RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/188 
18 May 2005 
 (05-2003) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
20 April 2005  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 20 April 2005  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Eirik Glenne (Norway) 
  
  
Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........2  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................3  
(c) United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  Status report 
by the Unite d States ........................................................................................................... .........3  
(d) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the 
United States .................................................................................................................. .............5  
(e) Mexico – Measures affecting telecommunications services:  Status report by Mexico .............6  
(f) European Communities – Conditions for th e granting of tariff preferences to 
developing countries:  Status repor t by the European Communities ..........................................7  
2. United States - Subsidies on upland cotton.............................................................................7  
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB.................................................................7  
3. European Communities – Protection of trademarks and geographical 
indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs.............................................................9  
(a) Reports of the Panel:  Complaint by the United States and Complaint by Australia..................9  
4. United States – Measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and 
betting services ............................................................................................................... .........13  
(a) Report of the Appellate Body and Report of the Panel.............................................................13  
 WT/DSB/M/188 
Page 2  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.30) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.30) 
 (c) United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS217/16/Add.15 – WT/DS234/24/Add.15) 
 
(d) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.5) 
 (e) Mexico – Measures affecting telecommunications services:  Status report by Mexico 
(WT/DS204/9/Add.4) 
 
(f) European Communities – Conditions for the gr anting of tariff preferences to developing 
countries:  Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS246/16)   
 1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  He proposed that the six sub-items to wh ich he had just referred be considered separately. 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.30) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.30, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US Section 211 Omni bus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
3. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 April 2005, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DS U.  As noted in that report, 
several legislative proposals relating to S ection 211 that would implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute had been  introduced in the current Congress, both in the 
US Senate and the US House of Representatives.  The US administration was working with the US 
Congress with respect to appropriate stat utory measures to resolve this matter. 
4. The representative of the European Communities  said that repealing bills were pending 
respectively in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives.  The adoption of those bills 
would bring a satisfactory solution to this dispute by removing a legislation driven by specific 
interests.  The deadline for implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute 
was fast approaching, but the EC was still waiting for earnest signs from the United States that it 
would take action by 30 June 2005.  Despite the ex ceptionally long period of time for implementation 
– more than 3 years – which had been granted to th e United States, all that the United States had been 
able to report was that "several legislative proposal s ...  have been introduced".  The US inaction stood 
in sharp contrast with its determination to prom ote efficient and non-discriminatory protection of 
intellectual property rights worldwide.  It woul d obviously be most damaging if the United States 
failed to bring itself into complia nce with its TRIPS obligations. 
5. The representative of Cuba  said that her country was astonished by the failure of the United 
States to move any closer to compliance with its oblig ations in the dispute at issue.  One could even  WT/DSB/M/188 
 Page 3 
 
 
question the meaning of a reasonable period of tim e provided for compliance in the DSU since one 
Member was able, at its convenience, to allow thr ee or four years to pass and still failed to comply 
with a decision adopted by the DSB.  She, theref ore, wondered what Members should expect from the 
WTO if one important Member maintained such an attitude.  Cuba invited the United States to reflect 
on the damaging effect of its actions on the WTO, and to start observing the WTO rules.  Cuba had 
repeatedly called for Section 211 to be repealed.  She noted that the US Congress had before it a bill 
which would achieve that objective.  Cuba urged the United States to honour its obligations without 
further delay by repealing Section 211.  Cuba woul d also remind the United States that the six-month 
period of time granted to it for impl ementation would expire in June 2005 .  
6. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.30) 
7. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.30, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
8. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 April 2005, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 23 November 2002, 
the US authorities had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty inv estigation at issue in 
this dispute.  Details were provided in document WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  The US administration 
continued to support specific legislative am endments that would implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings with respect to the US  anti-dumping duty statute, and was working with 
the US Congress to pass these amendments. 
9. The representative of Japan
 said that it was truly regrettable that her country was still awaiting 
to see any tangible signs towards a fully-fledged implementation by the United States of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  Japan  was very much concerned that the US Congress 
still had to see a bill presented to it in order to fully implement the WTO ruling.  The WTO rules-
based multilateral trading system owed its credibility to the premise that its Members adhered to those 
rules, including the DSU rules.  Absent such adheren ce to the rules, the credibility would be eroded.  
As Members were well aware, Japan's decision to agr ee to the third extension of the reasonable period 
of time in this dispute had been based on the assu mption that the United States would fully implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings within the revi sed reasonable period of time.  She noted that 
that revised reasonable period of time would expire in  about three months.  Ja pan reiterated its urgent 
call for the United States to meet its obligati on under the WTO Agreements, by first promptly 
introducing a bill to the US Congress.  If the United States fell short of implementation by 
31 July 2005, Japan would be entitled to the recourse provided for under the DSU. 
10. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS217/16/Add.15 – WT/DS234/24/Add.15) 
11. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/D S217/16/Add.15 – WT/DS234/24/Add.15, 
which contained the status report by the United St ates on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning the US Conti nued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. WT/DSB/M/188 
Page 4  
 
12. The representative of the United States
 said that his country had provided a status report on 
7 April 2005, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 7 February 2005, the US administration 
had proposed repeal of the CDSOA in its budget proposal for fiscal year 2006.  In addition, on 
3 March 2005, legislation that would repeal the C ontinued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act had been 
introduced in the US House of Representatives.  The US administration would work with the US 
Congress to enact legislation, and would continue to confer with the complaining parties in these 
disputes in order to reach mutually satisfactory resolutions of these matters. 
13. The representative of the European Communities  said that, on 31 March 2005, the EC 
Commission had adopted a proposal to impose, st arting from 1 May 2005, a 15 per cent additional 
import duty on certain US products.  This was the firs t step in the EC legislative process.  That 
proposal had now been transmitted to the EC Counc il for discussion and adoption.  The decision in 
this regard had not been taken lightly.  The intr oduction of a repealing Act in March 2005 was a 
positive move and the EC still hoped that it would give the necessary impetus.  But, in light of 
previous experiences in this and other disputes, th e EC could not, unfortunately, trust that the United 
States was just about to come into compliance with it s WTO obligations.  In this respect, the EC could 
only note that the United States had not been able to report on any progress.  The EC could not accept 
that the United States continued to ignore indefinite ly its international obligations and to inflict  
increasing damages to EC exporters.  More than US $ 1 billion had already been collected on imported 
products and redistributed to the competing US prod ucts and US$ 1,6 billion could be distributed in 
October 2005.  A new distribution of collected du ties under the CDSOA was not acceptable to the EC.  
Finally, the EC particularly welcomed Canada's decision to also apply a 15 per cent additional import 
duty on certain US products and expected that ot her co-complainants would soon join it in applying 
retaliation. 
14. The representative of Canada  said that his country had noted the status report of the United 
States with regard to the Continued Dumping a nd Subsidy Offset Act of 2000.  Given the United 
States' failure to repeal the WTO-inconsistent Byrd Amendment, Canada had announced on 31 March 
2005 that it was proceeding with imposing retaliato ry measures against the United States.  Canada 
continued to express its disappointment with th e United States' failure to repeal the WTO- 
inconsistent Byrd Amendment.  Canada again ca lled upon the United States to end this dispute and 
repeal the Byrd Amendment. 
15. The representative of Japan  said that, as her country had stated at the 21 March 2005 DSB 
meeting, Japan very much welcomed the fact that  a bill H.R. 1121 had been introduced in the US 
Congress in March 2005.  Japan also noted the fact th at this repealing legislation of the CDSOA had 
now been referred to the Committee on Ways and Me ans. These were important, positive signs for the 
resolution of this dispute.  However, it was more im portant that the repealing legislation be passed at 
the earliest possible opportunity.  Japan was aware th at the EC and Canada had decided to exercise 
their retaliatory rights against the United States as from 1 May 2005.  At the moment, Japan was 
carefully observing how the US Congress might proceed with the consideration of the repealing bill. 
Japan noted that in a bilateral context of a seri es of the US/Japan economic-trade discussions,  
including the one held in March 2005 between high-level officials, the US side had always stated the importance of complying with its obligations un der the WTO Agreements. To substantiate that 
commitment, Japan strongly called on the United Stat es to take a concerted action towards a prompt 
repeal of the CDSOA.  If the current situation contin ued to prevail, Japan intended to take appropriate 
actions to address such a situation, including the exercise of its rights under the WTO Agreements in 
order to secure the implementation by the United States of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
16. The representative of the United States
 said that with respect to the comments made by the 
EC and Canada, he wished to state that the Un ited States regretted that the EC and Canada had 
decided to suspend their obligations in connectio n with these disputes.  The US administration's 
recent budget proposal to repeal the CDSOA – a nd the introduction of repeal legislation in  WT/DSB/M/188 
 Page 5 
 
 
March 2005 – demonstrated that the United States was making progress in appealing the CDSAO and it would continue to work with US Congress to achieve compliance with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in these disputes.  Th e United States would be reviewing carefully the measures taken by 
the EC and by Canada in order to be sure that  the measures were consistent with the DSB's 
authorization. In this regard, he recalled that the DSB only authorized the suspension of concessions 
or other obligations as provided in the decision of the Arbitrator. 
17. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.5) 
18. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.5, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
19. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 April 2005, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that report, the 
US administration had been consulting on this matter with the US Congress.  The US administration 
would continue to work with the US Congress and would confer with the EC in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
20. The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation would not spend any 
time discussing the most recent US status report, which was anything but informative as usual.  The EC regretted the US lack of commitment to Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU concerning surveillance of 
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recomme ndations. Such a lack of commitment was also 
apparent with regard to the copyright obligations laid down in the TRIPS Agreement.  The EC feared 
that the United States had decided to ignore such ob ligations since it was hard to understand the lack 
of any initiatives by the US administration or the US Congress to bring the US Copyright Act into compliance with the TRIPS Agreement. The intern ational struggle to improve the protection of 
intellectual property rights was badly affected by  the apparent unwillingness of the United States to 
live up to its TRIPS obligations.  The EC and, his delegation believed, the WTO Membership as a 
whole were fully committed to the protection standa rds negotiated during the Uruguay Round.  It was, 
therefore, unfortunate that one WTO Member unde rmined that global effort by refraining from 
complying with a DSB ruling.  Once again, in order to break the current impasse, the EC invited the 
United States to explain in concrete terms what wa s the substance of the consultations, which the US 
administration stated that it was conducting with the US Congress.  Finally, the EC wished to recall 
that it had reserved its right to reactivate, at any point in time, arbitration proceedings on its retaliation 
request in relation to this dispute. 
21. The representative of Australia
 said that it was now over four years since the DSB had 
adopted the recommendations and rulings in this dis pute.  Australia had previously registered its 
concerns about the lack of prompt implementation by  the United States in this dispute, and about the 
temporary monetary compensation arrangement reached between the parties to the dispute.  Australia 
would be interested in receiving further informati on from the United States about the stage reached in 
the US administration's consultations with the US Congress on the action needed on the relevant 
provisions of the Copyright Act to ach ieve compliance in this dispute. 
22. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation had noted the statements made 
by the EC and Australia.  The United States regre tted that under both the present agenda sub-item as 
well as the previous ones, the EC had again sugg ested that the US compliance record was poor and 
that the EC had again made unfounded comments on the US record in respect of intellectual property rights.  As his delegation had stated in previous  DSB meetings, the United States had fully complied WT/DSB/M/188 
Page 6  
 
in the vast majority of disputes and was working towards compliance in the rest.  Also, as it had 
already stated, the United States was second to none in providing strong protection for intellectual property rights.  The United States also wished to dr aw attention to two partic ular points with regard 
to the EC's comments.  First, the United States was su rprised that the EC was raising this issue, given 
the agenda item to which Members would be turn ing to shortly relating to intellectual property 
protection in the EC.  Second, the United States recalle d that in the Bananas dispute, the EC was still 
not in compliance, seven years after the DSB had adopted its recommendations and ruling, and the EC 
had had to work out an interim arrangement via a WTO waiver so that it could remain out of 
compliance. 
23. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that the EC would have the opportunity 
to explain its position on the Panel Report concerni ng geographical indications, which had just been 
referred to by the United States.  He stressed that the EC was firmly committed to its TRIPS 
obligations, and there should be no doubt that the EC  would comply with such obligations promptly. 
Furthermore, the EC ensured that the implementati on would be completed within a shorter period of 
time than four years from the adoption of the Pane l Report on copyright.  The least one could say was 
that the United States was not setting an example fo r its celerity.  Now, since the United States had 
brought up the issue of geographical indications, the EC wished to stress that  it only asked the United 
States to show a similar level of commitment to mu ltilateral rules like the EC for the benefit of the 
WTO and  intellectual property protection worldwide. 
24. The representative of Australia  noted that the United States had reacted to the request for 
further information by simply drawing attention to another Members' record in another case.  
Australia would still like to have some further in formation on where the US administration stood with 
the US Congress on this matter and what was bei ng discussed. Australia expected that, after more 
than four years, the United States could do better than  simply state that it was consulting with the US 
Congress. 
25. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation thanked the delegation of 
Australia for its question.  At the present meeting,  he could only say that he would transmit that 
question to his authorities for their consideration. 
26. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) Mexico – Measures affecting telecommunications services:  Status report by Mexico 
(WT/DS204/9/Add.4) 
27. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS204/ 9/Add.4, which contained the status 
report by Mexico on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning Mexico's measures affecting telecommunications services. 
28. The representative of Mexico
 said that on 7 April 2005, based on Article 21.6 of the DSU, 
Mexico had submitted its latest status report regarding implementation in the case "Mexico – 
Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services" (WT/DS204).  In that status report, his country 
had provided information regarding a notificatio n of an agreement on implementation between 
Mexico and the United States.   In  accordance with that agreement, Mexico had a reasonable period of 
time of 13 months, which would expire in July 200 5.  Mexico had already complied with the first 
phase of that agreement, which had been notifie d accordingly. Similarly, Mexico was drafting 
regulations for the  establishment of commercial ag encies.  Once these had been developed, Mexico 
would have fully complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
29. The representative of the United States  said that his country looked forward to having the 
opportunity to consult with Mexico as Mexico  was drafting its new re-sale regulations.  WT/DSB/M/188 
 Page 7 
 
 
30. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) European Communities – Conditions for the gr anting of tariff preferences to developing 
countries:  Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS246/16) 
31. The Chairman drew attention to document WT /DS246/16, which contained the status report 
by the European Communities on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning the EC's conditions for the granting of  tariff preferences to developing countries.   
32. The representative of the European Communities  recalled that following the adoption of the 
Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, on 
20 April 2004, the EC had confirmed its intention to fully implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute.  The EC also recalled th at under the Arbitrator's award of 20 September 2004, 
the reasonable period of time for implementation w ould expire on 1 July 2005.  On 20 October 2004, 
the European Commission had proposed to the EC  Council, a new GSP regulation which would, inter 
alia, repeal the "Drug Arrangements" under the Council Regulation (EC) No. 2501/2001.  As stated in 
the relevant status report, which had already been  submitted to the DSB, that proposal was currently 
under discussion in the EC Council.  The EC was confident that it shall honor its commitments and 
shall fully respect the deadline for implementation in this case. 
33. The representative of India  said that his country thanked the EC for the first status report 
regarding the implementation of the DSB's recomm endations and rulings in the dispute:  "EC – 
Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferen ces to Developing Countries" (WT/DS246).  The 
European Communities had, until 1 July 2005, to comply with the DSB's decision in this dispute.  
India noted that the EC was in the process of discussing a new GSP regulation which would, inter 
alia, repeal the "Drug Arrangements" under the curren t GSP regulation.  India looked forward to the 
EC fully complying with the DSB's recommendations  and rulings within the reasonable period of 
time. 
34. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States - Subsidies on upland cotton 
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 
35. The Chairman  recalled that in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  In this respect, Article 21.3 of 
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall in form the DSB, within 30 days after the date of 
adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  He reca lled that at its meeting on 21 March 2005, the DSB 
had adopted the Appellate Body Report in the case:   "United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton" 
and the Panel Report on the same mater, as modified  by the Appellate Body Report.  He invited the 
United States to inform the DSB of its intentio ns in respect of implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations. 
36. The representative of the United States   said that his country intended to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute in a manner that respected the United States' WTO 
obligations, and it had begun to evaluate options  for doing so.  The United States would need a 
reasonable period of time in which to implement.  His  delegation stood ready to consult with Brazil 
in this regard. WT/DSB/M/188 
Page 8  
 
37. The representative of Brazil
 said that his delegation took note of the content of the statement 
made by the United States at the present meeting.  In light of the substantive obligation set forth in 
Article 21.3 of the DSU and its relevance for the achievement of the objectives of the WTO, Brazil  
expected a much more detailed statement on the US  intentions concerning the implementation in the 
dispute under consideration.  It was hard to expl ain such scarcity of words and ideas by any time 
constraints or lack of experience with the operati on of the WTO dispute settlement system.  At least 
since 3 March 2005, the date of issuance of the Appellate Report in the Cotton case, the United States had been fully and definitively knowledgeable of its  WTO obligations in this matter and, accordingly, 
should have been in a position to disclose at the present meeting a much more elaborated expression 
of the work the US administration was presumabl y devoting towards a meaningful WTO-consistent 
implementation.  This was particularly true give n the expedited time-frames, which applied to the 
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations under the SCM Agreement. 
38. With regard to the operation of the dispute settlement system, the United States had extensive 
experience, both as a complainant and defendant.  As  a complainant, the United States was well aware 
of the legitimate domestic expectations surrounding the implementation phase of a dispute, especially 
when parties had been litigating in protracted a nd painful cases.  On the other hand, as a defendant, 
the United States was also familiar with the need to provide concre te and substantial responses to 
what the dispute settlement system required, in terms of both procedural and substantive matters. 
With reference to the time-period for implementa tion of the DSB's rulings and recommendations in 
this case, Brazil recalled that the Panel, pursuant to  Articles 4.7 and 7.8 of the SCM Agreement, had 
made recommendations concerning the period of tim e applicable to implementation in the cotton 
dispute.  Nothing in the Appellate Body Report ha d modified those recommendations.  Brazil did not 
share the view that any further discussion betw een the parties or guidance from elsewhere was 
necessary.  Brazil would be following the US implementation actions with great interest and a thorough evaluation of each action w ould be undertaken by its author ities.  As Brazil had stated upon 
the adoption of the Reports at issue, this dispute ha d gone on for too long.   Brazil expected that the  
short statement made by the United States did not refl ect the extent of US commitment to abide by its 
obligations.  Brazil still hoped that the United Stat es would fully and timely comply with the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations in this matter. 
39. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the US request for a reasonable 
period of time raised a number of complex issues.  The EC wished to note that the Appellate Body 
had not reversed or modified the Panel's recommenda tions.  These must, therefore, be considered to 
remain valid and adopted.  These were violati ons of the SCM Agreement and the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  The EC considered that, in this pa rticular case, should the United States request so, it 
was entitled to a reasonable period of time in order to  come into conformity with the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  How long that period should be was, in the event of disagreement, a question to be 
determined by an arbitrator, who must also take into account the period of time for withdrawal of the 
measure as recommended by the Panel. 
40. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation wished to refer to one point 
made by Brazil at the present meeting.  Brazil w as certainly correct that the Panel Report had  
specified an implementation period with respect to certain issues.  However, with respect to other 
issues, no such period had been specified.  The repr esentative of Brazil had just stated that Brazil did 
not share the view that any further discussion w ould be necessary.  The United States hoped that 
Brazil might be able to reconsider that view. 
41. The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation was encouraged by the statement just 
made by the United States since it understood that  the United States had confirmed that it would 
implement the DSB's recommendations regarding th e dispute under the SCM Agreement.  In other 
words, that the United States would comply with th e time-period provided for in that Agreement.  
This of course would take care of a large part of the dispute.  With regard to the issues that fell under 
the Agreement on Agriculture, Brazil would like to recei ve some indications of the US intentions in   WT/DSB/M/188 
 Page 9 
 
 
this regard. He underlined that, in any case, such im plementation would have to be within the shortest 
time possible. 
42. The representative of the United States  thanked the delegation of Brazil for its statement.  
However, rather than discussing that question at length at the present meeting, he suggested that 
Brazil and the United States take up that issue bilaterally. 
43. The DSB took note  of the statements, and of the information provided by the United States 
regarding its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
3. European Communities – Protection of trad emarks and geographical indications for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs 
(a) Reports of the Panel:  Complaint by the Un ited States (WT/DS174/R and Add.1, 2 & 3) and 
Complaint by Australia (WT/DS290/R and Add. 1, 2 & 3) 
44. The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting on 2 October 2003, the DSB had established a 
single panel to examine the complaints by the Unite d States and Australia pertaining to these matters.  
He recalled that the Reports of the Panel, cont ained in document WT/DS174/R and Add.1, 2 and 3 
and in document WT/DS290/R and Add.1, 2 a nd 3 had been circulated on 15 March 2005 as 
unrestricted documents, pursuant to the Procedures  for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO 
Documents contained in WT/L/452.  The Panel Repor ts were now before the DSB for adoption at the 
request of the United States and Au stralia.  This adoption procedure was without prejudice to the right 
of Members to express their views on the Panel Reports. 
45. The representative of the United States  said that his country was pleased to propose the 
adoption of the Panel Report at issue.  The Unite d States believed that the Report provided useful 
guidance to Members with respect to geographical indications (GIs) and trad emarks, and it would like 
to thank the Panel and the Secretariat for their thorough work.  The United States would like to highlight certain aspects of the Report that Members might find particularly instructive.  First, the 
Panel had confirmed what the United States had long alleged, namely, that the EC's GI Regulation 
discriminated against non-EC persons and products.  Specifically, the Panel had confirmed that the 
EC could not continue to deny  GI protection to a foreign national simply because his or her 
government did not have an "equivalent" GI protection system to that of the EC.  Nor could the EC continue to make GI protection contingent on the av ailability of "reciprocal" GI protection in the other 
country.  Rather, WTO Members must offer GI pr otection to the nationals of all WTO Members, 
regardless of how those Members had chosen to im plement their TRIPS Agreement obligations.  This 
finding emphasized the freedom that Members had under the TRIPS Agreement to implement GI 
obligations within their own system. 
46. Second, the Panel had confirmed that a Memb er such as the EC that permitted its own 
nationals to register and oppose GIs directly must pr ovide that same direct access to nationals of other 
WTO Members, and did not require intervention by  their governments.  This was important, because 
whether or not a name qualified for GI protection in  the territory of a Member depended on criteria 
under the domestic law of that Member.  If a natio nal of any WTO Member satisfied those criteria, 
that national should receive the protection, regardl ess of whether its government intervened. The same 
was true of the ability to oppose the registration of GIs.  Intellectual property rights were private rights that should be granted to right-holders w ho qualified for them;  Members should not shift the 
burden to other governments to negotiate t hose rights on behalf of their nationals. 
47. Third, the Panel had confirmed that the EC c ould not continue to make GI protection for 
foreign nationals contingent on th e availability of specific government inspection systems in their 
home country.  This finding, too, emphasized the discretion that WTO Members had in implementing 
GI protection in their own territory.  It also em phasized again that intellectual property rights were WT/DSB/M/188 
Page 10  
 
private rights that could not be denied to forei gn nationals based on how their government had chosen 
to protect GIs in their territory. 
48. Finally, the Panel had made several important  findings with respect to the relationship 
between trademarks and GIs.  The Panel had found that the EC GI Regulation was inconsistent with 
Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, because it failed  to allow the owners of validly registered, pre-
existing trademarks the right to prevent confusi ng uses of geographical indications registered under 
the EC Regulation.  Significantly, the Panel had also rejected the EC's claim that Articles 24.3 and 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement provided for a regi me of "co-existence" between registered 
geographical indications and pre-existing trademarks  under which owners of registered trademarks 
were denied Article 16.1 rights.  The Panel had found that the Regulation's inconsistency with 
Article 16.1 was justified only insofar as it fitte d within the narrow permissible exceptions to 
trademark rights under Article 17 of the TRIPS Ag reement.  This finding under Article 17 had 
important implications for how the EC  GI Regulation must be applied. 
49. First, the Panel had relied on the fact that the EC GI Regulation prevented registration of a GI 
if it would cause a "relatively high" likelihood of confusion with a pre-existing trademark.  Because 
the Panel had found that the GI Regulation fit w ithin the Article 17 exception only because it "can" 
ensure the rejection of GIs that caused a relativel y high likelihood of confusion, it was incumbent on 
the EC to make sure that it did so in practice.   Therefore, the United States expected that, in 
determining whether a GI should be registered and protected, the EC would reject registrations where 
such a likelihood of confusion existed.  To do otherw ise would be contrary to the Panel's findings in 
this dispute.  In this regard, a relatively high lik elihood of confusion in the relevant market for a 
trademark – even if just in a single EC member Stat e – was sufficient to compel rejection of the GI 
registration.  Further, where a GI registration was s ought for a sign that was identical to a pre-existing 
registered trademark and was for use on identical  goods, such a likelihood of confusion would be 
presumed, pursuant to Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. 
50. Second, the Panel had found that GIs register ed under the Regulation were permitted to 
curtail a trademark owner's rights to only a very lim ited extent.  Specifically, since the GI Regulation 
conferred a right to use the GI only if used stric tly in accordance with its registration, the Panel had 
found that the trademark owner's rights were not curtailed with respect to any signs that were not registered, including, significantly, "linguistic versions" of the GI that were not entered in the register.  
These findings were critical to the Panel's ultim ate conclusion that the Regulation's breach of 
Article 16.1 was justified under the narrow TRIPS excep tion to trademark rights.  Indeed, as the Panel 
had expressly stated:  "[I]f the GI registration prevented the trademark owner from exercising its 
rights against these signs, combinations of signs or linguistic versions, which do not appear expressly 
in the GI registration, it would seriously expand  the exception and undermine the limitations on its 
scope."
1 Thus, under the Panel's findings, registered tr ademark owners continued to enjoy their full 
TRIPS rights to prevent the confusing use of anythi ng other than the specific sign entered in the GI 
register.  This included the right to prevent the co nfusing use of the registered GI translated into 
another language. In conclusion, the United States looked forward to the EC's prompt implementation 
of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this di spute, and would be carefully monitoring the EC's 
future application of its GI Regulation in light of the Panel's findings. 
51. The representative of Australia  said that his country welcomed the adoption of the Panel 
Report, which had confirmed that the EC's GIs re gime was inconsistent with the EC's existing 
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and the GA TT 1994.  Australia thanked the members of the 
Panel for their work in relation to this dispute. It  was ironic that, just at a time when the EC was 
pursuing its ambitious agenda in the WTO on geogra phical indications, this Panel Report highlighted 
that there were significant problems with the EC's own domestic GIs regime.  This demonstrated some of the difficulties in this complex area wh en the EC, as the key demandeur on increased GI 
                                                     
 
1 Panel Report, paragraph 7.657.  WT/DSB/M/188 
 Page 11 
 
 
protection, had been shown not to be implementing its own GIs regime in a WTO consistent manner.  
Australia's challenge focused particularly on the EC's national treatment ob ligations and the rights 
required to be made available to trademark owners .  The Panel had found that several aspects of the 
EC regime denied national treatment to both th e goods and nationals of other WTO Members.  
Among the Panel's findings concerning the EC's nati onal treatment obligations, two should be of 
particular interest to other Members. 
52. First, the EC could not require other Members to agree to provide an  equivalent level of 
protection to GIs from the EC before GIs from other Members could be protected under the Regulation.  In other words, there was no requirement  to adopt the EC's system for protecting GIs in 
order to be protected by that system.  The Panel's finding underlined that Members were still free to 
choose how they implemented their GI obligations  under the TRIPS Agreement.  Second, the EC 
could not require another WTO Member government to  act on behalf of its national right-holders who 
was seeking to protect intellectual property rights within the EC.  The obligation to accord national 
treatment in respect of an EC measure fell on the EC itself.  Consequently, the EC itself had to provide the means by which the nationals of othe r WTO Members could apply for, or object to, the 
registration of a term as a GI or designation of orig in within the EC.  This was consistent with the 
status of intellectual property rights as private rights. 
53. The Panel Report had also included detailed le gal reasoning and conclusions concerning the 
relationship between trademarks and GIs under the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel had found that the 
EC GIs Regulation was inconsistent with Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement because it limited the 
availability of trademark owners' rights under that  TRIPS provision.  Only through reliance on a 
"limited exception" under Article 17 of the TRIPS Ag reement  had the Panel been able to find that the 
EC Regulation was justified.  This finding was clear ly based on certain understandings on the part of 
the Panel of the meaning of specific provisions of the Regulation, understandings developed in 
reliance on explanations of its Regulation provided by  the EC.  It was incumbent upon the EC to make 
good on its word. 
54. First, the Panel's finding clearly relied on the unde rstanding that registrati on of a term as a GI 
or designation of origin under the Regulation entitl ed use of the term only in accordance with its 
registration (paragraph 7.657).  Second, the Panel' s finding clearly relied on the understanding that the 
rights of the owner of an earlier trademark were not limited in respect to any use of a term in "linguistic versions", or translations, wh ich were not registered under the Regulation 
(paragraph 7.657).  Third, the Panel's finding clear ly relied on the understanding that the EC could 
ensure that in cases where the like lihood of confusion was relativel y high the limited exception would 
not apply (paragraph 7.658). Any application of th e measure in a manner at odds with the Panel's 
understandings – whether the trademark rights con cerned arose at the Community or at an EC 
member State level would negate the basis of the Panel's finding. 
55. Turning to other findings in the Panel Report, Australia welcomed the Panel's findings that 
Articles 24.5 and 24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement were  not applicable.  Significantly, the Panel had 
specifically rejected the EC's view that Article 24.5 required the co-existence of GIs with earlier 
trademarks.  Further, the Panel's findings established that recognition of a term as a GI in relation to 
the territory of one WTO Member was not of itsel f sufficient to prevail over a trademark owner's 
rights in relation to the territory of another WTO Me mber.  Any exceptions to the rights required to be 
made available to the owner of a trademark relating to the confusingly similar or identical use of a 
sign for similar or identical goods must be determ ined by each WTO Member in relation to that 
Member's territory.  Australia welcomed as well the finding that a provision of the Regulation was a 
technical regulation within the meaning of the TBT Agreement.  The finding reinforced that a WTO 
Member's measures to protect intellectual property ri ghts were also subject to the disciplines of the 
other covered agreements.  In the case of the TBT Ag reement, this meant that  such measures must not 
create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. Fi nally, Australia looked forward to the EC's full 
and prompt implementation of the DSB's ruli ngs and recommendations in this dispute. WT/DSB/M/188 
Page 12  
 
56. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that the EC thanked the Panel for its 
Report.  The dispute under consideration raised co mplex issues relating to a large number of legal 
claims in an area of WTO law, which had not previo usly been the subject of dispute settlement.   The 
EC was grateful for the considerable amount of work the Panel had done to produce a thorough legal 
and factual analysis of all these issues.  The EC was bound to note its disappointment that the Panel 
had not agreed that EC Regulation 2081/92 allo wed the registration of geographical indications 
relating to the territories of other WTO Members on the same conditions as applied to registration of GIs relating to areas within the EC.  The EC had stro ngly argued before the Panel that the EC's regime 
did not discriminate in this regard, and the EC remained of that view. 
57. The EC was, however, very pleased that the Panel had found the key aspects of the EC regime 
on geographical indications to be compatible with WTO rules, and had accordingly rejected the vast 
majority of the legal claims made by the complain ants.  In this regard, the EC attached great  
importance to the fact that the Panel had found th e provisions of Regulation 2081/92 governing the 
relationship between geographical indications and ( earlier-in-time) trademarks to be fully justified 
under the TRIPS Agreement. The EC welcomed th is clear recognition of the principle of "co-
existence" between geographical indications and trad emarks.  The Panel had also confirmed that the 
requirement, laid down in Regulation 2081/92, of in spection structures in third countries to guarantee 
the quality of exported pro ducts did not constitute a violation of  WTO obligations.  The EC welcomed 
this recognition that the EC might impose reasona ble conditions on the registration of geographical 
indications aimed at ensuring the genuine qualit y of products benefiting from the high level of 
protection under Regulation 2081/92. 
58. With regard to the MFN claims brought by the United States, the EC also welcomed the 
clarification by the Panel that measures with which the EC harmonized the law inside the EC did not 
constitute a violation of MFN principles.  On certa in other issues, including on the question whether 
applications for registration of geographical indi cations relating to areas within other WTO Members 
must be granted the opportunity to apply directly to the authorities of the EC, the Panel had not fully 
accepted the EC's arguments.  The EC wished to record its disagreement with the reasoning of the 
Panel of these issues. 
59. Finally, on a procedural point, the EC wished to note its disagreement on the Panel's findings 
regarding the compatibility of the panel requests with Article 6.2 of the DSU.  The EC considered that 
the Panel's approach could not be regarded as a precedent for future cases.  However, given the 
overall quality of the Panel Report, and the Panel's vindication of key aspects of the EC regime for 
protection of geographical indications, the EC did not object to the adoption of the Reports in cases 
WT/DS174 and WT/DS290. 
60. The representative of Canada
 said that the issue of geographical indications was an important 
one, currently being discussed and negotiated in th e Doha Development Round.  Canada was pleased 
that the Panel had agreed with its position that th e existing EC Regulation violated the principle of 
national treatment, a principle that was at the heart of the international trading system.  Canada 
thanked the Panel for its diligence in these matters. 
61. The representative of Australia  asked whether the EC in its statement had indicated that, 
notwithstanding its objections to th e Panel's conclusions, it would bri ng its measures into conformity 
with the Panel's recommendations and rulings. 
62. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC wished to remind Australia 
that, in accordance with the DSU provisions, it woul d make a statement regarding the implementation 
of the DSB's recommendations in the case under consid eration and that it would do this in due time. 
63. The representative of India  said that his country had participated as a third party in this 
dispute.  India wished to thank the members of th e Panel and the Secretariat for their hard work in  WT/DSB/M/188 
 Page 13 
 
 
producing the Report, which would be adopted at the present meeting.  India recognized that this was 
a particularly difficult task in that this was the fi rst time that a WTO Panel has ruled on the intellectual 
property rights in the area of geographical indicati ons.  The Panel had found, by examining both the 
national treatment provisions of the GATT 1994 as  well as the TRIPS Agreement, that national 
treatment obligations could not be conditioned on reci procity, thus confirming the trade related nature 
of obligations on intellectual property rights in the WTO.  India also noted that exceptions to 
intellectual property rights built into the TRIPS Ag reement were available to Members and permitted 
some diminution of rights of intellectual property right holders.  His delega tion had listened carefully 
not only to Australia's statement, but also to both the EC and the US statements under the present agenda item.  With respect to the reference to the possible lear ning from this dispute for the ongoing 
Doha Work Programme, he wished to  note that, given the trade-related nature of its intellectual 
property rights obligations, exceptions and procedur es built into the TRIPS Agreement should also 
further trade objectives. 
64. The representative of Australia
 noted that there were some very significant trade policy 
considerations arising from this legal case.  The im plications of the Panel's findings included that, 
before Members began to tamper with any changes to the TRIPS Agreement, they should reflect on 
how they had implemented their existing TRIPS oblig ations. In this dispute it had been shown that 
one Member, a demandeur, was unable to live up to its TRIPS obligations.  He said that there was a lot of missing data on how current ob ligations were being implemented. 
65. The DSB took note
 of the statements and adopted  the Panel Report contained in 
WT/DS174/R and Add.1, 2 and 3 pertaining to th e complaint by the United States, and the Panel 
Report contained in WT/DS290/R and Add.1, 2 and 3 pertaining to the complaint by Australia. 
4. United States – Measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting 
services 
(a) Report of the Appellate Body (WT/DS285/AB /R) and Report of the Panel (WT/DS285/R) 
66. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the Appellate Body contained in 
document WT/DS285/9 transmitting the Appellate Body Report on: "United States – Measures 
Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services", which was circulated on 7 April 2005 in document WT/DS285/AB/R, in accordance with Article 17.5 of the DSU.  He reminded delegations that in accordance with th e Decision on Procedures for the Circulation and 
Derestriction of WTO Documents contained in doc ument WT/L/452, the Appellate Body Report and 
the Panel Report pertaining to this case had been circulated as unrestricted documents.  As Members 
were aware, Article 17.14 of the DSU required that:  "An Appellate Body report shall be adopted by 
the DSB and unconditionally accepted by the part ies to the dispute unless the DSB decides by 
consensus not to adopt the Appellate Body report within 30 days following its circulation to 
Members.  This adoption procedure was without prejudice to the right of Members to express their views on an Appellate Body report". 
67. The representative of Antigua and Barbuda
 said that his country wished to thank the Panel 
and the Appellate Body, as well as the WTO Secretar iat for their work on this very important and 
difficult issue.  Antigua and Barbuda recognized that this particular dispute was unique in many ways 
and presented the WTO with particularly difficult issues.  While his country had some concerns about some of the statements and conclusions reached by the Appellate Body in its Report, it was generally 
satisfied with the result.  Antigua and Barbuda l ooked forward to prompt adherence by the United 
States with the recommendations and would be monitoring the progress very closely. 
68. The representative of the United States
 said that his delegation wished to begin by thanking 
the members of the Appellate Body, the Panel, and the Secretariat for their hard work throughout the 
course of this dispute.   As discussed in the US su bmissions to the Appellate Body in this dispute, the WT/DSB/M/188 
Page 14  
 
Panel Report in this dispute was very flawed.  The United States was, therefore, pleased that the 
Appellate Body had seen fit to reverse or modify ke y findings of the Panel, and to identify and correct 
numerous flaws in the Panel's legal reasoning.  The United States was pleased with the Appellate 
Body's finding that the US federal statutes at issu e in this dispute were "measures ...  necessary to 
protect public morals or to maintain public order" w ithin the meaning of Article XIV(a) of the GATS.  
This finding rested on several important subsid iary findings.  Significant among them was the 
Appellate Body's reversal of the Panel's erroneous finding that the United States was required to enter 
into consultations with Antigua and Barbuda before it could justify these measures as being 
"necessary". 
69. Further, in applying the Article XIV chapeau, the Appellate Body had correctly clarified that 
it was an error for the Panel to rely on a very small number of unrepresentative cases to make a 
general finding concerning whether enforcement of  US laws was non-discriminatory.  The United 
States noted that the Appellate Body had raised the possibility of discrimination under one US statute that related to horse racing.  However, the Appella te Body explicitly had not found that this statute 
was in fact discriminatory.  His authorities were exploring possible avenues for addressing this narrow 
issue. The Appellate Body had also provided ot her important clarifications relating to GATS 
Article XIV.  For example, it had clarified that  under GATS Article XIV, which was similar to 
Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994, Members were not re quired to "identify the universe of less trade-
restrictive alternative measures."  Rather, the issu e was whether the complaining party had identified a 
reasonably available WTO-consistent  alternative.  The United States welcomed that clarification. 
70. The United States further welcomed the Appellate  Body's finding that the Panel had erred in 
examining whether certain US state laws were cons istent with US GATS obligations.  This finding 
was important because it reconfirmed the burden that  a complaining party must meet in order to 
present a prima facie case.  The Appellate Body emph asized that "[a] prima facie case must be based 
on 'evidence and legal argument' put forward by th e complaining party in relation to each of the 
elements of the claim."   The United States appreciated the Appellate Body's rigor in analyzing 
whether Antigua and Barbuda as the complaini ng party presented sufficient evidence and legal 
arguments concerning US state laws to sustain its burden of establishing a prima facie case. 
71. The United States regretted the Appellate Body 's affirmation, on different grounds, of the 
Panel's findings with respect to sector 10.D of th e US Schedule of specific commitments.  However, 
the United States noted that, in contrast to the Pa nel, the Appellate Body had had recourse to the 
W/120 document and the UN CPC only as preparatory work, and not as context, in interpreting the 
US Schedule.  The Appellate Body had also correct ed some of the more egregious errors in the 
Panel's analysis of the US Schedule, such as the Panel's reliance on the purported meaning of terms in 
non-authentic languages.  The United States was disa ppointed by the Appellate Body's analysis of 
Article XVI, and in particular its fa ilure to give effect to the explic it terms "in the form of", which was 
repeated in each of the first four sub-paragraphs  of Article XVI:2.  The Appellate Body's reasoning 
appeared to rely upon the preparatory work while  de-emphasizing the precise terms actually used in 
the text agreed to by all Members.  In the US vi ew, this was not a model of proper textual analysis.  
Indeed, the Report itself acknowledged some of the ma ny questions left open or even created by the 
Appellate Body's interpretation. These included the proper legal analysis of "limitations on market 
access in respect of part of a committed sector" or "limitations on one or more means of cross-border delivery," and the proper meaning of what the Appellate Body called "quantitative measures" – a 
phrase that appeared in some of the negotiating hi story, but was ultimately omitted from the text of 
the GATS. 
72. In sum, the United States welcomed the central  conclusion of the Appellate Body that the 
relevant US measures were necessary to protect public  morals or maintain public order in relation to 
gambling.  While the United States was disappointed with some aspects of the Report, it appreciated 
the reversal of various disturbing aspects of th e Panel's analysis. The United States thanked the 
members of the Appellate Body  again for their hard work.  WT/DSB/M/188 
 Page 15 
 
 
73. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC welcomed the Report of the 
Appellate Body. The ruling had confirmed the right of WTO Members to regulate, in a non-discriminatory manner, the supply of services (including gambling and betting services) in order to protect public interests, and it provided valuable guidance on the correct legal interpretation of the 
GATS.  Moreover, the ruling had confirmed a number of legal arguments presented by the EC in the 
course of the dispute settlement procedure.  The A ppellate Body had confirmed that the US schedule 
of GATS commitments must be interpreted, in accord ance with the same principle that applied to the 
interpretation of schedules of all other WTO Members, and that the US schedule must, therefore, be interpreted as including a commitment on cross-bor der supply of gambling and betting services.  The 
Appellate Body had also vindicated the EC's view  that measures of a WTO Member which prohibited 
all cross-border supply of services were to be re garded as market access r estrictions within the 
meaning of Article XVI:2(a) and (c) of the GATS.  Finally, the Appellate Body had correctly stressed 
that measures which restricted, or prohibited, th e supply of services for which specific commitments 
had been scheduled by a WTO Member, must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner, as required 
by Article XIV of the GATS.  The Appellate Body , moreover, had introduced a number of important 
clarifications on the interpretation of the te rm "necessary" under Article XIV of the GATS. 
74. The representative of Japan
 said that her country had participated in the proceedings of this 
dispute as a third party.  This dispute involved vari ous issues of systemic importance with regard to  
trade in services, notably the interpretation of the GATS schedule and the application of the GATS 
provisions of general exception.  At the present meeting, her delegation wished to make a few  
comments.  First, Japan welcomed the approach ta ken by the Appellate Body in finding that the 
United States had indeed made a commitment in respect of gambling and betting services.  Namely, 
the Appellate Body had used W/120 document a nd the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines as supplementary 
means for interpretation, in accordance with Artic le 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of 
Treaties.  Second, Japan welcomed the fact that the Appellate Body had reversed the Panel's finding 
which would place upon a Member an excessive requi rement to engage in bilateral or even 
multilateral consultations with other Members, in order to justify its domes tic regulation under the 
GATS general exception clause.  Finally, Japan cons idered that the Appellate Body had taken an 
appropriate approach in reviewing the Panel's findi ng on whether the word "sporting" would include 
gambling in the US Schedule.  Japan concurred with  the view of the Appellate Body that the Panel 
had failed to explain the basis for reviewing the tr anslation of the word "sporting" in French and 
Spanish, notwithstanding the fact that the United St ates schedule explicitly indicated on the cover that 
its schedule was authentic in English only.  It was thus appropriate and just  that the Appellate Body 
had not followed the approach take n by the Panel in this regard. 
75. The DSB took note  of the statements, and adopted  the Appellate Body Report contained in 
WT/DS285/AB/R and the Panel Report contained in WT/DS285/R, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report. 
 
__________