40. The representative of Argentina said that the joint proposal had the merit of establishing a simple system which emphasized transparency. She agreed with the point made by the United States that focusing only on supposedly neutral technical issues was not appropriate, as the whole system was formed by a series of interrelated elements leading to a final solution, the issue of notification being just one of these elements. In the EC proposal, it was only when one looked at the registration phase that one would truly understand why all these elements were required to be contained in their proposed notification phase. The EC delegate said clearly in his last comments that these elements were essential because they were the legal basis for protection. This was where the principle of territoriality should be observed, because the granting of protection for notified geographical indications should not be the aim of the system to be established. The aim should be to receive notifications of geographical indications protected according to the national legislation of the notifying Member and not to inquire as to whether such a name was or was not protected in other WTO countries, a matter to be determined by the various national legislations of these other countries. In other words, no element contained in a GI notification should serve as the basis of protection of this name in other countries; otherwise the system would not be respecting the principle of territoriality for it would be accepting the extraterritorial application of the legislation of certain Members in the territories of other Members.
