EU Commissioner Karel de Gucht says that there should be “no illusions” about the remaining difficult issues in the Canada – EU Trade Agreement, suggesting that completion by the end of the year remains uncertain. De Gucht indicated that CETA once included ACTA language, but says that has now been […]
Post Tagged with: "de gucht"
Battle Lines Drawn on ACTA: EU Commissioner Says Scope is “Red Line” for Treaty
There were two ACTA events yesterday that provided the U.S. and European perspectives on latest round and future developments. EC Commissioner Karel de Gucht appeared before a European Parliament committee and provided some details on the most recent round along some pointed criticism of the U.S. position on some key issues. Some of the key points raised during de Gucht's appearance:
- The EU language on Internet may serve as compromise on that chapter
- On border issues, consensus may only reachable on basis of the "lowest common denominator"
- The U.S. position on ACTA transparency is "counter-productive"
- de Gucht believes India and Brazil are using ACTA to score political points on the generic medicines issue
- Inclusion of designs and geographic indications in ACTA is a "red line" issue. If they are not included, the EU must question the benefit of the agreement. De Gucht argues the U.S. is using trademarks for same purpose as geographic indications and it is "hypocrisy" to exclude from the agreement. He emphasized the EU "cannot swallow this" and that this will be a major point of discussion at the next round of talks.
- Next round of talks will be held in July in Washington. At least two more rounds are required rest of the year. There is a fundamental split between negotiating parties on scope. He does not expect a breakthrough in the Washington round.
EU Expresses Anger Over U.S. “Hypocrisy” on ACTA
A hearing on ACTA at the European Parliament today laid open the growing divide between the EU and the U.S. over the agreement. EU Commissioner De Gucht stated that the talks have been disappointing and that there is "slight hypocrisy from the U.S. over the protection of geographical indications." Concludes […]