48. The representative of Canada welcomed the Chair's approach of dividing the work plan for the session although she thought it would be important to also consider the various elements in their entirety. She recalled that some of the discussions in the regular session overlapped with the issue of definition. They also reinforced the view that participants in the Special Session had differing perspectives on the interpretation of the definition of geographical indications as contained in Article 22.1, and clearly confirmed the necessity for more discussion on the subject. It would not be helpful for any WTO Member if misconceptions emerged at some later stage. In Canada's view, consideration of the following detailed questions would be important if Members were to attain a common understanding of how Members might expect others to interpret the definition of a geographical indication.
49. What exactly could be protected, the name of a place, the name of a country, a common adjective or a descriptive term, and on what basis? In Canada's experience, a country name was an acceptable geographical indication and was clearly covered by the definition contained in Article 22.1. Canada would be interested in hearing from other countries, especially on the demandeurs' side, if they had a similar interpretation in the definition that was used in their domestic regulations. Canada had experienced many surprises when dealing with one of the key demandeurs on this interpretation.
50. A second question was how to assess quality, reputation, or other characteristic. Did Members need common objectives to ascertain what criteria might form the basis of that assessment? Equally important was how to determine the link between geographical location and quality, reputation or other characteristic.
51. Another area to be pursued related to whether the geographical indication was fully produced in a particular location. Knowing that there was a substantial volume of trade in bulk wine which was combined and bottled with local vintage, would it be necessary to determine whether or not the entire chain of production or just parts of production would need to be carried out in a geographic location? There was also the question of the origin of the raw material contained in the final product. Perhaps the Special Session needed to consider content rules.
52. Lastly, the interface with territorial application of the definition needed to be considered. In Canada's view, the definition that should be applied should be based on a Member's national law rather than that of the source country. Canada agreed with Australia that traditional expressions could not qualify as geographical indications. French wine producers should not enjoy exclusive benefits in the EU market or rights to the use of the word "chateau". She recalled that Canada had two official languages and "chateau" ("château") was a common term. Similarly, it should not be necessary to define the descriptive term "dry" or "ruby".
53. Finally, with reference to the Chair's question on whether or not that issue should be resolved in the Special Session or on a case-by-case basis, it was Canada's view that if Members were to successfully conclude negotiations for a registration system for wines and spirits, it would be critical for the Council to develop a common understanding of the definition and its scope and application; this could not be left to individual Members' interpretation.
