  
  
WT/DS567/7  
 
30 July 2020  
(20-5297) Page: 1/3 
  Original: English  
 
SAUDI ARABIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL 
PROPERTY RIGHTS  
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA  
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES  
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),  
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW  
The following communication, dated 28 July 2020 , from the Delegation of the Kingdom of 
Saudi  Arabia , is being circulated to Memb ers. 
 
 
_______________  
 
 
1. Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17.1 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes ( "DSU"), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia hereby notifies to the 
Dispute Settlement Body regarding its decisi on to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in the dispute 
Saudi  Arabia – Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights  (DS567).  
 
2. Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia simultaneously files this Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.  
 
3. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia restricts its appeal to those errors that it beli eves constitute 
serious errors of law and legal interpretation that need to be corrected.  Non -appeal of an issue does 
not signify agreement therewith (including in relation to the Panel 's failure to make an objective 
assessment of the matter before it), d oes not signify agreement to any facts placed before the Panel, 
and is without prejudice to positions that may be taken or arguments that may be made by 
Saudi  Arabia in the context of other international disputes.  Saudi Arabia also believes that it may 
not be necessary for the Appellate Body to decide all of the issues raised in this notice of appeal 
because certain issues may become moot as a result of its decisions on other issues under appeal.  
 
4. Saudi Arabia would like to confirm that, as in the proce edings before the Panel in this dispute,1 
and consistent with Saudi Arabia 's severance of diplomatic and consular relations with the 
complaining Party before the Panel and with the essential security interests that motivated Saudi 
Arabia to take that acti on, Saudi Arabia will not interact or have any direct or indirect engagement 
with Qatar in any way in the context of this appeal.  
 
5. For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate Body, Saudi Arabia 
appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse, modify, or declare moot and of no legal effect 
certain findings and conclusions of the Panel with respect to the following errors of law and legal 
interpretations contained in the Panel Report:  
 
1 Panel Report, Saudi Arabia – Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights  
(DS567) (circulated 16 June 2020) (hereinafter Panel Report), paras. 1.10 -14. WT/DS567/7  
 
- 2 - 
 
  I. THE PANEL 'S FINDINGS REGARDING beIN 'S ACCESS TO CIVIL ENFORCEMENT 
PROCEDURES  
6. Saudi Arabia appeals the Panel 's overall conclusions2 that it acted in a manner inconsistent 
with Articles 42 and 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement by taking measures that, directly or indire ctly, 
have had the result of preventing beIN from obtaining Saudi legal counsel to enforce its IP rights 
through civil enforcement procedures before Saudi courts and tribunals.  The Panel failed to make 
an objective assessment of the matter before it, as r equired under Article 11 of the DSU.  
 
7. Saudi Arabia appeals the Panel 's conclusions3 that Saudi Arabia has taken anti -sympathy 
measures that, directly or indirectly, have had the result of preventing beIN from obtaining Saudi 
legal counsel to enforce its IP rights through civil enforcement procedures before Saudi courts and 
tribunals.  Th e Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, as required 
under Article 11 of the DSU.  
 
8. Saudi Arabia appeals the Panel 's intermediate conclusions4 that Saudi Arabia imposed anti -
sympathy measures banning expressions of support  toward Qatar and the Panel 's intermediate 
findings5 regarding the existence of anti -sympathy measures, including its failure to make an 
objective assessment of the matter before it, as required under Article 11 of the DSU.  Among other 
errors, the Panel failed to identify the relevant measures with the necessary specificity, failed to 
conduct the analysis to attribute any such measures to the government of Saudi Arabia, and 
accorded relevance to Saudi Arabia 's decision not to engage with the Complaining P arty in order to 
contest the evidence.6 
 
9. Saudi Arabia appeals the Panel 's intermediate conclusions7 that "it is difficult to conceive of 
any plausible explanation " of why beIN and certain foreign rights holders "would be unable to obtain 
any legal rep resentation in Saudi Arabia in relation to beoutQ… if not for some form of government 
instruction, direction or guidance " and the characterization of other evidence as "Saudi authorities 
actively seeking to influence right holders or a law firm in their ar rangements with beIN. "  The Panel 
failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, as required under Article 11 of 
the DSU. 
 
10. Saudi Arabia also appeals the Panel 's intermediate findings8 regarding the evidence of the 
"refusal of Saudi law firms to act in relation to the beoutQ matter " and "other actions by Saudi 
authorities to direct private entities in their arrangement with beIN ", including its failure to make an 
objective assessment of  the matter before it, as required under Article 11 of the DSU.  
 
11. Saudi Arabia appeals the Panel 's interpretation and application of the standard required for 
the complaining Member to demonstrate a prima facie  case, including, but not limited to, whet her 
mere "inferences and circumstantial evidence " or "implausibility " of alternative explanations are 
sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie  case in the context of this dispute.9  In its application of the 
standard, the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, as required 
under Article  11 of the DSU.  
 
II. THE PANEL 'S FINDINGS REGARDING NON -APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES  
12. Saudi Arabia appeals the Panel 's overall conclusions10 that Saudi Arabia acted inconsisten tly 
with Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement by not providing for criminal procedures and penalties to be 
applied to the operations of beoutQ.  The Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter 
before it, as required under Article 11 of the DSU.  
 
 
2 Panel Report, paras. 7.194, 7.197, 7.198, 7.199, and 8.1(b)(i).  
3 Panel Report, para. 7.73, 7.95, 7.164, and 7.194.  
4 Panel Report, para. 7.72.  
5 Panel Report, paras. 7.55 -7.59. 
6 Panel Report, paras. 6.4, 6.6, 6.7, 6.9, 7.6, 7.37, 7.40, 7.59, 7.64, 7.115, 7.142, 7.154, 7.159, 7.160, 
and 7.174.  
7 Panel Report, para. 7.72.  
8 Panel Report, paras. 7.60 -7.71. 
9 Panel Report, paras. 7.39, 7.40, 7.71, 7. 72, 7.73, and 7.155.  
10 Panel Report, paras. 7.221 and 8.1(b)(ii).  WT/DS567/7  
 
- 3 - 
 
  13. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia appeals the Panel 's interpretation11 and application of Article 61 
of the TRIPS Agreement and related intermediate conclusions12 that Saudi Arabia was required to 
apply criminal procedures or penalties against beoutQ under  the facts and circumstances of the 
dispute.  The Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, as required under 
Article  11 of the DSU.   
 
14. Saudi Arabia appeals the Panel 's intermediate findings and conclusions13 that Qatar 
established a prima facie  case that beoutQ was operated by individuals or entities subject to the 
criminal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia and that Saudi authorities had sufficient credible evidence at 
the time of the establishment of the Panel to  require the application of criminal procedures and 
penalties to beoutQ.  Among other errors, the Panel did not consider the fact that subject evidence 
had not been submitted to the relevant Saudi authorities,14 expressly relied on evidence that was 
not ma de available to Saudi authorities prior to the establishment of the Panel,15 relied on evidence 
dated after the establishment of the Panel and incorrectly applied such evidence to the facts and 
circumstances at the time of establishment,16 made conclusions  based on mere "possibility ",17 and 
accorded relevance to Saudi Arabia 's decision not to engage with the Complaining Party in order to 
dispute or contest the evidence.18  The Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter 
before it, as required  under Article 11 of the DSU.  
III. THE PANEL 'S FINDINGS REGARDING INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 73(b)(iii) OF THE 
TRIPS AGREEMENT  
15. Saudi Arabia also appeals the Panel 's decision to make a ruling19 on the requirements for 
invoking Article 73(b)(iii) of the TRIPS Agre ement in relation to the Panel 's finding in relation to the 
inconsistency with Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement arising from Saudi Arabia 's non -application of 
criminal procedures and penalties to beoutQ, because Saudi Arabia explicitly confirmed to the Pa nel 
that it was not invoking Article 73(b)(iii) in relation to any measures related to Article 61 of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  Such conclusion, and all associated findings, should be declared moot and of no 
legal effect based on the Kingdom 's above -referenced appeals and because the Panel erred in making 
a ruling under Article 73(b)(iii) where Saudi Arabia had explicitly confirmed it was not invoking the 
relevant Security Exception in relation to any measures related to Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
Saudi  Arabia 's appeal of this issue relating to the invocation of Security Exceptions  under the 
WTO Agreements is of particular systemic importance in the context of this and other pending 
disputes.  WTO panels have no basis to ignore Members ' definition of the  scope of invocation of 
WTO Security Exceptions . 
 
 
__________  
 
11 Panel Report, paras. 7.207 -7.213.  
12 Panel Report, paras. 7.164, 7.214 – 7.220.  
13 Panel Report, paras. 7.155, 7.213, and 7.219.  
14 Panel Report, paras. 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.15, 7.136 - 149, a nd 7.155.  
15 Panel Report, paras. 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.15, 7.136 - 149, and 7.155.  
16 Panel Report, paras. 7.110 - 7.111, 7.123 – 7.130, 7.134 – 7.149, and 7.290.  
17 Panel Report, para. 7.153.  
18 Panel Report, paras. 7.6, 7.37, 7.40, 7.59, 7.64, 7.115, 7.142, 7 .154, 7.159, 7.160, and 7.174.  
19 Panel Report, paras. 7.294 and 8.1(c)(ii).  