23. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation agreed that notifications should include transliteration into Latin characters. He recalled that the EC proposal's language on transliteration and translation was taken from the provisions in the Chair's note contained in document JOB(03)/75 of 2003. Those provisions were not in brackets, which therefore conveyed the idea that Members were close to agreeing on these elements. Hence, the more Members departed from what was in that document, which was basically copied in the EC proposal, the more they would be moving away from elements that were close to an agreement.
24. His specific comments would be directed to the Chairman's statement that "transliterations would be for information purposes and would not in themselves give rise to any legal effects or consequences that might flow from registration of a geographical indication." The issue of transliteration was obviously linked to the question of translation and, in fact, often the transliteration would coincide with the translation. Transliterations and translations could be relevant for the legal effects flowing from the register. It was important to indicate that the territoriality principle would apply to translations and transliterations for it was up to national authorities to decide what was the proper translation or transliteration of a notified term and therefore which translation or transliteration would carry the legal effects that the register would have. The key message was that territoriality would be ensured and that the final decision would remain in the hands of national authorities. However, legal effects would flow from transliterations or translations simply because the system as such was intended to facilitate the protection set out in Articles 22 and 23 of the TRIPS Agreement. In fact, Article 23 itself already contained a specific reference to translations. In Article 22, the standard was whether the consumer was misled or whether the use of the geographical indication by a third party constituted an act of unfair competition. This provision also covered the use of transliterations or translations. Therefore, despite the fact that all Members agreed that the decision on these elements would remain in the hands of the national authorities, this sentence in the Chairman's statement would need to be redrafted in order not to exclude the fact that there could be legal effects flowing from the use of transliterations and translations. That being said, he agreed that a transliteration provided by the notifying Member would certainly be useful, especially for other Members' national authorities when taking their final decision on this matter. This could contribute to the reliability and integrity of the system.
