Comptes rendus ‒ Session extraordinaire du Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention /la déclaration

Ambassador Eui-yong Chung (Korea)
C.3.b What is meant by a "system of notification and registration"
62. The representative of Australia encouraged delegations to take note of the words "a single word or two words at maximum" and "one or two A4 pages" mentioned by the EC delegation. He also recalled that it had been proposed that there be a summary examination as to form conducted by the Secretariat at the notification stage. His delegation did not think that there was any need for such an examination since Members would be notifying GIs that were recognized as eligible for protection domestically, that is GIs that met the TRIPS definition as transposed into domestic legislation. If there were to be any challenge as to whether a GI met the definition, that should be made and decided at the national level. The Swiss delegation had suggested at the last meeting that if the Secretariat considered that a notified GI clearly did not meet the basic conditions, then the notifying authority would be informed by the Secretariat. Leaving aside the practical question of how the Secretariat could make such a determination, suggesting that the Secretariat play a role in reviewing decisions made at the domestic level concerning what was a protected term within a Member's borders seemed to go considerably beyond the mandate of Article 23.4. The question of translation in his view required greater discussion in the Special Session. Under the model proposed by his delegation and others (TN/IP/W/5), registration did not trigger a direct legal effect in a domestic jurisdiction. The issue of language and translation therefore was much less significant than under the European model, where Members were required to protect a registered GI domestically. Given that Article 23.1 protected GIs in translated form, participating Members would need to know what exactly they were supposed to be protecting. He wondered what it would mean for countries like Japan, Korea, China or Indonesia to be faced with up to 10,000 wine GIs notified by the EC. If each of these countries were to have each GI translated into its own language at its own cost in order to find out exactly what was being protected, then the cost of translation would indeed be significant.