. /. WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS384/13 
2 April 2012 
 
 (12-1706) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) 
REQUIREMENTS 
 
Notification of an Other Appeal by Canada 
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules 
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
 
  The following notification, dated 28 March 2012,  from the Delegation of Canada, is being 
circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
  Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 23 of the  Working Procedures for Appellate Review , Canada 
hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate  Body certain issues of law covered in the Report 
of the Panel in United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements  
(WT/DS384/R) (Panel Report) and certain lega l interpretations developed by the Panel. 
 
1. Canada seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal conclusions that: 
 
(a) Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Techni cal Barriers to Trade requires identifying a 
potential objective of a challenged measure rather than the actual objective of that measure; and 
 
(b) the objective of the COOL measure
1 is legitimate within the meaning of Article 2.2 of 
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. 
 2. Canada also appeals the Panel's failure, in cont ravention of Article 11 of the DSU, to make an 
objective assessment of the facts demonstrating that the objective of the COOL measure is 
protectionism.  In the alternative, if the objective of the COOL measure is not protectionism, the Panel 
erred by failing to define the objectiv e at a sufficiently detailed level. 
 3. If the Appellate Body does not uphold the Panel's finding that the COOL measure fails to fulfil a legitimate objective, then Canada seeks a fi nding by the Appellate Body that there are less 
trade-restrictive alternative measures that fulfil th at objective, and that therefore the COOL measure 
violates Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.  
                                                      
1The COOL measure includes the COOL Statute and th e Final Rule, as set out in the Panel Report, 
paras. 7.21, 7.34, and 7.63. WT/DS384/13 
Page 2  
 
  4. Canada further seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's exercise in judicial 
economy on Canada's GATT Article III:4 claim rega rding the COOL measure and the Vilsack letter
2.   
 5. Finally, Canada seeks conditional review by th e Appellate Body of the Panel's failure to find 
that the COOL measure and the Vilsack letter cons titute an instance of non-violation nullification or 
impairment under GATT Article XXIII:1(b).  That re quest for review is conditional on the Appellate 
Body not finding a violation of either Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement or Article III:4 of the GATT. 
 
__________ 
 
 
 
                                                      
2Defined in the Table of Abbreviations of the Panel as "Letter to 'Industry Representative' from the 
United States Secretary of Ag riculture, Thomas J. Vilsack, of 20 February 2009".