45. The representative of the European Communities, introducing the proposal in question, said that the work on a multilateral register for geographical indications for wines and spirits was part of the built-in agenda of the TRIPS Agreement, in parallel with other aspects, including the review under Article 24.2. This had been underlined by the Ministerial Conference in December 1996 in Singapore and, in the light of the introductory work which had been done in the Council after Singapore, the European Communities and their member States had now drawn up this document which should further that process. He appreciated that Members had not had an opportunity to study his delegation's paper. Presenting the basic ideas underlying it, he said that the fundamental idea was to propose an administrative framework to facilitate the grant of TRIPS-level protection in the area of geographical indications for wines and spirits. He stressed that, in his delegation's view, the starting-point was to provide, with regard to that level of protection, for an administrative framework in which legal clarity and legal security could be enhanced. Of course, this was a first attempt to deal with this issue and a lot of additional work and thought lay ahead.
46. The European Communities and their member States were proposing a mechanism that would work in several stages. The first stage would be the submission to the WTO Secretariat of a list of geographical indications, accompanied by relevant evidence, by each Member that wished these geographical indications to benefit from protection through the registration system. The accompanying evidence should demonstrate that each geographical indication was a geographical indication in the sense of Article 22.1. Regional and multilateral agreements for the protection of geographical indications and the lists established under them could also play an important role, and he referred to the note prepared by the Secretariat (document IP/C/W/85) which pointed out different systems. In the second stage, the Secretariat would notify these lists to Members, who could oppose the inscription of a particular geographical indication on the grounds that it did not meet the definition of Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement or that other exceptions provided for under the TRIPS Agreement applied. He referred to the problem of homonymous geographical indications from different Members and said that the TRIPS Agreement laid down the principle of coexistence regulating it in a certain manner in order to avoid deceptive practices vis-à-vis the consumer. Negotiations could take place at that point to achieve that goal. In a further stage, once any opposition procedure had been concluded, the geographical indication should be put on a list by the Secretariat and thereby benefit from unconditional and clear TRIPS-level protection. Such a list should be published. He said that the registration system should take into account future developments, such as where a geographical indication was no longer used or a new geographical indication had come into being.
