Minutes - TRIPS Council Special Session - View details of the intervention/statement

Ambassador Eui-yong Chung (Korea)
European Union
C.3.c Purpose
128. The representative of the European Communities, in response to the comments made by Canada, said that, if a country notified certain terms and another country opposed them, consultations would start. Furthermore, if there was no mutually agreeable solution, the country that had opposed would not have to protect the GI and the effects of the registration would not take place in that country. He recalled that at the June 2002 meeting certain delegations believed that, as a consequence of notification and registration, they would have to protect the registered names if they had not opposed it. Certain delegations believed that protecting a GI that had been registered meant policing the respect of that GI, by sending inspectors into supermarkets to check whether anyone was using that protected GI, etc. That in his view would indeed go well beyond the TRIPS Agreement. That was not the effect of registration under the system proposed by his delegation: there was no obligation on government enforcement for registered names via the presumption of validity, which was the main legal effect of the EC approach. It remained the responsibility of the right holders rather than governments to enforce the protection of GIs. That protection was simply "facilitated".