenda item.
D. Implementation ofArticle 70.8and70.9
14. TheChairperson saidthatnonewnotifications relating totheimplementation ofArticle 70.8
and70.9hadbeenreceived.
15. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthat,given thattheobligations under
Article 70.8and70.9hadbecome applicable on1January 1995, thetimehadcome fortheCouncil
toestablish acomplete picture ofthesituation concerning Members 'implementation oftheseprovisions.
Therefore, hereiterated thesuggestion hehadmade attheCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember 1997 that
theCouncil review theimplementing measures taken byMembers under Article 70.8and70.9, and
thatMembers notify suchmeasures inearly1998. Inhisdelegation 'sview, suchsystematic notification
andreview waspreferable, bothforthecountries whohadtonotify andforthose whowished toget
aclearer picture ofthestatus ofimplementation, compared toanapproach where individual countries
wereselected toaddress thematter bilaterally, orontheflooroftheCouncil, byother Members who
hadaparticular interest inthematter.
16. Therepresentative ofMorocco saidthat,while hehadnotyetreceived instructions concerning
theproposal made bytheEuropean Communities, hispreliminary viewwasthatitwasnotnecessary
tosetupaspecial notification andreview procedure. Members could, ofcourse, askquestions and
request information either intheCouncil orbilaterally.
17. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed hissupport fortheproposal made bythe
European Communities. Ashehadmentioned attheprevious meeting oftheCouncil, hisdelegation
intended tosubmit some questions bilaterally toselected Members duetoitsparticular interest intheir
situation, butthatshould notpreclude abroader systematic review intheCouncil.
18. Therepresentative ofEgypt believed thatareview asproposed bytheEuropean Communities
would gobeyond therequirements oftheAgreement, which contained provisions onnotification but
notonreview. Hisdelegation accepted thatnotifications wererequired andquestions ofimplementation
could beaddressed intheCouncil, butquestioned thatthere wasarequirement tohaveasystematic
review. However, hewould consult again withhiscapital onthematter.
19. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthateachMember wasunder anobligation toimplement the
provisions ofArticle 70.8and70.9and,while drawing attention totheinterests involved, inparticular
thoseofpatent applicants asbeneficiaries oftheprovisions, supported thesuggestion thatimplementation
ofthese important provisions byMembers should bereviewed bytheCouncil asof1998.IP/C/M/16
Page4
20. Responding tothecomments made bytherepresentative ofEgypt, therepresentative ofthe
United States saidthat,since Article 68provided thattheCouncil shallmonitor theoperation ofthe
Agreement and,inparticular, Members 'compliance withtheirobligations thereunder, areview of
theimplementation ofArticle 70.8and70.9would beappropriate under thatArticle.
21. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesagreedthatthetermsoftheAgreementprovided
forareview ofimplementing legislation, which included means ofimplementation oftheobligations
under Article 70.8and70.9.
22. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed torevert tothematter atitsnext
meeting.
E. Technical cooperation
23. TheChairperson saidthat,since theCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember, Italyhadnotified its
contact points fortechnical cooperation onTRIPS (IP/N/7/Rev.1/Add.3).
24. TheChairperson saidthat,sincetheCouncil 'smeeting inSeptember, notifications ofupdated
information ontechnical andfinancial cooperation activities hadbeenreceived fromFrance, Portugal,
Spain andtheUnited Kingdom, while thenotifications announced atthelastmeeting byCanada,
Switzerland andtheUnited States hadbeencirculated asCouncil documents. Inaddition, Denmark
hadinformed theSecretariat thattherewerenochanges toitsprevious notification regarding technical
cooperation activities. These notifications could befound inaddenda todocument IP/C/W/77.
25. Therepresentative ofJapan informed theCouncil ofanAsian Regional Forum, organized under
theWIPO trustfundandheldinTokyo inSeptember 1997, onthetheme "Intellectual Property in
the21stCentury". Representatives from intellectual property offices of21Asian countries had
participated intheForum andhadadopted ajointstatement onthestrengthening oftheirintellectual
property systems andthepromotion ofcooperation intheregion. Moreover, theJapanese Patent Office
hadorganized aseven week longcomputer training course, thathadstarted inSeptember 1997, which
related tointellectual property systems andwasaimed atcontributing tothemodernization ofintellectual
property administrations. Fourtrainees fromThailand, onefromthePhilippines andonefromIndonesia
hadparticipated inthistraining programme.
26. TheChairperson thanked those developed country Members thathadprovided updated
information ontheirtechnical cooperation activities, andurged those developed country Members that
hadnotyetprovided suchinformation todosoassoonaspossible.
27. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
F. Work onissues relevant totheprotection ofgeographical indications
(i) Review oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications
under Article 24.2
28. TheChairperson recalled that,attheprevious Council meeting, shehadindicated thather
informal consultations onthissubject werefocusing onthepurpose of,andprocedures for,thisreview,
andthatshehadinvited delegations tocome forward withtheirsuggestions onthese points. Shehad
heldfurther consultations priortothepresent meeting. Sheinformed theCouncil that,sinceJuly1997,
seven Members hadpresented theirviews inwriting andthatsheintended tocontinue herinformalIP/C/M/16
Page5
consultations withaviewtoproposing adecision attheCouncil 'ssecond meeting in1998. Tothis
end,sheurged asmany delegations aspossible tocome forward withcontributions onthepurpose
of,andprocedures for,thereview under Article 24.2.
29. TherepresentativeofCubasaidthatCubahadcleareconomicinterestsinextendingtheprotection
ofgeographical indications toliquors, suchasCuban rums andother liquors produced inCuba which
wereofrenowned international prestige andwerebeing counterfeited, forexample Havana Clubrum,
therumofSantiago deCuba andtherumofCardenas. Therefore, herdelegation wished towork
actively inmeetings concerning thereview oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection on
geographical indications under Article 24.2, withaviewtoextending, asfarasscope wasconcerned,
theprotection tocategories ofproducts other thanwines andspirits. Sheconsidered thattheuseof
ageographical indication onproducts which didnotoriginate intheindicated areahadnegative effects,
notonlybecause itmisled consumers astothetrueorigin oftheproduct, butalsobecause itmight
haveanimpact onproducers anddistort trade. Theadditional protection under Section 3ofPartII
oftheAgreement waslimited tocertain products anddidnotcover sectors which wereimportant to
theeconomies ofmany Members. Itwasimportant thattheanalysis notonlyfocus ontheapplication
oftheprovisions oftheAgreement, butthatitalsotakeaccount ofother important criteria necessary
fortheconsideration ofother categories ofproducts which should alsobenefit fromahigher levelof
protection.
(ii) Implementation ofArticle 23.4
30. TheChairperson recalled that,inorder tocarry outitsdecision toundertake preliminary work
onissues relevant tothenegotiations provided forinArticle 23.4, theCouncil hadagreed, atitsmeeting
inFebruary 1997, toaninformation-gathering process onexisting systems forthenotification and
registration ofgeographical indications. Asafirststep,some Members hadsubmitted information
onthenational systems which theyoperated. While mostofthese contributions werealready before
theCouncil atitsSeptember meeting, anewonehadbeenreceived since thatmeeting, namely from
Costa Rica. These contributions hadbeendistributed indocuments IP/C/W/76 andaddenda. Inaddition,
theCouncil, atitslastmeeting, hadrequested theSecretariat toprepare afactual background noteon
existing international notification andregistration systems forgeographical indications relating towines
andspirits, according toanagreed outline, which wastobefound inanannex totheminutes ofthat
meeting. Inresponse tothisrequest, theSecretariat hadcirculated anoteindocument IP/C/W/85.
Since thisnotehadbeencirculated onlyrecently andonlyinEnglish, shesuggested thattheCouncil
postpone discussion onittoitsfirstmeeting in1998.
31. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities expressed hissatisfaction withtheavailability
ofthisfirstpost-Uruguay Round Secretariat paper inthisareaandhoped thatequally important progress
could bemade intheother exercise intheareaofgeographical indications, which should advance in
parallel.
32. TherepresentativeofHungarywelcomedthecooperationwithWIPOandtheOfficeInternational
delaVigne etduVin(OIV) referred toinparagraph 3ofthenoteandrequested theSecretariat to
provide information ontheSymposium ontheProtection ofGeographical Indications intheWorldwide
Context organized byWIPO incooperation withtheHungarian Patent Office, referred tointhesame
paragraph.
33. Therepresentative oftheSecretariat saidthattheSymposium hadbeenheldinEger, Hungary
on24and25October 1997. ItwasthesixthtimethatWIPO hadco-organized aSymposium onthis
topic; theprevious oneshadbeenheldinBordeaux (1988), inSantenay (1989), inWiesbaden (1991),
inMadeira (1993) andinMelbourne (1995). There hadbeenover100participants from52countries
attheEgerSymposium. Thesubjects thathadbeendiscussed were verymuch TRIPS-related and,IP/C/M/16
Page6
afterintroductions byaspeaker from WIPO onthepost-TRIPS situation under WIPO Conventions
relevanttogeographicalindicationsandbyaspeakerfromtheWTOSecretariatontheTRIPSAgreement
andwork intheWTO relevant togeographical indications, anoverview hadbeengiven, byspeakers
fromtheregions concerned, ofthestatus oftheprotection ofgeographical indications inCentral and
Eastern European countries, theUnited States, Latin America, France, Australia andNewZealand
andabout thefunctioning oftheEEC Regulation ontheprotection ofgeographical indications and
designations oforigin foragricultural products andfoodstuffs. Theproceedings oftheprevious five
Symposia thatWIPO hadco-organized hadbeenpublished byWIPO anditwasWIPO 'sintention to
issue asimilar publication ontheEgerSymposium.
34. Therepresentative ofWIPO confirmed thatallthepapers presented attheEgerSymposium
andtherecords ofthediscussions thathadtaken place would bepublished soon; untilthattime, any
information ontheSymposium could beobtained from WIPO.
35. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under thisagenda itemandagreed torevert to
thematter atitsnextmeeting.
G. Review oflegislation
(i) Follow-up toparts ofthereview already taken up
- Copyright andrelated rights
36. TheChairperson saidtheUnited States reply toafollow-up question posed byKorea atthe
Council 'smeeting inMay1997 hadbeenreceived andcirculated indocument IP/Q/USA/1/Add.2.
Inaddition, theSecretariat hadjustreceived aclarification toIreland 'sreply toquestion number 6
posed bytheUnited States concerning rental rights, which wasbeing circulated asacorrigendum to
document IP/Q/IRL/1.
37. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthattheUnited States reply toKorea 'sfollow-up question
concerning retroactive protection under theUnited States copyright legislation appeared torepeat the
points contained intheprevious replies. Therefore, hereserved hisrighttocome backtotheissue
infuture.
38. TheChairperson suggested thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatement made bythedelegation
ofKorea, andoftheKorean delegation 'srighttocome backtothereply toitsquestion, andthatthe
follow-up tothereview oflegislation intheareaofcopyright andrelated rights neednolonger be
putassuchontheagenda oftheCouncil, itbeing understood thatanydelegation should feelfreeto
revert toanymatter stemming from thatreview atanytime.
- Trademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs
39. TheChairperson recalled thatresponses tothefollow-up questions posed bythedelegation
ofIndia attheCouncil 'smeeting inFebruary 1997 totheEuropean Communities hadbeenreceived
andincorporated indocument IP/Q2/EEC/1. However, therewerestilltwootherMembers fromwhom
theSecretariat hadnotyetreceived thetextoftheanswers tocertain follow-up questions posed inthis
review exercise. TheSecretariat hadbeenintouch withthedelegations inquestion. Sheurged the
Members concerned toprovide theoutstanding material without delay andsuggested thattheCouncil
revert tothematter atitsnextmeeting.IP/C/M/16
Page7
- Review oflegislation intheareas ofpatents, layout-designs (topographies)
ofintegrated circuits, protection ofundisclosed information andcontrol ofanti-
competitive practices incontractual licences
40. TheChairperson recalled that,according totheprocedures forthefollow-up tothereview,
answers toquestions posed during thereview meeting weretobesubmitted within eightweeks ofthe
meeting. TheSecretariat hadinformed herthat,todate, some responses werestilloutstanding. In
order toallow therecords ofthereview tobeproduced without delay, sheurged thedelegations in
question tomake aneffort tosubmit theseresponses, which, inaccordance withtheprocedures, should
havebeensubmitted by25July1997. Shesuggested thattheCouncil revert tothematter atitsnext
meeting.
41. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under agenda itemG(i)andagreed toproceed
assuggested bytheChair (asreflected inparagraphs 38,39and40).
(ii) Review oflegislation onenforcement
42. TheChairperson recalled thattheprocedures forthisreview could befound intheminutes
oftheCouncil meeting of9May1996(document IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6),withtheadjustments agreed
atthemeetings of22to25July1996 (document IP/C/M/8, paragraphs 69and70)and26to
30May1997(documentIP/C/M/13,paragraph41).Inaccordancewiththeseprocedures,theSecretariat
hadcirculated aproposed timetable inaninformal noteof28October 1997. Theprocedures forthe
reviewhadbeenannexedtothatnote.Priortothemeeting,writtenquestionsconcerningotherMembers'
legislation hadbeenreceived fromtheEuropean Communities andtheirmember States; Hong Kong,
China; Japan; theUnited States andNewZealand andhadbeendistributed indocuments IP/C/W/80
through IP/C/W/84. Written responses tosome ofthesequestions hadbeenreceived fromtheEuropean
Communities, Hungary, Japan, theUnited States andBulgaria andhadbeendistributed indocuments
IP/C/W/87 through IP/C/W/91. Written questions from Switzerland andwritten responses from
Romania, NewZealand, Australia, Bulgaria, theCzech Republic, Slovenia, Liechtenstein, France,
Austria, Sweden, Germany, Finland, theNetherlands, theUnited Kingdom andCanada hadbeen
circulated informally prior tothemeeting. Shesuggested proceeding asattheprevious three review
meetings, butwithsome modifications totakeintoaccount theevenlarger volume ofmaterial that
wasbefore thismeeting. Thus, eachMember would provide, inintroducing itslegislation, abrief
overview ofthestructure ofitslegislation onenforcement andofthechanges, ifany,thatithadhad
tobring about inorder tomake thelegislation compatible withtheTRIPS Agreement. After having
doneso,eachMember might draw attention toanyelements thatitconsidered particularly important
forother delegations inunderstanding theresponses thatithadmade, andreadout,onaselective basis,
anyresponse orresponses itwished toparticularly highlight. After thesepresentations shewould then
offer thefloor toother delegations toidentify anyparticular questions towhich theywould likethe
responses tobereadout.After thisprocess ofpresenting theresponses, shewould thenofferthefloor
todelegations foranycomments orother questions.
43. Therecord oftheintroductory statements made bythedelegations, thequestions puttothem
andtheresponses given (including certain written responses given afterthemeeting) willbecirculated
inthefollowing documents:
IP/Q4/AUS/1 Australia
IP/Q4/BGR/1 Bulgaria
IP/Q4/CAN/1 Canada
IP/Q4/CZE/1 Czech Republic
IP/Q4/EEC/1 European Communities
IP/Q4/AUT/1 AustriaIP/C/M/16
Page8
IP/Q4/BEL/1 Belgium
IP/Q4/DNK/1 Denmark
IP/Q4/FIN/1 Finland
IP/Q4/FRA/1 France
IP/Q4/DEU/1 Germany
IP/Q4/GRC/1 Greece
IP/Q4/IRL/1 Ireland
IP/Q4/ITA/1 Italy
IP/Q4/LUX/1 Luxembourg
IP/Q4/NLD/1 Netherlands
IP/Q4/PRT/1 Portugal
IP/Q4/ESP/1 Spain
IP/Q4/SWE/1 Sweden
IP/Q4/GBR/1 United Kingdom
IP/Q4/HUN/1 Hungary
IP/Q4/ISL/1 Iceland
IP/Q4/JPN/1 Japan
IP/Q4/LIE/1 Liechtenstein
IP/Q4/NZL/1 NewZealand
IP/Q4/NOR/1 Norway
IP/Q4/POL/1 Poland
IP/Q4/ROM/1 Romania
IP/Q4/SVK/1 Slovak Republic
IP/Q4/SVN/1 Slovenia
IP/Q4/CHE/1 Switzerland
IP/Q4/USA/1 United States
44. During thereview, therepresentative ofCanada saidthatherdelegation wastroubled bycertain
follow-up questions seeking statistical information which hadbeenposed bytheUnited States tomost
Members. Shewondered whatwasthebasisinArticle 63oftheTRIPS Agreement forrequiring such
information tobeprovided.
45. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatArticle 41.1required Members toensure that
enforcement procedures sufficient topermit effective action against actsofinfringement wereavailable.
Suchproceduresmustincludeexpeditiousremedieswhichconstitutedadeterrenttofurtherinfringement.
Hisdelegation believed thatitwasimpossible togetacomplete picture oftheenforcement situation
inaMember without understanding howitsenforcement remedies were applied inpractice. Ifthe
procedures provided inlegislative textswerenotavailable inpractice, theycould notbeeffective or
havethedeterrent effect required bytheAgreement. Hesaidthatenforcement statistics werethemost
useful guide tothepractical application ofaMember 'senforcement procedures andthathisdelegation 's
requests forsuchstatistics were fullyconsistent withtheTRIPS Agreement. Under Article 68,the
Council wasobliged tomonitor theoperation oftheTRIPS Agreement andtoafford Members the
opportunity toconsult onmatters relating tointellectual property rights. Theoperation oftheAgreement
could notbeunderstood ifMembers didnotunderstand howtheprocedures itmandated operated in
practice. Dataregarding thepractical operation ofMembers 'lawshadbeenpresented inprevious
reviews andtheenforcement checklist itselfrequested suchdata. Hisdelegation understood thatsome
Members might notcompile datainthemanner requested buthebelieved thattheyshould make an
effort tocollect thedatafromtheirvarious government agencies. Where noofficial datawereavailable,
datafrom theprivate sector would behelpful, although notoptimal, provided thatfulldisclosure of
thesource wasgiven. Thiswastheapproach hisdelegation hadadopted inresponding torequests
fordatafromtheEuropean Communities. Hisdelegation hadmade agood faitheffort toprovide asIP/C/M/16
Page9
clearapicture aspossible oftheenforcement ofintellectual property rights intheUnited States and
hehoped thatother Members would make thesame effort.
46. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities supported thestatement made bythe
representative oftheUnited States. Inhisview, Members could onlyjudge theeffective operation
ofanenforcement system withthebenefit ofsome statistical dataabout thecases handled. Ofcourse,
requests forstatistical datashould bereasonable. Members should notberequired toembark ona
huge, time-consuming fact-finding exercise, buttheywere expected tomake some effort tocollect
andcompile statistical data.
47. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatherdelegation wished toseethebestandmosteffective
implementation ofalltheprovisions oftheAgreement, including theenforcement Part. However,
compilation ofthestatistical datasought bytheUnited States would create aconsiderable workload:
enforcement wasinthehands ofcourts, thedataconcerned private rights andtheinformation was
widely spread. Herdelegation would behappy toprovide information about theresolution ofany
specific cases andwould make itsbestefforts toprovide more general data. Inanycase, experience
inCanada hadshown thatstatistics forintellectual property cases often produced verysmall samples
foreachseparate right, which made itdifficult todraw reliable conclusions.
48. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthat,while requests forstatistical datamight gobeyond the
scope ofthereview, inthelightoftheprovisions ofArticle 63.2, statistics might nevertheless provide
useful andimportant information concerning theenforcement situation. Hesuggested thatMembers
submit anystatistics which theyalready hadbutthattheynotbecompelled toconduct anyadditional
surveys.
49. Therepresentative ofHungary saidthathisdelegation hadreceived questions concerning certain
statistical dataonlawsuits, injunctions, provisional measures, border measures andcriminal cases.
Hisdelegation shared theconcerns ofthedelegation ofCanada inthisrespect. Article 63.1and63.2
oftheAgreement required Members topublish, ormake publicly available, lawsandregulations and
final decisions andadministrative rulings ofgeneral application andalsolaiddown notification
requirements withregard tothese. These provisions didnotcreate anyobligation tocollect, publish
andnotify statistical dataoninfringement cases andenforcement measures, nordidanyother provision
intheAgreement. Hungarian authorities could onlyprovide suchspecific dataiftheydeveloped a
separate system forcollecting IPR-related data,which would require theestablishment ofaninformation
system within thejudiciary distinct from thatfortheenforcement oflawsingeneral, which would
notbeinharmony withArticle 41.5oftheAgreement. Inanycase, hisdelegation wasnotconvinced
thatstatisticaldatawouldbeinformative.Forexample,alowfigureforlawsuitsconcerninginfringement
might indicate thatcivillawremedies werenotavailable inpractice orthatlawswerenotsatisfactorily
enforced but,ontheother hand, itmight show thatout-of-court dispute settlement procedures were
efficient orthatthenumber ofinfringements waslowbecause oflaw-abiding conduct. Theanalysis
ofsuchdatamight leadtomisleading results andunjustified conclusions.
50. Therepresentatives ofPoland, Slovenia andtheCzech Republic supported thestatement of
therepresentative ofHungary.
51. TheChairperson, recalling theCouncil 'smandate under theprovisions ofArticle 68ofthe
Agreement onmonitoring oftheoperation oftheAgreement, saidthatthatwork wasbased onmutual
cooperation among allMembers. Members hadtherighttoposequestions andother Members should
make every effort torespond tothem. IfaMember wasunable todosobecause thestatistical
information would beunduly burdensome tocollect, itshould explain this. Ifstatistics didexistor
could bereadily collected, theMember concerned should make them known andgiveanyguidanceIP/C/M/16
Page10
onthewaythattheyshould beinterpreted thatitthought helpful. Shesuggested thatMembers always
specify themethod byandcontext inwhich statistics hadbeencollected.
52. When theCouncil turned tothereview ofthelegislation ofSouth Africa, therepresentative
ofSouth Africa expressed hisregret thathisdelegation wasnotready tohave itslegislation on
enforcement reviewed atthistimebutwould behappy tohaveitreviewed attheCouncil 'sfirstmeeting
in1998. Heexplained thatthedelay innotifying legislation andsubmitting responses totheenforcement
checklist andtoquestions posed byother Members wasduetohisgovernment 'sreliance inmatters
concerning thedevelopment ofintellectual property legislation onastanding committee oflawyers
appointed bytheMinister from theprivate sector, rather thanin-house expertise. Hesaidthathis
government wasproud ofthehighstandard ofintellectual property protection inSouth Africa andthat
thedelay insubmitting itsenforcement lawstothereview should notbetaken toindicate thatSouth
Africa tookitsobligations under theTRIPS Agreement lightly.
53. TherepresentativeofMexicoexpressedhisGovernment'sconcernthatthePrestigeUnderwriters
Company ofSouth Africa wasattempting toestablish thefirstdistillery ofTequila andMezcal outside
Mexico andthat,indeed, itwasusing theterms Tequila andMezcal initsefforts tocollect funds from
investors.Hesaidthatthisinfringedprovisionsontheprotectionofgeographicalindicationsasstipulated
intheTRIPS Agreement: themereuseoftheterms Tequila andMezcal bytheSouth African company
inorder toobtain funds rancounter totheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement; itwasnotnecessary
thatTequila andMezcal were actually produced outside Mexico toconstitute infringement ofthe
international obligations inrespect oftheprotection ofgeographical indications. TheGovernment
ofMexico hadcontacted theGovernment ofSouth Africa toclarify thesituation before theplans of
theSouth African company inquestion wererealized. Hetrusted that,withthegoodwill shown by
theSouth African authorities, thematter would besettled shortly. Hewished tobenefit from this
opportunity byposing thefollowing questions tothedelegation ofSouth Africa:
(a) Does South Africa havedomestic legislation which enables ittoprevent theuseof
measures which runcounter totheprovisions ongeographical indications intheTRIPS
Agreement?
(b) Ifso,Mexico would liketobeinformed about thislegislation anditscontents.
(c) Isthere asystem inthestock exchange ofSouth Africa allowing information tobe
given toinvestors concerning whatcompanies aredoing toattract funds?
(d) What measures isSouth Africa taking toprevent companies established initsterritory
from infringing rights recognized under theTRIPS Agreement?
54. Therepresentative ofSouth Africa regretted thattherepresentative ofMexico hadraised this
matter intheCouncil. First, thepoints raised byMexico concerned whatwere, atthistime, mere
plans and,ifthere were anyproduction, itwould notoccur untilafterthesecond halfof1998; the
South African authorities weredoing allthattheycould toprevent abreach ofobligations under the
TRIPS Agreement. Secondly, consultations wereunder waybetween thetwogovernments andbilateral
avenues forresolution ofthematter hadnotbeenexhausted.
55. After theconsideration ofthelegislation oftheMembers subject tothepresent review exercise,
theChairperson saidthatanumber ofdelegations hadindicated thattheywould provide responses
tosome questions puttothem inwriting subsequent tothemeeting. According totheprocedures for
thereview, responses should besubmitted within eight weeks afterthemeeting. Shesuggested that
those responses, together withanecessary fine-tuning ofpreliminary responses already provided, beIP/C/M/16
Page11
made available totheSecretariat bytheendofJanuary 1998, sothattherecords ofthereview could
beproduced without undue delay.
56. Shesaidthatshewould notattempt tosummarize thework under thisagenda itemandtook
itthatdelegations would needtimetodigest thelargevolume ofinformation obtained through thereview
process. Sherecalled thattheprocedures adopted forthesereviews provided thatatsubsequent meetings
oftheCouncil anopportunity would begiven tofollow upanypointemerging fromthereview sessions
which delegations considered hadnotbeenadequately addressed.
57. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under agenda itemG(ii)andagreed toproceed
assuggested bytheChair.
(iii) Future reviews
58. TheChairperson suggested thatthereview ofSouth Africa 'senforcement legislation would
beundertaken attheCouncil 'sfirstmeeting in1998, which wasscheduled for24and25February 1998;
thatcompletion ofthereview ofthelegislation ofBulgaria, Hungary, Romania andtheSlovak Republic,
andcontinuation ofthereview ofPoland, whose legislation hadonlypartly beenthesubject ofthe
Council 'sreview exercise in1996 and1997, would bepartoftheagenda oftheCouncil 'smeeting
scheduled for12and13May1998; andthatthereview ofthelegislation ofEcuador, Mongolia and
Panama, whohadacceded totheWTO during the1996/1997 review exercise andwho, while not
applying aTRIPS transition period, hadnotyetbeensubject tothereview, would betaken upinthe
autumn of1998 andbepartoftheagenda oftheCouncil 'smeeting scheduled for18and
19November 1998.
59. Asregards thereview oflegislation ofBulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania andtheSlovak
Republic, sheproposed thattheCouncil usethesamebasicprocedures asemployed sofarandsuggested
thefollowing dates fortheadvance notice ofquestions andthesubmission ofresponses:
- submission ofadvance notice ofquestions totheMember concerned andto
theSecretariat: 1March 1998;
- submission ofresponses toquestions: 15April 1998.
Asregards theareas ofintellectual property tobecovered bythisreview, legislation intheareaof
copyright andrelated rights would beontheagenda forallfivecountries concerned. Inaddition,
Bulgarian andRomanian legislation intheareas oftrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial
designs would alsobereviewed. Polish legislation intheareaofindustrial property would bereviewed
atalaterstage oncePoland hadbrought thatlegislation intoconformity withtheAgreement.
60. Turning tothereview ofthelegislation ofEcuador, Mongolia andPanama inNovember 1998,
shesuggested thattheCouncil notdecide ondates forthesubmission ofadvance notice ofquestions
andresponses untilearly nextyearbutfirstestablish adatebywhich theMembers inquestion would
beexpected tohavenotified theirnational implementing legislation, inaccordance withtheprocedures
established bytheCouncil forthenotification ofsuchlegislation. Shesuggested thattheCouncil remind
theMembers inquestion oftheirobligation tonotify theirimplementing legislation andurgethemto
doso,inaccordance withtheprocedures, without delay and,atthelatest, by1March 1998, since
otherwise thenotifications would losemuch oftheirpurpose asatoolforthepreparation ofthereview
oflegislation.
61. Finally, sheprovided anupdate onthestatus ofherinformal consultations concerning theearly
review oflegislation withanumber ofMembers, whose legislation wasnotsubject tothereview ofIP/C/M/16
Page12
national implementing legislation in1996/1997 butwhose legislation hadalready, inwhole orinpart,
beenbrought intoconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement. Asagreed bytheCouncil atitsmeeting
inNovember 1996, suchconsultations weredesirable inorder toexplore thepossibilities forspreading
outthefuture workload thattheCouncil would faceintheyear2000andforusing theperiod between
thecompletion ofthe1996/1997 review exercise andtheyear2000 forvoluntary early reviews of
theMembers referred to.Sherecalled thatshehadreported totheCouncil atthelastmeeting that,
although possible ground rulesforsuchadvance reviews hadbeendeveloped intheconsultations, they
hadnotyetyielded thenecessary consensus. Herfurther consultations onthismatter hadclarified
thereadiness ofatleastfiveMembers tobetaken upinsuchanearly review inlate1998 orearly
1999, ontheconditions laiddown inthedraftground rules, buttheyhad,unfortunately, stillnotresulted
inaconsensus among allMembers onthese ground rules.
62. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made under thisagenda itemandagreed toproceed
assuggested bytheChair (asreflected inparagraphs 58-60 above).
H. Draft annual report
63. TheChairperson saidthattheSecretariat hadprepared adraftoftheCouncil 'sannual report
totheGeneral Council (IP/C/W/86), which should beadopted atthismeeting. Astheperiod ofreview
included alsothepresent meeting, sheproposed necessary additions taking intoaccount thediscussions
atthismeeting.
64. TheCouncil adopted thereport withamendments taking intoaccount theproposals bythe
Chairperson andanumber ofdelegations.