111. The representative of the European Union recalled that his delegation's position had been clearly stated and represented the view of the majority of Members of the issues under consideration.
112. In response to Canada's comments on the large number of GIs belonging to the European Union, he said that the number of European GIs had been vastly exaggerated. He welcomed the Canadian explanation as to how the proposal would be implemented, but reiterated that the TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2 proposal was silent on this issue.
113. He said that although the Australian and Canadian examples had been useful, it would not be feasible to create a compendium comprising examples of how the register would be implemented in each national system, and doing so would not create legal certainty.
114. In response to the argument that the TN/C/W/52 proposal reversed the burden of proof, he said that this was a fallacious argument. Those who argued that the person seeking to benefit from a monopoly would have to bear the burden of proof to fulfil the relevant conditions also had to accept the argument that, once such a right had been established, the person who wanted to benefit from the application of an exception had to bear the burden of proving that the conditions of the exception were fulfilled. Therefore, requiring those claiming genericism of a term to substantiate their claim was no reversal of that principle.
115. With regard to New Zealand's statement that the proposed database would better inform trademark offices and therefore facilitate protection, he said that all the information regarding European GIs, including the conditions for registration, was already available on the Internet and the website of the European Union, and it was therefore doubtful that such a database would represent a real improvement in terms of information. Assuming, however, that the database would indeed be a better way of being informed, his delegation failed to see how that enhanced information would facilitate protection, because the negotiating mandate was not to better inform the trademark offices or the IP national authorities but to facilitate protection of GIs. While this might not please everyone, he reminded Members that the compromise proposal TN/C/W/52 had been accepted by and was acceptable to two-thirds of the Membership.
