1. The last sentence of paragraph 110 of the minutes contained in document TN/IP/M/23 ("She would describe the first three.") is deleted.
2. At the end of paragraph 111, the following text is added: "According to the same facts as cited in the first case, the plaintiff from Member X sought damages for infringement of the GI "Ubique" in a court of law in Member Y, which was the fourth hypothetical case. The respondent in the case did not dispute the ownership of the GI, but chose to bring evidence to rebut the presumption that the GI fell within the definition in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement as a GI. The plaintiff alleged that none of the reputation or quality or characteristics of "Ubique" did in fact essentially arise from its place of manufacture. The respondent adduced evidence to show that for 100 years the wine had been manufactured not only in the "Ubique" region but also in other regions of Member X and that the reputation or quality or characteristics of "Ubique" did not essentially derive from its place of manufacture. The court decided that this evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption that 'Ubique' was a GI as defined by TRIPS and the plaintiff's case failed accordingly."
3. Paragraphs 110 and 111 should read as follows:
"110. The representative of Hong Kong, China recalled that her delegation had submitted four hypothetical cases.
111. The first case would be a non contentious notification and registration of a GI from a participating WTO Member, at both the domestic and international levels. WTO Member X had a community which produced a wine carrying the name of the area, "Ubique", in which it was produced and had achieved repute through its link to its area of origin. Through a domestic system determined entirely by Member X, the local production organization controlling the use of the "Ubique" name (Production Organization) had been recognized by Member X. Member X, or the Production Organization with the consent of Member X, would request registration of the geographical name "Ubique" in the WTO GI Register for Wines and Spirits (WTO GI Register). In putting forward the request, Member X or the Production Organization asserted, amongst other things, (1) that the name "Ubique" was a name capable of serving as a GI in accordance with the definition in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement; (2) that the Production Organization was the sole owner of that GI; and (3) that the name "Ubique " was protected by the domestic law of Member X and had not fallen into misuse in the territory of Member X. Member X or the Production Organization, as the case might be, transmitted the request for registration of the name "Ubique" by electronic means to the administering body of the WTO GI Register. Upon receipt of the notification and the requisite registration fee, the Register undertook a formality examination only. No enquiry was made into the substance of the claims in terms of ownership or ability to operate as a GI. A certificate of registration was issued to Member X or the Production Organization and the name "Ubique" was placed on the WTO GI Register, which could be searched through the Internet at any time by any interested party. Provided that the required renewal fees were paid at the specified times, the name "Ubique" could remain on the Register indefinitely. If there was any change of particulars of the GI, e.g. a change of ownership of the GI, either Member X or the Production Organization was under a duty to notify the administering body of such amendments. The administering body of the WTO GI Register would then have to update or amend the WTO GI Register upon the payment of a specified fee by Member X or the Production Organization. Some time later a case of alleged infringement of the GI "Ubique" arose in WTO Member Y, which had volunteered to join the WTO GI registration system, but did not file any notification of contrary evidence that (1) Member X or the Production Organization was not the owner of the GI right in "Ubique"; or (2) the relevant GI did not satisfy the definition of GI in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement; or (3) the relevant GI was not protected in Member X. As with any Member that volunteered to join, Member Y had enacted legislation to protect GIs, under which it was specified that a court of law in Member Y, in determining the nature and/or ownership of a GI, would have to accept registration of a GI in the WTO GI Register as evidence and treat the following elements as proven: (i) ownership of a GI right; (ii) the relevant GI satisfied the definition of GI in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement; (iii) the relevant GI was protected in the country of origin, unless sufficient evidence to the contrary was adduced by the relevant respondent WTO Member or the Production Organization. In bringing its legal action for infringement in the court of law in Member Y, the owner of the GI "Ubique" from Member X was therefore able to enjoy the benefit of a presumption that the three elements would be treated as proven. If the other party adduced evidence to the contrary, then the court of law would weigh the totality of evidence adduced by both parties, and decide whether the elements in question were provided to the standard required in the proceedings. According to the same facts as cited in the first case, the plaintiff from Member X sought damages for infringement of the GI "Ubique" in a court of law in Member Y, which was the fourth hypothetical case. The respondent in the case did not dispute the ownership of the GI, but chose to bring evidence to rebut the presumption that the GI fell within the definition in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement as a GI. The plaintiff alleged that none of the reputation or quality or characteristics of "Ubique" did in fact essentially arise from its place of manufacture. The respondent adduced evidence to show that for 100 years the wine had been manufactured not only in the "Ubique" region but also in other regions of Member X and that the reputation or quality or characteristics of "Ubique" did not essentially derive from its place of manufacture. The court decided that this evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption that "Ubique" was a GI as defined by TRIPS and the plaintiff's case failed accordingly."
