Propiedad intelectual

El 19 de diciembre de 1997, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “India - Protección mediante patente de los productos farmacéuticos y los productos químicos para la agricultura”.

Le 9 juin 2020, l’Organe d’appel a remis ses rapports dans les procédures engagées par le Honduras et la République dominicaine dans l’affaire “Australie — Certaines mesures concernant les marques de fabrique ou de commerce, les indications géographiques et autres prescriptions en matière d’emballage neutre applicables aux produits du tabac et à leur emballage” (DS435 et DS441).

On 19 December 1997, the EC requested consultations with Canada in respect of the alleged lack of protection of inventions by Canada in the area of pharmaceuticals under the relevant provisions of the Canadian implementing legislation, in particular the Patent Act. The EC alleged that Canada’s legislation is not compatible with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, because it does not provide for the full protection of patented pharmaceutical inventions for the entire duration of the term of protection envisaged by Articles 27.1, 28 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement.

Le 24 août 1998, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Inde - Protection conférée par un brevet pour les produits pharmaceutiques et les produits chimiques pour l’agriculture”.

On 6 May 1999, the US requested consultations with Canada in respect of the term of protection granted to patents that were filed in Canada before 1 October 1989. The US contended that the TRIPS Agreement obligates Members to grant a term of protection for patents that runs at least until twenty years after the filing date of the underlying protection, and requires each Member to grant this minimum term to all patents existing as of the date of the application of the Agreement to that Member. The US alleged that under the Canadian Patent Act, the term granted to patents issued on the basis of applications filed before 1 October 1989 is 17 years from the date on which the patent is issued. The US contended that this situation is inconsistent with Articles 33, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.

On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning certain measures pertaining to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China.

On 8 July 1999, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Section 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriations Act. The EC and its member States alleged as follows: - Section 211, which was signed into law on 21 October 1998, did not allow the registration or renewal in the United States of a trademark, if it was previously abandoned by a trademark owner whose business and assets have been confiscated under Cuban law. - This law provided that no US court shall recognize or enforce any assertion of such rights. - Section 211 US Omnibus Appropriations Act was not in conformity with the US’ obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, notably its Article 2 in conjunction with the Paris Convention, Article 3, Article 4, Articles 15 to 21, Article 41, Article 42 and Article 62

Le 28 juin 2014, l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial dans les affaires introduites par le Honduras, la République dominicaine, Cuba et l’Indonésie “Australie — Certaines mesures concernant les marques de fabrique ou de commerce, les indications géographiques et autres prescriptions en matière d’emballage neutre applicables aux produits du tabac et à leur emballage” (DS435, DS441, DS458 et DS467)

On 8 July 1999, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Section 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriations Act. The EC and its member States alleged as follows: - Section 211, which was signed into law on 21 October 1998, did not allow the registration or renewal in the United States of a trademark, if it was previously abandoned by a trademark owner whose business and assets have been confiscated under Cuban law. - This law provided that no US court shall recognize or enforce any assertion of such rights. - Section 211 US Omnibus Appropriations Act was not in conformity with the US’ obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, notably its Article 2 in conjunction with the Paris Convention, Article 3, Article 4, Articles 15 to 21, Article 41, Article 42 and Article 62

On 1 June 1999, the US requested consultations with the EC in respect of the alleged lack of protection of trademarks and geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the EC. The US contended that EC Regulation 2081/92, as amended, does not provide national treatment with respect to geographical indications and does not provide sufficient protection to pre-existing trademarks that are similar or identical to a geographical indication. The US considered this situation to be inconsistent with the EC’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, including but not necessarily limited to Articles 3, 16, 24, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement...