Mrs. Chairwoman, The WTO on its website has said the “Dispute settlement is the central pillar of the multilateral trading system, and the WTO’s unique contribution to the stability of the global economy”. It continues to express that “without a means of settling disputes, the rules-based system would be less effective because the rules could not be enforced”. However, the unscrupulous failure of the United States during 9 years and a half in the case of Section 211 completely discredits these quotations. Month after month, the negligent behaviour of that Government and its disregard for the WTO rules are denounced in this room without the occurrence of any change. The Dispute Settlement Body adopted the recommendations and rulings of the Appellate Body, which clearly sentence the violation of two basic principles of the Organization: National Treatment and Most Favoured Nation. Despite this, the current dispute settlement mechanism has failed to comply with the regulations. Therefore, we ask whether the international community, the countries we represent in this Organization and the Governments can believe in such “magnified” Dispute Settlement Understanding. Of course NOT! Mrs. Chairwoman, It is worth to remember that the Panel Report on this type of dispute clearly defined in paragraph 69 that, by virtue of an answer given by the United States, section 211 A(1) would not apply to abandoned trademarks as there is no original owner whose consent is required under the aforementioned article. However, ten years later, the facts demonstrate the falseness of the answer given by that Government. Section 211 still in force not only violates two fundamental principles of the multilateral trading system, but also prevents the renewal of a trademark abandoned by its first owner, also in contradiction with the trademark law itself of the United States (Lanham Act), which fully recognizes the abandonment of trademarks exonerating third parties from all liability for their use. On 28 July 2006, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasure denied Cubaexport, owner since 1976, the permission for the renewal of the specific license registration of Havana Club trademark. The refusal was based on provisions of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 515 consistent with Section 211 A(1). Nor the U.S. courts processing the claim subsequently presented by Cubaexport to the OFAC have amended the wrong decision of the Department of the Treasure. The last failure of March 29 issued by the judges of the Appellate Body of the Columbia district, divided into two votes against one, deprives Cubaexport from its rights over a registration of 35 years of Havana Club antiquity. It is clear that while there are judicial resources to appeal to such decision, Cubaexport will continue making use of them and the Government of Cuba will continue demanding the United States to rectify its decision, to grant the license for the renovation of the trademark and to act in accordance with its own approaches during the process of dispute settlement on the non-applicability of Section 211 to abandoned trademarks. We recall once again that, despite the implementation and permanence of a measure that undermines the intellectual property rights of a Cuban owner, our Government has given and continues to give a broad protection to the around 5 000 U.S. trademarks registered in Cuba. In respect and reciprocity towards such attitude, we request the United States to just repeal Section 211 without further delay. Thank you
|