RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/9
30October 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-4575)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on18September 1996
Subjects discussed:
A. Notifications under Article 4(d)
B. Notifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,4and5
C. Other notifications under provisions oftheAgreement
D. Implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9
E. Review oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications
under Article 24.2
F. Revocation ofpatents
G. Follow-up tothereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights
H. Technical cooperation
I. Report totheSingapore Ministerial
J. Other business
1. TheChairman referred totheguidelines concerning observer status forintergovernmental
organizationsasadoptedbytheGeneralCouncilatitsmeetingof18July1996andsaidthattheChairman
oftheGeneral Council wasconsulting withother Chairpersons onhowtheprocedures under these
guidelines might beapplied, inparticular tothose intergovernmental organizations thathadalready
beengranted observer status onanadhocbasisbyparticular WTO bodies, soastoensure acoherent
andcommon approach tothismatter. Hesuggested thattheCouncil, pending these consultations,
renew thegrant ofadhocobserver status forthose intergovernmental organizations which hadalready
beenaccorded it.
2. TheCouncil agreed toinvite WIPO, theIMF, theWorld Bank, UNCTAD, theFAO, theUN,
theOECD, UPOV andtheWCO, which hadbeeninvited toattend thismeeting oftheCouncil in
accordance withtheinterim procedures onobserver status forintergovernmental organizations, also
toitsNovember meeting andtoaddress, atthatmeeting, theissue ofthegrant ofobserver status forIP/C/M/9
Page2
intergovernmental organizations totheCouncil 'smeetings onthebasisoftheguidelines of18July1996,
iftheconsultations thattheChairman oftheGeneral Council washolding would havebeenfinalized.
A. Notifications under Article 4(d)
3. TheChairman saidthat,since theCouncil 'slastmeeting, notifications under Article 4(d)of
theTRIPS Agreement hadbeenreceived fromCyprus andRomania. Inaddition, Hungary hadnotified
thatitwasnotaparty toanyinternational agreement which entered intoforce prior totheentry into
forceoftheWTO Agreement, granting aspecific advantage, favour, privilege orimmunity tonationals
ofanycountry, intheareaoftheprotection ofintellectual property rights. These three notifications
hadbeendistributed intheIP/N/4/- series ofdocuments.
4. TheChairman recalled that,attheCouncil 'sJulymeeting, there hadbeenafurther exchange
ofviews onthedifficulties thatwerebeing experienced withregard tonotifications under Article 4(d)
andithadbeen decided thatfurther informal consultations should beheld. Reporting onthese
consultations, hesaidthattheyhadfocused onthefactors thatmight berelevant todeciding whether
anotification wastobemade under sub-paragraph (d)ofArticle 4,andinparticular onthose listed
inparagraph 6oftheSecretariat informal background noteof25April 1996. There hadbeenawide
feeling thatthisparagraph contained useful criteria oryardsticks foreachMember totakeintoaccount
indeciding whattonotify under Article 4(d)orinreviewing thenotification. However, therehadbeen
aproposal foranadditional element ofclarification tobeincluded andagreement ontheparagraph
could notbereached atthisstage. While there appeared tobeageneral acceptance thatfurther work
needed tobedoneonnotifications under Article 4(d),forexample onthequestion ofapossible format,
therehadbeenadifference ofviewastowhether thatshould beundertaken atthistime, orbepostponed
untilalaterdate.Hewould continue toconsult withdelegations toseewhether acommon wayforward
could befound.
5. Therepresentative ofMexico saidthat,asfarashisdelegation wasconcerned, thedifferences
ofviewwerenotlimitedtoanyproposedadditionalelementsinparagraph6oftheSecretariatbackground
note. While theconsultations hadbeenuseful andthesaidparagraph 6contained useful elements with
regard tonotifications under Article 4(d), hewished tostress thatthere wasnobasis inArticle 4(d)
fortheCouncil toconduct areview ofnotifications made. Itwasuptoeachindividual Member to
decide what international agreement itwished tonotify under Article 4(d)andanyMember which
disagreed withthenotifying Member astotheappropriateness ofthenotification, forexample asto
whethertheinternationalagreementnotifiedconstitutedanarbitraryorunjustifieddiscrimination,should
seekrecoursetotheappropriatemechanismsintheWTO,inparticularthedisputesettlementmechanism.
Hisdelegation wasopen tofurther consultations aiming atabetter understanding ofthescope of
paragraph 6oftheSecretariat background note, without modifying therights andobligations ofWTO
Members under theprovisions ofArticle 4(d). Therepresentative ofPeruexpressed support forthis
statement.
6. While agreeing thatultimately theWTO dispute settlement procedures might havetobeused
inrelation tothequestion astowhether anotification wasconsistent withthenotifying Member 's
obligations under Article 4(d), therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatitwould nevertheless
beuseful ifMembers continued theirattempts toconstruct ameaningful notification system under
Article 4(d). Inhisdelegation 'sview, Article 4(d)required thattheelement ofdiscrimination be
identified andtheSecretariat background noteprovided good criteria forevaluating agreements that
aWTO Member might wishtonotify. Oneadditional element needed tobereflected inthenoteand
heproposed theaddition ofthefollowing sentence: "Thenotification oftheprovisions ofamultilateral
agreement thatareincorporated intotheTRIPS Agreement shallhavenoeffect."IP/C/M/9
Page3
7. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatthebackground noteprepared bytheSecretariat hadbeen
veryuseful andwould formanimportant input intotheconsiderations ofhisdelegation onthematter.
Hesupported theChairman 'sproposal toholdfurther informal consultations.
8. Therepresentative ofSingapore saidthattheSecretariat notewasauseful starting point for
discussions onArticle 4(d)butshould notbetaken asanexhaustive listofelements fordetermining
Members 'obligations under Article 4(d). AllthattheCouncil could doatthispoint intimewasto
consider whether theelements spelled outinparagraph 6ofthenoteweregenerally acceptable without
precluding possible other elements thatmight havetobetaken intoaccount.
9. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthat,building ontheuseful guidelines intheSecretariat note,
notifications under Article 4(d)should notonlyrefertothetitleoftheagreement notified, butalso
beaccompanied byitstext,thenames ofthecontracting parties, thedateofitsentry intoforce and
abriefexplanation oftheprivilege provided under itwhich wasthereason foritsnotification. This
would notbeanunnecessary burden fordelegations, butwould provide important additional information
thatcould assist theTRIPS Council inreviewing thenotifications. These elements should betaken
intoconsideration inthepreparation ofaformat fornotifications under Article 4(d). Therepresentative
ofAustralia supported Japan, adding thatsimply listing anumber ofagreements inanotification under
Article 4(d),asmany Members haddone, didnotleadtothetransparency required bytheprovisions
inquestion.
10. TheChairman noted thatasmall stepforward hadbeenmade andthatitappeared tobegenerally
feltthatitwould bevaluable tocontinue work onthedevelopment ofcriteria thatcould assist individual
Members inmaking orreviewing theirnotifications, subject tothecaveats which hadbeenidentified
byanumber ofdelegations. Thediscussions hadfocused oncriteria oryardsticks foreachMember
totakeintoaccount indeciding whattonotify under Article 4(d)andinreviewing notifications, without
creating alegalstraight-jacket. Thesuggestion thathadbeenmade tostartworking onthedevelopment
ofaformat didnotseem tobeaviable oneatthisstage. Heproposed thattheCouncil takenoteof
thestatements made andthatfurther informal consultations beheldonthematter.
11. TheCouncil soagreed.
B. Notifications under Article 63.2relating toArticles 3,4and5
12. TheChairman recalled that,atthemeeting inJuly, theCouncil hadagreed thatthismatter
betaken upininformal consultations. Thebackground tothisissuewasthattheCouncil hadadopted
procedures fornotifications under Article 63.2which stated that"asofthetimethataMember isobliged
tostartapplying aprovision oftheTRIPS Agreement, thecorresponding lawsandregulations shall
benotified without delay (normally within 30daysexcept where otherwise provided bytheTRIPS
Council)". Hesaidthat,since allMembers oftheWTO hadobligations under Articles 3,4and5
oftheTRIPS Agreement relating tonational andm.f.n. treatment asof1January 1996, allMembers
were already under anobligation tonotify thecorresponding legislation. However, virtually no
notifications hadbeenreceived except insofar assuchnotifications hadformed partofthecomprehensive
notifications bydeveloped country Members oftheirgeneral implementing legislation. Atitsmeetings
inMayandJuly, theCouncil hadconsidered whether there weretechnical difficulties withmeeting
thisnotification requirement and,inJuly,theUnited States hadputforward aproposal which hadbeen
subsequently circulated indocument inIP/C/W/31.
13. Asagreed inJuly,hehadheldconsultations onthisquestion. Reporting ontheseconsultations,
hesaidthattherehadappeared tobeageneral acceptance thattheUnited States proposal wasahelpful
attempt tofindawayofalleviating whatmight beaconsidered alargenotification burden. There wouldIP/C/M/9
Page4
alsoappear tobewidespread support forgiving theMembers concerned arange ofoptions forhow
tomake these notifications inthewaybestsuited totheirnational circumstances. Three options had
inparticular beenidentified:
- notifying thespecific provisions oflawsandregulations thatimplement theobligations
setoutinArticles 3,4and5;
- notifying allintellectual property lawsandregulations; or
- making ageneral statement thatnationals ofother WTO Members enjoyed non-
discriminatory treatment, together withalistofanyexceptions tothatprinciple.
While hisconsultations hadindicated thattheCouncil might notbeready totakeaformal decision
onthismatter, theydidsuggest thatitwould behelpful iftheSecretariat wererequested toprepare
aformat onthebasisoftheseproposals which theCouncil could consider further withaviewtomaking
adecision atitsmeeting inNovember.
14. Therepresentative ofMexico agreed thatthethreeoptions described covered asufficient amount
ofsituations soastoenable eachMember tochoose oneinorder tosatisfy itsnotification requirements.
Heexpressed doubts, however, astothefeasibility ofanappropriate format forthese notifications,
given thediversity inthewayMembers hadaccepted andimplemented theMarrakesh Agreement,
andbelieved thatonlythethirdoption required aformat.
15. Therepresentative ofIndia needed more timetoassess theimpact oftheproposed procedures
interms ofadministrative requirements. Heunderlined hiscountry 'scommitment towards fulfilling
allitsobligations under Article 63.2andexpressed aninterest inexamination intheCouncil ofthe
second option intheproposal circulated indocument IP/C/W/31.
16. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthattheproposal hadbeenoffered withtheobjective
ofproviding some flexible approaches forMembers, sothattheycould make anotification thatreflected
thewaytheirlawswere structured. Hisdelegation recognized thatMembers haddifferent ways of
applying intellectual property lawstobeneficiaries fromothercountries withrespect togranting national
andm.f.n. treatment andwould notwanttoimpose astraight-jacket. IfaMember didnotwishto
notify itslawsandregulations intheirentirety, itmight make anotification thateither stated thatthere
wasnodiscrimination initslawsorshowed where specific instances ofdiscrimination existed.
17. Therepresentative ofSingapore expressed support fortheUnited States proposal, which offered
aflexible wayforMembers tofulfiltheirobligations under Article 63.2inrelation toArticles 3,4and5
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Hewondered, however, howthisflexible approach would work outinterms
oftheCouncil 'sreview ofthenotifications inquestion, inparticular ifnotallMembers would follow
theformat ascontained inthesecond option intheproposal oftheUnited States indocument IP/C/W/31
andinrespect ofMembers thathadalready notified theirlegislation under Article 63.2.
18. Therepresentatives ofPeru, theEuropean Community, Thailand andKorea expressed support
fortheproposal toapproach thismatter onthebasis ofthethree options outlined bytheChairman
andtorequest theSecretariat toprepare aformat forthethirdoption. Therepresentatives ofParaguay
andBrazil agreed butemphasized thatsuchaformat could onlyserve asaguideline foreachMember
inpreparing itsnotification.
19. While expressing itssupport fortheapproach oftheUnited States andthesuggestion thatthe
Secretariat beasked toprepare aformat, therepresentative ofJapan saidthat,inpreparing theformat,
itshould beborne inmind whatthelegaleffects ofageneral statement would be.Members shouldIP/C/M/9
Page5
notmerely refertotheirratification oftheMarrakesh Agreement orduplicate thecommitment tocomply
withArticles 3,4and5oftheTRIPS Agreement aspartofthecontent oftheirinstrument ofratification.
Healsowished topoint outthat,ifsuchageneral statement wasaimed atspecifying theparticular
provisions ofthenational lawwhich related toArticles 3,4and5,notmany Members hadprovided
form.f.n. treatment intheirnational laws. InJapan, m.f.n. treatment wasnotexplicitly provided
inintellectual property laws. TheConstitution, thepatent lawandother intellectual property laws
generally provided thataninternational agreement could supersede national lawsintheapplication
ofm.f.n. treatment. Hehoped thattheSecretariat would takethesepoints intoaccount when preparing
theformat asproposed.
20. TheChairman concluded thatthismatter should beapproached onthebasisofthethreeoptions
identified andthattheSecretariat should prepare apaper that,while recognizing thethree options,
would focus onthepreparation ofapossible format forthethird option, which would beintended
tobeapractical aidtoassist countries inmeeting theirnotification obligations under Article 63.2relating
toArticles 3,4and5.Thepaper would beconsidered bytheCouncil atitsNovember meeting.
21. TheCouncil agreed toproceed asproposed.
C. Other notifications under provisions oftheAgreement
(i) Notifications under Article 63.2
22. TheChairman saidthat,asregards thestatus ofnotifications byMembers asrequired by
Article 63.2incombination withArticle 65.1oftheAgreement, notmuch hadchanged since theJuly
meeting when hehadreported toMembers that,although mostofthematerial duetobenotified had
nowbeen made available, there were stillgaps. Some delegations had, forexample, notyet
communicated translations intoaWTO language ofsome oftheirmaindedicated intellectual property
lawsandregulations. TheChairman urged theMembers inquestion togivethenecessary priority
tocomplementing theirnotification under Article 63.2inthisrespect, inparticular since several of
thelawsandregulations concerned wererelevant totheareas oftrademarks, geographical indications
andindustrial designs, towhich theCouncil 'snextreview ofnational implementing legislation in
November would bedevoted. Asregards theresponses tothechecklist ofissues onenforcement, so
fareightMembers hadsubmitted responses. Atthelastmeeting, theChairman hadurged theMembers
concerned tonotify theirresponses tothechecklist soonandinanycasebefore theendoftheyear.
Again, given theimportance oftheissue ofenforcement, theChairman hoped thatthedelegations
concerned were nowpreparing theirresponses andthattheCouncil could expect theirsubmissions
shortly.
23. Turning tothereview ofnational implementing legislation tobeconducted attheCouncil 's
meeting inNovember, hereminded delegations oftheprocedures forthisreview, which could befound
intheminutes oftheCouncil 'sMay andJulymeetings (document IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6and
document IP/C/M/8, paragraphs 69and70). Thisreview would relate totheareas oftrademarks,
geographical indications andindustrial designs and,asagreed atthemeeting inJuly, thedeadline for
advance notice ofquestions onnotified lawswas20September 1996, while written responses should
beprovided assoon aspossible andinanyevent oneweek prior tothereview meeting, i.e.by
4November 1996, atleastinrespect ofthose questions posed within thedeadline. Ifwritten responses
were tobetranslated intoallWTO languages andthencirculated intimefortheNovember review
meeting, theyshould bemade available totheSecretariat wellinadvance ofthemeeting, i.e.by
18October 1996 atthelatest.IP/C/M/9
Page6
24. Therepresentative ofHungary saidthathisdelegation hadrecently communicated tothe
Secretariat copies ofhiscountry 'smain lawsandregulations intheareaofindustrial property.
25. Therepresentative ofBrazil referred tothedifficulties thatdeveloping country Members had
inprocessing anddigesting information. Herecalled that,atthelastmeeting, thepoint hadbeenraised
withregard tothepossibility ofdeveloping country Members stillposing questions asregards the
previous review exercise.
26. TheChairman referred totheagenda item"Review ofLegislation onCopyright andRelated
Rights" andsaidthatitwasopentodelegations whorequired theadditional timetodigest thevery
substantial amount ofmaterial thathadbeenprovided toraisequestions under thatitemofthismeeting
oratfuture meetings.
27. Therepresentative ofJapan drewtheattention oftheCouncil totheroadmapwhich hadbeen
prepared byhisdelegation andwhich would shortly becirculated toMembers. Hebelieved thatthis
roadmapwould provide useful information onthecorrespondence between theprovisions oftheTRIPS
Agreement andtheprovisions ofJapanese lawsandregulations. Without sucharoadmap, theTRIPS
Council might havedifficulties inexamining whether theJapanese lawsandregulations complied with
eachprovision oftheTRIPS Agreement. IftheTRIPS Council found ituseful andnecessary, after
reviewing Japan'slawsandregulations attheNovember meeting, hisdelegation would suggest that
other Members follow thesame approach, eventhough itwasobligatory toprovide sucharoadmap.
Ofcourse, thepreparation ofaroadmaprequired timeandenergy, butseemed tobejustified bythe
timeandenergy gained inreviewing other Members 'lawsandregulations.
(ii) Notifications under Articles 1.3and3.1
28. TheChairman saidthat,since theCouncil 'slastmeeting, anotification under Article 1.3of
theTRIPS Agreement hadbeenreceived fromNorway, which hadbeencirculated intheIP/N/2/- series
ofdocuments.
(iii) Notifications under Article 69
29. TheChairman saidthattheSecretariat hadcirculated document IP/N/3/Rev.2/Add.1, which
updatedtheinformationcontainedinthecompilationofcontactpointsnotifiedunderArticle69(document
IP/N/3/Rev.2). TheChairman noted that,inthemeantime, twonewnotifications hadbeenreceived,
those being from Cyprus andKuwait. Sixty-seven Members hadnownotified contact points.
30. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
D. Implementation ofArticles 70.8and70.9
31. TheChairman saidthatanotification hadbeen received from Nigeria andcirculated in
document IP/N/1/NGA/1. Through thisnotification, Nigeria informed theCouncil oftheaddress of
thegovernment agency incharge ofreceiving patent applications forinventions inthefield of
pharmaceutical andagricultural products.
32. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed hisdelegation 'sappreciation toNigeria for
thisnotification. Oneofthedifficulties withtheobligations inquestion wasthat,unless aMember
madeanotification,itwasratherdifficultforotherMemberstoknowtheactualsituationinthatMember.
Nigeria, forexample, hadnotbeenincluded inthelistofMembers which, totheknowledge ofhis
delegation, didnotprovide whatwasrequired inArticles 70.8and70.9thathehadshared withtheIP/C/M/9
Page7
Council attheprevious meeting. Hetherefore, onceagain, wished tourgeMembers which didnot
provide product patent protection forpharmaceutical oragricultural chemical products andwhich had
notyetputinplace a"mailbox" system asrequired byArticle 70.8andexclusive marketing rights
asrequired byArticle 70.9, todosoimmediately andtomake acorresponding notification tothe
Council.
33. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
E. Review oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheSection ongeographical indications under
Article 24.2
34. TheChairman recalled that,attheCouncil 'smeeting inMay, hehadraised thequestion of
howtheCouncil should meet theterms ofitsreview under Article 24.2concerning geographical
indications. When thisitemhadbeenaddressed again inJuly, delegations hadnoted thattheystill
needed more timetoreflect uponthematter. However, sincethereview wasrequired tobeundertaken
bytheendoftheyearandtheCouncil 'snextmeeting wasscheduled tobeitslastmeeting thisyear,
itseemed timely toconsider thisquestion further.
35. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community referred toanon-paper onthismatter that
hisdelegation hadmade available today. Thenon-paper highlighted thesubjects thathisdelegation
proposed toputontheagenda forthespecial review oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheTRIPS
Agreement ontheprotection ofgeographical indications. Italsorequested theCouncil toagree on
adateforholding themeeting inorder tostartthereview provided forinArticle 24.2oftheAgreement
before theendoftheyear. Hisdelegation would stillmake aproposal totheCouncil foramultilateral
system forthenotification andregistration ofgeographical indications asprovided forinArticle 23.4
oftheAgreement inrespect ofwines. Thefirstpartofthenon-paper waslinked toArticle 22.1of
theAgreement andaddressed theissueofdefinitions ofgeographical indications. Itidentified anumber
ofdiscrepancies invarious WTO Members inthisregard andsuggested thattheSecretariat draw up
acomparative table ofthedefinitions ofgeographical indications inforce inthose Members which
hadnotified theirlegislation, inorder tofacilitate theCouncil 'swork. Thesecond partofthenon-paper
dealt withtheacquisition andenforcement oftherights ingeographical indications aswellaswith
thespecific aspects ofbilateral agreements. Hisdelegation believed thatitwasimportant tolookat
thedifferentsystemsrelatingtoacquisitionandenforcementandproposedthathereaswelltheSecretariat
draw upacomparative table showing thevarious systems which Members thathadnotified their
legislation hadsetupinrelation totherights ingeographical indications stipulated intheTRIPS
Agreement. Asfarasbilateral agreements inthisareawereconcerned, itwassuggested thatMembers
notify theirbilateral agreements andthattheSecretariat prepare alisting ofsuchagreements.
36. Therepresentatives ofIndia, Switzerland andMexico reserved theirdelegations 'positions while
indicating theircountries 'interest intheareaofgeographical indications.
37. AsapreliminarycommentontheCommunitynon-paper,therepresentativeofAustraliaexpressed
support fortheideaofaspecific review inaccordance withthebuilt-in agenda andnoted thatAustralia
hadalready fulfilled itsobligations under theTRIPS Agreement inrespect oftheagreement ontrade
inwinewiththeEuropean Community concluded in1994.
38. Therepresentatives oftheUnited States, NewZealand, Norway, Brazil andCanada saidthat
timewasneeded tostudy theCommunity non-paper carefully. Therepresentatives oftheUnited States
andCanada referred tothereview ofnational implementing legislation intheareaofgeographical
indications along withsuchlegislation intheareas oftrademarks andindustrial designs scheduled for
theNovember meeting oftheCouncil andwerenotconvinced thataseparate review under Article 24.2IP/C/M/9
Page8
would benecessary. Therepresentatives ofNewZealand andNorway added that,totheextent that
theCommunity non-paper included proposals relating toenforcement, itshould beborne inmind that
thatareawould bethesubject ofaseparate review inthecontext ofArticle 63.2inthesecond half
of1997andthatdelegations werepreparing theirresponses tothechecklist ofissues onenforcement,
which hadtobesubmitted bytheendoftheyear.
39. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthattheTRIPS Agreement itself required areview in
theareaofgeographical indications separate fromtheexamination ofnational implementing legislation
intheareaofgeographical indications notified under Article 63.2. Itwaslikely, though, thatthe
examination ofsuchnational legislation would enhance theefficiency ofthereview under Article 24.2.
40. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community expressed agreement withthestatement made
bySwitzerland while underlining thelastsentence ofArticle 24.2, which laiddown thattheCouncil
forTRIPS mayadopt measures tofacilitate theoperation oftheSection ongeographical indications
andfurther itsobjectives.
41. Inconclusion, theChairman saidthat,judging fromthestatements made, views, ifnotintotal
opposition, didnotseem togelveryeasily onewithanother. Some delegations regarded thereview
ofnationalimplementinglegislationinthecontextofArticle63.2assufficientlysatisfyingtheobligations
oftheAgreement under Article 24.2. Other delegations hadexpressed theviewthattheCouncil was
required toundertake aseparate review ofArticle 24.2. Clearly, delegations needed timetostudy
theCommunity non-paper, while some hadindicated thattheywere prepared tocome backtoitat
theNovember meeting oftheCouncil. Henoted though thatthere seemed tobeaviewthatitwould
beappropriate toconsider thereview ofArticle 24.2notonlyinconjunction withbutsubsequent to
thediscussion onnational implementing legislation. Thismade sense, since thatdiscussion would no
doubt generate useful information onvarious issues including those referred tointhenon-paper. He
proposed, therefore, thattheCouncil takeupwork onthismatter byincluding ontheagenda ofits
November meeting anitem"Review oftheApplication oftheProvisions oftheSection onGeographical
Indications under Article 24.2" andaddress thisagenda itemafterandtaking intoaccount thereview
ofnational implementing legislation intheareasoftrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial
designs scheduled forthatmeeting.
42. Therepresentative oftheUnited States wondered whether theChairman could clarify what
would bediscussed inthesubsequent review under Article 24.2.
43. TheChairman saidthathisproposal would bethatthatseparate agenda itemwould permit
theconsideration oftheproposals putforward bytheCommunity andanyotherinputs fromdelegations.
44. TheCouncil agreed toproceed asproposed bytheChairman.
F. Revocation ofpatents
45. TheChairman recalled that,atthemeeting inJuly, thedelegation oftheUnited States had
raised theissue ofrevocation ofpatents andhowtheobligations under theTRIPS Agreement related
tothisissue, inparticular since theissue hadbeenraised inother bodies oftheWTO. Various
delegations hadgiven theirpreliminary reactions tothestatement made bytheUnited States andthe
Council hadagreed toplacetheitemontheagenda fortoday'smeeting. TheUnited States hadsubmitted
asummary ofitsstatement, which hadbeendistributed toMembers indocument IP/C/W/32.
46. Therepresentative oftheUnited States referred todocument IP/C/W/32 andunderlined that
theprincipal issuegoverning therevocation ofpatents under theTRIPS Agreement wasthecomplianceIP/C/M/9
Page9
ofthesubject matter patented withthebasic criteria ofpatentability andpatent eligibility specified
intheTRIPS Agreement. AWTO Member operating under theTRIPS Agreement could properly
revoke apatent when thatMember would havebeenjustified indenying thepatent inthefirstinstance.
Thus, forexample, ifitcould beshown thatthere wasafailure tomeet oneoftheconditions for
patentability, suchasnovelty ornon-obviousness, apatent could properly berevoked byaMember.
Similarly, ifapatent hadbeenissued inerror because thesubject matter wasnotpatentable, aWTO
Member wasfreetorevoke thepatent, provided thattheappropriate administrative andjudicial
procedures werefollowed. Hisdelegation hadraised these basic points forthepurpose ofaddressing
atheory thattheTRIPS Agreement didnotpreclude aMember from revoking apatent inorder to
serve other general societal goals, suchaspromoting technology transfer forenvironmentally sound
technologies. Hebelieved thatthese basic points were clearly consistent withtheprovisions ofthe
TRIPS Agreement andinvited other delegations toshare theirviews onthistopic. Thepoints that
hehadmade sofarfullyaddressed theconcerns hisdelegation hadonthistopicandheproposed that
theitemnotbeplaced ontheagenda forfurther discussion.
47. Therepresentative ofIndia thanked theUnited States foritscommunication onthistopic as
distributed indocument IP/C/W/32, which wasanimportant contribution tothediscussion ontheissue.
However, hisdelegation stillcontinued toholdtheviewthatArticle 32oftheTRIPS Agreement dealt
directly withthesubject ofrevocation andforfeiture andthatMembers, under thatArticle, hadthe
righttodecide thegrounds ofrevocation subject tothelimitations prescribed under Article 5ofthe
Paris Convention. Hereserved hisrighttocome backtotheissue withdetailed comments atalater
meeting.
48. Therepresentative ofJapan supported thestatement made bytheUnited States. Although there
were nospecific provisions which defined thegrounds forrevocation, itshould beunderstood that
suchgrounds should berestricted totheconditions forgranting patents andother minimum conditions
asprovided inArticle 62oftheAgreement. Asprovided intheParis Convention, revocation should
bethelastresort andshould bepreceded bythegrantofacompulsory licence; andcompulsory licensing
should takeplace inaccordance withArticle 31oftheTRIPS Agreement. Oneoftheprincipal elements
behind theTRIPS Agreement wasthatitlaiddown minimum standards fortheprotection ofintellectual
property without allowing Members toavailthemselves broadly ofexceptions thereto.
49. Therepresentatives ofSwitzerland, Norway, Canada, theEuropean Community, NewZealand
andAustralia considered thesummary indocument IP/C/W/32 auseful contribution ontheissueunder
thisagenda itemandsupported thegeneral thrust ofthepaper andtheexplanation thathadjustbeen
given bytheUnited States. Inaddition, itwassaidthattheinterpretation ofArticle 32bythedelegation
ofIndia would provide a"carte blanche" toMembers withrespect torevocation andwascontrary to
theprincipal goalandthespirit oftheTRIPS Agreement asawhole andofArticle 31thereof in
particular.
50. Therepresentative ofCuba saidthatdocument IP/C/W/32 wasstillbeing studied byhis
delegation andreserved hisrighttorevert tothismatter atalaterstage.
51. Therepresentative ofParaguay wished tonotethat,although document IP/C/W/32 contained
some well-founded comments ontheissueofrevocation ofpatents, itscontent could innowayconstitute
anofficial interpretation oftheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement inquestion. Inhisview, theCouncil
forTRIPS wasnottheappropriate forum intheWTO tointerpret theprovisions oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
52. Therepresentative ofHungary saidthathisdelegation alsoattached great importance to
transparent andjustified conditions concerning revocation ofpatents and,therefore, welcomed thepaper
putforward bytheUnited States.IP/C/M/9
Page10
53. TheChairman proposed thattheCouncil takenoteofthestatements made, including the
possibility thatdelegations might wishtorevert totheissue atafuture meeting.
54. TheCouncil soagreed.
G. Follow-up tothereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights
55. TheChairman referred totheprocedures forthereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated
rights (document IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6anddocument IP/C/M/8, paragraph 68),according towhich
delegations should provide theSecretariat withwritten copies ofthefollow-up questions theyhadposed
andoralreplies theyhadgiven atthereview meeting. Written replies tofollow-up questions towhich
oralresponses could notbeprovided during thereview meeting should besubmitted within eightweeks
afterthemeeting, thatistosayby20September 1996. Hewished toremind delegations ofthisdeadline,
inparticular since anumber ofdelegations hadnotyetgiven written copies ofallthequestions and
replies theyhadpresented atthereview meeting orwritten responses tothose questions thattheyhad
notbeenabletoreply orally atthemeeting. Heinformed Members thattherecord oftheintroductory
statements made bydelegations, thequestions puttothem andtheresponses given, including certain
written responses provided after themeeting, would becirculated inanewseries ofdocuments
(theIP/Q/- series). Sofar,onesuchdocument hadbeen circulated, i.e.document IP/Q/NOR/1
containing thediscussion onNorway 'slegislation oncopyright andrelated rights, while others were
being processed. Theprocedures forthereview alsoprovided that,atsubsequent meetings ofthe
Council, anopportunity would begiven tofollow upanypointemerging fromthereview session which
delegations considered hadnotbeenadequately addressed. Thislanguage should notbeinterpreted
aslimiting thepossibility topursue anymatter relevant tothereview oflegislation.
56. Therepresentative oftheUnited States wondered whether theprocedures prescribed thatfollow-
upquestions should besubmitted inwriting.
57. TheChairman drew attention tohisremarks onthismatter atthelastmeeting oftheCouncil
(IP/C/M/8, paragraph 68). Aquestion could beraised atameeting oftheCouncil butitwould be
more efficient forittobeprovided inwriting inadvance totheMember concerned withacopy to
theSecretariat. Continuing, herecalled thatthegeneral feeling ofdelegations attheendofthereview
exercise inJulyhadbeenthat,while ithadrequired intensive work, there hadbeenageneral sense
ofsatisfaction withthewayinwhich thereview hadworked. Onekeylesson from theexperience
wastheimportance ofhaving written questions available prior tothereview asearly aspossible in
order toprovide timeforwritten responses. Heproposed thattheissue bekeptontheagenda ofthe
Council, asageneral item, soastoallow delegations, astheprocess evolved, toraiseanypoint they
wished.
58. TheCouncil soagreed.
H. Technical cooperation
59. TheChairman referred totheWorkshop ontheBorder Enforcement Provisions oftheTRIPS
Agreement which hadbeenheldthedaybefore andthanked theInternational Bureau ofWIPO for
itswillingness toparticipate withtheWTO Secretariat intheorganization oftheWorkshop andthe
Governments ofEgypt, Hong Kong, Japan andtheUnited States, aswellastheSecretariat oftheWorld
Customs Organization, fortheirwillingness toprovide speakers fortheWorkshop, tocomplement
thepresentations made bytherepresentatives oftheWTO andWIPO. TheChairman alsothanked
allothers thathadcontributed tothediscussions attheWorkshop. Continuing, hesaidthat,asMembersIP/C/M/9
Page11
might recall, theWorkshop hadbeensomething ofapilotproject aimed atassessing theusefulness
ofproviding anopportunity formore in-depth exploration ofspecific aspects ofimplementation of
theTRIPS Agreement andrelated technical cooperation issues inamore informal setting inthemargins
ofaCouncil meeting. Heinvited delegations tocomment ontheWorkshop andtoshare withtheCouncil
whatlessons might bedrawn from itforpossible future events ofthisnature. Ifthere wasageneral
feeling thatfurther thematic discussions ofthisnature would beuseful, heinvited delegations toprovide
input astothepossible topics forsuchdiscussions.
60. Continuing, theChairman recalled thattheCouncil hadagreed, atitsmeetings of22February
and9May1996, thatthepresent meeting would have aspecial focus ontheissue oftechnical
cooperation. Inpreparation forthatdiscussion, eachdeveloped country Member hadbeeninvited to
update theinformation onitstechnical cooperation activities relevant totheimplementation oftheTRIPS
Agreement. Similarly, intergovernmental organizations presently observers totheTRIPS Council had
beeninvited todothesame. Theresulting documentation concerning thetechnical cooperation activities
ofdeveloped country Members could befound indocuments IP/C/W/34 andAddenda 1to5,while
thecontributions ofintergovernmental organizations hadbeendistributed indocuments IP/C/W/35
andAddenda 1to5.Information ontheWTO Secretariat 'stechnical cooperation activities intheTRIPS
areacould befound indocument IP/C/W/36. Heregretted thatthere wasstillanumber ofdeveloped
country Members thathadnotyetprovided anyinformation totheCouncil ontheirtechnical cooperation
activities. Hesaidthat,given theimportance thattheCouncil attached tothisissueinthelightofthe
needs ofdeveloping countries forsuchassistance, hehoped thattheMembers inquestion would be
abletoprovide suchinformation before theCouncil meeting inNovember. TheChairman intended
toprovide anopportunity, atthatmeeting, forMembers tomake further comments ontheinformation
submitted thattheymight notyethavebeenabletostudy andonthefurther information tobeprovided
before theNovember meeting. Healsorecalled thattheCouncil hadagreed, atitsmeeting inJuly,
toinvite eachdeveloped country Member tonotify acontact point fortechnical cooperation purposes
relating toTRIPS atthesame timeasitwould submit updated information onitstechnical cooperation
activities. Thecontact points thathadbeennotified hadbeencompiled indocument IP/N/7, which
would bekeptuptodatethrough addenda andcorrigenda andperiodic revisions. Hehoped thatthose
developed country Members thathadnotyetnotified suchacontact point would dosoassoonas
possible. Hesuggested thatdelegations, incommenting, might focus onanyneeds fortechnical
cooperation which were notbeing fullymetorinrespect ofwhich further efforts might behelpful.
Thediscussion would alsoprovide anopportunity topursue certain points concerning theparticipation
ofdeveloping countries inthereview exercise concerning national implementing legislation orany
other matter relating totechnical cooperation relevant totheimplementation oftheTRIPS Agreement.
61. Therepresentative oftheWorld Customs Organization saidthatdocument IP/C/W/35 contained
ashort synopsis ofthework which theWCO hadbeendoing inrecent years andwasplanning todo
overthenextthree tofiveyears. HesaidthattheWCO would behappy tohearfrom customs
administrations around theworld thatweremembers oftheWCO andhadnotyetrequested assistance
andtraining.
62. Therepresentative oftheFAO saidthatdocument IP/C/W/35/Add.4 covered several aspects
oftechnical cooperation made available bytheFAO. Thedocument referred totechnical assistance
itself aswellastoassistance concerning thepreparation ofnational legislation andincluded aseries
ofexamples oftheprojects inwhich theFAO hadbeeninvolved inthepastyearorwhich theFAO
wascurrently supporting ordiscussing. Thedocument gaveinformation onthedifferent policy aspects
followed bytheFAO andwhich hadbeendeveloped byitsmember states insofar astheyrelated to
some ofthediscussions heldinthecontext oftheTRIPS Agreement. Hereferred, inparticular, to
thenegotiations being heldintheintergovernmental Commission onGenetic Resources forFood and
Agriculture (i.e.theformer intergovernmental Commission onPlant Genetic Resources), which had
more than150country Members andwasdiscussing aninternational agreement onaccess togeneticIP/C/M/9
Page12
resources forfoodandagriculture; aspects concerning biological diversity insofar asitrelated to
agriculture; andtherecognition oftherights offarmers inthatcontext, i.e.ofthose whoprovided
thenecessary primary commodities toenable thedevelopment ofproducts derived frombiotechnology.
Finally, thedocument alsocovered aworldwide planagreed atameeting inLeipzig, Germany, earlier
thisyear,attended bymore than150countries; many oftheprogrammes agreed atthatmeeting covered
technical assistance intheareaofTRIPS.
63. TherepresentativeofBrazilwishedtoreiteratethathisdelegationattachedthehighestimportance
tothequestion oftechnical cooperation. Hebelieved thattheCouncil should gobeyond themererequest
forinformation orthesimple calling onMembers toremind themoftheirduties. What wasimportant
wastohelpdeveloping country Members tofulfil theirobligations, notonlyinterms oftheactions
theyneeded totakebutalsointerms ofgathering information onthewayother countries weredoing
so.Inthisconnection, herecalled theideathathisdelegation hadputforward inthecontext ofthe
review ofnational implementing legislation atthemeeting inJulyofexploring thepossibilities for
developing countries tohireconsultants tohelpthemgather information andanalyse thenotifications
made soastoallow them bothtoparticipate fullyequipped inthereview process andtoprepare an
appropriate aligning oftheirnational lawstotheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement. Hewould
appreciate some guidance onthepossibilities fortheWTO tohelpindividual countries orgroups of
countries toparticipate more effectively inthereview ofnational legislation. Inresponse, the
representative oftheSecretariat saidthatMembers wereaware oftheresources constraints under which
theWTO Secretariat operated andthatitwasnotawidespread practice oftheSecretariat tomake
consultants available foraparticular country, except where specifically called forbyanagreement,
forexample inthedispute settlement context. Hewould takethematter raised byBrazil upwithhis
colleagues onthetechnical cooperation side. Naturally, given theresource limitations under which
theSecretariat operated, there wasanissue ofpriorities andadiscussion onprecisely thatissue was
taking place intheCommittee onTrade andDevelopment. Arequest would havetobeexamined in
thecontext ofanyguidelines thatmight emerge.
64. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthathisdelegation hadbenefited greatly fromtheWorkshop
onBorder Enforcement andlooked forward toparticipating insimilar workshops inthefuture onissues
ofinterest todeveloping countries, which would facilitate theimplementation oftheAgreement.
Technical cooperation wasthekeyfordeveloping countries toimplement theprovisions oftheTRIPS
Agreement and,therefore, anareaofspecial attention ofhisdelegation. Article 67contained clear
commitments onthepartofdeveloped country Members toassist developing countries inthe
implementation oftheirobligations under theTRIPS Agreement. Egypt hadstarted some projects
withseveral developed countries indifferent fields relating toimplementation oftheTRIPS Agreement.
However, hisdelegation believed thattheCouncil forTRIPS should continue tomonitor thetechnical
andfinancial assistance provided todeveloping countries withaview toevaluating experience and
ensuring itsavailability. ThisroleoftheCouncil remained ofparamount importance throughout the
transitional period. Hestressed theimportance ofannual updating bydeveloped country Members
ofinformation ontheirtechnical cooperation activities pursuant toArticle 67oftheAgreement. He
waspleased thathisdelegation 'sproposal toaskdeveloped countries tonotify acontact pointorcontact
points, which would beaddressed byadeveloping country Member seeking technical cooperation,
hadbeenaccepted. Hebelieved thatanimportant recommendation thatcould beincluded inthereport
oftheCouncil totheSingapore Ministerial should betostress thattechnical andfinancial assistance
beprovided todeveloping countries. Thiswasthetoolthatwould allow developing countries topursue
theirefforts infulfilling theirobligations under theAgreement andcomplying induetimewithits
provisions.
65. Therepresentative ofPerusaidthattheissue oftechnical cooperation under Article 67ofthe
Agreement wasofgreat interest todeveloping country Members andshould beapermanent itemon
theagenda oftheCouncil forTRIPS. Hewasgrateful fortheimportance attached tothistopic byIP/C/M/9
Page13
developed country Members. Henoted that,insome cases, theinformation provided didnotreflect
alltheelements included inArticle 67,which might mean thatcooperation required byArticle 67was
notfullyprovided. Hesuggested thattheissue oftechnical cooperation might bethesubject ofa
recommendation from theCouncil forTRIPS totheSingapore Ministerial.
66. Therepresentative ofIndia welcomed thesteps thathadbeentaken under theguidance ofthe
Council during theyeartofocus ontheeffective provision oftechnical cooperation toMembers. His
delegation hadappreciated theWorkshop onBorder Enforcement organized jointly withWIPO and
hadbenefited from participation. Hejoined other delegations which hadcalled foraspecial focus
ontechnical cooperation which could bereflected appropriately inthereport oftheCouncil tothe
Singapore Ministerial.
67. TherepresentativeofBruneiDarussalam,speakingonbehalfoftheASEANcountries,expressed
hisappreciation fortheworkoftheSecretariat, incoordination withWIPO, inconducting theWorkshop
onBorder Enforcement. ASEAN considered exercises ofthatkinduseful andwasinfavour of
conducting similar suchworkshops inthefuture onothertopics andwithaspecial focus ontheexchange
ofexperiences. Hesupported thesuggestion toinclude thetopicoftechnical cooperation inthereport
oftheCouncil totheSingapore Ministerial.
68. Therepresentatives ofCuba andPakistan emphasized thegreatimportance thattheirdelegations
attached totheissueoftechnical cooperation andexpressed support forthesuggestion toinclude this
matter intheCouncil 'sreport totheSingapore Ministerial.
69. Inconclusion, theChairman invited Members togiveconsideration tonewtopics forfuture
workshops. Theissue ofplant variety protection might beonethatcould beconsidered.
70. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.
I. Report totheSingapore Ministerial
71. TheChairman saidthatinformal consultations were continuing onthismatter andthatan
additional meeting oftheCouncil would havetotakeplace totakeupthequestion ofthereport to
theSingapore Ministerial, which hewould convene atatimewhen hebelieved thatMembers were
ready totakeaction onthereport.
J. Other business
72. Therepresentative ofEcuador recalled thathiscountry hadjoined theWTO on21January 1996.
Inthisconnection, theWTO Agreement, including itsannexes, hadbeenpublished intheOfficial
Register ofhiscountry soastoacquire legaleffect intheterritory ofEcuador, andthecorresponding
regulations werebeing prepared soastoallow theAgreement anditsannexes tobeapplied. Given
theneedtoclarify thelegal status oftheapplication oftheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement in
Ecuador, hewished toinform theCouncil thathisGovernment haddecided toavailitselfoftherights
under Article 5.2oftheTRIPS Agreement todelay forafurther period offouryears thedateof
application oftheprovisions oftheAgreement. Thereason forthislayintheneedtoadapt some aspects
ofEcuadorian lawtoensure compliance withtheTRIPS Agreement.
73. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatessaidthatitwashisdelegation'sunderstandingthatEcuador
hadacceded totheWTO onthebasisofacommitment thatitwould notavailitselfoftransitional periods
provided forintheTRIPS Agreement.IP/C/M/9
Page14
74. Therepresentative ofEcuador saidthathisGovernment 'sviewwasthatthedatementioned
inparagraph 78oftheReport oftheWorking Party ontheAccession ofEcuador (document WT/L/77)
concerned thedate, forhiscountry, of"expiry ofageneral period ofoneyearfollowing thedateof
entry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement" ascontained inArticle 65.1oftheTRIPS Agreement. His
Government wasnowinvoking Article 65.2which permitted developing country Members todelay
theapplication oftheAgreement until1January 2000.
75. Therepresentatives oftheUnited States andtheEuropean Community expressed reservations
regarding thestatements made byEcuador.
76. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatements made.