RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/M/18
11 June 1998
(98-2372)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 12 May 1998
Chairperson:  Ambassador István Major (Hungary)
Subjects discussed:
A. N OTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
B. I MPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 70.8 AND 70.9
C. R EVIEW OF LEGISLATION :
(i) Legislation on copyright and related rights (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland,
Romania and the Slovak Republic)
(ii) Legislation on trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs
(Bulgaria and Romania)
(iii) Legislation on enforcement (South Africa)
(iv) Follow-up to the reviews already undertaken
(v) Arrangements for future reviews
D. T ECHNICAL COOPERATION
E. I NFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO
F. W ORK ON ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS :
(i) Implementation of Article 23.4
(ii) Review of the application of the provisions of the section on geographical 
indications under Article 24.2
G. O BSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
H. O THER BUSINESSIP/C/M/18
Page 2
A. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
 (i) Notifications under Article 63.2
1. The Chairperson informed the Council that, since the last meeting, new notifications of
legislation had been received from Ecuador and Panama, while Bulgaria, Hungary, Japan,
Luxembourg, Norway and Romania had submitted notifications supplementing these Members' earliernotifications of legislation.  All these notifications would be available in the IP/N/1/- document series
as soon as possible.  Responses to the Checklis t of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/C/5) had
been received from Bulgaria and Poland.  These notifications had been circulated in the IP/N/6/-
series of documents.
- Notifications relating to Articles 3, 4 and 5
2. The Chairperson informed the Council that the notification announced at the last meeting by
the delegation of Singapore had been received and distributed as document IP/N/1/SGP/2.  No other
new notification had been received.
(ii) Notifications under Articles 1.3 and 3.1
3. The Chairperson informed the Council that a notification had been received from Singapore
under Article 1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with the provisions of Article 6 of the Rome
Convention.  This notification had been circulated in document IP/N/2/SGP/1.
(iii) Notifications under Article 69
4. The Chairperson informed the Council that, si nce the last meeting, four Members, namely
Haiti, Mongolia, Panama and Qatar, had notified their TRIPS contact points under Article 69, in
addition to the 81 Members that had already done so.  Information about the contact points notified by
these Members was available in document IP/N/3/Rev.2/Add.9, which also reflected updatedinformation received from Bulgaria concerning the contact points that it had notified earlier.
(iv) Notifications under Article 4(d)
5. The Chairperson informed the Council that a revised notification under Article 4(d) had been
received from Spain, revising the list of the international agreements that Spain had notified earlier,
and had been circulated in document IP/N/4/ESP/1/Rev.1.
(v) Other notifications
6. The Chairperson informed the Council that three notifications had been received from
Panama under provisions of the Berne Convention which were incorporated into the TRIPS
Agreement by virtue of its Article 9.1.  One of these notifications related to the possibility provided in
Article 14 bis(2)(c) of the Berne Convention and had been circulated in document IP/N/5/PAN/1.  The
other two notifications concerned the provisions of Article I and Article IV(2) of the Appendix to the
Berne Convention.  These notifications could be found in document IP/N/5/PAN/2.
7. The Chairperson said that the Panamanian notifications under the Appendix of the Berne
Convention as incorporated in the TRIPS Agreement were the first notifications that the Council had
received under these provisions.  Referring to the procedures applicable to these notifications as
agreed by the Council at its meeting of 22 February 19961, he said that it had been understood that the
Council was to look into one technical detail only once a Member invoked these provisions of theAppendix, namely how under the TRIPS Agreement the renewable ten year periods for which such
notifications remained valid should be calculated.  He proposed that the Council ask the Secretariat to
                                                     
1 See document IP/C/M/6 paragraphs 23-25.IP/C/M/18
Page 3
prepare a background note on the issue raised by the Panamanian notifications in question and to
revert to the matter at the next meeting.
8. The Council so agreed.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 70.8 AND 70.9
9. The Chairperson said that he had no new notifications to report under this agenda item.
10. The representative of the European Communities, referring to the notification of Mongolia
that had been circulated as document IP/N/1/MNG/ 1 and of which the Council had been informed at
the last meeting, said that his delegation would appreciate a clarification from Mongolia concerning
Annex III of the document in qu estion, in which Mongolia provided information concerning its
implementation of Article 70.8 and 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Article 70.8 and 70.9 had been
designed for Members benefiting from a transitional period under the TRIPS Agreement, while
Mongolia had undertaken not to invoke any such transitional period and to implement the TRIPSAgreement from the date of its accession to the WTO.
11. The representative of the United States said that, in view of the importance of the obligations
under Article 70.8 and 70.9, his delegation had communicated bilaterally questions regarding these
obligations to several Members, in accordance with the suggestion of the Chair at the previous
meeting.  Although no replies had been received as yet, he hoped that replies would be provided in atimely manner and help clarify the situation regarding Article 70.8 and 70.9 in the Members to whom
the questions had been addressed.
12. The Council took note of the statements made.
C. REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
(i) Legislation on copyright and related rights (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and
the Slovak Republic)
(ii) Legislation on trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs (Bulgaria
and Romania)
(iii) Legislation on enforcement (South Africa)
13. The Chairperson recalled that there were six Members whose legislation had already been
taken up in the 1996/97 review exercise, but for whom  certain parts of the review still needed to be
completed.  These Members were Bulgaria, Hungar y, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and
South Africa.  For Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Roma nia and the Slovak Republic, legislation in the
area of copyright and related rights still had to be reviewed, while the same applied also with respect
to Bulgarian and Romanian legislation in the areas of trademarks, geographical indications and
industrial designs.  As regards Poland, legislation in the area of industrial property also still needed to
be reviewed but, as agreed at the Council meeting in November 1997, that review would be
undertaken at a later stage, once Poland had broug ht that legislation into conformity with the
Agreement.  In respect of South Africa, he recalled that the Council had not yet fully addressed the
review of South African enforcement legislation, which had been taken up at the Council's last
meeting in February 1998.  He suggested that the Council address these remaining parts of the
1996/97 review exercise on a country-by-country basis and, in accordance with the procedures for thereviews, in alphabetical order.  Each of thes e delegations would be asked to respond orally to
questions posed to them, to the extent that respons es had not been submitted prior to the meeting andIP/C/M/18
Page 4
circulated to Members.2  At the same time, the delegation would be asked to provide a brief
introductory overview of the structure of its country' s legislation in the area(s) to be reviewed and of
the changes, if any, that it had had to bring about in order to make the legislation compatible with the
TRIPS Agreement.  After the presentation of responses, the floor could be offered to other delegations
for any comments or other questions.  The Council proceeded as suggested by the Chair.
14. The record of the introductory statements made by the delegations, the questions put to them
and the responses given (including written responses to be given after the meeting) will be circulated
in the IP/Q/- series (copyright and related rights );  the IP/Q2/- series (trademarks, geographical
indications and industrial designs);  and  the IP/Q4/- (enforcement) series of documents, respectively,
as follows:
IP/Q/BGR/1 Bulgaria
IP/Q/HUN/1 HungaryIP/Q/POL/1 Poland
IP/Q/ROM/1 Romania
IP/Q/SVK/1/Add.1 Slovak Republic
IP/Q2/BGR/1 Bulgaria
IP/Q2/ROM/1 Romania
IP/Q4/ZAF/1 South Africa
15. When presenting answers that were still due from his delegation in the enforcement review,
the representative of South Africa said that in  dealing with the TRIPS Council his delegation had
come to understand and appreciate the difficulties of undergoing a legislative review process within
the context of major domestic institutional and legislative reform, and had learnt, and would continueto learn, important lessons from that.  His delegation had always sought to appreciate the parameters
for questions, i.e. the nature of the questions asked, the level of detail that had to be provided in
responses and the number of questions.  As many delegations would agree, TRIPS issues required
great circumspection due to the nature of the obligations stipulated in the Agreement and, because
dealing with them was resource-intensive, emphasi sed the capacity constraints which delegations such
as his own faced.  While acknowledging that answer s to some of the questions posed still remained
outstanding, he restated his country's commitment to its TRIPS obligations and the importance of the
review process.
16. After the consideration of the legislation of the Members subject to the present review
exercise, the Chairperson noted that a number of delegations had indicated that they would provide
responses to some of the questions put to them very recently in writing subsequent to the meeting.  Hesuggested that, to the extent that  answers to initial questions remained outstanding, the Council revert
to the reviews undertaken at the next meeting, and that the delegations in question provide these
answers as soon as possible, preferably sufficiently  prior to the next meeting for delegations to study
them.
17. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed
 to proceed as suggested by the
Chair.
(iv) Follow-up to the reviews already undertaken
                                                     
2Written questions concerning the legislation to be reviewed which had been received from the
European Communities and their Member States, Japan and the United States prior to the meeting had been
distributed in documents IP/C/W/92, 95, 96, 100 and 101.  Written responses to some of these questions whichhad been received from Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania prior to the meeting had been distributed in documentsIP/C/W/97 to 99.IP/C/M/18
Page 5
- Copyright and related rights
18. The Chairperson said that at the Council's last meeting, in February 1998, Japan had posed a
follow-up question to Ireland concerning a response given by Ireland in the context of the review of
legislation on copyright and related rights at the Council's meeting in July 1996 but that prior to the
present meeting no reply to this question had been received by the Secretariat.
19. The representative of the European Communities  said that the reply could be expected very
shortly.20. The Council took note of the statement made and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
- Trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs
21. The Chairperson recalled that, since the Council's previous meeting, the last answer that had
remained outstanding in this part of the 1996/97 review exercise had been received by the Secretariat
and circulated in the IP/Q2/- series of documents.  Since no issues were outstanding, he proposed that
this item relating to the review in these areas be deleted from the agenda, it being understood that any
delegation should feel free to revert to any matter stemming from that review at any time.
22. The Council so agreed.
- Review of legislation in the areas of patents, layout-designs (topographies) of
integrated circuits, protection of undisclosed information and control of anti-
competitive practices in contractual licences
23. The Chairperson recalled that, at the Council's last meeting, Members had been strongly
urged to make every effort to submit responses to questions posed to them at the Council's meeting in
May 1997 and which were still outstanding.  Since then, some of these answers had been received andcirculated in the IP/Q3/- series of documents.  However, outstanding material was still due from three
Members.  He suggested that the Secretariat contact those delegations again and that the Council urge
those delegations to provide this material without delay.
24. The Chairperson said that the Secretaria t had received information from Ireland
complementing an earlier response given by Ireland in this part of the review and circulated in the
IP/Q3/- series of documents.  This additional an swer from Ireland, which related to the protection of
test data under Article 39.3 of the Agreement, ha d been distributed in document IP/Q3/IRL/1/Add.1.
25. The Chairperson recalled that, at the Council' s last meeting, the European Communities and
their Member States had posed a question to the de legation of South Africa.  This question had been
circulated in document IP/C/W/94.  The answer to this question had just been received from the
delegation of South Africa and would be included in document IP/Q3/ZAF/1 which would be
circulated shortly.
26. The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chair and to revert to this matter at its
next meeting.
- Legislation on enforcement
27. The Chairperson recalled that, at the Council's last meeting, the representative of the
European Communities had informed the Council that his delegation had submitted an additional
question to the United States in the context of this part of the review exercise.  This question had been
circulated in document IP/C/W/93.  The Secretariat had not yet received an answer to this question.
Moreover, the Secretariat had also informed him that there were still quite some answers outstandingIP/C/M/18
Page 6
to the questions posed at the meeting of November 1997 when the Council had undertaken the review
of legislation on enforcement.  He suggested that the Council remind delegations which still had to
submit outstanding material that these should have been submitted by the end of January 1998 and
urge those delegations to provide the responses without delay.  The Council should revert to this
matter at its next meeting.
28. The Council so agreed.
(v) Arrangements for future reviews
- Review of the legislation of Ecuador, Mongolia and Panama
29. As regards the review of the legislation of Ecuador, Mongolia and Panama, which was
scheduled to be taken up at the Council's meeting on 1 and 2 December 1998, the Chairperson
proposed that the Council use the same basic proced ures employed so far and suggested the following
dates for the advance notice of questions and the submission of responses:
- submission of advance notice of questions to the Member concerned and to
the Secretariat:  15 September 1998;
- submission of responses to questions:  3 November 1998.
30. The Council so agreed.
31. The representative of the European Communities said that, for the purposes of the review, it
was necessary to have available up-to-date versions of legislation in one of the WTO's official
working languages.  He believed that no full collection of legislation for any of these three countries,
which was needed to formulate questions, was available.
32. The Chairperson said that, as mentioned earlier (see agenda item A above), notifications of
legislation had been received from Ecuador and Panama.  Texts of legislation mentioned in these
notifications would be circulated shortly in a WTO language, to the extent that they had been made
available to the Secretariat and circulation was required by the procedures contained in document
IP/C/2.  Mongolia's notification of legislation under Article 63.2 and the accompanying main
dedicated intellectual property laws and regulations had already been circulated.
33. The Council took note  of these statements.
- Advance reviews
34. With regard to the issue of possible advance reviews, on a voluntary basis and without
prejudice to entitlements under Article 65, the Chairperson informed the Council that the
consultations held prior to the present meeting indicated that a consensus on the adoption of groundrules proposed for such reviews did not seem to be within reach yet.  He said that he intended to hold
further consultations on this matter prior to the next meeting.
35. The Council took note of this statement.
D. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
(i) Joint WIPO/WTO symposium
36. The Chairperson recalled that the Secretariat had organized, jointly with the International
Bureau of WIPO, two workshops on specific aspects of technical cooperation.  The topic of the first
workshop, held in September 1996, had been "Border Enforcement Provisions of the TRIPSAgreement" and the topic of the second workshop, held in July 1997, "Technical Cooperation AimedIP/C/M/18
Page 7
at Improving Human Resources and Institutional Capacities Required to Implement the TRIPS
Provisions on Domestic Enforcement".  He informed  the Council that the Secretariat was planning to
organize, jointly with WIPO, a third joint event, focusing on the process of implementation of the
TRIPS Agreement.  The intention was to hold the event this time at the WIPO headquarters.  Its
tentative date was 16 September 1998, i.e. a day before the TRIPS Council meeting scheduled for 17and 18 September, which was also just one day after the WIPO Assemblies meeting scheduled for 7
through 15 September.
(ii) Updated information on technical cooperation activities
37. The Chairperson recalled that, at the Council's meetings in February and May 1996, it had
been agreed that developed country Members would annually update information on their technical
cooperation activities relevant to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.  Both in 1996 and
1997, this had been done in time for the Council's meeting in September.  He suggested that also thisyear developed country Members update this information in time for the Council's meeting scheduled
for 17 and 18 September.  In addition, he suggested that the Council invite the intergovernmental
organizations observers to the Council to provide information on their technical cooperation activities,
as they had also done in previous years.  The WTO Secretariat might similarly provide a note on its
activities.  This would enable the Council to focus also this year on technical cooperation at itsmeeting in September.  In order to enable the timely processing and distribution to Members of this
information, he suggested that the Members and intergovernmental organizations in question be
invited to provide such written contributions by 1 September.  He also drew attention to the fact that
last year the Council had received information on technical cooperation activities from 16 developed
country Members.  There were still some developed country Members that had not yet provided anyinformation on their technical cooperation activities.  He underlined that it was important that each
developed country Member provide information to the Council as agreed and urged in particular those
Members that had not yet provided any information to make a special effort to supply the required
information.
38. The representative of Australia said that she was pleased to hear that the practice of gathering
information on technical cooperation activities by Members and intergovernmental organizations
would continue this year.  As the due date for implementation by developing countries approached, it
was increasingly important that the available technical cooperation be coordinated and focused on the
practical needs and requirements of the countries in question.  This was the important message that
had been received from a recent WTO seminar held in Australia for sixteen least-developed countries
and other developing countries from the Asia/Pacific region.  The seminar was aimed at providing a
general overview of the TRIPS Agreement and the practical implications of its implementation, in
particular to identify the needs of these countries and to facilitate the access to experts in the fields of
legislation, administration and enforcement.  She expressed her gratitude for the work and cooperation
of the WTO Secretariat and the Government of New Zealand in the organization of the seminar, and
for the generous financial support of the Govern ment of Hong Kong, China.  In addition, she
expressed her appreciation to the participants in th is seminar for the practical insights and guidance
they had provided, which had ensured that the seminar had been focused on concrete issues
confronting them.  One of the features of the seminar had been syndicate discussions at the sub-
regional level where the participants explored how to identify the priority intellectual property issues
for their countries and how to develop a strategic approach to TRIPS implementation that would take
into account the specific national economic factors, legal factors and the infrastructural constraints.She believed that it would be useful, in order to share the valuable lessons of this, to prepare an
informal outcome document providing an overview of the discussion, in particular of the possible
mechanisms for enhanced international technical cooperation in TRIPS implementation, and
reviewing possible approaches to identifying and prioritizing technical needs and requirements of
individual countries.  She hoped that this would contribute to the broader effort underway to facilitatemore coordinated and effective use of resources to ensure that they were focused on concrete needs.
She concluded that Australia itself looked forward to increased partnerships and activities in these
areas with Members in the process of implementing the TRIPS Agreement and that her delegationIP/C/M/18
Page 8
stood ready to contribute further resources and expertise in dialogue with partners on technical
cooperation.
39. The representative of Japan informed the Council that, since April 1996, Japan had been
carrying out a cooperative program, called the "1000 by 2000 Programme".  Its aim was to provide
training on intellectual property rights to one thousand trainees from developing countries by the year2000, which was the time-limit for developing countries to comply with the TRIPS Agreement.
Training was being provided to people both in government and the private sector.  By March 1998,
over five hundred trainees had been accepted and, thus, half of the target had been achieved.  Japan
would continue to provide assistance to developing countries by accepting the rest of the target
trainees and by providing further courses.  Japan was also promoting an IP Information Mall project
in the APEC forum.  This project was aimed at expanding information dissemination via the Internet
by linking the homepages of the IP offices in APEC member countries.  Japan was currentlysurveying the users' needs for IP information vi a the Internet with a view to improving the IP
Information Mall further.  The representative of Japan believed that the IP Information Mall would be
helpful to other countries providing technical assistance to APEC countries.
40. The Council took note of the statements made under this agenda item and agreed
 to proceed
as proposed by the Chair.
E. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO
Dispute settlement
41. The Chairperson said that two new requests for consultations under the DSU relating to the
TRIPS Agreement had been notified.  By means of communications, dated 30 April and 4 May 1998,
the United States had notified to the DSB and the Council for TRIPS its requests for consultationsunder the DSU with the European Communities and Gr eece, respectively, regarding the enforcement
of intellectual property rights for motion pictures and television programmes in Greece.  These
notifications had been circulated as documents IP/D/13 and 14.
42. The Council took note of this information.
F. WORK ON ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
(i) Implementation of Article 23.4
43. The Chairperson recalled that, in February 1998, Members had had a first exchange of views
as to what the next step should be for carrying forward work concerning negotiations for the
establishment of an international system for the notification and registration of geographical
indications under Article 23.4, as agreed in paragraph 34 of the report of the Council for TRIPS to the
Singapore Ministerial Conference, now that background information as requested by the Council in
February 1997 had been made available to the Council.  In the light of the informal consultations hehad held, he suggested that informal consultations be continued on this matter and that the Council
revert to it at its next meeting.IP/C/M/18
Page 9
44. The Council so agreed.
(ii) Review of the application of the provisions of the section on geographical indications
under Article 24.2
45. The Chairperson referred to document IP /C/W/102 and said that further informal
consultations on this matter had resulted in the draft Checklist of Questions annexed to that document.
He proposed that the Council take note of this Checklist and invite those Members already under an
obligation to apply the provisions of the Section on Geographical Indications to provide their
responses by 16 November 1998, it being understood that other Members could also furnish replies on
a voluntary basis.  This action could be taken by the Council on the understanding that both the
questionnaire itself and the responses to it would be without prejudice to the rights and obligations of
Members.  Responding Members would be free to group their responses to questions as they found
appropriate in the context of their national syst ems.  It would further be understood that should
Members have any additional points that they would wish to make regarding the questionnaire they
could do so at the July 1998 meeting of the Council.3
46. The Council agreed to proceed as proposed by the Chair.
G. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
47. The Chairperson recalled that there were eight requests which were pending before the
Council, all of which had already been considered at previous meetings.  These were from ARIPO
(African Regional Industrial Property Organization) , the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of
the Gulf, EFTA (European Free Trade Association), the OAS (Organization of American States), the
OIV (Office International de la Vigne et du Vin), the Organization of the Islamic Conference, SELA
(Latin American Economic System) and SIECA (Permanent Secretariat of the General Treaty forCentral American Economic Integration).  He recalled that the Secretariat had, as agreed at the
Council's Meeting of 15 July 1997, sent a letter to each of these organizations requesting information
relevant to the criteria contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the procedures relating to the grant of
observer status for international intergovernmental organizations as contained in document
WT/L/161, Annex 3.  So far, information as requested by the Council had been received from EFTA,ARIPO and the OIV.  In the light of the informal consultations he had held, he suggested that the
Council revert to the pending requests for observer status at its next meeting.
48. The Council so agreed.
H. OTHER BUSINESS
Geographical indications
49. The representative of Brazil asked the delegation of the European Communities what had
been the criterion used by the European Commissi on to elaborate the lists of countries shown in
Regulation (EC) 1472/92, especially taking into account that the transition period of Article 65.2 of
the TRIPS Agreement was in force for a number of the countries included in the said lists.
50. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation would reply to this
question in due course.51. The Council took note of the statements made.
__________
                                                     
3 The Checklist of Questions was subsequently circulated as document IP/C/13.