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

Ambassador Dacio Castillo (Honduras)
Chairperson
2.2 Follow-up to other reviews already undertaken
2.4. The Chairman said that, as regards the reviews of national implementing legislation that had been initiated at the Council's meetings since April 2001, the reviews of three Members remained on the Council's agenda, namely those of Cuba; Fiji; and Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2.5. He recalled that, prior to the Council's meeting in November 2012, Cuba had provided responses to the questions posed to it in connection with its review. Those responses had been circulated in IP/Q/CUB/1. At that meeting, the representative of Cuba had provided an introductory overview of Cuba's IP legislation and the changes made to it. Since then, that statement had been circulated in document IP/Q/CUB/1/Add.1. 2.6. At that meeting, he had said that, since the responses had been circulated just before the meeting and were not yet available in all WTO languages, it was his intention to provide Members more time to study the responses. 2.7. Since there were no further follow-up questions, he suggested that the review of Cuba be removed from the agenda, it being understood that any delegation should feel free to revert to any matter stemming from that review at any time. 2.2 Follow-up to other reviews already undertaken 2.4. The Chairman said that, as regards the reviews of national implementing legislation that had been initiated at the Council's meetings since April 2001, the reviews of three Members remained on the Council's agenda, namely those of Cuba; Fiji; and Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2.5. He recalled that, prior to the Council's meeting in November 2012, Cuba had provided responses to the questions posed to it in connection with its review. Those responses had been circulated in IP/Q/CUB/1. At that meeting, the representative of Cuba had provided an introductory overview of Cuba's IP legislation and the changes made to it. Since then, that statement had been circulated in document IP/Q/CUB/1/Add.1. 2.6. At that meeting, he had said that, since the responses had been circulated just before the meeting and were not yet available in all WTO languages, it was his intention to provide Members more time to study the responses. 2.7. Since there were no further follow-up questions, he suggested that the review of Cuba be removed from the agenda, it being understood that any delegation should feel free to revert to any matter stemming from that review at any time.
IP/C/M/72