RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/IP/M/24 
25 March 2010 
 (10-1645) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights Special Session  
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 27 November 2009  
 
Chairman:  Ambassador C. Trevor Clarke (Barbados) 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF AGENDA  
1. The twenty-fourth Special Session agreed  to adopt the agenda as set out in WTO/AIR/3481. 
B. NEGOTIATION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION AND 
REGISTRATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS  
2. The Chairman  introduced the report contained in document TN/IP/19 that he had prepared on 
the work of the Special Session covering his period of Chairmanship from October 2008 to 
November 2009 and which had been issued on 25 No vember 2009.  He said that the report had been 
prepared on his own responsibility as Chair and wa s without prejudice to the positions of Members 
and to the final outcome of the negotiations.  Ha ving consulted with several  delegations during the 
drafting stages of the report, including in an open -ended informal meeting on 20 November, he had 
received many valuable comments, suggestions a nd some expressions of concern.  As he had 
foreshadowed at that meeting, not all of these co mments had been accommodated in the final text.  It 
was nonetheless his view that the language in the fi nal report was one which could help to stimulate 
ideas on how to advance the negotiations in line with the mandate.    
3. The report was divided into three parts:  Part A provided a brief factual summary of the work 
carried out since October 2008;  Part B provided a  brief status of the issues of (a) Consequences/Legal 
Effects of Registration and Participation;  (b) Notif ication and Registration;  and (c) Other Issues.  
Part C revisited the most critical areas of legal effects and participation in light of the mandate and 
identified those areas nearing convergence, and wher e he believed future possibilities for compromise 
may lie.  He said that after having reflected on the negotiations thus far, and building on the 
suggestions tabled in the Special Session, he had formulated five guiding principles in paragraph 16 
of the document which he hoped would guide future wo rk in these areas.  Principles 1 and 2 aimed to 
reflect the debate that while there was no intentio n to increase the level of substantive protection of 
geographical indications (GIs) for wines and spirits (GI register), it was nonetheless clear that the register should be a useful and meaningful tool to both notifying and consulting countries.  In his 
view, these two goalposts defined the zone within  which an acceptable solution for an obligation 
could be found.  Principle 3 confirmed the territo rial nature of intellectual property rights.  
Principles 4 and 5 addressed financial and admini strative burdens, and special and differential 
treatment, attempting to capture the status of discussions in this context. TN/IP/M/24 
Page 2  
 
  4. In his view, during the negotiations in the WTO, too much emphasis was often placed on 
today's words and too little emphasis on tomorrow's ideas.   With this in mind, he invited Members to 
comment on the report and to share their views on how the ideas contained in the report or any other suggestions could be used to advance their future work.    
5. The representative of the European Communities
1 said that his delegation had high 
expectations for this area of the negotiations which had now been going on for fifteen years and which 
were a fundamental part of any DDA deal.  The objective of the DDA was to  increase trade, in 
particular in agricultural commodities, and in that c ontext the very specific nature of GIs and the need 
to facilitate their protection became even more pr essing.  The European Communities, as part of a 
coalition of 108 Members, had made it clear that by the time of modalities, the three TRIPS-related 
issues, namely, the GI register, GI  extension (extension of Article 23 protection to products other than 
wines and spirits) and TRIPS/CBD (relationship be tween the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention 
on Biological Diversity), would have to be advanced  to a level of precision that would allow Members 
to have an exact understanding of the value of any d eal at the level of the Single Undertaking.  He 
recognized that this presented a challenge, as ther e were strongly held opp osing views which would 
have to be accommodated.  He thanked the Chair for his report, which he considered an important 
contribution that both captured and structured the key elements of the debate in an excellent manner, 
and defined some of the goal posts required for progress.  
6. He said that, as reflected in the report, the Eur opean Communities, together with the other co-
sponsors of communication TN/C/W/52, had given an in-depth oral explanation of their register 
proposal, which was the result of intense negotia tions and compromises achieved over many years 
and represented a balanced adjustment of its positi on on all the three TRIPS issues.  His delegation 
attached the utmost importance to taking into consideration the reservations of other Members regarding previous proposals and, by allowing for significant flexibilities on the register, had made an 
important contribution to achieving a proposal capable of drawing support across the board.  In his view, the report clearly captured the status of the issues at stake, and made some suggestions on how 
to advance the negotiations.  The report, just as the previous Chair's report had done, again identified 
the issues of participation and legal effects or consequences of registration as the core issues.  He said that there was widespread agreement that these gate way issues needed to be resolved if negotiations 
were to be brought to a successful conclusion.  That was why his delegation strongly believed that 
some ministerial guidance would be required at the time of modalities, at least on these issues, in order to move forward in the subsequent negotiati ons.  Without such a breakthrough, Members risked 
spending considerable time going over these key questions without any progress being made.  
7. The Chairman’s report also included some proposals that his delegation was willing to 
explore further, bearing in mind the Chair's comm ents that the register should be useful and 
meaningful.  His delegation considered that this  was an objective shared by all Members, and one 
which should guide their reasoning, and on which they  had undertaken to engage constructively in 
their discussions.  The issue of the legal effects or consequences of registration was pivotal.  The 
Chairman suggested in his report that their work  should focus on "an obligation capturing the realities 
highlighted by Members regarding how domestic aut horities would treat information" on the register.  
Furthermore, the Chairman considered that further negotiations were required to address the issue of 
guidelines for any such obligation.  The European  Communities wished to emphasize that for the 
register to be meaningful it should not merely be  limited to reflecting current practices of consulting 
information.  It should not be merely a database.  While a database could be informative, specific 
                                                     
 
1 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the Eu ropean Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community .  TN/IP/M/24 
 Page 3 
 
 
  guidelines on how Members should use the information on the register to facilitate the protection of 
GIs on their national territory would have to be agr eed.  Negotiations would have to dig deeper into 
this issue for Members to make progress.   
8. His delegation felt that the report identified the key issues and provided a helpful structure 
that paved the way for constructive further work on th e basis of its clear suggestions.  He wished to 
emphasize that his delegation had departed from th eir comfort zone many years ago, and had moved 
substantially from its initial position.  As in any negotiating process, his delegation would continue to 
show some flexibility in accommodating the views of  all Members in order to achieve a satisfactory 
outcome.  He said that the proposal on the table had strong support from two thirds of the Membership, which should carry some weight in  the discussions.  His delegation stood ready to 
contribute to the future work of the Special Session,  but believed that the key gateway issues had to be 
addressed at the time of modalities in order to ach ieve a successful outcome as part of the Single 
Undertaking.  Without any progress on the gateway issues, he said it would be very difficult to 
achieve a successful conclusion in the context of  the DDA negotiations.  He emphasized that this 
would create a serious problem for his delegation an d other Members of the alliance with regard to 
progress on the other TRIPS issues of TRIPS/CBD and GI extension.  In thanking the Chairman for 
his valuable work in this area, the representa tive of the European Communities commended him for 
the important contribution he had made to their di scussions in the meetings of the Special Session and 
for the excellent manner in which he had manage d the difficult and lengthy negotiating process.  
9. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 thanked the Chairman for his report and commended 
him on his openness and transparency in providing Members with this opportunity to discuss the 
report.  Her delegation believed that the guiding pr inciples for future work could provide a basis for 
future discussions and urged Members to exercise the utmost flexibility with a view to completing the 
outstanding work within the Doha timetable.  He r delegation would continue to perform a bridging 
role, wherever possible.  On the guiding princi ples for future work, her delegation shared the 
Chairman’s view that the register should not impose undue financial and administrative burden on 
Members.   
10. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation welcomed the Chairman's 
report which contained some interesting ideas and re flected a considerable amount of work.  Both, 
proponents and others, faced the challenge that th ese cross-cutting issues did not lend themselves to 
ready solutions that involved merely splitting the di fference.  Consequently, while his delegation still 
had concerns and questions about the scope and direction of some of what the Chairman had put 
forward, it accepted the Chair's intention as so mething that could be drawn upon as the work 
unfolded.  In thanking the Chairman for his leader ship, his delegation looked forward, despite the 
challenges ahead, to continuing these discussions with all the Members in the coming year. 
11. The representative of Australia  said that the Chairman had brought a sense of integrity and 
wisdom to his complicated work at the WTO and pa rticularly to the offices he had held in recent 
years.  His delegation welcomed the report in wh ich the Chair had sought to capture the essence of the 
negotiations thus far and had provided some views on the way forwar d.  He particularly welcomed the 
Chairman's clarification and confirmation that the purpose of the negotiations was to facilitate and not 
to increase protection, and the confirmation of the pr inciple of territoriality in intellectual property 
protection.  Australia would contin ue to engage in the TRIPS Special Session on issues relevant to the 
register, in particular participation, legal effects and special and differential treatment.  He underlined 
that the issue of generic terms would be of par ticular importance for achie ving a conclusion and that 
ensuring the continued availability of generic terms was fundamental  to preserving the balance of 
rights and obligation in the TRIPS Agreement.  In response to the assertions made about parallelism, 
he said that his delegation's view was well known a nd he would therefore not go into detail in that 
regard.  His delegation would con tinue to engage on the mandated ne gotiations in the TRIPS Special 
Session and address each of the three issues on their merits. TN/IP/M/24 
Page 4  
 
  12. The representative of Switzerland
 thanked the Chairman for his work in the Special Session 
and said that it had been no easy task to move forward in the GI register negotiations due to its link with other areas of the Doha Round negotiations.  Th anks to the Chairman's diplomatic skills and 
wisdom, delegations had been encouraged to expl ain in more detail their various proposals and 
positions, their needs, and their expectations regardin g the establishment of the GI register.  She felt 
that delegations had deepened their understanding of  the issues and the real points of divergences had 
been more clearly identified.  She pointed out th at the proponents of document TN/C/W/52 had come 
a long way towards the position of the Joint Proposal Group and had shown significant flexibility in taking into account some of their concerns, but she had not seen any movement or compromise on these issues from the other side. 
13. With respect to the Chairman's  report, she said that the exer cise had been largely successful, 
and that it could not have been easy to find the right balance between the different views.  Her 
delegation would like to draw attention to a few area s in the report where she would have preferred to 
see their proposed language reflected.  Firstly, she said it was unfortunate that the report did not reflect the fact that the register proposal in docum ent TN/C/W/52 was an integral part of a broader 
modalities proposal, and that it was made with a view to extending the scope of the register to GIs for 
all products.  More specifically, with regard to para graph 12 of the report, she wished to put on record 
that her delegation disagreed with the Chairman's in terpretation of the word "multilateral" in relation 
to the participation of Members in the system, a nd with his suggestion that Members should develop 
criteria to define the extent of participation.  In her delegation's view, such a suggestion was 
inconsistent with the mandate in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreemen t and in the Doha Declaration, 
and did not correspond to the proposal in document TN/C/W/52.  While, as pointed out in 
paragraph 12 of the Chairman's report, some  WTO Members could be excluded from certain 
obligations "for a variety of reasons", for instan ce for transitional measures for LDCs, this did not 
mean as a consequence that their participation as su ch in a multilateral system could be called into 
question.   
14. Regarding the way forward, she said that the guiding principles contained in paragraph 16 
were extremely useful and helpful and her delegati on would be prepared to continue the discussions 
on this basis.  Members should, however, bear in mind that of the three issues contained in 
TN/C/W/52, the issue of GI extension was of sp ecial importance for her de legation.  Switzerland 
stood ready to work with all Members to concl ude the negotiations on all three TRIPS issues and 
looked forward to continuing the work under the Chairman's successor. 
15. The representative of Brazil
 thanked the Chairman for his good work and for the report that 
he had presented.  In his view, the report was a fa ir reflection of the discussions held in the TRIPS 
Special Session.  His delegation stood ready to work  with his successor, under the guiding principles 
as proposed, especially in the area of special and differential treatment, which he felt required precise and effective guidelines.  He also expressed the view  that the establishment of the GI register should 
not impose undue financial and admini strative burdens on Members.   
16. He expressed his delegation's concerns with pa ragraph 12 of the report and the interpretation 
of several terms.  He said it should be kept in mi nd that the register should be useful and meaningful, 
as highlighted in TN/C/W/52, and that the issue of participation should be discussed in that light.  Noting the Chairman's explicit intention in paragrap h 7 of the report not to include a detailed account 
of the discussions on the other TRIPS issues, he reite rated Brazil's view that the three TRIPS-related 
issues should be treated on an equal footing and should all fo rm part of any outcome of the Round.  In 
his delegation's view, the key elements of these three issues should be in place by the time of modalities, so that negotiations could be  concluded in all three TRIPS areas.  
17. He recalled that one side of the debate had changed its position significantly during the 
negotiating process.  In drafting document TN/C/W/ 52, the more extreme elements of the initial  TN/IP/M/24 
 Page 5 
 
 
  positions of over one hundred participating countri es had been significantly watered down, modified 
and accommodated in order to find a solution which w as more closely related to the middle ground of 
these discussions.  The other side, in his view, had thus  far failed to show the same level of flexibility.  
His delegation stood ready to cooperate in the tec hnical discussions on the functioning of the register 
in this negotiating group, as long as the other two issues were addressed in parallel at the same time. 
18. The representative of Chile  thanked the Chairman for the work he had carried out since 
October 2008 and congratulated him on his appointment  to WIPO.  She said that the Chair's report 
clearly summed up the work carried out during the past y ear with regard to the system of registration.  
In her delegation's view, the document reflected the various positions in these negotiations in a 
balanced manner and its virtue was that it referred  to issues essentially within the mandate of the 
TRIPS Special Session.  It was worth highlighting a couple of points with respect to the legal effects 
of the register.  In her view there was some agreem ent, as reflected in the report, that consulting the 
information on the register would include taking th is information into consideration when making 
decisions relating to the registration of trademarks or geographical indications.  This, however, had to 
be interpreted in accordance with the principle of territoriality, which had already been mentioned.  
Her delegation welcomed the fact that the report highlighted the negotiating mandate as set out in 
Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and in the Do ha Declaration.  Keeping the discussions within 
the negotiating mandate was essential to maintaini ng balance on this matter and to making progress.  
As a consequence, unlike the Swiss and Brazilian de legations, her delegation was in agreement with 
paragraph 12 of the report a nd believed that any new criteria with re gard to participation in the system 
should be maintained strictly w ithin the negotiating mandate.   
19. With regard to legal effects, she said that it was essential for the success of these negotiations 
that the principles of the IP system, such as the pr inciple of territoriality, were not violated.  The 
freedom of each national authority to consider information on the register without attributing additional value to it needed to be maintained, as anything more would increase and not facilitate 
protection.  Her delegation therefore agreed with paragraph 15 of the report that obligations for 
national authorities to consider the information on the register were acceptable if they did not attempt 
to stipulate what effects such consulting of this information would have in their national systems.  
While her delegation reserved the right to make mo re detailed comments later, it agreed with the 
Chairman's guiding principles and believed that his proposal was in line with the negotiating mandate 
and with the principles of the intellectual property sy stem.  She said that despite the absence of easy 
solutions, the Chairman had managed to give Members some guidance.   
20. The representative of Colombia
 thanked the Chairman for the work he had carried out, and in 
particular for the excellent report that highlight ed areas of convergence on an issue where the two 
groups of Members had very divergent positions.  Hi s delegation wished to highlight the Chairman's 
positive contribution in suggesting principles that w ould guide their future work. Several of these 
principles, such as the one stating that the register should not impose undue financial and 
administrative burdens on Members, and the need to  have special and differential treatment that was 
precise, effective and operational, found Colombia 's full support.  Consequently, Colombia would 
continue discussions based on the objectives of fac ilitating protection of GIs, having a useful and 
significant register, and preserving the territorial nature of GIs.  It was important that Members' internal procedures for recognizing geographical indications were not changed.  While the 
information on the register should be taken into account, a request for GI or trademark protection 
would have to be made in accordance with nationa l procedures.  He also said that pursuant to 
paragraph 19 of the Doha Declaration, the TRI PS Council was tasked to examine the relationship 
between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement and protec ting traditional knowledge.  In light of this, 
his delegation wished to state that the moda lities proposal in document TN/C/W/52 was a positive 
contribution aimed at closing the gap among a large group of Members and at proposing a way 
forward.  He pointed out that the three issues c ontained in the proposal were all TRIPS-related and 
that Ministers had asked Members to find appropriate  solutions for all these three issues.  Colombia's TN/IP/M/24 
Page 6  
 
  indigenous and local communities could not accept a conclusion to the Round that did not enable 
them to benefit in a fair manner from the use of the great biological wealth of Colombia and the 
knowledge associated with it. 
21. The representative of New Zealand
 said that the negotiations on the register were mandatory, 
and that while his delegation was unc omfortable with certain elements in Part C of the report which 
took them outside their comfort zone, it was not afra id to discuss them.  He believed Members needed 
to have that discussion and he hoped that the principles put forward in the report would be a kind of legacy.  While not all of these principles could be  agreed upon, they might nevertheless help Members 
to concentrate on establishing a GI register and not to spend too much time on extraneous matters.  
Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the report stated that so me Members had explained how the obligation to 
consult would technically be impl emented in their legal system and that Members could do a little 
more in that respect.  He believed that could be helpful.  Contrary to what some Members might 
believe, he said that talking about technical details was not just a complicated way to delay progress, 
but that further technical discussions, as suggested in paragraph 15, would give a more practical approach to how proposals could be implemented,  encouraging Members to move away from the 
level of abstraction that had dominated discussions for too long. 
22. The representative of Argentina
 said his delegation commended the Chairman for the work he 
had carried out in the TRIPS Council and in other fo ra of the WTO.  He thanked him for a job well 
done and welcomed his summary of the state of play of the negotiations on the register, as mandated under the Doha Development Agenda.  Rather than going into any details of the report, that others had 
already covered, he wished to make only one po int regarding their mandate.  Bridging the gaps 
between different positions and reaching agreements in  different fields of the multilateral negotiations 
of the Doha Round required a great deal of patie nce.  After waiting patiently for 42 years until 
agriculture was included in the Uruguay Round, and despite the continued efforts at liberalization and 
the elimination of subsidies in agriculture, Memb ers were still far from having liberalized trade in 
agriculture at the same level as had been achieved in other sectors of the negotiations.  Against this 
background, the common sense approach would have been to accept a voluntary GI register a long 
time ago, namely already during the Uruguay Round.   Had that been done, Members would by now 
surely have tested the functioning of the register and made any necessary adjustments.  But the wish 
to have everything unfortunately meant that Member s were now stuck with this negotiation.  He said 
that a more flexible approach in this Round w ould allow the establishment of a voluntary register, 
with precisions on how to apply it, and respecting Members' national legislations.  The other TRIPS 
issues that had been mentioned were not mandate d to be discussed in this body but fell under the 
consultations of the Director-G eneral, and his delegation was open to discussing them there.  
Argentina did not support the document linking TR IPS/CBD with the issue of GI extension. He 
believed that linking these issues was a mistake because TRIPS/CBD had its own merits and should 
be properly discussed as a separate issue.  
23. The representative of China
 thanked the Chairman for his leadership and his valuable 
contribution to the TRIPS Special Session.  Her delegation welcomed his report which included a 
summary of the work under his Chairmanship, his unde rstanding of a variety of critical issues and his 
suggestions on the way forward.  Her delegation ap preciated the Chair's personal efforts in preparing 
the report, and the transparency in the consultati ons and informal meetings with Members during the 
drafting process.  She said that she was satisfied that the report contained a number of elements that 
the proponents of document TN/C/W/52 supported, such as the fact that the register should be useful 
and meaningful to participating Members, and th at developing countries should be given special and 
differential treatment that was precise, effective and operational.   
24. At the same time, China had concerns with certa in aspects of the report.  It was regrettable 
that the report did not reflect that more than tw o thirds of Members, most of them developing 
countries, supported parallelism and the linking of solu tions to all three TRIPS issues, namely the GI  TN/IP/M/24 
 Page 7 
 
 
  register, GI extension and TRIPS/CBD in doc ument TN/C/W/52.  Her delegation was also 
disappointed that the report did not state that a multilateral registry system only for wine and spirit GIs would aggravate the discrimination against non-wine  and non-spirit GIs.  With regard to the issue 
of participation in the multilateral registration sy stem, China believed that, according to the mandate, 
the negotiation regarding a GI register was not plur ilateral or sectoral.  Consequently, her delegation 
had difficulty in accommodating a proposal to de velop and apply criteria to identify Members for 
participation.  Having said this, she also wished to  take this opportunity to clarify her understanding 
on how to push forward with the TRIPS-related issu es.  With regard to the guiding principles for 
future work as proposed by the Chairman, and judgi ng from the state of play of the talks, her 
delegation believed that the most practical way fo rward was to advance the negotiations on the GI 
register, on GI extension, and on TRIPS/CBD toge ther.  The joint proposal  by China and over one 
hundred Members, as well as written responses during the past year had already laid a solid foundation of technical talks.  Against that backgr ound, her delegation proposed that negotiations on 
the three TRIPS issues should commence in parallel at once. 
25. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 thanked the Chairman for preparing the report and said 
that the informal consultations held during the prep aration phase had been especially useful.  In their 
view, the report had provided guidance on the work of the Special Session and had demonstrated how 
the Chairman could navigate through difficult issues of a sensitive nature and firmly held positions, 
while ensuring full participation, inclusiveness an d transparency.  His delegation welcomed the 
changes made by the Chairman in paragraphs 11 a nd 12 of the original draft in which he explicitly 
stated his view that the wording of the negotiating mandate did not necessarily mean that participation 
had to be voluntary or mandatory.  Although his de legation did not share this view and continued to 
believe that participation in the GI register s hould be voluntary, he welcomed this effort of 
encouraging Members to compromise which could ad vance the negotiations.  His delegation believed 
that it was this spirit of cooperation that was n eeded if the DDA was to be completed successfully.  
26. The representative of Turkey  thanked the Chairman for his tr ansparent and inclusive approach 
on the completion of his report, which her delegation considered to be balanced and objective and to 
be a good basis for future endeavours.  She wanted  however to put on record the following points:  
firstly, while the report mentioned document TN/C/W /52 several times with respect to the multilateral 
GI register, that document also contained two other modalities' proposals regarding TRIPS/CBD and 
GI extension.  While her delegation respected the Chairman's decision not to mention the two other 
TRIPS issues, it was of the view that at this stage Me mbers needed to be realistic in this regard if any 
outcome was to be achieved in future negotiations.  With regard to the interpretation in paragraph 12 
of the report that "multilateral" did not have to mean mandatory for all Members, she said that her 
delegation believed that Members' vi ews were important in determining such interpretations.  In this 
case, the system for a multilateral register as propos ed in document TN/C/W/52 foresaw participation 
by all Members.     
27. The representative of Korea  expressed his appreciation of the Chairman's leadership and 
contribution to the way forward on this important  and difficult agenda item. He said that the 
Chairman's report captured the status of the negotia tions in a balanced manner, including his sense of 
how Members could exert more efforts to achieve  an outcome.  He believed that the guiding 
principles could serve as a reference for their future  work.  In particular, his delegation fully agreed 
with the first principle that the objective and purpose of the register was not to increase the level of 
protection.  He also wished to highlight that the third guiding principle, namely the preservation of the 
territorial nature of intellectual property rights, w as important for Members' joint undertaking in the 
future.  His delegation believed that the continuatio n of the current exercise would be meaningful and 
constructive and Korea would continue to cooperate very closely with the Ch air's successor in the 
future.  TN/IP/M/24 
Page 8  
 
  28. The representative of Japan
 expressed his delegation's appreciation for the work carried out 
by the Chairman of the Special Session and for the guiding principles for future work contained in his 
handover report.  Japan stood ready to support futu re discussions in the meetings of the Special 
Session based on these guiding principles.  In par ticular, paragraph 16(i) of the report called on 
Members to focus on what were the acceptable me ans of facilitating the achievement of the existing 
level of protection while ensuring that the substan tive level of protection remained the same.  Japan 
considered that it was crucial for the Membership to deepen its understanding of the concrete methods 
and measures used to implement domestically the vari ous proposals on the table.  He noted that some 
Members of the Joint Proposal Group, including Japan, had provided such explanations in the past  
and he was hopeful to hear similar explanati ons from the proponents of document TN/C/W/52. 
29. The representative of Canada  expressed his delegation's ap preciation to the outgoing 
Chairman for his patience, intelligence and grace.  The Chair had had the difficult task of seeking to 
reconcile a set of issues on which the Members were  deeply divided, and to which they had very 
different approaches in their national intellectual pr operty protection regimes.  He said that Canada's 
position in these negotiations had not  changed but his delegation nonetheless welcomed the report as a 
constructive effort to capture the status of the negotiations and to provide  some suggestions on the 
future work to be undertaken.  Canada would respect this work by seriously considering these 
suggestions.  In particular, the five guiding principles proposed in the report could help Members to pursue their work in the future and to structure their discussions. 
30. The representative of El Salvador
 expressed her appreciation to the Chairman for his report 
and commended him for his openness, inclusion and tr ansparency in the preparatory meetings.  She 
said that her delegation welcomed the balanced su mmary of the Special Session's negotiations and 
deliberations, which was evident from paragraph 7 of  the report.  The artificial parallelism created by 
one side of the negotiating parties could continue to negatively affect the negotiations on a register for 
wine and spirit GIs.  Nevertheless, El Salvador stood ready to discuss proposals for negotiations in 
this forum and in other bodies.  The objective of  future work in the Special Session was that 
negotiations should lead to a deeper understanding of technical issues and her delegation considered 
that, based on the principles contained in paragraph 16 of the report, work could be organized in the 
clusters of:  (1) consequences or legal effects of th e register and participation;  (2) notification and 
registration; and (3) special and differential treatment and other issues, such as costs and 
administrative burdens.  As had been the case in other groups and negotiation bodies, the discussions 
on each cluster could last up to one week, allowing for consideration of the elements previously 
mentioned.  
31. The representative of Guatemala  expressed her delegation's appreciation of the Chairman's 
work in the TRIPS Council and welcomed his su mmary report of these negotiations.  It was her 
understanding that the report was without prejudi ce to the positions of the delegations in these 
negotiations.  She continued to be concerned re garding the position of some Members mentioned 
under item (c) of paragraph 8, that special and di fferential treatment would only be discussed once the 
register had been agreed upon.  It was her delegati on's view that special and differential treatment was 
a key part of this and other ongoing negotiations  in the Organization, especially in a round of 
negotiations focusing on development.   Consequently, it was unacceptable to Guatemala that special 
and differential treatment discussions be addressed only  at a later stage.  The report was a very good 
proposal on the way forward, in particular regarding the need for special and differential treatment to 
be more precise, effective and operational.  Her delegation was open to working on the basis of these 
principles and to contributing to the discussion of each  of those elements.  She also welcomed the fact 
that paragraph 7 of the report was in line with th e negotiating mandate regarding a multilateral system 
of notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits. 
32. The Chairman  said that in preparing the report he  had preferred to be practical and 
progressive rather than to be merely passive.  He fe lt that he had provided a ba lanced report, which he  TN/IP/M/24 
 Page 9 
 
 
  hoped would make a contribution to the future work  of the Special Session.  Despite the differing 
views on the subject, he had never felt that such differences were insurmountable and it was his view 
that ultimately convergence on the issues would be ac hieved.  With regard to the continuing focus by 
some Members on the mandate calling for a register to facilitate the protection of GIs for wines and spirits, he reiterated that the key challenges remaining in this area were participation and legal effects.  
It had not yet been decided whether the register s hould be voluntary or mandatory.  However, he felt 
that it should be possible to find a compromise between voluntary and mandatory by way of some 
meaningful criteria.  Nevertheless, an even more di fficult challenge remained in the legal effects or 
consequences of registration arising from the natu re of intellectual property and the principle of 
territoriality.  He said that there seemed to be acceptance among Members that the register 
information would be taken into account, and sever al delegations had underlined the importance of 
pursuing the question of how the system would operate in their respective territories.  He believed that 
those discussions would eventually result in a compromise that coul d lead to a successful conclusion 
of the negotiations.  He thanked a ll delegations for their constructiv e contributions and wished them 
well in the pursuit of the mandate.   
33. The Special Session took note
 of the statements made. 
__________