7. The representative of Korea said that the documents referred to formed a good basis for further discussion. With regard to paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of document IP/C/W/6, he expressed the view that the time period allowed for making notifications should be longer in cases where translation was required, as had indeed been reflected in document IP/C/W/7. Paragraph 7 of document IP/C/W/8, according to which the "other laws and regulations" would include all laws relating to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement which were not "dedicated" to intellectual property, was vague and too wide: it would be difficult to classify and distinguish such laws from among the enormous body of national laws and regulations. A more appropriate limitation needed to be found. According to the draft schedule in document IP/C/W/7, discussion on patent laws and regulations would take place at a later stage than discussion on laws relating to trademarks and industrial designs. As far as he knew, in many countries, including Korea, laws and regulations on trademarks and industrial designs cited considerable parts of laws and regulations on patents and should therefore be discussed after them. He also wondered whether the time period proposed in the draft schedule would suffice to examine national implementing legislation.
