44. The representative of Argentina, referring to the Secretariat's note (TN/IP//W/4), said that paragraph 8(i) of that note made reference to a system, which "[did] not provide for the grant of an international title of protection". In her view, this statement also applied to other agreements. In fact, under the Lisbon Agreement, any contracting party might refuse to protect the appellation of origin. Paragraph 5 of the same note said that the systems were "often referred to as international registration systems", but in her view, this did not mean that they guaranteed the grant of a title of protection.
45. With respect to "mechanics", Argentina fully supported the notification and registration procedure outlined in the Joint Proposal (TN/IP/W/5) and believed that this procedure was the one that would truly facilitate protection without giving additional burdens or incurring extra costs or going beyond what the TRIPS Agreement established. The fundamental element in this proposal was the full implementation of Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, under which WTO Members were able to make the necessary determination and analyse whether notified GIs were consistent or not with their national legislation. Members' rights would be undermined if they had to protect automatically in their territories registered GIs merely because they were protected in the territory of another contracting party. Referring to proposals made earlier concerning the information to be provided with the notification, i.e., administrative decisions, bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements, she said that the procedure could not be looked at in isolation from the legal effects of the system. What would be the implications of a GI that was notified on the basis that it had been included in a bilateral or multilateral agreement? For example, how would one know whether a notified GI that two countries had committed to protect did not fall under Article 24.9? The proposals made would give rise to uncertainty. The proponents also pretended that multilateral agreements could be used as a basis for the validity of the notified GIs. For Argentina, this would mean that obligations contracted by some Members under multilateral agreements would indirectly be transferred to other WTO Members which had not ratified such multilateral agreements. The proposals relating to information to be provided implied a duplication or a revision of the TRIPS Agreement, which already provided for notification of this type, such as notification of bilateral agreements, legislation and other information. The proposal for a contact point would also be a duplication of another provision in the TRIPS Agreement and constituted an additional burden. Developing countries had already experienced considerable burden in giving a complete notification of their laws and regulations. The proposals made would imply an additional burden, for example the examination of other Members' laws and bilateral agreements and their compliance with the TRIPS provisions on GIs. It would also be impossible, in the light of the current situation, to analyse within the proposed time-frame of 18 months all the information which would accompany every notification.
