61. The representative of Australia said that the TRIPS Agreement came into force in 1995 and, to his knowledge, there had been no disputes or jurisprudence in the WTO about the definition of a geographical indication. Clearly, the discussions over the last two years in the TRIPS Council about extension and about the register had revealed some interesting questions as to what should be in the definition. First, it was entirely appropriate for a country to decide about a geographical indication and, clearly, the scope of the definition in the TRIPS Agreement provided for that possibility. He was trying to suggest to those countries which were seeking, through this process, to have their country names registered as geographical indications that that would not be permitted by at least one major demandeur in this area, because the ultimate decision on whether a name would be a geographical indication would be made, as the United States had pointed out, by the country which was requested to protect that geographical indication. Because of the principle of territoriality, it would be up to each individual Member to decide whether a geographical indication was eligible for protection. Based on Australia's own experience of a bilateral agreement with the EC, he called the attention of those Members seeking protection of their country's name that this might not be possible.
62. He concurred with the representative of Brazil that traditional expressions had nothing to do with geographical indications. He recalled again the European Commission's press release on its new wine regulation, which said that traditional expressions were so closely linked to a geographical origin as to meet the TRIPS definition of a geographic indication. While accepting the explanation by the EC that the words "tawny", "ruby" and "vintage" would only apply to a small group of "Quality liqueur wines", he expressed concerns that traditional expressions were said to be geographical indications and asked how far the scope of that application would be extended. It could mean that any words could be claimed by one participant as its geographical indications. Pending clarifications from the EC and also the understanding of whether traditional expressions could have the cloak of intellectual property rights, participants should be cautious in how far they would go when they accepted the current definition.
