47. The representative of Mexico said that for his delegation it was clear that Article 23.4, referring to wines, accompanied by the decision taken by the Ministerial Conference in 1996 in Singapore, based on Article 24.1, to embark on certain exercises relating to spirits, required work on only those two types of products in the context of geographical indications. There was no such obligation under Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement, as far as his delegation could see, in respect of other products. The Mexican delegation was interested in meeting the obligations under Article 23.4 and the decision taken in Singapore concerning the establishment of a multilateral system for the notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits. He therefore believed that, before the Council proceeded to discuss what could be done regarding products other than wines and spirits, Members would first need to comply with what was already provided for in the Marrakesh Agreement and the Singapore Ministerial Declaration with respect to wines and spirits. When that had been done, the Council could move on to discuss whether or not it was suitable and appropriate to consider a similar system for other products. Mexico did not share the idea that the Council should work on the basis of a lack of definition of the coverage of Article 23. Apart from that, the multilateral systems for the notification and registration of geographical indications would vary depending on the products covered. It was unlikely that a single system could cover all types of products in the same way. One should not assume that, one day, Members would decide to extend the protection under Article 23 to geographical indications for products other than wines and spirits.
