The Uruguay Round Agreement

The revised agreement strengthens disciplines for users of import licensing systems, which are already much less widespread today than in the past, and increases transparency and predictability. Thus, the agreement obliges the parties to publish sufficient information so that distributors know on what basis the licences are granted. It provides for stricter rules for notifying the implementation of import authorisation procedures or their modifications. It also provides guidelines for assessing applications. Business models are also protected by the agreement for a period of 10 years. Owners of protected designs could prevent the manufacture, sale or importation of objects bearing or bearing a design that is a copy of the protected design. Many Uruguay Round agreements have set timetables for future work. Part of this integrated agenda started almost immediately. New or subsequent negotiations have begun in some areas. In other areas, it included assessments or audits of the situation at specific times.

Some negotiations were concluded quickly, particularly in the area of basic telecommunications and financial services. (Member State governments also quickly agreed on an agreement for the free trade in computer products, a subject not on the integrated agenda.) Agreement on the interpretation of Article XXXV – non-application of the General Agreement. Agreement authorizing a contracting party or a newly-joined country to invoke the non-application provisions of the GATT vis-à-vis the other contracting party after initiating customs negotiations between them. The WTO agreement stipulates that any appeal to the non-application provisions of this agreement must be extended to all multilateral agreements. Part III of the agreement provides for the obligation for Member State governments to provide procedures and remedies in accordance with their domestic law to ensure that intellectual property rights can be effectively enforced by foreign rights holders and their own nationals. Procedures should allow effective measures to be taken to combat the violation of intellectual property rights, but be fair and equitable, not unnecessarily complicated or costly, and not lead to undue delays or unjustified delays. They should allow for judicial review of final administrative decisions. There is no obligation to create a legal system that is different from that which governs the application of legislation in general, nor to give priority to the application of intellectual property rights in the allocation of resources or personnel.