63. The representative of Switzerland referred to the comments she had made at the previous meeting concerning the fundamental principles of the Council's approach, which did not allow the replacement of the system for the protection of geographical indications with a system for the protection of collective or certification marks. She agreed with the representative of the Czech Republic that the functions of these systems were different. Her delegation had difficulty understanding the problems expressed by some delegations with the EC proposal. Article 23.4 required specification of the commitments already accepted under Articles 23.1, 23.2 and 23.3; this was how her delegation understood the term "facilitate". She would revert to the EC proposal at the next meeting to clarify her comments further. As to the US/Japanese proposal, at this stage, besides the general comments which she had already made, she wished to pose some questions. She referred to the last paragraph under point 2 where it was stated that WTO Members might decide to participate in, and withdraw from, the system at any time. What would be the legal effect of such withdrawal for those Members who withdrew and for other Members? Would other Members be free no longer to protect any geographical indication of a Member which had withdrawn from the system? Referring to point 2 headed "Registration", she said that this system basically concerned a database. However, it did require recognition of similar systems by other Members, as well as administrative steps for recognition of certain geographical indications including administrative work such as exchanges of communications, arguments and objections. The apparent simplicity of the proposed system was misleading. She would revert to this point at the next meeting. Referring to point 3 headed "Legal effects under national legislation", she sought clarification of the meaning of the obligation that Members would agree to refer to lists of notified geographical indications. For example, what would happen if an examiner did not take into account these geographical indications?
