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

Ambassador C. Trevor Clarke (Barbados)
171. The representative of Chile said that his delegation also supported the request that the TN/C/W/52 proposal be put in writing to enable a comparison with the joint proposal. This could help this negotiating group to have a discussion that would also focus on the joint proposal, which the European Communities and Switzerland had consistently refused to address, apart from saying that it was just a database. His delegation would welcome an opportunity to explain how the joint proposal, unlike the one in TN/C/W/52, would facilitate protection of GIs for wines and spirits without necessarily increasing their protection. In this connection, he welcomed the EC representative's comment that putting names in a database facilitated protection of GIs. This comment took away a slight discrepancy with Chinese Taipei and Australia. Putting names on a database did have a de facto effect. With a full written proposal from the sponsors of TN/C/W/52, it would be interesting to hear the exact position of Chile's important trading partners supporting that proposal. Like Korea, Chile thought that it was important to see the special and differential treatment provisions in the European Communities' proposal, and that this issue was linked to the costs issue. Unlike the European Communities, Chile believed that the costs for the current users of names of European origin would be affected.
The Special Session took note of the statements made.