126. The representative of Kenya said that the question of "Kenya" being a geographical indication or not was addressed in Article 22.1. His understanding of the practice was that, if Kenya produced, for example, coffee from a region which had some quality or characteristics by virtue of that coffee being grown and produced in that region and then sought for registration, as a geographical indication, of the name of that region, then that region would qualify as a geographical indication. However, if there were more than one region producing different types of coffee with different qualities and all of them qualified to have their names registered as geographical indications, and if Kenya wanted to put the country name to cover all those products, "Kenya" might not qualify as a geographical indication, the reason being that it would be covering several products of different qualities. However, if it were a blend of all the coffees with all the various qualities, then "Kenya" would qualify as a geographical indication. That was his understanding and he stood to be challenged.
