IP/C/M/33

Page 1

World Trade
Organization / RESTRICTED
IP/C/M/33
2 November 2001
(01-5392)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights

MINUTES OF MEETING

Held in the Centre William Rappard

on 19 and 20 September 2001

Acting Chairperson: Ambassador Alejandro Jara (Chile)

Subjects discussed:Para. Nos.

A.notifications under provisions of the agreement2-5

(i)Notifications under Article 63.22-4

(ii)Notifications under Article 695

B.review of national implementing legislation6-39

(i)Outstanding initial questions from the review of the legislation

of Kuwait initiated in November 20006-8

(ii)Outstanding initial questions from the reviews of the

legislation of Bolivia, Cameroon, Congo, Grenada, Guyana

and Suriname initiated in April 20019-14

(iii)Outstanding initial questions from reviews initiated in June 200115-20

(iv)Follow-up to the reviews already undertaken21-39

C.implementation of article 70.8 and 70.940

D.implementation of article 66.241-54

E.information on technology capacity-building55

F.technical cooperation56-68

(i)Annual Updates on Technical Cooperation Activities56-64

(ii)Joint Initiative65-68

Subjects discussed:Para. Nos.

G.implementation of article 23.469-73

H.implementation of article 24.174-103

I.review of the application of the provisions of the section on geographical indications under article 24.2104-109

J.review of the provisions of article 27.3(b)110-131

K.review of the implementation of the agreement under article 71.1132

L.non-violation and situation complaints133-137

M.electronic commerce138-147

N.intellectual property and access to medicines148-248

O.information on relevant developments elsewhere in the wto249-253

(i)Accessions249-250

(ii)Dispute settlement251-253

P.observer status for international intergovernmental organizations254-256

Q.annual report to the general council257-258

______

  1. Since the Chairperson of the Council, Ambassador Boniface Chidyausiku of Zimbabwe, was not in a position to attend the present meeting due to other obligations, and in view of consultations held by the Chairperson of the General Council, the meeting was chaired on his behalf by AmbassadorAlejandroJara of Chile.

A.notifications under provisions of the agreement

(i)Notifications under Article 63.2

-Notifications from Members whose transitional periods under Article65.2 or 65.3 expired on 1 January 2000 or who acceded to the WTO after that date

  1. The Chairperson informed the Council that the Secretariat had updated its note reflecting the status of the notifications received from these Members so far (JOB(01)/133). The note showed from which of the Members in question notifications had been received by 14 September 2001. Since then, additional notifications of laws and regulations had been received from Costa Rica (IP/N/1/CRI/1/Add.1) and Nigeria (IP/N/1/NGA/C/1, I/1 and T/1). Although there were more notifications than at the time of the Council's previous meeting, he said that there were still Members whose legislation was scheduled to be reviewed in 2001 who had not yet submitted any notification concerning their implementing legislation. Notifications from a number of other Members were incomplete. Once again, he urged these Members to submit the outstanding material without delay. He recalled that pursuant to Article63.2 of the Agreement the notifications of the laws and regulations in question were due as of 1 January 2000. He urged the delegations in question, if some of the material to be notified was not yet ready, to submit whatever could be notified at once and complement the notification later when other parts of the material were ready. He reminded delegations that, under the Agreement Between WIPO and the WTO and decisions taken by WIPO's Governing Bodies, the International Bureau of WIPO was in a position to assist delegations with the translation of their main dedicated intellectual property laws and regulations, as required.
  2. The representative of Canada said that her delegation would make an additional notification of legislation shortly.

-Notifications from other Members

  1. The Chairperson informed the Council that, since the last meeting, amendments to legislation notified earlier had been received from the Czech Republic; Hong Kong, China; and Slovenia. These notifications would be available in the IP/N/1/- series of documents as soon as possible.

(ii)Notifications under Article 69

  1. The Chairperson informed the Council that, since the previous meeting, notifications of contact points under Article69 of the Agreement had been received from Belize, Costa Rica, Croatia, Lithuania, Mali and St.Lucia. These notifications would be circulated in the IP/N/3/- series of documents as soon as possible. There were now 109 Members who had notified contact points under Article69.

B.review of national implementing legislation

(i)Outstanding initial questions from the review of the legislation of Kuwait initiated in November 2000

  1. The Chairperson recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Council had noted that Kuwait had not responded to some initial questions posed in the review of its legislation, which had been initiated in November 2000. The Secretariat had recently received copies of further responses from Kuwait, which would be available in document IP/C/W/232/Add.4, but there was still a small number of initial questions outstanding.
  2. The representative of Kuwait said that there were eight initial questions outstanding due to technical reasons. He apologised for the delay in submitting the responses and said that they would be submitted by the next meeting. He asked any delegation that wished to submit follow-up questions to do so without delay.
  3. The Council took note of this statement, urged Kuwait to submit the outstanding replies without delay and agreed to revert to this sub-item at its next meeting.

(ii)Outstanding initial questions from the reviews of the legislation of Bolivia, Cameroon, Congo, Grenada, Guyana and Suriname initiated in April2001

  1. The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting of the Council, eight Members whose reviews had been initiated in April 2001 had had initial questions outstanding. He informed the Council that, since that time, some of the outstanding answers had been received from Cameroon[1] and Grenada[2], but that replies to initial questions remained outstanding from all six Members. The Secretariat had not received copies of responses from Guyana to any of the questions posed to it.
  2. The representative of Bolivia said that the only questions outstanding for his delegation concerned requests for statistics by the United States. He said that his delegation could not provide the requested statistics, as such statistics were not collected in his country.
  3. The Chairperson suggested that the delegation of Bolivia submit this statement in writing to the United States, with a copy to the Secretariat, as its response to the outstanding questions.
  4. The representative of Congo said that his delegation had answered all initial questions except those posed by the European Communities and their member States, as circulated in document IP/C/W/244, which it had not yet received in French.
  5. The Chairperson said that a French translation of the questions was now available and asked the Secretariat to provide a copy to the delegation of Congo.
  6. The Council took note of the statements made, urged the six Members in question to supply their replies without delay and agreed to revert to this sub-item at its next meeting.

(iii)Outstanding initial questions from reviews initiated in June 2001

  1. The Chairperson recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Council had initiated the reviews of 22Members. Since that meeting, outstanding responses to initial questions had been received from Albania[3], Bahrain[4], Croatia[5], Dominica[6], the Dominican Republic[7], Jamaica[8] and Oman[9]. Responses to initial questions remained outstanding from the following Members: Botswana, Côted'Ivoire, Egypt, Fiji[10], Georgia, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, the Philippines, St. Kitts and Nevis and the United Arab Emirates.
  2. The representative of Egypt said that his delegation would submit the responses to outstanding initial questions before the Council's next meeting.
  3. The representative of Jamaica said that her mission had received the responses to outstanding questions from the capital and would submit them shortly.
  4. The representative of Kenya said that his delegation had answered all but one initial question. It would provide the response to that question before the Council's next meeting.
  5. The representative of Morocco said that his delegation had answered all but seven initial questions. He would submit responses to all but one of the outstanding questions shortly.[11]
  6. The Council took note of the statements made, urged those Members who had not supplied responses to initial questions to do so without delay and agreed to revert to this sub-item at its next meeting.

(iv)Follow-up to the reviews already undertaken

  1. The Chairperson informed the Council that there remained outstanding a number of follow-up questions posed during the review meetings in November 2000 and April and June 2001. With respect to the reviews initiated in November 2000, since the previous meeting the Secretariat had received a copy of the outstanding responses from Paraguay.[12] Kuwait still had some follow-up questions outstanding.
  2. The representative of Kuwait said that he expected to be able to submit the responses to the outstanding follow-up questions within three weeks.
  3. The Chairperson informed the Council that, with respect to the reviews initiated in April2001, the Secretariat had received responses to all outstanding questions from SaintLucia. He suggested that the review of the legislation of Saint Lucia be deleted from the agenda, it being understood that any Member could revert to any matter stemming from this review at any time.
  4. It was so agreed.
  5. The Chairperson informed the Council that Congo, Namibia, Papua New Guinea and Suriname, whose reviews of legislation had also been initiated in April 2001 had not yet provided responses to all follow-up questions. Papua New Guinea had not yet made its introductory statement either.
  6. The representative of Congo said that he expected to be able to submit responses to outstanding follow-up questions before the Council's next meeting.
  7. The Chairperson informed the Council that, with respect to the reviews initiated in June 2001, responses to follow-up questions had been received from Argentina[13], Botswana[14], Costa Rica[15], Croatia[16], the Dominican Republic[17] and Honduras.[18] However, responses to some or all follow-up questions were still outstanding from Albania, Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Georgia, Jamaica, Kenya, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates.
  8. The representative of Bahrain said that his delegation had responded to all initial questions and would be happy to respond to any follow-up questions that delegations might wish to pose.
  9. The representative of Jamaica said that her mission had received the responses to outstanding follow-up questions from the capital and would submit them shortly.
  10. The representative of Kenya said that his delegation had received three follow-up questions to which it would respond before the next meeting.
  11. The representative of Nicaragua said that his delegation had already sent its responses to follow-up questions to the delegation of Switzerland and would submit a copy to the Secretariat.[19]
  12. The representative of the United States thanked delegations for their responses to the numerous questions that his delegation had posed. He hoped that the reviews of legislation had facilitated the process of implementation of the Agreement.
  13. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation attached the greatest importance to the reviews of national legislation. It found the procedure useful and instructive.
  14. The representative of Canada thanked Bahrain, the Dominican Republic and Kuwait for the responses that they had provided to additional questions posed by Canada in the review of legislation.
  15. The Council urged those Members who had not supplied responses to follow-up questions to do so without delay.
  16. The Chairperson informed the Council that, at its next meeting, in November 2001, it was scheduled to initiate the reviews of the legislation of 21 Members. These were Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Gabon, Ghana, India, Lithuania, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal[20], Sri Lanka, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zimbabwe. He recalled that, at its meeting in April 2001, the Council had agreed that it would begin with the legislation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and continue in alphabetical order. The Council had also agreed that questions should be posed to Members concerned by 14September2001 and responses to questions posed within that deadline should be submitted by 26October 2001. However, to date, the Secretariat had not yet received copies of any questions for these reviews, apart from the questions posed on the legislation of Antigua and Barbuda, Brazil, Ghana and Qatar, whose reviews had originally been scheduled to be initiated at an earlier meeting, but which had been postponed until the Council's meeting in November 2001.
  17. The Council urged delegations who wished to pose questions in the November review to submit their questions in writing to the Members concerned, with a copy to the Secretariat, without delay.
  18. The Chairperson informed the Council that Brazil had submitted responses to questions posed by the European Communities and their member States, Japan, Switzerland and the UnitedStates, which had been circulated in documents IP/C/W/303 and Add.1.
  19. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to this sub-item at its next meeting.

C.implementation of article 70.8 and 70.9

  1. The Chairperson informed the Council that Costa Rica's additional notification of laws under Article63.2, to which he had referred under agenda item A, also contained information relating to Article 70.8 and 70.9 of the Agreement.[21]

d.implementation of article 66.2

  1. The Chairperson recalled that the implementation of Article66.2 had been under discussion in the Council since December 1998 and that the Council had received information from 20developed country Members on how that provision was being implemented in their territories (documents IP/C/W/132 and addenda). Since June 2000, the Council had also had before it a Secretariat note (IP/C/W/169) prepared on a request from the Council, setting out the types of incentive measures that had been notified, with cross references to where further details could be found; as well as a proposal from the delegation of Zambia relating to special and differential treatment in respect of technology transfer (IP/C/W/199). In relation to Article 66.2, the Special Session of the General Council had agreed, at its meeting of 18 October 2000, to invite the TRIPS Council, with a view to facilitating full implementation of Article 66.2: to give consideration to drawing up an illustrative list of incentives of the sort envisaged by Article 66.2; to put on a regular and systematic basis its procedure for the notification and monitoring of measures in accordance with the provisions of Article 66.2 and, in doing so, to give consideration to avoiding unnecessary burdens in notification procedures; that the TRIPS Council invite other intergovernmental organizations to provide information on their activities aimed at technology capacity-building. At its previous meeting, the Council had had an initial discussion on issues addressed in a communication it had received from Zambia (document IP/C/W/298) relevant to this agenda item and agenda items E and K.
  2. The representative of the United States provided information on how the UnitedStates had implemented its obligations under Article 66.2. He highlighted a program that might be of particular interest to the African Group, named the US African Development Fund ("ADF"). The ADF had been established by the US Congress in 1984 as a US public corporation to work directly with community-based groups in sub-Saharan African countries to help diagnose and solve community problems. The programme was unique because all ADF-funded activities were conceived and implemented locally in the countries involved and grants were awarded directly to grassroots African groups, entrepreneurs and researchers to fund those activities. To illustrate, he referred to several recent projects. Twenty-two women Members of the Home Girls Cooperative, located 250 miles from the capital of Zimbabwe, had been given a grant of US$87,467 over a period of five years to transform their jewellery making into a profitable jewellery and accessory-making enterprise that earned a steady income. The group had doubled its share of the domestic jewellery market to 28percent and had initiated sales in South Africa and Japan. The funds were used to purchase raw materials for beads, to construct and electrify their production facility, and to obtain management training. The Nyamaropa-Nyakomba Paprika Growers Association, formed in 1997, had received a grant of US$201,616 over five years to help small-scale paprika farmers enter local, regional and international markets through increasing productivity, enhancing quality and obtaining marketing and technical assistance. The project had increased the average incomes of paprika producers from Z$8,000 to Z$24,340 per acre by year three. The Uganda Gender Micro Credit and Afforestation Project, an umbrella non-governmental organization with over 27,000 members in 1,202 groups, had been given a grant of US$209,332 over five years. The organization used the grant to provide drastically needed alternatives to subsistence farming for its members by providing training and 6,000 small loans to establish small tree nurseries for fruit trees and fuel-wood trees, operated by 25 groups in five target districts. Group members were trained in credit administration, business management and afforestation. The Opportunities Industrialization Centers of Tanzania had been given a grant of US$37,243 for over six months to provide local non-governmental organizations with training in financial and organizational sustainability so that staff in these organizations could understand finance and enterprise development as the country moved progressively toward a market economy. The Diourbei Fish Preservation and Marketing Project, a union of 57 women's cooperatives in Senegal, had been given a grant of US$208,083 over five years to construct a fish processing and cold storage facility in order to provide reliable employment and increasing revenue for the group. The new working capital expanded the credit fund, and training was provided cooperative members in marketing, management and food preservation. By the fifth year, the union expected to sell 7.5 tons of fish weekly, benefitting 3,000 members, their families and local fishermen. The Djiratawa Irrigated Area Cooperatives in Niger had received a grant of US$236,096 over five years through repair of its water system and construction of wells that strengthened the capacity of 872 households to produce tomatoes, cotton and wheat for sale to local processors.