169. The representative of Australia expressed support for the interventions of Canada on prima facie presumption regarding the GI definition and of New Zealand with regard to genericness. He expressed his disappointment that his delegation's earlier offer to undertake a serious technical discussion of the level of facilitation that would be provided by the joint proposal did not seem to have been taken up by TN/C/W/52 proponents. Instead Members had heard a lot of statements that would have to be characterized as "like it or leave it". His delegation looked forward to the EC's approval for Australia's ideas in that respect.
170. Switzerland had requested Australia to clarify its comment that some GIs known or registered in Europe might lack reputation in Australia, and said that this would create legitimate concerns in relation to the proposals in TN/C/W/52. In response, he said that the idea that not all these GIs were traded or recognized overseas was supported by the EC Quality Policy Paper, where this was expressed as one of the difficulties the European Communities might address.
171. In more general terms, if some delegations did not share Australia's concern that Members might be called upon to apply the presumption proposed in TN/C/W/52 to a term that was indeed unknown in their territory, he would invite those Members to substitute a different industrial property right for a GI and imagine their domestic systems being asked to apply an equivalent presumption, for instance, a presumption that any invention examined by a foreign patent office involved an inventive step at their domestic level, or that a trademark examined by a foreign trademark office was distinctive at their domestic level. This might assist other Members conceptually in understanding his delegation's difficulty concerning GIs in this regard.
