93. The representative of the European Union said that the representative of New Zealand, who did not wish to respond on the first part of his initial statement, had actually well responded. The point he was trying to make, which was slightly mischaracterized, was not to draw other issues into that context but merely to usefully remind delegations that they were not negotiating in a vacuum, but in a broader context.
94. On sub question 2, he would refrain from repeating what his delegation had said in June, but would simply refer Members to paragraphs 88–93 of the minutes of the June meeting with a few additional comments.
95. On the supplementary questions raised by the delegation of the United States, he said that his delegation had responded to most of them in June and would refer the delegation of the United States to sub-paragraphs 9–15 of the minutes of that meeting. His delegation would check again with colleagues and see if they had additional elements to share for the next meeting.
96. In response to Australia's statement, he said he understood that the initial burden was on the trademark examiner. It was only when the trademark examiner had made a determination that the burden shifted to whoever was contesting the determination. He would appreciate clarification from Australia. If his initial understanding was correct, then he believed that there was convergence as stated in his previous statement.
