92. The representative of Switzerland said that her delegation supported the statement made by the representative of Morocco who had spoken against the limitation of protection to wines and spirits only. Her delegation also supported the proposal to ask the Secretariat to prepare an informal paper on products other than wines and spirits. Furthermore, her delegation had not yet commented on the EC proposal but considered it, as well as the clarifications provided subsequently, to be a good basis for discussion. Her delegation would have some questions seeking certain clarifications which it would raise at the next meeting. Coming to the joint proposal from Japan and the United States, as well as to the United States paper entitled "Suggested Methods", her delegation believed that these documents gave focus to the debate and provided alternatives enabling the Council to explore and find out the advantages and disadvantages. After an initial reading, she said that the raison d'être of Article 22 was very different from that of Article 23. If the negotiators had had a different intention, they would have provided for a register in Article 22 and not just in Article 23.4. The proposals and suggestions that had been made were, therefore, a fairly free interpretation of the letter and spirit of the Section on geographical indications. Secondly, as raised by the representative of Venezuela, she said that the trademark system was based on a philosophy totally different from that of geographical indications. To take just one example, a geographical indication did not have an expiry date as did a trademark. If the trademark system was fully capable of protecting geographical indications, this issue would have been settled in the Section on trademarks. Having said that, the system of trademarks and of examining trademark applications differed from country to country. The proposal from Japan and the United States transferred the power to decide on the existence of geographical indications, which should belong to the country of origin, to the country where the trademark application had been filed. In conclusion, the system of collective marks or certification marks had its merit, but it could in no case exclude the one which Article 23.4 demanded imperatively be created.
