Actas - Consejo de los ADPIC en Sesión Extraordinaria - Ver detalles de la intervención/declaración

Ambassador Eui-yong Chung (Korea, Republic of)
Estados Unidos de América
C.ii The purpose of the notification and registration system
78. The representative of the United States said that Article 24 made it clear that the purpose of the system of notification and registration was "to facilitate the protection of geographical indications for wines" and spirits, namely to facilitate the existing levels of protection contained in the TRIPS Agreement. He was puzzled by the EC's statement suggesting that their proposal would not impose new obligations on Members. It was clear that that was not the case. Australia had helpfully provided participants with definitions of the term "facilitate". The word was very appropriate in this regard. It certainly did not imply that the system of notification and registration was aimed at guaranteeing protection of particular geographical indications for wines and spirits by rendering unavailable within Members' territories any of the exceptions provided in Article 24 or any other basis under which a particular geographical indication might be challenged. Paragraph 37 of the EC's paper (JOB(02)/70) made it clear that the proposal was intended to deny Members access to a number of exceptions provided for in the Agreement, and that the exception regarding generics would no longer be available to Members as a ground for opposing geographical indications. The demandeurs' proposals would require WTO Members to conduct the opposition procedure in Geneva, rather, as TRIPS was currently crafted, than to enable the interested parties to conduct opposition procedures on particular geographical indications through national law. In fact, this would create a new national obligation on all Members and lead to a considerable number of geographical indications that all Members would have to review and possibly oppose. He did not see how that could not be considered a new and burdensome obligation. None of those obligations were currently required under the Agreement or could legitimately be argued as part of "facilitating" existing protection.