STATEMENT BY H.E. Mr. JUAN ANTONIO FERNÁNDEZ PALACIOS, AMBASSADOR OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, TO THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY ON SECTION 211
GENEVA, 20 FEBRUARY 2007
The Dispute Settlement Understanding, cornerstone of the multilateral trading system, stipulates in its Article 21.1 that prompt compliance is essential to ensure the effective resolution of disputes to the benefit all Members.
However, the United States of America (U.S.) seems to be, in this and other disputes, oblivious to this provision. It has failed to implement the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body with regard to Section 211 for five years and 18 days now, while it continues to present repetitive status reports that lack information about the possibility of resolving this matter in a short or mid term range.
On the basis of the principle of prompt compliance, Members are expected to comply immediately or, if impracticable, they shall do so within a reasonable period of time which, in the dispute we are now analyzing, was mutually agreed by the parties and extended on five occasions.
The last deadline expired on 30 June 2005, which demonstrates that the status of this dispute is absolutely irregular and does not adhere to the letter of the Dispute Settlement Understanding.
Section 211, declared to be inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement and principles of National Treatment and Most-Favoured Nation Treatment, continues to affect not only the interests of the European Communities but also Cuba’s interests. It should be recalled that last summer the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied an application to renew the registration of the Havana Club trademark submitted by the Cuban company which holds it, precisely on the basis of this absurd provision.
Mr. Chairman,
The attitude of the United States sends very negative signals to the rest of WTO Members and calls into question the efficacy of the dispute settlement mechanism and the credibility and confidence in the Multilateral Trading System at a crucial moment for this Organization: the Doha Round negotiations.
It is widely known that Section 211 was orchestrated by the lawyers of the Bacardi rum company and that it is aimed at usurping the ownership rights to the prestigious Havana Club brand in the U.S. of its legitimate owner, the Cuban-French joint venture Havana Club International. It is no coincidence that Section 211 is commonly known in the U.S. Congress and media as “the Bacardi Law”.
There is no use repeating that none of the rulings and recommendations in this dispute relate to specific trademarks.
Once again, Cuba calls upon the U.S. to take prompt and effective action in order to implement the rulings and recommendations of this Body.
In that regard, what the U.S. Government should do is introduce a bill in Congress to repeal Section 211 -the only possible solution to this dispute- instead of repeating the false assertion that it will work with Congress to resolve this matter when everyone knows that, in more than 5 years, it has never made the slightest effort in that direction.
In light of the U.S. continued non-compliance with its obligations under the WTO Agreements and the decisions made by this Body, Cuba reserves its right to raise its legitimate concerns in this forum or by whatever means it deems appropriate.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.