79. The representative of the Czech Republic said that the European Communities proposal offered an opportunity to move forward to a stage for more concrete preparatory work for the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines eligible for protection in those Members participating in the system, as stated in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement. Questions regarding the proposal at this stage were understandable and many of these could, perhaps, be satisfactorily answered only when a conclusion had been reached on the systemic or basic point as to what kind of a multilateral system of notification or registration was to be developed. Recognizing the built-in flexibilities in the proposal which left options open as to how to progress on the work, he thanked the representative of the European Communities for the clarifications provided in his statement. Regarding the level of protection, he expressed the opinion that higher levels of protection or additional protection as well as a requirement for notification as envisaged under the provisions of Article 23 called for a fully fledged system and as such he supported a more complex and legally ambitious multilateral system as set out in the European Communities proposal. His delegation was pleased that the proposal took into account the legitimate interests expressed by some Members and referred to the possibility of launching complementary discussions with the objective of extending the multilateral register's coverage to other goods, in stages, once the multilateral system for wines was in place. In this context, he wished to remind Members that inputs from delegations on the issue of scope had been invited in paragraph 34 of the Report (1996) of the Council for TRIPS, which formed part of the section dealing with issues, problems and recommendations to be brought to the attention of Ministers in Singapore. His delegation had reacted positively to this invitation and presented a detailed written submission on the issue of the narrow scope of Article 23 and the need to expand its scope to cover goods other than wines and spirits. Since certain delegations had questioned, at the last meeting, the existing legal basis for negotiations concerning geographical indications for other goods, he reiterated that, in his delegation's opinion, Articles 22, 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement provided an integrated framework for further negotiations aimed at increasing the protection of geographical indications. The first sentence of Article 24.1 provided the method for increasing the protection of individual geographical indications, while the method of providing such additional protection was specified in Article 23.4 by mandating negotiations in the Council. Further, under the provisions of Article 24.1, the holding of such negotiations could not be refused and the provisions of Article 24 were of general application to all goods and not only to wines and spirits. Therefore, he agreed with the opinion expressed that inclusion, in the future, of the legitimate interests of other Members to enlarge the product coverage should not be ruled out.
