32. The representative of Australia said that the delegations of Switzerland and of the European Communities might not be addressing the same point in respect of the role of the administering body. Switzerland seemed to suggest that the administering body carry out some prima facie examination, which would imply some legal standards. The European Communities seemed to say that they just wanted to look for some sort of formal role. For her delegation, the greatest comfort might come from an exploration of the existing role of the WTO Secretariat, for example the role played by the CRN.
33. With regard to the date of protection of a geographical indication, her delegation believed that the future system should operate without prejudice to the way a Member elected to protect a geographical indication. In systems based on certification marks, the issue of the date of protection would be relevant. However, in the case of trademarks protected under common law, there would be no information regarding the date of protection. Thus, information about dates might not always be necessary.
34. As to information concerning international agreements, her delegation seriously questioned the relevance of such information and had concerns about the potential legal implications thereof, given the strong legal effects envisaged by the demandeurs.
