TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Dec13/03)
16 December 2013
Third World Network

WIPO Assemblies conclude with another Extraordinary Session foreseen in May 2014

Geneva, 31 Dec (Alexandra Bhattacharya) – The Extraordinary Session of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO concluded well after midnight on the last day after consensus was finally achieved on the two pending issues: the establishment of WIPO External Offices and the proposed Design Law Treaty.

The Assemblies met in an Extraordinary Session on 10-12 December 2013 in Geneva in order to complete the unfinished work of the regular annual session of the Assemblies which was held in September 2013.

The final two decisions of the Extraordinary Session included the continuation of open ended consultations with regard to the establishment of External Offices and the convening of another Extraordinary Session in May 2014 to decide on whether to convene a Diplomatic Conference the proposed Industrial Designs Treaty.

In effect, these two decisions were evidence of how the entire session was marked with divergent views which remained irreconcilable till the end.

External Offices

The Assemblies convened at 6.30 pm on 12 December to discuss the decision paragraph for Item 6: General Policies of WIPO concerning Governance of External Offices.

Ambassador Fitschen ofGermany who was leading the informal consultations during the session stated that although there was an outcome, the difference in opinion on the Guiding Principles regarding WIPO External Offices document (A/52/5) was quite wide.

The document “Guiding Principles regarding WIPO External Offices document” (A/52/5) was a joint proposal by GRULAC, Group B (comprising developed countries), CEBS Group and India which officially tabled thetext of the facilitator (Ambassador Kwok Fook Seng of Singapore) on guidelines for the establishment of new WIPO External Offices.

The proposal is available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/govbody/en/a_52/a_52_5.pdf

Amb. Fitschen said that on this issue WIPO Member States were divided into the following groups:

1.Member States ready to adopt the document on the Guiding Principles  (A/52/5) as it had emerged;

2.Member Stateswho support the adoption of the Guiding Principles (A/52/5) but only in conjunction with a decision on the number and geographical scope of the External Offices;

3.Member States who want to preserve the Guiding Principles but also to add an additional framework;

4.Member States who cannot agree on the Guiding Principles and would like to see textual changes.

He further said that it was clear that all  Member States  wanted to have Guiding Principles for the establishment of WIPO External Offices but in the limited time available the consultations had only focused on the “road map” for the continuation of the discussion and not on the “substance” of the Guidelines.

In this context, a “finely crafted” decision was reached whereby open-ended consultations would continue on the proposed Guiding Principles (A/52/5) and also on the actual establishment of WIPO External Offices.

The full text of the decision states the following:

The Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO and the Unions administered by it, each as far as it is concerned,

decide to continue open-ended consultations, under the guidance of the President of the General Assembly,

on the proposed Guiding Principles regarding WIPO External Offices, as contained in the Annex of document A/52/5,

and on the establishment of WIPO External Offices,

taking into account all proposals, related documents including, but not limited to, the

documents submitted to the 51st Series of Meetings of the Assemblies under agenda item 14 and to the 52nd Series of Meetings of the Assemblies under agenda item 5,

and the positions and concerns, including on the process, expressed by Member States during the PBC and Assemblies meetings,

for consideration and recommendation by the PBC and decision by the General Assembly foreseen in September 2014.

Algeria on behalf of the African Group said that the Group had accepted the decision unwillingly and had tried to show “flexibility and spirit of compromise”.

It said that the Group was working on the basis that no objection had been leveled against the opening of two EO offices in Africa during the 2014/2015 biennium. They reiterated that they were only moving ahead due to this understanding.

Japan on behalf of Group B stressed that it attached great importance to the Guiding Principles which would develop a “disciplinary framework” for the establishment of WIPO EOs

CEBs (Central Europe and Baltic States Group) said it was disappointed that consensus had not been reached on the Guiding Principles and urged Members to continue their consultations on the establishment of External Offices (EOS).

South Africa also echoed that the basis for its participation here forth was the understanding that two EOS would be established in Africa. It added that there was a need to keep previous consultations alive to “avoid having to start from scratch”.

Kenya also said that it expected that the two offices for Africa would go ahead and the fact that the issue of EOs was de linked from the Program and Budget did not mean that the two African EOs were off the table.

China said that the discussion should be two fold: the proposal on the Guiding Principles and also the political decision regarding the number and location of the EOs. It added that any political decision should start with the two offices in Africa.

This sentiment was also shared by Russia who said that it would give all its attention for the consideration of two EOs for Africa.

Egypt said it was not fully satisfied with the decision and that the Guiding Principles were not an objective or an end in itself but only means for establishing the EOs in question.

Chile said that there was need to consider all proposals including the one submitted by GRULAC and welcomed the fact that this would now a member driven initiative.

Venezuela said it did not understand why there was so much “intransigence for such small things”.

Peru said that all opinions and all proposals should be taken into account and no proposal was more important than the other.

Industrial Design Law Treaty

At around 10.30 pm, Mr. Della Nina of Brazil (who had been leading the informal consultations on the issue during the last few months) reported that the informal consultations had been unable to yield a positive decision on the convening of  a Diplomatic Conference on the proposed Design Law Treaty (DLT) in June,2014 to be held in Moscow.

Mr. Della Nina added that the last version of the draft decision had only one pending issue to be resolved which was the use of the word “legally binding” in reference to the Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Provision in the Treaty.

(Developing countries including the African Group have been calling for the inclusion of a legally binding provision on Technical Assistance and Capacity building in the Design Law Treaty.)

He said that despite attempting new ideas and new approaches, no consensus had been found and member states had indicated that there was no point in continuing consultations.

Mr. Della Nina said that the current decision was to request the SCT to continue working the text of the proposed treaty and for the WIPO General Assembly in 2014 to take stock of and consider progress made and decide on whether to convene a Diplomatic Conference.

Belarus expressed disappointment that no agreement was reached stated that this was a “bad precedent for the organization”.

The United States stated that it full supported the convening of a Diplomatic Conference for the DLT and that it had exercised “maximum flexibility” on whether an Article on Technical Assistance and Capacity would be possible, but had not received reciprocity that a Resolution may be possible as well.

It was willing to accept the usage of the words “legal” and “normative” in the draft decision but not the word “legally binding” with reference to the inclusion of a technical assistance provision.

It added that the inclusion of “legally binding” prejudged the outcome of the Conference and it was also not possible to bind an Organization as it was not a Contracting Party.

It said that the WIPO General Assembly could not dictate to Contracting Parties what to include in the treaty. It said that the current dispute was only about “form”. It strongly rejected any suggestion that the US was blocking the outcome.

Venezuela said that “we have been held hostage by a number of groups” and that it was a terrible signal.

Bangladesh on behalf of the Asia Pacific Groupsaid that the Group’s preference was for a legally binding provision on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building in the text.

Iran said that the inclusion of legally binding provisions would create predictability and balance.

Algeria on behalf of the African Group said it was disappointed with the outcome especially since the questions were so simple. It reiterated that it was in favor of the adoption of the Treaty and had only requested that some guarantees on technical assistance would be part of the treaty.

It added that the Group had shown flexibility which was “on the borders of sacrifice” but it still had not been enough. Algeria ended with the quote “stay strong in what you believe in”.

Statements of disappointment on the outcome were also made by CEBS and the European Union.

China said that this experience showed that not every party had the same kind of flexibility and there was a need to enforce understanding between member states.

South Africa also referred to the need to “build bridges between Member States”.

Russia said that there was need to prove dedication in convening a diplomatic conference in 2014 and to “try to get a conference for next year”. It could not guarantee that it would offer to host the Conference in 2015 due to budget considerations.

In this context, it proposed the convening of an Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly in May, 2014 in order to take stock of the text and decide on whether to convene the Conference instead of waiting for the regular session in September, 2014.

Consensus was achieved on the following decision paragraph:

The WIPO General Assembly:

(1)    Requests the SCT to finalize its work on the text of the basic proposal for a Design Law Treaty building upon the outcome of the thirtieth session of the SCT.

(2)      Will at the extraordinary session of the General Assembly in May 2014 take stock of and consider the text, progress made, and decide on whether to convene a diplomatic conference in 2014 in Moscow. If the extraordinary session of the General Assembly in May so decides, a preparatory committee will be held immediately after that session of the General Assembly.