Minutes - TRIPS Council Special Session - View details of the intervention/statement

Ambassador Eui-yong Chung (Korea, Republic of)
European Union
C.i Definition of the term "geographical indication" and eligibility of geographical indications for inclusion in the system
29. The representative of the European Communities said that the multilateral register should have no impact on the definition of geographical indications embedded in Article 22.1, neither should it have any impact on the exceptions. The register would not change the situation with regard to the applicability of exceptions. He said that geographical indications to be notified to the multilateral system should meet the requirements of Article 22.1 and, in particular, the requirement that the name refer to a product "where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good [was] essentially attributable to its geographical origin". The link between the territory and the defining quality, characteristic or reputation should not be trivialized. WTO Members had implemented the minimum requirements of the TRIPS definition in accordance with their respective legal orders. However, they should have the possibility to prevent the legal effect of the registration of geographical indications in their territory where there was prima facie evidence that a notified name was blatantly not in conformity with the definition of geographical indication in Article 22.1. The EC was not proposing to scrutinize the way WTO Members applied the definition of geographical indications on a case-by-case basis, although it seemed logical that names constituting clear or "gross" misapplications of the definition embedded in Article 22.1 should not benefit from the protection to be facilitated by the multilateral register. The EC had provided the example of a hypothetical geographical indication, "Wine of the European Union", which clearly did not meet the criteria of the definition of Article 22.1. Otherwise, there would be the risk of having notifications that did not correspond to a real need of facilitating the protection of geographical indications but solely to a desire to preserve certain terms for a certain country. The proposal by the EC and their member States provided for a "challenge" or "opposition" mechanism that would allow individual WTO Members to prevent "gross misapplications" of Article 22.1 having effect in those Members. Other options could be envisaged, such as independent verification by experts, the WTO Secretariat or another ad hoc body. The EC looked forward to working with other delegations that also understood the need to avoid trivialization of the system.
TN/IP/M/2