RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/M/19
5 August 1998
(98-3085)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 16 July 1998
Chairperson:  Ambassador István Major (Hungary)
Subjects discussed:
A. N OTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
B. C ALCULATION OF RENEWABLE PERIODS OF TEN YEARS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE APPENDIX TO THE BERNE CONVENTION AS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO
THE TRIPS AGREEMENT
C. I MPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 70.8 AND 70.9
D. R EVIEW OF LEGISLATION :
(i) Legislation on copyright and related rights (Bulgaria, Hungary,
Poland and Romania)
(ii) Legislation on trademarks, geographical indications and industrial
designs (Bulgaria and Romania)
(iii) Legislation on enforcement (South Africa)
(iv) Follow-up to the reviews already undertaken
(v) Arrangements for future reviews
E. T ECHNICAL COOPERATION
F. W ORK ON ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS :
(i) Review of the application of the provisions of the section on
geographical indications under Article 24.2
(ii) Implementation of Article 23.4
(iii) Question from Brazil on the protection of geographical indications in
the European CommunitiesIP/C/M/19
Page 2
G. I NFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO
H. O BSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
A. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
1. The Chairperson  informed the Council that, since the previous meeting, new notifications of
legislation had been received from Portugal, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States.
Trinidad and Tobago had indicated that its notification was made without prejudice to its entitlements
under Article 65.2 of the Agreement.  All these no tifications would be av ailable in the IP/N/1/-
document series as soon as possible.  Responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document
IP/C/5) had been received from Panama.  This notif ication had been distributed in the IP/N/6/- series
of documents.
(ii) Notifications under Article 69
2. The Chairperson informed the Council that contact points under Article 69 had been notified
by 85 Members.  Information on these contact points was available in the IP/N/3/- series of
documents.  Since the previous meeting, updated information had been received from Spain
concerning the contact points that it had notified earlier.
(iii) Notifications under Article 4(d)
3. The Chairperson informed the Council that a joint notification under Article 4(d) had been
received from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.  This notification concerned the Treaty of
Asunción and the Protocol of Ouro Preto and had been distributed in the IP/N/4/- series of documents.
(iv) Other notifications
4. The Chairperson  informed the Council that Jamaica had notified that it had availed itself of
the transitional period allowed under Article 65.2 of the Agreement and that it was in the process of
revising its intellectual property legislation where required.  This notification had been circulated in
document IP/N/1/JAM/1.
5. The representative of the European Communities referred to the conclusions of the Council
concerning notifications under Article 63.2 relating to Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the TRIPS Agreement,
namely that all those Members which benefited from a transitional period beyond that set out in
Article 65.1 would notify to the TRIPS Council their implementation of Articles 3, 4 and 5.
Unfortunately, he said, only a few such notifications had been received.  He urged the Members
concerned to make these notifications as expeditiously as possible.
6. The Council took note of the statements made under this agenda item.IP/C/M/19
Page 3
B. CALCULATION OF RENEWABLE PERIODS OF TEN YEARS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
APPENDIX TO THE BERNE CONVENTION AS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE TRIPS
AGREEMENT
7. The Chairperson recalled that, at its previous meeting, on 12 May 1998, the Council had been
informed that two notifications concerning the provisions of Articles I and IV(2) of the Appendix to
the Berne Convention had been received from Panama and had been circulated in document
IP/N/5/PAN/2.  These were the first notifications under the provisions of the Appendix to the Berne
Convention as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreemen t.  Referring to the procedures applicable to
these notifications as agreed by the Council at its meeting of 22 February 19961, he said that it had
been understood that the Council was to look into one technical detail only once a Member would
invoke these provisions of the Appendix, namely how, under the TRIPS Agreement, the renewable
ten-year periods for which such notifications remained valid, should be calculated.  At the request ofthe Council, the Secretariat had prepared a background note on the issue raised by the Panamanian
notifications in question.  This note had been circulated in document IP/C/W/103.
8. In the light of informal consultations with Members, the Chairperson made the following
statement:
"The provisions of Article I(2) of the Appendix as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement
can be understood so that, for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement, the relevant periods are
calculated by reference to the same date, i.e. 10 October 1974, as for the purposes of the
Berne Convention.  This would mean that renewable periods of ten years would be the same
for the purposes of both Agreements, and that, also under the TRIPS Agreement, the period of
ten years currently running would expire on 10 October 2004.  Such an understanding wouldmake the management of such notifications easier for those developing countries wishing to
avail themselves of the provisions of the Appendix under both Agreements.  In addition, this
would facilitate transparency for other Memb ers and their nationals whose rights might be
affected by the use of those  provisions."
9. The Council took note of this statement.
C. I MPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 70.8 AND 70.9
10. The Chairperson said that he had two new notifications to report under this agenda item.
Jamaica had notified that product patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical
products was available under the existing patent law of Jamaica.  This notification had been circulated
as document IP/N/1/JAM/1.
11. As regards the other notification, the Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting, the
European Communities had asked for clarification from the delegation of Mongolia about Mongolia'snotification concerning its implementation of Arti cle 70.8 and 70.9.  An answer to this question had
been received from Mongolia and distributed in document IP/N/1/MNG/1/Add.1.  According to this
notification, Mongolia had withdrawn its notification concerning Article 70.8 and 70.9, and informed
the Council that the purpose of the earlier notification had only been to inform Members that
Mongolian patent law already provided for product patent protection for pharmaceuticals andagricultural chemicals and had done so since 1 September 1993.
                                                     
1 See document IP/C/M/6, paragraphs 23-25.IP/C/M/19
Page 4
D. R EVIEW OF LEGISLATION
(i) Legislation on copyright and related rights (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and
Romania)
(ii) Legislation on trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs (Bulgaria
and Romania)
(iii) Legislation on enforcement (South Africa)
12. The Chairperson recalled that, after the revi ew meeting in May 1998, answers to initial
questions had remained outstanding from Bulgaria , Hungary, Poland, Romania and South Africa.  The
Secretariat had received the texts of most of the outstanding responses from all these delegations.Only a number of responses from South Africa still remained outstanding.
13. The representative of South Africa said that he expected his delegation to be in a position to
present the remainder of the outstanding responses to  initial questions posed to it in the review of
legislation on enforcement at the next meeting of the Council.
14. The Chairperson said that, since the meeting in May 1998, follow-up questions in the area of
copyright and related rights, posed to Bulgaria and Poland, had been received from the European
Communities and their member States.  These follow-up questions were being circulated in document
IP/C/W/106.
15. The representative of Bulgaria said that the follow-up questions posed to Bulgaria by the
European Communities and their member States had been sent on 13 July 1998 and received in the
Bulgarian mission on 14 July 1998.  Nevertheless, his delegation had received from its capital replies
to these follow-up questions just prior to the present meeting.  He read the two replies concerned.2
16. The representative of the European Communities thanked the representative of Bulgaria for
the very speedy replies to the follow-up questions.
17. The representative of Poland said that his delegation had received one follow-up question
from the European Communities and their member States.  His delegation was asked to provide
examples/cases to illustrate Poland's initial reply.  He said that Article 31 of the Polish Copyright Act,
second sentence, very clearly provided for permissible use concerning, in particular, "occasional live
performances connected with religious practice, State and school ceremonies and events accessible to
the public, however except for advertising, promotion and election events".  His delegation could
provide examples in connection with Article 35 on a case-by-case basis in writing in a short time, but
he asked the representative of the European Communities to clarify what kind of further exampleswere sought in relation to Article 31 .
18. The Chairperson referred to the procedures for the review, which required responses to
follow-up questions to be submitted within eight weeks of the meeting.
(iv) Follow-up to the reviews already undertaken
- Copyright and related rights
19. The Chairperson recalled that the delegation of Japan, in February, had posed a question to
the delegation of Ireland in relation to a response given by the Government of Ireland in the context of
                                                     
2 These responses will be circulated as part of document IP/Q4/BGR/1 in due course.IP/C/M/19
Page 5
the review of legislation that the Council had undertaken in the area of copyright and related rights at
its meeting in July 1996.  The Secretariat had not yet received an answer from Ireland to this question
posed by Japan.  At the previous meeting, in May, the European Communities and their member
States had said that the reply could be expected very shortly.
20. The representative of the European Communities said that he had received a copy of the reply
from Ireland but, given his delegation's internal procedures, he could not make it available in the
meeting.  He said that he hoped to be able to provide the reply soon.
- Patents, layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits, protection of
undisclosed information and control of anti-competitive practices in
contractual licences
21. The Chairperson informed the Council that comp lementary responses in the context of this
part of the review exercise had been received from Poland and distributed in document
IP/Q3/POL/1/Add.1.  Responses to follow-up questions  were still due by South Africa and the United
States.
22. The representatives of South Africa and the United States  said that their delegations would do
their utmost to deliver the responses by the next meeting.
- Legislation on enforcement
23. The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting, the Council had urged Members to
provide any outstanding material without delay.  The Secretariat had informed him that a number of
answers to questions posed in this part of the review exercise were still outstanding.  He suggested
that the Secretariat contact the delegations in question and that the Council urge them once again to
provide the material without delay.
24. The Council so agreed.
(v) Arrangements for future reviews
- Review of the legislation of Ecuador, Mongolia and Panama
25. The Chairperson recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Council had agreed to the dates for
the advance notice of questions and the submission of responses for these reviews.  These dates were:
- submission of advance notice of questions to the Member concerned and to
the Secretariat: 15 September 1998
- submission of responses to these questions:  3 November 1998
26. Continuing, he said that, as regards the texts of legislation to be reviewed, notifications had
been received from all three countries.  These notifications had been circulated in documents
IP/N/1/ECU/1, IP/N/1/MNG/1, IP/N/1/PAN/1 and the IP/N/1/- law series referred to in those
documents.
27. The Chairperson informed the Council that Ecuador and Mongolia had not yet notified their
responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcem ent (document IP/C/5).  He proposed that the
Council urge the delegations in question to complete their notifications without delay.
28. The Council so agreed.IP/C/M/19
Page 6
29. The representative of Ecuador said that, in connection with the notification of replies to the
Checklist of Issues on Enforcement and in keeping with Article 63.2 of the Agreement, Ecuador had
stated in the Council's meeting on 24 February 1998, th at it would participate in the review planned
for the meeting of 1 and 2 December 1998, in order to enable a review of its new legal structure
provided by the new law on intellectual property which had been promulgated in May 1998.  Ecuadorhad therefore notified all its legislation on intellectual property, including the recent law.  However,
under the Constitution, the law required a regulation for its application, to be issued by the President
of the Republic.  The constitutional procedure for the preparation of this regulation was running and,
along with it, the formulation of important legal elements which related to precisely enforcement.
This fact, together with the approval of recent reforms to the Constitution of Ecuador had so far
prevented his delegation submitting replies to the Checklist. He said that his delegation hoped to
provide these replies as soon as possible.  He said that the Council must evaluate these considerationsin order to promote the beneficial application of the review and that it must take into account the
efforts of Ecuador to bring its legislation into compliance with the TRIPS Agreement in a relatively
short period of time.  He said that it was difficult to say when his delegation could provide the replies
to the Checklist but he would like to believe that it could do so before the meeting in December.
- Advance reviews
30. The Chairperson said that his consultations on advance reviews prior to the present meeting
had not indicated any developments.  He would return to this issue in further informal consultations
prior to the next meeting in September.
31. The Council took note of the statements made under this agenda item.
E. T ECHNICAL COOPERATION
32. The Chairperson said that, at the previous meeting, it had been agreed that developed country
Members would provide their annual update of information on their technical cooperation activities
relevant to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement in time for the Council's meeting in
September.  The Council had also invited intergov ernmental organizations observers to the Council,
and the WTO Secretariat, to provide information on their technical cooperation activities, as they hadalso done in previous years.  After the Council meeting in May, an airgram had been circulated
reminding delegations that it would be important, in order to enable the timely processing and
distribution to Members of this information, to have their written contributions by 1 September
(WTO/AIR/850).
33. The Chairperson informed the Council that information had been received from the World
Customs Organization in response to the Council's request and would be available shortly in
document IP/C/W/108.
34. The representative of the Secretariat informed the Council that the WTO Secretariat had been
working with its colleagues in WI PO on how to enhance their existing cooperation in the field of
technical cooperation based on the Agreement en tered into between the two Organizations on
1 January 1996.  This was being done particularly in the light of the imminence of the end of the
general transition period for developing countries on 1 January 2000 and the need to be as efficient aspossible in making available technical cooperation in the intervening period so as to maximize the
assistance that they were in a position to provide.  The WTO Secretariat had agreed with WIPO on a
joint initiative to this effect.  Under this jo int initiative, the Directors-General of the two
Organizations, Dr. Kamil Idris of WIPO and Mr. Renato Ruggiero of the WTO, would shortly be
sending communications to Ministers of each of the countries concerned.  These letters wouldunderscore the commitment of the two Organizations to do all within their capacity to provide, on
request, technical assistance, draw attention to the key requirements of the TRIPS Agreement andIP/C/M/19
Page 7
contain a non-exhaustive list of the forms of technical cooperation that could be provided.  While this
initiative and the enhanced planning and coordination between the two Organizations and with
Members that it would entail was specifically geared to the needs of developing countries who had
committed themselves to comply by the year 2000, he said that both the WTO Secretariat and WIPO
wished to stress that it would not be implemented to the detriment of the assistance being provided to
other countries, in particular least developed countries .  He added that this initiative built on a
substantial track record of cooperation between the two Organizations since 1996 and earlier in the
field of technical cooperation, and was aimed at carrying it forward to a new level.
35. The representative of WIPO concurred with the statement of the representative of the
Secretariat.
36. The representative of Bulgaria drew the Council's attention to the results of the National
Seminar on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, held in Sofia, Bulgaria from
24 to 26 June 1998.  The seminar, organized by WIPO in cooperation with the Patent Office, the
Ministry of Trade and Tourism and the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Bulgaria and chaired by
a representative of WIPO, included foreign panelists from various intergovernmental and non-
governmental organizations, notably the WTO, the World Customs Organization, the International
Federation of the Phonographic Industry and the International Intellectual Property Alliance.  Morethan 70 participants from the Bulgarian ministries  and agencies with responsibility in the field of
enforcement of intellectual property rights had taken part in the seminar, among whom were the
Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Touris m, Culture and Industry as well as the President
of the Patent Office.  The Bulgarian panelists were from the Chief Prosecutor's Office, the Sofia City
Court, the General Customs Directorate, the Ministry of Culture and the Patent Office.  The paneldiscussions had focused on the enforcement provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, the civil,
administrative and criminal procedures and remedies, and enforcement of intellectual property rights
in the digital environment.  The panel discussion on the special requirements related to border
measures had been of particular interest to the Bulgarian participants in view of the present
consideration in the competent ministries and agencies of the draft Regulation on Border Control withrespect to the protection of intellectual property rights.  The panel discussions at the seminar had
provided opportunities for a free exchange of views on the subjects and consideration of
recommendations for further strengthening of the en forcement of intellectual property rights in
Bulgaria.  A number of unofficial consultations on practical issues of enforcement of intellectual
property rights in Bulgaria had been held between the foreign participants and Bulgarian officials
from various ministries and agencies.  The foreign participants had obtained personal impressions of
the priority attached by the Bulgarian Government to the protection of intellectual property rights.They had received detailed information about the efforts undertaken recently by Bulgarian authorities
to fight copyright piracy and other forms of infringements of intellectual property rights and updated
figures about the results achieved in this respect.  The representatives of the intergovernmental and
non-governmental organizations had expressed their appreciation for the substantial progress in
Bulgaria in the area of enforcement of intellectu al property rights.  The Bulgarian Government was
highly satisfied with the results of the seminar. It had been a remarkable example of the substantial
potential of WIPO to provide effective technical assistance in the field of the implementation of the
TRIPS Agreement.  It had demonstrated how succes sful the joint efforts of WIPO and the WTO under
the Cooperation Agreement between the two Organi zations of 1 January 1996 might be with respect
to the countries of central and eastern Europe in transition to a market economy.  It had also provedthat the participation of the private sector in  similar activities and fora contributed to more
comprehensive and result-oriented panel discussions and in view of that his delegation believed that
such participation should be encouraged further.
37. The representative of Hong Kong, China re ported on a WIPO Regional Symposium which
had taken place from 1 to 3 June 1998 in Hong Kong.  The symposium had attracted over 120
delegates from around Asia to discuss how to impl ement the TRIPS Agreement, particularly theIP/C/M/19
Page 8
enforcement provisions.  Speakers from the private sector had shown participants how corporations
viewed the issue of intellectual property protection, particularly the need for a holistic approach so
that the process of enforcement was treated as a necessary component of a corporation's overall
intellectual property asset management process.  Government speakers had provided a clear picture of
what had been achieved in their countries on cracking down on piracy.  Other speakers had givenbroad-ranging summaries of the laws available for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in
their countries.  The provisions of the TRIPS Agreement relating to special border measures had also
been discussed.  The World Customs Organization's di scussion of its model legislation on this topic
had given participants much insight into its thinki ng.  Participants from the private sector had also
suggested means of improving the model legislation.  A speaker from Thailand had discussed the
workings of his country's intellectual property court to assist in the enforcement of intellectual
property rights.  There had also been an analysis of how WIPO was assisting countries in the Asia-
Pacific region to comply with the requirements of  the TRIPS Agreement.  In the margins of the
symposium, difficult topics like parallel imports had also been discussed.  Some interesting views had
emerged.  Some participants felt that the enforcement of intellectual property rights should be based
on civil rights and that criminal procedures should not be overplayed in the interests of the rule of law.
Another interesting view that had been expressed was that common law remedies like the Anton Pillerorder and the Mareva injunction were preferable to alternative dispute resolution systems such as
arbitration.  The symposium had been a successful and productive event and she expressed her
delegation's gratitude to all who had contributed to its success.
38. The representative of Australia welcomed the statements by the representatives of Bulgaria
and Hong Kong, China.  She said that her delegation was very conscious of the substantial tasks that
developing countries took in preparing for comp liance with the Agreement.  She said that the
expertise and resources that her delegation made available were clearly focused on the areas of
priority articulated by its partners for technical cooperation.  Her delegation was increasingly
conscious of the need for the diverse range of technical cooperation provided through bilateral or
regional avenues or through multilateral organizations to be well coordinated and well focused.Therefore, she strongly encouraged Australia's developing country partners to continue to articulate
clearly their priority areas for technical cooperation and she urged others who were providing
technical cooperation to share information widely about the resources and expertise that they had and
the projects that they were undertaking in order that they could better match responses to needs.  In
this regard, she welcomed the statement by the Secretariat on its cooperation with WIPO.
39. The representative of Japan informed the C ouncil that Japan would hold a WIPO Regional
Forum on intellectual property policy development in Tokyo from 5 to 7 October 1998 in conjunction
with WIPO.  The forum would be an arena where commissioners of Asian intellectual property
offices would get together and exchange opinions on such policy and on conveying its importance to
policy makers of these countries.
40. The Council took note of the statements made.
F. W ORK ON ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
(i) Review of the application of the provisions of the Section on geographical indications
under Article 24.2
41. The Chairperson recalled that, as reflected in document IP/C/13, at the previous meeting, the
Council had taken note of the Checklist of Questions annexed to that document and invited Members
already under an obligation to apply the provisions of  the Section on geographical indications to provide
their responses by 16 November 1998, it being understood that other Members could also furnish replies
on a voluntary basis.  It had been further underst ood that Members could make any additional points that
they wished to make regarding the questionnaire at the present meeting.IP/C/M/19
Page 9
42. The Chairperson said that the Secretariat had received a communication from the delegation
of Mexico, in which Mexico had requested four additional questions to be included in the Checklist of
Questions as contained in document IP/C/13.  The text of those questions was available in
photocopied form in the room.  He suggested that the Council agree that the questions communicated
by Mexico be included in the Checklist, on condition that no objection was received by the Secretariatfrom a Member within one week of the meeting, under the following headings:  question 1 in
Section B of the Checklist;  question 2 in Section A;  question 3 in Section F;  and question 4 in
Section B.  He recalled that, in any case, even if  they might also be placed in other Sections, the
Council had recognized, as reflected in document IP/C/13, that Members responding to the Checklist
were free to group their responses as they found appropriate in the context of their national systems.
3
43. The Council so agreed.
(ii) Implementation of Article 23.4
44. The Chairperson recalled that the Council had initiated in February 1997 preliminary work on
issues relevant to the implementation of Article 23.4 of the Agreement, as specified in the Council's
report (1996) (document IP/C/8).  As a result, information on national registration systems, as
provided by Members, was available in docume nts IP/C/W/76 and Addenda, and information on
international notification and registration systems in a note prepared by the Secretariat in accordancewith an outline agreed by the Council (IP/C/W/85).  During informal consultations in February and
May 1998, Members already had some discussion 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 as agreed in paragraph 34
of the report of the Council for TRIPS to the Singapore Ministerial Conference.  He informed theCouncil that a proposal on the matter from the European Communities and their member States,
communicated to the Secretariat and circulated informa lly to delegations just prior to the meeting, had
been briefly discussed during the informal consultations that had preceded the present meeting.
4
45. The representative of the European Communities, introducing the proposal in question, said
that the work on a multilateral register for geographical indications for wines and spirits was part of
the built-in agenda of the TRIPS Agreement, in para llel with other aspects, including the review under
Article 24.2.  This had been underlined by the Ministerial Conference in December 1996 in Singapore
and, in the light of the introductory work which had been done in the Council after Singapore, the
European Communities and their member States had now drawn up this document which should
further that process.  He appreciated that Members had not had an opportunity to study his
delegation's paper.  Presenting the basic ideas underlying it, he said that the fundamental idea was to
propose an administrative framework to facilitate the grant of TRIPS-level protection in the area ofgeographical indications for wines and spirits.  He stressed that, in his delegation's view, the starting-
point was to provide, with regard to that level of  protection, for an administrative framework in which
legal clarity and legal security could be enhanced.  Of course, this was a first attempt to deal with this
issue and a lot of additional work and thought lay ahead.
46. The European Communities and their member States were proposing a mechanism that would
work in several stages.  The first stage would be the submission to the WTO Secretariat of a list of
geographical indications, accompanied by relevant evidence, by each Member that wished these
geographical indications to benefit from protection through the registration system.  The
accompanying evidence should demonstrate that each geographical indication was a geographical
                                                     
3 No objection was received.  Accordingly, an  addendum to the Checklist of Questions was
subsequently circulated as document IP/C/13/Add. 1.
4 The European Communities' proposal was subsequently distributed as document IP/C/W/107.IP/C/M/19
Page 10
indication in the sense of Article 22.1.  Regional and multilateral agreements for the protection of
geographical indications and the lists established under them could also play an important role, and he
referred to the note prepared by the Secretariat (document IP/C/W/85) which pointed out different
systems.  In the second stage, the Secretariat would notify these lists to Members, who could oppose
the inscription of a particular geographical indication on the grounds that it did not meet the definitionof Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement or that other exceptions provided for under the TRIPS
Agreement applied.  He referred to the problem of homonymous geographical indications from
different Members and said that the TRIPS Agre ement laid down the principle of coexistence
regulating it in a certain manner in order to avoid deceptive practices vis-à-vis the consumer.
Negotiations could take place at that point to achieve that goal.  In a further stage, once any
opposition procedure had been concluded, the geographical indication should be put on a list by the
Secretariat and thereby benefit from unconditional and clear TRIPS-level protection.  Such a listshould be published.  He said that the registration system should take into account future
developments, such as where a geographical indi cation was no longer used or a new geographical
indication had come into being.
47. The Chairperson suggested that the Council take note of the statements made and revert to the
European Communities' proposal at the next meeting.
48. The Council so agreed.
(iii) Question from Brazil on the protection of geographical indications in the European
Communities
49. The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting, the delegation of Brazil had asked a
question to the European Communities relating to the protection of geographical indications.
50. The representative of the European Communities said that a reply would be available before
the next meeting.
51. The Council took note of the statements made under this agenda item.
G. I NFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO
52. The Chairperson recalled that, at the Council's meeting of 19 September1997, 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 United States 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 had been circulated to WTO
Members on 2 July 1998 and was available in a document with multiple symbols, including
WT/DS59/R.
H. O BSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
53. The Chairperson recalled that the Council had asked the eight organizations, whose requests
were pending before the Council and had already been considered at previous meetings, to provide
information relevant to the criteria contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the procedures relating to the
grant of observer status for international intergover nmental organizations.  So far, such information
had been received from three of these organizations, namely the African Regional Industrial Property
Organization (ARIPO), the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the Office de la Vigne et du
Vin (OIV), and made available to delegations at previous meetings.IP/C/M/19
Page 11
54. The Chairperson said that he understood from the informal consultations that he had held on
the pending requests that Members felt that the situation on the general issue of observer status had
still not been sufficiently clarified to justify a decision on any pending request, not even from an
organization that had only requested observer status in the TRIPS Council.  He proposed that the
matter be reverted to at the next meeting.
55. The Council so agreed.
__________