97. The representative of Argentina noted that some delegations claimed that extension would provide more effective protection, and recalled that during the Council's informal meeting of 10 November 2002 there had been a discussion regarding a classic case of a Mexican spirit protected by Article 23 and recognized in a bilateral agreement. The GI of that Mexican drink was not able to enjoy such effective and exclusive protection that the Council had been told would be available under Article 23. Referring to the assertions by certain delegations that Article 24 exceptions would continue to apply, she said that one should bear in mind the position of the same delegations in the negotiations on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits. In that context, Members' ability to apply Article 24 exceptions under their national legislation and jurisdiction would be curtailed through an opposition procedure to be set up under the wine registry system suggested by those delegations. Echoing Australia's comments on the policy objectives of IP protection, she said that it would be difficult to see how this type of protection would be appropriate for GIs.
98. As to the second basket of issues, she said that there would be several costs resulting from extension, such as the costs to producers who would need to stop using a name they had been legally using. It would be important to ensure that there would not be unfair gains to persons who claimed the right to a certain GI. Someone who had used that name legitimately and created a market for a given product would be in a difficult situation if that market were simply handed over to the holder of the exclusive right under a legislation that was not in line with the legislation of the county where protection was being requested.
