18. The representative of the European Union congratulated the Chairman on his appointment and said that he could count on the support, trust and full cooperation of the European Union in seeking a mutually-agreed outcome to the negotiations. Recalling that his delegation was a member of a coalition of 108 Members, representing a two-third majority of the Membership, he reiterated its support for the negotiations on a multilateral register for geographical indications for wines and spirits, coupled with negotiations on the issues of GI extension and TRIPS/CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). Under the TN/C/W/52 proposal, the three issues should be dealt with in parallel, and, while some Members opposed this linkage, it was a political reality that had to be taken into account. The group supporting TN/C/W/52 had contributed a great deal to the register negotiations and, due to its ability to listen, had been a driving force in terms of making proposals. Given that a proposal that gathered the support of a two third majority of the Membership could itself only be the fruit of compromise, the Members sponsoring TN/C/W/52 had seriously recalibrated their past positions to achieve this common position.
19. He said that his delegation fully agreed with the Chairman's assessment that the two pivotal elements of the negotiations were the issues of legal effects and participation, and that these should be addressed immediately, in the hope that once these had been agreed the rest would fall into place. The European Union further supported the Chairman's proposal of continuing work on the basis of the suggested clusters, starting with the first two of the four questions that had been circulated on 2 October 2009, on legal effects. These two issues had been clearly addressed on several occasions, notably in a thirteen-page explanatory document circulated by the European Union on 25 February 2009, capturing a reply to a total of 64 questions relating to the majority proposal on the register. On 10 June 2009 his delegation had again provided explanations on how the register would function under this proposal. His delegation was ready to address any further questions that Members might have. However, as the Chairman had stated, any new questions should not cover old ground as the negotiation process should not be delayed.
20. On the issue of legal effects, he said that, under the TN/C/W/52 proposal, the entry of a name into a register would not amount to automatic GI protection. Rather, it would trigger two legal effects: first, the name entered in the register would merely represent prima facie evidence that it was a geographical indication, that the goods originated from a specific place and owed at least one of their characteristics, its quality or its reputation to this origin. He said that beyond that, domestic authorities would have all latitude to decide for or against protection of the term on the basis of contrary evidence provided by themselves or brought by any third party. In this regard, the sponsors of the TN/C/W/52 proposal considered that the issue of alleged extra-territoriality had been addressed, as the final decision on protection lay exclusively with domestic authorities. Even if the domestic authorities agreed that the name met the definition of a geographical indication, it did not necessarily mean that the term would be protected because all the exceptions of Article 24 remained available. The second aspect of the proposal provided that any assertion of one of these exceptions, namely the generic exception, had to be substantiated. As his delegation and other supporters of the proposal had been informed by Members opposing that proposal that this was already the case in their systems, i.e. that any assertions on genericness already had to be substantiated, this should therefore not represent a problem. He reiterated that the checks and balances of the exceptions provided in Article 24 would remain unchanged.
21. In contrast, he said, the Members opposed to TN/C/W/52 had not yet explained how they would implement the obligation to "consult and take into account" the information on the register. While this formulation had so far only been expressed orally and not been put in writing, his delegation believed that this was how these Members would have domestic authorities treat the information on the register, but the details were not yet clear. As legal uncertainties for market operators, whether they were GI or non-GI operators, had to be avoided, there was need for further explanations on this issue. He said that if there were a compulsory system of taking the term on the register into account in domestic decision-making, this might well be very similar to the TN/C/W/52 proposal.
22. He said that Members should not open or re-open semantic debates but focus on the Special Session's mandate and the purpose of the register, which was to facilitate the protection of GIs and not to facilitate the protection of domestic authorities or of trademark owners.
