55. The representative of the European Communities did not agree that the US/Japanese proposal met the criteria identified during the previous meetings of the Council. He did not believe that the Council had reached any agreement on which would be the essential criteria for a future multilateral register. The Council had discussed a number of characteristics of such a possible multilateral register but there were clearly different views on these. After having listened to the explanations provided by the United States and Japan, he remained of the opinion that there were strong divergences between the approaches of different Members. He would reflect carefully on the interventions made during the present meeting. His delegation believed that the US/Japanese proposal did not provide for a system with a real multilateral character. It seemed to be no more than an information system where national geographical indications were notified and automatically listed on a future database to be established by the WTO. Therefore, his delegation did not understand what would be the added value of the system proposed by the United States and Japan. Several delegations had indicated that the burden on the WTO would be limited but, in his delegation's view, it would still entail some costs which would not be compensated by any benefits other than those already existing at the national level and partially under notifications made on the basis of Article 63.2. For these reasons, his delegation believed that the US/Japanese proposal did not meet the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement. For his delegation, a multilateral register clearly implied multilateral protection and this was the key word and key element in the approach to such a register. The US/Japanese proposal was limited to creating a record rather than a real registration, as it only referred to legal effects under national legislation, as clearly stated in its section 3. This proposal was silent on the need for elements of proof, for a mechanism for the assessment of eligibility or for an opposition procedure - elements which his delegation considered to be indispensable and important to a future multilateral register. A listing in a database fell far short of the objectives of Article 23.4 and was not consistent with the purpose of a real registration. As to the voluntary nature of the system on which both the United States and Japan had insisted, his delegation had also underlined the voluntary character of its proposed system. However, the Council should be careful not to establish an overly flexible system. What would be the status of a geographical indication listed on the database when a Member decided to withdraw from the system, as the US/Japanese system would allow? Would such registrations become invalid? Although based on a voluntary system, the system proposed by the EC would provide that, once a geographical indication was registered, it would be binding on all WTO Members. This would be counterbalanced by rights to oppose registration. It should not be understood as creating new obligations, as indeed any Member would have the opportunity to oppose a registration under the EC proposal.
56. Continuing, he repeated his delegation's concern about the possible confusion between trademark and geographical indication systems. The specific nature of the protection of geographical indications was embodied in the reference made to the quality and particular characteristics of a product coming from a specific area; a link with production in a specific area was alien to the trademark system. In addition, a trademark was limited in time, although renewable, while no such disposition existed for geographical indications. His delegation believed that giving priority to the trademark system would simply deny the specificity and the interests of having an ad hoc regime, such as that embodied in Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. His delegation would examine carefully what the representative of the United States had said earlier with regard to some of the specific components of her delegation's proposal.
57. Lastly, he wished to return to a point raised by a number of delegations, concerning the possible extension of the system to products other than wines and spirits. His delegation had indicated at previous meetings that this question did not need to be decided yet, but the EC proposal would certainly allow for such an extension at the appropriate time. However, in his delegation's view, it was fairly clear that the present negotiating mandate was limited to wines and spirits and, therefore, did not include other products. The extension to other products would require prior adoption of a clear mandate which the Council did not yet have. The European Communities and their member States were prepared to work in a positive spirit in the Council on both issues in parallel, but work on the built-in agenda should not be unnecessarily delayed by discussions of the mandate.
