Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Ambassador Eduardo Pérez Motta (Mexico)
Chairperson
D ISSUES RELATED TO THE EXTENSION OF THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 23 TO PRODUCTS OTHER THAN WINES AND SPIRITS
65. The Chairman recalled that, in order to facilitate a more systematic discussion, he had prepared for the Council's September meeting a Checklist of Issues taking into consideration the points raised in the discussions at the Council's previous meetings, informal consultations and recent communication (document JOB(02)/117). At that meeting, the Council's discussion focused on the first set of issues identified in the checklist, namely "the legal issues relating to the differences between the general protection for geographical indications provided for in the TRIPS Agreement and the additional protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits". At an informal meeting held on 10 November 2002, the Council had continued its discussion on the first set of issues, and started its discussion on the second set of issues, namely "broader policy issues such as the impact on producers and consumers of any extended protection". The Chairman's intention was to continue the discussion on the second "basket of issues" at the present meeting and then take up the third one, namely "the administrative costs and burdens of the procedures associated with any extended protection and any other impacts on governments". 66. The Chairman recalled that, at its September meeting, the Council had requested the Secretariat to prepare prior to the present meeting a compilation of the elements contained in the oral statements made at the September meeting and the written submissions prepared for it, including the points made at the informal meeting of 10 November 2002 in relation to the first "basket of issues". The representative of the Secretariat said that he regretted to inform the Council that the Secretariat had not been able to complete and circulate the compilation. As had been discussed at the Council's last meeting, the Secretariat faced structural capacity problems in keeping up with the ever-growing workload in the Council. Secondly, the Secretariat had, like delegations, given priority to the paragraph 6 negotiations in the period since the last Council meeting, which had been held just over two months ago. Thirdly, the Secretariat staff had been working to rule in the recent weeks. Although this had not applied to the paragraph 6 work, it had been applied to all other work of the Council. 67. The Chairman recalled that, at its meeting in June, the Council had requested the Secretariat to circulate to Members the report of the eight session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT), held on 27 31 May 2002, once it became available. This report had been adopted by the SCT at the Committee's meeting held on 11 15 November 2002 and was being circulated in document IP/C/W/391. 68. Turning to the second basket of issues concerning broader policy questions, such as the impact of extended protection on producers and consumers, the Chairman said that, although the Council had already started the debate on these issues at its informal meeting of 10 November 2002, all delegations should feel free to address any of the matters relevant to this set of issues. As to producers, he said that there were two sets of producers whose concerns could be examined. First, those that produced the goods in the area that was designated by the term that benefited from its enhanced protection: to what extent would these producers benefit from such enhanced protection in the marketing of their goods? Second, those producers who could be prevented from using the term in question: to what extent would they be adversely affected in the marketing of their goods and what kind of adjustment costs/burdens would they be faced with? With regard to the impact on consumers, he said that there could be a need for further discussion to establish the relative importance of the claimed benefits from greater clarity in the geographical origin of the goods against claimed confusion and higher prices that would arise from disruption to existing marketing practices.
IP/C/M/38