132. The representative of Australia asked that, if the EC was just seeking to ensure that those claiming an exception make it out, why then was it seeking in its revised proposal a legal presumption as to three points and not only one, including that the terms met the definition of a GI in a market.
133. On the comment made by the EC in response to the US that consumer perception was only relevant in the context of the genericness exception, she asked whether the EC considered that the definition of a GI in Article 22.1 was objective and universal or, as Australia did, that it was subjective and territorial.
