WTO Agreements. For the purposes of this Agreement:
WTO Agreements. For the purposes of this Agreement, the following definitions apply:
WTO Agreements. There are no other WTO agreements directly relevant to this subject matter.
WTO Agreements. According to Appendix 1 of the DSU, the DSU applies to all WTO multilateral agreements (i.e., Annexes 1A through 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement). As to the plurilateral agreements, (i.e., Annex 4 to the Marrakesh Agreement), the applica- bility of the DSU shall be subject to the adoption of a decision by the parties to each plurilateral agreement setting out the terms for the application of the DSU to the individual agreement, including any special or additional rules or procedures.
WTO Agreements. 5.2 Other international instruments The transitional periods contained in Articles 65, 66.1 refer only to TRIPS obliga- tions. An LDC Member by benefiting from Article 66.1 or from paragraph 7 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health does not infringe the Agreement, but could, at the same time and through the same action, infringe non-TRIPS obligations such as the patent disciplines of the Paris Convention (provided it is a Party to this Convention).36 However, such non-WTO agreements are not en- forceable through trade sanctions, due to the lack of a dispute settlement system comparable to the DSU of the WTO.
WTO Agreements. The WTO agreements specify, in numerous provisions,68 the need to offer tech- nical assistance to developing and LDC Members.69 Each of those provisions relates specifically to the particular subject matter of the respective agreement. 66 For details, see below, Section 6.2.2. 67 See X. Xxxxxx, Can the TRIPS Agreement Xxxxxx Technology Transfer to Developing Countries? Draft of March 2003, submitted to a Conference at Duke University [hereinafter Xxxxxx, Draft]. 68 For a detailed overview of these provisions, see UNCTAD (2001), Compendium of International Arrangements on Transfer of Technology. Selected Instruments, New York and Geneva, p. 52 et seq. [hereinafter Compendium (TOT)].
WTO Agreements. As discussed earlier, Article 6 specifically refers to settlement of disputes under the TRIPS Agreement. This leaves open the possibility that provisions of TRIPS relevant to the issue of exhaustion of rights will be applied in dispute settlement under other WTO Agreements. As also mentioned, a claim might arise under the GATT 1994 that enforcement of IPRs to prevent importation of goods involves application of measures equiv- alent to quotas. If a Member permitted the adoption of a technical standard that incorporates IPR-protected subject matter, questions might arise regarding the extent to which the IPR-holder could control use or modification of the standard, implicating TRIPS rules relevant to exhaustion under the TBT Agreement. Since audio-visual services, as example, frequently incorporate IPR protected elements, it is certainly possible that a GATS dispute could implicate provisions of TRIPS relevant to exhaustion. The relationship between TRIPS provisions relevant to exhaustion, including Article 6, and other WTO Agreements, remains to be determined in dispute settle- ment. There are different views among legal experts regarding whether Article 6 precludes exhaustion issues from being considered under other WTO Agreements. The “plain text” of Article 6 does not appear to preclude TRIPS rules relevant to exhaustion from being applied in dispute settlement under other agreements, but this does not exclude the possibility that TRIPS will be found to “occupy the field” of exhaustion subject matter as a special agreement governing trade and IPRs subject matter, or lex specialis.
WTO Agreements. The objectives and principles of TRIPS must be considered in relation to the objectives of the WTO Agreement, which is reflected in its preamble. In addition to promoting general economic growth compatible with sustainable development, the preamble of the WTO Agreement: “Recogniz[es] further that there is need for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and especially the least developed among them, secure a share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development,” In fact, most of the WTO agreements include provisions regarding special and differential treatment for developing countries. Since Articles 7 and 8 refer to development objectives, it may be useful in the context of dispute settlement to cross-reference developmental objectives and principles of the appropriate agreements.
WTO Agreements. There are no other WTO Agreements dealing with the issue of copyrightable sub- ject matter. Consequently, there is no particular relationship between the TRIPS/ Berne copyright provisions and other WTO Agreements. Under Article XX GATT, there is, however, a reference to intellectual property rights and more specifically, copyrights: for the purpose of copyright protection, and provided that certain con- ditions are met, WTO Members may deviate from the basic GATT obligations of most-favoured nation treatment, national treatment and the prohibition of quan- titative restrictions.56As opposed to TRIPS and the Berne Convention, the GATT thus treats the protection of intellectual property rights as an exception. Article XX GATT does not however address the issue of copyrightable material. Article 11bis (1) of the Berne Convention provides: “Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing:
WTO Agreements. The Council has specifically been set up for the purpose of monitoring the oper- ation of TRIPS. There is no other WTO organ that could take over this function, except for the General Council in the specific case when a decision needs to be taken and the Members of the Council have not been in a position of reaching such decision. When compared, for example, to the GATS Council, it can be noted that the powers conferred to the Council for TRIPS are considerably greater. Contrary to Article 68, Article XXIV GATS does not authorize the GATS Council to monitor Members’ compliance with their GATS obligations. This difference in the attribu- tion of powers is due to the fact that under TRIPS there are common (minimum) standards that have to be respected by every Member. The extent of GATS obliga- tions, by contrast, depends on each Member’s schedule of specific commitments and thus varies from Member to Member. From a practical point of view, a moni- toring of such commitments appears much more complicated than the review of the common standards under TRIPS.
