. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  IP/C/W/461/Add.1 
24 January 2006 
 
 (06-0328) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights  Original:  English 
 
  
FOLLOW-UP REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PURSUANT TO  
ARTICLE 63.3 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 
 
Communication from the United States
 
 
Addendum  
  
 The following communication addressed to the De legation of China, dated 20 January 2006, 
is being circulated at the request of the Delegati on of the United States.  It follows up the response 
from China (IP/C/W/465) to a request from the Unite d States for information pursuant to Article 63.3 
of the TRIPS Agreement (IP/C/W/461).  
_______________ 
 
 1. Thank you for your letter of 22 December 2005, concerning the US request of 
25 October 2005 (document IP/C/W/461) for clar ifications regarding specific cases of IPR 
enforcement that China has identified for the years 2001 through 2004, and othe r relevant cases.  In 
the spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding, my Government is pleased to respond to your 
requests for clarification as follows. 
2. First, we are pleased to confirm that the US  request falls within the scope of requests 
permitted by the second sentence of Article 63.3 of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS Agreement").  To  the extent that the cases identified by China 
include final judicial decisions and administrative ru lings of general application, the US request also 
falls within the scope of requests permitte d by the first sentence of Article 63.3. 
3. Second, we are pleased to further elaborate on why the identified cases affect our rights under 
the TRIPS Agreement.  The rights of WTO Member s with respect to enforcement of intellectual 
property rights are set out in Part III of the TRIPS Agreement.  They include, among others, a right under Article 41.1 to the availability in China of en forcement procedures that "permit effective action 
against any act of infringement" and "remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringement".   
4. As explained in our letter of 25 October, China itself has identified the cases in question as 
being related to the question of its complian ce with the TRIPS Agreement.  In successive 
TRIPS Council reviews, China cited these same  cases to other WTO Members in response to 
questions regarding China's implementation of enforcement provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.
1   
                                                      
1 See Transitional Review under Section 18 of the Prot ocol on the Accession of the People's Republic 
of China, IP/C/34, paras. 6, 52-55, 62, and 75-76 (9 December 2004) (identifying cas es);  Transitional Review IP/C/W/461/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
  5. Your Government further confirmed the releva nce of this body of cases just prior to our 
request, when it distributed a white paper referencing them to the TRIPS Council.
2  A t  t h a t  t i m e ,  
China strongly urged Members who had criticized Ch ina's IPR enforcement to study the white paper 
for evidence of China' s enforcement efforts.3  Following that encouragement, our request reflects our 
strong desire to cooperatively examine and bette r understand the facts that your Government has 
presented to the TRIPS Council.   
6. In short, my Government has ample reason to believe that these cases affect rights of the 
United States and other WTO Members under the TR IPS Agreement because your Government has 
told Members as much, and even urged Members to study them.  We believe that our Governments can and should work to enhance mutual understanding  of the true significance of these cases in light 
of the requirements of Part III of the TRIPS Agreement. 
7. Third, we are perplexed by your request that the United States identify "a specific judicial 
decision or administrative ruling."  China, not the Un ited States, identified this set of specific cases to 
the TRIPS Council.  Since your Government has alre ady confirmed the existenc e of these cases, there 
can be no doubt that each involves "a specific judicial decision or administrative ruling" by which it 
was judicially or administratively disposed of, in  conformity with China's applicable laws.  My 
Government simply requests that China reveal prec isely what those dispositions were.  Consistent 
with the terms of Article 63.3, we would thus appr eciate being informed in sufficient detail of "such 
specific judicial decisions or administrative rulings".  To facilitate this, our le tter of 25 October details 
the six clarifications we are requesti ng regarding the disposition of these cases. 
8. We have noted with concern your statement th at "Article 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement only 
refers to a Member's request for information, bu t there is no mentioning of a corresponding obligation 
of the requested Member to actually follow the requ est".  As you state, Members should interpret and 
apply Article 63 in good faith.  We assure you that our request was made in good faith and a spirit of 
cooperation, and we look forward to China's full response in the same spirit. 
9. Finally, we renew the invitation in our letter of 25 October to discuss difficulties that may 
arise in the event that any of the requested inform ation does not exist or cannot be provided, and, if 
necessary, to work together to examine alternatives .  My Government wishes to work cooperatively 
with yours to enhance mutual understanding of these issues, and we hope that you will take advantage 
of the opportunity to do so. 
__________ 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                    
 
under Section 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China, IP/C/31, paras. 49, 54, 56 
(10 December 2003) (same);  Review of Legislation, IP/Q/CHN/1, section I.C (10 December 2002) (same). 
2 State Council Information Office, New Progress in China's Protection of Intellectual Property Rights 
(referring to, among others, (a) administrative cases of copyright infringement;  (b) administrative cases of 
trademark infringement and counterfeiting;  (c) IPR-relate d civil cases of first instance and criminal cases of 
first instance involving IPR infringement;  and (d) cases of IPR infringement in import and export handled by Chinese customs). 
3 See Transitional Review under Section 18 of the Pr otocol on the Accession of the People's Republic 
of China, IP/C/39, para. 65 (recounting that the representative of China "urged those Members who had submitted questions to study the responses in detail and to read the 'White Paper' his delegation had submitted" 
and stated that "[h]is Government had been breaking its back fighting against domestic IP infringement".)