TN/IP/2 9 
 
25 February  2021 
(21-1623) Page: 1/2 
Council for Trade -Related Aspects of  
Intellectual Property Rights  
Special Session    
 
 
  
MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL 
INDICATIONS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS  
 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN, AMBASSADOR ALFREDO SUESCUM (PANAMA)  
1.  This report on the negotiations on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and 
registration of geographical indications (GIs) for wines and spirits ("GI Register") in the Special 
Session of the Council for TRIPS is submitted on my own responsibility and is without prejudice to 
the positions of delegations and to the outcome of the negotiations.  
2.  Since my last written report, circulated as document TN/IP/2 8 on 28 December 20 20, I have 
conducted  individual consultations with five interested delegations on how the Special Session could 
proceed in fu lfilling its mandat e. While Members' positions on substantive and procedural issues 
remain unchanged, some demandeur s indicated their readiness and willingness to participate in 
sharing information and experiences on the diverse ways in which GIs have been  protected through 
bilateral and/or regional agreements . In their view, this information sharing exercise was important 
in paving the way for future negotiations on a multilateral register for wine and spirit GIs.  
3.  During the consultations, I invited Members to consider three specific suggestions raised by 
Members during past consultations held in October 2020: ( 1) that the Special Session schedule 
meetings to share information and experiences on the diverse ways in which GIs have been protecte d 
through bilateral and/or regional agreements;  (2) that the WTO Secretariat conduct a study on the 
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Geneva Act of the Lisbon System; and  (3) that 
the WIPO Secretariat be invited to brief delegations on the s tate of play with the WIPO international 
registration system.  
4.  In the meantime, I had invited Members to reflect on how, when and where the other side 's 
concerns might be addressed without necessarily conceding nor agreeing  to them , and to reflect on 
new a pproaches to achieve their own objectives.  I also asked whether they had contacted the other 
side on how to proceed to fulfil the Special Session's  mandate.  
5.  Regarding the first suggestion, the delegations from the W52 Group indicated they were ready 
and wi lling to participate in the information sharing exercise. Some believed that this exercise was 
important in paving the way for future negotiations and indicated that they would engage other W52 
delegations in the TRIPS Council's regular and/or special sess ions. Other delegations, however, were 
still sceptical of its benefit to the Special Session's work. The delegation from the Joint Proposal 
Group thought that this information exchange would duplicate work in WIPO Standing Committee 
on the Law of Trademark s, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) , and that the SCT 
was an appropriate and already available forum for this type of exchange . Thus,  they sought further 
clarification on what the proponent s wanted to achieve through this exercise.  
6.  Concerning the second and third suggestions, the delegations from the W52 Group supported 
both in principle , while pointing out the importance of timing for such work. The delegation from the 
Joint Proposal Group stated that they could not support either sug gestion due to their longstanding 
concern over the Geneva Act and the Lisbon system.  TN/IP/ 29 
 
- 2 - 
 
  7.  Regarding the procedural issue, the delegations from the W52 Group stood by their demand for 
linkage and parallelism between three TRIPS issues: GI register, GI extension,  and TRIPS -CBD. The 
delegation from the Joint Proposal Group repeated that respect for the Special Session's mandate 
was a threshold issue to be addressed .  
8.  Unfortunately, n one of the delegations  has engaged with the other side on these specific 
suggestion s, though a few remarked that IP issues had been discussed regularly between capitals. 
I urged them to take up the specific suggestion s with one another in the context of the Special 
Session.  
9.  Regarding future steps, after reflecting on the overall situation, I  planned to call for a small group 
consultation to explore the possibility of holding the suggested  information exchange exercise,  and 
then to hold an informal open -ended meeting to report on these consultations and to provide an 
opportunity fo r delegations to share their new thoughts on the work of the Special Session.  
 
__________