131. The representative of the European Communities said, in response to the comment made by the US representative that the EC were trying to dictate to the US consumer what he had to recognize as a GI or not, that this was only relevant when it came to the issue of genericness. This was totally irrelevant in respect of GI definition, which was about the quality and characteristics or reputation, but not necessarily reputation only. Genericness by definition had to be subjective and consumer-oriented. So the EC proposal would not have any impact on the GI definition. The issue was who has to prove what. If in the US the GI holder did not have to prove that his GI was not generic, but it was the one who claimed that the GI was generic who had to prove his claim, then the EC proposal did not change anything. On the point made that the EC wanted to impose a system, he said that it would be the US rules and system that would apply and that there would not be any extraterritoriality. In the light of a statement made by some joint proposal delegations that Members' trademark or GI authorities would be obliged to consult the register, he asked where would the difference be with the EC proposal.
