Page:Special 301 Report 2003.pdf/7

 the provisions of the Agreement. The Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health agreed upon at the WTO Doha Ministerial in November 2001 is a reflection of this commitment.

The U. S. Government also remains committed to a policy of promoting intellectual property protection, including for pharmaceutical patents, because of intellectual property rights' critical role in the rapid innovation, development, and commercialization of effective and safe drug therapies. Financial incentives are needed to develop new medications. No one benefits if research on such products is discouraged.

WTO Dispute Settlement

The focus this year is on resolving the WTO disputes that were announced through previous Special 301 determinations, either through informal consultations and settlement, which can be more efficient and are therefore the preferred manner of resolving disputes, or where those are unsuccessful, through full utilization of the dispute settlement process. The following section provides updates of previously announced WTO cases, highlighting the progress made in the past year.

ARGENTINA

On May 6, 1999, the United States filed a WTO dispute settlement case challenging aspects of Argentina's system of patent protection and protection for confidential test data. In late April 2002, the United States and Argentina agreed to harvest progress made during consultations and partially settle this dispute.

On the two outstanding issues that remain, that of data protection and the ability of patentees to amend pending applications to claim certain enhanced protection provided by the TRIPS Agreement, the United States retained its right to seek resolution under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and is currently working with Argentina to resolve these issues.

EUROPEAN UNION

At the conclusion of the 1999 Special 301 review, the United States initiated a WTO dispute settlement case against the EU, based on the apparent TRIPS deficiencies in EU Regulation 2081/92, which governs the protection of geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the EU. The regulation appears to deny national treatment to foreign GIs. According to the plain language of the regulation, only EU GIs may be registered. With respect to trademarks, the regulation permits dilution and even cancellation of trademarks when a GI is created later in time. Our initial WTO consultation request alleged that this regulation denies national treatment to foreign geographical indications, and does not provide sufficient protection to trademarks that are similar or identical to a GI and appears, therefore, in violation of the May 1, 2003