1.55. The representative of Singapore said that his delegation welcomed the circulation of the draft composite text dated 25 February 2011, and wished to make the following observations and requests for clarification.
1.56. With respect to the title of the text, he said that this should ideally reflect the mandate in paragraph 18 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1), where Ministers had agreed "to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits". Singapore believed that the title proposed by the Joint Proposal Group suitably achieved this.
1.57. With respect to participation, the draft text reflected two opposing positions. Singapore was of the view that participation should be voluntary. In principle, the issue of mandatory or voluntary participation should not be taken in isolation, but be considered along with the consequences of registration. His delegation urged that fellow WTO Members consider, in reviewing the overall effect of participation and the consequences of registration, the third guiding principle set out in Ambassador Clarke's report (TN/IP/19), which stated that the territorial nature of intellectual property rights should be preserved.
1.58. In relation to the element of notification, his delegation supported having a greater level of detail in the notifications as this would allow Members to have more information on the protection accorded to the term as a GI in the country of origin. In this respect, his delegation agreed with the inclusion of details such as the GI term being protected, the geographical region it related to, and the details of the notifying Member and right owners. It would further be useful for notifications to include details on how the requirements of TRIPS Article 22.1 were met. His delegation trusted that the small drafting group would continue its excellent work in identifying and scoping out the details required for notifications.
1.59. With reference to paragraph B.5 of the draft text, he said that Hong Kong, China had raised a valid concern as to the administrative capacity and resource constraints of the WTO Secretariat. It might thus be appropriate, as suggested by Hong Kong, China, to limit the number of notifications or applications to be processed each year. Singapore would like to seek clarification from the small drafting group on whether the limits contemplated were aggregate limits for all countries or country-level limits, or both.
1.60. With respect to the element of registration, his delegation supported the concept of an on-line register open to all to access and search free of charge. The register should be updated from time to time to keep the information up to date. He also noted that in paragraph C.6 (a), Hong Kong, China had proposed a requirement for the registration to be periodically renewed. Such requirement would be useful to ensure that the register was kept updated and did not contain obsolete GIs, e.g. GIs that had fallen into disuse in their country of origin. It also complemented paragraph C.6 (f) of the draft text, which imposed an obligation on Members to notify the Secretariat of GIs that ceased to be protected, or that had fallen into disuse, in their country of origin. Singapore would nonetheless like to seek clarification from the small drafting group on whether or not there would be any measures to ensure compliance with the obligations under paragraph C.6 (f).
1.61. Regarding the consequences of registration, his delegation noted that there were broadly two differing positions. Under the first position, advocated by the Joint Proposal Group, registration did not automatically confer, at the domestic level, any enhanced protection in participating Members. Members only needed to consult the system when making decisions concerning the domestic protection of trademarks and/or GIs for wine and spirits. Under the second position, advocated by some members of the W/52 Group and Hong Kong, China, the registration would be prima facie evidence that the term in question met the requirements of Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. With such prima facie status accorded to the term, the party seeking protection of the term in another Member's territory no longer bore the initial burden of proving that the term met the definition of Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Instead, the burden was shifted to the other Member to prove that the term did not meet such requirements. This reduced the flexibility of Members in deciding whether or not to grant GI protection to a term, and increased the rights enjoyed by the term in the other Members' territories.
1.62. His delegation urged that, in resolving the differences in positions, Members bear in mind the five guiding principles set out in Ambassador Clarke's report (TN/IP/19) and generally agreed to by WTO Members during the March 2010 TRIPS Council Special Session meeting. In particular, Singapore would like to highlight the first, third and fourth principles, which respectively stated that the purpose of the Register was to facilitate, not to increase, the protection of GIs for wines and spirits, that the territorial nature of intellectual property rights should be preserved, and that the Register should not impose undue financial and administrative burdens on Members. While his delegation believed that the register could be one of the sources Members could consult when making domestic decisions on the protection of trademarks and GIs, domestic decision-makers should be left with the flexibility to decide if and how much weight they should accord the information on the Register, in accordance with their domestic systems. His delegation believed that this approach would be more consistent with the generally agreed principles in TN/IP/19.
1.63. On the element of Fees and Costs, his delegation noted the two differing proposals on the table. One proposal had the cost of setting up and administering the system being borne by the central budget of the WTO Secretariat while the other proposal contemplated the costs of the system being fully recovered from its users. In resolving the differences in positions, and deciding if and how fees should be imposed and costs should be apportioned, Members might wish to take the following thoughts into consideration: fees, if set an appropriate level, could serve to ensure that the administrative capacity and resource constraints of the WTO Secretariat were appropriately and efficiently utilised. This would complement any limits set on the number of applications to be processed by the WTO Secretariat each year. Furthermore, if fees were to be imposed, there should be transparency in how they were set. The fees set should also be fair to all Members, bearing in mind in particular that there would be differences in the number of applications filed, and hence the utilisation of the resources of the register, by each Member. Finally, his delegation would like to seek clarification on whether the document titled "Geographical Indications Registry for Wines and Spirits: Approximate Costing", currently annexed to the draft composite text, was intended to form part of the final text, or was only provided as an explanatory note.
1.64. His delegation hoped these comments would be useful to fellow Members, especially the small drafting group, and looked forward to receiving clarifications from the relevant delegations on the queries raised.
