64. The representative of Hungary recalled that his delegation had made extensive comments on procedures at the last Special Session. He supported the EC's constructive suggestion that instead of providing new copies of already notified legislation, the notification of names to be registered should contain cross-references to existing WTO notifications. He recalled that his delegation had raised a number of questions at the last Special Session, as reflected in paragraph 65 of document TN/IP/M/3. He said that no answers had been given to those questions yet. In his view, answers to those questions could help shed light on what kind of opposition procedure was needed in the multilateral register. As was well known by Members and shown by the Article 24.2 review, Members had implemented their obligations in a variety of ways. Some had national registries, others protected GIs through certification marks or through their competition legislation, passing-off, etc., or a combination of these systems. The Article 23.4 mandate made it clear that the system to be set up was for GIs that were eligible for protection. At the last Special Session, his delegation had attempted to ask what procedure was available to Members that did not have national registries to be able to identify names eligible for protection in their territories. He wondered whether Members that did not have national registers, for at least wines and spirits, had examined conformity of a term with the relevant provisions of Section 3, including Article 22.1 definition, e.g., that a given quality, reputation or other characteristics of a good was essentially attributable to its geographical origin. In the case of certification marks, his delegation wished to know whether or not trademark examiners established conformity with the Article 22.1 definition and other relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement when examining trademark applications. How would other Members establish a list of names eligible for protection which they wished to notify under the system? Was there or would there be any challenge or opposition procedure in the process of establishing conformity with the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement? Would the WTO Member in question establish which terms were eligible for protection and decide which terms it wished to notify? For instance, in document IP/C/W/392, submitted by Australia to the regular session, it seemed clear from Australia's system that the 97 GIs in the wine registry would be notified. However, his delegation did not know how that would be done with respect to spirits, because they did not know which GIs for spirit were eligible for protection in Australia under the Australian Food Standards Code Spirits Standard. His delegation therefore wanted to learn more from Australia and other Members who did not have the same system as Hungary about how that would be done and whether there were or would be possibilities at the national level to challenge the examination of conformity with the Section 3 obligations of the TRIPS Agreement. He pointed out that his country had a registry which contained names for wines and spirits and the way Hungary would establish the list of names to notify would be straightforward.
