RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  IP/C/M/57 
16 September 2008 
 
 (08-4273) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard on 17 June 2008  
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Gail Mathurin (Jamaica) 
  
 The present document contains the record of the discussion which took place during the 
TRIPS Council meeting held on 17 June 2008. 
 
Subjects discussed
 Page nos.  
 
A. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT .........................................................2  
B. REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION ..............................................................2  
C. REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3( B)......................................................................7  
D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY .............................................................................................................7  
E. PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE ...................................................7  
F. NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS ......................................................................16  
G. REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1..................16  
H. REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2 ...............................................................16  
I. FOLLOW -UP TO THE FIFTH ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2  OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT ...............................17  
J. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY -BUILDING :  LDC  PRIORITY NEEDS FOR 
TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL COOPERATION ............................................................................18  
K. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO ..............................23  
L. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ...............23  
M. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................24  
 IP/C/M/57 
Page 2  
 
  A. N
OTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT  
1. The Chairperson  informed the Council that, since its meeting in March, the Council had 
received a number of supplements and updates to earlie r notifications of laws and regulations notified 
under Article 63.2 of the Agreement.  Viet Nam ha d notified a Circular providing guidelines for the 
criminal prosecution of acts infringing intellectual pr operty rights;  Israel had notified its Copyright 
Act of 2007;  Hong Kong, China had notified two notices announcing the commencement of some of 
the remaining provisions of the Copyright (Ame ndment) Ordinances 2007;  Nicaragua had notified 
amendments and additions to its laws on copyright and related rights, on th e protection of programme 
carrying satellite signals, on trademarks and other di stinctive signs, and on patents, utility models and 
industrial designs, and certain related decrees;  Australia had notified its Broadcasting Legislation 
Amendment Act 2007, Patents Amendment Regulations 2007, and Intellectual Property Legislation 
Amendment Regulations 2007.  These notifications were  being circulated in the IP/N/1/- series of 
documents. 
2. She urged those Members whose initial notifi cations remained incomplete to submit the 
outstanding material without delay and reminded other Members of their obligation to notify any 
subsequent amendments of their laws  and regulations without delay after their entry into force.  In this 
context, she reminded those Members who had made an y changes to their laws and/or regulations to 
implement the decision on TRIPS and public health and who had not yet notified such changes to the 
Council to do so. 
3. With regard to notifications of contact points under Article 69, she said that, since the 
Council's meeting in March, updates to contact points notified earlier had been received from Turkey;  
Nicaragua; and Macao, China.  These notifications  were being circulated in an addendum to 
document IP/N/3/Rev.10. 
4. The Council took note  of the information provided. 
B. REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION  
(i) Follow-up to the review of legislation of Viet Nam 
5. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its meeting in March,  the Council had initiated the review of 
the TRIPS implementing legislation of Viet Nam.  It  had been agreed that Members that wished to 
pose questions to Viet Nam after the meeting should do so by the end of April so as to give Viet Nam 
enough time to prepare its replies before the presen t meeting.  Since then, Viet Nam had received 
questions from Chinese Taipei, Japan, the United St ates, the European Communities, Switzerland and 
Canada (documents IP/C/W/506- 509, 511 and 512, respectively).  Viet Nam's responses to the 
questions from Chinese Taipei, Japan, the United States, the European Communities and Switzerland 
had just been received and were being made available to delegations as advance copies. 
6. The representative of Viet Nam said that, at th e Council's meeting in March, Viet Nam had 
provided an overview of the structure and main components of its intellectual property system, 
including new legislation adopted and the implementation of IP laws since it became a WTO 
Member.  Viet Nam had also submitted to the Counc il all the legal documents issued by the end of 
February of 2008 for the purpose of implementi ng its commitments and obligations under the TRIPS 
Agreement. 
7. Presenting a summary of changes to Viet Nam's legislation on the protection and enforcement 
of IPRs since March 2008, he said that the legisla tive, executive and judicial authorities had issued a 
number of regulations to clarify the general provision s of the IP Law 2005 with a view to bringing its  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 3 
 
 
  national legislation into full comp liance with its accession commitments and the TRIPS Agreement.  
The following legal documents had recently been issued:  
(i) A Joint Circular No. 2 issued on 3 April 2008 by the Supreme Court, the Supreme 
Prosecution Institute, the Ministry of Culture , Sports and Tourism, the Ministry of 
Science and Technology, and the Ministry of Justice to guide the settlement of disputes 
concerning IPRs brought before the courts.  This circular provided instructions for 
applying civil measures in handling disput es and infringements of IPRs, following Joint 
Circular No. 1 issued on 29 February 2008 to provide instructions for criminal 
prosecution of the IPR infringing acts. 
(ii) An ordinance amending the Ordinance on Handling the Violation of Administrative 
Regulations 2002 had been issued on 2 April 2008 by the Standing Committee of the 
National Assembly to increase the limit of fines and to provide extended discretion for 
applying administrative sanctions by competent authorities.  It was noted that intellectual property was one of the few areas in which the limit of fines was increased up to VND 500 million, five times higher than the previous limit under the original 
ordinance.  The new ordinance increased the discretion for sanctions of relevant 
administrative authorities to an extent equivalent  to the new limit of fines.  At the same 
time, the ordinance allowed the competent authorities to apply additional appropriate 
measures to the handling of IPR infringing goods (e.g. compulsory movement of the infringing goods out of Viet Nam's territory, or compulsory re-exporting of the infringing goods, offence instruments, etc). 
8. Guiding government regulations were being dr afted on the implementation of IP Law and 
enforcement of IP rights in some important ar eas such as optical disks management, new pharmacy 
registration, enterprises registration and manageme nt, administrative violation handling procedures, 
etc.  The review of the IP Law 2005 and the Crim inal Code 1999 was continuing and had been put on 
the agenda of the Parliament's session by the end of 2008. 
9. In the process of research, drafting and issuance of the legal documents on IP, the relevant 
agencies of the Government had received efficient support from several Members, including the United States, Japan, Switzerland and the European  Communities, in the form of cooperation and 
technical assistance projects at different levels.  In  a short period, the Government had issued a series 
of legal documents on enhancing the State manageme nt of IP activities.  The achievements in the 
legislation and legal implementation in the last 18 months demonstrated the great effort by the 
Government to strengthen IPR protection and en forcement.  Although the Government was 
determined to push forward the process of IP legisla tion, the current legal system still contained some 
shortcomings that needed to be settled, especially concerning issues related to IPR enforcement. There 
remained much work to do towards a "sufficient"  and "efficient" IP legal system that met the 
TRIPS/WTO standards and was in line with the circumstances of Viet Nam.  
10. He said that his delegation had received a larg e number of questions to clarify statutory 
provisions and government regulations for the purpo se of evaluating the compliance of the national 
legislation with TRIPS rules.  Viet Nam had studied  the questions carefully and prepared appropriate 
answers to all of them.  At the same time, it acknowledged the reasonable pr oposals and suggestions 
that were helpful in improving its national IP laws  and regulations.  He summarized the main points 
of the responses by dividing the questions into five groups: 
(i) The first group of questions concerned the pr inciples of IPRs protection stipulated in 
the General Provisions Part of the IP Law and their compliance with the Berne Convention.  Viet Nam confirmed that those provisions were not applicable to IP/C/M/57 
Page 4  
 
  copyright and related rights to the extent th at there were no specific relevant provisions 
in the later sections of the IP Law. 
(ii) The second group of questions concerned the provisions on the ownership over 
anonymous works under the IP Law, on the obligation of the payment of a remuneration, on the exceptions to the infringement of copyright and related rights, and 
on hierarchy in protection of copyright and related rights.  The responses clarified the 
purposes and meanings of these regulations and indicated the related government regulations.  
(iii) The third group of questions related to th e undisclosed information protection regime, 
especially the requirements on undisclosed test data to be protected under the IP Law 
2005.  Pursuant to the IP Law, test data was regarded as a form of undisclosed 
information that was protected in the term  of a business secret.  Accordingly, an 
applicant should indicate his own request of test data protection and had responsibility 
for assisting the competent authority in the iden tification of the test data necessary to be 
protected.  Viet Nam believed that these regulations were consistent with the TRIPS 
Agreement.  However, certain suggesti ons on simplification of the requesting 
procedures would be proposed to the compet ent authorities to facilitate the protection 
of undisclosed test data. 
(iv) The fourth group of questions focused on ge ographical indications protection regime, 
especially the requirements on foreign geogra phical indication protection procedures in 
Viet Nam.  The documentary requirement (in the form of a geographical indication 
certificate or certification trademark or any other) was necessary to prove the 
geographical indication described in the app lication was being protected in the country 
of origin.  The difference in the documentary requirement aimed at giving effect to the relevant substantive provisions of the IP La w which was elaborated in the light of the 
provision of Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
(v) The fifth group of questions concentrated on IPR enforcement under the criminal, civil 
and administrative procedures, especially on the wording of the Joint Circular No. 1 on guiding the criminal prosecution in respect of IPR infringing acts, on the specific regulations on administrative sanctions as well as the civil remedies and proceedings.  For these complicated questions, Viet Nam had tried its best to make clear the purpose, meaning and contents of all related regula tions and provisions in the different legal 
texts and indicate the inter-relationship among these regulations within the national IP 
legal system as a whole. 
11. He said that his delegation was ready to prov ide more information if so requested.  It 
appreciated the questions it had received since they were the result of thorough research on the Vietnamese legislation in comparison with internationa l law.  Such questions helped it to understand 
more about international IP law, to learn more  about other legal practices and to have a more 
comprehensive and objective view on its own national legal system. 
12. He noted that IP protection and enforcement ha d been a special concern of the  Government 
recently.  The Government had spent a great deal of effort and resources on the research and improvement of IP policies and legislation as we ll as on strengthening the enforcement agencies' 
capacity.  The IP management agencies under the related ministries had made great efforts in 
completing the legal framework on the protection and enforcement of IPRs, including industrial 
property rights, and copyright and related rights.  Despite the limitations in experience and resources 
for implementation of TRIPS obligations, he expr essed his delegation's goodwill to cooperate with all 
Members, especially with those who had interests in  Viet Nam's IP market, and desire to share other  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Members' experiences in implementing the commi tments and obligations under the TRIPS/WTO 
framework. 
13. Regarding the 20 questions which Viet Nam had received from Canada one week before the 
meeting in addition to the earlier 62 questions, he informed the Council that Viet Nam had asked the 
relevant agencies to prepare the answers for these questions and pr ovide them to Canada through the 
Council as soon as possible.  In conclusion, he said th at Viet Nam had delivered its initial responses to 
the Members concerned for their consideration, and its  relevant agencies were still working actively to 
seek sufficient responses to the questions.  He said that his delegation would appreciate any further questions from Members through the Council and woul d try its best to provide clear and detailed 
answers to them as soon as possible. 
14. The representative of th e European Communities
 welcomed Viet Nam's progress in the field 
of intellectual property and efforts in implementing the TRIPS provisions.  He said that the European 
Communities and Viet Nam had built a solid cooperation over the last years in this field and he was  pleased to see that this co-operation had contributed to greatly improved IP law and practice in Viet Nam.  In 2007, the European Communities had carried out some 20 technical assistance 
activities, including seminars, training courses, work shops, study visits and expert missions, covering 
a wide range of IP rights, including enforcement.  These kind of activities were a very useful way to 
exchange views and to learn from each other's experience. 
15. The representative of Switzerland
 thanked the Vietnamese delegation for engaging in an 
active and constructive manner in the review process.  Switzerland was appreciative of the 
longstanding partnership with Viet Nam in the fiel d of intellectual property, particularly with the 
National Office of Intellectual Property and the copyri ght authority, through a cooperation project that 
had been running since 2001 and had been extended for a nother three years in 2007.  In the context of 
this cooperation, Switzerland was deeply impressed  by the great efforts and commitment that 
Viet Nam had demonstrated in bringing its legisl ation in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement and 
establishing and using effectively the intellectual prope rty protection system for the benefit of its fast 
growing economy and people.  He encouraged Viet  Nam to address the outstanding work with the 
same spirit and hoped to support it along the way where desired. 
16. The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked Viet Nam for its well prepared submission and 
responses.  His delegation would review the r esponses and pose further questions if need be. 
17. The representative of the United States  recognized the considerable progress that Viet Nam 
had made over the last few years in the area of inte llectual property rights as part of its efforts to join 
the WTO.  It had overhauled its IPR legal framework in an attempt to meet modern standards for IPR 
protection and enforcement.  He noted the recent completion and passage of the criminal circular intended to implement Viet Nam's WTO commitments,  particularly its TRIPS obligation to provide 
for criminal procedures and penalties for wilful trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on a 
commercial scale.  He appreciated the opportunity that the United States had had to engage with 
Viet Nam throughout the drafting process.  He said  that, although the circular successfully addressed 
certain gaps in the Criminal Code, notably in th e area of copyright protection, there remained 
questions in particular regarding the extent to wh ich it addressed wilful trademark counterfeiting on a 
commercial scale.  He said that the United States would welcome  further clarification of Viet Nam's view on how the circular captured wilful trad emark counterfeiting on a commercial scale.  He 
understood that Viet Nam was in the process of amendi ng its Criminal Code.  He said that he would 
also like to receive further information in due  course on a timeframe for the completion of the 
Criminal Code amendment and the relationship betw een the criminal circular and the forthcoming 
amendment of the Criminal Code.  He looked forw ard to studying the responses that Viet Nam had 
provided to the US questions.  Finally, he thanked Viet Nam for its efforts and participation in the 
review. IP/C/M/57 
Page 6  
 
  18. The representative of Canada
 said that Canada had not met the required deadline in 
submitting its questions, but looked forward to receivi ng Viet Nam's responses to Canada's questions 
in due course. 
19. The representative of Japan  thanked Viet Nam for its preliminary answers.  He was pleased to 
hear the positive view on Viet Nam's complianc e with the TRIPS Agreement and on utilizing 
intellectual property for economic growth.  He e xpressed his desire to continue to deepen the 
cooperation between Japan and Viet Nam.  He said  that Japan would review the written responses and 
come back to them if necessary at a later stage. 
20. The Chairperson  proposed that, since some responses were still pending and delegations 
needed some time to study those responses that had only been made available at the present meeting, 
the Council revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
21. The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed  to proceed as proposed by the 
Chairperson. 
(ii) Follow-up to reviews already undertaken 
22. The Chairperson  said that, as regards the reviews of national implementing legislation that 
had been initiated at the Council's meetings sinc e April 2001, there were six reviews that still 
remained on the Council's agenda.  These reviews con cerned Cuba;  Fiji;  Grenada;  Saint Kitts and 
Nevis;  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines;  and Suriname. 
23. Furthermore, a number of questions had been  raised with regard to the implementing 
legislation of certain other Members whose revi ews had already been deleted from the Council's 
agenda on the understanding that any delegation should feel free to revert to any matter stemming 
from the review at any time.  These Members were Dominica, Gabon, Ghana and Guyana. 
24. She urged the delegations concerned to provide  the outstanding material as soon as possible, 
so as to allow the Council to complete the follow-up to these reviews. 
25. The Council took note  of the information provided and agreed  to revert to the matter at its 
next meeting. 
(iii) Arrangements for the reviews of national impl ementing legislation of Tonga and Ukraine 
26. The Chairperson  recalled that her predecessor had informed the Council at its meeting in 
October 2007 that Tonga had acceded to the WTO with  a transitional period until 30 June 2008.  The 
Council had agreed that it would come back to the arrangements for the review of the legislation of 
Tonga at its second meeting in 2008.  Furthermor e, Ukraine had recently acceded to the WTO and 
was not applying any transitional period in the area of TRIPS.  It was her intention to provide the 
Council with more information on its acces sion under agenda item K on "Information on 
Developments Elsewhere in the WTO". 
27. In preparation of the upcoming reviews of TRIPS implementing legislation of these two 
newly acceded countries, she suggested that the Secret ariat be requested to contact Tonga and Ukraine 
concerning the notification procedures of the Council.  Given that, after the receipt of the notifications 
of their national implementing le gislations, other Members would need some time to prepare 
questions to be posed to them in the context of the reviews, and then Tonga and Ukraine would need 
some time to prepare their responses, it would appear that the most appropriate time for the review of 
their TRIPS implementing legislation would be the Council's first meeting in 2009.  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 7 
 
 
  28. The Council's first meeting in 2009 had not yet b een scheduled, but she expected it to take 
place, as usual, in February or early March.  Usi ng that approximate date, and in accordance with the 
standard procedures for the review of legislati on, she proposed that the Council set the following 
target dates for the submission of questions and answers in this review: 
- Questions should normally be subm itted to Tonga and Ukraine, with a copy to the Secretariat, 
ten weeks before the meeting in which the review  takes place;  accordingly, she suggested to 
set the target date on 1 December 2008. 
- Responses to questions posed within that d eadline should normally be submitted four weeks 
before the meeting;  accordingly, she suggested  to set the target date on 12 January 2009. 
29. The Council so agreed . 
C. REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3( B) 
D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL 
DIVERSITY  
E. PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  
30. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its meeting in March 2006, the Council had agreed to 
maintain its present method of work on these matte rs, and to keep this method under review to assess 
whether any change might prove appropriate in light  of developments.  Accordingly, she suggested 
that the Council continue its past practice of discu ssing these three agenda items together on the basis 
of the contributions by Members. 
31. The representative of India  said that, according to the Doha mandate, negotiations on 
outstanding implementation-related issues must be an integral part of the work programme.  The 
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD was a critical implementation-related issue 
for developing countries.  The objectives of the di sclosure proposal were shared by all Members, 
namely to prevent biopiracy and erroneously granted patents and to enhance the mutual 
supportiveness between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.  The disclosure proposal sought to meet 
these objectives through an amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to include mandatory disclosure 
requirements, prior informed consent and access a nd benefit sharing, thus addressing three core 
concerns of the CBD.  This approach was c ontained in document WT/GC/W/590 - TN/C/W/49, 
circulated on 28 May.  There was no other proposal in the WTO which enjoyed the breadth and depth 
of support of the disclosure proposal.  Although he was aware that numerical support could not be the 
sole determinant in a consensus-driven organizati on, the geographical spread and the socio-economic 
profile of co-sponsors were a barometer of importance and urgency attached to the issue.  While this 
issue was a critical deliverable for developing coun tries and an integral part of the development 
outcome, it was not developing countries alone pushing for an outcome on this issue.  There were proposals in the middle ground supported by develo ped country Members, which could provide the 
foundation for bridging the differences.   
32. He said that an approach of parallelism ha d evolved regarding the process for the TRIPS 
issues.  In the view of his delegation, all the TRIPS issues, some of which were important 
implementation-related issues, shoul d be considered together for Ministerial guidance.  This was 
captured in the Director-General's report (docum ent WT/GC/W/591 – TN/C/W/50).  He said that over 
100 Members were unanimous that the issues of TRI PS/CBD, GI register and GI extension had to be 
included as part of the horizontal process in orde r to have a modalities texts reflect ministerial 
agreement on the key parameters of each of these issues. IP/C/M/57 
Page 8  
 
  33. He said that Members had had technical discussions on this issue for eight years.  The 
proponents had been engaging in constructive discuss ion in the TRIPS Council, in meetings organized 
by the Director-General, as well as informally with other delegations.  The positions of several Members had evolved in the direction of convergence.   He expected reciprocity in flexibilities from 
the remaining Members.  He called for the im mediate commencement of text-based negotiations 
based on document WT/GC/W/590.  He reiterated th at an outcome on this issue was an essential 
element of any development package that emerged from the Round, and that his delegation remained 
committed to engaging in constructive discussions with Members on the issue. 
34. The representative of Indonesia
 reiterated the need to ensure mutual supportiveness between 
the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD so as to maximize their fair contribution to the interest of all 
Members.  He said that discussion had identified cas es of acquisition of biological resources in the 
country of origin/provider and s ubsequent patenting of such resources in other countries that had 
caused problems, especially for mega-diverse country  Members.  In addition, there were cases of 
erroneously granted patents due to patent examiner s' lack of awareness or failure to detect the 
existence of traditional knowledge.  These problems went beyond the disclosure requirement alone, 
and extended to the developmental aspects of the developing world.  Misappropriation would hinder 
developing countries from reaping the full benefits from their own biological resources and traditional 
knowledge.  This could be effec tively prevented by the introduction of the proposed disclosure 
requirement.  Therefore, his delegation had decide d to join with two-thirds of WTO Members in 
supporting and co-sponsoring the inclusion of th e TRIPS/CBD issue in the horizontal modalities 
decision, which was in line with the broader mandate  of the Doha Development Agenda.  He said that 
the discussion on this issue had matured, and Members could take advantage of discussions in the 
TRIPS Council and other forums, such as WIPO  Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual 
Property and Genetic Resources, Trad itional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC).  It was the right time to 
start text-based negotiations in Special Sessions of the TRIPS Council along with the issues of GI 
register and GI extension.  He said that if Members were honestly promoting the development 
dimension in the Doha Round, they should integrate this issue as part of the Single Undertaking.  
Promoting market access in this Round was not a pa nacea for the developing world without at the 
same time promoting the protection of their abundant genetic resources from misappropriation.  
35. The representative of Bolivia  said that her delegation was in  favour of protecting genetic 
resources, their derivative products and traditional knowledge, but neither agreed nor believed that 
this should be done through the patent system.  She said that patent systems were private intellectual 
property mechanisms which should not be applied to  genetic resources or to the collective traditional 
knowledge of indigenous peoples who, in many cases,  were spread across different countries and 
regions.  The new draft political constitution of Bolivi a sought to reflect this reality by referring to 
collective intellectual property rights.  In the view of indigenous peoples, life could not be patented.  
Biodiversity resources, genetic resources, their derivative products, and tr aditional knowledge should 
not be patented, as they do not constitute inven tions, but discoveries of nature or the fruit of 
accumulated ancestral knowledge.  No one could clai m ownership over seeds, plants, animals, and 
human, animal and plant genes, or the micro-organi sms which were a fundamental component of life.  
She said that her delegation recognized that access to  genetic resources, their derivative products and 
traditional knowledge must be regulated to prev ent biopiracy, and agreed that procedures for 
accessing genetic resources and traditional knowle dge for the purpose of developing genuine 
inventions must ensure that sources were disclosed and that benefits were shared with the States and 
peoples holding such resources or knowledge.  However,  in practice, patents would result in genetic 
resources, derivative products and traditional kn owledge being appropriated by a few large 
multinationals, since the patent system had been d esigned precisely to satisfy the private and business 
interests of such companies.  Therefore, her de legation believed it was nece ssary to consider other 
creative non-patent-based solutions to the collective intellectual property issue.  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 9 
 
 
  36. She said that, in relation to biodiversity and in tellectual property, Article 256/II/7 of the new 
draft political constitution, which was in the chap ter on international relations, stated that the 
negotiation, signing and ratification of international agreements must be governed by the principles of 
harmony with nature, the protection of biodivers ity and the prohibition of forms of private 
appropriation for the use and exclusive exploitatio n of plants, animals, micro-organisms and any 
living matter.  In this connection, it was the Bolivian people themselves who must decide, in a 
sovereign and democratic manner,  through a referendum, whether or not they approve of this new 
constitution – the first to include  indigenous peoples since the founding of the Bolivian State.  A 
change in the conceptual approach to intellect ual property could not be imposed by a multilateral 
organization such as the WTO. 
37. She said that given that this issue was a highly sensitive issue for her country and one with 
implications for the survival of indigenous peoples, the only protection currently recognized by Bolivia was that afforded by Andean Commun ity Decision No. 391 which governed requests for 
access to their resources.   She reserved the right to put forward a paper that reflected her delegation's 
position, and reiterated the request that her delegation's position be reflected in any reports to be 
submitted on this matter.  In conclusion, she said th at her delegation was open to dialogue in order to 
find solutions that were satisfactory to all the de veloping countries, provided that these included the 
two components Bolivia considered vital:  the non -patenting of life and alternative protection for 
collective resources. 
38. The representative of Lesotho, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group in the WTO
, said that 
the LDC Group was convinced that the mandatory di sclosure of source and origin of biological 
resources and proof of prior consent to address misappropriation and erroneously granted patents 
could be achieved.  The LDC Group therefore welcom ed the consultations that had been going on in 
this area and remained ready to engage constructively with all Members to achieve success.  In this 
regard, the Group supported the statements made by India and Indonesia.   
39. The representative of Brazil  fully supported an amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to 
introduce a mandatory disclosure requirement.  He sai d that his delegation's position on this issue was 
well known, and that the trail of submissions could be used to clarify technical aspects which had 
been discussed at great length at the Council's previ ous meetings.  Referring to the disclosure group's 
submission in document WT/GC/W/590 and an inform al proposal discussed in the consultations led 
by DDG Yerxa, he said that the proposal had been fully reflected in the DG's report.  He said that over 
100 Members were proposing a parallel treatment of  the three TRIPS issues in the horizontal 
modalities process, that is, TRIPS/CBD, GI extension and GI register.  This reflected a significant 
shift in the dynamics of support for these issues, at  least on process.  Over 100 Members wanted to 
move towards negotiations on these three issues as  part of the Single Undertaking and wished 
Ministers to provide key negotiating parameters.  He  said that the disclosure requirement would be a 
major development outcome of the Round, which would be of great significance for the majority of 
developing country Members.  He also indicated that some developed country Members had made 
middle-ground proposals in this area and indicated the possibility of discussing and negotiating these 
issues. 
40. Referring to the statement made by Bolivia, he said that the disclosure requirement did not 
affect the legal provisions of countries with resp ect to the patentability of life forms or genetic 
resources because the requirement s hould not be conceived as a substa ntive patentability requirement.  
The disclosure requirement was a useful means to promote transparency and traceability with respect 
to commercial intellectual property-based exploita tion of these resources worldwide, and would not 
change national laws with respect to patentability of life forms.  IP/C/M/57 
Page 10  
 
  41. The representative of Ecuador
 supported the statements made by India, Brazil and other 
Members on the issue of TRIPS/CBD.  He said that , being a mega-diverse and multicultural country 
and given the pressing need to ensure adequate multila teral protection for biological resources and for 
traditional knowledge whether associated with such resources or not,  his delegation had co-sponsored 
the text proposed by the disclosure group.  He i ndicated that a critical mass of Members had co-
sponsored and supported the proposal made by the disclosure group.  He emphasized the concept of 
parallelism which implied that the negotiation of  all intellectual property-related issues were 
interlinked.  He said that, in order to ensure the adequate protection of biological resources and 
traditional knowledge, an amendment of the TRIPS Ag reement in terms of prior informed consent, 
equitable benefit sharing and disclosure of origin of biological resources a nd/or traditional knowledge 
(whether associated or not) prior to the granting of  a patent, was an essential part of the development 
dimension of the Doha Round, a nd his delegation therefore supported the initiation of text-based 
negotiations on this subject in the context of the implementation aspect  of the Round.  He reserved his 
delegation's position on any proposals that might be made on GIs. 
42. The representative of China  said that his delegation welcomed the discussion on the issue of 
the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement an d the CBD as an important item on the Council's 
agenda and also welcomed the report circulated by the Director-General which was helpful in leading 
Members to convergence on this issue.  Based on the discussion at the Council's meetings, he said 
that, while national access and benefit-sharing systems might help to some extent to prevent biopiracy, they were still far from sufficient to so lve the problem of biopiracy.  This problem also 
existed in the protection of traditional knowledge.  Therefore, his delegation firmly believed that the 
introduction of the disclosure requirement into patent  applications would substantially help in fully 
implementing the three main principles of the CBD , especially the one of benefit sharing.  The 
amendment of the TRIPS Agreement could provide a legal framework internat ionally and enhance the 
mutual supportiveness between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.  He said that China, together 
with many developing country Members, had put  forward a joint proposal in 2006, suggesting a 
wording for an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement.  He noted th at the African Group and the LDC 
Group had co-sponsored this proposal.  His delegation attached great importance to their support and 
believed that with their support this issue had been proven to be a development issue.  He further said 
that more than half of the WTO Members had e xpressed their strong wish to enter into focused 
negotiation based on this proposal on several occa sions, and over two thirds of WTO Members had 
recently put forward a document that requested the inclusion of the issues of TRIPS/CBD, GI 
extension and GI register as part of the horizontal  process.  Therefore, he urged that text-based 
negotiations be undertaken in Special Sessions of the TRIPS Council immediately as an integral part 
of the Single Undertaking. 
43. The representative of Switzerland
 said that his delegation had contributed actively to the 
Council's discussion under these three agenda items and had taken the concerns expressed by other 
Members seriously.  He acknowledged the timely  submission of modalities language by the 
proponents of the TRIPS/CBD issue (document WT/GC/W/590 – TNC/W/49), which informed and 
instructed the negotiation process.  He recalled that, on 15 February 2008, his delegation together with 
40 other developing and developed Members ha d submitted modalities language on GI extension 
(document WT/GC/W/587 – TNC/W/48), in which they had proposed the inclusion of GI extension in 
the horizontal breakthrough decision.  During the most  recent consultations on the GI register, the key 
parameters for the GI register had also been identifie d as necessary elements to seek instruction in the 
horizontal modalities decision.  He said that the Di rector-General's report had reflected a significant 
development on these TRIPS issues.  More than 100 Members considered that technical discussions 
on these TRIPS issues had been exhausted and it was time to move to text-based negotiations, and 
over two thirds of Members considered that th ese TRIPS issues should be included as part of the 
horizontal process in order to have modality text s that reflect Ministerial agreement on the key 
parameters for negotiating final draft legal texts w ith respect to each of these issues as part of the 
Single Undertaking.  He said that, at this crucial stage of the Doha process, it was important for the  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Council to be aware of these developments and th at Members should engage at all levels in 
constructive work to allow progress and to achieve a breakthrough. 
44. The representative of Mauritius  said that his delegation fully supported the TRIPS/CBD issue 
and the proposal to take up the issues of TRIPS/ CBD and GIs at the horizontal level.  His delegation 
belonged to two important groups:  the ACP Gr oup and the African Group, both of which supported 
this proposal.  He said that the TRIPS/CBD is sue was a longstanding one and that Members had 
exhausted technical discussion, and therefore a political discussion had to be initiated.  The 
TRIPS/CBD issue, specially the amendment of th e TRIPS Agreement to include the disclosure 
requirement, prior informed consent and benefit sh aring, would be a landmark development in the 
evolution of the international intellectual pr operty legal framework, which included the TRIPS 
Agreement and was perceived as being biased in favour  of a few privileged countries.  Therefore, the 
amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to include some el ements of the CBD would be a first step to tilt 
the balance in that field.  He said that the TR IPS/CBD issue was fully justified not only on legal 
grounds because Members had had the full mandate to do so but also on moral and equitable grounds.  
Nevertheless, he did not want to prejudice his delegation's position on the substantive issues, 
especially since it considered that vulnerabl e developing countries could not accept all the 
burdensome proposals on GIs.  Any outcome on the GI issues had to be fair, equitable and balanced.  
He hoped that the proposal on the TRIPS/CBD i ssue could be accepted and that text-based 
discussions would be initiated immediately. 
45. The representative of Peru  supported the statement made by India and urged the few 
Members which still had doubts on the need to emba rk upon text-based negotiations to re-consider 
their positions and to show flexibility.  He said that  no other issue in this Round had had such a high 
degree of convergence as the TRIPS/CBD issue. 
46. The representative of Colombia  said that his delegation was one of a large group of countries 
which was supportive of the disclosure proposal.  He  said that an extensive and fruitful technical 
debate on this issue had enabled Members to move on to text-based negotiations.  Therefore, he urged 
all Members to consider the possibility of embarking upon such text-based negotiations. 
47. The representative of United States  said that the TRIPS Council continued to engage in a 
useful and constructive exchange of views on the three items based on a sharing of national experiences and by posing and responding to questi ons among Members.  This manner of working 
should continue to be the basis for the Council' s work on them.  He acknowledged a recent proposal 
in the TNC that advocated commencing negotiations  on the basis of a proposed text to amend the 
TRIPS Agreement.  He said that his delegation's position on this question was well known, that it did 
not support amending the TRIPS Agreement to address the concerns cited by the demandeurs , 
because it did not think that doing so would be the most effective way of addressing those concerns.  His delegation did not believe that it was fruitful to  discuss whether or not the current status of the 
Doha negotiations allowed for text -based negotiations to move forwar d.  The more relevant question 
was whether the Council had advanced sufficiently in its technical examination of these issues to 
allow for text-based discussions to be useful, and in the view of his delegation, this was not the case.  
He said that his delegation was committed to rema ining actively engaged in the Council's examination 
of these issues.  He noted that several Members had advocated taking up these issues along with the 
agriculture and NAMA modalities.  He understood the te mptation to add issues to the scope of what 
had to be worked out through the horizontal pr ocess, but believed that doing so would seriously 
undercut Members' chances of success in the Doha Round.  As reiterated in a non-paper co-sponsored 
by the United States that had been recently circulat ed to Members, it was his delegation's view that 
the patent disclosure issue should not be a point for negotiation in the development of a horizontal 
modalities package for the DDA.  He  said that the existence of sh ared objectives in this area 
continued to hold the promise of finding productive ways forward that  could meaningfully address the 
concerns of some Members without entailing the inherent problems and uncertainties surrounding the IP/C/M/57 
Page 12  
 
  proposed disclosure requirements. His delegati on stood ready to continue productive work and 
discussions regarding the TRIPS/CBD issue both in  the context of the TRIPS Council and in the 
consultative process being led by DDG Yerxa. 
48. The representative of Japan
 said that his delegation's stance on the TRIPS/CBD issue, which 
had been expounded in document IP/C/W/472, was unc hanged.  He said that the issues of erroneously 
granted patents and the compliance with the CBD s hould be addressed separately.  In this regard, 
Japan had made a proposal of database systems contained in documents IP/C/W/472 and 504.  The 
issue of compliance with the CBD should be addressed in a wider perspective in the CBD context.  He 
said that there seemed to be no detailed analysis on  how effective the proposed disclosure requirement 
would be to monitor CBD violations, and theref ore more in-depth discussion was needed before 
starting text-based discussions.  He informed the Council that the issue of compliance with the CBD 
had been discussed at the 9th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD in Bonn, 
Germany in May 2007, and that it would continue to be discussed at the 10th COP meeting in Japan in 
2010.  This issue had also been discussed in the WIPO IGC.  The discussion in the WTO should take 
into account these ongoing discussions.  He said that intellectual property was an essential tool for 
technology transfer, knowledge dissemination, and pr oduction of profits for benefit sharing, and it 
was a complementary tool for achieving the CBD obj ectives.  The impact of the disclosure proposal 
on intellectual property systems, such as burden on patent applicants, should be carefully examined. 
49. Refuting the argument that the TRIPS/CBD issu e should be discussed in parallel with the 
issue of GI extension, he said that each issue s hould be discussed individually on its own merits given 
that the substance of each issue was different.   
50. The representative of Thailand  said that his delegation wished to see a solution to the problem 
of misappropriation of genetic r esources and traditional knowledge as pa rt of the outcome of the Doha 
Development Round.  He said that biopiracy had been  of great concern to his delegation.  Without 
adequate and effective protection of genetic resources and traditiona l knowledge at the international 
level, the problem of misappropriation would contin ue.  Accordingly, the proposed amendment of 
Article 29 bis of the TRIPS Agreement was both logical and timely.  Given that the vast majority of 
Members supported this proposal, he said that it was time to start text-based negotiations. 
51. The representative of the Philippines  reiterated his delegation's full support for the disclosure 
proposal and believed that the proposal would be an  important development outcome in any package 
of the Doha Round.  Therefore, he fully supporte d the statements made by India, Indonesia and 
Thailand.  However, he expressed his delega tion's concern over the parallelism in document 
TN/C/W/49. 
52. The representative of Singapore  said that the Director General's report was an accurate 
reflection of the on-going discussions in the TRIPS Council and informal consultations conducted by 
DDG Yerxa.  The factual report set out the differing positions in a general and objective manner, and 
served as a good point of reference for the membership to reflect on the state of play on these issues.  
The fact that there was no c onvergence was a reflection of the divergence amongst the broad 
membership on how to deal with this  issue.  She remained of the vi ew that a solution could be found 
to address the concerns raised by the disclosure proponents, but the solution did not lie with more 
disclosure requirements or an amendment to the TR IPS Agreement.  Drawing from its experience, her 
delegation continued to believe that contract-based  systems could be effective in addressing biopiracy 
and misappropriation.  Therefore, he r delegation remained keen to con tinue with further consultations 
and fact-based discussions with a view to finding a flexible solution that would take into account 
Members' legal systems without detracting from the economic and developmental incentives of 
intellectual property protection.  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 13 
 
 
  53. The representative of Nepal  supported the proposal put forward by India.  He said that, as an 
LDC, Nepal was rich in biodiversity but poor in  r esources.  Therefore, the proposal was essential for 
Nepal to protect its biodiversity  and traditional knowledge.   
54. The representative of the European Communities  said that, like over 100 Members, his 
delegation supported the joint approach on process with  respect to the TRIPS issues, namely that the 
issues of GI register, GI extension and TRIPS/CBD required political guidance at the modalities 
stage.  While his delegation was not a demandeur of the TRIPS/CBD issue, it was open to deal with it 
in this Round as a sign of its commitment to devel oping countries' concerns, a nd would continue to be 
committed to this process in line with the Doha manda te.  He said that, alt hough his delegation did not 
see any conflict between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD from a strictly legal point of view, it 
acknowledged that there was considerable interact ion between both agreements, and therefore they 
should be implemented in a mutually supportive manne r.  In this respect, it was willing to look into 
concrete solutions that were genui nely responsive to developing count ries' concerns without affecting 
intellectual property systems and making sure that the patent system continued to  be a highly effective 
instrument for stimulating innovation, technological  progress and economic development.  It was in 
this spirit that his delegation agreed to examine and discuss the possible introduction of a system of 
disclosure requirements.  Such a system would en sure transparency and allow Members' authorities 
granting access to their resources to keep track of patent applications based on the use of these 
resources at a global level.  In the view of his delegation, the requirement could be mandatory and 
should apply to all international, regional and na tional patent applications at the earliest possible 
stage.  The disclosure requirement was a contribution to  a solution, particularly in order to help check 
if contractual arrangements had been respected.  Other tools, such as databases to improve patent 
search facilities, could also contribute to the so lution.  However, the possible introduction of a 
disclosure requirement should not be burdensome to th e patent system and should remain as simple as 
possible.  To be specific, the patent office should not  be required to verify th at the conditions in which 
genetic resources had been obtained and the patent applicant should provide the information in his 
possession without any additional research on his part .  A system that would go beyond the disclosure 
of origin or source of genetic resources, for inst ance by requiring the disclosure of evidence of prior 
informed consent and benefit sharing, would be probl ematic for his delegation.  He said that when the 
information provided was incorrect or incomplete, sanctions should be appl ied.  However, those 
sanctions should be determined by each Member and a pplied outside the patent law.  In other words,  
sanctions for non-compliance with the disclosure requirement should not include revocation or 
unenforceability of granted patents. 
55. As regards traditional knowledge, he said that the concept remained unclear and further work 
was needed.  In conclusion, he said that his dele gation remained committed to further discussing this 
issue in a constructive spirit. 
56. The representative of Norway  reiterated that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD could and 
should be implemented in a mutually supportive ma nner and that the interaction between the two 
treaties would be greatly enhanced  by introducing an obligation to disclose the origin of genetic 
resources and traditional knowledge in patent appli cations.  Referring to the proposal made by his 
delegation in document WT/GC/W/566 –TN/C/W/42 – IP /C/W/473, he said that his delegation sought 
to be as constructive as possible in the on-going ne gotiation process and was ready to engage in text-
based negotiations on this issue. 
57. The representative of Korea  said that there was no need fo r an amendment to the TRIPS 
Agreement in order to address the CBD goals and th at Members needed to have a factual discussion 
to find a balanced solution to the prevention of bi opiracy so as not to hamper the stability of the 
current patent system.  Noting that WIPO had circulat ed an analysis on this issue recently, he said that 
Members should await the outcome of the work in WI PO in order to have meaningful discussions in 
the WTO.  He expressed his delegation's concern about tabling TRIPS issues to the horizontal IP/C/M/57 
Page 14  
 
  process.  He said that it was imperative to secure  the conclusion of agriculture and NAMA modalities 
in the coming months for a successful conclusion of  the whole package by the end of the year.  
However, given the wide differences in Members'  positions on these issues, insistence on tabling 
these issues would jeopardize the horizontal process. 
58. The representative of Venezuela
 said that his delegation belonged to the group of countries 
that supported the proposal on the relationship betw een the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.  He also 
supported the comments made by the co-sponsors of the disclosure requirement. 
59. The representative of Turkey  said that it was her delegation's belief that there was a 
parallelism between the three TRIPS issues.  Her dele gation was one of the supporters of the issues of 
GI extension and GI register.  A lthough her delegation had not co-spons ored the proposal made by the 
disclosure group, it supported the content of that pr oposal and was considering co-sponsoring it.  She 
also fully supported the proposal as reflected in the Director-General's  report and said that the issues 
of TRIPS/CBD and GI extension should be part of  the horizontal process and the Single Undertaking. 
60. The representative of New Zealand  said that his delegation shared the objectives that genetic 
resources and traditional knowledge should not be mi sappropriated and that a ppropriate mechanisms 
should provide for equitable access and benefit sharing.  While some Members believed that a 
mandatory disclosure requirement in the TRI PS Agreement would achie ve the above-mentioned 
objectives, his delegation held that there was need for further consideration.  He said that Members 
had made a number of case studies but were less focused on the solutions such as the database 
proposal made by Japan.  In his view, technical work had not been exhaus ted and therefore other 
options should not be foreclosed too early.  He noted that as this issue was also discussed in other 
forums, it was important to ensure coherence with that particular work.  Having always been very 
pragmatic, his delegation wished to be clear that  any proposed solutions actually address the problems 
identified.  In this regard, it remained concerne d that an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement would 
actually deliver what was claimed of it.  He did not agree that the proposal on the inclusion of TRIPS issues in the horizontal process was purely about process, and said that part of the proposal called for 
substantive results. 
61. The representative of Canada
 said that his delegation continued to hold the view that it had 
not been shown that there was a contradiction between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and 
therefore it remained unconvinced of the need for an amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to 
introduce a mandatory disclosure obligation of count ry of origin of genetic resources in patent 
applications.  It continued to believe that the most meaningful way to advance discussion on the 
TRIPS/CBD issue was to engage in a fact-based t echnical discussion on the various proposals made in 
the TRIPS Council and that time and consideration should be given to a full scoping of the issue 
before proceeding further, with particular focus on t hose who had either best practices to share or had 
experienced problems.  Referring to paragraph 10 of the Director-General's report (document 
WT/GC/W/591 –TN/C/W/50), he said that his delegation shared the point that the proposal to link the 
TRIPS issues in substantive form would set back effo rts to arrive at a viable way forward in the Doha 
negotiations.  Therefore, his delegation joined othe rs who had rejected the artificial parallelism made 
between these various TRIPS issues and noted that they should each be dealt with individually. 
62. He also shared the views expressed by the re presentative of New Zealand that the non-paper 
of 26 May was not simply a matter of process, but prejudged an outcome, particularly with respect to GI extension.  
63. The representative of Australia
 said that the issue of genetic resources was important for her 
delegation because Australia was in a unique posi tion of being both a developed country and a 
megabiodiverse country.  Australia had implemented an access and benefit-sharing regime pursuant to 
its obligations under the CBD.  She informed the C ouncil that there had been a significant uptake of  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 15 
 
 
  the regime in the past two and a half years as 80 permits had been issued for access to Commonwealth 
and State resources and four access and benefit-sh aring contracts had been concluded with both 
Australian and foreign research institutions.  She said that, like the United States, New Zealand, 
Canada, Korea and Japan, Australia continued to support discussions in the TRIPS Council on these 
issues but did not support moving to negotiations.  Li ke New Zealand, her delegation was not actually 
convinced that the solutions proposed woul d actually address the concerns raised.   
64. She said that the issue of GI register was a matter for negotiation in the TRIPS Council's 
Special Sessions and her delegation was keen and willi ng to continue negotiating in that forum.  She 
urged the Members, who supported to include the GI register and other TRIPS issues in the horizontal 
process, to make proposals in the Special Session and to contribute to the successful conclusion of the 
negotiations on GI register.  Regarding GI extens ion, she said that there existed a mechanism by 
which the Council could address GI issues, that is, under the agenda item on the review of Article 24.2, which had been underutilized by the Council.  She reiterated her delegation's willingness 
to walk through the provisions of the TRIPS Agreem ent on GI issues, which would allow an analysis 
and discussions of the obligations contained in the Agreement and an assessment of deficiencies.  It 
would be valuable in informing di scussions elsewhere in the WTO.   In conclusion, she said that if 
Members were interested in further information on the outstanding implementation-related issues, 
including to understand some of the different perspe ctives, she referred them to the Director-General's 
report, which summarized Members' positions and the state of play on these issues, especially the opposition to the artificial parallelism inherent in the proposal. 
65. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 said that his delegation had been actively participating 
in the discussion on the TRIPS/CBD issue both in the Council and in the consultations held by 
DDG Yerxa.  Due to the magnitude and complexity of this issue, his delegation had not yet come to a 
conclusion as to whether Members should agree to amend the TRIPS Agreement.  He said that his 
delegation, like Japan, the Philippines, Korea, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States, 
rejected the artificial parallelism, and held that each  issue should be treated on its own merits.   He 
indicated that his delegation had co-sponsored the non-paper dated 6 June in response to the non-
paper circulated on 26 May. 
66. The representative of South Africa  said that both the issues of TRIPS/CBD and GI extension 
had been listed as implementation-related issues accord ing to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  
These two issues had been discussed in the Council and its Special Session.  He recalled that the Doha 
Round was a developmental round and that developing countries had made out a case for an 
amendment of the TRIPS Agreement in order to take into account the CBD.  In the view of 
developing countries, there was a clear conflict betw een the CBD and the TRI PS Agreement.  He said 
that there were a number of biopiracy cases in South Africa where traditional knowledge and genetic 
material had been taken out of South Africa and then patented.  It had been very difficult and costly 
for the poor communities in South Africa to fight for their rights.  Therefore, his delegation had 
supported the proposal to amend the TRIPS Agreemen t to include the disclosure requirement, prior 
informed consent and benefit sharing, which w as important for poor communities to protect their 
traditional knowledge.   
67. He said that after listening to the proponents of the issue of GI extension, it was clear that no 
case had been made for it.  Although 100 Memb ers supported negotiations on the issue of GI 
extension, some of them did not provide GI pr otection.  He questioned how those Members could 
know that there was need for GI extension.  He expressed his delegation's serious concerns over the 
parallelism in the non-paper of 26 May, and said th at his delegation did not see any linkage between 
the TRIPS-related issues.  They were separate issues with separate mandates.  The issue of GI register 
had a negotiating mandate, and the other two issues ha d been put in the Ministerial Declaration for 
examination.   A clear case had been made that  the TRIPS Agreement shoul d be amended to include 
the disclosure requirement, but no case had been made for GI extension. IP/C/M/57 
Page 16  
 
  68. The representative of Argentina
 said that there was no negotiating mandate for GI extension, 
and therefore her delegation disagreed with the content of the non-paper of 26 May and did not 
support the artificial parallelism inherent in the pr oposal.  She said that the Special Session was the 
appropriate forum for the GI register. 
69. The Council took note  of the statements made under these three agenda items and agreed  to 
revert to them at its next meeting. 
F. NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS  
70. The Chairperson  recalled that paragraph 45 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration 
directed the TRIPS Council to continue its examina tion of the scope and modalities for complaints of 
the types provided for under subparagraphs 1(b)  and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 and make 
recommendations to the next session of the Minister ial Conference.  It was agreed that, in the 
meantime, Members would not initiate such  complaints under the TRIPS Agreement. 
71. She further recalled that, at its meeting in Ma rch 2006, the Council had agreed to keep the 
item on non-violation and situati on complaints on the agenda as a regular item so as to allow 
Members who would have new thinking to share it, and also enable the Council to consider improved 
ways of organizing its work on this matter. 
72. The Council agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
G. REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1 
73. No statements were made  under this agenda item. 
74. The Council agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
H. REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON GEOGRAPHICAL 
INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2 
75. The Chairperson  recalled that Article 24.2 provided that the Council shall keep under review 
the application of the provisions of the GI Section of the Agreement.  She said that, at its meeting in February 2007, the Council had agreed that the Ch air hold further consultations in due course on how 
the Council should organize its future work on th e review.  Given that she had not received any 
representations from delegations on this issue, sh e had not yet held such further consultations.  
However, she said that she remained ready to hol d such consultations once she would sense an active 
interest in pursuing the matter. 
76. She urged those delegations that had not yet pr ovided responses to the Checklist of Questions 
contained in document IP/C/13 and Add.1 to do so.  She also said that those Members that had 
already provided responses could provide updates to the extent there had been any significant changes 
to the way they provided protection to geographical indications. 
77. The Council agreed
 to revert to the matter at its next meeting.  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 17 
 
 
  I. FOLLOW -UP TO THE FIFTH ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION ON THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2  OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT  
(i) Follow-up to the fifth annual review 
78. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its meeting in Oct ober, the Council had taken up its fifth 
annual review of developed country  Members' reports on their implem entation of Article 66.2 of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  She said that, elaborating on its suggestion made at the Council's meeting in 
October, the delegation of Lesotho, on behalf of the LDC Group, had just sent a request to the WTO 
Secretariat to organize a workshop that would bri ng together LDC and developed country experts to 
discuss transfer of technology under Article 66.2 back -to-back with the Council's next meeting.  She 
said that the Secretariat would follow up with the LDC Group concerning this request. 
79. The Council took note  of the information provided. 
(ii) Arrangements for the sixth annual review 
 
80. The Chairperson  recalled that paragraph 1 of the Decision on the "Implementation of 
Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement" provided that developed country Members shall submit 
annually reports on actions taken or  planned in pursuance of their commitments under Article 66.2.  
To this end, they were to provide  new detailed reports every third year and, in the intervening years, 
provide updates to their most recent reports.  Thes e reports were to be submitted prior to the last 
Council meeting scheduled for the year in question.   Paragraph 3 of the Decision determined the 
information that had to be provided in these reports. 
81. She recalled that new detailed annual reports under the Decision had been presented to the 
Council's meeting in October 2006, and the first set of updates to the Council's meeting in October 
2007.  Therefore, this year developed country Members should submit a second set of updates to these 
reports prior to the Council's end of year meeting scheduled for 28-29 October 2008.  As provided in 
paragraph 2 of the Decision, the Council would revi ew these updates at that meeting.  She suggested 
that developed country Members be requested to submit a second set of updates to the reports they 
had provided in 2006 on actions they had taken or  planned in pursuance of their commitments under 
Article 66.2 by 7 October, i.e. three weeks befo re the meeting, in order to allow their timely 
circulation and review at the Council's meeting in October. 
82. The representative of Brazil  said he had no difficulties with what had been proposed.  He 
thought that Article 66.2 was an important elemen t of the TRIPS Agreement.  He requested the 
Secretariat to provide background documentation or  information on reports that had been submitted 
by developed country Members on th eir implementation of Article 66. 2 for the review at the TRIPS 
Council meeting in October.  He believed that it w ould be important to have an information document 
that would assess the implementation of the Decision and analyse or comment on the reports that had been circulated, and possibly make suggestions fo r improvement that would enable the Council to 
consider a reporting mechanism. 
83. The Chairperson
, following discussions with Brazil and the Secretariat, suggested that the 
Secretariat be requested to prepare a brief note settin g out the reports that had been submitted so far 
under the Decision. 
84. The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group in the WTO , said that, 
for the LDC Group, the Decision on the implementa tion of Article 66.2 was very important and 
should have been implemented soon after the conclu sion of the Uruguay Round.  However, the lack 
of practical results showed that the issue had either  been neglected or misunderstood.  To this end, a 
new page and a clear mechanism should be establishe d to realize the envisaged transfer of technology IP/C/M/57 
Page 18  
 
  to LDCs in a realistic and tangible manner.  Sh e said that the annual reports of the developed 
countries' implementation of Article 66.2 did not pr ovide adequate information to support compliance 
with their obligations under the Article, in pa rticular, the obligation to provide incentives to 
enterprises and institutions in thei r territories for the purpose of promoting and encouraging transfer 
of technology to LDCs.  
85. She requested an analysis and evaluation of th ese reports to be undertaken in the following 
areas:  first, review of information on technologies available in the public domain in developed countries, with a view to finding a meaningful  solution addressing bottlenecks in the area of 
innovation and technological progress in LDCs;  second,  compilation of information on the role that 
public institutions could play in promoting transfer  of technology;  and finally, information on the 
types of incentives that would lead to effective tr ansfer of technology to LDCs such as investment 
guarantees and tax benefits as well as other non-financ ial measures.  She said that the LDCs were 
convinced that, to ensure the pr actical success of transfer of te chnology, there was need for the 
development of an evaluation tool which could be used to effectivel y evaluate the annual reports.  The 
LDCs would, therefore, be happy if an evaluation tool kit was developed.  She believed that it was 
also important to have cl ear definitions of the key terms so as to enable a better unde rstanding of what 
was meant by technology transfer.  She further said that the LDC Group called for strengthening of the monitoring mechanism under the TRIPS Council. 
86. The Chairperson
 suggested that these issues be discu ssed further in the context of the 
workshop she had referred to before. 
87. The representative of Brazil  asked whether the workshop coul d be open to any Member who 
had an interest in the issue. 
88. The Chairperson  said that she would consult with the LDC Group on this, since the workshop 
had been requested by it. 
89. The Council took note  of the statements and agreed  to proceed with the arrangements for the 
sixth annual report and a Secretariat background note  setting out the reports that had so far been 
submitted as suggested by the Chair. 
J. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY -BUILDING :  LDC  PRIORITY NEEDS FOR 
TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL COOPERATION  
(i) Annual updates on technical cooperation activities  
90. The Chairperson  recalled that the Council had traditionall y undertaken its annual review each 
autumn.  She therefore suggested that the Council hold its annual review of technical cooperation at 
its next meeting scheduled for 28-29 October.  Ac cordingly, she suggested that the Council invite 
developed country Members to s upply information on their activities pursuant to Article 67 of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  Other Members who also made available technical cooperation were encouraged 
to share information on these activities if they so wi shed.  She also suggested that the Council invite 
those intergovernmental organizations that had observer status in the TRIPS Council to provide 
information on their activities of relevance and that the WTO Secretariat also be instructed to report 
on its activities.  She proposed that the Council request  that this information be made available by 
7 October in order to allow its time ly circulation before the meeting.  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 19 
 
 
  91. The representative of Brazil  presented an advance copy1 of a communication introducing to 
the Council "cluster" A of the WIPO Development Agenda.  This particular cluster dealt with 
technical assistance and contained 14 recommendations  that had been adopted by the WIPO General 
Assembly in 2007. Some of them referred to the TRIPS Agreement, and one to the agreement 
between the WIPO and the WTO under which TRIPS -related technical assistance was to be provided 
to developing countries, including least-developed countries.  The process in WIPO had entered the 
implementation phase with the first meeting of  the Committee on Development and Intellectual 
Property in March 2008.  A draft work programme for the implementation of the 45 agreed proposals 
of the Development Agenda, which were organized into six clusters, was currently under discussion. 
92. He believed that the proposals under cluster A pr ovided a relevant guiding framework also for 
discussions in the TRIPS Council.  Assistance ac tivities should be demand-driven, transparent, 
neutral, and accountable and take into account the special needs of developing countries, in particular 
least-developed countries.  This required careful  needs assessments with the participation of 
stakeholders, including from civil society, an d an effective evaluation mechanism capable of 
monitoring each stage of implementation.  He said that additional information was included in the 
communication and the attached cluster A recommendations. 
93. He proposed that the Council take note of th e 14 proposals contained in cluster A of the 
Development Agenda acknowledging, where applicab le, their relevance for the implementation of 
Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement.  He submitted that  the consideration of issues related to technical 
assistance and capacity building under Article 67 be carried out on the basis of these 
recommendations or taking them as relevant points of  reference, because they dealt with subject 
matter pertaining to Article 67 a nd were relevant for activities carried out under the WIPO-WTO 
Cooperation Agreement.  He believe d that they provided a framework  that had been agreed to by 
consensus in WIPO, an organization dealing with inte llectual property and providing the better part of 
technical assistance to developing countries for the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. 
94. The representative of India  supported the proposal by Brazil, which would facilitate effective 
compliance with the obligations under Article 67, wh ile also benefiting from related work in WIPO 
on the implementation of the Development Agenda and ensuring a balanced implementation of the 
TRIPS Agreement in light of its objectives and principles laid down in its Articles 7 and 8. 
95. The representative of Australia  said that, since she had not yet had an opportunity to study it, 
the discussion on the communication be continued at th e Council's next meeting.  It was crucial that 
the Council worked to maximize c oherence between different agenci es that dealt with intellectual 
property issues.  Bringing the WIPO Development Ag enda implementation process to the attention of 
the TRIPS Council was an important part of trying to achieve that coherence. 
96. The Chairperson  suggested that the Council revert to the communication by Brazil under this 
agenda item at its next meeting. 
97. The Council took note  of the statements and agreed  to proceed as proposed by the Chair. 
(ii) LDC priority needs for techni cal and financial cooperation 
98. The Chairperson  recalled that paragraph 2 of the TRIPS Council's 2005 Decision on the 
"Extension of the Transition Period under Article  66.1 for Least-Developed Country Members" 
provided that "with a view to facilitating targeted technical and financial c ooperation programmes, all 
the least-developed country Members would provide to the Council for TRIPS, preferably by the 
1 January 2008, as much information as possible on their individual priority needs for technical and 
                                                      
1 Subsequently circulated as IP/C/W/513. IP/C/M/57 
Page 20  
 
  financial cooperation in order to assist them  taking steps necessary to implement the TRIPS 
Agreement".  At the Council's meeting in Oct ober 2007, Sierra Leone and Uganda had presented 
communications identifying their priority needs fo r technical and financial cooperation (IP/C/W/499 
and 500, respectively).  Since these communications  had been discussed at the Council's meeting in 
March 2008, Uganda had followed up  its initial needs assessment by translating it into a national 
capacity building programme referred to as the Ug anda Trade and Intellectual Property (UTIP) 
programme, which it had presented to the Council (IP/ C/W/510).   In their original communications, 
Sierra Leone and Uganda had requ ested that consultations be set up with their developed country 
partners and relevant in ternational organizations on how the prio rity needs that they had identified 
could best be met.  As had been foreshadowed by  her predecessor, such consultations, set up by the 
Secretariat, had been held the day before the Council's meeting. 
99. The representative of Uganda
 said that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Decision, his 
delegation had submitted its needs assessment as contained in docum ent IP/C/W500.  At the Council's 
meeting in October 2007, the importance of the needs assessment exercise had been emphasized by 
his delegation.  Subsequent to that, Uganda ha d transformed the needs and priorities into clear 
bankable programmes ready for implementation, as summarized in document IP/C/W/510.  His 
delegation was appreciative of the initial responses by the development partners during the informal 
meetings that had been arranged by the WTO Secr etariat and was ready to continue discussions in 
order to reach agreement on the implementation of the identified projects.  The overall goal of the 
UTIP programme was to further integrate Uganda into the global economy and world trading system 
by increasing the contribution of intellectual property towards the achievement of sustainable 
economic growth and poverty reduction.  Under Article 67 of the Agreement, developed country 
Members had an obligation to provide technical and financial assistance to LDCs and developing 
countries to implement the Agreement.  With this su pport, Uganda could develop a viable intellectual 
property infrastructure and implement the Agreement at  the end of the expiry of the transition period. 
100. The representative of the European Communities  thanked Sierra Leone and Uganda for their 
respective submissions on their individual priority needs for technical and financial cooperation and  
welcomed the revised paper from Uganda in IP/C/W /510, which better identified its priority needs  
His delegation supported a number of  actions identified by Uganda and Sierra Leone in the areas of 
regulation, administration and enforcement of intell ectual property rights.  Bilateral contacts had been 
initiated with these two countries to launch activities as soon as possible.  The consultations with the 
two recipient countries and developed country partners  had been very useful in identifying how their 
priority needs could be best met.  His delegati on encouraged other devel oped country Members to 
contribute to this very important process and was ready to consider any new submission of priority needs submitted by other least-developed country Members.  
101. The representative of Japan
 said that the process of needs assessment was meaningful in order 
to effectively provide technical cooperation and e nhance technology transfer to LDCs.  Based on the 
submissions from Sierra Leone and Uganda, usef ul discussions had been held among interested 
parties, including his delegation.  He appreciated  the approach by which these countries sought to 
achieve economic growth by effectively utilizing intellectual property. 
102. At the Tokyo International Conference on African  Development (TICAD IV), held every five 
years at heads of state level in Yokohama, Japa n, in May 2008, productive discussions had taken 
place about the future direction of development in Africa.  Under the basic message of "Towards a 
Vibrant Africa:  a Continent of Hope and Opport unity", issues related to economic growth, security, 
environment and climate change ha d been looked at by participants from 51 countries, including 41 
African heads of state.  Japan had announced that it would provide Africa with loans of up to US$4 billion for the following five years and had offered its support in various fields, including 
infrastructure and human resources development in  the field of intellectual property.  The 
Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Director-General of the African Regional  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) and the Director-General of the African Intellectual 
Property Organization (OAPI, Organisation Africaine de  la Propriété Intellectuelle) had also agreed to 
strengthen their cooperation in the field of intellect ual property, partly to be implemented through 
Japan's Africa Fund at the WIPO of CHF 1.1 million.   They had also reaffirmed the importance of 
utilizing intellectual property for socio-economic  development in Africa.  The cooperation 
programmes were under examination and included the IP-related training of government officials at 
the training centres of ARIPO and OAPI.   
103. Japan had until then been mostly engaged in  supporting Asian countries, given the close 
regional link with them.  Such activities would co ntinue and could hopefully be expanded in the 
future.   
104. He said that it would be useful to share examples of successful use of the IP system among 
developed and developing countries in order to identify examples of  self-sustained development of 
economies.  Since cooperation with WIPO and othe r relevant organizations was needed for such 
information sharing, his delegation intended to propos e this idea to the appropriate bodies with a view 
to exploring and examining various successful ex amples emanating from support activities carried out 
by Japan.  
105. The representative of Sierra Leone  said that his country, unlike Uganda, had not yet been able 
to translate its priority needs into bankable proj ects, which was primarily due to elections held 
recently.  However, it was committed to submitting such  projects to the TRIPS Council in September.  
He welcomed the discussions held so far and reitera ted the commitment to fully implement the TRIPS 
Agreement. 
106. The representative of the United States  agreed that, as reflected in the communications from 
Uganda and Sierra Leone, intellectua l property rights played a strong role in development, and were 
an integral part of the policies and practices that  promote the growth of science, technology, culture 
and innovation.  He also appreciated the efforts of these two countries to define their IPR-related 
technical and financial assistance needs that we re necessary for them to  work toward full 
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement at the a ppropriate time.  His delegation was committed to 
continually enhancing its activiti es relevant to both Articles 66.2 and 67 of the Agreement.  
Intellectual property-related technical assistance and training, trade capacity building, development 
assistance and infrastructure development were all integral elements of his Government's assistance efforts.  The goals of these efforts included he lping developing countries create the conditions 
essential to develop a sound technological base, ass isting them in improving their administration, 
management and protection of intellectual propert y and encouraging the effective transfer of 
technology. 
107. He welcomed the detailed and valuable proposal s submitted by Uganda a nd Sierra Leone and  
supported the suggestion that further technical assist ance programmes, whether bilaterally or through 
international organizations, include  regional organizations such as ARIPO.  He said that regional IP 
offices were the way of the future for global co operation in reducing resource burdens on patent 
offices and improving the quality examination process.  Strengthening individual IP offices was also 
an important tool in providing a strong and func tioning IP regime.  The US Patent and Trademark 
Office, for example, had developed several programmes under its Global Intellectual Property 
Academy (GIPA) concerning patent  and trademark administration.  These programmes looked at how 
to run and set up IP offices, with discussions on resource and computerization issues.  His delegation 
was interested in having more LDCs participate in these programmes. 
108. The enforcement priorities outlin ed in the communications from Uganda and Sierra Leone 
were shared by his delegation.  The GIPA progr ammes had included numerous  enforcement seminars 
for judges, prosecutors, customs officers, and othe r government officials.  He looked forward to IP/C/M/57 
Page 22  
 
  examining how support for the enforcement prior ities outlined in the communications could be 
continued.   He also supported the efforts suggest ed in both priority needs assessments to promote 
innovation, human skill development and building capac ity for technology transfer in these countries, 
in particular those efforts relating to improving business education and awareness about intellectual 
property for small and medium-size enterprises (SME s).  SME entrepreneurs were the innovators and 
income generators in the economy.  Making sure th ey understand their IP rights and how IP could 
benefit them was critical for sustainable developmental benefits. 
109. The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group in the WTO
, said that 
the LDC Group supported the contents of paragra ph 2 of the Decision and the steps undertaken by 
Uganda and Sierra Leone in conduc ting their priority needs assessments.  More LDCs were in the 
process of carrying out their needs assessments.  She requested that, once the pr iority needs had been 
submitted, the developed country partners live up  to their obligations by providing the required 
technical and financial assistance for the LDCs to develop the necessary infrastructure, to enable them 
to achieve the necessary technol ogical base that would set the ground for their compliance. 
110. The representative of Switzerland  said that he was fully aware of the importance of technical 
and financial cooperation in order to assist LDC Members in taking the necessary steps to comply 
with their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.   His delegation was engaged in the discussions on 
ways and means to best implement Article 67 and to fulfil the commitments taken under this 
provision and had participated in useful consulta tions with Uganda and Sierra Leone which had 
submitted substantive assessments of their priority n eeds.  He encouraged other LDCs to follow the 
example of Uganda and Sierra Leone.  Certain horiz ontal questions needed to be addressed, such as 
the need to ensure coherence and complementar ity of intellectual property technical assistance 
activities from donor countries under Article 67 to LDCs.  Efforts had to be well coordinated to allow 
for sustainable impact.  It was also appropriate to  examine to what extent existing mechanisms could 
assist in enhancing the efficiency and positive impact  of technical assistance and to consider the role 
of organizations or bodies, such as WIPO, ARIPO and OAPI, as potential partners in helping to 
coordinate and support or to execu te technical cooperation activities. 
111. The representative of Brazil  said that the presentation of priority needs by Uganda and Sierra 
Leone in such a structured and clear fashion was a welcome development.  It was useful that both documents followed a similar structure, with si milar issues and outlines of the programme planning 
matrix.  There was, on the other hand, room for im provement in the way that developed countries had 
been presenting and circulating information on the technical assistance that they provide to LDCs.  
The communications from Uganda and Sierra Leone  set an example to be followed by developed 
countries.  Reports from developed countries both under Articles 67 66.2 should follow a more consistent pattern in their presentation with a vi ew to reaching a more consistent and harmonized 
method of sharing the information.  This would ma ke the whole exercise more useful for Members 
allowing them to better understand, compare and assess the different types of assistance provided by 
Members. 
112. The representative of Canada
 said that his delegation had participated in the informal 
consultations with Uganda and Si erra Leone and was committed to providing development assistance 
including trade-related commitments under the TR IPS Agreement.  The multilateral approach was 
particularly effective in dealing with such activ ities as illustrated by the examples of the Enhanced 
Integrated Framework and the Global Trust Fund at the WTO.  This avenue should be explored for 
technical and financial assistance to ensure that their diagnostic trade integration studies reflected 
their priorities in this regard. 
113. The representative of Norway  said that his delegation remained committed to the Decision of 
2005.  He welcomed the programmes that both Uganda and Sierra Leone had submitted. His 
delegation was active in the field of aid for trade, and contributions were made within that framework.  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 23 
 
 
  114. The Chairperson  urged other least-developed country Members to provide information on 
their individual priority needs for technical and financial cooperation. 
115. The Council took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
K. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO 
116. The Chairperson  recalled that Ukraine had become the 152nd Member of the WTO on 16 May 
2008.  In paragraph 470 of the Report of th e Working Party on the Accession of Ukraine 
(WT/ACC/UKR/152), the representative of Ukrain e had stated that Ukraine would apply the 
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement no later than the date of its accession to the WTO, without 
recourse to any transitional periods. 
117. Regarding the status of acceptances of the Prot ocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement that was 
done at Geneva on 6 December 2005, she informed th at since the Council's meeting in March, the 
following Members had deposited their instruments of  acceptance:  Mauritius on 16 April;  Egypt on 
18 April;  and Mexico on 23 May (documents  WT/Let/619, 617, and 620, respectively). 
118. The Council took note  of the information provided. 
L. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS  
119. The Chairperson  said that there were 17 pending requests for observer status in the TRIPS 
Council.  A list of these requests was contained in document IP/C/W/52/Rev.11.  She recalled that the 
Council had discussed these pending requests at its prev ious meetings, but had not been able to reach 
consensus on any of them. 
120. The representative of India  said he appreciated the efforts made by the Chairperson and her 
predecessor in finding a solution to the long pending requests for observer status from the Secretariat 
of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).  While being aware of the list of 17 pending 
requests, he felt that the CBD presented a special case due to its direct relevance to the issues being 
discussed in the TRIPS Council.  Members had been  engaged in the Council and elsewhere in the 
WTO in discussions that had a direct relationshi p with the CBD, including under the Council's agenda 
item on the "Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention of Biological 
Diversity".  He said that Ministers at Doha had recognized the importance of granting observer status 
of MEA Secretariats with a view to enhancing mu tual supportiveness between trade and environment.  
Moreover, currently about 80 Members co-sponsored the disclosure proposal which sought to enhance 
mutual supportiveness between the TRIPS Agreement a nd CBD.  He said that the request by the CBD 
Secretariat had to be decided positively and exped itiously, and until then the CBD should be extended 
an ad hoc  invitation.  
121. The representative of Brazil , recalling his statement at the Council's previous meeting 
(paragraphs 104-105 of IP/C/M/56), said that he acknowledged the complexities that involved a 
positive decision on the pending 17 requests for obser ver status in the Council.  However, these 
complexities should not prevent the Council from con tinuing to work towards a positive solution that 
would be acceptable to all.  Like India, his delega tion considered the CBD to be a special case due to 
the fact that CBD issues were dire ctly considered by the Council at least under three of its permanent 
agenda items.  It would be fair and right to allo w the CBD Secretariat to be present at these meetings. 
122. He said that he had supported the efforts by th e Council's previous Chair to hold consultations 
on this issue and that he would appreciate it if the cu rrent Chair could continue those efforts to see if it 
would be possible to make progress.  At the Council' s previous meeting, his delegation had noted that 
one delegation who had had an issue with the CBD be ing allowed into the meetings had been able to IP/C/M/57 
Page 24  
 
  move towards accepting the CBD Secretariat as an ad hoc  invitee on a meeting-by-meeting basis, 
which was the kind of solution that had been a dopted in the CTESS for the CBD.  Exploring these 
new avenues could help the Council to ma ke progress on this important issue. 
123. The representative of Ecuador
 agreed with the statements made by India and Brazil, since 
discussions in the Council tended to focus on three regular agenda items and many debates had been 
held on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreem ent and the CBD.  Enabling the CBD Secretariat 
to participate in the Council's regular sessions w ould allow significant first-hand input straight from 
the original source.  He, therefore, favoured inviting the CBD Secretariat to the regular meetings of the Council, at least on an ad hoc  basis. 
124. The representative of China
 said that, according to the repo rt circulated by the Director-
General, most Members agreed that the TRIPS Ag reement and the CBD should be implemented in a 
mutually supportive way.  The Council had had numer ous discussions on issues directly related to the 
CBD in the past years.  The CBD Secretariat woul d benefit from an observer status, which would also 
allow the Council to get some important first hand information.  He, therefore, supported the points 
made by India, Brazil and Ecuador, and the suggestion that the Chair hold more consultations with the 
view to solving the issue as soon as possible. 
125. In the light of the suggestion made by Br azil and supported by other delegations, the 
Chairperson  proposed that the Chair hold consultations  on the request for observer status received 
from the CBD Secretariat. 
126. The Council took note  of the statements, and agreed  to proceed as suggested by the Chair. 
M. OTHER BUSINESS  
127. The representative of Canada  provided an update on recen t developments under Canada’s 
Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR).  He recalle d that, in September 2007, the Commissioner of 
Patents had granted the first ever compulsory licence under the terms of the 2003 WTO waiver of 
certain international trade obligatio ns to the Canadian generic drug company, Apotex.  He informed 
the Council that Apotex had been awarded a tende r from the Rwandan Government to supply it with 
the HIV/AIDS drug "Apo-TriAvir" under Canada's Access to Medicines Regime.  This was an 
important milestone with regard to access to medici nes in the developing world.  He hoped that this 
not only resulted in affordable HIV/AIDS medici nes being available in Rwanda, but also helped 
Canada to better understand how CAMR might be used to most e ffectively advance this humanitarian 
objective. 
128. He said that, as required under the CAMR, He alth Canada would now conduct a pre-export 
inspection of Apotex.  This inspection was part  of anti-diversion measures under CAMR, and would 
be done to confirm the existence of distingui shing characteristics on the products, any product 
containers, and product labels.  Drugs imported under the CAMR had to meet the same safety, 
efficacy and quality standards as those approved fo r sale in Canada.  Canada would continue to 
support the use of CAMR, and was currently in the process of establishing an expert advisory 
committee to review the list of medicines eligible fo r export.  It was also in the process of expanding 
its efforts to raise awareness of the regime in the developing world.  He said that he would endeavour 
to provide another update on the CAMR at the Council's meeting in October. 
129. The Chairperson  said that, as had already been discussed under previous agenda items, the 
Council was to take up at its October meeting its annual reviews of technology transfer under 
Article 66.2 and technical coope ration under Article 67.  She re minded the Council of two other 
reviews that would also be on the agenda of that meeting.  The Council would need to hold its fifth 
annual review under paragraph 8 of the Decision on the Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha  IP/C/M/57 
 Page 25 
 
 
  Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health and re port on its operation to the General Council.  
Furthermore, the Council would have  on its agenda the seventh tran sitional review under Section 18 
of the Protocol of the Accession of the People's Republic of China. 
130. The Chairperson informed the Council that he r Government had asked her to take a new 
assignment and that she would be returning to Jamaica at the end of July.  She said that it was her 
understanding that the Chair of the General Council would conduct consultati ons in due course on the 
question of the chairmanship of the TRIPS Council. 
 
__________