97. The representative of Canada said that asking the authorities to consult and to take into account the information that was on the Register would be acceptable for Canada.
98. However, as for New Zealand, it would be unacceptable for Canada to have any binding presumption in respect of the information, especially any presumption that the name put on the register was actually a GI. She recalled that her country had had a very challenging experience with respect to lists that were presented by the European Communities to her authorities as being GIs. During the bilateral negotiations on wines and spirits with the EC, Canada was faced with approximately 10,000 names proposed by the European Communities to be protected as GIs in Canada. Her authorities went through the analysis of each of those names, which were in different languages, to see whether they referred to a geographical area and whether they were actually protected in their country of origin. At the end of this difficult and time-consuming exercise, Canada ended up with only 1,500 names that could qualify as GIs. She wondered how it would be if, during the same process, her authorities would have to reverse the legal presumption mentioned in TN/C/W/52 that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, a notified name should be considered as prima facie evidence that the term met the definition of a GI in Article 22.1.
