RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/M/5
5January 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0018)
Council forTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on11December 1995
Chairman: Mr.S.Harbinson (Hong Kong)
Subjects discussed:
A. Draft agreement between theWIPO andtheWTO
B. Draft decision ontheimplementation oftheobligations under theTRIPS Agreement
stemming from theincorporation oftheprovisions ofArticle 6teroftheParis
Convention (1967)
1. Pursuanttotheinterimprocedureonobserverstatusforintergovernmentalorganizationsevolved
under theauspices oftheGeneral Council, theCouncil forTRIPS agreed toinvite, inaddition toWIPO,
thesame intergovernmental organizations asithadinvited toitsearlier meetings, namely theIMF,
theFAO, theOECD, theUnited Nations, UNCTAD, theUPOV, theWCO andtheWorld Bank, to
berepresented asobservers atthepresent andthenextmeeting oftheCouncil.
A. Draft agreement between theWIPO andtheWTO
2. TheChairman recalled that,attheCouncil 'smeeting on21November, hehadputbefore the
Council adraftagreement between theWIPO andtheWTO contained indocument IP/C/W/17, which
hehaddrawn uptogether withtherepresentative ofWIPO, Ambassador Loizaga ofParaguay, Chairman
oftheWIPO Coordination Committee. Given thatdelegations hadreceived thetextjustbefore the
meeting andalsothatcertain points hadbeenraised regarding, inparticular, Article 5(2)(b) ofthedraft,
theCouncil hadagreed tomeetagain on11December withaviewtotaking action ontheproposed
agreement. Since thelastmeeting, further consultations hadtaken place intheframework ofWIPO
given thattheissues regarding Article 5(2)(b) wereprimarily ofconcern toWIPO. Asaresult ofthese
consultations, hehadproposed twoamendments contained indocument IP/C/W/17/Add.1. Thefirst
wasapurely technical change designed toremove anyriskofconfusion withthestatus of"Contracting
Party" under theGATT 1947. Italigned thelanguage withtheWTO Agreement which referred, above
itsPreamble,to"Parties".ThesecondchangesimplifiedArticle2(5)byremovingreferencestocountries
intransition. These twochanges hadalsobeenputtothemembers ofWIPO atinformal consultations
heldon8December. Ambassador Loizaga hadinformed himthattheyhadbeenagreed inthatcontext.
3. TheCouncil agreed withtheamendments proposed bytheChairman.
4. Inregard toArticle 5(2)(b), theChairman recalled thatthisprovision hadbeeninserted tomeet
aconcern expressed bytheWIPO siderelating tothepossible application oftheagreement tofuture
./.IP/C/M/5
Page2
WTOMembersthatwouldnotbeeligibleformembershipofWIPO.AmbassadorLoizagahadinformed
himoftheconsultations thathehadheldintheWIPO framework onthismatter, andthat,asaresult
ofthese consultations, ithadbeen accepted thatArticle 5(2)(b) ofthetextbedeleted.
Ambassador Loizaga hadalsoinformed himthat,when hemade thisproposal totheCoordination
Committee andGeneral Assembly ofWIPO, hewould alsopropose thatthose bodies approve the
following statement:
"Approval andimplementation oftheWIPO-WTO agreement hasnoimplications for
current orfuture members ofeither WIPO orWTO concerning theirrecognition by
other members ofWIPO orWTO ortheirstatus withrespect toWIPO orWTO."
5. TheCouncil agreed todelete Article 5(2)(b).
6. TheChairman saidthatthedraftagreement between WIPO andtheWTO would bebefore
theGeneral Council foritsapproval atitsmeeting of13and14December. Itwould beconsidered
bytheCoordination Committee andtheGeneral Assembly ofWIPO atmeetings on19-21 December.
Hewould consult withtheChairman oftheGeneral Council, Ambassador Kesavapany, toseewhether,
should anyfurther action berequired bytheWTO afterthose WIPO meetings, responsibility forsuch
action could bedelegated totheCouncil forTRIPS, soastoobviate anyneedfortheGeneral Council
tomeetagain andtoenable theagreement toenter intoforce on1January 1996.
7. Therepresentative ofMexico, referring tothestatement quoted bytheChairman, saidthat
herGovernment, asherdelegation hadalsostated inWIPO, would notbeinaposition toaccept the
statement asquoted, because inhercountry 'sforeign policy theword "recognition" wasnotaccepted.
Shealsoclarified that,except fortheuseofthatterm, herdelegation hadnodifficulties withthe
statement.
8. TheChairman noted thattheMexican intervention concerned astatement proposed tobemade
inthecontext ofWIPO. While theCouncil forTRIPS should takenoteoftheintervention, itwould
bedifficult fortheCouncil togointoamatter which ineffect wasaninternal matter forWIPO.
Concluding theitem, theChairman proposed thattheCouncil forTRIPS approve thedraftagreement
between theWIPO andtheWTO, ascontained indocument IP/C/W/17, withthetwoamendments
suggested inIP/C/W/17/Add.1 andwiththedeletion ofArticle 5(2)(b), andsubmit ittotheGeneral
Council foritsapproval.
9. TheCouncil tooknoteofthestatement ofMexico andagreed toapprove thedraftagreement
withtheamendments indicated bytheChairman andtosubmit ittotheGeneral Council foritsapproval.
B. Draft decision ontheimplementation oftheobligations under theTRIPS Agreement
stemming from theincorporation oftheprovisions ofArticle 6teroftheParis
Convention (1967)
10. TheChairman recalled that,attheCouncil 'smeeting on21November, hehadproposed a
decision onthismatter which would givelegaleffect under theTRIPS Agreement totheprocedures
relating totheadministration ofTRIPS obligations regarding Article 6teroftheParis Convention that
hadbeenincorporated intheagreement withWIPO. Thetextofthisdraftdecision hadbeencirculated
indocument IP/C/W/18. Heproposed thattheCouncil adopt thisdecision ontheassumption thatthe
agreement between theWIPO andtheWTO would beapproved bythetwoOrganizations andwould
enter intoforce. Ifthisdidnotprove tobethecase, theTRIPS Council would needtoreconsider
thisdecision.
11. TheCouncil soagreed.