91. The representative of the European Communities said that the added value of a registration in the multilateral register was a presumption. The reversal of burden of proof was one of the indirect consequences of the presumption. The holder of a WTO registration certificate would be presumed to be the owner or legitimate user of the registered geographical indication, and the indication would be presumed to meet the definition under Article 22.1. That holder would be entitled to benefit from the protection that the TRIPS Agreement already provided. From a procedural point of view, it would be up to other persons to challenge that presumption on the ground that the registration was not valid because, for example the name had become generic, had been registered as a trademark or had been "grand-fathered". There was no additional burden on Members' governments. The procedures and legal means to be applied were those already available before the establishment of the register. The protection would only be facilitated.
