160. The representative of Argentina shared many of the points made by Australia. He noted that some delegations had made specific proposals to amend the TRIPS Agreement, and said that he was not prepared to receive such proposals. His delegation had produced a communication two days before the Doha Declaration appeared, and in particular, his delegation read paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration in a way that, at most, enabled the Council to consider to address the question of extension. In no way could the Council take the mandate to mean that it could re-open the TRIPS Agreement to extend protection to products other than wines and spirits.
161. Undoubtedly, this was an issue that had very complex and sophisticated ramifications. He congratulated those delegations from developing countries that were in a position and prepared to move forward in an intense and committed way, because it showed that they had gathered studies and analysed these matters and that those analyses had shown that it was in their national interest to work on a model with these characteristics. His delegation had not been able to do this and was not in a position to evaluate all this, which was why it had taken the attitude it had. The definition contained in Article 22 applied to all geographical indications, including those mentioned in Article 23. According to the definition, for geographical indications to be eligible for protection, the following conditions had to be fulfilled: the existence of the product, the product had to have a given quality, reputation and other qualities connected to its geographic origin and it should originate in the region, etc. Up to that moment, the coverage had been quite wide. From there on, however, only the national legislation of each country could further elaborate the scope, the coverage and the nature of what was covered by Article 22.1. This was the right of Members, according to the Agreement, which enabled them to apply the system in their own legal framework according to their own legal system. Intellectual property rights were private rights that were applied territorially and, hence, Members had the option of deciding the degree of protection and the conditions applying them and their validity.