97. The representative of Argentina said that the last proposal from the European Communities had been submitted in 2000, before Doha, and that after that date it had only submitted non-papers or made oral statements. This had made it difficult to actually determine, for example, the scope of the legal effects that they wished to have in the system.
98. Responding to the European Communities' comment that other international systems, such as the Madrid Protocol and the Lisbon Agreement did not create a database, but rather gave substantive protection, she said that the purpose of the TRIPS Agreement was not to grant automatic IPR protection among Members. What this Agreement provided for, as stated in its Article 23, was only the obligation to provide the legal means to interested parties, in their respective jurisdictions, to seek the protection they needed. This was exactly the same situation in the fields of patents and trademarks. She expressed surprise that the Lisbon and Madrid systems were mentioned as examples, since these systems contained the basic principles of maintaining territoriality and primacy of domestic jurisdiction. They did not foresee any challenge system nor international or bilateral negotiations.
