111. The representative of India lent his delegation's strong support to the thrust of the joint proposal that had just been introduced by Egypt and said that India had not co-sponsored it because it did not go far enough: it proposed an extension of the moratorium, whilst his delegation believed that the non-violation remedy should never apply to disputes under the TRIPS Agreement. His delegation did not believe that the moratorium should be extended but, rather, the Council should recommend to the Ministerial Conference that non-violation should henceforth cease to apply in the context of the TRIPS Agreement. He did not believe that any additional arguments could be made besides those which had already been made by the representative of Hungary on behalf of the CEFTA countries, and in the paper which had been presented by Canada (document IP/C/W/127). Nevertheless, he wished to repeat some of their comments. First, the non-violation provision of the GATT was aimed at preventing contracting parties from using non-tariff barriers and other policy measures to negate the benefits of negotiated tariff concessions. In other words, it was intended to protect reciprocal tariff concessions and that was simply inapplicable in the context of the TRIPS Agreement. The fundamental objectives of the GATT or GATS were totally different from those of the TRIPS Agreement. On the one hand, the GATT, as his delegation saw it, was about regulating competitive relationships. On the other hand, the TRIPS Agreement, was not about competition. Indeed, it could be argued that the TRIPS Agreement was, in a sense, anti-competitive in nature where it sought to reward inventors. The TRIPS Agreement was about minimum standards of treatment, not about equal treatment of competitors. This was the fundamental difference between the GATT and GATS on the one hand, and the TRIPS Agreement on the other. He suggested that, if delegations wished to enter into this exercise with an open mind, he would be interested to hear those delegations which had a contrary view rebutting the legal arguments that had been put by others. Lastly, his delegation believed that, if the Council allowed non-violation to apply to the TRIPS Agreement, the balance of rights and obligations in the WTO would undergo a significant change and his delegation was not prepared for that.
