52. The representative of Argentina expressed support for the points made by other delegations, in particular the concerns expressed by other developing countries regarding a complex system that would add legal and administrative burdens to countries which had no economic interests. She failed to understand the parallel drawn by the EC delegation regarding the Lisbon Agreement. That agreement had set up a fully voluntary system as was the case for other WIPO registration treaties: WIPO members had no obligation to adhere to, or ratify, any of those treaties. She also failed to understand the parallel drawn by the EC delegation regarding patents. The TRIPS section on patents could not be equated to the one on geographical indications. The TRIPS Agreement did not provide that there should be negotiations on an international register for patents or any assessment of the patent system. She further recalled that the principle of territoriality under Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement also applied to geographical indications. What the European Communities was proposing would generate a precedent, particularly for developing countries. If a system were established with legal effects of such a multilateral character that there would not be any reservations possible, then any WTO Member would be directly bound by the system. This would be a serious precedent for other areas, including those which were particularly sensitive like patents.
