Comptes rendus ‒ Session extraordinaire du Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention /la déclaration

Ambassador Eui-yong Chung (Korea, Republic of)
Chairperson
C.v Chairperson's concluding remarks
137. The Chairperson, before summarizing the discussion on the issues, recalled that the Special Session's mandate was clear: it was "to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits by the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference". The Special Session was required to fulfil that mandate in its entirety and not to go beyond the mandate. If any delegation had a problem with the mandate, the Special Session was not the right forum for discussing any such difficulties. It would have to be dealt with at a higher level or at the next Ministerial-level meeting. 138. With regard to the discussion on definition of the term "geographical indications" and eligibility of geographical indications for inclusion in the system, the Chairperson said that the Special Session had had a useful discussion on the issues of definition and eligibility which pointed to a number of areas of common thinking as well as a number of differences of approach which would have to be discussed further. In regard to points of common thinking, he did not detect any delegation questioning that the definition of geographical indications that should be used was that contained in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Nor did he detect any disagreement with the proposition that, in determining eligibility, the exceptions provisions of Article 24 would be relevant. That included the notion that, to be eligible for inclusion in the multilateral notification and registration system, a geographical indication should be protected in its country of origin. 139. An issue on which there appeared to be some differences of approach was that of how to deal with differences in the interpretation of what terms were covered by the definition in Article 22.1 and might be eligible for inclusion in a multilateral system of notification and registration. One approach had been to call for a higher degree of common understanding of what was to be covered, rather than to rely on differences being resolved on a case-by-case basis in the implementation of the system. A number of specific questions had been raised in that connection. The other approach had been to put more emphasis on such matters being dealt with in the implementation of the system. Within that second approach, he also detected some significant differences of emphasis. Some had pointed to the importance of challenge or opposition mechanisms as a way of dealing with those problems, whereas others had expressed the view that such issues should be dealt with exclusively under national procedures and legislation. 140. Nonetheless, even on the question of how to deal with differences of view about what might qualify for protection as a geographical indication, he believed that there might be a common view that it was ultimately a matter for national authorities to determine whether a given term met the criteria of national legislation - which should, of course, be consistent with the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement. 141. With regard to the discussion on the purpose of the notification and registration system, the Chairperson said that, once again, he detected some common ground. Delegations who had spoken on the issue had said that the purpose of the multilateral system should not be to increase the level of protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits provided for in the TRIPS Agreement, but to facilitate the obtaining of that level of protection. He also understood all delegations to recognize that, in so doing, the exceptions provided in Article 24 should remain valid. No doubt, as always the devil was in the detail, but he thought it would be helpful to the Special Session's process if there were agreement in principle with what he had mentioned. 142. He noted a couple of more specific points that might warrant further discussion. One was what all that meant for Article 24.1. The other was whether the protection that should be facilitated was only that provided for in Article 23, or whether Article 22 protection should also be facilitated. 143. With regard to the discussion on what was meant by a "system of notification and registration", the Chairperson said that delegations seemed to be quite far apart, even at the level of principle, on what was meant by a notification and registration system. The heart of the difference seemed to be with the meaning and significance of the concept of "registration" in the context of geographical indications and the TRIPS Agreement. He remained of the view that Members needed to find ways of making that more an empirically based discussion. There were, of course, many other aspects of the mechanics of a multilateral system of notification and registration that needed in-depth discussion and that would be a focus of discussion at the September meeting. 144. With regard to the discussion on participation, the Chairperson said that this was again an issue on which views seemed divided, in particular on the possible consequences for Members not participating in the system. It might be that it was an issue better pursued at a later stage when Members had a clearer idea of the features of the system and any potential effects on non-participating countries.
TN/IP/M/2