166. The representative of the United States said that, while his delegation was aware that the effects of a registration under the EC proposal would be conditioned on certain actions such as reservations, it continued having serious concerns about the proposal. The type of system being envisioned by the European Communities entailed a supranational approach whereby one single action taken at international level would have immediate and automatic effects in a global membership. It would trigger global effects regardless of any intent of the right holder to actively market a term in any particular country, thereby potentially foreclosing markets that otherwise would not be foreclosed. By contrast, the underlying general approach for existing international IPR systems was that a person filing an application in various countries had an interest in operating in those countries
167. He agreed with the European Communities that GI right holders could file certification marks in various countries throughout the world. Certification marks were a good system that should be used to protect geographical indications.
168. On the issue of bypassing national systems, he said that the language used in the EC proposal was based on the concept of protection in the country of origin, justifying, on that basis alone, protection in third country markets. By contrast, under current systems of IP protection, it was in the country where protection was sought that the determinations should be made. His delegation was concerned with these supranational systems that would only take into account the protectability of a term in the notifying country and, on that basis, trigger all types of rights globally. This point actually was raising major concerns for his delegation as far as the territoriality principle was concerned.
