dean22029/WTO_Docs huggingface dataset:
KOREA - MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from New Zealand
Date: 27 April 1999
Document codes: WT/DS169/2
Complainant: Australia
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Canada, New Zealand, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA - MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF
FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from New Zealand
The following communication, dated 22 April 1999, from the Permanent Mission of
New Zealand to the Permanent Mission of Korea, the Permanent Mission of Australia and to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes, the Government of New Zealand wishes to notify the
Government of the Republic of Korea, that, in light of New Zealand's substantial trade interest, it
desires to be joined in the consultations requested by Australia in a communication circulated to WTO
Members as of 19 April 1999 entitled "".
As noted above, New Zealand has a substantial trade interest in the matter that is the subject
of the requested consultations. In recent years the Republic of Korea has typically been one of
New Zealand's largest markets for beef, with annual exports for the period 1994-98 averaging
approximately 15,000 tonnes.
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from the United States
Date: 29 April 1999
Document codes: WT/DS169/3
Complainant: Australia
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Canada, New Zealand, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF
FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from the United States
The following communication, dated 23 April 1999, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Permanent Mission of Korea, the Permanent Mission of Australia and to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes, the United States Government hereby notifies the Dispute
Settlement Body that, in light of the substantial trade interest of the United States, it desires to be
joined in the consultations requested by Australia in a communication circulated to WTO Members on
19 April 1999 () entitled "."
The United States has a substantial trade interest in the matter that is the subject of the
requested consultations due to the US status as the principal supplier of beef to Korea. In 1997, the
United States exported 83,000 tons of beef to Korea; in 1998, US beef exports were 53,000 tons. In
both years US exports represented over 50 per cent of Korea's imports of fresh, chilled, and frozen
beef.
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Canada
Date: 30 April 1999
Document codes: WT/DS169/4
Complainant: Australia
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Canada, New Zealand, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF
FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Canada
The following communication, dated 28 April 1999, from the Permanent Mission of Canada
to the Permanent Mission of Korea, the Permanent Mission of Australia and to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to Article 4.11 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes, the Government of Canada hereby notifies you of its desire to be joined in the
consultations requested by the Permanent Mission of Australia under Article 4 of the DSU,
Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariff s and Trade 1994, Article 19 of the Agreement on
Agriculture and Article 16 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures in the matter of
"." The 13 April 1999
communication from the Permanent Mission of Australia to the Permanent Mission of the Republic of
Korea was circulated to WTO Members on 19 April 1999 (, , ,

Korea is Canada's third largest beef export market. It is an important and growing market for
Canadian beef exporters. In 1997, Canada exported 4735 tonnes of beef to Korea valued at
$20 million. Exports dropped off in 1998 because of a decrease in demand. From January to
November 1998, Canada exported 2681 tonnes of be ef and veal products to Korea, valued at
$11.3 million.
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Request to Join consultations Communication from Canada Corrigendum In the twelfth line of document WT/DS169/4  dated 30 April 1999, "Article 16 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures" should be replaced by "Article 6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures". COREE – MESURES AFFECTANT LES IMPORTATIONS DE VIANDE DE BŒUF FRAICHE, REFRIGEREE ET CONGELEE Demande de participation aux consultations Communication du Canada Corrigendum À la treizième et à la quatorzième ligne du document WT/DS169/4 daté du 30 avril 1999, "l'article 16 de l'Accord sur les procédures de licences d'importation" doit être remplacé par "l'article 6 de l'Accord sur les procédures de licences d'importation". COREA - MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN A LAS IMPORTACIONES DE
Date: 6 May 1999
Document codes: WT/DS169/4/Corr.1; WT/DS169/4; WT/DS169/4
Complainant: Australia
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Canada, New Zealand, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF
FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Request to Join consultations
Communication from Canada
Corrigendum
In the twelfth line of document dated 30 April 1999, "Article 16 of the
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures" should be replaced by "Article 6 of the Agreement on
Import Licensing Procedures".
COREE – MESURES AFFECTANT LES IMPORTATIONS DE VIANDE
DE BŒUF FRAICHE, REFRIGEREE ET CONGELEE
Communication du Canada
Corrigendum
"l'article 16 de l'Accord sur les procédures de licences d'importation" doit être remplacé par "l'article 6
CARNE VACUNA FRESCA, REFRIGERADA Y CONGELADA
Solicitud de asociación a las consultas
Comunicación del Canadá
Corrigendum
En las líneas decimotercera y decimocuarta del documento de 30 de abril
Importación".
CANADA - TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Document: Appellate Body Report and Panel Report Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
Date: 25 October 2000
Document codes: WT/DS170/7; WT/DS170/AB/R; WT/DS170/R; IP/D/17
Complainant: Thailand
Respondent: EU
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. I, II, VII  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Annex I  Customs valuation

CANADA - TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Appellate Body Report and Panel Report
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 12 October 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body
report on "" () and the panel report
(), as upheld by the Appellate Body report. The panel report should be read in
conjunction with the Appellate Body report.
Rapport de l'Organe d'appel et rapport du Groupe spécial
À sa réunion du 12 octobre 2000, l'Organe de règlement des différends a adopté le rapport de
rapport du Groupe spécial est à rapprocher de celui de l'Organe d'appel.
CANADÁ - PERÍODO DE PROTECCIÓN MEDIANTE PATENTE
Actuación del Órgano de Solución de Diferencias
informe del Órgano de Apelación titulado "Canadá - Período de protección mediante patente"
Apelación.
CANADA - TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Document: Request by the United States for Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
Date: 20 December 2000
Document codes: WT/DS170/8; IP/D/17
Complainant: Thailand
Respondent: EU
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. I, II, VII  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Annex I  Customs valuation

CANADA - TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Request by the United States for Arbitration
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
The following communication, dated 15 December 2000, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated at the request of that
delegation.
On 12 October 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted recommendations and
rulings in respect of the panel and Appellate Body reports in "".
On 23 October 2000, the Government of Canada confirmed to the DSB its commitment to meet its
obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS
Agreement).
Since the adoption of the panel and Appellate Body reports, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), we have
attempted to reach agreement with Canada on a "reasonable period of time" for its implementation of
the DSB rulings and recommendations. Although we have held several bilateral discussions, our
governments have not been able to reach agreement. Accordingly, the United States hereby requests
that the "reasonable period of time" be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c)
of the DSU. Pursuant to footnote 12 to the DSU, the United States will immediately open discussions
with Canada with a view of achieving agreement on an arbitrator within the next ten days.
CANADA - TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Document: Request for Consultations by the United States
Date: 10 May 1999
Document codes: WT/DS170/1; IP/D/17
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Canada
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 33, 70  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

CANADA - TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Request for Consultations by the United States
The following communication, dated 6 May 1999, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Permanent Mission of Canada and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement
Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of Canada
pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes (DSU) and Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS Agreement) (to the extent that it incorporates by reference Article XXII of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994) regarding the grant of patent term in Canada.
The TRIPS Agreement obligates all Members of the (WTO) to
grant a term of protection for patents that runs at least until twenty years after the filing date of the
underlying application. The TRIPS Agreement also requires each Member to grant this minimum
term to all patents existing as of the date of the application of the Agreement to that Member. In light
of Canada's status as a developed country, the TRIPS Agreement applied to it on 1 January 1996.
Under the Canadian Patent Act, the term granted to patents issued on the basis of applications
filed before 1 October 1989, is 17 years from the date on which the patent is issued. This situation
appears to be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, including but not
necessarily limited to Articles 33, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date for consultations. In accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU, this request for
consultations will be notified to the Dispute Settlement Body and the Council for Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
CANADA - TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States
Date: 15 July 1999
Document codes: WT/DS170/2
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Canada
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 33, 70  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

CANADA - TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States
The following communication, dated 15 July 1999, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with
Article 6.2 of the DSU.
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)
obligates all Members of the (WTO) to grant a term of protection for
patents that runs at least until twenty years after the filing date of the underlying application. The
TRIPS Agreement also requires each Member to grant this minimum term to all patents existing as of
the date of the application of the Agreement to that Member. Canada has been obligated to apply the
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement in full since 1 January 1996.
The Canadian Patent Act provides that the term granted to patents issued on the basis of
applications filed before 1 October 1989 is 17 years from the date on which the patent is issued. This
situation is inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Articles 33 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.
On 6 May 1999, the United States Government requested consultations with the Government
of Canada pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement (to the extent that it
incorporates by reference Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994)
regarding the above measure. The United States and Canada held consultations in Geneva on
11 June 1999, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute.
Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests the establishment of a panel to examine
this matter in light of the TRIPS Agreement, and to find that Canada's legal regime fails to conform to
the obligations of Articles 33 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement, and nullifies or impairs benefits
accruing directly or indirectly to the United States under the TRIPS Agreement.
The United States further asks that this request for a panel be placed on the agenda for the
next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body, to be held on 26 July 1999, and that the panel be
established with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7 of the DSU.
CANADA - TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Document: Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of the United States Note by the Secretariat
Date: 25 October 1999
Document codes: WT/DS170/3; WT/DS170/2; WT/DS170/2
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Canada
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 33, 70  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

CANADA - TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Constitution of the Panel Established
at the Request of the United States
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 22 September 1999, the DSB established a Panel pursuant to the request by
the United States (), in accordance with Article 6 o the DSU (WT/DSB/M/68).
2. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of
reference. The terms of reference are the following:
"To examine, in light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the
United States in document , the matter referred to the DSB by the United States
in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements."
3. On 13 October 1999, the United States made a request, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of
the DSU, to the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. Paragraph 7 of Article 8
provides:
"If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of
a panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in consultations with the
Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall
determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director-
General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules
of procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the
dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute. The Chairman of the DSB shall
inform the Members of the composition of the panel thus formed no later than 10 days after
the date the Chairman receives such a request."
4. On 22 October 1999, the Director-General composed the Panel as follows:
Chairperson: Stuart Harbinson
Members: Sergio Escudero
Alberto Heimler.
CANADA – TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Document: Notification of an Appeal by Canada under paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
Date: 19 June 2000
Document codes: WT/DS170/4
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Canada
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 33, 70  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

CANADA – TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Notification of an Appeal by Canada under
paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
The following notification, dated 19 June 2000, sent by Canada to the Dispute Settlement
Body (DSB), is circulated to Members. This noti fication also constitutes the Notice of Appeal, filed
on the same day with the Appellate Body, pursuant to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for
Appellate Review, the Government of Canada hereby notifies its decision to appeal certain issues of
law covered in the Panel Report on () and certain
legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
The Government of Canada submits that the Panel committed errors in law and erred in its
interpretation and application of Articles 33 and 70 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights. Canada seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings:
(a) that the term of protection under section 45 of Canada's Patent Act is inconsistent
with the minimum standards of TRIPS Article 33 (paragraph 6.100 of the Panel
Report);
(b) that neither the discretionary nature of a patent examiner's authority to grant informal
delays nor the formal statutory provisions prescribing time limits within which patent
applicants were permitted to prosecute their applications, both of which allowed them
to obtain a term of protection that does not end before 20 years from the date of filing,
make available, as a matter of right, to patent applicants a term of protection required
by Article 33 (paragraph 6.109); and
(c) that the rule against retroactive application of TRIPS Article 70.1 concerning "acts
which occurred before the date of application of the Agreement", does not override
the rule of TRIPS Article 70.2 (paragraph 6.56 of the Panel Report).
The Government of Canada respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings
and conclusions of the Panel and to modify accordingly the recommendations of the Panel.
CANADA – TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Document: Communication from the Appellate Body
Date: 15 August 2000
Document codes: WT/DS170/5
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Canada
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 33, 70  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

CANADA – TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Communication from the Appellate Body
The following communication, dated 15 August 2000, from the Chairman of the Appellate
Body addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with
Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
I am writing to you pursuant to Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes, which stipulates that, as a general rule, the Appellate Body will
circulate its report no later than 60 days after the appellant has formally notified the Dispute
Settlement Body of its decision to appeal. Article 17.5 states, furthermore, that when the
Appellate Body considers that it cannot provide its report within 60 days, it shall inform the DSB in
writing of the reasons for the delay together with an estimate of the period within which it will submit
its report.
Canada notified the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal certain issues of law
covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this case on
19 June 2000 with the result that the 60-day period will expire on Friday, 18 August 2000. Due to the
time required for completion and translation of the Report, the Appellate Body will not be able to
circulate its Report by Friday, 18 August 2000. We estimate that the Appellate Body Report in this
appeal will be circulated to WTO Members no later than Monday, 18 September 2000.
CANADA – TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Document: Communication from the Appellate Body
Date: 15 September 2000
Document codes: WT/DS170/6; WT/DS170/AB/R.
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Canada
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 33, 70  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

CANADA – TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Communication from the Appellate Body
The following communication, dated 15 September 2000, from Mr. Florentino Feliciano,
Chairman of the Appellate Body, addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in accordance with Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes.
It is my honour to transmit to you the Report of the Appellate Body in , It will be circulated on 18 September 2000, to Members of the
, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 17 of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes . It is a confidential document until its
circulation. The three Members of the Appellate Body who served on this appeal were:
Mr. Julio Lacarte-Muró as Presiding Member; Mr. James Bacchus and Mr. A.V. Ganesan as
Members.
CANADA – TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Document: Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rulings Appointment of Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
Date: 10 January 2001
Document codes: WT/DS170/9
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Canada
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 33, 70  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

CANADA – TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rulings
Appointment of Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
The following communication, dated 10 January 2001, from the Permanent Mission of
Canada and the Permanent Mission of the United States, to the Director-General, is circulated
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement
of Disputes.
We refer you to the communication from the United States of America, dated
15 December 2000, requesting binding arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU") to determine the reasonable
period of time for Canada to implement the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement
Body (the "DSB") in the matter, (WT/DS170), adopted
12 October 2000.
The Parties to the dispute, Canada and the United States, have agreed on an arbitrator,
pursuant to footnote 12 to Article 21.3(c) of the DS U: Mr. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. We are writing
to request you to convey officially to Mr. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann our agreement that he act as
arbitrator in this matter. We also would appreciate that he be assisted in his functions, as arbitrator
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, by the staff of the Appellate Body Secretariat.
With respect to the time period for this binding arbitration, Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
requires that the reasonable period of time for implementation be determined through binding
arbitrations within 90 days after the date of adoption of the recommendations and rulings by the DSB.
As the adoption took place on 12 October 2000, this 90-day period will soon expire. We, the Parties
to this dispute, have agreed to extend the period of time for this binding arbitration until
28 February 2001. We have agreed that the award of the arbitrator, made no later than
28 February 2001, shall be deemed to be the award of the arbitrator for the purposes of Article 21.3(c)
of the DSU in determining the reasonable period of time for Canada to implement the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
We are grateful for your assistance in this matter.
CANADA – TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Document: Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
Date: 28 February 2001
Document codes: WT/DS170/11; WT/DS170/10
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Canada
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 33, 70  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

CANADA – TERM OF PATENT PROTECTION
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding
on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
The following communication, dated 28 February 2001, from the Arbitrator,
Mr. C.-D. Ehlermann, to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance
with Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes.
I am pleased to send you a copy of my Arbitration Award in , , pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes . It will be circulated to the Members of the WTO
later today. It is a confidential document until its circulation.
ARGENTINA  - PATENT PROTECTION FOR PHARMACEUTICALS AND TEST DATA PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Switzerland
Date: 26 May 1999
Document codes: WT/DS171/2; WT/DS171/1
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Argentina
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 27, 39.2, 65, 70  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

ARGENTINA - PATENT PROTECTION FOR PHARMACEUTICALS
AND TEST DATA PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Switzerland
The following communication, dated 20 May 1999, from the Permanent Mission of
Switzerland to the Permanent Mission of Argentina and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement
Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Switzerland hereby notifies its desire to be joined in the
consultations requested by the United States in document circulated on 10 May 1999,
entitled "Argentina - Patent protection for pharmaceuticals and test data protection for agricultural
chemicals".
Switzerland considers to have a substantial trade interest in these consultations. In 1998,
Switzerland exported to Argentina 150 million Swiss Francs in chemical products and
50 million Swiss Francs in pharmaceutical products.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Document: Request for Consultations by the United States
Date: 7 June 1999
Document codes: WT/DS174/1; IP/D/19
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. I, III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Request for Consultations by the United States
The following communication, dated 1 June1999, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission and to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
My authorities have instructed me to reques t consultations with the European Communities
pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes (DSU) and Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS Agreement) (to the extent that it incorporates by reference Article XXIII of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994) regarding the protection of trademarks and
geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the European Communities.
The TRIPS Agreement obligates all Members of the (WTO) to
accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own
nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property. The TRIPS Agreement also requires
each Member to ensure that protection for geographical indications does not undermine legal
protection for pre-existing trademarks. In light of the European Communities' status as a developed
Member of the WTO, the TRIPS Agreement applied to it on 1 January 1996.
The European Communities' Regulation 2081/92, as amended, does not provide national
treatment with respect to geographical indications, and does not provide sufficient protection to pre-
existing trademarks that are similar or identical to a geographical indication. This situation appears to
be inconsistent with the European Communities' obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, including
but not necessarily limited to Articles 3, 16, 24, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date for consultations. In accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU, this request for
consultations will be notified to the Dispute Settlement Body and the Council on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Canada
Date: 22 June 1999
Document codes: WT/DS174/3
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. I, III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Canada
The following communication, dated 17 June 1999, from the Permanent Mission of Canada to
the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission and to the Chairman of the Dispute
Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), the Government of Canada hereby notifies the
consulting parties and the Dispute Settlement Body that, in light of Canada's substantial trade interest,
Canada desires to be joined in the consultations under Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement (and, as
incorporated by reference, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994) requested by the United States in a
communication circulated to WTO Members on 1 June 1999 () entitled "".
Canada has a substantial trade interest in the agricultural products and foodstuffs that are the
subject of the US request. Protection of related trademarks and geographical indications within the
European regime is a critical contributing element for the continuation and expansion of that trade,
particularly in the area of market access for Canadian wines and spirits products.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Australia
Date: 23 April 2003
Document codes: WT/DS174/4
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. I, III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS
AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Australia
The following communication, dated 17 April 2003, from the Permanent Mission of Australia
to the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission, the Permanent Mission of the United
States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with
Article 4.11 of the DSU.
I refer to the "Request for Consultations by the United States" regarding the protection of
trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the European
Communities, made on 4 April 2003 pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 , which was circulated to Members on 10 April 2003 (,
 and refer).
Australia is a significant producer and exporter of agricultural products and foodstuffs and, as
such, has a substantial trade interest in the consultations requested by the United States.
Due to our substantial trade interest in the above-mentioned consultations, the Government of
Australia hereby notifies, pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the DSU, its desire to be joined in
the consultations.
I would be grateful for your early positive response.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Mexico
Date: 24 April 2003
Document codes: WT/DS174/5
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. I, III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Mexico
The following communication, dated 17 April 2003, from the Permanent Mission of Mexico
to the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission, the Permanent Mission of the United
States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article
4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Mexico hereby notifies its substantial trade interest and
its desire to be joined in the consultations re quested by the United States in accordance with
Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Article XXII of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and Article 4 of the DSU, regarding the protection
of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from New Zealand
Date: 24 April 2003
Document codes: WT/DS174/6
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. I, III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from New Zealand
The following communication, dated 22 April 2003, from the Permanent Mission of
New Zealand to the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission, the Permanent Mission of
the United States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance
with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), th e Government of New Zealand hereby notifies the
consulting parties and the Dispute Settlement Body that New Zealand desires to be joined in the
consultations requested by the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article 64 of the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement) and
Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) regarding the
protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the
European Communities. The United States request for consultations, which supplements its earlier
request for consultations circulated as , was circulated on 10 April 2003 as

New Zealand has a substantial trade interest in agricultural products and foodstuffs that are
the subject of the United States request for consultations, and hence desires to be joined in these
consultations. We look forward to the European Communities' confirmation of receipt and
acceptance of this request to join the consultations and advice regarding the timing and venue for the
consultations.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Sri Lanka
Date: 24 April 2003
Document codes: WT/DS174/7
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. I, III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS
AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Sri Lanka
The following communication, dated 16 April 2003, from the Permanent Mission of
Sri Lanka to the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission, the Permanent Mission of the
United States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with
Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), th e Government of Sri Lanka hereby notifies the
consulting parties and the Dispute Settlement Body that, in light of Sri Lanka's substantial trade
interest, Sri Lanka desires to be joined in the consultations under Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement
(and, as incorporated by reference, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994) requested by the United States
in a communication circulated to WTO Memb ers on 1 June 1999 () and 10 April 2003
() entitled "".
Sri Lanka has a substantial trade interest in exporting Ceylon Tea and Ceylon Cinnamon into
the EU market. Sri Lanka is concerned that EU regulations which is the subject of above
consultations may limit registration of GI protection for above products in the EU market.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from India
Date: 24 April 2003
Document codes: WT/DS174/8
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. I, III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS
AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from India
The following communication, dated 22 April 2003, from the Permanent Mission of India to
the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission, the Permanent Mission of the United States
and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of
the DSU.
Pursuant to Article 4.11 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU), the Government of Indi a hereby notifies its desire to be joined in the
consultations requested by the Permanent Mission of the United States to the Permanent Delegation of
the European Communities and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) pursuant to
Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and
Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) with respect to the
protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the
European Communities (EC). The 4 April 2003 communication from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission was circulated to
WTO Members on 10 April 2003 (; ; ).
India has a substantial trade interest in the consultations on the matter in the dispute, as well
as a systemic interest in the matter of protection of geographical indications. We would be grateful of
being informed of the date and venue of consultations, so as to enable us to participate in the
consultations.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Argentina
Date: 24 April 2003
Document codes: WT/DS174/9
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. I, III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS
AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Argentina
The following communication, dated 22 April 2003, from the Permanent Mission of
Argentina to the Permanent Delegation of the Eur opean Commission, the Permanent Mission of the
United States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with
Article 4.11 of the DSU.
With reference to the request for consultations by the United States with the European
Communities concerning the protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural
products and foodstuffs, circulated in docu ment , IP/D /19/Add.1, G/L619 on
10 April 2003, Argentina hereby requests to be joined in the said consultations pursuant to
Article 4.11 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
(DSU).
This request is made in view of Argentina's substantial interest in matters concerning the
implementation of legislation governing the protection of trademarks and geographical indications for
agricultural products and foodstuffs. EC Regulation 2081/92, as amended, and its related
implementing and enforcement measures (the "E C Regulation"), appear to Argentina to be
inconsistent with Articles I and III of the GATT 1994 and with the provisions of the TRIPS
Agreement relating to the protection of geographical indications and trademarks.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Hungary
Date: 29 April 2003
Document codes: WT/DS174/10
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. I, III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS
AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Hungary
The following communication, dated 17 April 2003, from the Permanent Mission of Hungary
to the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission, the Permanent Mission of the United
States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with
Article 4.11 of the DSU.
We refer to the communication entitled "Request for Consultations by the United States"
regarding the protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and
foodstuffs in the European Communities, made on 4 April 2003 pursuant to Article 4 of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article 64 of
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and Article XXII of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, which was circulated to Members on 10 April 2003
(, and refer).
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), the Government of Hungary hereby notifies the
consulting parties and the Dispute Settlement Body that, in the light of Hungary's substantial trade
interests, Hungary desires to be joined in the consultations.
Hungary has a substantial trade interest in regularly exporting Hungarian wines, spirits and
other agricultural products and foodstuffs into the EU market. Hungary is concerned that any change
in the EU regulation may limit the level of protection of these products subject to GI protection.
We look forward to receiving your reply to this request.