Intellectual property

On 26 January 1999, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, as amended by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, which was enacted on 27 October 1998. The European Communities contended that Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act permits, under certain conditions, the playing of radio and television music in public places (bars, shops, restaurants, etc.) without the payment of a royalty fee. The European Communities considered that this statute is inconsistent with US obligations under Article 9(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires Members to comply with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Convention. The dispute centred on the compatibility of two exemptions provided for in Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement, which allows certain limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights of copyright holders, subject to the condition that such limitations are confined to certain special cases, do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work in question and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder: The so-called “business” exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5), essentially allows the amplification of music broadcasts, without an authorization and a payment of a fee, by food service and drinking establishments and by retail establishments, provided that their size does not exceed a certain square footage limit. It also allows such amplification of music broadcasts by establishments above this square footage limit, provided that certain equipment limitations are met. The so-called “homestyle” exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5), allows small restaurants and retail outlets to amplify music broadcasts without an authorization of the right holders and without the payment of a fee, provided that they use only homestyle equipment (i.e. equipment of a kind commonly used in private homes).

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...

On 7 April 1997, the US requested consultations with Japan in respect of the latter’s prohibition, under quarantine measures, of imports of certain agricultural products. The US alleged that Japan prohibits the importation of each variety of a product requiring quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment has been tested for that variety, even if the treatment has proved to be effective for other varieties of the same product. The US alleged violations of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the US made a claim for nullification and impairment of benefits.

El 18 de septiembre de 2000, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Canadá - Período de protección mediante patente”.

El 15 de junio de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Artículo 110(5) de la Ley derecho de Autor de los Estados Unidos”.

El 9 de junio de 2020, el Órgano de Apelación emitió sus informes en los asuntos planteados por Honduras y la República Dominicana en “Australia — Determinadas medidas relativas a las marcas de fábrica o de comercio, indicaciones geográficas y otras prescripciones de empaquetado genérico aplicables a los productos de tabaco y al empaquetado de esos productos” (DS435 y DS441).

El 02 de enero de 2002, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Artículo 211 de la Ley Omnibus de Asignaciones de 1998”.

On 7 April 1997, the US requested consultations with Japan in respect of the latter’s prohibition, under quarantine measures, of imports of certain agricultural products. The US alleged that Japan prohibits the importation of each variety of a product requiring quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment has been tested for that variety, even if the treatment has proved to be effective for other varieties of the same product. The US alleged violations of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the US made a claim for nullification and impairment of benefits.

El 05 de septiembre de 1997, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “India - Protección mediante patente de los productos farmacéuticos y los productos químicos para la agricultura”.

Le 17 mars 2000, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Canada - Protection conférée par un brevet pour les produits pharmaceutiques”.