175. The representative of Australia said that his delegation regarded the information provided through the notification process and therefore ultimately provided to the domestic authorities consulting the register as being of paramount importance and not as something that should be left for negotiation until after modalities. This was particularly true in light of the EC's intentions regarding legal effects, as far as they could be ascertained by Members.
176. It would appear that the assertion of GI status in the notifying jurisdiction was to be treated as prima facie evidence of GI status in an examining jurisdiction. Members were told that this presumption might be rebutted by evidence. Could the register also serve to provide such evidence, at least in making clear the basis on which a term's universal status as a GI was claimed? Referring more specifically to the issue of translations, which was key in the context of Article 23 for protection of wines and spirits and a complex question, his delegation would invite the proponents of TN/C/W/52 to explain how they envisaged translations would be dealt with under their system. Noting that, under the EC's current domestic system, translations could be notified, he said that it was his delegation's suspicion that notified translations could not be appealed by trading partners.
177. He drew attention to the fact that the issue of translations was particularly complex in languages based on common characters where sound, meaning and written form interacted in complex ways, such as Chinese, Korean or Japanese.
