21. The representative of Australia said that there were no provisions on fees and costs in the joint proposal because the system proposed did not place any significant administrative and legal burdens on participating Members, let alone on non-participating ones. The core part of the joint proposal was a free searchable database of all geographical indications for wines and spirits that were notified by participating Members. She noted that the European Communities had attempted to address the issue of costs through the inclusion of a fee mechanism to finance the system. Although costs needed to be addressed, there was still some misunderstanding as to the idea that the EC proposal was somehow a "one-stop shop" which would be cheaper than existing domestic systems. Her delegation's understanding was that under the EC proposal each patent and trademark office could charge an individual fee to cover its examination costs, in addition to a basic fee. Paragraph 9.8 of the EC proposal provided that the WTO Members would have to notify the national component of the individual fee which it wished to receive, an amount which could be charged later but could not be higher than the equivalent of the amount that the relevant administration of the WTO Member would be entitled to receive from a national applicant in the framework of a domestic procedure, where such an individual fee was payable. This meant that the fees could not be more than, but could at least be the same as, existing fees under current domestic procedures. It was therefore not clear what the cost-saving element would actually be as compared, for example, to applying for a certification mark in a Member under existing systems. In fact, the costs incurred under the EC proposed fee system could be higher because of the obligation to pay an individual fee in addition to the basic fee. At least under current domestic systems Members would only seek protection in markets where they actually sold their products. She further noted that there were many other costs associated with the EC proposal that would not be recoverable by the proposed fee mechanism. For example, Members would be required to implement new regimes for the protection of geographical indications, which would not be a simple task for many Members that were currently protecting geographical indications through unfair competition or trademark systems. Moreover, under the EC proposal Members who had chosen not to participate would still have to lodge reservations and enter into compulsory negotiations in order to retain their rights to use existing exceptions. Who would pay for the costs associated with these obligations?
