91. The representative of the United States introduced his delegation's separate paper regarding the suggested method for domestic recognition of geographical indications. After listening to the comments made in the Council by the representative of Venezuela and others, he felt certain points made in the paper needed clarification that perhaps had not been adequately conveyed in the text of the document. He said that, after reviewing the material submitted under Article 24.2, his delegation had noted that there were many acceptable means of protecting geographical indications that met the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement. For example, some Members protected geographical indications under their unfair competition regimes, as trademarks, or in other ways. However, when looking at the issue of a notification and registration system, his delegation thought of identifying an option that would produce a list of geographical indications for notification under Article 23.4 and which might be desirable for Members which did not currently have such a system in place to employ, as it would aid in producing an easily identifiable list of nationally protected geographical indications. His delegation only wanted to identify one such system of both protecting geographical indications and producing a list of protected geographical indications. His delegation had suggested registering geographical indications as collective or certification trademarks, but did not insist that this was the only method of protecting geographical indications or necessarily the most desirable one for all countries, although it was certainly an attractive option. Even in the United States, this was not the only way of protecting geographical indications. However, this method was the one most consistent with his delegation's view of geographical indications as source-indicating and quality-indicating. In regard to informal note No. 800, dated 12 February 1999, containing suggestions from the Chair on how to organize the discussions in the Council on the topic, he noted that the last sentence of the third paragraph of the paper mentioned that "these suggestions are of course without prejudice to adaptations that may be necessary as a result of further proposals to be submitted to the Council and are not intended to be exhaustive". He submitted that, in reviewing the proposal made by his delegation, the particular categories listed in the note were not, in every instance, directly applicable.
