Minutes of meeting

S.review of legislation

(i) Outstanding initial questions from the review of the legislation of Kuwait initiated in November 2000

2.The representative of Kuwait welcomed the opportunity for follow-up of the review of its legislation. His delegation had provided around 18 further responses to questions posed by Canada, the European Communities and their member States and Switzerland (circulated in document IP/C/W/232/Add.1), and he noted that he had received follow-up questions from the latter two delegations in February 2001. His delegation had done its utmost to obtain replies from the competent authorities in capital as soon as possible. He had provided responses to outstanding questions during the previous week, but some could not be answered in time for technical reasons. Further, his delegation had also provided an explanatory memorandum on the Copyright Law No. 64/1999 (reproduced in the annex to IP/C/W/232/Add.2) as well as a list of achievements of the Ministry of Information concerning copyright (reproduced in the annex to IP/C/W/232/Add.1). In addition, his delegation had that day provided responses to questions posed by the United States in the fields of trademarks and patents (document IP/C/W/232/Add.3). His delegation would appreciate receiving any further follow-up questions in writing and would provide responses to interested Members with a copy to the Secretariat in the near future.

3.The representatives of the European Communities and the United States said that they were reviewing the responses received from Kuwait, some of which had been received during the meeting.

4.The Chairperson said that the Council looked forward to receiving Kuwait's responses to outstanding initial questions before the next meeting. He suggested that the Council take note of the statements made and revert to this sub-item at its next meeting.

5.The Council so agreed.

(ii) Outstanding initial questions from reviews initiated in April 2001

6.The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting in April 2001, the Council had conducted reviews of the legislation of five Members. Four of those Members had yet to respond to some initial questions at the end of the meeting. Since that time, outstanding responses to initial questions had been received from Jordan and Saint Lucia, and these had been circulated in documents IP/C/W/250/Add.1 and IP/C/W/237/Add.3, respectively, but outstanding responses to initial questions had not been received from Bolivia and Namibia.

7.The representative of Bolivia said that he hoped to be able to provide the two outstanding responses to initial questions in the coming days.

8.The representative of Namibia said that he would provide the outstanding responses to initial questions posed by Canada and the United States during the meeting.¹ He said that he would also submit responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement later in the meeting.²

9.Turning to those Members whose reviews were initiated at the previous meeting in April 2001, but which had not provided any responses to questions at that time, namely Cameroon, Congo, Grenada, Guyana, Papua New Guinea and Suriname, the Chairperson informed the Council that Grenada and Suriname had provided partial notifications of their implementing legislation prior to the present meeting, but none of these Members had provided responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (document IP/C/5). Questions posed to these Members had been received prior to the meeting from Canada, the European Communities and their member States, Japan, Switzerland and the United States and circulated in documents IP/C/W/245, 244, 238, 239 and 240. Congo and Suriname had provided responses to some questions that had been posed shortly before, or during, the meeting; these have been circulated in documents IP/C/W/283 and Add.1 and IP/C/W/300, respectively.

10.In accordance with the procedures for the reviews of legislation, the delegations of Congo and Suriname each provided a brief introductory overview of the structure of its legislation in the areas covered by the Agreement and of the changes that it had had to bring about in order to make the legislation compatible with the TRIPS Agreement. The records of these introductory statements as well as the questions put to them and the responses given (including responses to follow-up questions given after the meeting) will be circulated in the following documents with the following symbols:

Congo IP/Q/COG/1; IP/Q2/COG/1; IP/Q3/COG/1; IP/Q4/COG/1;

Suriname IP/Q/SUR/1; IP/Q2/SUR/1; IP/Q3/SUR/1; IP/Q4/SUR/1.

12.The representative of Saint Lucia informed the Council that a representative of Guyana had been scheduled to attend the meeting but evidently had been unable to attend.

13.The Chairperson urged the delegations under review who had not yet supplied responses to certain initial questions to do so without delay, and suggested that the Council revert to this sub-item at the next meeting.

14.The Council so agreed, while taking note of the statements made.

15.The Chairperson recalled that follow-up to the reviews conducted at the June 2000 meeting had been deleted from the agenda. However, later, the European Communities and their member States had posed some questions to Indonesia in document IP/C/W/220. Indonesia had submitted responses to those questions and these had been circulated in document IP/C/W/270.

16.The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was still studying Indonesia's replies and might wish to revert to this item at a later date.

- November 2000 review

17.The Chairperson recalled that Kuwait and Paraguay still had some follow-up questions outstanding from the November 2000 review meeting. Since the previous meeting, Kuwait had provided responses to some of the follow-up questions posed by the European Communities and their member States and these had been circulated in document IP/C/W/232/Add.2. However, it had not provided responses to other follow-up questions also posed by the European Communities and their member States and Switzerland, which were circulated in documents IP/C/W/219/Add.3 and IP/C/W/207/Add.3, respectively. Paraguay had not submitted responses to follow-up questions posed by the European Communities and their member States which had been circulated in document IP/C/W/219/Add.3.

18.The representative of Kuwait said that she hoped to be able to provide the outstanding replies to follow-up questions before the next review meeting.

19.The Chairperson informed the Council that Estonia had submitted some clarifications to the introductory statement that it made at that meeting, which will be circulated in the IP/Q/- series of documents in due course.

- April 2001 review

20.The Chairperson recalled that, since the April 2001 review meeting, Jordan and Saint Lucia had supplied responses to follow-up questions posed by Switzerland, and these had been circulated in documents IP/C/W/250/Add.2 and IP/C/W/237/Add.3, respectively. Accordingly, responses to all questions had been received from Jordan, Saint Lucia and Venezuela.

21.The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation might have a further question for Saint Lucia regarding geographical indications.

22.The Chairperson recalled that Bolivia and Namibia had not yet supplied responses to follow up questions posed by Japan and the United States, respectively, and suggested that the Council urge them to supply responses to the outstanding follow-up questions without delay.³ He suggested that the item concerning the reviews of Jordan and Venezuela could be deleted from the agenda, it being understood that any delegation should feel free to revert to any matter stemming from those reviews at any time.

23.The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chair.

(iv) Legislation of Members scheduled for review in June 2001

24.Turning to the 24 Members whose legislation was scheduled to be reviewed by the Council at the present meeting, the Chairperson informed the Council that 15 of these 24 Members had provided notifications of their implementing legislation prior to the meeting, although not all of these notifications were comprehensive. Nine had provided responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement (IP/C/5). The Members under review had received questions from Canada, the European Communities and their member States, Japan, Switzerland and the United States, which had been circulated in documents IP/C/W/261, 261/Add.1, 274, 258, 263 and 268, respectively. Some responses had been received prior to, or during, the meeting from Albania, Argentina, Botswana, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Georgia, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates; these had been circulated in documents IP/C/W/267, 271, 295, 269, 287, 262, 275, 285, 278, 290, 277, 266, 294, 265, 288, 282, 272, 291 and addenda, respectively.

25.In accordance with the procedures for the reviews of legislation, the delegations of Albania, Argentina, Bahrain, Botswana, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Georgia, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates each provided a brief introductory overview of the structure of their legislation in the areas covered by the Agreement and of the changes that they had had to bring about in order to make their legislation compatible with the TRIPS Agreement. The records of these introductory statements as well as the questions put to them and the responses given (including responses to follow-up questions given after the meeting) will be circulated in the following documents with the following symbols:

Albania IP/Q/ALB/1; IP/Q2/ALB/1; IP/Q3/ALB/1; IP/Q4/ALB/1;

Argentina IP/Q/ARG/1; IP/Q2/ARG/1; IP/Q3/ARG/1; IP/Q4/ARG/1;

Bahrain IP/Q/BHR/1; IP/Q2/BHR/1; IP/Q3/BHR/1; IP/Q4/BHR/1;

Botswana IP/Q/BWA/1; IP/Q2/BWA/1; IP/Q3/BWA/1; IP/Q4/BWA/1;

Costa Rica IP/Q/CRI/1; IP/Q2/CRI/1; IP/Q3/CRI/1; IP/Q4/CRI/1;

Cote d'Ivoire IP/Q/CIV/1; IP/Q2/CIV/1; IP/Q3/CIV/1; IP/Q4/CIV/1;

Croatia IP/Q/HRV/1; IP/Q2/ HRV/1; IP/Q3/HRV/1; IP/Q4/HRV/1;

Dominica IP/Q/DMA/1; IP/Q2/DMA/1; IP/Q3/DMA/1; IP/Q4/DMA/1;

Dominican Republic IP/Q/DOM/1; IP/Q2/DOM/1; IP/Q3/DOM/1; IP/Q4/DOM/1;

Egypt IP/Q/EGY/1; IP/Q2/EGY/1; IP/Q3/EGY/1; IP/Q4/EGY/1;

Fiji IP/Q/FJI/1; IP/Q2/FJI/1; IP/Q3/FJI/1; IP/Q4/FJI/1;

Georgia IP/Q/GEO/1; IP/Q2/GEO/1; IP/Q3/GEO/1; IP/Q4/GEO/1;

Honduras IP/Q/HND/1; IP/Q2/HND/1; IP/Q3/HND/1; IP/Q4/HND/1;

Jamaica IP/Q/JAM/1; IP/Q2/JAM/1; IP/Q3/JAM/1; IP/Q4/JAM/1;

Kenya IP/Q/KEN/1; IP/Q2/KEN/1; IP/Q3/KEN/1; IP/Q4/KEN/1;

Mauritius IP/Q/MUS/1; IP/Q2/MUS/1; IP/Q3/MUS/1; IP/Q4/MUS/1;

Morocco IP/Q/MAR/1; IP/Q2/MAR/1; IP/Q3/MAR/1; IP/Q4/MAR/1;

Nicaragua IP/Q/NIC/1; IP/Q2/NIC/1; IP/Q3/NIC/1; IP/Q4/NIC/1;

Oman IP/Q/OMN/1; IP/Q2/OMN/1; IP/Q3/OMN/1; IP/Q4/OMN/1;

The Philippines IP/Q/PHL/1; IP/Q2/PHL/1; IP/Q3/PHL/1; IP/Q4/PHL/1;

United Arab Emirates IP/Q/ARE/1; IP/Q2/ARE/1; IP/Q3/ARE/1; IP/Q4/ARE/1.

27.With respect to the review of the legislation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, the representative of Saint Lucia informed the Council that, during the recent Trade Policy Review of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States WTO Members, the Permanent Secretary of Saint Kitts and Nevis (a state of 44,000 inhabitants) had informed the WTO Secretariat's TPR Division that the single responsible person for these matters in his department had resigned with immediate effect and that therefore it would be difficult for Saint Kitts and Nevis to respond to any questions.

28.The representative of Saint Lucia commended Dominica and Jamaica for the efforts that they had made in the review, despite limited resources. She said that the Council needed to recognize the extensive regulatory burden imposed by the TRIPS Agreement on Members and that its procedures should provide time-periods more appropriate for smaller administrations.

29.The representative of Ghana said that his delegation had agreed to be reviewed in December 2000. However, it had become evident that the implementing legislation would not be ready for review even though it had reached the committee stage of Parliament. His delegation had therefore requested a rescheduling of the review to June 2001 in the expectation that the legislation would be ready by that time. However, it had not been possible to pass it before the dissolution of Parliament for elections in December 2000, following which Ghana had a new Parliament and new Government. Therefore, the legislative processes had to start all over again which had delayed the passage of the legislation. Although it was at the top of the new Parliament's legislative agenda, the legislation had still not been passed. However, every effort was being made to pass the legislation under a certificate of urgency. His authorities had asked him to request the Council to once again postpone the review to November 2001, by which time the legislation will have been passed. In making this request, his authorities were aware that Ghana's obligations in this matter should have been fulfilled over one year earlier. For this reason, they assured the Council that every effort would be made to have the legislation passed for review in November 2001. His delegation had received questions from various other delegations. He was grateful for those questions and would respond to them appropriately.

30.The Chairperson suggested that the Council take note of the constraints which Ghana was under and add it to the list of Members whose legislation was to be reviewed in November 2001.

31.The Council so agreed.

32.The Chairperson suggested the following arrangements for the subsequent follow-up:

- that outstanding responses to initial questions be submitted to the country concerned and the Secretariat by 13 July 2001;

- that the texts of any further follow-up questions be submitted to the country concerned and the Secretariat by 3 August 2001;

- that a target date of 17 August 2001 be set for the submission by the countries under review of responses to follow-up questions which have already been posed, fine tuned versions of responses to questions to which they have given preliminary replies and, to the extent possible, responses to any further follow-up questions that may have been submitted before 3 August 2001; and

- that the Council revert to the sub-item concerning the reviews of these 24 Members at its next meeting.

33.The Council agreed to proceed as suggested by the Chair.

34.The Chairperson recalled that 18 Members, including one newly acceded Member, Lithuania, were scheduled to be reviewed at the Council's meeting in November 2001.⁴ He recalled that the Council had agreed, at its April meeting, that for the reviews in the week of 26 November 2001, questions to the Members concerned should be submitted by 14 September 2001 and responses to questions posed within that deadline by 26 October 2001. He also drew attention to a communication that he had received from one of those Members, Gabon, which had been circulated in document IP/C/W/276 for information.