30. The representative of the European Communities said that what the US delegate had referred to as the EC's position was actually the view of a group of 108 Members. For this group of sponsors of TN/C/W/52 the acceptable legal obligations were twofold. First, it was proposed that a claim of genericness could not be based on unsubstantiated allegations, but would have to be based on facts and be proven. This did not mean that the substance of a decision on genericness would be affected, or that it would take on any extraterritorial effect. The final decision regarding genericness would always be taken by the country in which protection was sought because, as the US representative had pointed out, there was no Lisbon-type agreement of automatic recognition in TN/C/W/52 supported by 108 Members. The second aspect of an acceptable legal effect related to the GI definition, which all Members would by definition have to have in their TRIPS-compatible legislation. In this respect, it was proposed that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, a GI notified to the register constituted prima facie evidence that the registered GI met the definition as laid down in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. This prima facie evidence, which could be translated as "definition at first sight", again meant that the final decision would remain in the hands of each national authority in a Member. His delegation did not believe that this entailed an extraterritorial effect, as had been alleged by the US delegate. He emphasized that, as this was not only the EC's thinking, but the position of a two-third majority of Members, this proposal was reasonable and practicable.
