RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/IP/M/13 
3 August 2005 
 
 (05-3489) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights Special Session  
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 16-17 June 2005  
 
Chairperson: Ambassador M anzoor Ahmad (Pakistan) 
 
The present document contains the record of  the discussion which took place during the 
TRIPS Council Special Session mee ting held on 16-17 June 2005. 
Subjects discussed              P a g e  n o s .  
A. ADOPTION OF AGENDA ...............................................................................................................1  
B. NEGOTIATION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF 
NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES 
AND SPIRITS ............................................................................................................................... .1 
C. OTHER ISSUES ...........................................................................................................................13  
 
_______________ 
  A. A
DOPTION OF AGENDA  
1. The thirteenth Special Session agreed  to adopt the agenda as set out in WTO/AIR/2587.  
2. The Chairman  suggested that the Special Session invite  the International Bureau of WIPO to 
be represented in an expert capacity, this being wit hout prejudice to the issue of observer status for 
intergovernmental organizations. 
3. It was so agreed .  
B. NEGOTIATION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION 
AND REGISTRATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS   
4. The Chairman  first asked the delegation of the Eu ropean Communities to introduce its new 
paper circulated to the Special Session in doc ument TN/IP/W/11 and then to open the floor for 
comments on this paper as well as other papers befo re the Special Session.  He recalled that at the 
March meeting a group of delegati ons had tabled a proposal in document TN/IP/W/10, and that the 
proposal made by Hong Kong, China in 2003 in TN/IP/W/8 remained on the table. 
5. The representative of th e European Communities  said that, given the different fora in which 
the proposals would need to be discussed, his presenta tion would be the first of two, possibly more, 
on this document.  Previously, the case had often been made that the discussion of the different TN/IP/M/13 
Page 2  
 
aspects of the DDA concerning geographical indica tions was a difficult, or even impossible one, 
because of the difficulty in addressing them in a piecemeal fashion.  While it was questionable 
whether these arguments had great merit, his dele gation had nevertheless r esponded to them through 
the submission of a legal text which covered bot h the multilateral register and the extension of 
additional protection to products other than wines and spirits.  In the present meeting the objective 
was to present the proposals concerning the operati on of the register for which negotiations were 
mandated in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement a nd paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration.  The 
proposals concerning the extension, including issues of  the scope of the register, would be presented 
at the consultations chaired by Deputy Directo r-General Thompson-Flôres on 17 June 2005.  Those 
consultations were being held under the responsibility of the Dire ctor-General for subsequent 
reporting to the TNC and the General Council and it was for this reason that the present document had 
also been circulated within those bodies. 
6. He said that, given that the EC submission was 19 pages long and contained legal text 
proposals, his delegation had anticipated, and full y understood, that Members would not be in a 
position to give considered responses to every aspect of the proposal during the present meeting.  The 
content of the proposal was based on earlier documen ts and discussions.  In the case of the register, 
the paper included:  explanations on pages 3 and 4;  a reference to the register in paragraph 4 of the  
new Article 23.4 on page 7;  and a proposed annex to the TRIPS Agreement on pages 11 to 19.  This 
annex followed the structure of document JOB(03)/ 75, which had been discussed in earlier meetings 
of the Special Session and covered the same issues.  Most of the other parts of the document were not meant for discussion at the present meeting.  The de finition of geographical indications in Article 22 
of the TRIPS Agreement was not changed and was onl y included to give clarity to the legal text 
proposed on page 6 of the document, so as to enable Members to have before them a complete text of 
the EC proposal for Section 3 of Part II of th e TRIPS Agreement.  The EC communication responded 
to the basic philosophy that international instrument s in the area of intellectual property should ensure 
tangible results in terms of protection and be someth ing more than a mere speculative tool.  This was 
why the EC communication still advanced a system that had legally binding effects and was 
multilateral in nature.  In other words, a system  which concerned all WTO Members that were under 
the obligation to implement Section 3 of Part II  of the TRIPS Agreement.  While his delegation 
acknowledged that other proposals had been made, notably a good-faith attempt by 
Hong Kong, China in 2003, it nevertheless mainta ined its level of ambition in this respect. 
7. With regard to its basic aspects, the EC propo sal aimed to facilitate a level of protection of 
geographical indications which was already the subj ect of existing obligations.  All developed and 
developing countries had the obligation to provide th e legal means to protect geographical indications, 
and the vast majority of them did so via regist ers, where they received applications that were 
examined and signs were determined  to be geographical indications or generic terms.  This was the 
case, inter alia , of the United States, Australia and Chile.  Secondly, the EC proposal advanced a  
system whereby applications, rather than being filed locally, would be filed via a centralized 
procedure based in Geneva.  Thirdly, all registrati on systems that his delegation was aware of had an 
opposition procedure, where third parties could raise cl aims as to, for instance, whether or not a term 
was generic.  None of these domestic opposition pro cedures lasted more than 12 months.  Fourthly, 
the European Communities had offered that examinati on procedures at the multilateral level could last 
up to 18 months, a much longer period during whic h any Member would be able to raise a duly 
substantiated reservation that could or could not be lifted at a later stage.  If a WTO Member did not 
raise a reservation, it would be giving consent that  a certain geographical indication would not be 
considered as a generic term.  In this particul ar regard, many WTO Members had asked what would 
happen if a country had not made a reservation.  The EC proposal explicitly made sure that the 
grandfathering clause of Article 24.4 and the clause  regarding prior trademar ks in Article 24.5 could 
continue to be evoked at the nationa l level.  In other words, if a government had "forgotten" to place a 
reservation on the basis of genericness, the other exceptions and the grandfathering clause of Article 24 would continue to remain available.  It  should not be forgotten that the provisions of 
Article 24.4 and 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement we re those designed to protect good-faith uses and  TN/IP/M/13 
 Page 3 
 
 
prior trademarks that contained, or consisted of, geographical indications.  Article 24.6 on genericness 
was a provision that permitted the total denial of protection to geographical indications.   
8. As far as new elements were concerned, they  included a mechanism that tried to provide 
further transparency and predictability regard ing any potential conflicts between geographical 
indications and trademarks by allowing the applican t country to request some or all WTO Members to 
identify prior trademarks that contained, or c onsisted of, notified geogra phical indications.  In 
addition, the applicant country could also request some or all WTO Members to notify any trademark 
applications that contained, or consisted of, the notified geographical  indications.  To respond to the 
concern expressed by some delegati ons that this feature would entail resources and costs, the EC 
proposal had for the first time foreseen a speci fic model for financing the proposal, which was 
inspired by the Madrid Protocol, an agreement we ll-known to Members such as the United States and 
Australia.  This in itself should be an indication that  claims of high costs should be viewed with some 
scepticism.  Under the EC proposal, most of the cost s in running the system should be carried by the 
applying WTO Member via a system of fees.  This was a clear example that the European 
Communities stood by its position that those who benefited the most from the system should carry it 
costs commensurately.   
9. The EC proposal tried to inject some im petus into the discussions by addressing and 
bringing onto the table two issues that had been id entified as obstacles to th e much needed progress in 
this area, namely trademarks and costs.  He hope d that this new proposal would open the way to a 
constructive, fruitful and more focused negotiation.  He highlighted the fact that this issue was an 
important part of the negotiating agenda.  It was al so an issue which was already built into the TRIPS 
Agreement and which had received further impetus in the Doha Decl aration.  His delegation would 
therefore seek engagement and progress commensur ate with other aspects of the Round and would 
also be looking for confirmation that its proposal re mained a key part of the negotiating agenda and 
that other Members understood that the Europ ean Communities were serious on this issue. 
10. The representative of Australia  said that his delegation had ma jor procedural and substantive 
concerns with the new EC paper, in particular with the fact that the paper proposed that the register 
apply to all products.  All Members knew that the Special Session operated under a very specific mandate, set out in the first sentence of paragraph 18  of the Doha Declaration, which referred to the 
"establishment of a multilateral system of notificatio n and registration of geogr aphical indications for 
wines and spirits".  The EC paper could not be a basis for discussion.  There was no way that his delegation could discuss the EC paper in this Sp ecial Session without prejudicing its position in 
discussions which had no relationshi p to these negotiations.  To suggest that Members could discuss 
one part of this paper in this Special Session a nd deal with other issues in another forum was not 
possible.  This linkage of ambitions  regarding extension and the register  in the way made in this paper 
only confirmed how extreme the demands of the Eu ropean Communities were.  Members should also 
keep in mind the fact that the European Communities were still not  in compliance with the TRIPS 
Agreement, as had been found in two recent panel re ports.  Since, in that dispute, the European 
Communities had requested almost a year to remedy the defects of its own domestic system, it did not 
seem that this would be the right time to be increasing the demands already on the table.  The question facing the Special Session was where to go fro m here.  The minutes of the last meeting had 
highlighted that discussion on the joint proposal had been sustained and fruitful.  Some key points of that proposal included a system that should:  fac ilitate the protection of geographical indications 
provided for wines and spirits;  be voluntary and wi thout legal effects on non-participating Members;  
maintain the balance of rights and obligations in  the TRIPS Agreement;  not increase the level of 
protection afforded to geographical indications;  preserve the territoriality of intellectual property 
rights for geographical indications;  allow Member s to continue to determine for themselves the 
appropriate method for implementing the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement within their own legal 
systems and practices;  and recognize that intellect ual property rights were private rights.  This 
proposal showed that it was possible to move  these discussions forward and was the only one TN/IP/M/13 
Page 4  
 
currently on the table that seriously attempted to  work within the mandate under which Members had 
been operating. 
11. The representative of Argentina
 said that his delegation was confused by the new EC 
proposal and in particular by the statement made  by the representative of the European Communities 
that the proposal formed part of the negotiations .  There was no basis for a proposal such as for an 
annex on the register in the current mandate of Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and of 
paragraph 18 of the Doha Declarati on.  While being aware that the proposal was compatible with the 
European Communities' ambition, he was of the view that it fell outside the mandate of the Special 
Session.   
12. The representative of the European Communities  said that in all discussions regarding the 
register or extension, Australia had obstructed any meaningful progr ess.  Such an attitude for issues 
which were of great importance to his delegation was not conducive to ove rall constructive progress 
in all the other components of the single undertaking.  Each delegation had the full right to put proposals to the membership, and other delegations c ould not always agree with the content or scope 
of such proposals.  However, the European Commun ities had never disputed the right of Members to 
put proposals to the membership.  He therefore t ook real offence at the statement by the Australian 
delegation that it was not even willing to discuss th e EC proposal.  The EC proposal contained a part 
which dealt with the register of geographical indications for wines and spirits.  Recalling his 
introductory statement where he had made a clear di stinction between this aspect and other elements 
that concerned products other than  wines and spirits, he asked that the Special Session deal with the 
part relevant to wines and spirits.   
13. The representative of Chile
 associated his delegation with the views expressed by Australia 
and Argentina.  While on the one hand the Eu ropean Communities was putting in one document 
issues concerning extension which were not in the pr ovince of this Special Session, on the other hand 
it was submitting a proposal on the multilateral regist er of wines and spirits which was open to all 
products and, consequent ly, outside the mandate.  By bringing to this Special Session, under the 
question of the multilateral register, a system wh ich would cover all products, the proposal would 
prejudge the discussions on extension.  Not only had the European Communities espoused a system 
which would have legal effects beyond the current  TRIPS obligations that Members were trying to 
implement, but they had also put forward a pr oposal which was outside the mandate given to 
Members.  The joint proposal, on the other hand, r espected the mandate by proposing a registry which 
would have no legal effects for non-pa rticipating countries, would respect  the principle of territoriality 
and would be limited to what the text of the TRI PS Agreement currently provided for.  Therefore, it 
would certainly prejudge his delegation's position if  he started discussing the details of the EC 
proposal.   
14. He believed that the EC proposal was also offe nsive in many other ways.  For instance, it 
stated in part II that "developing countries would find  this proposal more tailored to their needs".  As 
the representative of a developing country, he knew best what Chile's needs were.  Another example 
was the statement on page 3 that it was "pr oviding a sufficient level of comfort to GI  opponents".  
This was not a correct characterization of Chile's  position, since his country had never opposed the 
protection of geographical indications.  On the cont rary, it upheld and wanted to protect them in 
accordance with the obligation it had accepted.  
 
15. In response to the point made by the dele gation of the European Communities regarding 
their right to table proposals, he said that they certainly had the right to table whatever they wanted,  but Chile certainly also had the right to refuse to  discuss issues which were way beyond the mandate 
which Members had given themselves.  He recalled that Members had struck a deal for these  TN/IP/M/13 
 Page 5 
 
 
negotiations that was carefully balanced, which w as simply to implement an obligation under the 
TRIPS Agreement. 
16. The representative of Japan  said his delegation preferred a system which would be within 
the mandate established by Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, did not impose administrative 
burdens, facilitated the protection of geographical in dications for wines and spirits, and provided for  
voluntary participation.  After careful examin ation of the new joint proposal in document 
TN/IP/W/10, his delegation was of the view that  the proposal was not a rigid one and could be 
improved.  It could therefore serve as the basis fo r negotiation.  Thus, Japan would like to be included 
as a co-sponsor of document TN/IP/W/10. 
17. As to the new EC proposal, his delegation would limit its comments to the part dealing with 
the "multilateral system of notification and the regist ration of geographical indications".   It believed 
that the present discussions on the multilateral syst em should concentrate on geographical indications 
only for wines and spirits. 
18. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation shared the concerns 
expressed by Argentina, Australia and Chile.  Th e new EC communication in document TN/IP/W/11 
confirmed that the system proposed was over-reachi ng in nature and was well beyond the mandate 
under Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement.  He r ecalled that all delegations were struggling to 
complete negotiations on several difficult issues w ithin the Doha mandate, and that the new proposal, 
which clearly went beyond the mandate, did not he lp bring delegations closer.  His delegation's 
comments would be directed to issues within the mandate regarding a notification and registration 
system only for wines and spirits.   
19. As had been noted, the only proposal on the table that was within the mandate of 
Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and of paragr aph 18 of the Doha Declaration was the joint 
proposal, contained in document TN/IP/W/10.  Despit e the comments made by certain delegations at 
the March meeting, the notification and registration sy stem in the joint proposal was consistent with 
the mandate in that participation in the system w ould be voluntary and the system would facilitate the 
protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits.  The joint proposal did this by assisting 
Members in making decisions on protecting geographi cal indications within their territory without 
altering or increasing the substantive TRIPS oblig ations.  The co-sponsors of the joint proposal 
recognized that this was only the first draft, and were willing to work with the WTO membership to 
improve it within the parameters of the TRIPS Agreem ent, namely that the system be voluntary, that 
it preserve the existing balance of rights and obligati ons in the TRIPS Agreement,  that it respect the 
territoriality of intellectual property rights for geographical indications, and that it allow WTO 
Members to continue to determine for themselv es the appropriate method of implementing the 
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement within their own legal system and practice.  The system proposed would facilitate protection of geographical indica tions for participating WTO Members by providing 
an uncomplicated and efficient system for notificatio n and registration of geogr aphical indications  for 
wines and spirits that were recognized in the national systems of individual WTO Members.  The 
system would consist of a searchable database of a ll geographical indications for wines and spirits that 
were notified by participating Members.  It woul d provide national intellect ual property offices with 
information on GI rights claimed by producers in the territory of another WTO Member.  This 
information could be used by national offices wh en making decisions regarding the registration and 
protection of trademarks and geogr aphical indications for wines and spirits in accordance with their 
national legislation.  WTO Members who chose to participate would commit to ensuring that their 
domestic procedures for trademark and GI registratio n included the provision to consult the database 
when making decisions regarding GI and trademark registrations under domestic law.  At the same 
time, non-participating Members would be free to consult this information, if they chose to do so, to 
ensure that their decisions regarding trademark a nd GI registration under domestic law were based on 
the most complete information available.  Under th e joint proposal, such decisions by national offices 
would continue to be made entirely at the national level, based on the principle of territoriality and TN/IP/M/13 
Page 6  
 
consistent with current practic es under the TRIPS Agreement.  The multilateral registration and 
notification system would not have a direct real e ffect within any WTO Member.  It would be up to 
the Member consulting the database to determine,  according to its national law and registration 
requirements, what evidentiary weight to give to the geographical indications included in the 
database.  The database would be used when maki ng determinations as to whether a trademark should 
be registered or whether a GI application from a nother country should be accepted by the registration 
authorities.  This proposal accurately reflected that, under the TRIPS Agreement, each Member 
determined for itself whether an indication met th e requirements under national law to be recognized 
and protected as a GI.  Thus, consistent with th is approach, the notification of one country's 
geographical indications to the system did not mean  that the GI was protected everywhere;  it would 
only be protected where it met the requirements of  the reviewing Member, which could include the 
requirement that consumers in that Member rec ognized it as a GI.  The value of the joint proposal 
system was that it provided a unified, searchable da tabase of information for national offices to use in 
determining, in conjunction with research as to th e treatment of the term in the reviewing country, 
whether a geographic term in a proposed trademark would be deceptive or misleading to consumers in 
that country.  The database would not constitute an  application or request for protection in WTO 
Members.  Nationals from Members seeking protecti on would still be able to apply directly to 
national offices.  The decision by each Member regarding the legal means for implementing GI 
protection would be left in the hands of that Member's national authorities.  The decision about whether or not a term was a GI would also be le ft to the national authorities.  The joint proposal 
would therefore assist Members in protecting ge ographical indications under TRIPS, and not add 
additional burdens. 
20. He concluded by saying that, in light of the EC proposal, it remained clear that the joint 
proposal was the only submission before Members that met the mandate and should therefore be 
considered as the basis for these negotiations.  He would welcome from the European Commission 
any submission that was within the parameters of the mandate. 
21. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that the interpretation of a mandate 
was in itself a subjective matter.  Nothing in Article  23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement or in paragraph 18 
of the Doha Declaration prevented an interpretati on that the system of notification and registration 
should have legal effects, which was his delegation's position.   A Member could, of course, be 
opposed to it, but that was a different matter.  In the same way that his delegation was prepared to 
discuss the joint proposal, which contained a system  of notification and re gistration without legal 
effects, it expected that the sponsor s of the joint proposal were also prepared, as a matter of principle, 
to discuss the system proposed by the European Communities.  As ha d been indicated, his delegation 
accepted that the Special Session's mandate was onl y to discuss the register of geographical 
indications for wines and spirits.  Members could therefore limit the discussions to those elements in 
the EC communication which were strictly related to the register for wines and spirits.  His delegation 
had never asked Members to discuss in the Special Se ssion whether or not such a register should have 
a wider scope than wines and spirits.  If other Me mbers took the view that such scope should be 
limited only to wine and spirits, this would be a position which the European Communities could not 
accept but which was nevertheless a fair one.  Howeve r, what his delegation would insist on was the 
need for Members to be willing to discuss proposals of other Members.  In the absence of such a 
willingness to discuss, Members could close the di scussion in the present negotiating body and his 
delegation would have to raise this issu e in the TNC or in the General Council. 
22. The representative of Australia  said that his delegation was not disputing the right of any 
delegation to come forward with a paper.  It only  drew Members' attention to the mandate of this 
Special Session and, in particular, to the way the EC  paper sought to confuse and introduce issues that 
were not relevant to these negotiations.  The key point that his delegation was making was that it 
failed to see how it could engage in a discussion on a pa per that introduced all of these issues in a way 
that was clearly prejudicial to his delegation's position on issues under discussion in other fora and on 
issues that were not negotiating ones.  The records of the past meetings showed that his delegation  TN/IP/M/13 
 Page 7 
 
 
had been extremely engaged in these discussions by, inter alia , asking many questions and putting 
forward proposals.  The sponsors of the joint propo sal had shown that they wanted to move these 
discussions forward.  Regarding the comment made by the European Communities that Australia did 
not want to discuss the new EC proposal, he said that this was contradicted by their own statement at paragraph 33 of the minutes of the last meeting in document TN/IP/M/12, where the 
European Communities said that  the new joint proposal in document TN/IP/W/10 could not be 
considered as a basis for an agreem ent or for further negotiation.   
23. The representative of Mexico
 expressed support for the statements made by Australia and 
other Members with regard to the mandate and th e proposal presented by th e European Communities. 
24. The representative of Canada  said that his delegation shared the concerns expressed by 
previous delegations regarding the mandate of the Special Session, which was to negotiate a 
multilateral registry for wines and spirits only.  The EC paper went far beyond  this mandate and thus 
the Special Session was not the appropriate forum to discuss it.  He urged delegations instead to refocus on the joint proposal contained in documen t TN/IP/W/10 and supported by many delegations.  
The joint proposal adhered to the principles set out in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement by:  
facilitating the registration of geographical indications  for wine and spirits;  making participation in 
the system voluntary;  not providing for legal effects on non-participating Members;  maintaining the current balance of rights and obligations;  not go ing beyond TRIPS obligations;  and preserving the 
principle of territoriality, i.e., Members' right to  use appropriate methods to implement obligations 
according to their national legal systems.  The jo int proposal also facilitated the protection of 
geographical indications for wines and spirits by making the information available in a transparent 
fashion and in a single location for intellectual prope rty offices and others to use.  Furthermore, the 
joint proposal was not burdensome from either  a resource or cost perspective.   
25. The representative of Bulgaria
 recalled that paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration covered 
extension and that, without the reference to ex tension, there would not have been any Doha 
Declaration.  The EC proposal was the only one so fa r that took into account the mandate as a whole.  
The point had been made by opponents of extension that there were too many proposals on 
geographical indications in too many fora.  This was due to the fact that the opponents did not want to 
discuss the register and extension in one single fo rum.  The EC communication had responded to the 
point made by extension opponents that they did not know what the demandeurs  wanted.  What the 
European Communities were proposing in the Special  Session was only to discuss that part of the  
proposal which dealt with the register for wines a nd spirits, leaving aside the question of scope, which 
could be discussed in the TNC or in the consultations  held under the chairmanship of the Friend of the 
TNC Chairman.  Refusing to discuss a proposal by one Member on the basis that it contained parts 
which were under the mandate of another negotia ting body meant not wanting to negotiate in good 
faith and not wanting to engage  in constructive discussions.   
26. The representative of India  welcomed the communication from the European Communities 
in document TN/IP/W/11 and those aspects that were covered by paragraph 18 of the Doha 
Declaration.   
 27. The representative of Argentina
 said that what was at stake was the issue of whether 
delegations had the right to refuse discussion of a submission that went beyond a mandate.  He urged 
the European Communities to prepare documents that  complied with the mandate and to reflect on the 
impact which their attitude, as had been presented in  this meeting, could have on the rest of the 
negotiations.   
28. The representative of Turkey , recalling that his country was a supporter of extension and of 
the establishment of a meaningful register of geogr aphical indications for all products, said that the TN/IP/M/13 
Page 8  
 
European Communities had made a valuable contribu tion, which aimed at bringing together the two 
aspects of the GI issue, namely the register and extension.     
29. He suggested that the EC paper combine Articles 22 and 23 of the TRIPS Agreement into a 
single provision.  Additionally, the wording of pa ragraph 5 of the annex on the register could be 
improved and could be made  more parallel with that of paragr aph 1 on participation.  The 18-month 
period referred to in paragraph 5 could be elaborated in paragra ph 3.1.  The process of how the 
register would function could also be elaborated in paragraph 3.1.  In the sa me vein, paragraphs 3.6 
and 3.7 could be inserted immediately after paragra ph 3.1 since they dealt with the form and content 
of the register.  In paragraph 3.2, the wording should  reflect the register's scope, that was to cover all 
products.  His delegation welcomed the "user pays" c oncept that was reflected in the proposal on the 
use of the register.  Many developing countries ha d commercially valuable or potentially commercial 
geographical indications, but they lacked ways a nd means for their registration and protection.  
Besides, most developing countries did not have a good database for their geographical indications.  
In his delegation's view, a transition period for developing countries could be envisaged in the 
proposal, so as to give them enough time to create a sound database and to sort out domestic legal and 
practical issues related to a better protection of ge ographical indications.  The proposal should contain 
provisions regarding special and differentia l treatment for developing countries.   
30. The representative of Switzerland
 said that document TN/IP/W/11, presented by the 
European Communities, was a useful contribution to the discussions on geographical indications at a crucial moment of the Doha nego tiations, namely before the July meeting of the General Council.  
This submission clarified and elaborated the positio n of the European Communities on the register of 
geographical indications.  It also gave a useful cl arification of some essential points relating to the 
issue of extension which had not been yet discussed in  detail, such as the application of the exceptions 
under Article 24 of the TRIPS Agreement.   
31. The Swiss delegation had always been seeki ng a balanced solution in the work on 
geographical indications:  such a solution would co nsist of improving the pr otection of geographical 
indications for all products and in maintaining ac quired rights which were justifiably covered by the 
exceptions under Article 24 of the TRIPS Agreement.   While her delegation was fully aware that 
extension was not a matter to be dealt with in th e Special Session and one that would be discussed in 
another meeting, it would nevertheless briefly co mment on the issue of extension because this was 
part of the balanced approach sought by her de legation in the work on geographical indications, 
including the register.  The EC proposal was a useful elaboration of the last submission presented by 
Switzerland and other WTO Members in JOB(05)/61 and its addenda 1 and 2 in the course of the 
technical consultations on extension in the sense that  it proposed concrete modifications of Article 24 
so that the exceptions under that Article continued, with extension, to have the same scope as what 
was foreseen by the negotiators in the Uruguay Rou nd at the date of entry into force of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  This was an essential element of extens ion that her delegation had always been prepared 
to accept as something to be ensh rined in the TRIPS Agreement t ogether with the principle of 
extending the protection of Article 23 to all pr oducts.  To allow the current exceptions under 
Article 24 to apply to extension would ensure the balanced regime of the TRIPS Agreement that her 
delegation had never wanted to challenge in th e framework of the negotiations on geographical 
indications.  These were the reasons why her delega tion had always said that the purpose of extension 
was not to make " tabula rasa " of the past but rather to ensure fo r the future an effective protection of 
geographical indications that had not yet fallen under one of the exceptions of Article 24 in a country.  
The objective of her delegation to respect the obligat ions under Article 24 also applied to the system 
of notification and registration to be established by the Special Session.   
32. Turning to the register, she recalled that her delegation had always actively participated in 
the work of the Special Session in the belief that a multilateral register was, for the right holders of 
geographical indications, a tool that would usefully  complete the protection offered by Section 3 of 
Part II of the TRIPS Agreement.  Her delegation ha d also always defended the position that Members  TN/IP/M/13 
 Page 9 
 
 
should establish a register with a view to facilita ting the protection of geographical indications as 
provided for under the TRIPS Agreement without incr easing the level of protection, because this 
would fall outside the mandate.  The register should be as light as possible both from the point of view of its administration and of its use and be the least costly possible.  The future register should 
therefore have certain characteristics.  First, regist rations should have legal e ffects, namely to create a 
rebuttable presumption of the validity of the regist ered geographical indications.  In order not to 
question the rights and obligations contained in the TRIPS Agreement, this presumption could be 
reversed at any time;  this would apply to all the elements of the presumption.  Second, to the extent 
that this presumption could be reversed at any time in any Member of the WTO, and taking into 
account that the mandate was to facilitate the pr otection of geographical indications, it seemed 
necessary that the legal effects of a registration, na mely the rebuttable presumption, be claimed in all 
WTO Members in the same way since they were all – with the exceptions of LDCs – under the obligation to protect geographical indications.  Third,  in order for the principle of territoriality, which 
was inherent to any intellectual property right, to be fully applied in all the stages of the procedure 
from notification to registration, it would be a basic requirement that the registration phase be 
preceded by a procedure of examination and opposition   Her delegation had always been in favour of 
a system that would allow all countries and all prod ucers to defend their rights irrespective of their 
size and economic or commercial weight.  It would therefore be useful to have the opposition phase 
lead to an "arbitration".  A system limited to bila teral negotiations would not be to the advantage of 
smaller countries or countries with limited resources.  Fourth, the costs of the system should be borne 
mainly by those who notified geographical indica tions.  A system of fees should therefore be 
developed for notifications.    
33. She said that her delegation had not so far f ound the characteristics it was seeking for the 
register reflected in the joint proposal contained in document TN/IP/W/10.   
34. With regard to the EC proposal in document TN/IP/W/11, she hoped that it would enable 
Members to do some useful work on geographical in dications and help them make progress towards a 
solution.  Her delegation was committed to reachi ng an effective and balanced solution to the 
protection of geographical indications  for all products with due respect  of legitimately acquired rights. 
35. The Chairman
 reminded delegates not to discuss extension since this was not an issue for 
the Special Session.  
36. The representative of the European Communities  said, in response to a comment made by 
Australia, that his delegation had not refused at the last meeting to discuss the joint proposal but that, 
after having been through the provisions proposed, it ha d come to the conclusion that it could not be 
considered as a good basis for discussion.  His de legation fully agreed to limiting the present  
discussion to the annex in document TN/IP/W/11, which was the pièce de résistance  for the Special 
Session.  What the European Co mmunities were expecting from the other delegations was to go 
through the annex and make comments on any ques tions, including those where his delegation had 
tried to offer some comfort, like on costs and ad ministrative burdens.  If what was proposed in the 
annex was not sufficient, his delegation would be open to hearing that.  In the end, there would be a 
difference of views which would have to be addressed, like the ones on legal effects.   
37. The representative of Guatemala  said the present discussions should be confined to the 
mandate, with which the joint proposal was consiste nt.  Consequently, her delegation requested that it 
be  included as a co-sponsor of document TN/IP/W/10. 
38. The representative of New Zealand  said that document TN/IP/W/11 was a hint of just how 
ambitious the European Communities were prepared to  be in this Round and that New Zealand looked 
forward to seeing similar ambition reflected in other parts of the Round.   His delegation had always 
taken mandates seriously and that was the reason w hy it had put forward a serious proposal that met 
the mandate received from Ministers.  There had been  a good dialogue at the last meeting and quite a TN/IP/M/13 
Page 10  
 
number of questions, which had been mostly answered at that same meeting.  The key elements of the 
joint proposal had already been mentioned by a nu mber of its co-sponsors, namely:  its voluntary 
nature;  the fact that there would be no legal eff ects on non-participating Members;  the issue of the 
balance of rights and obligations;  the question of costs;  the principle of territoriality;  the 
preservation of the rights of Members to choose th e means by which they implement their TRIPS 
obligations;  and, finally, its scope limited to wines and spirits.   
39. The representative of Thailand
 said that his delegation saw no harm in discussing the EC 
proposal in the Special Session since the mandate did not limit the topic of discussion and Members could propose what they wished.  It would like to hear more about the proposal on fees and costs, 
particularly paragraphs 9.2 and 9.4 on page 17 of document TN/IP/W/11.   
40. The representative of Australia
 said that the discussions during this meeting had confirmed 
his worse fears that the EC paper would confuse issues as trying to lump together negotiation and non-negotiation issues.  After noting that the dele gations of Turkey and Switzerland had discussed 
extension, he thanked the Chair for clarifying that  extension was not an issue for discussion in this 
forum.   
41. As to the statement made by the European Co mmunities that they were willing to engage on 
the joint proposal at the last meeting, he said th at in reality what the European Communities had done 
was simply to put a number of points on the table that were not different from the ones they had 
already advanced on many previous occasions, and to conclude that the joint proposal was not a basis 
for negotiations.  In fact, his delegation had diff iculties in understanding in what exactly the 
European Communities wanted to engage.  The s uggestion that perhaps Members could just discuss 
the annex of document TN/IP/W/11 was unacceptable since Members could not just pretend that such 
a proposal only applied to wines and spirits.  He therefore encouraged the European Communities to 
recast its proposal in a way that would enable Members to discuss it in the present  forum.  
42. The representative of Malaysia
 noted that the EC proposal was meant for discussion in three 
bodies, including this Special Session.  She had heard a number of delegations stating that the 
multiple purposes of the document were creating some  confusion as to which part of the document 
should be addressed before the Special Session.  While  all Members knew that the most relevant part 
of the document was its annex on the multilateral syst em, they had also noted that there were some 
words missing in the title of that annex, namely "wines and spirits".  Her delegation was concerned 
that Members would go down the path of discussing extension and possible amendments to Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement, which would be outside the mandate of this Special 
Session.  She said, however, that the European Communities had provided a serious proposal for a 
multilateral system and asked whether or not it coul d be resubmitted with a reference to "wines and 
spirits" in the annex.  This would allow some de legations to participate in the discussions without 
much reservation.  Finally, she recalled the con cerns that her delegation had expressed in previous 
meetings regarding the legal effects on non-partic ipating Members, and said that, even if the 
European Communities resubmitted the annex of do cument TN/IP/W/11 with the words "wines and 
spirits", those concerns would still remain.   
43. In conclusion, she said that her delegation cons idered the joint proposal as one that met most 
of Malaysia's needs for a system that was voluntary and one that bore no legal effects on non-participating Members. 
44. The representative of Bulgaria
 said that there was no confusion stemming from the EC 
paper.  Its purpose was, rather, to alleviate the confusion created by some delegations which did not 
want to negotiate in good faith.  He noted that Au stralia had not answered the question as to whether 
or not it was prepared to discuss the annex.  He added that, whilst the Chairman was asking Members 
to refrain from discussing the extension part of the EC proposal, he should also, following the same 
logic, stop Members from making remarks that the EC proposal was confusing.  TN/IP/M/13 
 Page 11 
 
 
45. The representative of Zimbabwe , expressing support for the statements made by Thailand 
and Bulgaria, observed that nothing in paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration prevented a Member 
from discussing any topic. 
46. The representative of Chinese Taipei , expressing support for the statements made by 
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile and Japan, reca lled that each negotiating group or Special Session 
of a WTO body had been established for a specific task  mandated by the Doha Declaration.  In this 
light, she suggested that the pr esent discussions stick to the manda te and move forward focusing on 
the mandate so as to enable Members to quickly achieve a result. 
47. The representative of Brazil  associated his delegation with those who had expressed 
concerns regarding the EC submission and the mandate.   Like the delegations of Argentina, Australia 
and Canada, he questioned the appr opriateness of using the EC propo sal as a basis for discussion in 
the Special Session. 
48. The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation had made it clear 
that it was ready to limit the discussion of the anne x to wines and spirits, which was the mandate of 
the Special Session.  He would have a problem if  some delegations refused to discuss the proposal 
made by a delegation representing 25 WTO Members a nd supported by some others.  The heart of the 
negotiation in the Special Session was how to bridge  the differences regarding certain aspects of the 
system, e.g. the legal effect of a registration.  It  was not a secret that in the overall negotiation the 
whole issue of geographical indications, including th e register for wines and spirits, was of crucial 
importance to the European Communities, to the same  extent as other issues of negotiation, such as 
Agriculture, NAMA or Rules, were for other delegati ons.  If Members wished to have an ambitious 
achievement of the Doha mandate in Hong Kong, th en they would have to take into account each 
other's crucial points.   
49. The representative of Chile  wondered what the reaction of the European Communities 
would be if, in the Negotiating Group on NAMA, Ch ile were to make a very ambitious proposal 
applicable to agricultural products?  If the Eur opean Communities wanted to discuss its proposal on 
the register, it should present a piece of paper that was limited to wines and spirits only.   
50. The representative of the European Communities  said that document TN/IP/W/11 was a 
response to criticism made by other delegations that  the European Communities had not tabled a more 
recent paper in the Special Session.  He recalled that in presenting this document his delegation had 
made it clear that it recognized that the scope of the register and the extension of the register to 
products other than wines and spirits was not a question for this body but a subject for another 
meeting.  To the same extent that the paper subm itted by the joint proposal group had been given 
serious consideration and had been discussed in great detail by his delegation at the last meeting, the 
EC paper deserved due cons ideration and discussion.  
51. The representative of the United States  expressed support for the comments made by 
Australia, Brazil, Canada and New Zealand with respect to the scope and the dilemmas Members 
were having as a result of the EC paper.  What so me Members were refusing to negotiate was only on 
that part of the proposal that was outside the manda te and this was not an unreasonable position.  Her 
delegation would have no problem with this entire document being considered in the consultations on 
GI extension as a tool to clarify the EC position, an d would treat it as such.  Instead of complaining 
about other delegations not bei ng constructive, it would be helpful if the European Communities 
could submit a new document that assembled elements relevant to only wines and spirits in order to 
avoid any confusion about its content.   
52. The representatives of Canada  and Chile  expressed support for the suggestion made by the 
United States about the European Co mmunities recasting their proposal.  TN/IP/M/13 
Page 12  
 
53. The Chairman
 asked the representative of the Euro pean Communities whether, given the 
suggestions made by several Members, his delegation would be in the position to restructure its paper. 
54. The representative of Bulgaria  said he opposed the suggestion made to the European 
Communities to resubmit their proposal. 
55. The representative of the European Communities  recalled that before Doha some discussion 
had taken place on the issue of scope and that the TRIPS Council had agreed to exclude this issue 
from the discussions.  This explained, for example,  why the very first proposal of the United States 
and Japan, which was circulated in document IP/C /W/133 and mentioned "wines and spirits", did not 
refer to wines and spirits in its revised version, IP/C/W133/Rev.1.  This was the case because there 
had been a gentleman's agreement in the TRIPS Co uncil not to discuss the issue of scope.  The EC 
proposal did the same, both in 1998 and in 1999.   His delegation had never included explicit 
references to wines and spirits, or implicit referenc es to all products, leaving this issue completely 
outside the discussion in the TRIPS Council, because it pertained to the informal consultations on 
extension.  His delegation did not accept being accu sed of abusing the mandate when, at the same 
time, there was a paper tabled by Australia in th e informal consultations on extension, JOB(05)/8, 
asking that all proposals be considered when di scussing the objectives, scope and content of GI 
extension.  Document TN/IP/W/11 was just an attempt to respond to that, i.e., clarify the EC's level of 
ambition.  He added that there was no need to resubmit the proposal. 
56. The representative of Australia  reaffirmed his delegation's commitment to continue the 
negotiations.  Responding to the EC comments rega rding the history of the issue of scope, he 
reminded delegations that "wines and spirits" were  clearly written into the Doha Mandate and re-
affirmed by the July Package in 2004.  He recalled th at the issue of whether or not this register would 
apply to all products had been raised before in the Special Session.  The Chairperson at that time had 
said that Members had a clear mandate to negotiate  the establishment of the multilateral system of 
notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits by the 5th Ministerial 
Conference and that Members should work within th e mandate.  The Chairperson also said that the 
Special Session was required to fulfil that mandate  in its entirety and not to go beyond the mandate.  
He believed that Members had agreed on this issu e because no delegation had taken issue with the 
Chair's statement made at that time or later. 
57. The representative of Bulgaria  noted that delegations which were criticizing the EC paper 
were actually discussing scope.  He suggested that the Chairman invite delegations to discuss only 
that part of the EC proposal which did not deal with scope.   
58. The representatives of Chile  and Mexico  disagreed with the comme nts made by Bulgaria 
about certain delegations not willi ng to negotiate in good faith.  
59. The representative of Costa Rica  said that the paper presented by the European 
Communities, which dealt with extension and th e register, fell outside the mandate. This was 
consequently a significant systemic issue.  Th is Special Session could not allow Members to 
unilaterally change a mandate when that mandate ha d been a balanced outcome in Doha and had been 
reiterated in the July Package. 
60. The representative of th e European Communities  said that, as his delegation had made clear 
in document TN/IP/W/11, its level of ambition had not changed and that it had also indicated that the 
scope of the register was not for discussion in the Sp ecial Session.  It was not therefore a question of 
changing the EC proposal so that it only applied to wines and spirits, because that would not be a 
reflection of his delegation's position.  The real issue was:  where to discuss what.  The annex could 
be discussed in this body insofar as it applied to wines and spirits.  TN/IP/M/13 
 Page 13 
 
 
C. OTHER ISSUES  
Chairman's draft report to the TNC 
61. The Chairman  said that, at the meeting of the TNC on 19 May, the Chair of the TNC had 
requested the Chairs of the various negotiating gr oups to provide him with their inputs and assessment 
by early July, the aim being for the TNC Chair to provide Members in July with a good idea not only 
of the progress made, but also of what remained to be done to ensure a successful Ministerial 
Conference in Hong Kong.  The TNC Chair had also recognized that the level of specificity of the 
inputs would no doubt vary from one negotiating group to  another.  The Chairman said that the report 
he would submit would be under hi s own responsibility and would refl ect his own assessment of the 
progress in the group and of outstanding difficulties.  Sharing with the Special Session his preliminary 
thinking as regards his report, he said that he would first give a brief description of the state of play of 
the work in the Special Session, ai med at fulfilling the mandate given to it in the Doha Declaration.  
In this context, he would say that he had detected some increase in the level of activity in the last few 
months as shown by the new submissions, spellin g out in legal form proposals for a multilateral 
system.  This had been useful in clarifying to the Special Session the thinking and the proposals of the 
proponents of these documents.  He would also recall the other proposal on the table, namely the one 
submitted by Hong Kong, China in 2003.  He would, however, say that it could not be claimed that 
the new submissions and the consideration that th e Special Session had given to them had enabled a 
significant step towards finding agreement to be ta ken.  Differences of view on the merits of the 
different proposals on the table and on their cons istency with the Special Session's mandate as 
contained in paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration appeared to be as large as ever and not to have 
narrowed since prior to Cancún.  As in previous reports to the TNC, he would identify the two key 
points of difference that continued to impede effo rts towards finding agreement, namely the question 
of legal effects and participation.   In addition, he would mention that there were other issues that 
needed further discussion such as co sts and administrative burdens.  He would also say that, while 
there would be scope within the framework of th e Special Session for fruitful work of a technical 
nature on some aspects in the coming months, any progress on the key issues would require 
significant new flexibility on the part of the delegations .  He said that he would circulate his report in 
draft form to Members in writing for any further co mments, it being clearly understood that the report 
would remain on his own responsibility. 
62. The representative of Bulgaria  said that whatever was to be done by the Chairs of the 
negotiating groups in view of the July process, this should be done in a uniform manner.  He would be 
concerned if some Chairs were to include in thei r reports texts which would form a contribution to a 
first "approximation" of the Hong Kong text while others would limit their reports to a factual 
description or " constatation des faits ".   
63. The Chairman  said that, if he saw any progress in this Special Session, he would report it, 
but, if he did not, he would also have to indicate this fact.   
Future meetings 
64. The Chairman recalled that the Special Session agreed at its meeting of 30 November 2004 
to hold two other meetings, one  on 16 September 2005 and the othe r on 27-28 October 2005, back to 
back with the regular session of the Council for TRIPS scheduled for 25-26 October.  
_____________