54. The representative of Australia thought that India disagreed with his delegation's proposal only because it was limited to wines and spirits. He further said that, if Australia's proposal was considered by some delegations as restricting the flexibility contained in the TRIPS Agreement, then the Special Session should look at whether this proposal did in any way have an impact on Article 22. However, the real point he was trying to make was that the trust had been undone when the European Union had presented a draft regulation on wine that clearly protected terms which did not fall within the definition of geographical indications. Australia's concerns stemmed from the fact that bilateral agreements concluded by the European Communities with several countries covered simple common English language terms (or common terms in French and Spanish) that the EC wanted to protect. Because of the lack of trust, of understanding and of the degree of confusion and ambiguity as to what a geographical indication was, he simply wished to make clear to delegations that they should know what they had to agree to. For this reason, he had proposed a footnote but would be open to any other suggestion.
