122. The representative of Australia said her delegation agreed fully with New Zealand and believed that convergence was indeed good. However, with respect to extraterritoriality, her delegation would refer Members to the European Union's comments in paragraph 20 of the minutes of the March 2010 meeting, saying that under the TN/C/W/52 proposal the entry of a name on the register would trigger two legal effects: "first, the name entered in the register would merely represent prima facie evidence that it was a geographical indication, that the goods originated from a specific place and owed at least one of their characteristics, its quality or its reputation to this origin. He said that beyond that, domestic authorities would have all latitude to decide for or against protection of a term on the basis of contrary evidence provided by themselves or brought by any third party". Therefore it was her understanding that there was all latitude in the domestic systems and Members were not forced to protect a term as a geographical indication on the basis of the register. That point of clarity was useful. However, it seemingly created a burden to disprove a geographical indication on an international basis that was on the register and this was the point of distinction. It would be an additional burden that did not currently exist.
123. In concluding she reiterated her point that a side-by-side comparison of the TN/C/W/52 proposal with the joint proposal in TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2 might provide further clarity.
