RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/IP/M/12 
3 June 2005 
 
 (05-2291) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights Special Session  
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 11 March 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 m eeting held on 11 March 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 BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................28  
 
_______________ 
  A. A
DOPTION OF AGENDA  
1. The twelfth Special Session agreed  to adopt the agenda as set out in WTO/AIR/2518.  
B. NEGOTIATION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION AND 
REGISTRATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS   
2. In light of the consultations he had held  after the meeting of 30 November 2004, the 
Chairman  suggested, as indicated in WTO/AIR/2518, that the Special Session take up the sets of 
issues discussed at the two last meetings, namely:  legal effects and particip ation;  the notification 
phase;  administrative and other burdens;  and certa in technical and procedural matters.  He also 
recalled that, at the last meeting in November 2004, there had been a discussion on whether or not the Special Session should have a presentation by th e WTO Secretariat on the operation of the WTO 
Central Registry of Notifications (CRN) as well as a presentation by the WIPO Secretariat on the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of  Origin and Their International Registration.  
In the light of the consultations mentioned above, he  suggested that the WTO Secretariat be invited to 
make a presentation on the CRN, to be followe d by a presentation by a representative of the 
International Bureau of WIPO on the Lisbon Agreem ent.  Members would then have an opportunity 
for questions and replies. 
3. It was so agreed
. TN/IP/M/12 
Page 2  
 
 4. The Chairman
 suggested that the International Bureau of  WIPO be invited to participate at the 
present formal session in an expert capacity, this  being without prejudice to the issue of observer 
status for intergovernmental organizations. 
5. It was so agreed . 
6. The Chairman  said that on 9 March 2005, the delegati ons of Argentina, Australia, Canada, 
Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, New Zealand and the Unit ed States had tabled a new submission, entitled 
"Proposed Draft TRIPS Council Decision on the Establishment of a Multilateral System of 
Notification and Registration of Geographical Indica tions for Wines and Spirits".  The submission 
was being circulated, as an advance copy, in document TN/IP/W/10.   
7. Speaking on behalf of the co-sponsors of docum ent TN/IP/W/10, the representative of Canada  
said that the new proposal gave a clear indica tion that the co-sponsors wanted to move the 
negotiations forward within the mandate establis hed by Article 23.4 to establish a system of 
notification and registration for geographical indicati ons for wines and spirits that would facilitate the 
protection of such geographical indications and in which participation would be voluntary. The 
proposed draft decision built upon earlier communica tions from the co-sponsors, including the so-
called "joint proposal" itself, from October 2002 (T N/IP/W/5), and a document from April, 2004, a 
question and answer communication on the joint proposal (TN/IP/W/9).  The draft decision adhered to the principles set out in Article 23.4 and in the TRIPS Agreement, namely:  the system would be voluntary;  there should be no legal effect what soever for non-participating Members;  it should 
maintain the balance of rights and obligations in the TRIPS Agreement, and not increase the level of 
protection for geographical indications;  it should pr eserve the territoriality of intellectual property 
rights for geographical indications;  and it should al low WTO Members to continue to determine for 
themselves the appropriate method for implementing the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement within 
their own legal system and practice.   
8. For the co-sponsors, the draft decision should be used as a basis for negotiations.  They were 
mindful that the text, as a first draft, would need to be improved and certain details would need to be 
worked out. 
9. The representative of Chile
, speaking on behalf of the co-s ponsors of document TN/IP/W/10, 
said that the co-sponsors were making a serious a nd decided effort to achieve progress in the 
negotiation on the establishment of the multilateral syst em of notification and registry of geographical 
indications for wines and spirits and to fulf il the obligation under Article 23.4 of the TRIPS 
Agreement and paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration.  This proposal constituted a serious effort to 
consolidate in a legal form the views expressed a nd proposals made over the years of negotiations.  
The system proposed had the following features:  (i) participation would be voluntary;  (ii) it would have no legal effects for Members who decided not to participate in the system, which would be 
consistent with all legal systems and with intern ational law;  (iii) it would preserve the existing 
balance between Members' rights and obligations;  (i v) it would not involve substantial costs, neither 
for those Members which had decided to participate in the system nor for the body which would 
administer the system;  (v) it would respect the principle of territoriality, on which intellectual property was based;  (vi) it would preserve the ri ghts of Members "to determine the appropriate 
method of implementing the provisions of [the TRIP S] Agreement within their own legal system and 
practice";  and (vii) it would be limited exclusively to wines and spirits. 
10. Paragraph 2.1 of the draft decision required that  a WTO Member deciding to participate in the 
system send a notification in writing to the WTO Secretariat, indicating its intention to do so.  The 
system would be open to all WTO Members, including those who did not have geographical 
indications in their territory.  Participation of a Member in the system did not, however, entail any 
obligation for that Member to notify or to prot ect a geographical indication.  If a WTO Member  TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 3 
 
 
 decided to participate, it would then be able to notify any geographical indication identifying a wine 
or spirit that originated from its territory in accord ance with paragraph 3 of the draft decision.  This 
provision established the requirements concerning th e information that would be contained in the 
notification.  Some information would be mandatory, such as:  the name of the notifying Member;  the 
geographical indication as it appeared on wine or spir it goods in the territory of the notifying Member.  
Other information would be voluntary, such as in formation on how the geographical indication was 
protected in the notifying Member and the date on which that protection was received.  The most important provision for participating Members was contained in paragraph 5:  it established the 
obligation for participating Members to consult the database when decisions were taken in relation to 
the registration and protection of trademarks and geographical indications for wines and spirits in 
accordance with their domestic legislation.  Once a geographical indication had been notified, it could 
be amended or withdrawn, if a Member deemed it necessary, in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 8.  
Participating Members could end th eir participation in the system by notifying the Secretariat, in 
writing, of their withdrawal in accordance with para graph 9.  The only effect that the withdrawal 
would have was that all of the geographical indica tions notified by that Member would be withdrawn 
from the database.  Paragraph 2.1 provided that ther e was no obligation for a Member to participate in 
the system.  For those Members that had chosen not to participate, paragraph 6 encouraged them to 
consult the database when they took decisions w ith regard to the regist ration and protection of 
trademarks and geographical indications for wines and spirits. 
11. The draft decision laid the foundation for an  agreement.  It represented a good common 
denominator that reconciled many different proposal s and options.  It would help the Special Session 
fulfil its mandate under Article 23.4 to establish a multilateral system that would facilitate the 
protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits.   
12. The representative of Australia
 associated her delegation with the statements made by the two 
previous speakers.  Document TN/IP/W/10, by gi ving a practical and realistic focus to the ongoing 
discussions, was an attempt to translate the principles of the joint proposal into a workable text which 
would serve as a draft decision that could be take n by the TRIPS Council.  Additionally, the draft 
could benefit from the input of other Members during the present and future meetings. The draft decision was clear about the principles mandated in  this negotiation and preserved Member's rights 
and obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  It w ould not amend the TRIPS Agreement nor would it 
require the TRIPS Agreement to be amended in the future.  Participation in the system would be 
entirely voluntary;  it would, however, provide for access to the system by all WTO Members.  The 
system proposed had the genuine aim of facilitating protection.   
13. The draft decision was a solid first attempt to work through the issues faced by Members and 
should be the basis for the Council's future work.   
14. The representative of the United States
 associated his delegation with the statements made by 
the three previous speakers.  His delegation be lieved that the co-sponsors had made significant 
progress in moving this negotiation forward through th e tabling of this text.  The proposed system 
would facilitate the protection of geographical indica tions for participating Members by providing an 
uncomplicated and efficient system for notificati on and registration of geographical indications for 
wines and spirits that were recognized in the national systems of individual WTO Members.  The draft decision satisfied the requirements of Article  23.4 as well as the criteria that the co-sponsors and 
other delegations had identified in  previous meetings of the Special Session for such a multilateral 
system to facilitate the protection of geographical  indications for wines and spirits.  Using the 
proposed system would not pre-empt decisions made regarding the prot ection of geographical 
indications at the national level.  All decisions rega rding that protection would continue to be made in 
accordance with the domestic law of each WTO Member, consistent  with current obligations under 
the TRIPS Agreement.  As WTO Members were free to implement the TRIPS Agreement in a myriad 
of ways, the proposed system recognized and accommodated the various regimes of WTO Members TN/IP/M/12 
Page 4  
 
 for the protection of geographical indications.  Additionally, under the proposed system, the 
establishment of an intellectual property right in a territory as well as the adjudication of conflicting intellectual property rights in such a territory would continue to be handled by national law, national 
offices and national courts, in the jurisdiction wher e protection was claimed.  Therefore, nothing in 
the proposed system would usurp the operation of na tional law.  Finally, the system would not impose 
undue administrative burdens or costs on the WTO Secr etariat.  The proposed draft decision contained 
a workable system that would improve the protecti on of geographical indications in a way that would 
be fair to existing GI systems and be consistent with the TRIP S Agreement and the principle of 
territoriality, and would preserve the rights of prio r valid trademarks under Article 16.1 of the TRIPS 
Agreement. The draft decision was a helpful contribu tion in realizing this Council's goal of fulfilling 
the mandate under Article 23.4.  
15. He said that, while the co-sponsors recognized  that document TN/IP/W/10 was only an initial 
draft, they also believed that it should be the b asis for future work in the Special Session.   
16. The representative of New Zealand
 said that the draft legal text contained in document 
TN/IP/W/10 was based on the joint proposal that was submitted in September 2002 (TN/IP/W/5).  In 
light of the discussions in the Special Session a nd consultations held w ith other Members, her 
delegation remained convinced that the joint propo sal was the best and only option on the table.  
Document TN/IP/W/10 contained a text to establish a multilateral system that not only clearly fell within the mandate of Article 23.4 of the TRI PS Agreement and of paragraph 18 of the Doha 
Declaration, but also truly and faithfully embodied that mandate in many respects.  Firstly, it established a voluntary system as envisaged by Article 23.4, which did not compel Members to 
participate in that system and did not penalize t hose who chose not to participate.  Secondly, it 
facilitated protection but did not, in and of itself, pr ovide any additional legal protection.  Given that 
the system should be voluntary in nature, it should be the key objective to design a system that would be as easy and cost-effective to use as possible in  order to ensure that Members would want and 
choose to participate.  The joint proposal and the draft decision would achieve the objectives 
described.  First, by designing a system that was open for participation by all WTO Members.  
Second, by ensuring that the proposal accorded with Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and 
respected the fact that Members had chosen a range  of measures to implement their TRIPS obligations 
in relation to geographical indications for wines and spirits.  Third, by designing a system that did not 
impose new obligations on Members but the aim of which would be to increase transparency and to 
facilitate the exchange of information that would assist the decision-making process of national 
authorities.  Fourth, by ensuring that decision-ma king powers were retained by national authorities, 
but providing them with additional information to assist in that decision-making process.  Fifth, by 
ensuring that it was worthwhile for information to  be placed on the register;  the proposal would 
ensure that participating Members committed to c onsulting the database when making determinations 
about eligibility of geographical indications for pr otection in their own domestic territories.  And 
finally, by making sure that the process was fre e from undue cost and complexity.  The proposal 
clearly defined the purpose of the multilateral syst em for notification and registration as facilitating 
protection of geographical indications.  Focusing the purpose of the multilateral system on facilitating 
protection ensured that the carefully constructed ba lances in the TRIPS Agreement were maintained.  
It ensured, for example, that trademark rights could be given due consideration, and that the 
exceptions and limitations to protection as provided in Article 24 could be considered and applied 
under national legislation.  She hoped that the cons ideration of the present proposal by other Members 
would lead to reactions, comments, requests for clarification and suggestions, and that Members 
would therefore be able to further develop this text in an evolutio nary process to reflect the positions 
of as many Members as possible. 
17. The representative of Argentina
 endorsed the comments made by  the previous speakers.  She 
said that the proposal effectively met what the majo rity of Members hoped to see in a system in the 
WTO context as well as under the mandate of Article  23.4.  It basically maintained intact the  TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 5 
 
 
 provisions of the TRIPS Agreement as well as the pr inciples of intellectual property and of the WTO.  
In other words, this proposal did not create additio nal obstacles or barriers to the legitimate trade in 
wines and spirits.  With regard to the main charact eristics of the system described by Chile and which 
were relevant to devel oping and least developed countries, she said that this system would entail 
minimal costs, would be voluntary, and would not create any new obligations regarding the protection 
of geographical indications, including enforcement.   
18. The representative of the Philippines  recalled that his delegati on had co-sponsored the initial 
submission, known as the joint proposal (TN/IP/W/5), and was considering whether or not it should add its name to the list of co-sponsors of documen t TN/IP/W/10.  In the meantime, his delegation 
wanted to lend its full support to the approach taken in TN/IP/W/10 since the document provided a 
sound basis for a decision establishing a multilateral system of notification and registration of 
geographical indications for wines and spirits.  An important element of the proposed system was its 
voluntary nature, which was genuinely consistent w ith what many developing countries, including the 
Philippines, had stated on numerous occasions:  name ly, that those who had no economic interest in 
such a system should not be compelled to particip ate in it.  Such a voluntary nature should not be 
made useless by imposing certain legal obligati ons even on those Members who had opted not to 
participate in such a system.  Furthermore, the appr oach taken by the proposal was consistent with the 
prerequisite of according due respect for each Me mber's prerogative to determine the appropriate 
method of providing GI protection to wines and spir its, whether it were through trademarks, specific 
GI protection legislation or unfair competition.  He said that document TN/IP/W/10 was a first 
attempt to propose, in legal form, a multilateral sy stem, and certainly there would be questions and 
comments which would arise during the course of the discussions.  An example of some issues that 
merited further reflection was the legal consequen ces of the procedures established in paragraph 5 to 
Members who chose to participate in the system.  Another issue was to assess the possible effects the 
termination of the participation according to paragr aph 9 would have on rights granted as a result of 
previous inclusion in the database. 
19. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 said that his delegation attached great importance to this 
negotiation, not only because of the existing mandate but  also due to its significant implications.  He 
recalled Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which stipulated that Members were free to determine 
the appropriate method of implementing the provisi ons of this Agreement within their own legal 
system and practice.  In this light, his delegation believed that a system with a voluntary participation 
would be sufficient to serve Members' interests.  As highlighted by previous speakers, the proposed 
system aimed to facilitate the protection of geograp hical indications for wines and spirits of those 
Members to whom a participation in the system would be of interest.  The system was designed to provide an uncomplicated and efficient system fo r notification and registration of the geographical 
indications for wines and spirits that were rec ognized at the national level by individual WTO 
Members.  All WTO Members would be provided with the notifications made by other individual 
WTO Members.  This system would indeed serve great transparency purposes and, most importantly, 
it would be entirely voluntary and not impose undue bur dens.  His delegation asked to be added to the 
list of co-sponsors of TN/IP/W/10.  
20. The representative of Korea
 said that his delegation shared the view of the co-sponsors that 
the multilateral system of notification and regist ration of geographical indications for wines and 
spirits should be non-binding and th at participation in the system should be voluntary.  The new 
submission was, in this light, very useful as it enab led Members to look at, in concrete legal form, the 
shape the system envisaged by the co-sponsors.   
21. He said that his delegation would give the subm ission the careful review that it deserved but, 
in the meantime, it would also like to pose a few ques tions of a technical nature.  First, paragraph 3.4 
of the submission stated that "notification shall be made on the basis of a standard form to be adopted 
by the TRIPS Council".  Did the co-sponsors envisage some form of formality examination?  If not, TN/IP/M/12 
Page 6  
 
 why?  Second, the submission did not say anything about the costs involved in running the system.  
How did the co-sponsors think that the establishment and operation of the system would be financed?  Third, one of the key features of the notification procedures in the WTO was to provide opportunities 
for comments and consultations on the notifica tion in order to help Members monitor the 
implementation of the obligations set out in the WTO Agreement.  Did the co-sponsors envisage any 
such mechanism for making comments and consulta tions on the notified geographical indications in 
the TRIPS Council or in any other fora?   
22. Finally, on participation, he said that, although his delegation agreed that Article 23.4 pointed 
voluntary participation, such a voluntary particip ation could mean different things to different 
Members as the debate in this Special Session had show n so far.  In this respect, the voluntary system 
set out in the new submission was interesting in the sense that some Members would voluntarily 
assume the obligation of referring to the database  in making decisions regarding protection of 
geographical indications for wines and spirits while  other Members could opt not to assume such an 
obligation.  This was certainly different from sp ecial and differential treatment provisions, which 
allowed developing country Member s to use certain flexibilities in carrying out their obligations while 
other Members must assume such obligations.  Coul d the co-sponsors give other examples within the 
framework of the WTO that refl ected the approach proposed?  
23. The representative of Japan
 said that his delegation, as one of the co-sponsors of the joint 
proposal in document TN/IP/W/5, continued to have the same position on this matter.  As to the new 
proposal in document TN/IP/W/10, his delegation noted that it went in the same direction as that of the joint proposal.  Although Japan warmly we lcomed this new submission as an excellent 
contribution for the present negotiations, it was still not in the position to be a co-sponsor. 
24. The representative of El Salvador
 said that his delegation, as the one of the co-sponsors of 
documents TN/IP/W/5 of 2002 and TN/IP/W/9 of 2004,  had already pointed out that it was important 
that the system be voluntary, that it be compatible with the various GI protection regimes used by WTO Members, and that it did not impose new TRI PS obligations nor diminish the ones already in 
place.  The system proposed in document TN/IP/ W/10 contained these characteristics and therefore 
effectively fulfilled the mandate received by Members.   He asked that El Salvador be included as a 
co-sponsor of TN/IP/W/10. 
25. The representative of th e European Communities
 offered some preliminary comments on the 
proposal contained in TN/IP/W/10.  His delegation could not see this proposal as being a contribution 
to moving forward Members' work on a multilateral re gistration system for geographical indications.  
Instead of bridging the gap between various appro aches, the new proposal would actually increase it.  
So far, it had been possible to identify a few co mmon elements discussed in the last few years of 
work, such as the definition to be used, the purpose of the system and the fact that decisions regarding 
protection should be taken at the national level.  His delegation ha d serious concerns with the new 
proposal. 
26. First, on participation, the European Communiti es held the view that a multilateral register as 
mandated by Article 23.4 of the TRI PS could only be truly multilateral if it had legal effects in all 
Members.  A voluntary system would not fulfil this  mandate.  While agreeing that the treatment of 
participating and non-participati ng Members should be different, hi s delegation considered that it 
would be possible for the treatment to be different and at the same time ensure that there were  legal 
effects in all Members. 
27. Second, on legal effects, basically what the co-sponsors were proposing was a system of 
providing information on geographical  indications that could be used by national authorities when 
making decisions on GI protection.  His delegation had already clearly said that this was not enough  TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 7 
 
 
 and could not be a basis for further work in the negotiations, the reason being that such a system 
would deliver little or unreliable informati on and would not therefore be useful.  
28. Third, on notification, in the co-sponsors' previous proposal (TN/IP/W/5), it was said that 
participating Members "will submit" a list of geographical indications .  Conversely, paragraph 3.1 of 
the new proposal stipulated that participating Me mbers "may notify" geographical indications, thus 
leaving open the possibility to notify or not to no tify geographical indications.  Therefore, the new 
proposal replaced what had been an obligation by an option.  It would actually go in the direction of 
increasing the unreliability of information contained in  the database.  Under the new proposal, if there 
was no information at all in the database, this woul d still be considered as being in compliance with 
the system.  This would not be acceptable.  As to the content of the notification, he said that the 
information foreseen by paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of th e draft decision was even less than what had been 
proposed in the previous joint proposal.  He recalled the proposal made by his delegation that the notification also include information about the lega l basis for protection of the notified geographical 
indication, e.g. any decision, piece of legislation or  agreement as well as the date of protection.  
Pointing out that dates of protection were an es sential feature under the TRIPS Agreement, he said 
that, while the joint proposal foresaw that notific ations should include information on the date of 
protection, this new proposal foresaw it as an opti on only.  His delegation had also suggested that 
evidence of compliance with the TRIPS provisions needed to be included.  This was reasonable 
because otherwise there would be no way of knowing whether what was notified to the system was a geographical indication or not.   
29. On the "registration on the database" under para graph 4 of the new proposal, he said that his 
delegation had problems as well.  The first problem  was the automaticity of the registration:  any 
notification, even those without any evidence show ing that the names were geographical indications, 
would be registered in the system.  This would ma ke the information on the database unreliable.  The 
second problem related to the challenge  procedure:  one of the key elements in the EC proposal was to 
ensure that the information in the system was relia ble, and that was precisely the objective of having 
an opposition procedure regarding the status of a name in different Members.  As a consequence, this 
procedure would mean that the notifying Member w ould get a picture of the situation regarding a 
specific geographical indication in the different markets where protection was sought.  Unlike the joint proposal, which contained at least a refe rence to national opposition procedures, the new 
proposal did not foresee anything of that sort.  The third problem related to certain additions, such as 
the provision on transliteration:  he asked  why the new proposal had included that.  
30. He reminded Members of the Chair's note cont ained in document JOB(03)/75 of 2003, which 
was an attempt to establish a "Draft  Text" for a multilateral register that took account of the different 
options that the Members had presented.  Where it seemed that Members might have a common ground, the draft proposed a single set of provisions without brackets.  Where the differences between the approaches were important, the document simp ly offered, within square brackets, options 
reflecting the various proposals made.  There was a third set of provisions on points which needed 
further discussion.  Within the first set of provision s, there were for example:  the provisions dealing 
with the substantive conditions for a notification, namely whether the geographical indication notified 
met the definition under Article 22 and was protected  in the territory of the notifying Member;  the 
provisions dealing with the contents of the notifi cation, such as the translation of the geographical 
indication itself, the relevant legal basis for protec tion, the date of protection and the geographic area 
corresponding to the geographical indication.  In contrast, the new proposal did not seem to take 
account of the above-mentioned pr ovisions of JOB(03)/75.   
31. As to the question of legal effects on participa ting Members, he noted that paragraph 5 of the 
new proposal did not contain an express reference to th e words "legal effects".  It simply referred to a 
commitment by those Members to ensure that their procedures included the provision to simply 
consult the database when making decisions regard ing the registration and protection of geographical TN/IP/M/12 
Page 8  
 
 indications.  This was a significant departure from the previous joint proposal, which provided that 
such information obtained from the database woul d be "taken into account" when making such 
decisions, and which was reflected in JOB(03)/75 as one of the options.  
32. As to the issue of the legal effects on non-par ticipating Members, he said that the proposal 
encouraged them to look at th e database when making decisions, wh ich would not be sufficient to 
reflect the fact that the system should be truly multilateral. 
33. He wondered whether draft legal instruments w ith no commitments but simply options were 
commonplace.  If what was wanted was simply to obtain information, it would be much easier to simply make use of the obligations on transparen cy under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 63 of the 
TRIPS Agreement than through this proposed datab ase.  For all the above reasons, the proposed draft 
decision could not be considered as a basis for an ag reement or for further negotiation.  It was not the 
only option on the table since there was, for exampl e, the European Communities' proposal that, in his 
delegation's view, really fulfilled the mandate of facilitating protection for geographical indications 
through a real multilateral system with legal effects in all Members. 
34. The representative of Paraguay
 said that her delegation saw the proposed draft decision as a 
step towards the achievement of the mandate cont ained in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and 
paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration.  This w as a realistic and balanced proposal, which did not 
impose new obligations on Members, many of whom were not in a position to assume further burdens with potential negative economic and financial impact s.  Paraguay believed that the voluntary nature 
of this registry would preserve the balance of rights and obligations provided for in the TRIPS 
Agreement and would maintain the right Members had to choose the best means of implementing 
these obligations within the context of their own legal systems.  No multilateral notification and 
registration system for geographical indications for wines and spirits should create new obligations or 
expand those that were already contained in the TR IPS Agreement.  Finally, Paraguay believed that 
the possibility of accessing a database which could provi de reliable information regarding the state of 
registration and protection of tradem arks and geographical indications at the international level could 
be extremely useful.  These incentives could prom ote greater voluntary participation in this 
registration system. 
35. The representative of Malaysia
 said her delegation was pleased to note that the proposed draft 
decision met the mandate of Article 23.4 of the TRIP S Agreement.  It established a system which was 
voluntary, had no legal effects on non-participati ng Members, provided easily accessible information 
on geographical indications of wines and spirits, did not impose new obligations on Members that 
chose not to participate in it, and entailed mini mum setting-up and running costs, thus reducing the 
financial burden on WTO Members.  She stressed that  the issue of voluntary participation was highly 
important to Members which did not have ge ographical indications for wines and spirits. 
36. On the content of the notification, she asked the co-sponsors why notifications could not also 
include a statement to the effect that the geographi cal indication was protected in the territory of the 
notifying Member.  She believed that, if this we re included, it would give the assurance that the 
notified geographical indication was really protected in that territory, therefore putting the burden of 
proof on the notifying Member.  Such information c ould be included in paragraph 3.3 of the draft 
decision.  
37. On the issue of costs which had been raised by Korea, she thought that, because the proposed 
system would probably be part of the WTO notification system, it might not be necessary to address 
this issue.  Members should, however, keep the ques tion of costs in mind, just in case the financial 
implications of the system to be implemented were higher than they had initially envisaged. 
38. Finally, she said that the proposed draft decisi on could form the basis for further negotiations.  TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 9 
 
 
 39. The representative of Costa Rica  recalled that his delegation was one of the co-sponsors of the 
joint proposal in TN/IP/W/5 and said that it fully supported the establishment of a multilateral system 
which was voluntary, simple, did not include issu es such as examination, challenges and dispute 
settlement mechanisms and, instead of requiri ng Members to implement new legislative or 
administrative structures, allowed them to make us e of the structures already in place in their own 
territories with the view to facilitating the protection already provided by the Agreement.  
40. His delegation fully endorsed the seven principl es identified by the delegation of Chile, which 
formed the basis of the proposed draft decision and should be basis of the Special Session's future 
work.  Echoing the comments made by the delegation of the Philippines that not all WTO Members were either producers or exporters of wines and spir its and thus did not have an economic interest in 
these negotiations, he said that they did, however, have a systemic interest in ensuring compliance 
with the commitment that Members had assumed in the Uruguay Round.  That was the reason why his delegation believed the system should not create ne w obligations nor alter the existing rights and 
obligations of Members. Apparently, some Memb ers had forgotten or disregarded the minimum 
standard established in Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Ag reement.  Referring to the comment made by the 
delegation of the European Communities that the proposed draft decision would create an unreliable 
system, he said that that delegation did not trust the legal systems and practices for GI protection in 
place in each WTO Member, and had therefore proposed a new system which, in his delegation's view, would alter the existing rights and obligations in  the TRIPS Agreement.  He also considered as 
an important feature of the new proposal the refe rence made in its preamble to the possibility of 
providing GI protection through unfair competiti on and consumer protection legislation.  
41. The representative of Honduras
 said that this new proposal in corporated the principles set out 
in the joint proposal, which was co-sponsored by Ho nduras.  Her delegation therefore considered that 
this new text could form a basis for future di scussion and requested her delegation's inclusion as a 
co-sponsor. 
42. The representative of the Dominican Republic  said that the proposed draft decision complied 
with the mandate in paragraph 18 of the Doha Decl aration.  The voluntary nature of this proposal 
would give flexibility to Members which were not wine and spirit producers or exporters, such as the 
Dominican Republic.  The system proposed would be more in line with her country's domestic 
legislation on geographical indica tions.  Additionally, the fact that there would be no additional 
burdens and costs on the administrations of Members and no new legally binding obligations gave this 
proposed system considerable advantages over prop osals submitted by other Members.  Finally, she 
asked that the Dominican Republic be incl uded as a co-sponsor of document TN/IP/W/10. 
43. The representative of Colombia  said that this new proposal came at a timely stage in these 
negotiations and would help Members to move forward.  The proposed draft decision was based on the main elements - the most important being volunt ary participation - contained in the joint proposal, 
co-sponsored by Colombia.  Finally, she said th at although Colombia was still conducting a detailed 
analysis of this document and therefore was not ye t in a position to join it as a co-sponsor, it believed 
that it should be used as a basis for future work. 
44. The representative of Switzerland
 took note of the statements made by the co-sponsors of 
TN/IP/W/10 that they were ready to discuss furthe r the proposed draft decision.  Her delegation 
would only make preliminary comments and would like to reserve its right to revert to the document.    
It continued to believe that the proposed text, which in skeleton form simply took up the joint 
proposal, would make it impossible for Members to  meet the mandate under Article 23.4 of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  In order to comply with this  mandate, meaning should be given to the terms 
contained in that provision, in particular the wo rd "multilateral".  This could only be done by 
comparing it to the word "plurilateral".  In the WT O context, "plurilateral" implied a system where 
participation was fully voluntary and only applied to  those Members wishing to participate therein.  TN/IP/M/12 
Page 10  
 
 On the other hand, "multilateral  systems" were to be understood as instruments which were binding 
on all WTO Members.  Her delegation did not believe  that the drafters of the TRIPS Agreement had 
chosen the terms of Article 23.4 lightly.  The words "eligible for protection in those Members 
participating in the system" in Article 23.4 meant that the WTO Members had a choice of 
participating and benefiting from the effects of th e system for their geographical indications by 
notifying such geographical indications.  This was how  the system was voluntary.  To the extent that 
the system to be set up should not create any new rights or obligations, but rather facilitate the 
protection of existing rights without increasing that protection, it was indispensable and logical that the effects of the registration apply to all WTO Memb ers.  It should not be forgotten in this context 
that, without prejudice to the exceptions unde r Article 24 and the transition periods for 
implementation that were accorded to certain Memb ers, these rights and obligations already existed 
without registration for all Members of the WTO.  
45. As to the question of legal effects, she said th at it would be important to ensure that these 
effects were not out of proportion.  It would therefore be useful and sufficient to give to the registered and unchallenged geographical indicati ons the legal effect of a rebutta ble presumption of validity.  No 
new rights would be created.  Moreover, this legal e ffect fully respected the condition of territoriality 
and did not jeopardize the freedom established in Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement as had been 
said by some delegations.  Like other Members,  Switzerland attached great importance to the 
principle embodied in that provision.  
46. Turning to the proposed draft decision, she firs t asked a question similar to the one posed by 
Korea:  Would there be a formality examination?  If this were the case, then it would correspond to 
the role that her delegation had envisaged for the Secretariat.   
47. She further asked how the proposed draft deci sion would actually facilitate the protection of 
geographical indications since the only obligation fo r Members who so wished would be to consult, 
along with other sources of information, a database  which would contain only national information.  
Where in the proposed system was the effective f acilitation of protection of geographical indications 
for right-holders?  Was it only for the right-holders to  know that they were protected in their country 
of origin?  Was that really the only objective of  the system?  Was this how Members believed they 
could comply with the mandate of Article 23.4?  This was not at all her delegation's view.  The 
purpose of the registration system was to actually fa cilitate protection of geographical indications in 
other Members, otherwise it would not make any sen se to be party to a multilateral agreement and to 
focus only on the protection accorded by a Member at  the national level for geographical indications 
located on its own territory.  This was why he r delegation believed that only a procedure of 
notification, examination and opposition, including settlement of conflicts, and entailing legal effects 
in all Members would actually be able to facilitate the protection of geographical indications by clarifying the status of protection of these ge ographical indications in all WTO Members.  
48. Finally, she said that on a number of points the proposed draft decision should be amended to 
take into account the concerns that her delegation ha d been expressing for years,  particularly, but not 
solely, on participation, legal effects, a nd notification and registration procedures. 
49. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 said that any new input would be very useful in 
taking forward these negotiations.  He said that the proposed draft decision, as described by the representative of Chile, shared the same features  as the system proposed by his delegation in 
document TN/IP/W/8, namely one based on voluntary  participation and wit hout legal effects on non-
participating Members.   
50. Hong Kong, China's proposal would not incur any extra costs for non-par ticipating Members.  
For participating Members, it envisaged a system of  pro-rata payment so as to enable Members to  TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 11 
 
 
 share its costs;  in other words, Members which had few geographical indica tions would not need to 
share the same burden as other Members who had a higher number of geographical indications.  
51. As to legal effects, Hong Kong, China's proposal  carried some legal effect on participating 
Members, namely that the registration of a geogr aphical indication would serve as a rebuttable prima 
facie evidence that it satisfied the definition in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and was 
protected in the country of origin.  This proposal al so tried to preserve the territorial nature of IPR 
protection by ensuring that all these rebuttable presumptions operated in each Member's own domestic courts in accordance with its own judicial system. 
52. Recalling that document JOB(03)/75 was prepared one week before his delegation had tabled 
its own proposal, he asked that Members keep that  in mind when discussing what would be the best 
basis for future negotiations. 
53. The representative of Brazil
 said that the proposed draft decision was being examined by the 
authorities in his capital.  Without attempting to comment, at this juncture, on all aspects of the text, his delegation would like to highlight the fact that Brazil attached great importance to certain 
principles that were stated in TN/IP/W/10.  In fact , some principles that had guided the draft decision 
should be applied in a systemic way to all IPR-rela ted issues that were dealt with in the WTO and 
under the TRIPS Agreement.  His delegation agreed w ith the reading made in the draft decision that 
the term "facilitation" should not lead to TR IPS-plus rules and disciplines on geographical 
indications.  It also took note of the fact that the proposed system would be voluntary, that it struck a balance between the rights and obligations within  the TRIPS Agreement, and would preserve the 
territorial nature of intellectual property rights.  More importantly, the co-spo nsors tried to maintain 
the flexibility that existed in the TRIPS Agreemen t for WTO Members to determine the appropriate 
method of implementing their obligations under this Agreement.  As had been highlighted by other 
delegations, the proposed system would bear low co sts for Members, particularly for developing 
country Members.  His delegation cherished these basi c principles of the intellectual property system 
that were enshrined in the new proposal and woul d be happy to see the co-sponsors defend them, not 
only regarding geographical indications in the WTO, but also in other fora, including at WIPO, when 
dealing with substantive intellectual pr operty rights issues, including patents. 
54. The representative of Canada
 said that the questions posed by some Members during this 
meeting demonstrated a new level of engagement and activity in th is negotiation, which made his 
delegation quite optimistic.   
55. In response to the delegations of Korea and Sw itzerland regarding a formality examination to 
be performed by the WTO Secretariat, he said that , in his delegation's view, such an examination 
would not be necessary since it would be up to participating Members to decide for themselves what to do with the information provided under the sy stem, and what would be consistent with the 
territoriality principle and the right of Members to  determine for themselves how to implement their 
TRIPS obligations.   
56. In response to the question raised by Korea about  how this system would be financed, he said 
that the cost of the system would be very low.  It would essentially involve the establishment of a new 
part of the WTO website.  In this regard, he recalled a recent experience, namely the dedicated webpage created by the WTO Secretariat regardin g notifications under the so-called Paragraph 6 
Decision of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  The costs associated to this notification system were absorbed by th e regular WTO budget.  The same could happen with 
the system proposed by the co-sponsors. 
57. While taking note of the disagreement e xpressed by the Europ ean Communities and 
Switzerland on Canada's interpretation of the mandate  with respect to the voluntary nature of the TN/IP/M/12 
Page 12  
 
 system and its legal effects on non-participating Members, he said that there was an emerging 
consensus in the Special Session on these two key issu es and that he had not so far heard great support 
for a system with compulsory participation a nd legal effects on non-participating Members.   
58. In response to the comment made by the Eur opean Communities regarding the unreliability of 
information, he expressed surprise that the European Communities seeme d to have so little faith in the 
integrity of the Members who would be notifying their geographical indications to the system.  
Ultimately, the reliability of the information in th e system was to be deci ded by Members themselves 
and this would be consiste nt with current TRIPS obligations.  Hi s delegation saw no need to move in 
the direction of having the WTO Secretariat make decisions on what was or was not a geographical 
indication, or to establish some new dispute settle ment system just for geographical indications.  
59. In response to the comment made by the Eur opean Communities about the reference to  
national opposition procedures, he said that such procedures were already provided for in Section 3 and other provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, so th ere would be no need to repeat those obligations 
in this draft decision.   
60. With regard to the comment made by the Eur opean Communities regarding the need for more 
information to be available in the system so as to help Members to decide whether they would protect 
a geographical indication or not, he said that notifying Members could, of course, provide as much information as they thought would be necessary to convince other Members to protect their geographical indications.   
61. As to the question raised by Malaysia under para graph 3.3 of the draft decision, he said that 
Canada would welcome any drafti ng suggestions in that regard. 
62. In response to comments made by the European Communities and Switzerland on 
"facilitation", he said that the draft decision would genuinely facilitate the pr otection of geographical 
indications because the system proposed would prov ide national IP offices with new information on 
GI rights claimed by producers in the territory of another WTO Member.  This information could be 
used by national offices when making decisions  regarding the recognition and protection of 
geographical indications for wines and spirits in ac cordance with their national legislation.  Such 
decisions by national offices would continue to be ma de entirely at the national level, consistent with 
Articles 1.1 and 22, 23, and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement.  In making those decisions, WTO Members who had chosen to participate would commit to consult the system, along with other sources of 
information.  Currently, national offices did not have  any single place to look for information about 
which terms were recognized in other countries as geographical indications, and the proposed system 
would, without impeding national sovereignty and the application of national law, provide the 
information that national offices needed to make  better-informed decisions with regard to both 
trademarks and geographical indications.  This syst em would, therefore, facilitate the protection of 
geographical indications for wines and spirits by making available to Members much more information on the status of the names used to describe these goods throughout the world.   
63. On a comment made by Switzerland about the multilateral character of the system and 
Article 23.4, he said that there was a precedent in the WTO:  the multilateral Code of Good Practice in 
Annex 3 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, which was open to acceptance by the 
standardizing bodies of any Member, but was not compulsory for all Members.  
64. In response to a comment made by the Europ ean Communities that the draft decision was a 
departure from JOB(03)/75, he recalled that his delegation had already said almost a year beforehand 
that JOB(03)/75 could not be accepted by the Special Session as a basis for further work.  Therefore,  
some Members, like Canada, that were mindful of  the pressing need for the first approximations of 
the Doha Round negotiations by July had m oved on and presented the draft decision.    TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 13 
 
 
 65. With regard to a comment by Switzerland that th e draft decision needed to be re-worked, he 
said that Canada was willing to make revisions to th e text to take into account the concerns of other 
Members, without deviating from the main principles defined by the co-sponsors. 
66. The representative of Australia  agreed that there were some similarities between Hong Kong, 
China's proposal and the proposed draft decision.   Ho wever, her delegation con tinued to think that it 
would be possible to achieve the outcome sought by  Hong Kong, China in a cheaper and more cost-
effective way.   
67. As to the questions posed by Korea, particul arly on the issue of special and differential 
treatment, she recalled a paragraph from the earlier jo int proposal which said that that "the proposed 
system is entirely voluntary and would not impose undue burdens, thus satisfying the needs for 
special and differential treatment measures for de veloping and least developed countries.  For the 
purposes of the proposed system, this would be a self-regulating special and differential treatment 
mechanism for developing countries and least deve loped countries that are concerned about their 
ability to participate in the syst em (bearing in mind that least-developed countries are not presently 
required to implement a system of protection for ge ographical indications)".  Australia would be more 
than open to any further discussion with Members on the issue of special and differential treatment. 
68. With regard to a question posed by Korea on the voluntary nature of the proposed system, she 
recalled the reference made by New Zealand on previous occasions regarding the Code of Good 
Practice under the TBT Agreement.   
69. In response to comments made by the Eu ropean Communities and Switzerland on the 
mandate, she said that in tabling TN/IP/W/10 her delegation was interested in moving the Special 
Session to the negotiation of a concrete and workab le solution.  She had not really heard much 
support for the view that TN/IP/W/10 did not fulfil the mandate.  The TRIPS Agreement and 
document TN/IP/W/10 had as a common denominator the fact that they set forth minimum standards.  As had been explained by Chile, the mandate was cl ear, and if there was any issue, it would be an 
issue of those who wished to go beyond the mandate. 
70. In response to the suggestion made that the co-sponsors of TN/IP/W/10 should bridge the gap 
between the two approaches, she pointed out that su ch a responsibility rested with all delegations and 
that, as far as the co-sponsors were concerned, they ha d already made a serious attempt to that effect.  
71. With regard to participation, she said that th e history of this issue was that it had been 
difficult for the European Communities to get countries to participate in systems that had strong legal 
effects and the Lisbon Agreement was a clear exampl e of that.  She further said that there was a 
similar problem with the mandate for the negotiation:   there had been no agreement that the system 
would be mandatory;  that was why the co-sponsors had proposed a voluntary one. 
72. With regard to comments made the European Communities that the new proposal contained 
changes compared to the earlier jo int proposal, she said that this was inevitable when moving from a 
document based on principles to a document, like the present one, that was supposed to be a workable 
concrete draft legal text.   
73. As to the issue of challenge procedures, Austra lia did not see any need to make a reference to 
domestic procedures in a document related to  a multilateral system in the WTO.   
74. As to the issue of transliteration, she sai d that it would be genuinely facilitative if 
transliteration were provided, since the goal of th e system was to facilitate the existing level of 
protection.  Australia would, however, be happy to hear comments on this technical issue from other 
Members, and in particular those who would be doing the transliteration.   TN/IP/M/12 
Page 14  
 
 75. As to the comments on the reliability of inform ation provided by the proposed system, she did 
not see that information as any more or less reliable  than, for example, information that was required 
as part of a TBT notification.  In the TBT framework, a Member simply alerted the WTO membership to the existence of a particular measure.  Other Me mbers would then be free to decide what to do with 
that information. 
76. Finally, on JOB(03)/75, her delegation said that it was in no way a basis for future 
discussions. 
77. The representative of Chile
 said, in support of the view that the system proposed in the draft 
decision was multilateral in nature, that nobody c ould say that the PCT, which comprised well over 
120 countries, was not multilateral.   
78. As to the argument that the absence of a notification obligation could result in no 
geographical indications being notified, he said th at the same could also happen with the system 
proposed by the European Communities.  
79.  On the approach proposed by the European  Communities, he said that making a treaty 
mandatory for countries which had not signed it w ould violate principles not only of intellectual 
property but also of public international law, like the ones in the Vienna Convention.   
80. In response to the comment that the draft decision did not refer to the definition of 
geographical indications, he considered this to be  unnecessary since compliance with the definition of 
Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement was already an  obligation imposed on all 148 WTO Members.   
81. As to the allegation that the proposed system w ould be an unreliable database, he referred to 
what Canada and Australia had said on this point, an d added that Members, not individuals, would be 
those making the notifications.  As was the case fo r the PCT, the Madrid Protocol or The Hague 
Agreement, nothing could guarantee that the info rmation provided would be always reliable.   
82. With regard to the possibility that more than one country would notify a geographical 
indication, he said that it would be up to the Members concerned to analyse whether these geographical indications were homonymous or not.   
83. As to the lack of reference to opposition pro cedures, since this possibility already existed 
within national legislation, there would be no need to  deal with this issue in the proposed multilateral 
system.   
84. The representative of the European Communities
 expressed surprise that all the co-sponsors 
of document TN/IP/W/10 considered it a virtue of th eir proposed system that it would have no effect 
on national systems, particularly in view of th e fact that some of these delegations normally 
considered the TRIPS Agreement as a good treat y and a major result for the development and 
implementation of intellectual property rights in all Members.   
85. Commenting on the statements made by Canada and Costa Rica that the European 
Communities seemed to put into question the integrity of the Members' systems, he said that he had 
not said that.  On the contrary, what he had said was that the system as described in the proposed draft 
decision would simply not be useful because the in formation on the database would be unreliable and 
the effects on Members would be almost non-existent.  This had nothing to do with the integrity of the 
Members' respective national systems.  He recalle d that the European Communities' proposed system 
also operated through the national systems.    TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 15 
 
 
 86. The problem his delegation had with the proposed draft decision was that it did not imply any 
firm commitment of Members, not even participati ng Members, to use the system since they would 
have the option to either notify or to not notify.  This might result in a situation where no notification 
would be made.   
87. Rejecting Canada's assertion that his delega tion had complained about the low level of 
engagement of the co-sponsors in these negotiations , he said that on the contrary his impression was 
that the level of engagement was relatively high among Members.  The only problem was that it was 
an engagement which sought to ensure a very low le vel of protection or a system that did not deliver 
effective protection.   
88. On Canada's and Australia's point that the proposed draft decision would bring negotiations 
forward and bridge the gap between  the various positions on the tabl e, his delegation's impression was 
that the effect of this new proposal was, in fact , pushing the positions further apart.  As to the 
comparison made between the proposed system and ot her international registration systems, such as 
the Madrid Protocol and the PCT, he pointed ou t that those systems were not about creating a 
database with some information on the specific in tellectual property right that Members would  
consult if they so wished.  Tho se systems were about real obligations and protection and, as was the 
case of the Madrid Protocol, protection was granted through one single application.  
89. While agreeing with Chile's statement that inte rnational agreements only implied obligations 
for their signatories, he also recalled that th e TRIPS Agreement had been signed by all WTO 
Members, which had accepted the obligations containe d therein, including the obligation to establish a 
multilateral system for the notification and regist ration of geographical indications for wines and 
spirits.   
90. In response to a clarification made by Hong K ong, China that JOB(03)/75 had not taken into 
account its own proposal, he said that this coul d be easily corrected.  After reaffirming that 
JOB(03)/75 constituted a good basis for further negotia tions, he proposed that, if this document were 
not used, then these negotiations should be based on a compromise proposal that could come from the 
Chair.   
91. The representative of New Zealand  said that many of the valid questions that had been raised 
during the present meeting had been adequately a nd comprehensively answered by Australia and 
Canada, particularly about legal effects, par ticipation and facilitation of protection.  She 
acknowledged the widespread support expressed by othe r delegations for TN/IP/W/10, in particular 
regarding the principles that were outlined by Chile.  
92. She said that the issues of the role of national authorities and of territoriality related to the 
question of what kind of system was being negotiated:  a system that would work to facilitate the kind 
of protection Members were already required to pr ovide, or something much more ambitious such as 
a supranational system of protection.  In addition,  as Chile had pointed out, all other regimes at the 
very least respected the principle of territoriality.  This issue was also related to the fact that Members 
had worked hard to ensure that this legal text was flexible enough to accommodate all approaches to 
implementing the obligations in the TRIPS Agreem ent, whether they were the very complex, 
burdensome and ornate systems some Members had, or the most simple and basic systems that others had chosen to put in place to meet their obligations  under the Agreement.  This was a crucial feature, 
given the number of different approaches that Members of the WTO had taken.   
93. In response to a statement made by the Europ ean Communities that it was surprised that all 
delegations considered it a virtue that the propo sed draft decision would have no effect on national 
systems, she said the proposed system included a real and serious commitment by all participating Members to consult the database.   TN/IP/M/12 
Page 16  
 
 94. Finally, on the usefulness and reliability of the proposed system, she echoed the comments 
made by others that, because decisions on geographi cal indications were made at the national level 
and then notified by participating Members, one s hould be very careful about questioning the integrity 
or effectiveness of other Members' national GI systems. 
95. The representative of Canada
 said that there was clearly no agreement between his delegation 
and the delegation of the European Communities on issues like participation, legal effect and the 
interpretation of the mandate.  Refuting the Europ ean Communities' suggestion that Canada had said 
that the proposed system would be the singl e place to look for information on geographical 
indications, he recalled that the Q&A document tabled  last year (TN/IP/W/9) stated that "in making 
those decisions, WTO Members who choose to partic ipate would commit to consult the system, along 
with other sources of information".  
96. On the issue of whether or not participating Members should notify their geographical 
indications, he said that the European Communities we re quite correct to point out that paragraph 3.1 
of the TN/IP/W/10 provided that each partic ipating Member could notify to the WTO any 
geographical indications that it had identified.  He recalled that in the past the European Communities, 
which had some 10,000 geographical indications for wines and spirits, had said that they had not 
decided how many of those geographical indications would be notified.  With this in mind, Canada 
believed that there was no need for the system to co mpel a participating Member to notify all of its 
geographical indications if there were some that, for any reason determined by that Member, did not 
merit being notified.  In fact, the flexibility provide d for in paragraph 3.1 of the proposed text would 
allow the European Communities them selves to show some restraint in their notifications as they had 
proposed in the past. 
97. The representative of Argentina  said that the last proposal from the European Communities 
had been submitted in 2000, before  Doha, and that after that date  it had only submitted non-papers or 
made oral statements.  This had made it difficult to  actually determine, for example, the scope of the 
legal effects that they wished to have in the system.   
98. Responding to the European Communities' comment that other international systems, such as 
the Madrid Protocol and the Lisbon Agreement did not  create a database, but rather gave substantive 
protection, she said that the purpose of the TR IPS Agreement was not to grant automatic IPR 
protection among Members.  What this Agreement provided for, as stated in its Article 23, was only the obligation to provide the legal means to interested  parties, in their respective jurisdictions, to seek 
the protection they needed.  This was exactly th e same situation in the fields of patents and 
trademarks.  She expressed surprise that the Lisbon  and Madrid systems were mentioned as examples, 
since these systems contained the basic principles of maintaining territoriality and primacy of 
domestic jurisdiction.  They did not foresee any ch allenge system nor inte rnational or bilateral 
negotiations. 
99. The representative of Australia
 said that these negotiations were taking place in a WTO 
context.  In this regard, she recalled that the sy stems mentioned in the Secretariat paper (TN/IP/W/4) 
were multilateral and participation in those syst ems was voluntary.  While her delegation was well 
aware of other registration and notification systems, it was also aware that these negotiations were taking place in the WTO context. 
100. With regard to the suggestion made by the European Communities to have a compromise 
paper by the Chair, she said that at the present juncture any discussion on this point would be 
premature.  The co-sponsors of TN/IP/W/10 had put a draft on the table and would like to work on 
that basis.    TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 17 
 
 
 101. The representatives of Canada  and of the United States  expressed support for Australia's 
views on a compromise paper. 
102. The representative of th e European Communities  recalled, in response to a comment made by 
Canada, that the suggestion they had made with re gard to the number of geographical indications to 
be notified was a demonstration of their flexibilit y. The European Communities was the Member least 
interested in over-burdening the system with a gr eat number of notifications or in making it overly 
complicated and difficult to manage.  He further said that the precise number of geographical indications was much lower than had been mentioned by Canada.   
103. As to the comments made by Argentina and Australia on the lack of clarity of his delegation's 
positions regarding the issue of legal effects of th e registry, he said that the European Communities 
had tried to explain their positions both orally and in writing, in particular in document JOB(03)/123 
of 2003.   
104. As to the points made on the various intern ational registration systems in the field of 
intellectual property, he said that the comparisons wh ich were made in this re gard referred, first and 
foremost, to the spirit and operation of those systems,  in particular the Madr id Protocol, which had a 
structure substantially similar to the registry pro posed by the European Communities.  In fact, the 
Madrid Protocol was a system with legal effects whic h clearly respected the principle of territoriality.  
In that regard, it would be closer to the proposal  made by the European Communities than a system 
whose objective was simply to create a database wi th limited information available on geographical 
indications and without any legal effects.  
105. The representative of the United States
 said that the best expl anation of the voluntary 
character of the system proposed in the draft deci sion was that the co-sponsors saw the system as a 
market-driven incentive for a Member to notify a geographical indication. The system took into 
account the possibility that there could be some domestic reason why a particular geographical 
indication would not be notified.  Since what th e participating Members would achieve under this 
system would be the possibility to notify and re gister geographical indications, she failed to 
understand what other benefits the European Communities or other like-minded Members would 
achieve by turning this possibility into a requirement.   
106. As to the status of JOB(03)/75, she said that this document contained certain options that did 
not reflect all Members' positions.  She further suggested that the European Communities, whose 
proposal had been tabled for quite some time, come forward with a new text that would bring more clarity with regard to their position.   
107. The representative of Chile
 clarified that his delegation's refe rence to international registration 
systems was not made in order to insinuate that th e co-sponsors' proposal was similar to those systems 
but rather to make the point that the European Communities' proposal went even further than those 
systems.  While he was well aware of the fact th at those systems had stronger obligations and legal 
effects than the co-sponsors' proposal, he pointed out that these effects applied only to those who were 
Members.   
108. On territoriality, he failed to understand how it could be alleged that this principle was 
respected when a country that had decided not to part icipate in the system would in any event have an 
obligation to protect geographical indications that were notified by others if they were not opposed 
within a given period of time.   
109. The representative of Canada  said that, in the bilateral nego tiations between Canada and the 
European Communities in the area of wines and sp irits his country had been asked to protect  
approximately 10,000 European names.  It had take n a great deal of time and effort for Canada to TN/IP/M/12 
Page 18  
 
 analyse those names, which were tr anslated into different languages, to see whether they referred to a 
geographical area or were protected in the country of origin.  Ultimately, Canada had agreed to 
protect 1,500 European names for wines and spirits .  This was a number Cana da had experience with, 
but it was his understanding that some of the ot her bilateral agreements that the European 
Communities had concluded involved a higher numbe r of geographical indications.  That was the 
reason why his delegation believed it would be helpful if the European Communities could indicate 
the number of geographical indications that it was seeking to protect under the future system.  Did they intend to notify all the geographical indicati ons for wines and spirits?  If so, it would also be 
helpful if the European Communities could clarify whether it was seeking a system in which all WTO 
Members were compelled to notify every geographical i ndication that they had.  If that were the case, 
what would be the consequences if a Member di d not notify a geographical indication for some 
reason?  Which body would decide which geograp hical indications should be notified under the 
system envisaged by the European  Communities?  Would this be a matter for the WTO Secretariat to 
decide unilaterally or would it be for the WTO Disp ute Settlement Body to examine?  Or would it be 
necessary, as had been proposed by some other Memb ers in the past, to set up a new and separate 
dispute settlement system for geographical indications?  
110. The representative of Switzerland
 said that her delegation had some difficulty in seeing how 
there could be a constructive dialogue if some Memb ers that had claimed their willingness to take into 
account the concerns of other Members said at the sa me time that the parameters of their proposals 
could not be changed.  Her dele gation had listened carefully to th e explanations by the co-sponsors 
but, as they had not mentioned flexibility on any point, it did not see how progress could be made.  
Under those circumstances, JOB(03)/75 would be th e most appropriate basis to enable the Special 
Session to begin to crystallize certain positions .  Hong Kong, China's proposal, which was a 
compromise proposal attempting to take into account the elements of a number of proposals on the table, should also be taken into account.  Finally, she reassured Members that might have any doubts 
that her delegation was fully aware of the WTO co ntext and its parameters when it made comments 
and suggestions regarding the multilateral system. 
111. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation had always taken 
into account the fact that this negotiation was taki ng place in the WTO.  This was precisely the reason 
why it was equating the idea of a multilateral registrati on and notification system with the idea that all 
Members should be covered, since this was the mean ing of "multilateral" in the WTO.  On the issue 
of the number of geographical indications to be no tified, he said that this number would be relatively 
limited when compared with othe r forms of intellectual property.  For example, the PCT had just 
processed its first millionth patent application.  A nother example was the Madrid system, which had  
received almost 30,000 applications  for registration in 2004.   
112. The representative of Australia  asked further clarification a bout what Switzerland and Korea 
meant by a "formality examination", because they seemed to use this expression as an IP term of art.  
She had understood them to be referring to what would happen if there was a formatting error or 
spelling mistake. 
113. The representative of Switzerland  said that the formality examination by the administering  
body would be to look at the conditions which would be defined as the elements to be notified.  To 
take the proposed draft decision, if a name was no tified, then the notification should mention whether 
it was for a wine or a spirit.  That would help Members in further examination.  This formality 
examination had nothing to do with the examinat ion regarding the eligibility of the geographical 
indication.  This could not in any event be carried out by the administering body.  
114. As scheduled, the Chairman suspended  the discussion in order to allow for the presentations 
on the CRN and on the Lisbon Agreement.    TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 19 
 
 
 Presentations on the CRN and on the Lisbon Agreement 
115. The Chairman  welcomed Mr. John Dickson, from th e WTO Documents System Section, and 
the representative of the International Bureau of WI PO, Mr. Matthijs Geuze, from WIPO's Sector of 
Trademarks, Industrial Designs a nd Geographical Indications.   
116. He said that, as requested by the Special Session on 30 November 2004, the WTO Secretariat 
had circulated updated information on the CRN in document TN/IP/W/4/Add.1/Rev.1, dated 
16 February 2005, and that background informa tion on the Lisbon Agreement could be found in 
document TN/IP/W/4, dated 18 September 2002. 
 -  Presentation on the CRN 
117. The representative of the WTO Secretariat  said that the aim of his presentation was to provide 
a brief history of the CRN, describe the life-cycle of  a notification within the Secretariat and explain 
how to access notification documents via the CRN on the Internet. 
118. The Central Registry of Notifications, or CRN, was established by Ministerial Decision in 
1993, the whole text of which was available as an  annex to document TN/IP/4/Add.1/Rev.1.  The 
main role of the CRN was to record and cross-re ference notifications submitted to the Secretariat by 
Members.  The CRN database was an internal WTO co mputer database that recorded all notifications 
submitted to the Secretariat by Members in fulfilment of their obligations under the WTO Agreements.  The CRN was not a notification system per se , but rather a central register of 
notification documents.  Each database record ha d 17 descriptive data fields and also a number of 
system fields for application management purposes.  The database stored records of all notifications 
issued by the WTO from 1995 onwards, both regular and ad hoc.  For each notification document 
issued there was a corresponding notification record  containing information about the notification, 
and a link to the respective WORD document.  Only  selected elements of the database record were 
posted in the CRN records on the Internet.  The key data fields for retrieving notifications were: 
symbol, issuing date, notification requirement - e.g. TRIPS, TBT, SCM - and notifying Member. 
119. He said that currently, under all the WTO Agre ements, there were 182 notification obligations 
or requirements recorded in the database.  To da te, almost 27,000 individua l notifications had been 
issued by the Secretariat.  In 2004, 2,730 notifi cations were issued.  The CRN database was managed 
by staff of the WTO CRN, which was a section of the Language Services and Documentation 
Division.  The CRN administrator was an informa tion professional and was assisted by one database 
clerk.  All WTO notifications were issued as unr estricted documents which meant that they were 
immediately available to the public as well as Members.   Notifications were posted on the Internet in 
Documents online , a web application designed by the WTO for disseminating and archiving 
electronically all official documents.  Documents online  was available on the Internet in two places:  
on the WTO website and on the WTO Members' site.   
120. With regard to the lifecycle of a notification within the WTO Secretariat, he said that a 
notification was usually sent by a Member's agency to  the WTO, as an attachment to an e-mail.  It 
could also be submitted on paper or by fax.  Ideal ly, notifications should always be sent to the CRN 
and not to the divisions or to individual members of  the administration, but unfortunately this was not 
always the case in practice.  The receipt and st orage of original notification documents was 
centralized in the CRN.  The notifications were re corded in the CRN database and then transmitted to 
the responsible division for further processing.  The division would then prepare an official 
notification document, assign a symbol and transmit the notification to Documents Control for final 
editing and translation.  Four to five working days  were required on average to produce a notification 
document.  The notification was then circulated as a paper document to authorized recipients and also TN/IP/M/12 
Page 20  
 
 posted in Documents online  on the Internet.  Once the docum ent had been distributed, the CRN 
Registry Staff would complete the database record with the symbol details.   
121. He said that the CRN was a small unit that operated with two staff and basic computing 
equipment.  The bulk of the costs of producing notifi cations occurred, first, in the divisions, where 
secretarial and professional intervention was called for in the creation of the document, and second, in 
Documents Control, which was part of the Langua ge Services and Documentation Division, where 
multiple editorial and formatting interventions by clerical and professional staff were called for and 
where the translation of the document was also re quested.  The paper reproduction and distribution 
costs would vary according to the size and volume of  notifications produced in the three languages. 
122. Finally, he explained how to search for no tifications on the Internet:  first, open Documents 
online  on the WTO website or alternatively on the WT O Members' site;  then enter the search criteria 
in the appropriate fields on the search screen – fo r example, all intellectual property notifications 
made by a notifying Member.  After clicking on the search button or simply pressing "enter", the 
results of the search would be sorted automatically  by requirement, with an indication of the total 
number of notifications found, again, by requirem ent.  The documents should appear on screen in a 
standard display, sorted in reverse chronological or der and ordered by symbol.  Additionally, it would 
be possible to view the notifications directly on screen, print the notification documents and download 
the documents in English, French or Sp anish in their original WORD format. 
 -  Presentation on the Lisbon Agreement 
123. The representative of the International Bureau of WIPO
 said that the Lisbon system facilitated 
the protection of appellations of origin at the in ternational level through the filing of a single 
application for registration.  As any system for th e filing and recording of IPRs, the Lisbon system 
specified a large number of substantive and proce dural requirements.  Operation of the system 
required formal examination by WIPO of applica tions received.  These should contain the necessary 
data for individual member States to judge whether the subject-matter of an application actually met 
the requirements for protection.  Individual member States could refuse protection, if they so notified 
WIPO.  Their refusal notifications should also meet certain requirements and would then be entered in 
the International Register.  There were also pro cedures for the recording of changes to registered 
appellations, such as invalidation of the effects of the appellation by a member State or modifications 
notified by the country of origin, for example, concerning the limits of the area of production, the 
holders of the right to use the appellation, or the legal basis for protection.   
124. On an annual basis, there were relatively few en tries in the International Register and they 
had marginal impact on the overall operations un der the various registration systems WIPO was 
administering.  Staff employed for these other registration systems were taking care of the handling of 
Lisbon notifications.  Thanks to the infrastructur e available in WIPO for the handling of incoming 
notifications under the existing registration systems fo r IPRs, the work relating to Lisbon notifications 
in the receipt, indexing, examining, translati ng, communication with applicant countries and third 
countries, registration, publication and the mainte nance of an on-line database could be done at 
marginal cost. 
125. The Lisbon system facilitated the recognition and protection of a special category of 
geographical indications, namely "a ppellations of origin", in countries other than their country of 
origin.  The Lisbon Agreement and its Regulations laid down a number of eligibility criteria for the 
international registration of appellations .  In order to qualify for registration  at WIPO, an appellation 
of origin must be recognized and protected in the country of origin in accordance with the definition 
of Article 2(1) of the Lisbon Agreement.  Under Ar ticle 2(2), country of origin meant "the country 
whose name, or the country in which is situated  the region or locality whose name, constitutes the  TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 21 
 
 
 appellation of origin that has given the product it s reputation".  This condition implied that the 
appellation should be protected in its country of origin as an appellation of origin, which, in 
accordance with the Lisbon definitio n, meant as a geographical name recognized in the country of 
origin as the name of a geographical area, e.g. the name of the country, region or locality, serving to 
designate a product that originates therein and mee ting certain qualifications.  The demarcated area 
should be the area of production of the pr oducts protected by the appellation. Such ex ante recognition 
of the name could take place by virtue of legislativ e or administrative provisions, a judicial decision 
or registration.  The manner in which recognition took place was determined by the domestic legislation of the country of origin.  This did, in  principle, not exclude registration as a certification 
mark in the country of origin as the basis of a Lis bon registration, for example if the certification mark 
in question met the definition of a Lisbon appella tion and its registration as a certification mark 
implied recognition by the country of origin.  However, the more common way to register 
certification marks internationally was through th e procedures of the Madrid system for the 
international registration of marks, i.e. in the 77 co ntracting parties of that system.  The application 
for registration under the Lisbon system had to be  filed by the competent national authority of the 
country of origin.  Registration was in the name of the natural persons or legal entities, public or 
private, having, according to their national legislation,  the right to use the appellation in the country of 
origin.   
126. Formal requirements aimed to standardize notif ications as much as possible and facilitate 
their examination by WIPO and member countries.  Th ey also helped in the development of Internet-
based publication of data contained in the Internat ional Register and in automating the procedures.  
Applications were to be filed on the official form es tablished by WIPO, in English, French or Spanish.  
If this was not the case or if any of the mandatory  content requirements were not met, WIPO would 
communicate with the competent national authority in the country of origin and enter the appellation, 
and its transliteration into Latin characters, using th e phonetics of the language of the application, in 
the International Register, once all the irregularities had been corrected and the application had been 
translated by the International Bu reau into the other working languages.  It would then send a 
certificate of registration to the applicant country and notify the other member countries.  The necessary data to identify the registered appellation would be published in the Lisbon Bulletin.  They 
were also made available on WIPO's website in th e Lisbon Express database.  For the registration of 
each appellation of origin, a fee of Sw F 500 was due  and, for the entry of a modification, a fee of 
Sw F 200. 
127. As far as legal effects were concerned, the Lisbon procedures allowed for the allocation of 
filing and priority dates securing the priority of a pplications claiming protection for appellations.  In 
addition, the Lisbon Agreement laid down a number of provisions of substantive law concerning the 
protection  to be made available at the national level.  An appellation which had been the subject of an 
international registration was ensured protection in each member country which had not issued a 
refusal.  Member countries that had received notice of  the registration of an appellation had the right 
to refuse its protection in their territory. Any such declaration of refusal had to meet two 
requirements.  The first was a time requirement:  the refusal had to be notified to WIPO within a 
period of one year from the date of receipt by the country in question of the notice of registration. 
When WIPO had received a declaration of refusal within the prescribed period, it notified it to the 
country of origin, entered it in the International Re gister and published it in the Lisbon Bulletin.  The 
country of origin communicated it in turn to th e interested parties concerned, who could avail 
themselves of the same administrative and legal remedies against the refusal as nationals of the country that had pronounced it.  The second was a re quirement regarding content:  the declaration of 
refusal had to specify the grounds for refusal.  There was no limitation as to what grounds.  Any 
ground could be advanced that was available at th e domestic level to oppose the grant of protection 
for an appellation registered under Lisbon, in accordance with the procedures available at the 
domestic level.  For instance, a country could re fuse to protect an appellation on various grounds:  
because it considered that the appellation had already acquired a generic character in its territory in TN/IP/M/12 
Page 22  
 
 relation to the product to which it referred;  becau se it considered that the geographical designation 
did not conform to the Lisbon definition of an appe llation;  or because the appellation would conflict 
with a trademark or other right already protected in the country concerned. 
128. The international registration of an appellati on assured its protection, without any need for 
renewal, for as long as the appellation was protected in  its country of origin.  Nevertheless, where the 
effects of an international registration were invalid ated in a member country and the invalidation was 
no longer subject to appeal, the country concerne d shall notify WIPO, which would then enter the 
invalidation in the International Register and send a co py of the notification to the country of origin.  
129. Article 3 of the Lisbon Agreement defined the content of the protection that the member 
States undertook to accord to appellations register ed at WIPO.  According to that provision, 
protection was to be ensured against any usurpation or imitation of the appellation even if the true 
origin of the product was stated or if the appellati on was used in translated form or accompanied by 
terms such as "kind," "type," "make," "imitation" and the like.  Article 6 specified that, if the 
registration of an appellation had not been refused by  a country, it could not, subsequently, deem that 
the appellation had become generic as long as it was pr otected in the country of origin.  The necessary 
enforcement action had to be taken before the competent authorities of each of the countries of the 
Lisbon Union in which the appellati on was protected, according to the procedural rules laid down in 
the national legislation of those countries.  Standing  must be available to the public prosecutor, the 
competent office or interested parties. 
130. In the course of 2004, five new appellations had been notified and registered, namely three 
from Mexico, one from Italy and one from Cuba.  These appellations were:  Mango Ataulfo del 
Soconusco Chiapas ;  Charanda  for an alcoholic beverage;  Café Chiapas ;  Prosciutto de San Daniele  
for ham;  and Pinar del Rio  for tobacco.  In addition, two appellations had been cancelled, six 
modified and two refusals recorded in the International Register. 
131. Finally, the representative of the Internationa l Bureau of WIPO showed some examples from 
the Lisbon Express database  on WIPO's website, which containe d all information published in the 
Lisbon Bulletin.  Information from the International Register that was not published in the Lisbon 
Bulletin could be obtained from the International Bureau, upon request, by any person.  He first 
referred to international registra tion number 837 of 24 November  2 000, concerning the appellation of 
origin "Budweiser Bürgerbrau" for beer from Česke Budějovice in the Czech Republic.  Protection for 
this appellation had been refused by eight member  countries under Lisbon, namely Costa Rica, Haiti, 
Hungary, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Moldova and Port ugal.  The grounds for refusal related to the 
existence of earlier trademark rights in the countri es in question.  The second international registration 
he showed was number 840 of 2 October 2001 con cerning the appellation of origin "Veracruz" for 
green or roasted coffee from the State of Veracruz in Mexico.  "Veracruz" had been refused by one 
member country, i.e. Portugal, on the ground that, in Portugal, this appellation was liable to mislead the public.  Third, he referred to internationa l registration number 1 of 22 November 1967 concerning 
the appellation of origin "Pilsen Pils" for beer from the city of Pilsen in the Czech Republic.  This 
appellation had been refused by tw o member countries, i.e. France , and Serbia and Montenegro, on 
the ground that the appellation was generic in their territories.  Initially, Mexico had also refused to 
protect this appellation, but this refusal had been w ithdrawn in 1980.  Fourth, he showed that a search 
in the Lisbon Express for the name "Porto" revealed  two appellations of origin registered under 
Lisbon, i.e. number 696 of 18 March 1985 concerni ng "Vin de Corse  - Porto Vecchio" for wines 
from a delimited area within the department of So uthern Corsica in France, and number 682 of 
18 March 1983 concerning "Porto" fo r generous wine, or liqueur wi ne, from a delimited area within 
the Douro region in Portugal.  The fifth and last example concerned the result  of a search in Lisbon 
Express for the name "Champagne", which revealed seven appellations of origin as registered under 
the Lisbon Agreement.  Two of these related to produc ts from a territory in the north of France, i.e. 
international registration numbers  231 and 439, both of 20 December 1969, concerning, respectively,  TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 23 
 
 
 "Champagne" for wine from a delimited territory w ithin the departments of Marne, Aisne, Aube and 
Seine-et-Marne and "Eau de Vie de Marc de Champagne" for a grape marc spirit from the same territory.  The other five related to products from areas in the south of France, namely:  international 
registration number 345 concerning "Grande Fine Champagne" for a wine-spirit from a delimited 
territory within the department of Charente;  number 346 concerning "Grande Champagne" for 
another wine-spirit from the same territory;  number 347 concerning "Fine Champagne" for a wine-
spirit from a delimited territory within the departme nts of Charente and Charente Maritime;  number 
782 concerning "Petite Champagne" for a spirit from a delimited territory within the departments of 
Charente and Charente Maritime;  and number 783 concerning "Petite Fine Champagne" for another 
spirit from the same territory.  
Questions posed to and responses given by the representatives of the WTO Secretariat and WIPO 
132. The questions posed to the representative of the WTO Secretariat were: 
- Was the CRN accessible in all WTO languages?  What would be the approximate amount of 
time needed for translations?  What was the pr ocedure of amendment of notifications?  Were 
all notifications accessible to the public? (Australia
) 
- Did WTO Members have the obligation to notify, and, if not, how many notifications were 
optional?  Was completeness or comprehensive coverage of information a common objective of all the notification systems or did it ra ther depend on the "demand-driven" principle 
according to which notifications would require notif ications only if this was in the interest of 
a specific Member? To what extent did the WTO Secretariat undertake a formality 
examination when it checked whether or not  notifications were missing? (European 
Communities )  
- What were the costs for running the CRN, including translations?  (Turkey ) 
133. The questions posed to the representative of the International Bureau of WIPO were: 
- When did the negotiations on the Lisbon Agreemen t start and when had they been concluded?  
Was there any dispute settlement system attached  to the Lisbon Agreement?  Would countries 
have to enter into bilateral negotiations in case of disputes?  What would be the consequences 
of a failure to notify a refusal to protect  within the one-year time-limit? (Australia ) 
- Could the Lisbon system be characterized as a sy stem of notification and registration?  Could 
it be described as a system that was simple to manage?  What did "marginal costs" mean?  
Did the Lisbon system respect the principle of territoriality and, if so, how?  Did the Lisbon system facilitate the protection of geographical indications?  Could the Madrid system and other systems administered by WIPO be describ ed as facilitating the acquisition of industrial 
property rights in more than one country or  in a group of countries? Were there any 
international registration systems of IPRs with no legal effects? (European Communities
)  
- Was the Lisbon system a voluntary one and would only the 23 member countries have 
obligations?  What were the practical con sequences for not opposing a notified appellation 
within the one-year time-limit?  Would prior trademark rights be extinguished even if the 
notified term had not been commercially explo ited in the receiving country?  If a Member did 
not object to a notified appellation that had become generic on its territory such as 
"champagne", would this prev ent all importers and domestic producers in that Member from 
using that term? (United States ) TN/IP/M/12 
Page 24  
 
 - What was the legal effect of the Lisbon Agreement on those WIPO members who chose not 
to participate in the system?  (Canada
) 
- Did the Lisbon system presume a particular form  of protection or a particular domestic system 
for protection of appellations of origin or was it amenable to any system such as for example a 
common law system for protecting appellations of origin?  Were there any fees additional to 
the ones mentioned in the presentation?  Had all members of the Lisbon system registered 
appellations of origin?  If not, how many memb ers had registered appellations of origin and 
how many had not?  Had all appe llations of origin been registered under the system or had 
there been cases where the Interna tional Bureau of WIPO had decided not to register such 
appellations of origin and, if so, on which grounds?  (New Zealand ). 
 
- Were there statistics on the number of register ed geographical indications per country, broken 
down according to the status of development of member countries, that is per developing and 
least developed countries?  Where could info rmation be found regarding withdrawals and 
modifications of registered appellations of or igin, or the number of notifications as well as 
registrations and refusals of appellations of origin by developing countries?  (Argentina ) 
-  What would enable a system like the ones under the Lisbon Agreement or the Madrid 
Agreement and Protocol, which ha d a limited number of contracti ng parties, that is 23 and 77 
respectively, to be characterized as a "multilateral" system?  (Malaysia ) 
 - Were member countries that had not notified an y appellation of origin bound to protect other 
member countries' appellations that were re gistered under the Lisbon system?  (European 
Communities ) 
 134. The representative of the WTO Secretariat
 gave the following replies: 
- The CRN database was available in the three o fficial languages of the Secretariat:  English, 
French and Spanish,  and notifications were tr anslated into the three languages as well.  The 
time line for translations would be difficult to establish since some notifications consisted of 
one page and others of 500 pages of text in a single piece of legislation.  Four to five days 
might be an average for short documents.  
 - The cost of translation varied according to the size of the document.    
  
- All the amendments to notifications that had been issued were communi cated generally by the 
division concerned and a corrigendum was issued to the original document.  
 - All documents posted in the CRN were public ly available to Members and outside the 
Secretariat;  there was no restriction.   
 - The obligation to notify applied to all signa tories of the WTO Agreements.  That was the 
reason why the CRN applied a call-and-reminder tw ice a year, that was a call issuing the full 
list of obligations which each Member was re quired to fill in the coming 12 months and a 
reminder, which was the means of reminding Memb ers who had not notified that they should 
do so.   
 - The CRN was content to prepare lists of notifications made and submit them to the 
responsible divisions. Compliance would be ensured via the calls-and-reminder exercises 
monitored by the divisions.  The CRN prepared lists of what had been notified and submitted 
them to the responsible divisions.  It was then decided whether there was anything lacking 
and the reminders were then sent out to the appropriate bodies.    TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 25 
 
 
  
- The completeness of the data in the CRN was dictated by the requirements of the original 
decision.  It specified clearly what informati on was to be collected and made available for 
Members upon request.   
 
- Documents online  was a bibliographic database.  It was not intended to be more than a 
register of documents with a brief indication of their content and providing an access to the 
main elements of the documents.  Therefore, the CRN did not contain an exhaustive description of the full contents of every notification recorded.   
 
- The fact that there were only two staff memb ers for the operation of the CRN would seem to 
indicate that the system was highly mechaniz ed and automated.  However, as had been 
indicated in the presentation, most of the work involved in the recording and preparation of 
notifications happened outside the CRN, namely in the relevant divisions and afterwards in 
Documents Control Section, which was in charge of translation, editing and production.     
 
135. The representative of the International Bureau of WIPO
 gave the following responses:   
- The Lisbon Agreement had been negotiated in  the 1950s, had been adopted in 1958 and had 
entered into force in 1966.   
 - Any country party to the Paris Convention coul d voluntarily decide to accede to the Lisbon 
Agreement.   
 - There was no dispute settlement system under the Lisbon Agreement nor any obligation to 
enter into bilateral negotiations. 
 
- Any member country had the right to refuse an appellation registered under Lisbon within a 
period of one year after receipt of the notifi cation of the registration, on any ground that 
existed under its law at that time.  After that  time-limit, Article 6 of the Lisbon Agreement 
would prevent it from invoking as a ground for invalidation that the appellation had subsequently become generic, unless it was no lo nger protected in its country of origin.  
However, this did not mean that the Lisbon Agreement precluded that the effects of an 
international registration could be invalidated subsequently in a member country.  Any such 
invalidation could be recorded in the Interna tional Register if it was no longer subject to 
appeal in the country concerned as provided un der Rule 16 of the Lisbon Regulations.  The 
effects of an international registration mi ght, for example, be invalidated if it was 
subsequently found that prior trademark rights had already existed in the country concerned, 
or that the name had already become generic befo re the date of the international registration in 
question. 
 - As had been shown in the presentation, the Li sbon system was a notification and registration 
one.  Was it simple to manage?  So far, only 854 registrations had been made, most of them in 
the first year.  Since then, little had happened  under the Lisbon system, even on the occasion 
of new accessions.  In this connection, it might  be noted that there seemed to be a growing 
interest in the Lisbon system.  The fact that there was an infrastructure in WIPO for other 
systems certainly helped in managing the Lisbon system.   
 - The examples given at the end of the presentati on showed that the principle of territoriality, 
which applied under international IP law in general, was applied under Lisbon as well.  The 
Lisbon and Madrid systems had been designed to facilitate protection at the international level 
of appellations of origin, trad emarks as well as collective, guarantee and certification marks, 
both in terms of costs for applicants and holde rs and in terms of procedural aspects.   TN/IP/M/12 
Page 26  
 
  
- There was no obligation to notify appellations  under Lisbon.  It was up to each member 
country, or beneficiaries of protection in it, to initiate the necessary procedures.   
 - The procedures under which WIPO checked applications as received under Lisbon on 
formalities could result in a communication to th e country of origin of irregularities. If these 
irregularities were not corrected, the formal requirements under Lisbon would not be met and 
the application in question would have to be rejected.  
 -  As a matter of comparison, under the Madrid  system for the international registration of 
marks, about 29,000 applications had been received last year.  Examination of such 
applications by the International Bureau of WIPO usually took a couple of weeks. 
 - There was a procedure under Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention – and the corresponding 
TRIPS provisions - that provided for the communication to member States, through the 
intermediary of the International Bureau of WI PO, of lists of "emblems", etc.  Under this 
procedure, the International Bureau functione d as the intermediary for the communication of 
these lists;  it did not register them.  The proce dure had been established for the application of 
the provisions of Article 6 ter, which required States party to the Paris Convention to take the 
necessary action against the registration and use as trademarks of armorial bearings, flags, other emblems, official signs and hallmarks  indicating control and warranty adopted by 
member States or intergovernmental organizations.  
 - An appellation of origin registered under the Lisbon system would be protected against any 
usurpation or imitation of the a ppellation in all member States that had not recorded a refusal 
or in which the effects of the internati onal registration had not been invalidated. 
 
- Registration of appellations of origin did not en tail legal effects in countries that were not 
parties to the Lisbon Agreement. 
 - As far as the registration pro cedures under Lisbon were concerned,  there were two fees:  one, 
of SwF 500 for the registration, and the other, of SwF 200, for modifications. 
 
- Not all member countries had notified appellati ons of origin.  There were seven member 
countries that had never notifie d any appellation under Lisbon.  
 - With regard to the Madrid system, the numbe r of developing and least developed countries 
could be broken down as follows:  nine in Asia a nd the Pacific;  two in Latin America and the 
Caribbean;  12 in Africa.  In addition, all Ce ntral European countries and Baltic States as well 
as all Caucasian, Central Asian and Eastern Eu ropean countries were party to the Madrid 
system.  Developing and least developed c ountry members of the Lisbon Union were:  
Algeria, Burkina Faso, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba , Democratic People's Rep. of Korea, Gabon, 
Haiti, Israel, Mexico, Peru, Togo and Tunisia.   
 
- The "Lisbon Express" was a freely available da tabase on the WIPO website which contained 
data registered under Lisbon, such as those rega rding the holders of the registration or the 
right to use the appellation, or the names of th e countries that had refused the registration of a 
notified appellation of origin.   
 
136. The representative of Argentina
 said that the question posed by the representative of the 
European Communities as well as the reply by the International Bureau as to whether the Lisbon 
system facilitated protection or not were irrele vant to the subject-matter under negotiation in the 
Special Session.  Whether or not a registration syst em facilitated protection and entailed legal effects  TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 27 
 
 
 depended upon the substantive provisions contained in  the treaty establishing that system.  The Lisbon 
system's negotiating history and its particular  substantive and formal provisions could not 
automatically be assimilated to justify a claim that under Article 23.4 of TRIPS "to facilitate" would 
mean having a system equal to, or higher than, Lisbon. 
137. The Chairman  thanked the representatives of the WTO Secretariat and the International 
Bureau of WIPO for their presentati ons and responses to the questions. 
Resumption of discussion  
138. The Chairman  asked whether delegations wished to make additional comments, including in 
light of the presentations and of any consultations  they might have held after the morning session. 
139.  The representative of Australia  said that her delegation had thought it would be useful to 
have a presentation on the CRN simply to clarify its technical understanding of some of the issues at 
hand.  Members would now be familiar with pa ragraph 4 of the draft decision contained in 
TN/IP/W/10, which proposed the registration of geog raphical indications on a database and set forth 
certain ideas on what might be contained in that  database.  After having listened to previous 
interventions as well as the presentations and the ques tions and replies, her delegation was of the view 
that the existing WTO system offered a platform in  which the ideas put forward by the co-sponsors of 
the draft decision could fit.  Notification obligati ons did exist in WTO agreements.  She pointed out 
that the co-sponsors had not proposed that the administering body be the CRN.  
140. With regard to the discussion regarding the Li sbon Agreement, she said that some questions 
posed were not relevant to the ongoing negotiations in the Special Session.  The discussion showed 
that the system proposed by the demandeurs was replicating in many ways the Lisbon system, and 
that in other ways was going far beyond that sy stem and would constitute  a "Lisbon plus".  Her 
delegation strongly questioned what the utility was of replicating within the WTO system a treaty 
which had only 23 members and even of going beyond it.   
141. The representative of the European Communities  said that there were clear differences 
between the WIPO systems and the one that was be ing negotiated at the WTO that would justify the 
different approach adopted by hi s delegation.  Unlike the global protection systems under the auspices 
of WIPO, the negotiations in the Special Session we re based on a provision that was specific to the  
TRIPS Agreement, which was legally binding on all WTO Members.   
142. The representative of New Zealand  said that the Lisbon system seemed less onerous than the 
system proposed by the European Communities in th at it was voluntary, did not provide for bilateral 
negotiations or a dispute settlement mechanism.  Th at being said, she admitted that the Lisbon system 
was closer to the EC proposal than the one tabled  by New Zealand and other Members.  The low take-
up of the Lisbon Agreement was in fact the best in dication of the low attractiveness of the system.  
The benefits resulting from the Lisbon system were  highly concentrated on a few countries.  Two 
thirds of the registrations actually  related to appellations of origin s in France and 95 per cent of them 
related to six EU member States.   The system proposed by the EC placed the burdens and costs of 
running the system on governments.  This was probabl y reflective of the fact that, in the European 
Communities and other Members who supported th e EC proposal, governments did play a more 
central role.   
143. The representative of Canada  said that, thanks to the presentations and the ensuing discussion, 
his delegation was able to better understand how the Lisbon Agreement functioned.  It also realized 
that in fact the system proposed by the Europ ean Communities was going further that the Lisbon 
system.  The Lisbon Agreement did not provide for:   any obligation for participating members to 
notify appellations of origin if they chose not to do so;  any legal effects on those WIPO member TN/IP/M/12 
Page 28  
 
 States that had chosen not to participate in th e system;  or any dispute settlement system or 
compulsory bilateral negotiations.   
144. The representative of Switzerland
 said that there should be no confusion between the situation 
in the WTO and the one in WIPO.  The obliga tion for WTO Members to commit themselves to 
negotiate a notification and registration system for geographical indications was enshrined in 
Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and this wa s binding upon the entire WTO membership.  In 
contrast, there was no such equivalent provision in the WIPO Convention:  WIPO Members might 
choose to accede or not to the various conventions placed under the umbrella of the WIPO Convention, such as the Lisbon Agreement. 
145. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the system his delegation was 
proposing might actually be closer to the Madrid system, whereby the effect of an international 
application was to require each of the Madrid me mbers to protect the trademark in accordance with 
the national or regional law unless it had lodged a refusal  to protect within a certain period.  However, 
the Lisbon Agreement also specified the substantiv e protection that must flow from international 
registrations rather than leaving this entirely to national legislation.  The purpose of the EC proposal 
was not to create new obligations but to facilitate compliance with the obligations already accepted by 
all Members under the TRIPS Agreement.  
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
146. The Chairman  said that the TNC Chair had called, at the meeting of 14 February, for 
"appropriate positive elements in each negotiating area"  to be available to the TNC by July 2005 and 
had also referred to "first approximations" from the negotiating groups by that time, while making it 
clear that the nature of the first approximations might differ between areas.  He also recalled the 
statement he had made at that TNC meeting that it would be necessary for delegations to show greater flexibility than had been the case h itherto if the Special Session was to make a contribution to the 
"first approximations".  In the light of these point s and of the fact that there was only one meeting 
scheduled before the July marker, that was on 16-17 June 2005, he asked delegations for their 
suggestion on how to proceed further with the work.   
147. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, in view of the June meeting, one 
way would be to use document JOB(03)/75 submitted by the former Chairman of the Special Session 
in April 2003 as a basis for furthe r work with some modifications to take into account the proposal 
made by Hong Kong, China (TN/IP/W/8).  He furt her suggested that delegations meet in smaller 
settings, possibly with the participation of the Chairman.  
148. The representative of Australia , supported by the representative of Argentina  and the 
United States , recalled her delegation's r eservations concerning document JOB(05)/75.  She further 
expressed concerns that that document did not reflect  the recent proposal tabled by Australia and other 
Members and on which a number of responses had been made.  Document TN/IP/W/10 should therefore be the basis for further work.  
149. The Chairman
 said that the text of the sort presented in document TN/IP/W/10 was very 
useful in clarifying delegations' positions as had b een shown by the discussion.  Although he had not 
detected any flexibility on matters of substan ce, he saw that delegations were prepared to  step up the 
intensity of work with a view to preparing at th e June meeting an appropriate input for the TNC by 
July.  
150. The representative of the European Communities  said that there was little time left before the 
time line of July 2005 and recalled his delegation's view that TN/IP/W/10 was not an acceptable basis 
for future work.    TN/IP/M/12 
 Page 29 
 
 
 151. The representative of the United States  said that delegations which had problems with 
TN/IP/W/10 should explain the problems and come forward with new proposals instead of simply 
saying that it was unacceptable.  She expressed the hope that TN/IP/W/10 would stimulate other 
delegations and their constituenci es to identify precisely what was acceptable as a way forward with 
regard to substance. 
152. The representative of Switzerland  said that JOB(03)/75 should be updated and be used as a 
basis for further work.  
153. The Chairman  said that he would undertake consultations  on how to proceed further with the 
work, prior to the next meeting of the Special Sessi on, scheduled to be held on 16-17 June 2005.    
154. It was so agreed . 
___________