121. The representative of Argentina said the wording of the questions presented by the Chairman should be more neutral and not use language from one of the proposals. In particular, she said that question 2 should avoid the wording "take the information on the register into account", which had been taken from TN/C/W/52.
122. On the issue of a possible Chair's paper, she said that this would be premature and was therefore not favoured by her delegation.
123. Her delegation also rejected the artificial parallelism that had been made between the three TRIPS issues in TN/C/W/52.
124. She said that the joint proposal, co-sponsored by Argentina, enjoyed a high level of acceptance amongst WTO Members. It complied with the mandates in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration. It proposed the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits, which would facilitate protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits. Likewise, it would preserve the principle of territoriality for GIs. As stated in Article 23.4 of TRIPS, the participation in the register would be "strictly voluntary". The joint proposal had therefore taken special and differential treatment into account as each Member could decide whether or not to participate. The European Communities, on the other hand, had not yet been able to explain how special and differential treatment might be included in the TN/C/W/52 proposal. She reiterated that a register in which participation would be mandatory for all WTO Members would not be acceptable for her delegation.
125. As regards the procedures to be followed by participating Members, the joint proposal stated that "each Participating Member commits to ensure that its procedures include the provision to consult the Database when making decisions regarding registration and protection of trademarks and geographical indications for wines and spirits in accordance with its domestic law". In contrast, TN/C/W/52 proposed to consider "the register as prima facie evidence that, in that Member, the GI met the definition of geographical indication laid down in TRIPS Article 22.1". For her delegation, the proposals in TN/C/W/52 for a prima facie evidence, a reversal of the burden of proof and extra-territoriality were not acceptable.
