I have searched for months for a reliable source i e not a patent company source that explains the Malta problem or even calls it the Malta problem but didn t find any so that s why I think we shouldn t add it like that The way I set up the sentence is deliberately ambiguous I say the 25 countries are needed which is literally they really use the number 25 sourced in the explanatory text of the draft rules and I say the number drops to 24 before 2007 without explaining the legal effect of that I think stating anything more gets us into original research and term coining Btw Lavoix in their posts evaluates the position shown in many blogs about 1 year earlier when it was still unclear if maybe only designation for the 13 initialial UPC states might have sufficed in the beginning