Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Ambassador Eduardo Pérez Motta (Mexico)
B.i Follow-up to reviews already undertaken
11. The Chairman said that the table indicated that there were 19 Members whose reviews were initiated between April 2001 and June 2002 that had not yet been completed. The table referred to submissions received before 11 November 2002. Since the Council's previous meeting, Congo had provided responses to most of the outstanding questions and Cuba had submitted responses to the questions posed by the European Communities concerning geographical indications. He recalled that, at the Council's meeting in June, the representative of Mauritius had informed the Council that the new draft legislation was before Parliament and would be circulated to WTO Members once adopted. At the Council's meeting in last September, Canada, Switzerland and the United States had requested Mauritius to respond to the questions they had posed to it on the basis of the new rather than the old legislation. The Council had just received a letter from Suriname.2 In that letter Suriname indicated that new legislation on industrial property and copyright were presently being finalized, and that it intended to provide revised responses to certain initial questions as soon as its Parliament had approved that new legislation, which was expected to take place in the near future. In that context, it also intended to provide responses to the outstanding follow-up questions. The other Members whose reviews were still pending were Brazil, Cameroon, Egypt, Fiji, Grenada, Kenya, Malaysia, Moldova, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe.

2 Subsequently circulated in document IP/C/W/283/Add.3