- 19 -
dispositions would at the very least be in direct cu
with
theobligations under these Conventions. The subject matter of protection
is therefore different and no obligations of the former Conventions will
be put aside by the new Treaty.
If that is so, the only possiblity for conflict would arise where a
national legislator chooses to adapt an existing law Implementing one of
the Conventions in order to fulfil their obligations under the new
Treaty. In other words, would a special rule on chips in a copyright law
have the nature of a neighbouring right, or would the use of copyright
imply necessarily the applicability of the Berne obligations to such a
provision? The same question could arise if patent law or provisions on
utility models were to be supplemented by special provisions on chips.
Would the choice of the law determine whether the obligations under the
Paris Convention have to be respected? There are arguments both in favour
and against this approach, but without serious consideration of the
effect in other fields, it can at least be questioned whether this
problem needs to be solved in the present Treaty.
Article 13 (Reservations)
Community Position
No reservations as to the substance of the Treaty should be permitted.
Article 13 Bis
(Consultations, Disputes, Enforcement)
Community Position/Common Position
With reference to the Community position on this subject in the GATT-
TRIPS negotiations the Community should support the WIPO proposal in principle but with a flexible position as regards the proposed paragraph 3(b) on enforcement. Nevertheless, provided that other, substantive
provisions of the Treaty were satisfactory, the insertion of a dispute
settlement mechanism should not be a condition sine qua non for the
acceptance of a Treaty if it is not acceptable to a sufficient majority.