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

Ambassador Eduardo Pérez Motta (Mexico)
M REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2
298. Introducing its submission, the representative of Australia recalled that his delegation had made a similar presentation in 1999 in response to a checklist issued by the Secretariat (IP/C/W/117/Add.19, dated 9 July 1999). The aim of the document was to give an example of one national approach to the implementation of the TRIPS provisions dealing with GIs. The document also responded to the questions posed by the European Communities in June 2002. The document noted that Article 22 of the Agreement was predominantly implemented via the Trade Practices Act and via certification trademarks system. For example, "Ceylon tea", "Stilton", and "Thai Hom Mali rice" all received protection as certification marks. The document also pointed out that Australian wine GIs were protected by Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act. This Act provided protection for both Australian and foreign GIs. The number of European GIs vastly outweighed the number of Australian GIs protected under that system.
IP/C/M/38