1.34. The representative of Argentina said that his delegation appreciated the consultations that had taken place on the multilateral Register. However, as the draft composite text was complex and difficult to read for those not participating in the consultations, the Joint Proposal Group had today circulated a revised version of its proposal (TN/IP/W/10/Rev.3) to give Members a clear idea of what exactly is being proposed. As Canada had explained, a new section E in the document contained provisions on S&D based on a transitional time period applicable to the obligation in paragraph D.1 of the proposal. That paragraph established the participating Member's commitment to ensure that its procedures include the provision to consult the Database when making decisions regarding registration or protection of trademarks and GIs for wines and spirits in accordance with its domestic law. The new joint proposal text also included provisions on technical assistance for Members participating in the system and for non participating Members wishing to consult the Database.
1.35. He said that, as noted by Canada, Australia and Japan, the joint proposal was the only one conforming to the mandate of Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, which prescribed voluntary participation in the Register. The EU proposal entailed serious legal consequences for Members. These consequences were even more serious for developing countries, which, under the EU proposal, were required to bear the heavy burden of proof in determining, on the basis of information not easily available to them, whether or not the registered GI complied with the GI definition in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Members had to be clear on this point: if a developing country, regardless of its efforts to do so, could not find the evidence necessary to make this determination, or if there was no evidence at all, then according to the EU proposal it had no other choice but to grant the GI concerned the special protection under Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement. This not only resulted in an unacceptable modification of the rights and obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, but also in an intolerable burden for developing countries, which had neither the capacity nor the resources to conduct such investigations.
1.36. He said that the proposal on S&D circulated by the African Group, the LDC Group, Brazil, China and India reflected the views they had on the consequences of the EU proposal by requesting implementation periods of between ten and twenty years.
1.37. He said that the Joint Proposal Group stood ready to continue the negotiations. However, Argentina was concerned that the question of the mandate had now crept into the text and how that would further impact on the outcome of the negotiations. Although he would heed the request not to address this matter now he wished to express his delegation's hope that a way would be found to address this matter, in line with the TRIPS mandate and the mandate conferred by the Ministers.
