65. The representative of Switzerland recalled that her delegation had described at the last meeting the various phases and elements of the procedure, (TN/IP/M/3 paragraphs 27 et seq.). Certain proposals, including that of Canada and other Members (TN/IP/W/5), seemed to have taken for granted that the system to be established would have to facilitate the protection of GIs as prescribed by Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement. As indicated by Canada, "to facilitate" GIs meant "to make GIs known", which was undeniable. However, for her delegation, that only concerned the first part of the process of actual facilitation; by itself, it was not sufficient. To "facilitate", in general terms, meant to make it less difficult. One might well ask therefore how a register could provide less difficult protection and why it was necessary to establish such a register. If one examined why registers were created, one would note a common feature that the owners of the registered names could get a concrete advantage from these registrations in law courts for example. If in the framework of a national register, the inscription gave rise to a right, it would seem legitimate that in the multilateral framework and in view of the history and traditions of each Member, the legal effect of the registration of a GI existed as foreseen by various systems of international registration. However, in the case of the future multilateral system, this effect should obviously be less far-reaching than at the national level. In the opinion of her delegation, it was important to attach a legal effect to these registrations; failing to do so would call into question the very purpose of facilitating the protection of GIs. The most appropriate effect was to attach to registration a presumption of validity. Her delegation failed to understand how the proposal in document TN/IP/W/5 intended to facilitate the protection of GIs without attaching legal effects to a registration. Document TN/IP/W/5 indicated that it would be enough to have a database or a simple source of information. However, in paragraphs 2 and 3 of page 6 of that paper, the possibility of raising an objection to that registration had been mentioned. She asked what the reason was for such opposition if all that was intended was to have a simple database without legal effect. Why refer only to the law of the notifying Member? Why should it necessarily mean the cancellation of the challenged GI? To provide such an opposition seemed to ignore the very scope of the exceptions in Article 24, which in most cases, aimed at covering the specific situations in the country of protection and not in the country of origin. Most of the grounds for opposition have an inter partes effect rather than an erga omnes one. She asked the sponsors of document TN/IP/W/5 to provide additional information on the intricacies of the opposition procedure.
