RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/IP/M/20 
26 February 2009 
 
 (09-1005) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights Special Session  
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 29 October 2008  
 
Chairman:  Ambassador C. Trevor Clarke (Barbados) 
 
_______________ 
 
 A. 
ADOPTION OF AGENDA  
1. The meeting was opened by the Chairman-designate, Ambassador C. Trevor Clarke 
(Barbados).  He proposed that under "Other business " delegations be given the opportunity to make 
statements and that the meeting be ther eafter turned into an informal mode. 
2. The Special Session agreed  to adopt the agenda as set out in WTO/AIR/3248. 
B. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
3. The Special Session elected  Ambassador C. Trevor Clarke as Chairman by acclamation. 
4. The Chairman  thanked his predecessor, former Ambassador of Pakistan, 
Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, for the work done. 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
5. The representative of the European Communities  said that the Special Session addressed 
issues of particular sensitivity and that there we re high expectations in the area of geographical 
indications (GIs).  GIs were an essential intellect ual property tool for rural local economies, be it in 
developed or developing countries.   All Members remained committe d to the Doha mandate, which 
provided for the establishment of a GI register.  However, in spite of this commitment and after 
13 years of negotiations during which the EC had lowered its objectives and shown great flexibility 
on numerous occasions, a minority of Members effectiv ely remained in denial and still refused to 
make progress.  It was worth reminding other delega tions that the register, along with agriculture and 
services negotiations, was part of the built-in agen da after the Uruguay Round.  Had there been the 
same recalcitrance in agriculture and services as there still was in the area of TRIPS, the Doha Round 
would be beset with major problems.  So, things would have to change. 
6. This meeting of the TRIPS Special Session was the first one to be convened after the July 
Ministerial meeting.  Even though his delegation regr etted the collapse of the July talks, it could at 
least be satisfied that the negotiations did not stumble over TRIPS issues.  Now Members should make sure that those issues would not become th e final hurdle in the way towards "modalities", but TN/IP/M/20 
Page 2  
 
  fall into place as part of the solution.  He reite rated that the EC was totally committed to achieving 
these modalities before the end of the year. 
7. The register, as other TRIPS-related issues, rema ined of utmost importance.  The fact that 
about 110 Members after difficult negotiations were able to submit a compromise proposal in July 2008 (TN/C/W/52), was proof of that. Member s from all around the world, both developed and 
developing ones, with very different economies and interests in each TRIPS issue, had adapted their 
positions to accommodate the concerns of others.  That was not a marriage of convenience but a 
genuine expression of common will to ensure that th e TRIPS issues would be seriously negotiated as 
a package in the Round. 
8. He outlined the main elements of this compromi se proposal in relation to the GI register.  The 
parameters which were currently supported by so  many Members had been substantially simplified 
and were completely different from all previous EC  proposals on the register.  Once the register was 
in place, all WTO Members would be able to register  their GIs and domestic authorities in the WTO.  
Members would consult the register when making d ecisions regarding registration and protection of 
trademarks and geographical indications.  This consultation would be done in accordance with 
existing domestic procedures, which typically includ e the consultation of s ources of information and 
documentation.  When consulting the register, dome stic authorities would take  its information into 
account and, in particular, consider that the registered GI met the TRIPS definition of a GI, unless there was proof to the contrary.  Domestic author ities should consider assertions regarding the TRIPS 
exception of "genericness" only if these assertions were substantiated.  This confirmed normal 
procedural law, which required that the party making a claim substantiate it accordingly.  
Nevertheless, it would be up to domestic authorities to assess the claim, to take the final decision on 
the GI definition element, on "genericness" and on an y other element as well as to decide whether or 
not the GI should be protected in its territory. 
9. He recalled that, since its initial proposal, the EC had indicated its readiness to make many 
concessions to help in moving towards consensus on the register:  it had dropped its proposal for 
irrebuttable presumptions regarding the GI de finition, the non-generic character and the 
non-misleading nature of a GI record in the regist er;  it had eliminated time-limits for opposition and 
the opposition procedure at the international level to  eliminate costs and burdens;  it had dropped all 
objectives concerning homonymy;  on genericness, it was now merely aiming at a confirmation of 
normal procedural law;  and it had accepted that S&D provisions would be negotiated.  In sum, as part 
of an overall agreement, the EC had shown readin ess to make substantial concessions that must be 
duly considered.  The communication contained in TN/C/W/52 could now be supported by about 110 
Members, that is, almost three quarters of the WTO membership.  Against this backdrop, a limited 
number of Members continued, however, to maintain the same position. 
10. Document TN/C/W/52 further provided that Members would agree on GI extension.  There 
was no reasonable ground for discriminating between  wines and spirits on the one hand and other 
products like tea, coffee or cheese on the other.  Document TN/C/W/52 further addressed under the 
TRIPS/CBD topic the question of patent disclosure, an issue to which the EC had expressed its attachment.  While his delegation was well aware that extension and TRIPS/CBD fell outside the 
remit of this negotiating group, it considered, like some 110 other Members, that all TRIPS–related 
issues should be treated on an equal footing and negotiated in the Special Session of the TRIPS Council, so that they could all form part of the out come of the Round in terms of solutions that would 
have economic value and make a difference. 
11. He finally expressed his delegation's confiden ce that the Chairman would take the full 
measure of the expectations as to the register and the other TRIPS issues and that he would contribute 
actively to reaching a mutually agreed outcome.  TN/IP/M/20 
 Page 3 
 
 
  12. The Chairman  said that, while he was aware of certain delegations' interest in other TRIPS 
issues, he had to recall that his ma ndate related to the register only. 
13. The representative of Switzerland  said that the fact that this meeting was the 20th one showed 
how much work had already been done under the former  Chairpersons of the Special Session, and that 
the numerous communications, compilation papers, questions and answers documents and proposals 
were written evidence of this work, which his dele gation hoped would bring to fruition expeditiously 
under the Chairman's aegis. 
14. He recalled that, in view of the Ministerial meeting of last July, the proponents of the TRIPS-
related issues under the Doha Work Programme, th e GI register, GI extension and CBD/TRIPS, had 
submitted a proposal for modalities or key parameters  for negotiating final draft legal texts with 
respect to each of these issues as part of the single undertaking. This proposal to the TNC was 
circulated in document TN/C/W/52 of 19 July 2008.  Its proponents took into account the discussions in the Special Session and the work done on the other two TRIPS issues so far in another forum 
reporting to the TNC.  TN/C/W/52 represented ther efore a compromise proposal.  Through this 
proposal, a momentum was created for the three TRI PS issues, and it must be maintained.  The July 
Ministerial meeting and process led by Minister Stør e of Norway on behalf of DG Lamy showed that 
it had been - and therefore should be – possible to u sefully address the three TRIPS issues in parallel.  
There were linkages between the three TRIPS issu es:  many WTO Members wished to see their own 
geographical indications and products  also benefit from a WTO system of notification and registration 
for GIs that would not be for wines and spirits  only;  GI extension and TRIPS/CBD were both 
implementation issues mandated by the Doha Declar ation.  Switzerland attached great importance, 
and gave support, to the three TRIPS issues and to  their parallel treatment in view of a modalities 
decision and the need for text-based negotiations in the three areas on the basis of the parameters – 
both in procedure and contents – set out in TN/C/W/ 52.  In order to make the work efficient and to 
reflect the linkages, and based on the experien ce of last summer's process under DG Lamy and 
Minister Støre, the three issues would be best addr essed in parallel and under the guidance of a person 
that was aware of the substance and linkages.  Th e Special Session would be the best forum.  The 
three TRIPS issues were put on the agenda by more than two thirds of the membership. They formed 
part of the work to be done in order to successf ully conclude the Doha Round and could not be put 
aside.  WTO Members must therefore urgently unde rtake work on these issues under the aegis of the 
Chairman of the Special Session. 
15. The representative of the United States
 said that, in light of the general statements made by 
the previous speakers, he would have to make  some remarks about his delegation's approach 
regarding the work of the Special Session.  The Un ited States fully appreciat ed that the establishment 
of the registration system would be part of the single undertaking and was fully committed to 
fulfilling its mandate.  It would be prepared to cont inue engaging and thinking creatively with other 
Members about how to achieve that objective, which wa s eminently attainable.  It was clear that there 
were significant gaps on important aspects of the registration and these gaps appeared to have been 
reinforced and made even clearer in the context of  the last meeting of the Special Session held last 
April.  The minutes of that meeting provided a usef ul informative view on the question of whether the 
110 Members mentioned were actually  in substantive agreement on the GI register.  Despite the gaps, 
in substance the United States considered that the Special Session was well positioned to continue its 
work by virtue of the fact that there were deta iled text-based proposals under consideration in this 
negotiation.  This put the Special Session in a good position to continue working towards a resolution 
of differences between now and the conclusion of the DDA.  The United States as one of the 
numerous co-sponsors of the joint proposal continued to support this proposal as the optimal means 
by which the Special Session could fulfil the manda te of this negotiation.  The joint proposal 
represented the appropriate basis for continued work of the Special Session and the best prospect for a 
rapid conclusion of the work of the Special S ession.  The representative of the United States TN/IP/M/20 
Page 4  
 
  welcomed the recent addition of the Republic of Korea and the Republic of South Africa as co-
sponsors of the joint proposal. 
16. The gathering of Ministers that took place in Geneva last July provided opportunities for 
consultations on the establishment of a registration system of GIs for wines and spirits, including in 
the context of the efforts led by the Director-General and Minister Støre of Norway.  These 
discussions were useful, but again revealed the significant concerns of many Members about the 
potentially burdensome nature of the registration sy stem as reflected in the EC proposal.  Equally 
important, the July discussions highlighted the f act that substantial divergences remained on the 
question of the legal effect that would be attach ed to the placement of a GI on the register.  
Differences over this critical question were not resolv ed through the consultations held in July.  It 
remained the firm position of the United States th at the registration system should convey no legal 
presumptions, but should instead be limited, as th e mandate made clear, to the facilitation of 
protection of GIs for wines and spirits through a tr ansparent system of information-sharing.  His 
delegation also observed in the context of the July meeting that there remained substantial confusion 
regarding the intentions of some Members in resp ect of the scope of coverage for the registration 
system.  It shared the deep concern of many Me mbers that some Members intended this system to 
apply to GIs for products other than those sti pulated in the mandate, namely wines and spirits. 
17. Reference had been made by the previous speakers to document TN/C/W/52 as representing a 
compromise with regard specifically to the regi stration system.  The representative of the United 
States noted that these concepts differed from the ones in the EC proposal that was currently under 
consideration and on the table in the Special Sessi on.  For his delegation, it would be necessary to see 
additional details on the proposed compromises that  had been reflected in a shorthand form in 
document TN/C/W/52.  It also had an outstanding  question about whether the EC proposal currently 
on the table was being substitu ted by another proposal. 
18. With regard to the statements made on docum ent TN/C/W/52 and the linkage of the subject-
matter of this Special Session with other intellect ual property issues, he said that the United States 
continued to take the view already expressed in Ju ly that Members should avoid artificial parallelism 
in the treatment of these issues.  Each of them w as important to Members in a different way.  Each 
was quite unique in terms of substance.  It would th erefore be important to consider each of them on 
its own merits and in light of the existing mandates or lack of mandates.  For the United States, there 
was no place in the Special Session for consideration of these other issues. 
19. He further said that, while its concerns remained considerable, the United States was 
nonetheless of the view that the additional engagement  at the April meeting of the Special Session and 
the more informal discussions in July had helped to  crystallize the issues.  It was therefore confident 
that the Special Session would be able to contin ue to make progress in the achievement of its 
mandate, especially through additio nal technically focused work. 
20. The representative of India
 said that the past recent months had witnessed a significant 
change in dynamics.  This was reflected in the re ports by the former Chair of the Special Session on a 
GI register and by DG Lamy on TRIPS/CBD and GI  extension last June.  These reports should be 
read together.  Subsequently, TN/C/W/52 was submitted on 19 July by 110 Members.  TN/C/W/52 
contained key parameters that India, as one of the proponents, would like to see reflected in a 
Ministerial Decision on the three TRIPS issues of TRIPS/CBD, GI register and GI extension. Document TN/C/W/52 was a distillate of constr uctive engagement, flexibilities and accommodation 
of interests of about 110 Members, developed a nd developing countries, including several LDCs.  
India recognized the flexibilities demonstrated by the EC that had culminated in the key parameters 
reflected in TN/C/W/52.  India would support negotiations on the GI register on this basis.  TN/IP/M/20 
 Page 5 
 
 
  21. As a co-sponsor of TN/C/W/52,  India strongly felt that the three TRIPS issues must be dealt 
with in tandem, based on the key parameters men tioned therein.  These important TRIPS issues, two 
of which were critical implementation issues for deve loping countries, must be dealt with in a proper 
way.  The submission in TN/C/W/52 provided for a sound basis for the way ahead on these issues. 
22. The consultative process on TRIPS/CBD and GI ex tension must be intensified as decided by 
Ministers in Hong Kong in December 2005.  Paragr aph 39 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration 
called for intensification of consultations by the Director-General "by appointing Chairpersons of 
concerned WTO bodies as his Friends and/or by holdi ng dedicated consultations".  The experience in 
July with DG Lamy and with Minister Støre of No rway had shown that a common Chair for the three 
TRIPS issues could be useful.  The representative of India therefore called upon the Chair of the 
TRIPS Council Special Session to begin consultatio ns on TRIPS/CBD and GI extension based on the 
key parameters mentioned in TN/C/W/52, in additi on to the negotiations on the GI register.  His 
country considered an outcome on the TRIPS issues to be an essential element of the single undertaking. 
23. The representative of Turkey
 said that her country, which was one of the co-sponsors of 
document TN/C/W/52 on "Draft Modalities for TRIPS-Related Issues", believed that there was a 
parallelism between the three issues because, first a nd foremost, they were all three TRIPS issues.  
There was a strong linkage between the issue of the registration of geographical indications and the issue of the extension of the protection provided un der Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Adequate 
protection for all products could be achieved only by a strong register with legal consequences.  On 
the GI extension issue, it was clear for Turkey that a dual system creating different levels of 
protection for wines and spirits and other products as it currently was in the TRIPS Agreement was 
unfair.  All the co-sponsors of TN/C/W/52 had ag reed on the key parameters of the three TRIPS 
issues.  This was a fact which should be taken in to account in deciding the procedure to be followed 
for future deliberations. 
24. The representative of Mauritius, speaking on behalf of the ACP Group
, said that her group re-
iterated its firm commitment to the Doha mandate  and to the speedy advancement of all issues 
pertaining to the TRIPS Agreement, including the establishment of an international register of 
geographical indications for wines and spirits.  She as sociated herself with the statements made by the 
delegations of the European Communities, Switzerla nd, India and Turkey and re-affirmed her belief 
that the best way forward in this process was the one proposed in document TN/C/W/52, supported by 
two thirds of the WTO membership. 
25. The representative of Chile  said that for his country geographical indications were also an 
important instrument for development and rural development in general.  Chile promoted and 
protected geographical indications.  That is why Ch ile had co-sponsored the joint proposal, which, it 
believed, complied with the mandate to facilitate th e protection of geographical indications for wines 
and spirits.  
26. With regard to the July process, Chile also re jected artificial parallelism:  the three TRIPS 
issues should be looked at on their own merits.  It was very difficult for Chile to understand how 
Members who had signed up to the modalities proposal had been convinced by the EC's proposal.  The minutes of the April meeting of the TRIPS Special Session showed that several of those delegations who signed up to the modalities proposal we re strongly opposed to the EC's proposal of 
2005 and new thinking of November 2007.  When those delegations had been asked in the July 
process how they had actually been convinced of the merits of the EC's proposal, they had said that 
this was a compromise proposal.  His delegation, wh ich had not been invited to participate in the 
consultations on the modalities proposal, was of the vi ew that it would be useful to know how those 
delegations were going to accept a proposal that w ould have major legal consequences and mandatory 
participation.  During the July consultations a nd up until this meeting, it was not clear if this TN/IP/M/20 
Page 6  
 
  compromise was limited to wines and spirits or not.  The representative of Chile asked the European 
Communities, Switzerland, Brazil and India to clarify this point.  At a group informal consultation 
meeting held by the Chair-elect the previous day,  when the issue of parallelism was raised, certain 
delegations members of the 110 group flagged that th ey were not in agreement with the proposals on 
the extension of the register, some eight Member s were in agreement with the ideas on TRIPS/CBD 
and only one or two Members were in agreement with the EC's proposal on the register.  The 
representative of Chile therefore asked those dele gations sponsoring TN/C/W/52 and not having yet 
taken the floor on the register to say whet her they had accepted the proposals in the July 
consultations.  Recalling that in the July consu ltations, one delegation addressed the register, a second 
one the GI extension and a third one the TRIPS/CBD,  but since the three did not seem to agree with 
each other, he said that the compromise proposal shoul d be put in its entirety in writing.  This would 
constitute headway.   
27. He said that the Special Session's discussions should be limited to GIs for wines and spirits 
and not engage in consultations on TRIPS/CBD and GI extension.  He welcomed the addition of 
Korea and South Africa to the list of co-sponsors of the joint proposal. 
28. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 said that her delegation understood some Members’ 
strong desire to see progress on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits.  Her dele gation stood ready to continue working with other 
Members to find a compromise solution as early as possible.  Hong Kong, China did not have any substantial interest in GIs, but only a systemic  interest in fulfilling the negotiating mandate under 
Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and paragraph 18 of the Doha Mini sterial Declaration.  With the 
objective of facilitating the negotiations and mee ting the negotiating mandate, Hong Kong, China had 
put forward an alternative proposal in April 2003.  It was in fact a middle-ground proposal for bridging the gaps between Members.  The proposed registration system would be voluntary with an obligation on the participating Members only to give legal effects to the GI registrations, which would 
be limited in scope.  The system would not deal with  competing claims for a GI.  That would continue 
to be dealt with under the national laws of Members.   More details on the proposal could be found in 
document TN/IP/W/8.  Hong Kong, China appreciated Members’ contributions in the negotiations, in 
particular the flexibility shown by the EC during discussions, as well as the work of the previous 
Chairman who had led the Special Session up to this stage.  As reflected in the Chair's report dated 
9 June 2008 and the July ministerial process, it wa s undeniable that Members had not been able to 
reach any consensus on the elements of the GI register for wines and spirits.  Fundamental differences 
remained with regard to the two key issues of par ticipation and legal effects of the proposed register. 
Members could not even agree on the interpretati on of the negotiating mandate.  Hong Kong, China 
therefore believed that more work had to be done. 
29. As to the linkage with the two other issues of GI extension and TRIPS/CBD, her delegation 
hoped that this would not complicate the horizontal process on agriculture and NAMA.  As expressed 
before, Hong Kong, China supported th e continuation of the Chair’s consultations in the setting of the 
TRIPS Special Session. 
30.  The representative of China
 said that the substantial linkages between the GI register, GI 
extension and TRIPS/CBD were clearly indicated in document TN/C/W/52, co-sponsored by more 
than 110 Members, that these three issues must be dealt with together and that no solution across the 
board could be achieved until a compromise had been found among all the three issues. 
31. China, which was in favour of GI extension, w ould prefer that the register cover GIs for all 
products.  Such GIs should be protected on an equal footing, benefit from the GI register and a proper 
balance should be achieved am ong products and Members.  TN/IP/M/20 
 Page 7 
 
 
  32. Noting that the special needs and situations of  developing Members, particularly LDCs, had 
not been fully addressed in the main proposals on the table, China was of the view that special and 
differential treatment must be properly cons idered and fully addressed in any solutions. 
33. The representative of  Brazil  said that his country was a co-sponsor of document TN/C/W/52 
on draft modalities for consideration as part of th e single undertaking of the Doha Round.  This 
proposal comprised substantive elements for negotia tion of the three TRIPS-related issues, namely 
TRIPS/CBD, GI extension and GI re gister.  Brazil's decision to co -sponsor the joint submission came 
from the perception that, after nearly a decade of discussions on TRIPS-related issues, there was an 
urgent and pressing need to find a text-based agreem ent for all the three issues and this text-based 
agreement must be reflected in th e form of an amendment or amendm ents to the TRIPS Agreement.  
Brazil was in favour of a simultaneous , parallel and joint treatment for all three TRIPS-related issues.  
Like over two thirds of Members, Brazil support ed the procedural and substantive parameters 
contained in the joint submission.  It associated itsel f with the intervention made  by India.  It shared, 
in particular, India's perception that a common Chair for the three TRIPS issues could be useful.  This 
would bring discussions in line with paragraph 39 of  the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, which 
called for intensification of consultations by the Director-General "by appointing Chairpersons of 
concerned WTO bodies as his Friends and/or by holding dedicated consultations". 
34. The representative of Australia  associated his delegation with the statements made by the 
United States and Chile.  He said that his delega tion would work with the new Chairman within the 
existing mandate, that is, work on a register that would facilitate the protection of GIs for wines and 
spirits.  With regard to references that had been  made to proposals that had been submitted to other 
bodies such as the TNC, and to a possible role of the Chairman of the Special Session, he recalled that 
any considerations of the Chair's role and of extending or changing the mandate for the Special 
Session would be a matter for the TNC or for a minist erial decision, but not for the Special Session.  
Australia's position on parallelis m was well known among delegations. 
35. He said that the elements of the proposal  in document TN/C/W/52 that touched on the 
mandated discussion on the register of GIs for wines and spirits would require clarification as work 
went on.  As already mentioned by the United St ates and Chile, the status of the EC's proposal 
remained unclear.  While he was under the impressi on that TN/IP/W/11 of 2005 remained the EC's 
proposal on the register, the EC's earlier interventio n suggested that some substantive modification or 
change had been made by document TN/C/W/52.  Furthermore, while some delegations had made 
statements supporting the substantive and procedural  aspects of document TN/C/W/52, his delegation 
believed it would be important to test the substa ntive positions of all these over 100 delegations on 
these issues, in particular on the issue of participation. 
36. Given that the substance of document TN/C/W /52 seemed to imply mandatory participation 
by all Members, and if all proponents of that doc ument supported this approach, this would represent 
a significant change in the negotiating position of a ve ry large number of Members.  If this was the 
case, this should be spelt out so that all Members c ould hear it in this session.  This was an important 
issue because it also touched on the issue of special a nd differential treatment.  In this regard, he noted 
that the strength of the joint proposal, which his delegation sponsored, was the voluntary nature of 
participation, which was fully in accordance with  the Special Session’s mandate, and was also an 
important element for developing countries or count ries that lacked the capacity to take on board 
onerous or burdensome obligations in respect of products in which they di d not have particular 
commercial interest.  His delegation also agreed with the comments made by the United States and 
Chile. TN/IP/M/20 
Page 8  
 
  37. The representative of Nigeria
 said that, as a co-sponsor of document TN/C/W/52, his 
delegation endorsed the statements made by th e European Communities, Switzerland, India and 
Brazil, and believed that the three TRIPS issues shoul d be treated on an equal footing in the Special 
Session of the TRIPS Council. 
38. The representative of Canada  said that, in order for the work in this session to move forward 
with necessary speed, it was important to do no thing that would put the parking brake on.  
Unfortunately, some delegations continued to do so.  Canada supported, as part of a final Doha 
package, the creation of a voluntary register of GI s for wines and spirits as mandated by Article 23.4 
and therefore supported the joint proposal as the only real basis for negotiations.  As the April 
meeting had demonstrated, the joint proposal was the middle-ground proposal, enjoyed the broader 
support of developed and developing countries an d was the only proposal that met the required 
mandate. 
39. His delegation was disappointed that progress re mained elusive and that some delegations 
believed document TN/C/W/52 would help Members achieve the mandated objective.  As had been 
stated on previous occasions, his delegation did not agree with artificial parallelism.  This was a  
prescription for deadlock.  Each of  the TRIPS issues had its own terms of reference and particular 
subject-matter.  As noted in the report by the Chai rman’s predecessor, many technical issues remained 
and the extent and interest of Members in the content and potential outcomes for each issue varied considerably.  For example, on the issue of GI extension, even basic objectives were far apart, 
discussions had revealed no consensus, and the suggested draft modalities text presented by the 
demandeurs , prejudged an outcome.  Simply put, TN/C/W/52 was not a basis for discussions. 
40. With respect to the two implementation issues, there was a consultation process elaborated in 
the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  As such, no  issues were being ignored.  Canada remained 
ready to engage on a GI register for wines and spir its and to intensify work in this regard in a 
transparent manner, namely through the work of the TRIPS Special Session. 
41. The representative of Ecuador
 said that, since the beginning of the negotiations, his country 
had held the view that the multilate ral register of GIs s hould be voluntary, with  minimum legal effects 
and restricted to wines and spirits.  It was for that reason that Ecuador had co-sponsored the joint 
proposal because it contained elements that met its c oncerns.  It considered that the joint proposal 
would be, once adopted, the most viable system for implementation by developing countries. 
42. This notwithstanding, Ecuador had repeatedly  mentioned the parallelism existing in the 
various areas of intellectual property discussion and the trade-offs that every negotiation implied.  For 
those reasons all delegations should assume a resp onsible and constructive role in the multilateral 
trade system.  They should seek objective solutions, st op this dialogue of the deaf and lack of actual 
interaction between Members.  The agreement re ached in 2005 on TRIPS and public health was an 
example of such joint work.  After all, negotiation always implied a recognition of the interests of all 
parties with a view to reaching a middle ground betw een the various aspirations  of every delegation in 
this negotiation. 
43. The representative of El Salvador  said that her delegation supported the joint proposal as a 
balanced proposal that met the n eeds of her country, which was a developing one.  The discussion in 
this Special Session should be technical and focus on the issues still outstanding in this proposal.  El 
Salvador as a developing country had rejected document TN/C/W/52 because each issue should be 
dealt with separately and be examined on its own merits.  El Salvador had therefore rejected 
parallelism, whether artificial or not.  Her delegation wished to stress that the consultations carried out 
by Minister Støre of Norway were never made know n to El Salvador’s Ministers, and that not all 
delegations had therefore had the occasion to express their views on these subjects.  In any event, no 
consensus had been reached  in these consultations.  TN/IP/M/20 
 Page 9 
 
 
  44. The representative of Mexico  said that, for his delegation, th e Special Session’s mandate was 
expressed in TRIPS Article 23.4 and in paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration and had not been 
amended.  He recalled that, in June 2008, together with other Members, Mexico had expressed the 
view that there was no consensus for an amen dment of the mandate. Document TN/C/W/52 was 
seeking to amend this mandate through a ministerial declaration.  In these negotiations the issue was 
not a matter of a lack of agreement on the interpreta tion of the mandate, but rather the fact that some 
delegations would not support a clear mandate which was in force.  Mexico saw document 
TN/C/W/52 as showing possible flexibility by the proponents vis-à-vis  the register of GIs for wines 
and spirits and it would be useful and interesting to analyse this possibility of flexibilities under the current mandate in this session.  On the other hand,  there was a risk in artificial parallelism and some 
of the flexibilities in document TN/C/W/52 could jeopardize the clear headway which had already 
been made on the register. 
45. The representative of Guatemala
, referring to the linkages made by some Members between 
the register of GIs for wines and spirits and other TRIPS issues, said that her country rejected these 
artificial linkages because they were different issues with different mandates.  Guatemala had co-
sponsored the joint proposal because it complied wi th the negotiating mandate and struck a balance 
between the interests of all Members.  The join t proposal complied with the mandate because it 
facilitated protection by addressing the needs of the European Communities and another demandeur  
and facilitated its implementation by  developing countries such as Guatemala.  For that reason, the 
joint proposal was a solid and balanced basis for th e work in the Special Session.  It maintained the 
existing balance between rights and obligations  in the TRIPS Agreement and preserved the 
territoriality of intellectual property rights for geographical indications while allowing Members to 
determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement within 
their own legal system and practices. 
46. The representative of New Zealand  associated his delegation with the statements made by the 
United States, Australia, Chile, Canada, El  Salvador, Mexico  and Guatemala. 
47. New Zealand was of the view that  there was much useful techni cal work still to be done in 
this Special Session.  While the status of the EC ’s proposal remained unclear to his delegation, it 
seemed that document TN/C/W/52, which had never been considered in the Special Session, was now 
the EC's preferred approach to a register of GIs for wines and spirits.  His delegation would welcome 
the opportunity to hear the main proponents of that document elaborate on how the first three 
paragraphs might establish an important register to  facilitate protection of GIs for wines and spirits 
and how the 110 supporters of that document woul d implement this kind of register within their 
jurisdictions.  This would help New Zealand unde rstand how that proposal would work across the 
membership of the WTO. 
48. His delegation did not agree with the assertion of other delegations that the first three 
paragraphs on the register in TN /C/W/52 constituted was an appropria te way forward on the register.  
It had been suggested that TN/C/W/52 was a compromise proposal.  As pointed out by Chile, New 
Zealand had not been invited to be part of that compromise and possibly for some good reasons.  The register proposal and in particular its linkages to other TRIPS issues raised serious commercial 
concerns for New Zealand.  Those few Members acti vely advocating GI extension were well aware of 
these concerns, which had nevertheless been  ignored in that compromise proposal. 
49. His delegation did not accept the parallelism em bodied in TN/C/W/52 and welcomed the 
Chair's confirmation that the TRIPS Special S ession should focus exclusively on the mandated 
negotiations to establish a register to facilitate prot ection of GIs for wines and spirits.  Ministers had 
already provided guidance on how the other two TRIPS issues should be handled.  These were not being ignored, but Ministers had thought that th ey were neither right for negotiation nor for 
consideration in the Special Session.  His delega tion agreed with Australia that discussions on the TN/IP/M/20 
Page 10  
 
  scope of the Chair’s role and on linkages should no t be taking place in the Special Session of the 
TRIPS Council. 
50. He recalled that New Zealand was a co-sponsor  of the joint proposal, which represented a 
middle ground between some very ambitious proposal s that would alter the balance of rights and 
obligations in TRIPS, and the views of other Me mbers, which would rather see a very minimalist 
register with no legal effect.  He welcomed the re cent decision by the delegations of Korea and South 
Africa to formally co-sponsor the joint proposal. 
51. The representative of Singapore
 said that, as shown in the report by the former Chair, the fact 
that there was no convergence was a reflection of the continued divergence among the membership.  
Singapore had followed the work of the Special  Session closely given its importance and its 
implications, especially for non-wine-producing Memb ers.  From Singapore's perspective, the joint 
proposal was a good basis for commencing discussions on the future work in  the Special Session.  
Any register that would eventually be adopted by the WTO membership should preserve the existing 
balance between Members’ right s and obligations, and should ha ve no legal effects for those 
Members who had decided not to participate in the system. 
52. Regarding the future work of the Special Sessi on, her delegation believed that the Chair could 
proceed with consultations on the issue of the GI re gister, consistent with the mandate of the Special 
Session.  Her delegation did not support the artific ial parallelism of the three TRIPS issues, as each 
issue was unique and complex, and had to be considered on its own merits. 
53. The representative of Japan  said that his delegation, as a co-sponsor of the joint proposal, was 
of the view that a GI register should not be burdensome, but should nonetheless facilitate the 
protection of GIs for wines and spirits.  In this re gard, the joint proposal was the best option for Japan 
and constituted a good basis for negotiation.  His de legation therefore associated itself with the 
statements made by other joint proposal co-sponsor s.  Given the polarized views, technical work 
should be pursued in this Special Session.  It rej ected artificial parallelism and maintained that other 
issues than the GI register should be dealt with separately and on their own merits. 
54. The representative of Korea , agreeing with a statement made by the Chairman, said that the 
Special Session was dedicated to the negotiation of a register of GIs for wines and spirits under a clear 
mandate.  He associated his delegation with the st atements made by other co-sponsors of the joint 
proposal and expressed Korea's concern about the atte mpts to draw an artificial parallelism between 
the GI register and the other two TRIPS issues.  Such attempts would only delay the process and lead 
nowhere.  He said concrete proposals were on the table and it was the process which now needed the 
engagement of all Members. 
55. The representative of Argentina  said that her delegation did not support the artificial 
parallelism drawn between the three IP issues.  The mandate of the Special Session was limited to the 
negotiation of a system of notification and regist ration of geographical indications for wines and 
spirits.  Argentina was not willing to deal with othe r IP issues within the Special Session.  Argentina 
was a co-sponsor of the joint proposal, which re mained on the negotiating table.  This proposal 
complied with the mandate of TRIPS Article 23.4 and paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration, and was 
accepted by a large number of Members.  The jo int proposal suggested the establishment of a 
multilateral system of notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits which facilitated the 
protection of GIs for wines and spirits while respecting the territorial nature of GIs.  Participation in 
that register would be strictly volunta ry in accordance with TRIPS Article 23.4. 
56. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire  associated her delegation with the statements made by 
India, Brazil and Nigeria.  As a co-sponsor of docum ent TN/C/W/52, Côte d'Ivoire believed that this 
document was a good basis for discussion and would enable Members to achieve specific outcomes  TN/IP/M/20 
 Page 11 
 
 
  on the three issues of the GI register, GI exte nsion and TRIPS/CBD, with respect to which the 
parallelism was sufficiently clear. 
57. The representative of Peru  said that the appointment of the new Chairman had given rise to 
many problematic expectations.  While the Chair ha d been appointed to address one issue, namely the 
register of GIs for wines and spirits, some dele gations were asking him to hold discussions on other 
issues.  Getting into other areas of the Round mi ght be dangerous.  He said that, as observed by 
Switzerland, this issue had been discussed sin ce the Uruguay Round and Members needed to find a 
real solution as soon as possible, otherwise the inte rnational trading system would lose credibility.  
Similarly to the Bananas issue, it would be difficu lt for people in the Member countries to understand 
why, after 20 years, an agreement could not be  reached.  He said that, as some delegations had 
commented, Peru was not a demandeur with respect to the register.  He believed that GIs were 
important and hoped that the Session would be able  to comply with the given mandate.  Peru had 
accepted the compromise proposal reflected in docum ent TN/C/W/52 as a good basis for negotiations.  
It hoped that the Chair would be able to find a fair balance and the best way to continue the 
negotiations in order to achieve a solution. 
58. In response to the comments made by previo us delegations, the representative of the 
European Communities  said Members should accept the fact that about 110 Members had tabled a 
proposal to the highest negotiating body of the D oha Round, the Trade Negotiations Committee.  This 
constituted substantial progress in re lation to previous proposals.  His delegation would expect that a 
proposal which was supported by more than two thirds of the membership and which included 
substantial progress towards consensus in substance w ould be considered as a useful basis for future 
discussions.  A wide range of Members that were trying to make progress towards consensus had 
engaged in an exercise of responsibility before  the summer. This had resulted in difficult 
compromises amongst those Members, which had been reflected in the groundbreaking document 
TN/C/W/52.  Leaving aside the procedural issues, he urged those Members that maintained different 
positions to also exercise some responsibility in this area of the negotiations and join the efforts that 
others were making and would continue to make in order to achieve a consensus. 
59. In response to the comments that the scope of the register proposal was unclear, he said that 
paragraph 7 of TN/C/W/52 included the sentence "Mem bers agree to the exte nsion of the protection 
of Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to geogra phical indications for all products, including the 
extension of the register" . 
60. Concerning participation, the situation was equally  clear as paragraph 2 of the proposal read:  
"Each WTO Member shall provide that domestic au thorities will consult the register and take its 
information into account …". 
61. He said that, as underlined in his previous intervention, important changes concerning the 
substance of the register had been made.  Th ese had been positively taken into account by those 
Members that had previously not been able to subscr ibe to any proposal on a GI register.  Equally, the 
European Communities and other Members had ex ercised their responsibility and acknowledged the 
interests of other Members on the issue of TRIPS/ CBD disclosure.  All this formed part of a 
comprehensive approach.  His dele gation believed that the three issues should be treated on their own 
merits because they were different issues.  Neverthe less, they would have to be considered in parallel 
as part of a single approach, which was the only way to  make progress towards consensus in this area.  
He called upon Members to continue to reflect on the matter.  The hope had been expressed that 
TRIPS/CBD disclosure and GI extension would not cr eate problems in the Doha Round.  However, in 
the current situation problems were created by tho se delegations that were still in a denial mode 
regarding what had happened before the summer and wh at would happen in the near future.  He called 
on these delegations to engage in an exercise of responsibility and join the European Communities in 
a common task to reach consensus in this respect. TN/IP/M/20 
Page 12  
 
  62. The representative of the United States
 said that his delegation was ready to engage in an 
intensification of the work of the Special Session w ithin the scope of its mandate to establish a system 
of registration of GIs for wines and spirits.  Such in tensification might be usef ully considered in the 
context of technically focused work, as the degree of extensive technical work that still remained to be 
done, particularly on issues like participation and legal consequences, shoul d not be underestimated. 
63. The TRIPS Agreement allowed for GIs to be protected through a variety of means and 
systems, but some of the proposals seemed to be aiming at a one-size-fits-all approach and, in view of the variance in ways of implementing the obligations of the Agreement, it was extremely important that all Members of the Special Session had the oppor tunity to consider in technical detail how these 
various proposals would potentially be implemen ted. His delegation would therefore favour an 
intensification of technical work, perhaps initially focusing on the questions of  participation and legal 
consequences. 
64. He said that he had detected an intent to disallow intensification and progress in this 
negotiation, which enjoyed a clear Ministerial mandate, unless the demanded linkage was somehow 
fostered and allowed to take place.  Given the diffe rences of mandates that continued to exist, even 
after the July meeting, this did not seem to be a resp onsible approach at this stage of the negotiations.  
His delegation was concerned that this  linkage would in fact lead to an effective hibernation of this 
negotiation, which would not reflect the United States preferred approach. 
65. The Chairman
 said that the interventions made i ndicated the wish for more technical 
discussion to clarify some difficult issues regarding the register. 
66. The Special Session took note  of the statements made. 
__________