1.27. The representative of Australia said that the text-based discussions over the last months had usefully allow Members to clarify the meaning and impact of various proposals on the table, and to consider the relative benefits, costs and risks associated with each one. While this process had helpfully led to the creation of a single consolidated text and had enabled Members to engage in a meaningful technical consideration of these important issues, it had also increased his delegation's real concerns regarding what was being sought by the European Union in these negotiations. Australia had previously outlined its strong concerns about the proposed legal effect to the EU text, which he believed was inconsistent with the fundamental TRIPS principle of territoriality and would create a system in which a placement of a term on a register would constitute prima facie evidence that the term met the TRIPS definition of a GI in all markets. That was simply not an issue of definition only. As Members were required to protect GIs under the TRIPS Agreement, if there was a presumption that a GI met the definition of a GI in all markets, then Members were indeed required to protect it.
1.28. He said that the proposed legal effects would also limit the Article 24.6 exception for generic terms by reversing the burden of who would need to establish that a term is generic. His delegation believed these significant legal effects would upset the balance of rights and obligations in the TRIPS Agreement and significantly increase rather than facilitate protection granted to GIs and impose undue costs and administrative burdens on all Members, especially developing country Members. In practice, the EU proposal would require all WTO Members to protect thousands of GIs regardless of whether they would normally be eligible for protection under their own laws and regulations and give GI holders presumptive rights in all markets, creating uncertainty and risk for other legitimate users.
1.29. He said that Australia was also deeply concerned that the European Union continued to insist on elements of the register which were outside the scope of the mandate for these negotiations. The linkage drawn between the register for wine and spirit GIs and GI extension had significant implications for the nature and the scope of the register and would make it increasingly difficult for his delegation to engage in technical negotiations on the register. To be clear, Australia was not willing to negotiate a register for all products. Australia was a proponent of the joint proposal for a voluntary register that met the mandate of these negotiations and respected the principle of territoriality while adding real value to the current system and facilitating protection of wine and spirit GIs without imposing unreasonable burdens on governments and industry. His delegation strongly supported the revised version of that text tabled today, which had been amended to incorporate additional language on S&D, specifically in relation to implementation periods and technical assistance. In his view it was clear that Members faced a stark choice between the kinds of registers proposed and Australia would encourage all Members to seriously consider the implications of the proposals on the table.
