. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/W/260
30 May 2001
(01-2709)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
 AND THEIR MEMBER STATES
The following communication, dated 30 April 2001, has been received from the European
Communities and their member States with the request that it be circulated to Members.
_______________
ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 23.4 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL JOINTLY SUBMITTED BY CANADA , CHILE , JAPAN
AND THE UNITED STATES (IP/C/W/REV.1)
Two comprehensive proposals for a multilateral system of notification and registration of
geographical indications under Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement have been submitted to date bythe European Communities and their member States
1, as well as Canada, Chile, Japan and the United
States (hereafter "joint proposal")2. In addition, Hungary3 has recently provided draft language on
opposition/challenge procedures for incorporation in the EC proposal.
The above proposals contain a significant number of common elements, but also several
points of divergence. The European Communities and their member States believe that the joint
proposal raises important questions and would like to offer the following observations in relation to
the joint proposal for further consideration by the TRIPS Council.
(1) In particular, with respect to the terms "notific ation" and "registration", as used in the joint
proposal, "notification" implies only transparency of information in a voluntary and
administratively simple system, while the term "registration" implies no legal effects.Consequently, it would appear that the provisions on notification and registration are identical
in the joint proposal.
(2) In a number of respects, the joint proposal does not seem to constitute more than a mere
database. It is not clear to us how the facilitation of the protection of geographical indications,as requested in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, would be ensured by a system limited
to a mere database.
(3) In that respect, the joint proposal does neither make reference to national legislation providing
for protection nor to the date on which each geographical indication first received protection.
                                                     
1 IP/C/W/107/Rev.1.
2 IP/C/W/133 Rev.1.
3 IP/C/W/255.IP/C/W/260
Page 2
(4) We note that the proposals submitted by Hungary, as well as that of the EC and their member
States suggest various ways and means to allow examination and consultations aiming at an
acceptable solution in case of disagreement among Members.  The joint proposal does not
appear to contain anything comparable.
(5) The following points deserve to be particularly highlighted in the joint proposal:
• The terms " wines and spirits" have been replaced by " covered products" .  We
understand from the introduction that the discussion of the nature of the system is to beseparated from the discussion of the scope of the system.  The EC shares this view and has
adopted the same approach in its own revised proposal.  However, given the continued
unwillingness of the United States and its co-sponsors to enter into a discussion on other
products, we would like the United States and its co-sponsors to clarify their position on thisissue.
• It is not clear why notifications of geographical indications " every six months " should
lessen the burden on the Secretariat.
• The joint proposal also leaves open the conse quences of a withdrawal or disruption of a
member’s participation in the system.
• It is not clear what steps are envisaged to ensure a truly multilateral registration system
and not just a compilation of national lists. Asking the Secretariat to compile national lists
would be burdensome, if no added value were created - this should be limited to the creation
of links to the different national web sites.
• It is unclear under the joint proposal whether or not non-participating Members have the
obligation to grant protection under Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement and to facilitate thisprotection in the sense of Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement.  It also seems that " WTO
lists" would not be any different from the " list of domestic geographical indications ".
In conclusion, taking into account the above comments, the joint proposal cannot be
considered as fully complying with the mandate of Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular
with respect to the different elements constituting a multilateral system of notification and
registration.
__________