1.76. The representative of the European Union said that his delegation supported the statements made by other W/52 sponsors and in particular the additional elements given by Switzerland, and would briefly focus on a few points.
1.77. The first point related to the two different approaches to the mandate: one was the Joint Proposal Group's position, which had remained unchanged for some ten years. The other one was the W/52 proposal, by delegations which had all shown flexibility – in order to join the W/52 proposal, and some also before even joining it – and had tried move the negotiations forward. He said that it was difficult to imagine that this ship would ever reach port unless delegations from the Joint Proposal Group were ready to move from positions they had held, and from a text where not a comma had been changed, for ten years. The fundamental question regarding the mandate was whether or not the joint proposal actually met the minimum level required by the mandate. The answer was clearly negative. As had already stated, it was very difficult to argue that a voluntary system, i.e. a system where Members could consult a register, and then do whatever they wanted with that information, would actually facilitate the protection of geographical indications. This point was being shared by several other delegations. Whilst the Joint Proposal Group had on a number of questions orally indicated that this information had to be taken into account, its proposal did not state that clearly.
1.78. In response to delegations from the Joint Proposal Group which had alluded that the mere fact that a GI, once it was entered into the Register, would trigger an avalanche of examinations in all the WTO Members, he said that this would not be the case. It would only be in the context of the examination in their domestic systems that they would have to consult the register.
1.79. With respect to the numbers of GIs to be examined, he invited members to consult the EU website, which showed that the exact number was well below the exaggerated figures cited by some delegations. That being said, even for those GIs included in the EU register, the assumption that all of them would necessarily be registered in all WTO Members was dubious.
1.80. In response to Argentina's implying that the necessity for countries to assess whether or not a term complied with the GI definition would be an additional burden, he recalled that Members to which the TRIPS provisions applied already had to make that kind of assessment today. One could perhaps argue that giving the registration the status of prima facie evidence would simplify rather than complicate the matter, but this did not change the fact that assessments were already now taking place in the context of Members' domestic procedures, whatever those domestic procedures might be.
1.81. On Malaysia's question of whether or not the inclusion of a GI in the register would be "the end of the story", he said that that was not the intention of the proposal. On the contrary, it would be the beginning of a process. First of all, the GI notified for registration would trigger a national process: for example, an application for registration in Malaysia. The fact that a GI was included in the multilateral register would not obviate the need to seek protection under Malaysia's particular domestic rules. What it did was to ensure that there was a register to consult and that the effects of the register were limited to constituting prima facie evidence that the term notified satisfied the definition of a GI in the country in which it originated. That did not mean that it necessarily satisfied the definition in a third country. This was a matter for national authorities to examine when the request was presented for protection. The process of examining was typically a two-step process: first, to determine whether the registered GI did satisfy the definition; and second, to determine whether it deserved protection.
1.82. In response to the comment made by Chile in relation to the burden of proof regarding genericness, he said that it was the EU's understanding that claims of genericness already had to be substantiated in all systems. Chile would be the first exception where a particular claim that a term was generic did not have to be substantiated. The draft proposed did not change anything from current practices, if not in all then at least – after Chile's intervention – in the vast majority of Members.
