45. The representative of Australia, in response to Hungary's question, said his delegation was simply highlighting the fact that it would make a proposal. For his delegation, the discussions in 2002 on definition had been helpful. However, they had left participants with unanswered questions: What was a geographical indication? Did it include a country's name or not? Was it only used when the country was small? Could it be used to designate Japanese sushi or Chinese tea? With regard to traditional expressions, whilst he could accept the EC's statement that they had currently no intention of notifying these expressions in the register, he had no certainty about that. If the register was designed on the basis of the EC approach, there would be endless discussions between Members as to what a geographical indication was, to its eligibility for protection and other issues. He cautioned Members who did not have a direct interest in the trade of wines and spirits that they should think very seriously about what this register would imply because, as the demandeurs had made clear, they wanted it to apply to all products. In light of this, his delegation was trying to narrow down the scope of potential dispute. If the EC and Swiss delegations did not have any problems with traditional expressions, he would then suggest agreeing to the proposal he had made. With regard to certification marks, he would not mind having them excluded too, except if this had an impact on the legal effect because in Australia geographical indications were protected under the certification mark system.
