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

B Notifications under Article 63.2 relating to Articles 3, 4 and 5
19. While expressing its support for the approach of the United States and the suggestion that the Secretariat be asked to prepare a format, the representative of Japan said that, in preparing the format, it should be borne in mind what the legal effects of a general statement would be. Members should not merely refer to their ratification of the Marrakesh Agreement or duplicate the commitment to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the TRIPS Agreement as part of the content of their instrument of ratification. He also wished to point out that, if such a general statement was aimed at specifying the particular provisions of the national law which related to Articles 3, 4 and 5, not many Members had provided for m.f.n. treatment in their national laws. In Japan, m.f.n. treatment was not explicitly provided in intellectual property laws. The Constitution, the patent law and other intellectual property laws generally provided that an international agreement could supersede national laws in the application of m.f.n. treatment. He hoped that the Secretariat would take these points into account when preparing the format as proposed.