WTO: 2008 NEWS ITEMS
> Report on geographical indications register
negotiations:
Word,
pdf
> Report on 揋I extension?and biodiversity consultations:
Word,
pdf
> Negotiations, implementation and development: the Doha agenda
> More on geographical
indications
> More on TRIPS and
biodiversity
> TRIPS news
SEE ALSO:
> Press releases
> News archives
> Pascal
Lamy抯 speeches
All
three issues are intellectual property subjects under the Doha Development
Agenda. Both reports are factual accounts of the latest state of the
discussions. They do not propose how members might compromise. They say
members?opinions differ on whether these three subjects should be part of
the 揾orizontal process?and whether they should be linked. (揌orizontal?is
the term used to describe the upcoming stage of the negotiations when a
range of issues are taken up together, including agriculture, industrial
products, to some extent services and possibly other subjects, in order to
strike a balance across them.)
The talks chaired by Ambassador Manzoor Ahmad of Pakistan take place in
negotiating sessions of the TRIPS Council on a multilateral register for
geographical indications for wines and spirits. They are part of the 搒ingle
undertaking?of the Doha Development Agenda.
Director-General Pascal Lamy抯 consultations come under the heading of
搃mplementation? They deal with the question of whether to extend to other
products the higher level of protection currently given to geographical
indications for wines and spirits, and the relationship between the WTO
intellectual property agreement and the UN Convention on Biological
Diversity. The consultations are chaired on his behalf by Deputy
Director-General Rufus Yerxa.
You can download them from the links above. These are brief explanations of
the issues:
BACKGROUND
Negotiation: the multilateral register for wines and spirits
Geographical indications are place names
(in some countries also words associated with a place) used to
identify products that come from these places and have these
characteristics (for example, 揅hampagne? 揟equila?or
揜oquefort?.
This negotiation, which takes place in dedicated 搒pecial sessions?
of the TRIPS Council, is about creating a multilateral system for
notifying and registering geographical indications for wines and
spirits. These are given a level of protection that is higher than
for other geographical indications. The multilateral register is
discussed separately from the question of 揺xtension??extending
the higher level of protection to other products ?although some
countries consider the two to be related.
The work began in 1997 under Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement. In
2001 it was brought the Doha Development Agenda (the Doha
Declaration抯 paragraph 18). The different positions are summarized
here.
Papers submitted are here.
Implementation (1): geographical indications 慹xtension?/b>
Geographical indications for all products
are currently covered by Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement, which
defines a standard level of protection. This says geographical
indications have to be protected in order to avoid misleading the
public and to prevent unfair competition.
Article 23 provides a higher or enhanced level of protection for
geographical indications for wines and spirits: subject to a number
of exceptions, they have to be protected even if misuse would not
cause the public to be misled.
The subject is an 搃mplementation?issue in the Doha Development
Agenda (the Doha Declaration抯 paragraphs 12 and 18). The latest
mandate is paragraph 39 of the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial
Declaration. Consultations are chaired by Deputy Director-General
Rufus Yerxa on behalf of Director-General Pascal Lamy.
The issue here is whether to expand the higher level of protection
(Article 23) to other products. A number of countries want to
negotiate extending this higher level of protection to other
products. Some others oppose the move, and the debate has included
the question of whether the Doha Declaration provides a mandate for
negotiations. More information can be found
here.
Implementation (2): TRIPS, patents, biodiversity and 慸isclosure?/b>
This debate was originally wide-ranging.
It now focuses on how the TRIPS Agreement relates to the Convention
on Biological Diversity, and particularly whether the agreement
should be amended to require 揹isclosure? The ideas put forward
include:
Disclosure as a TRIPS obligation:
A group represented by Brazil and India and including Bolivia,
Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Thailand, and
supported by the African group and some other developing countries,
wants to amend the TRIPS Agreement so that patent applicants are
required to disclose the country of origin of genetic resources and
traditional knowledge used in the inventions, evidence that they
received 損rior informed consent?(a term used in the Biological
Diversity Convention), and evidence of 揻air and equitable?benefit
sharing.
Disclosure through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO):
Switzerland has proposed an amendment to the regulations of the WIPO抯 Patent Cooperation Treaty (and, by reference, WIPO抯 Patent
Law Treaty) so that domestic laws may ask inventors to disclose the
source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge when they
apply for patents. Failure to meet the requirement could hold up a
patent being granted or, when done with fraudulent intent, could
entail a granted patent being invalidated.
Disclosure, but outside patent law: The EU抯 position includes a
proposal to examine a requirement that all patent applicants
disclose the source or origin of genetic material, with legal
consequences of not meeting this requirement lying outside the scope
of patent law.
Use of national legislation, including contracts rather than a
disclosure obligation: The United States has argued that the
Convention on Biological Diversity抯 objectives on access to genetic
resources, and on benefit sharing, could best be achieved through
national legislation and contractual arrangements based on the
legislation, which could include commitments on disclosing of any
commercial application of genetic resources or traditional
knowledge.
Like 揋I extension? this is an 搃mplementation?issue in the Doha
Development Agenda (the Doha Declaration抯 paragraphs 12 and 18).
Again, the latest mandate is paragraph 39 of the 2005 Hong Kong
Ministerial Declaration. Consultations are chaired by Deputy
Director-General Rufus Yerxa on behalf of Director-General Pascal
Lamy.
More information and documents submitted in the discussion can be
found here and
here
Jargon buster
?CBD:
Convention on Biological Diversity
?geographical indications (GIs): Place names (or
words associated with a place) used to identify products
(for example, 揅hampagne? 揟equila?or 揜oquefort? which
have a particular quality, reputation or other
characteristic because they come from that place.
?horizontal process: (in 2008) negotiations
combining a range of issues including 搈odalities?for
agriculture, industrial products, to some extent services
and possibly other subjects, in order to strike a balance
across them
?b> modalities: The way or method of doing something
?in the Doha Development Agenda negotiations these are
blueprints for the final deal, eg, how to cut tariffs, and
reduce agricultural subsidies and support, along with
flexibilities to deal with various sensitivities. Once the
modalities have been agreed, countries can apply the
formulas to tariffs on thousands of products and to
various support programmes.
?special sessions: meetings of WTO councils and
committees focusing only on the Doha Development Agenda
negotiations
?b> TRIPS: Trade-related aspects of intellectual
property rights
> More jargon:
glossary
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.