65. The representative of Hungary reverted to the issue of challenges. In his delegation's view, there might be at least two groups of countries: those which did not have a national register, and those which had a certification mark system. To assist his delegation's better understanding of the situation, he asked Members if they operated such systems and, among those providing GI protection, how they would determine which GIs they wished to notify. Was there any examination as to whether a name or sign in a certification mark was in conformity with Article 22.1, in particular, whether there was a given quality, reputation or rather characteristic essentially attributable to the geographical origin of the product? If yes, who would proceed with such an examination and what kind of challenge would be available at the national level? How would the term "eligible for protection" in the case of a GI mean? What would be the basis on which those countries would notify GIs to the register? He said that it would be important to have responses to these questions in order to understand why Hungary and others had proposed the multilateral system. He then recalled that, when the issue of GIs had been raised in the context of negotiations on agriculture, assurances had been given that this issue would be solved in the context of the Special Session of the TRIPS Council. If the outcome of the negotiations in the Special Session was a computer containing a list of names with a part-time operator, he was of the view that there might be no other way than to put the GI issue – since it dealt with agricultural products - in the context of agricultural negotiations because in that forum at least, that would be the maximum possible outcome.
