126. The representative of the European Communities said that if Canada had signed an agreement with the EC it must mean that it had seen some value in it and therefore whether the EC had more GIs and Canada had less GIs did not seem relevant. What was interesting was that the EC simply offered both systems, trademark and GI protection. Producers could use both or either one. In contrast some Members favoured one system only.
127. In reply to the concern expressed by Japan that GIs notified by a Member would be automatically protected in all other Members, he said that the EC did not want a one-stop-shop. If the EC notified the GI "Côte du Rhône" to the register, it would not automatically get protection everywhere. For example, a Côte du Rhône producer would still have to go to Ruratania's administration and register the GI as "Côte du Rhône". The only thing that the register brought the producer was that Ruratania's administration would have to consult the register and any third party in Ruratania could challenge the registered name on the ground that in Ruratania the term Côte du Rhône had become generic or there was a prior use or a prior trademark. What the challenger had to do would be to provide the evidence. What was important for the GI owner was that, contrary to the current situation in many countries, Ruratania's administration could not ask him to prove that the GI was not generic. Each Member would examine whether or not the GI was deemed protectable according to its national law, which had by definition to be compatible with the TRIPS Agreement. What the EC had put forward was that those claiming that an exception applied to them had to prove it. While the 2005 proposal suggested that GIs notified and not challenged on ground of genericness would not be challengeable any longer, the new EC thinking would not imply any additional work nor any need for changes in IP systems that were presently functioning well.
128. In response to the question by New Zealand regarding a list of generic names, he said that the fact that a name was generic or not generic in the EC had not, and should not have, any consequences in New Zealand. Otherwise the effect of notification would be extraterritorial, which would be totally unfair and against the EC approach. In that regard, the EC position was very consistent.
