ENFORCEMENT OF TRIPS AND THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM OF THE WTO

by

Horacio RANGEL-ORTIZ
Professor of Law, Doctor of Laws

ATRIP Past President (1997-1999) AIPPI Mexican Group Past President (1992-1995). Professor of Intellectual Property Law. School of Law, National University of Mexico (UNAM). Partner with the Mexico City Intellectual Property Law firm Uhthoff, Gmez Vega & Uhthoff, S.C.

1. WTO and TRIPS

2 .- Th e Disp ut e Se t t le m e n t Me ch an ism of TRIPS.

Th is m e ch an ism is con t ain e d in t h e Disp ut e (DSU), t he Se t t le m e n t Un d e r st an d in g w h ich ar e

p r ov ision s of

con t ain e d in An n e x 2 of t h e Mar r ake ch Ag r e e m e n t .

3.- Transitional Arrangements.

4 .- Disp ut e Se t t le m e n t Me ch an ism . Th r e e b asic st ag e s ar e con t e m p lat e d in t h e Un d e r st an d in g : CONSULTATIONS (ARTICLE 4 , DSU); ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL (ARTICLE 6 , DSU); AND APPELLATE REVIEW BY AN APPELLATE BODY (ARTICLE 1 7 , DSU)

5.- Arbitration. Arbitration is contemplated in the Understanding as a means to determine the time within which the member Body. concerned should comply with the recommendations or rulings of the Dispute Settlement

6 .- Th e De v e lop in g Wor ld , t h e In d ust r ialize d Wor ld an d TRIPS.

It w as b e lie v e d in ce r t ain cir cle s t h at t h e m e ch an ism t o act ually e n f or ce t h e p r ov ision s of t h e Disp ut e Se t t le m e n t Un d e r st an d in g w ould n ot b e use d b e f or e Jan uar y 1 st , 2000 w hen TRIPS w ould b e com e

e f f e ct iv e in t h e d e v e lop in g w or ld .

7 .- Use of t h e Disp ut e Se t t le m e n t Me ch an ism b y In d ust r ialize d Nat ion s Wh o Hav e File d Com p lain t s Ag ain st Ot h e r In d ust r ialize d Nat ion s Be f or e Jan uar y 1 st 2 0 0 0 .: In 1 9 9 6 t h e USA an d THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES r e q ue st e d con sult at ion s w it h JAPAN. In 1997 t he USA r e q ue st e d con sult at ion s w it h DENMARK. In 1 9 9 8 t h e EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, t h e USA, SWITZERLAND AND AUSTRALIA r e q ue st e d con sult at ion s w it h CANADA. In 1 9 9 9 t h e e st ab lish m e n t CANADA. USA r e q ue st e d t h e of a p an e l ag ain st

In 1 9 9 9 t h e EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, CANADA, SWITZERLAND AND AUSTRALIA r e q ue st e d con sult at ion s w it h t h e USA.

8 .- Use of t h e Disp ut e Se t t le m e n t Me ch an ism af t e r Jan uar y 1 st , 2 0 0 0 . Th e d isp ut e se t t le m e n t m e ch an ism h as b e e n use d in 2 3 case s. Most of t h e se 2 3 case s w e r e in it iat e d p r ior t o Jan uar y 1 st , 2 0 0 0 . Most of t h e r e q ue st s h av e b e e n f ile d ag ain st in d ust r ialize d n at ion s as d ist in g uish e d f r om d e v e lop in g n at ion s.

Th e se ar e t h e 2 3 case s: Ar g e n t in a Br o u g h t b y US Ar g e n t in a Br o u g h t b y US Br azil Br o u g h t b y US In d ia Br o u g h t b y EC Br o u g h t b y US Ir e lan d Br o u g h t b y US Jap an Br o u g h t b y EC Br o u g h t b y US Can ad a Br o u g h t b y Pakist an Br o u g h t b y EC US Can ad a Br o u g h t b y Por t ug al Br o u g h t b y US US De n m ar k Br o u g h t b y Sw e d e n Br o u g h t b y US US EC Br o u g h t b y Can ad a US Br o u g h t b y Br azil EC Br o u g h t b y US Br o u g h t b y EC Au st r alia EC Br o u g h t b y US US Br o u g h t b y EC EC Br o u g h t b y US US Br o u g h t b y EC EC Br o u g h t b y US

9 .- Com p lain t s File d Ag ain st In d ust r ialize d Coun t r y Me m b e r s. Th e m ajor it y of t h e 2 3 com p lain t s, n am e ly 17, h av e been f ile d ag ain st coun t r y

m e m b e r s t h at ar e g e n e r ally id e n t if ie d as in d ust r ialize d n at ion s such as: Can ad a USA Jap an De n m ar k EC (in clud in g Gr e e ce , Ir e lan d , Por t ug al an d Sw e d e n )

1 0 .- Com p lain t s File d Ag ain st De v e lop in g Coun t r y Me m b e r s. Th e r e m ain in g 6 case s in v olv e

com p lain t s w h e r e t h e r e sp on d e n t s ar e id e n t if ie d n am e ly Ar g e n t in a Br azil In d ia Pakist an as d e v e lop in g coun t r ie s,

1 1 .- Sub je ct s In v olv e d in t h e Disp ut e s. Ap p r ox im at e ly h alf of t he d isp ut e s

in v olv e p at e n t r ig h t s. Th e ot h e r h alf is d ist r ib ut e d in an d

com p lain t s in v olv in g cop y r ig h t

t r ad e m ar k issue s as w e ll as com p lain t s in v olv in g p r oce d ur al an d sub st an t iv e issue s r e lat e d t o t h e e n f or ce m e n t of IP r ig h t s.

1 2 .- Te n sion in t h e In t e r n at ion al Com m un it y as f ar as En f or ce m e n t of IP Rig h t s is Con ce r n e d , an d

Sour ce s Ot h e r Th an WTO. St an d ar d s r e lat ion sh ip n at ion s in ot h e r t h an TRIPS also an d t h an g ov e r n t he

bet w een con t e x t s

d e v e lop e d ot h e r

d e v e lop in g WTO-TRIPS,

sp e cif ically b e t w e e n t h e USA an d ot h e r d e v e lop in g coun t r y m e m b e r s of WTO.

1 3 .- Coun t r y Me m b e r s Wh o Hav e File d Com p lain t s.

Fr om

23

d isp ut e

se t t le m e n t

p r oce e d in g s in it iat e d p ur suan t t o t h e Disp ut e Se t t le m e n t Un d e r st an d in g

con t e m p lat e d in TRIPS, t h e USA h as in it iat e d 1 4 of t h e m . Th at is t o say ,

m or e t h an h alf of t h e com p lain t s h av e b e e n f ile d b y t h e USA ag ain st ot h e r coun t r ie s.

1 4 .- Th e In t e r n at ion al An t icoun t e r f e it in g Coalit ion an d t h e Re p or t s File d w it h t h e Of f ice of t h e US Tr ad e Re p r e se n t at iv e (Sp e cial 3 0 1 ). Re p or t s r e q ue st e d b y t h e Of f ice of t h e U.S. Tr ad e Re p r e se n t at iv e t o t h e IACC, r e g ar d in g g ov e r n m e n t s t h at t o t he

m in d s of t h e IACC d e n y ad e q uat e an d e f f e ct iv e p r ot e ct ion an d e n f or ce m e n t of in t e lle ct ual p r op e r t y r ig h t s .

1 5 .- Jur isd ict ion s Id e n t if ie d in t h e Re p or t s File d b y t h e IACC w it h t h e Of f ice of t h e U.S. Tr ad e Re p r e se n t at iv e . Fr om 1 9 9 7 t o 2 0 0 3 , 3 4 jur isd ict ion s, m ost of w h om p e r t ain t o WTO, h av e b e e n t h e sub je ct of r e p or t s, accusat ion s or com p lain t s, f r om IACC t o t h e Of f ice of t h e U.S. Tr ad e Re p r e se n t at iv e . Th e r e p or t s d o n ot in v olv e n e ce ssar ily com p lain t s ow e d t o n on -ob se r v an ce of TRIPS st an d ar d s, b ut r at h e r d issat isf act ion on t h e st an d ar d s of IP p r ot e ct ion an d e n f or ce m e n t in t h e jur isd ict ion .

The 34 jurisdictions identified in the IACC reports filed from 1997 to 2003 are: ARGENTINA Australia Bolivia BRAZIL Bulgaria WL CANADA Chile China Colombia GREECE Hong Kong Hungary INDIA Indonesia Italy JAPAN Kazakhstan Korea Malaysia Mexico Panama Paraguay Philippines Poland Russia Saudi Singapore South Africa Taiwan Thailand Turkey Ukraine UAE Vietnam

16.- U.S. Trade Representative/IACC: Observance of Minimum TRIPS Standards is Not Enough.

1 7 .- Th e Com p lain t s f ile d b y t h e IACC w it h t h e Of f ice of t h e US Tr ad e Re p r e se n t at iv e Lar g e ly Focus in Sit uat ion s In v olv in g Cop y r ig h t an d Tr ad e m ar k Rig h t s, as d ist in g uish e d f r om Pat e n t s.

18.- Conclusions.