WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/IP/20 
22 March 2010 
 
 (10-1509) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects  
of Intellectual Property Rights Special Session  
 
  
MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS 
 
Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Darlington Mwape (Zambia) to the Trade Negotiations 
Committee for the purpose of the TNC stocktaking exercise  
 
 
1. This report on the negotiations on the establis hment of a multilateral system of notification 
and registration ("Register") of geographical indi cations (GIs) for wines and spirits is submitted on 
my own responsibility and is without prejudice to th e positions of delegations and to the outcome of 
the negotiations. 
I. STATUS OF WORK 
2. On 4 March 2010, the 25th formal meeting of the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS 
confirmed my appointment as Chairman in replacement  of Ambassador C. Trevor Clarke (Barbados), 
who had relinquished his post at the end of Nove mber 2009.  From 8 December 2009 to the date of 
my appointment, Ambassador Karen Tan (Singapore) chaired the Special Session on a pro tempore  
basis. 
3. Since taking up his post on 29 October 2008, Amba ssador Trevor Clarke had, at the request 
of Members, intensified the work of the Special  Session, culminating in a report to the Trade 
Negotiations Committee (TNC) in document TN/IP/19,  dated 25 November 2009 (for more details, 
see Annex 1  to this report).  This report also refe rs, for certain aspects such as notification and 
registration, to a report made by his predecesso r, Ambassador Manzoor Ahmad (Pakistan) in 
document TN/IP/18, dated 9 June 2008 (see Annex 2  to this report).  Ambassador Karen Tan gave an 
oral report of the informal consultati ons she had held in the interim period.1 
4. At my first formal meeting of 4 March 2010, I made it clear at the out set that the specific 
negotiating mandate of the Special Session was limite d to the negotiations of a Register of GIs for 
wines and spirits, and that other TRIPS-related issues  were being handled in another context and at a 
different level.  I said at that meeting that, while I may not be able to prevent delegations from making 
linkages, my task as Chair will be to remind Memb ers of the limited mandate of the Special Session. 
5. The three main proposals that have  been discussed remain on the table.2 
                                                      
1 To be reflected in the minutes of the 4 Ma rch formal meeting.  In the meantime, see 
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e /news10_e/trip_04mar10_e.htm. 
2 Document TN/IP/W/8, tabled in April 2003, contains the proposal by Hong Kong, China.  Document 
TN/IP/W/10, tabled in March 2005, contains the "joint proposal" and has been revised to reflect additional 
co-sponsors.  The list of Members currently co-sponsoring TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2, dated 24 July 2008, is as follows:  Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Japan,  Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua,  Paraguay, South Africa, Chinese Taipei 
and the United States ("Joint Proposal Group").  Document TN/C/W/52, dated 19 July 2008, and its TN/IP/20 
Page 2  
 
6. Tough, but useful technical discussions have ta ken place in the past years, more recently 
under Ambassador Clarke's chairmanship, around the thr ee clusters of issues identified in the reports 
of my predecessors, i.e.: 
 (1) legal effects/consequences of regi stration and particip ation, where profound 
differences remain; 
 
 (2) notification and registration, where a fair amount of technical work has been done, 
but where further work is clearly required as positions on these matters are linked to the resolution of the two key issues in cluster 1 above;  and 
 
 (3) other issues, such as fees, costs, admini strative and other burdens, in particular for 
developing countries and least-developed countries, and special and differential treatment, which have been less fully discussed. 
 7. In order to focus discussion on these clusters, a nd to provide a structure for discussions that 
went beyond having delegations simply expr essing positions on their contrasting proposals, 
Ambassador Clarke circulated a list of four questions on 2 October 2009: 
(i) What legal obligations would be acceptable for the Register to facilitate the protection 
of geographical indications for wines and spirits, as mandated by Article 23.4 of the 
TRIPS Agreement? 
(ii) When making decisions regarding the re gistration and protection of trademarks and 
geographical indications, what significan ce and weight should national authorities 
give to the information on the Register? 
(iii) Are there any options regarding particip ation, other than voluntary and mandatory 
participation?  If so, what criteria could be envisaged? 
 (iv) What form could special and differential treatment take with regard to the Register? 
8. I understand that delegations had excellent discussi ons on the basis of this list of questions.  
While this discussion did not fill the main gaps , it certainly succeeded in  focusing Members' 
discussions on the critical issues.  It is my impressi on that thanks to the clarifications, case studies and 
presentations put forward by delegations in res ponse to these questions, there is now much more 
technical information on record regarding the opera tion and implementation of different proposals in 
the national legal systems of Members.  This  kind of technical discussion probably gave 
Ambassador Clarke some material to make sugg estions on the way forward, including five guiding 
principles for future work in paragraph 16 of TN/IP/19.  The five "guiding principles" are: 
 (i) The purpose of the Register is to facilitate, not to increase, the protection of GIs for 
wines and spirits. 
 (ii) The Register should be useful a nd meaningful to both notifying Members and 
consulting Members. 
                                                                                                                                                                    
 
Addenda 1-3 contains a proposal for "Draft Modalities fo r TRIPS Related Issues", co-sponsored by Albania, 
Brazil, China, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, the European Communities, Georgia, Icelan d, India, Indonesia, the 
Kyrgyz Republic, Liechtenstein, Moldova, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Pakistan, Peru, 
Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the ACP Group and the African Group.  Under the sub-heading "GI-Register:  draft Modality text", paras. 1-3 of document TN/C/W/52 specifically address the issues relating 
to the Register of geographical indications for wines and spirits.  Para. 9 of TN/C/W/52 refers to special and 
differential treatment. TN/IP/20 
Page 3 
 
 
 (iii) The territorial nature of intellectual property rights should be preserved. 
 (iv) The Register should not impose undue financial and administrative burdens on 
Members. 
 (v) Special and differential treatment s hould be precise, effective and operational. 
 
9. My understanding is that TN/IP/19 has been we ll received by Members as a fair and balanced 
reflection of the work undertaken, and of the current status of issues.  On the way forward, there may 
be some nuanced views on Ambassador Clarke's asse ssment of the main remaining challenges, e.g. on 
participation (should it be voluntary, mandatory or c onditional?).  On the most difficult issue of legal 
effects/consequences of registration, thanks to th e willingness of delegations to give down-to-earth 
clarifications and descriptions of how a proposal  could in practice be implemented in domestic 
systems – the so-called "realities" - my predecessor felt "that negotiating efforts could find an acceptable formulation for an obligation capturing  the realities highlighted by Members regarding 
how domestic authorities would treat information they have derived from a consultation of the 
Register, and that further negotiations are require d to determine guidelines for such an obligation". 
10. In respect of the guiding principles in paragraph 16 of TN/IP/19, I am fully aware of 
delegations' positions.  All delegati ons agree that they are a useful tool for our work, but some think 
that they should not serve as th e basis for negotiations, nor as an excuse to continue rhetoric debates 
on well-known concepts such as "multilateral", or "to facilitate". 
II. FUTURE WORK 
11. With all this in mind, I suggested at my first formal meeting that we build on what has been 
undertaken instead of reinventing the wheel.  I w ould, therefore, suggest the "3-4-5" approach, 
namely: 
 (a) we continue to structure our work around the three clusters
 identified by my 
predecessors; 
 
 (b) while doing that, we continue to u se Trevor Clarke's list of four questions  on legal 
effects, participation and special and differential treatment; 
  (c) while discussing each issue, we should try to see how our concerns could be 
reconciled: 
 
  - in the light of continuing explanations as to how Members would actually 
 implement different options within their national systems, 
   - and bearing in mind the five guiding principles
 in TN/IP/19, without 
 negotiating on those principles as such and recognizing that delegations may 
 have some reservations on certain aspects of the principles. 
 12. Regarding paragraph 11(b) above, I do not ex clude the possibility to put forward more 
questions as we progress in the discussions in orde r to keep the negotiations on the right track. 
13. My impression from my first formal meeting is that the issues of legal effects/consequences 
of registration and participation are the stumbling block and that their resolution, in particular 
regarding legal effects/consequences of registration,  will help progress in the other areas, including 
special and differential treatment.  It is my sense th at there is a genuine desire to further progress in 
the negotiations, which is illustrated by some delega tions continuing to give useful clarifications and 
examples of how the implementation of the propo sals on the table would be implemented at their TN/IP/20 
Page 4  
 
domestic level, and others expressing willingness to ma ke similar contributions or further supplement 
them. 
14. On the whole, the difficulty we are facing is a lack of convergence on a single textual basis 
for negotiations, which reflects both the differences in  Members' positions and th e different nature of 
the proposals on the table.
3  Therefore, the "3-4-5" approach  should help progress work towards one 
text on the basis of which all Members can agree to continue the negotiations.  I believe that such a 
text is possible, and that exploring the flexibiliti es that already exist or could be envisaged in 
Members' national systems is one important step to wards that objective.  One possibility would be to 
construct at a certain point in time – strictly in pace with the overall process – a text from elements emerging from the delegations themselves. 
15. Technical work should focus on the substantive i ssues, including in particular the question of 
the implications of a register entry, while using and building on the foundation established by 
Ambassador Clarke's work.  There could be more  exchange of technical information about how 
national trademark and GI authorities presently opera te and how their operation would be affected by 
different proposed ways of "taking accoun t" of the information on the register. 
16. A formal meeting of the Special Session has been tentatively scheduled for 10 June 2010.  I 
do not, however, exclude consultations and meetings in various formats be fore that time in pace with 
the overall process. 
 
                                                     
 
3 While two proposals, TN/IP/W/8 by Hong Kong, Ch ina and TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2 by the Joint Proposal 
Group are in legal text form, the text in TN/C/W/52 is a modalities proposal. TN/IP/20 
Page 5 
 
 
ANNEX 1 
 
 WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/IP/19 
25 November 2009 
 (09-5943) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects  
of Intellectual Property Rights Special Session  
 
 
 
MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS 
 
Report by the Chairman, Ambassador  C. Trevor Clarke (Barbados)
 
 
 
1. This report on the negotiations on the establis hment of a multilateral system of notification 
and registration ("Register") of geographical indica tions for wines and spirits is submitted on my own 
responsibility and is without prejudice to the position  of any delegation and to the outcome of the 
negotiations. 
2. On 29 October 2008, the twentieth formal meeting of the Special Session of the Council for 
TRIPS confirmed my appointment as Chairman in  replacement of Ambassador Manzoor Ahmad 
(Pakistan), who had relinquished his post at the end of July 2008.  The report made by my predecessor 
in document TN/IP/18, dated 9 June 2008, remains va lid in many respects.  This new report focuses 
on the work done since I have taken up my task as Chairman of the Special Session.   
PART A – WORK UNDERTAKEN 
 
3. As reported on previous occasions, three formal proposals have been tabled.  Document 
TN/IP/W/8, tabled in April 2003, contains the proposal by Hong Kong, China and remains unchanged.  Document TN/IP/W/10, tabled in March 2005, contains the "joint proposal" and has been 
revised to reflect additional co-sponsors.  The list of Members currently co-sponsoring 
TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2, dated 24 July 2008, is as fo llows:  Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, 
Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Paraguay, South Africa, Chinese Taipei and the United States ("Joint Proposal Group").  Document TN/C/W/52, dated 19 July 2008, and its A ddenda 1-3 contains a 
proposal for "Draft Modalities for TRIPS Related Issu es", co-sponsored by Albania, Brazil, China, 
Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, the European Communiti es, Georgia, Iceland, India, Indonesia, the 
Kyrgyz Republic, Liechtenstein, Moldova, the Fo rmer Yugoslav Republic of  Macedonia, Pakistan, 
Peru, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the ACP Group and the African Group.  Under the 
sub-heading "GI-Register:  draft Modality text", paragraphs 1-3 of document TN/C/W/52 specifically 
address the issues relating to the Register of geographical indications for wines and spirits.  
Paragraph 9 of TN/C/W/52 refers to  special and differential treatment. 
4. At the meeting of 29 October 2008 Members called for an "intensification of work" of the 
Special Session.  Following that session I held a seri es of informal meetings and consultations in 
various formats during which useful clarifications  were made, in particular by the European 
Communities in respect of its earlier proposals.  At an open-ended in formal consultation on TN/IP/20 
Page 6  
 
1 December 2008 the European Communities circul ated a statement that paragraphs 1-3 of 
document TN/C/W/52 superseded all previous EC proposals, i.e. TN/IP/W/11 of 2005 and the 
so-called "new thinking" of November 2007.  On 4 December, several Member s of the Joint Proposal 
Group circulated a list containing 64 questions  to the European Communities and the other 
co-sponsors of TN/C/W/52.  Singapore also circulated  a list of questions.  At an informal meeting on 
4 and 5 December, as well as at the formal mee ting on 5 March 2009, there were intensive exchanges 
of questions and replies on the basis of the questions posed.
1  Speaking on behalf of the proponents of 
TN/C/W/52, the European Communities grouped its an swers into the three cat egories identified by 
my predecessor in his report in document TN/IP/18, namely:   
(a) the two key issues of consequences/legal effects of registration and participation 
where fundamental differences remain; 
(b) issues of notification and registration;  and 
(c) issues such as fees, costs and administrative burdens, in particular  for developing and 
least-developed country Members, and special and differential treatment. 
5. In 2009 I held four formal meetings, on 5 March, 10 June, 23 (con tinued on 28) October2, and 
27 November.  Between those formal meetings, I he ld informal consultations, including open-ended 
meetings for transparency purposes.  At the Marc h and June meetings, discussions were structured 
around the three categories or clusters of issues men tioned above in paragraph 4.  In order to move 
from a repetition of positions and proposals to a discussion on the substantive issues and negotiations, 
I suggested that delegations focus on a list of four questions that I posed on my own responsibility.  
The four questions are:  
(i) What legal obligations would be acceptable for the Register to facilitate the protection 
of geographical indications for wines and spirits, as mandated by Article 23.4 of the 
TRIPS Agreement? 
(ii) When making decisions regarding the re gistration and protection of trademarks and 
geographical indications, what significan ce and weight should national authorities 
give to the information on the Register? 
(iii) Are there any options regarding particip ation, other than voluntary and mandatory 
participation?  If so, what criteria could be envisaged? 
(iv) What form could special and differential treatment take with regard to the Register? 
6. In my view the substantive discussions on the b asis of this list of questions were extremely 
useful in focusing Members' interventions on subs tantive questions, particularly in the areas of  
participation and consequences/legal effects of registration.  Severa l delegations usefully explained 
what the implementation of the Register proposals would entail in their current domestic systems.  The point has been made that the issue of particip ation is linked to the con sequences/legal effects of 
registration. 
7. This report does not describe the range of views that have been expressed on issues of linkage 
between work in the Special Session and work on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and 
the Convention on Biological Diversity and on GI ex tension, including in regard to the coverage of 
the Register and in regard to procedural para llelism between these three TRIPS issues.  This is 
                                                     
 
1 A record of the exchanges at the meeting on 5 March 2009 can be found in document TN/IP/M/21 of 
28 May 2009. 
2 A record of the exchanges at the meetings on 10 June and 23 and 28 October 2009 can be found in 
documents TN/IP/M/22 and TN/IP/M/23, respectively. TN/IP/20 
Page 7 
 
 
because the issues of GI extension and TRIPS/CBD relate to matters whic h go beyond the mandate of 
the Special Session, including its limitation to GIs for wines and spirits.  I repeatedly made the point that the mandate of the TRIPS Special Session is limited in that way.  
PART B – STATUS OF ISSUES 
 
8. The three proposals by Members currently on the table are the proposal by Hong Kong, 
China, the joint proposal and the proposal on modalities.
3  With respect to the status of issues, the 
work undertaken since my predecessor's report has continued to be structured around the three 
categories of elements he had identified.  
(a) Consequences/Legal Effects of Registration and Participation 
With respect to the first category, the issues of  consequences/legal eff ects of registration and 
participation remain the central questions of this negotiation where fundamental differences 
of view continue to exist among Members.  The detailed discussion of the new position in 
paragraphs 1-3 of TN/C/W/52 as a modalities propos al vis-à-vis the two proposed legal texts 
in TN/IP/W/8 and TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2, as well as Members' responses to questions (i)-(iii) of 
my list of questions, have further deepened the understanding of where these differences lie.  
With respect to the consequences/legal effects of  registration, in my view there seems to be 
scope for convergence on the expectation that consulting the information on the Register 
would include taking that information into  account "when making decisions regarding 
registration and protection of tradem arks and geographical indications"4 in the relevant 
domestic procedures.  Differences remain as to  what significance and weight should be given 
to the information on the Register.  With r espect to participation, while Members have 
discussed different ideas in this regard, Members' views remain unchanged.  
(b) Notification and Registration 
With respect to the second category, the issues of  notification and registration, a considerable 
amount of detailed work has been done in the p ast.  The assessment of points of convergence 
and divergence on these issues re flected in TN/IP/18, in par ticular paragraphs 4 and 12–20, 
remains valid.  
(c) Other Issues 
With respect to the third category, the issues of fees, costs and administrative burdens, in 
particular for developing and least-developed c ountry Members, and special and differential 
treatment depend substantially on the key polic y choices to be made, in particular on the 
questions of participation and consequences/legal effects.   
Of those issues, Members discussed special and differential treatment in response to 
question (iv) of my list.  Some developing country Members emphasized the need for special and differential treatment and mentioned tr ansitional periods and registration fees as 
examples. Members held on to their long-sta nding positions, namely on the one hand, that 
special and differential treatment was embodied  in the proposed voluntary nature of the 
Register and, on the other hand, that devisi ng rules on special and differential treatment 
would best be left for discussions at a later st age after the main elements of the Register had 
been agreed.  
                                                     
 
3 The texts of the three proposals can be found in documents TN/IP/W/8, TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2 and in 
paragraphs 1-3 of TN/C/W/52, respectively. 
4 This text appears both in TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2, paragraph 5 and in TN/C/W/52, paragraph 2. TN/IP/20 
Page 8  
 
PART C – THE WAY FORWARD 
 
9. The mandate for the negotiations on the sy stem of notification and registration of 
geographical indications for wines and spirits is contained in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement 
and the first sentence of paragraph 18 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  Article 23.4 provides as 
follows: 
"In order to facilitate the protection of  geographical indications for wines, 
negotiations shall be undertaken in the Council for TRIPS concerning the 
establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines eligible for protection in those Members participating in the 
system." 
The first sentence of paragraph 18 of the Doha Mini sterial Declaration indicates that the negotiations 
on the Register are not limited to GIs for wi nes, but also extend to GIs for spirits. 
10. Several Members have called for a greater focus on the mandate.  I therefore revisit the two 
crucial issues of participation and consequences/legal effects of regist ration in light of the mandate to 
further examine the elements thereof that give rise to the different positions in critical areas of the 
negotiations.  The purpose of this examination is to make suggestions which may be capable of 
moving the negotiations forward when Members feel the time is right. 
Participation 
 
11. With respect to the issue of whether participation in the system should be voluntary or 
mandatory, some Members interpret th e reference in the mandate to " a multilateral system " to mean 
that the system should apply to all Member s.  Other Members in terpret the words " those Members 
participating in the system " to mean that not all Members are expected to participate. 
12. There are several areas of WTO negotiations where some Members are excluded from certain 
obligations for a variety of reasons.  It is th erefore my view that the use of the words " a multilateral 
system " does not necessarily mean that participation must be mandatory for all Members.  It is also 
my view that the formulation " those Members participating in the system " does not necessarily mean 
that participation must be voluntary.  Against this background, I would encourage Members to 
continue searching for an acceptable solution that would determine a participation of Members in the 
Register that renders it a useful and meaningful t ool in line with its purpose to facilitate protection.
  If 
the system of notification and registration is to have some meaning and significance, as Members 
seem to accept, then I would propose that some crit eria or some other approach be determined to 
identify Members for participation. 
Consequences/Legal Effects of Registration 
 
13. With respect to the consequences/legal effects of  registration, all Members seem to accept an 
obligation to consult the informati on on the Register.  Members also seem to be willing to take the 
information on the Register into account "whe n making decisions regarding registration and 
protection of trademarks and geographical indications"5 under their national procedures.  However, 
views differ significantly as to how such informa tion should be taken into account, what weight and 
significance should be given to it, and whether there should be a specific legal obligation to take the 
information into account.  While some Members are of  the view that the mere obligation to consult 
the Register is not enough to ensure meaningful fac ilitation of protection of wine and spirit GIs, others 
are concerned about extra-territorial effects of GI protection. 
                                                      
5 This text appears both in TN/IP/W/10/Rev.2, paragraph 5 and in TN/C/W/52, paragraph 2. TN/IP/20 
Page 9 
 
 
14. A number of Members have explained how the proposals on the table would technically be 
implemented in their domestic legal systems.  In the course of these explanations, some Members 
have indicated that implementing an obligation to  consult the Register in their domestic systems 
would in fact ensure at the same time that the information was duly taken in to account and given the 
appropriate weight in their domestic procedures.  Other Members have expressed the view that it 
would be necessary to agree minimum guidelines as to how the information in the Register would be 
taken into account and what weight would be appropriate. 
15. In light of the above, I feel that negotiating e fforts could find an acceptable formulation for an 
obligation capturing the realities highlighted by Members regarding how domestic authorities would 
treat information they have derived from a consulta tion of the Register, and that further negotiations 
are required to determine guidelines for such an obligation. 
Guiding Principles for Future Work 
16. In order to advance these negotiations, I sugg est that some broad acceptance of "Guiding 
Principles" would be helpful.  Building on the cont ributions of various Members, I therefore propose 
that future work should be guided by the following principles, it being understood that this is without 
prejudice to the position of any delegation and to the outcome of the negotiations: 
(i)  The purpose of the Register is to facilitate, not to increase, the protection of GIs for wines 
and spirits. 
 
The establishment of the Register is intended to facilitate, rather than to increase, the level 
of substantive protection, which exists under the TRIPS Agreement.  At the same time, it 
seems reasonable to expect that "facilitation" would make obtaining such protection easier.  
It is also clear that the Register is intended to facilitate protection of wine and spirit GIs, 
not only the examination process.  In my view, Members' negotiations should focus on the 
crucial question of what are acceptable means of facilitating achievement of the existing level of protection, while ensuring that the substantive level of protection remains the 
same.  
(ii) The Register should be useful and meaningful  to both notifying Members and consulting 
Members. 
 
The Register should be an accurate, reliable and authentic source of information.  The 
primary responsibility for providing such informa tion to the Register should rest with the 
notifying Member.  It should also be explored how the nature and quality of the information on the system may influence th e manner in which Members may take this 
information into account in their domestic legal systems. 
 
(iii) The territorial nature of intellectual property rights should be preserved. 
 
The territorial nature of intellectual property rights embodies the accepted view that 
intellectual property rights are valid only in the territory for which they have been 
established or granted.  While this concep t is not questioned by Members in these 
negotiations, the question is whether and under what circumstances Country A is prepared 
to give recognition to a protected GI from Count ry B, or recognize the facts that gave rise 
to such protection in Country B.  Such r ecognition of legal or factual elements from 
another jurisdiction is practised under vari ous international agreements and is the 
consequence of a sovereign decision by countries to do so. 
 TN/IP/20 
Page 10  
 
(iv) The Register should not impose undue financia l and administrative burdens on Members. 
 
 With respect to financial and administra tive burdens, Members seem to accept that some 
financial and administrative burden may be necessary to fulfil the mandate, but that it 
should as much as possible be proportionate to  the use and benefits of the Register.  
 
(v) Special and differential treatment should be precise, effective and operational. 
 
Special and differential treatment should be  provided through precise and effective 
provisions targeting developing and least-develope d countries, including those that wish to 
benefit from participating in the system. 
   TN/IP/20 
 Page 11 
 
 
  ANNEX 2 
 
 WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/IP/18 
9 June 2008 
 
 (08-2700) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights Special Session  
 
  
MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS 
 
Report by the Chairman
 
  1. This report on the negotiations on the establis hment of a multilateral system of notification 
and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits is submitted on my own 
responsibility and is without prejudice to the position  of any delegation and to the outcome of the 
negotiations. 
2. The mandate of the Special Session is set out in the first sentence of paragraph 18 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration, which reads as follows: 
"With a view to completing the work starte d in the Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights (Council for TRIPS) on the implementation of 
Article 23.4, we agree to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits by the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference." 
The mandate refers to the work already under way in the Council for TRIPS on the basis of  
Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, which provides that: 
 
"[i]n order to facilitate the protection of geographical indications for wines, negotiations shall be undertaken in the Council for TRIPS concerning the 
establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines eligible for protection in those Members participating in the 
system." 
In the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, Minister s took note of a progress report on the negotiations 
in the Special Session and agreed to intensify them  in order to complete them within the overall 
time-frame for the conclusion of the negotiations that were foreseen in the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration (WT/MIN(05)/DEC, paragraph 29). 
 
3. As reported on previous occasions, three formal proposals have been tabled.  Document 
TN/IP/W/12 sets out side by side the elements of th e three proposals tabled that, in the view of the 
proponents of each proposal, are relevant to the ma ndate of the Special Session:  Hong Kong, China's 
proposal, contained in Annex A of TN/IP/W/8;  th e Joint Proposal of Argentina, Australia, Canada, 
Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, TN/IP/20 
Page 12 
 
 
  New Zealand, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei and the United States ("Joint Proposal Group") in 
TN/IP/W/10 and Addenda 1, 2 and 3;  and the Eu ropean Communities' proposal, contained in the 
Annex set out in TN/IP/W/11.  More recently the European Communities has shared with the 
participants in the Special Session new thinking whic h it has presented as an effort to narrow the gap;  
the references to the position of the European Communities in this report are based on this new 
thinking.  A detailed compilation, prepared by the Secretariat, of the points raised and views 
expressed on the proposals can be found in docum ent TN/IP/W/12/Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1 of 
May 2007.1 
4. The elements of a registration system that have been considered in the work can be put into 
three categories: 
 (a) First, there are the two key issues of participation and the consequences/legal effects 
of registrations, where there continue to be  fundamental differences, even if there has 
been some movement in the past months.  In regard to these elements, I reproduce 
below the position of participants as re flected in the proposals submitted and 
discussions in the Special Session. 
 
 (b) There is a second category of elements on which a fair amount of detailed work has 
been done.  These are the areas of notification and registration.  While most of this work is not all that recent and further work is clearly required, in particular because 
positions on these matters are linked to the treatment of participation and 
consequences/legal effects, my tentative appreciation of the points of convergence 
and divergence can be found below. 
  (c) Third, there are a number of other elem ents which depend substantially on the key 
policy choices to be made, in particular on the questions of participation and 
consequences/legal effects, and which have thus been less fully discussed so far.  
These include such matters as:  fees, costs, and administrative burdens, particularly as 
they impact on developing and least deve loped country Members, and special and 
differential treatment; as well as the duration of registrations and procedures for their 
modification and withdrawal;  arrangements for review;  and contact points.  These 
are points that need further discussion. 
 
5. No agreement has yet been reached on the lega l form of the eventual outcome and on the 
institutional arrangements for its management and servi cing.  On the former question, the suggestions 
on the table include a TRIPS Council decision and th e addition of an annex to the TRIPS Agreement 
through an amendment to it.  On the latter questi on, delegations have not excluded the possibility of 
inviting the WIPO secretariat to play a role. 
6. There are different views on whether the work of  the Special Session should be addressed in 
the context of the modalities decision.   Some Members believe that the issue of the GI register should 
be part of the horizontal process in order to have modality texts that reflect Ministerial agreement on 
the key parameters for negotiating a final draft lega l text as part of the Single Undertaking.  Some 
other Members believe that no further guidance is necessary since the existing mandate is sufficiently 
clear and technical work can and should be pursue d intensively on this basis in order to fulfil the 
Doha mandate to which they remain committed. 
7. This report does not describe the range of views that have been expressed on issues of linkage 
between work in the Special Session and work on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and 
the Convention on Biological Diversity and on GI ex tension, including in regard to the coverage of 
                                                     
 
1 A record of the most recent expression of the pos itions and views of Members will be circulated in 
document TN/IP/M/19 (minutes of the Special Session's meeting of 29 April 2008).  TN/IP/20 
 Page 13 
 
 
  the GI register and in regard to procedural pa rallelism between these three TRIPS issues.  This is 
because the issues of GI extension and TRIPS/CBD relate to matters whic h go beyond the mandate of 
the Special Session, including its limitation to GIs for wines and spirits. 
Participation 
 8. The Joint Proposal  Group has proposed: 
"In accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement, participation 
in the System established by the Decision is strictly voluntary, and no Member shall be required to participate. 
In order to participate in the System, a Me mber shall make a written notification to 
the WTO Secretariat of its intention to participate." 
9. The European Communities has proposed: 
"In accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement, the system is 
multilateral, that is applicable to all WTO Members. 
Participating Members are Members above  a certain share in world trade." 
Under the EC approach, all WTO Members would be entitled to submit no tifications under the 
system.  10. Hong Kong, China has proposed: 
"Participation in the system is voluntary which means that: 
(a) Members should be free to participate and notify GIs protected in their 
territories. 
 (b) The obligation to give legal effect to  registrations under the system will only be 
binding upon Members choosing to participate in the system."
 
 
Hong Kong, China has also proposed that "the questi on of scope of participa tion should be revisited 
as part of the review" of the notification and regist ration system that it is proposing should be held 
"after [four] years from establishment of the system".  11. The range of positions taken in regard to whethe r and, if so, in what way registration should 
have consequences/legal effects in non-participating Members is describ ed in paragraphs 25-28 of this 
report. 
Notification 
 
12. On the notification by Members of GIs for inclusion in the register, earlier discussions 
indicated a fair measure of common ground on certain aspects, but significant remaining differences 
on some others.  With regard to the content of notifications, there seemed to be significant common 
ground among Members that the notifying Member would be required to: 
 (a) specify the name of the notifying Member; 
  (b) specify whether the good for which the geographical indication is used is a wine or a 
spirit; TN/IP/20 
Page 14 
 
 
   
 (c) identify the geographical indication as it appears on or is protected for the wine or 
spirit in the notifying Member's territory; 
 
 (d) where the geographical indication is in characters other than Latin characters, include 
a transliteration into Latin characters using the phonetics of the language in which the 
notification is made; 
  (e) specify the territory of the notifying Member, or the region or locality in that 
territory, from which the wine or spirit must originate in order to be eligible in that 
Member to be identified by the geographical indication; 
  (f) include, where available, the date on wh ich the geographical indication first received 
protection in the notifying Member and, if applicable, any date for the expiration of 
the protection currently accorded. 
 
On point (d) there were different views as to whethe r it should be specified that transliterations would 
be for information purposes only, and on point (f) whether the inclusion of the date of first protection 
should be obligatory or voluntary.  
13. There were different views on whether notifyi ng Members should be required to identify how 
the geographical indication is protected in the territory of the notifying Member including, as appropriate, the legal instrument that forms the ba sis of such protection;  or, as suggested in one 
proposal, as an optional alternative, by providi ng a statement executed under seal affirming the 
protection of the geographical indication in the notifying country.  It might also be noted that there 
were outstanding differences on whether or not th ere should be an explicit requirement that a 
notifying Member only notify GIs which, in its territory, meet the definition of a geographical indication specified in paragraph 1 of Article 22 of  the TRIPS Agreement and are protected and have 
not fallen into disuse. 
14. Significant differences also remain on the treatme nt of translations in notifications.  These 
include whether the notifying Member should provide  any available translation of the geographical 
indication into the language in which the notifi cation is made in cases where the language in which 
the geographical indication appears on the wine or sp irit in the notifying Member is not that language; 
whether the notifying Member should be expl icitly given the option of providing suggested 
translations of the geographical indication into ot her languages;  and whether, if provisions on these 
matters are included, it should be made clear th at this would be for information purposes only. 
15. Other points which remain to be settled are whether notifications: 
 (a) should, on a mandatory or voluntary basis, include information identifying the 
producers of the wine or spirit entitled to use the geographical indication in the notifying Member and/or the owner of  the geographical indication;  and 
  (b) may include other information that the no tifying Member considers may be useful in 
facilitating protection of the geographical indication, such as: 
 
 (i) details of the quality, reputation or  other characteristics of the wine or 
spirit essentially attributable to its geographical origin; 
 
 (ii) for information purposes only, any bilateral, regional and/or 
multilateral agreement under which the geographical indication is 
protected.  TN/IP/20 
 Page 15 
 
 
   
16. It is my impression that there is a large measure of common ground among Members 
regarding the following issues: 
 (a) the notification shall be made in an official WTO language; 
 
 (b) the notification, with the exception of the geographical indication itself, shall be 
translated by the administering body into the other official WTO languages; 
  (c) the notifications shall be made in a sta ndard format to be adopted by the Council for 
TRIPS prior to the entry into operation of th e system, which shall be such as to limit 
notifications, wherever possible, to no longer than two pages, not counting any 
attached or cross-referenced texts. 
 
Registration 
 
17. Regarding the issue of registration of geographi cal indications in the system it is my sense 
that there is significant common ground among Members on the following elements: 
 (a) following receipt of a notification of a geographical indication, the administering 
body shall register the notified geographical indication on the register of geographical 
indications for wines and spirits; 
 
 (b) the registration of the notified geographical  indication on the register shall consist of 
the recording on the register of the information provided in the notification;  and 
  (c) the administering body shall notify al l WTO Members of the registration of each 
notified geographical indication. 
 18. Members also seem to agree that the register  shall take the form of a searchable on-line 
database, available in the thr ee WTO languages and accessible free of charge to all WTO Members 
and the public, and that it sha ll provide a means of access to the original notification of each 
geographical indication as made by the notifying Member. 
19. Different views have been expressed on a pro posal that has been made for a formality 
examination of each notification by the administ ering body prior to its entry on the register. 
20. The view has been expressed that the appr opriateness of a system providing for the 
registration of geographical indications notifie d by Members without a prior opportunity for 
opposition or reservation by other Members in the light  of national examination by them of those GIs 
was dependent on the consequences/legal eff ects that such registration would have. 
Consequences/Legal Effects of Registrations 
 In participating Members 
 
21. The Joint Proposal Group has proposed: 
"Each Participating Member commits to ensure that its procedures include the 
provision to consult the Database when ma king decisions regarding registration and 
protection of trademarks and geographical  indications for wines and spirits in 
accordance with its domestic law." TN/IP/20 
Page 16 
 
 
  22. The European Communities has proposed: 
"Commitment to consult the Register wh en making decisions on registration and 
protection of trademarks and GIs in accordance with domestic law. 
Rebuttable presumptions that the notified GI: 
 (i) is a GI in accordance with the definition in Article 22.1  TRIPS; 
(ii) is not a generic (Article 24.6 TRIPS); (iii) does not falsely represent to th e public the true origin of the 
goods (Article 22.4 TRIPS)." 
23. Hong Kong, China has proposed: 
"Registration of an indication on the Register shall be admitted as prima facie 
evidence to prove: 
(a) ownership of the indication; (b) that the indication satisfies the definition in Article 22.1 of 
the TRIPS Agreement as a geographical indication;  and 
(c) that the indication is protected in the country of origin (i.e. 
Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement does not apply) 
in any domestic courts, tribunals or ad ministrative bodies of the Participating 
Members in any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings related to the 
geographical indication.  The issues will be deemed to have been proven unless evidence to the contrary is produced by  the other party to the proceedings." 
24. The position has also been taken that there shoul d be no national legal effects consequent on 
the registration of GIs in the register. 
In non-participating Members 
 
25. The Joint Proposal Group has proposed: 
"Members who choose not to participate are encouraged, but are not obliged, to 
consult the Database in making decisi ons under their domestic law involving 
registration or protection of trademarks and geographical indications for wines and 
spirits." 
26. The European Communities has proposed: 
"Commitment to consult the Register when  making decisions on the registration and 
protection of trademarks and GIs in accordance with domestic law." 
27. Under the Hong Kong, China proposal there w ould be no legal effects for non-participating 
countries.  TN/IP/20 
 Page 17 
 
 
  28. The following positions have also been taken: 
 - the legal effects proposed by the Eur opean Communities for participating Members 
should apply also in non-participating Members; 
 
 - there should be no national legal effects c onsequent on the registration of GIs in the 
register. 
 
__________