Statement by Jorge Ferrer Rodríguez, Minister Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Cuba in Geneva
Dispute: United States- Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
Geneva, 20 January 2009
Mr. Chairman,
The efficient settlement of disputes benefits not only the parties to a dispute, but all the Members of this Organization. This is the reason why there is an increasing number of Members that, deeply concerned by the absence of compliance in this dispute, join their voices to demand the implementation by the defendant of the rulings made by the Appellate Body in 2002.
Prompt implementation of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings is essential for this mechanism to function and be credible. As we have previously noted, it is no longer possible to speak about prompt implementation in this case.
Section 211, which is contrary to the rules of international law, has been in force for more than ten years. The Appellate Body report was adopted more than six years ago. However, the United States does not even modify the status report it provides every month.
Meanwhile, it unilaterally judges other Members’ policies in the area of intellectual property, and even more surprisingly, submits new claims alleging violations of these rights.
Mr. Chairman,
There is no doubt that this system is inefficient and that it is increasingly weakening. The United States disregards fundamental principles of the TRIPS Agreement and, therefore, should not be entitled to submit new claims, based on intellectual property agreements. With what moral authority or by virtue of which agreements can a Member demand that another Member comply with its obligations when it itself fails to comply with the same obligations?
If adopting bills that affect the registration of Cuban trademarks and favoring the registration and marketing of those trademarks by anti-Cuban companies such as Bacardi were not enough, there is an increasing trend to register trademarks containing words such as ‘Cuba’, to cite just one example.
In 2006, for instance, the ‘PRIMO DE CUBA’ and the ‘SPIRIT OF CUBA’ cigar brands were registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office by two owners from Pennsylvania and Florida.
There is no need to remind that the word ‘Cuba’ identifies the official name of our country. The intention is deceitful and the rights of consumers are disregarded. It is necessary to point out that one of the functions of trademarks is precisely to indicate the origin of goods.
In accordance with our Decree-Law 203 of Trademarks and other Distinctive Signs, if a Cuban legal person tried to register a trademark containing the name of US locations or the name of that country, it would be refused. Cuba respects the international agreements that clearly ban this kind of fraudulent and deceitful registration.
Mr. Chairman,
We demand, once again, the United States implementation of the DSB’s rulings by repealing Section 211, which affects other interests besides Cuba’s interests. When cases like this remain indefinitely on the Agenda of the DSB, it has serious systemic implications which should be of concern to the parties in this dispute, but also to all WTO Members.
Today, a new Presidency is inaugurated in the United States. Many people, including people from this Organization, have a lot of expectations because of the importance this Member has in the international trading system and in the implementation of multilateral rules. I wish their dreams could come true. I hope that the representatives of the new Government will have something new to say to us and that they assume a different attitude toward their obligations under the WTO and toward the rulings of the DSB. (Cubaminrex- Embacuba Ginebra)