PokerPulse -- WTO December 2007

HO-HO-HO-hum:
Antigua gets $21 million ANNUALLY in IP concessions from the U.S.:

View the 97-page pdf, Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU, Decision by the Arbitrator, released Dec. 21/07.

VI. AWARD

6.1 For the reasons set out above, the Arbitrator determines that the annual level of nullification or impairment of benefits accuing to Antigua in this case is US$21 million and that Antigua has followed the principles and procedures of Article 22.3 of the DSU in determining that it is not practicable or effective to suspend concessions or other obligations under the GATS and that the circumstances were serious enough. Accordingly, the Arbitrator determines that Antigua may request authorization from the DSB, to suspend the obligations under the TRIPS Agreement mentioned in paragraph 5.6 above, at a level not exceeding US$21 million annually. (emphasis added) (pg. 78)

 

5.6 In its request for authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations, Antigua identified certain obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, that it proposed to suspend. Specifically, Antigua indicated that it intends to take countermeasures in the form of suspension of concessions and obligations under the following sections of Part II of the TRIPS:

Section 1: Copyright and related rights
Section 2: Trademarks
Section 4: Industrial designs
Section 5: Patents
Section 7: Protection of undisclosed information.


5.7 As we have determined above, Antigua may seek to suspend obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. In order for such suspension to be equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to Antigua, it must not exceed US$21 million. (pg. 77)

5.9 We note that our mandate does not allow us, in reviewing the equivalence of the proposed suspension with the level of nullification or impairment, to consider the "nature" of the obligations to be suspended.341 We understand this to mean that we may not question the complaining party's choice of specific obligations to be suspended (other than in the context of considering a claim that the principles and procedures of Article 22.3 have not been followed) and that we must assess the level ofthe proposed suspension, rather than its form, against the level of nullification or impairment. (pg. 77)

 

 

NOTE: Please visit our Caribbean forum for more background on the Antigua/U.S. WTO remote gambling dispute.

Back to PokerPulse Letters Summaries

Bookmark this page

 

How to help to select an online: poker room or casino.