The higher level
of protection given to place names used to identify wines and spirits should be expanded
to geographical indications identifying other products, a group of WTO members once again
told the organizations intellectual property Council on 21 March.
Another group of
countries said the council should concentrate on its current task of setting up a
multilateral system for notifying and registering these names and assessing actual
implementation of the rules on geographical indications before thinking about extension of
other topics discussed in the meeting were:
> forthcoming reviews of intellectual property laws in
countries which have recently had to implement The WTOs Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),
> an on-going debate between Cuba and others and the US over a
> the review of the agreements provisions on
biotechnological inventions and plant varieties,
> review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement
> non-violation complaints under the TRIPS
Geographical indications back to
indications are place names, or words closely associated with places, such as
Champagne, Scotch, Tequila, and Roquefort
WTOs Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) says
geographical indications in general should be protected, at least with a view to avoiding
unfair competition and consumers being misled. Place names used to identify wines and
spirits are given a higher level protection, i.e. even if consumers are not misled or if
using the names does not constitute an act of unfair competition.
the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) with Latvia and Estonia (Poland speaking
on their behalf) made a strong call for negotiations on geographical indications aimed at
expanding the higher level of protection currently given to wines and spirits
to other products.
that if benchmarks (i.e. flexible target dates for various stages of the
negotiations) are to be set for the talks agriculture and services, then there should be
similar benchmarks for negotiations on geographical indications.
supported wholly or partly by Turkey, India, Switzerland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Sri Lanka,
Egypt, Cuba, and the EU.
Many in this
group argued that a mandate to negotiate extending the product coverage exists in the
TRIPS agreement (under Article 24). Several complained that after four years of
implementing the agreement, there has been no progress either on negotiating a
multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines
and spirits (Art 23.4) or on expanding the higher level of protection to other
call with varying degrees of flexibility were: Argentina, New Zealand, US, Australia,
Canada, Chile, Mexico, Brazil, and Hong Kong China. They said negotiations on geographical
indications could not be put on the same level as the mandated negotiations on agriculture
and services. They added that any negotiations on extending the scope of the product
coverage of Article 23 should wait until the TRIPS Council has finished its review of how
member countries are applying the agreements provisions on geographical indications.
argued that the TRIPS Council should not divert attention away from the current
negotiations on setting up a multilateral notification and registration system for
geographical indications. They welcomed the EUs announcement that it would submit a
new paper on the subject soon.
Council agreed that its chairperson should start informal consultations on how to continue
work in these areas.
Review of national implementing legislation back to
made further practical arrangements for the 27 countries whose legislation is to be
reviewed in June and November this year (these are mainly developing countries which were
required to implement the TRIPS Agreement at the beginning of this year). See lists. The chairperson is consulting with delegations on the
lists of the 42 countries to be reviewed in 2001.
and EU vs. US on Section 211 of the 1998 US Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act back to
has come up in several previous meetings. Cuba complained again that the USs replies
to its questions consisted of texts of laws and court rulings but not an explanation of
how the US considers the law to conform with TRIPS. The US argued again that this is all
it is required to do under the TRIPS provision that Cuba cited. The EU, which has brought
this formally to the WTOs dispute settlement process, supported Cuba in demanding a
proper explanation from the US.
Plant and animal inventions
(Art 27.3(b)) back to
says plants and animals do not have to be eligible for patenting, except in the following
cases. Inventions of micro-organisms have to be eligible for patenting. So do inventions
of non-biological and microbiological processes for the production of plants or animals.
And plant varieties have to be eligible for protection either by patents, or by an
effective system specially created for the purpose (sui generis), or a
combination of the two. A review of these provisions, as required by the agreement, began
in 1999. The council agreed at this meeting that there was a need to continue considering
the issues raised in this review. Members were urged to provide additional material, in
particular countries that did not yet apply these provisions in 1999.
Most of the
discussion was procedural: whether to continue with wide-ranging deliberations or to
organize more structured discussions focusing on specific issues that had been raised by
various delegations at the councils meetings in July and October last year
(including how to deal with, for example, biodiversity issues and ethical questions of
intellectual property protection for life forms).
agreed that the chairperson should hold consultations on how to organise work on these
issues. This, the council said, should take into account work underway on the issues in
other forums (e.g. the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO and the
Convention on Biological Diversity CBD).
of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement
says the implementation of the agreement must be reviewed five years after it came into
existence (i.e. in 2000). The council invited members to submit written suggestions on how
to proceed. The chairperson will also consult members informally and report back at the
Non-violation complaints back to
with governments ability to bring a dispute to the WTO based on loss of an expected
benefit as a result of a members actions, even if no agreement or commitment has
actually been violated. The item was on the agenda at the request of the EU, which
informed the council that in the near future it will submit a communication on the matter
to the council.
Members whose TRIPS legislation is to be reviewed in 2000 and 2001
back to top
To date, the following members have volunteered to be reviewed in the year 2000.
|26-30 June 2000
||27 November to 1
|Hong Kong, China
|Poland (areas for
which not reviewed in '96-'98)
|Trinidad and Tobago
||United Arab Emirates
members are scheduled for review in 2001
(i.e., those Members to which Article 65.2 or 65.3 applies and which have not yet
been reviewed or taken up in the lists above).
|Antigua and Barbuda
||Papua New Guinea
||St. Kitts and Nevis
||St. Vincent and