RESTRICTED  
  
IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
16 April 2020  
(20-3061) Page: 1/47 
Council for Trade -Related Aspects of  
Intellectual Property Rights    
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 6 FEBRUARY 2020  
Chair: H.E. Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren (Mongolia)  
Addendum  
The present document contains the statements made during the Council for TRIPS meeting held on 
6 February 2020 . 
 
_______________  
 
  Table of Contents  
1   NOTIFICATIONS UN DER PROVISIONS OF TH E AGREEMENT  ................................ ........  4 
2   REVIEW OF NATION AL IMPLEMENTING LEGI SLATION  ................................ ................  9 
3   REVIEW OF THE PR OVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B)  ................................ .....................  9 
4   RELATIONSHIP BET WEEN THE TRIPS AGREE MENT AND THE CONVENT ION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 9 
5   PROTECTION OF TR ADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  ................................ ..... 9 
6   NON-VIOLATION AN D SITUATION COMPLAINTS  ................................ .......................  14 
7   REVIEW OF THE IM PLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDE R  
ARTICLE 71.1  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  18 
8   REVIEW OF THE AP PLICATION OF THE PRO VISIONS OF THE SECTI ON ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICAT IONS UNDER ARTICLE 2 4.2 ................................ ....................  18 
9   SEVENTEENTH ANNU AL REVIEW UNDER PARA GRAPH 2 OF THE DECIS ION ON 
THE IMPLEMENTATION O F ARTICLE 66.2 OF TH E TRIPS AGREEMENT  ............................  18 
10   TECHNICAL COOPE RATION AND CAPACITY -BUILDING  ................................ ............  26 
11   DRAFT CODEX ALI MENTARIUS STANDARD - DEFINITION OF 'CROS S PROMOTION'  26 
12   INTELLECTUAL PR OPERTY AND INNOVATIO N: ................................ ........................  27 
13   INTELLECTUAL PR OPERTY AND THE PUBLI C INTEREST: THE WTO TRIPS  
 AGREEMENT AND THE C OPYRIGHT THREE -STEP TEST  ................................ ...................  41 
14   INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT S ELSEWHERE IN THE W TO ...............  46 
15   OBSERVER STATUS  FOR INTERNATIONAL I NTERGOVERNMENTAL  
ORGANIZATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  46 
16   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 47 
17   ELECTION OF THE  CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ............  47 
  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  INDEX OF THE STATEMENTS MAD E  
AT THE MEETING OF COUNCIL FOR TRIPS 6 FEBRUARY 2020 * 
 
 
 
African Regional Intellectual Property 
Organization  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  24 
Australia  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  25 
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  .........  31 
Bangladesh  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  20 
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  10 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 15 
Observer Status  ................................ .. 46 
Other Business  ................................ ... 47 
Technical Cooperation  ..........................  26 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  14 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 18 
Brazil  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ........................  9 
Codex Alimentarius Standard - definition of 
cross-promotion  ...............................  27 
IP and Innovation - Making MS MEs 
competitive through trademarks  .........  39 
Notifications  ................................ .........  7 
Canada  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  23 
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  13 
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  .........  27 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 18 
Notifications  ................................ .........  5 
Chad  
Technical Cooperation  ..........................  26 
Chad on behalf of the LDC Group  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  19 
Chile  
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  .........  36 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 16 
China  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  11 
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitiv e through trademarks  .........  38 
IP and Public Interest - TRIPS Agreement 
and the copyright three -step test  ....... 44 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 16 
Notifications  ................................ .........  6 
Observer Status  ................................ .. 47 
Egypt  
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 15 
European Union  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  23 
Notifications  ................................ .........  4 
Hong Kong, China  
Notifications  ................................ .........  7 India  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ...................  9, 11 
Codex Alimentarius Standard - definition of 
cross-promotion  ...............................  27 
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  ........  39 
IP and the Public Interest - TRIPS an d the 
copyright three -step test  ...................  43 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 16 
Observer Status  ................................ .. 46 
Indonesia  
IP and the Public Interest - TRIPS and the 
copyright three -step test  ...................  43 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 15 
Observer Status  ................................ .. 47 
Japan  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  24 
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  13 
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  ........  34 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 17 
Other Business  ................................ ... 47 
Kenya  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  11 
Korea, Republic of  
IP and Innovation - Making MSM Es 
competitive through trademarks  ........  37 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 18 
Notifications  ................................ .........  4 
Mexico  
Draft Codex Alimentarius Standard - 
definition of cross -promotion  .............  26 
Nigeria  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  10 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 15 
Norway  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  24 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 18 
Peru  
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  ........  40 
Russian Federation  
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 17 
Notifications  ................................ .........  6 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  
Notifications  ................................ .........  8 
Singapore  
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  ........  36 
South Africa  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  12 
IP and the Public Interest - TRIPS and the 
copyright three -step test  ..............  41, 45  
South Africa on behalf of the African 
Group  
Non-violation and  situation complaints  ... 14 IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Switzerland  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  22 
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  12 
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  .........  32 
IP and the Public Interest - TRIPS and the 
copyright three -step test  ...................  45 
Non-violation and situation complai nts ... 17 
Chinese Taipei  
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  .........  34 
IP and Public Interest - TRIPS Agreement 
and the copyright three -step test  ....... 43 
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 16 
Notifications  ................................ .........  8 
Turkey  
Codex Alimentarium Stand ard- definition of 
cross-promotion  ...............................  27 
Ukraine  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  12 
Notifications  ................................ .........  4 
United Kingdom  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  22 IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  ........  38 
Notifications  ................................ .........  8 
United States of America  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  23 
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK  ......................  12 
IP and Innovation - Making MSMEs 
competitive through trademarks  ........  29 
IP and the Public Interest - TRIPS and the 
copyright three -step test  ..............  44, 45  
Non-violation and situation complaints  ... 17 
Observer Status  ................................ .. 47 
Vanuatu  
Article 66.2  ................................ ........  25 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
Observer Status  ................................ .. 47 
WTO Secretariat  
Article 66.2  ................................ ... 18, 25  
Information on developments in the WTO
 ................................ ......................  46 
Other Business  ................................ ... 47 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* A record of statements as delivered in the formal session of the Council. Some statements have been lightly 
edited as appropriate to ensure the consistency of presentation . 
  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AG REEMENT  
European Union  
With regards to document IP/N/1/CZE/4, Act No. 286/2018 of 5 November 2018 on the  
amendments to certain laws concerning industrial property, referred to as the Implementing Act, 
was published and the new rules are applicable from 1 January 2019 in the Czech Republic.  
The Implementing Act predominantly introduces new amendments to Act No. 441/2003 on 
Trademarks and amended Act No. 6/2002 on Courts and Judges. The purpose of the Trademark Act 
Amendment is to transpose the Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of 16 December 2015, approxi mating 
the laws of the member States relating to trademarks, already introduced and notified in the past 
session of this Council.  
The Trademark Act Amendment simplifies the administration and registration of trademarks and 
brings substantial changes to the  trademark registration process. As the consequence of 
the Amendment, trademark no longer needs to be represented graphically. The new definition of 
trademark opens up the possibility of registering unconventional types of trademarks which are 
expressed by  the available technological means (five new types of marks have been supplemented 
- positional, pattern, motion, multimedia and hologram). The Amendment also revises the system 
of absolute and relative grounds for refusal. Furthermore, it newly introduces  certification 
trademarks.  
The Implementing Act also amends the Act No. 221/2006 on Enforcement of Industrial Property 
Rights by introducing the possibility of seeking appropriate compensation for damages caused to 
the owners by unlawful acquisition, use o r disclosure of their business information (trade secrets), 
bringing the Czech legislation into full compliance with the Directive (EU) 2016/943 of 8 June 2016 
(Trade Secrets Directive). In reflection of the broader scope of the amended law, the Act was 
renamed, becoming Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights and Protection of Trade Secrets Act.  
Korea, Republic of  
Korea would like to briefly provide an overview of the elements we have informed the Council of, 
as shown in documents IP/N/KOR/8 through IP/N/KOR/11, under Article 66.2 of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  
The said notifications reflect major amendments to the Patent Act of Korea from 2013 to 2018. 
Documents IP/N/1/KOR/8 and IP/N/1/KOR/9 concern amendments made to t he Patent Act before 
2017. The amendments were made to ensure that the process is easier for applicants by permitting 
the filing of patents in foreign languages and extending the time allowed for the submission of a 
Korean translation for international app lications. In addition, the patent fee system was improved 
by allowing for a patent fee refund when a patent right is abandoned,  or a ruling of rejection is 
revoked.  
Amendments to the Trademark Act are shown in document IP/N/1/KOR/10 which reflects the 
changes in the official names of organizations in accordance with the restructuring of the Korean 
government in 2013.  
Lastly, Document IP/N/1/KOR/11 reflects amendments made in 2013 to the Enforcement Decree 
of the Patent Act. It includes a clear indication o f the scope of inventions in which patent term 
extensions are allowed, such as those related to medicines and agricultural chemicals. Another 
establishes that a portion of administrative patent judge positions be open to the private sector, 
which is conduc ive to the recruitment of outstanding personnel.  
Ukraine  
Ukraine is pleased to present its three notifications on a number of recent intellectual property -
related legislative developments that were enacted with an aim to achie ve an efficient level of 
intellectual property rights protection.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  
The first notification IP/N/1/UKR/5 concerns the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to Certain 
Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Improving the Legal Protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) " 
No 123 that entered into force on 1January 2020.  
The Law specifies conditions for granting and refusing legal GIs protection; reviews application 
requirements for GIs registration; improves the procedure for examination of applications; clarifies 
the scope of  rights and obligations arising from the state registration etc.  It is expected that adoption 
of this Law will improve legal regulation in the area of GIs protection.  
The second notification IP/N/1/UKR/6 presents the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to Certai n 
Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Improving Protection of Rights to Topographies of Semiconductor 
Products " No 111 , which came into effect on 26 September 2019.  
It establishes new definitions of the terms "topographies of semiconductor products " and 
"semiconductor product "; specifies the conditions for granting legal protection to such objects, 
determines the requirements to applications for registration and improves the examination 
procedure; and defines the scope of the rights and obligations arising  from the registration.  This Law 
seeks to ensure improvement of legal regulation in the area of protection of topographies of the 
semiconductor products.  
The third notification IP/N/1/UKR/7 informs on the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the 
Customs Code o f Ukraine on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights during the Movement of 
Goods through the Customs Border of Ukraine " No 202 , which took effect on 14 November 2019.  
This Law expands the scope of intellectual property rights (IPRs) objects that fa ll under the 
protection during the movement of goods across the customs border of Ukraine, establishes the 
definitions of such terms as "counterfeit goods ", "pirated goods ", "goods suspected of infringing 
IPRs". The Law introduces the principle of non -application of measures on IPRs protection for original 
goods, manufactured with the consent of the right holder or by a person duly authorized. On the 
other hand, it expands legal means for the use of measures related to suspension of customs 
clearance of goo ds that may infringe IPRs, including on the initiative of the customs authority (ex 
officio).  
Implementation of provisions of this Law should increase the level of IPRs enforcement to 
prevent infringements and movement of counterfeit or pirated goods acros s the customs border of 
Ukraine.  Ukraine considers intellectual property as being of great importance to the economy and 
one of the key priorities for the Ukrainian Government.  
Canada  
Further to Canada's submission of document IP/N/1/CAN/29, Canada would like to take this 
opportunity to notify the TRIPS Council of the introduction of Canada's new Patent Rules on 
30 October 2019.  
By way of background, in December 2014 under Bill C -43, Canada amended its Patent Act to 
make necessa ry changes in order to be able to accede to the Patent Law Treaty (PLT). These 
amendments were followed by a second set of administrative amendments to the Patent Act in 
June 2015 under Bill C -59, which amended the Patent Act to provide for extensions of t ime limits in 
unforeseen circumstances and  provided the authority to make regulations respecting the correction 
of obvious errors in patent applications.  
These amendments to the Patent Act entered into force with the introduction of Canada's new 
Patent Rul es on 30 October 2019. These new Patent Rules repeal and replace Canada's previous 
Patent Rules and  modernize the administration of patent rights in Canada to align with modern 
business practices and increase clarity and legal certainty for users of the patent system. Some 
notable changes, in addition to those necessary to ensure compliance with the PLT , include time -
limited restrictions on correcting obvious errors in granted patents, a reduction of the deferred 
examination period from 5 years from the filing date to 4 years from the filing date, and a reduction 
from 42 months to 30 months for as -of-right Canadian national entry for Patent Cooperation Treaty 
international applications.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  
In implementing the PLT, these legislative amendments and Canada's new Patent Rules 
contribute to the Government of Canada's national IP Strategy, which seeks to ensure th at Canada's 
IP regime is modern and robust, and that Canadian entrepreneurs better understand and protect 
their IP. This  modernization of our regime reinforces patents as vital tools to protect and incentivize 
innovation at home and abroad.  
China  
China is pleased to inform the Council that last year we amended the Trademark Law and Anti -
Unfair Competition Law. The revised laws have been notified to this Council through the e -TRIPS 
system in accordance with Article 63.2 of the TRI PS Agreement. We would like to briefly explain 
some major changes in  the revision.  
With regard to the Anti -Unfair Competition Law, which is notified in IP/N/1/CHN/10, the revision 
was made in order to strengthen trade secret protection. The main changes in clude: (1) 
the definition of trade secret is improved; (2) the scope of trade secret protection is expanded. We 
made it explicit that hacking into the electronic information system to obtain right holders' trade 
secrets is recognized as trade secret infrin gement. We also incorporate natural, legal and 
unincorporated organization other than business entities into the scope of the responsible parties 
for infringing trade secret; (3) we enhance legal liability for infringing trade secret; and (4) there is 
a transfer of burden of proof in civil procedures concerning trade secret infringement.  
As for the Trademark Law, which is notified in document IP/N/1/CHN/11, the revision mainly 
focuses on two aspects: firstly, we effectively regulate bad faith trademark regi stration and secondly, 
we strengthen trademark protection by increasing the amount of compensation for infringing 
trademarks.  
China would like to thank the Secretariat for building up a user -friendly electronic submission 
and notification system. My delega tion emphasizes the importance of transparency in Members' IP 
system and will continuously fulfil its TRIPS notification obligation.  
Russian Federation  
The Federal Law of the Russian Federation of 26 July 2019 N 230 -FZ amended Part Four of the 
Civil Code of the Russian Federation (CCRF). Under the Federal Law, Geographical Indications (GIs) 
were introduced into the CCRF as a separate object of IP rights. A GI is defined as a designation 
identifying goods originating from the geographical territory, where a certain quality, reputation or 
other characteristics of the goods are largely determined by their geographical origin. The Federal 
Law sets forth the re quirements for GIs, the list of persons entitled to registration and acquisition of 
exclusive right to GIs, as well as the rules for its registration and legal protection.  
Geographical Indications will coexist with the appellations of origin of goods (AO) in Russian 
legislation.  
For the registration of GIs , it is sufficient that the goods have a quality, reputation or other 
characteristics which lead the consumer to associate them with a certain territory of origin.  
It is sufficient for GIs that one stage of production takes place in the territory of origin, while 
AO requires that for all stages of production significant for the acquisition of special qualities of 
the goods take place in the territory of origin.  
As noted by the World Intellectual Prop erty Organization, GI s can be used in respect of 
agricultural products, foods, wines and spirits, handicrafts and industrial goods. GI can play an 
important role in sales and distributions, as GIs directly refer to the place where the goods acquired 
certai n qualities that are significant for consumers. Therefore, GI can be used as an effective tool to 
promote regional brands of the Russian Federation, which is an important national initiative in the 
IP field, and to enhance competitiveness of goods both dom estically and worldwide.  
The Federal Law shall come into force on 27 July 2020. Some enforcement provisions will enter 
into force on 28 July 2025.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  
Brazil  
Right before the last TRIPS Council meeting, Brazil had notified two reso lutions of our national 
patent office regarding our Patent Backlog Elimination Plan. Both are available in English.  Since these 
notifications were not discussed in the last meeting, I would like to present them now.  
By these resolutions, it is now possible  to use search results held by patent offices in other 
countries and by international or regional organizations to expedite technical decision -making at 
preliminary stages of patent examination.  This strategy is one of the core elements of our Patent 
Backl og Elimination Plan, which aims to reduce 80% of pending requests by 2021.  Our aim is also 
to reduce the average concession time to about two years from the examination request.  
In that regard, I am happy to announce that the program is being very successf ul so far.  
Preliminary figures point to a 18.5% reduction in the backlog in just 5 months. If the pace continues, 
the goal of reducing the stock of pending requests by 80% within two years will be met.  In 2019, 
we also experienced a 2.8% increase in patent  applications compared to 2018, a reversal of the 
downward trend that had been in place since 2013.  
These efforts reflect Brazil's vision of the fundamental role of intellectual property for economic 
development. Important steps are being taken to improve our legal framework and promote 
a predictable and stable environment for innovation.  
Hong Kong, China  
Hong Kong, China submitted two notifications on 16 January 2020, IP/N/1/HKG/33 and 
IP/N/1/HKG/34, to notify the TRIPS Council of the commencement of amendments to our patent 
legislation, in compliance with Hong Kong, China's obligations under Article 63.2 of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  
The amendments are made to the Patent Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation, the Pate nt 
General Rules, for three purposes:  
• To set up a new system for enabling direct filing of applications for and grant of standard 
patents, known as "original grant " patents, in which both pre -grant formality and 
substantive examinations are required;  
• To refine the pre -existing short -term patent system by various measures, including 
the introduction of a post -grant substantive examination mechanism for short -term 
patents; and  
• To prohibit the use of certain misleading or confusing titles and descriptions rel ating to 
provision of patent agency services as an interim measure pending the establishment of 
a full-fledged regulatory regime for patent agency services.  
The legislative amendments were effective from 19 December 2019.  
Let me briefly introduce the main feature of the new original patent system. The new system 
enables applications for two types of patents in Hong Kong, China, namely, standard patents with 
a maximum protection term of 20 years; or short -term patents with a maximum protection term of 
8 year s. 
With the new system, a standard patent application can be filed directly in Hong Kong, China 
via the  original grant patent without the pre -condition of filing an earlier application outside the 
territory. Such an application is subject to formality exam ination as well as substantive examination 
for determining the patentability of the underlying invention.  
Alternatively, the applicant can request a re -registration based on an earlier application filed 
with the patent office in the Mainland China or the U nited Kingdom, or the European Patent Office.  
The new system helps reduce the patenting costs and time for obtaining standard patents. 
Standard patent applicants may choose to use the original grant patent or the "re-registration " route IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  according to their individual business needs. Hong Kong, China has a strong pool of professionals to 
offer patent applicants advice on their best patenting strategies. The reform of the patent system 
promotes innovation and attracts enterprises to set up R&D operations in Ho ng Kong, China, thereby 
facilitating the development of our innovation and technology sector.  
Chinese Taipei  
I am pleased to report that we duly notified to the TRIPS Council on the 26 November 2019 our 
amendment to the Enforcement Rules of the Patent Act in documents IP/N/1/TPKM/25. The  changes 
are as follows:  Provisions  about division applications upon approvals have been inserted into the 
Patent Act amended on 1 May 2019, so the corresponding rules in Article 29 of the  Enforcement 
Rules of the Patent Act were deleted.  Also, in conjunction with the Patent Act stipulating that patent 
files deemed worth preserving by the Specific Patent Agency shall be permanently kept, types of 
patent cases whose files worth preserving were added to Article 89 -1 of the Enforcement Rules. 
Article 90 of the Enforcement Rules specifies the date on which the amendments should enter into 
force.  
The amendment entered into force on 1 November 2019.  
United K ingdom  
The United Kingdom has always been a strong supporter of the multilateral trading system and 
intends to use its role in the WTO in 2020 to support efforts to strengthen the multilateral rules -
based trading system , and to modernise and build confidence in the WTO.  
The United Kingdom is committed to a balanced and effective intellectual property regime, and 
so we have introduced a number of legislative changes since we last updated the Council on our IP 
laws and reg ulations, in accordance with Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. A transparent IP 
regime is essential for the growth of our IP intensive industries, including the creative industries, 
technology, agricultural products, healthcare and the life sciences. No tifications to the WTO are 
an important part of this regime.  
In consideration of the Chair 's encouragement for Members to update any outstanding 
notifications, and the importance the United Kingdom attaches to TRIPS transparency arrangements, 
we have begun  preparations to update our notifications to the WTO Secretariat, using the e-TRIPS  
system. We will be making our first notifications shortly, which will be on legislation changes relating 
to trademarks and industrial designs, ahead of the next TRIPS Counc il in May.  
Further information setting out some of the implications of the United Kingdom 's departure from 
the European Union in the WTO can be found in our communication WT/GC/206 circulated to 
the General Council on 1 February 2020.  
The United Kingdom lo oks forward to engaging with all WTO Members in our collective effort 
towards defending and improving the multilateral trading system.  
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  
I would like to inform you that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has recently submitted two 
notifications to the TRIPS Council concerning replacement of Saudi laws that ha d been notified 
previously under Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
Saudi Arabia 's Counc il of Ministers amended the Saudi Copyright Law, introducing two changes:  
1. First, replacing the Ministry of Culture and Information with Saudi Authority for 
Intellectual Property ; and  
2. Second, regarding the decision -making function under the Copyright Law, r eplacing 
the Minister with the Board of Directors of the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property. 
As a result, the Article currently reads: "Decisions of the Committee shall be made by 
majority vote, which shall be endorsed by the Board of Directors ". IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  
Thus, the adoption of the decisions issued by the Committee must be approved by the Board of 
Directors of the Saudi Authorit ies for Intellectual Property, and no longer involve Ministerial approval. 
The Board is composed of a President and 15 members of both  government and private sectors.  
2  REVIEW OF NATIONAL I MPLEMENTING LEGISLAT ION 
No statements were made under this agenda item.  
3  REVIEW OF THE PROVIS IONS OF ARTICLE 27.3 (B) 
4  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN  THE TRIPS AGREEMENT  AND THE CONVENTION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  
5  PROTECTION OF TRADIT IONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  
Brazil  
Brazil 's position in this matter remains unchanged.  We remain convinced that the TRIPS 
Agreement should be amended to include a requirement for the disclosure of origin of genetic 
resources in patent applications.  
We believe that a multilateral provision on disclosure is the most effective means to protect 
genetic resources as determined by the Convention on Biological Diversity.  This would increase the 
legal se curity of the system as a whole.  
We also take this opportunity to invite Members to engage constructively in discussions on 
the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional 
Knowledge and Folklore.  As we all k now, the IGC is mandated to undertake "text-based negotiations 
with the objective of reaching agreement on a text(s) of an international legal instrument(s), which 
will ensure the  effective protection of traditional knowledge (TK), traditional cultural exp ressions 
(TCEs) and genetic resources (GRs) ". The WIPO Assemblies renewed this mandate in October 2019.  
We therefore urge delegations to exercise flexibility so that we can advance in this pressing issue.  
It is within our expectation that a diplomatic conf erence be convened to negotiate an instrument as 
soon as possible.  This will enable the multilateral IP system to provide a concrete answer to the 
rights of countries hosting a rich biodiversity.  
India  
The issues under agenda items 3, 4 and 5 have been on the Council's agenda for a long time. 
In our previous statements, we have underlined in detail the need for an international enforceable 
regime to end the misappropriation of genetic resources and tradition al knowledge, happening 
especially in biodiversity -rich countries. India is a country rich in traditional knowledge associated 
with biological resources. The TRIPS -CBD linkage is important for all countries as it seeks to address 
biopiracy. We need to move  forward on the long -standing issues of the TRIPS -CBD linkage, GI 
register and GI extension on the basis of the modalities contained in document TN/C/W/52.  
The Doha Ministerial Declaration, in paragraph 19, had tasked the TRIPS Council to examine 
the relat ionship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, as well as the protection of traditional 
knowledge and folklore. It also mandated that while doing so, the Council should be guided by the 
objectives and principles set out in the TRIPS Agreement and should fully take into account the 
development dimension. We need to fulfil this mandate. The credibility of the WTO as an institution 
was being undermined by not implementing a Ministerial Decision for almost 19 years.  
As regards the TRIPS Council being the appr opriate forum to discuss these matters, when 
developing countries argued in the late eighties that TRIPS did not belong to GATT as WIPO existed 
as a functional organization to deal with IP issues, the developed countries refused to accept that 
argument. No w, when we seek that the TRIPS Agreement be amended to address the concerns of 
biopiracy, we are being shown the door to WIPO, where the IGC process has not been able to make 
any headway since years. Given the enforceability of the TRIPS Agreement and the fact that much 
of the misappropriation is a consequence of trade, there is a need and mandate to build the linkage 
between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD under the aegis of this Council.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  
India is also of the view that a briefing by the CBD Secretariat on the latest developments in 
the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol would be very useful for the Members of this Council and 
we support updating of three factual briefs by the Secretariat on these issues.  
Bangladesh  
On agenda items 3, 4, and 5, the position of Bangladesh has not changed. We reiterate our 
position for the sake of record.  
On agenda item 3, the issue of the review of the provisions of Article 27.3 (b) of the TRIPS 
Agreement, Bangladesh does not su pport the patenting of life forms comprising plants and animals. 
We call for a review of this Article in order to protect interest of developing countries and LDCs from 
the negative effects of this provision on the key sectors that affect their livelihood such as 
agriculture, health, food, and climate change. This could help ensure , inter alia , food security and 
preserve the integrity of rural and local communities. Patenting of life forms should be prohibited.  
On the relationship between the TRIPS Agreemen t and the CBD, Bangladesh holds that States 
have the right and duty to protect their traditional knowledge and genetic resources. There is, 
therefore, a need to amend the TRIPS Agreement with a view to requiring applicants of patent 
relating to biological materials to provide information on the source and country of origin of biological 
resources and traditional knowledge used in the invention.  
In addition, applicants must show evidence of prior informed consent from, and benefit sharing 
arrangements with, the authorities and/or persons under the relevant national regime. 
This disclosure requirement, which is consistent with the transparency principle established in 
the multilateral trading system, will help reduce the number of erroneous patents and biopira cy. 
Bangladesh believes that traditional knowledge should receive legal recognition because its 
protection could as well contribute significantly to the achievement of the sustainable development 
goals.  
Nigeria  
Our intervention will be in respect of Agenda items 4 and 5. I would want to recall previous 
statements made by Nigeria on these subject matters and we reiterate that the need for the mutual 
supportiveness of the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biologic al Diversity cannot be over 
emphasized. Enhanced corporation of the TRIPS Agreement and other relevant international 
organizations and international instruments remain a basic principle of the TRIPS Agreement. We 
are in support of the harmonization of the TRIPS Agreement in order to be consistent with the CBD.  
Traditional communities continue to be negatively impacted as a result of the illegal exploitation 
of their biological resources or associated traditional knowledge. My delegation is of the view that in 
order to develop a sound and viable technological base in developing countries and LDCs, any 
utilization of genetic resources from these regions must involve sustainable use in order to conserve 
biological diversity, and must show evidence of a fair and  equitable sharing of benefits, as are 
the principles of the CBD.  
As has been proposed in past African Group proposals, Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement ought 
to be given more force to include traceability and a prior informed consent from the source, in 
respect of any product manufactured from the utilization of genetic components or traditional 
knowledge and folklore. In other words, full disclosure of the origin and source of any genetic 
resource or associated traditional knowledge should be made in exc hange for patent protection. We 
call upon our developed country partners to foster strategic collaborations with relevant countries 
towards developing a mechanism where the patent applicants in their respective countries will be 
mandated to disclose the ac tual source of any genetic material or TRFK utilized by them during 
the manufacturing of their products. This will go a long way in the administration of benefit sharing 
with the original owners.  
The full disclosure requirement will not only be beneficial to Nigeria in terms of access to benefit 
sharing, but it will also on the other hand, improve the quality of our substantive patent examination, 
which will in turn ensure the validity of patent grants in our country.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  
Finally, we urge Members to consider co llaborating with each other both regionally and 
internationally, in order to achieve this mutually beneficial goal.  
China  
China attaches great importance to the TRIPS -CBD linkage issue and participated in a lot of 
useful discussions in this Council. We call for Members' continuous involvement in this discussion.  
Regarding the substance, China has two points: (1) we note that in previous meetings 
the majority of Members, including China, support ed amending the TRIPS Agreement so as to ensure 
the mutual supportiveness of the TRIPS Agreement, the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol. We believe 
that setting up a reasonable system for prior informed consent and benefit sharing could ensure 
better protection for genetic resources;  (2) China put s special emphasis on the disclosure of genetic 
resources in the process of patent application. China has provided detailed suggestions on improving 
the transparency on genetic resources utilization, preventing the misappropriation of genetic  
resources and traditional knowledge, and preventing the grant of erroneous patents in two joint 
proposals contained in documents TN/C/W/52 and TN/C/W/59.  
As regards the procedure, China has three points: (1) we believe that the discussion in the 
WIPO IGC could not hinder Members from finding a solution in the WTO; (2) we support invit ing the 
CBD Secretariat to brief on the Nagoya Protocol; and (3) China hopes that the Secretariat could 
update  the three factual notes.  
Indonesia  
We would like to reiterate our position that we support the negotiation which incorporates 
the key provision of the CBD related to the disclosure requirement, fair and equitable benefit sharing, 
and prior informed consent principle into the TRIP S Agreement. We consider that the inclusion of a 
mandatory disclosure requirement as a requirement in patent applications will contribute to prevent 
the misappropriation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge as well as to improve 
transp arency of the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. In addition, 
the presence of disclosure requirements on the TRIPS Agreement would encourage Member s to 
create databases to promote the principle of transparency and effica cy of the provisions related with 
genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.  
Indonesia underlines that genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge should be 
utilized in an appropriate manner that ensures the fair and equitable benef it sharing through 
mutually agreed terms in accordance with the objectives of the UN -CBD and Nagoya Protocol. In our 
view, fair and equitable benefit sharing can only be achieved through the inclusion of mandatory 
disclosure requirement into the IP regime.  
Kenya  
This statement concerns a genda items 4  and 5. The protection of biological resources, 
traditional knowledge and folklore presents an important developmental issue for Kenya. In this 
regard, Kenya fully support s negotiations on the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD).  
Kenya believes that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD should be implemented in a mutually 
supportive manner and considers that the TRIPS Agreement should be amended to i nclude 
a provision making it mandatory for a patent applicant relating to biological resources and/or 
associated traditional knowledge and folklore to disclose the source and country of origin of 
the biological resources and associated traditional knowledg e used in the invention. In addition, they 
should also provide evidence of prior consent and equitable benefit sharing under the relevant 
national law.  
We believe that to develop a sound and viable technological base in developing countries and 
LDCs, any u tilization of local genetic resources must involve their sustainable use in order to 
conserve biological diversity.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  
Finally, Kenya continues to encourage the engagement of the Director General in this mandated 
consultative process on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD. We look 
forward to the outcome of this kind of consultations and request other M embers to engage 
constructively in these negotiations, taking into consideration that this issue is one of high priority 
for developing countries since they are often victims of biopiracy. These dishonest practices must 
be combatted effectively to facilita te the sharing of the benefits gained from the exploitation of such 
resources.  
South Africa  
South Africa would want to recall its previous statements on items 3, 4 and 5.  
Ukraine  
Regarding agenda item 4 , Ukraine follows discussions on this issue in the TRIPS Council 
meetings and shares the opinions of the WTO Members concerning its importance.  Ukraine has 
started its respective ratification process regarding the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic 
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the 
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).  
Ukraine supports suggestions of delegations concerning updating by the WTO Secreta riat 
the factual notes on the TRIPS Council`s discussions with respect to the relationship between 
the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and the request to invite the CBD Secretariat for briefing 
the TRIPS Council on the Nagoya Protocol.  
United States of America  
The position of the United States on these issues has not changed.  
Regarding genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore, we continue to believe that 
WIPO serves as the best forum to add ress these issues.  The WIPO IGC is looking at addressing 
unresolved issues and working on a common understanding of core issues, using an evidence -based 
approach and examples of national experiences.  The United States will continue to engage in 
technical d iscussions at WIPO's IGC and looks forward to hearing more from the demandeurs  
regarding data supporting their position on this issue.  
With respect to the various requests made today, the United States is not in a position to 
support them, but remains open  to discussions, including bilaterally with delegations in between and 
at the margins of the TRIPS Council meetings.  
Switzerland  
Switzerland supports the introduction of a non -burdensome requirement into the TR IPS 
Agreement to disclose the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent 
applications for inventions directly based on such genetic resource or knowledge.  
Switzerland is convinced that such a provision will promote the mutual supportiv eness of 
the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and through enhanced transparency, also the better 
understanding and acceptance of the benefits of the patent system and the protection and innovation 
incentive mechanism it provides, in particular in relation to i nventions in the field of biotechnology.  
In 2008, a group of 109 WTO Members, the so -called W52 coalition, representing 2/3 of 
the membership, submitted to the TNC a proposal for modalities for three outstanding 
implementation issues.  
Next to the proposal for a disclosure requirement for genetic resources and traditional 
knowledge in patent applications, this proposal concerns the extension of the effective level of 
Art. 23 of the TRIPS Agreement on the protection for geographical indications to all product s as well 
as the multilateral register for geographical indications which the TRIPS Agreement mandates to be 
established.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  
Should Members decide a WTO work programme at the forthcoming MC12 (in Nursultan), these 
long outstanding implementation issues will n eed to be taken into account in view of reaching 
mutually agreeable solutions for them.  
Finally, Switzerland can lend its support to the two procedural proposals, one concerning 
the update of the factual notes of the Secretariat, summarizing the Council's discussion between 
2000 and 2006, the other to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council at one of its next regular 
meetings about the Nagoya Protocol of the CBD.  
Japan  
We have discussed this agenda at length during a series of meetings of the TRIPS Council. This 
delegation, therefore, believes that our position is well -recognized among Members, so we would 
like to make our intervention brief, highlighting some major points.  
The delegation of Japan would  like to reiterate our position that the Convention on Biological 
Diversity is by nature not relevant to the intellectual property system. In this regard, we need to 
seek appropriate ways to deal with the utiliza tion of genetic resources. This means that w e should 
bear in mind that any measures taken must not adversely affect the existing intellectual property 
system or hinder the creation of innovations utilizing genetic resources and associated traditional 
knowledge.  
This delegation is firmly convinced th at to include the disclosure requirement in the IP system 
would discourage industries from conducting research and development activities on biological 
materials. This is the very consequence of the disclosure requirement that Japan has been concerned 
about. The same holds true for not only developed countries but also emerging and developing 
countries. Japan believes that the disclosure requirement is not an adequate means for dealing with 
the utilization of genetic resources.  
In line with the above -mentio ned position, we firmly believe that the protection of GRs, TK and 
Folklore should be designed in a manner that both supports creativity and innovation.  
In addition, this delegation believes the WIPO IGC is the most appropriate forum for holding 
technical discussions on genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore from IP aspects, and 
the IGC meetings will be held this year. This delegation has been actively contributing to 
the discussions at the IGC meetings, making various proposals, and remains willing to contribute to 
evidence -based discussions on these issues in a constructive and effective manner.  
Canada  
With respect to the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, Canada continues 
to believ e that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD are complementary, and that there is therefore 
no need to amend the TRIPS Agreement in this regard.  
On the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore, Canada welcomes the ongoing work of 
the WIPO IGC. In particu lar, the IGC has served, and continues to serve, as an important venue that 
brings together the necessary technical expertise and views, to identify evidence -based, balanced, 
and mutually beneficial approaches to these issues. Canada has been, and continue s to be, an active 
and committed participant in the work of the IGC, and welcomes the  concrete discussions and 
exchanges of national experiences in that venue, which remain key to considering the issues at 
hand.  
With respect to procedural matters at the TR IPS Council, as Canada has previously noted, and 
without prejudice to our position on substantive matters, Canada can continue to support 
a procedural briefing from the CBD Secretariat to the TRIPS Council, should there be sufficient 
interest from other Me mbers on the matter. Similarly, without prejudice to Canada's national 
positions on these issues, Canada could also support the compilation of the three factual notes on 
the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD by the  WTO Secretariat. As it has been previously note d in this 
committee, Canada remains of the  understanding that this would be an information collating 
exercise.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
  
Bolivia, Pl urinational  State of  
Bolivia contends that natural processes and environmental functions cannot be commercialized, 
as this would, inter alia , raise concerns for many peoples and cultures of the world.  
We therefore reiterate our position against the patenting of all life forms in their natural state 
or one of the components thereof in insolation, including plants and animals and parts thereof, gene 
sequences and microorganisms.  
Bolivia considers that Article 27(3)(b) of the TRIPS Agreement is closely related to the 
Convention on  Biological Diversity and that the provisions of the Agreement must therefore be 
supplemented in order to fully protect genetic resources and traditional knowledge and a balance 
between the two  instruments must be struck. Bolivia supports any initiative th at would foster such 
a balance.  
In the same vein, Bolivia notes that the absence of a balanced and effective framework to 
protect traditional knowledge  and folklore has enabled the proliferation of illicit practices such as 
misappropriation and biopiracy, leaving developing countries in particular without appropriate 
mechanisms to provide adequate protection. It is therefore necessary to update the 
TRIPS  Agreement irrespective of whether any negotiations on the matter are taking place within the 
World Intel lectual Property Organization.  
6  NON-VIOLATION AND SI TUATION COMPLAINTS  
South Africa , On Behalf of the African Group  
I deliver this statement on behalf of the African Group.  At the outset, we thank you for your 
report back on the consultations that you have held on this important topic.  
The African Group is of the opinion that non -violation and situation complaints are not 
applicable to the TRIP S Agreement. Intr oducing such a remedy in the context of the TRIPS 
Agreement would undermine the security and predictability provided by the multilateral trading 
system. Non -violation complaints could enable legal challenges to regulatory and public policy 
measures that ma y be consistent with the obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  
The African Group notes with interest that the Protocol on the Amendment of the TRIPS 
Agreement introduced Article 3 1bis, paragraph 4 reads as follows: "Members shall not challenge any 
measure s taken in conformity with the provisions of this Article and the Annex to this Agreement 
under subparagraph 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994." This amendment constitutes a  tacit 
recognition that non -violation and situation complaints may affect  flexibilities under the TRIPS 
Agreement and explicitly makes this remedy inapplicable to the article which deals with compulsory 
licences for countries with insufficient manufacturing capacity.  
The lapse of the TRIPS NVC moratorium may have significant im plications for the developing 
countries. In particular, it can significantly limit the ability of Members to use the TRIPS flexibilities 
to advance public health objectives. If non -violation and situation complaints were to apply to 
disputes under TRIPS, m easures implemented in furtherance of national and regional policies on the 
use of TRIPS flexibilities can be challenged in a WTO dispute. This could adversely affect developing 
countries, especially in Africa who are overwhelmed by disease burdens and at the same time face 
serious resource constraints, and their ability to ensure legal certainty and reliable public health and 
other policy interventions that would support sustainable human capital development. The rising 
spectre of unilateral measures and t he impact of a dysfunctional Appellate  Body further impacts the 
legal certainty of the use of TRIPS flexibilities should non -violation and situation complaints become 
applicable to the TRIPS Agreement.  
The African Group also interprets Article 64.2 to mean  that in case the moratorium on 
the application of non -violation and situation complaints is not extended in June 2020, 
the complaints would not automatically apply to the TRIPS Agreement. We further understand that 
these disputes cannot apply until such a  time that Member s agree to the scope and modalities of 
their application in respect to the TRIPS Agreement.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  
The African Group sees no linkage between the moratorium on the application of electronic 
transmissions and the moratorium on the application of no n-violation and situation complaints to 
the TRIPS Agreement. The respective moratoria should be judged on their own merits, there is no 
historic link since the TRIPS moratorium predates the e -commerce moratorium, even though 
Members have had a practice to link the two. This linkage is artificial and should not be maintained.  
In closing , the Africa Group remains convinced th at non-violation and situation complaints 
should not apply to the TRIPS Agreements and would be inconsistent with the long -term best 
interests of the multilateral trading system and all its Members. We therefore propose that 
the Council for TRIPS recommend to the next Ministerial Conference that complaints of the type 
provided for under subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 shall not apply to 
the settlement of disputes under the TRIPS Agreement.  
Bangladesh  
The position of Bangladesh on the proposed lifting of the moratorium on non -violation and 
situation complaints is well -known. We are in favour of establishing a permanent moratorium.  
Bangladesh invites the views and ideas of our friends who were proponents of the application 
of the non -violation and situation complaints on the scope and modalities of the  proceedings as 
required by Article 64.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Council needs to be better informed, and only 
then it will be in a better position to examine and consider the proposal.  
During the General Council meeting in December 2019, the Moratoriu m on TRIPS NVSC has 
been extended temporarily till MC 12. The concept of NVSC appears to be still an unknown territory, 
and unless the scope and modalities are outlined first, we cannot go any further in this discussion. 
As we perceive it now, if non -violation and situation complaints are made applicable to TRIPS, any 
issue can be brought as 'cases' under this umbrella. Clear delimitations, therefore, need to be 
conceived, defined and thoroughly examined first.  
Bangladesh reiterates its readiness to constru ctively engage with Members on this issue 
further.  
Egypt  
Egypt fully supports the statement made today by South Africa on behalf of the African Group.  
We would like to highlight the following points : (1) Non-violation and situation complaints in 
our view should  not be applicable to the TRIPS agreement.  (2) The current moratorium is extremely 
important in enabling developing countries to use the TRIP S flexibilities , especially to advance their 
public heal th objectives.  (3) The linkage between the electronic transmissions moratorium and the 
TRIPS moratorium should not be maintained and each moratorium  should be judged on its own 
merits.  
Finally, Egypt supports the proposal that the Council for TRIPS recomme nd to the next 
ministerial meeting in Nur -Sultan to make the current TRIPS moratorium permanent or at least 
renewing it until MC13.  
Indonesia  
Indonesia 's position on non-violation and situation complaints remains unchanged. As we have 
conveyed in the previous meeting, we are still unconvinced with the urgency of the NVSC application 
in the TRIPS Agreement. We are concerned that the impact of NVSC application will disrupt the 
balance of r ights and obligations under the TRIPS agreement. The absence of scope and modalities 
for NVSC would create uncertainty in the commitments and raise the standards for protection beyond 
what has been agreed upon initially.  
Nigeria  
We align ourselves with the statements made by the delegation of South Africa on behalf of 
the African Group and will wish to add a brief comment regarding this agenda item.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
  
My delegation reiterates our position that non-violation and situation complaints under 
Article XXIII (b) and (c) of the GATT should not be allowed to apply under the TRIP S Agreement. As 
this may result in preventing our policy makers from effectively utilizing the flexibilities available in 
the TRIP S Agreemen t. Specifically , this may restrict our power to make regulations and policies for 
public health with the aim to enable access to medicines.  
In terms of a possible way forward, we propose that the TRIP S Council recommend to 
the upcoming Ministerial Conference that non-violations and situation complaints should not be 
allowed to apply under the TRIP S Agreement. We believe that it is time for all Members to suggest 
concrete direction on this issue as we have only a few months befor e the next Ministerial Conference. 
We thank the Chair for his continued work.  
Chinese Taipei  
We understand that there are concerns among Members over the applicability of non -violation 
and situa tion complaints to the TRIPS Agreement.  
We are looking forward to more in -depth substantive discussions among Members over 
the scope and  modalities  of the said non -violation and situation complaints applicable under the 
Agreement.  
India  
India's position on the issue of non -violation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement remains 
unchanged. Serious concerns remain on the debilitating impact that non -violation complaints in 
TRIPS can have on the regulatory po licy space of Members and on TRIPS flexibilities, thereby 
increasing the complexity in interpreting the TRIPS provisions. It can not only have a chilling effect 
on Member 's exercise of their IP regimes but also severely restrain ability of Members to achie ve 
public policy objectives.  
The absence of non -violation complaints in the TRIPS context does not in any manner threaten 
or dilute the enforceability of TRIPS related rights and obligations. Introducing non -violation and 
situation complaints into the TRIP S Agreement is unnecessary and inconsistent with the interests of 
the WTO Members. As such, any benefits arising from the Agreement can be adequately protected 
by applying the text of the Agreement in accordance with accepted principles of international law, 
without any need for introducing the legally uncertain notion of non -violation and situation 
complaints.  
India looks forward to working with like -minded Members in making non -violation complaints 
inapplicable to TRIPS. We also wish to re iterate that until there is a consensus on the scope and 
modalities of the applicability of NVCs to TRIPS, NVCs will not apply to the TRIPS Agreement.  
China  
We welcome the General Council decision adopte d on 10 December 2019 to extend 
the moratorium to MC12, but we also note that this is an interim solution.  
Like other Members, China believe s that this longstanding issue needs a permanent solution 
and non -violation and situation complaints should not be a pplicable under the TRIPS context because 
of reasons stated clearly in IP/C/W/385/Rev .1. For example, the application of non -violation and 
situation complaints will negatively impact the delivery of public health objectives.  
Chile  
Our delegation's position is well -known among Members. Moreover, we welcome the decision 
made at the last meeting of the General Council in December 2019 to extend the moratorium.  
In our delegation's view, both formal and inform al talks on this matter at the Council have 
brought to light the need for more time to attempt to forge common understandings and consensus 
on the various aspects contained in the mandate of Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 17 - 
 
  
For our delegation, this is an  important matter, given its long history in Ministerial Conferences. 
We therefore consider it important to maintain the constructive dialogue between delegations and 
to give ourselves time to continue seeking common understandings on the matter.  
United St ates of America  
The United States ' position on this issue remains unchanged.  We reiterate our support for 
allowing the current moratorium to expire so that Members may bring NVNI compl aints in the  future, 
as appropriate.  
As we have detailed in past interventions, NVNI claims have a long lineage in the WTO and in 
international trade law generally.  The applicability of such claims to the WTO Agreements is the  rule; 
their non-application is the exception.  The TRIPS Agreement moratori um is the exception.  
We continue to believe that WTO Members are being deprived of an important tool to enforce 
their rights under the TRIPS Agreement, which is why we support the expiration of the current 
moratorium so that complaints of this type may be applicable to the TRIPS Agreement.  
We remain of the view that the text of the WTO Agreements and dispute settlement rulings 
provide Members with sufficient guidance on the application of NVNI di sputes to the TRIPS 
Agreement.  
Russian Federation   
Russian Federation as a co -sponsor of  the document  IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 maintains the position 
that provisions of paragraphs 1b and 1c of Article XXIII  of GATT shall not apply to the  settlement  of 
disputes  under the TRIPS Agreement.  
Switzerland  
NVNI c omplaints (NVCs) are an exceptional remedy to ensure predictability and security to all 
Members under the WTO Agreements.  Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement confirms that NVCs are 
applicable to TRIPS after the expiry of the moratorium.  The purpose of the mo ratorium is to provide 
Members the opportunity to examine the scope and modalities of NVCs in the TRIPS context, who 
feel that additional modalities to those provided in the DSU are needed for such complaints under 
TRIPS.  
My delegation repeatedly declared that it is open and ready to engage in discussing such 
proposals.  However, over all these many years during the extended moratorium, we have not seen 
any delegation in this Council submit such a proposal.  
Therefore, Switzerland sees no merit in ma king a recommendation to Ministers at MC12 to 
further extend the moratorium.  Rather NVCs will also apply under TRIPS, when the moratorium 
eventually will expire after MC12  
Japan  
This delegation would lik e to give recognition to the continuous efforts made by the Chair and 
Members in advancing discussion on this issue.  Meanwhile, we also recognize that Members have 
not yet reached consensus on applicability or inapplicability of, or, if applicable, the sco pe and 
modality of,  non-violation and situation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement.  
Japan 's view on this issue has not changed. Both clarity and predictability should be ensured 
when applying non -violation and situation complaints to the TRIPS Agreement.  From this point of 
view, making factual analyses on applicable specific and concrete circumstances of non -violation and 
situation complaints would facilitate examination in terms of the scope and modality of non -violation 
and situation complaints in the a rea of the TRIPS Agreement.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 18 - 
 
  
Canada  
Canada's longstanding position on this issue remains unchanged: the availability of NVNI 
claims under TRIPS would create legal uncertainty for Members. Canada recogniz es that the current 
moratorium exists thanks to consensus, and we trust that Members can continue to discuss these 
issues in a collegial manner, especially in view of the high concentration of Members with concerns 
in this area. We wish to express our cont inued interest in participating in any consultations that take 
place on this issue amongst other interested Members.  
Norway  
My delegation would like to reiterate that in Norway 's view, NVSCs should not be applied to 
the TRIPS Agreement, and we support a continuation of the moratorium.  
Korea, Republic of  
I will associate myself  with the comments from Canada, Norway and Japan.  
Bolivia, Plurinational State of  
Bolivia's position on this agenda item has not changed and was presented yesterday before 
the General Council. It is our view that non -violation complaints are outside the scope of the 
TRIPS  Agreement.  
Benefits under the TRIPS Agreement could be adequately protected by applying the text of 
the Agreement, in accordance with the principles of inter national law, and without introducing this 
legally uncertain notion; in no way does the absence of non -violation complaints jeopardize the 
enforceability of the rights and obligations under the Agreement. On the contrary, their inclusion in 
the Agreement c ould put the rights of intellectual property owners at odds with the ability of 
governments to legitimately implement their regulatory policies, even limiting their sovereign 
capacity to introduce new social, economic, health -related and environmental deve lopment 
measures.  
Given the lack of consensus on the matter, it is our delegation's opinion that the moratorium 
should be extended until the following  Ministerial Conference.  
7  REVIEW OF THE IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE TRIP S AGREEMENT UNDER AR TICLE 71.1  
No stateme nts were made under this agenda item.  
8  REVIEW OF THE APPLIC ATION OF THE PROVISI ONS OF THE SECTION O N 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICAT IONS UNDER ARTICLE 2 4.2 
No statements were made under this agenda item.  
9  SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL R EVIEW UNDER PARAGRAP H 2 OF THE DECISION ON 
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AR TICLE 66.2 OF THE TR IPS AGREEMENT  
WTO Secretariat  
Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to report on the Workshop on the implementation of 
Article 66.2. As you have mentioned, the workshop was held immediately prior to this session of the 
Council. You might recall that, at the request of the LDC Group , the Secretariat has, since 2008, 
organized a series of annual workshops back to back with the last TRIPS Council meeting of the 
year. The workshops aimed to enable informal dialogues between delegates from the reporting 
developed country Members and LDC Members on the implementation of Article 66.2.    
Given that we received strong positive feedback on the improved format of the workshop from 
both reporting country Members and LDC Members, we decided to continue this practice this year.   IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 19 - 
 
  
This year, 21 capita l-based experts from 15 LDCs as well as Geneva -based delegates, 
participated in the Workshop. Most of them have direct relevant responsibilities for the issues of 
technology transfer and IP protection back in capital. At the Workshop, LDC participants pres ented 
current areas of priority for technology development; projects that are relevant to these priority 
areas, and their experience with projects reported in the Article 66.2 reports over the last five years. 
Meanwhile, experts from eight reporting countr y Members presented and explained their 2019 
reports. Building on last year 's experience, we believe the Workshop helped to improve stakeholder 
participation , and to enhance the quality of the annual dialogue between reporting country 
delegations and the L DC delegations. It also helped LDC Members to make effective use of the 
transparency mechanism concerning technology transfer measures under Article 66.2.  
This year, we further strengthened our partnership with other organizations, in view of the 
synergies  to be gained from implementation of Article 66.2 in parallel with complementary 
technology transfer programs and the benefits of cross -fertilisation from reports on practical 
experiences. Our partners WIPO, the UN Technology Bank for LDCs, ARIPO, OAPI and  the OECD 
reported on their activities in this area. For the first time, colleagues from other WTO divisions, 
especially Trade and Environment Division and Agriculture Division they reported on concrete 
technology transfer projects in specific priority sec tors, undertaken within their programs.  
The active participation of these partners was a valued feature of this year's programme. The 
practical insight and policy content of their presentations left a strong positive impression for the 
participants.  We a re pleased to record our gratitude to them.  
As ever, the core of the Workshop was an enriched informal and practical dialogue between 
the LDC Members and the reporting Members. We express our appreciation to them for their 
thoughtful presentations, active  engagement, and practical support, as well as to the LDC Group, 
and its coordinator, HE Ambassador Makaila of Chad, and LDC coordinator on TRIPS issues for their 
continuing and invaluable guidance and support for this process.  We also express our thanks to 
you, Mr Chair, for your support by delivering opening remark s at the Workshop.    
As indicated  at the last Council meeting, the Workshop comprises a two -day workshop 
segment and a one -day reporting and review segment within the formal meeting of the TRI PS 
Council. Therefore, as you have mentioned, Mr Chair, the workshop arrangements provided for the 
21 capital -based LDC experts to attend today's TRIPS Council meeting with their national 
delegations. We hope that their participation will enrich Members' d iscussion under this agenda item. 
I conclude by thanking them for their indispensable role in advancing our work in this area.   
Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group  
I am making this statement on behalf of the Group of least developed countries (LDC Group) . 
The Chair of the LDC Group wishes to thank the WTO Secretariat, the experts, our partners the 
developed countries who were present at that workshop that was held over the past couple of days. 
At this Workshop, all of these entities helped to shed light on the concept of incentives and the 
transfer of technology , and their contributions were very rich and interesting , and this helps LDCs 
to move towards effective implementation of Article 66.2 , and to boost the mechanisms for 
transparency with regard to the  transfer of technology. This workshop also enabled us to highlight 
the binding nature of Article 66.2 and enabled us to be very clear about the distinction that must 
exist between implementation  of Article 66.2 as compared to Article 67 which deals with technical 
cooperation.  
Now, in regard to the particular challenges that LDCs are faced with , throughout the technology 
sector s, during this Workshop the coordinator mentioned lags in the areas of agriculture and trade 
and services, in industry . Regarding all of these lags , LDCs made use of Article  66.2 and made it 
one of their priorities in the work of the TRIPS Council, but also in other work here at the WTO. We 
believe that this Article enables L DCs for example to enhance their agricultural production, it also 
enables SMEs and LDCs to be competitive on the international market and especially enhance our 
improved integration in world trade.  
For nearly two decades the LDC Group has been participatin g in this annual workshop on 
the presentation of reports submitted by developed country Members on implementation of IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Article  66.2. This is a very interesting and relevant exercise and the LDC Group hopes that we can 
continue this and expand on it.  
The LDC Group has always shown that it has been proactive in this respect and it will continue 
to be proactive here in this Council but also in our bilateral meetings with each and every developed 
country Member. From our discussions during our workshops it has arisen that some developed 
country Members have shown willingness to find a common definition of incentive to enterprises and 
institutions in their territories and the technology transfer. Others believe that Article 66.2 does not 
present an obligation to tr ansfer technology to LDCs , but the aim is to help LDCs to have favo urable 
conditions to benefit from technology transfers. Article 66.2 presents  developed countries with an 
obligation, I insist on that, it asks developed country Members to provide incentiv es to enterprises 
and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer 
and then it is for the enterprises and institutions targeted by Article 66.2 to act.  
We believe that during the TRIPS meeting of  last February 2019 a proposal that we deemed 
rather relevant, was on establishing a focal point for developed country Members and another focal 
point for LDCs. We think that that would be quite useful indeed to help us to assess the 
implementation of Article 66. 2 and therefore we hope that this provision can be established so that 
we can specifically assess the situation on the ground through that particular mechanism. This will 
also help highlight LDCs priorities as regards technology transfer. In addition , the WTO Secretariat 
also set up a e -TRIPS platform, we believe that it is quite interesting and perhaps this can be further 
fine-tuned and improved by involving LDCs genuinely in order to look at implementation on the 
ground of this article through statistics but also we need to highlight LDC priorities in this platform.  
The LDC Group wishes to thank all Members here who have presented their annual reports 
and who regularly report on their contributions under Article 66.2. We take note of the efforts made 
by ce rtain developed country Members to promote and encourage technology transfer to LDCs. 
The LDC Group underscores that the contribution of experts and exchanges that have taken place 
in the  workshops and the clarity provided, this will enable all of us, deve loped country Members and 
LDCs to continue our dialogue but also to reach joint mutual understanding on these incentives to 
enterprises and institutions in their territories and of technology transfers in that context.  
Lastly as recalled earlier in introdu ctory remarks on this agenda item, the LDC Group made a 
proposal for a new template for annual reporting on technology transfer to LDCs, this is again under 
Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement . The LDC Group believes that this proposed template will help 
streamline the reporting procedure to synchronise the current reporting variations and to 
acknowledge the substance of contributions of developed country Members with precision on 
the basis of factual information. We believe that this proposal will enable u s to make progress on 
this matter and help operational ly implement Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Our focal point 
of Bangladesh will perhaps provide more information on that.  
Bangladesh  
On this item, the delegation of Bangladesh echoes with the statement made by Chad on behalf 
of the LDCs Group.  
The delegation of Bangladesh welcomes the annual reports on the implementation of 
the provisions of TRIPS Article 66.2 submitted by the develope d country Members. My delegation 
also thanks the Secretariat, particularly the great team of the IP Division, for organizing the two -day 
workshop on the implementation of TRIPS Article 66.2 on 4 and 5 February 2020. Like last year, this 
is a successful eve nt attended by the capital -based and Geneva -based delegates from both the LDCs 
and the developed country Members. We are also grateful to the organizers for inviting 
the representatives of different Divisions of the WTO and WIPO, ARIPO, OPAI, OECD and the UN 
Technology Bank for the LDCs and they have brought valuable perspectives based on their 
institutional experience and cutting -edge research. Many of the capital -based delegates from 
the LDCs and the developed countries are attending the TRIPS Council mee ting today. We thank 
them for their contributions in the Workshop through sharing their cases by candid and 
thought -provoking discussions and suggestions.  
The common priority sectors for technology transfer in the LDCs, as identified by most of the 
partic ipants, are agriculture and food, public health, ICT, energy, water management, sustainable IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 21 - 
 
  environment, and infrastructures to mitigate the adverse impact of climate change. This priority list 
will help the needs -assessment for the future schemes by the d eveloped country Members for 
technology transfer initiatives to the LDCs. The workshop participants have also requested the 
Secretariat to continue organizing this workshop regularly, in presence of the experts from the LDCs 
and the developed countries. Th e delegation of Bangladesh fully endorses their call.  
Participants from the LDCs have deeply appreciated the assistance received from 
the developed country Members. However, they have also identified that many reports do not clearly 
give information on inc entives provided to enterprises and institutions in the territory of the 
developed Members. Instead, these reports contain a mixture of the technical assistance 
program mes under Article 67 and a few technology transfer initiatives under Article 66.2. Some 
reports have listed initiatives like building sea -walls for protection from land erosion, construction of 
weather forecasting system s, research -grant s for governance problem s in the health sector, 
humanitarian assistance to  refugees, communication training  to forest rangers, skill development 
for young entrepreneurs and so on as 'technology transfer'. The mixture is not useful for the purpose 
of reporting under Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
Bangladesh acknowledges that, to create a sound technologica l base in the LDCs, the LDCs 
need support from the developed country Members. TRIPS Article 66.2 in the legal text  states  point-
blank that, "Developed country Members shall provide incentives to enterprises and institutions in 
their territories for the pur pose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least -developed 
country Members in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base". The use 
of the modal verb 'shall' denotes an obligatory requirement. Article 66.2 states that  the developed 
country Members are required to provide incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories. 
The responsibility to provide incentives clearly falls on the developed country Members and not on 
the private sector entities and enter prises. On the scope of implementation of this Article, it is evident 
that the LDCs are not in the scene in the first phase. LDCs will come in the canvas in the next step , 
when the enterprises and institutions in developed countries will take further steps  towards their 
contribution in transferring technology to the LDCs.  
The LDCs request the Members in the Council to consider designating focal points from both 
the developed country and least developed country Members to monitor the implementation status 
of TRIPS Article 66.2. Previously the proposal was tabled on behalf of the LDCs and the Members 
candidly discussed the issue at a number of previous meetings of this Council. This has also been 
recommended in the WTO workshop on implementation of TRIPS Artic le 66.2 in February 2019 and 
also in the same workshop yesterday (5 February 2020). We should think of an effective monitoring 
mechanism to acknowledge the genuine contributions that the developed country Members have 
provided to the LDCs.  
Today the LDC Group has presented a room document (RD/IP/37) that has proposed a new 
template of annual reporting on technology transfer to LDCs as stipulated in Article 66.2 of the  TRIPS 
Agreement. Although marked as new, the proposed template does not de mand any new information. 
It has only rearranged the issues from the previously tabled three specific submissions to the Council 
for TRIPS (document IP/C/W/561 dated 6 October 2011, IP/C/W/640 dated 16 February 2018, and 
RD/IP/24 dated 14 June 2018) with a  view to bringing harmony in the  annual reporting. Following 
the guidelines stated in these documents, some developed country Members regularly report their 
contributions under Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. However, the LDC Group understands that 
various 'not -so-specific' templates have been utilized for this exercise by many developed country 
Members.  
Considering the clear call of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, and to supplement RD/IP/24, 
the LDC Group has done further work and proposes today a specific template for annual reporting. 
The LDC Group believes that the proposed template will help simplify reporting process, synchronize 
the current reporting variations and acknowledge the substantive contributions of the  developed  
country Members with evidence and precision.  
Bangladesh stands ready to engage in constructive discussion to further improve the proposed 
reporting template.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 22 - 
 
  
United Kingdom  
The United Kingdom is committed to implementin g Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement to 
promote and encourage technology transfer to least developed country Members. We will provide 
an update on two projects undertaken by the United Kingdom in recent years.  
The project Geo -Referenced Infrastructure and  Demographic Data for Development (GRID3) 
aims to transform the ability of governments, the private sector, development organisations and 
civil society to use geospatial and demographic data for effective planning and implementation of 
key services.  
GRID3 is working in Nigeria, Zambia, Mozambique, South Sudan and Democratic Republic of 
Congo and has conducted scoping missions to Tanzania, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Ghana, 
Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger.  
The lack of basic information such as population distribution, population structure, settlement 
maps, road networks, water bodies or administrative boundaries means that decisions such as where 
to target relief efforts, position polling stations and health centres, how to allocate resources at 
the subnat ional level or where to expand energy and internet access are based on out of date and 
incomplete information.  
GRID3 has helped create and use high -resolution demographic data to address identified data 
needs, providing better local estimates of population  which can be used to plan and deliver services 
and to identify populations which may not otherwise be identified.  
Another example is the United Kingdom's support to Product Development Research. This 
project aims to develop new human health technologies, such as diagnostics, drugs and vaccines, 
and to ensure that they are acceptable, affordable and available to those that need them in low 
income countries.  
The United Kingdom Government provides support to a number of different organisations 
including produ ct development public private product development partnerships (PDPs), which are 
not for profit organisations based in a number of different countries, working with partners across 
the globe, depending on the disease and type of technology being developed.  
PDP investments have resulted in critically important products, including a new paediatric fixed 
dose TB drug, with over one million treatments distributed in 93 countries since its launch in 2016, 
as well as the development of two new vaccines to treat r otavirus for use in India . 
The United Kingdom is happy to discuss its projects in more detail with Members at a later 
date. 
Switzerland  
Switzerland was pleased to participate in this year's workshop on Article 66.2 of the T RIPS 
Agreement and to receive more information on the priority sectors for technology transfer of LDCs. 
We would like to thank the Secretariat for its organization and for leading the workshop in an efficient 
and thorough manner. The constructive discussio ns held throughout the workshop, will certainly 
contribute to the continued cooperation on technology transfer.  
It was particularly useful to be presented with some concrete examples of technology transfer 
that have worked well in practice. This serves as an orientation for developed countries when 
developing incentive measures and planning tailor made projects together with LDC partners.   
Switzerland is of the view that the presentations made by LDCs during the workshop should 
not only contain examples of past or current projects. We very much welcome that, several LDCs 
presented comprehensive project outlines during the workshop.  
We would like to mention that the presentation by Myanmar at the Workshop on Article 66.2 
last year was very helpful for us to u nderstand what is needed by specific LDCs. In turn, Switzerland IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 23 - 
 
  was able to respond to Myanmar's request for a bilateral project on IPRs, for which the planning of 
practical, needs -based activities has been finalized, and implementation has just begun.  
Switzerland would like to thank the LDC Group for its document RD/IP/37. We need time to 
consult with the various competent agencies in capital responsible for issues relating to technology 
transfer and respective incentive mechanisms.  
Switzerland remains com mitted to engage in the TRIPS Council's discussion on Article 66.2 of 
the TRIPS Agreement and to further develop the incentive measures for companies and institutions 
in Switzerland to promote and encourage technology transfer to LDCs.  
United States of Ame rica 
We thank the Secretariat for its efforts in organizing the workshop. We also welcomed 
the robust participation of capital -based officials from LDCs.  The United States appreciated the 
opportunity to present and share details on our most recent Article 66.2 submission 
IP/C/W/656/Add.2.  
We gained insight into the perspective and needs of LDCs and hope that the LDC Members 
also left the workshop with a better understanding of our extensive program mes and  activities.  
The United States continues to support a robust dialogue between developed countries and 
LDC Members in order to target incentives in a way that is most responsive to the self -identified 
technology transfer interests and needs of LDC Members.  
Due to the many program mes and tailored work with our partners, adopting a standardized 
template for reporting that specifies the type of incentive for each technology project might overly 
constrict developed country Members ' ability to report and describe  the full scope of incentives and 
technology transfer initiatives.  
Of course, we are always willing to meet with interested Members to discuss ways to ensure 
that our programs and reports are as helpful as possible.  
Canada  
Canada would like to thank the Secretariat for organizing the thematic discussions and panels 
during this week's workshop on the implementation of TRIPS Article 66.2, as well as to thank all 
participating Members that shared their experiences and insights for their constructive engagement.  
Canada places great importance on the implementation of Article 66.2, as well as on 
the workshop as an opportunity to keep ensuring that our implementation of the 66.2 commitment 
remains responsive to the evolving needs a nd priorities of LDC Members in enabling them to create 
a sound and viable technological base. We have taken good note of those needs and priorities that 
were identified and communicated by the LDC participants during the workshop.  
As always, Canada would welcome any individualized feedback regarding its 2019 report. 
Moreover, Canada would be pleased to provide further information on the technology transfer 
projects and programs contained in its report upon request. We are committed to ensuring that our 
annual reports adequately convey the information that is of interest to LDC Members and  will review 
with attention the proposal for a new model to which Bangladesh referred.  
European Union  
The EU and its member States thank  the WTO Secretariat for having organised the technology 
transfer workshop and for having given the opportunity for the EU to present its Article 66.2 report 
on technology transfer.  
The EU also appreciated the constructive spirit of the capital -based exper ts of the LDC 
Members at the workshop. We believe that the discussion was very fruitful,  and it will help us to 
design our projects to the needs of the LDCs . Since the EU has already presented its report at the IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 24 - 
 
  October TRIPS Council last year and yesterday  at the LDC workshop, in the interest of time, we will 
not repeat it.  
The EU remains open to receive suggestions from LDC Members on their needs and priorities 
for potential future projects . The permanent contact points to send suggestions are the EU 
delegations in the given LDCs, because they have the necessary knowledge on the country concerned 
to evaluate the needs and the priorities expressed and explained by the LDCs. All these needs and 
priorities are going to be channelled in by the EU delegation s to the European Commission for further 
evaluation by a quality review group.   
We encourage LDC Members to keep in close cooperation with the EU delegations to be sure 
that all their needs and priorities are perfectly reflected in the future projects . The EU also requested 
clarification from the WTO Secretariat on its future plans concerning the e -TRIPS database and its 
potential adaption to the template tabled by the LDC Members.  
Japan  
This delegation would like to thank the Sec retariat for organizing the workshop on 
the implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, that was held back -to-back to this 
Council. The workshop worked to advance cooperative activities and enhance mutual understanding 
between developed country Members and LDC Members.  
Japan will continue to make its utmost efforts to improve the business environment and make 
it even more conducive to transfer technology. We look forward to working further with LDC Members 
in this context.  
Norway  
Norway puts great emphasis on fulfilling the obligation that follows from Article 66.2. We 
submitted our report last September regarding the incentives provided in 2018. In short, our 
incentives are mainly directed to promote sustainable privat e sector investments in LDCs that imply 
transfer of technology.  
My delegation would like to thank the Secretariat for organising the workshop on this important 
issue earlier this week. It was a very interesting and useful exchange of information, particula rly 
since LDC delegates explained their most important priority areas for technological development and 
their experience s. 
Norway supports a continued dialogue with LDC Members, facilitated by the Secretariat, to 
explore ways to enhance the exchange of inf ormation further, so that the implementation of 
Article 66.2 can become ever more effective and useful to LDCs.  
African Regional Intellectual Property Organization  
I intervene on behalf of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) on this 
agenda item . Firstly, ARIPO associates itself with the statement made by the delegation of Chad on 
behalf of the LDCs.  
This delegation also attended the Workshop  on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS 
Agreement: Incentives for Technology Transfer , that was held in the past two days and was pleased 
to see that, thanks to the new format that was introduced last year, capital -based delegations can 
now nar rate the projects that are being undertaken in their respective countries related to 
technology transfer.  
During this workshop it was made clear that for technology transfer to benefit the LDCs and 
foster innovation it is imperative that it be streamlined with the long -term visions, plans, strategies 
and developmental programmes adopted by the national governments but also to coordinate efforts 
with other UN agencies, multilateral organizations, intergovernmental organizations, private sector 
and civil soci ety active in technology transfer. Therefore, the focus shall be for developed countries 
to undertake initiatives that are not limited to technical assistance but to promote actions that will 
effectively enable the transfer of technology and know -how for t he benefit of LDCs in Africa in order IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 25 - 
 
  to develop their absorption and adaptation capabilities with the view to build a viable technological 
base for development. ARIPO will continue providing support to its member States in this important 
topic and remains  available to partner s to any entity that wishes to assist LDCs to benefit from 
technology transfer and to foster innovation in their respective countries.  
Allow me to conclude by expressing ARIPO's appreciation to the Secretariat for organizing this 
works hop. It is our hope that resources will be made available so that this event can be held on 
regular basis in the future.  
Australia  
Australia submitted its Article 66.2 report to the Secretariat on 19 September 2019.  We take 
our Article 66.2 reporting seriously and were pleased to explain our latest report at the workshop 
this week. We very much appreciated the comments and questions from LDCs we received and will 
take these into account in future planning.  We will consider th e proposal made by Bangladesh 
regarding the format for reporting.  
Vanuatu  
Vanuatu has continued and would like to continue to benefit from the incentives from the 
countries' implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. These incentives and programmes 
are aligned with our Vanuatu Sustainable Development p lan for 2016 th rough 2030. I would like to 
impress upon the seriousness  of examples offered by the developed countries. I would like to 
continue to see the following sectors to be addressed : climate and the environment and water which 
would include incentives for environ ment and climate change, the promotion and establishment of 
long-term risk  and evaluation methods for storm tides and waves, and cyclones in small vulnerable 
states , and for Vanuatu water sanitation which, for example, has been funded recently by  New 
Zeala nd, and UNICEF had given us some support.  Other sectors include  food and agriculture 
processing , energy , health , and education.  
Vanuatu has embarked on a  path of growth and development and we hope that our developed 
partners , who have spoken today , will continue to support Vanuatu in that regard.  
WTO Secretariat  
As described to this Council over the years of the development of the e -TRIPS platform, its 
function is to facilitate the work of delegations in using the esta blished transparency processes.  It 
therefore does not in itself prescribe or define any notification requirements or reporting 
requirements, as these are developed by Members in this Council. In establishing the e -TRIPS 
platform, we simply followed the existing practice of Members and the decisions of this body. That 
said, one of the observations to emerge from the workshop yesterday was an interest on the part 
of partic ipants – both reporting and receiving Members - to improve the flow of information and to 
do what we can to make use of this platform to facilitate the sharing of information, and the matching 
of areas of need and priority on the part of LDCs and the capab ility of program mes in reporting 
countries to fulfil those needs.  
At the same time, we mentioned earlier today that the e -TRIPS platform is undergoing its 
phase 2 development, which is exactly about improving the user interface for the benefit of Members 
wishing to access and make use of this material. Therefore , these t wo lines of interest are related – 
first, stemming from the workshop, the interest in improving flow of information about Article 66.2 
implementation, and, second, the overall effort to build a more useful, more user -friendly interface 
for the use of the m aterial through the e -TRIPS platform generally. It seems these two aspects 
converge and therefore we take it that we have a responsibility as a Secretariat to consult actively 
with interested Members to look at the functionality and the operation of the sy stem both generally 
- the development of the e -TRIPS platform as a means of consulting all TRIPS -related information – 
and specifically following up the workshop in the area of Article 66.2. In the period from the present 
day, leading up to the final meeti ng of the Council this year, we would propose, in both cases, open -
ended consultations with Members - on the development of the e -TRIPS platform overall and, 
specifically, on the 66.2 element which was a particular focus of yesterday's workshop.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 26 - 
 
  
To conclud e, in developing the platform, we certainly have no role in defining or determining 
the reporting practices or requirements of Members that the function of the Council as such. We 
have simply followed existing practice and the directions of this Council an d obviously that will 
continue to be the case. The consultations I have mentioned do not venture into that domain, but 
rather work on ways of creating a digital platform that is more responsive in a practical sense to the 
needs of delegations. I hope that makes sense.  We do find it very valuable to sit down with Members 
in a practical spirit, and to map out the system's evolution in that manner. We will certainly be 
reaching out to Members with that distinction in mind in coming months.  
10  TECHNICAL COOPERAT ION AND CAPACITY -BUILDING  
Bangladesh  
The delegation of Bangladesh welcomes the reports  from de veloped country Members, IGOs 
and the WTO Secretariat under Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement on technical cooperation an d 
capacity building in support of  developing countries and LDCs. These reports provide information on 
a wide range of program mes and activities customized for the beneficiary Members. These 
program mes are critically important for the LDCs.  
Bangladesh sincerely thanks the developed country Members and the international 
organizations for their help and would like to encourage them to continue their valuable support for 
the developing countries and particularly the LDCs and the graduating LDCs.  
Chad   
We would like to thank the Members who have produced reports on this item. Technical 
cooperation and capacity building is very important , especially for LDCs that face particular 
difficulties. Capacity building st rengthens our institutional capacities and technology transfer helps 
us to take ownership of these and implement them ; technical cooperation and capacity building is 
very important in our opinion and we encourage developed countries to continue providing support 
in this regard . As regards Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement on technology transfer: if you have 
technologies but you do  not know how to use them , then  you w ill not  be able to benefit from them . 
It is this capacity building that helps us implement  and use the technology , so we encourage 
developed countries to continue providing support , and on behalf of the LDC Group , we would like 
to thank them.  
11  DRAFT CODEX ALIMENTA RIUS STANDARD - DEFI NITION OF 'CROSS PRO MOTION ' 
Mexico   
On 19 November 2019, in communication IP/C/W/660, we shared Mexico's recommendations 
regarding the prohibition of "cross promotion" between categories of follow -up formula for infants 
envisaged in  a draft international Codex Alimentarius standard.  
The concern was that, in Mexico's view, the standard did not provide clarifications on the scope 
of the prohibition and that this could affect intellectual property rights, such as trademarks.  
Subsequentl y, at the 41st Session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special 
Dietary Uses held in Germany from 24 to 29 November 2019, the Committee agreed to redraft the 
provision, clarifying that the intent of this paragraph was to avoid consumer con fusion through a 
clear differentiation in labelling. As a result, the prohibition of cross promotion between product 
categories was not included in the rewording of paragraph 9.6.4. of the proposed draft.  
As this rewording is subject to endorsement by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, Mexico 
is currently examining the outcome of the November 2019 session and will follow up on the 
discussions taking place this year.  
Lastly, it should be noted that while Mexico recognizes the importance of avoiding consu mer 
confusion through the differentiation of products, it also considers that any measures to avoid such 
confusion should not unjustifiably encumber the use of trademarks.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 27 - 
 
  
Brazil  
Brazil took note of the communication, dated 5 November 2019, circulated by the delegation 
of Mexico.  We believe that discussing the definition of cross promotion in itself exceeds the 
competence of the TRIPS Council.  
It would be advisa ble to wait for a proposal on cross -promotion definition to be advanced in 
appropriate fora before this Council could assess whether this concrete definition would collide with 
any international obligations in terms of intellectual property.  
India  
We thank the delegation of Mexico for introducing this proposal.  India supports the need for 
more clarity on the scope of "cross promotion ". Since the FAO is already seized of the issue and  the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission has referred the matter back to the  Codex Committee on Nutrition 
and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) to enable them to discuss the scope of the term and 
whether it would be WTO inconsistent, it would be appropria te that the discussion is held in that 
Committee of the FAO . 
Turkey  
Turkey would like to thank the delegation of Mexico for having brought this item to the 
Council's current agenda. My delegation is of the view that the scope and impact of the prohibition 
of "cross promotion" between product categories in product labelling in draft Codex standards for 
follow -up formula may cre ate uncertainty in the intellectual property area.  
We welcome the suggestion on this paper and share the concern that this concept's lack of 
clarity could generate uncertainty for WTO Members related their obligations arising from TRIPS 
Agreement and other  related intellectual property agreements."  
12  INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y AND INNOVATION:  
SUMMARY OF THE 2019 THEME OF PUBLIC -PRIV ATE COLLABORATIONS I N INNOVATION  
2020 THEME OF MAKING  MSMES COMPETITIVE: FEBRUARY 2020 SUBTHE ME - MAKING 
MSMES COMPETITIVE TH ROUGH T RADEMARKS  
Canada  
Canada is pleased to introduce the first paper, titled "Making MSMEs Competitive Through 
Trademarks", under the group of Friends of IP and Innovation's theme f or 2020, "Making MSMEs 
Competitive". The group of Friends of IP and Innovation is indeed returning to a theme focused on 
MSMEs, after having explored MSMEs and related IP issues in 2017. And we believe that there is a 
lot more to discuss, challenges to ide ntify, and ideas to share.  
The critical role and importance of MSMEs in the global economy cannot be overstated, but 
some numbers bear mentioning, or repeating, for context. According to figures quoted by 
the International Trade Centre, small and medium -sized enterprises account for over 9 5% of firms 
and 65 % of employment worldwide, while figures quoted by the World Bank place the number of 
formal and informal MSMEs in the developing world between 365 million and 445 million.  
In other words, by more than one token, MSMEs make up most of our audience here at 
the WTO. As drivers of employment, growth and trade, it is fitting and indeed always timely that we 
should be talking about the realities and needs of MSMEs, including with regard to the IP system, 
hence our focus on trademarks for this first paper.  
Tradema rks are the most widespread form of registered IP rights, and have a  close relationship 
with MSMEs, including in the developing world. Trademark ownership among MSMEs is associated 
with firm growth – by some measures, even more than patent ownership is. Aw areness of, access 
to and use of trademarks can provide MSMEs with a gateway into the IP system, and into more IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 28 - 
 
  innovation and broader IP portfolios. But more importantly, here at the WTO, trademark ownership, 
like IP ownership generally, also correlates po sitively with trade and export performance.  
Despite some outstanding work by scholars and by WIPO here in Geneva, trademarks are not 
nearly as closely and comprehensively studied as patents. Canada and the other Friends of IP and 
Innovation hope that this paper, and the discussion it fosters, make a modest contribution to a  better 
understanding of the relationship between trademarks, MSMEs, growth and trade.  
Moving on to the topic for today's discussion, we would take this opportunity to present 
an overview  of recent initiatives intended to improve MSMEs' access to and leveraging of trademarks 
in Canada. As part of its National IP Strategy, which launched in 2018, Canada has focused on three 
building blocks towards achieving this objective: (1) increased awa reness, (2) facilitated 
registration, and (3) effective use of trademark rights.  
By way of context, small businesses make up 98% of all Canadian businesses and employ 
8 million Canadians, making today's conversation particularly relevant to our general eco nomic 
landscape. According to Statistics Canada data, 9% of Canadian MSMEs held registered trademarks 
in 2017 – by far the highest proportion across the forms of formal IP that were included in the  survey. 
The correlation between IP ownership and growth/tr ading potential drawn in the paper is evident in 
Canada: in 2017, 23% of SMEs that exported held a registered trademark (compared to only 7% of 
SMEs that did not export), and 15% of high -growth SMEs held a registered trademark (compared to 
only 6.5% of no -growth SMEs).  
Turning first to awareness, it is worth noting that trademarks were the formal IP right of which 
Canadian MSMEs were most "aware" in 2017 (with 65.3% of MSMES slightly, moderately or very 
familiar with registered trademarks). In an attempt to  build general knowledge of trademarks even 
further, the Canadian IP Office (CIPO) recently launched an IP Awareness and Education Program, 
which includes services and products that make it easier for businesses to access specific trademarks 
resources, too ls and advice. The CIPO IP Toolbox now includes short factsheets ( "Trademarks" and 
"Protect your brand") and a full trademarks guide. Moreover, our IP advisors lead IP seminars and 
other training events to act as a source of information for MSMEs, as well as to provide information 
and guidance to innovators as they develop their IP strategy.  
Resources available under CIPO's IP Toolbox also extend to trademarks registration, with 
the making available of a user -friendly roadmap to trademark registration and a  Canadian 
Trademarks Database tutorial for searching existing marks. Moreover, with the aim of facilitating 
the trademarks registration process for all businesses, including MSMEs, Canada has recently 
modernized its IP legal framework and office practices to fully implement the Madrid Protocol, 
Singapore Treaty and Nice Agreement. We consider that participation in the Madrid System, which 
allows applicants to apply for trademark protection in up to 120 countries with a single application, 
in one language an d with fees paid in one currency, offers important benefits for users that are 
critical to encouraging trademarks registration by MSMEs.  
Lastly, making an IP system more accessible is one thing, but ensuring viable and quality 
rights for that system's user s is another one and may weigh heavily in those users' ability to 
successfully leverage their rights. In this spirit, and with a view to preventing the cluttering and 
misuse of its trademark registration system (what is sometimes referred to as "trademark 
squatting"), Canada has recently introduced new bad faith trademark opposition and invalidation 
grounds under its Trademarks Act. Canada has also reinforced the importance of "use" in its 
trademark regime by introducing a new requirement to demonstrate use  within the first three years 
after registration to enforce the resulting registration in the event of infringement.  
To conclude, Canada would be pleased to discuss these and other initiatives with any interested 
Member on the margins of this meeting. In t he meantime, we would like to thank in advance those 
Members that will share their insights and experiences under this agenda item and look forward to 
further views on making MSMEs competitive going forward.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 29 - 
 
  
United States of America  
The United States is pleased to co -sponsor this agenda item and contribute to the discussion 
of "Making MSMEs Competitive Through Trademarks. ". I would like to thank the co-sponsors for this 
item. 
Before providing the United States ' experience with promoting the competitiveness of MSMEs 
in the area of trademark protection, I would like to take a step back and summarize what we 
discussed last year under the theme – "Public Private Collaborations in Innovation ", as noted in 
the submission IP/C/W/661.  
First, under the sub -theme– "Public -Private Collaborations in Innovations: R&D Collaboration 
Frameworks " – several WTO Members highlighted examples of public -private collaboratio ns specific 
to research and development, noting how both the public and private sectors possess different 
resources and expertise, which, when combined, complement each other and create market -oriented 
IP. Members shared national experiences and examples o f their efforts and policies to foster R&D 
collaborative frameworks.  These types of partnerships have led to cutting -edge innovations in 
agricultural, medical and solar technologies, internet services, and navigation communications.  
Second, under the sub -theme -- "Innovative Approaches to Assisting in Branding and 
Promotion and the Creative Industries "—Members discussed industry sectors and policies to boost 
firms' brand awareness, as well as cultural and creative products, both nationally and abroad.  It was  
noted that, many industries, especially SMEs, may not have the expertise to build their own brands 
and promote their products. The public sector can help the private sector to build and promote 
industries' brands and reputation in various ways, e.g. throu gh consultancy services, local support 
and promotion programs, and assistance in promoting local industries' brands and reputation 
internationally.  For the creative industries, including the performing arts, fine arts, literary arts, 
design, media & entert ainment industries, member states noted that budding artists and SMEs may 
not be familiar with their IP rights, and how they can use their IP to grow their businesses. 
Discussions centered on efforts where the public sector can support them in growing thei r businesses 
through protecting and using IP.  
Lastly, under the subtopic – IP Commercialization "—Membe rs shared experiences on national 
legislation and government funding that facilitate transfers and/or licensing between public and 
private partners, and th e resulting commercialization of technologies.  The discussion highlighted 
that an essential enabling component for the commercialization of R&D and creations alike is sound 
IP protection.  Licensing agreements can be negotiated much more easily where intang ible assets 
and know -how can be traced back to their original inventor or creator, and parties have written proof 
of exclusive IP rights. This gives IP rights holders an advantage in negotiations with potential 
partners when trying to commercialize their I P. IP licenses and other assignment agreements, spin -
offs, as well as contracts that contain terms on the use and exploitation of IP, can be the launch pad 
for public -private collaborations with the aim of commercializing IP.  
Moving to this year 's theme, t he United States welcomes this opportunity to share its views 
and experiences on the important issue of MSMEs, Innovation, and Intellectual Property. Today, I 
will focus on how trademarks can improve the competitiveness of MSMEs.  
As is the case in many countries, MSMEs are critical to the economy of the United States. They 
create jobs, spur innovation, and foster entrepreneurial spirit.  
The economy of the United States is fundamentally grounded in market economic principles.  
Within this market system, the legal framework for intellectual property promotes the growth and 
competitiveness of MSMEs.  Intellectual property protections ensure that MSMEs can protect and 
benefit from their innovation.  
In the United States, all types of IP p rotection are important for small business – patents, 
trademarks, copyright, designs and trade secrets.  
Like all types of IP protection, brands can be used to generate tangible economic benefits to 
their owner.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 30 - 
 
  
A U.S. Department of Commerce report found th at IP-intensive industries continue to be 
a major, integral and growing part of the U.S. economy.  Trademark -intensive industries are larger 
in number and contribute the most employment with 23.7 million jobs in 2014 (up from 22.6 million 
in 2010).  
Governme nt can play an appropriate and important role in helping MSMEs understand their 
rights and protect their trademarks.  The United States government, including the U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office (USPTO), has a variety of programs and initiatives that seek t o do so.  
o The USPTO 's Inventor and Entrepreneur Resources webpage offers information for start-
ups, individual inventors and entrepreneurs on the patent and trademark processes and 
offers a  number of guides and other resources to assist inventors and entrepreneurs in 
protecting their IP rights.  
• One such resource is the USPTO 's Trademark Assistance Center (TAC), which provides 
trademark information and services to the public by phone or in pe rson across the 
United States.  
• The TAC serves as the primary touchpoint for entrepreneurs and small businesses to 
obtain information and assistance regarding the trademark application and registration 
maintenance process. The TAC serves as an educational resource for those who desire 
to seek brand protection.  
• Trademark experts that work at the TAC can answer general questions regarding 
trademark examination policy, provide general information concerning trademark 
examination procedures, and concerning curr ent fees, as well as forms and other 
formalities.  
• However, like other intellectual property offices, they cannot provide a legal opinion or 
legal advice, or do a trademark search.  
o The mission of the USPTO also includes outreach and education about intellec tual property. 
As part of that mission, the USPTO offers a number of educational resources and conducts 
a number of educational programs for small businesses.  
• For example, on the USPTO website, we offer a web -based video tutorial series on 
Trademark Basic s; step by step guides and videos on TM processes, and many other 
resources. These videos, at our Trademark Information Network (TMIN), are very well 
received, not only by pro se applicants, but also by attorneys and the public.  
The USPTO also addresses tr ademark prosecution and enforcement in its trademark 
presentations to SMEs and MSMES.  We find that small business often has not conducted a proper 
trademark clearance search, subjecting the business to administrative and court challenges.  We also 
find that  small business often does not understand the intersection between trademarks and domain 
names and the dispute resolution mechanisms for handling infringement. Being aware of these 
pitfalls can mean the difference between business growth or business closur e. 
In particular, addressing trademark enforcement and counterfeiting issues of MSMEs is 
the other side of the coin to trademark protection, and plays an important role in MSME growth, job 
creation and safety.  
The USPTO Trademark Manual of Examining Proced ure (TMEP) also is available on the USPTO 
site. As a reference work on the practices and procedures relative to prosecution of applications to 
register marks in the USPTO, it aids applicants, including the pro se applicant, as well as attorneys.  
• We also re gularly conduct webinars on trademark -related issues, as well as training 
programs in the field on both U.S. and international trademark protection and 
enforcement.  
• We offer six e -modules on intellectual property protection and enforcement in five 
languag es, including on domestic and international trademark law and policy, through IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 31 - 
 
  our Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA). GIPA provides IP educational and 
training programming both to improve IP laws and their administration around 
the world, and to e nhance IP awareness and technical capacity. GIPA provides 
trademark support to MSMEs by providing in -person and live -online programs on 
the importance of trademark protection and enforcement at home and abroad.  
o Another valuable resource is the Patent and T rademark Resource Centers (PTRCs), which 
are part of a nationwide network of public, state, and academic libraries designated by 
the USPTO to support the public with trademark -- and patent --assistance.  
• There are currently over 80 PTRCs whose USPTO -trained librarians aid MSMEs in (1) 
identifying relevant USPTO trademark resources; (2) using USPTO 's trademark search 
tools and related resources; (3) referring them to relevant offices at USPTO for 
additional trademark assistance; and (4) referring them to relev ant community and 
area resources.  
• The USPTO maintains a map of locations on the USPTO site.  
The USPTO also has regional offices that serve the local communities in which they are located, 
in partnership with each other and with USPTO Headquarters.  
The USPT O also trains business counsellors  within the government, who work directly with 
small business including, the Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) of the U.S. Small 
Business Administration (SBA) and the U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs) of the  U.S. 
Commercial Service.  
These are just some of the examples of programs that provide micro and small businesses 
with the resources needed to protect trademarks, grow their businesses, create jobs and build 
a more competitive economy.  
In sum, an open, ma rket-based economy, based upon a strong legal framework for 
trademarks, helps support the economic success of MSMEs.  We appreciate the opportunity here to 
share our experience with you.  
Australia  
Australia would like to thank Canada for leading this discussion on making Micro, Small & 
Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) competitive through trademarks.   
The Australian Government is committed to supporting MSME s to increase their 
competitiveness both domestically and internationally through effective protection of their 
intellectual property (IP), including trademarks.  
The Australian Government recognises that IP is critically important to MSMEs in today 's 
mode rn and increasingly globalised economy. As the Australia 2030: Prosperity through Innovation 
plan recognises , we have "moved from a once -in-a-century mining boom to a global innovation race, 
where IP is at least as valuable a resource as iron ore ." 
Today w e would like to share information on initiatives and best practices that the Australian 
Government is promoting to better support MSMEs to protect their trademarks and maximise their 
commercial potential in the global marketplace.  
Statistics from the lates t Australian IP Report reveals that trademark applications to IP 
Australia, the agency responsible for administering IP rights, continue to grow. 1 
In 2018, trademark applications grew by around 4% . Trademark applications can be filed 
either directly with IP Australia or through WIPO 's Madrid system.  Applications from Australian 
residents accounted for about 58% of all trademark applications in 2018. What we know is that 
 
1 IP Australia, 'Australian Intellectual Property Report 2019' 15 -19 
https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/ip_report_2019.pdf . IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 32 - 
 
  historically, the vast majority, around 90%, of resident applications come from MSMEs a nd 
individuals.  42% of applications were from non -residents, with the applicants from outside Australia 
mainly originating from the United States, China, United Kingdom and Germany.  
To encourage such growth of trademark applications, IP Australia actively works towards 
increasing awareness of IP rights among MSMEs, and towards developing tools to assist MSMEs to 
protect their trademarks through obtaining a robust registration right.  
Trade  Mark Assist  
For example, IP Australia provides Trade Mark Assist, an interactive tool designed to educate 
and assist unrepresented trade mark applicants, in particular MSMEs, to understand how they can 
protect their brand and obtain trade mark rights to it.  
Trade Mark Assist helps MSMEs 'learn, search, apply ' by exploring their proposed trade mark, 
identify the classes of goods or services they wish to protect, search existing trademarks and begin 
the trade mark application process.  
TM Headstart  
TM Headstart also assists MSMEs obtaining protection for their tradem ark. This service gives 
an MSME an assessment of their potential trademark and will help them identify any problems it 
may contain before they publicly file for a trademark.  
TM Headstart can save MSMEs money in the long run, as trademark applications that contain 
errors when formally filed are often rebuffed and applicants pay for those mistakes by having to 
refile.  Using TM Headstart is a good way to apply for a trademark if applicants are unsure of 
the process.  
Educational resources and materials  
IP Austr alia also offers a range of educational resources and materials to support MSMEs to 
better understand IP protection options and taking their IP global, including:  
• publishing detailed fact sheets on applying for a trademark in overseas jurisdictions  
• on dem and webinars on understanding trademarks and what businesses need to know 
about protecting IP abroad  and domestically . 
Through best practice initiatives such as HM Head start  and Trademark  Assist, we are able to 
better support and educate MSMEs about the v alue of IP to their business's  success.  
We look forward to hearing about best practices from other Member States and we are happy 
to continue this discussion.  
Switzerland  
My delegation wishes to thank Canada and the US delegation for introducing the submission s 
IP/C/W/66 1 and IP/C/W/662 to the TRIPS Council today. Switzerland is pleased to co -sponsor both 
the agenda item and the written submission s.  
MSMEs have a crucial role for a national economy. In Switzerland, 99% of all companies are 
micro, small or medium enterprises (MSMEs). According to a survey by the Swiss IPO2, 93% of these 
Swiss MSMEs consider innovation, creativi ty and to be 'special ' as essential to the survival and 
competitiveness of their businesses. Trademarks (TM) are the intellectual property right most 
frequently used by MSMEs. The main benefits that a TM offers to MSMEs are product distinction, 
protection against unfair competition, marketing and branding.  
 
2 https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/dienstleistungen/publikationen_institut/Economic -Focus -
Study_2009.pdf   IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 33 - 
 
  
Effective branding helps a company and its products and services to build consumer trust and 
loyalty. Building consumer trust in trademark takes time and often considerable effort. Once gained, 
the TM can  be an incentive for companies to continue producing new goods and services under their 
TM. Besides the protection against free riders, from a consumer 's perspective, trademarks contribute 
essentially to the recognition and differentiation between the enor mous selection of goods and 
services. In turn, this requires business owners to invest also in sound trademark management in 
order to maintain the value of the I P. Trademark management means more than just registering a 
TM. 
Particularly small companies sometimes lose sight  of this and do not pay sufficient attention 
to TM and quality management. As the following example shows, this can have serious consequences  
for a business, whether big or small . A kebab store in Zurich had quick  success with customers 
selling kebabs using high quality and local ingredients. Marketed under the registered trademark 
"New Point", the business became known as "the best kebab in town ". This success enabled a quick 
expansion of the business, with the establishme nt of a chain of franchise stores around Zurich. 
However, the expansion of the business did not adopt a sound TM strategy and lacked  product 
quality maintenance.  
Through this  franchise business, the value of the brand was damaged due to significant 
deviations from the original store 's standard s and quality by the franchisees. Checks on the quality 
of the product s were insufficient  to ensure  the products ' high-quality  standard which damaged the 
reputation of the trademark. Loyal customers and recommendations of "the best kebab in town " 
were almost as quickly lost as they were initially  gained, particularly today, where customers share 
their views and experience with followers  on the internet. In consequence, the chain 's profits 
declined and most of the franchisees had to close their stores  in due time . While four "New Point " 
chains alongside the original store remain, this example serves as a lesson on how multifaceted the 
right use of trademarks and IP strategies can be for MSMEs.  "New Point " has since re-established  
itself on the market and rebranded itself and its trademark, even created a new logo, and set strict 
conditions regarding quality in its franchise agreements. The lesson to be learned here is that 
registration of trademarks alone is not a promise of succe ss. A solid IP strategy and its maintenance 
to accompany and evolve with the company are additionally required and indispensable.  
When asked about their use of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), some Swiss MSMEs replied 
in the survey of the Swiss IPO men tioned earlier, that they did not apply for a trademark because 
they thought that filing procedures would be too complicated or costly. They added, that they had 
limited knowledge of the system or that they had no "innovation " that would warrant protection3 . 
Certainly,  the last point hints at a lack of knowledge about what a TM actually is and what it can do 
for an MSME. To address this information gap and to raise awareness, the Swiss IP -Office inter alia , 
established an online portal for MSMEs4 10 years ago. This portal serves as an entry point for all IP -
related topics. MSMEs can learn about the different IP strategies, seek guidance on how to manage 
their intellectual property portfolio or read about other MSMEs ' experiences. Online informative 
brochure s and short explanatory videos on how to register a trademark are available. Next to the 
application via e -mail or post, the IP -Office offers an electronic application system5 , which guides 
applicants step -by-step through the application process. Addition ally, a free and easy -to-use online 
database is made available for preliminary searches on existing Swiss trademarks from the comfort 
of one 's home – or the administrative office of an MSME.  
Providing access to more easily understandable information and a pplication tools reduces costs 
for filing and allows to manage TMs more efficiently. Without discharging MSMEs from developing 
their own sound IP and TM strategy, the Swiss IPO continuously works on improving these 
mechanisms in order to enhance the value of an overall well -functioning, more accessible trademark 
system.  
 
3 https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/dienstleistungen/publikationen_institut/Economic -Focus -
Study_2009.pdf  (p.40)  
4 https://www.ige.ch/de/geistiges -eigentum/kmu -portal.html   
5 https://e -
trademark.ige.ch/etrademark/welcome.jsf;jsessionid=jJq7nCjfqZGqwoDMtfXV7XLLxXZpWb2l6SVPuuXq.ipipesw
010?lang=de   IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 34 - 
 
  
Chinese Taipei  
Micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) account for almost 98% of our businesses. They 
are the backbone of our economy and have played a critical role in fostering our economic 
development. However, MSMEs usually struggle to draw up good IPR strategies or comprehensive 
trademark portfolios due to lack of resources and suppor t from IPR professionals. We will briefly 
introduce the relevant measures we take and a few of our experiences . 
Our trademark authority TIPO not only devotes to improving IP regulations and the quality 
and efficiency of trademark examination, but also acti vely assists MSMEs in learning more about 
trademark issues. For instance, in 2015, TIPO set up a platform which systematically leads MSMEs 
to explore the fundamentals of IP, establish their own brands, register trademarks, and even deal 
with litigation if necessary. The platform aims at reducing the MSMEs ' costs of acquiring information. 
Also, at its field offices, TIPO holds free courses and provides consultation services on trademark 
application and other popular topics to MSMEs. Each year, customized inf ormation events are also 
held for particular audiences.  
Through a long -term project called "Branding Taiwan ", our government offers the resources 
MSMEs need for brand building or transformation. Other than assisting MSMEs in analysing their 
weaknesses in I P protection and rights management, we also help them review their patenting 
momentum, evaluate the potential obstacles on their paths, and design their patent portfolios 
strategies, in the hope of helping them develop high -value and highly differentiated products, whilst 
strengthening their global competitiveness.  
In 2019, through the project, the government continued to provide support to the MSMEs 
which could not hire IP professionals on their own due to limited funding and business scale and  
helped them  reinforce their understanding of IPR and expand their global trademark portfolios. In 
2019, a total of 56 local businesses received reviews, assistance, and consulting services and a total 
of 222 branding managers were trained. It was expected that the co mpanies receiving such 
assistance would garner NT$1.64 billion investment, more than NT$4.19 billion revenues around 
the world, and 6,361 new dealers, agents or channels. The program has effectively increased MSMEs ' 
awareness of IPR protection and companie s are beginning to actively monitor counterfeiting and 
proactively adopt measures to protect their IP rights. In addition, since MSMEs have their trademarks 
registered overseas, more overseas distributors are willing to sell their products, which leads to 
MSMEs expanding businesses in the global market.  
IP and innovation are the integral driving forces of economic growth. However, how 
the government may make MSMEs competitive through trademarks remains an important issue. 
We encourage Members to share their  measures and experiences.  
Japan  
First of all, w e would like to express our gratitude to the Delegation of Canada for introducing 
the background for this year's theme. Japan would like to contribute to this year's discussion as a 
co-sponsor  and Japan also would like to express our gratitude to the Delegation from the United 
States for summarizing our discussion of last year. This delegation believes that WTO Members 
prom oted better understanding regarding the  role of IP in innovation through fruitful discussions in 
2019.  
Today, this delegation would like to share our experience and national policies with respect to 
making MSMEs competitive through trademarks.  
In order for  MSMEs to expand their business activities and collaborate with large companies, 
it is essential for them to differentiate their products and services and establish their own brands by 
utilizing their intellectual property. In that sense, trademark rights are very valuable rights that can 
help rights holders enhance their reliability with customers and to establish their own brands.  
Furthermore, acquiring trademark rights is expected to be advantageous for companies in 
terms of obtaining financing and promo ting business transactions. Accordingly, the acquisition of 
trademark rights would be significant for MSMEs.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 35 - 
 
  
Meanwhile, according to the results of interviews that the Japan Patent Office (JPO) conducted 
with SMEs, some companies mentioned that they cannot  afford to manage trademarks and that they 
have limited interest in trademarks. Therefore, how to encourage MSMEs to utilize trademark rights 
is one of the major issues that we have to work on. Under these circumstances, Japan has been 
implementing various  initiatives to support MSMEs to acquire trademark rights and expand their 
business activities smoothly.  
Firstly, last year, the JPO published its guide focusing on utilizing trademarks, which is entitled, 
"Guide for Utilizing Trademark Learning from Case Examples ". This guide is not designed for 
trademark experts but  aims to highlight the advantages of obtaining and using trademark rights for 
persons and entities who intend to utilize trademarks in their business activities through mainly 
presenting actual  cases in which trademark rights were used by SMEs. For example, it presents what 
was being considered when the best possible trademarks were determined, motivations for obtaining 
trademark rights, and actual effects arising from the acquisition of tradema rk rights.  
Moreover, this delegation would like to provide some examples with respect to actual effects 
of obtaining trademark rights presented in the guide. Some companies were able to increase sales 
approximately 30 times after changing their product nam e to a name more easily understood from 
the consumers ' perspective. At another company, inquiries to licensing negotiations increased after 
its product brand became famous. Also, thanks to the acquisition of trademark rights, some 
companies were able to ga in greater confidence and evaluation from their clients or  contribute to 
boosting employee morale and sharing their brand concept with employees.  
MSMEs are quickly gaining more useful knowledge from these successful cases of SMEs, who 
are facing common iss ues under similar business circumstances. The guide also includes an outline 
of the trademark system and answers to frequently asked questions. Thanks to these features, 
the guide has been widely used by individuals and other entities involved in businesse s as a valuable 
reference for business strategies based on the effective use of trademark rights.  
Secondly, this delegation would like to introduce the JPO 's initiative on IP Business Valuation 
Reports. In general, there is a need of MSMEs who hope to obta in financing support from local 
financial institutions based on the business value of their IP. Meanwhile, most local financial 
institutions lack human resources who can evaluate how MSMEs ' IP rights contribute to the growth 
of their business. As a result,  it is difficult for financial institutions to provide financial support based 
on IP.  
Under these circumstances, in order to promote financing for MSMEs, the JPO provides "IP 
business valuation reports " to local financial institutions at no cost. The valua tion reports are 
developed by research companies specialized in evaluating IP so as to visualize their value. Thanks 
to these valuation reports, local financial institutions are able to understand how MSMEs ' intellectual 
property contributes to developing their business activities and making greater profits. In other 
words, financial institutions can use the valuation reports as reference materials for providing 
IP-backed financing.  
In fact, the Guide, which I have mentioned before, presents successful case s in which financing 
based on SMEs ' IP was provided by making use of the IP business valuation reports. From 
the viewpoint of financial institutions, the bank, which provided IP -backed finance, also highly 
praised the valuation report effectiveness as a he lpful reference for evaluating business possibilities 
because the report quantified the value of the SME 's trademark rights.  
Lastly, we would like to talk about the JPO 's initiative on Comprehensive IP Support Service 
Counters. The Service Counters are set  up in all 47 prefectures in Japan to provide one -stop 
consultation services for MSMEs. The services include consultation for their management issues and 
advice for IP issues at every stage of development, to include from the conceptual stage, through 
comm ercial production. Additionally, at the Service Counters, we have assigned not only patent 
attorneys and lawyers but also specialists in many fields, such as designers, brand specialists, global 
IP producers, and they provide MSMEs with advice regarding fi ling applications and acquiring 
IP rights, developing business and IP strategies and they propose solutions to IP activities based on 
these strategies in order to help MSMEs strengthen their competitive advantages.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 36 - 
 
  
One of the benefits from providing such one -stop support services might be to enable 
companies visiting the service counters to notice points that should be improved. Also , in the guide 
that I previously mentioned, an actual case is presented in which advice for avoiding risks of 
trademark rights infringement was given to an SME who visited for consultation on technical software 
issues.  
In summary, it is a fact indicated in various actual cases that acquiring trademark rights can 
contribute to expanding businesses of MSMEs. This ha s been accomplished not only by establishing 
brands of their products and services but also by providing benefits in terms of obtaining financial 
support and conducting business transactions. In this regard, with respect to raising awareness of 
trademark a mong MSMEs, we believe that providing information of successful MSME 's case is 
invaluable, because they are facing common issues under similar business circumstances.  
Furthermore, to encourage the effective use of trademarks, our experience has seen that 
supporting the decision process of financial institutions which intend to provide financing for MSMEs 
based on MSME 's intellectual property rights is also effective. Moreover, when MSMEs are expanding 
their business activities, it is essential for them to c onsider the importance of inclusive IP protection, 
including trademarks, patents and designs. Therefore, when it comes to solving various IP issues 
that MSMEs confront, providing one -stop support service for MSMEs has proven to be an important 
and effectiv e policy to be implemented by a government that helps strengthen MSMEs ' 
competitiveness.  
Chile  
First of all, we would like to thank the proponents of this agenda item for the opportunity to 
address this important topic in the Council for TRIPS.  Trademarks can be one of MSMEs' main assets 
and, as such, a key element for the success of such enterprises. In light of this, it is crucial that WTO 
Members have in place streamlined, t ransparent and effective systems for processing trademark 
applications, as well as an effective system for enforcing these rights.  
The National Industrial Property Institute (INAPI) is committed to MSMEs and has therefore 
set up a comprehensive online plat form so that trademark applications can be filed remotely. Owners 
of a registered trademark can also use the platform to apply to renew their trademark rights. In 
addition to the platform, INAPI users can find clear information on each stage of trademark 
processing, as well as information on the various options available to trademark right holders for 
commercially exploiting their trademarks.  
Furthermore, INAPI has been continuously working to raise awareness of the importance of 
registering trademarks and therefore offers the INAPI Classroom programme. This is a 
comprehensive e learning programme developed by INAPI, with financial support from the European 
Union, seeking to improve industrial property knowledge and practices. Moreover, INAPI regularly 
organ izes talks and training activities at its offices, as well as other off -site activities specifically 
designed for those who require them.  
In this vein, the Seal of Origin programme, created to preserve and stimulate our country's 
special forms of manufacturing, traditional trades and unique products, also uses collective and 
certification marks as an essential tool for promoting partnerships between individual local 
producers.  
Finally, we would like to reiterate our gratitude to the proponents and hope to hear other 
Members share their experiences under this agenda item.  
Singapore  
I would like to thank the US for drafting the paper to wrap up and summarise the fruitfu l 
discussions that the Membership had in 2019 on the role that "Public Private Collaborations in 
Innovation " play in promoting innovations in research and development (R&D), assisting in brand 
promotion and the creative industries, and aiding in IP commerc ialisation. Various Members ' national 
policies, initiatives and platforms were showcased, which provided food for thought for us on how 
governments, business, academia and other key stakeholders can come together to synergise and 
identify the best ways to ensure IP can benefit our citizens and the whole world at large. Singapore IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 37 - 
 
  was happy to have contributed to these discussions in a substantive manner, and we are heartened 
to note that engagement on this topic was high throughout the year.  
We would also li ke to thank Canada for submitting this discussion paper on "Making MSMEs 
Competitive Through Trademarks ", which is the first in a series of discussion topics on how countries 
and government can support MSMEs via IP rights to make them competitive both in t he domestic 
market and around the world. Canada 's paper is useful in stimulating discussions on understanding 
the important role of trademarks for MSMEs in international trade, and how various Members have 
worked to socialise this among their domestic busi nesses and citizenry.  
Allow me to share three key points underpinning Singapore 's efforts to support and facilitate 
the efforts of MSMEs to make use of trademarks in a holistic and comprehensive manner.  
First, the Singapore government takes proactive step s to help the private sector and 
entrepreneurs understand how to make use of IP rights in general, and trademarks in particular. 
One example is the Mark Your Trade programme. This was a pilot programme started in 2016 to 
reach out to budding local creators  and entrepreneurs who had established a strong social media 
presence but had yet to protect their trademarks. To unlock the value of their brands, the Intellectual 
Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) offered assistance on trademark registration, IP clinic s and 
marketing opportunities to participating creators with the aim to heighten the importance of IP and 
branding for such small businesses. In recognition of their work, these creators and entrepreneurs 
were presented with trademark certificates on World  IP Day on 26 April 2017 by our then -Senior 
Minister of State for Finance and Law, Ms Indranee Rajah, and efforts are continuing to ensure that 
as many small business and entrepreneurs benefit from this programme.  
Second, the government is working continu ously to take advantage of developing technologies 
to make conditions easier for MSMEs to register and ma ke use of trademarks. As a case in point, 
companies looking to register their trademarks in Singapore can now file them directly with IPOS 
through the world 's first trademark registration mobile application called IPOS Go. Speeding up the 
application process tremendously, it will take less than 10 minutes to apply for a trademark, down 
from the 45 -minute to an hour -long average in Singapore. Notably, the  application is an additional 
option for businesses to file trademarks, on top of other platforms available, such as IPOS ' existing 
e-services website. Applicants can also track their registration status, be notified of updates or file 
for trademark renewa ls through the application. Applicants pay $240 as the filing fee to register a 
single trademark in any class in Singapore, and a registered trademark is valid indefinitely as long 
as companies renew their registrations every 10 years at a fee of $380 per class. I would like to 
highlight that the application also uses artificial intelligence (AI) to search for similar trademarks on 
the IPOS register and will stop applicants from filing for trademarks that are too similar to existing 
ones. This application h as enhanced not only convenience and efficiency, but also utility and 
effectiveness for many small companies in making use of trademarks in their business.  
Third, given that new business risks will emerge as more enterprises use innovation and 
digitalisati on to grow and enter the volatile and unpredictable global markets, we provide a cushion 
to help ease the process. Through the Intellectual Property Insurance Initiative for Innovators 
(IPIII), which was rolled out in June 2019, innovative enterprises will  be able to obtain insurance 
coverage for legal expenses that may be incurred in IP infringement proceedings worldwide. Under 
the IPIII, enterprises and innovators with a Singapore patent, trademark or registered design can 
take up an insurance policy with  substantial cost savings that pays the legal costs of enforcing IP 
rights or defending against allegations of IP infringement, which can often be expensive and 
detrimental to business cash flows. The policy is underwritten by Antares Underwriting Asia, on  
behalf of Syndicate  1274 at Lloyd 's of London.  Insuring IP is still nascent to a market that has 
witnessed multi -million -dollar patent litigation and trade disputes over IP theft. The IPIII insurance 
initiative is timely in a global economy increasingly p owered by the new currency of intangible assets.  
This is an important issue which bears more focused discussions to share best practices, and 
we look forward to hearing from other Members on their national experiences.  
Korea, Republic of  
Korea is very pleased to share its national experiences as a co -sponsor of this agenda item. 
Korea attaches great importance to assisting MSMEs in strengthening competitivenes s through the IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 38 - 
 
  development of trademarks. In this regard, KIPO (the Korean Intellectual Property Office) has 
designed and implemented targeted program mes to help such MSMEs to develop and promote 
trademarks. First of all, given that MSMEs lack IP capacity i n general, KIPO has been providing "IP 
Assisting Services to MSMEs through the Regional Intellectual Property Centers. As part of these 
services, MSMEs are provided with the necessary assistance from consultants and experts in the  area 
of how to develop br ands, designs, and patents. KIPO implemented such services in 231 cases in 
the year 2019, which is believed to have been of great value in terms of narrowing the gaps in IP 
capacity between large firms and MSMEs.  
Secondly , as more and more MSMEs expand int o global markets there is a growing need for a 
range of measures to protect the trademarks of MSMEs in overseas markets. Indeed , a number of 
MSMEs who are seeking to go global, export their products first without taking necessary measures 
to register their  trademarks/brands with the authorities of the countries that they want to export to 
or invest in. Such cases happen frequently because those MSMEs lack the  necessary knowledge 
about the legal system. As part of efforts to prevent IP rights, including trad emarks, from being 
infringed by foreign brokers, KIPO operates a total of 15 IP Help Desks in eight countries. The main 
functions of the IP Desks are to help MSMEs to protect their trademarks under the legal system of 
the foreign countries which the MSMEs are operating in or exporting to. In cases in which the IP 
rights have been violated in those countries, they provide legal consulting services to the MSMEs 
concerned on how to resolve such IP -related disputes. In addition, IP Help Desks hold 
seminars/work shops to raise awareness of the importance of the protection of trademarks, as well 
as how to cope with possible infringements.  
United Kingdom  
The United Kingdom would like to thank the co -sponsors for tabling this paper and would like 
to express our support. We would also like to thank delegations for making interesting presentations 
on this issue. It has been very helpful to hear accounts of each Members ' national expe riences on 
this topic.  
The United Kingdom is committed to balanced and effective intellectual property systems and 
believes in supporting businesses, in particular small businesses and entrepreneurs, through 
encouraging their use of IP, and minimising barr iers to utilising IP rights, to aid their competitiveness 
and improve their ability to protect the innovative aspects of their products and brands.  
Therefore, the United Kingdom looks forward to further discussion in this area, and to working 
directly with  the Friends of IP and Innovation more closely in developing this story.  
China  
China thanks the co -sponsors for summarizing the item of public -private collaborations in 
innovation in 2019 and thanks Canada for presenting a new proposal of making MSMEs competitive 
through trademarks.  
As for the new proposal, China would like to highlight the importance of MSMEs to our 
economy. By the end of 2018, the numb er of MSMEs in China had exceeded 30 million, and 
the number of individually -owned business entities exceeded 70 million, contributing to more than 
50% of our country's tax revenue, more than 60% of GDP, more than 70% of technological 
innovation, and more than 80% of the employment. MSMEs have played a crucial role in promoting 
China's economic growth, innovation, creating employment opportunities and improving people's 
livelihood. So in the new era, China will continue to take measures to make MSMEs compet itive, 
especially to enhance their innovation abilities. Some of our major measures are as follows . 
First, China has built a legal system to improve the general business environment in which 
MSMEs operate. In 2002, China adopted the "Small and Medium Enter prises Promotion Law", which 
requires government at all levels to create a favourable  environment for the development of MSMEs, 
especially in terms of capital, technology, and human resources. In 2017, China revised the "Small 
and Medium Enterprises Promot ion Law". The revision aims to support MSMEs to expand sources of 
financing and protect their legal rights in a sounder  way. For example, Article 9 of the SME Promotion 
Law encourages financial institutions to provide loans to MSMEs using IP as their colla terals or 
guaranties. In 2019, the State Council issued the  Guiding Opinion on Promoting the Healthy IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 39 - 
 
  Development of SMEs. The Guiding Opinion clearly requires the government to improve the 
innovation and establishment environment for MSMEs, better protect the intellectual property rights 
of MSMEs and guide specialized development of MSMEs. Again, the Guiding Opinion emphasizes the 
role that IP can play in increasing SME 's credibility of borrowing money from financial institutions. 
Beijing and other province s also enacted local implementation plans . 
Second, China promotes the IP awareness of MSMEs through establishment of intellectual 
property training centres  for MSMEs in eastern and southern part of the country, where a large 
number of SMEs are located. The  training centres  provide intellectual property courses, workshops 
and other IP -related capacity building activities to MSMEs, and support MSMEs to enhance their IP 
creation, utilization, protection and management abilities. The Nanhai training centre  in Guangdong 
Province in southern part of China produced a publication entitled "Patent Management Practices for 
MSMEs " to provide further guidance. Some other provinces designed trademark courses for MSMEs 
based on practical needs of local MSMEs . 
Thirdly, China enhances IP enforcement for MSMEs and facilitates alternative dispute 
resolution mechanisms for MSMEs. China launches initiatives targeting MSMEs and encourages 
MSMEs to report IP infringement to authorities and claim their legitimate rights . In addition, we 
established some IP infringement mediation cent res to resolve IP disputes encountered by MSMEs 
in a faster and less costly way. For example, we set up specialized mediation cent res for furniture, 
electric lights, pens and other small comm odities that MSMEs in China tend to manufacture.  
Thank you all for listening to my sharing of national experience . China hopes to hear more 
about Members ' measures.  
Brazil  
We would like to thank the proponents for submitting this document and promoting this 
invaluable discussion.  Trademarks are usually the gateway for most MSMEs to the world of IP.  There 
is still a lot of room  to explore on how to make IP rights more accessible to small and medium 
enterprises, especially in developing economies.  Targeted programs to MSMEs, with an emphasis on 
training and raising awareness on the availability and possible uses of IP rights, is a way forward in 
this discussion.  
Brazil is currently investing in mainstreaming the access to and use of IP rights.  Small and 
medium -sized companies, for their importance in economic growth and employment, are a natural 
focus of this type of policy.  Brazil's national IP office (INPI) is engaged in several initiatives with a 
focus on MSMEs.  
One such example is the entrepreneurship stimulus program called "Catalisa", which is 
promoted by Brazil's Micro and Small Business Support Service (Sebrae).  INPI, in co operation with 
Sebrae, provided small innovative companies of the Catalisa project with mentorship on IP matters.  
Also last year, INPI began a pilot project on a n IP Marketplace, in partnership with the Danish 
Patent and Trademark Office (DKPTO).  The IP M arketplace is an international platform for the 
purchase, sale and licensing of industrial property rights.  
Participation in the platform is free and open to companies, universities and individuals, 
including those interested in identifying partners for th e development of innovations.  To facilitate 
contact with potential buyers, sellers, licensors, partners and investors, the IP Marketplace provides 
contract models and tools to support the assessment of IP rights.  
India  
We thank the proponents for their submission on making MSMEs competitive. Micro, Small and 
Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) throughout the world have a vast employment potential and contribute 
significantly to the  trading environment of a country. MSMEs play a major role in most economies, 
particularly in developing countries. If we go by statistics, MSMEs seem to be the lifeline of economic 
development in developing counties. They represent about 90% of businesses  and more than 50% 
of employment worldwide. India is essentially a knowledge -based, entrepreneurship driven 
economy. In India the MSME sector, through more than 8,000 products, ranging from traditional to IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 40 - 
 
  high tech precision items, contributes about 45% to  the total manufacturing output and 40% to 
the exports. The MSME sector has the potential to spread industrial growth across the country and 
can be a major partner in the process of inclusive growth.  
However, several factors impede the growth of innovation  in the MSME sector. Their market 
penetration is restricted due to the size of their organizations. Further securing and enforcing IP is 
challenging due to the costs involved. Hence, there is a need to enhance awareness about 
Intellectual Property Rights ( IPRs) to enable MSMEs to take measures for protecting their ideas and 
business strategies. Effective utilization of IPR tools by MSMEs would also assist them in technology 
upgrading  and enhancing competitiveness. In this regard, the contribution of WIPO 's Technology 
Innovation Support Centres in India has been quite beneficial in spreading awareness on IPR. Both 
MSMEs as well as Universities provide the ideal platforms for setting up such centres.  
A number of efforts are being undertaken by India to promote  innovation at the level of MSMEs. 
India declared the decade of 2011 -2020 as the Decade of Innovation. Further, to enhance awareness 
of MSMEs about Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), India has launched a scheme titled "Building 
Awareness on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)" for the MSMEs.  
In addition, a scheme for facilitating Start Ups Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP) was 
launched by India to facilitate IP creation among Start -Ups by providing several incentives such as 
reduced official fees, f iling and prosecution assistance etc. Various roadshows are also being 
organized on 'IPR and National IP Policy ' to appraise people about the benefits to MSMEs towards 
promoting IP filings. The Government of India has introduced 50% fee reduction for IP ap plications 
of MSMEs.  
India strongly believes that intellectual property is only one element in a larger innovation 
ecosystem and IP laws alone do not promote technological development. Innovation must be backed 
by means to make it affordable and ensure ado ption.  
Peru  
We thank the proponents of the document under debate that brings this important issue to 
the attention of the WTO delegations.  
Peru is aware of the importance of an o ptimal management of Intellectual Property, in which 
MSMEs actively participate, with the clear objective of improving their competitiveness and 
commercial performance, to achieve their sustained growth.  
However, we must bear in mind that 98% of the Peruvi an business network is made up of 
microentrepreneurs, so we still have a long way to go internally before considering the 
internationalization of SMEs. In fact, the main Peruvian productive activities are mining, tourism, 
gastronomy, textile industry and a gribusiness and in most of these industries, MSMEs are only 
dedicated to simple assembly processes, to commercialize, to export raw materials and to provide 
basic services, without an own brand.  
Within this context, Peru is constantly promoting the Intelle ctual Property system for MSMEs 
to make effective use of it, in the search for having them gain more competitiveness and, with it, to 
evolve from an extraction economy to an economics of commercialization of products with added 
value. To this end, with a p riority focus on MSMEs becoming aware of the benefits of Intellectual 
Property, The National Institute for the Defense of Free Competition and the Protection of Intellectual 
Property (INDECOPI) has implemented various tools, such as:  
• Trademark Platform, in person and online: it is available for users in the link 
>>https://www.indecopi.gob.pe/es/web/plataforma -marcas<< through which users 
(non-agents, but micro, small and medium entrepreneurs) are guided and assisted 
virtually, throughout the ent ire phase prior to the presentation of the Brand Application.  
• Search your brand: A digital search engine that is available online for all users, free of 
charge. It is a powerful tool, without limitations and with several specific search filters, 
which also  uses the same algorithms used by the Trademark Office itself when conducting 
the Trademark Registration Exam.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 41 - 
 
  • Electronic Gazette of Industrial Property: currently, trademark and patent publications are 
made electronically and free of charge, without any f ees. 
• National Program of Collective Marks: it has an eminently social objective and is primarily 
focused on identifying and locating potential owners of collective brands among peasants, 
farmers, indigenous communities and small entrepreneurs.  Just to expa nd on this, as other 
colleagues have mentioned, since our intellectual property authority has been in place,  we 
have only registered 200 collective marks. Nevertheless, since this programme was 
implemented over the past two years, we have more than 4000 co llective marks set up 
and registered .  
 
• Lastly, we should note  the incorporation of the needs of the MSMEs, especially in regards 
of innovation and the use of marks at the step of designs. Peru has been working on this 
together with the WIPO.  
In short, Peru supports MSMEs use of the system of Intellectual Property  first, at the  national 
level, in the most efficient way possible, and then enter a second phase of internationalization, in 
which products are marketed and services with added value a re provided in foreign markets.  
13  INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y AND THE PUBLIC INT EREST: THE WTO TRIPS  AGREEMENT 
AND THE COPYRIGHT TH REE-STEP TEST  
South Africa  
The delegation of South Africa has introduced this item under the heading Intellectual Property 
and Public Interest . As delegates would recall we have had a long discussion  and engagement on 
the issues on intellectual property and public interest as they pertai ned to access to health and 
health technologies and medicine. We thought that it was time to perhaps look at the public interest 
dimension more broadly than one would find it in the TRIPS Agreement and so from this perspective 
we would want to indicate tha t the focus of this and future communications will look at areas outside 
of access to health technologies and medicines , but that debate certainly does inform the kind of 
discussions that we have had essentially almost for these last two years.  
The main pu rpose of this submission is to address the relationship between the WTO 's TRIPS 
Agreement  and copyright , as it relates to the three -step test on limitations and exceptions to 
copyright , with a view to clarifying the  flexibilities to which Members are entit led, in particular , in 
fulfilling the principles and objectives  of the TRIPS Agreement as set out in Articles 7 and 8  of the 
Agreement.  
A balanced interpretation of the copyright three -step test , contained in Article 13 of the TRIPS 
Agreement , and predicated upon Article 9.2 of the Bern e Convention for the Protection of Literary 
and Artistic Works, would  ensure that WTO rules do not undermine Members' polic ies to promote 
access to knowledge, cultu re and development, protect human rights and otherwise promote  
the public interest, including through appropriate limitations and exceptions to copyright and related 
rights.  
We note the contours  of the three -step test as articulated in Article 13 of the  TRIPS Agreement , 
which states that "Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain 
special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably 
prejudice  the legitimate interests of the ri ght-holder ." Certainly , in that formulation we find a litany 
of technical references which has to be analysed  and understood in this context.  
Also, the objectives  of the TRIPS Agreement as contained in Article 7 indicate that "protection 
should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination 
of technology , to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in 
a manner conducive to social and economic welfar e and to a balance of rights and obligations. " 
Similarly , Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement provide s Members with safeguards in formulating 
or amending their laws and regulations to "promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance 
to their socio -economic and technological development , provided that such measures are consistent  
with the provisions of this Agreement " and affording Members the right to adopt appropriate 
measures , provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement , "to prevent IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 42 - 
 
  the abuse of intellectual property rights by right -holders or the  resort to practices which 
unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology. " 
Similarly,  we have had a long debate on Article 40 of the T RIPS Agreement which deals with 
anti-competitive practices . 
Access to information and knowledge is fundamental to achieve many objecti ves including 
education and scientific progress . While recognizing the need to protect legitimate interests of 
authors and other right -holders , we note that the TRIPS Agreement has "room to manoeuvre " with 
respect to the implementation of its obligations , including in the area of promoting access to 
knowledge, culture, education, development as well as other overar ching policy objectives . 
The centre piece of this paper is really the relationship between TRIPS and the three -step-test 
for limitations and exceptions to copyright . This, as Members will note, has not been the subject to 
in-depth  scrutiny at the WTO , except for the Panel established to consider the United States – 
Section  110(5)  of the Copyright Act case contained in DS160 , which  does provide some 
interpretation of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement  in relation to Articles 11 bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) 
of the Berne Convention (1971).  The panel found that the  three-step test requ ests three separate , 
independent and cumulative tests for copyright limitations and exceptions. There is disagreement 
with this interpretation among academic scholars an d as i t relates to  state-practice. It would be 
useful to discuss  the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the three -step test for 
limitations and exceptions to copyright in order to further clarify the flexibilities afforded to Members 
to fulfil th eir obligations in implementing the  objectives  and principles of the TRIPS Agreement.  
The limitations that Members may provide pursu ant to the provisions of the Bern e Convention 
that have been incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement consist of so called 'free use ' that is to say , 
the use of protected work that is without an obligation to request authorization or the payment  of 
remuneration , and 'non-exclusive licences ', (use without authorization but with the obligation to pay 
equitable compensation ). Outside these specific free uses, for example common law jurisdictions 
also recognize the notion of 'fair use ' or 'fair dealing ', which covers various free uses under 
international law. The use of privileges at a national level are generally  based on the international 
copyright acquis. There are many examples of national exceptions and limitations resting on the 
international three -step test as can be found in the copyright laws of parties to the Bern e Conventio n, 
including for example reprod uction for research or teaching purposes , privileges of libraries, archives 
or exemptions of reproduction required for administrative, parliamentary  or judicial proceedings. It 
should be emphasized that fair use and fair dealing exceptions are not per se  in conflict with the 
international three-step test including under the more specific approach that the TRIPS Agreement 
takes to the three -step test under Article 13.  
Samuelson and Hachimoto observe the following: "…there is grow ing recognition  that in an 
era of rapid technological change , flexible open -ended limitations and exceptions such as fair use , 
can play a useful role in balancing the legitimate interests of right -holders, subsequent creators and 
the public , and these could include fan fiction authors , making back -up copies of music and the like, 
in regulating various uses of copyright ed works  that do not have market destructive effect s. These 
days, legislat ures simply cannot anticipate new uses of works in digital form and decide which ones 
should be permitted through crafting of specific exceptions. Applying fair use or a similar flexible 
doctrine can enable courts  to weigh various factors in order to reach our principl e decisions.  
The above -mentioned paragraph also provides an important context for our on -going 
discussion on the 1998 Work Program me on Electronic Commerce. In 1996 the three -step test was 
incorporated into the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performance and Phonographs 
Treaty  WPPT) , both are collectively known or referred to as the WIPO Internet Treaties. The 
Diplomatic Conference that adopted these two texts, adopted the following agreed statement in 
respect  of Article  10 of the WIPO Cop yright Treaty which applies mutatis mutandi s to Article 16 of 
the WPPT and it states:  
It is understood that the provisions of Article 10 permits Contracting Parties to carry 
forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exce ptions  
in their national laws which have been considered acceptable under the Bern e 
Convention . Similarly,  these provisions should be understood to perm it Contracting IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 43 - 
 
  Parties to devise new exceptions and limitations that are appropriate in the digital 
network environment.  
South Africa invites Members to contribute to this discussion and to share their national 
approaches and experiences. We also include some questions fo r discussion as referenced in the 
document :  
1. Does the  three -step test constitute an indivisible whole to the extent that each of 
the three steps are to be considered together and as a whole in a comprehensive overall 
assessment ?; and 
2. What approaches have Members taken to reflect limitations and exceptions in their IP 
laws?  
India  
We thank the delegation of South Africa for introducing this proposal. The submission seeks 
to initiate discussions on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the three -step test for 
application of exceptions and limitations to copyright, as contained in Article 13 of the TRIPS 
Agreement. The 3 -step test originally applied under the Berne C onvention, allowed the national laws 
to carve out exceptions to the exclusive right of reproduction of a copyright - protected work by 
the copyright owner.  
We agree with the approach of the submission that access to information is critical to achiev ing 
many  fundamental objectives, including education, scientific progress, research, formats of work for 
the reading and print disabled , etc. While recognizing the need to protect the legitimate interests of 
authors and other right holders, the paper rightly notes  that the TRIPS Agreement has "room to 
manoeuvre" with respect to the implementation of its obligations, including in the area of promoting 
access to knowledge, culture, education and development as well as other overarching public policy 
objectives. The A greement gives enough leeway for the signatory countries to enact the copyright 
law in their municipal jurisdictions concerning use of copyrighted works for purposes of dissemination 
of knowledge. Thus, there is considerable flexibility in how a Member  may apply the principles in 
their domestic laws.  
Lastly, we want to mention that Member s need time to respond to the questions raised in the 
submission. Therefore, the issue should be kept open for inputs/experiences to be shared by 
Member s in subsequent meet ings of the TRIPS Council.  
Chinese Taipei  
As regards the three -step test, does it involve individual, independent, and accumulative 
assessment of the require ments where each of which has to be fulfilled? Or are the requirements 
considered collectively and assessed as a whole? In practice, we generally assess each requirement 
individually and every requirement has to be fulfilled. That said, we  will continue to  pay close 
attention to the development of interpretations globally.  
Besides, copyright limitations are prescribed in Articles 44 through 65 of our Copyright Act. 
For instance, the "case -specific limitations/exceptions" may apply only when the stipulated 
requirements are fulfilled. In addition, Article 65 provides "general copyright limitations/exceptions"  
which addresses circumstances of fair use not prescribed in Articles 44 through 64 and it allows for 
assessment of individual cases by taking into accoun t all the possible factors/scenarios. We had 
taken into account the principle of the three -step test at the time of legislation, and by so doing we 
have fulfilled the TRIPS requirement.  
Indonesia  
Indonesia welcomes this opportunity , and views positively the inclusion of IP and the Public 
Interest in the agenda of the TRIPS Council Meeting. We also would like to thank South Africa for 
circulating document  IP/C/W/663. The debate on the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the copyright 
three-step test is certainly of interest to our delegation.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 44 - 
 
  
As everyone presumably know s, in the area of exception and limitation in intellectual property, 
the three -step test is embodied  in the Berne Convention and the TRIP S Agreement. There are some 
debate s on interpretation of three -step test for implementation in national level. The Delegation of 
Indonesia supports the discussion for the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the copyright three-step test 
on the agenda and we see South Africa's proposal as a good first step to reach for common 
understanding about the interpretation  of the three-step test. 
China  
China would like to thank South Africa for developing this proposal and I will address 
the second question in the proposal.  
China has always supported a right balance between IP protection and public interests. We 
believe IP system should protect right hol ders' legitimate rights and at the same time benefit social 
welfare. Limitations and exceptions to the copyright system helps achieve the balance between 
authors' exclusive rights and the availability of works to the general public, which is conducive to 
the dissemination of knowledge and creation of works.  
Specifically , in China's Copyright legal system, we have based our domestic rules of copyright 
limitations and exceptions on relevant provisions in international agreements, namely the Berne 
Convention, TRIPS Agreement and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. In China's Copyright Law, Article 22 
stipulates 12 situations which allow free use of copyrights. Our law does not explicitly use the term 
"free use ". I am just using the term "free use " for the sake of conven ience to refer to the scenario 
in which a work may be exploited without the permission from the author, and without payment of 
remuneration to the author, provided the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned 
and that other rights enjoyed by the author are respected .  
The 12 situations include, for example: (1) for personal study, research and appreciation, 
(2) appropriate quotation from a  published work in one's own work for the demonstration of a point, 
(3) reproduct ion of a work in its collections by a library; (4) translation of a work published by a 
Chinese citizen which is created in the Han language (Mandarin Chinese), into a minority group 
language for publication and distribution within China. Article 23 of our  Copyright Law stipulates one 
situation under which non -exclusive license can apply. Again we do not use the term "non-exclusive 
license " in the legal text and I am just using "non-exclusive license " for the sake of convenience to 
refer to the situation wh ere a work can be used without an author's permission, but remuneration 
has to be paid, the name of the author has to b e mentioned,  and other rights enjoyed by the author  
have to be respected . The non -exclusive license is used for compiling or publishing t extbooks for the 
purpose of implementing the nine -year compulsory education in China.  
Furthermore , China's Regulation on Implementing the Copyright Law and Regulation on 
the Protection of the Right to Communicate Works on Information Networks enacted by t he State 
Council embedded more detailed rules on limitations  and exceptions  to copyright. The Regulation on 
the Protection of the Right to Communicate Works on Information Networks specifies exceptions to 
copyright in the  digital environment. To alleviate poverty, a published work of a Chinese citizen on 
such topics as planting and breeding, disease prevention and elimination, disaster prevention and 
reduction can be made available free of charge to people in the rural area over the internet. No prior 
permi ssion from the author is needed but the author is entitled to collect remuneration paid by the 
internet service provider.  
In summary, China is of the view that limitations and exceptions to copyright is an important 
aspect to balance IP rights with public interests and is consistent with the objective of the TRIPS 
Agreement. We welcome other Members' interventions under this proposal.  
United States of America  
The United States recognizes the important obligations that Members have undertaken with 
respect to copyright as provi ded in the TRIPS Agreement. It also recognizes that Article 13 sets forth 
that limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights shall be confined to certain special cases that do 
not conflict with normal exploitation of the work and that do not unreasonably p rejudice 
the legitimate interests of the right holder.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 45 - 
 
  
This is an ad hoc item and should be treated as such, under the rules of procedure.  
Switzerland  
Switzerland wou ld like to thank South Africa for its communication IP/C/663 concerning 
the copyright three -step test for exceptions and limitations.  
The so -called "three -step test " is a key concept in copyright law and is found, in slight 
variation, in a number of intern ational agreements . The main question that South Africa raises  for 
discussion  in its submission in relation to the three -step test is a  question of interpretation of 
Article  13 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
However, in the WTO sy stem, the legal interpretation of treaty provisions, including Article 13 
of the TRIPS Agreement, is the role of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, to be applied in a specific 
case of dispute resolution.  
Questions concerning the interpretation and application  of the three -step test in Article 13 of 
the TRIPS Agreement are thus not within the competence of the TRIPS Council but are solely 
the authority of the D ispute Settlement Body . 
South Africa  
Since we did introduce this item, we would like to thank all delegations that took the floor. 
This communication is generally worded,  and we think that there is definitely some more space to 
discuss the approach to Article 13 and specifically how it relates to the three -step test. We note the 
intervention from the honourable  delegate from Switzerland, we agree that matters of legal 
interpretations should be left to the Dispute Settlement Body but nothing in respect of the subject 
matter of intellectual property excludes us from having an inclusive debate and so we had hoped 
that the introduction of this paper would firstly stimulate shar ing of views in respect of the operation 
and application of the  TRIPS Agreement.  
I would also like to thank some of the other delegations including India and specifically China 
who shared to large extent how they have incorporated the limitations and exceptions to Copyright 
into their laws. Also , we believe that no discussion will be complete if we leave out what Members 
have done subsequent to the case and interpretation by the DSB. We note that in many instances 
countries have introdu ced and incorporated the three-step test into national legislation and we also 
note that there has been a further evolution of several approaches under free trade agreements and 
so from this perspective we think it warrants at least a discussion of what we  see within the realm 
of state practice and what this has meant for individual interpretations of the three -step test under 
national judicial pronouncements.  
Once again we would like to thank all Members who took the floor and I certainly hope that 
my delegation would be able to continue this discussion by focusing more specifically on some of 
the issues that we raised in our paper . As the honourable  delegate from the United States clearly 
points out that when we referred to the context of the TRIPS Agr eement Article 13 we need to take 
note that Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases 
that do not conflict with normal exploitation of the work , and do not unreasonably prejudice 
legitimate interests of ri ght-holders.  
As I indicated in the initial intervention there are a whole lot of technical references . Perhaps 
during the next session of the TRIPS Council we may come back to have a more wholesome 
discussion on the relevant parts of the three -step test a s articulated here , and to further break down 
the possible implications in respect of some of the  meanings and interpretations that have already 
been given in the context of some of the dispute settlement cases. This would also include what 
impact this det ermination would have on a more general flexible interpretation of rights and 
obligations as they are embedded in the TRIPS Agreement.  
United States of America  
We think it should be an ad hoc  item and that if it were to be raised in the future , another 
paper request would be provided.  IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 46 - 
 
  14  INFORMATION ON RELEV ANT DEVELOPMENTS ELS EWHERE IN THE WTO  
TRIPS Amendment  
No statements were made under this agenda item. 
IPR-Related Issues in Trade Policy Reviews and the Director -General's Monitoring 
Reports  
14.2.1   WTO Secretariat   
As on previous occasions, the Secretariat will provide a brief update of the issues related to 
intellectual property policy that have come up in the most recent Trade Policy Reviews.  
Since the last TRIPS Council meeting in October last year, the 5th Trade Pol icy Review of Peru 
and the 1st Trade Policy Review of Lao PDR have taken place. These reviews covered a very wide 
range of intellectual property and related trade policy issues. During these reviews, developed and 
developing -country Members have continued to actively register their interest in TRIPS -related 
issues, by addressing specific follow -up questions, including:  
• National Intellectual Property Policy and its incorporation into the development strategy;  
• Copyright exceptions;  
• Protection of computer prog rammes, databases and domain names;  
• Registration of holograms, colour marks, sound marks and position marks;  
• Geographical indications and considerations of cultural characteristics;  
• Exceptions to patent rights ;  
• Trade secrets;  
• Regime for the collective kn owledge of indigenous peoples relating to biological resources; 
conduct of bioprospecting and harmonization of commercial interest vs. protection of 
indigenous rights;   
• Enforcement, online and at the border;  
• Judicial remedies;  
• Anticompetitive practices; a nd 
• Accession and Ratification of WIPO instruments.  
The chart on the screen shows the frequency and type of TRIPS related follow -up questions 
raised by Members during the trade policy reviews that took place over the last two years.6 
15  OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERG OVERNMENTAL ORGANIZA TIONS  
India  
India supports granting permanent observer status to three intergovernmental organizations  
– the South Centre, the CBD Secretariat and the International Vaccine Institute. All the three 
organizations fulfil the requisite criteria laid down by the General Council with regard to observer 
status.  
Bangladesh  
 Bangladesh  reiterates its position stated in the  earlier meetings. Bangladesh would like to 
support the South Centre to be granted observer status to this Council.  
 
6 The PowerPoint slide is available in Room Document RD/IP/3 8. IP/C/M/94/Add.1  
 
- 47 - 
 
  
Indonesia  
Indonesia would like to keep our position that we had exp ressed at previous meetings and 
reiterates its support for the participation of the two organizations, the South Centre and 
the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as permanent observers in 
this Council.  
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republ ic of 
My delegation wishes to reiterate what was expressed in previous meetings regarding granting 
observer status to the South Center. Likewise, we also want to express the same support for the 
Secretar iat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.  
China  
China would like to reiterate its support that the CBD Secretariat and South Centre be granted 
observer status, at least on an ad hoc  basis.  
United States of America  
The U nited States cannot join the Member s seeking to include any of the prior mentioned 
entities as an  observer, either on a permanent or ad hoc  basis.  
16  OTHER BUSINESS  
Japan  
The delegation of Japan hereby expresses its regret over the fact that, at the last TRIPS Council 
meeting, a request of consultation on a particular case was introduced under the agenda item 14 
"Information on relevant developments elsewhere in the WTO", d espite the fact that no request was 
made from either of the parties.  
This practice of introducing ongoing dispute settlement cases is unique to TRIPS Council which, 
we believe, is not necessarily appropriate in comparison with the practices in the other W TO forums.  
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  
No statements were made under this agenda item.  
Dates of the Next Meeting  
16.2.1   WTO Secretariat   
The next formal meeting of the TRIPS Council is scheduled for 14 -15 May 2020. As regards 
the autumn meeting of the Council, there has been a slight change in dates due to a shift in  schedule 
of the General Council's meeting. The autumn meeting of the TRIPS Council is now schedule d for 
15-16 October 2020.  
16.2.2   Bangladesh  
The delegation of Bangladesh would like to thank the Secretariat for the annotated agenda 
(document JOB/IP/36) of this meeting. The annotation has been extremely helpful as a good guide 
with links to the corresponding documents to follow up the previous di scussions. We would like to 
encourage the Secretariat to continue this practice of preparing annotated agenda in advance for all 
meetings of the Council in future.  
17  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
No statements were made under this agenda item.  
__________