116. The representative of Chinese Taipei suggested that in their responses to sub-question 2.a Members make the distinction between an ex officio action by competent authorities and a third party action because the answers might be different. He said that the European Union's observation that elements of the TN/C/W/52 proposal were already practiced by many Members might be true with respect to sub-question 2.b, i.e. when a protected term was challenged. As a normal practice under civil law, when examiners had already decided that a term could be protected and a third party challenged such protection by opposition or before a court, then the burden of proof was on the third party. This said, the substance of the Special Session's discussions and the point challenged in the TN/C/W/52 proposal mostly concerned the situation under sub-question 2.a. He was convinced that the ongoing discussions would further clarify those questions.
