WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  IP/Q/SUR/1/Add.1 
IP/Q2/SUR/1/Add.1 
IP/Q3/SUR/1/Add.1 IP/Q4/SUR/1/Add.1 
11 October 2010 
 
(10-5196) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Original:   English 
 
  
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION 
 
SURINAME 
 
Addendum
 
  
 The present document reproduces responses supplied by means of a communication dated 
3 September 2010 from the delegation of Suriname to the follow-up questions put to it by the EC
1 and 
Switzerland in the context of the review of Suriname 's legislation initiated at  the Council's meeting of 
2-5 April 2001. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
A. RESPONSES TO FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS POSED BY THE EC  
Follow-up to Question 14  
 
 Please clarify the reference to Article 6 quinquies  of the Paris Convention.  Please provide, 
if existing, an example of a trademark that has been refused on the basis of a conflicting 
geographical indication.  Please explain where in Suriname's law the definition of Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement has been acknowledged/inco rporated.  Please explain the difference, 
according to Suriname's law, between geogra phical origin and geographical indication. 
 
Follow-up to Question 15
 
 
 Please clarify your answer.  
Follow-up to Question 16
 
 
 Please explain the link between "a certain ex pectation about the quality of a product" and 
Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement wording when referring to a "given quality, (…) of the good 
is essentially attributable to its geographical origin".  
                                                     
 
1 On 1 December 2009, the Tr eaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the Eu ropean Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. IP/Q/SUR/1/Add.1, IP/Q2/SUR/1/Add.1,  
IP/Q3/SUR/1/Add.1, IP/Q4/SUR/1/Add.1 Page 2 
 
 
  Follow-up to Question 17
 
 
 Please explain how Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement is implemented by Suriname's legislation. 
 
Follow-up to Question 18
 
 
 Please provide a definition and/or the criteria to characterise, from a legal perspective, a 
name as a "generic". 
 
 With regard to the questions 14,15, 16, 17 a nd 18 we can't provide the answers because our 
legislation doesn't provide for the pr otection of Geographical Indications. 
 B. 
RESPONSES TO FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS POSED BY SWITZERLAND  
Follow-up to Question 1  
 
 Please confirm whether, in your patent legi slation, no subject matter is excluded from 
patentability.  In case there should be such ex ceptions, please explain how they comply with 
Article  27 of the TRIPS Agreement.   
 Article 2 of our present draft patent legisl ation deals with matters excluded from patent 
protection and mostly follows the provisions which are given under Article 1.1 of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement states that Members shall give effect to the 
provisions of the Agreement and also that Members shall be free to determine the appropriate method 
of implementing the provisions of this Agreemen t within their own legal system and practice.  
Suriname uses this provision of the TRIPS and Ar ticle 27 of the TRIPS Agr eement and on this basis 
determines which matters are excluded from patentability.  Follow-up to Question 2
 
 
 In your answer you mention that compulsory lic ensing is possible even in the case that a 
product is being imported to your country.  Plea se explain how this complies with Article  27.1 
of the TRIPS Agreement which provides that patent rights shall be enjoyable without discrimination as to whether products  are imported or locally produced. 
 
 The draft Industrial Property Bill which had been  prepared with assistance of the WIPO had 
been notified in 2001 to the WTO (IP/N/1/SUR/1/1,2 April 2001).  This draft mentioned in Article 30 
"distributing" as a right of the patent right holder, which indicates that compulsory licensing is possible if a product is being imported.  This draft did not pass into law.  The present draft legislation on Patent contains provisions on the right of importation in section 1, Article 8. 
 Follow-up to Question 4
 
 
 Please indicate whether your legislation ma kes the granting of compulsory license 
subject to other conditions besides the ones mentioned in your answer (i. e. "in case of industrial and national importance".  In particular are a ll the conditions enumerated in Article  31 of the 
TRIPS Agreement incorporated in your law?) 
  The draft Industrial Property Bill which had been  prepared with assistance of the WIPO had 
been notified in 2001 to the WTO (IP/N/1/SUR/1/1,2 April 2001).  Article 34 of this draft contained  IP/Q/SUR/1/Add.1, IP/Q2/SUR/1/Add.1,  
 IP/Q3/SUR/1/Add.1, IP/Q4/SUR/1/Add.1  Page 3 
 
 
  provisions on compulsory licenses.  This draft di d not pass the law.  The present draft Patents Act 
contains provision on compulsory licenses in Section 1 Article 13. 
 
Follow-up to Question 5
 
 
 You mention that your legislation does not provide for the protection of undisclosed 
information in your country.  Does this mean that the obligations contained in Article  39 of the TRIPS Agreement are directly applicable in your legislation?  
 Please specify whether the responsible State Agency will require, in the procedure for 
market authorisation of a pharmaceutical or of an agricultural chemical product, the same 
amount of data from a second applicant request ing market authorisation for a similar or 
identical product as from the first applicant. 
  Our legislation does not provide for the protection of undisclosed information. 
  
__________