28. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation found that the Chair's note formed a clear-cut basis and it was fully prepared to discuss the four points listed in that note. In its view, the establishment of a multilateral register would have no implications for the definition of geographical indications as contained in Article 22.1. Therefore, it was convinced that no Member had to make any changes to the definition of the term. The definition in Article 22.1 had proven its value for many years. It was flexible: it might protect geographical names of small localities like "Cognac" for spirits, more extended regions like "Napa Valley" for wines or, to take an example not of wine and spirits, even countries such as "Luxembourg" for meat. Any name or sign that evoked a geographical origin on a product which met the requirements of the definition, in particular the link between the quality, reputation or other characteristics of that product and its geographical origin, was eligible for protection as a geographical indication. Once the register was established, each WTO Member should have the opportunity to examine whether a notified geographical indication fully met the requirements of Article 22.1 and deserved the protection on its territory according to Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement.
