RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/IP/M/18 
22 September 2006 
 (06-4546) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights Special Session  
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 19 July 2006  
 
Chairman:  Ambassador M anzoor Ahmad (Pakistan) 
 
 
Subjects discussed   
  Page No . 
 
A. ADOPTION OF AGENDA ...............................................................................................................2  
B. NEGOTIATION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF 
NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES 
AND SPIRITS ............................................................................................................................... .3 
Notifications.................................................................................................................. ..............3  
(a) Chair's statement .......................................................................................................... ..3 
(b) General points ............................................................................................................. ...6 
(c) Discussion of possible elements.....................................................................................7  
  (i) The notifyin g Member ..........................................................................................7  
  (ii) The geographical indication itself .......................................................................8  
  (iii) Transliteration into Latin characters...................................................................8  
  (iv) Only GIs which identify goods orig inating in the notifying Member's 
territory ................................................................................................................9  
  (v) The place in the notifying Member from which the wine or spirit 
must originate ......................................................................................................9  
  (vi) The use of a standard format .............................................................................10  
  (vii) Article 22.1 definition, GI protected in its territory and not in disuse...............10  
  (viii) Legal basis for the protection of the notified GI ................................................12  
  (ix) Translations of the notified GI ...........................................................................14  
  (x) The product for which the protection is sought..................................................16  
  (xi) Information on the quality, reputati on or other characteristics of the 
goods..................................................................................................................17  
  (xii) Information on the owner of the GI....................................................................17  
  (xiii) Date of protection ..............................................................................................18  TN/IP/M/18 
Page 2  
 
  (d)
 Chair's concluding remarks ..........................................................................................18  
C. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................19 
 
_______________ 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF AGENDA  
1. The seventeenth Special Session agreed  to adopt the agenda as set out in WTO/AIR/2867. 
2. The Chairman  suggested that the Special Session invite  the International Bureau of the World 
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to be repr esented in an expert capacity, this being without 
prejudice to the issue of observer status for intergovernmental organizations. 
3. It was so agreed . 
4. The Chairman  said that, with regard to the organiza tion of the meeting, he would offer the 
floor to any delegation which had anything new to  say for the record, including on the key issues, 
notably those of legal effects and participation.  Howe ver, he did not believe that it would be useful to 
have a full rehearsal of known positions on these matters  at this stage, given the overall state of the 
discussions in the Round.  Nonetheless, it was his sense that there might be scope for some fruitful 
further discussion on the issue of notifications during the meeting.  While he knew that this question 
could not be fully dissociated from that of the legal effects or the consequences  of a registration, he 
believed that it would be worth spending some ti me to see whether Members could identify areas of 
common ground more precisely, as well as areas where further discussion would be required.  The 
Special Session should also discuss the re port that he would make to the TNC.1   
5. The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation was prepared to 
work in the way suggested by the Chair.  He wished, however, to sound one note of caution regarding 
the reference made by the Chairman to the state of progress elsewhere in the negotiations.  While his 
delegation was extremely conscious of, and somewh at concerned with, the state of discussions in 
other areas, it believed that drawing these kinds of linkages could be a dangerous exercise.  Concerns 
with the state of progress elsewhere should not be u sed as a reason to fail to push ahead with progress 
in this or any other negotiation which did not form pa rt of the famous triangle of issues.  This could 
lead to a situation where Members would wait for progress in other negotiating groups before moving.  
Linkages could work both ways.   
6. He said that his delegation was still expecting the working document from the Chairman that 
had been programmed for July.  He expressed hope that  at some stage in this session the Chair would 
be able to address the issue of the nature of that working document. 
7. The Chairman  took note of the comments made by the representative of the 
European Communities.  However, he really felt that Members had not, as yet, made enough progress 
to enable him to produce a working document. 
                                                      
1 The Special Session initially held these discussions in informal mode but later decided to incorporate 
in these minutes the statements that that  had been made in informal mode.    TN/IP/M/18 
 Page 3 
 
 
  B. NEGOTIATION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION AND 
REGISTRATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS  
Notifications 
(a) Chair's statement 
8. The Chairman  said that it might be useful for him to start by briefly setting out his 
understanding of the state of the debate on notifica tions and suggesting a number of questions that 
could be further discussed.  Accordingl y, he made the following statement: 
8.1 "First, a couple of general points regarding the issue of notifications.  One is 
that it is clear that the system that the Sp ecial Session has been asked to negotiate has 
to be seen as a whole and that the requireme nts of the notification phase will, to some 
extent, depend on what is entailed by th e registration of a geographical indication 
under the system, including the legal effects or consequences of registration.  Nonetheless, I think there is sufficient co mmon ground for some further discussion of 
this matter at this stage to be useful, even  if delegations are still far apart on the issue 
of legal effects. 
8.2 "The second general point is that I be lieve that, whatever the nature of the 
legal effects or consequences of a registra tion, the reliability and integrity of the 
information contained in the register is an important consideration for all.  This will 
of course depend very much on the quality of information notified. 
8.3 "Turning now to specifics, it seems to  me that there is a wide measure of 
common thinking that the following elements should be required in notifications 
under the system, even if the various propo sals on the table use somewhat different 
language on these points: 
- First, the notifying Member should of course be identified in each 
notification. 
- Second, the geographical indication in respect of which the notification is 
being made should be specified as it is protected and used in the notifying 
Member. 
- Third, where the geographical indication is in characters other than Latin 
characters, the notification should in clude a transliteration into Latin 
characters using the phonetics of the language in which the notification is made.  I believe that it is common grou nd that such transliterations would be 
for information purposes and would not in  themselves give rise to any legal 
effects or consequences that might flow from registration of a geographical indication. 
- Fourth, I believe that it is common ground that a Member should notify only 
geographical indications which identify goods  originating in its own territory.  
In other words, a Member would not have the option of notifying 
geographical indications for which it is not the country or Member of origin, however unlikely doing so might be. TN/IP/M/18 
Page 4  
 
  - Fifth, the notification should specify the place in the notifying Member from 
which the wine or spirit must origin ate in order to use the geographical 
indication in question. 
- Sixth, it would be desirable to provide for a standard format for notifications 
that would be adopted by the Council for TRIPS prior to the entry into 
operation of the system, and this format should provide for notifications to be 
as simple and brief as possible. 
8.4 "Now let me turn to a number of points on which different views have been 
expressed.  In one of the proposals on the table, it is suggested that a notifying Member should only notify geographical i ndications that it considers meet the 
Article 22.1 definition and that are protected in its territory and have not fallen into 
disuse in that territory.  Some concern has been expressed that the way this requirement has been put might prejudice the right of other countries to assess independently whether a notified geogra phical indication meets the Article 22.1 
definition in their territories and also for th em to satisfy themselves that it is actually 
protected and has not fallen into disuse in its country of origin.  In response, it has 
been clarified that the proposed requirement  would relate only to the situation of the 
notified geographical indication in the notifying Member, that is to say the country of origin of the geographical indication, and that the right of other Members to assess independently whether the Article 22.1 definition is met in their territories and whether the geographical indication is in fact  protected in its country of origin and 
has not fallen into disuse in this country would remain.  A question then is:  would 
this clarification, suitably reflected in text ual form, meet the concerns that have been 
expressed on this point?  Or should Members have the possibility to notify under the 
system geographical indications which they are not sure meet the Article 22.1 definition in their territories and are protected in their territories and have not fallen 
into disuse in their territories? 
8.5 "Let me add a brief word on Article 24.9, the provision which states that 
there shall be no obligation under the TR IPS Agreement to protect geographical 
indications which are not or cease to be protected in their country of origin, or which have fallen into disuse in that country.  It has been pointed out that this provision is optional and not mandatory;  that is to say, it does not prevent countries from 
protecting such geographical indications.  Two of the proposals on the table would 
preclude the notification of such geographical indications under the register.  My understanding has been that it is not intended that this would impair the right of any Member to protect such a geographical indi cation if it so wished, but only that the 
register would not be available for facilitating such protection.  It would be useful to 
know if such understanding is correct a nd whether this would help address any 
concerns regarding this matter. 
8.6 "Another point on which different view s have been expressed is that of the 
provision of information on the legal basis in the notifying Member for the protection in its territory of the notified geographical indication.  Three approaches to this question are set out in the proposals on the table.  One would require a reference in 
each notification to the legal instrument by which the geographical indication is 
protected.  This has been criticized on the ground that it could put those Members that 
do not have registration or recognition systems by which lists of protected geographical indications are generated at  a disadvantage in notifying geographical 
indications under the multilateral system.  Another provides for the notifying country 
to have the option of either doing this or providing a statement "executed under seal  TN/IP/M/18 
 Page 5 
 
 
  by the government of the notifying Member" that the geographical indication 
conforms with the Article 22.1 definition and is protected by law and has not fallen into disuse in its territory.  My understanding is that the second option in this proposal is an attempt to take into account the concerns that I have just mentioned 
about an obligation to specify a particular legal instrument.  The third proposal does 
not mandate the provision of informati on on the domestic legal basis for the 
protection of a notified geographical indicati on, but allows such information to be 
provided in notifications on an optional basis.  The questions which Members might wish to explore further are how to accommodate the concerns that have been expressed about the different legal syst ems and laws by which geographical 
indications are protected, while at the same time ensuring a sufficient degree of 
integrity and reliability of the information to be notified under the system.  As I mentioned, one of the proposals, namely th at of Hong Kong, China, seems to have 
made an attempt to address this concern and it would be useful to have an exchange 
of views about the advantages and disadvant ages of its suggestions on this point. 
8.7 "Now let me turn to the question of  translations of notified geographical 
indications.  This would seem to have two aspects.  The first is whether translations of the notified geographical indication into  one of the working languages of the body 
administering the system should be provided by the notifying country where available;  that is to say, if the system were to be administered by the WTO, should 
there be a requirement to make available any translation into one of the three WTO 
languages of a notified geographical indicati on for which the language of origin is 
another language?  This, as I understand it,  would be simply for the purposes of 
information and to facilitate understanding in the administering body and in other 
Members of what is being notified. 
8.8 "The second question relates to the issue of whether the notifying Member 
should also have the option of notifying s uggested translations of the geographical 
indication into other languages.  This is provided for in one of the proposals on the table.  There has been some discussion of  this, with some concern expressed about 
possible impairment of each Member's freedom to determine what is the appropriate translation of a geographical indication in its  territory.  In response, it has been said 
that such a provision would not have such an effect, and that the ultimate decision 
would remain with national authorities.  Some  questions which it might be useful to 
explore further in this connection include: 
- In the proposal that includes such a provision, is it intended that the legal 
effects that, under that proposal, would flow from an unopposed registration would not apply to the suggested translations and that those translations 
would only be provided for information purposes without such legal effects? 
- How does this matter relate to the provision in Article 23.1 that the protection 
of geographical indications for wines and spirits should apply where the geographical indication is used in translation? 
8.9 "Another issue is whether the notification should specify the product for 
which protection is sought, namely whether it is a wine or a spirit.  This would seem 
to be called for by two of the proposals on the table, with the third seemingly silent 
on this point.  Are there any differences on this question or is it agreed that each notification should specify whether the notified indication refers to a wine or a spirit? TN/IP/M/18 
Page 6  
 
  8.10 "There is also a question as to whether there should be a requirement to 
provide information on the quality, reputa tion or other characteristics of the goods 
which justify its protection as a geographical indication in terms of Article 22.1 of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  One of the proposals s uggests the inclusion of such information 
in the notification, whereas the others are silent on this point. 
8.11 "There is also the issue of whether, and if so how, the notification should 
specify the owner of the geographical indication or the persons entitled to use it for their production in the notifying Member.  One proposal requires notifications to include the name and contact details of th e owner of the geographical indication;  
another gives each notifying Member the op tion of including information on persons 
entitled to use the geographical indication in its territory;  and the third is silent on 
this question.  Questions are:  is this t ype of information necessary or desirable for a 
functioning system;  and, if so, should it  be optional or mandatory and how would it 
best be phrased? 
8.12 "Finally, I would like to refer to the question of dates, that is to say the 
provision of information, where available, on the date on which a geographical 
indication has obtained protection in its count ry of origin and on any date on which 
that protection will expire.  This type of  information is seen as a mandatory element 
of a notification under two of the proposals a nd an optional element under the third.  I 
think that it is recognized that such informa tion will not be available in all cases;  it 
will depend on the type of protection appli cable in the country of origin.  If the 
requirement were to be drafted in such a way as to recognize this, could it be 
generally acceptable? 
8.13 "This then is an attempt, without purpo rting to be comprehensive, first to flag 
a number of elements for notifications unde r the multilateral system for which there 
would seem to be a significant measure of common ground, even if precise language 
differs and, second, to identify a number of  possible elements for which there would 
seem to remain differences which need to be explored further. 
8.14 "If participants would find it helpfu l, it might be useful to take up each of 
these points in turn in informal discussion with a view to establishing more clearly where common ground can be found and any points on which further work would be required in order to close gaps.  Such an ex ercise would of course have to be against 
the background of the point that I mentioned at the outset, namely that the 
requirements of the notification phase cannot be  settled in isolation from that of the 
system as a whole and that there is therefore a limit to how far the discussion can be taken." 
(b) General points 
9. The representative of the European Communities
 underlined his delegation's belief that the 
issue of ensuring the reliability and integrity of the inform ation contained in the register was essential 
because the legal effects that would flow from the system would be based on the contents of the 
notifications. 
10. He said that the EC proposal simply sought to  facilitate the protection already available under 
the TRIPS Agreement and therefore it did not cr eate any new obligations.  However, there were 
certain elements, such as the date of protection or le gal instrument, that were relevant for decisions on 
the protection of geographical indications in accord ance with the obligations set out in Section 3, 
Part II of the TRIPS Agreement.  These elements would be offered not to establish new obligations  TN/IP/M/18 
 Page 7 
 
 
  but to facilitate the obtaining of protection and also  to help national courts and authorities in the 
decisions they would have to take b ased on the principle of territoriality.  
11. The representative of the United States  said that the text containi ng the Chairman's statement 
on elements for notifications was very detailed an d contained a number of questions that had been 
raised with respect to this issue.  It could theref ore provide some interesting topics for discussion.  As 
his delegation had seen this text for the first time at the present meeting, it would only be in a position 
to make some general preliminary comments on a num ber of the elements raised by the Chairman.  
For any further consideration, including in rega rd to the language used by the Chairman to 
characterize these elements, his delegation would need to  have more time for reflection in the capital.   
12. As a first comment, he said that his delegation had trouble with some of the wording used by 
the Chairman to characterize what he phrased as poi nts where there seemed to be "a wide measure of 
common thinking".  In addition, it would be difficu lt to proceed only on a point-by-point basis as 
many of these issues would raise broader questions , including in relation to the key issue of legal 
effects.   
13. As to the EC's comment on the issue of reliability or integrity of information, he said that the 
European Communities was looking at these two terms onl y in the context of what they had proposed.  
While his delegation had no trouble with ensuring th at the information provided under the system was 
reliable, it saw such goal in a way compatible with the purpose of creating a system that would facilitate protection within the mandate, as establishe d in the joint proposal.  On the other hand, the 
EC's perspective on reliability and how they would ach ieve it was geared to providing extraterritorial 
protection for geographical indications.  Such an approach would lead Members back to the whole 
debate of how Members saw legal effects and consequences. 
14. The representative of Argentina
 agreed with the Chairman's st atement that the system being 
negotiated had to be seen as a whole and that the requirements of the notification phase made sense in 
the context of the legal effects provided for in each  proposal on the table.  She believed that the 
elements to be notified under the joint proposal were  sufficient for the establishment of a system to 
facilitate the protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits.  Her delegation was only in a 
position to make preliminary comments on the elements raised by the Chairman and, given the complexity of the issues, would need to send the text to the capital for further analysis. 
15. The representative of Australia
 echoed the Argentinean and US delegations' point that there 
was an underlying systemic issue related to the no tification elements put forward by each proposal.  
One of the systemic concerns his delegation had with the Chairman's statement on notification was 
that, while there might be a commonality of assumptions  in relation to the elements for notification, 
his delegation's understanding of their effects was ve ry different.  Therefore, there was a tension in 
this exercise.  His delegation could, however, tr y to match the Chairman's good efforts by providing 
some preliminary comments, which would be with out prejudice to any further comments his capital 
might make and that might even reflect a different view. 
16. The Chairman  said that he had taken good note of these general points and reassured 
Members that whatever they said would just be preliminary and without prejudice to their positions.  He also reiterated his comment that the system being negotiated had to be seen as a whole and the 
notification phase would depend on the legal effects. 
(c) Discussion of possible elements  
(i) The notifying Member 
17. No comments were made. TN/IP/M/18 
Page 8  
 
  (ii) The geographical indication itself 
18. The representative of the United States
 said that, consistent with the joint proposal, his 
delegation believed that the identification of the geographical indication was an essential element in 
any system of this nature.  He had, however, some difficulties with the language used by the 
Chairman to characterize this elem ent in saying that "[t]he geographical indication in respect of which 
the notification is being made should be specified  as it is protected and used in the notifying 
Member".  His delegation was particularly concerned with the use of the expression "as it is protected" as this was an aspect potentially conn ected to the issue of the legal effects and 
consequences.  He believed that the joint proposal pr ovided for a better articulation of this point in its 
paragraph 3.2(b), which required the notification to  "identify the geographical indication as it appears 
on wine or spirit goods in the territory of the notif ying Member."  The reason the joint proposal used 
that type of articulation was because the word "prot ection" could imply, for ex ample, the protection of 
certain translations that, while they could be prot ected in one Member, would not be appropriate in 
other Members.  However, despite such concerns , his delegation had no tr ouble with the general 
concept of having to identify the geographical indication.  It was just a matter of articulating that 
concept in a way that would be prejudicial neither to certain Member's systems nor to their positions 
regarding legal effects or consequences. 
19. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his comments were only 
preliminary and subject to further reflection in Bru ssels.  On this element, he could certainly agree 
with the United States that it could be read as m eaning that the geographical indication had to be 
protected in the country of origin.  On this matter, which in any event was deal t with in another of the 
Chair's elements, his delegation's position, as indicated  in paragraph 2.1(b) of the EC proposal, was 
based on Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement.  According to this Article, there was only an 
obligation to protect geographical i ndications which were pr otected in their country of origin and which 
had not fallen into disuse in that country.   
20. The representative of the United States  reiterated his delegation's concern with the expression 
"as it was protected", which seemed to imply not only  the information that a term was considered a 
geographical indication in the notifying country, but also, and here resided most of his delegation's concern, how it was protected.  Requiring the specifi cation of how a term was protected in the country 
of origin would create a link to the specific mechanisms and systems used in the notifying country, which might be entirely different from other WTO Members, because in this area of law there were many different TRIPS-compliant systems. 
(iii) Transliteration into Latin characters 
21. The representative of Japan
 said that his delegation believed that the issue of notification was 
closely linked with that of legal effects and that its  comments would only be on a preliminary basis.   
22. As for transliteration, he said that this was an  example of the linkage to legal effects and, 
consequently, to the burdens on countries.  If a ge ographical indication had been notified in non-Latin 
characters, Japan would be required to transliterate  the non-Latin characters into Latin characters in 
order to consult internally on whether the no tified geographical indica tion conformed with the 
TRIPS Agreement.  For example, if a geographical  indication had been notified in Chinese characters 
with a transliteration, it would still be necessary fo r the Japanese authorities to transliterate it into 
Latin characters because of differe nces in pronunciation of Chinese ch aracters by the Japanese and the 
Chinese. 
23. The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation agreed that 
notifications should include transliteration into Latin  characters.  He recalle d that the EC proposal's 
language on transliteration and transl ation was taken from the provisions in the Chair's note contained  TN/IP/M/18 
 Page 9 
 
 
  in document JOB(03)/75 of 2003. Those provisions were not in brackets, which therefore conveyed 
the idea that Members were close to agreeing on th ese elements.  Hence, the more Members departed 
from what was in that document, which was basically copied in the EC proposal, the more they would 
be moving away from elements that were close to an agreement.   
24. His specific comments would be directed to th e Chairman's statement that "transliterations 
would be for information purposes and would not in themselves give rise to any legal effects or 
consequences that might flow from registration of a geographical indication."  The issue of transliteration was obviously linked to the question of translation and, in fact, often the transliteration 
would coincide with the translation.  Transliterations  and translations could be relevant for the legal 
effects flowing from the register.  It was important to indicate that the territoriality principle would 
apply to translations and transliterations for it wa s up to national authorities to decide what was the 
proper translation or transliteration of a notified te rm and therefore which translation or transliteration 
would carry the legal effects that the register w ould have.  The key message was that territoriality 
would be ensured and that the final decision woul d remain in the hands of national authorities.  
However, legal effects would flow from transliterati ons or translations simply because the system as 
such was intended to facilitate the protection set out  in Articles 22 and 23 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
In fact, Article 23 itself already contained a specific reference to translations.  In Article 22, the standard was whether the consumer was misled or whether the use of the geographical indication by a 
third party constituted an act of unfair competiti on.  This provision also covered the use of 
transliterations or translations.  Therefore, despite the fact that all Members agreed that the decision 
on these elements would remain in the hands of the national authorities, this sentence in the 
Chairman's statement would need to be redrafted in order not to exclude the fact that there could be 
legal effects flowing from the use of transliterations a nd translations.  That being said, he agreed that a 
transliteration provided by the notifying Member would certainly be useful, especially for other 
Members' national authorities when taking their final decision on this matter.  This could contribute to 
the reliability and integrity of the system. 
25. The representative of the United States
 said that it was exactly because his delegation, as a 
co-sponsor of the joint proposal, felt strongly that the facilitation of protection should be carried out 
within the mandate of Article 23.4 of the Agreement that it had decided to include in paragraph 3.2(d) 
of the joint proposal that any transliteration woul d be "for information purposes only".  There was a 
difference between transliterations and translati ons.  While his delegation did not see a need for 
translation in the notifying phase because of its link with legal effects, it saw, on the other hand, the 
utility of providing for transliteration for the purpose of indicating what the information that had been 
notified was.  He also said that his delegation could look at ways to define the phonetics in a way that 
could accommodate the concerns of the Japanese a nd other delegations.  The reference to "for 
information purposes only" was an important element in the design and implementation of the system.  
(iv) Only GIs which identify goods originat ing in the notifying Member's territory 
26. The representative of New Zealand  said that the text containing the Chairman's statement on 
notifications would give Members a good basis for their work.  She furthe r said that in accordance 
with the mandate, the term "wines and spirits" s hould be used instead of the term "goods". 
27. The Chairman  confirmed that his statement indeed concerned "wines and spirits". 
(v) The place in the notifying Member from wh ich the wine or spirit must originate 
28. The representative of Canada  said that all her comments would be preliminary.  Her 
delegation would not have any problem with the con cept of this particular element but it would, in 
any case, suggest that the language used to describe it be closer to the language of Article 22.1 of the 
Agreement.  Therefore, she would support language such  as that used in paragraph 32(c) of the joint TN/IP/M/18 
Page 10  
 
  proposal saying that the notification shall "identify the territory, region or locality of the notifying 
Member from which the wine or spirit bearing the notified geographical indication is identified as 
originating." 
(vi) The use of a standard format 
29. No comments were made. 
(vii) Article 22.1 definition, GI protected in its territory and not in disuse 
30. The representative of the European Communities
 said that it was essential to bear in mind that 
Members wanted to be sure that the system woul d be reliable and only contained terms that were 
geographical indications.  Paragraph 2.1(a) of the EC's proposal required that the indications notified 
meet the definition specified in Article 22.1 of the Ag reement.  As pointed out by the Chairman in his 
statement on notifications, such a requirement shoul d not prejudice Members' rights to independently 
assess whether, according to  their rules, the notified geographical indication met the definition in 
Article 22.1.  At the same time, Members had all im plemented that same definition in their respective 
legislation, so the result of that assessment shoul d in principle converge with the assessment of the 
Member notifying the geographical indication.  The intention of the EC proposal on this aspect was 
certainly not to take away from the hands of th e examining Member the right to render the final 
decision on whether or not the geographical indication met the definition.   
31. He said that the other part of this element rela ted to Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement, and 
was also connected to the need to make sure that what would be contained in the system was indeed a 
geographical indication, particularly given the legal effects that would flow from it.  This was in the 
interest of all Members because all proposals had legal effects, although in different degrees, 
including the joint proposal, which foresaw an obligation for national authorities to consult the 
register and take account of the geogr aphical indications listed therein. 
32. The representative of Australia  expressed doubt as to whether the wording used by the 
Chairman really reflected the concerns that had b een raised in relation to the proposed notification 
requirements, namely that the notified geographical  indication met the Article 22.1 definition and was 
protected in its country of origin.  The clarifica tion to which the Chairman drew attention in this 
regard was that the requirement for providing this in formation would not prejudice the fact that it was 
up to each Member to decide whether a term met a definition in its territory  in accordance with the 
principle of territoriality.  She was, however, not su re that that clarification would indeed solve the 
problem.  She therefore wished to rephrase the questi on that the Chairman had posed at the end of his 
statement on this element to ask:  How was the pr ovision of this information not entirely redundant?  
For example, if a term was a geographical indication in a Member's territory, then presumably it met 
the definition of a geographical indication in that Member.  If this was the case, why would Members 
have to provide such informati on?  She wondered whether the purpo se of providing this information 
was not for another reason that would relate to, for example, legal effects. 
33. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation shared the concern expressed 
by Australia.  This point raised many important qu estions that had been mentioned in other contexts 
with respect to consequences and legal effects,  particularly fundamental issues such as 
extraterritoriality.  He expressed concern with th e fact that the proposals could be written in a way 
that would imply that notifying Members would be ab le to declare that a term met the definition in 
Article 22.1 in a somewhat broad sense.  If a country was going to notify a geographical indication without a good faith belief that the term would ind eed be a geographical indi cation under Article 22.1, 
it was not clear how that term could be a geographical i ndication at all.  In fact, as stated by Australia, 
providing this information could in fact be redunda nt, unless it was made for a different purpose.  In 
this regard, it was important to remember that the EC proposal seemed to use a geographical  TN/IP/M/18 
 Page 11 
 
 
  indication determination by one Member as a jus tification for obtaining legal effects in other 
Members, which was one of the fundamental problems his delegation had with that proposal.  Hence, 
while the clarification made by the Chairman in th is regard was helpful and carefully articulated, he 
nonetheless believed that this was one area raising a large number of issues and which would touch on 
the fundamental principles of intellectual property ra ised in the debate about consequences and legal 
effects. 
34. The representative of Switzerland  said that his delegation had not taken the floor on the first 
part of the discussions on points of convergence because it indeed converged on those points as 
outlined by the Chairman.  With re gard to the specific element of th is sub-heading, it took the view 
that geographical indications notified by Member s should normally have undergone an assessment by 
that Member as to whether they met the TRIPS criteria set out in Article 22.1, since it would be in 
their interest to ensure the relia bility of the system.  On the other hand, because performing such an 
assessment would still be the responsibility of each Me mber, he therefore saw no need in the context 
of the register to establish complicated or burdensome criteria for this at the multilateral level as long as the obligations under Section 3 of Part II of th e TRIPS Agreement were respected by Members at 
the national level when making such assessments.  As  to the notification of a geographical indication 
by a Member, his delegation believed that this should not prevent other Members from examining 
whether that geographical indication fulfilled the relevant TRIPS criteria for protection in their 
territories or it had or had not fallen under an excep tion.  It had been pointed out earlier by other 
delegations that the territoriality principle applied and that the GI register would not change this 
situation.  He believed that this was a point of emerging convergence.  
35. The representative of Argentina
 agreed with the delegations of Australia and the United States 
that including the compliance with the Article 22.1 definition as a notification element could be 
redundant and linked with the issue of legal effects.   She recalled that the preamble of the joint 
proposal specifically stated that the purpose of the system was to facilitate the protection of 
geographical indications for wines and spirits, consistent with Section 3, Part II of the 
TRIPS Agreement and that, as provided for in Article  1.1 of the Agreement, each Member was free to 
determine the appropriate method of  implementing the provisions of that Agreement within its own 
legal system and practice.  She said that such la nguage should be sufficient to address the concerns 
that had been raised regarding the issu e of the definition as well as other aspects. 
36. The representative of Chile  agreed with the delegations of Argentina, Australia and the 
United States that including these elements would be redundant and linked with the issue of legal 
effects.  He said that the joint proposal would have both legal and de facto  effects.  The former would 
be the obligation for national authorities to consult th e database, while the latter would be the fact that 
these authorities would probably see the notified ge ographical indications as valid.  Given these 
effects, in particular the de facto  ones, Members had to be careful with the language used in the 
proposals, so as to avoid that national authorities were misled and hence granted protection in cases 
where there was no eligibility for protection.  He was pleased to hear from the delegates from the 
European Communities and, to a certain extent, Switz erland, that the responsibility for all these issues 
of translation, transliteration and GI protection remained within the comp etence of each Member, 
therefore respecting the principle of territoriality. 
37. The representative of th e European Communities  said that he interpreted the view expressed 
by some Members that these notification requireme nts were redundant as an acceptance that any term 
that these Members might notify into the system would be a geographical indication in accordance 
with the definition under Article 22.1 of the Agreem ent.  If that was indeed the case, then, on the 
substance, he would agree with the point made by  these Members.  However, his delegation continued 
to be of the opinion that it would make sense to keep  such requirements.  This was also linked to one 
of the legal effects in the EC proposal, namely th e possibility for the examining Member to challenge TN/IP/M/18 
Page 12  
 
  a notification based on the fact that the geograp hical indication did not meet the definition of 
Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. 
38. He agreed with the Chairman's understanding that , while the provision in Article 24.9 of the 
Agreement was not intended to impair the right of  any Member to protect a geographical indication 
no longer protected in its country of origin if it so wished, the register would not, however, be 
available for facilitating such protection. 
39. The representative of the United States
 recalled his delegation's point that the EC's and 
Hong Kong, China's respective proposals to include the specific legal instrument as a notification 
requirement would discriminate against WTO Members with no systems such as those used, for example, by the European Communities, which in cluded government-issued certifications.  Although 
this point pertained more to the next sub-heading,  he saw it as wholly linked with the elements under 
discussion on this sub-heading.  The joint proposal  was concerned with selecting mandatory elements 
for notification that woul d not only facilitate GI pr otection but could also be  easily provided by all 
participating Members in view of the fact that th ere were different TRIPS-compliant ways to protect 
geographical indications, such as through unfair comp etition or common law trademark systems.  This 
was why his delegation saw no need to provide information on any specific legal basis in the country 
of origin.  He recognized, however, that such inform ation could be useful in certain circumstances and 
it would therefore be fair that it could be provided,  but only as an optional matter, by Members which 
had such systems.  This was therefore an importa nt concern for his delegation.  He could also 
understand that Members proposing systems that provide d for extraterritorial legal effects and with 
specifically enumerated grounds for denying GI prot ection might have a different view and would not 
see his concern as a problem. 
(viii) Legal basis for the protection of the notified GI 
40. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation agreed with the 
United States that somehow the el ements discussed under previous s ub-headings and this one were 
linked.  The purpose of requiring a reference to the legal instrument by which the geographical 
indication was protected in the notifying Member, as  required in paragraph 2.2(c) of the EC proposal, 
aimed at providing the necessary elements of proof to the examining Member that this was indeed the case.  This was a reasonable element for, as indicated in the Chairman's statem ent, the fact that the 
geographical indication was not protected in the country of origin would not prevent Members from protecting it, but the register woul d not be available for providing pr otection in such cases.  However, 
this would be done without prejudicing the way in which a geographical indication should be 
protected across the world.  His delegation was i ndeed aware that all WTO Members were free to 
determine the most appropriate methods of impl ementing the TRIPS provisions in accordance with 
their respective legal systems.  Such a principle w ould not be changed by the EC proposal's register, 
which contained quite open language on this elem ent with the purpose of making clear that the 
intention was precisely to provide the information to the examining authorities so that they could 
ascertain whether the hurdle of Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement had been cleared.  
Paragraph 2.2(c) of the EC proposal mentioned th at the instruments of protection were given only as 
examples.  Hence, the reference to "the relevant na tional or regional legislative or administrative text 
or the relevant judicial decision" would not excl ude other ways in which the geographical indication 
could be protected in the country of origin. 
41. The representative of Argentina
 associated herself with the comments made by the 
United States about this sub-heading.  She disagr eed with the European Co mmunities' argument that 
this element was relevant in the sense that it woul d help examining domestic authorities.  She believed 
that there should be no examination through the system  and, even if such elements were relevant, any 
examination should only be made in accordance wi th the national legislation of the WTO Member 
where the protection of the notified term was being sought.  TN/IP/M/18 
 Page 13 
 
 
  42. The representative of Australia  supported the points raised by Argentina and the United States 
and said that he saw this element as connected to two key issues.  The first was the existence of 
different legal systems for GI protection and the sec ond was legal effects.  He referred back to the 
many statements that his delegation had made prev iously that legal effects were central to some 
elements of the notification procedure, and this was one of them.  He suspected that under this 
element there was a different agenda by some  Members to include extraterritoriality. 
43. The representative of Chile  said that the joint proposal had suggested that this element of 
notification be optional, so as to reflect the great diversity of systems for protecting geographical indications.  In practice, Members able to provide  such information would do so because this would 
be in their own interest.  He expressed concern with the language used by the Chairman in his 
statement on elements for notifications in that it seemed to give the impression that the Hong Kong, 
China proposal in this area w as an acceptable option.  That option would be unnecessary, as 
government-made GI notifications, as such, would be sufficient, as they were in other areas of the 
WTO.  It should be presumed that governments would notify geographical indications in good faith 
and would only notify terms that were geographical indications in existence in their territories.  
Therefore, including a "statement executed under seal by the government of the notifying Member" as 
a notification element, as proposed by Hong Kong, Ch ina, would not be necessary.  In fact, this was 
not a prerequisite in other areas, for example in the context of the notifications made under the so-
called "Paragraph 6 mechanism" administered by th e TRIPS Council in the area of public health. 
44. The representative of Switzerland
 said that his delegation wanted a reliable system that would 
ensure the integrity of the information contained and which would, therefore, achieve the goal of 
facilitating GI protection.  Making this notification element mandatory was part of the achievement of 
such a goal.  It could be undertaken as flexibly as possible, taking into account all the systems of 
protection that Members had chosen based on the flexib ility of Article 1.1 of the Agreement.  In this 
respect he believed that the Hong Kong, China pro posal contained interesting suggestions as to the 
form such information could take.  Such a propo sal cited, as possible sufficient information on the 
legal basis, either "relevant domestic legislation or judicial decisions protecting the geographical 
indication in the territory of the notifying Particip ating Member" or a "statement executed under seal 
by the government of the notifying Member" to that e ffect.  This was a very flexible approach to the 
treatment of this element. 
45. The representative of Australia  expressed concern that the issue of reliability of information 
had been disingenuously and misleadingly used as a disguise to put notification elements with legal 
effects into the system, in line with the agenda of so me proponents.  He fully agreed with Chile that if 
information was notified by governments it would a pparently be reliable.  This was the understanding 
of the joint proposal and its treatment of this element satisfied the key requirement for reliable 
information.  To assume otherwise would be tantamount to believing in the unlikely existence of a group of rogue states lining up to notify bogus geographical indications. 
46. The representative of New Zealand
 said that her delegation also shared the concerns raised by 
Australia on the point of reliability.  She had neve r heard any reliability-rela ted concerns being voiced 
against notifications made in other areas of the WTO, which showed that Members had good faith in 
the information being provided.  She recalled that as a result of the review of Members' implementation of the TRIPS Agreement as a whol e and the specific review under Article 24.2, 
Members had already provided relevant informat ion on their compliance with the Agreement, 
including on the corresponding implementing legislation, so this would not need to be repeated in a 
notification to the system.  
47. The representative of Canada
 associated herself with the points made by Argentina, Australia, 
Chile, New Zealand and the United States.  On the comment made by the European Communities 
with respect to their proposed examination a nd opposition stages, she said that these aspects TN/IP/M/18 
Page 14  
 
  encompassed to a large degree some of the concerns  that had been expressed in relation to all the 
elements of non-convergence discussed under the above sub-headings.  Article 23.4 of the 
TRIPS Agreement required the establishment of a system of notification and registration of geographical indications and made no reference to an y examination or opposition procedure.  For her 
delegation, the notification stage was simply aimed at identifying the domestic geographical 
indications of a Member for the purpose of facilitati ng their protection.  She therefore did not see any 
point in declaring that a geographical indication met the definition and agreed that this was a 
redundant element.  Similarly, there would also be no need to require information on the legal 
instrument, although the joint proposal had the flex ibility to allow the submission of this information 
if and when it was available and appropriate.  As  already pointed out by some delegations, all these 
points were connected to the issue of the legal effects and consequences of providing such 
information.  The joint proposal would not raise such concerns. 
48. The representative of Kenya
 supported New Zealand's point that the notification supplied by 
government authorities would be sufficient because t hose authorities would have verified whether the 
information provided by the applicant was legal and valid or if the geographi cal indication had fallen 
into the public domain. 
49. The representative of th e European Communities  said that he rejected the suggestion made by 
some delegations that his delegation was seeking to bring new obligations that were not in the 
TRIPS Agreement into the system by requiring the no tification of the legal instruments by which the 
geographical indication was protected.  This was not the case, because the obligations that would be 
applied through the register were simply those th at all Members already had to comply with and 
which were contained in Section 3, Part II of the TRIPS Agreement.  In fact, this requirement to 
supply the basis for the protection would simply help Members to implement Article 24.9 of the 
Agreement, therefore clarifying the cases in which they had an obligation to protect geographical 
indications under the Agreement.  Obviously, if th e geographical indication was not protected in the 
country of origin, there would be no such obligatio n.  In such cases, Members would still retain the 
option of protecting such geographical indications .  Therefore, rather than bringing in new 
obligations, his delegation was simply focusing on ma king sure that Members would comply with the 
obligations that they already had under the Agreement.   
50. As to the comments that supplying such info rmation would make little sense, he welcomed 
the statement by the Canadian delegation, pointing out that in the joint proposal there was a provision 
that foresaw, at least, the information on the legal basi s as an option.  This therefore indicated that for 
the proponents of the joint proposal, such informati on was also considered as useful to the examining 
Member, because the obligation to protect geographical  indications would only take effect once they 
were protected in the country of origin. 
(ix) Translations of the notified GI 
51. The representative of Japan  said that similarly to the point his delegation had made 
concerning transliteration, the translation of geograp hical indications had a close relationship with the 
legal effects and with the implications for the wo rkload of national authorities.  This was because 
translation could require translitera tion.  This would be a key element for Japan and other Members to 
check in relation to TRIPS requirements with rega rd to notified geographical  indications and would 
directly influence the capacity of the competent authority depending on what degree of legal effects 
would flow from the system.  In this regard, Japan  favoured the joint proposal approach, which was 
voluntary, less burdensome and non legally bindi ng.  The language issue should be carefully 
considered in the design of the notification part of the system. 
52. The representative of the European Communities  recalled that his delegation had already 
commented on the question of translations under th e subheading on transliterations.  To the question  TN/IP/M/18 
 Page 15 
 
 
  posed by the Chairman in paragraph 8 of the statemen t:  "if the system were to be administered by the 
WTO, should there be a requirement to make available any translation into one of the three WTO languages of a notified geographical indication fo r which the language of origin was another 
language?", his delegation's reply was affirmative.  However, w ith respect to the Chairman's 
observation that such a translation "would only be provided for information purposes", he recalled 
what he had said before, namely that translations as well as transliterations indeed carried legal effects 
with the understanding, in full respect of the princi ple of territoriality, that the final decision or 
determination of what the right translation was woul d still be in the hands of the examining Member.  
The EC proposal was therefore fully compliant with this principle and the principle that it would be 
up to the examining Member to decide which tran slations should carry the binding effects that the 
register would include.  Obviously, a different question was the issue of what these legal effects 
would be.  The fact that the obligations Members had to implement were those in the TRIPS Agreement was relevant, for among these oblig ations there were those under Article 23.1 of 
the Agreement, which included an express reference to translations.  The EC proposal was proposing 
a presumption of the eligibility for protection unde r the TRIPS Agreement for notified geographical 
indications for wines and spirits.  This would mean, in particular, that participating Members would 
enjoy a favourable presumption to enjoy the prot ection under Article 23.1 and hence, a favourable 
presumption against the use of translations by third parties.  This demonstrated that effects would 
flow from the register regarding translations of no tified geographical indications.  As he had already 
mentioned, the same would be true if the use we re based on Article 22, for it would be possible to 
conceive specific uses of a geographical indi cation which could mislead the public as to the 
geographical origin.  For all these reasons, he believe d that indicating that translations would be for 
information purposes only was slightly misleading.  The message that the system would need to 
convey was that it remained in the hands of the natio nal authorities to decide what the final or binding 
translation should be.  He added that translations provided by the notifying Member could also be a 
useful tool for the examining Member. 
53. Recalling some of the earlier interventions ma de by his delegation at this meeting, the 
representative of the United States
 expressed concern with the provision of any sort of translations in 
the notification system, particularly in view of the im pact it might have at the national level.  It should 
be recognized that decisions made concerning protection based on translations must be made by the courts in light of consumers in the country wh ere protection was sought, which was a fundamental 
issue related to the principle of territoriality of inte llectual property rights.  In that light, he did not see 
the need for translations, even into the working la nguages of the WTO.   The way the Joint Proposal 
Group envisioned this in its proposal was that the no tification would be made in English, French or 
Spanish and the geographical indication itself would be identified as it appeared on the wine or spirit 
good in the territory of that notifying Member.  This would be the only information required for the 
system.  Any other information provided in the notif ication, such as translations or any increased 
scope of protection that would need  to be applied would be handled  according to the national law as 
for any application made at the domestic level. 
54. He said that his delegation also shared some of  the concerns expressed by Japan with respect 
to transliterations, although as he  had mentioned previously, he believed that there was some 
difference with regard to translations.  For exampl e, there might be room to envision transliterations, 
for information purposes, when terms were written in  characters other than Latin characters.  This 
was, however, different from the issue of tran slations, which was specifically addressed in 
Article 23.1, and would raise great concern about the scope of protection that might be envisaged 
under the system.  He understood the European Co mmunities' comments on this issue and how this 
would make sense from their viewpoint, given the fact that their proposed system would envision extraterritorial legal effects, including mandating the protection of certain terms and their translations.  
This was not, however, how his delegation read the mandate of Article 23.4, which was to facilitate, 
and not to increase, protection. TN/IP/M/18 
Page 16  
 
  55. The representative of Australia
 supported the comments made by the United States in relation 
to the issue of translations.  One of her delegation' s greatest concerns regarded the relationship of this 
element with the issue of legal effects as proposed by some delegations, for they would result in the 
increase of protection of geographical indications.  She said that it was reassuring to hear from delegations that they all agreed that the principle of  territoriality also applied in this context, which 
would mean that it would be for a Member to deci de, in fulfilling its obligations under Article 23 of 
the TRIPS Agreement, what would be the translation of a geographical indication in its own territory.  
Nevertheless, she wondered what the purpose would be of including a requirement to provide terms in 
translation, either into WTO working languages or , more importantly, into other languages.  The 
answer had been that it would be a useful tool for examiners when looking at the register, but her 
impression was that they would be useful only if the result being sought was a situation where all 
Members would effectively protect all terms notified,  including the suggested translation.  Therefore, 
for these reasons, her delegation had concerns w ith a mandatory requirement in relation to 
translations, as indicated in the EC proposal. 
56. The representative of the European Communities
 said that under any conceivable system, 
including those that were on the table, a translati on would be useful for any Member receiving a copy 
of the notification.  He recalled that all Members had expressed that they were conscious of the need 
to avoid burdens resulting from the system on WT O Members, in particular developing country 
Members.  For example, translations provided by the notifying Member could be helpful to a small 
developing country with limited IP office capacity that would be confront ed with a geographical 
indication in a script that it did not read or with  a transliteration which meant nothing to it.  All 
Members subscribed to the principle of territoria lity, including the European Communities, and there 
was nothing in the EC proposal that was extrate rritorial in nature.  If the EC proposal were 
extraterritorial, then the Madrid Agreement, to which the United States was a party, would also be. 
57. The representative of Switzerland  associated himself with the statement of the 
European Communities and said that his delegation also believed that information on translations 
could be extremely helpful in the context of the syst em to be established and for Members to take into 
consideration at their national level.  Although pr oviding translations should be voluntary, he would 
nevertheless encourage Members notifying their geogr aphical indications to provide such additional 
information.  He recalled that Article 23 of the Agreement already contained an obligation to provide protection to geographical indications in translated  form.  In that respect, he believed that such 
information, even if provided on a voluntary basis, should have a legal effect to the degree that was 
already provided for in Article 23.1, but not beyo nd.  Such information would be useful and would 
not result in any extraterritorial consequence, as fi nal determinations regardi ng translations would still 
remain with national authorities. 
(x) The product for which the protection is sought 
58. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, on this particular issue, knowing 
the type of good was certainly relevant.  However, as w ith all the other elements dealt with so far, this 
one was also linked to the legal effects which each proposal might entail.  As far as the EC proposal 
was concerned, this issue was certainly relevant, gi ven that the legal effects would be based on certain 
presumptions which would refer to Articles 22 a nd 23 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Obviously, 
whenever the relevant article was Article 23 the pr esumption would be valid within the same category 
of goods.  This was something that his delegation considered as covered and implicit in the definition 
itself, given that in Article 22.1 there was a refere nce to geographical indications identifying a specific 
good.  His delegation could see, but without prejudging its position with regard to the scope of the 
register, that clarifying the product for which the protection was sought could be relevant in order to 
make the system clearer.  TN/IP/M/18 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (xi) Information on the quality, reputation or  other characteristics of the goods 
59. The representative of the European Communities  said that, although this element was part of 
the Hong Kong, China proposal, his delegation consid ered it acceptable and perhaps even already 
implicitly covered by paragraph 2. 3 of the EC proposal, which, as an option, made it possible to 
submit any other information that might be useful  in facilitating the protection of the geographical 
indication.  This was also related to the examina tion as to whether the geographical indication actually 
met the definition, because these features were elemen ts of the definition.  As the examination and 
decision as to whether a notified term was a ge ographical indication were in the hands of the 
examining Member, a concept that all Members agr eed with, it was clear that providing them with 
such information would be useful. 
60. The representative of Argentina  asked whether the proposal which the Chairman had 
described as requiring such information was the one  made by Hong Kong, China.  She further said 
that submitting such information would not be releva nt.  These elements were connected to the issue 
of the definition under Article 22.1.  In this regard, she recalled the points made under the 
sub-heading dedicated to this issue. 
61. The Chairman  clarified to Argentina that in paragraph 2(a) of the Hong Kong, China proposal 
there was indeed a reference to "the name, the place or area, quality, reputation or other 
characteristics, and goods indicated by the geographical indication." 
62. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation also shared the concern raised 
by Argentina that it should be mandatory for a Memb er to show that a geogr aphical indication met the 
definition of Article 22.1.  This requiremen t would be unnecessary and would have systemic 
consequences.  If it was the intention in the Chairman 's statement to have such a requirement, then his 
delegation would have some trouble with it.  If th e intention was to fulfil some other need, then 
perhaps he could consider it further.   
(xii) Information on the owner of the GI 
63. The representative of th e European Communities  said that his delegation believed that this 
was the type of information that could be usefully included in the notification, particularly for 
examining Members.  According to the EC proposal's paragraph 2.3(b) this wa s an optional element.  
The EC proposal, as other proposals, was based on the principle that GI right holders would need to 
go to third country markets to assert their rights and,  when doing so, they would be in touch with 
national authorities and courts.  Therefore, making such information available would simply be a 
further tool to help the good functioning of the system towards its mandated objective, which was to 
facilitate the protection of geographical indications. 
64. The representative of the United States  said that this information was not necessary, nor 
should it be made mandatory.  The joint proposal was quite flexible in the discretionary information 
that could be supplied on how the notified geograp hical indication was protected in its territory, 
including, for example, on ownership.  He also e xpressed concern with some of the language used to 
describe this element, particularly the reference to persons entitled to use the geographical indication 
for production in the notifying Member.  Recalling that his country protected a number of geographical indications through certification marks, he said that it was not clear to his delegation 
exactly how such persons would be defined.  It  would perhaps depend on how one would read such 
language.  If it meant certain parameters stating how a geographical indicati on would be defined by 
the certifier under a certification mark, then it would be a reading his delegation could agree with.  If 
it were about identifying specific individuals, or sp ecific groups of individuals, this could have 
implications for the United States' domestic system. TN/IP/M/18 
Page 18  
 
  (xiii) Date of protection 
65. The representative of Switzerland
 said that his delegation approached this element similarly 
to the two previous elements, namely that this in formation would be useful for the administration of 
the system as well as for Members when handling geographical indications at the national level.  However, such information should be voluntary and flexible enough not to prejudice Members' 
flexibilities under Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreem ent.  Looking at the different proposals on the 
table, he said this did not seem to be a major poi nt of divergence and wondered whether this could be 
moved up to the group of points of convergence.  For example, the language used by the EC and Hong Kong, China proposals on this issue did not seem to be of a mandatory nature.  The EC proposal 
only indicated that the information should be provided "where available".  Similarly, the 
Hong Kong, China proposal referred to "any commencemen t or expiry date of protection", i.e. if there 
was any such date. 
66. The representative of th e European Communities
 agreed that this was an issue on which 
Members were perhaps not too far away from agreement.   As pointed out in the Chairman's statement, 
it had to be recognized that such information might not  be available in all cases.   The issue of date of 
protection was clearly linked to the question of the instrument by which the geographical indication 
was protected.  Reiterating that the EC proposal would not affect the freedom of every Member to implement the obligations under Section 3 of Part II  of the TRIPS Agreement in the way that best 
fitted their legal systems, he said that, if the inform ation on the date was available, then it should be 
provided.  Dates were important in many parts of  the TRIPS Agreement, such as, for example, in 
Article 24.5, where the date of protection of a ge ographical indication in the country of origin was 
relevant to define the limitation of the rights of the geographical indication vis-à-vis  a prior trademark.  
Another example was in Article 24.9, which covered the case where a geographical indication ceased to be protected.   
67. The representative of Chile
 said that he agreed with the Swiss delegation's point that perhaps 
there would be some degree of convergence on this issue among Members. 
68. The representative of the United States  said that he appreciated the softer nature of the EC 
and Hong Kong, China proposals on this point, which would make it closer to an agreement than some others.  Nonetheless, he expressed concern about  this if it were made mandatory, as it still 
appeared that there was a distinction between those two proposals and the joint proposal.  The 
information involved drew back to the question of what the purpose of the system was and, in looking at how to facilitate protection, this information woul d not be necessary to achieve that goal.  This also 
raised some questions:  what was the purpose of requiri ng a date of protection?  Was it to use that date 
as a basis to provide protection in a third party's ju risdiction?  That seemed to be the case in at least 
one, if not two, of the proposals. 
69. The representative of Argentina
 said that the information on the date of protection was 
irrelevant.  She also recalled that the TRIPS Agr eement had only been binding for the last ten years 
and that there was no obligation to protect any of the subject-matter it dealt with prior to its entry into 
force.  This fact should be borne in mind when talking about the issue of the date. 
(d) Chair's concluding remarks 
70. The Chairman  said that Members had had a useful discussion, which had served to identify 
more clearly where some of the points of conve rgence were and also where further discussion was 
required.  The point had been made by several dele gations that there was a limit to how far it was 
possible to go in refining the approach in rega rd to notification in the absence of a clearer 
understanding of the system to be negotiated as a w hole, including the legal effects or consequences 
of registration.  TN/IP/M/18 
 Page 19 
 
 
  C. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. Report to the TNC  
 
71. The Chairman  said that the Chair of each Negotiati ng Group was expected to submit a report 
to the next session of the TNC on his own responsib ility and that the so-called "Timelines for 2006" 
document envisaged the tabling of a working document by this Special Session by July of this year.  
He said that these matters could only be addressed at present on the basis of the situation as it stood at the moment of the current meeting.  Therefore, s hould there be a material change, for example should 
the formal TNC meeting be postponed and some significant developments occur in the overall 
negotiations, it might be necessary to revisit these matte rs.  Hence, taking things as they stood at the 
present meeting, he said that his own assessment of the situation was that the so-called "side-by-side 
document" (TN/IP/W/12) continued to represent a valid description of the state of play in the 
Special Session, perhaps combined with some additional observations.  He did not see that it would be feasible to prepare, on the basis of the discussions so far this year, a paper which would represent a significant advance over that document.  His thinki ng was to submit a report to the TNC which drew 
attention to the side-by-side document as a valid description of the state of the proposals on the table 
in the Special Session, together with some a dditional observations, and which would indicate his 
intention to work with delegations on the pr eparation of a new working document.  These 
observations would be as follows: 
- First, the further discussion that had taken place this year on the basis of the list of priority 
concerns drawn up in March a nd the side-by-side document had been useful in further 
clarifying the issues to be r esolved in these negotiations. 
 - Second, in regard to notifications under the sy stem to be negotiated, the Special Session had 
had useful discussions which had served to id entify where common ground existed and to 
clarify certain other questions that still needed to  be settled.  While this work had been useful 
and should be valuable in contributing to the deve lopment of a unified text in this area, there 
were limits to how far this could go without gr eater clarity on the key issues of participation 
and legal effects. 
 - On these key issues, while the discussion this year had helped to crystallize the points of 
difference, it had to be acknowledged that pos itions remained far apart and it remained 
difficult to identify where the landing zone might lie.  Some Members had indicated a 
readiness to consider, at least to some extent, ways of taking account of the concerns of other delegations, but often with the proviso that this would depend on reciprocal movement by 
those other delegations and/or on the overall progr ess of the Round.  It was also not clear how 
far the flexibility to which some delegations ha d alluded so far would, if realized, go in 
bridging the gaps that existed. 
 - Further work was also required on the issue of  costs and administrative burdens and a range 
of other matters.  Once again, it would be di fficult to carry this work much further without 
greater clarity on the key questions of participation and legal effects. 
- He would also intend to indicate the Chair's view that progress in this Special Session towards 
establishing a common basis for the final negotia ting phase would require all delegations to 
be creative in finding new flexibility.  It would not be possible to find a solution unless all delegations were willing to move. 
 72. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that the reason his delegation had been 
insistently asking the Chairman to produce th is working paper was because the Hong Kong 
ministerial meeting had instructed the Special S ession to intensify the negotiations in order to 
conclude them this year.  He also recalled that in  previous meetings his delegation had stated that it TN/IP/M/18 
Page 20  
 
  was prepared to be flexible in relation to some core issues and had explained that some of those 
flexibilities had already been included in the EC propo sal.  The best reflection of this spirit was the 
European Communities' request that the Chai rman produce a compromise proposal, explicitly 
accepting that any compromise might not include all of the elements put forward by the EC proposal.   
73. He said that what Members had undertaken so far at the present meeting on notifications, for 
example, was valid as intensification of work.  It  had been a useful exercise, which had helped 
Members to clarify more areas where there was common ground.  Nonetheless, he believed that the working document announced by the Chairman in  the March 2006 meeting should be presented.  
With regard to the Chairman's remark indicating that so far there had not been enough progress to 
allow for such a document to be on the table, he said that it would be precisely the production of this 
working document that would help Members make progress rather than simply wait for sufficient 
progress to become apparent.  At the June 2006 me eting his delegation had said that it was open to 
what the precise nature of this document could be and that its preference was for a compromise document.  It had also suggested that a reflections paper might be useful.  After the discussions of the 
present meeting, he believed that it would be possibl e for the Chairman to pr esent such a text, which 
should go beyond the side-by-side document in areas where Members were not too far apart and 
suggest alternatives or include ideas on the way forw ard in other areas.  This could perhaps help 
Members to bridge gaps and actually push the proce ss forward.  Simply keeping the side-by-side text 
would not be an option as it would even mean m oving backwards from previous texts that already 
contained some additional elements of convergence.   
74. As to the report to the TNC, his delegation was of the opinion that it should underline the 
importance of giving some guidance in relation to th e core issues of legal effects and participation 
because many of the other elements of the system would depend on these two issues.  A combination 
of a working document with some pointers into certa in directions could be a useful way forward. 
75. The representative of New Zealand
 said that it was clear that Members were not operating in 
isolation in the Special Session and that they all knew what was or was not going on around them.  
The Chairman had correctly reflected the contex t in which these negotiations were taking place and 
had indicated that he would reflect any progress and de velopments as appropriate.  It was hard to view 
one part of the mandate Members had been given without being conscious of the other negotiating 
groups.  In this regard, he recalle d that a sequence had been establis hed in these negotiations in which 
agriculture and NAMA modalities featured prominently.   Against this background, he said that it was 
difficult to see how other negotiating groups could come  forward with something that was out of sync 
with the sequence that had been established in th ese overall negotiations.  In this light, the side-by-
side document was a realistic and fair representati on of the status of the negotiations in this 
Special Session.  His delegation was satisfied wi th the way the Chairman had characterized his 
proposed report to the TNC. 
76. The representative of Australia  said that the Chairman's suggested report to the TNC was a 
good summation of the discussions Members had had.  He said that, although this year's discussions at 
the Special Session had been useful in identifyi ng common ground, there were limits to this 
usefulness due to the need to clarif y the key issues of participation and legal effects.  As the positions 
of the key proponents on these two key issues remained  far apart, hence the Chairman's impossibility 
to identify a landing zone, it would be difficult to carry the work further without clarification on those two issues.  Therefore, there was currently no alternative to the side-by-side document. 
77. The representative of Switzerland
 said that the elements proposed by the Chairman for 
inclusion in his next report to the TNC reminded hi m of previous reports, namely those prepared in 
July 2003 for the Cancún Ministerial Confer ence and in November 2005 for the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Conference.  He recalled that the side-b y-side document, mentioned by the Chairman as a 
text that could serve as a working document, dated back to September 2005.  Against this background,  TN/IP/M/18 
 Page 21 
 
 
  his delegation would be looking for a more amb itious document, namely a compromise text with 
added value reflecting the length and intensity of th ese negotiations and which would be in line with 
the mandate.  This compromise approach would be  based on the proposals on the table and would 
enable delegations to conclude these negotiations .  He understood the Chairman's discomfort in 
coming up with such document since the whole negotiation was currently in a zone where few 
probably felt comfortable.  However, he believed that  Members needed to make particular and special 
efforts to get back into a "comfort zone" and therefore needed to make progress in all areas of 
negotiations, including this one.  In such a working document, the Chairman could, for example, more 
clearly identify, on the basis of the proposals on the table, what the landing zone would be after all 
these years of negotiations.  The degree of difficulty in the selection of the various elements to be 
included would vary.  For example, it seemed that  it would be easier to find a compromise solution 
for several of the notification elements discussed at  the present meeting.  He thus encouraged the 
Chairman to try to arrive at such a proposal on most of the elements that were outstanding.  As to the 
two key elements of legal effects and participation,  which would present a particular challenge to the 
Chairman, one option would be to refer them to the TNC and ask for a clear guidance, namely a 
decision on those two elements, so that they could f it into the rest of the working document and be the 
basis for the future work. 
78. The representative of the United States  said that, in light of the current circumstances and 
consistent with the assessment offered by the Chairm an, it would not be appropriate for the Chairman 
to propose a new compromise text as had b een requested by the European Communities and 
Switzerland.  On the purported flexibilities offered by the European Communities, he said that these 
were at best marginal and therefore did not address the main issues, including those aspects of the EC 
proposal that were well outside the mandate in Artic le 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement.  In that light, 
similarly to Australia, his delegation believed th at what the Chairman had proposed was a good 
structure and an accurate assess ment of the situation, as well as a positive way forward.  His 
delegation also recognized the existence of the two key issues of legal effects/consequences of 
registration and participation and other important matters that would go even deeper than these two 
key issues.  For example, it had significant concerns  about certain elements envisioned in some of the 
proposals, such as compulsory negotiations.  Therefor e, in trying to work out an agreement between 
Members it would be important to take stock of this  whole range of important issues.  In conclusion, 
he supported the Chairman's suggested report and hoped that it could assist Members in their deliberations in the future as they  strived to reduce their differences. 
79. Reacting to New Zealand's point on the sequenc ing of the negotiations, the representative of 
the European Communities
 said that any attempt to delay one negotiation because one group was not 
moving should be undertaken with great care.  He  cautioned that making linkages could be an 
extremely dangerous endeavour and c ould certainly go in both directions.  He said that the fact that 
one or two dates had been missed on certain is sues did not necessarily mean that Members should 
consequently miss the dates for other issues.  He st ressed the fact that, while in these negotiations the 
production of a working document had been requested, in other committees the Chairpersons had 
been asked to produce full negotiating texts.  It  would indeed be helpful if the Chairman could 
produce a full negotiating text, but if this was not po ssible, he should at least produce, as mandated, a 
working document going beyond the simple side-by-side document.   
80. As to the report to the TNC, and the point rega rding the difficulty for the Chair to identify a 
landing zone, he urged the Chairman to look at this issue from another perspective and wondered 
whether he might at least note which parts of the territory were unsuitable for landing.   
81. The representative of Chile  agreed with the Chairman that the side-by-side document should 
be the working document, perhaps combined with some additional observations.  He said that he was 
more optimistic than Switzerland and that, despite th e fact that this document had not changed since TN/IP/M/18 
Page 22  
 
  last September, he believed that progress had been  made in clarifying certain questions and showing 
certain points of convergence. 
82. The representative of Argentina
 said that these negotiations derived from a mandate arising 
from the Uruguay Round and had been conducte d within the legal parameters of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  Neither Doha nor any subseque nt ministerial meeting had changed this fact.  
Therefore, delegations should refra in from making linkages with ot her negotiations and raising any 
false expectations.  She believed, in view of the current status of the negotiations and the different 
positions on the key issues, that the side-by-side text should be the working document and that there 
was therefore no possibility, at least at the present ju ncture, for a compromise text.  She could not see 
any flexibility on the key issues, a dilemma whic h could not be artificially resolved by any 
Chairman's text, as proposed by some delegations.  Similarly, it would not be desirable to ask the 
TNC for political guidance while all these key issues s till had to be resolved at the technical level.  
She therefore agreed with the re port as suggested by the Chairman. 
83. The representative of Japan  said that he would like to echo the statements made on this issue 
by the other members of the Joint Proposal Group.  Under the current situation, the most realistic 
approach would be for the Chairman to report fact ually to the TNC using the side-by-side document 
rather than preparing any compromise paper. 
84. The Chairman  said that he took note of all comments made and would reflect on them 
carefully, taking into account the approach being take n by the Chairs of other negotiating groups.  For 
the time being he could not move any further than that, but would see how things were moving across the board. 
2. Dates of the next meetings 
 
85. The Chairman
 said that the Special Session had one formal meeting scheduled in the autumn.  
This would be on 27 October, back to back with the regular session of the Council for TRIPS.  He 
believed that all that it would be wise to do at this stage was to confirm the date of 27 October and to 
take note of the readiness of delegations to m eet as often as necessary in the coming months. 
__________