132. The representative of Hungary said that Canada had raised two valid points which Hungary had covered in its own proposal: the situation where there was no agreement at the end of consultations under the system proposed by the EC; and the question of the size of the parties in the consultation and their economic power. In a situation where one of the parties to the dispute was much smaller and where there was no settlement at the end of the bilateral consultation process, a multilateral possibility should be provided to settle the dispute. His delegation had also suggested that in appropriate cases the effect of a successful challenge should be erga omnes in order to take account of the kind of problem that Canada and Australia mentioned with respect to third markets. In light of the above, he asked delegations to examine the Hungarian proposal (IP/C/W/234 and 255). The arbitration system proposed by his delegation would not increase the level of protection under Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement and would not create substantive new obligations. Registration under the system his delegation supported would result in a rebuttable presumption of eligibility for protection, which meant that the burden of proof before national courts would be reversed. It went without saying that the ultimate decision on whether a term was eligible for protection would remain at the national level.
