Minutes - TRIPS Council - View details of the intervention/statement

Ambassador W. Armstrong (New Zealand)
H Review of legislation in the areas of trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs
28. The Chairman recalled that the procedures for this review could be found in the minutes of the Council's May meeting (document IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6), with the adjustments agreed at its July meeting (document IP/C/M/8, paragraphs 69 and 70). In accordance with these procedures, the Secretariat had circulated a proposed timetable in an informal note of 10 October 1996. Written questions concerning other Members' legislation had been received in advance of the meeting from the European Community and its Member States, New Zealand, the United States, Japan and Australia. Written responses had been received in advance of the meeting from Liechtenstein, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, South Africa, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Canada. He suggested to proceed as had been done at the July meeting and invited each Member to provide, in introducing its legislation, a brief overview of the structure of its legislation on trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs and of the changes, if any, that it had had to bring about in order to make the legislation compatible with the TRIPS Agreement. After having done so, an introduction might be provided to the responses to the questions put to them by other Members. Where responses had already been made available in the three WTO languages, the Member in question might limit itself to a brief summary, drawing attention to any points that it wanted to highlight. After these presentations and introductions of responses, he would then offer the floor to other delegations for any comments or other questions. 29. The record of the introductory statements made by delegations, the questions put to them and the responses given (including certain written responses provided after the meeting) will be circulated in the following documents: IP/Q2/AUS/1 Australia IP/Q2/CAN/1 Canada IP/Q2/CZE/1 Czech Republic IP/Q2/EEC/1 European Community IP/Q2/AUT/1 Austria IP/Q2/BEL/1 Belgium IP/Q2/DNK/1 Denmark IP/Q2/FIN/1 Finland IP/Q2/FRA/1 France IP/Q2/DEU/1 Germany IP/Q2/GRC/1 Greece IP/Q2/IRL/1 Ireland IP/Q2/ITA/1 Italy IP/Q2/LUX/1 Luxembourg IP/Q2/NLD/1 Netherlands IP/Q2/PRT/1 Portugal IP/Q2/ESP/1 Spain IP/Q2/SWE/1 Sweden IP/Q2/GBR/1 United Kingdom IP/Q2/HUN/1 Hungary IP/Q2/ISL/1 Iceland IP/Q2/JPN/1 Japan IP/Q2/LIE/1 Liechtenstein IP/Q2/NZL/1 New Zealand IP/Q2/NOR/1 Norway IP/Q2/SVK/1 Slovak Republic IP/Q2/SVN/1 Slovenia IP/Q2/ZAF/1 South Africa IP/Q2/CHE/1 Switzerland IP/Q2/USA/1 United States 30. After the consideration of the legislation of the above Members, the Chairman recalled that questions had been asked in advance of a number of other Members, in addition to those who had responded so far. He offered the floor to any delegation that might wish to comment.