Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 8 • Number 22 • 15th December 2008

IP Issues Inch Forward as TRIPS Council Meets

Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

Delegates made progress on intellectual property issues at a TRIPS Council meeting on 5 December, narrowing but not eliminating differences that, if unresolved, risk scuppering the agreement of a global trade deal at the WTO.

This was “a significantly better discussion than yesterday” the chair of the talks, Trevor Clarke of Barbados, said, comparing the session to a 4 December meeting that got mired down in debate over procedural issues.

At issue are three topics on which talks have largely stalled since the launch of the Doha Round in 2001, namely: extending to all products the stronger protection currently accorded to geographical indications of wines and spirits (GI extension); making it mandatory for patent applicants to disclose the origin of any genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge involved in their inventions; and the establishment of a register for geographical indications (GIs) of wines and spirits.

The majority of the afternoon meeting on 5 December was taken up by the EU’s response to 60 questions that had been put forward regarding its proposal for a GI register for wines and spirits.

According to the text of the proposal that the EU and its allies on the matter submitted in July, Member states “shall provide that” their domestic authorities “consult the register and take its information into account.” Importantly, the text also stated that, “in the absence of proof to the contrary,” the very fact that a product is listed on the register will be considered “prima facie evidence that it meets the definition of ‘geographical indication’.”

Historically, the main points of disagreement have been over participation in the register and the consequences and legal effects of registration. Members such as the EU want all WTO Members to participate. But others, including Argentina, Australia, Canada, and the US, argue that participation in the system should be voluntary. These countries and other opponents of the EU position, have put forward an alternative ‘joint proposal’ that would simply require or urge countries to consult the register.

The European delegates responded to questions regarding the participation of Member states, the consequences and legal effects of registration, the notification and registration of new GIs, as well as the costs and the particular challenges that developing countries would face in participating.

Ecuador, India and Switzerland indicated their support of the EU proposal, while Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, El Salvador, Japan, Taiwan and the US questioned the proposal.

At the 4 December meeting, a large number of countries - including the EU, the African group, Brazil, China, Colombia, India and Switzerland - urged delegates to discuss all three of the contentious IP issues in parallel, echoing the call they made in May for the IP issues to be included “as part of the horizontal process” of negotiations towards agreements to liberalise trade in the agricultural and industrial sectors in the Doha Round talks.

But that position has been strongly rebuffed by Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, and the US, among others, who rejected “the artificial parallelism” of linking the three intellectual property matters.

“Each of the TRIPS issues…has its own terms of reference, and particular subject matter,” the dissenting countries argued in July. “The extent and interest of Members in the content and potential outcomes for each issue varies considerably.”

ICTSD reporting.