35. The representative of Argentina said that the representative of the EC had misunderstood her statement relating to the TRIPS Agreement and the Lisbon Agreement. According to her understanding, countries party to the Lisbon Agreement maintained the ability to challenge or protect a geographical indication. It was sufficient to refer to document TN/IP/W/4, which stated on page 7 that "each such contracting party may, within one year, notify, together with an indication of the ground, the International Bureau that they cannot ensure the protection of the registered appellation". Furthermore, it had been stated on page 7 of document TN/IP/M/4, under the title "Legal effect", that "except where such a declaration has been made, all contracting parties must protect the name as long as it continued to be protected in the contracting country of origin". In her view, the discussion showed an emerging consensus that the system would be voluntary; the main difference would be in the legal effects of the system. In this regard, she recalled that the Swiss delegation had stated that participation would be voluntary but the legal effects would affect all Members. She pointed out that, while the discussions seemed to involve only a few delegations, there were more delegations who did not necessarily have a specific interest in wines and spirits who were intervening. It was therefore important to know the positions of those delegations about a system which would affect all Members. She reiterated that the system proposed by her delegation and others was precisely aimed at protecting the rights of those delegations that did not have an interest in, or the capacity of participating in, the future system. In her view, if there were to be a challenge phase as suggested, very few countries would be able to keep up with the cost and burden of analysing all the notified GIs and to challenge them. If those Members participating on a voluntary basis were faced with difficulties of bearing both the implications of their obligations and the responsibility of analysing all these GIs, she wondered then how much more difficult it would be for non-participating Members. Even though that would be a secondary issue for non-participating Members, there would be indirect repercussions for those Members.
