RESTRICTED  
  
IP/C/M/81  
 
23 March 2016  
(16-1667)  Page: 1/10  
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights   
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 1 MARCH 2016 
Chairperson: Ambassador Al-Otaibi (Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia)  
The present document contains the record of the Council for TRIPS meetings held on 
1 March 2016. The statements made during the meeting will be circulated in an addendum to the 
present document.  
_______________ 
 
 Subjects discussed  
 
1   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROV ISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ........................................ 3
 
2   REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IM PLEMENTING LEGISLATION .............................................. 4  
2.1   Review of the national implem enting legislation of Tajikistan............................................ 4  
2.2   Follow-up to revi ews already und ertaken ...................................................................... 4  
2.3   Arrangements for the review of the nati onal implementing legislation of the Republic 
of Seychelles an d Kazakhst an ............................................................................................. 5  
3   REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B) ..................................................... 5  
4   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DI VERSITY .................................................................................................. 5  
5   PROTECTION OF TRADITIONA L KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE ..................................... 5  
6   NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS ......................................................... 6  
7   REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER 
ARTICLE 71.1 .................................................................................................................. . 7 
8   REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION S UNDER ARTI CLE 24.2 ...................................................... 7  
9   FOLLOW-UP TO THE THIRTEENTH A NNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF 
THE DECISION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2 OF THE TRIPS 
AGREEMENT .....................................................................................................................  7 
10   TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY-BUILDING .............................................. 7  
11   IP AND INNOVATION: ED UCATION AND DI FFUSION ................................................. 8  
12   INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVE LOPMENTS ELSEWHER E IN THE WTO ................. 8  
12.1   A ccession s ............................................................................................................. . 8 
12.2   Protocol Amending  the TRIPS Agreement .................................................................... 8  
12.3   Work Programme on  Electronic Commerce .................................................................. 8  IP/C/M/81 
 
- 2 - 
 
  13   OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATIONS ............................................................................................................. 9  
14   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 9  
14.1   Invitations to ad hoc obse rvers .................................................................................. 9  
14.2   Contribution of Intellectual Property to  Facilitate the Transfer of Environmentally 
Sound Technology ............................................................................................................. 9  
15   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON .............................................................................. 9  
 
  IP/C/M/81 
 
- 3 - 
 
   
1  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT 
1.1.  The Chairman said that, since its meeting in October 2015, the Council had received a 
number of updates to earlier notifications of laws and regulations notified under Article 63.2 of the 
Agreement: 
 Chinese Taipei had notified the Patent Attorn ey Act in its amended version of July 2015; 
the Regulations for the Deposit of Biological Material for Patent Application; and the 
Operational Directions Governing the Mutual Cooperation between the Intellectual 
Property Office (TIPO) and Japan Patent Office in the Field of Deposit of Biological Materials for the Purposes of Patent Procedure; 
 Hong Kong, China had notified its Patents Or dinance Order 2015; the Registered Designs 
Ordinance Regulation 2015; the Trademar ks Ordinance Regulation 2015; and the 
Layout-Designs (Topography) of Integrated Circuits Regulation 2015; and 
 Japan had notified its Unfair Competitio n Prevention Act, as amended in 2015.  
1.2.  These notifications of laws and regulations we re available in the IP/N/1- series of documents, 
and the actual texts of laws in sub-series of documents in electronic form on the Documents Online database. 
1.3.  No new or updated responses to the Check list of Issues on Enforcement had been submitted 
since the Council's meeting in October 2015. He encouraged delegations that were yet to do so to submit their initial responses to the Checklist. He  also invited other delegations that had submitted 
responses to consider updating the in formation provided, as appropriate. 
1.4.  As regards notifications of contact points  under Article 69 for the exchange of information 
and cooperation on trade in infringing goods, since the Council's meeting in October 2015, Kazakhstan had notified a contact point under Article 69 for the first time. The information on the 
Members' transparency toolkit page had been updated accordingly. 
1.5.  The Chair particularly encouraged delegation s that had notified a new or revised legislative 
measure, or a new or updated response to the enforcement checklist to briefly inform the Council 
about the key points of the notified amendment or information provided. Most new notifications 
were revisions or amendments of existing notifications. Several delegations had followed this practice at recent sessions of the Council. This had provided valuable insight into the notifications provided and had assisted in promoting awareness and transparency. 
1.6.  The representatives of Chinese Taipei; Japan; Hong Kong, China briefly introduced their 
respective measures notified. The representative of South Africa also took the floor. 
1.7.  The Chairman urged those Members whose initial notifications of laws and regulations 
remained incomplete to submit the outstanding material without delay. Equally, he urged other 
Members to fulfil their obligation under the TRIPS Agreement to notify any subsequent amendments of their laws and regulations without delay after their entry into force. 
1.8.  He especially encouraged Members to notify changes made to their laws and/or regulations 
to implement the Decision on TRIPS and public health. At least 51 WTO Members, including many of the world's major exporters of medicines, ha d adopted implementing legislation that allows 
them to use the Paragraph 6 System as expo rters and/or importers. Only 18 Members had 
formally notified such measures to the TRIPS Coun cil. Completing the notification of all relevant 
laws and regulations could assist Members in preparing for the potential use of the System. It would also help the Secretariat in its efforts to provide informed technical support to Members in 
this area. 
1.9.  The representative of the Secretariat provid ed a brief update on the state of play of the e-
TRIPS project to improve the user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness of the notification system.  
1.10.  The Council took note of the statements made. IP/C/M/81 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2  REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION 
2.1  Review of the national implem enting legislation of Tajikistan 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meeting in October 2014, the Council had initiated the 
review of Tajikistan's national implementing legi slation. In February 2014, Tajikistan had notified 
its laws on trademarks and service marks, geograph ical indications, industrial designs, inventions 
and the legal protection of the topologies of inte grated circuits. Tajikistan had also notified its 
responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement in October 2014. This had been 
complemented by notifications of Tajikistan's Law on Copyright and Related Rights, the Law on 
Trade Secrets, as well as Amendments and Additions to its Law on Pharmaceuticals and Pharmaceutical Activities and to its Law on the Production and Safe Handling of Pesticides and 
Agrochemicals in 2015, circulated in documents IP/N/1/TJK/2, IP/N/1/TJK/3, IP/N/1/TJK/4 and 
IP/N/1/TJK/5.  
2.2.  Tajikistan had received an initial set of questions in writing from the United States in 
October 2014, circulated in document IP/C/W/604. Tajikistan's responses to these questions were 
circulated in document IP/C/W/606. A further set of follow-up questions by the United States to 
Tajikistan was available in document IP/C/W/604/ Add.1. Tajikistan's responses to the follow-up 
questions posed by the United States were circul ated in document IP/C/W/606/Rev.1. Given that 
these responses had been circulated only shortly before the Council's meeting in October 2015 and 
that the responses to two questions were outstanding, as they needed further investigation according to the information submitted by Tajikistan, it had been agreed that the Council revert to the matter at the Council's meeting in March 2016. 
2.3.  The representatives of Tajikistan and the United States took the floor.  
2.4.  The Chairman suggested that, provided that  there were no further follow-up questions, the 
review of Tajikistan's implementing legisl ation be removed from the agenda with the 
understanding that Members could revert to any ma tters stemming from this review at any time. 
2.5.  The Council so agreed.  
2.2  Follow-up to reviews already undertaken 
2.6.  The Chairman recalled that the reviews of two Members' national implementing legislation 
that had been initiated at the Council's meetings since April 2001 remained on the Council's 
agenda, namely those of Fiji, as well as Saint Kitts and Nevis. As reported at the Council's meeting in October 2015, he had contacted these Members to enquire when they expected to be in a 
position to provide the outstanding materials needed to complete the reviews and to offer the 
Secretariat's technical support that they might need. 
2.7.  Since then, Fiji had submitted the response s to the outstanding questions from the European 
Union, Switzerland and the United States, circulated in document IP/C/W/311/Add.1. Shortly 
before this meeting, Fiji had also notified the following legislative measures: Copyright (Amendment) Decree 2009, Patent  (Amendment) Act of 2002 and Patent (Amendment) Decree of 
2012, as well as two Trademark (Amendment) Decrees of 2012, available in the IP/N/1- series of 
documents. 
2.8.  The representatives of Fiji, Switzerland, th e United States and the European Union took the 
floor.  
2.9.  The Chairman suggested that, provided that  there were no further follow-up questions, the 
review of Fiji's implementing legislation be remo ved from the agenda with the understanding that 
Members could revert to any matter stemmi ng from this review at any time.  
2.10.  The Council so agreed.  
2.11.  The Chairman urged Saint Kitts and Nevis to  provide the outstanding material as soon as 
possible, so as to allow the Council to also complete the follow-up to this review. IP/C/M/81 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.12.  The Council took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting.  
2.3  Arrangements for the review of the national implementing legislation of the 
Republic of Seychelles and Kazakhstan  
2.13.  The Chairman said that the Republic of Seychelles had acceded to the WTO on 
26 April 2015. It had agreed to apply the provisio ns of the TRIPS Agreement as of that date 
without recourse to any transitional periods. It had also agreed to submit all initial notifications 
required by any Agreement constituting part of the WTO Agreement upon its accession to the 
WTO. 
2.14.  As requested by the Council at its meeting in June 2015, the Secretariat had contacted the 
Seychelles concerning the notification procedures . However, given that the Seychelles had not yet 
made any initial notification of its domestic laws and regulations implementing the TRIPS 
Agreement, he suggested that the Council revert to  the arrangements for the review of its national 
implementing legislation at its next meeting in June. In the meantime, he also suggested that the 
incoming Chair be asked by the Council to contact the delegation of the Seychelles in order to find 
out more about the state of play of the preparatio n of their initial notification and to offer the 
Secretariat's technical support that the Seychelles might need in this regard. 
2.15.  The Council so agreed.  
2.16.  The Chairman said that Kazakhstan had agreed to apply the provisions of the TRIPS 
Agreement as of the date of its accession to the WTO, including provisions regarding enforcement, 
without recourse to any transitional periods. It had also agreed to submit all initial notifications 
required by any Agreement constituting part of the WTO Agreement upon its accession to the 
WTO. 
2.17.  Kazakhstan had already notified its contact point under Article 69 of the TRIPS Agreement. 
Since its accession to the WTO, the Secretariat had had initial contacts with the delegation of 
Kazakhstan concerning the notification procedures of the Council. 
2.18.  The representative of Kazakhstan took the floor.  
2.19.  To support further progress with respect to  notifications, the Chairman proposed that the 
Secretariat be requested to pursue its contacts with the delegation of Kazakhstan, and that the Council revert to the arrangements for this review at its meeting in June. 
2.20.  The Council so agreed. 
3  REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B) 4  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 
5  PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE 
5.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meeting in October 2015, the interim Chair, Ambassador 
Alfredo Suescum, had encouraged delegations to continue direct talks among themselves on two 
pending suggestions supported by a number of Member s, i.e. (i) that the Secretariat be requested 
to update the three factual notes that summarize the points delegations had made in the Council's past discussions under these agenda items, and (ii) that the CBD Secretariat be invited to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol that had been ad opted at the tenth meeting of the Conference of 
the Parties to the CBD held in October 2010. 
5.2.  Since then, no developments with respect to the above suggestions had been reported to the 
Chairman. Nor had any responses or updates to initial responses to the illustrative list of questions 
on Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement been provided by Members or relevant mechanisms to 
protect genetic resources and traditional knowledge  been reported or notified. In spite of the 
importance attached to the review of Article 27. 3(b) which had been on the agenda of the TRIPS IP/C/M/81 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Council since 1998, the last response or update on the questions had been submitted in 2003, and 
material had been received from fewer than one in  six Members.  He said that the development of 
a more user friendly interface for TRIPS documentation, described earlier by the Secretariat under agenda item 1, would facilitate future co ntributions under this process as well.  
5.3.  The representatives of Brazil, the Plurinatio nal State of Bolivia, Bangladesh, Australia, Egypt, 
Ecuador, Cuba, India, Canada, Indonesia, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, South Africa, Peru, 
Colombia, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United States and Switzerland took the floor. 
5.4.  The Chairman encouraged Members to engage  in direct talks on the two pending proposals, 
i.e. that the CBD Secretariat be invited to provide a briefing on the Nagoya Protocol and that the 
Secretariat be requested to update three factual notes.   
5.5.  The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the items at its next 
meeting.  6  NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS 6.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its reconvened meeting on 23 November 2015, the TRIPS 
Council had agreed to recommend that the Tenth Se ssion of the Ministerial Conference decide to 
extend the moratorium on TRIPS non-violation and situation complaints.  
6.2.  Pursuant to this recommendation, Ministers had directed the TRIPS Council to continue its 
examination of the scope and modalities for complaints of the types provided for under 
subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 and make recommendations to their next Session that would be held in 2017. It had been agreed that, in the meantime, Members would not initiate such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement. This decision of the Tenth Session 
of the Ministerial Conference had been circulated in document WT/L/976. 
6.3.  He further recalled that Members had discussed the matter at all three meetings that the 
Council had held in 2015. A number of documents submitted by Members had served as the basis 
for an intense exchange of views in the Council. These documents included, in particular, a 
communication on "Non-Violation Complaints under  the TRIPS Agreement" by the United States, 
circulated in document IP/C/W/599, as well as a revision of an earlier communication on "Non-
Violation and Situation Nullification or Impairment under the TRIPS Agreement" 
(IP/C/W/385/Rev.1) and a draft decision on non-violation and situation complaints for consideration at the Tenth Ministerial Conference (IP/C/W/607), both co-sponsored by a number of Members, including the African Group and the LDC Group.  
6.4.  At the Council's reconvened meeting in November 2015, many Members had flagged their 
readiness to resume work immediately after the Nairobi Ministerial Conference in order to find a permanent solution. 
6.5.  He also recalled that the initial deadline for accomplishing this task was 1999 and that there 
were still no concrete proposals on the table as to how the Council might prepare the recommendations. Just keeping the item on the agenda had not yielded any solution over the past 
17 years. This should be of particular concern to delegations. He therefore particularly welcomed 
any concrete suggestions or ideas on how the Council could best engage in intensified work on the examination of the scope and modalities for non-violation complaints with a view to finding a way out of the current cycle of extending the non-viol ation moratorium from one Ministerial Conference 
to the next. 
6.6.  The representatives of the United States; India; Canada; Cuba; the Plurinational State of 
Bolivia; Indonesia; Peru; Chinese Taipei; Japan; Egypt; Ecuador; Argentina; China; Malaysia; 
Colombia; Thailand; Bangladesh; the Russian Federation; the Republic of Korea; Brazil; the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Hong Kong, Ch ina; Switzerland and the United States took the 
floor.  
6.7.  The Chairman suggested that the Council request the incoming Chair to consult on the matter 
before its next meeting in June. IP/C/M/81 
 
- 7 - 
 
  6.8.  The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
7  REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1 7.1.  The Chairman recalled that Article 71.1 re quired the Council periodically to review the 
Agreement having regard to the experience gained in its implementation.   
7.2.  The Council took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting. 
8  REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2 
8.1.  The Chairman recalled that Article 24.2 provid es that the Council shall keep under review the 
application of the provisions of the GI Section of the Agreement. The principal tool used to 
coordinate the review process was a Checklist of Questions contained in document IP/C/13 and 
Add.1. However, only 49 Members out of 162 had undertaken this valuable exercise to date. The latest set of responses had been submitted in 2010. A number of past responses were likely to be 
out of date since they dated back over a decade at a time of considerable development in this 
area. The development of a more user friendly interface for TRIPS documentation, described earlier by the Secretariat under agenda item 1, would facilitate future contributions under this 
process as well. In addition, at its meeting in March 2010, the Council had agreed to encourage 
Members to share information on and notify to the Council bilateral agreements related to the protection of geographical indications, which they had entered into.  
8.2.  As the question of GI protection remained of continuing interest, he invited those delegations 
that had not yet provided responses to the Checkl ist of Questions to consider doing so and those 
who had already done so to consider updating the information as appropriate. In line with the Council's recommendation made in March 2010, he encouraged the Members that were party to  
bilateral agreements related to the protection of GIs and had not yet shared such information with 
the Council to do so. 
8.3.  The representative of the Dominican Republic took the floor.  
8.4.  The Council took note of the statements made  and agreed to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting. 
9  FOLLOW-UP TO THE THIRTEENTH ANNU AL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE 
DECISION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 
9.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meeting in October 2015, the Council had taken up the 
thirteenth annual review of developed country Members' reports on their implementation of Article 
66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. In concluding the item, the interim Chair, Ambassador Alfredo 
Suescum, had indicated that delegations would be provided an opportunity at the present meeting 
to make further comments on the information submitted for that meeting that they had not yet been able to study. 
9.2.  The representative of Switzerland took the floor.  
9.3.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
10  TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY-BUILDING 
10.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meeting in October 2015, the Council had taken up its 
annual review of technical cooperation. Give n that some information from Members and 
intergovernmental organizations was available only a short time before the review, the interim Chairman had indicated that Members would be offered a further opportunity to make comments 
on that material at this meeting. IP/C/M/81 
 
- 8 - 
 
  10.2.  The Council took note of the statement made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting. 
11  IP AND INNOVATION: EDUCATION AND DIFFUSION 11.1.  The Chairman said that this item had initia lly been put on the agenda at the written request 
by the delegations of Australia, the European Union, Switzerland and the United States; since the 
circulation of the initial proposed agenda, it had been co-sponsored by the delegations of Hong Kong, China; Japan; Peru; the Russian Federation; Singapore and Chinese Taipei. A 
communication from Switzerland was circulated in document IP/C/W/612 for consideration under 
this agenda item. 
11.2.  The representatives of Switzerland; Japan; Peru; the European Union; the United States; 
Chinese Taipei; Singapore; Hong Kong, China; the Russian Federation; Australia; Costa Rica; 
Canada; India; Bangladesh; the Republic of Kore a; Nigeria; Brazil and China took the floor.  
11.3.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
12  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO 
12.1  Accessions 
12.1.  The Chairman informed that Kazakhstan ha d deposited its Instrument of Acceptance with 
the Director-General on 31 October 2015 and ha d become the 162nd Member of the WTO on 
30 November 2015. 
12.2  Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement 12.2.  The Chairman recalled that Ministers at the Tenth Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 
December 2015 had commended Members who had already accepted the amendment and looked 
forward to additional acceptances. Considerable momentum had built up in the course of 2015 
regarding the acceptance of the TRIPS amendment. In particular, he noted that, since the Council's meeting in October 2015, another seven Members had deposited their instruments of 
acceptance with the Director-General of the WTO: Grenada on 8 December 2015, Malaysia on 10 
December 2015, Myanmar on 16 December 2015, Lesotho on 4 January 2016, Mali on 20 January 2016, Thailand on 28 January 2016, and South Africa on 23 February 2016. 
12.3.  He encouraged delegations that were ye t to accept the TRIPS amendment to take the 
necessary steps so that the domestic procedures can be completed as soon as possible. Entry into force of the amendment would give this compulsory licensing mechanism the same status as all other public health-related flexibilities under th e TRIPS Agreement. It would provide a permanent 
legal pathway that strengthens the System's future potential to facilitate export of medicines that 
were needed by patients in developing countries. It would also respond to widespread calls within 
the UN, including from the UN Economic and Social Council and the UN General Assembly, to 
complete the process of acceptance. In 2016, Memb ers were closer than ever before to securing 
the Protocol's entry into force. For this to happen, another 14 Members were needed to submit their respective instruments of acceptance to the WTO. To support Members that were yet to 
complete their domestic process to accept the TRIPS amendment, the Secretariat had prepared a 
hand out based on the information already available on the WTO's dedicated webpage. It provided guidance on the acceptance procedure and also reproduced a model instrument of acceptance. Hard copies were available in the back of the room for interested delegations. 
12.4.  The Council took note of the statement made. 
12.3  Work Programme on Electronic Commerce 
12.5.  The Chairman said that the Ministerial Conference in Nairobi had taken a decision "to 
continue the work under the 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 (…)."  IP/C/M/81 
 
- 9 - 
 
  12.6.  At the Council's meeting in February 2015, H.E. Ambassador Palai from Botswana had noted 
under this agenda item that since 2003, no Member had made any written submissions to the Council for TRIPS or otherwise sought to continue discussions on e-commerce in this Council. He had also underlined that the WTO's Work Programme on Electronic Commerce would be an 
opportunity for Members to raise any issues or concerns relating to TRIPS and e-commerce. 
12.7.  In light of the decision taken by Mini sters in December 2015 to continue the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce, the Chairman therefore encouraged Members to actively 
consider how best to resume work on e-commerce in the Council. 
12.8.  The Council took note of the statement made. 
13  OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 13.1.  The Chairman said that there remained 13 pending requests for observer status in the 
TRIPS Council by other intergovernmental organizations. The updated list was contained in 
document IP/C/W/52/Rev.13. In the past few years, the Council had been able to make some progress by agreeing to grant ad hoc observer status on a meeting-by-meeting basis to ARIPO, 
OAPI, the GCC and EFTA. 
13.2.  At the Council's meeting in October 2015, a number of interested delegations had reiterated 
their support for granting permanent observer status to the South Centre, the CBD Secretariat and 
the International Vaccine Institute. Other delegations had said that they could agree to grant 
permanent observer status to ARIPO, OAPI, the GCC and EFTA. As no agreement on any of the 
pending requests could be reached, the matter had been left to direct contacts between interested Members.  
13.3.  The representatives of Nigeria, on behalf the African Group, Ecuador, India, the Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela, Egypt, Brazil, Bangla desh, the United States, China, Indonesia and 
Tanzania took the floor.  
13.4.  The Chairman suggested that the Council request the incoming Chair to consult on the 
pending requests for observer status. 
13.5.  The Council took note of the statements made and so agreed. 
14  OTHER BUSINESS 14.1  Invitations to ad hoc observers 14.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meetings in June 2010 and November 2012, the Council 
had agreed to grant ad hoc observer status on a meeting-to-meeting basis to the African Regional 
Intellectual Property Organization, the African Intellectual Property Organization, the Cooperation 
Council of the Arab States of the Gulf, and the Eu ropean Free Trade Association. He suggested that 
the Council again invite ARIPO, OAPI, GCC and EFTA  to attend the Council's next formal meeting 
on an ad hoc basis. 
14.2.  The Council so agreed. 
14.2  Contribution of Intellectual Property to  Facilitate the Transfer of Environmentally 
Sound Technology 
14.3.  The representative of Ecuador took the floor.  
14.4.  The Council took note of the statement made. 
15  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 
15.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meetin g of 24-25 February 2016, the General Council had 
noted the consensus on a slate of names of chai rpersons for WTO bodies. H.E. Ambassador Modest IP/C/M/81 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Jonathan Mero from Tanzania who had been design ated as the Chairperson, could not attend this 
meeting due to other commitments. On the basis of the understanding reached at the General Council, he proposed that the Council for TRIPS elect H.E. Ambassador Mero as its Chairperson for the coming year by acclamation.  
15.2.  The Council so agreed. 
15.3.  The representative of Tanzania took the floor.  
 
__________