32. The representative of Argentina said, in response to the point made by India, that the joint proposal would not, in principle, require changes in the national legislation. With regard to the point made by the European Communities that all proposals would produce legal effects not yet provided for in the TRIPS Agreement, she said that the key difference between the proposals was the fact that under the joint proposal any Member bound by the system, including the obligation to consult the database, would do it voluntarily. A Member would voluntarily notify the WTO that it was ready to participate in the system and would, in good faith, accept the commitment under paragraph 5 of the draft decision. By contrast, the EC proposal would impose legal effects on all Members, independently of whether they had expressed their willingness to participate or not in the system. These legal effects would, for example, deprive national authorities of any flexibility, and reverse the burden of proof, which was provided under the TRIPS provisions on patents but not under those on geographical indications.
