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

Ambassador W. Armstrong (New Zealand)
United States of America
I Review of the application of the provisions of the Section on geographical indications under Article 24.2
50. The representative of the United States said that, in addressing the issue of the review indicated in Article 24.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, his delegation attached importance to a differentiation between what was required by the Agreement and what extra activities one or more delegations would like to see undertaken by the TRIPS Council. Article 24.2 clearly stated that Members were to review the application of the provisions of the Section on geographical indications by the end of 1996. During the review of national implementing legislation that had taken place at the present meeting, all Members had had the opportunity to ask as many primary and follow-up questions as they desired in this area and had largely availed themselves of this opportunity. Although some of the questions had been of a general nature, many other questions had been very specific, asking the Member in question to provide a detailed interpretation or respond to a detailed comparison. As a result, delegations had obtained a considerable amount of detailed information on the systems for the protection of geographical indications in the Members concerned and the review had been as thorough as any Member could have reasonably expected. In his delegation's view, this meant that Members had fulfilled their obligation under Article 24.2 of the Agreement to review the application of the provisions of the Section on geographical indications by the end of the year. He also stressed that many of the questions posed on other Members' legislation had not yet been answered and that it was consequently premature to consider at this time any further work. Precious resources should not be used to embark on new initiatives until Members had had a chance to absorb and analyse the huge amount of information generated by the review exercise. In conclusion, he said that his delegation could not agree, at this time, to the additional work suggested by the European Community that went beyond the requirements under the Agreement.
IP/C/M/11