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

Ambassador C. Trevor Clarke (Barbados)
Union européenne
B.ii Meeting of 28 October 2009, p.m.
85. The representative of the European Communities recalled that his delegation had made several proposals, including some where the register would have irrebuttable presumptions regarding a number of elements, and would be subject to an international objection procedure. In comparison, the current proposal in TN/C/W/52, sponsored by 108 Members, did not go as far as the previous ones: it had taken the concerns expressed by Members into consideration and did not require any important effect. However, there should be some legal obligation with the register, otherwise the mandate of facilitating protection would not be fulfilled. As had been clearly indicated on several occasions, the final decision as to the consequences of the register would be left to national authorities, not only in respect of the GI definition but also in respect of the overall protection of GIs, e.g. whether or not the exceptions for prior trademark or genericness applied. One area of convergence which could already be identified was that the national authorities would keep their final say. 86. He said, however, that while the national authorities would keep a final say, they should also give significance and weight to the information contained in the register, because otherwise it would be a useless register. Document TN/C/W/52 captured how the information contained in the register should be taken into account: first, by way of prima facie evidence regarding the definition, which was logical, considering that any GI in the world was the result of a government decision based, by definition, on a TRIPS-compatible legislation; second, by proposing that facts regarding assertions of genericness would have to be substantiated, which was also logical. In contrast, there had not been any alternative proposal for some effect stemming from the registration or for how the information should be taken into account. He hoped that the Special Session would be able to make progress on the basis of the only paper that had made proposals in that regard, i.e. TN/C/W/52, sponsored by 108 Members.
The Special Session took note of the statements made.
TN/IP/M/23