81. The representative of Australia said, after having heard the European Communities' clarifications, that her delegation's understanding was that a Member would not be required to protect terms in translation notified by other Members that it did not consider were the true translations of these terms in its territory. She asked clarification regarding the role of a Member in continuing, in accordance with the principle of territoriality, to determine for itself whether a geographical indication fitted within the Article 22 definition and was therefore eligible for protection in its territory. Her understanding from the response given by the European Communities on a comment made by Argentina was that Members would continue to have the right to determine whether a term was a geographical indication with respect to their own territories. In this regard, the EC response appeared to relate only to notifications Members would make of their own geographical terms. However, as indicated by paragraph 3.2 of the EC proposal, the right of Members to make their determinations regarding the geographical indications of other Members would actually be severely limited by the requirement for lodging reservations within 18 months and for entering into negotiations. By not lodging such reservation within that prescribed time a Member would actually, under paragraph 5(a) of the EC proposal, lose its right to refuse protection on the ground that the geographical indication did not meet the definition in Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement in its own territory.
