66. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that the database of GIs should be as complete as possible, that is the coverage of the notification should include not only the GIs as defined under Article 23.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, but also other competing GIs under Article 23.3. Furthermore, those indications that were exceptions to GI protection as provided under Article 24 should also be included in this database. With all that information ready and available in the database, the international notification and registration system could then provide a whole picture of any particular GI protection at the global level. For example, when the authority of one WTO Member was confronted with a request for the protection of a foreign GI, it could access the database and retrieve all relevant information such as the GI protection in Member A with a competing claim in Member B and a long time usage exception in Member C (Article 24.4) and, possibly, another exception of common names in Member D (Article 24.6). So, the international registration system ought to be as complete as possible while on a voluntary basis. The delegation of Chinese Taipei believed that registration should be a mechanism where every Member could register its GIs, its objections, and all other exceptions. Lastly, the participation should be open to all Members but strictly on voluntary basis. However, a non-participating Member should be able to access the system.
