Several countries reiterated in the WTO their criticism to the U.S. for Section 211
GENEVA, March 14th, 2008.- The monthly regular meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) took place in Geneva, in whose first item of the agenda, referred to the monitoring of the application of the recommendations adopted by the DSB, appear for years, the case of Section 211 of the U.S Appropriations Bill of 1998, linked to the usurpation by the Bacardí company of the world-wide well-known Cuban rum trade mark Havana Club.
The United States, as they have been doing for years, presented, in writing and orally, a brief and repetitive situation report in which they reiterated that several draft bills on Section 211 have been presented to the current legislature of the Congress and that the Government of that country was working with the legislative power to fulfil the recommendations of the DSB on Section 211.
The Minister Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Cuba to the international organizations in Geneva, Jorge Ferrer, took the floor emphasizing that "In February last, six years had passed since this Body adopted the recommendations and rulings in this dispute. The DSB then declared that Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 violated the national treatment and most-favoured nation obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and requested the U.S. to bring the measure, whose inconsistency had been proven, into conformity with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement”
The Cuban representative said that "hearing month after month that the U.S. Administration is working with the current Congress to resolve this dispute is even more outrageous" and denied the allegations of the representative of the U.S. government arguing that "in 2007 , five bipartisan legislative proposals relating to Section 211 that were based in old bills were introduced. Two of these proposals aimed at maintaining Section 211 and at making deceitful cosmetic adjustments to it. The other three proposals, which were not promoted by the U.S. Administration -that is responsible for complying with the DSB’s decision- did propose the repeal of this Section. None of these proposals prospered and some were not even debated”
He also emphasized that “We know that this Section has a strategic objective. This bill was introduced in 1998 by one of the lawyers and advisers of the Bacardi company. It was always aimed at usurping Cuban trademarks of recognized international prestige that were duly registered in the U.S. territory and protected by virtue of international treaties and conventions to which the U.S. is also a contracting party. Such is the case of the Havana Club trademark, owned by the Cuban-French joint venture Havana Club Holding. Even in 1995, Bacardi-Martini had already launched a lousy quality rum that usurped the Havana Club trademark”
The Cuban representative added that "In conclusion, the indefinite delay in the settlement of this dispute is a mockery of the principle of prompt compliance of the Dispute Settlement Understanding. Likewise, it casts doubt on the efficacy and credibility of the DSB and the Multilateral Trading System, in particular the national treatment and most-favoured nation principles, which are the cornerstones of this Organization. It also affects the balance between rights and obligations and equality among Members and sets a dangerous systemic precedent that may affect other Members in the future, particularly the developing countries.
The Cuban statement finalized demanding, once again, the immediate repeal of Section 211 and wondering how long the U.S. economic power will allow it to maintain its irrational force on the international structures, mocking the agreed legal order.
As it is increasingly happening, month after month, for more than two years, eight delegations, in addition to Cuba, most of them developing countries, took the floor: European Community, Venezuela, India, Brazil, China, Thailand, Nicaragua and Vietnam.
In general, these delegations reiterated, once again, their systemic concerns by the long long-standing non compliance by the Government of the United States, during 6 years, of the recommendations of the DSB of the WTO on this case.
Most of these delegations also expressed concern on the negative impact of the non observance of the principle of prompt compliance of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, in the balance of rights and obligations of the Members by virtue of agreement TRIPS Agreement on intellectual property and in the credibility and effectiveness of this legal mechanism of dispute settlement of the multilateral trade system. Also, they requested to the U.S. to put its national legislation in accordance with the WTO rules, as soon as possible.
The United States, orphan of objective facts and arguments to deny that they have not fulfilled with their obligations with WTO Agreements and the decisions of this Body in this case, took the floor again briefly to say that they had complied with most of the cases rulings and that they were making efforts to fulfil the remaining ones.
This agenda item of the DSB has become the most emblematic of the several disputes on which the U.S.A. has not fulfilled the resolutions of this Body, being one of the cases which have been for many years under consideration and in that the greatest number of delegations takes part in the debate. (Cubaminrex- Cuban Mission in Geneva).