118. The representative of the European Union said he was surprised to hear that a proposal as short and concise as TN/C/W/52 was seen as raising questions. He had referred specifically to the questions being discussed at this meeting, and in particular to sub-question 2 on genericness. He had understood that under both the US and Canadian systems, when it came to examination and in the situation mentioned in sub-question 2.b, a challenge of an existing protected term did not put the burden of proof on the geographical indication owner, but on those claiming that the name for which protection was sought or which was already protected was generic. While he stood to be corrected on this understanding, he believed that Members should be happy rather than worried about this convergence.
