121. The representative of the European Communities reiterated the position of this delegation with respect to the "non-issue" of country names. Whether a country name met the definition of Article 22.1 would be up to the country concerned to decide. That was the way the TRIPS Agreement worked. In the EC, there were at least two country names that had been registered as geographical indications for products other than wines and spirits. The EC's experience in the field of wines and spirits was not very comforting with regard to country names; the EC had attempted to verify whether country names in those cases met the definition and, in fact, they had not. The EC's experience was that, if a country had 100 or 200 geographical indications with 100 or 200 distinct qualities, it was very difficult to create an "umbrella" geographical indication which should have one unique homogeneous quality. He said that was the experience the EC would like to share with other countries but that it was not up to the EC to decide whether another Member's name would meet the definition of a geographical indication. That was a question of evidence to be assessed by the national authorities.
122. On the question of traditional expressions, he reiterated that traditional expressions were not protected as geographical indications in the European Union and, accordingly, under Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement, they were not eligible for protection as geographical indications at the international level. They could not, therefore, be subject to notification under the multilateral system and could never be in the multilateral register.
