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

Ambassador W. Armstrong (New Zealand)
Union européenne
G.iii.a Review of the application of the provisions of the section on geographical indications under Article 24.2
59. While referring to his delegation's views on this matter, which he considered well-known, the representative of the European Communities regretted that, at the meeting in November 1996, it had not been possible to agree on a concrete way of how to go about the review under Article 24.2. His delegation had made available today a new non-paper in which a follow-up was presented to the suggestions made in the non-paper it had distributed last year. An attempt was made to carry out what it had suggested in last year's non-paper the Secretariat could be asked to do. A comparison was made between the treatment in certain of the Communities' major trading partners in the area of wines and spirits, namely Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Japan, as regards definitions used according to the legislation notified under Article 63.2 and reviewed last November as well as the ways in which protection was granted (for example, through a registration system or through administrative enforcement) and the exceptions that applied as understood by his delegation. This exercise had resulted in additional questions as reflected on page one of the non-paper, which his delegation would wish to form part of the work to be carried out in the informal consultations agreed to take place at a time early in 1997. The non-paper was intended to stimulate the discussion and to be a first step in a wider exercise which his delegation would expect the Secretariat to carry out, which would entail an extension of the number of countries and issues covered and their consideration in more detail. At an appropriate moment, this work would contribute to the work which had to be done under Article 23.4 pursuant to paragraph 34 of the Council's report (1996) (document IP/C/8).