46. The representative of Hungary expressed his delegation's great interest in the EC proposal. It was thought-provoking and could serve as a basis for further discussions on the implementation of Article 23.4 of the Agreement, to which Hungary attached great importance as stated by the Hungarian Minister for Industry, Trade and Tourism at the Second Ministerial Conference in May 1998. Regarding the substance of the proposal, he referred, first, to its section V.3 and said that, in the understanding of his delegation, that section would not exclude a case where a wine-importing Member not opposing the registration of a misleading geographical indication or failing to provide appropriate evidence supporting its objection would be obliged to provide full and indefinite protection for it. This obligation in turn might damage the legitimate commercial interests of the Member in which the region or locality to which the original geographical indication referred was located. He asked the European Communities to clarify whether his delegation's understanding in this respect was correct. Secondly, he said that, according to section IV of the proposal, in a case of homonymous geographical indications, the "Members concerned shall undertake negotiations with each other to seek agreement on the matter". However, the proposal stopped there and was silent about what should happen when the Members concerned could not reach agreement. An arbitration or dispute settlement procedure might be necessary to deal with these situations; his delegation would be interested in the views of other Members on this matter.
