72. The representative of Colombia said that the Draft Text prompted considerable concerns about certain options which actually entailed new obligations, which Colombia was not prepared to accept and which did not correspond to the mandate of negotiations. Colombia was currently shouldering the burden of meeting its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, for example in the area of trademarks. For this reason Colombia had co-sponsored the Joint Proposal, which was characterized by voluntary participation and would not impose additional burdens particularly for countries like Colombia, which did not produce nor export wines or spirits, and which did not entail new rights or obligations. In accordance with Article 23.4, negotiations should have the purpose of facilitating the protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits eligible for protection in the participating Members. The Joint Proposal reiterated the voluntary character of the future system and determined the scope and coverage of the multilateral system for notification and registration. She recalled that Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement established that Members could freely adopt the appropriate method to apply the provisions of the Agreement within the framework of their own system and practice. Concerns raised by the Draft Text related to the legal effects of participation and the challenge procedure, which would result in an accumulation of repercussions and obligations that did not stem from the Doha mandate and which would not be attractive for those countries wishing to have a system that facilitated the protection of geographical indications and that would essentially be informative in nature.
