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

Ambassador Eui-yong Chung (Korea, Republic of)
74. The representative of Argentina said that no other Member had the EC's comparative advantage with regard to translations in the sense that for the EC, there would be no additional effort to be made. She further asked the EC's representative clarifications about his statement regarding a Member's wish to translate a notified GI from the language of notification into its own language, in particular in the light of Article 23.1 (prohibition of the use of a GI in translation). How could a country oppose any notification if it did not understand the connotation of a GI notified in a foreign language? What would be the situation where a producer from another country was exporting goods bearing the GI in the language of such other country and there was no evidence for proving that the term used was a translation of the GI? It had been said by the EC's representative that, if there was no opposition, there was no cost to a country. In her view, it was obvious that, if there was no translation, no opposition or no notification of GIs, there would be no cost to a country; that would be the case if a Member became a "passive" subject of the obligation. She also asked how a country would know whether or not a term notified in one language was generic or used in a common language in other countries if there was no translation.