98. The representative of the Philippines expressed his delegation's appreciation for the joint proposal from Japan and the United States and said that it deserved close study. As a preliminary comment on the earlier EC paper, he said that, without delving into the modalities it proposed, it attempted to go beyond proposing a system of notification and registration. Reading the context of Article 23.4, he said that it was not enough to have a system of notification and registration but that there needed to be some value-added, which was to facilitate protection. While differences of opinion could exist as to how that was to be achieved, this feature should be part of whatever system was created without, of course, changing the rights and obligations that already existed under the TRIPS Agreement. Whilst still studying the EC paper, his delegation recognized that it attempted to have value-added in the right direction. In respect of the coverage, i.e. whether it should be wines or wines and spirits or other products as well, his delegation supported the idea expressed by the representative of Malaysia that there should be a Secretariat paper on the implications of including other products. Finally, he said that the key was in the word 'voluntary': if the proposed system was voluntary, what could prevent having one system of registration for wines, one for spirits and other products? Certainly, he said, those Members who preferred wines only or wines and spirits only could not object to other delegations requesting, if that was possible, that there should be a register for geographical indications for other products as well.
