Proposals for review. There have been no proposals for review on this matter.
Proposals for review. In a 1994 Decision on the Application and Review of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,157 Ministers agreed on a full review of WTO dispute settlement rules and procedures by 1 January 1999. Although the Dispute Settlement Body in special sessions started this review in 1997 and extended the deadline until 31 July 1999,158 Members could not agree on possible amendments of the DSU.159 On the same issue, the 2001 Doha Declaration provided: “We agree to negotiations on improvements and clarifications of the Dispute Set- tlement Understanding. The negotiations should be based on the work done thus far as well as any additional proposals by Members, and aim to agree on improve- ments and clarifications not later than May 2003, at which time we will take steps to ensure that the results enter into force as soon as possible thereafter.”160 However, the May 2003 deadline also passed without Members’ coming to an agreement. On 24 July 2003, the General Council acknowledged that the DSB special session needed more time to conclude its work and extended the deadline for the special session until May 2004.161
Proposals for review. There is no formal review of the transitional periods contained in Article 65 and 66.1. 53 Xxxxxx, Doha Declaration, p. 502, footnote 99, noting also that absent any clarification in the domestic law, EMRs might not be subject to the same limitations as patents (such as the general exception clause under Article 30, or the compulsory licensing provision in Article 31 TRIPS) and therefore be even more burdensome to a public health policy that seeks to promote the availability of low-priced medicines. Note, however, that India in its domestic law has subjected EMRs to compulsory licenses. 724 Transitional Periods
Proposals for review. To the extent that Article 70.8-9 implicate the availability of pharmaceutical prod- ucts, they are the subject of ongoing study. More generally, as a provision relating to subject matter existing upon entry into force of its provisions, Article 70.1-7 is not the subject of proposals for review.
Proposals for review. A number of developing countries are pressing to expand the subject matter scope of TRIPS to include fields such as traditional knowledge (TK), folklore and related interests. In addition, a number of developing countries are pressing to expand the recognition by TRIPS of their interests in genetic resources. The latter question is related to negotiations concerning the relationship between TRIPS and the CBD (see above, Section 6.2). TK such as medicinal uses of plant varieties is often considered not to fall within the existing “categories” of intellectual property protection. For example, such knowledge may have been known to some portion of the public and therefore not qualify for patent protection (because of the absence of novelty). Folklore has often been known within a culture for many years, and therefore may not be considered to be newly subject to copyright. If these kinds of interests are to be covered by TRIPS, it may be necessary to expand the categories of intellectual property, or at least expand the subject matter addressed by the existing categories.131 131 For a detailed analysis of possible ways of protecting TK and folklore, see X. Xxxxxxxx, Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Folklore – A review of progress in diplomacy and policy formulation, UNCTAD-ICTSD, Geneva, June 2003. The paper is also available at <xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/pubs/ictsd series/iprs/XX xxxxxxxx.pdf>.
Proposals for review. As discussed earlier, Part II, Section 3 of TRIPS places further negotiation re- xxxxxxx geographical indications on the work program of the TRIPS Council in two ways. First, Article 23.4 refers to a multilateral system for notification and registration for wines. Second, pursuant to Article 24.1, “Members agree to enter into negotiations aimed at increasing the protection of individual geo- graphical indications under Article 23”. In addition to further negotiations, Ar- ticle 24.2 calls for continuing review of the application of provisions under this Section. 418 Ibid. 419 Ibid. 420 As to the complex relationship between the MFN obligation and bilateral TRIPS-plus provisions on individual geographical indications, see above, Section 3. 316 Geographical indications Both Articles 23.4 and 24.1 were reflected in the Ministerial Declaration adopted in Doha on 14 November 2001,421 which stated:
Proposals for review. As part of its authority under Article 68, TRIPS Agreement, (see Chapter 35 of this book) to monitor implementation of obligations and afford Members the op- portunity to consult with respect to IPRs, the Council for TRIPS is reviewing implementation of TRIPS Agreement obligations. These reviews began with re- spect to developed Members following their general implementation deadline of 1 January 1996, and with respect to developing Members following their general implementation deadline of 1 January 2000.81 A number of developing Members have suggested an amendment or interpre- tation of TRIPS that would preclude the exercise of bilateral or regional pressure against Members that propose to act to take advantage of flexibility inherent in TRIPS, such as the right to issue compulsory licenses.82 This type of amendment or interpretation would address Article 1.1, second sentence, providing that Mem- bers are not obliged to adopt TRIPS-plus protection.
Proposals for review. The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (see above) followed meetings of the Council for TRIPS that included substantial discussion of the objectives and principles of TRIPS. It is understood that those initial meetings are part of a continuing process of examining the impact of TRIPS on public health.293 A number of developing countries have indicated that the implementation of Article 7 should be examined in the Council for TRIPS in the context of determin- ing whether TRIPS is fulfilling the objective of contributing to the dissemination and transfer of technology.294
Proposals for review. The adoption of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health resolved the question whether WTO Members are permitted to adopt their own regimes regarding exhaustion of rights (see above, Section 3). There are no present proposals to reopen this issue. However, the relationship between rules on exhaustion of patent rights and proposals to facilitate price discrimination in favour of developing countries to address public health needs has resulted in renewed discussion concerning the extent to which restrictions on parallel trade may be desirable in certain con- texts. These issues are being considered in the context of continuing negotiations regarding implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration.
