RESTRICTED  
  
IP/C/M/85  
 
27 April  2017 
(17-2303) Page: 1/10 
Council for Trade -Related Aspects of  
Intellectual Property Rights  
  
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 1-2 MARCH 2017 
Chairperson: Ambassador Alfredo Suescum  (Panama)  
The present document contains the record of the Council for TRIPS meeting held on 1-2 March 
2017. The statements made during the meeti ng will be circulated in an addendum to the present 
document.  
Table of Contents  
1   ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON ................................ ................................ .......................  2 
2   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AG REEMENT  ................................ ........  2 
3   REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLA TION  ................................ ..............  3 
3.1   Follow -up to reviews already undertaken  ................................ ................................ ........  3 
3.2   Review of the national implementing legislation of Seychelles  ................................ ...........  3 
3.3   Review of the national implementing legislation of Kazakhstan  ................................ ..........  3 
4   REVIEW OF THE PROVIS IONS OF ARTICLE 27.3 (B) ................................ .....................  4 
5   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN  THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION O N 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 
6   PROTECTION OF TRADIT IONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  ................................ ..... 4 
7   NON-VIOLATION AND SITUAT ION COMPLAINTS  ................................ .........................  5 
8   REVIEW OF THE IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE TRIP S AGREEMENT UNDER 
ARTICLE 71.1  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
9   REVIEW OF THE APPLIC ATION OF THE PROVISI ONS OF THE  SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICAT IONS UNDER ARTICLE 2 4.2 ................................ ......................  6 
10   FOLLOW -UP TO THE FOURTEENTH  ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 
OF THE DECISION ON T HE IMPLEMENTATION OF  ARTICLE 66.2 OF THE TRIPS 
AGREEMENT  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
11   TECHNICAL COOPERATIO N AND CAPACITY BUILD ING ................................ ..............  6 
12   THE UNITED NATIONS S ECRETARY -GENERAL'S HIGH LEVEL  PANEL REPORT  
ON ACCESS TO MEDICIN ES ................................ ................................ ..............................  7 
13   WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  ................................ .....................  8 
14   INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y AND INNOVATION: IN CLUSIVE INNO VATION 
AND MSME COLLABORATI ON ................................ ................................ ...........................  9 
15   INFORMATION ON RELEV ANT DEVELOPMENTS ELS EWHERE IN THE WTO  .................  9 
16   OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERN ATIONAL INTERGOVERNM ENTAL 
ORGANISATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  9 
17   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 IP/C/M/85  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  ELECTION OF CHA IRPERSON  
1.  The representative of the Secretariat  said that R ule 12 of the Council' s Rules of Procedure  
provide d that "the election [of the Chairperson] shall take place at the first meeting of the year 
and shall take effect at the end of the meeting", and that "the Chairperson […] shall hold office 
until the end of the first meeting of  the following year."  In other words, under normal 
circumstances, the outgoing Chair of the TRIPS Council, Ambassador Mero from Tanzania, would 
have chaired this meeting and the incoming C hair would have been elected at the end of the 
meeting.  
2.  He recalled that Ambassador Mero  had informed the Council at its meeting in January 2017 
that he had been appointed as Tanzania's Ambassador to the United Nations in New York and 
would therefore no longer be a vailable to chair this meeting.  The General Council was yet  to 
approve the slate of chairpersons for the regular bodies so that the Council was n ot in a position to 
elect the incoming Chair at the beginning of its current meeting. Following past practice, the TRIPS 
Council could proceed with the election of its ne w Chair at the beginning of its next meeting, based 
on the slate of nam es that the General Council would  hopefully have approved by then.  Situations 
in which the Chairperson, in this case Ambassador Mero, c ould no longer perform his functions, 
were address ed by Rule 14 of the Council's Rules of Procedures. It provide d that the Council "shall 
elect an interim Chairperson to perform those functions pending the election of a new 
Chairperson".  
3.  He informed the Council that , following informal contacts with the S ecretariat , Ambassador 
Alfredo Suescum from Panama had  kindly agreed to step in and make himself once again available 
as interim Chairperson at this meeting, should Members decide so. He ha d served as Chair of the 
Council in 2013 and as inter im Chair in Oc tober 2015.  The representative of the Secretariat 
therefore propose d that the Council for TRIPS elect H.E. Ambassador Alfredo Suescum from 
Panama as its  interim Chairperson for th e current meeting.  
4.  The Council so agreed . 
5.  The representative of the United St ates took the floor.  
2  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AG REEMENT  
6.  The Chairman  invited the Secretariat to provide an update on the legislative measures that had 
been notified by a number of Members since the Council's meeting in November 2016.  
7.  The rep resentative of the Secretariat  took the floor .  
8.  The representatives of Switzerland , Ecuador , China , Montenegro , Mexico  and Japan  took the 
floor.  
9.  The Chairman said that, a s previous Chairpersons ha d indicated , notifications made to the 
Council were not keeping up with the development of legislation and regulations relating to the 
TRIPS Agreement. He remind ed that Article 63.2 was not a one -off requirement , but rather an 
obligation to notify any new or amended laws . He urged Members to complete outstanding initial 
notifications  and to keep up to date with notifications and subsequent amendments . Equally he 
remind ed delegations that this Council establish ed the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement  as one 
element of Members' notification obligations . He urged Mem bers that were yet to submit their 
initial responses to the C hecklist to do so in due course . He also urge d other Members  that ha d 
already submitted responses in the past to updat e the information that they ha d provided.  
10.  He recall ed that, at the Council's  meeting in November  2016, the Secretariat had updated 
delegations on the development of the e-TRIPS online platform, which was a tool for filing and 
consulting notifications. As this was still work in progress , he suggest ed that the Secretariat be 
invited  to provide a f urther update on how the work wa s progressing at the Council's next meeting 
in June. He encouraged the delegations which had  an interest in testing this system, or like d to 
provide some feedba ck, to contact the Secretariat.  
11.  The Council took note of the notifications and the statements made.  IP/C/M/85  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3  REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLA TION  
3.1  Follow -up to review s already undertaken  
12.  The Chairman  indicated that, a t its meeting in November  2016, the Council had been 
informed that Saint Kitts and Nevis  had notified a number of legislative measures, as well as its 
contact point under Article 69. As reported by the Secretariat under agenda item 2, since then, 
Saint Kitts and Nevis ha d also submitted its responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.  
Since the Council's meeting in November  2016, Saint Kitts and Nevis ha d submitted its responses 
to questions that had been posed earlier by Japan, Canada, Switzerland, the Unite d States and the 
European Union, circulated in document IP/C/W/623 of 30 Janua ry 2017.  
13.  The representatives of Switzerland  and Canada  took the floor.  
14.  Since there were no follow-up questions , the Chairman  suggested that the Council remove the 
review of Saint Kitts and Nevis implementing legislation from the agenda, while a ny delegati ons 
could  revert to any matter stemming from this review at any time.  
15.  The Council so agree d.  
3.2  Review of the national implementing legislation of Seychelles  
16.  The Chairman  recall ed that Seychelles had agreed to apply the provisions of the TRIPS 
Agreement as of the date of its accession to the WTO, i.e. 26 April 2015, and without recourse to 
any transitional periods.  In line with the commitments undertaken as part of its accession to the 
WTO, Seychelles ha d notified its TRIPS implementing laws and regulations,  including the Copyright 
Act 2014, the Industrial Property Act 2014 and related Regulations, the Customs Management Act 
2014 and related Regulations, the Penal Code 1955 and the Amendment Act 2012. These 
legislative measures had been made available to Memb ers in the document series IP/N/1. In 
addition, Seychelles ha d notified the responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement  
(document IP/N/6/SYC/1 ) and the contact point under Article 69 of the TRIPS Agreement, 
(document IP/N/3/SYC/1 ). 
17.  The Council had been i nformed accordingly at its meeting on 7 -8 June 2016 when it had 
decided to initiate the review of Seychelles' implementing legislation. At that meeting, Members 
had been invited to submit any questions that they might have to Seychelles by 15 Decembe r 
2016, and Seychelles had been  asked to submit its responses by 31 January 2017.  
18.  The Secretariat had received questions posed by Switzerland to  Seychelles on 14 December 
2016 (IP/C/W/621 ). The responses by Seychelles to these questions had been circulated  in 
document IP/C/W/624.  
19.  He invited Seychelles to provide a brief introductory overview of the structure of its legislation 
in the areas covered by the TRIPS Agreement and o f the changes, if any, that had been  adopted in 
order to make the legislative frame work compatible with the Agreement.  
20.  The representative of Seychelles  provided a brief introductory overview of the structure of its 
legislation in the areas covered by the TRIPS Agreement.  
21.  The representative of Switzerland  took the floor.  
22.  Since there were no follow -up questions , the Chairman  suggested that the Council remove the 
review of Seychelles' implementing legislation from the agenda, while any delegatio ns could revert 
to any matter stemming from this review at any time.  
23.  The Council so agreed .  
3.3  Review of the national implementing legislation of Kazakhstan  
24.  The Chairman  recalled that Kazakhstan had agreed to apply the provisions of the TRIPS 
Agreement as of the date of its accession to the WTO, i.e. 30 November 2015, and without IP/C/M/85  
 
- 4 - 
 
  recourse to any transit ional periods.  In line with the commitments undertaken as part of its 
accession to the WTO, Kazakhstan ha d notified its TRIPS implementing laws and regulations, 
including the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, the Law on Trademarks, Service Marks and 
Appellations of Origin of Goods, the Patent Law  and other legislative measures  that had been  
circulated in the document series IP/N/1. In addition, Kazak hstan had  notified its contact point 
under Article 69 of the TRIPS Agreement  (IP/N/3/KAZ/1 ). 
25.  At its meetin g on 7 -8 June 2016, the Council had been informed accordingly and had decided 
to initiate the review of Kazakhstan's implementing legislation. It had invited Members to submit 
any questions that they might have to Kazakhstan by 15 December 2016. Kazakhstan  had been 
asked to submit its responses by 31 January 2017.  
26.  The Secretariat ha d received questions posed by Switzerland to Ka zakhstan on 14 December 
2016 (document IP/C/W/620 ). Kazakhstan had submitted its responses to these questions shortly 
before this m eeting  (document IP/C/W/626 ). 
27.  The representative of Kazakhstan  provide d a brief introductory overview of the structure of its 
legislation in the areas covered by the TRIPS Agreement .  
28.  The representative s of Switzerland  and the United States  took the floor.   
29.  The Chairman  said that a s the responses from Kazakhstan to the questions posed by 
Switzerland had been only submitted shortly before this meeting and given that the U nited States 
had announced that it had  further questions that it wishe d to submit to Kaz akhstan, he suggest ed 
that the Council revert to this matter at its next meeting.  In the meantime, he  suggest ed that the 
United States provide  its questions in writing to Kazakhstan  with a copy to the Secretariat. 
Kazakhstan should submit its answers in wr iting within eight weeks after the meeting.  
30.  The Council took note of the statements made and agree d to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting.  
4  REVIEW OF THE PROVIS IONS OF ARTICLE 27.3 (B) 
5  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN  THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION O N 
BIOL OGICAL DIVERSITY  
6  PROTECTION OF TRADIT IONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  
31.  The Chairman  recalled that, a t the Council's meeting in November  2016, Members had 
exchanged views under these agenda items. The discussions had covered substantive issues, such 
as the sugge sted inclusion of a mandatory disclosure requirement in TRIPS, as well as the 
patentability of life forms. Discussions had also covered two pending procedural proposals – 
whether the CBD Secretariat should be invited to debrief the Council on the Nagoya Pr otocol, and 
whether the WTO Secretariat should update the three factual notes that had been  prepared and 
last updated ten years ago.  
32.  Since Members had remained divided both on the substantive and procedural issues, no 
progress could, however, be made. Ther e had also been no unanimous support for a proposal 
made by some delegations that the CBD Secretariat be asked to debrief the Council when it was 
meeting in informal mode.  
33.  He recalled  that there ha d been no more responses or updates to the Illustrative Lis t of 
Questions on Article 27.3(b), and no notifications or reports of domestic mechanisms to protect 
genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Despite the importance attached to the 
Article 27.3(b) review, which had  been on the Council's agenda since 19 98, the last response or 
update on the questions had been submitted in 2003, some 14 years ago, and material ha d been 
received from fewer than one in six Members. He therefore remind ed delegations that the 
Article  27.3(b) review wa s an integral part of the  TRIPS Agreement.  The information provided to 
the Council clearly d id not cover the important developments that many WTO Members ha d seen 
in this area over the last decade. Regarding the CBD Secretariat briefing and the updating of the 
Secretariat notes, there was no substantive signs of evolution towards an outcome.  IP/C/M/85  
 
- 5 - 
 
  34.  The representatives of Brazil ; the Plurinational State of Bolivia ; Bangladesh on behalf of the 
LDC Group; India, Ecuador ; Egypt ; Indonesia ; China ; Nigeria on behalf of the Africa n Group; 
Australia; the United States ; Switzerland ; the Republic of Korea ; Japan ; Canada and the  European 
Union  and the Chairman  took the floor.  
35.  The Council took note of the statements made and agree d to revert to the matters at its next 
meeting.  
7  NON-VIOLATION AND SIT UATION COMPLAINTS  
36.  The Chairman  recall ed that,  at MC10, Ministers had directed the 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 t o make recommendations to 
MC11 in December  2017. This instruction mirror ed the original mandate in TRIPS Article 64.3.  The 
Council had discussed this matter at its three meetin gs last year. The discussion had been  based in 
part on the following documents:  a communication from the United States on "Non -Violation 
Complaints under the TRIPS Agreement" (IP/C/W/599); a revised and updated version of "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 forthcoming Ministerial Conference (IP/C/W/607), sponsored by a number of 
other Members. As indicated in document IP/C/W/385/Rev. 1/Add.3, the Kyrgyz Republic had  most 
recently joi ned the co -sponsors of that document.  
37.  The previous TRIPS Council Chair, Ambassador Mero from Tanzania, had repeatedly noted 
that there had not been major changes in Members' positions since the Council  had first discussed 
this issue in the late 1990s. Rece nt discussions ha d mostly served to repeat well -known positions. 
Positions in this regard had  hardly evolved, let alone  had they  explored avenues of compromise.  
38.  The initial deadline for accomplishing this  task had been  1999. T he Council had  been unable 
to recommend a permanent solution to this issue to Ministers, after 18 years of debate in this 
forum.  He encouraged Members to share ideas as to how the Council  could work towards fulfilling 
the Ministers' ins tructions in the remaining  few months, and to prep are recommendations for 
MC11.  
39.  The representatives of Brazil ; China ; Chinese Taipei ; Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group ; 
Argentina ; Switzerland ; the Russian Federation ; Egypt ; India; the United States and Nigeria on 
behalf of the Africa n Group  took the floor.   
40.  The Council took note of the statements made and agree d to revert to the item at its next 
meeting.  
8  REVIEW OF THE IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE TRIP S AGREEMENT UNDER AR TICLE 71.1  
41.  The Chairman  recalled that, given the wide range of experience gained in the implementation 
of the TRIPS Agreement since 1995, there was  clearly a wealth of information that could be shared 
under this agenda item. The required review offer ed a unique opportunity to discuss the plentiful 
new developments in the field of intellectual  property since the Agreement had entered into force 
over twenty years ago.  
42.  As required by Article 71.1, the Council had initiated the first review in 1999. This provision 
also require d that a new review be initiated every two years. The Co uncil had , howe ver, not 
completed its initial review, and therefore ha d also not initiated any subsequent review.  He invited  
Members  to consider how to take this review forward  and to suggest any topics to be taken up 
under this item.  
43.  The Council agree d to revert to the matter at its next meeting.  IP/C/M/85  
 
- 6 - 
 
  9  REVIEW OF THE APPLIC ATION OF THE PROVISI ONS OF THE SECTION O N 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICAT IONS UNDER ARTICLE 2 4.2 
44.  The Chairman  said that GI protection remained of continuing interest, and was apparently an 
active area of legal and polic y development in some countries. However, to date, only 50 Members 
out of 164 had provided responses to the Checklist  of Questions (document s IP/C/13 and 
IP/C/13/Add.1) , and many past responses were likely to be out of date, since they dated back 
over a de cade. He therefore urge d those delegations that ha d not yet provided responses to the 
Checklist to consider doing so. He encourage d the other Members to consider the scope for 
updates to their past responses.  
45.  In line with the Council's recommendation that had been made in March 2010, he also invited 
Members to share information on bilateral agreements related to the protection of GIs they were a  
party to.  The principal tool used for the revi ew was  the Checklist of Questions . The Chairman said 
that El Salva dor had  submitted its responses to t he Checklist on 9  December 2016 (document 
IP/C/W/117/Add .34). 
46.  The representative s of El Salvador  and Switzerland  took the floor.  
47.  The Council took note  of the statements made and agree d to revert to the matter at its nex t 
meeting.   
10  FOLLOW -UP TO THE FOURTEENTH  ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE 
DECISION ON THE IMPL EMENTATION OF ARTICL E 66.2 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT  
48.  The Chairman  recalled that , at its meeting in November  2016, the Council had taken up the 
fourteenth annual  review of developed country Members' reports on their implementation of 
Article  66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. In concluding the item, the Chairman  had indicated that 
delegations would be provided an opportunity at the present meeting to make further commen ts 
on the information submitted for that meeting that they had not yet been able to study.  
49.  The representative of Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group took the floor.  
50.  The Council took note of the statement  made.  
11  TECHNICAL COOPERATIO N AND CAPACITY BUILD ING 
51.  The Chairman  recall ed that,  at its meeting in November, the Council had taken up its annual 
review of technical cooperation. Given that some information from Members and 
intergovernmental organizations had been m ade available only a short time before the review, the 
Chairman had indicated that Members would be offered a further opportunity to make comments 
on that material at this meeting.  
52.  Reverting to the discussions that had taken place at the Council's ad ditional meeting on 
30 January,  2017,  he recall ed that the meeting had been especially convened in order to take note 
of the entry into force of the TRIPS amendment which made the special compulsory licensing 
mechanism to export medicines a permanent part of the Agreement.  
53.  At that meeting, the Chairman, Ambassador Mero, had looked at the way ahead. In particular, 
he had noted that it was now important "to look into how to make this new procurement tool work 
effectively so that it delivers concrete results in practice." He had also referred delegations to the 
Council's report on the annual review of the System that was circulated in IP/C/76, as well as to 
Annex II to the WTO Secretariat's annual report on its technical cooperation activities circulated in 
document IP/C/W/618. He had noted that both document s provided useful information resources 
for future considerations.  
54.  The Chairman's call for further work to fully exploit the potential of the System to deliver 
affordable medicines to countries in need had been echoed by Director -General Azevêdo in his 
address to this Council, as well as by a number of delegations who had said that they stood ready 
to support such efforts.  Furthermore, some Members had already made certain suggestions at that 
meeting regarding possible actions that could be undertaken in th is regard.  IP/C/M/85  
 
- 7 - 
 
  55.  These included the provision of legislative and other assistance to countries that were looking 
into implementing the System in their domestic laws. In this regard, he drew Members' attention 
to a Staff Working Paper on Special Compulsory Licen ces for Export of Medicines: Key Features of 
WTO Members' Implementing Legislation that was released in July 2015. While the paper would 
benefit from an update, it provide d a useful survey of the key features of the System as they ha d 
been addressed by imp lementing measures adop ted by more than 50 WTO Members.  It was 
available  on the WTO's webpage dedicated to TRIPS and public health, in the section on 
Implementing Compulsory Licences for Export of Medicines.1 In case of interest, the Secretariat 
could a lso make the link to the document available.2  
56.  He indicated  that, under agenda item 2, he had already urged Members in general to submit 
initial notifications and regularly update legislative measures that ha d been notified. In this 
context, he particularly e ncourage d Members to notify changes made to their laws or regulations 
to implement Article 31 bis of the TRIPS Agreement. Apart from being a spec ific TRIPS obligation, 
this would help other Members who we re looking into implementing the System in their dome stic 
laws.  
57.  Other suggestions  that had been  made at the meeting in January include d the sharing of 
experiences among Members regarding the implementation and use of the System, as well as the 
establishment of a mechanism that would serve to effectively coo rdinate the technical assistance 
provided by international organisations. And the need to raise awareness among officials from IP 
offices and procurement agencies on the ground about how to use the System in their day -to-day 
operations had also been emphas ized. While this m eeting and this agenda item m ight not be the 
place to address these s uggestions in a detailed manner, he said that they could be usefully 
considered as part of the preparations for the Council's annual review of the System at its last 
meeting in October. The Secretariat w ould take due account of these suggestions in its 
forthcoming capacity buil ding activities on which it would  report to the Council at that meeting.  
58.  He then took up a proposal that had been made by the Ambassador of Brazil at the Council's 
meeting in January with respect to possible awareness raising activities. Specifically, he had asked 
for a presentation by the WTO Secretariat at this meeting on how to notify under the System.  
59.  The Chairman  suggest ed that the Secretariat b e given an opportunity to provide an overview 
of the notification requirements as they apply to the use of the System.  
60.  The representative of the Secretariat  took the floor.  
61.  The representative of Brazil  took the floor .  
62.  The Council took note  of the stateme nts made and agree d to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting.  
12  THE UNITED NATIONS S ECRETARY -GENERAL'S HIGH LEVEL  PANEL REPORT ON 
ACCESS TO MEDICINES  
63.  The Chairman  recalled that Brazil, China, India and South Africa had requested that this  item 
be added to  the agenda of the Council's meeting in November  2016. To introduce the item, they 
had also submitted a communication (document IP/C/W/619 ). 
64.  In the course of that discussion, the delegation of South Africa had requested that this item 
be continued as an ad  hoc item at the next meeting  and the Council so agreed.  
65.  Since th is was a continuation of the discussion  had held at the Council's meeting in 
November  2016, he briefly summarize d what had been said at that meeting.  According to the 
co-sponsors, the reques t to add this item to the Council's agenda had been intended to facilitate 
an exchange of views on the recommendations of the High Level Panel, as well as to share 
national experiences regarding the use of TRIPS flexibilities. At the meeting in November  2016, 
                                                
1 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/pharmpatent_e.htm .  
2 https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201507_e. pdf  
 IP/C/M/85  
 
- 8 - 
 
  some delegations had welcomed the discussion of the report in this Council while others had said 
that they needed more time to consider the recommendations. Some delegations had expressed 
concern about the narrow scope of the report and had noted that it had neither been mandated 
nor endorsed by Members of the United Nations.  
66.  The representatives of India; Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group ; Brazil ; South Africa ; 
China ; Indonesia ; Nigeria on behalf of the Africa n Group ; Egypt ; the United States ; Japan ; 
Canada ; the Republic of Korea ; Norway ; the European Union ; Switzerland ; Australia ; Chinese 
Taipei ; and  Chile took the floor.  
67.  The representative of the World Health Organization  took the floor.  
68.  The Council took note of the statements made.  
13  WORK PROGRAMM E ON ELECTRONIC COMM ERCE  
69.  The Chairman  informed the Council that, t o prepare the discussion under this item, Brazil ha d 
submitted a communication on Electronic Commerce and Copyright  (document  JOB/IP/19 ) which 
had been co-sponsored by Argentina . He suggest ed that Brazil introduce the agenda item a nd 
discuss the issues that it was  propos ing for consideration, and that the Council then turn to three 
other submissions related to the Work Programme on E -Commerce which the respective co -
sponsors m ight w ish to int roduce.  
70.  He recalled the most recent mandate in the field of e -commerce and the state of play of the 
work. At MC10 in December 2015, Ministers had decided to "continue the work under the Work 
Programme based on the existing mandate and guidelines and on th e basis of proposals submitted 
by Members in the relevant WTO bodies". They had also instructed the General Council to hold 
periodic reviews "based on the reports that may be submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with 
the implementation of the Work Program me and report to the next session of the Ministerial 
Conference"  (document WT/MIN(15)/42 – WT/L/977 ).  
71.  In June 201 6, the TRIPS Council had resumed discussions on e-commerce . This discussion 
had been based on Canada's written submission  circulated in docume nt IP/C/W/613. Canada had 
shared its national experience to fight the selling of counterfeit products ove r the internet. At the 
Council's meeting in November  2016, Canada had called for a continuation of the sharing of 
national experiences and practices as  this would support the Council to respond to the Ministerial 
mandate. In line with the addendum to its earlier communication (document  IP/C/W/613/Add.1 ) 
Canada had also said that it wished to consult with other delegations on how to advance the Work 
Progr amme on E -Commerce in this Council. It had been joined by a number of other delegations.  
72.  The Chairman  also referred to  three other  communications under this item: a communication  
on Electronic Signatures  that had been co-sponsored by the delegations of Arg entina, Brazil and 
Paraguay (documen t JOB/IP/20 ); a communication on Trade Policy, the WTO and the Digital 
Economy  that had been circulated at the request of the delegations of Canada; Chile; Colombia; 
Côte d'Ivoire; the European Union; the Republic of Korea; Mexico; Montenegro; Paraguay; 
Singapore and Turkey (JOB/IP/21 of 13 January 2017); and a communication on Electronic 
Commerce and Development , recently circulated in document JOB/IP/22 at the request of the 
delegations of Brunei Darussalam; Colombia; C osta Rica; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Malaysia; 
Mexico; Nigeria; Pakistan; Panama; Qatar; Seychelles; Singapore and Turkey.  
73.  The representative s of Brazil , Argentina , Paraguay , Bangladesh  on behalf of the LDC Group , 
Switzerland , the United States , Norway, the European Union , Singapore , Chinese Taip ei, Canada , 
the Republic of Moldova , Mexico , Austr alia, Turkey , Colombia , the Russian Federation , Chile, the 
Republic of Korea , India and New Zealand  took the floor.    
74.  The Chairman  said that , in light of the discussions and the earlier exchange of views at the 
Council's meetings in June and November 2016, there seemed  to be a continuing interest of 
delegations in discussing issues related to intellectual property and e -commerce. He therefore 
encourage d Members  to consider how to carry forward issues related to e -commerce in the TRIPS 
Council . An in -depth debate would, indeed, constitute a sound basis for the Council to contribute 
to the periodic review that the General Council ha d been requested to hold, as well as to provide IP/C/M/85  
 
- 9 - 
 
  input for the General Council report to the next Ministerial Conference. Such a discussion would be 
an opportunity to create a clear  and inclusive factual picture of the current state of affairs as the 
foundation for informed dialogue between Me mbers.  
75.  The Council took note  of the statements made.  
14  INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y AND INNOVATION: IN CLUSIVE INNOVATION A ND MSME 
COLLABORATION  
76.  The Chairman  said that t his item ha d been put on the agenda at the written request of the 
delegations of Australia, the E uropean Union, Japan, Switzerland and the United States. Since the 
circulation of the initial proposed agenda, the item had also been co -sponsored by the delegation 
of Chinese Taipei.  He also recalled two communications from the initial co -sponsors that ha d been 
circulated for consideration under this agenda item. The first contribution (document IP/C/W/622 ) 
set out the proposed items for an exchange of experiences among delegations in the course of this 
year with respect to the role of IPRs as a driver for  more inclusive innovation that promote d the 
participation of micro, small and medium -sized enterprises in local and global trade. The second 
communication (document IP/C/W/625 ) introduce d more specifically the agenda item of today's 
meeting regarding incl usive innovation and MSME collaboration. The delegation of Chinese Taipei 
had recently joined the co -sponsors of these documents.  
77.  The representatives  of Australia , the United States , Chinese Taipei , Japan , the European 
Union , Switzerland , India, Colombia , Canada , Argentina , Guatemala , Mexico , Israel , Dominican 
Republic , the Russian Federation , Brazil , New Zealand , Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group  and 
Nigeria on behalf of the Africa n Group  took the floor.  
78.  The Council took note  of the statements made.  
15  INFORMATION ON RELEVA NT DEVELOPMENTS ELSE WHERE IN THE WTO  
79.  The Chairman  recall ed that this item ha d been used in the past to provide information, for 
example, about new accessions to the WTO or the status of acceptances of the Protocol Amending 
the TRIPS Agr eement. In this regard, he inform ed the Council that the delegation of Oman ha d 
deposited its instrument of acceptance with th e WTO Director -General on 1 March 2017 . It ha d 
thus become the 113th Member that ha d accepted the amended TRIPS Agreement. This should 
encourage  other WTO Members that we re yet to accept the TRIPS Amendment to do so by the end 
of this year when the current deadline for the acceptance of the Protocol Amending the TRIPS 
Agreement expire d. 
80.  Under this item, the WTO Secretariat ha d also provided an overview of the wide range of 
IPR-related issues that are regularly considered as part of individual Members' trade policy reviews 
at the Council's meetings in June and November 2016. He suggested that the Secretariat be given 
an opportunity to provide a further update regarding recent TPR reviews.  
81.  The representative of the Secretariat  took the floor.  
82.  The Council took note of the statement made.  
16  OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERG OVERNMENTAL ORGANISA TIONS  
83.  The Chairman  indicated that there re mained 13 pending requests for observer status in the 
TRIPS Council by intergovernmental organizations. The updated list was contained in document 
IP/C/W/52/Rev.13. Delegations had been  informed at the Council's meeting in November  2016 
that the Secretaria t had made available the information that had been provided by all 
13 intergovernmental organizations concerned on the Members' website.3 It cover ed the nature of 
their respective work and the reasons for their interest in observer status. This should help  
delegations better understand each of the pending requests.  
                                                
3 Available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/xtrips_e/igo_observer_e.htm .  IP/C/M/85  
 
- 10 - 
 
  84.  At the Council's meetings in 2016 , a number of interested delegations had reiterated their 
support for granting permanent observer status to the South Centre, the CBD Secretariat and the 
Internat ional Vaccine Institute. Other delegations had signalled that they could agree to grant 
permanent observer status to the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization, the African 
Intellectual Property Organization, the Cooperation Council of the Ara b States of the Gulf, and the 
European Free Trade Association. These four organisations currently enjoy ed an ad hoc observer 
status on a meeting -to-meeting basis.  
85.  The previous Chair had repeatedly urged  Members  to assess the pending requests on their 
own m erits, in particular the competence and interes t that the requesting entity had  in matters 
dealt with by the TRIPS Council.  
86.  The representatives of the United States , Nigeria on behalf of the Africa n Group , India, 
Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group , Brazil, the European Union , South Africa , Egypt , China , 
the Plurinational State of Bolivia , Cuba, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  and Indonesia  took the 
floor.  
87.  The Chairman  suggested that, since it was not possible to reach an agreement to grant 
permanent o bserver status to ARIPO, OAPI, GCC and EFTA, the Council again invite these four 
organizati ons to attend its  next meeting on an ad hoc basis. This was in line with the agreement 
reached at the Council's meetings in June 2010 and November 2012 to grant them  ad hoc 
observer status on a meeting -by-meeting basis .  
88.  The Council so agree d. 
89.  The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting.  
17  OTHER BUSINESS  
90.  The Chairman noted that no delegation had flagged its intenti on to take up any matter under 
this item.  
__________