WTO jurisprudence. 4.1 India – Patent Protection
WTO jurisprudence. There have been no cases decided on this subject matter.
WTO jurisprudence. To date no dispute concerning these provisions has been brought before the dis- pute settlement body of the WTO.
WTO jurisprudence. 4.1 Canada – Term of Patent Protection (“Canada – Patent Term”)145
WTO jurisprudence. Apart from the case India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products,140 there has been no WTO jurisprudence specifically concern- ing Article 64 as such.
WTO jurisprudence. 4.1 The particular nature of the TRIPS Agreement
WTO jurisprudence. 4.1 EC – Protection of Trademarks and GIs 308 Geographical indications
WTO jurisprudence. 4.1 Havana Club
WTO jurisprudence. None of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, Appellate Body nor any panel has been asked to interpret Article 6. There are no dispute settlement decisions that discuss it. However, as noted above, Ministers meeting in Doha adopted the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health that expressly addresses “the provi- sions in the TRIPS Agreement that are relevant to the exhaustion of intellectual property.” Paragraph 5(d) of the Doha Declaration does not limit its reference to Article 6 precisely to account for arguments from some Members and industry groups that other Articles (such as Article 28) override it by implication. 245 For a consideration of the purpose and effect of these Articles addressing national and MFN treatment, respectively, see Chapter 4.
WTO jurisprudence. The Preamble and Articles 7 and 8 were given modest attention by the parties (including third countries) and panel in the Canada – Generics dispute.289 The panel said:
