90. The representative of India thanked Japan and the United States for having presented some other options available to implement Article 23.4. He was intrigued by the separate proposal of the United States to consider the option of using collective or certification marks to address this issue. His delegation had been holding domestic consultations to consider how to implement Section 3 of Part II of the Agreement and had looked into the possibility of using collective or certification marks to provide the protection required under Article 23. It had found that there could be several difficulties. In fact, it had been found that the existing common law protection through passing off could be a better option than the protection that could be obtained through collective or certification marks. There was existing jurisprudence in common law and elsewhere on certification marks which could dilute, to some extent, the protection that was envisaged under Article 23. India would be looking at the joint proposal from Japan and the United States more closely and would revert to the matter later. However, he appreciated that one of the aims of the proposal was to keep a transparent and simple system which did not add to the obligations of Members under the TRIPS Agreement. He added that there was an extent of evolution built into Article 23 in that the negotiators had envisioned the establishment of some systems which could provide the level of protection required under Article 23, as compared to that required under Article 22. Recalling the earlier comments made by his delegation at the last meeting on the EC proposal, consultations with stakeholders were continuing in India and it had been found that there were quite a few merits in the EC proposal, as it did not envisage adding on to the burdens or obligations of Members either. Further, it allowed for the expansion of the scope of protection to products other than wines. As far as the question of coverage and the level of protection was concerned, he found a lot of merit in the comments made by the representative of Morocco, and in the comments of the representative of Venezuela on the extension of scope to spirits. He said that other products, like agricultural products and artisan ware, could also be looked at during the information-gathering exercise, to avoid having to duplicate the effort later during the review provided for in Article 24.1 and Article 24.2.
