39. The representative of Switzerland said that her delegation had appreciated the Chair's consultations in the recent days, and welcomed the sub-questions, which would allow more detailed discussions on the significant technical issues. In response to these sub-questions, her delegation would like to share some preliminary information to complement the explanations it had already provided on the manner in which her delegation envisaged setting up a multilateral system at the national level. In line with her delegation's proposal under TN/C/W/52 for the establishment of a register applicable to all products, her delegation's response to his sub-questions would contain general information on the Swiss system, and would be applicable to all products.
40. The Swiss authorities, when making decisions on the protection of geographical indications or trademarks were compelled to use sources of law, including international treaties. That obligation pertained not only to using those sources of information, but also to the legal consequences in taking into consideration that information in order to determine whether a third party had to be protected or not. All other sources of information not associated with this legal obligation were used on a discretionary basis by the authorities in order to take a substantiated decision.
41. As other delegations had stated, the applicant or a third party could, of course, provide information on several occasions. Such information would be duly taken into consideration by the relevant authorities in line with the applicable procedural rules in a specific case. She reiterated that new sources of information, unless based on a legal obligation, would not be subject to that general obligation to use that particular source of information or to take into account any information provided. Such a legal obligation would therefore have to become applicable. She noted that the joint proposal was not sufficient to facilitate the protection of geographical indications because it did not contain such a legal obligation and did not provide for the weight to be given to the information contained in the register. The sanctions for failing to consult or not taking into consideration information in the first category of cases she had enumerated depended on whether the source of the obligation was national legislation or an international instrument. If it was national legislation there were remedies available to contest the decision by the national authority. If the legal obligation came from an international, bilateral or indeed multilateral or plurilateral treaty, a remedy or an appeal could be invoked at the national level, provided mechanisms were provided for in such treaties. Very often diplomatic channels could also be used where an obligation had been violated.
42. For other sources of information which were not prescribed by a legal obligation, there were no sanctions, save under the applicable procedural laws to take into account information provided by the parties to a dispute or by third parties.
43. On a more general plan, she stressed the importance, at the multilateral level and in the context of these negotiations, to have an obligation to consult and use that information on the register, and to set out the legal effects of information on the register in line with the proposal contained in TN/C/W/52. It was her delegation's view that if such a legal obligation was not set at the multinational level, there was a risk that it would be left to the national authorities whether or not to take the information contained in the register into consideration. Therefore her delegation considered, in line with the TN/C/W/52 proposal, that it was crucial to set such obligations at the multinational level, otherwise the register would not have the necessary clout to ensure protection at the national level.
