RESTRICTED  
  
TN/IP/M/32  
 
29 November  2017 
(17-6555) Page: 1/6 
Council for Trade -Related Aspects of  
Intellectual Property Rights  
Special Session    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM R APPARD  
ON 18 OCTOBER 2017  
Chairperson: Ambassador  Dacio Castillo, Honduras  
 
 
SUBJECTS DISCUSSED  
1   NEGOTIATIONS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A M ULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF 
NOTIFICATION AND REG ISTRATION OF GEOGRAP HICAL INDICATIONS FO R 
WINES AND  SPIRITS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  1 
2   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  6 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  NEGOTIATIONS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A M ULTILATERAL SYSTEM O F 
NOTIFICATION AND REG ISTRATION OF GEOGRAP HICAL INDICATIONS FO R WINES 
AND SPIRITS  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that as indicated in his fax to delegations dated 18 September 2017, 
the purpose of this meeting was to permit delegations to put on record their views regarding 
the negotiations on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and r egistration of 
geographical in dications for wines and spirits  ahead of the 11th Ministerial Conference in 
Buenos  Aires. He noted  that since the circulation of the Draft Composite Text in document 
TN/IP/21 in April 2011, this was the first formal meeting of  the TRIPS Special Session that served  
not merely to appo int a new chairman, but provided  an opportunity for engaging on the substanc e 
of the negotiations. This reflected  the fact that the considerable activity and momentum on 
geographical indications that  the world had seen in bilateral and regional contexts  had 
unfortunately not translated into substantive engagement in this negotiating group in recent years.  
1.2.  He recalled  that his own past efforts to facilitate re -engagement in the work of the Special 
Session, as well as his assessment of the state of play of these negotiations, were reflected in two 
written reports that he had made on his own responsibility – namely TN/IP/23, dated 
3 December  2015, and TN/IP/24, dated 8 December 2016. Since his last written report he had  
also reported orally to the informal Heads of Delegations meeting on 8 May  2017 and to 
the informal meeting of the  Trade Negotiations Committee on 25 July 2017 . 
1.3.  In those interventions he had shared his assessment that the situat ion in the TRIPS Special 
Session had not advanced, and that delegations on both sides had shown little appetite to engage 
in substantive work in the TRIPS Special Session in the context of the overall negotiating 
landscape. He added that t he delegations su pporting the Joint Proposal had mostly considered 
that, due to the  divergence of views on the extent of the mandate, there had been  little likelihood 
for a realistic outcome in this area, and they had therefore not been in favour of intensifying work 
in the TRIPS Special Session. While they were thus not likely to take the initiative in this forum, 
some had nevertheless signalled their openness to discussions within the negotiating mandate.  TN/IP/M/32  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.4.  He said that the traditional demandeurs  supporting the modalities s et out in TN/IP/ W/52, had 
continued to emphasize the importance of the TRIPS negotiations and the role of the TRIPS Special 
Session, but had considered the overall negotiating context as unfavourable for substantive 
engagement in this area. More recently, this group had informed him of their internal discussions 
to reinvigorate the  TRIPS Special Session work, which had – however – so far not developed into 
concrete initiatives in this forum.  
1.5.  With a view to preparations for the Ministerial Conference in Buen os Aires in December, he 
also recall ed the Director General's intervention at the informal He ads of Delegation meeting on 
21 September  2017. In that meeting, the Director -General had called for a "moment of truth" 
when delegations should make a reasonable assessment of what could – and what could not – be 
achieved at MC11. In light of the experience at the Nairobi Ministerial, the D irector -General  had 
urged Members to prioritize and focus negotiations only in the most promising areas. With respect 
to negotiating issues that were judged as not advancing fast enough to be resolved by MC11, 
he had suggested that delegations could focus on how to take this work forward after 
the Ministerial Conference. Any such guidelines or programmes for post -MC11 work c ould then be 
adopted in Buenos Aires, and appropriately ref lected in any outcome document.  
1.6.  While , he said,  it was his impression that the GI Register negotiations were not currently 
a priority for delegations, he was  nevertheless keen to ensure that they w ould prepare for 
the Ministerial meeting in the best possible manner. This meeting should therefore not only be 
seen as an occasion to formally record delegations' positions, but also as an occasion to explore 
options for the future, in light of the DG's s uggestions for MC11.  
1.7.  Against this background he encourage d delegations, when making the ir interventions, to 
cover the following two issues : 
 What role the Members  see for the work of the TRIPS Special Session in 
the preparations for the Buenos Aires Ministe rial Conference; and  
 How they see the GI Register negotiations continuing after MC11 . 
1.8.  The representative of Switzerland  thanked  the Chairman  for convening the formal meeting of 
the TRIPS Council Special Session and for his specific questions on the way forward for this 
negotiating group in view of MC11 and beyond. He referred to the workshop  on geographical 
indications, genetic resources and traditional knowledge , which had taken  place on the previous  
afternoon , and had been co-organized by several members of the W /52 coalition. This event  had 
aimed at highlighting how fairness and transparency in the use of these IP rights were key 
elements to promote an inclusive development that benefits consumers, producers an d local 
communities alike. Several case studies, including from an LDC representative, had shown how 
relevant the protection of these IP rights was for the trade development of these countries today 
more than ever.  
1.9.  He assured the Special Session that Switz erland  would remain committed to continue to work 
with other m embers of the  W/52 coalition to find the best way to resume substanti ve discussions 
on the  three  TRIPS issues as reflected in document TN/C/W/52.  His delegation  recognized 
the need to take into account the current environment of negotiations at the  WTO in 
the preparation for MC11 which might not be the most conducive to resumption of such 
substanti ve discussions before Buenos  Aires.  However, he added , it was important to look beyond 
MC11. The workshop held on the previous day had illustrated the  many developments in this area 
at the national and international levels , and their increasing relevance for the deve lopment of 
developing and least developed countries in particular. He emphasized that a s the key 
international organization dealing with world trade issues, the WTO was the right place to work out 
solutions on trade -related aspects of intellectual property. He assured that the Chairman could  
count on his delegation's  engagement to take the n ecessary initiatives to ensure that  the WTO 
remains a forum where Members  can seek para llel progress on the so -called th ree TRIPS issues.  
1.10.   The representative of Haiti,  speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , said the LDC G roup 
wished  to indicate it was in the process of studying the  submission TN/C/ W/52, dated 2008, 
including  the issue of the GI register under TRIPS Article 23.4. It noted  that the work had been TN/IP/M/32  
 
- 3 - 
 
  extended to spirits pursuant to position s taken in 1996 at the Singapore Ministerial Conference and 
codified at the 2001 Doha Declaration.  
1.11.   He said that i t should be of no surprise to Members that LDCs were surveying their interests 
across a number of areas in a manner to enhance LDC industries, value addition and 
industrialization . Regardless of the  frame work of deliberat ions or negotiations in the WTO, t he LDC 
Group , he added,  must assess areas of importance to their sectors and industries.  
1.12.   He said that the Group expect ed its internal consultative process would  allow it to come 
forward with a common position of the LDC s Group. In this regard, the LDCs Group support ed 
the continuation of the  negotiations in the framework of the TRIPS Special  Session.  
1.13.   The representative of South Africa  recalled the intervention of Switzerland regarding 
the workshop  held on the previous day, which had indicate d that a broad sector of WTO Members  
had an interest in these issues including, but not necessarily limited to , the GI Register . 
He underscored that other issues were linked  to the GI Register , and his delegation believed that 
continued en gagement on these issues remained  relevant  given this context . 
1.14.   Regarding the Chair's question on the TRIPS Special Session 's role in the preparation for 
MC11, his delegation believed that, while other matters could perhaps be include d in the current 
discussion . It was not currently the right time to put forward any further modalities in re spect of 
this particular issue.  
1.15.   More importantly , however , his delegation believe d, that after MC11 there should be many 
ways in which Members could  actively engage , and that the workshop held on the previous day 
had indicate d the broad interest that Members have in some of the issues. In this light, 
South  Africa  believe d that there was still some interest to discuss these matters but that the issue 
should not necessarily form part of any formal representation made in res pect of the  Ministerial 
outcome. H is delegation nevertheless remained open to work with other Members to achieve 
consensus on issues that remain ed outstanding.  
1.16.   The representative of Brazil said that his delegation supported  the simultaneous, parallel 
and joint treatment of the three TRIPS issues, namely TRIPS/CBD, the GI register and GI 
extension.  Document  TN/C/W/52 was an inclusive and balanced proposal because it encompasse d 
the main demands and concerns regarding the se three TRIPS issues . 
1.17.   He also referred to the w orkshop  organized by the W /52 coalition  on the previous day, 
where Members  had had a fruitful exchange of views  on how fairness and transparency contribute d 
to incl usive international trade. He recalled  the CBD Secretariat 's intervention on recent 
developments following the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol , and on how the process for private 
parties to comply with rules about prior informed consent ( PIC) and access an d benefit -sharing 
(ABS) were not cumbersome. His delegation thus reiterate d its view that Members should advance 
towards the adoption of an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement that would provide a basis for 
necessary measures to prevent biopiracy.  
1.18.   While recognizing the political environment for MC11, his delegation stood  ready to continue 
its engagement in order to advance the TRIPS issues.  
1.19.   The representative of the United States  said that t he longstanding divergence of views 
among delegations on  the mandate of Article 23.4 had  led to little likelihood that progress could  be 
achieved  on this issue . The United States  maintained  that the demandeurs  needed to respect 
the mandate of the Special Session , which was limited to a GI Register for wines and sp irits. More 
generally , his delegation did not support intensification of work on GIs  in the Special Session  which 
was a highly sensitive issue , where overcoming divergences and reaching consensus was 
challenging . He said that it wa s particularly unrealistic to conceive of revived work in the Special 
Session in the absence of any sign of prospects for active negotiations in virtually any other 
negotiating group falling under the TNC. He said that his delegation agree d with others tha t this 
was not an area where Members could  realistically achieve  consensus outcomes for 
the 11th Ministerial Conference.  TN/IP/M/32  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.20.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU's position remained  unchanged 
for the  moment. His delegation remain ed committed to the W /52 coalition and would wish to see 
parallel progress in the WTO on the three  TRIPS issues. Members of the W/ 52 coalition had regular 
contact on the matter and  he believed that the event of the previous day , as well as the successful 
developments in WIPO and in many bilateral agreements , that Members were negotiating and ha d 
successfully negotiated , were testimony to this.  In his view, one could say that there seemed  to be 
some sort of global consensus emerging on the question of GIs. At the present stage, however, 
given the state of negotiations in other areas of the WTO, the EU did not have any concrete 
proposals to table.  Since there was no momentum in the  negotiations and in the current WTO 
context , his delegation saw  no urgency to rais e the profile of the TRIPS issues in Buenos Aires.  
His delegation believed, however, that the three TRIPS issues should be kept in the agenda  in 
order to continue working on them after MC11, and that Members should be open in this regard . 
1.21.   The representative of Thailand  expressed  her appreciation to the Chairman  for his efforts in 
reaching out to Members for a renewed discussion in the TRIPS Special Session. As a co -sponsor 
of document TN/IP/ W/52, her delegation attached  great importance to the issues of the GI 
Register , GI extension and the relationship between TRIPS and CBD. Thailand  wished to discuss 
these three TRIPS issues together and in parallel at the TRIPS Special Session. However, taking 
into account  the reality in the negotiation  landscape, especially the differences in the well -known 
positions between the two groups, she said they  were also open to considering  other constructive 
ways forward. In this regard, she welcome d the opportunity for Members to share experiences and 
best pra ctices in GI protection and registration, seeing that t he outcome of this could  further 
contribute to their negotiation process.  
1.22.   As MC11 was fast approaching,  she said Members should try to identify practical outcome s 
for Buenos Aires. While s he was  aware that delegations were currently far from reaching 
consensus, she hoped to see the Ministers at least reiterate their commitment to advance 
negotiation on the  TRIPS issues, including guideline s on the modalities. Her delegation stood  ready 
to work cl osely with the C hairman  and other Members to ensure a meaningful outcome for MC11.  
1.23.   The representative of Japan  thank ed the W/52 coalition for organizing the informative side 
event held on the previous day , but emphasized that  his delegation was not in a po sition to 
support p roposal W /52. He wished to stress that any negotiations on this matter in the future 
would need to be strictly in accordance with the mandate for establishing a multilateral  system of 
notification and registration of geographical  indications for wines and spirits.  
1.24.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  said that d ue to the divergence of views on 
different mandates  he believe d there was little chance for a rea listic outcome in this  area at MC11. 
His delegation was not supportiv e of using the TRIPS Special Session  for exchanging views on 
the path of negotiated outcomes for MC11 , but was open to consider new ideas and proposals that 
respect ed the mandate of the TRIPS Special Session.  
1.25.   The representative of Cambodia  thanked the Chai rman for the specific ques tions on the way 
forward for the  negotiating group  in the view of MC11 and beyond.  He referred to the workshop on 
geographical indications, genetic resources and traditional knowledge  that had been organized by 
several members of the W /52 coal ition on the previous day . This event had highlighted  how 
openness and transparency in the use of the IP rights were a key element to promote an inc lusive 
development that benefitted  consumers ' use and local communities alike. Several case stu dies, 
including from Cambodia,  had shown how relevant the protection of the IP Rights was for the trade 
development of these countries today.  
1.26.   He wished to assure Members that his delegation remain ed committed to continue work ing 
with other m embers of the W /52 coalition to find the best way to resume substanti ve discussions 
on the three TRIPS issues reflected in document TN/C/W/52. In their reflection , he said , Members 
needed to take into account the  current negotiating environment in the preparation for MC1 1 
which might not be the most conducive to see ing a resumption of a discussion on the substance of 
this issue before Buenos Aires. However, he added that it was important to look beyond MC11. 
The workshop had elucidated many developments in this area at the national and international 
level, and that they were increasingly relevant for the deve lopment of developing and least -
developed countries. He said that as the key international organization dealing with world trade 
issues the WTO was the right place to discuss them. The Chairman could count on Cambodia's TN/IP/M/32  
 
- 5 - 
 
  engagement to take the necessary initiative s to ensure that the WTO remained  the forum where 
delegations could seek parallel progress on the so -called three TRIPS issues.  
1.27.   The representative of Chile thanked the Chairman for his leadership and for the meeting  
held to prepare for this session . She said that the questions the Chair had put forward  allowed 
Members to clearly focus in the discussions in this meeting.  With respect to the role of the TRIPS 
Special Session in preparing for the Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference, Chile believed that 
the work carried out to date would not play any meaningful role in the run -up to December's 
Conference.  As reflected in previous Chair's reports, Members had not managed to hold 
substantive discussions in this regard in recent years.  
1.28.   After the 11th Ministerial Conference, she said, it would be advisable to reflect on 
the expectations  and goals of this negotiation , and what would be  possible to achieve. This would 
allow Members to focus realistically on fulfilling the negotiating mandate that was being granted to 
them. Her delegation's view remained unchanged in that work should continue within th e specific 
mandate granted to the TRI PS Special Session.  
1.29.   The representative of Canada  said that her delegation had been an  engaged participant in 
the TRIPS Special Session  from the beginning . Canada remain ed a co-sponsor  of the joint proposal 
and had consistently noted its openness to partici pating in discussions in line with the mandate. 
Having noted the slowed pace of negotiations and the absence of substantive exchanges among 
Members , she said her delegation welcome d the Chairperson's  questions as an opportunity for all 
to reassess the stat us of their work. With respect to the Chair's first question, Canada's view was 
that Members had not sufficiently advanced the work of the Special Session since MC10 for them 
to expect to deliver significant outcomes at this Ministerial  Conference . As such , and in light of 
the broader negotiating context , her delegation did not see a prominent role for the Special 
Session in Buenos Aires.  
1.30.   With respect to the second question on the future of the negotiations, she welcomed  
the Chairman's  invitation to reflect on the future of the TRIPS Special Session. Canada believed  it 
to be  important for Members in this and other fora to periodically take stock of Members' efforts 
and to benchmark their progress. She added that a more complete answer t o the question would  
require significant internal reflection and consultation. In continuing  that reflection, however, she 
said that Canada saw value in the Membership participating, following the Ministerial, in 
an evaluation of the prospects for progress  in the Special Session, given t he current pace of 
discussions.  
1.31.   The representative of India said his delegation support ed the statements made by 
Switzerland, South Africa, Brazil, the European Union, Thailand, Cambodia and other 
W/52 coalition members. He thanked  everyone for their support for the workshop, co -organized by 
several m embers of W/ 52 coalition on geographical indications, genetic resources and traditional 
knowledge which took place the previous day. 
1.32.   He recalled that India was a member of W /52 coalition  and reiterate d its position that 
the three TRIPS issues (GI Register, TRIPS -CBD and GI Extension) as reflected in document 
TN/C/W/52 were closely linked, both from a substantive and a  procedural point of view. He said 
that w ork on the three TRIPS issues should therefore continue in parallel and together. This , he 
added,  could  be done most usefully and inclusively in the TRIPS S pecial Session . He said his 
delegation was ready to constructively engage to see how parallel simultaneous progress could  be 
achieved on all three issues.  
1.33.   The representative of China  said that her delegation was committed to participate in 
discussion s in the TRIPS Special Session both before and after MC11. She wished to echo 
the position of over 100 other W /52 coalition members  in firmly support ing that the three TRIPS 
issues, namely GI Registry, GI Extension and TRIPS/CBD disclosure, were closely linked together 
and should be moved forward in parallel. She added that t he broad support of this position could 
also be observ ed from the workshop held the previous day on the topic of Fairness and 
Transparency in Intellectual Property Rights for an  Inclusive International Trade. She said that 
China remain ed open to any discussion  on the three TRIPS issues.  TN/IP/M/32  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.34.   The representative of Argentina  thank ed the Chairperson  for the questions put forward. 
With regard to the first question, she said her delegation believed that in the current context 
the prospect of a  contribution by the Special Session of the TRIPS Council to the  forthcomin g 
Ministerial Conference appeared  problematic.  With regard to the continuation of negotiations after 
the Ministerial Conference, Argentina promised  to be  open to any proposals that respect ed 
the mandate set forth in Article 23.4 of the  TRIPS Agreement, which  was very clear and referred  
only to wine and spirit GIs . 
1.35.   The representative of Australia  said that her delegation, over the years , had been 
a constructive participant in the negotiations on the establishment of a multilateral system for 
notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits within the mandate. 
However, in light of the divergent views regarding the progress for the GI register for wines  and 
spirits today, she said, it was difficult to see the TRIPS Special Session having a role in the lead-up 
to MC11 or achieving any realistic outcome at the Ministerial Conference itself . 
1.36.   She said that Australia had always been open to considering constr uctive proposals within 
the mandate. However, negotiations on the GI Register for wines and spirits had stalled  for some 
time in the absence of engagement on proposal s for future work within the mandate. She said that 
her delegation saw value in assessing future prospects for negotiation after Buenos Aires.  
1.37.   The representative of Nigeria  thanked the  Chairman  for his comprehensive and balanced 
report o n the  state of play which showed  the positions of various groups and Members. 
As co-sponsors of TN/IP/ W/52 as the African Group, he said his delegation would continue to 
engage on these negotiations. He said he agree d with others who had suggested that the  three 
TRIPS issues had to be treated in parallel. Concerning the issue of the  current environment leading 
up to the MC11 preparations, he concurred  with the  statements by Switzerland, South Africa, 
the European Union , Brazil  and India. 
1.38.   The representative of Indonesia  said that, as a m ember of the W /52 coalition, its position 
had not changed. Indonesia  was supportive of advancing the discussion on the  three TRIPS issues 
– the GI Register, the CBD Discl osure as well as the GI extension.  
1.39.   The representative of Colombia  thanked the Chair for the summary of the  general positions. 
He said that , as a m ember of the W/52 coalition, his delegation also considered  that the  three 
issues should be progressed upon at the same time.  
1.40.   The Chair man thanked  the delegations who had taken the floor for their statements . 
As regarded  further work in the near term, he recognized  that there were different views on 
the utility of further meetings ahead of MC11. However, he said, he would  remain in contact with 
interested delegations and any Members that would have constructive suggestions on how to 
reflect the TRIPS Special  Session  negotiations in any Ministerial outcome . He would consider 
calling consultations or other meetings in the coming weeks if they were likely to advance 
the negotiations mandated in the TRIPS Special Session ahead of Buenos  Aires.  
1.41.   He thanked all  delegations for their thoughts and views on the matter and said he would 
reflect these in any reporting to the TNC that he may be called upon to do in the run -up to 
the Ministerial  Conference . As in the past  any such report s would  be expressly be made on his own 
respo nsibility and without prejudice to the positions of delegations and to the outcome of 
the negotiations.  
1.42.   The Special Session took note  of the statements made.  
2  OTHER BUSINESS  
2.1.  As no  delegation wished  to take the floor  under this item , the Chairman closed the meeting.  
 
__________