28. The representative of Switzerland said that the requirement of "the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration" in Article 23.4 on the one hand, and a reference to "geographical indications for wines eligible for protection in those Members participating in the system" on the other hand, seemed at first contradictory. However, that was not the case if closely examined. She agreed with the EC that these two expressions needed to be dealt with first before addressing the question about the kind of system that might be agreed upon. The meaning of the term "multilateral" could only be determined by comparing it with the term "plurilateral". In the WTO context, while "plurilateral" was understood to refer to a system in which participation was fully voluntary, for instance, the Agreement on Government Procurement, "multilateral systems" were instruments which bound all WTO Members. Contrary to the understanding of another delegation, the terms used in Article 23.4 were not chosen lightly. The expression "eligible for protection in those Members participating in the system" suggested that Members could choose whether or not to participate in the system of notification and registration of their GIs. In that case, the system would be "voluntary". Given that it had been stated that the future system should not create new rights and obligations even if the negotiations entailed legal effects and that the purpose of the system was to facilitate protection without enhancing it, it would be logical that these legal effects apply to all WTO Members. She pointed out that these rights already existed without registration under Article 23 and bound all Members. If Members wanted to have a meaningful system facilitating the protection of GIs, it would be logical for the system to have a knock-on effect on all WTO Members. Such an effect was not disproportionate since the regulation would only create a presumption of the existence to a registered and non-challenged GI and not create any new rights.
