105. The representative of Australia responded to the question posed by the Chair regarding what would be unacceptable or acceptable to Australia. Her country simply could not agree to a register that would have an extra-territorial effect. Territoriality was not a notion that was subject to a point of view. It was a fact that GIs, being established and protected on the basis of laws and regulations applicable in a given territory, were necessarily subject to the principle of territoriality. On this issue, significant work had been done in this forum as well as in others with great expertise, such as WIPO.
106. Like New Zealand, Canada, Argentina and others, Australia equally could not agree to a register that had legal presumptions that would upset the balance of rights and obligations that Members had carefully negotiated.
107. Regarding what would be acceptable, Australia could agree to an obligation to consult the register when examining applications for trademarks or GIs for wines and spirits. This was stated clearly, without equivocation, in paragraph 5 of the joint proposal in TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2. This would provide real benefits to the users of GIs by creating a resource that currently did not exist. As stated in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 of the joint proposal, the register would be searchable online, free of charge, accessible to all WTO Members and the public, in all three WTO languages, and would provide a means to access the original notifications. It could not be denied that such an international central resource would facilitate the protection of GIs by making available information that could be consulted by examiners of trademark and GI applications for wines and spirits.
108. As mentioned by New Zealand, if Australia were to implement such a scheme, it would also agree that consultation would have to be honest and serious, and that the register would not simply be ignored.
