1.134. The representative of Canada recalled that the representative of the European Union had mentioned twice that the registration of a GI would create a prima facie evidence that the term met the definition of a GI "in the country of origin". The EU had proposed in Section D.1(b) of the composite text dated 28 February that the registration of the GI would mean that it satisfied the definition of a GI "in that Member". In the small drafting group, the EU had indicated that "in that Member" meant "in the consulting Member". For Canada, this seemed different from "in the country of origin". If, as mentioned by the EU twice, the presumption concerned the country of origin, why did the EU not accept the terms proposed by India, spelling out clearly that the presumption would be "in the notifying Member"?
1.135. With respect to the number of GIs that were being protected in the EU, she said that this issue was troublesome because during the negotiations of the bilateral agreement between the EU and Canada, Canada had received a list of 10,000 names that were supposed to be GIs for wines and spirits in Europe. If, as indicated by the EU delegation, there would be just some 2,000 GIs, why had the EU presented such a long list of names to Canada?
