|Short Title||Full Case Title and Citation|
|Argentina – Footwear (EC)||Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 515|
|Australia – Salmon||Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327|
|Brazil – Aircraft||Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft, WT/DS46/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1161|
|Canada – Patent Term||Appellate Body Report, Canada – Term of Patent Protection, WT/DS170/AB/R, adopted 12 October 2000, DSR 2000:X, 5093|
|Canada – Periodicals||Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, 449|
|Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents||Panel Report, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R, adopted 7 April 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2289|
|EC – Asbestos||Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, DSR 2001:VII, 3243|
|EC – Bananas III||Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, DSR 1997:II, 591|
|EC – Bananas III (US)||Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Complaint by the United States, WT/DS27/R/USA, adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, 943|
|EC – Hormones||Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998, DSR 1998:I, 135|
|EC – Sardines||Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002|
|EC – Tariff Preferences||Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted 20 April 2004.|
|EEC – Parts and Components||GATT Panel Report, European Economic Community – Regulation on Imports of Parts and Components, adopted 16 May 1990, BISD 37S/132|
|India – Patents (US)||Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, DSR 1998:I, 9|
|India – Patents (US)||Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products – Complaint by the United States, WT/DS50/R, adopted 16 January 1998, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS50/AB/R, DSR 1998:I, 41|
|India – Patents (EC)||Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products – Complaint by the European Communities, WT/DS79/R, adopted 22 September 1998, DSR 1998:VI, 2661|
|Indonesia – Autos||Panel Report, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R and Corr.1, 2, 3, and 4, adopted 23 July 1998, DSR 1998:VI, 2201|
|Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II||Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, 97|
|Korea – Dairy||Appellate Body Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 3|
|Korea – Various Measures on Beef||Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, DSR 2001:I, 5|
|Korea – Various Measures on Beef||Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/R, WT/DS169/R, adopted 10 January 2001, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, DSR 2001:I, 59|
|Thailand – H-Beams||Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, DSR 2001:VII, 2701|
|Turkey – Textiles||Panel Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, WT/DS34/R, adopted 19 November 1999, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS34/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, 2363|
|US – 1916 Act||Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2000, DSR 2000:X, 4793|
|US – Carbon Steel||Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany, WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002|
|US – Certain EC Products||Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, WT/DS165/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, DSR 2001:I, 373|
|US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review||Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan, WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004|
|US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC)||Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities, WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002|
|US – Gasoline||Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, DSR 1996:I, 3|
|US – Section 110(5) Copyright Act||Panel Report, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, adopted 27 July 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 3769|
|US – Section 211 Appropriations Act||Appellate Body Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, WT/DS176/AB/R, adopted 1 February 2002|
|US – Section 301 Trade Act||Panel Report, United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, WT/DS152/R, adopted 27 January 2000, DSR 2000:II, 815|
|US – Section 337||GATT Panel Report, United States Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, adopted 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345|
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the United States in document WT/DS174/20 and Australia in document WT/DS290/18, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States and Australia in those documents, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements."
(a) Articles 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 16.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.3, 42, and 65.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, incorporating Articles 2(1) and 2(2), 10bis(1) and 10ter(1) of the Paris Convention (1967);8
(b) Article III:4 of GATT 1994;
(c) Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement; and
(d) Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
(a) find that certain measures no longer in force or not yet adopted at the time the Panel was established, and Australia's claims "under Articles 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 of the TRIPS Agreement", under Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) and "under Article 4 of the Paris Convention (1967)" as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, are outside the Panel's terms of reference; and
(b) reject all claims within the Panel's terms of reference.
Further comments on 5 April 2004 preliminary ruling
Other preliminary rulings
Claims regarding the "EC measure as a whole"
Endorsement of arguments by co-complainant
The phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements"
Specific definitions of "nationals"
Examination of applications for registration
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement
Right to prevent the use of translations of registered GIs
Exceptions in trademark legislation with respect to the use of GIs
Comparison of exceptions provisions
Articles 10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention (1967)
Other requests for review
1. The European Communities is of the view that the requests for establishment of a panel in this matter do not meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. It has requested that the Panel issue a preliminary ruling regarding this question.10
3. Australia is of the view that its request for establishment of a panel fully complies with the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. It submits that the substantive basis of the European Communities' request for a preliminary ruling should be denied in full.12
4. Article 6.2 of the DSU provides as follows:
"2. The request for the establishment of a panel shall be made in writing. It shall indicate whether consultations were held, identify the specific measures at issue and provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly. In case the applicant requests the establishment of a panel with other than standard terms of reference, the written request shall include the proposed text of special terms of reference."
5. The European Communities alleges that the requests for establishment of a panel are inconsistent with the following requirements in Article 6.2:
(a) they fail to identify the specific measure at issue; and
(b) they do not provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly.
6. The Panel will examine each of the requests for establishment of a panel as a whole on its face in the light of the parties' respective communications to the Panel to date and the relevant provisions of the covered agreements to assess its compliance with each of these requirements in the sections below.13
(c) Australia's request for establishment of a panel15
(i) Identification of the specific measure at issue
23. Australia's request, in its fourth paragraph, identifies the following measures at issue:
"The measure at issue is Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, any amendments thereto (including Council Regulation (EC) No. 692/2003 of 8 April 2003, published in the Official Journal of the European Union No. L99 of 17 April 2003), and related implementing and enforcement measures ('the EC measure'). The EC measure lays down and implements rules on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, excluding wines and spirits."
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 and any amendments thereto
24. Australia's request identifies a particular regulation by the name of the authority which adopted it, by its number, by its date of adoption and by its full title. It includes amendments of this regulation, including one amendment which is identified by the name of the authority which adopted it, by its number, by its date of adoption, by its full title and by the date and place of its publication. This is a specific measure,16 and the request has identified it. There is no doubt as to which specific measure is in issue, as the European Communities has itself demonstrated by annexing a consolidated text of the regulation to the request for a preliminary ruling.17
25. The European Communities argues that:
"The unspecific reference to Regulation 2081/92 made in the Panel requests does not permit the EC to understand which specific aspects among those covered by Regulation 2081/92 the complainants intend to raise in the context of the present proceedings." (italics added)
26. The Panel considers the ordinary meaning of the terms of the text in Article 6.2 of the DSU, read in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the provision, to be quite clear. They require that a request for establishment of a panel "identify the specific measures at issue". They do not require the identification of the "specific aspects" of these "specific measures."
"related implementing and enforcement measures"
27. Australia's request identifies, in addition to the regulation and any amendments thereto, "related implementing and enforcement measures". This phrase expressly refers to measures which implement and enforce Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92, as amended. The word "related" is not used in isolation in the request.
28. The Regulation as amended itself expressly provides for the taking of particular types of decisions and actions and the adoption of rules of procedure for applying the Regulation. For example, Article 6 provides for the Commission to verify that registration applications include all the requisite particulars and, if it concludes that the name qualifies for protection, to publish certain details and, if no objection is notified, the name is entered in a register or, if the Commission concludes that the name does not qualify for protection, to decide not to proceed with the publication. Article 11a provides that the Commission may cancel the registration of a name. Article 12 provides for decisions by the Commission as to whether a third country satisfies the equivalence conditions and offers the requisite guarantees. Article 12b provides for the Commission, if it concludes that a name the subject of a registration request sent by a third country satisfies the conditions for protection, to publish certain details or, if it concludes that the name does not satisfy the conditions for protection, to decide not to proceed with publication. Article 16 provides for detailed rules for applying the Regulation to be adopted.18 Those decisions, actions and rules, among others, implement the Regulation. The European Communities has indicated that the competent judicial and executive authorities enforce the Regulation.19 In the Panel's view, this does not imply that there is any uncertainty as to which measures taken by those authorities implement and enforce the Regulation and which do not. All of the Regulation's implementing and enforcement measures form a group of specific measures which, although they may be a large group, are identified by Australia's request for establishment of a panel.20
29. For these reasons, on the basis of the facts available to us, the Panel rules that Australia's request for establishment of a panel did not fail to identify the specific measures at issue in accordance with Article 6.2 of the DSU.
(ii) A brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly
30. Australia's request, in its fifth paragraph, sets out in eight bullet points alleged inconsistencies with the covered agreements, by providing narrative text quoting or paraphrasing treaty text accompanied by provisions of the covered agreements identified by number. The numbered provisions identify every article of every covered agreement at issue and, in most cases where there are paragraphs within an article, such paragraphs are identified.
31. The European Communities takes issue with Australia's reference to whether Regulation No. 2081/92 is a "technical regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1 to the TBT Agreement because the definition does not impose any obligations which could have been violated.21
32. The Panel notes that the definition of "technical regulation" per se is not an obligation but rather defines a term used in other provisions of the TBT Agreement set out in Australia's request. The reference to the definition actually presents the problem more, rather than less, clearly because it explains why Australia considers that the measures at issue are subject to the relevant obligations.
33. The European Communities also takes issue with the reference to Article 2 of the TRIPS Agreement (incorporating by reference Articles 10, 10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention). It argues that Articles 10, 10bis and 10ter are "complex provisions" divided into various paragraphs, and imposing numerous distinct obligations.
34. Australia replies that, irrespective of the accuracy of the European Communities' portrayal of these provisions, its claim is that the measures at issue diminish the legal protection for trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement, contrary to all aspects of these cited provisions.22
35. The Panel considers that the mere listing of provisions of the relevant covered agreements may not satisfy the standard of Article 6.2 of the DSU, for instance, where the listed provisions establish multiple obligations rather than one single, distinct obligation.23 However, where the multiple obligations are closely related and interlinked, a reference to a common obligation in the specific listed provisions may be sufficient to meet the standard of Article 6.2 of the DSU under certain circumstances in a particular case.24
36. With these considerations in mind, the Panel now examines the articles to which the European Communities has referred in Australia's request for establishment of a panel. The Panel notes that, on their face, the provisions within each of these articles are interlinked and very closely related, and that the separate paragraphs do not necessarily create distinct obligations. In particular:
(a) Article 10 of the Paris Convention (1967) extends the application of the provisions of Article 9, which relates to seizure of goods, to false indications of source. The second paragraph of Article 10 sets out a deeming provision for the purposes of the first paragraph;
(b) Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967) sets out a single obligation in paragraph (1) regarding unfair competition which is clarified in, and therefore closely related to, paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(c) Article 10ter of the Paris Convention (1967) sets out in paragraph (1) an obligation regarding legal remedies to repress all the acts referred to in Articles 9, 10 and 10bis, and in paragraph (2) an obligation regarding action to repress the same acts by particular types of legal person.
37. The European Communities also takes issue with the reference to "Articles 41 and/or 42 of the TRIPS Agreement". It submits that Article 41 is a "complex provision" subdivided into a number of paragraphs, which contain a number of different obligations; that Article 42 comprises several sentences establishing distinct obligations; and that it "does not understand the 'and/or' which seems to indicate that Articles 41 and 42 of the TRIPS Agreement are somehow alternative obligations".25
38. Australia replies that its reference to the essential elements of the relevant provisions is sufficient in this dispute to shed light on the nature of the obligations at issue in relation to the specific measures at issue. It also states that, in accordance with common usage, the expression "and/or" applies to all of the provisions cited.26
39. The Panel makes the following observations:
(a) Article 41 of the TRIPS Agreement contains general obligations which relate to acts of infringement of intellectual property rights covered by this Agreement. The accompanying narrative text of Australia's request clarifies that this claim is made because the measure at issue allegedly "diminishes the legal protection for trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement". The general obligations in Article 41 relate to "enforcement procedures as specified in [Part III]". Certain of those enforcement procedures, namely under Article 42, are also raised which clarifies that the general obligations are the subject of a claim in relation to these procedures. In particular, Article 42 is entitled "fair and equitable procedures" which is the subject of an obligation in Article 41.2;
(b) Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement contains closely related obligations concerning fair and equitable procedures. The accompanying narrative text clarifies that this claim is made in relation to "the legal protection for trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement". The requirements of each sentence in Article 42 are distinct but they all set out specific features of fair and equitable civil judicial procedures concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights; and
(c) the use of the term "and/or" at the end of a series or list of items connected by commas is a standard means of indicating that all items in that series or list may apply cumulatively or separately.27 There is nothing in the context of Australia's request for the establishment of a panel that would indicate that it refers only to the last two items in the series. There is nothing which prevents a complainant making claims in the alternative. This puts the respondent on notice that the complainant effectively makes all these claims.
40. The European Communities further contends that it is entitled to know which provision or aspect of Regulation No. 2081/92 is supposed to violate certain obligations and in which way such a violation is deemed to occur. In the Panel's view, the European Communities is seeking the arguments, rather than just the claims, of Australia.28 That being said, the Panel wishes to assure the European Communities that it is fully entitled to know the arguments of Australia during the course of the proceedings. Those arguments must be set out and may be clarified in Australia's submissions.29 However, Article 6.2 of the DSU does not require those arguments to be set out in the request for establishment of a panel.30
41. The Panel notes that Article 6.2 of the DSU calls for sufficient clarity with respect to the legal basis of the complaint so as to enable a defending party to begin preparing its defence.31 Our examination of Australia's request for establishment of a panel as a whole, in the light of Australia's and the European Communities' respective communications to the Panel to date and the relevant provisions of the covered agreements, leads us to believe that the request for establishment of a panel was sufficiently clear for the European Communities to begin preparing its defence.
42. For these reasons, on the basis of the facts available to us, the Panel rules that Australia's request for establishment of a panel did not fail to provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly in accordance with Article 6.2 of the DSU.
(d) Due process
43. The European Communities is also of the view that the "deficiencies" of the requests for establishment of a panel seriously prejudice its due process rights as a defending party, notably, to know the case it has to answer.32
44. The Panel recalls once again that Article 6.2 of the DSU calls for sufficient clarity with respect to the legal basis of the complaint so as to enable a defending party to begin preparing its defence.33 In this respect, the Panel has found that the complainants' requests for establishment of a panel were sufficiently clear for the European Communities to begin preparing its defence.34 Therefore, the Panel considers that it is not necessary to make a separate ruling on this issue, as presented by the European Communities in its request.35
45. The Panel is mindful of the due process rights of all parties in this proceeding. In this regard, it notes that the European Communities had a period of over four months after the establishment of the Panel prior to its constitution plus a period of over seven weeks prior to receipt of the complainants' first written submissions to begin preparing its case, and will have an additional period of four and a half weeks from receipt of the complainants' first written submissions to continue preparation of its own first written submission, which is in excess of the maximum period proposed in Appendix 3 to the DSU.
46. The European Communities submitted its request for a preliminary ruling two days after the composition of the Panel. It also raised its concerns at the DSB meetings at which the requests for establishment of a panel were considered.36
47. The Panel therefore considers that the European Communities has raised its concerns in a timely manner.37
48. In light of the foregoing, on the basis of the facts available to us, the Panel rules that the measures and claims in Australia's and the United States' respective requests for establishment of a panel did not fail to meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU that they identify the specific measures at issue and provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly. [End of 5 April 2004 ruling]
"The unspecific reference to Regulation 2081/92 made in the Panel requests does not permit the EC to understand which specific aspects among those covered by Regulation 2081/92 the complainants intend to raise in the context of the present proceedings."40
(a) Australia's principal claims concerning national treatment (considered in Section VII:B of this report) are based on the differences between the two sets of registration and objection procedures set out in Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 (the "Regulation") in Articles 5 through 7 and 12 through 12d, respectively.42 This is one of the principal features of the Regulation. It was clear from the request for establishment of a panel that the complainant intended to raise these aspects of the Regulation; and
(b) Australia's principal claim concerning the legal protection for trademarks (considered in Section VII:D of this report) is based on Article 14 of the Regulation. This provision is specifically devoted to that issue. It was clear from the request for establishment of a panel that the complainant intended to raise this article of the Regulation, as the European Communities itself confirmed in its request for a preliminary ruling.43
"In the present case, the ambiguity of the Panel request is such that the EC is, to this date, not sure of the case which the United States and Australia are bringing before the Panel. As a consequence, the EC has been seriously hampered in its efforts to prepare its defence."44
"[T]he US claim is limited to a paraphrasing of the treaty language of [Article 3 TRIPS and Article III:4 GATT]. The US claim does not permit to understand which provision or aspect of Regulation 2081/92 is supposed to violate the national treatment principle, and in which way such a violation is deemed to occur"; and
"Like the US claims, Australia's claims [regarding inter alia national treatment under Article 3.1 TRIPS and Article III:4 GATT] are limited to the restatement of language already contained in treaty provisions, and therefore encounter the same objections."45
"198. However, non-EC nationals seeking to register, and thus protect, an EC-defined GI in respect of a geographical location in the territory of another WTO Member pursuant to Regulation No. 2081/92 are not able to apply directly to the EC (whether to the Commission or another Community level body) to register an EC-defined GI.
"205. Moreover, notwithstanding any outward appearance of symmetry of treatment, the EC measure accords non-EC nationals less favourable treatment than that accorded to EC nationals in respect of the registration of an EC-defined GI from another WTO Member and in respect of the enforcement of trademark rights concerning the proposed registration of an EC-defined GI. The fact that the EC and its Member States have legally defined rights and obligations in relation to each other and to EC Member State nationals makes the registration and objection processes for EC nationals fundamentally different to those for non-EC nationals. Few other WTO Member governments have such legally defined relationships affecting the maintenance and enforcement of an intellectual property right, a right expressly recognised as a private right by the TRIPS Agreement."
"Our case in total would include of course all the material we have submitted to the Panel directly, or via endorsement of arguments made by the US in this dispute."103
"Australia endorses all of the arguments put forward by the United States. Where there are differences between the complainants, these are a result of different understandings of the flawed measure at issue in this dispute and, in any case, are not material differences."104
"[T]he right to use a trademark refers to the ongoing ability to use a trademark where rights to a trademark have been acquired through use in good faith."105
"'[T]he right to use a trademark' is not specifically limited in the text to trademarks whose rights are acquired through use (although it would appear to include such trademarks). Rather the obligation not to prejudice the right to use a trademark – to harm or damage the permitted or forbidden activity associated with application of a trademark to its purpose – would include an obligation with respect both to registered and non-registered trademarks (...)"106
"The requirement of Article 12(2) that GIs for imported products, but not for domestic products, must be accompanied by a clear and visible indication of country of origin on the label is not simply a labeling cost issue. This requirement provides less favorable treatment to non-EC nationals and products in part because the non-EC GI, unlike the EC GI, is being burdened by an additional labeling requirement that is in the nature of a qualifier that detracts from the value of the GI (...)"108
"1. Without prejudice to international agreements, this Regulation may apply to an agricultural product or foodstuff from a third country provided that:
- the third country is able to give guarantees identical or equivalent to those referred to in Article 4,
- the third country concerned has inspection arrangements and a right to objection equivalent to those laid down in this Regulation,
- the third country concerned is prepared to provide protection equivalent to that available in the Community to corresponding agricultural products or foodstuffs coming from the Community."
"3. The Commission shall examine, at the request of the country concerned, and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 whether a third country satisfies the equivalence conditions and offers guarantees within the meaning of paragraph 1 as a result of its national legislation. Where the Commission decision is in the affirmative, the procedure set out in Article 12a shall apply."
"Whereas provision should be made for trade with third countries offering equivalent guarantees for the issue and inspection of geographical indications or designations of origin granted on their territory;"142
"(8) The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement 1994, contained in Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation contains detailed provisions on the existence, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
(9) The protection provided by registration under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 is open to third countries' names by reciprocity and under equivalence conditions as provided for in Article 12 of that Regulation. That Article should be supplemented so as to guarantee that the Community registration procedure is available to the countries meeting those conditions.
(10) Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 specifies how objections are to be made and dealt with. To satisfy the obligation resulting from Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement it should be made clear that in this matter nationals of WTO member countries are covered by these arrangements and that the provisions in question apply without prejudice to international agreements, as provided for in Article 12 of the said Regulation. (...)"143
"[U]nder the current EC regulations, the EC does not appear to provide protection for non‑EC geographical indications (i.e., place names of other WTO Members), except on the basis of bilateral agreements, or if the EC has determined that a country has a system for geographical indications that is equivalent to the detailed system of the EC."147
"(...) I would like to address one issue that is raised regarding the fact that the EU register for GIs on foodstuffs does not allow the registration of foreign GI unless it is determined that a third country has an equivalent or reciprocal system of GI protection."148
"Beyond mere TRIPS consistency, the Commission proposes important amendments designed to promote the EU system of denominations of origin as a model to the rest of the world. The driving idea behind is the wish to improve protection of European quality products also outside the EU. As the EU cannot force non-EU countries to do so, they would be invited to do so on a 'reciprocal basis'. If a non-EU country introduced an 'equivalent system' including the right of objection for the EU and the commitment to protect EU names on their territory, the EU would offer a specific protection to register their products for the EU market."150
The references to a reciprocal basis and an equivalent system are clear references to the conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulation.
"(...) Such international agreements include the WTO Agreements. This is made clear by the 8th recital of Regulation 692/2003, which amended the procedures for the registration of non-EC geographical indications, and in this context took specific account of the provisions of the TRIPS.
"WTO Members are obliged to provide protection to geographical indications in accordance with Section 3 of Part II and the general provisions and basic principles of the TRIPS Agreement. For this reason, Article 12 (1) and (3) of Regulation 2081/92 do not apply to WTO Members. (...)"159
"As regards the specific conditions contained in Article 12 (1) of Regulation 2081/92, the EC has already confirmed that it does not apply these to WTO Members. For this reason, the EC considers that the question whether these conditions are inconsistent with the national treatment obligations of the TRIPS Agreement and the GATT does not arise."163
"Community legislation must, so far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law, in particular where its provisions are intended specifically to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the Community."172
"1. Each Member shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property, subject to the exceptions already provided in, respectively, the Paris Convention (1967), the Berne Convention (1971), the Rome Convention or the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits...." [footnote 3 omitted]
Protection of intellectual property
"For the purposes of Articles 3 and 4, 'protection' shall include matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property rights as well as those matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights specifically addressed in this Agreement."
Less favourable treatment accorded to the nationals of other Members
Less favourable treatment