WRITTEN QUESTION E-1225/00 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Trademark ownership.
20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/107 (2001/C 53 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1225/00 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 April 2000) Subject: Trademark ownership Is the Commission aware of the WTO panel versus USA on Section 211 of the US Omnibus Appropria- tion Act 1998 on a possible conflict with the TRIPs Agreement concerning the issue of claims filed by the joint venture between Pernod Ricard and the Cuban government with regard to the ownership in the United States of America of a trademark confiscated in Cuba without compensation? Will the Commission explain the benefits to the European Union of a referral of the matter to the WTO panel and the negative consequences that might accrue? What will be the costs for the European Unionís taxpayers of a referral of the matter to the WTO panel and does the Commission confirm its previously stated principle that a confiscation without payment of compensation is not deemed legitimate? Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (12 May 2000) The Honourable Member refers to the dispute with the United States concerning the compatibility of Section 211 of the United States Omnibus Appropriations Act 1998 with the provisions of the trade- related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) Agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). So far, WTO consultations took place with the United States, but no panel was established on this matter. The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Memberís attention to the replies given in this matter to Written Questions P-0740/00 by Mrs Peijs (1), E-0820/00 by Mrs Angelilli (2), and E-0858/00 by Mr Gasòliba i Böhm (3). The WTO dispute relates to the treatment of trademarks in the United States which are identical or similar to trademarks which previously belonged to Cuban owners who failed to renew their trademarks before United States authorities. As a consequence of this failure by the previous Cuban owners, which is independent from the expropriation of their assets in Cuba by the Cuban Government, the respective trademarks fell into the public domain and no longer belonged to their Cuban owners. Such trademarks can be registered, renewed and enforced in the United States by new owners, however, only under certain conditions. These conditions are contained in Section 211 which was adopted by the United States almost 40 years after the Cuban revolution. The dispute, therefore, does not concern the question whether or not foreign uncompensated expropria- tions have to be recognised. In fact, United States trademarks were not and could not be expropriated by the Cuban Government. Individuals and companies expropriated by the Cuban Government remained the owners of property outside Cuba. In particular, their rights in trademarks registered in the United States were unaffected by the Cuban revolution. After a detailed analysis of Section 211, the Commission came to the conclusion that Section 211 violates certain provisions of the TRIPs Agreement. The Community and its Member States raised the incompat- ibility of Section 211 with the TRIPs Agreement with the United States on various occasions in order to find an amicable solution to the matter. Given the constant refusal by the United States to engage into any substantive discussion, the Community and its Member States requested consultations under the WTO dispute settlement understanding in July 1999. Two rounds of consultations were held in September 1999 and December 1999, but the United States maintain the view that Section 211 is compatible with the United States international obligations. The Commission and the Member States are currently examining the next steps to be taken in this matter. C 53 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 The main aim of the Commission remains the proper implementation and application by the United States of the TRIPs Agreement bearing in mind that Section 211 can potentially affect all European companies dealing with Cuba. It should be in the interest of the Community and its Member States to ensure that the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement are respected by all WTO members. (1) OJ C 374 E, 28. 12. 2000, p. 145. (2) OJ C 46 E, 13. 2. 2001, p. 50. (3) See page 32. (2001/C 53 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1229/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission (14 April 2000) Subject: Imports of orange juice from Mexico The Commission recently agreed a large quota of imports on preferential terms, including 31 000 tonnes of Mexican orange juice, 750 tonnes of cut flowers, 400 tonnes of exotic flowers, 30 000 tonnes of honey and 1 000 tonnes of melons. This absurd arrangement, coming after the Euro-Mediterranean agreement, is yet another hard blow for the agricultural industry in southern Italy, and more especially Sicily, where the crisis in the citrus sector has dismayed tens of thousands of people working in that sector. In view of the foregoing: 1. On what basis can unfair competition be regarded as compatible with cooperation with less developed countries? 2. Does the Commission consider that it should suspend, in the light of the changed market conditions, the devastating effects of the bilateral agricultural agreements and adopt corresponding compensatory measures, as laid down in those very agreements with third countries? Answer given by My Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 May 2000) The Commission believes that the recently concluded trade agreement with Mexico is one in which the overall outcome for agriculture is well balanced. Indeed, it could be said that in the fruit and vegetables and cut flowers sectors the outcome is in favour of the Community. For many products in these sectors, Mexico will grant immediate liberalisation on imports from the Community. A part from a limited number of quotas which it will grant to Mexico, the Community will keep most of these products on a list of products that are not to be liberalised at this stage. The Commission also believes that the quotas granted will not have an adverse impact on either the less developed countries or European producers. The question of compensation to European producers therefore does not arise. It is also worth noting that in a declaration made in the context of the agreement, the Commission agreed to monitor imports on the Community market under the orange juice quota referred to by the Honourable Member. Furthermore, provision is made under Article 15 of the agreement for certain safeguard procedures in the event of particular difficulties as a result of imports to either the Community or Mexican markets. The Commission negotiators also ensured that, under the agreement, the Community entry price system will continue to operate. As the Honourable Member will appreciate, this is particularly important in the fruit and vegetables sector. Finally, the excellent outcome on rules of origin for agriculture products under the agreement, where Mexico accepted the Community rules of origin for many products, should be noted. This, for example, means that in the case of the orange juice quota referred to, such juice must come from oranges grown in Mexico