116. The representative of Australia first addressed the question of whether a country name was eligible for protection. That question was also being discussed in the regular session of the TRIPS Council. Referring to a statement made by the EC delegation at the June meeting concerning the protection of country names as GIs, he recalled that the EC had said that it would only accept, in exceptional circumstances, country names as GIs. He wondered whether Kenya could ask the protection for "Kenyan Cabernet", Colombia for "Colombian Chablis", or New Zealand for "New Zealand Chardonnay"; in his view, they would not know whether they could protect those names until they run the "gauntlet" of the registration system. In other words, they could notify them under the EC registration system, but if there was an objection, they would be obliged to go through this gauntlet of procedures (providing evidence, surveys, documents, etc.), which could go ultimately, if there was no decision in the bilateral negotiations, to arbitration.
117. The second question related to traditional expressions. Whilst Australia could accept that there was a need for a change in the definition under the TRIPS Agreement of what constituted a GI, it would require a footnote to the effect that a traditional expression was not a GI.
