53. The representative of Hungary said that his delegation would like to put forward further arguments in favour of establishing a genuinely multilateral registration system for geographical indications as, basically, proposed by the European Communities and their member States. Firstly, his delegation strongly believed that the legal effects of the registration system to be set up under Article 23.4 should not vary from Member to Member depending on their national legislation. This would render the whole system of multilateral registration extremely complex, if not practically meaningless. Secondly, as several delegations had observed, the multilateral registration system must not impose undue administrative burdens and costs on the WTO Secretariat. Therefore, he proposed that the Council should consider whether it would be appropriate to involve the International Bureau of WIPO in the management of the new system. He noted that a precedent for such involvement, although in another area of activity, already existed. Under Article 3 of the 1995 Agreement Between the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, the procedures relating to the communication of State emblems under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention as applicable under the TRIPS Agreement through its Article 2.1, and transmittal of objections under the same Article, was administered by the International Bureau of WIPO. The different membership of WIPO and the WTO had not proved to be an obstacle to the establishment, operation and implementation of that scheme and this had led to a considerable saving of resources. He therefore suggested that perhaps the Council for TRIPS should ask the Secretariat to carry out an analysis of WIPO's possible involvement in operating the multilateral register of geographical indications under Article 23.4. The International Bureau could also be invited to contribute to the preparation of such an analysis. Furthermore, his delegation was interested in a thorough examination of the relationship between the multilateral registration system to be established under Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration. Thirdly, he could go along with the proposals made by several delegations that the additional protection for geographical indications under Article 23.1 and 23.2 be extended to products other than wines and spirits, in particular to agricultural products and foodstuffs. On the other hand, it was important that a multilateral system for the notification and registration of geographical indications be established as soon as possible, because the absence of such a system would make the reliable and consistent application of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 23 difficult, even if additional protection under those provisions was not dependent on notification and registration.
