WRITTEN QUESTION E-1225/00 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Trademark ownership.
Date: 2000-04-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cuba, TRIPS, United States, trade agreement (EU), trade dispute, trade-mark law

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/107

(2001/C 53 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1225/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Trademark ownership

Is the Commission aware of the WTO panel versus USA on Section 211 of the US Omnibus Appropria-
tion Act 1998 on a possible conflict with the TRIPs Agreement concerning the issue of claims filed by the
joint venture between Pernod Ricard and the Cuban government with regard to the ownership in the
United States of America of a trademark confiscated in Cuba without compensation?

Will the Commission explain the benefits to the European Union of a referral of the matter to the WTO
panel and the negative consequences that might accrue?

What will be the costs for the European Union(cid:146)s taxpayers of a referral of the matter to the WTO panel
and does the Commission confirm its previously stated principle that a confiscation without payment of
compensation is not deemed legitimate?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the dispute with the United States concerning the compatibility of
Section 211 of the United States Omnibus Appropriations Act 1998 with the provisions of the trade-
related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) Agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
So far, WTO consultations took place with the United States, but no panel was established on this matter.
The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the replies given in this matter
to Written Questions P-0740/00 by Mrs Peijs (1), E-0820/00 by Mrs Angelilli (2), and E-0858/00 by
Mr Gas(cid:242)liba i B(cid:246)hm (3).

The WTO dispute relates to the treatment of trademarks in the United States which are identical or similar
to trademarks which previously belonged to Cuban owners who failed to renew their trademarks before
United States authorities. As a consequence of this failure by the previous Cuban owners, which is
independent from the expropriation of their assets in Cuba by the Cuban Government, the respective
trademarks fell into the public domain and no longer belonged to their Cuban owners. Such trademarks
can be registered, renewed and enforced in the United States by new owners, however, only under certain
conditions. These conditions are contained in Section 211 which was adopted by the United States almost
40 years after the Cuban revolution.

The dispute, therefore, does not concern the question whether or not foreign uncompensated expropria-
tions have to be recognised. In fact, United States trademarks were not and could not be expropriated by
the Cuban Government. Individuals and companies expropriated by the Cuban Government remained the
owners of property outside Cuba. In particular, their rights in trademarks registered in the United States
were unaffected by the Cuban revolution.

After a detailed analysis of Section 211, the Commission came to the conclusion that Section 211 violates
certain provisions of the TRIPs Agreement. The Community and its Member States raised the incompat-
ibility of Section 211 with the TRIPs Agreement with the United States on various occasions in order to
find an amicable solution to the matter. Given the constant refusal by the United States to engage into any
substantive discussion, the Community and its Member States requested consultations under the WTO
dispute settlement understanding in July 1999. Two rounds of consultations were held in September 1999
and December 1999, but the United States maintain the view that Section 211 is compatible with the
United States international obligations. The Commission and the Member States are currently examining
the next steps to be taken in this matter.

C 53 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

The main aim of the Commission remains the proper implementation and application by the United States
of the TRIPs Agreement bearing in mind that Section 211 can potentially affect all European companies
dealing with Cuba. It should be in the interest of the Community and its Member States to ensure that the
provisions of the TRIPs Agreement are respected by all WTO members.

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 145.
(2) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 50.
(3) See page 32.

(2001/C 53 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1229/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Imports of orange juice from Mexico

The Commission recently agreed a large quota of imports on preferential terms, including 31 000 tonnes
of Mexican orange juice, 750 tonnes of cut flowers, 400 tonnes of exotic flowers, 30 000 tonnes of honey
and 1 000 tonnes of melons. This absurd arrangement, coming after the Euro-Mediterranean agreement, is
yet another hard blow for the agricultural industry in southern Italy, and more especially Sicily, where the
crisis in the citrus sector has dismayed tens of thousands of people working in that sector.

In view of the foregoing:

1. On what basis can unfair competition be regarded as compatible with cooperation with less developed

countries?

2. Does the Commission consider that it should suspend, in the light of the changed market conditions,
the devastating effects of the bilateral agricultural agreements and adopt corresponding compensatory
measures, as laid down in those very agreements with third countries?

Answer given by My Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2000)

The Commission believes that the recently concluded trade agreement with Mexico is one in which the
overall outcome for agriculture is well balanced. Indeed, it could be said that in the fruit and vegetables
and cut flowers sectors the outcome is in favour of the Community. For many products in these sectors,
Mexico will grant immediate liberalisation on imports from the Community. A part from a limited number
of quotas which it will grant to Mexico, the Community will keep most of these products on a list of
products that are not to be liberalised at this stage.

The Commission also believes that the quotas granted will not have an adverse impact on either the less
developed countries or European producers. The question of compensation to European producers
therefore does not arise. It is also worth noting that in a declaration made in the context of the agreement,
the Commission agreed to monitor imports on the Community market under the orange juice quota
referred to by the Honourable Member. Furthermore, provision is made under Article 15 of the agreement
for certain safeguard procedures in the event of particular difficulties as a result of imports to either the
Community or Mexican markets.

The Commission negotiators also ensured that, under the agreement, the Community entry price system
will continue to operate. As the Honourable Member will appreciate, this is particularly important in the
fruit and vegetables sector.

Finally, the excellent outcome on rules of origin for agriculture products under the agreement, where
Mexico accepted the Community rules of origin for many products, should be noted. This, for example,
means that in the case of the orange juice quota referred to, such juice must come from oranges grown in
Mexico.