. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/IP/16 
26 July 2006 
 
 (06-3591) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights Special Session  
 
  
SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRIPS 
 
Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Manzoor Ahmad,
 
to the Trade Negotiations Committee  
  1. This report on the negotiations on the establis hment of a multilateral system of notification 
and registration of geographical indications for wine s and spirits is submitted on the Chairman's own 
responsibility, and is without prejudice to the position of  delegations.  This repo rt covers the work of 
the Special Session at its formal meetings of 12-13 June and 19 July as well as at informal consultations held in various formats in recent months. 
2. Further work has taken place duri ng this period on the basis of the list of priority concerns 
that was drawn up in March, to which I referre d in my previous report to the TNC, and the 
side-by-side document (TN/IP/W/12).
1  This has been useful in fu rther clarifying the issues to be 
resolved in these negotiations. 
3. In regard to notifications under the system to  be negotiated, the Special Session has had 
intensive informal discussions taking up in turn each of the elements that have been suggested in the 
proposals on the table.  To facilitate this, I shared wi th participants my own assessment of the state of 
the work on this matter, identifying six elements on which there seemed to be a significant measure of 
common thinking, even if the precise language differed2, and seven others on which there appeared to 
be greater differences.3  On these latter points, I raised a number of questions for discussion.  The 
discussions that took place were useful and served to broadly confirm that significant common ground 
exists on some elements and also to clarify the ques tions that still need to be settled on others.  While 
this work should be valuable in contributing to the de velopment of a unified text in this area, there are 
limits to how far this work can go without greater clarity on the key issues of participation and legal 
effects. 
                                                      
1 This document sets out, side by side, the three proposals that are on the table:  p roposal by Hong Kong, 
China in TN/IP/W/8;  "Joint Proposal" by Argentina, Aust ralia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, 
Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras , Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicara gua, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei and the 
United States in TN/IP/W/10, Add.1, 2 and 3;  an d proposal by the European Communities in TN/IP/W/11.  
2 These were:  the notifying Member;  the GI its elf;  transliteration into Latin characters where 
necessary;  place in the notifying Member ;  the right of a Member to notify GIs originating in its territory only;  
and the use of a standard format. 
3 These were:  the requirement that the notified GI meet the Article 22.1 definition and is protected and 
has not fallen into disuse in its country of origin;  information on the legal basis in the notifying Member for the 
protection of the GI;  translations;  product for which protection is sought;  information on the quality, 
reputation or other characteristics of the goods;  informati on on the owner of the GI or persons entitled to use it;  
and date on which the GI has obtained protection in its country of origin and any date on which that protection 
will expire. TN/IP/16 
Page 2  
 
4. There is, I believe, a wide view that the purpose of the system should not be to increase the 
level of protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits provided for in the TRIPS 
Agreement, but to facilitate that protection, and that the exceptions provided for in Article 24 would 
remain applicable.  Further, it is my sense that  no delegation is seeking to remove from national 
authorities the right to determine whether a notified term can be protected as a GI in their territories, 
consistently with the relevant provisions of the TR IPS Agreement.  Nonetheless, on the issue of legal 
effects and also on that of partic ipation, positions remain far apart and it remains difficult to identify 
where the landing zone might lie.  Some Members have indicated a readiness to consider, at least to some extent, ways of taking account of the concerns  of other delegations, but often with the proviso 
that this would depend on reciprocal movement by those other delegations and/or on the overall 
progress of the Round.  It is also not clear how fa r the flexibility to which some delegations have 
alluded so far would, if realized, go in bridging the gaps that exist. 
5. On the issue of costs and administrative burdens, it is my sense that it is widely accepted that 
the system should not be more costly and burdensom e than necessary to comply with the mandate, in 
particular for developing countries.  However, further work is required on this and a range of other 
matters.  Once again, it will be difficult to carry th is work much further without greater clarity on the 
key questions of participation and legal effects. 
6. In these circumstances, I believe that, taken with  the observations in paragraphs 3 to 5 above, 
the side-by-side document continues to represent a va lid description of the state of the proposals in the 
Special Session.  Further work is required on the pr eparation of a new working document.  It is my 
view that progress towards establishing a common basi s for the final negotiating phase will require all 
delegations to be creative in findi ng new flexibility;  it will not be possible to find a solution unless all 
delegations are willing to move. 
__________