Actas - Consejo de los ADPIC - Ver detalles de la intervención/declaración

Mr. Tony Miller (Hong Kong, China)
280. The representative of Australia thanked China for the very comprehensive and informative responses to the many questions posed to them. He said that Australia attached particular importance to its bilateral cooperation with China in intellectual property matters and was looking forward to continuing to work closely with China to the mutual benefit of both countries on intellectual property issues. 281. The representative of Chinese Taipei thanked China for its statement and the information provided by its delegation. Although Chinese Taipei had not submitted questions in writing in advance, his delegation shared some of the views regarding intellectual property issues mentioned by other delegations. His delegation attached great importance to the transparency requirement under Article 63.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Chinese Taipei was of the belief that transparency of administrative rulings as well as laws and regulations in the national system was of crucial importance both to local and foreign IP owners. In this light, he wished to draw attention to the issue of well-known marks. According to China's recent communication in document IP/Q/CHN/1/Add.1, dated 9 June 2004, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) was revising the "Rules on the Determination and Protection of Well-Know Marks". He said that his delegation would appreciate it if China could advise if there were any developments in this regard. In addition, he was interested in having a list of well-known marks currently applicable in China for reference. He asked if the Chinese delegation could advise where to locate such a list if it was publicly available on the Internet. In conclusion, he said that his delegation had noticed that China had already made good progress in several areas of intellectual property and would like to encourage China to continue in its relentless endeavour in the time ahead. 282. In response to the remarks made by other delegations, the representative of China said that, with regard to the written questions posed by the European Communities on 26 November 2004, most of these concerns had already been covered by China's initial statement. His delegation had given answers regarding the Chinese intention to join the WIPO 1996 Internet Treaties and had pointed out that China had never indicated that it would join these treaties before the end of 2005 and had said nothing about a completion of the draft for the Internet-related implementing rules before the end of 2004. With regard to the Copyright Law of China, the measures on the protection of the right of communication through information networks had already been put onto the 2005 legislative agenda of the State Council and this task was currently being carried out in a smooth and orderly way. Regarding the protection of the rights of producers of sound recordings, he said that the Chinese copyright legislation was totally consistent with the TRIPS Agreement. Regarding the rules on collecting societies, he said that these would be made available by the Chinese delegation to the European Communities and any other Members concerned once the rules had been ratified. In reaction to prevalent interests and requests from industries, local communities and other sectors, SAPO of China was engaging in a preliminary assessment of the national IP strategy. Regarding the follow-up question from the delegation of the United States, he said that his delegation would discuss with experts in the capital and would hopefully be able to come back with further information. 283. Turning to the preparation of the TRIPS Council's report to the General Council, the Chairman suggested that, given that the TRIPS Council would not have another meeting before the General Council's next meeting scheduled for 13 and 14 December 2004, the TRIPS Council agree that that he, acting on his own responsibility, prepare a brief and factual report to the General Council. The content of the cover page to the report would be similar to that submitted by the TRIPS Council in 2003, and the part of the minutes of the meeting reflecting the discussions held under this agenda item would be attached.