Coalition Continues to Press for Demands on Biodiversity and Geographical Indications
Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 6 November 2008
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND: The EU and many developing countries reaffirmed their support for a requirement to disclose the source of genetic resources in patent applications and for wider protection for geographical indications in WTO meetings on intellectual property held in Geneva last week. But opponents continued to resist such proposals. One of the primary sources of disagreement is whether some TRIPS issues should be part of the single undertaking in the WTO’s Doha Round negotiations on tariff-cutting deals on agricultural and industrial goods. At issue are three topics on which talks have largely stalled in the TRIPS Council: extending to all products the strong protection currently accorded to geographical indications of wines and spirits (GI extension); making it mandatory for patent applicants to disclose the origin of any genetic resources and/or associated traditional knowledge involved in their inventions; and the establishment of a register for geographical indications (GIs) of wines and spirits. Those who support the parallel consideration of the three TRIPS issues under the Doha negotiations continued to advance their case, making reference to the draft modalities that a coalition of more than one hundred countries put forward in July (TN/C/W/52).
The EU indicated that it supported a legally binding disclosure requirement regarding the country of origin or sources of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge to all international, regional and national patent applications, at the earliest possible time, and demanded further discussion towards establishing a definition of “traditional knowledge.” According to the EU, the disclosure requirement might include a remedy that suspends the consideration of patent applications if the applying party either fails or refuses to disclose. The countries that oppose this proposal – which include Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan and the US – have not taken a common position. Some have argued only against the parallel treatment of the three issues, while others have rejected outright the mere consideration of issues related to the Convention on Biological Diversity in the TRIPS forum. The US and Japan restated their position that there is no need to amend the TRIPS Agreement in order to introduce a disclosure requirement. Nevertheless, a proposal to do just that garnered the support of two-thirds of those present, including the addition of a new country, Sri Lanka which expressed its support for the TRIPS-CBD amendment. Read the article …
