This document is currently being converted. Please check back in a few minutes.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228138426
World Trade Organization Accession
Agreements: Intellectual Property Issues
Article · May 2007
CITATIONS
READS
7
17
2 authors, including:
Carlos Correa
University of Buenos Aires
85 PUBLICATIONS 956 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Correa on 09 June 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
May 2007
Quaker United Nations Ofice
Global Economic
Issues Publication
World Trade Organization
Accession Agreements:
Intellectual Property Issues
By Frederick M. Abbott
and
Carlos M. Correa
English Francais Espanol
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1915338
May 2007
Quaker United Nations Ofice
Global Economic Issues
World Trade Organisation
Accession Agreements:
Intellectual Property Issues
Paper by Frederick M. Abbott
and Carlos M. Correa
Tables and Analysis by
Ermias Tekeste Biadgleng
English Francais Espanol
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1915338
The Quaker United Nations Ofice
The Quaker United Nations Ofices located in Geneva and New York represents Friends
World Committee for Consultation (Quakers), an international non-governmental organisation
with General Consultative Status at the UN. QUNO works to promote the peace and justice
concerns of Friends (Quakers) from around the world at the United Nations and other global
institutions. It is supported by the American Friends Service Committee, Britain Yearly Meeting,
the worldwide community of Friends. other groups and individuals.
About the authors
Carlos Correa is Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Director of the University of Buenos
Aires’ Center for Interdisciplinary Studies on Industrial Property and Economics. He trained as both
a lawyer and economist, has served in government in the 1980s as Vice-Secretary for Science and
Technology and was a delegate to GATT and WIPO negotiations. He has been a consultant to many
regional and international agencies and author of various articles and books on the matter.
Frederick Abbott is Edward Ball Eminent Scholar Professor of International Law at the Florida State
University College of Law. He is Rapporteur for the ILA Committee on International Trade Law. He has
regularly served as consultant to the UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on Intellectual Property and Sustainable
Development, to the World Bank, to the WHO and to the Quaker United Nations Ofice (Geneva).
Professor Abbott serves as panelist for the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and
Mediation Center. He is on the editorial board of the Journal of International Economic Law (Oxford). His
books include UNCTAD-ICTSD Resource Book on TRIPS and Development (Principal Consultant with
Carlos Correa) (2005), The International Intellectual Property System: Commentary and Materials (with
Thomas Cottier and Francis Gurry) (1999), China in the World Trading System: Deining the Principles of
Engagement (1998), Public Policy and Global Technological Integration (with David Gerber)(1997), and
Law and Policy of Regional Integration (1995). His book on treaty-making, Parliamentary Participation in
the Making and Operation of Treaties, edited with Stefan Riesenfeld, was awarded the American Society
of International Law Certiicate of Merit.
Ermias Tekeste Biadgleng is a Programme Oficer in the Innovation and Access to Knowledge
programme of the South Centre. He is trained as a lawyer and holds LL.M in International trade and
Investment from the joint programme of the University of Western Cape and American University,
Washington College of Law (December 2003).
The views expressed in this paper are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily
relect the views of the Quaker United Nations Ofice
CC All QUNO work is published under a Creative Commons licence. It can be copied, distributed and
altered for non-commercial purposes, provided that the original author is given credit and any altered work is
published under a licence identical to this one. More information and full details of the licence are available at
http://creativecommons.org.
Cover photo:
© Big Stock Photo: Eagle by Paul Moore, dragon by Jaden Qui
Hard copies of this paper are available from QUNO on request on quno@quno.ch
Copies of all QUNO publications can be downloaded from our website: www.quno.org
Quaker United Nations Ofice
Avenue du Mervelet, 13
1209 Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 748 48 00
Fax: +41 22 748 48 19
Email quno@quno.ch
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1915338
Quaker United Nations Ofice — iii
Contents
I.
The Accession Process and its Legal Consequences
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
II.
TRIPS and TRIPS-plus IPRs Subject Matter – Comparative Analysis of
21 Post-WTO Accession Agreements
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
III.
General Principles
Transitional Periods
Adherence to WIPO and other treaties on intellectual property
Copyright and Related Rights
Trademark and Geographical Indications
Patent and Plant Variety Protection
Trade Secrets and Data Protection
Industrial Designs and Layout Designs (topographies) of Integrated Circuits
IPRs Enforcement and Transparency
A.
B.
C.
D.
IV.
Introduction
The Accession Process
Legal Commitments
Informational Reports
Least Developed Countries
Enforcement
Civil Remedies
Criminal Enforcement
Border Measures
Transparency and Publication
Policy Implications
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Public Health
Food Security
Biodiversity
Public Domain
Administrative Resource Commitment
Dispute Settlement Liability
Endnotes
1
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
10
12
15
16
19
21
23
24
24
25
25
25
27
27
29
30
30
31
31
32
TABLES
Table 1 :
Table 2 :
Date of accession to WTO
Obligations to ratify intellectual property treaties
11
14
iv — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
BOXES
Box 1 :
Box. 2 :
Box 3 :
Box 4 :
Box 5 :
Box 6 :
Box 7 :
Box 8 :
Status of legislation on intellectual property rights in Jordan
Revision of Copyright, Trademark and Patent laws of China by the date of Accession
Main provisions on copyright and related rights
Main Provisions on Trademarks
Main Provisions on Geographical Indications
Main Provisions on Patents
Main Provisions on Undisclosed Information
Main Provisions on Industrial Designs and Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits
Tables and Analysis by Ermias Tekeste Biadgleng
Introduction
9
9
15
17
18
19
21
22
37
1.
Classiication of acceding Countries by Political-Economy of Countries
38
2.
General commitments and Information Provided: Implementation,
Accession to Treaties and other Commitments
a.
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Lithuania Albania and Croatia.
38
38
3 .
b.
Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Mongolia, Bulgaria
39
c.
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Chinese Taipei, China, Jordan, Panama and Ecuador
40
d.
Cambodia and Nepal
41
Commitment and Information Provided with respect to Copyright and Related Rights
a.
4.
5.
6.
43
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Albania and Croatia, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz,
Mongolia, Bulgaria
43
b.
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Chinese Taipei, China,
45
c.
Cambodia and Nepal
45
Commitments with respect to trademarks
a.
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Lithuania Albania and Croatia.
46
46
b.
Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Mongolia, Bulgaria
46
c.
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Chinese Taipei, China, Jordan, Panama and Ecuador
47
d.
Cambodia and Nepal
47
Commitments on GIs
48
a.
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Lithuania Albania and Croatia.
48
b.
Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Mongolia, Bulgaria
48
c.
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Chinese Taipei, China, Jordan, Panama and Ecuador
49
d.
Cambodia and Nepal
49
Commitments with respect to Patents and Plant varieties Protection
50
a.
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Lithuania Albania and Croatia.
50
b.
Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Mongolia, Bulgaria
51
7.
Commitments with Respect to Industrial Designs and integrated circuits
54
8.
TRIPS-Plus Commitments with respect to the protection of Pharmaceutical and
Agro-chemical Undisclosed Information
55
TRIPS-plus Committeeman and Information Provided (Indicated) on Enforcement
57
9.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 1
I.
The Accession Process and its Legal
Consequences
A.
Introduction
This paper addresses intellectual
property issues that arise in the context of
the accession process with a view toward
assisting prospective WTO Members involved
in negotiations. The Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (“TRIPS Agreement”) is one of the
Multilateral Trade Agreements or MTAs to
which all WTO Members are party.1 As an
ordinary consequence of joining the WTO,
a state or autonomous customs territory2
would be expected to become party to the
TRIPS Agreement and take on the obligations
applicable to other Members at their respective
levels of development. However, the terms of
the WTO Agreement do not expressly limit
the “entry fee” imposed on newly acceding
Members to an equivalence of concessions
with existing Members. As a consequence of
this, accession negotiations have been used
by certain Members as a mechanism for
securing commitment to obligations in the
ield of intellectual property rights (IPRs) that
are more extensive than those established by
the TRIPS Agreement (so-called “TRIPS-plus”
commitments).
For any country which has not been
a Member of the WTO, there is a strong
possibility that the national regime governing
IPRs in place prior to the commencement of
accession negotiations will be inconsistent
with the requirements of theTRIPS Agreement.
In this regard, the process of joining the WTO
even at the same level of obligation as existing
Members may require a substantial adjustment
in national law and corresponding industrial
policy. The impact of bringing national law
into baseline or “normal” TRIPS Agreement
compliance should not be underestimated.
The lengthy GATT Uruguay Round (198693) negotiations regarding theTRIPSAgreement
were highly contentious, particularly as
between developed and developing countries.
In order to accommodate potentially
wrenching economic adjustments,3 the TRIPS
Agreement included transition arrangements
in favor of developing and least developed
Members. For developing Members, the basic
transition period lasted ive years, and a
more speciic transition period with respect
to patent subject matter lasted 10 years.
Least developed Members beneited from a
general 11 year transition period, subject to
extension. (The least developed transition has
been extended at least until July 2013.) With
limited exception, countries recently acceding
to the WTO have agreed to forgo transition
arrangements, and have instead accepted to
comply fully with the TRIPS Agreement upon
accession. In most cases, applicant countries
have adapted their national legislation during
the course of the accession process.
A fundamental characteristic of the
TRIPS Agreement is that WTO Members
have lexibility regarding the manner in which
obligations are implemented. This lexibility
has been recognized by the WTO Appellate
Body in the India-Mailbox decision.4 Countries
acceding to the WTO may have limited
experience in drafting and implementing IPRs
law. The way in which such law is drafted may
substantially affect social welfare interests
within the country. Certain WTO Members
will express strong opinions regarding what
types of legislation satisfy TRIPS Agreement
requirements. Those views are not necessarily
shared by other Members. In addition,
technical advisers regarding IPRs law may
have materially different viewpoints regarding
2 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
the way in which the interests of IPRs-holders
and the general public should be balanced. It is
therefore important to approach the process
B.
of legal reform cautiously, taking into account
the different perspectives and objectives of
WTO Members and technical advisers.
The Accession Process
Since the inception of the WTO era the
process of acceding to the organization has
evolved into a well-deined series of steps.
The WTO Secretariat has produced technical
documents that describe the process and
expected contributions of prospective
Members. In particular, reference may be
made to Technical Note on the Accession
Process (Note by the Secretariat, Revision),
WT/ACC/10/Rev.3, 28 November 2005 and
Technical Note on the Accession Process
(Note by the Secretariat: State of Play and
Information on Current Accessions, Revision),
WT/ACC/11, Rev.6, 23 Nov. 2005. These
documents effectively update a report by the
Secretariat prepared in 1995 as “a practical
guide for delegations of both WTO Members and
acceding States or separate customs territories”
(at para. 2) (“Accession to the World Trade
Organization, Procedures for Negotiations
under Article XII” (Note by the Secretariat),
WT/ACC/1 24 Mar. 1995).
There are two components of the
TRIPS-related accession negotiations. One
component is negotiations on “rules” that
are conducted on a multilateral basis. With
respect to IPRs, this would refer, at a minimum,
to the applicant’s basic compliance with the
TRIPS Agreement. The second component is
bilateral negotiations between the applicant
and each Member interested in conducting
such negotiations.
The Secretariat’s Technical Notes identify
only goods and services negotiations as
“bilateral”; IPRs negotiations are not referred
to as part of the bilateral process. But this
relects semantics as opposed to practical
reality. When a country agrees to lower its
tariffs on imports of goods, or to provide
improved market access to foreign services
providers, as a matter of WTO terminology
this is considered a “concession”. Agreeing
to protect IPRs interests of foreign persons
typically results in net payments outlows
(in the form of IPRs rent or royalties). WTO
negotiators recognize that, for acceding
countries,TRIPS obligations impose economic
costs and represent concessions. Negotiations
regarding TRIPS obligations are, in fact,
conducted in bilateral settings and TRIPS-plus
commitments are treated as concessions.
The recent bilateral agreement between
the Russia and the United States establishing
measures to be adopted and/or implemented
by Russia as a condition to its accession to
the WTO illustrates that IPRs are treated
as the subject of bilateral negotiations (and
concessions) in the accession process.5
Russia bilaterally accepted to adopt signiicant
TRIPS-plus measures, including with respect
to pharmaceutical test data protection, prior
to the date that U.S. might be expected to
approve its accession in the WTO Ministerial
Conference (or General Council).
As a practical matter, from a TRIPS
standpoint, not so much importance should
be attached to the multilateral/bilateral
negotiations distinction. Important WTO
negotiations are typically conducted in
bilateral country-to-country meetings, or
in informal small group meetings. While
“multilateral” negotiations on rules (including
TRIPS rules) may take place among a large
group of countries at the WTO in Geneva,
nothing prevents individual countries from
raising rules issues in bilateral discussion,
whether in or outside Geneva.
There are two critical features of WTO
law and practice that help shape the outcome
of accession negotiations. First is the practice
of consensus voting, for which a preference
is established by the WTO Agreement.6 An
applicant for membership in the WTO is
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 3
expected to satisfy all existing members
(although there is a provision for nonapplication between speciic members),7
and a single Member may effectively veto
an application. Thus, in TRIPS negotiations,
the applicant may be required to satisfy the
demands of each individual Member for higher
levels of protection to get the accession
agreed upon. The second critical feature is
the most favored nation (MFN) obligation of
the TRIPS Agreement (art. 4) which effectively
requires that all WTO Members be treated
in an equivalent manner. When an applicant
agrees to provide a higher level of protection
to any Member in bilateral negotiations, it
is effectively agreeing to provide that same
level of protection to all Members.
At the outset of the accession process, an
applicant country responds to a questionnaire
with respect to its national IPRs regime. It
also furnishes WTO Members with copies
of relevant legislation. These documents
may relect preliminary work undertaken in
contemplation of commencing the accession
process.
The results of multilateral and bilateral
negotiations are relected in a Report of
the Working Party on the Accession of the
applicant country. It is at this stage that
C.
the results of the bilateral negotiations
are effectively “multilateralized”. Once
commitments are included in the Working
Party Report they are expected to beneit all
WTO Members. The Working Party Report
typically attaches a draft Protocol of Accession
proposed for adoption by the Ministerial
Conference (or General Council acting in
place of the Ministerial Conference).
The Protocol of Accession is an
agreement between WTO Members and the
acceding country regarding the terms upon
which accession takes place. It is adopted
by a decision of the Ministerial Conference
(or General Council). The Protocol of
Accession typically incorporates by reference
“commitments” in the Working Party Report.
It is therefore important to be clear on what
constitutes a “commitment” in the Working
Party Report.
The decision by which the Ministerial
Conference or General Council approves
accession extends an invitation to the
applicant to submit an instrument to the WTO
Secretariat that formally accepts the terms of
the Protocol of Accession and membership
in the organization. The applicant country
typically becomes a WTO Member 30 days
following its acceptance of the Protocol.
Legal Commitments
The Working Party Reports adopted
since entry into force of the WTO include a
paragraph in which the “commitments” of the
acceding country are listed. This is typically
done in the form of a cross-reference to
various paragraphs of the Working Party
Report. At least one of those paragraphs
refers to TRIPS Agreement obligations, but
the number and scope of the internal Working
Party Report commitments varies substantially
among acceding countries. A Technical Note
prepared by the WTO Secretariat identiies
the “commitments” on TRIPS so far undertaken
by acceding countries.8 Commitments are
incorporated by reference in the Protocol
of Accession adopted by the Ministerial
Conference or General Council. Speciic
commitments are stated to constitute part of
the WTO Agreement binding on the applicant/
new Member.
Elements of Working Party Reports
regarding TRIPS are typically structured in the
form of statements by the applicant country
delegate explaining elements of the IPRs
regime. Working Party Reports refer to the
completed questionnaire document that
provides detailed information regarding the
IPRs regime of the applicant. In some cases,
concerns raised by other Members are set
4 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
out. Some Reports include commitments
with respect to speciic IPRs legislation. Some
incorporate a work program of legislation
the applicant country undertakes to adopt
according to a schedule.
the weight of such opinion is in favor of
susceptibility to WTO dispute settlement. 11
Applicants make commitments beyond
those set forth in the TRIPS Agreement.
These additional commitments have different
characteristics. China, for example, included a
substantial number of commitments regarding
bureaucratic infrastructure and adjudication
of disputes, in addition to its substantive
commitments. A number of countries have
included commitments with respect to
protection of regulatory data and marketing
exclusivity with respect to the pharmaceutical
and/or agricultural sector that go beyond
TRIPS requirements. The various TRIPS-plus
commitments are described and analyzed in
detail infra.
Commitments undertaken in Working
Party Reports are subject to the same
problems of ambiguity and interpretation
as other legal texts. Furthermore, the
commitments in the Reports may be limited
to reference to the intent to adopt legislation
on a particular subject matter, there may be
considerable leeway in favor of the acceding
Member regarding the manner in which
the commitment is implemented. Only in a
small number of cases do commitments on
TRIPS identify a highly speciic mechanism of
implementation. Therefore, in most cases the
commitments in the Working Party Reports
leave the acceding Member with lexibility
in implementation. The manner in which
this lexibility is used may be the subject of
dispute.
The “commitments” referred to in
the Working Party Report become legal
obligations binding on the acceding Member.
An important issue is whether, based on the
terms of the Protocol and on Article XII of
the WTO Agreement, those obligations are
enforceable by other Members in dispute
settlement just as other parts of the of the
WTO agreements. This may be deemed to be
the case as accession protocols are adopted
by decision of the Ministerial Conference (or
General Council), and because the Protocols
of Accession generally provide that they, along
with speciied accession commitments, shall
be an integral part of the WTO Agreement.9
The WTO Agreement is a covered
agreement under the terms of the WTO
Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).10
Although there are some differences among
commentators concerning the precise legal
mechanism by which the binding character
and susceptibility to dispute settlement
of accession commitments comes about,
Also, non-violation nulliication or
impairment causes of action may not yet be
brought on the basis of TRIPS Agreement
obligations, as Members have failed to
agree on the modalities for the application
of such causes of action and it is uncertain
whether non-violation causes will ever apply
in the context of the TRIPS Agreement12. An
important and, as yet, unanswered question
is whether a cause of action based on a
“commitment” regarding TRIPS in a Working
Party Report would be considered a cause
of action under the Protocol of Accession,
which might not be subject to the TRIPS
non-violation moratorium, or whether such
a commitment would be considered a cause
of action under the TRIPS Agreement, which
would be subject to the moratorium. It would
seem reasonable to suggest that, to the
extent that the moratorium is still in force, no
differentiation should be made in this respect
between TRIPS and TRIPS-plus obligations
accepted under a Protocol of Accession13.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 5
D.
Informational Reports
The Working Party Reports typically
include substantial amounts of information
reported by the applicant country which does
not form part of a commitment paragraph.14
1.
Treaty membership
The acceding Member has typically
described the international agreements
to which it is a party, such as the Paris and
Berne Conventions. The TRIPS Agreement
obligates Members to comply with Paris and
Berne substantive rules, with few exceptions.
Description of the acceding Member’s status
as a party to these treaties is not especially
important because the TRIPS Agreement
independently requires compliance with their
substance.
The issue of the legal effect of the
description becomes more important when
the applicant/Member describes adherence
to treaties that are not cross-referenced in
the TRIPS Agreement. So, for example, the
applicant may refer to the WIPO Copyright
Treaty or some version of the UPOV
Convention. By referring to its status as a
treaty party in the Working Party Report, has
the applicant committed to remaining a treaty
party? More important, has the applicant
committed to complying with the terms of
the referenced treaty in a way which would
give rise to a cause of action in WTO dispute
settlement?
Unless the description of adherence
to a non-WTO treaty is incorporated in
a “commitment” paragraph, the applicant
should not be bound to remain party to that
treaty. By joining the WTO a country does not
surrender sovereignty and autonomy, except
to the extent of its bound legal commitments.
Moreover, unless there is a speciic linkage
established between obligations under two
independent international agreements or
treaties, there is not a clear legal basis in public
international law for considering the breach
of one such agreement to be the breach of
another.That is, a cause of action under treaty
A does not give rise to a cause of action under
treaty B absent an express indication that
the parties to the two treaties intended to
create such a linkage. Therefore, by referring
to membership in an IPRs treaty such as
the WIPO Copyright Treaty or UPOV, the
applicant country should not be authorizing a
claim for a violation of the TRIPS Agreement
should that other treaty be breached.
However, the matter is not crystal
clear because the WTO legal system pays
considerable attention to the “legitimate
expectations” of the parties to the agreement.
In terms of potential “violations” of the
WTO agreements, this concept of legitimate
expectations has a narrow focus, typically
restricted to the issue of nulliication or
impairment of beneits after a violation has
been found.15 On the other hand, the WTO
legal system makes wider allowance for the
role of legitimate expectations in the context
of so-called “non-violation nulliication or
impairment” causes of action. In a nonviolation case, the complaining Member alleges
that the complained-against Member has
taken measures that nullify or impair beneits
it expected to receive when it negotiated the
relevant agreement, notwithstanding that the
complained-against Member has not violated
an express term of the relevant agreement.
As noted above, a moratorium on
initiation of non-violation complaints under
the TRIPS Agreement remains in effect. It is
not certain whether non-violation complaints
will eventually be allowed under TRIPS, and
what limitations might be imposed upon
them. Nevertheless, an applicant must take
into account the possibility of such causes of
action.
Assuming, arguendo, that non-violation
complaints under TRIPS are permitted (or that
a non-violation complaint may independently
be based on the Protocol of Accession), a
complaining Member could argue that the
description by the applicant of its status as a
party to another international agreement, e.g.,
the WIPO Copyright Treaty, formed part of
— World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
its legitimate expectations when it approved
the Protocol of Accession. Thus, when the
complained-against Member withdrew from or
failed to fulill its obligations under the WIPO
Copyright Treaty, it impaired those legitimate
expectations, resulting in injury. This will not
occur, however, if non-violation complaints
do not become applicable in the context of
TRIPS matters, as elaborated above.
2.
Legislation
A similar type of analysis applies with
respect to an applicant-Member’s informational
description of its current legislation or of
changes it intends to introduce.16 Unless
otherwise expressly stated, the applicant is
not committing to retain that legislation in the
form in which it is notiied or to introduce the
changes it indicated to the Working Group. A
commitment to generally maintain national
legislation in a static form would go far beyond
the requirements of the WTO agreements in
general, and the TRIPS Agreement in particular.
It would mean that a national parliament or
legislature was effectively surrendering its
authority to legislate.
There are two caveats to this general
proposition. First, the applicant does agree
E.
to comply with the TRIPS Agreement.
Amendment of legislation so as to make it
inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement would
constitute a violation of the TRIPS Agreement
and the Protocol of Accession which, perhaps
redundantly, requires TRIPS Agreement
compliance. The second caveat relates to nonviolation nulliication or impairment, referred
to above. A complaining Member might argue
that the legislation notiied or announced to
the Members during the accession process
formed part of its “legitimate expectations”
regarding the accession bargain. Amendment
of that legislation in a way that adversely
affected the complaining Member could
be deemed to constitute a nulliication or
impairment of beneits in non-violation causes
of action, provided that such causes of action
are inally applicable in this context.
A “positive” aspect of the non-violation
form of dispute settlement claim is that a
inding of nulliication or impairment does not
require the complained-against Member to
remove or modify the offending measure. A
successful complaining Member is entitled to
withdraw concessions from the complainedagainst Member so as to appropriately
rebalance its bargain.17
Least Developed Countries
Least developed countries (LDCs) were
accorded special and differential treatment
pursuant to Article 65.5 and 66.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement. They were not required to
implement the TRIPS Agreement (except for
national and most-favored-nation treatment)
until January 1, 2006, and they were not
prevented from reducing their level of TRIPS
consistency prior to that date. The date for
TRIPS compliance was subsequently extended
until July 1, 2013, although the provision
allowing for reduction of existing TRIPS
consistency was not extended. In addition
to the possibility for general non-compliance
with TRIPS Agreement obligations, least
developed Members are authorized pursuant
to Paragraph 7 of the Doha Declaration on
the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and
its implementing measures not to provide
or enforce pharmaceutical patent and data
protection at least until 2016.
The November 14, 2001 Doha Ministerial
Declaration expressed particular concern to
accelerate accession of LDCs, and to facilitate
technical assistance.18 On December 10, 2002,
the General Council adopted a Decision on
the Accession of Least-Developed Countries
providing that:
a.
Special and Differential Treatment
provided for in the WTO agreements
would apply to acceding LDCs;
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 7
b.
Transition arrangements in the WTO
agreements would be granted for LDC
accessions taking into account individual
development, inancial and trade needs;
c.
Transition arrangements would be
accompanied by Action Plans for
compliance with WTO rules; and
supported by technical assistance.
The terms of accession of Cambodia
and Nepal with respect to TRIPS do not
appear to relect the apparent intent of the
December 2002 General Council Decision.
These countries have accepted accelerated
implementation ofTRIPSAgreement obligations
- as compared with LDCs originally joining
the TRIPS Agreement - and certain TRIPSplus commitments. At the Cancún Ministerial
Conference, prior to adoption of the Decision
approving accession of Cambodia, WTO
Deputy Director General Rufus Yerxa made
a statement on behalf of the Working Party
on Accession to ameliorate concerns that
had been raised by NGOs and WTO experts
regarding the terms of the TRIPS provisions in
the Protocol. As reported by the WTO Press
Ofice for September 11, 2003:
“Some commentators have questioned
whether Cambodia’s membership agree-
F.
ment overrides its rights under the Doha
Declaration on intellectual property rights
and public health. Before the decision was
passed, Deputy Director-General Rufus
Yerxa, speaking on behalf of Cambodia’s
working party, said:
‘The results achieved in the case of
Cambodia speak for themselves, and in
this context I should also add that the
terms of this accession do not preclude
access to the beneits under the Doha
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and
Public Health to Cambodia as a (leastdeveloped country).’”19
This interpretative statement by the
WTO Deputy Director General may be
important in considering whether Cambodia
will be able to take advantage of the LDC
authorization in Paragraph 7 of the Doha
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and
Public Health not to adopt or enforce
pharmaceutical patent and data protection.
The Working Party Report regarding
Accession of Nepal includes an express
statement by the delegate of that country
that it preserves its lexibilities under the
Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement
and Public Health.
Enforcement
So far, no formal dispute settlement
proceeding has been initiated at the WTO
claiming failure of a Member to comply with the
terms of a Protocol of Accession. Therefore,
questions such as whether any legal obligation
is created by informational reporting are not
deinitively answered. There is, however, an
ongoing effort by the United States, Japan,
Switzerland and some other Members seeking
to require China to comply with its TRIPS
Agreement obligations, which might be viewed
as the irst steps in an effort to enforce China’s
Protocol of Accession.
8 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
II.
TRIPS and TRIPS-plus IPRs Subject Matter
– Comparative Analysis of 21 Post-WTO
Accession Agreements
This section provides an overview of
the commitments and information provided
by acceding countries. Its main purpose is to
assess the TRIPS-plus effect of the accession
process.The section and the tables are divided
in terms of general principles, each category
of IP rights and enforcement standards under
the TRIPS Agreement.20
Agreement from the date of accession to the
WTO, without recourse to any transitional
period. Jordan submitted its major reforms
in its intellectual property regime in 1999.23
Box 1 shows the status of reforms that
were ongoing during the accession of Jordan
and submitted to the working party for its
agreement.
As mentioned in part I, the commitments
of the acceding countries are those stated as
such in the report of the respective Working
Party or in the draft Protocol of accession. In
this section, additional reference will be made
to statements made by the applicant country
reporting or indicating changes introduced or
to be introduced in its IPRs regime21, although
in these cases no commitment as such has
been made. In order to identify the concrete
standards of protection indicated to the
Working Party, there was a need to review the
laws and regulations that the applicant country
referred to during the accession process and
which were notiied22 -in accordance with the
procedures set forth by the TRIPS Agreementafter accession took place.
Another example is provided by the
reported scheduled of revisions of Chinese
laws made in order to conform to the
demands received by China during the
accession process (Box 2).
Some of the proposed changes to the
domestic laws of the acceding countries are
discussed within the Working Party itself.
Jordan, for example, was requested to submit
to the Working Party a plan of action for
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by
the date of accession. In the view of the
members of the Working Party, Jordan should
use the period of its accession negotiations
to make the necessary changes in the area
of intellectual property rights to meet WTO
norms and, as a consequence, Jordan was
expected to be in conformity with the TRIPS
Furthermore, there were instances
where the Working Party went as far as
reviewing the draft legislation of the acceding
countries before their adoption, and where
acceding countries agreed to incorporate
the comments received26. As a result, the
net impact of the accession processes on
the acceding countries’ intellectual property
policies exceeds what is relected in the
formal ‘commitments’ made as part of the
accession process.
Particular limitations for the research
undertaken for this paper were encountered
when the acceding countries were, at the
same time, acceding to the European Union27
and accepting the extension of its various
intellectual property regimes.28 To a certain
extent a lack of information, especially the
availability of revised or amended laws as
they were during the accession process, and
the time required for notiication of laws
for recently acceded countries, affected the
comparative analysis. As a result, the tables in
such cases are limited only to those speciically
relected in the accession documents.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 9
Box 1 :
Status of legislation on intellectual property rights in Jordan
(November 1999)24
Law
Expected Approval
Date
(Parliament)
Status of Draft
Amendments to the Law on
Trademarks No. 33 of 1952
Enacted as a Law, entering into
force on 1 December 1999
Law on Patents
Enacted as a Law, entering into
force on 1 December 1999
Amendments to the Law on
Copyrights No. 22 of 1992
Enacted as a Law, entered into
force on 2 November 1999
Law on Industrial Design
Referred to Parliament
January 2000
Law on Integrated Circuits
Referred to Parliament
January 2000
Law on Geographical Indications
Referred to Parliament
January 2000
Law on Trade Secrets and Unfair
Competition
Referred to Parliament
November 1999
Law on Plant Variety Protection
Referred to the Legislative Bureau
at the Council of Ministers
November 1999
Regulations / Instructions
Status of Draft
Expected Adoption Date
Regulations on Border
Enforcement of Intellectual
property Rights
Being drafted; submission to the
CM is expected in
December 1999
Upon enactment of
Amendments to the
Customs Law
Regulations on Copyrights
Being drafted; submission to the
CM is expected in
December 1999
January 2000
Regulations on Integrated
Circuits
Being drafted; submission to the
CM is expected in
December 1999
Upon enactment of
the Law on Integrated
Circuits
Box. 2 :
Revision of Copyright, Trademark and Patent laws of China by the
date of Accession25
2001 Copyright Law
60 articles including
10 new articles
6 cancelled
31 revised
2001 Trademark Law
2000 Patent Law
64 articles including
23 new articles
20 revised articles
69 articles including
5 new articles
5 cancelled articles
29 revised articles
1993 Trademark Law
1992 Patent Law
43 articles including
6 revised articles
69 articles including
14 revised articles
10 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
A.
General Principles
The TRIPS Agreement contemplates in
Part I ‘basic principles’ of intellectual property
protection. They include national treatment,
most-favored-nation treatment and the
principle of exhaustion of rights. While the
irst two are mandatory29, the last one is of
facultative application.
The agreements entered into by the
acceding countries generally conirm the
national treatment and MFN principles.Further
speciic indications were made to extend
such standard of treatment for applicable
fees in the cases of Armenia, Macedonia,
Moldova, Georgia, Kyrgyz30. In the case of
Nepal’s accession, a member of the Working
Party objected to discrimination based on
nationality with respect to payment of fees.
B.
The TRIPS Agreement does not set out a
mandatory principle with regard to the issue
of the exhaustion of rights. The accession
documents do not speciically address the
regime to be followed for the exhaustion of
rights by the acceding countries. There are no
commitments made by the acceding countries
with respect to the regime of exhaustion.
However, Saudi Arabia has speciically
indicated that the parallel commercial export
and import is prohibited in the area of
copyright.33
Transitional Periods
The TRIPS Agreement provided for
transitional periods that beneited developing
countries and economies in transition, as well
as LDCs. In accordance with article 65 of the
Agreement,
•
As a result, Nepal committed to eliminate
all discrimination on applicable fees upon
accession31. Other countries have indicted to
abolish agency requirements for registration
of trademarks by foreign nationals.32
any developing country Member was
entitled to delay until January 2000
the application of the provisions of the
Agreement other than Articles 3, 4 and 5
(article 65.2).
•
any other Member which was in the
process of transformation from a
centrally-planned into a market, freeenterprise economy and which was
undertaking structural reform of its
intellectual property system and facing
special problems in the preparation and
implementation of intellectual property
laws and regulations, could also beneit
from the same period of delay (article
65.3);
•
to the extent that a developing country
Member was obliged by the Agreement
to extend product patent protection to
areas of technology not so protectable
in its territory on the general date of
application of the Agreement for that
Member (that is, January 1st. 2000), it could
delay the application of the provisions on
product patents of Section 5 of Part II to
such areas of technology for an additional
period of ive years, that is, until January
1st, 2005 (article 65.4).
In addition, ‘in view of the special needs
and requirements of least-developed country
Members, their economic, inancial and
administrative constraints, and their need
for lexibility to create a viable technological
base’, such Members were not required to
apply the provisions of the Agreement, other
than Articles 3, 4 and 5, for a period of 10
years from the date of application as deined
under paragraph 1 of Article 65, that is, until
January 1st, 200634. This period was extended
by the Decision of the Council for TRIPS of
29 November 2005. In accordance with this
Decision, LDCs shall not be required to apply
the provisions of the Agreement, other than
Articles 3, 4 and 5, until July 1st, 2013, or
until such a date on which they cease to be a
least-developed country Member, whichever
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 11
Table 1 :
Date of accession to WTO
Acceding Country
Date of
Accession
Acceding
Country
Date of Accession
A. Transition Economies
Armenia
Macedonia
February, 2003
Georgia
April, 2003
Estonia
Lithuania
May, 2001
Latvia
Moldova
July, 2001
Kyrgyz
June, 2000
November, 1999
February, 1999
December, 1998
Albania
September, 2000
Mongolia
January, 1997
Croatia
November, 2000
Bulgaria
Saudi Arabia
December, 2005
Jordan
Oman
November, 2000
Panama
September, 1997
January, 2002
Ecuador
January, 1996
December, 1996
B. Developing Countries
Chinese Taipei
China
April, 2000
December, 2001
C. LDCs
Cambodia
October, 2004
date is earlier35. Moreover, in the case of
pharmaceutical patents and test data pursuant
to the Decision of the Council for TRIPS of
27 June 200236, the transitional period was
extended until 2016.
The referred extensions granted in
favour of LDCs are without prejudice to the
right of least-developed country Members
to seek further extensions of the period
provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 66 of
the Agreement.
Despite the importance of transitional
periods to make the necessary changes at
the national level in order to incorporate
and effectively apply the new standards of
intellectual property protection, most acceding
countries were unable to secure such periods
in their accession agreements.37 This applies
both to countries that acceded before and
after the expiry of the general transitional
period provided for in articles 65.2 and 65.3
of the TRIPS Agreement (see Table 1).
Nepal
April, 2004
As indicated in Table 1, eight countries
acceded before January 1st, 2000. Only one
developing country, Ecuador, obtained a one
year transitional period. Two of the acceding
LDCs were accorded with transitional periods
much shorter than those allowed to LDCs
that were WTO Members. In the case of
Cambodia, the obligations became applicable
as follows:
•
implementation of Article 3-5 of the
TRIPS as of the date of accession;38
•
protection of test data during the
transition period;39
•
January 1st, 2007 for the rest of the TRIPS
provisions;40
•
TRIPS-consistent
measures
already
in place not be subject to transitional
periods.41
The same dates of application were
negotiated in the case of Nepal, with the
exception of the immediate entry into force
of test data protection.42
12 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
Despite the transitional periods obtained
by Cambodia and Nepal, these countries
were subject to detailed obligations to be
complied with during such periods, including
the obligation to enact laws or regulations.
Moreover, in both cases there were
commitments to ‘ensure that existing rates of
infringement would not signiicantly increase
and that any infringement of IP rights would
be addressed immediately in cooperation with
the assistance from affected right holders’.43
This analysis shows that acceding
countries that were developing countries
and economies in transition, including those
that acceded to WTO before the end of the
general transitional periods of article 65.2
C.
and 3, respectively, were denied the possibility
of enjoying such periods and were obliged
to comply with the TRIPS provisions earlier
than developing countries and economies in
transition that were WTO Members. Even
acceding LDCs were denied the possibility
of delaying TRIPS compliance as allowed by
article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and the
extensions referred to above44.
It is also worth pointing out the immediate
application of test data protection in the case
of Cambodia45, despite the small size of the
economy and low GDP per capita (US $2,399)46
and the presumably insigniicant contribution
that Cambodia could make to pharmaceutical
companies’ global income and proits.
Adherence to WIPO and other Treaties on Intellectual
Property
The TRIPS Agreement obliges Members
to comply, with some exceptions47, with the
substantive obligations contained in the:
•
Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property; Stockholm Act of
14 July 1967 (Paris Convention).
•
Berne Convention for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works, Paris Act of
24 July 1971 (Berne Convention);
•
Washington Treaty on Intellectual
Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits,
adopted at Washington on 26 May 1989
(IPIC Treaty).
In addition, the Agreement obliges
Members to observe the provisions of the
International Convention for the Protection
of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and
Broadcasting Organizations, October 26, 1961
(Rome Convention), but only with regard to
those Members that are also parties to this
Convention.
The accession processes have gone well
beyond what the TRIPS Agreement requires
in terms of compliance with international
treaties on intellectual property. Cambodia
has made commitment to the effect that during
its transition period it would introduce laws
to obtain membership in the UPOV, Geneva
(phonogram) and Brussels Convention no
later than 1 of January 2006. Nepal on the
other hand committed to ratify Rome and
Washington no later than January 2006.
Beyond these commitments, the working party
reports indicate that Nepal and Cambodia
and the rest of the acceding countries have
adhered to or are in the process of adhering
to one or more of the following treaties:
1.
Brussels - Convention Relating to the
Distribution of Programme-Carrying
Signals Transmitted by Satellite, May,
1974;
2.
Budapest - Treaty on the International
Recognition of the Deposit of
Microorganisms for the Purposes of
Patent Procedure as amended, 2002;
3.
Geneva Phonogram - Convention for the
Protection of Producers of Phonograms
against Unauthorized Duplication of Their
Phonograms, 1971;
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 13
4.
Hague - The Hague Agreement
Concerning the International Deposit of
Industrial Designs of November 6, 1925;
16. UPOV - International Convention for the
Protection of New Varieties of Plants as
last revised on March 19, 1991;
5.
Lisbon - Agreement for the Protection
of Appellations of Origin and their
International Registration, as revised and
amended, September 28, 1979;
17. Vienna - Vienna Agreement Establishing
an International Classiication of the
Figurative Elements of Marks, as amended
on October 1, 1985;
6.
Locarno - Agreement Establishing an
International Classiication for Industrial
Designs, as amended on September 28,
1979;
18. Washington - Treaty on Intellectual
Property in Respect of Integrated
Circuits, adopted at Washington on May
26, 1989
7.
Madrid - Madrid Agreement for the
Repression of False or Deceptive
Indications of Source on Goods, as of
1967;
19. WCT - WIPO Copyright Treaty and
Agreed Statements Concerning the
WIPO Copyright Treaty December 20,
1996;
8.
Madrid - Agreement Concerning the
International Registration of Marks of
April 14, 1891, as revised and amended
on September 28, 1979;
9.
Madrid Protocol - Protocol Relating
to the Madrid Agreement Concerning
the International Registration of Marks,
adopted at Madrid on June 27, 1989;
20. WPPT - WIPO Performances and
PhonogramsTreaty andAgreed Statements
Concerning the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty, adopted in Geneva
on December 20, 1996;
10. Nice - Agreement Concerning the
International Classiication of Goods
and Services for the Purposes of the
Registration, as amended 1979;
11. Paris - Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property of March 20, 1883,
as revised and amended, September 28,
1979
12. PCT - Patent Cooperation Treaty, as in
force from January 1, 2004;
13. Rome - International Convention for
the Protection of Performers, Producers
of Phonograms and Broadcasting
Organisations, October 26, 1961;
14. Strasbourg - Agreement Concerning
the International Patent Classiication
of March 24, 1971, as amended on
September 28, 1979;
15. TLT-Trademark Law Treaty adopted at
Geneva on October 27, 1994;
As indicated in Table 2, the largest number
of indications of accession or interest to
accede to treaties was made by economies in
transition. UPOV and the Rome Convention
are the treaties that have received the largest
number of new members as the result of the
accession process.
It should be noted that, in some cases,
there is no clear link between the demands
emerging from the accession process and the
ratiication of particular intellectual property
conventions by acceding countries53. In other
cases, the intention to join certain treaties
was noted in speciic terms. In this regard,
Moldova indicated its intention to ratify the
new Act of the Hague, Madrid (on Deceptive
Indications) and PLT54 and Mongolia indicated
the intention of acceding in the near future to
the relevant intellectual property conventions
on patents55. In the case of Bulgaria, although
no commitment was made, it later reported
the ratiication of UPOV.
It is also interesting to note that Nepal
only indicated to look at other WIPO and IP
related Conventions, e.g. Geneva Phonograms
Convention, UPOV 1991, WIPO Copyright
14 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
Treaty and the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty, in terms of national
interest and explore the possibility of joining
them in the future, as appropriate.56 However,
it made a commitment to accede to the
Rome Convention and the Washington Treaty
by January 200657. Cambodia also indicated
its intention to adhere to WCT and WPPT
in 2005 upon enactment of the relevant
domestic laws.
The previous analysis suggests58 that
Nepal and Cambodia’s commitment of an
Table 2 :
action plan that includes the ratiication of
Rome and Washington and UPOV, Geneva
(phonogram) and Brussels Convention,
respectively, acceding countries made only
indications of accession to or intention to
accede to international treaties that are
not required by the TRIPS Agreement. The
taking note of the commitment of Nepal and
Cambodia to accede to international treaties
by their respective working parties imply that
their accession was agreed upon based on
such concessions.
Obligations to ratify intellectual property treaties
Conventions
Acceding countries
Geneva Phonograms
Armenia, Lithuania, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Cambodia
Brussels signals
Macedonia, Croatia, Cambodia
UPOV
Lithuania, Moldova, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Panama, Ecuador,
Cambodia
WPPT
Macedonia, Moldova, Macedonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz , Cambodia
WCT
Macedonia, Moldova, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Cambodia
Lisbon
Moldova
Rome
Armenia, Lithuania, Albania, Moldova, Macedonia, Croatia, Georgia,
Estonia, Kyrgyz, Jordan48
Madrid Protocol
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Moldova, Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Latvia,
Jordan49
Madrid Agreement
Macedonia, Moldova, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Jordan50
Nice
Macedonia, Lithuania, Moldova, Albania, Kyrgyz , Croatia, Jordan51
Locarno
Macedonia, Moldova, Croatia, Kyrgyz
PCT
Macedonia, Lithuania, Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Jordan52
Hague
Macedonia, Moldova, Croatia, Bulgaria
Strasbourg
Macedonia, Kyrgyz
Budapest
Macedonia, Lithuania, Moldova, Albania, Georgia, Estonia
TLT
Lithuania, Moldova
PLT
Moldova
Vienna
Moldova, Kyrgyz
Washington
Kyrgyz, Nepal
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 15
D.
Copyright and Related Rights
The obligations concerning copyright and
related rights are contained in Section 1, Part
II of the TRIPS Agreement. Such obligations
are summarized in Box 3.
There are no express TRIPS-plus
commitments agreed by acceding countries
with respect to copyright and related
rights. Armenia has made commitment to
implement its legislation on the Law on
Copyright and neighbouring rights aimed at
implementing the TRIPS Agreement by the
date of its accession. The Working Party on
the accession of Macedonia, on the other hand,
took note of the commitments of Macedonia
to enact all necessary amendments to the
Law on Copyright and Related rights in order
to comply with the TRIPS Agreement and ‘all
relevant conventions in the area of intellectual
property ratiied by Macedonia. In addition:
“The amendments will take due
account of the requirements and
commentaries made by WTO Members
with regard to the compliance of FYROM’s
legislation with the TRIPS Agreement.
In particular, this Law will include the
provisions dealing with the following issues;
Box 3 :
(i) national treatment and protection of
foreign authors and holders of related
rights; (ii) limitations on economic rights;
(iii) protection for pre-existing works, sound
recordings and performances; (iv) duration
of protection for works; (v) duration of
protection for performances, phonograms
and broadcasts; (vi) rights of ilm and scenic
producers; and (vii) enforcement.59:”
These commitments can result in TRIPSplus standards for Macedonia considering its
indication to accede to the WPPT and WCT
and depending on the comments provided
from members of the Working Party on its
accession. There is no adequate information
on the particulars of the comments received
from Member states, but the copyright laws
adopted by Armenia and Macedonia as well
as Lithuania, and Moldova at least show
stricter deinition of the limited scope of the
exception for reprographic reproductions
that allows for one copy of isolated articles,
succinct works, and of short extracts from
lawfully published written works, except of
computer programs.60 In these countries,
and also Croatia, reverse-engineering of
computer programme is permitted to achieve
Main provisions on copyright and related rights
• Protection of works covered by the Berne Convention, excluding moral rights, with
respect to the expression and not the ideas, procedures, methods of operation or
mathematical concepts as such;
• Protection of computer programs as literary works and of compilations of data;
• Recognition of rental rights, at least for phonograms, computer programme, and for
cinematographic works (except if rental has not led to widespread copying that impairs
the reproduction right);
• Exceptions to exclusive rights must be limited to special cases which do not conlict with
a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate
interests of the right holder;
• Recognition of ifty years minimum term for works (other than photographic or applied art
works) owned by juridical persons, and for performers and phonogram producers;
•
Recognition of rights of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting
organizations (article 14).
1 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
interoperability provided that the information
obtained as a result of the de-compilation shall
not be used for the development, production
or marketing of a similar computer program.61
In others (Georgia, Estonia), reproduction and
de-compilation is required to be in line with
the Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May
1991 on the legal protection of computer
programs.
In its bilateral agreement with the
United States, Russia has agreed, inter alia, to
implement the WCT and WPPT in national
law prior to completing its accession.62
The Working Party on the accession of
China, on the other hand took note of the
commitments of China to address the existing
differences between China’s copyright laws
and the TRIPS Agreement. The proposed
amendments would clarify:
“the payment system by broadcasting organizations which use the recording
products and also include the following provisions: rental rights in respect of computer
programs and movies, mechanical performance rights, rights of communication to
the public and related protection measures,
protection of database compilations, provisional measures, increasing the legitimate
compensation amount and strengthening
the measures against infringing activities.
China’s copyright regime including Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law and the Provisions on the Implementation of the International Copyright
Treaty would be amended so as to ensure
full consistency with China’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.63”
Although no part of the Chinese
commitment on copyright and related rights
speciically indicate an agreement to abide
E.
by standards higher than those required by
the TRIPS Agreement, it is useful to note
the revision of the Copyright law of China
provided essentially similar obligation to
those contained in article 8 of the WCT and
14 of WPPT.64
As mentioned, several acceding countries
identiied the ratiication or intention to
adhere to the WCT and WPPT. This would
presumably lead
to the incorporation
of various TRIPS-plus obligations in their
domestic laws.65 Thus, Macedonia, Moldova,
Latvia, Kyrgyz, and Cambodia will expand
the exclusive rights conferred with regard
to communications to the public by wire or
wireless means, including in such a way that
members of the public may access these works
from a place and at a time individually chosen
by them, as provided for under the WCT and
WPPT.66 Similarly, the exclusive rights with
respect to reproduction rights could also be
expanded to include the standards under the
WCT and WPPT, including the debated “right”
to exclude copies made in the temporary
memory of a computer.
The reports of the working parties with
respect to East European acceding countries
have identiied longer terms of protection
post mortem auctoris and for works of legal
persons than those required under the Berne
Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. This
probably is associated with compliance with EC
Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October
1993 harmonizing the term of protection of
copyright and certain related rights. Further,
most acceding countries (Armenia, Macedonia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Croatia, Georgia, Estonia,
Latvia, Kyrgyz, Bulgaria, Oman and China), have
made speciic indications extending TRIPSplus terms of protection for broadcasting
organizations67.
Trademark and Geographical Indications
The TRIPS Agreement signiicantly
expanded the protection conferred on
trademarks under the Paris Convention,
especially for well-known trademarks and
services trademarks.The obligations contained
in Section 2, Part II of the Agreement, are
summarized in Box 4.
The only TRIPS-plus commitment with
respect to trademarks is the commitment by
China and Macedonia to protect collective
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 17
Box 4 :
Main Provisions on Trademarks
•
Deinition of protectable signs, which should be capable of distinguishing the goods
or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. Service marks shall
receive a protection equivalent to marks for goods.
•
Registrability, but not iling of an application, can be dependent on use.
•
Deinition of presumption of exclusive rights conferred with respect to identical or
similar goods and services.
•
Protection of well-known trademarks for goods and services, including if knowledge
thereof is acquired through their promotion.
•
Exceptions to exclusive rights must be limited and take into account the legitimate
interest of the trademark owner and of third parties.
•
The minimum term of registration is seven years, renewable without limitation.
•
Requirements of use are to be limited both in terms of the minimum period of nonuse and the admissibility of reasons for non-use.
•
Special requirements for use are limited, as well as conditions on licensing and
assignment of trademarks. A trademark can be assigned without the transfer of the
business to which it belongs.
•
Measures to combat trade in counterfeiting products should be available at the
border.
marks and certiication marks.68 China also
committed to updating its law to ensure TRIPS
compliance. The Working party took note of
the commitments of China that
“Modiications would mainly be made
to the following aspects: to include the
trademark registration of three-dimensional
symbols, combinations of colours, alphabets
and igures; to add the content of collective
trademark and certiication trademark
(including geographical indications); to
introduce oficial symbol protection; to
protect well-known trademarks; to include
priority rights; to modify the existing
trademark right conirmation system and
offer interested parties the opportunity for
judicial review concerning the conirmation
of trademark rights; to crack down on all
serious infringements; and to improve the
system for providing damages for trademark
infringement. The Working Party took note
of these commitments.69”
However, there are several indications
of TRIPS-plus standards under the Working
Party reports with regard to the term of
protection of trademarks, which is extended
from seven to ten years in almost all cases of
accession.70 In some cases, such as Georgia,
the trademark is made available to soundbased marks.71 Other accession documents
and amended laws relect similar higher levels
of protection by Lithuania, Albania, Croatia,
Chinese Taipei, and Panama.
With regard to well known trademarks,
at least the following TRIPS-plus elements are
identiied:
•
a narrow scope for determination of
the relevant sector of the public (China,
Panama);72
18 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
Box 5 :
Main Provisions on Geographical Indications
•
Geographical indications are names or signs which identify a good as originating in
the territory of a member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given
quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to
its geographical origin.
•
Legal means shall be provided to prevent use of an indication in a manner that
mislead the public or when it constitutes unfair competition, and to invalidate
a trademark if the public is misled as to the true place of origin.
•
Additional protection is conferred to geographical indications for wines and
spirits, including ways of protecting homonymous indications.
•
Negotiations shall be undertaken to establish a multilateral system of notiication
and registration, and aiming at increasing the protection of indications for wines
and spirits.
•
Exceptions to the required protection may be based on prior and continuous
use of an indication, prior application or registration in good faith of a trademark,
or on the customary use of the indication
•
Obligations only relate to geographical indications that are protected in their
country of origin.
•
speciication of factors for the
determination of well-known marks
(China73);
•
the scope of protection of well-known
marks is deined as including protection
from conlicting business identiier
(China).74
A number of TRIPS-plus provisions can
also be identiied with regard to geographical
indications (GIs). The applicable standards set
out by the TRIPS Agreement are summarized
in Box 5.
The only commitment made with
respect to geographic indications is that
by China, Nepal and Cambodia to adopt
relevant TRIPS-consistent laws. However,
the most important TRIPS-plus standards
indicated under the information provided by
acceding countries is perhaps the protection
of geographic indications in the same manner
without distinguishing between wines and
sprits, on one hand, and all other geographic
indications on the other hand. A proposal
to amend the TRIPS Agreement in order to
make mandatory the extension of additional
protection of wines and spirits to all GIs has
generated considerable controversy and a
deep division between WTO’s membership.
Macedonia, Croatia, Georgia and Oman
have indicated protection at the same level.
Other information indicates a superiority of
GIs over trademarks beyond that which is
required under the TRIPS Agreement. Thus,
several countries have indicated under their
relevant laws:
•
GIs as absolute and mandatory grounds
for ex oficio refusal or invalidation of the
registration of trademarks of a nature as
to mislead the public as to the true place
of origin;75 and
•
GIs as absolute and mandatory grounds
for ex oficio refusal or invalidation of
registration of trademarks for wines76.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 19
In addition, the solution for conlicting
homonymous GIs provided for GIs applicable
to wines and spirits77 has been extended
F.
for all GIs in some cases (e.g., Macedonia,
Moldova, Croatia, Georgia). 78
Patent and Plant Variety Protection
The implementation of Section 5, Part II
of the TRIPS Agreement has raised signiicant
controversy among WTO Members, leading
to the adoption, in November 2001, of the
Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement
and Public Health.79 Developing countries
Box 6 :
have striven to preserve the lexibilities that
the TRIPS Agreement permits, particularly
to grant compulsory licenses and allow
for parallel imports. The main substantive
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement regarding
patents are summarized in Box 6.
Main Provisions on Patents
•
Patents shall be granted for any inventions, whether products and processes, provided
they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.
•
Patents shall be granted in all ields of technology. No discrimination is allowed with
respect to the place of the invention, or based on whether the products are locally
produced or imported
•
Member countries can exclude from patentability diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical
methods for treatment of humans or animals, as well as plants and animals and
essentially biological processes for the production thereof
•
Exclusive rights conferred in the case of product and process patents are deined,
subject in the case of imports to the principle of exhaustion (article 6)
•
Inventions shall be disclosed in a manner which is suficiently clear and complete for
a skilled person in the art to carry out the invention. The indication of the best mode
of carrying out the invention, as well as information concerning corresponding patent
applications and grants, may be required
•
Limited exceptions to the exclusive rights can be deined by national laws (article
30)
•
Conditions for granting other uses without the authorization of the patent holder
(compulsory licenses) are set forth; Member countries can determine the grounds to
allow such uses;
•
Revocation/forfeiture is subject to judicial review
•
The term of protection shall be at least twenty years from the date of application
•
Reversal of the burden of proof in civil proceedings relating to infringement of process
patents is to be established in certain cases.
20 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
Several departures from the TRIPS
minimum standards can be identiied in the
working party reports on the accession
of countries to the WTO. However, the
commitments made were largely to ensure
TRIPS consistency. China is committed to
amend its law to ensure the consistency of
exclusion from patentability based on public
interest and compliance with Article 31 of the
TRIPS Agreement.80
According to a literal interpretation of
article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement81, it only
obliges the grant of patents with regard to
products and processes. Members, hence,
are under no obligation to grant use claims,
including second indications for pharmaceutical
products. However, several countries (e.g.
Armenia, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz,
Oman, and Panama) have provided information
concerning laws that grant patents over
new uses of known products, if the relevant
patentability requirements are met. Estonia
amended its patent law in 1998 in order to
ensure that patents shall be available not
only for equipment, process, material, or
microorganisms, or their combination, but
also the use of known equipment, process,
material or microorganisms for novel
purposes.82 Oman also issued the Royal
Decree No. 82/2000 Promulgating the Patent
Law of Oman as supplementary to the Uniied
Patent System of the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC). The Royal Decree was
adopted because of the accession negotiation
since the GCC patent law did not satisfy the
demands of the members of the Working
Party on the accession of Oman. The Royal
decree extended availability of patent to new
applications of known industrial methods83.
Most countries exclude the patent
protection of computer programs and
business methods. It is a matter of domestic
legislation to determine whether to grant
or not patents in these cases. Patenting of
these kinds of subject matter is not required
under the TRIPS Agreement, to the extent
that they may not be deemed an invention
-because they lack a technical effect•or
are not industrially applicable. However, at
least one country (Cambodia) has made a
statement in the accession process indicating
that ‘algorithms used in computer programs, not
the programmes per se, were ineligible for patent
protection, and that “schemes or methods for
doing business” were only ineligible for patent
protection to the extent that they were lacking
industrial application’.84
The TRIPS Agreement left members the
freedom to protect plant varieties under
an effective sui generis system, patents or
a combination of both (article 27.3(b)).
They have, hence, considerable leeway to
determine how to protect such varieties.
However, as mentioned above, Cambodia has
made commitments to adhere to the UPOV
Convention85. This implies that plant varieties
should be protected in Cambodia under
breeders’ rights in accordance with the 1991
Act of that Convention86. Other countries
have also indicated that they have ratiied or
intend to ratify the UPOV.
As noted, compulsory licenses constitute
one of the main lexibilities in the TRIPS
Agreement. In accordance with article 31, as
conirmed by the Doha Declaration, Members
can determine the grounds for the granting of
such licenses, while they must comply with the
conditions set out by the Agreement in case
of grant. Various accession documents relect
tensions on the grounds and conditions for
the application of compulsory licenses.87 In
some cases speciic indications were made
e.g. Oman, Moldova and Lithuania to consider
importation as suficient to justify the
‘exploitation’ of a patent, thereby drastically
limiting situations in which a compulsory
could be granted due to lack/insuficiency
of working.88 Other countries like Armenia,
Estonia, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have also
adopted similar laws allowing importation
to justify the working requirement. Ecuador,
on the other hand allowed such justiication
because of the standards under its regional
Andean Community laws. Conversely, Croatia
maintained that the patent owner would be
considered not using or insuficiently using
the patent if, inter alia, domestic demand was
satisied by importation to a great extent, or
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 21
Box 7 :
Main Provisions on Undisclosed Information
•
Undisclosed information is to be protected against unfair commercial practices (in
the framework of article 10bis of the Paris Convention), if the information is secret,
has commercial value and is subject to steps to keep it secret.
•
Undisclosed test data necessary for the approval of pharmaceutical and agrochemical products, which are the result of a signiicant effort, relating to new chemical
entities must be protected against unfair commercial use and against disclosure by
governments.
the importation of the products manufactured
according to the protected invention hampered
or obstructed the industrial application in the
country.89
Finally, a number of countries (Estonia,
Macedonia, and Panama) supplied information
indicating to further extend the term of
patents covering pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, or processes for their preparation,
G.
to compensate for administrative delays in
general for up to ive years.90 Albania, Chinese
Taipei and Moldova also relected in their
laws the allowance of extension of patent
terms. This is another TRIPS-plus standard
that has become a common feature –at least
with regard to pharmaceuticals in Free Trade
Agreements (FTAs) signed with the USA in
the last ive years.91
Trade Secrets and Data Protection
The TRIPS Agreement requires Members
to protect undisclosed information of
commercial value (generally known as ‘trade
secrets’), as well as undisclosed test data that
is necessary to submit to obtain marketing
approval of pharmaceutical or agrochemical
products (see Box 7). Particularly controversial
has been the interpretation of article 39.3 of
the TRIPS Agreement. Although it clearly set
outs a standard of protection based on the
discipline of unfair competition –which does
not create exclusive rights92•the USA, EU and
the originator pharmaceutical industry have
argued that the only or best way of providing
the required protection is through the
recognition of an exclusivity period during
which the data cannot be used or relied upon
by third parties without the consent of the
originator of the test data.
Like in the case of FTAs signed with the
USA by a number of developed and developing
countries, the recognition of a TRIPS-plus
period of exclusivity for test data has been an
important issue in some accession processes.
For instance, the Working Party took note of
the commitments of China for the
“introduction and enactment of
laws and regulations to make sure that
no person, other than the person who
submitted [undisclosed test or other] data,
could, without the permission of the person
who submitted the data, rely on such data
in support of an application for product
approval for a period of at least six years
from the date on which China granted
marketing approval to the person submitting
the data. During this period, any second
applicant for market authorization would
only be granted market authorization if he
submits his own data.This protection of data
would be available to all pharmaceutical
and agricultural products which utilize new
chemical entities, irrespective of whether
they were patent-protected or not.93”
22 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
Cambodia also committed to introduce
similar standards for the protection of
undisclosed and other data submitted for
approval purposes94. Saudi Arabia adopted
the required legislation during the WTO
accession process for the protection of
undisclosed and other data submitted for
approval purposes against unfair commercial
use, thereby providing for a minimum
exclusivity period of ive years from the
date of obtaining the approval.95 This kind of
standard excludes the possibility of approving
generic versions of a pharmaceutical or
agrochemical product, even if off-patent,
generally for ive years for pharmaceuticals96
and ten years for agrochemicals counted
from the date of the approval in the country
where commercialization is sought. Albania,
Lithuania, Nepal, Georgia, Oman and Bulgaria
have entered non-speciic indications of
interest to adopt the necessary laws in this
regard.97
In its bilateral exchange of letters with
the United States regarding conditions for
Box 8 :
accession to the WTO, Russia accepted to
implement a six-year term of protection for
undisclosed pharmaceutical regulatory data,
similar to the commitment made by China,
but with even an express prohibition against
“public” use of such data.98
However, Nepal declared to the Working
Party that as a WTO Member, Nepal would
be entitled to the lexibilities provided in
the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS and
Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2)99. Brazil,
supported by India and Malaysia, issued a
statement supporting the right of Nepal, or
for that matter any developing country or
LDC, in accordance with said Declaration100.
In some cases, the referenced exclusivity
period is associated with another TRIPS-plus
measure,the linkage between patents regarding
pharmaceutical products and the marketing
approval of these products with national
health authorities. Such linkage essentially
prevents national health authorities from
granting marketing approval to third parties
Main Provisions on Industrial Designs and Layout Designs of
Integrated Circuits
•
Protection must be conferred to industrial designs which are new or original.
•
Requirements for protection of textile designs should not impair the opportunity to seek
and obtain such protection.
•
Exclusive rights can be exercised against acts for commercial purposes, including
importation.
•
The layout designs (topographies) of integrated circuits shall be protected according to
the provisions of the Washington Treaty of 1989, except those speciically excluded by the
Agreement (e.g. provisions on compulsory licenses).
•
Protection shall extend to layout designs as such and to the industrial articles that
incorporate them.
•
Bona ide purchase of products involving infringing layout designs shall be liable to pay
compensation to the rights-holder after notiication.
•
The minimum term of protection shall be ten years for both types of designs.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 23
that did not obtain the consent of the patent
owner, if one or more product patent exists.
Such a linkage may require those authorities
to enforce patent rights (which are of private
nature), even in cases where the validity of
the invoked patents may be doubtful, as
is often the case. The patent-registration
linkage goes even beyond the standards
applied in developed countries. In Europe,
for instance, there is complete independence
between intellectual property protection and
registration of pharmaceuticals.101
H.
The establishment of patent-registration
linkage mechanisms has been committed in
the case Cambodia and indicated by Saudi
Arabia. Unlike the provisions typical in
FTAs, which refer to granted pharmaceutical
patents, in the case of Saudi Arabia the
requirement applies to pending patent
applications, while in Cambodia it applies to
patents for both pharmaceutical and agrochemical products.102
Industrial Designs and Layout Designs (topographies) of
Integrated Circuits
TheTRIPS Agreement contains obligations
regarding the protection of industrial designs
of an aesthetic character, as well as the
protection of layout designs/topographies of
integrated circuits (see Box 6). It is worth
noting that in both cases Members are left
freedom to determine the modality of
protection to be applied. It may be organized
under sui generis regimes, or in the context
of other existing regimes, such as copyright,
provided that the minimum standards set
forth in the Agreement are complied with.
Commitments regarding industrial designs
and layout designs were made only to adopt
the relevant TRIPS-consistent laws. However,
there are several varieties of information
provided, relecting the great variation that
still exists internationally regarding the modes
of protection of industrial designs.103. The
proposed term of protection also exceeds
in some cases the TRIPS standard, notably
in the case of Moldova, which provided
protection for a ive years term renewable up
to four times for consecutive periods of ive
years104. Moldova also provided an additional
information indicating non-forfeiture of
industrial designs. Finally, several countries
(Chinese Taipei, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia,
Kyrgyz, and Oman,) have adopted protection
for layout designs (topographies) under a
separate system of protection, although, as
mentioned, there is no obligation under TRIPS
to adopt a particular form of protection.
24 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
III. IPRs Enforcement and Transparency
Part III of the TRIPS Agreement contains
a detailed set of provisions on enforcement.
Given the large number of covered issues, the
lack of comprehensive information on national
laws, and the complexity of determining the
TRIPS-plus nature of the standards committed
in the acceding process by different countries,
it is not possible to undertake here a detailed
analysis of the extent to which such process
has led to an expansion of the obligations in
this area as compared to the requirements
in the TRIPS Agreement. Table 9 in the Annex
(not attached, available later), however, shows
a general picture of the situation, and clearly
indicates, as discussed below, that TRIPSplus nature of some of the commitments
and information provided by the acceding
countries.
A.
In its bilateral agreement with the United
States, Russia has agreed to TRIPS-plus
obligations with respect to civil and criminal
enforcement activities.106
Civil Remedies
In the area of civil remedies, the
commitments made by China are limited
to confirming TRIPS standards. However,
several acceding countries provided
information reflected in their respective
laws adopting TRIPS-plus standards. The
main aspects where such is the case include
the following:
a.
It is worth noting that some countries
have made commitments not only regarding
speciic procedures and remedies, but more
generally regarding the administration of
rights, committing themselves, for instance, to
rationalization or centralization in a single agency
the administration of rights subject to grant
and registration, such as patents, trademarks
and industrial designs. Moreover, in some cases
(Cambodia, and Nepal) general commitments
to substantially reduce infringement or to
ensure that the rate of infringement will not
increase can also be found.105
Calculation of damages independent of
the resulting pecuniary damage of the
infringement, including recovery of lost
profit, application of pre-established
damages at the choice of the right holder,
and determination of damages based on
retail price. These requirements clearly
exceed what is mandated under article
45 of the TRIPS Agreement107;
b.
Destruction of materials, implements
and the closure of market places, shops
and manufacturing plants. This is not
required under article 46 or any other
provision of the Agreement.108
Chinese Taipei committed only:
“to provide patent owners and his/
her exclusive licensees the right to request
destruction or other necessary disposition
of the infringing goods, raw materials or
instruments used, in connection with the
infringement, so as to meet the requirement
of Article 46 of the TRIPS Agreement which
calls for giving the judicial authority to
order disposition outside the channels of
commerce.109”
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 25
B.
Criminal Enforcement
Criminal procedures and penalties are
required under the TRIPS Agreement only
‘in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or
copyright piracy on a commercial scale’ (article
61). Several acceding countries have gone
beyond this provision and what is, in fact, the
actual practice in many developed countries
and indicated the application of criminal
sanctions for infringements of intellectual
property rights other than trademarks and
copyrights.110
China made additional commitments with
respect to the threshold for bringing criminal
sanctions followed by its judicial authorities
“Some members of the Working Party
expressed concerns that criminal proce-
C.
Border Measures
A number of TRIPS•plus standards relating
to border measures can also be identiied,
namely:
a.
D.
dures could not be used effectively to address piracy and counterfeiting. In particular, the monetary thresholds for bringing a
criminal action, as currently applied, were
very high and seldom met. Those thresholds should be lowered so as to permit effective action that would deter future piracy and counterfeiting. In response, the
representative of China stated that China’s
administrative authority would recommend
that the judicial authority make necessary
adjustments to lower the thresholds so as
to address these concerns. The Working
Party took note of this commitment”
In addition, at least, in the case of one
acceding country, criminal investigations
should be initiated ex-oficio, without a
complaint by the right holder.111
Limiting
the
evidence
threshold,
establishing a legal presumption that
the applicant is the right holder and
limiting the security to be deposited by
the right holder to a ‘reasonable security’.
For instance, in Lithuania only 5% of the
value of the goods should be considered
to determine the amount of such
security.112
b.
Border measures include goods in transit
and goods for exportation, while article 51
of the TRIPS Agreement is only mandatory
with regard to importation.113
c.
Border measures include infringement
of intellectual property rights other than
trademark counterfeit and copyright
piracy, the only two cases under which
such measures are mandatory in
accordance with article 51 of the TRIPS
Agreement.114
Transparency and Publication
Some acceding countries have made
commitments indicating that no law or
regulation related to international trade/
intellectual property would become effective
prior to publication,115 that publication
of laws should include date of entry into
force and that a translation should be made
available.116 Although these commitments
are made generally and more often in
relation to the GATT, China, Chinese Taipei,
Saudi Arabia, Cambodia and Nepal have
made commitments speciically referring
to publications of laws related to the TRIPS
Agreement. These commitments clearly
exceed the transparency obligations set out
in article 63 of the TRIPS Agreement. The
various levels of commitments with respect
to transparency include the following:
1.
Commitment for prompt or expedited
publications: China, Nepal, Saudi Arabia,
and Chinese Taipei. Unlike the TRIPS
2 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
Agreement that only requires publication,
these commitments are for publications
with the qualiication that they should be
prompt and sometimes expedited.117
2.
3.
Undertaking that only those laws,
regulations and other measures pertaining
to or affecting trade in goods, services,
TRIPS or the control of foreign exchange
that are published and readily available
to other WTO Members, individuals
and enterprises, shall be enforced:
China, Saudi Arabia, and Cambodia. This
commitment is TRIPS-plus, since unlike
the TRIPS Agreement that requires
publication for transparency purpose,
the commitment renders publication as a
validity requirement for the enforcement
of laws, regulations and other measures.
It also imposes a standard of being readily
available in addition to being published for
the enforcement of the laws, regulations
and other measures;118
Commitment with respect publication of
all laws, regulations and other measures
pertaining to or affecting trade in goods,
services, TRIPS or the control of forex
to include the effective date of these
measures: China, Nepal and Cambodia as
well as Saudi Arabia for all laws without
speciically referring to TRIPS.119
4.
Commitment for translations into one
or more of the oficial languages of the
WTO all laws, regulations and other
measures pertaining to or affecting trade
in goods, services, TRIPS or the control
of forex, and to the maximum extent
possible, making these laws, regulations
and other measures available before they
were implemented or enforced, but in no
case later than 90 days after they were
implemented or enforced: China and
Chinese Taipei;120
5.
Commitment for the establishment of
enquiry points, or information centres
on TRIPS or generally on intellectual
property rights: Nepal.
The same applies to a commitment (made
by Cambodia) to circulate legislation to WTO
Members for comment with speciied time
limits, and to establish or designate an oficial
journal or website, published or updated
on a regular basis and readily available to
WTO Members, individuals and enterprises,
dedicated to the publication of all regulations
and other measures pertaining to or affecting
trade in goods, services, and TRIPS.121
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 27
IV. Policy Implications
In assessing the public policy implications
of TRIPS-related provisions in accession
agreements, the different legal mechanisms
involved in the process are signiicant. In
most cases, acceding countries do not make
speciic commitments on TRIPS-plus elements,
although there are notable exceptions.
However, the national legislation put in place
during the accession process and reported
or notiied to the Members often contains
TRIPS-plus elements outside the label of
speciic commitments.
An acceding country is “bound” only with
respect to “commitments” in the context of
dispute settlement. However, an acceding
country runs the risk of being the subject of a
non-violation complaint brought on the basis
of its Protocol of Accession, if such complaints
are inally deemed applicable in the context
of matters related to intellectual property
A.
protection. Perhaps more important from a
practical standpoint,the acceding country faces
the prospect of diplomatic representations
from economically important WTO Members
regarding its failure to maintain the legislation
adopted or announced during the accession
process, even if technically the acceding
country is free to change that legislation
and to limit the level of protection to what
is required by the TRIPS Agreement122. The
importance of economic diplomacy outside
the speciic context of WTO dispute
settlement should not be discounted. That
diplomacy may be combined with threats
relating to suspension of trade preferences
or economic aid packages.
The public policy implications of both
bound commitments and legislative changes
undertaken without speciic commitment are
considered in the following assessment.
Public Health
The potential impact of TRIPS Agreement
rules on national health policy has generated
intensive debate within and outside the WTO.
The WTO has responded by adopting a variety
of measures, including the Doha Declaration
on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and
the August 30, 2003 Waiver and subsequent
Amendment on exports under compulsory
license.
respect to the protection of data submitted
for regulatory purposes. Fifth, it permits
Members to determine their own policies
with respect to exhaustion of rights, and to
allow parallel importation of medicines. Sixth,
its rules regarding protection of undisclosed
test data are limited in a number of ways,
including by direction to “unfair commercial
use”.
The TRIPS Agreement provides lexibility
for Members to determine their own approach
regarding the relationship between IPRs and
access to medicines in the number of ways.
First, it permits Members to deine the nature
of invention and to regulate the criteria of
patentability within the broad framework of
TRIPS Agreement rules. Second, it permits
Members to establish exceptions to patent
rights. Third, it permits Members to grant
government use and compulsory licenses.
Fourth, it allows a range of options with
In the accession process, Members
have made substantial concessions in terms
of relinquishing elements of the foregoing
lexibilities.On the positive side of the equation,
most (but not all) of these concessions are
not part of the bound commitments made
as part of the Protocol of Accession. In this
regard, the commitments made by China and
Cambodia are important exceptions.
a
On the negative side of the equation,
number of acceding countries have
28 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
incorporated limitations on TRIPS lexibilities
in their national legislation and have reported
them to the respective Working Parties
in the accession processes. For example,
Saudi Arabia modiied its law to establish
patent-regulatory review linkage based even
upon patent applications that are not yet
approved.
The incorporation of high levels of IPRs
protection for pharmaceuticals and other
health-related materials and equipment
virtually by deinition will increase the price
of new products on the national market.
The developed Members of the WTO justify
these higher prices by reference to the high
research and development costs associated
with them.
Whether it is appropriate for a particular
acceding country to accept paying higher prices
for medicines and other public health supplies
is context-speciic. A country such as Saudi
Arabia, with a high level of petroleum export
revenues and a relatively sophisticated publichealth system, might make a concession on
public-health-sector costs without a signiicant
adverse effect on the public. For acceding
countries with more limited public health
budgets, concessions on pharmaceutical and
other health-related supply prices may have
far-reaching consequences for the public.
Research and development expenses
represent between 10 and 20% of researchbased pharmaceutical company budgets.
Pharma companies spend substantial portions
of their revenues on advertising and promotion,
as well as on general administrative costs. On
the whole, these companies earn high levels
of proit. The decision by an acceding country
to pay higher prices for pharmaceuticals and
other health-related supplies is unlikely to
affect in a signiicant manner industry’s levels
of research and development, as 90% of sales
occur in developed countries123. It is more so
a decision to invest in high levels of health-
related advertising and promotion in the
developed countries.
A number of acceding countries have
limited the grounds upon which compulsory
licenses of patents may be granted. These
limitations may inluence pricing decisions made
by patent holding pharmaceutical companies.
If price-setting is done outside the shadow of
compulsory licensing, prices are likely to be
higher. Acceding countries generally appear
to have maintained the lexibility to issue
government use licenses, which is extremely
important for the protection of the national
interest.
Of particular note are decisions by
acceding countries to provide ixed periods
of marketing exclusivity based on the
submission of pharmaceutical regulatory
data. Such marketing exclusivity is likely to
have adverse effects on pricing in the national
market. Depending on the speciic terms of
the marketing exclusivity rules, such rules are
likely to cover a range of products that are
not protected by patent. In some contexts,
the price and budget effect of marketing
exclusivity rules may be materially higher
than patent rules.
There is no indication that acceding
countries have adopted legislation which
precludes the parallel importation of
patented medicines. Such legislation would
prevent importers from seeking the lowest
prices available on the world market. It is not
clear why a developing country would choose
to cut off potential sources of lower cost
medicine supplies. While there is good reason
for all countries to be concerned about the
safety of medicines supplies, parallel imported
medicines are no less legitimate than other
medicines. It is important for all countries to
maintain vigilance over the safety of imported
medicines, whether or not parallel imported.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 29
B.
Food Security
Over the course of the past two decades
funding for research and development in
agriculture has shifted in a signiicant way
from the public to the private sector. As
a consequence, patent and plant variety
protection for agricultural-related resources
has grown in importance. In many developing
countries, the agricultural sector forms the
backbone of the economy and is a major
source of employment. In order to satisfy
their subsistence needs and be competitive
on the world market, and even on the local
market, farmers must have access to new
plant varieties and seeds at affordable prices.
The TRIPS Agreement provides WTO
Members with options regarding the way in
which new plant varieties may be protected.
Under Article 27.3(b), Members may provide
patent or sui generis plant variety protection,
or a combination of these.
A plant patent authorizes its holder to
prevent third parties from making or using the
plant variety, including its seeds. Only a limited
number of countries permit the patenting of
plant varieties. A plant patent may preclude
farmers from using seeds saved from crops
grown from a protected variety. A country
may decide to establish an exception from
the rights of patent holders allowing farmers
to replant with saved seeds124. Although this
exception may be controversial, particularly if
it is perceived to interfere with the economic
returns to the patent holder, it may be
deemed one of the permissible exceptions
under article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement. A
patent may also limit the use of the protected
material for further research and breeding,
but an exception for this purpose125 can also
be established and justiied under the three
step test of said article 30.
A country which adopts a sui generis
plant variety protection system, on the
other hand, has more lexibility to authorize
the saving and replanting of seeds (the so
called ‘farmers’ privilege). Such lexibility is
recognized in both versions (1978 and 1991)
of the UPOV Convention, although the later
version of UPOV defers to national legislation
the establishment of such privilege. The 1991
version of UPOV also provides a longer term
of protection and requires protection for
varieties in all species.
The TRIPS Agreement does not mandate
that a Member adhere to any version of the
UPOV Convention. A country acceding to
the WTO may adopt its own unique form of
plant variety protection without reference to
a multilateral agreement other than the TRIPS
Agreement.126
It is for each acceding country to decide
on its own best policy with respect to the
protection of plant varieties. For developing
countries which are highly dependent on
agricultural production, the adoption of
patent protection for plant varieties may
create substantial risks that farmers will be
unable to obtain or use seeds at affordable
prices, as well as limit (if exceptions are not
provided) seeds saving and further research
and breeding on protected varieties. While
adopting patent protection for plant varieties
has questionable merits for developing
countries, if such protection is adopted, it is
important to consider the exceptions that
will be built into the legislation.
For many developing countries, the
additional lexibility and shorter period of
protection afforded under the 1978 version
of UPOV may be more consistent with the
national interest than the corresponding
provisions of the 1991 version. However, the
option to join the 1978 version of UPOV is
already closed and new UPOV members must
adhere to the 1991 version.
30 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
C.
Biodiversity
The preponderance of the world’s biodiverse resources is located in developing
countries. The Convention on Biological
Diversity is designed to protect the interests
of developing countries in their biological
resources by requiring prior informed
consent (PIC) for bio-prospecting and the
equitable beneit sharing (EBS) from the
commercialization of biological resources.
Concerns have repeatedly been voiced
by developing countries regarding lack of
compliance, in some cases, with CBD-related
obligations by companies bio-prospecting for
biological material that contains commercially
useful active ingredients.
A number of developing countries with
substantial bio-diverse resources have sought
D.
to promote compliance with PIC and EBS
by implementing a requirement that patent
applicants disclose the source and/or origin
of biological materials incorporated in their
inventions. Such disclosure requirements are
permitted under the Paris Convention, TRIPS
Agreement and relevant WIPO agreements.
Some acceding countries may be asked
to incorporate in their patent legislation
rules that directly of indirectly preclude a
requirement of disclosure of the source and/
or origin of biological materials, for example,
through provisions that generally limit
disclosure obligations. Acceding countries
should pay close attention to requests to limit
patent applicant disclosure requirements.
Public Domain
Information which is not protected by
intellectual property is generally available
for use by the public. Developing countries
which are acceding to the WTO should recall
that the vast preponderance of intellectual
property ownership resides in the developed
countries. Extending the scope of ownership
rights in intellectual property will almost
certainly beneit foreign nationals to a greater
extent than local nationals. This not only
has implications for the outlow of inancial
resources, i.e., IPRs-based royalties or rent
payments. It also has implications for public
access to information more generally. Because
IPRs protected information is likely to be
more costly than public domain information,
IPRs protection may place information out of
the reach of the local population.
Countries acceding to the WTO should
pay attention to extensions of copyright
protection beyond those required by the
Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement. The
TRIPS Agreement requires that countries
provide, for individual authors, a copyright
term of the author’s life plus 50 years. Some
WTO Members have extended the national
copyright term to the author’s life plus 70
years. Such an extension clearly limits access
by the public to expressive material. For
developing countries, it would be dificult to
justify extension of the copyright term given
the preponderance of copyright ownership in
the developed countries.
Today, the Internet is a basic information
resource for people around the world. A
substantial amount of attention is paid
by developed country copyright owners
to restricting to a paying audience access
to material on the Internet. One of the
principal means for limiting the audience is
by promoting adoption of high standards of
protection for Internet-based content, and
by making illegitimate the use of technologies
which facilitate access to content. The TRIPS
Agreement does not require WTO Members
to adhere to the WIPO Copyright Treaty
(WCT) or the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). It is, of course,
for each country to decide whether it wishes
to be party to these multilateral agreements.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 31
If an acceding Member joins either or both
of the WCT or WPPT, it should exercise care
in implementing its obligations so as to avoid
E.
Administrative Resource Commitment
As noted at the outset of this paper, most
countries newly acceding to theWTO require a
substantial commitment of resources to bring
their national intellectual property regimes
into compliance with the TRIPS Agreement.
For many developing countries, protection of
IPRs is not, nor should it be, a national priority.
Financial resources are better invested in
public infrastructure projects, such as water
puriication and power generation
The TRIPS Agreement requires WTO
Members to provide adequate and effective
protection for IPRs. It also requires them to
provide criminal penalties for willful copyright
piracy and trademark counterfeiting on a
commercial scale as a deterrent to such
conduct. It does not, however, require
them to alter the distribution of resources
F.
unnecessarily limiting the public domain and
so as to avoid interfering with legitimate
rights of the users of expressive materials.
as between enforcement of IPRs and
enforcement of other laws.
Some WTO Members may negotiate
for more speciic commitments in the
area of criminal enforcement, and for the
establishment of speciic tribunals to hear
IPRs infringement cases. Recognizing that the
costs of TRIPS compliance are in general high,
acceding countries should exercise caution
in negotiating with respect to establishing
additional regulatory infrastructure to deal
with IPRs. While developed country business
enterprises may logically seek to increase
their proitability in the developing world,
it may not make sense (except for iscal
purposes) from a public policy standpoint for
developing countries to invest, for example, in
the criminal prosecution of IPRs infringers.
Dispute Settlement Liability
As noted earlier, there are two types of
complaints that may be brought with respect
to compliance with WTO obligations. The
irst is a “violation” complaint and the second
is a “non-violation” complaint.
Newly acceding Members face the
prospect of violation complaints with respect
to “commitments” made in respect to TRIPS.
If a WTO Member loses a violation case, it is
expected to modify or withdraw the measures
which were found to be inconsistent with
its WTO obligations. If it fails or refuses to
modify the measures, the prevailing Member
may withdraw concessions suficient to offset
its losses.
A prevailing Member is not limited in
the withdrawal of concessions to the area in
which the violation has occurred. If a newly
acceding Member fails to protect patents in
the manner prescribed, and fails to remedy
a violation, it may ind that concessions are
withdrawn in the ield of agriculture. This
possibility for cross-withdrawal of concessions
was one of the reasons developed countries
negotiated to move IPRs protection into the
WTO.
Again, as noted earlier, if non-violation cases
could be brought in relation to matters covered
by the TRIPS Agreement –an issue which is not
settled yet -and an acceding Member loses a nonviolation case, it is not expected to modify or
withdraw the offending measure. If it does not
do that, however, it is nevertheless subject to
the withdrawal of concessions by the prevailing
Member. For many developing members, loss of
a non-violation case will be as serious as loss
of a violation case.127 Until now there has been
no developing country support for introducing
non-violation causes of action under the TRIPS
Agreement, and very little support among
developed countries for such a step.
32 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
Endnotes
1
Art. II:2, WTO Agreement.
2
Throughout this paper prospective Members will routinely be referred to as countries or states as a matter of
convenience, recognizing that autonomous customs territories may also be Members of the WTO.
3
See World Bank, Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries 2002, Ch 5 and Table 5.1. See also J. Michael
Finger, The Doha Agenda and Development: A View from the Uruguay Round, Study for the Asian Development Bank 2002, at
13–19, 25. Finger notes that for six countries (United States, Germany, Japan, France, United Kingdom and Switzerland)
the net increase in patent rents from TRIPS implementation is estimated by the World Bank at $40 billion per year. Total
net payment outlows (including other forms of IP) based on full implementation are estimated at $60 billion per year.
These estimates are based on full collection, and need to be discounted based on the level of compliance.
4
WTO Appellate Body, India •Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, AB-1997-5, WT/
DS50/AB/R, 19 Dec. 1997.
5
See, Letter from USTR Susan Schwab to Russian Minister of Trade German Gref, dated November 19, 2006, available
at http://www.ustr.gov/assets/World_Regions/Europe_Middle_East/Russia_the_NIS/asset_upload_ile148_10011.pdf
(“Exchange of Letters”).
6
Art. IX:1, WTO Agreement.
7
Art. XIII:1&3, id.
8
WT/ACC/10/Rev. 3, at paras. 172-84. The Secretariat Technical Note is not legally binding and it should not be assumed
that only those matters identiied as commitments by the Secretariat will be considered commitments by all Members.
9
For example, the China Protocol of Accession provides at paragraph 1(2), inter alia: “This Protocol, which shall
include the commitments referred to in paragraph 342 of the Working Party Report, shall be an integral part of the
WTO Agreement.” WTO Ministerial Conference, Accession of the People’s Republic of China, Decision of 10 November
2001, WT/L/432, 23 Nov. 2001.
10
Article 1:1 & Appendix 1(A), DSU. A contrary view would be that Appendix I of the DSU contains an exhaustive list of
the agreements as adopted at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, and that their obligations cannot be expanded by
a Ministerial decision. If this were correct, the enforceability of TRIPS-plus commitments made by acceding countries
under the DSU might be questioned.
11
Although the subject has not often been addressed, most commentators conclude that the provision constituting the
Protocol of Accession an “integral part” or the WTO Agreement is suficient to bring it within the category of subject
matter subject tot the DSU which expressly covers “settlement of disputes between Members concerning the rights
and obligations under the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation ... taken in isolation
or in combination with any other covered agreement (Art. 1;1, WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding). This is
reinforced by the fact that Article XII of the WTO Agreement expressly contemplates further agreements with acceding
parties “on terms” between [the acceding country] and the WTO. Such accession shall apply to this Agreement and to
the Multilateral Trade Agreeements annexed thereto. See discussion of commentators in Steve Charnovitz Mapping the
Law of WTO Accession, in WTO AT TEN; GOVERNANCE, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES,
M. Janow, V. Donaldson & A. Yanovich, eds., Juris Publishing Inc., Forthcoming Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/
abstract=95765.referring along this line, e.g., to Claus-Dieter Ehlermann & Lothar Ehring. Decision-Making in the World
Trade Organisation, 8 J.INT’L ECON. L.51.57 (2005). Charnovitz disagrees with this line of legal analysis because, in his
view, WTO Members may not amend the terms of the WTO Agreement without recourse tot the formal amendment
procedures of its Article X, which are not followed in the case of accession. Nonetheless, Charnovitz concludes that
the Protocols of Accession are binding and enforceable as permissible “modiications” to the WTO Agreement -- new
international agreements enforceable by virtue of the terms of Article XII of the WTO Agreement that contemplates
such modiications.
12
On different interpretations about the legal situation created by such failure, see UNCTAD-ICTSD, Resource Book on
TRIPS and Development, [quote].
13
It should also be noted that the distinction between these two categories of obligations may be controversial. For
instance, the USA and the EU have argued that the provision of ‘data exclusivity’ is an implementation of article 39.3 of
the TRIPS Agreement, and not a TRIPS-plus obligation
14
Each acceding Member has agreed to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, in some cases with a short transition, and
there is nothing unusual about this from a legal standpoint. That is, all Members are required to comply with the TRIPS
Agreement.
15
This focus was identiied by the WTO Appellate Body in the India-Mailbox case.
16
Recall that Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement provides lexibility for Members to implement their obligations in light
of their own legal system and practice. In the India-Mailbox decision, the Appellate Body recognized this lexibility.
17
Art. 26, WTO DSU.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 33
18
WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 Nov. 2001, at paras. 9 & 42.
19
Brieing Note, Summary of 11 September 2003, Day 2: Cambodia and Nepal membership sealed as ministers start
negotiations, http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min03_e/min03_11sept_e.htm.
20
Research regarding changes to national legislation in the context of the accession process was substantially performed
by Ermias Biadgleng. The authors have relied on this research in the preparation of the following discussion.
21
See, e.g., WTO (2000), Report of the working party on the accession of Croatia to the world trade organization,
WT/ACC/HRV/59. It reports the Amended Copyright Law of Croatia, had been submitted to the legislative procedure
ensuring protection for phonogram producers and broadcasting organizations in accordance with the requirements of
the TRIPS Agreement. However, many of the reports claiming TRIPS compliance by amendment of laws reveals that the
amendments are beyond what is required by the TRIPS Agreement.
22
As available in the WIPO’s collection of laws for electronic access (CLEA).
23
WTO (1999), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, WT/ACC/JOR/33
and WT/MIN(99)/9, para. 192.
24
Id., Table 15.
25
The Box is developed by Professor Zhang Naigen (2003), China Intellectual Property Regime and the WTO, available at
http://www.ipsmart.cn/viewnews.php?sort_superid=17, last visited on 8 October 2006.
26
See, e.g., WTO (2000), Report of the Working Party on the accession of Oman, WT/ACC/OMN/26, para., 131.
27
This includes Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Macedonia.
28
Many of the European countries that acceded to the WTO are either in the accession process or have opted to comply
with EU standards.
29
They can be subject, however, to some exceptions. See articles 3 and 4 of the TRIPS Agreement.
30
For example, the Kyrgyz Republic committed to provide national treatment in respect of all fees charged for the
granting of intellectual property rights by the time of accession to the WTO. See, WTO (1998), Report of the Working
Party on the Accession of the Kyrgyz Republic, WT/ACC/KGZ/26, para. 140.
31
See, WTO (2003), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Kingdom of Nepal, WT/ACC/NPL/16, para 137
and Table 10: Action Plan for the Implementation of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Protection.
32
See, for example, WTO (2001), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, WT/MIN(01)/3, para. 261-163.
33
See WTO(2005), Report of the Working Group on the Accession of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, WT/ACC/SAU/61,
para. 251.
34
See article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
35
However, LDCs are obliged to ensure that any changes in their laws, regulations and practice made during the additional
transitional period do not result in a lesser degree of consistency with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.
36
“Extension of the Transition Period under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement for Least Developed Country Members
for Certain Obligations with respect to Pharmaceutical Products” (IP/C/25).
37
In fact, with some exceptions for special or additional commitments and for the cases of Ecuador, Cambodia and Nepal,
as noted below, acceding countries were obliged to implement their commitments by the date of accession.
38
WTO (2003), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Cambodia, WT/ACC/KHM/21, para. 204
39
Id. para. 205.
40
Id. para. 204.
41
Id.
42
WTO (2003), WT/ACC/NPL/16, op. cite., fn [], para. 136, 137 and 138.
43
Id., para. 137 and WTO (2003), WT/ACC/KHM/21, op. cite., fn [], para. 205.
44
It is to be noted that eight LDCs are currently in the process of accession to the WTO. They are: Bhutan, Cape Verde,
Ethiopia, Laos, Samoa, Sudan, Vanuatu and Yemen. Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome & Principe are WTO Observers.
45
As examined below, Cambodia also accepted to apply TRIPS-plus protection with regard to test data.
46
2005 estimate. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia. See also trade statistics relating to Cambodia in http://stat.
wto.org/CountryProile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=KH.
47
See articles 3.1, 9, 14.6 and 35 of the TRIPS Agreement.
48
Within 5 to 7 years from accession for Jordan.
34 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
49
Within 5 to 7 years from accession for Jordan.
50
Idem.
51
Idem.
52
Idem.
53
For instance, Albania with regard to the ratiication of WPPT, WCT and UPOV in 2005.
54
WTO (2001), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Republic of Moldova , WT/ACC/MOL/37, para.
166.
55
WTO ( ), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Mongolia, WT/ACC/MNG/9, para. 53
56
WTO (2003), WT/ACC/NPL/16, op. cite., fn [], para. 122.
57
Id., para 137 and Table 10.
58
A more elaborated analysis would require to examine the situation of ratiication by each acceding country of intellectual
property treaties before the accession process. Such analysis is, however, beyond the scope of this study.
59
WTO (2003), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, WT/
ACC/807/27, para. 211
60
See for example, WTO (2003), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Republic of Armenia, WT/ACC/
ARM/23, para. 172 and the new law of Armenia on copyright available at the TRIPS council database of notiication of
laws, IP/N/1/ARM/C/1.
61
Id..
62
Exchange of Letters, supra note 5.
63
, WT/MIN (01)/3, op. cite, fn [], para 263.
64
Id., para. 259 and Copyright law of the People’s Republic of China (2001), Article 10.12 and 41, as reported to the WTO,
WTO (2002), Notiication of Laws, IP/N/1/CHN/C/1.
65
See, e.g., on these treaties M Ficsor (2002), The Law of Copyright and the Internet: The 1996 WIPO Treaties, their
Interpretation and Implementation, Oxford University Press.
66
See, for example, WTO(1998 ), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Latvia, WT/ACC/LVA/32, para. 113.
67
However, the copyright law notiied by Macedonia to the WTO still provides for 20 years.
68
See, WT/MIN(01)/3, op. cite, fn [], para. 263 and WTO (2002), and, WT/ACC/807/27, op. cite., fn [], para. 214. In case of
China commitments on certiication and collective marks go deeper than IP issues, see para. 196 (b) of WT/MIN(01)/3.
69
WT/MIN(01)/3, op. cite, fn [], para. 263.
70
There is no information about Cambodia and Nepal.
71
WTO (1999), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Georgia, WT/ACC/GEO/31, para. 141 and its trademark
law adopted in 1999 based on the standards of the TRIPS Agreement and the EC.
72
WT/MIN(01)/3, op. cite, fn [], para. 262-263 and Provisions on the Determination and Protection of Well-know Marks of
China (Issued by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on April 17, 2003), Article 2 and 13.
73
Committed to implement provisions similar to those contained in the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on
the Protection of Well-known Marks (1999).
74
Id.
75
WT/ACC/MOL/37, op. cite, fn [], para. 182. See also WT/ACC/807/27, op. cite, fn [], para. 214-215 and the Consolidated
Industrial Property law of Macedonia, 2000, Article 126 (1) (7). The latter lists geographical origins without distinction
between wines and sprits and other agricultural and foodstuff for absolute ex oficio cancellation of trademarks that
conlict with such origins.
76
In accordance with articles 22.2 and 23.2 of the TRIPS Agreement ex oficio action is only required if the Member’s
‘legislation so permits’. See WT/ACC/HRV/59, op. cite, fn [] para. 182.
77
Saudi Arabia has indicated that no GIs protection will be conferred for wines and spirits.
78
See for example, WT/ACC/MOL/37, op. cite, fn [], para. 166, and 184,
79
WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/2, 14 November 2001.
80
WT/MIN(01)/3, op. cite, fn [], para. 270 and 275.
81
In accordance with the methodology set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties (article 31 and 32).
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 35
82
See WTO (1999), Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Estonia, WT/ACC/EST/28, para. 120 and its
consolidated law, 1994 (as amended 1998), Article 6 available both at the TRIPS notiication of laws database and WIPO
collection of laws and treaties for electronic access. The possibility of patenting second pharmaceutical indications
opened by such commitments may have implications for the access to drugs and public health policies, as examined
below.
83
See also, WT/ACC/MOL/37, op. cite., fn [], para. 188 for Moldova.
84
See, WT/ACC/KHM/21, op. cite., fn [], para. 185.
85
In the case of Cambodia, the WTO working party was informed that a draft Law on Plant Variety Protection was in
preparation with the assistance of UPOV, WT/ACC/KHM/21, op. cite., fn [], para., 188.
86
While many developing countries have adhered to the 1978 UPOV Convention, since April 1998 new members can only
join the UPOV Convention, as revised in 1991.
87
See, e.g., WT/MIN(01)/3, op. cite, fn [], para. 272-275.
88
See, WT/ACC/OMN/26, op. cite, fn [], para. 136, WT/ACC/MOL/37, op. cite, fn [], para. 193 and WT/ACC/LTU/52, para.
163.
89
Croatia registered unspeciic commitment to harmonize its legislation on compulsory licensing with Article 31 of the
TRIPS Agreement in the new Law on Patents. See WT/ACC/HRV/59, op. cite., fn [], para. 187.
90
Up to seven years in the case of China. See, WT/ACC/807/27, op. cite, fn [], para, 220, WT/ACC/EST/28, op. cite, fn, [], para.
120, and WT/ACC/PAN/19, para. 104.
91
See, e.g., F Abbott, The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and the Contradictory Trend in
Bilateral and Regional Free Trade Agreements, Frederick Abbott (QUNO) April 2004; available at http://www.quno.org/
geneva/pdf/economic/Occassional/TRIPS-Public-Health-FTAs.pdf; C Correa (2006), ‘Implications of bilateral free trade
agreements on access to medicines, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Volume 84, Number 5, May.
92
See C Correa (2002), Protection of data submitted for the registration of pharmaceuticals. Implementing the standards
of the TRIPS Agreement, South Centre/WHO, Geneva.
93
WT/MIN(01)/3, op. cite, fn [], para. 284.
94
WT/ACC/JOR/33, op. cite., fn [], para. 215 and WT/ACC/KHM/21, op. cite, fn [], para. 205.
95
WT/ACC/SAU/61, op. cite, fn [], para. 261.
96
The exclusivity period is of six years in the case of China.
97
With respect to Nepal the progress report indicate speciic commitment similar to the language of the Cambodia’s
accession document. However, the inal report reduced the commitment merely for the adoption of the necessary
laws. See WT/ACC/SPEC/NPL/5/Rev.1. Nepal also declared its right to use the lexibility provided under the Doha
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.
98
See Exchange of Letters, supra, note 5.
99
WT/ACC/NPL/16, op.cite, fn [], para. 129.
100
WTO (2003), Working Party on the Accession of Nepal, Statements, WT/ACC.NPL/17.
101
See, e.g., C Correa (2004), ‘Bilateralism in intellectual property: defeating the who system for access to medicines’, Case
Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 36, No. 1, Winter.
102
WT/ACC/KHM/21, op. cite, fn [], para. 205 and WT/ACC/SAU/61, op. cite, fn [], para. 261.
103
Thus, in some countries (Armenia, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Panama) protection is provided through patents (in some cases
for a term shorter than the twenty years required by article 33 of the TRIPS Agreement). Others (Bulgaria, Oman) have
adopted speciic industrial design regimes.
104
WT/ACC/MOL/37, op. cite, fn [], para. 185.
105
In the case of Cambodia and Nepal, for instance, the governments ‘will ensure that existing rates of infringement would
not signiicantly increase and that any infringement of IP rights would be addressed immediately in cooperation with the
assistance from affected right holders’. See, WT/ACC/KHM/21, op. cite, fn [], para. 205 and WT/ACC/NPL/16, op. cite, fn
[], para. 137.
106
Exchange of Letters, supra note 5.
107
See, ACC/SAU/61, op. cite, fn [], para. 266 and WT/MIN (01)/3, para. 289 and 292.
108
See, e.g., WT/ACC/OMN/26, op. cite, fn [], para. 138.
109
See., WT/ACC/TPKM/18, para. 198.
110
See, e.g.,WT/ACC/TPKM/18, para. 200 and 202. Under the Chinese Taipei law importers and manufacturers are required
3 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
to include information relating to the name and address of the manufacturer on product labels. In addition, persons using
false designations could be liable under Article 339 of the Criminal Code as having committed the offence of forgery.
Furthermore, investigation can be launched against Chinese Taipei residents who infringe copyrights in mainland China
111
Id., 202.
112
See, e.g., WT/ACC/LTU/52, para. 165.
113
WT/ACC/TPKM/18, para. 200, 201 and 202.
114
Id., 205.
115
See, for e.g., WT/ACC/SAU/61, op. cite, fn [], para. 305.
116
In the case of Cambodia, for instance, it is stated that ‘the publication of such regulations and other measures would
include the effective date of these measures and, where appropriate or possible, list the products and services affected
by the particular measure, identiied by appropriate tariff line and classiication. He added that Cambodia would post
the contents of current and past editions of the Oficial Journal on the government website and keep them current’. See,
Id and WT/ACC/KHM/21, op. cite, fn [17], para. 217.
117
See for example, WT/ACC/TPKM/18, para 216 and 217.
118
See China’s accession protocol Para. 2(C) (1).
119
See for example, WT/MIN(01)/3, op. cite, fn [], para. 331.
120
Id., para. 334.
121
WT/ACC/KHM/21, op. cite, fn [], para. 217
122
See article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
123
In addition, only between 5% and 7% of proits are generated in low and middle income countries See PhRMA’s
Pharmaceutical Industry Proile 2005 •From Laboratory to Patient: Pathways to Biopharmaceutical Innovation (available
at http://international.phrma.org/publications/publications/17.03.2005.1142.cfm).
124
See, e.g. article 11 of the European Directive on Biotechnological Inventions (98/44/EC, July 6, 1998).
125
See, e.g. artícle 22 of the Industrial Property Law of Mexico.
126
It is important to recall that the TRIPS Agreement requires national and most-favored-nation treatment, regardless of
the speciic terms of the national legislation.
127
There are, as noted, limits to the permissible withdrawal of concessions. The extent of withdrawal of concessions is
subject to arbitration under the DSU.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 37
Tables and Analysis by Ermias Tekeste Biadgleng
Introduction
The following tables are organised in
order to assess comparatively the TRIPS-plus
implications of the accession process. The irst
columns of Table 2- 9 provide a brief description
of point of references for comparative analysis
of the TRIPS-plus implications. By looking at the
accession protocol, working party reports and
domestic laws and regulations revised as a result
of the accession process entry is made for each
reference and country stating ‘Committed’, ‘No
Commitment’ and ‘Indicated.’
Committed means – the acceding country
has accepted a speciic request or offered to
undertake a speciic obligation and the working
party has taken note of the commitment. Under
the following tables ‘Committed’ used only the
context ofTRIPS-plus standards under the working
party reports to which the working parties took
note of the commitments and, hence, form part
of the conclusion of the Working Party Report
as well as cross-referenced under the accession
protocols.
‘No Commitment’, means either there was
no information provided or that the information
provided on speciic issue does not amount to
TRIPS-plus standards.
Indicated- refers to information supplied
to the Working Party of each of the acceding
countries on speciic issues with TRIPS-plus
effect but No Commitment was taken note by
the Working Party. In some cases it was found
important to refer to the content of the laws
revised, adopted or amended during the accession
process. Often the acceding countries report the
amendment, revision or adoption of laws as part
of the accession process. However, the particulars
of the amendment, revision and adoption of laws
are not always relected in the reports. As a result,
some of the entries on the tables below can be
found in the amended, revised or adopted laws
that are also reported to each Working Party and
deposited at the TRIPS Council under procedures
for notiication of laws. ‘Indicated’ is different from
‘Commitment,’ since the latter refers only to those
speciic issues that the working party took note of
the information provided as commitment. It is also
different from ‘No Commitment’, since the latter
indicate either there was no information provided
or that the information provided on speciic issue
does not amount to TRIPS-plus standards. Entry
is made under the tables as ‘Indicated’ when the
information provided is not taken as commitment
by each working party but reveals the reporting of
TRIPS-plus standard during the accession process.
38 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
1.
Classiication of acceding Countries by Political-Economy of Countries
Acceding Country
Date of Accession
Acceding Country
Date of Accession
A. Transition Economies
Armenia
Macedonia
Lithuania
Moldova
Albania,
Croatia
February, 2003
April, 2003
May, 2001
July, 2001
September, 2000
November, 2000
Georgia
Estonia
Latvia
Kyrgyz
Mongolia
Bulgaria
June, 2000
November, 1999
February, 1999
December, 1998
January, 1997
December, 1996
December, 2005
November, 2000
January, 2002
December, 2001
Jordan
Panama
Ecuador
April, 2000
September, 1997
January, 1996
Angola
November, 1996
B. Developing Countries
Saudi Arabia
Oman
Chinese Taipei
China
C. LDCs
Cambodia
Nepal
October, 2004
April, 2004
2.
General commitments and Information Provided: Implementation, Accession to
Treaties and other Commitments
a.
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Lithuania Albania and Croatia.
TRIPS-plus
Armenia
Commitments
Implementation Committed
by the date of
accession.
National Treatment with respect to agency
requirements
National treatment with respect to fees
Ratiication or
plan for the
ratiication
treaties
Macedonia
Lithuania
Moldova
Albania,
Croatia
Committed
Committed
Committed
Committed
Committed
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated.
Indicated
No
Commitment
Indicated
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated for
Rome Geneva
(phonograms)
Indicated
for Brussels
(signals) Rome
WCT and
WPPT
Indicated for
Rome Geneva
(phonograms)
UPOV
(indicated to
be ratiied)
Indicated for
Rome, WPPT,
WCT, UPOV and
its intention to
accede to Lisbon
Indicated for
Rome and
Geneva (phonograms) Ratiied
WPPT, WCT,
and UPOV in
2005. However,
there is no clear
link with its accession process.
Ratiication of
Indicated for
Indicated for
Indicated for
Indicated for Stras- Indicated for
treaties for the Madrid Protocol Madrid and
Madrid Proto- bourg, PCT, Madrid Budapest, Nice;
Acquisition and
its Protocol,
col; Nice, PCT, and its Protocol,
Madrid and its
maintenance of
Nice, Locarno, Budapest,TLT, the Hague, Buda- protocol and
IP rights
PCT Hague,
PCT
pest, Vienna, Nice, PCT
Strasbourg,
Locarno, TLT and
Budapest,
its intention to
accede to New
Act of the Hague,
Madrid – on Deceptive Indications
and PLT
Indicated for
Brussels; Rome,
and UPOV
Indicated for
Madrid, Nice,
Locarno, PCT,
the Hague
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 39
b.
Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Mongolia, Bulgaria
Georgia
Estonia
Latvia
Kyrgyz
Mongolia
Implementation Committed
by the date of
accession
Committed
Committed
Committed.
Committed
It also indicated
to develop a
system of IP
protection based
on the developed
markets model
Committed
National Treat- No
ment with reCommitment
spect to agency
requirements
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated the
intention of acceding in the
near future to
the relevant
intellectual
property conventions on
patents
No
Commitment
(later reported
the ratiication
of UPOV)
National treatment with respect to fees
Indicated that
there were no
fees for the
protection of
copyrights
Ratiication of
treaties
Indicated to
Indicated to acratify Rome and cede to Geneva
Budapest
(phonograms)
UPOV, Rome
Indicated- Geneva (phonograms)
And accede to:
UPOV; WCT;
WPPT;
Indicated
- UPOV, and
to accede
to: WCT,
Rome, Geneva
(phonograms);
WPPT; and
Washington
Ratiication of
treaties for the
acquisition and
maintenance of
IP rights
IndicatedMadrid
Protocol;
PCT and to
ratify:
Budapest
IndicatedMadrid and its
Protocol
IndicatedNo
Madrid and
Commitment
the PCT, and
plan to accede
to Locarno,
Strasbourg,
Vienna and Nice
Agreement
IndicatedMadrid
Budapest
Bulgaria
Indicated its
intention to
join the Hague
Agreement
Concerning the
International
Deposit of Industrial Designs
of 6 November 1925
40 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
c.
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Chinese Taipei, China, Jordan, Panama and Ecuador
Saudi Arabia
Implementa- Committed
tion by the
date of
accession
National
Treatment
with respect
to agency
requirements
National
treatment
with respect
to fees
Ratiication
of treaties
Ratiication
of treaties
for the
Acquisition
and
maintenance
of IP rights
Oman
Committed
Chinese
Taipei
China
Jordan
Panama
Committed
Committed
Committed
Committed
Special Transition period
is established
for review
of the implementation of
China’s Commitment
No
No
No
Indicated
No
No
Commitment Commitment Commitment
Commitment Commitment
Ecuador
No- one Year
transition
period during
which legislations for the
full implementation of
TRIPS will be
adopted
No
Commitment
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment
No
No
Commitment Commitment
Oman ratiied
WCT and
WPPT which
are not indicated under
working party
report
No
IndicatedCommitment PCT
No
Commitment
The bilateral
agreement on
protection of
copyright with
the United
States was
reported
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Most ratiication is before
1993- outside
the context of
WTO accession
Indicated to
Indicated accede within UPOV
5 to 7 years
to Rome convention
Indicated to
ratify UPOV
No
Commitment
PCT and the
Nice were
ratiied in
1994, whereas
Budapest, Madrid Protocol,
Locarno, and
Strasbourg
were ratiied
between 1995
and 1997. No
Commitment
to ratify WCT
or WPPT
IndicatedNo
No
to accede
Commitment Commitment
within 5 to
7 years to
the following:
Madrid and
its Protocol,
Nice, PCT
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 41
d.
Cambodia and Nepal
Cambodia
Implementa- Implementation of Article 3-5 of the TRIPS right from
tion
the date of accession
-data protection immediately after its accession,
1 January 2007 for the rest of the TRIPS provisions
- TRIPS-consistent measures already in place should
not be subject to transitions
During the transition period Cambodia Committed
to:
•
protect against unfair commercial use of
undisclosed test or other data submitted in
support of applications for marketing approval
of pharmaceutical or of agricultural chemical
products which utilize new chemical entities, by
providing that no person other than the person
who submitted such data may, without the
permission of the latter person, rely on such data
in support of an application for product approval
for a period of at least ive years from the date
on which Cambodia granted marketing approval
to the person that produced the data.
•
action plan for adoption of relevant laws to adhere
to the TRIPS during the transition period
•
ensure that any change made in its laws,regulations
and practice during the transition period will not
result in a lesser degree of consistency with the
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement that existed
on the date of accession;
•
not to grant patents, trademarks, or copyrights,
or marketing approvals for pharmaceuticals or
agricultural chemicals inconsistent with the
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement;
•
ensure that existing rates of infringement
would not signiicantly increase and that any
infringement of IP rights would be addressed
immediately in cooperation with the assistance
from affected right holders;
•
seek out all available technical assistance to
ensure that its capacity to fully enforce its TRIPSconsistent legal regime upon expiration of the
transition periods is assured and
•
make available TRIPS legislation in draft and
promulgated form to the WTO Secretariat for
circulation to interested WTO Members.
Prior to the issuance of marketing approval of any
pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products,
the relevant Ministries in Cambodia will determine
the existence of a patent covering a product for
which an application for marketing approval had been
iled by a party other than the patentee, and will not
approve such application for marketing approval until
the date of the expiration of such patent
National
No Commitment
treatment
with respect
to fees
Nepal
Implementation of Article 3-5 of the TRIPS right from
the date of accession.
1 January 2007 for the rest of the TRIPS provisions;
TRIPS-consistent measures already in place should
not be subject to transitions,
Nepal also committed
•
action plan for adoption of relevant laws to adhere
to the TRIPS during the transition period
•
action plan for establishment of information
centres, adoption of laws on plant variety
protection, training of lawyers and judges,
computerisation of IP ofice and enhances public
awareness.
•
ensure that any change made in its laws,regulations
and practice during the transition period will not
result in a lesser degree of consistency with the
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement that existed
on the date of accession; - ensure that existing
rates of infringement would not signiicantly
increase and that any infringement of IP rights
would be addressed immediately in cooperation
with the assistance from affected right holders;
•
would seek out all available technical assistance
to ensure that its capacity to fully enforce its
TRIPS-consistent legal regime upon expiration
of the transition periods is assured and
•
would make available TRIPS legislation in draft
and promulgated form to the WTO Secretariat
for circulation to interested WTO Members
Committed
42 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
Cambodia
Accession to During the transition period Cambodia Committed
treaties
to introduce laws to:
obtain the membership of UPOV Geneva (phonograms) and Brussels Not later than 1 January 2006
Indicated to adhere to WCT and WPPT in 2005,
Convention upon enactment of the relevant domestic
laws
Nepal
During the transition period Nepal Committed to
ratify Rome and Washington no later than January
2006. Indicated to explore the possibility of joining
other WIPO and IP related Conventions, such as the
Geneva Phonograms Convention, UPOV 1991, WIPO
Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty, in terms of national interest and
explore the possibility of joining them in the future,
as appropriate)
Ratiication Committed to ratify PCT
of treaties
for the Acquisition and
maintenance
of IP rights
No Commitment
Note: Abbreviations for treaties shall read as follows:
1.
Bern- Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works as amended on September 28, 1979;
2.
Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite adopted at Brussels
on May 21, 1974;
3.
Budapest- Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure as
amended, October 1, 2002)
4.
Geneva Phonogram- Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorized Duplication of Their
Phonograms, of October 29, 1971;
5.
Hague- The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs of November 6, 1925;
6.
Lisbon- Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration of October 31, 1958, as
revised at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and as amended on September 28, 1979
7.
Locarno- Agreement Establishing an International Classiication for Industrial Designs, as amended on September 28, 1979
8.
Madrid - Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods, as of 1967;
9.
Madrid- Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of April 14, 1891, as last revised at Stockholm on July
14, 1967 and amended on September 28,1979
10.
Madrid Protocol- Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, adopted at
Madrid on June 27, 1989
11.
Nice- Agreement Concerning the International Classiication of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of
Marks of June 15, 1957, as amended on September 28, 1979
12.
Paris- Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of March 20, 1883, as last revised at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and
as amended on September 28, 1979
13.
PCT- Patent Cooperation Treaty, as in force from January 1, 2004;
14.
Rome- International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations,
October 26, 1961;
15.
Strasbourg- Agreement Concerning the International Patent Classiication of March 24, 1971, as amended on September 28,
1979;
16.
TLT-Trademark Law Treaty adopted at Geneva on October 27, 1994
17.
UPOV- International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of December 2, 1961, as Revised at Geneva on
November 10, 1972, on October 23, 1978, and on March 19, 1991
18.
Vienna- Vienna Agreement Establishing an International Classiication of the Figurative Elements of Marks, as amended on
October 1, 1985;
19.
Washington -Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits, adopted at Washington on May 26, 1989
20.
WCT- WIPO Copyright Treaty and Agreed Statements Concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty December 20, 1996;
21.
WPPT- WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty and Agreed Statements Concerning the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty (adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996)
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 43
3.
Commitment and Information Provided with respect to Copyright and Related
Rights
a.
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Albania and Croatia, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia,
Kyrgyz, Mongolia, Bulgaria
Exclusive rights on
TRIPS-plus
communication to
reproducthe public by wire
tion rights
or wireless means)
(WCT Ar(WCT Article
ticle 8 and
8 and article 14
WPPT)
WPPT)
No
IndicatedNo Commitment
IndicatedCommitment under the its
under the its
law discussed
law discussed
by the workby the working party
ing party
IndicatedIndicatedNo Commitment
No
also as a
also as a
Macedonia is com- Commitment
result of the result of the mitted to amend
But
EC Terms
EC Terms
its laws in order to Indicated- to
Directives
Directives
comply with the
accede to
TRIPS Agreement
WCT and
and all other relWPPT
evant conventions in
the area of intellectual property it has
ratiied. It has also
indicated- to accede
to WCT and WPPT
IndicatedEC Terms
No
No
also as a
Directives
Commitment
Commitment
result of the
EC Terms
Directives
No
No
No Commitment
No
Commitment Commitment But Indicated- to
Commitment
accede to WCT and But IndicatWPPT
ed- to accede
to WCT and
WPPT
IndicatedEC Terms
No
No
also as a re- Directives
Commitment
Commitment
sult of the EC
Terms Directives
No
No
No
No
CommitCommitment Commitment
Commitment
ment1
Life plus
More than
more than 50 years of
Acceding
50 years of protection
Countries
protection of
for legal
copyright
persons
Armenia
Macedonia
Lithuania
Moldova
Albania
Croatia
Georgia
1.
Indicated
No
No
Commitment Commitment
Restriction
on reproduction and
other exceptions
Protection
for broadcasting organisations
TPMs
Indicated its laws.
Indicated-
No
Commitment
Indicatedaccording to
the revised
law
Indicated
under the
Working
party report
but the
copyright
law notiied
to the WTO
provides 20
years
Indicated–
the ratiication of WCT
and WPPT
Indicatedaccording to
the revised
law
Indicated according to
the revised
law
No
Commitment
Indicatedaccording to
the revised
law
No Commit- No
ment
Commitment
But Indicated- to accede
to WCT and
WPPT
No
Indicated- for No
Commitment 50 years
Commitment
Indicatedaccording
to the
revised law
reported to
the Working
Party
IndicatedIndicated- by
the law
its law with
includes tem- respect to
porary or
reproduction
permanent
of computer
storage
programmes
Indicatedaccording to
the law for
50 years
No
Commitment
Indicated for 50 years
No
Commitment
Croatia announced that intends to introduce a new Law on Copyrights and Neighbouring Rights to harmonize its legislation
with all aspects of existing international standards. Accordingly Croatia introduced its new law in 2003. But the accession
negotiations were based on the amendments introduced in 1999. The analysis here is limited to the extent provided under the
1999 amendments.
44 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
Life plus
More than
more than 50 years of
Acceding
50 years of protection
Countries
protection of
for legal
copyright
persons
Estonia
Indicatedalso as a
result of the
EC Terms
Directives
EC Terms
Directives
Latvia
Indicatedalso as a
result of the
EC Terms
Directives
EC Terms
Directives
Kyrgyz
Mongolia
Bulgaria
Exclusive rights on
TRIPS-plus
communication to
Restriction
reproducProtection
the public by wire
on reprotion rights
for broador wireless means)
duction and
(WCT Arcasting or(WCT Article
other exticle 8 and
ganisations
8 and article 14
ceptions
WPPT)
WPPT)
No Commitment
No
IndicatedIndicated -for
Commitment according to 50 years
its law with
respect to
reproduction
of computer
programmes
No Commitment
No
No
Indicated
But Indicated- to
Commitment Commitment
accede to WCT and
WPPT
TPMs
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
But
Indicated- to
accede to
WCT and
WPPT
No
No
No Commitment
No
IndicatedIndicated
No
Commitment Commitment But Indicated- to
Commitment by its law
Commitment
accede to WCT and But
with respect
But
WPPT
Indicated- to to reproIndicated- to
accede to
duction of
accede to
WCT and
computer
WCT and
WPPT
programmes
WPPT
No
Indicated No Commitment
No
No
No
No
Commitment for 75 years
Commitment Commiment Commitment Commitment
libraries
covered
under
reproduction
of work
for public
interest
No
No
No
No
No
Indicated- for No
Commitment Commitment Commitment
Commitment Commitment 50 years
Commitment
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 45
b.
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Chinese Taipei, China,
Note:
Ecuador, Jordan and Panama are excluded from the table, since there is no speciic
commitment or information provided by the countries to their respective working groups on
adherence to TRIPS –plus commitment on copyright and related rights.
Exclusive
rights on
communicaLife plus
More than
tion to the
more than
Acceding
50 years of
public by
50 years of
Countries
protection for wire or wireprotection of
legal persons less means)
copyright
(WCT Article
8 and article
14 WPPT)
Saudi
No
No
No
Arabia
Commitment Commitment Commitment
Oman
No
Commitment
Chinese
Taipei
No
No
Commitment2 Commitment
China
No
Commitment
2
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
CommitmentBut Oman has
ratiied the
WPPT
No
Commitment
TRIPS-plus
More than
Restriction on
reproduction
20 years of
reproduction
rights (WCT
protection for
and other exArticle 8 and
broadcasting
ceptions
WPPT)
organisations
IndicatedNo
a reproduction Commitment
right to the full
extent (which
includes digital
reproduction)
No
Commitment
No
CommitmentBut Oman has
ratiied the
WPPT
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated
Indicated the
revision of its
law deleting
provisions
concerning
compulsory
licenses for
translation
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
No
Commitment. Commitment
China is committed to
ensure TRIPS
consistency.
However, the
copyright law
introduced
provisions substantially similar to Article
8 of the WCT
and 14 of the
WPPT3
Indicated
TPMs
No
Commitment
But Saudi
indicated
that its law
protect digital
reproduction
No
Commitment
But Oman has
ratiied the
WPPT
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
The Commitment by Chinese Taipei with respect to copyright and related rights is:
“The representative of Chinese Taipei committed that Chinese Taipei would amend relevant Articles to protect computer programs
as literary works and to extend the term of protection to life plus 50 years or 50 years from date of publication. The Working Party
took note of these commitments”
c.
Cambodia and Nepal
Cambodia is indicated its intention to accede to WPPT and WCT. Nepal, on the other hand
promised for the adoption of Cyber Act by September 2005 in order to address the digital dimension
of copyrights.
46 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
4.
Commitments with respect to trademarks
a.
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Lithuania Albania and Croatia.
There are TRIPS-plus commitments or information provided by any of the countries under this
group with respect well-known marks.
Commitments
Armenia
Terms of Protection of
Indicated
Trademarks: 10 years, renewable for successive periods
of 10 years
Removal of conditions that
signs should be visually perceptible: extending protection for sound based marks
Extension of trademark
protection for certiication
marks
3
Indicated
MacedoniaLithuania
Indicated
Indicated
Albania,
CroatiaIndicated
Indicated
-according
to the
amendment
of the
trademark
law
No
No
No
No
No
Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment
No
Indicated
Commitment
Lithuania
Indicated
No
Indicated
Commitment
Indicated
Indicated
The Commitment by China with respect copyright and related rights is
“The representative of China responded that, realizing that there were some existing differences between China’s copyright laws and the
TRIPS Agreement, the amendment to the Copyright Law had been accelerated. The proposed amendments would clarify the payment
system by broadcasting organizations which use the recording products and also include the following provisions: rental rights in respect of
computer programs and movies, mechanical performance rights, rights of communication to the public and related protection measures,
protection of database compilations, provisional measures, increasing the legitimate compensation amount and strengthening the measures
against infringing activities. China’s copyright regime including Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law and the Provisions
on the Implementation of the International Copyright Treaty would be amended so as to ensure full consistency with China’s obligations
under the TRIPS Agreement. The Working Party took note of these commitments.” See WT/MIN (01)/3, para. 259.
b.
Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Mongolia, Bulgaria
There are TRIPS-plus commitments or information provided by any of the countries under
this group with respect well-known marks and extension of trademark protection for certiication
marks.
Georgia
10 years, renewable for successive periods of 10 years
Removal of conditions that
signs should be visually perceptible: extending protection for sound based marks
Estonia
Latvia
Indicated
Indicated
Indicated
Indicatedby the law
No
Indicated
Commitment
Kyrgyz
Indicated
Mongolia
Indicated
Bulgaria
Indicated
No
No
No
Commitment Commitment Commitment
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 47
c.
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Chinese Taipei, China, Jordan, Panama and Ecuador
Saudi
Arabia
10 years, renewable for Indicated
successive periods of
10 years
Removal of conditions No
that signs should be
Commitvisually perceptible: ex- ment
tending protection for
sound based marks
Extension of trademark No
protection for certiica- Committion marks
ment
Well Known mark: a
No
narrow scope of deCommittermination of relevant ment
public sector
Oman
Indicated
Chinese
Taipei
Indicated
Indicated
Indicated
Indicated
Indicated
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
No
Commitment. Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Committed
Indicated
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated- the
law adopted
to certain extent similar to
the Joint Recommendation
Concerning
Provisions on
the Protection of Wellknown Marks
(1999)
Indicatedits law that
includes
protection
against conlicting business names,
- Art.13
Trademark
Law and Article 13 of the
Provisions on
Well-known
marks
Factors for the
determination of wellknown marks
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Scope of protection of
well-known marks as
including protection
from conlicting
business identiier
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
4
d.
China
Indicated4
Jordan
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Panama
No
Commitment
Indicated
– to the
group of
consumers
at which it
is directed.
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Ecuador
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Provisions on the Determination and Protection of Well-know Marks, State Administration for Industry and Commerce of
China, April 17, 2003, Article 2. the deinition refers to ‘operators’ of the concerned goods or services instead of the ‘business
circle’ dealing with the goods and services to which the mark applies used by the Joint Recommendation concerning Provisions
on the Protection of Well-known Marks of WIPO (1999).
Cambodia and Nepal
With Respect to Cambodia and Nepal the information available under the accession documents
and the TRIPS notiication of laws database commitment or indications to adhere to TRIPS-plus
standards are not available.
48 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
5.
Commitments on GIs
a.
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Lithuania Albania and Croatia.
Note: There are no speciic TRIPS-plus commitments or information provided by Albania with
respect to the protection of GIS.
TRIPS-plus commitment
GIs as absolute and mandatory
grounds for ex oficio refusal or denial of registration of trademarks of a
nature as to mislead the public as to
the true place of origin
GIs as absolute and mandatory
grounds for ex oficio refusal or denial of registration of trademarks for
wines
Solution for conlicting homonymous
GIs to be extended for all GIs
Armenia
MacedoniaLithuania
Moldova
CroatiaIndicatedIndicatedIndicatedIndicatedIndicatedaccording to
according to
according to
according to
according
the revised law the revised law the revised law the revised law to the law
reported
IndicatedNo
according to
Commitment
the revised law
No
Commitment
Extend additional protection of wines No
and sprit to all GIs
Commitment
Accepting as if the country was
member of the WTO since 1994 for
calculating the period for the determination of the continued use of
non-conirming trademarks
Accepting as if the country was
member of the WTO since 1994 for
calculating the period for the determination of eligibility for or validity
of the registration of non-conirming
trademarks
b.
Indicatedaccording to
the revised law
IndicatedNo
according to
Commitment
the revised law
IndicatedNo
according to
Commitment
the revised law
Indicated- according to the
revised law
No
Commitment
IndicatedNo
according to
Commitment
the revised law
No
Commitment
Indicatedaccording
to the law
reported
IndicatedIndicatedaccording to
according
the revised law to the law
reported
No
No
Commitment Commitment
No
Commitment
IndicatedIndicatedaccording to
according
the revised law to the law
reported
No
Commitment
IndicatedIndicatedaccording to
according
the revised law to the law
reported
Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Mongolia, Bulgaria
Note:
There are no TRIPS-plus commitments and information provided by Kyrgyz and
Monogolia with respect the protection of Gis.
TRIPS-plus commitment
GIs as absolute and mandatory grounds for ex oficio
refusal or denial of registration of trademarks of a
nature as to mislead the public as to the true place of
origin
GIs as absolute and mandatory grounds for ex oficio
refusal or denial of registration of trademarks for
wines
Solution for conlicting homonymous GIs to be extended for all GIs
Extend additional protection of wines and sprit to all
GIs
Accepting as if the country was member of the WTO
since 1994 for calculating the period for the determination of the continued use of non-conirming trademarks
Accepting as if the country was member of the WTO
since 1994 for calculating the period for the determination of eligibility for or validity of the registration of
non-conirming trademarks
The extension of the period for claims of GIs protection against the use or registration of trademarks
GeorgiaIndicated
EstoniaIndicated
Latvia
Indicated
Bulgaria
Indicated
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated
Indicated
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 49
c.
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Chinese Taipei, China, Jordan, Panama and Ecuador
Note:
There are no TRIPS-plus commitments and information provided by Panama and
Ecuador with respect to the protection of Gis.
Commitment
GIs as absolute and mandatory grounds for
ex oficio refusal or denial of registration of
trademarks of a nature as to mislead the
public as to the true place of origin
GIs as absolute and mandatory grounds for
ex oficio refusal or denial of registration of
trademarks for wines
Solution for conlicting homonymous GIs to
be extended for all GIs
Chinese
China
Taipei
No
No
No
IndicatedCommitment Commitment Commitment
Saudi Arabia
Oman
Jordan
Indicatedaccording to
the revised
law
No GIs
No
No
No
Indicatedprotection
Commitment Commitment Commitment according to
for wines and
the revised
spirits
law
No
No
No
Indicated the No
Commitment law that does Commitment Commitment Commitment
not speciically refer to
wines
No
Indicated
No
No
No
Commitment
Commitment Commitment Commitment
No
No
No
No
No
Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment
Extend additional protection of wines and
sprit to all GIs
Accepting as if the country was member
of the WTO since 1994 for calculating
the period for the determination of the
continued use of non-conirming trademarks
Accepting as if the country was member
No
No
No
No
No
of the WTO since 1994 for calculating the
Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment
period for the determination of eligibility
for or validity of the registration of nonconirming trademarks
d.
Cambodia and Nepal
Cambodia does not protect GIs at the time of accession. It promised to promulgate the relevant
laws. Nepal, also committed to cover geographic indications under a new act.
50 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
.
Commitments with respect to Patents and Plant varieties Protection
a.
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Lithuania Albania and Croatia.
Commitment
Patentability criteria:
requirement to
issue ‘use’ patent,
incremental changes
and/or Secondary
use patents
Armenia
Indicated- according to the
revised law
-The subject
matter of an
invention covers the use
of a known
device, process,
substance or
strain for a new
purpose
Limited exclusion
Indicatedfrom patentability to according to
TRIPS- Article 27.2 the revised law
and 3
-“The subject
matter of an
invention may
be a device,
a process, a
substance, a
strain of micro
organism, a
strain of plant
and animal
cells...”
Protection of Plant Indicatedvarieties under
according to
UPOV or patent
the revised
law -Sui generis
protection of
plant varieties
No requirement
Indicatedfor the indication
according to
of the best mode
the revised law
for carrying out the
invention
Grounds for
Indicatedcompulsory license National security, interest of
society, noncommercial use
by the State,
dependant
patent and non/
insuficient
working
Importation shall
Indicated to resatisfy local workvise its laws for
ing requirement for this purpose
patents
Further protection
of patents covering
pharmaceuticals,
agrichemicals, or
processes for their
preparation
No
Commitment
Macedonia
No
Commitment
Lithuania
Indicated- the
law provides
that inventions
shall be
patentable
if they are
new, involve
an inventive
step and are
industrially
applicable.
Moldova
Albania,
IndicatedNo
The law
Commitment
provides that
an invention
may concern
… the use of a
known product
or process for
new purposes.
Croatia-
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
IndicatedNo
according to
Commitment
the revised
law substances
and devices for
use in any of
the methods
excluded from
patentability
are patentable.
Indicatedpatents
Indicated- a
-Sui generis
protection of
plant varieties
Indicated law on the
protection of
plant varieties
and UPOV
No
Commitment
Indicated
IndicatedNo
according to
Commitment
the revised law
IndicatedIndicatedaccording to
according to
the revised law the revised law
Indicatedonly for non/
insuficiency
of working
and dependant
patents
IndicatedGrounds
recognised
under the
TRIPS
IndicatedGrounds
recognised
under the
TRIPS
IndicatedNon/insuficient
working,
exploitation by
government
or authorised
third parties.
IndicatedGrounds
recognised
under the
TRIPS and
non/insuficient
working
No
Commitment
Indicated
Indicated
No
Commitment
Indicatedby the law
reported
Indicatedaccording to
the law for an
additional ive
years
No
Commitment
Indicatedthe law that
provides up to
ive years
IndicatedUp to ive
years
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicatedlaw on the
protection of
plant varieties
and UPOV
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 51
b.
Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Mongolia, Bulgaria
Commitment
Patentability criteria:
requirement to issue
‘use’ patent, incremental
changes and/or Secondary use patents/
GeorgiaNo
Commitment
EstoniaIndicated the
law that Patent
protection available to equipment, methods,
substances or
micro-organism
strains, including
their combination and use for
novel purposes
Limited exclusion from
patentability, to protect
the public interest than
provided by the TRIPSArticle 27
No
Commitment
No
Commitment6
Protection of Plant varieties under UPOV or
patent
Indicated–
the law on
the protection of plant
varieties and
UPOV
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated the
law that does
not require
Indicated the law
referring to insuficient working,
TRIPS grounds
and if the patent prevents the
grant of protection to a plant
variety
Indicated the
law
No requirement for the
indication of the best
mode for carrying out
the invention
grounds for compulsory
license
No
Commitment /
indication
Importation shall satisfy
local working requirement for patents
No
Commitment
Further protection of
patents covering pharmaceuticals, agrichemicals, or processes for
their preparation
No
Commitment
Latvia
Indicated the law
that includes a new
use if the use itself
is not compromised
at technical level, a
new use of known
devices, processes,
substances and
micro-organisms for
meeting other public
needs for which they
were not intended
Indicated the law
that provides
Patentability shall
be excluded for
discoveries etc
only if patent
protection is
claimed for these
objects as such.
Kyrgyz
Indicated the law
that provides the
subject matter
of an invention
may be the use of
a known device,
process or strain
for a new purpose,
or any other new
achievement in
any technical or
technological ield
Indicated the law
that provides that
the patentability of
an invention shall
not be affected
by the presence
in that invention
of algorithms and
computer programs
if the latter form an
integral part of the
invention
Indicated law on
the protection of
plant varieties and
UPOV
Mongolia
No
Commitment
Bulgaria5
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated the law
that does not
require
Indicated the law
that does not
require
No Commitment
Indicated the law
referring only to
non-/insuficient
working.
Indicated the
law referring to
non-/insuficient
working,
and grounds
recognised by
TRIPS7
Indicated
the law that
does not
require
Indicated
the law
referring to
-TRIPS, non/
insuficient
working in
the country.
No Commitment
No Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
IndicatedNo Commitment
the law providing up to ive
years
No Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated
law on the
protection
of plant
varieties
No Commitment
5
The Bulgarian patent law of 1993 as amended in 1996 in relation to the WTO accession is note available at the WTO,WIPO or EPO databases.The patent law as
amended in 1999 is available both at the WIPO and EPO website. The 1999 version does not show what provisions are added because of the 1999 amendment
or what are provisions included by the 1996 amendment.The only commitment of Bulgaria on a record with respect to patent was to introduce the law for the
protection of plant varieties. See WT/ACC/BGR/2, May 1995.
6
Estonia excludes the following biotechnological inventions from patent protection: 1. processes for cloning human beings; 2) processes for modifying the genetic
identity of human beings; 3) processes for using human embryos for commercial purposes, including processes prohibited by the Artiicial Insemination and Embryo
Protection Act; 4) processes for modifying the genetic identity of animals which are likely to cause them suffering without any substantial medical beneit to the
health care of human beings or animals, and also animals resulting from the use of such processes; 5) processes which are biological in essence and are used for
deriving biological materials, producing plant or animal varieties, except microbiological processes for deriving microorganisms; 6) biotechnological inventions that
can be used solely for one particular plant or animal variety. If the biological material has been patented, the exclusive right of the patentee shall extend to any other
biological material with the same qualities which has been derived from that biological material through propagation or multiplication in an identical or divergent
form. If the process of obtaining of the biological material has been patented, the exclusive right of the patentee shall extend to any other biological material with
the same qualities which has been derived from the biological material produced by the patented process through propagation or multiplication in an identical or
divergent form.
7
Additional laws enacted on December 24, 1998 on compulsory license are No Commitment at the WIPO/WTO databases.
52 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
c.
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Chinese Taipei, China, Jordan, Panama and Ecuador
Commitment
Saudi AraOman9
8
bia
Patentability criteria:
No
Indicatedrequirement to issue
Commitits law
‘use’ patent, incremen- ment
includes new
tal changes and/or Secapplication
ondary use patents/
for known
industrial
methods.
Limited exclusion from No ComNo
patentability to protect mitment
Committhe public interest than
ment
provided by the TRIPSArticle 27
Protection of Plant
IndicatedIndicatedvarieties under UPOV Patent
Plant Variety
or patent
law
Chinese
Taipei
No
Commitment
China
Jordan
Panama
Ecuador
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
IndicatedNo
its law inCommitcludes a spe- ment
cial use or
non-obvious
use.
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
IndicatedIndicatedIndicatedPlant Variety Plant Variety Plant Variety
law
law
law11
No requirement for
No
the indication of the
Commitbest mode for carrying ment
out the invention
Not
required
No
Commitment
Grounds for
compulsory license
No
Commitment
Indicatedits law
includes
Non-working, TRIPS
grounds
Importation shall
satisfy local working
requirement for
patents
Indicated
Indicatedits law includes Nonworking,
suspension
of utilisation,
and anticompetitive
practices
Indicated
IndicatedPlant Variety law and
UPOV- 1978
No
Commitment. Its law
does not
speciically
require such
a disclosure
Indicated
– for TRIPS
grounds
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Further protection
of patents covering
pharmaceuticals,
agrichemicals, or
processes for their
preparation
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicatedthe law
provides
for two (2)
to ive (5)
years.
No
No
CommitCommitment
ment
But according to its
laws the extension may
not exceed
by more
than 7 years
No
Commitment 10
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicated
the law
for Nonworking
and TRIPS
grounds
except
dependant
patents.
Indicated.
No
Commitment
IndicatedTRIPS
grounds but
does not include non or
insuficient
working ,
and dependant patents
Indicatedalso as a
result of
Andean
Community
Decision
344
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Only when
the original
patent was
not for a full
term
8
The laws of Saudi Arabia on patent and the amendment issued in order to satisfy the requirements of the accession negotiation are said to be
notiied to the WTO. However no Saudi law is available either in the WTO or WIPO database. The documents in GCC are not translated.
9
The analysis is based on the Royal Decree No. 82/2000 promulgating the Patent Law of Oman which supplements the Uniied Patent System
of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The Royal Decree is the result of the accession negotiations. Any TRIPS-plus provisions of the Uniied Patent
system of the GCC are not included since it was not part of any concession.
10
The exceptions include processes for cloning human beings, the human body and its genetic identity, the use of human embryos for industrial
or commercial purposes; and processes for the genetic modiication without any substantial medical beneits.
11
Ecuador introduced its law in 1997 on patent amending the Andean common regime for industrial property by Decision 344 (later amended
by Decision 486) as part of the negotiation process. The Ecuadorian law is available only in Spanish. The WIPO database contains compilation
of Ecuadorean laws as of 1998- to years after Ecuador’s accession- that was translated by the International Bureau itself. The concessions of
Ecuador is analysed based on such translation.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 53
d.
Cambodia and Nepal
Commitments
Cambodia
Nepal12
Patentability criteria: requirement to
issue ‘use’ patent, incremental changes
and/or Secondary use patents/
No Commitment
Limited exclusion from patentability
to protect the public interest than
provided by the TRIPS- Article 27
Indicated that- algorithms used
No Commitment
in computer programs, not the
programmes per se, were ineligible for
patent protection, and that “schemes or
methods for doing business” were only
ineligible for patent protection to the
extent that they were lacking industrial
application
Protection of Plant varieties under
UPOV or patent
Indicated that -a draft Law on Plant
Variety Protection was in preparation
with the assistance of UPOV
12
No Commitment
Indicated – its adoption of Plant
Resources Act in December 2003 and
Access to Genetic Resources Act- April
2004 Seeds (First Amendment) Act
2002
The representative of Nepal declared that, as a WTO Member, Nepal would be entitled to the lexibilities provided in the Doha Declaration on
the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.
54 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
7.
Commitments with Respect to Industrial Designs and integrated circuits
a.
Armenia, Macedonia, Lithuania, Lithuania Albania and Croatia.
Armenia
Design or patent
Indicated protection for more than 10 as patent
years
Albania,
CroatiaNo
IndicatedCommitment 10 years
Protection of integrated
circuits and topographies as
patents or copyrights or
through separate laws of its
own
No
IndicatedCommitment separate laws
of its own
Presumption of originality
b.
Macedonia
Lithuania
Moldova
No
No
Indicated
Commitment- Commitment -protection
10 years
for iver years
renewable up
to four times
for consecutive periods
of ive years
No
No
No
No
Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitmenttopographic
layout designs
are excluded
from patentability
IndicatedNo
No
according to Commitment
Commitment
the revised
law
No
No
Commitment Commitment
Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Kyrgyz, Mongolia, Bulgaria
Note: There are no TRIPS-plus commitments and information provided by Mongolia and Bulgaria
in the protection of designs and integrated circuits.
Design or patent protection for more than 10
years
Protection of integrated circuits and topographies
as patents or copyrights or through separate laws
of its own
Presumption of originality
c.
Georgia
Estonia
Indicated Indicated terms
Patent -15 years for 5 years,
renewable three
times
IndicatedIndicatedseparate laws of separate laws of
its own
its own
Indicated
Indicated
Kyrgyz
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Indicatedseparate laws of
its own
No
Commitment
Indicated
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Chinese Taipei, China, Jordan, Panama and Ecuador
Commitments
Saudi Arabia
Design or patent protection for more than 10 years
IndicatedPatent- up to
10 years
Oman
Chinese
Taipei
Indicated-Sui Committedgeneris- up to patent for
10 years
design patents
for 12 years
IndicatedIndicatedseparate laws separate laws
of its own
of its own
Protection of integrated
Indicated
circuits and topographies as Patent
patents or copyrights (as opposed to sui generis system)
Presumption of originality
No
Indicated
Commitment
d.
Latvia
IndicatedPatent
China
IndicatedPatent
Jordan
Panama
No
Indicated
Commitment Patent - ten
years
No
No
No
Commitment Commitment Commitment
No
No
No
No
Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment
Cambodia and Nepal
Both Cambodia and Nepal provide patents protection for industrial design for ten years. During the
accession process the representative of Cambodia said that the integrated circuits and topographies
would be protected through a new Law on Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits. Cambodia was
seeking technical assistance on the matter. Nepalese law at the time of accession did not cover the
protection of layout designs of integrated circuits.
No Commitment
-
No Com- No Com- No Com- No Commitment mitment14 mitment mitment
No Commitment
-
No Com- No Com- No Com- No Commitment mitment mitment mitment
-
No Commitment
-
No Com- No Com- No Com- No Commitment mitment mitment mitment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Indicated
that it
is under
consideration
-
-
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 55
No Commitment was registered or request was made to expand the existing protection under the domestic law.
Lithuania, Albania, Latvia and Estonia currently provides 6 or 5 years for pharmaceutical test and other data and 10 years for agricultural test and other data, prohibit second
applicants and the government from relying on such data for approval purpose. But there was no such commitment during their accession.
Law of the Republic of Moldova No.1079-XIV of 23.06.2000 on Amending Various Laws included the provision of Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement without change. Moldova
conirmed toe the accession Working party that Moldovan legislation does not require the submission of undisclosed test or other data as a condition of approving the
marketing of products in question, but if the importer requires protection of undisclosed information, the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Agriculture shall provide such
protection according to the legislation in force. In order to import and sell agricultural chemicals in Moldova, an importer has to obtain an import licence and a certiicate of
hygienic conformity. For the importation of pharmaceuticals, Moldovan legislation requires an import licence. The National Pharmaceutical Institute of the Ministry of Health
has issued an information lealet for foreign producers describing in detail the registration procedures.
TRIPS-Plus Commitments with respect to the protection of Pharmaceutical and
Agro-chemical Undisclosed Information
No Com- No Com- No Com- No Commitment mitment mitment mitment
Transition Economies
No Com- Indicatedmitment - to adopt
the necessary law.
8.
a.
Bulgaria
Mongolia
Kyrgyz
Latvia
15
Estonia
13
14
Georgia
No Com- No Com- Non-speNo Com- No Commitment mitment ciic - Com- mitment mitment
13
mitment to
adopt relevant law.
Prohibit second ap- No Com- No Com- protection No Com- Indicated
plicant from relying mitment mitment of data or
mitment
on the data without
the term
permission for a
of such
speciic period
protection
is linked to
the patent
term
Prohibit authorities No Com- No Com- No ComNo Com- No Comfrom relying on the mitment mitment mitment
mitment mitment
data for approval of
second applications
No approval based No Com- No Com- No ComNo Com- No Comon foreign approvmitment mitment mitment
mitment mitment
als- or unless the
second applicant
submits the data
Additional commitIndicated15
ment
Croatia
Albania
Moldova
Lithuania
Macedonia
Exclusivity
Armenia
TRIPS-plus commitment
56 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
b.
Developing and Least-developed Countries
TRIPS-plus commitment
Saudi
Arabia
Oman
Chinese
Taipei
China
Jordan
Panama
Ecuador
Cambodia
Nepal
Exclusivity
Indicated Indicated No
Commit- Indicated No
No
Commit- Indicated–only to Commit- ted
Commit- Commit- ted
to adopt
adopt
ment
ment
ment 16
relevant
relevant
laws.17
laws.
Prohibit second applicant from relying
on the data without
permission for a
speciic period.
Indicated- No
No
Commit- Indicated- Commit- No Com- Commit- No
5 years
Commit- Commit- ted6 or 10
tedmitment ted for 5 Commitment
ment
6 years
5 years
years
ment
Prohibit authorities Indicated No
No
Commit- Indicated No
No
Commit- No
from relying on the
Commit- Commit- ted
Commit- Commit- ted
Commitdata for approval of
ment
ment
ment
ment
ment
second applications.
No approval based Indicated No Com- No
Commit- Indicated No
No
Commit- No
on foreign approvalsmitment Commit- ted
Commit- Commit- ted
Commitor unless the second
ment
ment
ment
ment
applicant submits
the data
Additional Commit- No regis- ments
tration of
generics
if a patent
application is
pending18
-
-
-
-
-
Linkage
of marketing
approval
with the
status of
patent. 19
16
Protect for ive years in accordance with the Andean Pact Article 266 of decision 486 dated 12/1/2000. Also committed that a
pending patent application that has not been published shall be treated as undisclosed information and protected as such under
this Law.
17
The earlier version of the Working Party Report WT/ACC/SPEC/NPL/5/Rev.1 dated 8 August 2003 included in bracket
commitment:
[He further conirmed that during the transition period, Nepal would protect against unfair commercial use of undisclosed
test or other data submitted in support of applications for marketing approval of pharmaceutical or of agricultural chemical
products which utilize new chemical entities, by providing that no person other than the person who submitted such data may,
without the permission of the latter person, rely on such data in support of an application for product approval for a period of
at least ive years from the date on which Nepal granted marketing approval to the person that produced the data. Prior to
the issuance of marketing approval of any pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, the relevant Ministries in Nepal
will determine the existence of a patent covering a product for which an application for marketing approval had been iled by a
party other than the patentee, and will not approve such application for marketing approval until the date of the expiration of
such patent.]
18
If a patent application related to a pharmaceutical were pending with KACST, the Ministry of Health would not register a
generic form of pharmaceutical unless there was no possibility that the patent would be granted..
19
Prior to the issuance of marketing approval of any pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, the relevant authority
will determine the existence of a patent covering a product for which an application for marketing approval had been iled by a
party other than the patentee, and will not approve such application for marketing approval until the date of the expiration of
such patent.
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 57
9.
a.
TRIPS-plus Committeeman and Information Provided (Indicated) on Enforcement
Transition Economies
Mongolia
Kyrgyz
Estonia-
Georgia-
Croatia-
Albania,
Moldova
Lithuania
Commitments
Macedonia
Armenia
There are no TRIPS-plus commitments or information provided with respect to enforcement of
intellectual property by Latvia and Bulgaria.
Calculation of damages independent of
the resulting pecuniary damage of the
infringement – include recovery of lost
proit, and full compensation
Indi- Indi- NC
cated cated
NA20
NC
NC
NC
Indi- Indi- NC
cated cated
Obligation for the destruction of materials, implements and the closure of market
places, shops and manufacturing plants
NC21
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Limiting the evidence threshold, legal
presumption that the applicant is the right
holder and limiting the security to be
deposited to a ‘reasonable security’
Indi- NC
cated
NC23
NC
NC24
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Border measures include goods in transit
NC
NC
NC
NC
Indi- Indicated cated25
NC
NC
NC
NC
Border measures include goods for
exportation from their territories
NC
NC
Indi- NC
cated
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
Border measures include protection of
intellectual property rights other than
trademark and copyright
Indi- NC
cated
Indi- NC
cated
NC
NC
Indi- NC
catedGIs
NC
NC
Mandatory adoption of ex oficio authority
NC
C
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
Criminal sanction for infringement of
intellectual property rights other than
trademarks and copyrights
Indi- Indi- Indi- Indi- Indi- NC
cated cated cated cated cated
NC
NC
NA
NC
NC
22
NC
NC
26
20
NA- is an abbreviation used in this table for ‘No Commitment’.
21
NC- is an abbreviation used in this table for ‘No Commitment’.
22
Only 5% of the value of the goods for security in relation to border measures
23
Including placing in a free zone or free warehouse.
24
In case of suspension of the importation of goods the applicant is only required to make down payment to cover the
administrative costs.
25
In accordance with International Convention on the Harmonization of Border Controls of Goods
26
including all other violations of copyright other than importation, reproduction and circulation Includes translation, adoption,
sound or visual recording, the entry of special instruments for recording sounds and/or images, radio and/or television
broadcasting or transmission other than through radio or television, or the transmission of an artistic work by any other means
without the authorization of its author or the agency to which the rights have been transferred by the author, which conlicts
with the provisions of this law or the international conventions ratiied by the Republic of Albania, when the author’s moral and
economic rights have been infringed, constitutes a criminal work and is penalized by ine or imprisonment up to one year.
58 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
b.
Developing Countries
Except the extension of criminal sanctions for intellectual property rights other than trademarks
and copyright and related rights Panama has not committed or provided information for TRIPS-plus
enforcement standard. Ecuador has not provided any TRIPS-plus commitment or information with
respect to enforcement standards.
TRIPS-Plus
Saudi Arabia
Calculation of damages independent of
Indicated
the resulting pecuniary damage of the
infringement – include recovery of lost proit,
and full compensation
Chinese
Taipei
Oman
China
Jordan
No
No
No
No
Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment
Obligation for the destruction of materials, No
Indicated
implements and the closure of market places, Commitment
shops and manufacturing plants.
No
Indicated
Commitment
No
Commitment
Border measures include goods for
exportation from their territories
No
No
Committed
No
No
Commitment Commitment for software, Commitment Commitment
CD, DVD etc
Border measures include protection of
intellectual property rights other than
trademark and copyright
No
No
Committed27
Commitment Commitment
Mandatory adoption of ex oficio authority
No
No
No
No
No
Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment
Criminal sanction for infringement of
intellectual property rights other than
trademarks and copyrights
No
No
Indicated29
Commitment Commitment
Committed 28 Indicated
Indicated
No
Commitment
Criminal Investigation without the complaint No
No
Indicated
by the right holder
Commitment Commitment
No
No CommitCommitment ment
Use of export license and quality control
mechanisms to prevent the export of
infringing goods
No
No
Indicated
Commitment Commitment
No
No
Commitment Commitment
Certiication of origin for importation of
alcohol and beverage
No
No
Committed
Commitment Commitment
No
No
Commitment Commitment
27
Court order is required for all intellectual property rights except for copyright in which case the right holder is required only
the posting of an appropriate bond could petition the Customs to seize imports reasonably suspected to be infringing copies.
28
The working party took note of china’s commitment to provide holders of intellectual property rights with procedures related
to border measures that complied fully with the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement (Articles 51 to 60).
29
Under Chinese Taipei law importers and manufacturers are required to include information relating to the name and address
of the manufacturer on product labels. In addition, persons using false designations could be liable under Article 339 of the
Criminal Code as having committed the offence of forgery. Furthermore, investigation can be launched against Chinese Taipei
residents infringe copyrights in mainland China.
c.
Cambodia and Nepal
Commitments
Cambodia
Nepal
Damages: calculation to be based on the value of the
proit lost and on the duration of the infringement act,
consideration to be give to retail prices and to make
mandatory the use of pre-established/statutory damage.
Indicated- to the calculation
of damage to be based on
lost proits and the duration
of the infringement.
No Commitment
Border measures including goods in transit
No Comminment
No Commitment
Discovery/Disclosure/Seizure of documentary evidence
related to infringement with authority to sanction failure to
comply with such order.
Indicated
No Commitment
Quaker United Nations Ofice — 59
d.
Transparency: Armenia, Lithuania, Moldova, Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Estonia, Kyrgyz
Acceding
Countries
Armenia
Indicated – in general to those
related to trade
Lithuania
Indicated generally to those
related to trade
Moldova
Albania
Croatia
GeorgiaEstonia
Kyrgyz
e.
No Commitment
The submission of draft laws
to WTO member states for
comments, and publication
for public review prior to
implementation
Indicated- publications for
public review for trade in
goods and services
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
No law or regulation related
to international trade/intellec- Publication of laws to include
tual property would become
date of entry into force
effective prior to publication
Indicated – in general to
those related to trade
Indicated- that publications
may stipulate the date of
entry
Indicated – in relation to GATT No Commitment
Indicated generally to those
No Commitment
related to international trade
Indicated generally to those
related to international trade
Indicated- generally to all laws
Indicated- generally to all laws
Indicated- to amend its laws to
ensure the publication of all laws
Translation required into the
Working language of the
WTO
No Commitment
Transparency: China, Chinese, Taipei, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Nepal, and
Cambodia
Note:
Jordan, Nepal and Cambodia have also indicated that all laws which were amended to
comply with the WTO Agreements contained provisions which require such publication.
Acceding No law or regulation
Countries related to international
trade/intellectual property would become
effective prior to publication
Saudi
Committed- speciically
Arabia including those related
to IP rights
Oficial website updated on a regular basis
and readily available
and dedicated to the
publication pertaining
to or affecting TRIPS
CommittedNo Commitment
No Commitment- with
Committed- including
for all measures
respect to ‘submission’. But for publication prior to
and laws
Saudi is committed to make enactment.
such laws available through
a website
Chinese CommittedNo Commit- Committed – to translate and Committed both for WTO No Commitment
ment
published in an oficial WTO Members and the public –at
Taipei
language no later than 90 days least 60 calendar days before
after enactment or issuance
such measures were implemented.
China
Indicated- that only
CommittedCommitted- translations into Indicated – and also to
No Commitment
those laws, regulations publication
one or more of the oficial
WTO Members, upon
and other measures
pertaining to or languages of the WTO, to the request, before their implepertaining to or affect- affecting TRIPS maximum extent possible
mentation or enforcement.30
ing TRIPS or that are
would include before implementation or enpublished and readily
the effective
forcement, but in no case later
available to WTO Mem- date of these
than 90 days after they were
bers shall be enforced” measures
implemented or enforced.
Jordan Indicated
Indicated
No Commitment
No Commitment
No Commitment
Nepal Committed
Committed
No Commitment
Indicated for both WTO
Indicated
Members and the public
at large- with a reasonable
period, e.g. no less than 15
days, for comment
Cambodia Committed
Committed
No Commitment
Committed- to establish or designate
an oficial journal or
website
30
Publication of Translation required into
laws to include the Working language of the
date of entry
WTO
into force
The submission of draft laws
to WTO member states for
comments, and publication
for public review prior to
implementation
China also committed to “establishes or designate one or more enquiry points where all information relating to the laws,
regulations and other measures pertaining to or affecting…TRIPS or the control of forex, as well as the published texts, could
be obtained and would notify the WTO of any enquiry point and its responsibility. The information would include the names of
national or sub-national authorities (including contact points) responsible for implementing a particular measure.”
60 — World Trade Organisation Accession Agreements:Intellectual Property Issues
f.
Other Commitments: China, Chinese Taipei, Cambodia and Nepal.
Acceding
Rationalization and
Public awareness and
Countries other measures with re- promotional activities
spect to the institutional
arrangement for the
administration and enforcement of rights
Chinese
Indicated
No Commitment
Taipei
China
Committed- under its
Indicated
protocol of accession to
apply and administer in
a uniform, impartial and
reasonable manner all
its laws, regulations and
other measures pertaining
to or affecting trade in
goods, services, TRIPS
Training of judges
and law enforcement
agencies
Indicated
No Commitment
Cambodia
No Commitment
No Commitment
Committed- action plan
for capacity building of key
personnel. action plan that
form the understanding
of Cambodia and the
Working Group and as
a blueprint for technical
assistance
Nepal
Committed- action plan
for Establishment and
Strengthening Nepal
Copyright Registrar
Ofice, Trademark
Information Centre/
Industrial Design
Information Centre/
Industrial Patent
Information Centre/
and Layout-designs
Information Centre
Computerization and
networking of Patent
Ofice, Computerization
of Intellectual Property
Ofice, Reorganization
and establishment of
Intellectual Property
Ofices
Committed- action plan
to enhancing public
awareness on the
protection of intellectual
property rights No later
than 1 January 2007
Committed- action plan
for training of personnel, customs oficials and
police and orientation of
judges and lawyers. action
plan that form the understanding of Cambodia and
the Working Group and
as a blueprint for technical
assistance
31
To substantially reduce
counterfeit and copyright infringement
Indicated- and also
submitted action plan31
No Commitment
The working party
took note of the
commitment of China
that “the administrative
authorities at all levels
were putting emphasis on
strengthening anti-piracy
work. In addition, the
administrative authorities
were also enhancing
the legal publication and
education of the general
public in a bid to ensure
that the legal environment
of China would be able
to meet the requirements
for enforcing the TRIPS
Agreement”
Committed -, during
the transition period, to
ensure that existing rates
of infringement would
not signiicantly increase
and that any infringement
of IP rights would be
addressed immediately
in cooperation with the
assistance from affected
right holders
Committed -, during
the transition period, to
ensure that existing rates
of infringement would
not signiicantly increase
and that any infringement
of IP rights would be
addressed immediately
in cooperation with the
assistance from affected
right holders
Chinese Taipei also indicated the use of export license and quality control mechanisms for enforcement mechanisms and
Committed- to use Certiication of origin for importation of alcohol and beverage
QUNO ofices:
In Geneva:
13 Avenue du Mervelet
1209 Geneva
Switzerland
In New York:
777 UN Plaza
New York, NY 10017
United States
Tel: +41 22 748 4800
Fax: +41 22 748 4819
quno@quno.ch
Tel: +1 212 682 2745
Fax: +1 212 983 0034
qunony@afsc.org
CHF 20.00