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

Ambassador Chak Mun See (Singapore)
99. The representative of Australia said that her delegation had not had sufficient time to consider comprehensively the revised proposal of the European Communities, but would broadly support the comments that had been made by the United States and Argentina on this paper. She hoped to be in a position to provide more detailed remarks at the next meeting. Her delegation particularly welcomed New Zealand's paper, which it found a useful and constructive addition to discussions under this agenda item. The reasons put forward by New Zealand as to why it supported the 'collective proposal' largely accorded with Australia's own views on the necessary characteristics of an Article 23.4 register. That register should facilitate protection of geographical indications under Article 23, be genuinely optional, not directly or indirectly create new legal obligations for Members, and should serve as a transparency and information mechanism rather than as a means of creating a pre emptive global intellectual property right. New Zealand's paper also reflected clearly Australia's own view that any register established under Article 23.4 should not subvert Members' current right to employ the full range of legal means for the protection of geographical indications that had been notified and analysed in the Article 24.2 review. For these reasons, Australia would like to reiterate its support for the "collective proposal". Finally, she wished to note that the Lisbon Agreement administered by WIPO was a multilateral registration system which had been in force for many years and that there were some aspects of this Agreement which might overlap with the proposal made by the European Communities; therefore, it would, in her delegation's view, be beneficial to the Council to obtain information from WIPO on how the Lisbon Agreement was actually functioning.