108. The representative of Switzerland noted that the level of substantiation to prove that a term was generic was very high for geographical indications in Switzerland. In an examination of the application for the registration of a geographical indication, the proof of genericness or non-genericness of a term for which protection as a geographical indication was being sought, was a collective endeavor. Proof of genericness or non-genericness of a geographical indication had to be provided by the GI applicant. When filing the application, the applicant had to prove that the term to be protected was not generic. Following examination and acceptance of the application it was then published, and during the period of public consultation third parties could challenge the term, including on the ground of genericness. Apart from the procedure involving third parties, the issue of genericness could also be determined by administrative authorities in the context of an examination procedure or by judges in the context of a judicial procedure, including in appeals. In the system without registration, the issue of genericness would be dealt with only in a court procedure.
109. As the delegation of the European Union had pointed out, from the Swiss point of view it was important that a decision on the genericness of a term be substantiated and motivated. That was why the TN/C/W/52 proposal included a provision for the substantiation of a claim of genericness of a term. The obligation to substantiate the genericness of a term should be included in the multilateral system aimed at facilitating the protection of geographical indications. Her delegation had not yet found any equivalent to that in the joint proposal and therefore continued to consider that it lacked elements that would facilitate the protection of geographical indications.
