89. The representative of the European Communities, making general comments on the joint proposal from Japan and the United States, said that, in terms of change of existing obligations, costs and the voluntary nature of the system, he wished to refer to his comments at the last meeting, when he had explained his own delegation's proposal, and had clarified the aim of establishing an effective system which would not impose new obligations, was low in cost and was based on voluntary participation. It had not been shown that the proposal from Japan and the United States would necessarily be less costly and, concerning its voluntary nature, he invited Members to read his delegation's communication circulated in informal document No. 7111 of 23 December 1998. Certain aspects of this proposal for the protection of geographical indications might be considered surprising. Firstly, one could doubt whether it was truly multilateral, given that the proposal seemed limited to the creation of a database without any truly legal effect at the international level. The proposal seemed to deny the very objective of Article 23.4, which consisted of setting up a registration as well as a notification system for the protection of geographical indications. For example, the proposal did not contain any possibility of settling potential disputes, either through an opposition procedure or dispute settlement. It seemed to be limited to an optional information system intended for national authorities. He asked the delegations of Japan and the United States to confirm whether their proposal was anything more than the juxtaposition of national systems and, further, to specify the internal legal effects which their proposal was intended to attach to the establishment of a multilateral register. Transparency alone, in the view of his delegation, would not provide sufficient value-added considering the cost involved. Article 23.4 was aimed only at the opening of negotiations for the establishment of a multilateral system for notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits without imposing a particular model for protecting geographical indications. WTO Members were therefore free to adopt the protection system of their choice as long as it conformed to Section 3, Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. However, the proposal from Japan and the United States seemed to wish to impose a particular model. Furthermore, it was, at the very least, difficult to say whether a system of marks, even collective marks and certification marks, would have the appropriate merit without risking denying the specific features of the protection of geographical indications, for which Section 3 was precisely intended to establish an ad hoc regime. Another question was why, in a framework of a system for the protection of geographical indications, the United States and Japan were promoting a trademark system, given the costs of such a system.
