18. The representative of the European Communities said that document TN/IP/W/4 would be a constructive contribution to the Special Session's work, whatever Members' views were. It struck him that part of the information found in that document was important for the discussions. As the EC delegation has said in the past, it was clear that, if the intention - and the wording of Article 23.4 confirmed it - of the negotiators was to establish a multilateral system of notification and registration, they must have had in mind a system with legal effects. His delegation would further examine the different treaties or international agreements which had been compiled and which had been analysed in that document. In his view, it was important to emphasize that the reading of paragraph 8 of the introductory comments to document TN/IP/W/4 showed that the international agreements examined clearly showed that the systems of registration were meant to have legal effects, admittedly with varying degrees. That was fully in line with the views expressed by the EC delegation and by many other delegations.
19. Regarding the notification procedures, he said that notifications should be made to the WTO Secretariat - if it were decided that it would be the Secretariat - possibly through an agreed common format, and should be accompanied by certain information such as copies of national legislative, administrative or judicial decisions, and, if necessary, bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements, and indicate the date on which each geographical indication first received protection in the country of origin. Any time-limit on that protection and the type of product covered by the GI, as well as prima facie evidence of the geographical indication's conformity with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement should also be provided as stated in paragraph B.3 of the proposal made by the EC and their member States (IP/C/W/107/Rev.1). This type of information seemed, to a large extent, to be similar to what a number of countries aiming at a different type of system also had in mind. This information would then be translated either by the notified party or, depending on the circumstances and the arrangement made, by the Secretariat, be published and notified among all WTO Members, at which point the 18-month examination period would begin.
20. As far as the procedure for opposition was concerned, during the 18-month examination period, WTO Members could request for further information about individual notifications. At the expiry of that period, a WTO Member must decide whether or not to challenge an individual notification. Challenges should be accompanied by a statement of the grounds for which a Member invoked Article 22, paragraphs 1, 4 or 6 of the TRIPS Agreement. Summary information on prima facie evidence supporting the claim should also be provided. Regarding this point, he recalled that, under the proposal from a number of countries (TN/IP/W/5), the Secretariat would have no discretion to decline or to accept a geographical indication notified by a WTO Member. He said that his delegation would not necessarily disagree with that statement, but wondered what would happen if a country, as one delegate had indicated in the past, notified the GI "telephone" for a fortified wine. It seemed that under the proposal contained in document TN/IP/W/5, any opposition would have to be launched in the country of origin. Unless that challenge was successful, all WTO Member authorities would have to look at the term "telephone" as a GI for a fortified wine. In his view, it would be necessary to find a system to avoid such abuses. Under the EC proposal, a challenge could be filed with the Secretariat, stating that such a term raised serious doubts as to the fulfilment of the requirements of Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
21. As far as registration was concerned, at the end of the 18-month period, registration of names would proceed with the relevant annotations of the challenges made, such as the name of the opposing country and the TRIPS provisions invoked. Challenges would preclude the effects of registration in the territory of the notifying party. The notifying party and each of the challenging parties should begin consultations with the view to resolving the disagreement via a mutually satisfactory negotiation.
