1. The Chairperson informed the Council that, since the last meeting, new notifications of legislation had been received from Ecuador and Panama, while Bulgaria, Hungary, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway and Romania had submitted notifications supplementing these Members' earlier notifications of legislation. All these notifications would be available in the IP/N/1/- document series as soon as possible. Responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/C/5) had been received from Bulgaria and Poland. These notifications had been circulated in the IP/N/6/- series of documents.

TN/C/W/52

2. The Chairperson informed the Council that the notification announced at the last meeting by the delegation of Singapore had been received and distributed as document IP/N/1/SGP/2. No other new notification had been received.

3. The Chairperson informed the Council that a notification had been received from Singapore under Article 1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with the provisions of Article 6 of the Rome Convention. This notification had been circulated in document IP/N/2/SGP/1.

4. The Chairperson informed the Council that, since the last meeting, four Members, namely Haiti, Mongolia, Panama and Qatar, had notified their TRIPS contact points under Article 69, in addition to the 81 Members that had already done so. Information about the contact points notified by these Members was available in document IP/N/3/Rev.2/Add.9, which also reflected updated information received from Bulgaria concerning the contact points that it had notified earlier.

5. The Chairperson informed the Council that a revised notification under Article 4(d) had been received from Spain, revising the list of the international agreements that Spain had notified earlier, and had been circulated in document IP/N/4/ESP/1/Rev.1.

WT/L/842

6. The Chairperson informed the Council that three notifications had been received from Panama under provisions of the Berne Convention which were incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by virtue of its Article 9.1. One of these notifications related to the possibility provided in Article 14bis(2)(c) of the Berne Convention and had been circulated in document IP/N/5/PAN/1. The other two notifications concerned the provisions of Article I and Article IV(2) of the Appendix to the Berne Convention. These notifications could be found in document IP/N/5/PAN/2.

7. The Chairperson said that the Panamanian notifications under the Appendix of the Berne Convention as incorporated in the TRIPS Agreement were the first notifications that the Council had received under these provisions. Referring to the procedures applicable to these notifications as agreed by the Council at its meeting of 22 February 19961, he said that it had been understood that the Council was to look into one technical detail only once a Member invoked these provisions of the Appendix, namely how under the TRIPS Agreement the renewable ten year periods for which such notifications remained valid should be calculated. He proposed that the Council ask the Secretariat to prepare a background note on the issue raised by the Panamanian notifications in question and to revert to the matter at the next meeting.

IP/C/W/385

9. The Chairperson said that he had no new notifications to report under this agenda item.

10. The representative of the European Communities, referring to the notification of Mongolia that had been circulated as document IP/N/1/MNG/1 and of which the Council had been informed at the last meeting, said that his delegation would appreciate a clarification from Mongolia concerning Annex III of the document in question, in which Mongolia provided information concerning its implementation of Article 70.8 and 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article 70.8 and 70.9 had been designed for Members benefiting from a transitional period under the TRIPS Agreement, while Mongolia had undertaken not to invoke any such transitional period and to implement the TRIPS Agreement from the date of its accession to the WTO.

11. The representative of the United States said that, in view of the importance of the obligations under Article 70.8 and 70.9, his delegation had communicated bilaterally questions regarding these obligations to several Members, in accordance with the suggestion of the Chair at the previous meeting. Although no replies had been received as yet, he hoped that replies would be provided in a timely manner and help clarify the situation regarding Article 70.8 and 70.9 in the Members to whom the questions had been addressed.

IP/C/W/385

13. The Chairperson recalled that there were six Members whose legislation had already been taken up in the 1996/97 review exercise, but for whom certain parts of the review still needed to be completed. These Members were Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and South Africa. For Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic, legislation in the area of copyright and related rights still had to be reviewed, while the same applied also with respect to Bulgarian and Romanian legislation in the areas of trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs. As regards Poland, legislation in the area of industrial property also still needed to be reviewed but, as agreed at the Council meeting in November 1997, that review would be undertaken at a later stage, once Poland had brought that legislation into conformity with the Agreement. In respect of South Africa, he recalled that the Council had not yet fully addressed the review of South African enforcement legislation, which had been taken up at the Council's last meeting in February 1998. He suggested that the Council address these remaining parts of the 1996/97 review exercise on a country-by-country basis and, in accordance with the procedures for the reviews, in alphabetical order. Each of these delegations would be asked to respond orally to questions posed to them, to the extent that responses had not been submitted prior to the meeting and circulated to Members.3 At the same time, the delegation would be asked to provide a brief introductory overview of the structure of its country's legislation in the area(s) to be reviewed 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 the presentation of responses, the floor could be offered to other delegations for any comments or other questions. The Council proceeded as suggested by the Chair.

14. The record of the introductory statements made by the delegations, the questions put to them and the responses given (including written responses to be given after the meeting) will be circulated in the IP/Q/- series (copyright and related rights); the IP/Q2/- series (trademarks, geographical indications and industrial designs); and the IP/Q4/- (enforcement) series of documents, respectively, as follows:

IP/Q/BGR/1 Bulgaria

IP/Q/HUN/1 Hungary

IP/Q/POL/1 Poland

IP/Q/ROM/1 Romania

IP/Q/SVK/1/Add.1 Slovak Republic

IP/Q2/BGR/1 Bulgaria

IP/Q2/ROM/1 Romania

IP/Q4/ZAF/1 South Africa

When presenting answers that were still due from his delegation in the enforcement review, the representative of South Africa said that in dealing with the TRIPS Council his delegation had come to understand and appreciate the difficulties of undergoing a legislative review process within the context of major domestic institutional and legislative reform, and had learnt, and would continue to learn, important lessons from that. His delegation had always sought to appreciate the parameters for questions, i.e. the nature of the questions asked, the level of detail that had to be provided in responses and the number of questions. As many delegations would agree, TRIPS issues required great circumspection due to the nature of the obligations stipulated in the Agreement and, because dealing with them was resource-intensive, emphasised the capacity constraints which delegations such as his own faced. While acknowledging that answers to some of the questions posed still remained outstanding, he restated his country's commitment to its TRIPS obligations and the importance of the review process.

16. After the consideration of the legislation of the Members subject to the present review exercise, the Chairperson noted that a number of delegations had indicated that they would provide responses to some of the questions put to them very recently in writing subsequent to the meeting. He suggested that, to the extent that answers to initial questions remained outstanding, the Council revert to the reviews undertaken at the next meeting, and that the delegations in question provide these answers as soon as possible, preferably sufficiently prior to the next meeting for delegations to study them.

18. The Chairperson said that at the Council's last meeting, in February 1998, Japan had posed a follow up question to Ireland concerning a response given by Ireland in the context of the review of legislation on copyright and related rights at the Council's meeting in July 1996 but that prior to the present meeting no reply to this question had been received by the Secretariat.

IP/C/W/385

19. The representative of the European Communities said that the reply could be expected very shortly.

21. The Chairperson recalled that, since the Council's previous meeting, the last answer that had remained outstanding in this part of the 1996/97 review exercise had been received by the Secretariat and circulated in the IP/Q2/- series of documents. Since no issues were outstanding, he proposed that this item relating to the review in these areas be deleted from the agenda, it being understood that any delegation should feel free to revert to any matter stemming from that review at any time.

23. The Chairperson recalled that, at the Council's last meeting, Members had been strongly urged to make every effort to submit responses to questions posed to them at the Council's meeting in May 1997 and which were still outstanding. Since then, some of these answers had been received and circulated in the IP/Q3/- series of documents. However, outstanding material was still due from three Members. He suggested that the Secretariat contact those delegations again and that the Council urge those delegations to provide this material without delay.

24. The Chairperson said that the Secretariat had received information from Ireland complementing an earlier response given by Ireland in this part of the review and circulated in the IP/Q3/- series of documents. This additional answer from Ireland, which related to the protection of test data under Article 39.3 of the Agreement, had been distributed in document IP/Q3/IRL/1/Add.1.

25. The Chairperson recalled that, at the Council's last meeting, the European Communities and their Member States had posed a question to the delegation of South Africa. This question had been circulated in document IP/C/W/94. The answer to this question had just been received from the delegation of South Africa and would be included in document IP/Q3/ZAF/1 which would be circulated shortly.

27. The Chairperson recalled that, at the Council's last meeting, the representative of the European Communities had informed the Council that his delegation had submitted an additional question to the United States in the context of this part of the review exercise. This question had been circulated in document IP/C/W/93. The Secretariat had not yet received an answer to this question. Moreover, the Secretariat had also informed him that there were still quite some answers outstanding to the questions posed at the meeting of November 1997 when the Council had undertaken the review of legislation on enforcement. He suggested that the Council remind delegations which still had to submit outstanding material that these should have been submitted by the end of January 1998 and urge those delegations to provide the responses without delay. The Council should revert to this matter at its next meeting.

29. As regards the review of the legislation of Ecuador, Mongolia and Panama, which was scheduled to be taken up at the Council's meeting on 1 and 2 December 1998, the Chairperson proposed that the Council use the same basic procedures employed so far and suggested the following dates for the advance notice of questions and the submission of responses:

- submission of advance notice of questions to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat: 15 September 1998;

- submission of responses to questions: 3 November 1998.

IP/C/13; IP/C/13/Add.1

31. The representative of the European Communities said that, for the purposes of the review, it was necessary to have available up-to-date versions of legislation in one of the WTO's official working languages. He believed that no full collection of legislation for any of these three countries, which was needed to formulate questions, was available.

IP/C/W/568

32. The Chairperson said that, as mentioned earlier (see agenda item A above), notifications of legislation had been received from Ecuador and Panama. Texts of legislation mentioned in these notifications would be circulated shortly in a WTO language, to the extent that they had been made available to the Secretariat and circulation was required by the procedures contained in document IP/C/2. Mongolia's notification of legislation under Article 63.2 and the accompanying main dedicated intellectual property laws and regulations had already been circulated.

34. With regard to the issue of possible advance reviews, on a voluntary basis and without prejudice to entitlements under Article 65, the Chairperson informed the Council that the consultations held prior to the present meeting indicated that a consensus on the adoption of ground rules proposed for such reviews did not seem to be within reach yet. He said that he intended to hold further consultations on this matter prior to the next meeting.

36. The Chairperson recalled that the Secretariat had organized, jointly with the International Bureau of WIPO, two workshops on specific aspects of technical cooperation. The topic of the first workshop, held in September 1996, had been "Border Enforcement Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement" and the topic of the second workshop, held in July 1997, "Technical Cooperation Aimed at Improving Human Resources and Institutional Capacities Required to Implement the TRIPS Provisions on Domestic Enforcement". He informed the Council that the Secretariat was planning to organize, jointly with WIPO, a third joint event, focusing on the process of implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. The intention was to hold the event this time at the WIPO headquarters. Its tentative date was 16 September 1998, i.e. a day before the TRIPS Council meeting scheduled for 17 and 18 September, which was also just one day after the WIPO Assemblies meeting scheduled for 7 through 15 September.

IP/C/W/568; IP/C/W/560/Add.7

37. The Chairperson recalled that, at the Council's meetings in February and May 1996, it had been agreed that developed country Members would annually update information on their technical cooperation activities relevant to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. Both in 1996 and 1997, this had been done in time for the Council's meeting in September. He suggested that also this year developed country Members update this information in time for the Council's meeting scheduled for 17 and 18 September. In addition, he suggested that the Council invite the intergovernmental organizations observers to the Council to provide information on their technical cooperation activities, as they had also done in previous years. The WTO Secretariat might similarly provide a note on its activities. This would enable the Council to focus also this year on technical cooperation at its meeting in September. In order to enable the timely processing and distribution to Members of this information, he suggested that the Members and intergovernmental organizations in question be invited to provide such written contributions by 1 September. He also drew attention to the fact that last year the Council had received information on technical cooperation activities from 16 developed country Members. There were still some developed country Members that had not yet provided any information on their technical cooperation activities. He underlined that it was important that each developed country Member provide information to the Council as agreed and urged in particular those Members that had not yet provided any information to make a special effort to supply the required information.

38. The representative of Australia said that she was pleased to hear that the practice of gathering information on technical cooperation activities by Members and intergovernmental organizations would continue this year. As the due date for implementation by developing countries approached, it was increasingly important that the available technical cooperation be coordinated and focused on the practical needs and requirements of the countries in question. This was the important message that had been received from a recent WTO seminar held in Australia for sixteen least-developed countries and other developing countries from the Asia/Pacific region. The seminar was aimed at providing a general overview of the TRIPS Agreement and the practical implications of its implementation, in particular to identify the needs of these countries and to facilitate the access to experts in the fields of legislation, administration and enforcement. She expressed her gratitude for the work and cooperation of the WTO Secretariat and the Government of New Zealand in the organization of the seminar, and for the generous financial support of the Government of Hong Kong, China. In addition, she expressed her appreciation to the participants in this seminar for the practical insights and guidance they had provided, which had ensured that the seminar had been focused on concrete issues confronting them. One of the features of the seminar had been syndicate discussions at the sub-regional level where the participants explored how to identify the priority intellectual property issues for their countries and how to develop a strategic approach to TRIPS implementation that would take into account the specific national economic factors, legal factors and the infrastructural constraints. She believed that it would be useful, in order to share the valuable lessons of this, to prepare an informal outcome document providing an overview of the discussion, in particular of the possible mechanisms for enhanced international technical cooperation in TRIPS implementation, and reviewing possible approaches to identifying and prioritizing technical needs and requirements of individual countries. She hoped that this would contribute to the broader effort underway to facilitate more coordinated and effective use of resources to ensure that they were focused on concrete needs. She concluded that Australia itself looked forward to increased partnerships and activities in these areas with Members in the process of implementing the TRIPS Agreement and that her delegation stood ready to contribute further resources and expertise in dialogue with partners on technical cooperation.

39. The representative of Japan informed the Council that, since April 1996, Japan had been carrying out a cooperative program, called the "1000 by 2000 Programme". Its aim was to provide training on intellectual property rights to one thousand trainees from developing countries by the year 2000, which was the time-limit for developing countries to comply with the TRIPS Agreement. Training was being provided to people both in government and the private sector. By March 1998, over five hundred trainees had been accepted and, thus, half of the target had been achieved. Japan would continue to provide assistance to developing countries by accepting the rest of the target trainees and by providing further courses. Japan was also promoting an IP Information Mall project in the APEC forum. This project was aimed at expanding information dissemination via the Internet by linking the homepages of the IP offices in APEC member countries. Japan was currently surveying the users' needs for IP information via the Internet with a view to improving the IP Information Mall further. The representative of Japan believed that the IP Information Mall would be helpful to other countries providing technical assistance to APEC countries.

41. The Chairperson said that two new requests for consultations under the DSU relating to the TRIPS Agreement had been notified. By means of communications, dated 30 April and 4 May 1998, the United States had notified to the DSB and the Council for TRIPS its requests for consultations under the DSU with the European Communities and Greece, respectively, regarding the enforcement of intellectual property rights for motion pictures and television programmes in Greece. These notifications had been circulated as documents IP/D/13 and 14.

WT/COMTD/W/180/Rev.1; IP/C/W/568

43. The Chairperson recalled that, in February 1998, Members had had a first exchange of views as to what the next step should be for carrying forward work concerning negotiations for the establishment of an international system for the notification and registration of geographical indications under Article 23.4, as agreed in paragraph 34 of the report of the Council for TRIPS to the Singapore Ministerial Conference, now that background information as requested by the Council in February 1997 had been made available to the Council. In the light of the informal consultations he had held, he suggested that informal consultations be continued on this matter and that the Council revert to it at its next meeting.

45. The Chairperson referred to document IP/C/W/102 and said that further informal consultations on this matter had resulted in the draft Checklist of Questions annexed to that document. He proposed that the Council take note of this Checklist and invite those Members already under an obligation to apply the provisions of the Section on Geographical Indications to provide their responses by 16 November 1998, it being understood that other Members could also furnish replies on a voluntary basis. This action could be taken by the Council on the understanding that both the questionnaire itself and the responses to it would be without prejudice to the rights and obligations of Members. Responding Members would be free to group their responses to questions as they found appropriate in the context of their national systems. It would further be understood that should Members have any additional points that they would wish to make regarding the questionnaire they could do so at the July 1998 meeting of the Council.

47. The Chairperson recalled that there were eight requests which were pending before the Council, all of which had already been considered at previous meetings. These were from ARIPO (African Regional Industrial Property Organization), the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, EFTA (European Free Trade Association), the OAS (Organization of American States), the OIV (Office International de la Vigne et du Vin), the Organization of the Islamic Conference, SELA (Latin American Economic System) and SIECA (Permanent Secretariat of the General Treaty for Central American Economic Integration). He recalled that the Secretariat had, as agreed at the Council's Meeting of 15 July 1997, sent a letter to each of these organizations requesting information relevant to the criteria contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the procedures relating to the grant of observer status for international intergovernmental organizations as contained in document WT/L/161, Annex 3. So far, information as requested by the Council had been received from EFTA, ARIPO and the OIV. In the light of the informal consultations he had held, he suggested that the Council revert to the pending requests for observer status at its next meeting.

IP/C/W/543

49. The representative of Brazil asked the delegation of the European Communities what had been the criterion used by the European Commission to elaborate the lists of countries shown in Regulation (EC) 1472/92, especially taking into account that the transition period of Article 65.2 of the TRIPS Agreement was in force for a number of the countries included in the said lists.

50. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation would reply to this question in due course.

IP/C/W/565; IP/C/W/567