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

Ambassador Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay)
137. The representative of Canada said that his delegation had tried to crystallize in three pages what it thought were the major concerns with respect to the application of this remedy in the context of intellectual property. Some of the concerns arose from uncertainty as to the scope of the remedy and others from the potential undermining of regulatory authority, in particular in relation to areas where governments exercised regulatory authority in support of policy objectives, such as health and environment. Regarding the Secretariat paper, he said it provided a good basis for understanding the extent to which this remedy had been applied in the past. He thought the Secretariat's paper made the point very well that in fact the experience had been very limited. One other point of the paper which he appreciated was that it pointed to some of the concepts that underlay the non-violation remedy, notably the notion of reasonable expectations of benefits accruing from the obligations entered into. Canada would like to see a discussion in the TRIPS Council on the issues involved and on the essential elements of the remedy. He proposed that, at its next meeting, the Council have a discussion based on the meaning of the term "benefits" in the context of intellectual property rights. This discussion, he said, should emanate from Members as they were the ones to take on obligations and to assess how the remedy might affect their ability to regulate.