46. The representative of Chinese Taipei thanked the EC for providing the written version of the interventions made last December. It was important for all Members to get a better understanding of the EC's new thinking, as elaborated in the relevant paragraphs of document TN/C/W/52. While his capital was still examining the responses, his delegation would air some preliminary questions and comments to the EC and the co-sponsors of TN/C/W/52. The questions and comments would be given to the EC in written form in order to facilitate the discussion.
47. Regarding the time-frame issue mentioned on page 4, where it had been said that "For instance, if there is a time-frame for the authority to gather information before taking a decision, the consultation of the register will occur within that time-frame. Failing any time-frame for decision-making, there will be none for the consultation either". Did this mean that, if the authorities failed to make a decision within the time-frame under their domestic laws, there would be no other chances for them to fulfil the obligation of "consulting the register", and therefore they would never be regarded as having fulfilled that obligation? If the answer is "yes", this might have an impact on the authorities' allocation of resources between examining GI applications and other work. In contrast, there would not be any such impact from the joint proposal, because Members would be deemed to have fulfilled their obligations once they had ensured that their examination procedures included the provision to consult the database.
48. Through page 6 to the middle part of page 7, the EC had tried to explain why it was reasonable that a name on the register should enjoy the legal effect of prima facie evidence that the registered GI met the GI definition in Members other than the notifying Member. His delegation could reasonably understand why the registered GI met the definition in the notifying Member, but failed to understand why the notified GI should enjoy prima facie evidence in another Member's territory. The EC seemed to suggest that, because the notifying Member had conducted an examination of the notified GI in its own territory, all other WTO Members should be bound by this examination to give the notified GI a certain legal effect in their territories. For his delegation this seemed to contradict the principle of territoriality. One of the EC’s arguments seemed to be that recognition of prima facie evidence was not the same as, or equal to, eligibility for protection, and therefore its new thinking still respected that principle. His delegation had some reservations about this argument, and wished to bring it up for reconsideration by the whole Membership.
49. His delegation had been advocating that the EC and other co-sponsors table a complete proposal for a GI register of wines and spirits, based on the related paragraphs in TN/C/W/52. This call was not a tactical way of trying to break up the alliance behind TN/C/W/52, because the different positions of the proponents on the linkage or so-called "parallelism" issues were already well known. The only reason was that, without a complete proposal, it would be difficult to fully understand the impact and benefits of the EC's new thinking. The EC kept saying that many other issues could be discussed or negotiated after the decision on the so-called "modalities" or "key parameters". But, to use an old saying, his delegation feared that the devil would be in the detail. A complete proposal by the EC and the other co-sponsors would give other Members a full picture in order to properly compare it with the other two proposals.
