87. The representative of Argentina recalled that the Chair's draft text mentioned by the EC, JOB(03)/75, was a paper submitted in 2003 by the former Chair under his own responsibility and without prejudice to the positions of Members, and that it had never been agreed by the joint proposal group as a basis for negotiation.
88. She said that, unlike the joint proposal, which had clearly proposed the WTO Secretariat as the administering body, paragraph 2.1 of the EC proposal mentioned between square brackets the "body administering the system". It would have helped delegations better understand the EC proposal if the administering body were clearly identified.
89. She said that the clarification given by the EC delegation regarding paragraph 2.1(b) of the EC proposal was not satisfactory and that Chinese Taipei had posed a pertinent question in light of the fact that under the EC proposal all the requirements for notification and registration would have effects on national courts. The proposed paragraph 2.1(b) would actually be a limitation to the flexibility Members enjoyed under Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement to continue to protect or not geographical indications that were no longer protected or had fallen into disuse in the countries of origin.
90. With regard to paragraph 2.2(c) of the EC proposal regarding legal instruments, her delegation reiterated its concerns. The proposal made was not acceptable because it included not only national legislation but also bilateral, regional or other multilateral agreements. As to the second part of that paragraph dealing with legal instruments already notified to the TRIPS Council, she said that it was not necessary to include notifications that had already been made by Members in the context of the notification of national laws.
91. She said that the joint proposal foresaw, in its paragraph 3.3(a), the optional possibility of providing information concerning the date of protection or expiry of protection whereas under the EC proposal that would be mandatory.
92. She asked the EC delegation clarifications concerning the sub-title "substantive conditions" and the consequences if the requirements were not fulfilled.
93. Turning to the optional elements in the notification phase of the EC proposal, she asked what would be the scope of translations under paragraph 2.3(a) of that proposal, and for whom these translations would be intended.
94. With regard to format, she recalled a previous comment she had made regarding the "committee responsible for managing the system". What was being proposed by the European Communities seemed to be a strong administrative structure, if not some sort of supranational body. Who would be the members of this committee? Apparently, this committee would not be the TRIPS Council, otherwise it would have been mentioned.
95. Lastly, with regard to the paragraph 2.6 of the EC proposal, she said that the procedure of circulation or publication of the notification prior to registration was relevant only to the registration model to which the European Communities aspired. This provision was important because it would unleash the entire procedure of "reservations", which was related to the issue of legal effects claimed by the European Communities. By contrast, the joint proposal required that publication should be done only once and after registration.
