40. The representative of Hungary recalled, with respect to the notification procedure, that the mandate in Article 23.4 called for the "establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration". The mandate itself distinguished between two different phases that were meant to serve different purposes. Therefore, Hungary did not share the understanding of the words "notify" and "register" in paragraph 12 of document TN/IP/W/6 (communication from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, New Zealand and the United States). As was clear from the debate so far, there were a number of common or similar elements in the two basic approaches, but there were also several important divergences. The similarities regarding the notification element of the two basic proposals were more striking. In Hungary's view, it would and should not be difficult to bridge the differences in respect of this notification element. As a first step, participating WTO Members should notify to the Secretariat the list of geographical indications that identified goods as originating in their territory. Only indications that received protection in the notifying Member at the time of notification and which had not fallen into disuse as meant by Article 24.9 should be notified. The notification should indicate the date on which the geographical indication first received protection as well as any time limit on protection. The notification should be accompanied by prima facie evidence of the conformity of the geographical indication with the provisions of Section III, Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. This was of particular importance with respect to minimizing the number of potential oppositions. In addition, notifying Members should clearly indicate any bilateral, regional or plurilateral agreement under which the notified individual GI had received protection. There should also be a possibility for participating Members to notify new GIs that received protection. Participating Members should be obliged to notify their GIs registered in the multilateral system which ceased to be protected domestically or which fell into disuse. Hungary was not convinced of the need to limit the period during which notifications could be made.
41. With respect to opposition procedures, Hungary agreed with the EC proposal that the incorporation of an examination period in the system was essential. It believed that period should start upon the publication of the notification. It seemed necessary to establish a time-frame for the examination phase. Hungary believed that a period of 18 months should be adequate for the examination but was ready to consider other time-frames as well. During the examination phase, participating Members could ask questions and request further information or explanations from the notifying Member. According to the Special Session's negotiating mandate, the objective of the register was to facilitate protection of GIs eligible for protection in those Members participating in the system, and this clearly meant more than notification. To achieve that, in Hungary's view, all those notified GIs that did not fit the definition and were not under other protection in the country of origin should be filtered out. If there were no mechanism at the disposal of Members to filter these notified names, the legal effect of the registration could be contrary to the objective in the mandate. It was exactly the reason why Hungary also advocated, as an indispensable element of the system, the inclusion of a procedure for opposition. He expected that the majority of notifications would not need to be opposed.
42. In case of disagreement over the registration of a notified GI, the notifying and opposing WTO Members should hold bilateral consultations with the view to settling the disagreement. Hungary expected that, as in the case of consultations under the DSU, bilateral discussions would result in a mutually agreeable solution for the challenging party and the notifying party. As a last resort, if the direct bilateral discussions did not yield a mutually acceptable solution, a multilateral possibility should be provided to settle the disagreement. This element in particular would provide adequate opportunities for smaller WTO Members, including developing countries, to represent their interests and would prevent the potential abuse of the opposition procedure by ensuring that it was not left to individual Members to determine whether a challenge was justified or not. He recalled Hungary's suggestion that the Council should explore the possibility of establishing a specific arbitration system, the decisions of which would be final and binding. Nevertheless, Hungary would be open to any other form of settling disagreements that would have the same multilateral character and would be simple and effective.
43. Turning to the phase of registration, he said that GIs which had been notified, published and had not been opposed should be registered after 18 months from the date of publication. As long as a challenge made in connection with the multilateral registration of a GI was not settled by the arbitrator, the notified GI should not be registered. Geographical indications successfully challenged on the basis of Article 22.1 and Article 22.4 of the TRIPS Agreement should not be registered. In other words, the effect of the arbitrator's decision in the case of challenges made pursuant to Articles 22.1 and 24.9 could be of an erga omnes nature: should the arbitrators find that the notified and challenged GI did not fit the definition or was not under protection in its country of origin, it would not be entered into the register. This erga omnes effect was important in particular for two reasons. First, it would save time and effort for the participants in the system, since a single successful challenge would prevent the registration of notified names not fitting the definition or not under protection in the country of origin and, therefore, in respect of such names, there would be no legal effects on any WTO Member. Second, this would prevent the unfortunate situation where the failure of participants to challenge a notification and the resulting legal effect of registration in their respect would lead to commercial losses or costs for Members from which the GI in question originated, even if these Members had successfully challenged the registration on the basis of Articles 22.1 or 24.9. Geographical indications successfully challenged on the basis of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 24 should be registered and the registration should refer to the successful challenge. In the case of a successful challenge, the notified GI would be registered but noting that the registration did not have a legal effect on the successful challenger. The reason for not having an erga omnes effect in the case of challenges was that the applicability of the exceptions in Article 24 could only be determined on a case-by-case basis. To sum up, Hungary's proposal regarding the "mechanics" was not meant to raise the level of protection, but genuinely aimed at helping to facilitate the enforcement of rights in the national courts.
