WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG161/6 
5 May 2006 
 
 (06-2176) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES - SINGAPORE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT 
 
Questions and Replies
 
  
 The following communication, dated 4 May 2006, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegations of the United States and Singapore.   This document reproduces the questions addressed  to the Parties and the responses submitted. 
The questions and replies set out below are or ganized in accordance with document WT/REG161/3 
for the goods aspects of the Agreement, and WT/R EG161/4 for the services aspects of the Agreement. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
GOODS ASPECTS
 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT 
3. Scope 1. We note that the Parties advised at the last meeting (February 2005) fill rates for 
preferential TRQs were zero? Has there been any change in this figure during 2005?    
 In 2005, Singapore fully utilized the in-quot a quantities related to the TRQ for sugar.   
 
 
II. TRADE-RELATED PROVISIONS  
3. Rules of Origin  
2. According to Annex 3B: Integrated Sourcing Initiative, “to achieve ‘originating’ status 
under the FTA there is only a direct shipment re quirement, rather than a preferential rule of 
origin”. Does that clause imply that any product coming from any third party and entering the 
United States via Singapore is granted with preferential access?   
 As the United States explained in document WT/REG161/5, “[t]he products set out in Annex 
3B are already MFN duty-free.  Under the provision in question, in order to achieve ‘originating’ 
status under the FTA there is only a direct shipment  requirement, rather than a preferential rule of 
origin.”    
 
3. The Agreement recognises the “specific relat ionship between commercial availability of 
inputs in the United States and the concept or origin applied to textiles produced in the FTA partner”. Could the United States explain what this means in practice?    WT/REG161/6 
Page 2  
 
   As explained in WT/REG161/5, in practice, under Article 3.17, if a yarn or fabric is 
designated as an article that is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act or the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, then that yarn or 
fabric may be used to produce apparel that will receive preferential tariff treatment under the U.S. - 
Singapore FTA.   
 
 
IV. OTHER 
 3. Intellectual Property Rights  
4. Can you confirm that trademarks that meet the definition in footnote 8 of the 
Agreement constitute geographical indications? 
 Footnote 16-6 of the Agreement (to which it is assumed the question means to refer) 
addresses the extent to which a geographic indicat ion is capable of constituting a trademark.  A 
trademark may constitute a geographical indication wh ere it consists of an indication that meets the 
definition of geographical indication in the Agreemen t.  There is no footnote 8, as referenced in the 
question, and footnote 16-8, has no relation to geographical indications or trademarks.   
 
5. Does the Agreement prevent from or limit in any way the right of the Parties of 
establishing or maintaining a sui generis system for the protection of geographical indications? 
 No, provided that the system fulfils the obligations in the Agreement.   
 
6. The Agreement does not include a specific section on geographical indications, as the 
TRIPS Agreement does, but only refers to geographical indications protected through 
trademarks. In addition, the level of protection set in the Agreement for trademarks corresponds to the level established in the TRIPS Agreement (Art. 16). Does this in any way 
affect the minimum level of protection that th e Parties are obliged to implement in their 
legislation in accordance with Articles 22 an d 23 of the TRIPS? If yes, in which respect? 
 The Agreement does not affect  the obligations of the Parties arising under the TRIPS 
Agreement with respect to the levels of protection for geographical indications.   
 
7. Does the Agreement in any way seek to implem ent or enhance the level of protection for 
geographical indications enshrined in Sectio n 3, Part II of the TRIPS Agreement?  
 The Agreement does not specifically address the level of protection for geographical 
indications provided for under the TRIPS Agreement.   
 a. If the answer is no: 
 
- What is the purpose of including geographical indications in the Agreement if it is not 
to implement the minimum protection or more extensive protection for geographical 
indications that is required by the TRIPS Agreement? 
 
 Article 16.2 of the Agreement, among other thin gs, clarifies that geographical indications are 
capable of constituting trademarks and of being pr otected through a trademark system, and clarifies 
that trademark owners (including of trademarks constituting geographi cal indications) have rights vis-
a-vis the confusing use of their signs, even if those signs constitute geographical indications.  
  
  WT/REG161/6 
 Page 3 
 
 
   b. If the answer is yes:  
  
- Would any use of a sign on goods or servic es indicating or suggesting that the good or 
service in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin 
in a manner which misleads the public as to the true place of origin of the good or 
service, or constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Art. 10 of the 
Paris Convention, be deemed to result in a likelihood of confusion in accordance with 
Art. 4.7 of the Agreement?  
 - Would a geographical indication falling under Article 23 of the TRIPS and protected 
through a trademark in any of the Partie s have recourse to protection under the 
Agreement?  Would any use of such protected  geographical indication by third parties 
not having the owner’s consent be deemed to result in a likelihood of confusion in all cases where the goods or services do not originate in the place indicated, even where 
the true origin of the goods or services is indicated or the geographical indication is 
used in translation or accompanied by exp ressions such as “kind”, type”, “style”, 
“imitation” or the like? If the answer to  the preceding question is no, how does the 
Agreement comply with the minimum level of protection for geographical indications 
required under Art. 23 of the TRIPS Agreement? 
 
 Whether the particular use of a sign results in a likelihood of confus ion would depend on the 
particular facts at issue under the domestic laws of th e Parties, and cannot be determined in a vacuum.  
Further, it is useful to recall also that the Agreement does not take away from the rights and 
obligations of the Parties under the TRIPS Agreement.   
8. Does the Agreement in any way affect th e balance of the relationship between 
geographical indications and trademarks as est ablished in the TRIPS Agreement? If yes, in 
which respect? 
  No, the Agreement reflects the relations hip set out in the TRIPS Agreement between 
trademarks and geographical indications.     
9. Does any of the Parties provide for the co existence of geographical indications and 
trademarks in certain cases, as a limited exception to the rights conferred by a trademark in 
accordance with Article 16.2.3 of the US-Singapore FTA? 
 The Agreement reinforces the right of owners of  registered trademarks, as  set out in Article 
16 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 16.2.2 of the Agreement, subject only to the limited exceptions of Article 17 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 16.2.3 of the Agreement.  Therefore any 
exceptions to trademark rights under the laws of th e Parties would have to meet these obligations; 
such a determination would genera lly be made under the domestic laws of the Parties on a case-by-
based basis.   
10. In this respect, would it be possible in an y of the Parties for the local producers of a 
good that could qualify as a geographical indicati on to register their geographical indication 
even if it were the same as, or confusingly sim ilar to, a trademark not meeting the definition of 
footnote 8 of the Agreement but obtained be fore the application for registration of the 
geographical indication, so that both could coexist on the market? 
  Protection of any sign is decided on a case by case basis, as is whether or not the use of that 
sign vis-à-vis a prior trademark would cause a likeli hood of confusion.  Any de termination of whether 
the sign can be protected, and whether a prior trad emark owner can prevent its  use, would depend on 
the specific facts.   WT/REG161/6 
Page 4  
 
  SERVICES
 
 
 
II. PROVISIONS AFFECTING TRADE IN SERVICES 
 1. Elimination Of Discriminatory Restrictions
 
 
11. We note from the answer provided by Parties in April that Article 8.7 contains a ratchet 
to bind any liberalisation of any existing measure listed in Annex 8A.     
 Has the ratchet mechanism been applied?  
 
 The ratchet mechanism would automatically appl y to any Annex I measure that either of the 
Parties liberalizes after entry into force of the FTA.  
__________