MINUTES OF
MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard on 24-25 February 2015
Chairperson:
Ambassador Mothusi Palai (Botswana)
The present document contains
the record of the Council for TRIPS meeting held on 24‑25 February 2015.
The statements made during the meeting will be circulated in an addendum to the
present document.
_______________
Subjects discussed
1 Notifications under Provisions of the
Agreement. 2
2 Reviews of National
Implementing Legislation.. 3
2.1 Review of the national implementing
legislation of Tajikistan. 3
2.2 Review of the national implementing
legislation of the Russian Federation. 3
2.3 Follow-up to reviews already
undertaken. 3
3 Review of the
Provisions of Article 27.3(b). 4
4 Relationship between
the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. 4
5 Protection of
Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. 4
6 Non-violation and
Situation Complaints. 4
7 Review of the
Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement under Article 71.1. 5
8 Review of the
Application of the Provisions of the Section on Geographical Indications under
Article 24.2. 5
9 follow-up to the
twelfth annual review under paragraph 2 of the decision on the implementation
of article 66.2 of the trips agreement. 5
10 Technical
Cooperation and Capacity-Building.. 5
11 IP and Innovation:
women and innovation.. 6
12 Concerns with
respect to Proposals for Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products in the United
Kingdom and Ireland.. 6
13 Information on
Relevant Developments Elsewhere in the WTO.. 6
13.1 Accessions. 6
13.2 Protocol Amending the TRIPS
Agreement 6
13.3 Work on E-Commerce. 7
14 Observer Status for
International Intergovernmental Organizations. 7
15 Other Business. 8
15.1 Invitations to ad hoc observers. 8
15.2 Date for the Council's meeting in
October 8
15.3 Request for an Extension of the
Transitional Period under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement for LDC Members
with respect to Pharmaceutical Products and for Waivers from the Obligations of
Articles 70.8 and 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement 8
15.4 Contribution of Intellectual
Property to Facilitate the Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology 8
16 election of the
chairperson.. 8
1.1. The Chairman said that, since
its meeting in October 2014, the Council had received a number of updates to
earlier notifications of laws and regulations notified under Article 63.2
of the Agreement:
· Following the brief oral introduction at the last meeting, Colombia had
notified a decree from September 2014 adjusting patent duration through
restoration of the patent term;
· Hong Kong, China had notified amendments to certain laws and regulations in the
field of patents, trademarks, designs and layout designs of integrated
circuits;
· Peru had notified amendments to its copyright law;
· Croatia had notified its Copyright and Related Rights Act and an Act
amending it;
· Canada had notified amendments to its Copyright Act, Trademarks Act,
Patent Act, Industrial Design Act, Customs Act, and to the Criminal Code. It
had also notified a Statement Limiting the Right to Equitable Remuneration of
Certain Rome Convention or WPPT Countries;
· Chinese Taipei had notified Enforcement Rules of the Patent Act, as
well as Regulations of Patent Fees; and
· New Zealand had notified its Patent Act 2013 and its Patent Regulations 2014.
1.2. These notifications of laws and
regulations were available in the IP/N/1- series of documents, and the actual
texts of laws in sub-series of documents in electronic form on the Documents
Online database.
1.3. In addition, Thailand and Sri Lanka had provided their
initial responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement, circulated in
document IP/N/6/THA/1 and IP/N/6/LKA/1 respectively.
1.4. As regards notifications of contact
points under Article 69 for the exchange of information and cooperation on
trade in infringing goods, since the meeting in October 2014, Nepal had notified
a contact point under Article 69 for the first time. An update to a contact
point notified earlier had been received from Sri Lanka. The information on the
Members' transparency toolkit page had been updated accordingly.
1.5. He particularly
encouraged the delegations that had notified a new or revised legislative
measure, or a new or updated response to the enforcement checklist to briefly
inform the Council about the key points of the notified amendment or
information provided, as most new notifications were revisions or amendments of
existing notifications. Several delegations had followed this practice at
recent sessions of the Council and it had provided valuable insight into the
notifications provided and had assisted in promoting awareness and transparency.
1.6. The
representative of Colombia
took the floor.
1.7. The Chairman
urged those Members whose initial notifications of laws and regulations remained
incomplete to submit the outstanding material without delay. Equally, he urged
other Members to fulfil their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement to notify
any subsequent amendments of their laws and regulations without delay after
their entry into force.
1.8. He
especially encouraged Members to notify changes made to their laws and/or
regulations to implement the Decision on TRIPS and public health. At least 50
WTO Members, including many of the world's major exporters of medicines, had
adopted implementing legislation that allowed them to use the Paragraph 6
System as exporters and/or importers. However, only 16 Members had formally
notified such measures to the TRIPS Council. Completing the notification of all
relevant laws and regulations could assist Members in preparing for the
potential use of the System. It would also help the Secretariat in its efforts
to provide informed technical support to Members in this area.
1.9. The Secretariat
updated the Council on its work to improve the user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness
of the notification system.
1.10. The
Council took note of the statements made.
2.1. The Chairman recalled that
the Council had initiated at its last meeting the review of Tajikistan's
national implementing legislation. Tajikistan
had received questions from the United
States, circulated in document IP/C/W/604.
2.2. Tajikistan had provided responses to the
questions on 23 February 2015 (circulated in document IP/C/W/606). The Chairman
suggested that the Council revert to the matter at its next meeting.
2.3. The Council so agreed.
2.4. The Chairman recalled that
the Council had initiated this review at its meeting in October 2013. The
Council had taken note of the notifications submitted by the Russian Federation,
as well as the questions put to it in advance of the meeting and the responses
it had given. Shortly before the Council's last meeting, the United States had
posed additional follow-up questions (circulated in document IP/C/W/589/Add.2).
The Russian Federation's
responses to these questions were available in document IP/C/592/Add.2. Provided
that there were no further follow-up questions, he suggested that the review of
the Russian Federation
be removed from the agenda, it being understood that any delegation should feel
free to revert to any matter stemming from this review at any time.
2.5. The Council so decided.
2.6. The Chairman recalled that the
reviews of two Members' national implementing legislation that had been
initiated at the Council's meetings since April 2001 remained on the
Council's agenda, namely those of Fiji;
and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
He urged the delegations concerned to provide the outstanding material as soon
as possible, so as to allow the Council to complete the follow-up to these
reviews. To support this process, he suggested that the incoming Chair be
requested to contact the Members in question to enquire when they would expect
to be in a position to provide the outstanding materials needed to complete the
reviews and to offer any Secretariat technical support that they might need.
2.7. The representative of Switzerland
indicated its readiness to provide technical assistance
to the two Members in question.
2.8. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed
that the incoming Chair contact the Members concerned and revert to the matter
at its next meeting.
5.1. The Chairman suggested that
the Council continue to discuss the three agenda items together on the basis of
contributions by Members. He recalled
that, at the last meeting, he had encouraged delegations to continue direct
talks among themselves on two pending suggestions supported by a number of
Members, i.e. (i) that the Secretariat be requested to update the three factual
notes that summarize the points delegations had made in the Council's past
discussions under these agenda items, and (ii) that the CBD Secretariat be
invited to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol that had been adopted at
the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD held in October
2010. He had been in touch with the interested delegations, but they had not
reported on any new developments with respect to the above suggestions.
5.2. The representatives of Ecuador;
Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group; the Plurinational
State of Bolivia; Brazil; China; the Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela; Egypt; Colombia; Indonesia; Cuba;
South Africa; India; Nepal; Peru; Switzerland;
United States; the Republic of Korea; Japan; Canada;
Australia; and Chile took the floor.
5.3. The Chairman encouraged the interested
Members to continue direct talks among themselves on the two pending
suggestions.
5.4. The Council took note of the
statements made and agreed to revert to them at its next meeting.
6.1. The Chairman recalled that, at the Ninth Session of the Ministerial Conference,
Ministers had directed the TRIPS Council to continue its examination of the
scope and modalities for complaints of the types provided for under
subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT
1994 and make recommendations to their next Session that would be held in
Nairobi in December 2015. It had been agreed that, in the meantime, Members would
not initiate such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement.[1]
6.2. Members had discussed the matter at
the TRIPS Council's three meetings in 2014. In particular, a communication on
"Non-Violation Complaints under the TRIPS Agreement" submitted by the
United States (circulated in document IP/C/W/599) had served as the basis for
an intense exchange of views at the meeting in October 2014, where the Council had
agreed to revert to this matter at its next meeting. The Chairman had been in
touch with some interested delegations, but they had not been in a
position to report on any new developments. He invited delegations to share any thoughts
on how the Council could best move forward on this matter in order to be in a
position to agree in a timely manner on its recommendations to the next
Ministerial Conference.
6.3. The representatives of United States; Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC
Group; the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Peru; Canada;
Norway; Brazil; South Africa; China; Japan; Argentina;
the Republic of Korea; Switzerland; Ecuador; Colombia; Egypt; Cuba; Chile;
Chinese Taipei; Russian Federation; Nepal; India
and Nepal took the floor.
6.4. The Chairman said that there were
only two more formal meetings of the Council left to respond to the instruction
by Ministers that draft recommendations be prepared by MC10. This should be of
particular concern to delegations, given that the initial deadline for
accomplishing this task was 1999 and that there were still no concrete
proposals on the table as to how the Council might prepare the recommendations.
Keeping the item on the agenda had not yielded any solution over the past 16
years.
6.5. The Council took note of the
statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next meeting.
7.1. No
statements were made by Members under this agenda item.
7.2. The Council agreed to revert
to the matter at its next meeting.
8.1. The Chairman recalled that
Article 24.2 provided that the Council shall keep under review the application
of the provisions of the GI Section of the Agreement. The
principal tool used to coordinate the review process had been a Checklist of
Questions contained in document IP/C/13 and Add.1. However, only 49 Members out of 160 had undertaken this
valuable exercise to date, and a number of past responses were likely to be out
of date, since they dated back over a decade. In
addition, at its meeting in March 2010, the Council had agreed to encourage
Members to share information on and notify to the Council bilateral agreements
related to the protection of geographical indications, which they had entered
into.
8.2. As the question of GI protection remained of
continuing interest, he invited those delegations that had not yet provided
responses to the Checklist of Questions to consider doing so and those who had
already done so to consider updating the information as appropriate. In line
with the Council's recommendation made in March 2010, he also encouraged any
Member that was party to any bilateral agreements related to the protection of
GIs and had not yet shared such information with the Council to do so.
8.3. The representatives of China,
Ecuador and the European Union took the floor.
8.4. The Council took note of the
statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.
9.1. The Chairman
recalled that, at its meeting in October 2014, the Council had taken up the
twelfth annual review of developed country Members' reports on their
implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. In concluding the item,
he had indicated that delegations would be provided an opportunity at the
present meeting to make further comments on the information submitted for that
meeting that they had not yet been able to study.
9.2. The
representatives of Bangladesh
on behalf of the LDC Group and Nepal took the floor.
9.3. The
Council took note of the statements made.
10.1. The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had taken up its annual
review of technical cooperation. Given that some information from Members and
intergovernmental organizations available only a short time before the review,
he had indicated that the Council would be offered a further opportunity to
make comments on that material at this meeting.
10.2. The representative of the Gulf
Cooperation Council informed the Council of its relevant activities.
10.3. The Council took note of the
statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.
11.1. The Chairman said that this
item had been put on the agenda at the written request by the delegations of
the European Union, Japan, Norway, Turkey and the United States.
11.2. The representatives of Norway;
Turkey; Japan; the United States; the European Union;
Montenegro; Mexico; Chile; Switzerland; Canada;
Chinese Taipei; Australia; India; and the World Bank
took the floor.
11.3. The Council took note of the
statements made.
12.1. The Chairman said that this
item had been put on the agenda at the written request by the delegation of the
Dominican Republic.
12.2. The representatives of the Dominican
Republic; the European Union; Nicaragua; Honduras; Cuba;
Indonesia; Nigeria; Zimbabwe; Australia; Uruguay;
Canada; Norway; New Zealand; and the World Health Organization
took the floor.
12.3. The Council took note of the
statements made.
13.1. The Chairman informed that, at
its meeting on 10 December 2014, the General Council had approved the package
of accession of the Republic of Seychelles. The relevant decision was available
in document WT/L/944. In keeping with WTO provisions, Seychelles would become a
Member of the WTO 30 days following the date of the ratification of its
Protocol of Accession.
13.2. The Chairman said that, at
its meeting on 20 February 2015, the General Council had had an item on its
agenda regarding the "Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement: Update on
Status – Statement by the Director-General". Under this item, the
Director-General had reported on the renewed efforts that he had recently
undertaken in order to secure the entry into force of the TRIPS amendment by
MC10. Among others, he had informed delegations about his recent meeting with
the Ambassadors of the African Group. He had also referred to the letters that
he had addressed to all Ministers to encourage those who had yet to accept the
Protocol to complete domestic procedures and to invite others who had already
done so to support his efforts to reach the two third of threshold of
acceptances that was required for the Protocol's entry into force. The Director-General
had called upon Members concerned to complete this process so that the
amendment could be brought into force.
13.3. At the General Council meeting, a
number of delegations had concurred with the statement made by the
Director-General. In particular, the Dominican Republic, speaking on behalf of
the Informal Group of Developing Countries, had fully supported the efforts
undertaken to allow the entry into force by MC10 and had urged all Members
which had yet to accept the Protocol to complete their domestic procedures.
13.4. In order to facilitate the efforts
of those delegations who were yet to accept the Protocol, an aide-mémoire had been made available as a Room Document at
the General Council's meeting last week. The General Council had also agreed
that the aide-mémoire be circulated as a formal
document. The Chairman had asked the Secretariat to include document WT/GC/W/696
on the list of documents that were available for today's TRIPS Council meeting.
13.5. He once again encouraged the delegations
that were yet to accept the TRIPS amendment to take the necessary steps so that
the domestic procedures could be completed as soon as possible. As outlined by
the Director-General in his statement at the General Council, entry into force
of the amendment would give this new compulsory licensing mechanism the same
status as all other public health-related flexibilities under the TRIPS
Agreement. It would provide a permanent legal pathway that strengthens the
System's future potential to facilitate export of medicines that were needed by
patients in developing countries. And it would respond to widespread calls
within the UN, including from the UN Economic and Social Council and the UN
General Assembly, to complete the process of acceptance. At this stage, he was confident
that this goal could be achieved this year. For this to happen, another 27
Members needed to submit their respective instruments of acceptance to the WTO.
13.6. The Chairman said that the
Second WTO Ministerial Conference held in May 1998 had adopted a Declaration on
Global Electronic Commerce,[2]
which had launched a comprehensive work programme to examine all trade-related
issues relating to global electronic commerce. At their most recent session in
Bali in December 2013, Ministers had decided to continue with the work.[3] At
its meeting in July 2014, the General Council Chair had informed Members that
he had appointed Ambassador Alfredo Suescum of Panama to act as "a friend
of the Chair" to facilitate the work. Ambassador Suescum had held the Tenth
Dedicated Discussion on E-Commerce on 16 February 2015. In preparation of
that meeting, the WTO Secretariat had prepared a background note on the Work Programme
on Electronic Commerce (available in document JOB/GC/73). This note also
summarized the TRIPS Council's earlier work in this area.
13.7. He said that e-commerce had been on
the agenda of each TRIPS Council meeting from 1998 to June 2003, and that the
Council had produced three reports to the General Council. Following the Cancún
Ministerial Conference in 2003, no Member, however, had made any written
submissions to the TRIPS Council or otherwise sought to continue discussions on
e-commerce in the Council. While not specifically under the heading of
"e-commerce", the TRIPS Council had continued to discuss relevant issues
under various agenda items.
13.8. In his informal contacts with a
number of delegations, the Chairman had enquired whether any of them was
contemplating making any written submissions on these topics or otherwise
raising any issues related to them in the TRIPS Council. Currently that did not
seem to be the case. He underlined that the WTO's work programme on e-commerce
would be an opportunity for Members to raise any issues or concerns relating to
TRIPS and e-commerce.
13.9. The Council took note of the information
provided.
14.1. The Chairman recalled that there
remained 12 pending requests for observer status in the TRIPS Council by other
intergovernmental organizations. The updated list was contained in document
IP/C/W/52/Rev.13.
14.2. In the past few years, the Council
had been able to make some progress by agreeing to grant ad hoc
observer status on a meeting-by-meeting basis to ARIPO, OAPI, the GCC and EFTA.
14.3. As requested by the Council at its meeting
in October 2014, he had consulted with a number of interested delegations on
the pending requests for observer status, in particular those from the South
Centre, the CBD Secretariat and the International Vaccine Institute.
Unfortunately, he was not in a position to report on new thinking among those
delegations.
14.4. The representatives of India;
Nepal; Bangladesh; Brazil; Egypt; the European
Union; Cuba; China; Cuba; Ecuador; and the United
States took the floor.
14.5. The Council took note of the
statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.
15.1. The Chairman
recalled that, at its meetings in June 2010 and November 2012, the Council had agreed
to grant ad hoc observer status on a meeting-to-meeting
basis to the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization, the African
Intellectual Property Organization, the Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the
Gulf, and the European Free Trade Association. He suggested that the Council again invite ARIPO, OAPI,
GCC and EFTA to attend the Council's next formal meeting on an ad hoc basis.
15.2. The Council so agreed.
15.3. The Chairman informed that, due
to a scheduling conflict with the Assemblies of Member States of WIPO which would
take place from 5 to 14 October 2015, a fax had been sent to delegations on 15
December 2014 to inform them that the Council's October meeting had been
tentatively rescheduled to take place on 15-16 October, instead of the
initially agreed dates, i.e. 13-14 October.
15.4. The Council so agreed.
15.5. The Chairman
said that, at the beginning of the meeting, the delegation of Bangladesh had
indicated that it wished to make a statement on behalf of the LDC Group under
"Other Business" concerning the issue of extension of the transition
period in the pharmaceutical sector. He drew Members' attention to a request
for an extension of the transitional period under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement for LDC Members with respect to pharmaceutical products and for
waivers from the obligations of Articles 70.8 and 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement
that had been submitted by Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group (circulated in
document IP/C/W/605).
15.6. The
representatives of Bangladesh
on behalf of the LDC Group; Nepal; Brazil; the European Union; India; China
and Chinese Taipei took the floor.
15.7. The Council took note of the statements made.
15.8. The Chairman
said that, at the beginning of the meeting, the delegation of Ecuador had
indicated that it
wished to inform the TRIPS Council about the steps taken to advance its
proposal regarding the issue of the contribution of intellectual property to
facilitate the transfer of environmentally sound technology.
15.9. The
representative of Ecuador took the floor.
15.10. The
Council took note of the statement made.
16.1. The Chairman recalled that, at
its meeting of 20 February 2015, the General Council had noted the consensus on
a slate of names of chairpersons for WTO bodies. On the basis of the
understanding reached, he proposed that the Council for TRIPS elect H.E. Dr. Abdolazeez Al-Otaibi from the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as its Chairperson for the coming year by acclamation.
16.2. The Council so agreed.
__________
[3] Ministerial Decision on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce
WT/L/907.