82. The representative of Japan recalling that his delegation had made a brief comment regarding the Chairman's sub-question 2 at the previous session, wished to complement the information given. In order to take the negotiation forward, Japan's comment to sub-question 2 should be provided with the proposals to the Special Session in mind. In particular, TN/C/W/52 modality proposal should be borne in mind because it included a relevant part: it proposed that "domestic authorities shall consider assertions on the genericness exception laid down in TRIPS Article 24.6 only if these are substantiated." That sentence demonstrated that the burden of proof of a person who sought protection of a geographical indication was a relevant issue. For that reason, he wished to explain the Japanese system from the perspective of a person seeking protection of a geographical indication as well as a person seeking to prevent that protection.
83. Geographical indications for wines and spirits were protected under "Standard for Indication in Relation to Geographical Indications," which was based on the Law Concerning Liquor Business Association and Measures for Securing Revenue from Liquor Tax. Under that system, a person who sought protection of a geographical indication was not first required to show that it was not identical with the term customary in common language as the common name for goods or service at issue in Japan. That did not signify that the legal system in Japan hindered a person who sought to prevent protection to provide information that the geographical indication sought for protection was likely to be identical with the term customary in common language as the common name for goods or service at issue in Japan.
84. Japanese Trademark Law did not first require a person who sought rejection, invalidation or cancellation of a trademark with a GI for the purpose of protection of the geographical indication to show that the GI sought for protection was not generic. At the stage of trademark examination, a third party might provide information about genericness of the trademark as such applied for registration. After registration, a third party might initiate an opposition or invalidation trial and might refer the issue of genericness of registered trademarks to a board of appeal.
