The Panel in EC. Bed Linen examined whether, further to having defined the Community industry as a group of 35 producers and resorted to a sample of those producers, the European Communities was precluded from considering information relating to producers not within that sample, or not within the Community industry.
The Panel in EC. Trademarks and Geographical Indications examined each aspect of the Regulation at issue that was the subject of a national treatment claim in terms of the definition of "protection" of intellectual property set out in footnote 3 (see para. 25 below).
The Panel in EC. Trademarks and Geographical Indications examined each aspect of the Regulation at issue that was the subject of a national treatment claim in terms of the definition of "protection" of intellectual property set out in footnote 3. It found that the applicability of the Regulation, the application procedures, the objection procedures, the product inspection structures and a labelling requirement all fell within the scope of footnote 3: "The national treatment obligation in Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement applies "with regard to the protection of intellectual property". Footnote 3 provides an inclusive definition of the term "protection" as used in Articles 3 and 4."24 …
The Panel in EC. Bed Linen, after finding a violation of Article 3.4 by the European Communities, found it "neither necessary nor appropriate" to make a finding with respect to a claim of inadequate notice under Article 12.2.2. The Panel held that while a notice may adequately explain the determination that was made, the adequacy of the notice is nevertheless meaningless where the determination was substantively inconsistent with the relevant legal obligations. Furthermore, even if the notice itself was inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, such a finding "does not add anything to the finding of violation, the resolution of the dispute before us, or to the understanding of the obligations imposed by the AD Agreement."26
