31. The representative of Australia said that, in response to the Chair's request for further information on what consulting the register could look like, her delegation would suggest that the joint proposal had within it a built-in flexibility that had not yet been properly discussed. Without prejudice, some elements in the proposal could include an obligation to take the information on the register into account in accordance with domestic systems as had been discussed. This could also be an obligation to give appropriate weight to that information in accordance with domestic systems, or an obligation to consider that information as evidence of the facts stated therein in accordance with domestic systems, i.e. a GI could be evidence of the fact that it was a GI in the Member seeking the protection. She said that consideration of the third option would require corresponding consideration to be given to generic terms as the balance of rights and obligations had to be respected. In that regard Australia noted with concern the EC's comment on genericness. Given that Article 24.6 of the TRIPS Agreement already applied, the EC's comments that a claim of genericness had to be based on facts seemed to suggest an attempt to renegotiate Article 24.6 itself or to formulate how that provision would be used in the context of an international register.
