120. The representative of the European Communities said that many of the points he wanted to address had been eloquently made by the Swiss representative. He would therefore focus on some comments made by other delegations.
121. New Zealand had said that the proposal contained in TN/C/W/52 was "not about prima facie evidence". He could not but read out again the second sentence of paragraph 2 of the proposal, which said that "In the framework of these procedures, and in the absence of proof to the contrary in the course of these, the Register shall be considered as a prima facie evidence that, in that Member, the registered geographical indication meets the definition of 'geographical indication' laid down in TRIPS Article 22.1."
122. In response to the comment made by Korea about why the register as proposed in TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2 should be more than Google, he said that Google did not facilitate protection. Delegations had not been negotiating for some 15 years to arrive at a Google-type database.
123. He took note of, and expressed appreciation for, the assurances given by Australia. He wondered, however, what would happen if a Member had industry's enshrined interest in following a different approach. This was exactly what was worrying his delegation. It would therefore be necessary to have a clear legal effect flowing from the consultation of the register.
124. In response to the comments made by the Canadian delegation regarding Canada's experience with the bilateral negotiations with the EC, he observed that Canada had signed an agreement with the EC because it had something to gain. As regards the exercise of examining the EC names, he said that the Canadian case was different from the register that was being negotiated: the bilateral lists envisaged protection in both countries whereas a name notified to the register under TN/C/W/52 would not trigger any protection. Under the TN/C/W/52 proposal an individual demarche had to be made by the GI right holder, despite the fact that the GI was in the register, to seek protection under the domestic procedures of the country in which he was interested in seeking protection and whose authorities would take the relevant decision. Furthermore, the register proposed under TN/C/W/52 would not be an automatic system of protection such as the one under the Lisbon Agreement or a one-stop shop. He feared that the kind of comment made by Canada might lead to misinformation.
