RESTRICTED  
  
IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
1 September  2016 
(16-4636) Page: 1/52 
Council for Trade -Related Aspects of  
Intellectual Property Rights   
 
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 7 -8 JUNE 2016  
Chairperson : Ambassador Mero (United Republic of Tanzania)  
Addendum  
The present document contains the statements made during the Council for TRIPS meetings held 
on 7-8 June 2016. 
 
_____ __________  
 
 
Subjects discussed  
AGENDA ITEM 1: NOTIF ICATIONS UNDER PROVI SIONS OF THE AGREEME NT ..................  4 
AGENDA ITEM 2: REVIE WS OF NATIONAL IM PLEMENTING LEGISLATI ON ......................  11 
AGENDA ITEM 3: REVIE W OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B)  .............................  11 
AGENDA ITEM 4: RELAT IONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE 
CONVENTION ON BIOLOG ICAL DIVERSITY  ................................ ................................ .... 11 
AGENDA ITEM 5: PROTE CTION OF TRADITIONAL  KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLO RE .............  11 
AGENDA ITEM 6: NON -VIOLATION AND SITUAT ION COMPLAINTS  ................................ . 18 
AGENDA ITEM 7: REVIE W OF THE IMPLEMENTAT ION OF THE TRIPS AGR EEMENT 
UNDER ARTICLE  71.1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 24 
AGENDA ITEM 8: REVIE W OF THE APPLICATION  OF THE PROVISIONS OF  THE 
SECTION ON GEOGRAPHI CAL INDICATIONS UNDE R ARTICLE 24.2  ................................  25 
AGENDA ITEM 9: TECHN ICAL COOPERATION AND  CAPACITY -BUILDING  .......................  25 
AGENDA ITEM 10: IP A ND INNOVATION: SUSTA INABLE RESOURCE AND LOW 
EMISSION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES  ................................ ................................ ...........  25 
AGENDA ITEM 11: W ORK PROGRAMME ON ELE CTRONIC COMMERCE  .............................  42 
AGENDA ITEM 12: INFO RMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHE RE IN 
THE WTO  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  49 
AGENDA ITEM  13: OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL 
INTERGOVERNMENTAL OR GANIZATIONS  ................................ ................................ ....... 51 
AGENDA ITEM 14: OTHE R BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ..............  51 
 IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 2 - 
  INDEX OF THE STATEMENTS MADE  
AT THE MEETING OF CO UNCIL FOR TRIPS 7 -8 JUNE  2016*  
 
Argentina  
Non-Violation, 23  
Australia  
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 38  
Bangladesh  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 13  
E-commerce , 48 
Innovation  
sustainable resou rce and low emission 
technology strategies, 39  
Non-violation, 22  
Benin, on behalf of the LDCs  
Notifications, 7  
Bolivia, Plurinational State of  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 11  
Non-violation, 20  
Brazil  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 11  
E-commerce, 46  
Non-violation , 20, 24  
Notifications, 7  
Canada  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 16  
E-commerce, 42  
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 33  
Non-violation, 21  
Notifications, 5  
Chairman  
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology  strategies, 40  
Non-violation, 24  
Other business , 51 
China  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 15  
E-commerce , 47 
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 39  
Non-violation, 20  
Notifications, 9  
Colombia  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 16  
Non-violation, 23  
Cuba  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 15  
Non-violation, 22  
Ecuador  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 14  
Non-violation, 21  
Other business, 51  
Egypt  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 15  
Non-violation, 23  European Union  
E-commerce, 46  
Innovation  
sustainable resour ce and low emission 
technology strategies, 26  
Non-violation, 24  
Notifications, 4  
India  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 12  
E-commerce, 45  
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 36  
Non-violation, 20  
Notifications, 8  
Indonesia  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 13  
Non-violation, 22  
Notifications, 10  
Japan  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 17  
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 25  
Non-violation, 19  
Notifications, 4  
Korea, Republic of  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 17  
E-commerce, 47  
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 39  
Non-violation, 23  
Mexico  
Notifications, 10  
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group  
Non-violation, 23  
Peru  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 12  
Non-violation, 19  
Russian Fed eration  
Non-violation, 23  
Seychelles  
Developments elsewhere in WTO , 49 
South Africa  
E-commerce , 47 
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 40  
Non-violation, 22  
Notifications, 8  
Switzerland  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 18  
E-commerce, 44  
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 34  
Non-violation, 20  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 3 - 
  Chinese Taipei  
E-commerce, 45  
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 31  
Notifications, 10  
United States  
Biotech, Biodive rsity, TK, 17  
E-commerce, 44  Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 29  
Non-violation, 18  
WTO Secretariat  
Developments elsewhere in WTO , 49 
Innovation  
sustainable resource and low emission 
technology strategies, 41  
Notificat ions, 10  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________  
* 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/82/Add.1  
- 4 - 
  AGENDA ITEM 1: NOTIF ICATIONS UNDER PROVI SIONS OF THE AGREEME NT 
1.1 Japan   
1.  This delegation is pleased to inform the Council that Japan recently amended its major  Acts 
pertaining to intellectual property, such as the Patent Act, t he Design Act and the Trademark Act, 
making notifications to that effect under Article 63.2 to this Council . The reference number s of the 
documents related to the notifications are  as follows : IP/N/1/JPN/ P/12; D/7; T/7; O/10; O/11 and  
O/12. 
2.  The amendments  were made in order to improve Japan's  system for better protecting and 
utilizing IPRs and, thereby, promote innovation in Japan . We would like to touch upon a few points 
of the amendment s. 
3.  Firstly, t he Patent Act was revised in order to encourage invention s, based on revising the 
employee invention system . Several measures were introduced to achieve this purpose .  
4.  Secondly, the Patent Act and the Trademark Act  were revised to reduce the financial burden on 
users for maintaining patent and trademark rights .  
5.  Thirdly, the Patent Act and the Trademark Act were revised so that Japan's  laws could comply 
with the provisions stipulated in the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) and Singapore Treaty on the Law of 
Trademarks (STLT) . 
6.  The Government of Japan will continuously  fulfil its obligation to ensure the accessibility and 
the transparency of the Japanese intellectual property system . 
1.2 European Union   
7.  The main objectives of the trademark reform were to  foster innovation and economic gro wth by 
making trademark systems all over Europe more accessible, efficient and effective for businesses  
and to ensure and develop coexistence and complementarity between the E uropean Union and 
national trademark systems.  
8.  The Recast Directive (EU) 2015/2436  to Approximate the L aws of the Member States relating 
to Trade  Marks entered into force on 12  January  2016. The member States need to transpose the 
new Directive by 14  January  2019. The Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 Amending Regulation 
207/2009 also entered i nto force on 23  March  2016. For the sake of clarity, the Directive intends 
to harmonize the legislations of the different member States each of which has its own national 
trademark system . In Europe these national trademark systems coexist with an EU trade mark 
which is managed by the EU and that was modified by the Regulation , hence this package.  
9.  For the modernization and increase of legal certainty the trademark package changed the 
"community trademark " term to "European Union Trademark " and the name of our Office for 
Harmonization in the I nternal Market  to "European Uni on Intellectual Property Office ". The Office is 
located in Alicante, Spain,  and issues EU trademarks.  
10.  The definition of the trademark was upda ted and  the graphical represent ability requireme nt 
was removed.  This means that signs can be represented in any appropriate form using generally 
available technology, as long as the representation is clear, precise, self -contained, easily 
accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.  
11.  The new Regulati on introduced clear provisions on designation and classification of goods and 
services . After a six -month transitional period all trademarks containing class headings will be 
interpreted according to their literal meaning regardless of their filing date . During the transitional 
period EU trademark owners can adjust the specification of their marks to their original intention 
when they filed the trademark.  
12.  The R egulation introduced the EU certification mark at EU level, but the geographical origin 
was delete d from the list of potential characteristics to be certified.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 5 - 
  13.  The R egulation extended the representation before the EUIPO, pursuant to the new rules  that 
natural and legal persons from the whole European Economic Area can be represented before the 
Office.  
14.  Stronger means to fight against counterfeiting in customs situation s were introduced . It is 
permissible for trademark owners to prevent the entry of infringing goods and their placement in 
all customs situations, also when such goods are not intended to be  placed on the market of the 
relevant member State . The entitlement of trademark owner lapses if the declarant or holder of 
goods is able to prove that the trademark owner is not entitled to prohibit the placing of the goods 
on the market in the country of  final destination.  
15.  The new EU Trade  Mark law does not impede access by patients – and in particular those from 
developing countries and LDCs - to legitimately traded medicines transiting through the EU 
territory . According to EU  law, the proprietor of a t rademark would only be entitled to stop goods 
that bear a trade mark which is identi cal to the European Union trade mark: that is to say, goods 
could be stopped only if they infringe existing trade mark laws, which is a fraudulent activity 
sanctioned by all I PR systems in the world . The new provisions do not apply to confusingly similar 
trademarks or other IPR s such as patents . All in all, the EU is fully committed to all the efforts 
made to facilitate access to medicines for countries in need . The Regulation reminds customs 
authorities of the need to have the Doha Declaration in mind when dealing with "generic " 
medicines in transit.  
16.  In order to streamline the procedures of the European Union Intellectual Property Office the 
Regulation eliminates the possibilit y of filing EU trademark applications through national offices.  
The search regime is maintain ed, but users can choose whether they want to receive EU search 
reports and surveillance letters.  The one -month time period  before publication of trademark 
applica tion was abolished, which will speed up the registration process.  
17.  Very importantly, t he fees for European Union trademarks covering all 28 member States 
were significantly reduced and the a mount of fees and rules on payment became an integral part 
of the R egulation (before they were regulated in a separate Commission  regulation ). The fee levels 
were adjusted to focus on bringing renewal fees down to the level of accession fees.  
18.  The Regulation moves to the one -class-per-fee system at EU level . At national le vel this is 
only optional.  
19.  The new Directive further harmonized national trademark laws including , for example , the 
protection of trademarks with reputation, trademarks as objects of property, collective 
trade marks, procedural rules and classification of g oods and services.  
1.3 Canada   
20.  Canada is pleased to present three notifications under Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement 
today . These notifications will be made available on the notifications website in the coming days . 
We apo logize to Members that they were not made available in advance of the meeting, but would 
like to present on them today and answer any questions.  
21.  Canada 's first notification is titled "Copyright Term of Protection for Sound Recordings and 
Performances ", Bill C/59 : an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in 
Parliament on 2 1 April 2015 and other measures . Bill C/59 amends Canada 's Copyright Act to 
provide sound recordings and performances fixed in sound recordings an additional 20  years of 
copyright protection from the date of publication . Prior to the amendments, sound recordings and 
performances fixed in sound recordings received a period of 50 years of protection from the date 
of publication . The amendments extend the term of protection f ollowing publication from 50 to 70 
years, giving producers of sound recordings and performers an additional 20 years during which 
they have the right to be paid for the use of their recordings . Bill C/59 received royal assent in 
Canada on 2 3 June 2015. The amendments to the Copyright Act have since entered into force.  
22.  Canada 's second notification is titled "Plant Breeders ' Rights  Act", Bill C/18 : the Agricultural 
Growth Act . Bill C/18 amends Canada 's Plant Breeders ' Rights Act . The Bill is designed to 
moder nize Canada 's agricultural legislation and to encourage innovation in the sector . Among the IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 6 - 
  changes are amendments to encourage investment in plant breeding in Canada and to foster more 
accessibility to foreign seed varieties for Canadian farmers . More spe cifically Bill C/18 amends the 
Plants Breeders ' Rights Act to strengthen the rights of plant breeders and improve accessibility to 
protection . It extend s plant breeders ' rights to include reproduction, imports, exports, conditioning 
and stocking for the co mmercial purpose of propagating . 
23.  In addition to the current system that already allows for the sale of propagating material and 
the production of propagating material intended for sale , plant breeders are allowed to sell a 
variety in Canada for up to one y ear before applying for plant breeders ' rights protection in order 
to test the market, advertise or to increase stock, providing automatic provisional protection for a 
new plant variety from the date of filing which will allow applicants to exercise their rights while 
applications are pending grant of rights . For example, no legal action in respect of provisional 
protection could be initiated until after the rights are granted . The protection is extended from 
18 to 25 years for trees, vines or any specified  categories and 20 years for all other crops unless 
the breeder terminates them earlier . Amendments to the Plant Breeders ' Rights Act under Bill C/18 
brought Canada into conformity with the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the 
Protection of New  Varieties of Plants, UPOV  1991. On 19 June 2015, Canada deposited its 
instrument of ratification with the UPOV Secretary -General, becoming the 53rd country to be bound 
by this Convention.  
24.  Canada 's third notification is titled "Patent Act - Order amending Schedule 1 to the Patent Act 
(2014-1)". Canada 's access to medicines regime implements the 3 0 August  2003 Decision of the 
WTO General Council by permitting the grant of export only compulsory licences to pharmaceutical 
manufacturers in Canada who wish to s upply drugs or medical devices to countries unable to 
manufacture their own . The products that are eligible for export under the Canadian Access to 
Medicines regime are listed in Schedule 1 of Canada 's Patent Act . The Order amending Schedule 1 
to the Paten t Act, which Canada is presenting today add three additional HIV /AIDS  treatments to 
Schedule 1 of the Patent Act . When Canada 's Access to Medicines regime was first introduced, 
Schedule 1 was primarily composed of the pharmaceutical products on the World H ealth 
Organization 's model list of essential medicines that were patented in Canada at that time . The 
model list of essential medicines represents the minimum medicine needs for a basic healthcare 
system and at the same time, provide s a baseline to ensure that Canada 's Access to Medicines 
regime was able to meet the basic healthcare needs of developing and LDCs in a clear and 
transparent manner.  
25.  Schedule 1 has been previously amended twice . The first amendment added a name of a 
fixed-dose combination consis ting of three anti -retroviral agents used in the treatment of 
HIV/A IDS. The second amendment added a name of a treatment for Type A and Type B influenza.  
26.  The amendment to Schedule 1 under the present notificatio n adds the names of 
three  additional HIV/A IDS treatments . The objectives of the amendment are twofold . First, it 
ensure that Canada 's Access to Medicines regime remains current with the evolving public health 
needs of developing and LDCs. The three treatments being added to the Schedule are considere d 
by the World Health Organization as essential to the minimum needs of a basic healthcare system 
and are listed on the current model list of essential medicines . Second, adding these treatments to 
Schedule 1 now ensures that a generic manufacturer can come forward with an application under 
Canada 's Access to Medicines regime for an authorization to manufacture and export these 
products to an eligible country . The Canadian Commissioner of Patents would be in a position to 
issue an authorization without dela y. 
27.  The stated purpose of Canada 's Access to Medicines regime is to increase access to lower cost 
generic versions of patented pharmaceutical products in order to address public health problems in 
developing countries . The amendment to Schedule 1 presented today is in line with this purpose 
by ensuring that Canada 's Access to Medicines regime is able to respond to evolving public health 
needs and further underlines Canada 's commitment to the TRIPS Paragraph 6 system, including 
the Protocol Amending the TRIPS  Agreement which we are hopeful will enter into force this year . 
We would be pleased to answer any questions or receive  comments on any of these 
three  notifications.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 7 - 
  1.4 Benin, on behalf of the LDC  Group   
28.  I would like to thank Canada for this very interesting information brought to our knowledge . 
On behalf of the LDC Group, I would like to ask whether Canada could make available a copy of his 
statement  to the LDC s. 
1.5 Canada  
29.  Canada would be pleased to make  a copy of our statement available following the meeting 
and in addition there will be detailed information included in the notification including links to the 
legislation in English and in French that can be consulted . We are happy to take further questio ns 
following this TRIPS Council or at the next TRIPS Council should there be interest.  
1.6 Brazil   
30.  We would like to make reference to the EU Trademark Directive and Trademark Regulation to 
share our concerns related to possible  restrictions to the transit of legitimate goods  that might be 
caused by this Directive . 
31.  The issue of abuse of enforcement actions of IPRs on goods in transit is unfortunately not a 
new one in this Council . In December 2008, a shipment of a generic medicin e from India with 
destination to Brazil was unlawfully detained while in transit in the Netherlands . At the time, both 
Brazil and India expressed their full disagreement with the misuse of enforcement procedures by 
right holders, which prevented the supply  of a life -saving medicine to the Brazilian public health 
system . Those actions provided the basis for a request for consultations with the EU by Brazil and 
India questioning such seizures.  
32.  Brazil is aware of the damages brought by counterfeiting . Efforts by the Government and the 
private sector to curb the commercialization of such goods due to their negative effects to 
producers and consumers led to the creation of the National Council for the Combat of Piracy and 
Counterfeiting . As the experience of WTO Members from all regions shows, fighting counterfeit and 
piracy is a non -stop activity which poses a number of challenges to enforcement agencies.  
33.  The enforcement of such rights, however, is not in a void of international trade law . Rules in 
WTO agreements  treat freedom of transit as a basic tenet . While Parties may require the 
compliance of some provisions by goods in transit, they shall not be subject to unnecessary delays 
or restrictions ; furthermore, those provisions imposed by contracting parties on tr affic in transit to 
or from the territories of other contracting parties shall be reasonable . In this regard, many 
questions arise when examining the European Union's  recent Regulation  and Directive . While 
references to the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Pu blic Health are made in the recitals  of the 
Regulation and the Directive, they are not reflected in the operative part of the texts.  
34.  Additionally, we have specific concerns as to the burden on the proprietor of legitimate goods 
in transit to prove that the y do not infringe any trademark right . Contrary to what would be 
expected in such conditions, it is the proprietor of the good that is responsible to provide evidence 
that the proprietor of the EU trademark is not entitled to prohibit the placing of the go ods on the 
market in the country of final destination . The declarant or holder of the goods however, may not 
have easy access to the customs or judicial system in the country of transit, perhaps because they 
are not based in that country.  
35.  Furthermore, ther e are few or no safeguards against the abuse of enforcement procedures . It 
is not clear how proprietors of goods targeted by illegal and/or illegitimate enforcement procedures 
should proceed in order to redress the eventual commercial damages caused by the  suspension of 
release of such goods.  
36.  Right holders initiating an enforcement procedure, thus, have considerable leeway when 
deciding to pursue their rights or not, with the burden falling disproportionally on the proprietor of 
the goods in transit in orde r to provide evidence that there is no violation of rights in the country 
of destination . Such a condition would not appear to be conducive to the adequate treatment of 
the matter, but would seem rather as creating unnecessary complications and becoming a barrier 
to legitimate trade.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 8 - 
  37.  The rule s-based system Members sought to build and strengthen in the WTO is paramount for 
international trade relations . Therefore, adequate balance should be provided in this matter, and 
we remain open to discuss with the EU , the compatibility between the new directive wit h the 
TRIPS  Agreement  and other WTO agreement s. 
1.7 India   
38.  We would like to thank the delegation of the European Union for notification of the EU  
Trademark Directive (EU) 2015/2436 contained in document IP/N/1/EU/T/5 and the EU Trademark 
Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 contained in document IP/N/1/EU/T/6.  
39.  We have noted that the Directive modernizes and improves the trademark systems of the 
EU member States, by amending outdated provisions,  increasing legal certainty and clarifying 
trademark rights in terms of their scope and limitations . We have further noted that the 
Regulation, inter alia, streamlines proceedings of the European Union Intellectual Property Office 
(EUIPO) and increases leg al certainty . It defines clearly all the EUIPO 's tasks including the 
framework for cooperation and convergence of practices between the EUIPO and the industrial 
property offices of the member States.  
40.  However, India feels that  some of the provisions in the Regulation allows EU authorities to 
confiscate or seize goods, originating from one country and destined for a third country, while in 
transit through the EU and apparently, without the need for any evidence or any suspicion that it 
would be imported into the EU market . We feel that these provisions will have profound impact on 
the access to affordable generic medicines in many countries, as the provisions in the new 
Trademark Regulation could create barriers to legitimate generic medicines in transit throu gh the 
EU. 
41.  India does not support the trade of counterfeits . However, the concern would be on the 
seizure of goods with trademarks legitimately registered in either the Indian jurisdiction or the 
jurisdiction of the country of destination, but not in the E uropean Union . Further, this issue may 
extend to generics as well . From the text of the new EU trademark directive and regulation, it 
appears that an exception is being created for the purposes of "generics " but the same is limited 
to the active ingredient s with international non -proprietary names (INN) and not to generic 
medicines in transit . Moreover, the enforceability of the exception -making recitals remains 
questionable since it is part of the Preamble and not a substantive provision.  
42.  While abstaining from voting during the adoption of the trademark reform package by the EU 
Council of Ministers in November  2015, the Netherlands stated that  "these provisions will introduce 
the possibility to detain goods on account of possible infringement of a national or EU trademark, 
where those goods are merely in transit through EU territory . The Netherlands believes that the 
proposed measure will put a disproportionate and unnecessary burden on holders of goods and an 
impediment to legitimate international trade, in cluding for legitimate generic medicines . The 
Netherlands has had a negative experience in 2008 with detaining medicines in transit and does 
not want that to happen again ". 
43.  We would support the statement made by Brazil which also refers to the disputes whi ch India 
and Brazil filed when this episode of importing of medicines at the airport in the Netherlands 
happened in 2008 .  
44.  I conclude by stating that India raises serious concern on the new EU Regulation and Directive 
on trademarks . They appear t o violate Articles 16, 51 and 52 of the TRIP S Agreement, to the 
extent that the measure in question fails to make a categoric al distinction between goods in transit 
that pose a risk of diversion into the EU market and those that do not . We once again urge the 
Europe an Union to reconsider the relevant  provisions of the Directive and Regulation.  
1.8 South Africa   
45.  We thank the delegate from the European Union for his presentation on the EU Trademark 
package . This delegation is concerne d about various aspects of the Trademark package that may 
impact on goods that are in transit in the EU territory, including generic medicines . The Regulation IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 9 - 
  allows, inter alia , EU authorities to confiscate goods not destined for the EU market without 
adequate evidence or  any suspicion to this effect.  
46.  These provisions may profoundly affect the access to affordable generic medicine s in many 
countries . The explanation given by the distinguished delegate from the European Union that 
goods will only be interce pted if a trade mark in question is identical to an EU trademark  raises 
many logistical and legal questions . The application of this system to  goods that are in transit will 
unnecessarily and disproportionately burden the holder of goods and impede legitim ate 
international trade in this respect.  
47.  In concluding, this delegation wishes to express its support for the interventions by the 
distinguished delegates from Brazil and India.  
1.9 European Union  
48.  I would like to recall that the purpose of these kinds of me asures is to combat illegal traffic 
which is the traffic of counterfeit goods . It does c ertainly not particularly target pharmaceuticals, 
quite to the contrary . Pharmaceuticals are highlighted in this legislation because in relation to this 
type of product  it is necessary to have a particular level of caution to prevent that there would be 
any undue detentions . I see in the debate considerable confusion being created between 
counterfeits and generics . This is a very strange kind of confusion . I think the se paration between 
the two types of products is very clear.  
49.  There was also reference, again I thank the memory of some of my colleagues, about a set of 
inciden ts around eight years ago that never repeated themselves , in a totally unrelated situation . 
We were  talking there about suspicions about patent infringements which had nothing to do with 
what we are talking about here . In the meantime, measures were taken for these inciden ts not to 
repeat themselves and they did not . These laws that allow customs author ities to detain infringing 
goods that are under their control are not that much different from the law and jurisprudence, for 
instance of Brazil which allows for the same . It is possible for customs to act against illegal goods 
when they are under customs control . So frankly I do not know where the idea comes from, that 
all of this is done without the need for providing any evidence . A quick browse of the legislation 
does not need a detailed legal analysis . We will clarify this confusion . Customs authoritie s have the 
power to detain goods . Finding that the goods are infringing or not and that , therefore, they can 
be removed from the channels of trade is done by a court so obviously there is need for all kinds 
of evidence and due process.  
50.  This being said, we are, of course, happy to bilaterally continue to engage with the countries 
who have doubts and provide them continued reassurance that what has not happened in the last 
eight years will continue not to happen . I would say certainly you can have the assumpt ion that 
these are fairly dangerous products . I would certainly not be giving them to one of my family 
members . Playing with names and with falsifying or confusing consumers about the name is 
something that deserves to be particularly controlled . Goods con cerned should be detained if the 
situation arises.  
1.10 China   
51.  China would like to share the concerns raised by Brazil, India and South Africa on the EU's  
new Trademark Regulation . China believes that the Regulation will potenti ally create risks and 
uncertainties to international trade, especially to those goods in transit.  
52.  China would like to recall that it is well -known by Members that the TRIPS Agreement 
provides obligations for all Members to protect IPRs . These obligations a re implemented through 
Members ' domestic legal systems and practices . Even if these systems and practices are distinctive 
from each other, refraining from enforcement against goods in transit is broadly r ecognized as 
international norm and common practice . 
53.  China believes that, while taking unilateral measures, Members have to take into account the 
purpose of the TRIPS Agreement, as well as the multilateral rules which have been established 
within other WTO agreements . Inappropriate actions against goods in transit go far beyond the IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 10 - 
  current international norms and practices and will create burdensome and unnecessary restrictions 
to legitimate international trade, such as generic medicines.  
54.  Based on the above -mentioned comments, China would like to invite the EU to take Members ' 
concerns into consideration  and to ensure the appropriate application of the new Trademark 
Regulation in order to avoid any impediment to legitimate international trade.  
1.11 Indonesia   
55.  Indonesia also sha res the same concern with other Members in the newly introduced Directive 
by the EU . Indonesia would like to thank the EU for the no tification of the new Trademark  Directive 
in order to promote transparency of the enforcement of IPR.  
56.  Under the Doha Declara tion it is emphasized that there is an urgency that the TRIPS 
Agreement be part of the wider national and international action to address public health 
problems, among others , by promoting access to medicines for developing countries and LDCs . In 
line with  the effort , the smoothness of transit of goods, in particular generic medicine, also needs 
to be ensured . The Directive should not create an unnecessary burden which may impede trade . 
We should support the notion of improving the flow of goods across bord ers and to reduce total 
trade costs . In this light, we do hope that the implementation of the new Directive will respect and 
observe the flexibility developing countries and LDCs have from the Declaration of TRIPS and 
Public Health, especially as regard the access to affordable Doha generic medicines , taking into 
account of their good quality, safety and efficacy.  
1.12 Mexico   
57.  My delegation submitted a series of documents . They refer to modifications and amendments 
relating to g eographical  indications, Mezcal, copyright including the copyright institute 's overall  
responsibility , provisions/aspects related to broadcasting, public utility and heritage . These were 
submitted to you according to the different headings as they appear o n our agenda that you have 
the opportunity , of course , to consult . 
1.13 Secretariat  
58.  At the last session of the Council we gave an extensive update and illustration of the progress 
made in what is a complete overhaul of  the mechanics of the system of managing the receipt and 
processing of notifications and other review material  under the TRIPS Agreement . The update on 
this project this time will be very brief indeed because , due to constraints , we have not progressed 
since the last session of the Council.  The work on this project will resume, indeed, next week . This  
resumption of work has two specific practical implications for delegations . Firstly, we will be 
holding an informal workshop and demonstration towards the en d of this month and will be 
inviting delegations to take part . It will be a hands -on exercise , to work with you so as to get a 
sense of how the new system will operate and to get your direct feedback as practitioners  and 
users . Further details will be comm unicated in due course . The second aspect is that as we 
approach the end of the year session, the November session of the Council, there is typically a 
large increase in the volume of notifications and other review materials . We would encourage 
delegations  to get in touch with us informally because even in advance of the implementation of 
the full system which we will continue to work with and consult on, we do have interim 
arrangements, practical arrangements that should make it easier for you to make thes e 
submissions . So those two practical points are really the essence today and we will be following up 
with interested delegations later this month and in the busy period leading up to the November 
session.  
1.14 Chinese Taipei   
59.  I would like to send a message to Japan, Canada, Mexico and the EU and thank them for their 
notifications under the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement . I do believe that the discussion today is 
a very constructive one . I would also like to encourage  other Members to continue fulfilling their 
obligations under the Agreement – namely Article 63 – so as to promote transparency of the 
IPR system . I would also like to thank the Secretariat once again for preparing today 's meeting 
and for their very intere sting presentation on the project of electronic  notifications . My delegation IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 11 - 
  would be very happy to take part in the workshop mentioned by the Secretariat and to work with 
the Secretariat and all Members so as to create a notification system which is maybe  more 
user-friendly and of course easier to live with.  
AGENDA ITEM 2: REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION  
No statements  were made  under this a genda item . 
 
AGENDA ITEM 3: REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B)  
AGENDA ITEM 4: RELATIONSHIP BETWE EN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE 
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  
AGENDA ITEM 5: PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  
5.1 Brazil   
60.  Brazil has a well -known position regarding the importance of promoting th e mu tual support 
between the TRIPS A greement and the Convention on Biological Diversity . For us, enhancing the 
transparency in the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, through 
the introduction in the TRIPS Agreement of a m andatory requirement for the disclosure of the 
origin of these resources in patent applications, is an important objective . A multilateral and 
mandatory disclosure would be the most effective way to address the misappropriation of genetic 
resources and tra ditional knowledge . This requirement would allow the identification of the country 
supplying the biological resource by requiring patent applicants to disclose the country of origin 
and provide evidence of compliance with prior informed consent and benefit  sharing . It would also 
enhance transparency and contribute to patent examinations by providing additional information to 
IP Offices.  
61.  In this regard, I would like to restate here the terms of the proposal detailed in document 
TN/C/W/59, particularly regard ing its foreseen mechanism to prevent the misappropriation of 
genetic resources and traditional knowledge and the grant of erroneous patents, reiterating the 
understanding that the patent offices would not be overloaded with extra work, since they would 
be just checking -points in the new system.  
62.  For these reasons, we support  the amendment of the TRIPS Agreement through the 
introduction of a mandatory requirement for the disclosure of origin of genetic resources and 
traditional knowledge in patent applicatio ns, as expressed in our proposal, document TN/C/W/59.  
5.2 Bolivia, Plurinational State of   
63.  As all delegates know, the examin ation of paragraph 3(b) of Article 27 is one of the issues 
which i s included in the Doha Agenda for Development and paragraph 19 of the Ministerial 
Declaration of Doha of 2001 . It is one of the issues also included in the Work Programme and 
within the framework of the questions relating to this concern . Paragraph 12 of t he Ministerial 
Declaration of Doha mentioned the adoption of the decision on questions and concerns regarding 
the implementation and application with a view to look ing into different implementation issues 
which are of concern to Members.  
64.  It also clearly as serts that the negotiations on pending issues regarding implementation were 
part and parcel of the Work Programme . This is a legal basis and according to the last 
developments of the multilateral system, it is important that the TRIPS Council and WTO adopt  the 
necessary measures so as to amend or clarify Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement in order  to 
be able to prohibit the possibility of patenting all forms of life and to protect rights of farmers and 
genetic resources and traditional knowledge and fol klore of developing countries . As we all know, 
the adoption of paragraph 3(b) of Article 27 establishes that Members must provide for t he 
patenting of microorganisms and non -biological procedures and also gives Members the possibility 
of granting  patents o n plants and animals as well as on procedures which are essentially biological . 
This situation has led to the proliferation of policies and laws which enable that forms of life are 
patentable . Paragraph 3(b) o f Article 27  provides for the extension of the concept of invention IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 12 - 
  which leads  to the  patents of discoveries of functions and characteristics of living organisms, 
genetic resources or derivatives.  
65.  To finalize, we would like to say that we welcome any initiative aimed at restarting our work 
on this mat ter with a view to achieving a balance in the system which will enable those who have 
genetic resources to offer the necessary protection to genetic resources in line with the provisions 
of the CBD.  
5.3 India   
66.  We sup port the statement made by Brazil . India has been a major victim of biopiracy . 
Pursuant to  the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), India developed a 
comprehensive legislation on biodiversity, enacted the Biological Diversity Act i n 2002 and notified 
Biological Diversity Rules in 2004 . In 2003 , the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) was set up . 
All matters relating to requests for access by foreign individuals, institutions or companies, and all 
matters relating to transfer of re sults of research to any foreigner are dealt with by the National 
Biodiversity Authority.  
67.  The Government of India has also developed a Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) 
database to prevent misappropriation of traditional knowledge at internation al patent offices so 
that cases of biopiracy can be prevented.  
68.  While India is undertaking a number of measures at the national level in order to prevent 
misappropriation of genetic resources and/or associated traditional knowledge, the problem has an 
obvio us international dimension and needs an international solution in order to be addressed 
effectively . The TRIPS Agreement continues to ignore the numerous IPR -related obligations in the 
CBD which are of interest to the developing countries . The disclosure p roposal (IP/C/W/474) which 
was submitted in 2006 was followed up by the submission TN/C/W/52 in June 2008 with the 
support of 109 Members . The latest submission contained in document  TN/C/W/59 in April 2011, 
which is a draft decision to enhance mutual supp ortiveness between the TRIPS Agreement and the 
CBD has been proposed by a vast majority of WTO Members, including India . This proposal seeks 
an amendment of the TRIPS Agreement by inclusion of a new Article 29 bis for disclosure of origin 
of genetic resour ces and/or associated traditional knowledge . A mandatory requirement in patent 
applications to include disclosure of origin and evidence of prior informed consent and access and 
benefit sharing, would, in addition to combating biopiracy, further strengthen  the credibility of the 
patent system by facilitating assessment of the novelty and inventiveness criteria.  
69.  The Nagoya Protocol of the Convention on Bio logical Diversity (CBD) entered into force on 
12 October  2014. So far 74 c ountries, including India and the European Union have ratified the 
Protocol . According to the CBD website, the Access and Benefit -Sharing Clearing -House (ABS -CH), 
which is a platform for exchanging information on access and benefit -sharing established under 
Article  14 of the Protocol, is a key tool for facilitating the implem entation of the Nagoya Protocol. It  
enhanc es legal certainty and transparency on procedures for access, and monitor s the utilization of 
genetic resources along the value chain, including through the internationally recognized certificate 
of compliance.  
70.  In view of the entry into force of the N agoya Protocol and operationaliz ation of the Access and 
Benefit Sharing Clearing House, there is now an urgency to request the CBD Secretariat to brief 
the TRIPS Council regardin g the implications of the entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol . We 
reiterate our demand for a formal briefing by the CBD Secretariat in the interest of the large 
majority of developi ng countries . We also support Ec uador 's proposal for updating the three  factual 
summary notes  by the Secretariat . 
5.4 Peru   
71.  Peru would like to support what has been said by Brazil,  Bolivia and India . We are fully 
convinced of the importance of the intellectual property system as a tool f or the economic, social 
and cultural development of our countries . Therefore, our country also would like to highlight how 
important it is to deal with this matter as part and parcel of the pending issues regarding the 
implementation as mentioned in paragr aph 12 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration . We believe that 
it is only through balanced  results that really deal  with biopiracy that we will be able to establish IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 13 - 
  the appropriate balance in the system of patents and IPRs which will, of course, benefit us al l, 
especially the local communities, indigenous peoples of developing countries.  
72.  As we have already said on other occasions, this req uires a multilateral regulation. T his will 
probably be the most efficient way of looking into the international issue regar ding traditional 
knowledge and folklore because it will enable all countries to identify the country providing 
biological resources and would demand that those filing patents indicate the c ountry of origin . We 
would also highlight that evidence has to be p rovided for prior consent and benefit sharing. T his, 
together with a need to improve the system so as to avoid biopiracy which, of course, runs counter 
to the interests of developing countries has led us to co-sponsor document TN/C/W/52 as well as 
document  TN/C/W/59 on the strengthening of the relationship between the TRIP S Agreement and 
the Convention on Biodiversity.  
73.  Peru, in this way, would like to protect the access to generic resources which will, of course, 
give support to all, but also to Peru 's loca l populations. It will recognize the right of peoples to the 
entitlement of their genetic resources.  
74.  In the light of what I have said, we think that it is absolutely necessary that the TRIPS Council 
reflect on this under your leadership through informal co nsultations so as to see which is the best 
way of touching upon these issues so that we really deal with the concerns of Members.  
5.5 Bangladesh   
75.  Bangladesh does  not support patenting of life forms of plants and  animals as per domestic 
laws and also on moral and ethical grounds . We believe that States are sovereign and traditional 
knowledge and genetic resources belong to either indigenous people or to the State as the case 
may be. Resources of nature, like plant s and animals, belong to the whole mankind and 
safeguarding the genetic resources and traditional knowledge and folklore is imperative to protect 
them from being misappropriated in the form of patents on non -original innovation.  
76.  This has been a matter of g reat concern for the developing countries and LDCs . We think that 
this could be protected by effective disclosure mechanisms and by obtaining prior informed 
consent . The TRIPS CBD harmonization issue has been a critical implementation issue for all the 
developing countries and LDCs . Both the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, as well as  the 
subsequent Nagoya Protocol broadly uphold the use of innovation for the development of the 
people and we consider these two Agreements as complementary to each other.  
77.  The CBD has provided for the establishment of legitimate rights of genetic resources and it is 
only normal that patent applicants would disclose the source of invention if the y access and use 
particular genetic resources, of which they are not the rightful owner . The disclosure requirement 
is also consistent with the transferring principle established in the multilateral trading system and 
will help reduce the number of erroneous patents and biopiracy.  
78.  This mechanism will also ensure the access to beneficiaries and  to the rightful owners of the 
resources . Many developed countries have their disclosure requirement in their domestic IP 
legislation and this does not pose any problem to administering their patent laws . We hope that 
the mandate provided for in paragraph 19 of the Doha Declaration and which have been reinforced 
in subsequent Ministerial Declarations will be implemented in an early and constructive manner.  
79.  Since you have expressed your concern regarding the lack of movement about these three 
items, I would say that we have been discussing these three agenda items together as per 
traditional for a long time . I now leave it to you and the wise consideration of Members whether 
the time has come to take up the issues separately to give them proper individual foc us. Dealing 
with them together has so far produced little result . We believe that this effort of considering them 
separately may be worth a try.  
5.6 Indon esia  
80.  Our delegation views the issues of the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the 
Convention on Biological Diversity as well as the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore 
under these Agenda Items of great importance . It is essential that bold steps be taken by all IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 14 - 
  countries to address the ma tter in a concrete and fruitful manner for substantive progress to be 
made within the WTO.  
81.  Indonesia emphasizes the need to have cohesion, coherence, and consistency of the TRIPS 
Agreement and the CBD . Implementation of the two international instruments ne eds to be 
mutually supportive and not run counter to their respective objectives . To this end, our delegation 
believes that we should focus on the objectives, definitions and principles of the CBD and also the 
Nagoya Protocol, in particular the provisions of prior informed consent for access and fair and 
equitable benefit sharing . These set the foundation for the protection of genetic resources and 
associated traditional knowledge . However, Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement does not oblige 
Members to t ake necessary measures for fair and equitable sharing of benefits as required by the 
CBD and the Nagoya Protocol . Such inconsistency allows room for misappropriation and misuse 
which would defeat the purpose of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol.  
82.  Most Members  of WTO are also members of the CBD and many of us are also members of the 
Nagoya Protocol . We should harmonize the TRIPS with  the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol as a 
coherent and unified international legal system . Given the fact that the protection of genet ic 
resources, traditional knowledge, and folklore is very crucial for developing countries such as 
Indonesia, we reiterate  the urgency of enhancing the discipline of mandatory disclosure 
requirements with regard to Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
83.  Indone sia views that a legal obligation to establish a mandatory disclosure requirement in 
patent applications is important to prevent misappropriation of genetic resources . A mandatory 
requirement will also ensure transparency and efficacy of the patent system . Our delegation views 
that a mandatory disclosure requirement can provide a greater legal certainty for the IP system 
itself.  
84.  One of the core objectives of the IP system is to contribute to the mutual advantage of 
producers and users of technological knowl edge in a manner conducive to social and economic 
welfare and to a balance of rights and obligations . This objective can be achieved by having a 
mandatory disclosure requirement which will create a balance of rights and obligations between 
the providers an d users of genetic resources as well as local communities who are the 
holder/beneficiaries of the associated traditional knowledge . In order to achieve this, an 
amendment to the TRIPS Agreement to include a provision on mandatory disclosure requirement is 
necessary.  
85.  Indonesia also sees the need to take into account discussion of these issues in several 
multilateral for a, especially with regard to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 
Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources , Traditional K nowledge and Folklore  (GRTKF) 
in WIPO . The SDGs urge to promote fair and equitable benefit sharing arising from the utilization 
of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources as one of their targets in 
order to achieve one of the goa ls of the future agenda of global development that replaced the 
Millennium Development Goals . Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Committee on GRTKF in WIPO 
is pursuing the establishment of a sui generis  regime in the protection of GRTKF . These 
negotiations c an highlight the importance of the issues and complement each other to produce a 
fairer, more balanced and effective protection regime of GRTKF . Therefore, we call upon the 
Council to give simultaneous and adequate attention to address issues towards commo n efforts in 
other fora to ensure that GRTKF are protected and utilized in an appropriate manner.  
86.  Last but not least, our goal can only be achieved through sincere cooperation and partnership 
among all stakeholders . Hence, Indonesia invites other Members t o strengthen their  commitment 
and stimulate further dialogue to accomplish the desired results.  
5.7 Ecuador   
87.  Ecuador has repeatedly argued in this Council that an analysis and discussions should be 
undertaken to re vise Article 27.3(b) so as to enable the Council to reflect on the patentability of all 
life forms or parts thereof.  
88.  This type of patent should be prohibited, since life or parts thereof should not be considered a 
tradeable good subject to inventions and, therefore, patents.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 15 - 
  89.  We reiterate the need for multilateral legal instruments that can improve the use of genetic 
resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, and give them effective and 
adequate protection. In this regard, Ecuador  believes there is a need to establish legal 
mechanisms to allow disclosure of the source of origin, prior informed consent, and access to, and 
the equitable sharing of benefits. As a result, Ecuador firmly believes in the relationship between 
the TRIPS Ag reement and the CBD.  
90.  Furthermore, we reiterate our support for the proposal that the Convention Secretariat inform 
this Council of the negotiations conducted in the framework of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to 
Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. The 
information provided will help to enhance our judgement, thus improving the quality of our 
discussions.  
91.  Finally, Ecuador raised the possibility that the Secretariat prepare an update of the factual 
notes on previous topics, since the last compilation of the ideas discussed was produced in 2006. 
We believe that updated versions of documents IP/C/W/368/Rev.1/Corr.1, IP/C/W/369/Rev.1 and 
IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 would provide us with a clearer idea of what had al ready been discussed a 
number of years ago.  
5.8 Egypt   
92.  The protection of biological resources, traditional knowledge and folklore presents an 
important developmental issue for Egypt . In view of the importance of this  issue, we continue to 
support engagement in full negotiations on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the 
Convention on Biological Diversity, which is a critical part of the Implementation -Related Issues 
and Concerns as contained in the Doha W ork Programme . Therefore, we urge other Members to 
engage in this issue of prime importance to developing countries, as part of the conclusion of the 
DDA. 
93.  Technical discussions on this issue have been ongoing for almost a decade so far . We believe 
that the  TRIPS Agreement should be amended in order to provide that Members shall require an 
applicant for a patent relating to biological materials or associated traditional knowledge to 
disclose the source and country of origin of the biological resource and the  associated traditional 
knowledge used in the invention . Furthermore, the applicant shall also provide evidence of prior 
informed consent and evidence of fair and equitable benefit sharing unde r the relevant national 
regime.  
94.  Egypt continues to encourage th e engagement of the Director -General in his mandated 
consultative process on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on 
Biological Diversity . We look forward to the outcome of this kind of con sultations, and we request 
all Members t o constructively engage therein, taking into consideration that this issue is one of 
high priority for developing and LDCs. 
5.9 Cuba   
95.  My delegation would like to support what was said by Peru, Brazil, Plurinational St ate of 
Bolivia , Indonesia, India and other Members on the need to activate our discussions so as to make 
disclosure mandatory for genetic resources and also prior informed consent . This is the position of 
my delegation and we are ready to work so as to ach ieve this objective.  
96.  We would also like to support the request made by Ecuador on several occasions on the need 
to update the factual briefs . We see no problem in this being done . It would be very useful to have 
this update.  
5.10 China   
97.  China 's position on the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD was clearly stated during the last 
Council meeting in March and it has been reflected consistently in documents TN/C/W/52 and 
TN/C/W/59 . China notes that the two documents were co -sponsored  by the majority of Members 
and could serve a s a sound basis for Members ' discussion.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 16 - 
  98.  As regard s the introduction of  a mandatory disclosure requirement  in the TRIPS Agreement , 
China believes it could improve the transparency and help prevent misappro priation and erroneous 
patents granted due to the lack of information by patent examiners . At the same time, China does 
not think it would be burdensome for the patent applicant to provide the information concerning 
prior informed consent and access and be nefit sharing, especially considering the legitimate 
objective pursued by the system.  
99.  China would like to support inviting the CBD Secretariat to brief the TRIPS Council on Nagoya 
Protocol . Such a brief will improve Members ' understanding of the protection  of genetic resources, 
and strengthen the collaborative efforts between WTO and other international organizations.  
100.  Also, China would like to request to update the three factual notes, which are 
IP/C/W/368/Rev.1, IP/C/W /369/Rev.1 and IP/C/W/370/Rev.1,  so that Members could be provided 
with helpful information for constructive debates, since the last updates were made ten years ago.  
5.11 Colombia   
101.  Colombia has repeatedly stated that the protection and sustainable use  of genetic resources, 
traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions is only really possible through the 
introduction of clear international rules and obligations to guarantee adherence to the principles 
and objectives assumed under the United  Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and 
the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits 
Arising from their Utilization . The only way of achieving a genuinely inclusive intellectual property 
system is to find solutions that can benefit all Members, solutions that include these issues of 
particular importance to the developing countries and the LDCs.  
102.  The Doha Declaration states that work in the Council should also look at the relationship 
between  the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, while fully taking into 
account the development objectives . Nevertheless, two decades later we have seen no progress . 
Now, after MC10, we have a fresh opportunity to move the negotiations for ward. The Council 
should therefore ensure that this interest, which is shared by the majority of Members, is at long 
last taken on board, and steer the discussions towards a satisfactory conclusion.  
5.12 Canada   
103.  Canada continues to believe that the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological 
Diversity are mutually supportive a greements and that there is therefore no need to amend the 
TRIPS Agreement in this regard.  
104.  However, Canada is not opposed to holding a bri efing by the CBD Secretariat in the TRIPS 
Council in the spirit of cooperati on and dialogue in this Council, should there be sufficient interest 
from Members.  
105.  We are also not opposed to the suggestion that the Secretariat update the three factual 
briefs . This would all, of course, be without prejudice to national positions.  
106.  Canada welcomes the ongoing work of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on 
Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore – the IGC . Canada 
continues to  believe that the IGC is the best and most appropriate forum for discussion of these 
complex issues until such time its outcomes are secured by our experts on these matters under 
the IGC 's intensive schedule of activities.  
107.  Canada is an active and committe d participant in that important work . Canada takes note of 
the concrete discussions and exchange of national experiences at the recent session of the IGC 
and continues ongoing work in the IGC with a view to accurately pinpointing the issues at hand 
and ide ntifying appropriate mutually beneficial approaches to these issues.  
108.  Canada also wishes to reiterate our view that matters relating to Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS 
are an implementation issue as outlined in the Doha Ministerial Declaration – not a negotiat ion 
issue. Canada also believes that the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD is IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 17 - 
  also an implementation issue , as are protection of traditional knowledge and folklore . We continue 
to support approaches on these issues that provide for natio nal policy flexibility on these matters.  
5.13 Japan   
109.  The delegation of Japan would like to reiterate our position that it is necessary to seek 
appropriate ways to deal with the misappr opriation of genetic resources. But we have to, at the 
same time, bear in mind that any measures taken should not adversely affect the existing 
intellectual property system or innovation utilizing genetic resources and associated traditional 
knowledge.  
110.  At the last C ouncil meeting in Marc h, this delegation outlined the negative impact that the 
disclosure requirement would have on innovation . Namely, it would cause industries to discourage 
R&D activities on biological materials overseas . This is the very consequence of the disclosure 
requir ement that we have been concerned about . Therefore, we believe that the disclosure 
requirement is not an adequate means for dealing with such misappropriation and should not be 
included in the intellectual property system.  
111.  Concerning these issues, we belie ve the WIPO IGC is the most appropriate forum for holding 
technical discussions on IP aspects . The 30th Session of the IGC was held just last week . Japan 
also actively contributed to the discussion in that session . We believe that discussions in the WIPO 
IGC should be prioritized, since WIPO is one of the most appropriate international organizations 
that specialize in IP.  
5.14 Korea, Republic of   
112.  On these agenda items, our delegation's  position will be th e same . I will repeat our 
delegation is not in favour of the revision of the Article 27.3(b) as we believe that the current 
provision o f the necessary flexibilities  allow Members to protect biotechnological inventions with in 
the specific protection systems . 
113.  We do believe also that WIPO is the appropriate forum to deal with these issues.  
5.15 United States   
114.  Regarding genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore, we continue to believe, as 
others have i dentified, that WIPO serves as the best forum to address these issues.  
115.  With regard to these three agenda items we discuss together, progress is not a function of 
modalities, whether these items are treated separately or together in different modes, or a br iefing 
by the Secretariats of other international organizations or factual notes . Progress here, on this 
issue, is a function of the divisive nature of this issue, of the continued divergences of positions on 
these issues and perhaps of our continued lack of understanding regarding some of the 
inconsistencies that we have heard with respect to support for some or other provisions or some or 
other positions under this agenda item . For example, we have heard today that genetic resources 
are both sovereignly h eld or held by indigenous communities or by all of mankind and we struggle 
to reconcile how those can work together.  
116.  We also hear today while many delegations oppose patenting of certain life forms, that when 
they are patented, there should be disclosure r equirements . Again, there appears to be a 
fundamental inconsistency regarding positions on these different issues . So we would certainly 
welcome more information and a better understanding from delegations about how to reconcile 
these inconsistencies.  
117.  Finally, with respect to the various requests that have been made today with respect to 
briefings and summary notes, the United States is not in a position to support these requests, but 
again, remains open to discussions including bilaterally with delegations  both in between TRIPS 
Council meetings and at the margins and of course in the meetings themselves.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 18 - 
  5.16 Switzerland   
118.  As a member of the coalition of 108 Members under IP/C/W/52, we are not going to repeat 
Switzerland 's well -known position on the two implementation issues of TRIPS -CBD and the 
GI extension , as well as the GI register . Let me recall that document IP/C/W/52 contains 
modalities language and solutions to the topics in question . 
119.  We continue to suppor t that the three factual briefs be updated by the Secretariat.  
120.  As for the proposal for a workshop, this is not something we can support at this point of time 
and need to do further consult ations in capital, b ut we remain certainly open to discuss any furth er 
proposal in that direction . 
AGENDA ITEM 6: NON -VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS  
6.1 United States   
121.  The United States continues to maintain its position that NVNI (Non-violation Nullification or 
Impairment) disputes s hould be applicable to the TRIPS Agreement , that they are fully consistent 
with the TRIPS Agreement and that the application of such disputes in this context was the intent 
of the drafters of the TRIPS Agreement.  
122.  This morning, rather this afternoon, we wan ted to take a different approach and explain our 
understanding of how an NV NI dispute under the TRIPS Agreement would proceed in practice and 
to identify the many safeguards at each stage of such a dispute . At the outset, it is important to 
recall the rare  nature of such claims in the GATT and the WTO contexts . For example, the 
October  2012 revised summary note by the Secretariat on non -violation and situation complaints 
(document IP/C/W/349/Rev.2 ) distils the common understanding of Members on this point c iting 
nearly 20 submissions from delegations . The summary note states succinctly the view has been 
expressed that violation, non -violation, nullification and impairment has an exceptional character . 
It has been noted that the Panel in Japan – Film consider ed that non -violation remedies should be 
approached with caution and should remain an exceptional remedy.  
123.  We have been clear on this point as well, as the US has previously recognized, the number 
of instances in which non -violation complaints could succeed  by meeting the requirements under 
the TRIPS Agreement is very limited . In its February  2014 presentation to the TRIPS Council, the 
Secretariat noted that NV NI claims were brought in just eight GATT -era disputes and five of which 
were successful, but only three of those five panel reports were actually adopted . In the WTO -era 
as of 2014, NV NI claims were raised also in just eight out of 474 disputes that had been initiated 
to that point . To be more concrete, NV NI claims were raised in only 1.8 % of WTO dispu tes 
initiated as of the date of the Secretariat presentation.  
124.  It is, therefore, safe to say, that NV NI claims are truly an exceptional remedy . The 
exceptional nature of the remedy, however, does not diminish the significance because there are 
instances whe re panels have ruled and where WTO Members have adopted such rulings that a 
measure of one Member has nullified and impaired the negotiated WTO concessions of another 
Member . This is a serious issue . This is a matter of serious concern for all Members . As panels 
have agreed, indeed, the panel in Japan – Film while noting the exceptional nature of NV NI claims, 
also stressed their importance stating that non -violation remedies is an important and accepted 
tool of WTO and GATT dispute settlements.  
125.  So WTO Membe rs, panels and the Appellate Body are not likely to see many NV NI claims 
under the GATT, under the TRIPS Agreement or other WTO Agreements . That said, even if they 
did, such claims would likely be addressed according to a 20 -year old standard of NV NI compl aints 
that requires three elements . First, application of a measure by a WTO Member . Second, a benefit 
accruing under the relevant agreement . Third, nullification and impairment of the benefit as the 
result of the application of the measure . Notably, with respect to that second element, panels have 
confirmed that in order for expectations of benefit to be legitimate, the challenged measure must 
not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the concession was negotiated . If the 
measures were anticipate d, a measure could not have a legitimate expectation of improved access 
to the extent of the impairment caused by these measures.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 19 - 
  126.  This is an important element we think which should not be overlooked and that goes to 
whether the measure could have been fore seen. Here again, we look to Switzerland's  comments 
on this issue – the issue of foreseeability is critical with respect to the use of the TRIPS flexibilities 
that several delegations have identified today and in the past . As the Swiss delegation has noted , 
a non -violation complaint cannot be brought against another Member for utilizing a flexibility 
foreseen in the TRIPS Agreement . One of the necessary conditions that the complaining party 
must demonstrate is that the offending measure could not have been foreseen . That a Member 
may make use of a flexibility provided in the TRIPS Agreement is, just as any other right under the 
TRIPS Agreement, foreseeable by other Members . In such a dispute, the parties and third parties 
all present in those cases including  to present their defences of the positions they have maintained 
here in the Council . Significantly , the panel  in the  Japan – Film dispute, found that the burden of 
proof rests on the complaining party . To provide a detailed justification for its claims in  order to 
establish a presumption that what is claimed is true and as we have explained in seven of the 16 
NVNI disputes in the history of the GATT and the WTO, the panel has found that the complaining 
party failed to meet its burden of proof.  
127.  So even in t he limited instances where an NV NI claim is brought, the panel has not exercised 
judicial economy and the complaining party has met the burden of proof, including by 
demonstrating that the measure could not have been foreseen, the panel would still be subj ect to 
the DSU, including Articles 3.2 and 3.5 . As delegations are aware, Article 3.2 states clearly that 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations 
provided in the covered agreements.  
128.  Beyond these legal saf eguards, we have yet to find a single instance in the 63 -year history 
of NV NI disputes that provides any concrete evidence of the concerns raised by some delegations . 
Take exceptions, for example, neither the numerous free trade agreements which include NVNI 
claims, nor GATT or WTO jurisprudence provide any examples of any curtailment of such 
exceptions provided under the WTO Agreements.  
129.  As we have enquired in past meetings, why would NV NI claims limit the use of exceptions in 
the TRIPS Agreement when NV NI claims have never limited the use of exceptions under Article  XX 
of the GATT 1994.  
130.  The long history of compatibility of GATT NVNI claims with GATT exceptions were measures 
related to issues including public morals, human health, conservation of exhaustible  natural 
resources, should go far to allay the concerns regarding the application of NVNI claims in the 
context of the TRIPS Agreement.  
131.  To conclude, non-violation complaints are fully appropriate in the context of the TRIPS 
Agreement and have long been a p art of the WTO and the GATT . Non-violation complaints serve 
an interest of all WTO Members which is to assist Members in protecting against measures that 
nullify and impair negotiated concessions . Non-violation complaints are part of the balance of 
rights and obligations of the TRIPS Agreement, the time has come to allow the moratorium on 
non-violation complaints to expire.  
6.2 Peru   
132.  Members know Peru 's position regarding non -violation and situation complaints . I think that 
is what  is expressed  in document IP/C/ W/385/ Rev.1 . The draft decision proposed in  document 
IP/C/W/607 dated 2 9 July 2015 was supported by a large group of Members . This proposal 
mentioned this type of case shall not apply to the settlement of disputes under the T RIPS 
Agreement.  
133.  For my delegation, this proposal remains as the former one on the table and I think it is the 
only one as well . We encourage that discussions be conducted by you on the basis of this proposal . 
I am sure that we can make some progress before  the next meeting.  
6.3 Japan   
134.  Japan 's view on this issue has not changed . IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 20 - 
  135.  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 specific 
and concrete circumstances in which non -violation and situation complaints should be available 
would facilitate examination o f the scope and modalit ies of non -violation and situation complaints 
in the area of the TRIPS Agreement.  
136.  This delegation has been and is willing to engage in discussions at this Council in a 
constructive and dedicated manner.  
6.4 Bolivia, Plurinational State of   
137.  Bolivia is also a co -sponsor of docume nt IP/C/W/385 /Rev.1 which, as was properly said by 
the distinguished colleague of Peru, should be the basis of any future consultation on this issue . So 
therefore, it does not support the enforcement of this measure under the TRIPS Agreement.  
6.5 Switzerla nd  
138.  We have carefully listened to the interventions of the previous delegations.  
139.  Our position is clear . Switzerland continues to take the view that non -violation and situation 
complaints are applicable to the context of TRI PS, similarly as to GATT and GATS.  
140.  The language of Article 64.2 and 64.3 of the TRIPS Agreement does not leave any doubt : the 
two paragraphs make clear reference to non -violation and situation complaints and the 
moratorium which applied in the first place . If the moratorium ends, non -violations and situation 
complaints become applicable under the TRIPS Agreement.  
141.  We are open to discuss modalities as was proposed by the Chair, but do not see a need for 
such discussion . If no specific modalities are put forwa rd, any non -violation and situation 
complaint s procedure would be governed by the DSU and jurisprudence . It would provide enoug h 
guidance to adjudicate such a case.  
6.6 Brazil   
142.  Brazil, as Peru and Bolivia , is also a co-sponsor o f IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 . We also second the 
view of the delegation of Peru, co -sponsored by Bolivia, that the way forward should be based on 
the pr oposals that were made on this subject.  
6.7 China   
143.  China notes that the Nairobi Ministe rial Conference decided to further extend the moratorium 
of the application of non -violation and situation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement . During 
the Council meeting in March and during the informal process of this meeting, debates on this 
issue cont inued, but we noted that divergence was observed obviously.  
144.  China  share s the points reflected explicitly in document IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 . This document 
provides both background information and concerns raised by a large number of Members . We 
believe that non -violation and situation complaints are not applicable under the TRIPS Agreement.  
145.  However, we would like to engage in discussion according to the mandate given by Ministers.  
6.8 India   
146.  India supports the statements made by Peru, B olivia, Brazil and China . India is a co -sponsor 
of documents IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 and IP/C/W/607. In the run up to the Ministerial Conference in 
Nairobi, there was a great confluence of interest on making such complaints inapplicable to TRIPS . 
There was a draf t Ministerial Decision  proposed in IP/C/ W/60 7. 
147.  Serious concerns remain on the debilitating impact of non-violation and situation complaints 
in TRIPS , especially as regard the regulatory policy space of Members, TRIPS flexibilities as well as IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 21 - 
  the increasing  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 the ability of Members to 
achieve other public policy objectives.  
148.  More than a decade ago, India fa ced a dispute involving the TRIPS Agreement (popularly 
called the Mail Box dispute) wherein the concept of legitimate expectations was raised by the 
complainant to interpret the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement . The Panel erroneously held that 
"legitimate  expectations " applied in the context of TRIPS by stating:  
"Finally, we recall that one of the precepts developed under GATT 1947 is that rules 
and disciplines governing the multilateral trading system serve to protect legitimate 
expectations of Members as  to the competitive relationship between their products 
and those of the other Members  …. Predictability in the intellectual property regime is 
indeed essential for the nationals of WTO Members when they make trade and 
investment decisions in the course of  their businesses. " 
149.  Though the AB reversed this reasoning of the Panel on the ground that non -violation and 
situation complaints were not applicable, it is critical to note that the concept of "legitimate 
expectations " would be one of the primary tools to challenge Members ' IP regimes that are 
otherwise consistent with the TRIPS Agreement if non-violation and situation complaints  apply . A 
cursory glance at recent international investment arbitrations against States by some 
pharmaceutical companies utiliz ing the "legitimate expectations " principle to challenge not only IP 
regimes , but also judicial decisions is a troubling development . Allowing non-violation and situation 
complaints under the TRIPS Agreement will essentially replicate this development in the WTO 
dispute settlement forum.  
150.  The applicability of non -violation complaints negatively impacts the ability and willingness of 
countries around the world to use the acknowledged flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement, for the 
purpose of, inter alia , public he alth and access to medicines.  
151.  We do not stand convinced by the reasons provide d by a couple of Members of its  place in 
the TRIPS context . While whether the TRIPS Agreement is a market access agreement may or may 
not be relevant for its applicability, it is  clear that the drafters did not unequivocally apply 
non-violation and situation complaints  to TRIPS . If that were so, we would not be having this 
discussion today . We are willing to engage with those who have contrary views to convince them 
of the merits of the concerns of the overwhelming Membership.  
152.  We note that there is a moratorium on the applicability of such complaints until the next 
Ministerial Conference and congratulate all Members on their efforts in achieving this outcome . In 
continuation of the se efforts, we look forward to work with like -minded Members in making 
non-violation and situation complaints inapplicable to TRIPS . We also wish to reiterate that until 
there is a consensus on the scope and modalities of the applicability of non-violation  and situation 
complaints to TRIPS, they will not apply to the TRIPS Agreement.  
6.9 Canada   
153.  Canada welcomes the opportunity to address this important issue of the applicability of 
non-violation and situation complaints remedy to  the TRIPS Agreement . Our position on this issue 
is well -known . It has remained unchanged over the years . In this regard, we wish to refer 
Members to previous interventions when we raised concerns about the applicability of the NVNI 
remedy to the TRIPS Agr eement , specifically, the lack of certainty and predictability over how 
non-violation and situation complaints could apply in the context of a dispute under the TRIPS.  
6.10 Ecuador   
154.  Ecuador is also a co-sponsor of document IP/C /W/385/Rev.1 . Like other delegations, we 
think that this document should serve as a basis for discussions on this issue . Once again, we 
would like to say that the TRIPS Agreement does not protect market access because there is no 
exchange of tariff concess ions, but rather to the contrary it is a sui generis  agreement which has 
minimal standards regarding  IP rights . Therefore, non -violation and situation complaints do not 
have any scope in this Agreement.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 22 - 
  6.11 Indonesia  
155.  Indone sia, once again, reiterates its full supports toward the Nairobi Ministerial Conference 
decision which puts a moratorium of the implementation of non -violation and situation complain to 
any settlement of disputes under the TRIPS Agreement until 2017.  
156.  Indon esia remains in its position on this issue . As a co -sponsor of document 
IP/C/W/385/Rev.1, our view has been fully reflected on that document since we are convinced that 
the application of NVSC would create legal uncertainty and undermine the predictability  and 
security that the system seeks to provide to all WTO Members . Furthermore, we believe that it 
would raise fundamental and unnecessary concern in this house.  
6.12 South Africa  
157.  South Africa would like to align itself with the statements of India and other like -minded 
Members . South Africa, as a Member of the WTO, is fully committed to upholding its obligations 
and commitments as set out in the different WTO laws and regulations with specific reference to 
the TRIPS Agre ement . The purpose and aim of Article XXIII is to ensure compliance with the GATT 
rules and principles by providing the Members with an opportunity to make representations should 
the situation provided for in subparagraphs 1(a) and 1(b) arise . This is diff erent to the TRIPS 
Agreement . The TRIPS Agreement is a sui generis  agreement . It is not aimed at promoting market 
access or harmonizing the standards of Member s with regard to the protection and enforcement of 
intellectual property rights . It is there to p rovide for the minimum standards for the protection and 
enforcement of intellectual property rights.  
158.  The insertion of Article  XXIII. 1(a) and 1(b) of GATT 1994 under the TRIPS Agreement will 
undermine the sovereign right s of the respective Member s insofar a s putting in place the laws that 
will protect IPRs within their borders are concerned . The insertion will furthermore restrict the 
flexib ilities provided to Member s and defeat the balance that has been maintained under the TRIPS 
Agreement.  
159.  South Africa rec ognizes the need for the protection of intellectual property rights . However, 
we believe that the insertion of non -violation and situation complaints will not be practical under 
the TRIPS Agreement.  
6.13 Bangladesh  
160.  You may  kindly recall that the LDCs repeatedly expressed their deep concern regarding 
non-violation and situation complaints at all Council meetings . Bangladesh also believes that the 
legal grounds for non -violation and situation complaints are very weak . This ha s been amply 
supported by the fact that Members  unanimously extended the moratorium several times.  
161.  We are particularly concerned as different flexibilities under TRIPS could be a subject of 
non-violation and situation complaints any time . It had been menti oned that the burden of proof 
will be on th e complainant , but unfortunately on the other side of the coin, there is also the burden 
of defence and the huge cost of an unnecessary defence can very well be avoided if the 
non-violation and situation complaint  is not applied in such legally uncertain and unchartered 
situations.  
162.  We think that IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 could be a good basis to advance further discussions.  
6.14 Cuba  
163.  Cuba shares the information that is in IP/W/385/Rev.1 and my de legation endorses what 
was raised by Peru, Bolivia , India, China, Brazil, Ecuador and other Members who have expressed 
the view that NVNI should not be applicable to intellectual property . Because of this we endorse 
the legal arguments in the information g iven by India which we think is very interesting as a 
justification for this assertion.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 23 - 
  6.15 Argentina  
164.  The position of Argentina has not changed . It is well -known that Argentina considers that 
this type of complaint is not applicable to the TRIPS Agreement as is explained in document 
IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 which my country is a co -sponsor of, together with many other Members.  
6.16 Russian Federation  
165.  The Russian Federation is a co -sponsor o f document IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 and IP/C/W/607 . Our 
view is that provisions of subparagraphs  1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of the GATT  1994 shall not 
apply to the dispute settlement under the TRIPS Agreement . Our delegation welcomes any 
constr uctive discussio n on the issue of non -violation and situation complaints.  
6.17 Chinese Taipei  
166.  I would like to underline the following points having to do with NVNI . I would like to inform 
delegates that in 2012, a summary note on  non-violation and situation complaints was  established 
by the Secretariat  in document IP/C/W/349/Rev.2 . It is a very useful document to understand the 
current situation in this regard.  
167.  Since 2013, the United States, Peru, Brazil and other Members have also submitted 
proposals on this subject in or der to facilitate the far -reaching discussion on this question with 
Members, particularly concerning the scope and modalities applicable in the  context of the TRIPS 
Agreement. For t he next TRIPS Council in November, I would recommend to the Secretariat to 
update the summary note that I just mentioned in order to reflect these realities.  
6.18 Korea, Republic of  
168.  Our delegation share s the concerns expressed on the NVNI by previous s peakers.  Our 
position remain s the sam e, i.e. that non -violation complaints are not applicable to the TRIPS 
Agreement since we have not had any new argument to change our position on this issue.  
6.19 Egypt  
169.  Our position is well -known . We really believe that non -violation and situation complaints 
under Article XXIII, 1(b) and 1(c) of GATT 1994 are not applicable to the TRIPS Agreement and I 
would like to thank most cordially my colleague from Peru for his expression . We certainly believe 
that the best solution to over come this issue would be that the document IP/C/W/607 be the basis 
of our discussions in this context.  
6.20 Colombia  
170.  Colombia is of the view that a transparent, predictable and equitable instrument to solve 
disputes is cruci al. However, we think that TRIPS, as opposed to the other agreements  of the 
WTO, is to provide minimum standards for IP rights . So non -violation and situation complaints are 
a tool that is not balanced and not created to protect rights and obligations unde r TRIPS . These 
are already addressed by the main obligations and flexibilities of the Agreement where it is already 
well established that more extensive protection under this instrument is not needed. C olombia 
reiterates its position shared by the majority  of Members that non -violation and situation 
complaints should not be applicable under the TRIPS Agreement.  
6.21 Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group  
171.  The African Group is a co-sponsor of doc ument s IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 and IP/C/W/607 that is 
the decision paper which states that the non -violation and situation complaints should not apply 
under the TRIPS Agreement . We agree that the TRIPS Agreement provides minimum standards 
unlike the GATT Agreemen t. For fear of restricting the flexibilit ies that are contained in the TRIP S 
Agreement, especially of those of us coming from Africa for whom  the issue of access to affordable 
medicines has always been an issue , we believe that non -violation and situation complaints should 
not apply.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 24 - 
  172.  We do agree with Peru that the proposal in IP/C/ W/607 should form the basis of our 
discussions on this matter.  
6.22 European Union  
173.  We, the European Union, are firm believers in this provisi on that you mentioned this morning 
that, unless we have something new to say, we prefer to keep our flag down . I rarely intervene on 
this point because that is the situation on our side . I think it would be interesting that the 
summary note that was prepar ed a while ago by the Secretariat and that, at the time, was 
invaluable in providing a very accurate and very informative picture of this discussion could be 
updated because I believe there has been progress since then . There have been more detailed 
discus sions in this Council . There has been progress in the bilateral framework . We believe that 
such an update would be extremely informative and provide valuable input for parties to continue 
the discussion on this point.  
6.23 Brazil  
174.  Just to add my voice to the Europea n Union regarding this proposal. We could, if we were to 
update ourselves, have briefing sessions by the WTO Secretariat, as they were held in 2014. Those 
briefing sessions could provide updated information to delegat es both on the issue of non -violation 
and situation complaints and on the triplets . We would be in favour having this experience once 
again . 
6.24 India   
175.  We would like to support the statement made by Brazil that if all Members agree for 
updating the brief on non -violation and situation complaints then similarly the other actual briefs 
on the triplets should also be updated because, as I mentioned in the morning, there is also new 
information on the TRIPS CBD  issues . For example, document TN/C/W/52 of 2008 i s not reflected 
in the factual brief as well as document TN/C/W/59 of 2011, and similarly the entry into force of 
the Nagoya Protocol . All these new developments are not reflected in the factual brief . Whenever a 
new delegate comes, it would be really diff icult for him to know everything by reading the factual 
brief which was updated in 2006.  
6.25 United States  
176.  I think we support the proposal by the EU . It is an interesting proposal . We are concerned 
about effort s to link this with an update of another factual paper which we had opposed under a 
previous item and now we are returning to that for a second bite of the apple . That linkage is 
something that we are not in a position to support . We would support certainly an update of the 
Secretariat summary note on NVNI, but are not in a position to agree to an update of the paper 
regarding the CBD issues for the reasons we have identified previously.  
6.26 Chair man 
I propose that the Council take note of my summary of the informal dis cussion as well as the 
statements made by delegations in informal mode and agree to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting . Also there has been no objection to the proposal that the Secretariat summary note in 
IP/C/W/349/Rev.2 be updated and I therefore  suggest that the Council so agree .  
 
6.27 India  
177.  We are not supporting the updating of the brief if it is only  done for non -violation  and 
situation complaints . If it is done for the other three Secretariat papers mentioned, then we agree . 
Otherwise we don 't agree .  
AGENDA ITEM 7: REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER 
ARTICLE  71.1 
No statements were made under this agenda item.  
 IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 25 - 
  AGENDA ITEM 8: REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 
ON GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ART ICLE 24.2  
No statements were made under this agenda item.  
 
AGENDA ITEM 9: TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY -BUILDING  
No statements were made under this agenda item.  
 
AGENDA ITEM 10: IP AND INNOVATION: SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE AND LOW EMISSION 
TECHNOLOGY STRAT EGIES  
10.1 Japan  
178.  We have prepared some slides and print -outs are placed outside so for everyone to see.1 
179.  The Japanese Delegation would like to give a short presentation o n this topic.  
180.  Slide 2  shows the changes in the number of patent filings to the Japan Patent Office in this 
field of technology, which relates to energy, resource saving, environment and social 
infrastructure.  We can see that the number has almost doubled i n the past eight years, which 
supports the claim that this is a quickly growing field of technology.  
181.  Next, I would like to make three assumptions concerning some characteristics of technology 
in this field.  
182.  The first characteristic is that there is a very wide range of techniques, varying in complexity 
and effect . Let us say we want a certain effect, for example, the purification of water . The specific 
technique can range from a simple filtering device to a huge water purification plant . This may not 
necess arily be high -tech. Thus, the potential licensee would have to select from a broad range of 
specific techniques, as well as the targeted effect . This could cause a "matching problem ", that is, 
the difficulty in finding the right technology for the right re gion, which I will discuss later.  
183.  The second characteristic is that we can find different techniques having the same effect . 
This means that there would be competition among techniques . Thus, in this field of technology, it 
would be difficult for a certain  patent holder to block innovation, since it would only benefit 
competitors having techniques with similar effects.  
184.  The third characteristic is the importance of know -how. Many techniques in this field require 
know -how to select and integrate the elements which comprise the technique in order for it to 
work efficiently and be cost -effective . Thus, know -how, often protected as trade secrets, is the key 
factor for innovation in this field.  
185.  Next, based on my previous assumptions, I would like to discuss some i deas to accelerate 
local innovation.  
186.  First, we could increase competition among techniques, in other words, among potential 
licensors and investors, which would i n turn lower the price of licenc es. Since licensors provide the 
technology and the investors p rovide the capital necessary for innovation, a 
licensor/investor -friendly environment would promote local innovation . Such environment would 
include effective IP protection which would help to alleviate the risks involved in investments made 
to diffuse tec hnology.  
187.  Second, in order to speed up local innovation, we would need to deal with the "matching 
problem ". This is a problem that we also face even in Japan . There is no simple solution, and we 
will need to be patient . However, we can think of ways to move  forward . Considering the vast 
number of technologies available, the basic idea is to use a "needs -oriented " approach . It would 
probably be easier for the potential licensee to narrow down the technology based on their 
                                                
1 See Room Document RD/IP/10.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 26 - 
  objectives . It would be helpful to ha ve information tools to search the technology and potential 
licensor.  
188.  Here, patents have a very important role . Patents define techniques to be searched in 
databases and link them to their holders . The holders will also have the crucial know -how to work 
the techniques.  
189.  It also would be helpful to develop the human resources  to do the search and matching. This 
is an area which international cooperation could be useful.  
190.  Third, it would also be helpful if the patenting process would timely grant patents.  
191.  So, would we bring IP to work for innovation ? I mean we need to use IP in this area . Slide 5 
shows some efforts related to the ideas shown on slide 4. 
192.  There are free patent databases, including those provided by the Japan Patent Office, WIPO, 
and I haven 't listed it here, but the European Patent Office  also has a very useful patent database . 
These can be searched using English, and also the WIPO database, in the EPO database, uses 
machine translation technology so it can be searched in many different languages . 
193.  There are also technology databases, including those provided by UNIDO Investment and 
Technology Promotion Office Tokyo, and from the Global Environment Centre Foundation . These 
are only in Japan . I think there are more you can find out throughout the worl d. 
194.  With regards to timely patent examination, the Japan Patent Office provides accelerated 
examination for green technology and collective examination of inventions related to a certain 
product, both  are free of charge.  
195.  With regards to human resource devel opment and other cooperation in this field, various 
government offices and organizations in Japan have international cooperation schemes, including 
those already reported in our document, IP/C/W/610.  
196.  We believe these IP efforts, along with a licensor/inves tor friendly environment, have the 
potential to speed up innovation.  
10.2 European Union  
197.  We are very happy to contribute once more to the key point of this agend a item of this 
Council and today we start with a couple of questions and our perspective of how these questions 
can be answered . So how will we tackle challenges like climate change, energy supply, the scarcity 
of resources and the impact of demographic ch anges ? How will we improve health and security 
and sustainably provide water and high -quality, affordable food?  
198.  In Europe, we believe that innovation plays a key role to respond to these questions . The EU 
assigned a central role to innovation to underpin t he smart, sustainable and inclusive growth of the 
Europe 2020 Strategy.  
199.  Innovation is about promoting growth and ultimately benefiting societies . Innovation is not 
just research or technology development and its applications . It encompasses both 
research -driven innovation and innovation in business models, design, branding and services that 
add value and respond to people 's needs . It is about building and changing a whole system : 
products , processes, markets and organiz ations . It is about reaching the users , involving the 
suppliers as well as the consumers everywhere, across borders, across sectors, and across 
institutions.  
200.  Innovation is also about inclusiveness . Achieving the objective of transformative economies 
and societies requires the involvement of di fferent actors in the innovation cycle (academia, public 
and private sector, civil society , etc. ). In this perspective, not only major companies are 
important, but also small and medium enterprises in all sectors and the social economy and 
citizens themsel ves – what we often refer as "social innovation " – also matter . Cooperation IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 27 - 
  throughout the innovation chain, including international cooperation between countries, is also 
very important.  
201.  In this context, the relevance of innovation also in relation to sus tainability is evident . The 
sustainability agenda puts people at the centre and calls for working together to promote 
sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development and environmental protection . 
Rio+20 also acknowledged the potential contribut ion of green economy to achieving sustainable 
development.  
202.  A recent report by the Green Growth Best Practice initiative assessed the lessons from 
experiences of pursuing green growth across all levels of government and all regions . It pointed at 
green inno vation policy and labour market and skills development policies as a pre-requisite for a 
transition to green growth in many countries.  
203.  This report highlights that a "green transformation " requires more than technological 
innovation and needs to be compleme nted with open, social and financial innovation . Finally, the 
report illustrates a clear pay -off of Government investment in green innovation as government 
investment in green research and development successfully translates into development and 
commercial ization of break -through green technologies.  
204.  All of this provides a clear call for fully integrating innovation in development.  
205.  The role of innovation and technology for the implementation of the sustainable development 
goals . Here I would like to talk abo ut the creation of a favourable policy environment which should 
include reforms to tackle fragmentation ; modernization of education systems at all levels and 
capacity building in countries that still lag behind in the innovation chain ; enhanced cooperation  
between science and business ; and increased international cooperation in research and innovation 
by opening and national research programmes.  
206.  The UN 's sustainable  development goals also recogniz e the importance of research and 
innovation for agriculture a nd food security, clean energy, vaccines and medicines . In this context, 
research cooperation among countries will be central to ensure the co -creation of solutions as well 
as knowledge sharing . Ultimately, this would favour the access to and ownership of the research 
results generated by all actors involved.  
207.  The discussion often concentrates on the transfer of technologies through trade and gives 
relatively less attention to the transfer of knowledge and know -how that is possible through 
research cooperati on. Innovation also entails a different use or application of existing technologies.  
208.  Research and innovation cooperation is often more important than commercial aspects of the 
technology transfer process in the field of promising, but less mature technolog ies, or technologies 
that need to be adapted to local conditions.  
209.  By jointly identifying areas of research and innovation cooperation it is possible to set the 
basis for technology facilitation . Also, the exchange of knowledge between regions of the world 
confronted with similar problems can contribute to create economies of scale that are equally  
important for technological deployment.  
210.  There is another aspect of technological innovation and research cooperation that is often 
overlooked . This is th e use of technologies such as space -technology and in situ  monitoring can 
support the implementation of sustainable development goals through the provision of data and 
reliable geospatial information for monitoring progress against their targets . Initiatives like t he 
Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) that was launched following the 2002 World 
Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and in which also the E U participates, can 
make an important contribution in this respect and to achieve the "data revol ution" needed to 
support the post -2015 agenda.  
211.  The EU 's research programmes are among the most open in the world and promote 
cooperation with non -EU countries ( both industriali zed and emerging economies, and developing 
countries) taking into acc ount their different research and innovation capacities . Through these 
programmes, the EU has supported a number of sustainable development -related projects and IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 28 - 
  international cooperation activities in different areas and across different disciplines, rangi ng from 
sustainable development governance to sector -specific activities.  
212.  Also Horizon 2020, our current programme for research and innovation, recognizes the need 
for increased international research cooperation efforts and enhanced science -policy dialogu e. 
Sustainable development is an overarching objective of our Horizon 2020  programme . 
213.  In recognition of the importance of knowledge circulation, open access has been identified as 
a mean to improve knowledge circulation and thus innovation . On this basis, open access will be 
mandatory for EU -funded research results produced with funding from Horizon 2020 – the new EU 
programme for research and innovation.  
214.  Let me give you some examples of the programmes that are engaged with many Members of 
this TRIPS Counci l. 
215.  The first one is eartH2Observe . This is a programme that links to water . The eartH2Observe 
project will support efficient and globally consistent water management and decision making b y 
providing comprehensive multi scale (local, regional, continental an d global) water resources 
observations.  
216.  There are several LDC Members in this programme, including Bangladesh and Ethiopia . The 
EU contribution is around €9  million . The technology transferred includes applications of local and 
global hydrological models.  
217.  We also have an EU-India research and innovation cooperation on water technology . 
Together with India, we launched a pilot initiative on water related challenges . Two examples of 
joint projects that resulted from this coordinated call s are: 
 The ECO -India p roject that aims at developing innovative, cost -effective and sustainable 
approaches for producing potable water and treating wastewater at community level, 
focusing in particular on arsenic -affected water -stressed regions in India . The project 
consortium represents a world -class interdisciplinary research team from several 
research institutes and SMEs in Europe, India and Israel.  
 The project on Natural water systems and treatment technologies to cope with water 
shortages in urbanized areas in India, or NaW aTech project . It aims to explore, assess 
and enhance the potential of natural and technical water treatment systems in order to 
improve their performance and reliability to cope with water shortages in India.  
218.  I would also like to refer to a couple of prog rammes that are managed by our member 
States and more detail will be available in the written submission . One of them is the Climate 
Technology Innovation Centres . This is a programme which the UK has provided since 
December  2013, over £19  million  to suppo rt the establishment of nine Climate Innovation Centres . 
Climate Innovation Centres provide targeted services such as finance and training . They assist the 
private sector to profitably develop innovative technology and business solutions to domestic 
energy , resource and environmental challenges.  
219.  Another programme is promoted by Sweden : the DemoEnvironment Programme gives the 
opportunity to use proven modern environmental technology solutions that are new to their 
countries . 2012 and 2013 projects include, inter alia , air environment and renewable energy 
demonstration project in Inner Mongolia and  China;  waste management and renewable energy 
project in Namibia and Indonesia;  and w ater and sanitation planning grant in South Africa.  
220.  To conclude let me briefly a ddress another project funded and pursued by Sweden . It is the 
Electrical D istribution Management Training . This programme enables networking among 
professionals in the field of electrical distribution and facilitates future technology transfers by 
potenti al partnerships and cooperation . It has ru n since 2007 with a 145 participants o f which 
more than 70 % came from LDCs, such as Ethiopia, Gambia, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, 
Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 29 - 
  221.  30 projects in dif ferent countries have concerned rural electrification . In total around 
230,000 households and other consumers have benefited from these projects.  41 projects in 
different countries have concerned loss reduction whereas the loss of electricity has been redu ced 
by 15%. 18 projects have concerned improvement of customer service s, mostly in in Tanzania.  12 
projects have concerned renewable energy, such as  small scale hydropower, w ind power, solar 
energy and bio -energy . These are just some examples of programmes  that have been pursued in 
this area and where intellectual property and innovation contribute to the goals that we are 
discussing today.  
10.3 United States  
222.  We we lcome this opportunity to co -sponsor agenda item 10 on IP and Innovation : 
Sustainable Resource and Low Emission Technology Strategies.  We thank Canada, the European 
Union, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, and Chinese Taipei  for also co -sponsoring this item t oday.  
223.  This item offers TRIPS Council delegations the opportunity to share experiences and 
exchange best practices, including regarding ways they have sought to meet energy demands, 
while addressing the quantity of energy consumed, the nature of energy supp lied, and the impacts 
of using various energy sources, including how IPRs can advance technological innovation that 
conserves natural resources, including where they are exhaustible.  
224.  Exhaustible natural resources include coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, ir on ore, copper, nickel 
and other minerals.  If depleted, these resourced cannot be restored.  When they are gone, they are 
gone.  
225.  Depleting such resources is a monumental concern, but it is not the only concern.  A related 
concern involves resources whose cons umption leads to the depletion of other resources, including 
as a result of harmful emissions.  Certain fuels, for example, when consumed, reduce clean air and 
the ozone layer.  
226.  Resource consumption and related by -products, such as waste and emissions, can h ave a 
variety of significant deleterious effects on the environment, including drought, deforestation, 
extinction, environmental degradation, ozone depletion, and pollution of water, of land and of air.  
227.  For example, 12 million  hectares are lost per year fr om drought and desertification, where 
20 million  tons of grain could have been grown, and arable land loss is 30 to 35 times the 
historical rate.  These patterns lower greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide absorption, but also 
create additional challenges to fo od security.  
228.  The consequence of failure is stark.  The importance of success is immense, not only for our 
generation, but for generations to come.  
229.  Here is where innovation, and the IP that sustains it, offers one of many possible 
opportunities . Together, IP  and innovation provide a critical response as part of national and 
international strategies to address the common challenge of resource sustainability.  
230.  As we heard in today's  side event, IP is critical for investment and collaboration, scalability 
and opt imization for sustainable resource technology innovation and diffusion.  
231.  Technological innovation can play a critical role in conserving exhaustible natural resources 
and limiting the negative impacts related to resource consumption . We will focus today on 
renewable resource and low emission technologies.  
232.  As opposed to exhaustible natural resources, renewables are resources that can be 
replenished naturally . Some of these resources, like sunlight, air, and wind, are continuously 
available, subject to certain  constraints, and their quantity is not noticeably affected by human 
consumption.  
233.  In turn, renewable and related technologies include biofuels, biomass, carbon capture, 
energy efficiency, fuel cells, geothermal, hydro/marine, low emission, solar photovolta ic, solar 
thermal, and wind.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 30 - 
  234.  But, the development and diffusion of such critical technologies cannot be assumed.  Like the 
resources these technologies  conserve, sustainable resource  and low emissions  technologies can 
be exhaustible or inexhaustible, depend ing on the innovation environments that surround them.  
235.  We can neither presume that resources are infinite, nor can we presume that these 
technologies will be endlessly forthcoming.  While many of these technologies are available today, 
many more are under d evelopment.  Without the appropriate enabling environment for innovation, 
we may never know what game -changing technologies in this area may have yet to be imagined.  
236.  Such technologies must be sustained, such innovation must be conserved.  As we will 
discuss,  IPR enables renewable innovation.  Conversely, technological stagnation and resource 
exhaustion go hand in hand.  
237.  Many inventors and many countries have risen to this challenge.  In fact, since the WTO 
TRIPS Agreement entered into force, patenting rates – including patent applications and patents 
granted – for clean energy technologies have increased by approximately 20 % per year, which far 
outpaces patenting rates for fossil fuel technologies.  The most intensive patenting growth rates 
occurred with respect t o biofuels, carbon capture, hydro/marine, solar photovoltaic, and wind.  
238.  As in the TRIPS Agreement, the importance of innovation has been confirmed in other 
international venues.  In September  2011, for instance, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki -moon 
launched  the Sustainable Energy for All initiative, which includes innovation as a key priority.  And 
in December  2015, UN Members concluded the Paris Agreement, which states emphatically that 
"[a]ccelerating, encouraging and enabling innovation is critical for an effective, long -term global 
response to climate change and promoting economic growth and sus tainability ". 
239.  Indeed, clean and renewable energy has matured and grown in the last decade . In 2014, 
total global investment of $278  billion  was made in the renewa ble energy sector, marking a 55 % 
increase from the global investment in 2009 of $178  billion . 
240.  Similar trends are evident in many countries and regions around the world . In Latin America, 
for example, the level of renewable energy implementation is significan t at 29 %, although the 
energy needs of the region grew by 76% between 1995 and 2010 . Yet, such needs may explain 
the significant growth in patent applications for adaptation technologies – including desalination, 
off-grid water supply, remote energy servic es and weather -related technologies – in the  Latin 
American  region, which have increase d by 51 % on average per year since 2000.  
241.  Africa has also made significant accomplishments . While the regions share of total clean 
energy patents remains relatively low, a study by the United Nations Environment Program and 
the European Patent Office concludes that there is a relatively high level of clean energy 
innovation occurring in Africa, where energy storage/hydrogen/fuel c ell technologies account for 
37% of patents  for such innovation and renewable energy technologies account for 25 % of patents 
on such technologies . The African growth rate for mitigation technologies is 59 %, and the average 
rate for patent applications fo r adaptation technologies is 17 % per year.  
242.  The United States is also doing its part  too. For example, the Patents for Humanity Program 
is a United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) initiative, which recognizes innovators 
who use game -changing technology to meet global humanitarian challenges , including resource 
conservation.  
243.  The programme provides business incentives for reaching those in need : winners receive an 
acceleration certificate to expedite select proceedings at the USPTO, as well as public recognition 
of their work.  The Program me showcase s how patent holders with vision are pioneering innovative 
ways to provide scalable and sustainable solutions for those in need.  Nearly all of the winners work 
actively in countries around the world.  
244.  While the scope of this programme extends beyond t he use of natural resources, such use is 
a key priority for the programme.  For example, two of the five selection criteria are sanitation and 
householder energy.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 31 - 
  245.  The program me began in 2012, with ten aw ards and six honourable  mentions.  Two of the six 
award  winners were in clean technology space.  
246.  One of the winners,  for example, was  Procter & Gamble (P&G) developed a small, 
inexpensive packet of powder that makes dirty, unsafe water clean to drink.  Over the last decade, 
P&G has set up over 120 partnerships w ith NGOs, local and national governments and health 
organizations to deliver the packets to those in need . To date, P&G has invested more than 
$35 million  and delivered over 5  billion  litres of clean drinking wat er, preventing an estimated 
200 million days  of illness and helping to save nearly 30,000 lives.  
247.  Beyond the Patent and Trademark Office and the Patents for Humanity Programme, the 
United States is engaged in numerous renewable energy technology initiatives .  
248.  The US Department of Energy operates a mu ltitude of program mes, including by the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, covering geothermal, solar, water, wind and other 
renewables . For example, its Technologist in Residence program me strengthens lab -industry 
relationships to support i ndustry needs and leverage the national lab network to clean energy 
R&D. 
249.  It is important to stress  that many of these and other U S program mes have a strong 
international component . The Department of Commerce, for example, operates two program mes 
of particu lar relevance – the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Exporter Portal and the 
Environ mental Solutions Export Portal . Through these portals , the Department provides a 
one-stop-shop for all of the support the Department provides exporters of these goods  and 
services, including trade missions, trade shows, market analysis, counse lling and other assistance 
to US renewable energy and energy efficiency technology exporters.  
250.  Significantly, a nother program me is the Enhanc ed Capacity for Low Emission s Developme nt 
Strategies Program me (E-CEDS), which takes an economy -wide approach at achieving sustainable 
growth . Led by the US Agency for Inte rnational Development and the U S State Department, the 
program me brings together expertise of multiple U S agencies , and oth ers to provide technical 
assistance with over 25 partner countries on emission -lowering strategies.  
251.  In conclusion, these are but a few of the numerous policy initiatives and case studies 
exemplifying U S and international sustainable resource and low emissi on technology strategies.  
252.  Innovation, sustained by IPR, features prominently throughout.  As we have demonstrated 
today and in previous statements  under this agenda item, IPR protection and enforcement are 
essential to promoting innovation in sustainable re source and low emission technologies.  
253.  Conversely, we cannot consider natural resource scarcity without assessing innovation 
scarcity . Without effective IPR protection and enforcement, R&D capacity can be severely 
diminished, technology transfer arrangement s are often discouraged, and investment in innovation 
may be significantly reduced . Without innovation, sustained by IPR, we face the very real risk of a 
technology drought, leaving our energy demands, our environmental obligations, and perhaps 
most import antly, our stewardship responsibilities for our children unmet.  
254.  To sum up, IPR is a critical part of a sustainable innovation strategy.  With IPR, innovation 
can be a renewable resource.  
10.4 Chinese Taipei  
255.  This delegation  is pleased to join the United States and other Members in sponsoring Agenda 
Item 10. We also very much appreciate the opportunity to share and exchange with other 
Members best practices in using innovation to tackle issues on global warming.  
256.  I shall start by giving you a short overview of the innovative efforts my government is 
making in the area of green energy . Then, I shall go on to describe the six elements of our 
National Energy Programme, an d bring you up -to-date on the development of new energy . After 
that, I shall report on where we have got to on Green Patent applications . And, finally, I wish to 
pass on to you some recommendations regarding IP and Green technology strategies.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 32 - 
  257.  As you are p robably aware, our economy is one of those that is very dependent  upon 
international trade . Demand for energy has increased significantly in the last 20 years . And, being 
an island with its own independent electricity grid, and without any gas pipelines, w e are 
extremely reliant upon imported energy, which accounts for over 98 % of energy demand s. In the 
most recent Submission of our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, we have committed 
to an economy -wide target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 % from the 
"business -as-usual " level by 2030 .  
258.  We have launched the "National Energy Programme (NEP) ", which sets out to integrate 
resources from different sectors, to create an interactive platform for cooperation between 
industries, public sectors, academia and research institutes, with the specific aim of  achieving 
three key objectives : energy security, energy efficiency and cleanliness.  
259.  The NEP consists of six elements, namely : energy conservation ; alternative energy ; smart 
grid; offshore wind powe r and marine energy ; geothermal energy and gas hydrate ; carbon 
reduction and clean coal.  
260.  In terms of energy conservation, it is designed to optimize energy efficiency by reaching a 
dynamic balance between energy m anagement and the supply chain, such as the  smart grid, 
renewable energy, etc.  
261.  With respect to alternative energy, the aim is to lower the utilization of fossil fuel by the 
active development and promotion of its replacement with clean energy . The policy objective is to 
lower carbon -dioxide emissio n by 2025 down to the same level as that of the year 2000.  
262.  In addition, we are hoping to reinforce the development of offshore wind and ocean power, 
then achieve by innovative methods to a level of domestic power production of 2.1  billion  kWH 
(kilowatt hou r) and carbon reductions of 1.3  million  tonnes by the year 2020.  
263.  I would now like to describe, if I may, some of the key achievements of the Industrial 
Technology Research Institute (ITRI), which is the pre -eminent R&D think -tank for our industry.  
264.  In order  to meet the needs of sustainable development, the Green Energy and Environment 
Laboratories of ITRI has devoted its resources to developing renewable energy ; energy efficiency ; 
alternative energy ; and energy management.  
265.  Let me give you some examples : firstly, an energy scenario simulation tool, which goes by 
the name of the Taiwan 2050 Calculator, provides the data and information for public energy 
education, policy communications, the public debate of the energy issue s, discussion of the future 
energy mix , energy resource research, and energy strategy -development and policy -making.  
266.  Secondly, there is a product called ButyFix®, which is the main effort to reduce our carbon 
footprint by switching from the use of fossil fuels to bio -fuels. 
267.  Thirdly, to help ou r hi-tech industries to minimize air pollution, the ITRI has also developed 
something called the New Local Scrubber (NLS), which very effectively cleans the hi -tech exhaust 
stream by use of new technologies, such as a low-temperature PFC catalytic reactor .  
268.  Last but not least, I would now like to show you a few short clips on the High -Efficiency 
Calcium Looping Technology (HECLOT), by limestone, which can increase calcification efficiency .2 
269.  Now, I just want to take a moment  to consider the linkage between i ntellectual property (IP) 
and green technology innovation . Our numbers of patent applications on green technologies have 
been increasing at a remarkable rate since the year 2000 . Most of the inventions involve LED 
illumination s and then hydrogen/fuel cell technology (accounts for 10.1 %). This indicates the high 
level of maturity already reached in our development of green technology . I would also like to 
mention that, in order to constantly encourage the development of relevant green technologies, 
                                                
2 The video  clip can be accessed at : 
https://www.itri.org.tw/eng/Content/MsgPic01/Contents.aspx?SiteID=1&MmmID=620651711540203650&MSi
d=621024013054352667  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 33 - 
  any paten t applications relating to technologies for developing or improving energy conservation, 
new sources of energy, renewable energy vehicles, technologies for carbon reduction and resource 
saving, all qualify for filing in the Accelerated Examination Programm e (AEP) . A total of 
82 applications involving green technologies were filed through  the AEP  in 2015 . 
270.  So, one thing we know is certain, plenty of innovative thinking is required to cope with 
climate change when formulating an energy strategy, wherever it is . Furthermore, with our eyes 
firmly set on achieving a "win-win" situation for both the economy and the environment, we are 
committed not only to developing core, top -level patents, but also to helping with their 
commercialization in high -tech industries t hrough innovative business models .  
271.  Before finally concluding, Mr Chairman, I would just like to emphasize the importance of IP & 
Innovation by quoting the words of ou r new Minister, Dr Chih-Kung Lee, of the Ministry of 
Economic Affairs, at his first press  conference after recently taking office on 20 May.  Dr Lee 
mentioned his attendance at a Global S&T Meeting in 2002 in the United States, where he heard 
Mr Thomas J.  Donohue, President and CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce, talking about the 
distinctions b etween invention and innovation . Mr Donohue defined the former as "putting 
resources or money into creating new knowledge ", and the latter as "turning that knowledge into 
money or resources ". These two driving forces facilitate a positive cycle, enabling t he entire 
economy to generate more resources and knowledge . Though it has  been 14 years since he 
originally heard these remarks, they still ring very true to Minister Lee . In the future, he intends to 
lead my Ministry "towards reaching the goal of generati ng more positive cycles in terms of 
government -industry -academia cooperation, and policies to achieve positive results ". 
272.  I hope this gives you a flavour of the huge importance we attach to innovation in the green 
industry . We very much look forward to hear ing from other delegations about their current policies 
in this regard, and to learning from their own success and experience.  
10.5 Canada  
273.  Canada is pleased to co -sponso r the IP and Innovation agenda item on sustainable resource 
and low emission technology strategies.  
274.  Clean technologies are a key component of Canada 's approach to promoting sustainable 
economic growth and will play a critical role in the transformation to a low carbon economy.  
275.  During the recent United Nations Climate Conference, COP -21 in Paris, alongside 194 other 
participating countries, Canada agreed to take steps to support eh transition to a low carbon 
economy by limiting global temperature increases t o less than 2°C above pre -industrial levels.  
276.  Also at COP -21, Canada announced its participation in the launch of the Mission Innovation 
Initiative, a clean technology initiative that partners 20 countries as well as leading representatives 
from the private  sector . The initiative seeks to double government investment in clean energy 
research and development over the next five years and to spur private sector investment in clean 
technology.  
277.  Canada 's clean technology industry consists of over 800 companies, mo stly comprised of 
small and medium -sized enterprises which operate in every region of Canada in areas such as oil 
and gas, mining, power generation, transportation, agriculture, forestry and forest products, as 
well as water and energy efficiency.  
278.  This ind ustry directly employs 50,000 Canadians and generates over 12  billion  Canadian 
dollars – that is US$9.2  billion  in revenues per year. 68 % of Canadian clean technology companies 
are exporters which generate export revenues of more than 6  billion  Canadian do llars or 
US$4.5  billion per year.  
279.  As part of Canada 's recent March  2016 Federal Budget, the Canadian Government proposed 
to provide over 1  billion  Canadian dollars – that is US$760  million  over four years beginning in 
2017-2018 to support the development o f clean technology including in the forestry, fisheries, 
mining, energy and agriculture sectors.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 34 - 
  280.  Turning to IP -specific policy initiatives, Canada continues to encourage policies that stimulate 
the creation and diffusion of technologies to respond to envir onmental challenges . In 2011, the 
Canadian Intellectual Property Office moved to accelerate the prosecution of patent applications 
relating to environmental or green technologies within the Canadian IP system in order to expedite 
the commercialization of t echnologies that could be useful in the mitigation of environmental 
threats or to conserve the natural environment and resources.  
281.  In order to be granted access to the expedited examination service for green technologies, a 
patent applicant must submit a de claration stating that their application relates to technology, the 
commercialization of which would help to resolve or mitigate environmental impacts or conserve 
the natural environment and resources . No additional fee is required for advancing the 
examin ation of patent applications related to green technologies.  
282.  These amendments are intended to assist in stimulating the creation and diffusion of 
technology and to encourage and protect innovation and technology transfer by providing quick 
access to Canada 's IP regime . The amendments further assist in contributing to an effective 
response to environmental challenges and helping to ensure that patented environmentally 
beneficial inventions reach the marketplace more rapidly.  
283.  Since these amendments in 2011 par ticipation has increased with a rising number of 
applications for expedited examination each year . In addition to the amendments to the patents 
rules, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office also maintains a database of all patent applications 
that curre ntly benefit from expedited examination under this initiative . Designed to facilitate 
access to information on green technologies, this database assists those seeking to licence or 
partner with green technology innovators and therefore serves to accelerate  the diffusion and 
commercialization of green technologies.  
284.  To conclude, Canada would like to highlight the importance of green technologies and 
product development, as well as the important role of the IP system . In this regard, a s we 
collectively face en vironmental chal lenges including climate change, w e look forward to learning 
more from other Members ' experiences in this important policy area.  
10.6 Switzerland  
285.  We wish to thank the co -sponsors and the previous delegations for their interventions and 
presentation of national experience and best practices in the area of Clean Technology Strategies.  
286.  We hope to add some further aspects to the Council 's discussion and a re going to give you a 
brief summary of some initiatives and institutions that Switzerland has in place to foster clean 
technologies . The initiatives promote - in the wider context - sustainable development . Some of 
them go back to the sustainable developm ent plan of the United Nations, with objectives specified 
in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation in 2002 and the UN framework Convention goals on 
Climate change of 1992.  
287.  For the development of new and significant energy -efficient solutions to happen, u nremitting 
efforts are required . The objective of substantially reducing the use of natural resources and 
harmful effects of economic growth on the environment cannot be achieved without resorting to 
special mechan isms that effectively incentiviz e investme nt and risk -taking . Intellectual property, 
including the patent system, plays a crucial role in the development s of clean technology and 
associated business models . This was also well demonstrated by panelists in our panel event on IP 
and Innovation at noo n. 
288.  The following are examples of measures taken by the Swiss G overnment promoting 
innovation in clean -tech. They all are designed to contribute to a sustainable and resource -efficient 
economy.  
289.  Switzerland puts a major focus on the evaluation of opportuniti es for research and 
innovation in the field of clean technologies . Back in 2002, at the time the Johannesburg Plan was 
agreed, Switzerland drafted a national Sustainable Development Strategy which put an emphasis 
on the equilibrium between three pillars of  sustainable development : the economy, the society and IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 35 - 
  the environment . The strategy 's concept is to involve all key stakeholders in the relevant 
processes, i.e. the cantons, municipalities, civil society and the private sector .  
290.  Part of the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Strategy is the Clean -Tech Masterplan . 
It was developed in 2011 as a coordination and communication tool across government and 
institution boundaries, and should optimally position the Swiss economy in the global growth 
market f or resource -efficient products, services and renewable energy . The Masterplan aims at 
promoting innovation in the clean -tech area, efficient coordination among scientific, business, 
government and policymaking sectors, while ensuring an effective intellect ual property system.  
291.  Other strategies pursued by the federal Government to promote innovation in the 
environmental sector are the Energy Strategy 2050 and the Green Economy Action Plan . These are 
complementary legal instruments that contribute to the fulfi lment of innovation policies for a 
sustainable and green future.  
292.  We will not go into detail of the mentioned strategies , but would like to give you 
two examples of platforms which effectively support innovation in clean -tech. 
293.  EMPA, the Swiss Federal Labora tories for Materials Science and Technology, is an innovative 
research institute of the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich . It has a particular expertise in 
clean-tech projects which are carried out in cooperation with private enterprises . EMPA cond ucts 
technology research and development activities which focus on new ideas in the areas of 
environmental, energy, and sustainable building technologies . The institution is considered an 
innovation hub and facilitator for Switzerland 's economy and industr y. 
294.  One of EMPA 's major goals, besides facilitating a safer and more sustainable living 
environment, is to generate innovation in the form of intellectual property assets . This can best be 
achieved by working in cooperation with business partners . EMPA cont ributes to various innovative 
projects which make use of all kinds of materials . A good example are EMPA' 's  timber -based 
innovations which are developed in its Department of Applied Wood Materials . The timber projects 
combine the latest developments in wo od research with expertise in modern wood construction . 
With one eye on the goal of broadening the range of applications for the renewable resource, the 
researchers give wood completely new functions and improve the properties of wood -based 
materials.  
295.  The protection of intellectual property generated in those projects is of paramount 
importance to EMPA . Through an efficient technology transfer system, EMPA helps turn research 
results into marketable innovations . It registers new research results as IPRs early on and offers 
them in a package to interested industrial partners for commercial usage . The concept allows for 
the cooperative development of new discoveries and facilitates the launch of innovative products 
on the market.  
296.  A further example are flexible  solar cells which have recently been developed with a new 
record of efficiency for converting sunlight into electricity . The new kind of solar technology shall 
provide for more cost -effective solar electricity . The technology is currently awaiting scale -up for 
industrial applications.  
297.  Another example of a concept for effective promotion of innovation in  the area of clean -tech 
is the "Minergie " label, a Swiss low energy standard . The label is mutually supported by trade and 
industry, the Swiss Confederation , the Cantons , as well as the principality of Liechtenstein . The 
label is a registered trademark.  
298.  The initiative for the Minergie standard and label was launched in 1994 . The corresponding 
trademark is owned by a Swiss association . The label is widely used , also beyond the border of 
Switzerland . The association supports the development of innovative sustainable solutions for the 
construction of buildings, for related services and components . They all have to meet a high 
standard of energy -efficiency in orde r to obtain the Minergie certification . The label is designed as 
a quality label to promote sustainable technologies for new and refurbished 
low-energy -consumption buildings . And it shall promote the consumer 's trust in the products and 
services bearing th e Minergie label.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 36 - 
  299.  In conclusion, it can be noted that the successful transition to a greener economy requires 
innovation -friendly framework conditions, including a solid IPR regime, as well as a strong 
commitment on the part of science, enterprises, invest ors, and society overall . The policy 
measures for the attainment of a green economy presented in our intervention are designed to 
achieve such framework conditions and to ensure a continued engagement of the relevant players . 
The engagement for sustainable  development is a long -term process which necessitates 
cooperation between all levels of government with partners from business, civil society and 
science.  
300.  Switzerland hopes that the examples presented have provided Members with a brief and 
useful overview  of some of Switzerland 's initiatives for the development and diffusion of clean 
technology.  
301.  We look forward to hearing from other Members how they address the issue at the national 
and international level – and we would be interested to learn more also in  the next Council 
meeting, should any delegations wish to come back to this agenda item at a later point of time.  
10.7 India  
302.  My delegation would like to thank the delegat ions of the European Union, Japan, 
Switzerland, the United States and others for tabling an agenda item on "IP and Innovation : 
Sustainable Resource and Low Emission Technology Strategies ". 
303.  At the outset, I would like to urge sponsors of ad  hoc agenda item s on IP and Innovation to 
submit a brief paper so that other Members would know what exactly that will be discussed so 
they could contact the capitals and get the appropriate information to participate actively in the 
TRIPS Council on this agenda item.  
304.  Intellectual Property is only one element in a larger innovation ecosystem and IP laws alone 
do not promote technology development . According to the Trilateral Study by WTO, WHO and 
WIPO on "Promoting Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation : Intersection s between public 
health, intellectual property and trade : 
"Patent law is not a stand -alone innovation system . It is only one element of the 
innovation process, and one which can be deployed differently in diverse innovation 
scenarios . Patent law has little  bearing on many other factors that lead to the 
successful development of technologies, e.g. the nature and extent of demand, 
commercial advantages gained by marketing and ancillary services and support, 
commercial and technical viability of production pro cesses, and compliance with 
regulatory requirements, including through effective manag ement of clinical trials 
data." 
305.  The Trilateral S tudy also highlights that Innovation in medical technologies for neglected 
diseases suffers from market failure as convent ional IP -based incentives do not correspond with 
the nature of demand for treatments of these diseases . To overcome the market failure of the IP 
system for neglected diseases, the trilateral study mentions about open innovation structures such 
as Open Sour ce Drug Discovery (OSDD) model of India 's Council of Scientific  and Industrial 
Research (CSIR) and  collabo rative research such as WIPO Research  Sharing Innovation in the 
Fight Against Neglected Tropical Diseases . The study also talks about the concept of d elinking price 
of the final product from the costs of R&D by "push" mechanisms such as grant funding and tax 
credits for investment in R&D and by "pull" mechanisms that offer rewards for the final outcome of 
R&D of certain products like milestone or end pr izes. 
306.  India declared the decade of 2011 -2020 as the Decade of Innovation . The spirit of innovation 
has to permeate all sectors of economy from universities, business and government to people at 
all levels . India has announced a new national IPR policy last  month to stimulate a dynamic, 
vibrant and balanced IPR system in India to:  
 foster creativity and innovation and thereby, promote entrepreneurship and enhance 
socio-economic and cultural development ; and IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 37 - 
   focus on enhancing access to healthcare, food securi ty and environmental protection, 
among other sectors of vital social, economic and technological importance.  
307.  The Paris Agreement on Climate Change was adopted in December  2015 with a central aim 
to limit an average global temperature rise to well below 2 °C above pre -industrial temperatures . 
The Paris Agreement acknowledges and recognizes the development imperatives of India and 
other developing countries . The Agreement has unequivocally acknowledged the imperative of 
climate justice and has based itself on the principles of equity and common , but differentiated 
responsibilities . The Agreement differentiates between the actions of developed and developing 
countries across its elements.  
308.  In the run up to COP -21, India submitted its Intended Nationally Determine d Contribution 
(INDC) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in October  2015, which 
provides, inter alia : 
 to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 % to 35% by 2030 from 2005 level;  
 to achieve about 40 % cumulative electric power installed capacity from non -fossil fuel 
based energy resources by 2030 ; 
 to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3  billion  tonnes of CO2 equivalent through 
additional forest and tree cover by 2030.  
309.  India has also adopted several ambitious measures for  clean and renewable energy, energy 
efficiency in various sectors of industries, achieving lower emission intensity in the automobile a nd 
transport sector, non -fossil-based electricity generation and building sector based on energy 
conservation . Thrust on renewable energy, promotion of clean energy, enhancing energy 
efficiency, developing climate resilient urban centres and sustainable green transportation network 
are some of the measures for achieving this goal.  
310.  The renewable energy technologies contribute  to better air quality, reduce reliance on fossil 
fuels, curb global warming, add jobs to the economy and, protect environmental values such as 
habitat and water quality . Solar power in India is poised to grow significantly with Solar Mission as 
a major in itiative of the Government of India . A scheme for development of 25 Solar Parks , 
Ultra Mega Solar Power Projects, canal top solar projects and one  hundred  thousand  solar pumps 
for farmers is at different stages of implementation . In November  2015 an Intern ational Solar 
Alliance was launched in Paris with 121 solar resource rich countries, including India lying fully or 
partially between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn . This alliance will promote joint 
efforts through innovative policies, pr ojects, programmes, capacity building measures and financial 
instruments to mobilise more than US$1,000 billion  of investments by 2030 that are needed for 
massive deployment of affordable solar energy . International Solar Alliance headquarters are being 
anchored in India.  
311.  India is one among the 20  countries that launched the Mission Innovation in Paris in 
November  2015 to reinvigorate and accelerate public and private global clean energy innovation 
with the objective to make clean energy widely affordable . This has already been mentioned by my 
Canadian colleague . I conclude by quoting from our Prime  Minister Narendra Mode's  statement 
during the launch of the Mission Innovation in Paris:  
"Innovation is vital for combating climate change and ensuring climate j ustice  … We 
need research and innovation to make renewable energy much cheaper ; more 
reliable ; and, easier to connect to transmission grids . We can make conventional 
energy cleaner . And, we can develop newer sources of renewable energy . This is a 
global re sponsibility to our collective future . Our innovation initiative should be driven 
by public purpose, not just market incentives, including on intellectual property . That 
also means strong public commitment by suppliers to developing countries . That will 
make clean energy technology available, accessible and affordable for all. … 
Innovation must be backed by means to make it affordable and ensure adoption. " IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 38 - 
  10.8 Australia  
312.  The Australian Government is in caretaker mode pending a national election . In this context 
and subject to caretaking conventions, Australia is intervening to share information about past 
policies and practices as regards sustainable resource and low emi ssion technology strategies . This 
information is conveyed without committing any incoming government to any future action . With 
this understanding, Australia welcomes this exchange of national experiences and best practice on 
how technological innovation c an drive economic growth hand -in-hand with emissions reductions 
and sustainable resource management.  
313.  We recognize that climate change poses significant challenges for the global trading 
environment as well as for people and economies more generally . Continual innovation and 
economic adaptability will be critical to meeting these challenges . Effective and balanced 
intellectual property laws and policies form part of a broader suite of measures Australia has 
adopted to support transition to a lower emissions economy and a more climate resilient growth.  
314.  Effective IP frameworks help incentivize innovation and create entrepreneurs, businesses 
and companies to invest their capital, build markets, new products and services, and share their 
knowledge and skills to f oster follow -on innovation.  
315.  For example, Australia is using science and technology to unleash the economic potential of 
our oceans . In October  2015, Australia called on innovators, entrepreneurs, NGOs and academics 
to rethink how advances in aquaculture co uld provide solutions that promote economic 
development and environmental sustainability . This aquaculture challenge runs until the end of 
June with the winners awarded 3  million  Australian dollars to develop their innovations.  
316.  Australia has also supported  emerging technologies to make the leap from demonstrations to 
commercial use . Intellectual Property Australia offers fast -tracking patent examination for green 
technology . This initiative aims to help green innovators find a fast track to the marketplace by 
offering priority to environmentally friendly technologies in the patent application system.  
317.  Australia has sought to foster collaboration to meet the challenges of a changing climate and 
finite natural resources base . In particular, we have promoted the  sharing of knowledge and 
technology to boost climate resilience and foster clean energy use especially in the Indo -Pacific 
region.  
318.  As Members know, we report annually on the initiatives that we have in place to promote 
and encourage technology transfer by  institutions and enterprises fulfilling our commitment in 
Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement . These include projects undertaken by Australia's  leading 
science and research organizations . A good example is the Australian Centre for International 
Agricultu ral Researchers Resilient Farming Systems Intensification project in Bangladesh . Working 
with farmers, researchers and institutions, this project is introducing agricultural technologies and 
conservation agricultural principles that increase the resilience  of small -holder farmers to climate 
change . The results data technologies and impacts that emerge from this and other Australian 
centres for international agricultural research development projects are published.  
319.  Registered intellectual property is used on ly when it assists in disseminating research results 
in the interests of helping those in the Indo -Pacific region to adapt their farming, fishing or forestry 
practices to a variable climate.  
320.  Australia is also on track to become a supporter of WIPO Green un der our recently extended 
fund and trust arrangement with the World Intellectual Property Organization . This initiative seeks 
to contribute to green technology, innovation and transfer, including by connecting green 
technology providers and seekers . Our contribution will target our Pacific neighbours and promote 
transfer of green technologies to meet their specific environmental needs.  
321.  Clean energy will play a key role in global efforts to reduce emissions and grow national 
economies . Australia has also bee n supporting climate change adaption and mitigation efforts in a 
number of developing countries, especially in the Indo -Pacific region . We were pleased to have 
lent our support to the first Pacific project financed by the Green Climate Fund . This project a ims 
to improve urban water supply and waste water management in Fiji.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 39 - 
  322.  Australia has also contributed to the World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance 
Programme . Our contribution will enable ten Pacific Island  countries to integrate solar and wind 
powe r into electricity grids while maintaining reliability, affordability and adequacy of supply.  
323.  In concluding, Australia has recognized the importance of effective and balanced intellectual 
property settings to promote R&D capacity and incentivize investment  in climate resilient and 
sustainable resource solutions for our common future.  
324.  We have welcomed information shared by other Members in this discussion and encourage 
others to join us in sharing their best practices and lessons learned.  
10.9 Bangladesh  
325.  We sincerely thank all the sponsors of this agenda item . We are extremely happy to see the 
advancements between different technologies in different sections and I congr atulate every 
Member which has spoken and presented its developments in various areas.  
326.  We all know that renewable energy technologies and technologies related to climate change, 
gene technology for food security, medical sectors and agricultural produce se cured for various 
sustainable development needs are very expensive and considered to be high end.  
327.  We vehemently thank their inventors and their defenders for their achievements . However, 
the IP regime in LDCs are markedly different from IP regimes in devel oped countries . We will see 
that, as the days go by, the population using  these technologies will be more in developing 
countries and LDCs than the population in developed countries . Just for the sheer number, just 
yesterday we saw that by 2050 we will hav e to increase food output by 70 % for our 10.5  billion  
people.  
328.  Here the LDCs are the worst victims of climate change, food insecurity, lack of medicine and 
healthcare . For this we have TRIPS Article 66.2 and 67 which we hope that the developed 
countries wil l generously use to share their technologies with us . I thank, once again, all the 
proponents.  
10.10  China  
329.  China would like to thank all of those Members for making prese ntations on this topic . These 
presentations showed how IP strategies could facilitate technology development which will 
contribute to our collective efforts to achieve the targets set out under the Paris Agreement on 
Climate Change.  
330.  China notes that the Paris Agreement also established a technology framework to promote 
and facilitate enhanced action on technology development and transfer in order to support the 
implementation of the Agreement . Presentations made by some Members also referred to how 
some pro jects, including some capacity building activities had bee n initiated to help developing 
Members improve their capacity to make response to climate change . China would like to 
encourage Members, especially developed  countries , to share more experience in t his regard  in 
this Council . 
10.11  Korea, Republic of  
331.  I would also like to thank the co -sponsors for this initiative and their interesting 
presentations.  
332.  Our delegation wants to share some policies on sustainable resources and low emission 
technology strategies . Korea has made efforts to strengthen its IP competitiveness  in major 
technology industries which contribute  to the development of sustainable resources  and low 
emission strategies.  
333.  To be specific, Korea has introduced an accelerated examination process for green 
technologies in order t o help companies acquire patent rights earlier . Applicants can request an 
accelerated examination of patent applications for any form of eco -friendly technology that IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 40 - 
  minimizes the emission of greenhouse gases or pollutants . Some examples include greenhouse 
technologies, energy efficient technologies, clean technologies, low energy technologies, 
environmentally friendly and r ecycling technologies.  
334.  In addition, the Korea Intellectual Property Office is carrying out projects to support 
companies that own sustainable resources and low emission technologies, such as solar powered 
technology and green cars . These companies can be p rovided with professional consultations on IP 
management strategies and analysis results of patent -related information, including application 
trends and disputes surrounding green technologies.  
335.  Our delegation looks forward to having another opportunity to share some facts of these 
policies in the future.  
10.12 European Union  
336.  We have been working hard on possibilities to make these debates more focused and more 
targeted and maybe also more interesting and more inclusive . I would say out of the Chairman's 
proposals, one that we can certainly support is this possibility to make comments at the 
subsequent session . I think that could make the debate richer for those who do not have the 
possibility to prepare when the first presentations are made.  
337.  Regarding the ot her two proposals, we are considering them carefully and we will come back 
to this maybe at the next session.  
10.13 South Africa  
338.  Perhaps just to get back to some o f the comments made by the Chairman during his 
summary . South Africa intervened last week in the informal  meeting.  I think one of the issues was 
whether or not agenda items should be accompanied by some sort of summary of the issue to be 
discussed when a M ember introduces such a topic . Of course, we have heard very carefully what 
the Secretariat had said, that in, well, as it was stated, 50 % of the cases, Rule 4 of the Working 
Procedures has been followed where there was some sort of information being prese nted. In other 
cases, this was not necessarily followed . So just to consolidate, South Africa was of the view that, 
from a practical perspective, it is better for anyone introducing a new topic to circulate with it 
some information so that Members can prep are and participate.  
339.  We have also spoken about rules of engagement, that is the issue of inclusivity, the issue of 
balance and so forth . In line with that, we reiterate our statement that from a practical point of 
view, it is better to circulate additional  information so as to make discussions more practical.  
340.  Perhaps on a last issue, the proposal to roll over perhaps certain discussions to our next 
meeting : we have not discussed that directly in the informal  meeting , but I think this delegation 
will have so me sort of concern because it is not that we talk about regular items here . We talk 
about an ad  hoc item that is inscribed for a particular meeting . Should we roll these over to a next 
meeting ? I think we do create at least, from a practical point of view,  some sort of permanency so 
this delegation would have some sort of concerns in respect of how this is done . For the record we 
state that this would have to specifically require consent from the Membership if that practice 
should be adopted.  
10.14 Chair man  
341.  I take  note of your comments that ad hoc issues cannot roll over to another meeting unless 
it is agreed in this room because it has been promote d to be a permanent ag enda item.  I was just 
wondering whether  this part icular issue can nevertheless  be considered for the next November 
meeting or you have total reservation although  no one was arguing  that now we can start the 
negotiations. Those who are proposing here now, t hey are sharing things, they are observing in 
the process of trying this area of sustainable resource, production and consumption. This came 
from Paris and I think it is subject to that to be considered in this Council, but before you do that 
you start edu cating each other  and share  experiences  that can be useful to the membership. 
Maybe you can take the floor, and clarify what was said at the last meeting, and then today your IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 41 - 
  position on whether this particular topic can be taken up at the Council's meetin g in November 
again or not, you have the right to say no.  
342.  The other comments you made also are very pertinent and we will ask the Secretariat to 
take care of that so that we do not get into things that make some Member States uncomfortable.   
The Secretaria t around me is to advise me on how best to handle situations like the one that was 
brought up by the South African delegation.  
10.15 South Africa  
343.  I think South Africa was very clear at the informal last week . Of course, we have to follow 
rules. If there are rules and practices, these rules and practices must be applied to the extent 
possible . 
344.  Now having stated opposition specifically on the point of roll over – whether or not the 
current agenda item may be considered at the next TRIPS Council meeting – I believe it will set a 
precedent that perhaps may compromise our ability to manage ad hoc items . From that 
perspective . This delegation is not in favour of actually having this particular item rolled over . Not 
because we are of the view that the topic is no t important . I think all of us agree that the topic is 
important, but of course, from a rules -based perspective, we believe it is more cogent that any 
proponent or any delegation that wishes to suggest a particular topic do that for a future agenda, 
but un der the current agenda we don 't believe that it is practical for us to agree that this particular 
matter should roll over.  
10.16 Secretariat   
Given that we had t his discussion in an informal meeting, I just wanted to clarify for the record the 
advice that the Secretariat gave in the informal meeting . Indeed, the practice is that sometimes 
Members submit documentation together with their request for a n item, someti mes not, but the 
Rules of Procedure of the General Council, that are also applied by the TRIPS Council, do not 
require documentation . It is therefore  not a matter of whether Members are complying with the 
rules of procedure or not.  
 
10.17 I ndia 
345.  I would lik e to support the statement made by South Africa . We ask the sponsors of the 
agenda item to submit relevant documentation so that the Members could understand what is the 
background of such an item so that they could get input from their respective capitals  and take 
active participation in the discussions in the TRIPS Council . I think it will make the discussion more 
inclusive by hearing views from other Members also on such agenda items.  
346.  We fully support South Africa that this rolling over should not be don e either . It would set a 
precedent for the future . Though we also agree with South Africa that the current agenda item is 
very interesting and stemming out of the COP -21 Paris Conference.  
10.18 Bangladesh  
347.  As per rules, procedure and practice, nobody is sto pping any Member to propose any agenda 
item, so instead of taking a decision to roll over, let  us wait for any Member to propose this for the 
next TRIPS Council, as this has always been done before . So if any Member feels that this agenda 
item should be di scussed in the next TRIPS Council, let us wait for a request.  
348.  I also support that background material or proposal be distributed in advance so that 
delegates can effectively contribute to the discussion.  
10.19 Brazil  
349.  I would just like to add my voice to So uth Africa, India and Bangladesh . Regarding the 
questions on the procedure, specifically as Bangladesh rightly said, was exactly the comments we 
were going to make . It would be important to know whether this agenda item that is an ad hoc 
item, will be incl uded in the agenda of the next meeting  before we decide on having a rollover of IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 42 - 
  the subject . We also understand and agree that it would be useful to have information beforehand 
so delegations can prepare . My delegation also ha s plenty of experience t o shar e on the green 
technology and would be very glad to share with the Members . Therefore, it would be useful to 
have the information way prior to the meeting.  
10.20 Chairman  
350.  If you want to bring an ad hoc item, you are the one who is going to do it. For us, t he 
Secretariat, we will look at the programme and then include  the ad hoc item as requested . If your 
ad hoc item was on today 's agenda , follow ing it  up at our next meeting would  establish a 
preceden t which , according to  South Africa, would  not be appropria te. This said , if you have other 
things to share with us, you are welcome because this is a dynamic world. We are not going to 
hide in rules and not say new things even if they are not committing anybody . We want to learn on 
new things on what IP issues th at might be foreseen for the future. T his is important,  dynamic  and 
intellectual  because w e learn from each other. We are not going to roll out anything, we are not 
going to suggest another item as Secretariat or Chair , but we are not going to say no to ad  hoc 
issues  either  if a Member is proposing . It is up to you.  
AGENDA ITEM 11: WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
11.1 Canad a  
351.  Further to our formal communication to Members in document IP/C/W/613, Canada is 
pleased to present a  proposal to re -engage the TRIPS Council in discussions under the WTO Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce .3 Canada 's long -standing perspective is that E-commerce  
provides new ways of doing business, opens new business opportunities, fosters new efficienc ies, 
gives small and medium -sized enterprises access to wider markets and for consumers provides 
increased competition and product choice.  
352.  Canada 's proposal follows from the recent Ministerial Decision of 1 9 December  2015 made at 
the Tenth WTO Ministerial Conference, MC10, to continue work on the WTO Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce "based on the existing mandate and guidelines and on the basis of proposals 
submitted by Members in the relevant WTO bodies as set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Work 
Programme ". Particular to intellectual property, Article 4.1 of the Work Programme originally 
established in 1998, this would be document WT/L/274, tasks to the TRIPS Council to "examine 
and report on protection and enforcement of copyright and related rights,  protection and 
enforcement of trademarks and new technologies and access to technology ". Canada's  proposal 
also follows from the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration Guidance at paragraph 29 "to reinvigorate the 
regular work of the Committees " of the WTO . We note that formal TRIPS Council discussions on 
electr onic commerce under the Work Programme last took place between 1998 and 2003, during 
which time Members engaged in constructive discussion on those provisions of the TRIPS relevant 
to the Work Programme as  well as related developments in the international IP framework . The 
TRIPS Council documents and reports prepared by the Secretariat for those discussions would no 
doubt serve to continue as a foundation for future engagement in this area.  
353.  At the same time , in the intervening years since the last formal TRIPS Council discussions in 
2003, we have seen remarkable advances at the intersection between intellectual property and 
E-commerce  with rapid growth in the role of digital technology and telecommunications , as 
facilitators of commerce in countries spanning all levels of development . IP continues to intersect 
with E-commerce  in a number of ways . Not only do E-commerce  transactions often involve the 
sale of IP protective goods and services, for example, music , films, pictures, software, books, etc. , 
but IP also underlies the systems that make E-commerce  work. For instance, the underlying 
systems and devices that facilitate and enable E-commerce  transactions are often protected by a 
range of IP rights, for exam ple, copyright designs, patents, integrated circuit designs, trade 
secrets, trademarks, etc.  
354.  With these developments in mind, we would welcome an exchange of views from the TRIPS 
Council Membership on the desirability of a dedicated standing TRIPS Council agenda item on the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce or an alternative option such as ad hoc discussions . In 
                                                
3 See Room Document RD/IP/11.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 43 - 
  view of previous work in this area, renewed engagement on this topic could, for instance, allow 
Members an opportunity to share national experi ences and national policy development efforts at 
the intersection between IP rights and E-commerce  with a view to helping Members better 
understand and catalogue emerging global policy norms and developments in this area . This 
discussion could be guided by  the range of issues covered under Article 4.1 of the 1998 Work 
Programme, such as national policy experiences on E-commerce  relating to the protection and 
enforcement of copyright related rights and trademarks, as well as with respect to new 
technologies and access to technology . We remain encouraged that these avenues for discussion 
remains sufficiently broad and may serve to encourage the sharing of national experiences and 
practices across a full range of IP and E-commerce  topics of interest to Members spanning all 
levels of economic development.  
355.  To provide an example of the type of information exchange and sharing of national practices 
that Canada envisages under this item at future TRIPS Council meetings, I would now be pleased 
to present on a recent i nnovative law enforcement initiative aimed at addressing the sale of 
counterfeit trademark goods over the internet . Following the presentation, Canada would welcome 
the views of Members on a proposal for a standing item or ad hoc discussions on E-commerce  in 
fulfilment of the MC10 Ministerial Decision as well as comments and questions on the specific 
presentation that I am about to deliver.  
356.  My presentation will provide an overview of a recent innovative IPR and E-commerce  
initiative which we believe is havi ng a very positive effect for consumers, IPR holders, credit card 
companies, banks and the government . The programme is titled Project Chargeback and is led by 
the Canadian Anti -Fraud Centre – a small unit under Canada's  national police service . The 
object ives of the programme are effectively threefold . It responds to complaints of consumers 
regarding deceptive E-commerce  websites selling counterfeit goods . It refunds consumers that 
have inadvertently purchased counterfeit goods, including for example cloth ing or counterfeit 
pharmaceutical products . Third, it reduces overall profits of counterfeit sales, including by 
organized crime.  
357.  Slides 4 and 5  provide an overview of how the programme works . The crux of the initiative 
revolves around the worldwide zero t olerance chargeback policy adopted by credit card companies 
which require issuing banks to refund card holders that have unintentionally purchased and 
received counterfeit or pirated merchandise if they can provide confirmation by the right holder or 
law e nforcement that the goods are not authentic . Once a product is confirmed counterfeit the 
credit card companies refund 100 % of the original charge to the victimized consumer . The 
initiative relies on collaboration between the consumers, governments, credit card companies, IP 
right holders and banks . In terms of the general process, consumers that have inadvertently 
purchase a counterfeit product file a complaint with the Canadian Anti -Fraud Centre providing 
information including the details of the goods (usu ally by submitting a photograph), website 
address of where they purchased the goods, the date and the amount of the purchase . Next, the 
Canadian Anti -Fraud Centre confirms, often with the assistance of right holders, that the goods are 
not authentic and wi ll relay the information to the credit card company and issuing bank to assess 
and initiate a chargeback which then typically results in the termination of the merchant account 
used by the website to process payments for the sale of counterfeit goods . This has the 
downstream effect of reducing the ability of counterfeit good sellers marketing their counterfeit 
goods to other potential customers . Also, the victimized consumer is constructed to not return 
counterfeit merchandise to the seller . By not returnin g the item, the counterfeit good seller 
subsequently loses the cost of the product and is unable to sell that item to someone else.  
358.  In terms of the impact in just one specific case of the programme, consumers recover 100 % 
of the loss they occur in the coun terfeit goods purchase . The counterfeit seller loses the sale of the 
product along with a US$25 chargeback fee per refund and likely termination of their merchant 
account by the bank or payment processor . In addition, a payment processor or bank could be 
fined for a high number of chargebacks and could lose access to Visa, Mastercard or other credit 
card companies . Further losses to the counterfeit good sellers include loss of the product which is 
not returned by the consumer, loss of the production costs o f course and loss of the shipping 
costs, including shipping charges and packaging.  
359.  The results of the programme are significant and speak for themselves . Just to give you a 
few numbers : over the seven -month period between 1 October  2015 and 3 0 April 2016, 7,460 
consumers have recovered 100 % of their losses, averaging between 300 and 350 dollars per IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 44 - 
  victim . Since 2010, over 5,000 merchant accounts have been identified - over half of these have 
been terminated . In addition, over the past two years, approximat ely 40 brick and mortar retail 
merchant accounts have been closed in Canada due to the programme . I have just provided a 
high-level overview of the programme, but should Members or their colleagues at capital have 
more interest in the Project Chargeback pr ogramme, please refer to the website above or come 
speak with me or follow up . While this operation is quite small in terms of human resources, in fact 
only a handful of people operate this programme, we have already received interest from several 
countrie s that are interested in learning more to replicate the programme in their countries . I hope 
the presentation of interest to Members . We feel it is the type of national experience of interest 
regarding IP and E-commerce  that could serve as a mere example o f the sorts of presentations 
that other Members could make on IP policy initiatives of interest under the E-commerce  Work 
Programme at future TRIPS Council meetings.  
360.  To conclude, in view of the MC10 Decision to renew work on the Work Programme on 
Electroni c Commerce, as well as the Ministerial Decision instruction to the General Council to hold 
periodic reviews of the work of WTO Bodies, Canada would be interested in hearing the views of 
the Membership on the desirability of a standing item on this issue or  ad hoc discussions at future 
TRIPS Council meetings.  
11.2 Switzerland  
361.  We would like to thank the delegation of Canada for tabling the subject of E-commerce  and 
for sharing its national initiative about the cooperation with credit card companies . This initiative 
appears to be a good  example of  a remarkable approach  to target trade in counterfeit  and pirated 
goods over the internet.  
362.  Since the adoption of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce in 1998 the world has 
undergone  a great number of electronic and digital evolutions from which the need to regulate 
electronic commerce has emerged . Digital trade is much about interfacing or connecting domestic 
trade regimes, so as to allow for interoperability and provide for the nece ssary certainty in 
processes.  
363.  In our view this in an area where the WTO has an important role to play, with regard to its 
rule-setting function in trade policy, but also its ability to foster dialogue on digital trade matters . 
While identifying the need fo r complementing and adapting rules relevant to E-commerce , it is 
important to take into account already existing guidelines and treaties in other international 
Organizations  and in the field of global internet governance.  
364.  For the protection of IPRs in E-commerce , there are a number of multilateral treaties, in 
particular the TRIPS Agreement and WIPO agreements, which already contain general and specific 
rules that provide the basis to address also new challenges when dealing with electronic business 
transac tions. Following the Nairobi Ministerial Conference, the TRIPS Council may now look into 
deepening specific IP -related issues in E-commerce , on a non -prejudicial basis . Switzerland 
particularly welcomes such initiatives as introduced today by the Canadian delegation which will 
enable an open dialogue . Switzerland looks forward to engage in future discussions.  
11.3 United States  
365.  The United States thanks Canada for the addition of this agenda item to today 's meeting, as 
suppl emented by communication document number IP/C/W/613 . We also welcome Canada 's 
explanation of its recent law enforcement initiative addressing the sale of counterfeit trademark 
goods over the internet and we found today 's presentation to be very interesting  and helpful.  
366.  In preparing for this agenda item, we reverted to the original and foundational documents 
establishing and elaborating views on the General Council 's Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce . One of those documents is a background note by the Se cretariat IP/C/W/128 . This 
note provides an informative overview of the work programme, the relevant provisions of the 
TRIPS Agreement and the commercial and trade considerations relevant thereto . The note frames 
the interdependence of E-commerce  and IPR v ery well, it states "The expected growth of electronic 
commerce is closely linked with the growing importance of intellectual property.  Indeed, much of 
the trade on the Internet and other electronic communications networks involves the selling or IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 45 - 
  licensing  of information, cultural products and technology protected by intellectual property rights . 
For consumers who buy products and services at a distance, it may be increasingly necessary to 
rely on the reputation attached to trademarks and other distinctive signs. Intellectual property 
plays an important role also in promoting the development of the infrastructure of communications 
networks. " 
367.  Further, with respect to the TRIPS Agreement, and its relevant digital trade, the Secretariat 
explains that while the TRIPS Agreement negotiations were largely concluded by December  1991 
in advance of the modern digital economy, noting that "the technology -neutral language used in 
the Agreement are relevant in the digital network environment ". Continuing, specifically the  TRIPS 
Agreement provisions on "patents as well as copyright, layout designs of integrated circuits and 
undisclosed information, trade secrets play  an important role in promoting the technological 
development of the infrastructure of elec tronic communicati ons networks i.e. the software, 
hardware and other technology that make up information highways . IPR provides protection to the 
results of investment in the development of new information and communications technology, thus 
giving the incentive and the mea ns to finance R&D aimed at improving such technology. " 
368.  These observations by the Secretariat frame this issue very well . The United States looks 
forward to interventions under this item, including to consider what US measures and measures of 
other WTO Memb ers may be discussed as part of this topic.  
11.4 Chinese Taipei   
369.  We welcome the proposal by Canada on this item . We also thank Canada for the informative 
presentation, we are impressed by Canada 's determination to combat t he selling of counterfeit 
goods online by a proactive approach to tackle the problem . We are pleased to have this 
opportunity of briefly sharing with the Council some of our own thoughts and experiences on the 
issue of IP and E-commerce . 
370.  According to  Practical E-commerce , a leading internet publication, E-commerce  is booming in 
our domestic market . We are among the world leaders in terms of E-commerce  penetration – 
roughly 62 % of our residents have at some time purchased online, and  E-commerce  now accounts 
for 11% of our retail sales . Moreover, due to our geographical proximity to China and Japan, 
cross-border E-commerce  has grown enormously as well, with our  shoppers buying from Chinese 
and Japanese websites, and vice-versa . 
371.  As E-commerce  broadens and becom es more and more popular, we must remind ourselves 
of the reasons why IP is so important to E-commerce , and indeed why E-commerce  is so important 
to IP.  E-commerce , perhaps more than any other systems of doing business, often involves selling 
products and services that are based on patents and IP licensing.  Music, pictures, photos, 
software, designs, training modules, systems, etc., can all be traded through E-commerce , and in 
these cases, IP is a key component of the value of the transaction . IP is also im portant to things of 
a certain value that are traded on the internet because they need the protection of the latest 
technological security systems and of IP laws, otherwise they may be stolen or pirated, and whole 
businesses can be destroyed.  
372.  We are well a ware, too, that most of the famous online retailers and marketplaces, like 
Alibaba, Amazon, Facebook, Taobao , E-Bay, etc., have all introduced intellectual property policies 
and infringement reporting mechanisms in order to protect the rights of consumers and IP rights 
holders alike.  
373.  My government would be happy to continue discussions on this issue, and to learn from the 
best practices and experiences of other Members in tackling the problems of online counterfeit 
goods and trademark infringement.  
11.5 India 
374.  We would like to thank the delegation of Canada for their submission on Work Programme 
on E-commerce  contained in document IP/C/W/613 . We would also like to thank the delegation of 
Canada for their presentation on their recent i nnovative law enforcement initiative (Project IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 46 - 
  Chargeback initiative of the Canadian Anti -Fraud Centre) addressing the sale of counterfeit 
trademark goods over the Internet.  
375.  The Nairobi Ministerial Decision on E-commerce  directed the WTO Committees "to cont inue 
the work under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce since our last session, based on the 
existing mandate and guidelines and on the basis of proposals submitted by Members in the 
relevant WTO bodies as set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Work Pro gramme ". 
376.  The c urrent mandate of the WTO Work P rogramme on E-commerce  is an exploratory 
non-negotiating one . We recognise the global expanse and the potential of electronic commerce 
and we welcome the cooperation and sharing of best practices for promotion of E-commerce  on an 
exploratory basis . We support this item to be an ad  hoc agenda item only, preferably accompanied 
with a submission by the sponsor of the ad  hoc agenda item, to enable other Members to share 
their national experiences appropriately.  
11.6 Brazil  
377.  We would like to congratulate the Canadian Delegation for the initiative of bringing this 
important topic for discussion at the TRIPS Council.  
378.  Brazil has been conducting a broad and careful examination of this topic . Discussions on E-
commerce , for their novel and dynamic nature, impose challenges to authorities in charge of 
establishing national regulations . These challenges are related to the national level - as 
exemplified by the presentation of Canadian experience on fi ghting counterfeiting and piracy in E-
commerce  - and the international level . The adoption of a work program me on E-commerce  in the 
TRIPS Council, thus, would require a previous deeper debate.  
379.  In this complex and multi-layered  discussion, we can still iden tify a main guideline . And this 
guideline that should provide direction to state agents is clear : the same rights protected off -line 
should be, in the measure allowed by technology, be protected in the digital environment . Among 
these rights, we underscore  that the territoriality of copyright and related rights, consumer 
protection, data protection and the right to privacy must be incorporated in the digital 
environment . These rights cannot be made available "off -line only".  
11.7 European Union  
380.  Let me start by thanking Canada for including this item on the agenda, and for launching this 
interesting discussion, and for making a couple of concrete proposals, and for the interesting 
presentation on the concrete programme that is being put into place to compensate for purchase 
of counterfeit goods over the internet.  
381.  The EU has extensive experience in this area and also may have one of the oldest laws . Our 
E-commerce  Directive  which contains provisions on how to address intellect ual property situations 
in this electronic environment already dates more than 15 years . So we certainly  have experience 
to share, and an enormous interest in the recognition of the importance of this matter.    
382.  In Europe we are now engaged In the Digital S ingle Market Strategy . This is a strategy to 
complete our internal market, we have for many years worked on the circulation of goods, 
services, citizens  and of capitals . Now we are going into detail to make this Single Market extend 
also into the digital e nvironment . In this strategy that was presented i n May  2015 and in the  
Single Market Strategy of October  2015, the Commission announced that it will make legislative 
proposals in 2016 to modernize the enforcement of intellectual property rights, focusing on online 
commercial -scale infringements . This is the so called ''follow the money '' approach . The Copyright 
Communication of December  2015 also announced that the Commission will take immediate action 
to engage, with all parties concerned, in setting up a nd applying ''follow the money '' mechanisms 
to combat online piracy and counterfeiting, based on a self -regulatory approach.  
383.  In July 2014, the Commission had adopted the Communication "Towards a Renewed 
Consensus on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property  Rights : An Action Plan" In this Action Plan, 
the Commission sought to re-orientate its policy for intellectual property enforcement towards 
better compliance with IPRs by all economic actors  involved . Rather than penalizing the citizen for IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 47 - 
  infringing IPRs (often unknowingly), these measures pave d the way towards a ''follow the money 
approach '' that seeks to deprive commercial scale infringers of the revenue flows that draw them 
into such activities.  
384.  The Commission facilitates stakeholder dialogues that pro mote collaborative approaches and 
voluntary, practical solutions to problems in IPR enforcement in evolving technological and 
commercial environments . One such approach was the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding 
in May 2011, following a series of mee tings,  that brought together major internet platforms and 
right holders for products for which counterfeit versions are often sold online . The MoU commits 
companies to undertake certain measures and trade associations to further promote the MoU 
among thei r members.  
385.  More recently, o n 14 March  2016, the Commission held a Stakeholders ' general meeting on 
online advertising and IPR, bringing all the interested parties together (the advertising industry, 
intermediaries, content protection sector, online media, right owners, civil society, consumer 
organizations, brands and advertisers) . The stakeholders discussed the possibility of establishing a 
voluntary agreement at EU level in order to avoid the misplacement of advertising on IP -infringing 
websites, thereby restricting the flow of revenue to such sites while safeguarding the reputation of 
the advertisers and the integrity of the advertising industry.  
386.  These are a few examples of very intense activity that the EU has engaged in this area . 
Unfortunately  because of the lack of time to conclude internal consultations, I cannot give a 
position regarding Canada 's proposal for a permanent agenda point, but we will be considering it 
with interest and at the next Council we will be ready to give you a more conclusive an swer on 
this. 
11.8 South Africa  
387.  I would like to take this opportunity to thank Canada for its instructive presentation on 
initiatives  it is taking in respect to enforcement regarding pirated or counterfeit goods . This 
deleg ation takes the floor merely to indicate that in respect of the proposal to consider, either a  
permanent agenda and/or ad hoc item  that at this point, we have not been able to consider the 
proposal as it has only been made in this particular meeting.  From an initial  point of view, we 
believe that E-commerce  is an important area of discussion and this delegation would be 
supportive of perhaps an ad hoc approach from meeting to meeting.  
11.9 Korea, Republic of   
388.  We are gra teful to Canada for introducing the paper and sharing its partic ular initiative on IP 
and E-commerce . I also thank the other Members for sharing views and information on their 
national policies and practices on this issue . Our delegation believes that E-commerce  has an 
increasing role in international trade and has an ever greater bearing on development . It is 
therefore important for us to continue discussions on this in a systemic and in -depth manner . In 
order to promote Member -driven discussions, MIKTA, a  grouping of Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, 
Turkey, and Australia will host an E-commerce  workshop at the WTO in early July . Korea hopes to 
take this opportunity to have useful discussions, including on the path forward.  
11.10 China  
389.  China would like to thank Canada for the document submitted and the presentation made . 
We also would like to thank other members ' information and comments.  
390.  China notes the significant and beneficial roles played by E-commerce  in promoting access of 
firms, es pecially those SMEs from developing Members to expend their trade and investment 
opportunities . During the past few years, China 's economy also has been driven tremendously by 
the emerging of E-commerce  and the value chain developed . In 2015, the business scale of E-
commerce  in China reached 18 trillion RMB (equal nearly 3 trillion USD) and the Chinese E-
commerce  market has become one of the biggest in the world . The achievement made in China 
benefits not only from new technologies and novel business models , but also from innovative 
regulatory approaches which we would like to share briefly with all distinguished delegates.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 48 - 
  391.  These approaches, synchronizing with the technology development in the sector, 
characterize with collaborative efforts between regulator y authorities and operators of E-commerce  
platforms, self -discipline established by the industry and more involvement of local IP authorities 
in collecting and verifying evidence and in enforcement process against infringement . Within the 
current legal fra mework and without imposing additional burden to users ' right, these new 
approaches provide effective and efficient protection on IPRs and at the same time, also create a 
business -friendly environment for E-commerce , facilitate the integration of SMEs and individuals to 
the national and global trade.  
11.11 Bangladesh  
392.  I would like to thank Canada for proposing this very useful agenda item, and their project 
initiative is a very necessary and exemplary initiative which could be imitated by all other 
countries . I have two small pieces of information to seek from them if they are able to provide it 
now, or maybe later . Firstly, Canada has mentioned that in the case of a complaint, regarding a 
deceptive E-commerce  website selling co unterfeit goods, this chargeback initiative immediately 
responds . I would like to know if the deceptive E-commerce  websites are hosted in servers outside 
of Canada, how do they deal with it because I assume that most of the websites of this kind of 
trade w ould be hosted outside of Canada . I do not know if you have any specific modalities to deal 
with it.  
393.  Secondly, it has been mentioned in Canada's presentation that this chargeback initiative 
confirms the validity of complaints with right holders , that is th e authenticity of the goods . So the 
right holders  are actually  spread all over the world, and it is a herculean task to actually contact 
and get confirmation from them . With such a small number of persons, how do they manage such 
a huge responsibility?  
394.  While I have the floor, I may also add that we may agree to discuss the issue under an 
Agenda item in the future, and I would also like to remind everybody that we had a tacit 
understanding that , while we all agree to have a Work Programme on E-commerce , deve lopment 
issues and needs of the developing countries will be duly considered while we proceed with any 
programme.  
11.12 Canada  
395.  Thank you to my colleague from Bangladesh for two excellent questions . With respect to the 
first question regarding how to deal w ith websites that are not hosted within Canada, this gives me 
an opportunity to clarify that the programme does not resul t in shutt ing down of websites 
themselves.  What the programme can do is shut down merchant accounts, in fact at the choice of 
credit ca rd companies and the banks that are associated with those websites, so that it is not in 
fact the Government of Canada that takes the decision, it is the credit card companies and the 
banks through the process of the Project Chargeback that is facilitated by this small unit inside the 
Government of Canada . I think that answers the first question, but I am happy to follow up on that 
point if it is not a sufficient answer . 
396.  With respect to the second question regarding how does such a small unit confirm the 
validity of so many complaints with rights holders worldwide, I obviously do not  administer the 
programme myself and I can follow up for more information . But my understanding is that over 
the three or four years that the programme has ramped up an increasin g number of rights holders 
and rights holder legal counsel  who have participated in the programme such that the efficiency of 
the programme grows with each year that it progress es, such that the network of rights holders 
that are able to participate are ab le to do so and make confirmations more efficiently, more 
effectively and more clearly . In terms of locating rights holders, it is usually quite simple in that 
the branded products that are being counterfeited sort of self -identify themselves in terms of 
where you need to look to contact the initial brand holder of the product that is being 
counterfeited.  
397.  I hope that answers both of my colleagues questions but I am happy to follow up if the 
answers were  not sufficient.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 49 - 
  AGENDA ITEM 12: INFORMATION ON RELEVAN T DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE 
WTO  
12.1 Seychelle s  
398.  The Seychelles would like to inform the meeting that it has completed  the ratification process 
with regard  to the TRIPS  Protocol . The 
399.   instrument of accep tance will be deposited to the Director -General this afternoon.  
12.2 Secretariat   
400.  Traditionally this item has been used to update Members factually on developments 
elsewhere in the WTO that may be of in terest to TRIPS Council delegates.  
401.  During discussions on how to make the work of the Council ever more useful and informative 
for Members, it has become clear that there is another area of WTO work that gathers together 
significant amounts of information o n developments that are of current topical interest from a 
wider policy point of view.  Also, in the context of our technical overhaul of the information services 
provided to Members, as we look to make existing information more readily available and useful  
for Members, we are looking at how cross -cutting information from other processes in the WTO 
can be made available in a manner more suited to more contemporary ways of working with this 
kind of information.  
402.  We therefore provide a brief update on material concerning developments elsewhere strictly 
for background information . There is no suggestion that this has any procedural or substantive 
significance  for this Council . It is simply that this information is presented throughout many 
documents elsewhere and it can be difficult to obtain an overview of recent developments, despite 
the objective of greater transparency.  
403.  Delegates to the Council will be aware that the parallel work of the WTO Trade Policy Review 
process addresses the full range of trade policy measures, includin g measures in the area of 
trade -related aspects of intellectual property rights.  However, it is not as well known that the TPR 
process publishes in very extensive, very detailed  documents, a great deal of information on 
current policy iss ues and that this includes an active dialogue between Members on current issues 
of IP law and policy . Accordingly, we provide an update on this material.  
404.  Nonetheless, this brief update does not s eek to cover the numerous trade -related IP 
measures and exper iences that have been reported in recent Trade Policy Reviews:  there is frankly 
too great a wealth of information , far too rich to be covered in a small compass.  Rather, just t o 
give a general impression of areas that are of particular interest, this updat e covers a small 
number of areas where M embers have shown express interest in the policy measures of other 
Members . For us objectively in the Secretariat these expressions of interest do suggest that there 
is some active interest among Members in the flow of this information . Some of the areas that 
have been taken up in this dialogue  include : 
 the relationship bet ween IP, trade and development;  
 the relationship between the IP system and various aspects of economic performance, 
domestic innovation, the intern ational and nati onal diffusion of technologies;  
 national IP strategies and IP -related development policies, such as measures to use the 
IP system to promote foreign direct investment, the linkages between innovation, IP and 
development planning, and specif ic initiatives to enable domestic firms (including SMEs) 
to make better use of the IP system for economic development ; 
 linkages between IP and tax and regulatory issues, price mechanisms, and competition 
policy ; 
 implementation of the TRIPS amendment to pro mote access to medicines ; IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 50 - 
   current and planned adherence to multilateral IP conventions beyond the scope of the 
WTO, such as a wide range of WIPO treaties, including the recently concluded Marrakesh 
Treaty for facilitating access to published work for peopl e who are blind, visually 
impaired or otherwise disabled,  as well as r egional coordination and harmonization of IP 
standards and administration;  
 approaches to exhaustion of IP rights, including in some specific industry sectors ; 
 enforcement measures  for IP  rights, including border control measures, treatment of 
goods in transit, statistics  on enforcement , the role of different domestic enforcement 
authorities and how they coordinate  their work , measures to improve the handling of 
civil and criminal IP matte rs, and civil and criminal actions to protect trade secrets.  
Members have also discussed the role of alternative dispute resolution, and the 
interaction between competition polic y and enforcement have also been covered;  
 online enforcement measures , technol ogical protection measures and authentication 
measures  for copyright works, as well as consumer awareness to reduce demand for 
pirated and counterfeit products;  
 the administration of IP rights, particularly examination and registration of industrial 
proper ty rights , looking at such  matters as examination backlogs and delays, patent 
quality opposition procedures, measures to improve the clarity of decisions taken, 
arrangements for work-sharing  and similar coordination between industrial property 
offices, as well as initiatives such as priority systems for patents on green technology 
and the promotion of humanitarian licensing ; 
 on the substan ce of IP law and policy, discussions covering a wide range of IP areas 
including p atents, undisclosed information, trade marks, geographical indications, and 
copyright ;  
 discussions covering patent exceptions in the pharmaceutical area, protection of clinical 
trial data, protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources in domestic law, the 
use of related patent disc losure mechanisms, protection of clinical trial data, and 
protecting trade secrets within the context of suppressin g unfair competition;  
 in the trademark area , discussions covering the scope of p rotectable trademarks , 
approaches t o enforcing trademark righ ts on line, and the link  with geographical 
indications , as well as different approaches to the protection of geographical indications, 
including in the context of bilateral agreements and looking at specific forms  such as 
appellations of origin;  
 on copyrigh t, discussions covering such matters as the online and digital environment, 
the role of copyright management organizations  and related issues , levies on recording 
media, the use of optional registration systems and compulsory licensing arrangements 
for tra nslations of copyright works as well as looking at cop yright administration within 
the context of regional integration agreements.  
405.  I stress that this summary is only an incomplete sample of those areas where Members 
themselves have shown specific interest in other Members' policy experiences to the po int of 
posing particular follow -up questions  in the process . This brief account is very far from providing a 
full account of the areas of IP law and  policy that are covered in this process and indeed it is only  
intended to give a  very brief  initial glimpse into the wealth of policy information available from this 
source . This is not intended to have any implications for the work of this body itself . Far from it . It 
is simply to draw attention o f Members of the C ouncil to the fact that this information does exist  
and suggest that it may be of wider policy interest . We would be very happy in more informal 
mode to guide any interested delegation to the detailed materials that we have covered in this 
update if they d o have an interest in any particular area.  IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 51 - 
  AGENDA ITEM 13: OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATIONS  
No statements were made under this agenda item.  
 
AGENDA ITEM 14: OTHER BUSINESS  
14.1 Ecuador  
406.  Ecuado r has requested to speak on this agenda item in order to keep the Members duly 
informed of the developments under way concerning the proposal in document IP/C/W/585, 
submitted to this Council in February  2013, on the "Contribution of intellectual property to 
facilitate the transfer of environmentally rational technology".  
407.  At the national level, this issue continues to be discussed in its own dedicated 
Interinstitutional Committee . The Committee is composed of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ; the 
Ministry of  Foreign Trade ; the Ministry of the Environment ; the National Secretariat for Higher 
Education, Science, Technology and Innovation, with ministerial status ; the Ecuadorian Intellectual 
Property Institute ; and various universities . It examines issues such a s: those relating to how the 
flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement can contribute to better and more dynamic technology 
transfer ; case studies on voluntary licensing for patents involving environmentally rational 
technology, its cost and the conditions for technology transfer ; and the application of compulsory 
licences for environmentally rational technology in accordance with international regulations ; etc., 
in order to establish the possible ways of reformulating the proposal submitted to this Council, 
taking into consideration the criteria outlined and observations made by a large number of 
Members in this body.  
408.  Furthermore, Ecuador continues its consultations with various international bodies to bring 
about a second workshop which seeks to draw conclusion s in order for progress to be made on this 
significant issue . We will provide information on this possibility in due course.  
409.  At the last Council meeting we emphasized the importance of the adoption of the "Paris 
Agreement" in December  2015 under the framew ork of the United Nations Conference on Climate 
Change.  
410.  The Agreement established that the Parties, noting the importance of technology for the 
implementation of mitigation and adaptation actions, and recognizing existing technology 
deployment and dissemin ation efforts, shall strengthen cooperative action on technology 
development and transfer . This was one of the mandates approved by all our countries to curb the 
damaging effects of climate change.  
411.  Ecuador would like to thank the co -sponsors of agenda item  10 for having made reference to 
their experiences on intellectual property and innovation . Mr Chairman, you stated in your 
summary on this item how important technology transfer and cooperation between developed 
countries and developing countries would pr ove. Ultimately, this is what is sought by Ecuador's 
proposal.  
412.  As a result, Ecuador will continue in its efforts to revise the proposal submitted to this 
Council and to contribute to international cooperation in this area.  
14.2 Chairman  
413.  There is a critical mass of information in this room which could make this TRIPS Council very 
vibrant. Sometimes we limit ourselves because we are entrenched in the position of the 1960s and 
this is 2016. The world has changed so much and I am  just open -minded. New thinking is  needed 
that address es carbon footprint, climate change, poverty, poor production and consumption that 
leads to more pollution of the world and so on. This TRIPS Council is supposed to address 
intellectual property that is  related to technology that will always lead us to a green economy.  
414.  If that  is the case, we have to give space to new ideas in this room in informal mode. I think 
the informal  mode here taught me one thing, i.e. that people have a lot of understanding of t he IP/C/M/82/Add.1  
- 52 - 
  issues and we can use it for the better. We can always make this Council to inform the world 
where to go because intellectual property will lead to new green technologies that address climate 
change and sustain the sanctity of resource assessment , etc.  
415.  We should  not be a hostage of rules. If the rules of 1960 are not good for today, let  us talk 
like intellectuals here and say this rule, in informal mode, is outdated and let  us do something 
about it. If you find it is not, then you can create platforms t o look at it again and see how best to 
make it better for us.  
416.  So let  us return t o our offices, thinking that this is a new Council trying to revive itself, to 
address the most difficult subject of IP. IP is totally scientific, it  is technological and it  is 
informational. This is where we make decisions that make sense for the world of tomorrow.  
__________