81. The representative of Hungary noted that the issue of cost was a recurring topic in the discussions. He had listened with interest to the detailed analysis of the EC, which tried to show, through the various phases of the use of the system, that the costs were actually not as high as had been mentioned by the opponents. From a more general perspective, his delegation agreed that basically there were at least two types of direct costs: cost accruing from the operation of the system for the WTO Secretariat and costs to governments.
82. With regard to costs to the Secretariat, he said that, under Hungary's proposal, the Secretariat would have certain tasks in the management of the system. Hungary was open to the idea to have the WTO Secretariat or, on the basis of a special agreement between the WTO and WIPO, the WIPO Secretariat, perform this task. It was ready to look at the possibility of involving the International Bureau of WIPO in running the system, including for reasons of costs and human resources; with that way of proceeding, the cost for running the system would be cut down quite considerably.
83. With respect to costs to governments, Hungary did not question that there were certain limited costs to governments in this field in the same way as for other fields of intellectual property protection. He had listened with great interest to the concerns expressed by a number of countries about the costs to governments, in particular in developing countries. He pointed out that the costs to governments in relation to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, including in the fields of enforcement, patents or trademarks, etc., were immeasurably greater than the possible costs for a very limited part of the economy and for a very limited range of countries. He also pointed out that LDCs were, to his knowledge, not producing wines and they, as well as many other developing countries, would not be concerned about the system. It was, in fact, a handful of countries - some of them being highly developed industrial countries, others developing and agricultural exporter countries which were very much in the upper income part of the developing country category and were wine producers - that might have an interest in using the system for their own GIs or, as the case might be, which might be hit by the effect if the protection of GIs were facilitated through the multilateral system.
84. With regard to costs to producers, he recalled that his delegation had mentioned the example of Tokay wine in the last meeting. Hungary was able to demonstrate that there would be actual cost to producers. For multinational companies like Baileys and others which used the name "Tokay", the cost would consist in not being able to use this name and have higher prices for wine with a less well-known denomination.
85. With regard to costs to consumers, there was no question that there might be some cost especially for those consumers who used to have, as an example, access to Tokay wine which costed less than the real Tokay wine. He compared the situation with a similar one in the field of trademarks, where due to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, consumers in Hungary could no longer obtain products at lower prices and had to adjust to the changes. He wondered why the issue of costs to consumers should be different in the area of GIs.
