Minutes - TRIPS Council Special Session - View details of the intervention/statement

Ambassador D. Mwape (Zambia)
Hong Kong, China
B.i First sub-question
21. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that her delegation welcomed the two sub questions on legal effects and consequences of registration which would facilitate the sharing and exchange of technical information among Members. 22. Recalling that her delegation's proposal (TN/IP/W/8) related to a theoretical system, i.e. one that had not been implemented in Hong Kong, China, she addressed the Chairman's first sub-question. According to TN/IP/W/8, each application to enter a geographical indication on the register would be made by the designated representative of a Member. The information supplied in the application, if accepted following a formality examination, would provide prima facie evidence, in cases of alleged infringement before Members' courts, tribunals or administrative bodies, for ownership of the geographical indication, that the term was a geographical indication as defined in the TRIPS Agreement, and that it was protected as a geographical indication in the applicant's country. These three issues would be deemed to have been proved unless evidence to the contrary was produced by the other party to the proceedings. Upon the assertion that the application was a bona fide application made through the representative of the Member, the Registrar would not enquire further about the substance of the claim. This meant that courts, tribunals or administrative bodies would rely on the affirmation of the Member governments. According to her delegation's proposal, entries on the register would have to be renewed periodically for a fee, and, upon renewal, Member governments would reaffirm the matters attested to in the registration and make any necessary factual changes, such as those relating to the ownership or qualification for protection under the TRIPS Agreement. In addition, the Members concerned should notify any corrections to the registrations on the register to the body in a timely manner. 23. However, her delegation did not propose that the Registrar or Members be placed under an obligation to supplement information, other than perhaps that of notification if the Member withdrew its own recognition or protection of the geographical indication and as a consequence of which the geographical indication would no longer qualify under the TRIPS Agreement definition. 24. The functioning of her delegation's proposal had been set out in a room document dated 28 October 2009. It contained four hypothetical case studies dealing with: firstly, a non-contentious notification and registration of a geographical indication from a participating WTO Member, at both the domestic and international level; secondly, a contentious geographical indication application that was resolved at the domestic level before its notification and registration at the international level; thirdly, a non-protectable geographical indication screened out by a participating WTO Member at the domestic level; and fourthly, a contentious notification and registration, at both the international level and domestic level, where the case was finally resolved at the domestic level in another participating WTO Member. Her delegation hoped that this response to the Chair's first sub-question would assist Members in furthering their understanding of the issues involved.
The Special Session took note of the statements made.
TN/IP/M/26