114. The representative of the United States responded to the preceding intervention by saying that with respect to sub-questions (d) and (e), his delegation would be interested in both aspects to the extent that they were relevant.
115. With regard to the second sub-question on the genericness, the representative of Turkey said that under the relevant Turkish legislation, genericness was specified as one of the reasons for absolute refusal. When an application was made, the examiner had to carry out the necessary research and, if there was a claim of non genericness, the burden of proof was on the applicant. Genericness was defined under Turkish law as the name that had become the common or generic name for the product, even where it related to a region or an area associated with the production or marketing origin thereof. Use by the public in the area of origin and use by consumers in general had to be taken into consideration in order to determine whether or not a name was generic. After registration was completed, any dispute had to be resolved in a judicial procedure.
116. Her delegation was in agreement with the delegation of Switzerland that the TN/C/W/52 proposal contained some key elements that must be first agreed. The Special Session should continue discussing these key issues.
117. Furthermore, like China and Switzerland, her delegation believed that a register of geographical indications for all products would be an ideal solution in the context of a comprehensive approach. The three issues under discussion in relation to the TRIPS Agreement should be taken up in parallel for a successful conclusion of the negotiations.
