41. The representative of Argentina associated herself with the comments made by the United States about this sub-heading. She disagreed with the European Communities' argument that this element was relevant in the sense that it would help examining domestic authorities. She believed that there should be no examination through the system and, even if such elements were relevant, any examination should only be made in accordance with the national legislation of the WTO Member where the protection of the notified term was being sought.
42. The representative of Australia supported the points raised by Argentina and the United States and said that he saw this element as connected to two key issues. The first was the existence of different legal systems for GI protection and the second was legal effects. He referred back to the many statements that his delegation had made previously that legal effects were central to some elements of the notification procedure, and this was one of them. He suspected that under this element there was a different agenda by some Members to include extraterritoriality.
