127. The representative of Australia said it was a useful exchange of views which got to the heart of the issue. He thought, however, that, under the system put forward by the EC, the EC could object to a country name being used as a GI. The first consequence of such an objection would be to have bilateral discussions, which would not be an inconsiderable expense. Secondly, the countries wanting to have their names as GIs would have to prove the link of the names with a unique quality, reputation or other characteristics. After 18 months, if there was no agreement, the parties must go for arbitration, which entailed costs. What he was trying to demonstrate was that there was nothing under the system proposed by the EC which could guarantee that a country name fulfilling the requirements of Article 22.1 would be accepted by the EC as a GI. He added that he had not heard so far from the EC anything which would persuade him to conclude otherwise.
