289. The representative of Australia said that important questions were being raised at the regular and special sessions of the Council concerning the scope and operation of geographical indication protection in Members. This protection was relatively new for many Members; some were still working on full implementation and others were demanding substantial review of existing obligations. There was a pressing need for a collective understanding of national experience with existing provisions. Australia had encouraged a substantive discussion under this agenda item and remained keen to discuss the main issues arising from geographical indication protection including, but not limited to, the definition of a geographical indication, the application of Article 24 exceptions, including how generic terms were determined, the balance of interests in geographical indication protection and protection in the country of origin. The review under Article 24.2, based on the Checklist of Questions in documents IP/C/13 and 13/Add.1 would be useful in informing further important work on geographical indications. He proposed that Members who had not already done so respond to the Checklist and suggested the June meeting as a target date. In order to invigorate work on this agenda item, Australia would be pleased to make a presentation on its responses to the Checklist and answer questions in relation to its own geographical indication protection. He encouraged other Members to do likewise. One possible approach was for Members, in alphabetical order, to make presentations following the Secretariat's summary of responses to the Checklist (document IP/C/W/253).
