104. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that, firstly, the fact that the EC had only mentioned their new ideas in consultations and had not shared them in writing presented a procedural problem, as Members who had not participated in the Chairman's small group consultations had not seen the proposal and could therefore not seek instructions from their capitals in that regard.
105. Secondly, although the EC's new ideas distinguished between "participating" and "non-participating" Members, non-participating Members were still obliged to consult the multilateral register. Therefore, the system envisaged under the EC's new ideas was still mandatory and not voluntary. It also agreed with Australia regarding the forward-looking effect of the proposal. Furthermore, his delegation believed that the legal effects of the EC and Hong Kong, China proposals undermined the principle of territoriality.
106. Thirdly, Chinese Taipei shared the belief of other Members that the joint proposal did facilitate the protection of GIs for wines and spirits. His delegation had also done some research as to how it would be implemented internally. Currently, as Chinese Taipei protected GIs as certification marks, when examining the applications for such marks examiners would consult a database that contained not only prior trademarks, but also terms that were not allowed to be registered as trademarks, such as WIPO notifications under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, names and logos of government authorities, and the names of agricultural products. Currently, examiners were not required to provide a written record of their use of this database in the examination of a trademark application.
107. If the joint proposal became a multilateral obligation, the internal examination guidelines would need to be amended to include the requirement for examiners to consult the WTO multilateral database when examining applications for certification marks for wines and spirits, and keep the records on file irrespective of the results. The implementation of such procedures could be ensured by a checklist. This showed that having a joint proposal style register did make a difference and did facilitate the protection of GIs for wines and spirits.
