UNITED STATES – SECTION 211 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1998
Document: Notification of an Appeal by the European Communities under paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
Date: 4 October 2001
Document codes: WT/DS176/5
Complainant: EU
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Japan, Nicaragua, Canada
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 42  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

UNITED STATES – SECTION 211 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1998
Notification of an Appeal by the European Communities
under paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
The following notification, dated 4 October 2001, sent by the Permanent Delegation of the
European Commission to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated to Members. This
notification 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 European Communities and their Member States hereby notify their decision to
appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel
Report on ().
The European Communities and their Member States request that the Appellate Body review
a number of errors of law and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in its Report. The
errors of law and legal interpretation to be reviewed include the following findings and conclusions of
the Panel, namely:
1. where it found that trade names are not a category of intellectual property covered by the
TRIPS Agreement (paragraph 8.41 of its Report) and, by way of consequence,
- where it limited by implication its finding of inconsistency of Section 211(a)(2) with
Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement to trademarks (paragraphs 8.41 in conjunction
with 102 and 9.1(d) of its Report);
- where it found that Section 211(a)(2) is not inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement in conjunction with Article 8 of the Paris Convention (1967)
(paragraphs 8.41, 8.122 and 9.1(f) of the Report);
- where it found that Section 211(b) is not inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement in conjunction with Article 8 of the Paris Convention (1967)
(paragraphs 8.41, 8.165 and 9.1(l) of its Report);
2. where it found that Section 211(a)(1) is not inconsistent with Article 15.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement (paragraphs 8.70 and 9.1(a) of its Report);
3. where it found that Section 211(a)(1) is not inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement in conjunction with Article 6 quinquies A(1) of the Paris Convention (1967)
(paragraphs 8.89 and 9.1(b) of its Report);

4. where it found that the EC has not proved that Section 211(a)(2) is inconsistent with
Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement (paragraphs 8.112 and 9.1(c) of its Report);
5. where it found both in relation to trademarks and trade names that Section 211(a)(2) is not
inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 2.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement in conjunction with Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), (paragraphs 8.41,
8.140 and 9.1(g) of its Report);
6. where it found both in relation to trademarks and trade names that Section 211(a)(2) is not
inconsistent with Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement (paragraphs 8.41, 8.148 and 9.1(h) of its
Report);
7. where it found that it has not been proved that Section 211(b) is inconsistent with Article 16.1
of the TRIPS Agreement (paragraphs 8.159 and 9.1(i) of its Report);
8. where it found that it has not been proved that Section 211(b) is inconsistent with Article 42
of the TRIPS Agreement, both in relation to trademarks and trade names (paragraphs 8.41,
8.162 and 9.1(j) of its Report);
9. where it found both for trademarks and trade names that Section 211(b) is not inconsistent
with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in
conjunction with Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967) (paragraphs 8.41, 8.173
and 9.1(m) of its Report); and
10. where it found both for trademarks and trade names that Section 211(b) is not inconsistent
with Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement (paragraphs 8.41, 8.176 and 9.1(n) of its Report).