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

Ambassador Karen Tan (Singapore)
Union européenne
C TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
53. The representative of the European Communities thanked the Chinese delegate for his answers, although he said that not all of his delegation's questions had been answered. He said that, while his delegation acknowledged the progress made by China, the reason why the statements by Members were not very different from statements at previous sessions was that many of the problems remained the same. With regard to the customs statistics, he said that these were accurate and that 93 per cent of counterfeit medicines intercepted at EC borders were suspected trademark infringements, indicating that these were pure fake medicines that could actually kill people. 54. As to the issue of lowering standards of protection for IPR in the context of the economic crisis, he referred the Chinese delegation to the statement of the vice president of the Supreme Court of December 2008 and to the administrative notice at local level which had been issued in this regard. He noted that other delegations had also referred to this issue. 55. In respect to the efficiency of the Chinese courts he said that, while his delegation acknowledged the positive aspects, the problem was not so much the delay, but the lack of justification why a case was or was not accepted by a court. In Chinese the issue was referred to as LI AN. 56. With respect to the answers provided by China, he said that his delegation appreciated their comprehensiveness, but a few issues had not been addressed. These included question 32 on notarization and legalization of the powers of attorney and of evidence, which was a big problem in terms of access to justice. Also, question 16 on the relationship between intellectual property and standards, and the reduction of patent rights when technology was included in a standard, had not been answered. Question 27, on plant variety protection and the absence of a certain form of protection, as well as question 30 on the issue that right holders were not informed about the follow up to their cases, had also not been answered either.
IP/C/M/61