1.30. The representative of Japan said his delegation welcomed the circulation of the draft composite text and the introduction of the revised joint proposal TN/IP/W/10/Rev.3. His delegation would like to take this opportunity to make a couple of points regarding the multilateral system on notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits. He said that it was evident from the two different titles at the top of eth draft composite text that there was a fundamental difference in views on what was being negotiated in the Special Session. The proposal from the European Union, Switzerland and some other Members went far beyond the negotiating mandate given by Ministers. That mandate from the Doha Ministerial Conference was clear: to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits. It was important to be consistent in that mandate, and in that context Japan appreciated the title of the Chair's cover page of the room document which clearly reflected the accurate mandate.
1.31. Regarding substantive provisions of the draft composite text, he said that the legal effects or consequences of registration, especially the so-called prima facie evidence was a concept which did not exist in the joint proposal or other proposals. It was the understanding of his delegation that a prima facie case had to be based on sufficient evidence and legal argument, and that when a prima facie case was made, the burden of proof moved to the other party. Prima facie evidence by itself established a "prima facie case" in the absence of proof to the contrary, and therefore had to be legally equivalent to sufficient evidence with legal argument and only that could justify the legal consequence of shifting the burden of proof. However, this was not the case here. Both, the EU proposal and the Hong Kong, China proposal suggested that registration of GI information notified by a Member which protected the notified GI in its territory would be considered as prima facie evidence that the registered GI met the definition of a GI of Article 22.1 in all other WTO Members. In these proposals, a GI registration was automatically considered prima facie evidence without sufficient legal argument to raise a presumption, although the said notification and registration could not be considered sufficient evidence to support the claim that the registered GI met the definition of a GI under Article 22.1 in all other WTO Members. Therefore, the proposal which automatically considers a mere notification and registration of a GI of a notifying Member as prima facie evidence could upset the balance between a person claiming GI ownership and a third party and would therefore be unreasonable. Such a reversal of the burden of proof was not acceptable for his delegation.
1.32. He said that, through bilateral negotiations, Japan had some experience with this burden of checking a number of GIs in order to determine if these GIs should be considered as GIs in Japan. It had been a heavy burden for Japan, and such burden could be put on each WTO Member if the so-called prima facie evidence concept were to be applied. Japan would therefore like to encourage all Members to carefully consider the proposals on the table. While there was no proposal by the W/52 Group, which was often reputed to represent more than two thirds of WTO Members, there was an EU proposal supported by some W/52 proponents on the key issue of legal effects and/or consequences of registration. The joint proposal on the other hand was more Member-friendly. It did not imply prima facie evidence effect, which meant that it was much less burdensome, and its principle of voluntary participation provided complete flexibility for Members. The revised version now had newly introduced S&D provisions, which gave more comfort to Members. It was therefore obvious that the joint proposal was the most valuable option for Members within the scope of the mandate. His delegation would continue to engage in discussion on this important matter.
