CubaMinrex. Sitio del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Cuba

Statement by Mrs. Nancy Madrigal Muñoz, Counselor of the permanent mission of Cuba, on section 211 of the WTO’S dispute settlement body (DSB). Geneva, 25 October 2011

Mrs. Chairwoman,

The status report number 107 on the implementation of the DSB’S recommendations and rulings with regard to “Article 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998”, which the United States just presented, has kept invariable since 2002. The only noticeable change –this year from February on– limits even more the exercise of openness and accountability that should characterize the regular sessions of this Body. It has been removed the single paragraph that, although brief and repetitive, marked the sessions of the U.S. Legislatures of the Congress in which the alleged legislative proposals were supposed to be tackled to comply with the DSB ruling on this dispute.

Therefore, for more than ten years, we have been witnessing the reluctance of that Member to act in accordance with the rulings of this Body, which established the inconsistency of Section 211 with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, since it is a violation of the obligations on national treatment and most favoured nation. Likewise, Section 211 violates the regulations of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

As we have also denounced in the United Nations, it is clear that the United States does not show the slightest intention of changing its hostile policy of the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba. In this respect, it keeps intact the structure of laws and provisions supporting that policy, and Section 211 is among the legal basis and regulations that make up the blockade.

         The enforcement of Section 211 continues to prevent Cuban holders from having the recognition and enjoyment in that territory of their rights over trademarks or commercial names. This legislation was the pretext for the Bacardi Company to make illegitimate use of the Havana Club rum brand, in a blatant act of piracy. Moreover, it has given way to new misappropriations of Cuban trademark rights. As previously reported, only in the course of 2011 U.S. courts had rendered two judgments denying the renewal of the Havana Club trademark registration by the CUBAEXPORT Company, its legitimate owner since 1976. Besides, a third judgment rejected the appeal of the French Company Pernod Ricard that has likewise sued Bacardi for the illegal use of that trademark to market a rum that is not of Cuban origin.

Mrs. Chairwoman,

Only a few hours before the international community overwhelmingly rejects once more the implementation of the unfair blockade against Cuba, in the framework of the 66th General Assembly of the United Nations, through the adoption of Resolution 65/6 entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”, it is contrasting that within the WTO, “the International Organization whose primary purpose is to open trade for the benefit of all”, these type of violations remain unpunished.

The perpetuity in the case of Section 211, contravening legally binding agreements for all Members, encourages the disobedience and shows the inability of this Body to enforce its decisions, particularly when the Member concerned is a developed country.

Cuba demands once more the total repeal of Section 211 by the United States and claims that its enforcement intends to exacerbate the damage already caused to the Cuban people and perpetuate the dispossession of one of its most internationally recognized trademarks.

Thank you very much.

(Cubaminrex- Embacuba Geneva)

 

<< Back