Minutes - TRIPS Council Special Session - View details of the intervention/statement

Ambassador Manzoor Ahmad (Pakistan)
United States of America
B.i Continuation of the discussion of the proposals set out side-by-side in TN/IP/W/12
15. The representative of the United States said that the clarification made by the representative of the European Communities regarding withdrawals from the system was troubling. It illustrated a fundamental difference between the joint proposal and the EC proposal regarding the understanding of "participation". For those Members that were producers of neither wines nor spirits, what the European Communities had said in this meeting should leave no doubt about which proposal to avoid. The EC proposal appeared to be outside the mandate of Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement since it would deprive the reference to "those Members participating in the system" of any meaning. More fundamentally, his delegation failed to understand the benefits of being a non-participating Member under the EC system. It would appear instead that the result would be substantial costs for examination, protection and litigation with respect to registered geographical indications but with no corresponding benefits. Members should focus on the joint proposal, which contained a very clear and transparent process with respect to both modifications and withdrawals of particular geographical indications. Similarly, with respect to the termination of participation, in striking contrast to the EC proposal, the joint proposal, in line with its fundamental principles and Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, foresaw a truly voluntary system in which some Members would be able to choose to participate. Participating Members would also be able to voluntarily choose to no longer participate even though they could have made notifications at an earlier time.
TN/IP/M/15