133. The representative of Australia said, in response to the comment made by the European Communities that the commitment to enter into bilateral negotiations was not new because it was already agreed in Article 24.1, that, if Members had agreed in the Uruguay Round to increase the protection of individual geographical indications through a register of geographical indications for wines and sprits, then both Articles 23.4 and 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement would had been in the same article, which was not the case.
134. As to the EC response to the question regarding the justification for the difference in treatment between the various exceptions, she said that it was still unclear how a Member could negotiate on whether or not a term was generic in another market.
135. As to the subject matter of the negotiations, she said that the comment made by the European Communities that New Zealand could get some insights from those Members who had concluded bilateral agreements in the area of wines and spirits with the EU was not appropriate because those agreements involved subject matter that went beyond the protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits.
136. Finally, on the point that Members would retain the right to determine what was and was not a geographical indication in their territories, her delegation failed to understand how the principle of territoriality had been upheld in the EC proposal if it provided that Members would have to engage in negotiations in order to avail themselves of these exceptions.
