EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS
Document: Complaint by the United States Report of the Panel
Date: 15 March 2005
Document codes: WT/DS174/R
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. I, III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – PROTECTION OF
TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS

Complaint by the United States

Report of the Panel

I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 1 June 1999, the United States requested consultations 1 with the European Communities
pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Ru les and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes ("DSU") and Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights ("TRIPS Agreement") (to the extent that it incorporates by reference Article XXIII of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") regarding EC Council Regulation
(EEC) No. 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protecti on of geographical indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended. The United States and the European
Communities held consultations on 9 July 1999, a nd thereafter, but these consultations failed to
resolve the dispute.
1.2 On 4 April 2003, the United States supplemente d its earlier request with a request for
additional consultations2 with the European Communities pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article 64
of the TRIPS Agreement and Article XXII of the GATT 1994, regarding the protection of trademarks
and geographical indications for agricultural produc ts and foodstuffs in the European Communities
pursuant to Regulation 2081/92, as amended, and its related implementing and enforcement measures
("Regulation 2081/92"). The United States and the European Communities held consultations
pursuant to this supplemental request on 27 May 2003, but these consultations also failed to resolve
the dispute.
1.3 On 18 August 2003, the United States requested the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") to
establish a panel with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU. 3 At its meeting
on 2 October 2003, the DSB established a single Panel pursuant to the requests of the United States in
document WT/DS174/20 and Australia in document WT/DS290/18, in accordance with Article 9 of
the DSU (WT/DSB/M/156) 4. At that meeting, the parties to th e dispute also agreed that the Panel
should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited
by the United States in document WT/DS174/20 and Australia in document
WT/DS290/18, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States and Australia in
those documents, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements."
1.4 On 13 February 2004, the United States and Australia requested the Director-General to
determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU.
1.5 On 23 February 2004, the Director-General accordingly composed the Panel as follows:
 Chair: Mr Miguel Rodríguez Mendoza

 Members: Prof. Seung Wha Chang
 Mr Peter Kam-fai Cheung

1.6 Argentina, Australia (in respect of the Unite d States' complaint), Brazil, Canada, China,
Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zeala nd, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (hereinafter referre d to as "Chinese Taipei"), Turkey and the

1 WT/DS174/1.
2.WT/DS174/1/Add.1.
3 WT/DS174/20.
4 WT/DS174/21 and Corr.1.

United States (in respect of Australia's complaint) reserved their rights to participate in the Panel
proceedings as third parties.
1.7 The Panel met with the parties on 23-24 June 20 04 and on 11-12 August 2004. It met with
the third parties on 24 June 2004.
1.8 The Panel submitted its interim report to th e parties on 16 November 2004. The Panel
submitted its final report to the parties on 21 December 2004.
II. FACTUAL ASPECTS
A. M
EASURES AT ISSUE
2.1 The measures at issue in this dispute are identified in the United States' request for
establishment of a panel as Council Regulation ( EEC) No. 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection
of geographical indications and d esignations of origin for agricultu ral products and foodstuffs, as
amended, and its related implementing and enforcement measures.
B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. Preliminary ruling prior to the first written submissions
2.2 On 24 February 2004, the day after the Panel was composed and prior to the organizational
meeting, the European Communities requested that the Panel issue a preliminary ruling that the
United States' and Australia's respective requests for establishment of a panel were inconsistent with
the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. Th e European Communities considered it appropriate
that the Panel issue a preliminary ruling before the first written submissions of the parties were due.
2.3 At the organizational meeting, the Panel sought the parties' views on a ppropriate procedures
to deal with this request. The complainants did not object to filing written responses to the request for
a preliminary ruling prior to their first written subm issions but requested additional time for the filing
of their first written submissions.
2.4 On 8 March 2004, the Panel adopted its working procedures and timetable, which indicated a
date for the United States and Australia to file written responses to the European Communities'
request for a preliminary ruling. They submitted their responses accordingly.
2.5 On 5 April 2004, the Panel issued a preliminary ruling, which is set out in full in
Section VII:A of this report.
2.6 On 20 April 2004, the European Communities sent a letter to the Panel expressing its regret at
the Panel's ruling and "reserving its right to rai se issues of law regarding the interpretation of
Article 6.2 of the DSU before the Appellate Body". In its letter, the European Communities asked the
Panel to clarify the status of its preliminary ruling of 5 April 2004, in particular whether such ruling
would be incorporated into the Panel's final repor ts and whether the findings contained in the ruling
would be an integral part of the final reports.
2.7 On 23 April 2004, the Panel responded to the European Communities, advising that its
preliminary ruling would be reflected in the Panel's final reports, as appropriate.
2.8 On 26 April 2004, the European Communities sent a second letter to the Panel indicating that
it had understood from the Panel's previous response that the findings contained in the preliminary

ruling of 5 April 2004 would be incorporated into th e Panel's final reports and could, therefore, be
appealed in the same way as any legal interpretation contained in these reports.
2.9 On 28 April 2004, the Panel responded again to the European Communities, advising that it
had taken note of the European Communities' letter of 26 April 2004 and reiterating that its
preliminary ruling would be reflected in its final reports, as appropriate.
2. Request for extension of time
2.10 On 9 March 2004, the European Communities requested that the Panel extend the period for it
to submit its first written submission in view of the circumstances that (a) there were two cases
brought by two complainants; (b) these cases did not appear to contain identical claims; and (c) these
cases raised new and complex issues and involved a larg e number of claims. It also alleged that the
timetable was unbalanced in favour of the complainants.
2.11 On 16 March 2004, the United States and Au stralia each responded to the European
Communities' request, disagreeing with its assertions but not objecting to an extension of the period
for the European Communities to submit its first written submission, provided that such extension
would not affect the timeframe structure of the remainder of the timetable.
2.12 On 22 March 2004, the Panel revised its timeta ble, extending the time for the submission of
the respondent's first written submission, without affecting the time between any of the subsequent
steps as established in the original timetable.
3. Request for separate reports
2.13 On 3 March 2004, after the conclusion of the Pa nel's organizational meeting, the European
Communities filed a request pursuant to Article 9.2 of the DSU that the Panel submit separate reports
on the present dispute. On 8 March 2004 the Pane l acknowledged receipt of such request. The
complainants did not comment on this request.
2.14 On 23 April 2004, the Panel informed the parties that it would submit separate reports on this
dispute, as requested by the European Communities.
2.15 At the second substantive meeting with the parties on 11-12 August 2004, the Panel invited
the parties to comment on the way in which the Pane l should submit separate reports. The Panel took
note of the parties' views and confirmed the following facts: (a) the complainants have made similar,
but not identical claims in this dispute; (b) the complainants have made separate written submissions
and separate oral statements and submitted separat e responses to questions, although they did submit
16 common exhibits with their respective first writte n submissions; (c) the complainants have not
collectively endorsed the arguments made in one anot her's submissions although Australia, in its first
oral statement, expressly endorsed certain comments made by the United States 5, and the
United States, on occasions, cited information and ar guments submitted by Aust ralia in support of its
arguments; and (d) although each complainant r eserved its right to participate in the Panel
proceedings as a third party in respect of the other' s complaint, they did not exercise these rights.
They both declined the opportunity given to them by the Panel to make a statement as a third party
during the session with the third parties.

5 Australia also purported to endorse all arguments put forward by the United States in its closing
statement at the second substantive meeting. This is co nsidered in Section VII:A of the report on Australia's
complaint (WT/DS290/R).

4. Request for factual information from the International Bureau of WIPO
2.16 On 9 July 2004, the Panel sent a letter to the International Bureau of WIPO requesting its
assistance in the form of any factual information availa ble to it relevant to the interpretation of certain
provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
6 The parties were given
the opportunity to comment.
2.17 The International Bureau's reply was received by the Panel and the WTO Secretariat on
14 September 2004. The Panel gave the parties an opportunity to submit comments on the reply by
28 September 2004. The parties submitted their comments accordingly.7
2.18 The factual information provided by the Interna tional Bureau consists of a note it prepared
and five annexes containing excerpts from the O fficial Records of the various Diplomatic
Conferences which adopted, amended or revised the provisions currently contained in Articles 2 and 3
of the Paris Convention (Stockholm Act of 1967)8.
III. PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. UNITED STATES
3.1 The United States requests that the Panel find that the measures at issue are inconsistent with
the European Communities' obligations under:
(a) Articles 1.1, 3.1, 4, 16.1, 22.2, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1 and 65.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement and, through its incorporation by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement,
Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967); and
(b) Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994.
3.2 The United States requests that the Panel reco mmend that the European Communities bring
its measures into conformity with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994.
B. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
3.3 The European Communities requests that the Panel:
(a) find that certain measures not yet adopted at the time the Panel was established, and
the United States' claim under Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (incorporated by
Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement), are outside the Panel's terms of reference; and
(b) reject all claims within the Panel's terms of reference.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
4.1 The arguments of the European Communities an d the United States, as set out in their
respective submissions (European Communities' requ est for a preliminary ruling, United States
response to the European Communities' request fo r a preliminary ruling, first written submissions,
written rebuttals, oral statements, responses to questions; comments on each other's responses; and
comments on the factual information from the Intern ational Bureau of WIPO), are attached as
Annexes A and B.

6 Attached as Annex D-2 to this report.
7 The submissions are attached to this report as Annexes A-10 and B-10.
8 The International Bureau's Note, but not its annexes, are attached as Annex D-3 to this report.

V. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
5.1 The arguments of those third parties that made submissions to the Panel (first written
submissions, oral statements and/or responses to questions) are summarized and attached as Annex C.
VI. INTERIM REVIEW
6.1 On 16 November 2004, the Panel submitted its interim report to the parties. On 30 November
2004, the United States and the European Commun ities submitted written requests for review of
precise aspects of the interim report. On 7 D ecember 2004, the United States and the European
Communities submitted written comments on each other's request for interim review.
6.2 The Panel has modified aspects of its report in light of the parties' comments where it
considered appropriate, as explained below. The Pa nel has also made certain revisions and technical
corrections for the purposes of clarity and accuracy. References to paragra ph numbers and footnotes
in this Section VI refer to those in the interim report, except as otherwise noted.
Incorporation of arguments by co-complainant
6.3 The United States requests that the interim report reflect the fact that the United States
incorporated information and arguments put forward by Australia with respect to the issue whether
the conditions of equivalence and reciprocity appl y to WTO Members, citing two references in its
submissions and paragraph 2.15.
6.4 The Panel has noted these two particular references in footnote 73 and also corrected
paragraph 2.15 of the final report.
Further comments on preliminary ruling
6.5 The European Communities requests the deletion of paragraphs 7.3 to 7.8 as the conformity
of a panel request with Article 6.2 of the DSU must be evaluated on the face of the panel request. In
its view, references to discussions that take place in other fora, like those in the Council for TRIPS,
are irrelevant for this purpose. The same reasoning applies to the letter from Commissioner Lamy to
the USTR, which was only provided by the United St ates at the second substantive meeting. If it
were of any relevance to Article 6.2, it could have been expected that the United States would have
referred to it in its response to the request for a pr eliminary ruling, but it did not. Moreover, the letter
is irrelevant for this question as it did not form part of the dispute settlement process.
6.6 The United States opposes this request. It believes that the preliminary ruling of
5 April 2004 stands on its own merits. But it also fails to see on what basis the European
Communities objects to the Panel's description of f acts confirming that, at the time of the panel
request, the European Communities was aware of the legal basis for the panel request and that the
summary of the legal basis of the compliant in that request was sufficient to present the problem
clearly.
6.7 The Panel recalls that the European Communiti es made a request for a preliminary ruling the
day after the Panel was composed in which it alleged defects in the panel request and submitted that it
was appropriate that the Panel issue a preliminary ruling before the first written submissions of the
parties were due. The Panel issued a preliminar y ruling accordingly, in wh ich it found that those
allegations were unfounded on the face of the panel request and on the basis of the facts available to it
at that time. That preliminary ruling sets out part of the basic rationale for the Panel's findings and
recommendation in this dispute. Accordingly, in the course of making an objective assessment of the
facts, the Panel does not disregard probative eviden ce relevant to that ruling submitted later in the

course of the proceeding, other than the referenc es to what took place during the consultations, which
were without prejudice to the rights of the Eu ropean Communities and other parties in these
proceedings, in accordance with Article 4.6 of th e DSU. The Panel has modified the relevant
paragraphs, numbered 7.3 to 7.13 of the final report, to elaborate on the reasons for their inclusion.
The relevance of the letter from Commissioner Lamy is discussed below.
Letter from Commissioner Lamy

6.8 The European Communities requests the deletion of paragraph 7.79 as the letter from
Commissioner Lamy to the USTR was provided on ly at the second substantive meeting and "the
European Communities has had very little occasion so far to comment on this letter". Moreover, it
was written in the context of the Doha Round negoti ations and largely addresses questions relating to
those negotiations. Even to the extent that it pronou nces itself on certain aspects of the Regulation, it
does not constitute an authoritative explanation of EC law and therefore does not form a sufficient
basis for the Panel's findings regarding the content of the Regulation.
6.9 The United States opposes this request. Part of the issue before the Panel was the
Commission's interpretation of whether the Re gulation imposes equivalence and reciprocity
conditions on WTO Members. A direct commun ication that it does, sent from the EC Trade
Commissioner to the US Trade Representative, is plainl y relevant. This is particularly true given that
the European Communities had denied that its position on the issue had changed from that which it
held prior to the dispute. In addition, the Pa nel cites the letter in a single sentence as further
corroboration of a thorough Panel analysis. Th e United States recalls the European Communities'
response to Panel question No. 15 that its own stat ements to the Panel regarding EC law are not
authoritative explanations either so, under the Eu ropean Communities' reasoning in its request for
interim review, the Panel should also consider such statements to be irrelevant.
6.10 The Panel observes that the European Communities has taken the opportunity to comment on
the letter in its request for interim review, and the Panel takes note of those comments. A full copy of
the letter and its attachment was provided at the second substantive meeting. The European
Communities had an opportunity to comment on the le tter at that meeting and in its response to
question No. 95, which specifically related to "any official statement by the Commission" as well as
in its responses to six other questions relevant to the applicability of the e quivalence and reciprocity
conditions.
6.11 The Panel has already noted in the relevant paragraph that the letter provides further
corroboration of the Panel's interpretation, so that it does not form the basis of any findings on its
own. The letter is relevant for the following r easons: (a) it is from a member of the European
Commission responsible for trade matters to the Un ited States Trade Representative; (b) it states that
the attachment contains a detailed analysis that covers certification marks vis-à-vis Doha Round issues
"as well as a reply to [the USTR's] comments on EC Regulation 2081/92"; (c) the attachment
specifically responds to the national treatment claim th at is the subject of the Panel's examination in
Section VII:B.1 of this report; and (d) it is recent. Therefore, the Panel has retained the paragraph,
numbered 7.82 in the final report.
6.12 The Panel has also referred to Commissioner Lamy 's letter in paragraph 7.733, as evidence in
support of the European Communities' position unde r Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. The
European Communities did not request review of that paragraph, which is numbered 7.750 in the final
report, and the Panel has retained it also.

The phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements"
6.13 The European Communities requests the deletion of paragraphs 7.85 to 7.90 because it did
not argue that the application of Article 12 of th e Regulation would prejudice "the EC's obligations
under the TRIPS Agreement". It quotes paragraph 66 of its fi rst written submission and paragraph 43
of its first oral statement and asserts that "[t]hese statements do not contain any indication that the EC
consider that its obligations under the TRIPS Agr eement would be prejudiced by the application of
Article 12 of Regulation 2081/92. Rather, the refere nce to the obligation to provide protection for
geographical indications was clearly intended as a re ference to the obligation of other WTO Members
to provide protection. This is also what the EC explained in response to the Panel's
Question No. 94(b)." The European Communities agre es that it is true that it did not provide an
explicit response to Panel question No. 20 but it asser ts that it did, however, address this point in
response to Panel question No. 94, in which it cl arified that whereas the application of these
conditions would not prejudice the European Comm unities' national treatment obligations under the
TRIPS Agreement, it would prejudice its national tr eatment obligations under the GATT. Given this
context, it comments that the Panel is wrong to re ad into the European Communities' submission a
statement which the European Communities clearly did not make, and which contradicts the entire
logic of the European Communities' submissions. In its view, by attempting to read admissions into
the European Communities' submissions, the Panel effectively distorts these submissions. This is not
compatible with the task of the Panel under Article 11 of the DSU, which is to make an objective
assessment of the facts. The European Communiti es also requests the deletion of paragraph 7.200 for
the same reason and because it is unnecessary to the legal analysis which precedes it.
6.14 The United States expresses surprise and disappointmen t that the European Communities
would suggest that the Panel's ass essment of the facts is non-objec tive, simply because the Panel has
noted accurately the inconsistencies in the positi ons taken by the European Communities over the
course of this dispute. The European Communities' sole basis for the deletion of six full paragraphs
of Panel analysis is its disagreement with one pa rt of one sentence in paragraph 7.86. The Panel's
summary on this point is accurate, objective and fair and therefore the paragraphs should be retained.
The United States notes that the European Communities admits th at it avoided answering Panel
question No. 20 but apparently seeks credit for answ ering Panel question No. 94. The United States
recalls that the Panel has already made note of this response in paragraph 7.88.
6.15 The Panel takes note of the parties' comment s and has carefully reviewed the European
Communities' submissions, statements and responses to questions in this dispute, and confirms the
following facts: (a) the interim report is consis tent with the European Communities' own detailed
analysis of the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to intern ational agreements" in its rebuttal submission; and
(b) the European Communities repeat edly emphasized the importance of its own obligations in the
interpretation of the equivalence and reciprocity co nditions but there is no clear explanation on the
record of this dispute as to how the obligations of other WTO Members would render the equivalence
and reciprocity conditions under the European Co mmunities' own Regulation inapplicable and the
Panel declines to speculate. Therefore, the Panel has expanded and revised, rather than deleted, the
relevant paragraphs, numbe red 7.89 to 7.96 in the final report, and deleted paragraph 7.200 without
affecting the preceding legal analysis.
6.16 The Panel takes note that, although the Eu ropean Communities has now requested the
deletion of most consideration of its own argum ents concerning the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to
international agreements", this poi nt is important to its defence and those arguments have not been
withdrawn. Therefore, the Panel considers it im portant to address them as part of its objective
assessment of the matter before it, in accordance with its function under Article 11 of the DSU.

Examination of applications for registration

6.17 The European Communities requests the amendment of para graph 7.262(b) to take account
of the requirement in Article 12a(2)(a) of the Regul ation that a third country must also transmit "a
description of the legal provisions and the usage on the basis of which the designation of origin or the
geographical indication is protected or established in the country", which is a question of the law of
the third country, not Community law. It also comments that paragraph 7.272 should explain how the
European Communities can implement Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to such
questions of foreign law, taking into account that the complainants have stated that such questions can
be of high complexity and have indicated their unwillingness or inability to cooperate on such issues.
6.18 The United States considers that paragraph 7.262 should not be amended. The requirement
that the European Communities wants to add is already described in the third step in that paragraph,
which sets out the different requirements for third countries. The United States considers that the
Panel's logical description would become "muddied" and confusing if part of the third step were
collapsed into the second step. The United States also considers that the Panel should decline to offer
further recommendations as to how the European Communities should implement Article 24.9 of the
TRIPS Agreement as the Panel's task is not to reco mmend how to implement provisions not part of its
terms of reference. The United States also disag rees that it has indicated its unwillingness or inability
to cooperate: it has challenged mandatory unilate ral requirements, which is not a request for co-
operation.
6.19 The Panel takes note of the European Communitie s' request and notes that the description of
protection in the country of origin is already incl uded in paragraph 7.262, numbered 7.268 in the final
report, which is the logical place for it. The Panel considers it inappropriate to make further findings
in this paragraph. The Panel's findings on tr ansmission of applications already apply to all
accompanying documents, including the description of protection in the country of origin. Further,
this is an "as such" claim but Article 12a(2)(a) of the Regulation does not specify what form of
description of protection in the country of origin would be acceptable, nor is there conclusive
evidence on this point. In any event, Article 62 of the TRIPS Agreement would appear to be
important in framing any recommendation on implemen tation, but it lies outside the Panel's terms of
reference, as explained in paragraph 7.279 of the final report.
6.20 The Panel has also replaced the word "verificati on" in relation to applications for registration
later in the report in order to be consistent with the use of the word "examination" used in the
description of the application procedures and the c onsideration of the national treatment claim under
the TRIPS Agreement. This does not imply that verification in the course of examination of
applications is not covered by the Panel's conclusions with respect to examination.
Article XX(d) of GATT 1994

6.21 The United States suggested amendments to paragraphs 7.289 and 7.431 for clarity and
accuracy concerning the alleged "laws and regulations not inconsistent with this Agreement" within
the meaning of Article XX(d) of GATT 1994.
6.22 The European Communities responds that part of the drafting suggestion does not correctly
represent its arguments and refers to its response to question No. 135(c) from the Panel. It requests
that this argument be fully reflected in paragraph 7.289.
6.23 The Panel partly modified the paragraphs, num bered 7.297 and 7.446 in the final report, and
reflected the arguments in the Eu ropean Communities' responses to Pa nel questions Nos. 135(a), (b),
(c) and (d) and addressed those arguments.

Standard for private inspection bodies
6.24 The United States suggests the deletion from paragraph 7. 405 of the phrase "the standard
specified in the Regulation is based on an interna tional standard" because this is a legal conclusion
that must be based on a thorough analysis and wh ich can have significant legal consequences, for
instance, under Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement and Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.
6.25 The European Communities opposes this suggestion because it was entirely appropriate for
the Panel to consider whether th e Regulation's requirements were b ased on an international standard,
the United States did not make any claim under th e TBT Agreement, and the United States never
indicated prior to interim review that the ISO/IE C Guide at issue was not a relevant international
standard, or that it saw any problems of substance with the content of this Guide.
6.26 The Panel does not take any view on whether the relevant ISO/IEC Guide is an international
standard for the purposes of the TBT Agreement or the SPS Agreement and, for the avoidance of
doubt, has amended paragra ph 7.417 of the final report, based on its factual observations earlier in
that sub-section.
Marks of origin
6.27 The European Communities requests the deletion of point (b) of paragraph 7.496, with
which it does not agree. The use of the words "mad e in" is not a specific requirement for a mark of
origin in Article IX:1 of GATT 1994. It comments that it does not understand what is meant by
indication in a pictorial manner nor by indication alo ngside the GI nor how this is relevant. Given the
Panel's findings, it considers it unnecessary to reach a conclusion on this issue.
6.28 The United States suggests that paragraph 7.496(b) be retained as it is helpful to the
resolution of the dispute for the Panel to summa rize why, as a factual matter, an analysis of
Article III:4, not Article IX, of GATT 1994 was appropriate.
6.29 The Panel has retained the paragraph, numbe red 7.510 in the final report, because it is
appropriate to explain why the European Communities' defence concerning marks of origin appears to
be irrelevant to the preceding legal analysis. However, it has modified the point.
Right to prevent the use of translations of registered GIs

6.30 The European Communities considers that it would be useful to recall in paragraph 7.504,
for the sake of completeness, that under Article 13( 1)(b) of the Regulation, GI holders do have a
negative right to prevent the use of the registered name or names in translation.
6.31 The United States opposes this suggestion because paragr aph 7.504 addresses the scope of
the positive right of the GI holder under the Regulation, not what the GI holder can stop others from
doing. Further, the negative right may cover a broad range of activities and is not limited to the use of
so-called translations of GIs. With respect to th e trademark claim in this dispute, the scope of the
third party uses that the GI holder can prevent w as never at issue because the European Communities
concedes that, under Article 14(2) of the Regulati on, the GI holder cannot stop trademark owners
from using their valid trademarks in commerce.
6.32 The Panel has added a footnote to the paragraph, numbered 7.518 to clarify the scope of the
positive right to use a GI with respect to translations and has also clarified the importance of the fact
that a trademark may continue to be used under Artic le 14(2) of the Regulation. However, the Panel
declines to amend the referenced paragraph as reque sted because the protection granted by Article 13

of the Regulation is already addressed elsewhere and it has not been shown to what extent
Article 13(1)(b) covers translations.
Exceptions in trademark legislation with respect to the use of GIs

6.33 The European Communities comments that the assertion in paragraph 7.545 to the effect
that its trademark legislation provides no excepti ons with respect to the use of geographical
indications is factually incorrect, and refers to its response to Panel question No. 153 and, specifically,
to Article 6.1(b) of the First Trademark Direc tive and Article 12(b) of the Community Trademark
Regulation. Therefore, even where a trademark ow ner is allowed under the GI Regulation to enforce
his rights under the First Trademark Directive or the Community Trademark Regulation with respect
to the confusing use of a registered GI, he cannot prevent such use if it is "in accordance with honest
practices in industrial or commercial matters".
6.34 The United States responds that the Panel's point is that the exception in the trademark
legislation may be narrower than that in the GI Regu lation. It considers that the Panel's meaning is
clear and that any possible ambiguity might be re moved by adding the word "unqualified" before
exception. It also comments that the Europ ean Communities asserted before the Panel that the
trademark owners cannot prevent GI holders from usi ng a registered GI on the grounds that the use of
the name is confusing per se.
6.35 The Panel takes note of the factual correction and has deleted the paragraph.
Scope of a limited exception for GIs in translation
6.36 The European Communities suggests a redraft of paragraph 7.645 for the following reasons:
(a) lest it imply that the European Communities agr ees with the last sentence of paragraph 7.643;
(b) in order to include all the relevant limitations to the exception in Article 14(2) of the Regulation
relied upon by the Panel including "what is undoubt edly the most crucial one, namely that the
trademark owner maintains the right to prevent an y confusing uses by all parties except the GI
holders"; and (c) because a registration under the Regulation may specify more than one linguistic
version of the geographical indication and the last part of the second sentence of paragraph 7.645 may
suggest otherwise.
6.37 The United States opposes the suggestion which it considers a significant redrafting of the
Panel's factual conclusions as to the meaning of Ar ticle 14(2) of the Regulation. In its view, the
European Communities' arguments are baseless and a ppear to represent an attempt to back away from
factual findings that the European Communities itsel f repeatedly encouraged the Panel to make, as it
asks the Panel to purge all referenc es from paragraph 7.645 regarding tr anslations of registered GIs.
The United States provides some illustrative references of the European Communities' representations
during the panel proceeding and suggests that the Pane l consider repeating citations to them to avoid
any misunderstandings. The United States considers that (a) paragraph 7.645 does not imply that the
European Communities agrees with paragraph 7.643 ; (b) there is no legitimate purpose served by
replacing a summary of the issue of curtailment of the right against all signs (removing references to
translations) with a summary of the issue of curtailment of the right against all third parties, which has
already been summarized at paragraph 7.642; and (c ) it is clear that paragraph 7.645 addresses names
"rendered differently in anothe r language" from the name registered, and not names in other
languages that are registered.
6.38 The Panel has taken careful note of the partie s' comments and has amended the paragraph,
numbered 7.659 in the final report, to track more closely the wording of the explanations in the
European Communities' own submissions, and then ma de a finding on the basis of the terms of the
legislation and those explanations. It has also added references in the succeeding paragraph and

elsewhere to the limitation provided by certain di rectives which the European Communities explained
during the proceeding.
Conclusions
6.39 The European Communities requests that the Panel reflect in its conclusions its rejection of
the US claim that the requirement of inspection structures as such constitutes a violation of national
treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994.
6.40 The United States opposes this request as the report does not contain a separate finding
rejecting any claim that an inspection structure requirement "as such" violates national treatment
obligations. No purpose is served by repeating reasoning that the Panel did not find persuasive.
6.41 The Panel has clarified that its findings that the United States did not make a prima facie case
with respect to certain aspects of the inspection stru ctures and has reflected this in its conclusions in
paragraph 8.1. The Panel has also explained its r easons for exercising judicial economy in relation to
Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incor porated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement,
reflected this in its conclusions in paragraph 8.1, and reflected all conclusions under that provision.
The Panel has also added its conclusions from Section A of the findings to paragraph 8.1.
Suggestion by the Panel on a way to implement its recommendation

6.42 The United States suggests that the Panel refrain from making a suggestion in paragraph 8.5
as to a way to implement the recommendation becau se (a) the European Communities is in a better
position than either the Panel or the United Stat es to determine the most appropriate way to
implement the recommendations in the report; and (b) the simple clarification suggested by the Panel
is not enough because, as the Panel correctly found (at paragraphs numbered 7.84 to 7.86 in the final
report), the Regulation does not appear to have an y procedures for the registration of GIs from WTO
Members that do not satisfy the equivalence and reciprocity conditions.
6.43 The European Communities is surprised by the United States' suggestion as the
United States had informed the Panel that it "would welcome any objective clarification" that these
conditions do not apply, (as noted at paragraph 7.39 in the final report). The European Communities
remarks that if the Regulation is clarified in the sense suggested by the Panel, this would necessarily
also include a clarification that the appropriate procedures are available for the registration of
geographical indications from other WTO Members. For these reasons, the European Communities
requests that paragraph 8.5 not be deleted.
6.44 The Panel has modified its suggestion in para graph 8.5 but, on the basis of the European
Communities' remarks on interim review, considers it helpful to retain it.
Other requests for review

6.45 The United States also requests modifications to paragr aphs 7.28, 7.71, 7.72, 7.125, 7.400,
7.559 and 7.596 and footnotes 100 and 479 and makes some clerical observations. It suggests the
addition of a general statement that where a party elaborates on a statement in later submission or
answers to questions that citations to a submissi on are meant to be illustrative and not exhaustive.
The Panel has modified its report accordingly.
6.46 The European Communities also requests the modification of paragraphs 7.407, 7.712
and 8.1. The Panel has modified those paragraphs and paragraphs 7.696 and 7.697 accordingly.

VII. FINDINGS
A. P
RELIMINARY ISSUES
1. Consistency of panel requests with Article 6.2 of the DSU
7.1 On 24 February 2004, the day after the Panel was composed and prior to the organizational
meeting, the European Communities submitted a deta iled request that the Panel issue a preliminary
ruling that the United States' and Australia's resp ective requests for establishment of a panel were
inconsistent with the requirements of Article 6. 2 of the DSU. In accordance with the Panel's
timetable, the United States and Australia submitte d responses to the European Communities' request
for a preliminary ruling.
7.2 On 5 April 2004, the Panel issued the following preliminary ruling.9
 (a) Introduction

 1. The European Communities is of the vi ew that the requests for establishment of a
panel in this matter do not meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. It has requested
that the Panel issue a preliminary ruling regarding this question.
10

 2. The United States is of the view that the European Communities' arguments in
support of its request for a preliminary ruling that the United States' panel request does not
meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU are without merit. It submits that the Panel
should reject that request.
11

 (...) 12

 4. Article 6.2 of the DSU provides as follows:

"2. The request for the establishment of a panel shall be made in writing.
It shall indicate whether consultatio ns were held, identify the specific
measures at issue and provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the
complaint sufficient to present the probl em clearly. In case the applicant
requests the establishment of a panel with other than standard terms of
reference, the written request shall include the proposed text of special terms
of reference."
 5. The European Communities alleges that the requests for establishment of a panel are
inconsistent with the following requirements in Article 6.2:

(a) they fail to identify the specific measure at issue; and
(b) they do not provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint
sufficient to present the problem clearly.

9 The preliminary ruling is reproduced with minor editorial changes.
10 (footnote original) European Communities' request for a preliminary ruling dated 24 February 2004
("EC request"), paras. 1, 2, 3 and 5. [Note: that request is attached as Annex B-1 to this final report]
11 ( footnote original) United States' response to EC request, dated 15 March 2004 ("US response"),
para. 47. [Note: that response is attached as Annex A-1 to this final report]
12 Note: paragraph 3 of the preliminary ruling dealt with Australia's request for establishment of a
panel.

 6. The Panel will examine each of the requests for establishment of a panel as a whole
on its face in the light of the parties' respec tive communications to the Panel to date and the
relevant provisions of the c overed agreements to assess its compliance with each of these
requirements in the sections below.13

 (b) United States' request for establishment of a panel 14

 (i). Identification of the specific measure at issue

 7. The United States' request, in its first paragraph, refers to the following measure:

"EC Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended".
 8. The United States' request, in its sec ond paragraph, identifies the following measures
at issue:

"Regulation 2081/92, as amended, a nd its related implementing and
enforcement measures ('Regulation 2081/92')".
 Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92, as amended

 9. The United States' request identifies a particular regulation by the name of the
authority which adopted it, by its number, by its date of adoption and by its full title. It
includes amendments of this regulation. This is a specific measure, 15 and the request has
identified it. There is no doubt as to which sp ecific measure is in i ssue, as the European
Communities has itself demonstrated by annexing a consolidated text of the regulation to the
request for a preliminary ruling.16

 10. The European Communities argues that:

"The unspecific reference to Regulation 2081/92 made in the Panel
requests does not permit the EC to understand which specific aspects
among those covered by Regulation 2081/92 the complainants intend
to raise in the context of the present proceedings." (italics added)
 11. The Panel considers the ordinary meaning of the terms of the text in Article 6.2 of the
DSU, read in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the provision, to be
quite clear. They require that a request for establishment of a panel "identify the specific

13 (footnote original) This is consistent with the approach of the Appellate Body in US – Carbon Steel
14 (footnote original) Document WT/DS174/20.
15 (footnote original) In this respect, the Panel notes that the Appellate Body in EC – Bananas III (at
para. 140 of its report) agreed with the Panel in that case that similar language in the following extract from a
panel request sufficiently identified the specific measure at issue in accordan ce with Article 6.2 of the DSU: "a
regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas established by Regulation 404/93 [...], and
subsequent EC legislation, regulations and administrative measures, including those reflecting the provisions of
the Framework Agreement on bananas, which implement, supplement and amend that regime".
16 (footnote original) Exhibit EC-1 annexed to EC request, supra at 10. A list containing the names,
numbers and dates of the amendments reflected in the consolidated text of the regulation can be found on
page 1 of that document.

measures at issue". They do not require the id entification of the "specific aspects" of these
"specific measures."

 "its related implementing and enforcement measures
"

 12. The United States' request identifies, in addition to the regulation as amended, "its
related implementing and enforcement measures" . The European Communities asserts that
this phrase does not appear in the United States' request. 17 The Panel draws the European
Communities' attention to the definition of "R egulation 2081/92" in the second paragraph of
the request.18 This phrase, as used in the United States' request, expressly refers to measures
which implement and enforce Regulation ( EEC) No. 2081/92, as amended. The word
"related" is not used in isolation in the request.

 13. The Regulation as amended itself expressly provides for the taking of particular types
of decisions and actions and the adoption of rul es of procedure for applying the Regulation.
For example, Article 6 provides for the Commissi on to verify that registration applications
include all the requisite particulars and, if it concludes that the name qualifies for protection,
to publish certain details and, if no objection is notif ied, the name is entered in a register or, if
the Commission concludes that the name does not qualify for protection, to decide not to
proceed with the publication. Article 11a provides that the Commission may cancel the
registration of a name. Article 12 provides fo r decisions by the Commission as to whether a
third country satisfies the equivalence conditio ns and offers the requisite guarantees.
Article 12b provides for the Commission, if it concludes that a name the subject of a
registration request sent by a third country satisfies the conditions for protection, to publish
certain details or, if it concludes that the name does not satisfy the conditions for protection,
to decide not to proceed with publication. Ar ticle 16 provides for deta iled rules for applying
the Regulation to be adopted.
19 Those decisions, actions and rules, among others, implement
the Regulation. The European Communities has indicated that the competent judicial and
executive authorities enforce the Regulation. 20 In the Panel's view, this does not imply that
there is any uncertainty as to which measur es taken by those authorities implement and
enforce the Regulation and which do not. All of the Regulation's implementing and
enforcement measures form a group of specific measures which, although they may be a large
group, are identified by the United States' request for establishment of a panel.21

 14. For these reasons, on the basis of the fact s available to us, the Panel rules that the
United States' request for establishment of a panel did not fail to identify the specific
measures at issue in accordance with Article 6.2 of the DSU.

 (ii) A brief summary of the legal basis of th e complaint sufficient to present the problem
clearly

 Preliminary remarks

 15. The United States' request, in its third paragraph, sets out in narrative form alleged
inconsistencies with the covere d agreements, by quoting or pa raphrasing the text of certain
provisions of the covered agreements. The fourth paragraph begins with the words
"Regulation 2081/92 appears to be inconsistent with:" and then sets out provisions of the

17 (footnote original) EC request, supra at 10, para. 24, fn. 10.
18 (footnote original) Quoted above at para. 8.
19 (footnote original) Exhibit EC-1.
20 (footnote original) EC request, supra at 10, para. 30.
21 (footnote original) See supra at 15.

covered agreements by number with which th e United States alleges that the measures at
issue are inconsistent.

 16. It is clear on a plain reading of the request that the series of numbered provisions is
not to be limited to what appears in the narrative text. The narrative text quotes or
paraphrases some of these provisions which, in the Panel's view, illustrates and clarifies the
alleged violations. In this regard, the Pa nel notes that the European Communities has
conceded that it recognizes in the narrative text the treaty language of Articles 3 and 4 of the
TRIPS Agreement and Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.
22

 17. The series of numbered provisions identifi es every article of every covered agreement
at issue and, where there are paragraphs with in an article, it identifies every paragraph by
number (with the exception of Article 2 of the Paris Convention, as incorporated by
Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article I of the GATT 1994).

 Individual analyses

 18. The Panel considers that the mere lis ting of provisions of the relevant covered
agreements may not satisfy the standard of Ar ticle 6.2 of the DSU, for instance, where the
listed provisions establish multiple obligations ra ther than one single, distinct obligation.
23
However, where the multiple obligations are clo sely related and interli nked, a reference to a
common obligation in the specific listed provisions should be sufficient to meet the standard
of Article 6.2 of the DSU under certain circumstances in a particular case.24

 19. With these considerations in mind, the Panel now examines individual claims related
to each provision listed by the United States in its request for establishment of a panel. The
Panel notes that Articles 1.1, 2.1 (incorporating by reference Article 2 of the Paris Convention
(1967)), 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 24.5, 41.4, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3 and 65.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, which were enum erated in the United States' request, each
contains either a single obligation or very clo sely related obligations. In addition, the Panel
notes the following:

 (a) Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement does not set out an obligation but rather a
definition of a term which is used in ot her provisions set out in the United States'
request. The reference to Article 22.1 and the corresponding narrative text in the
request actually presents the problem more, rather than less, clearly because they
explain that the United States will challenge the measures at issue under the relevant
obligations on the basis of an alleged inconsistency with this definition;

 (b) Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement cont ains an obligation regarding the use of a
geographical indication in two circumstan ces, but the narrative text paraphrases the
first one from Article 22.2(a). This clarifies that the obligation in this circumstance is
the subject of a claim;

 (c) Article 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement cont ains a general obligation which relates, on
its face, to "enforcement procedures as specified in [Part III]". Several of those
enforcement procedures are ra ised in the United States' request, namely those under
Articles 41.2, 41.4, 42 and 44.1. This clarifies that the general obligation is the

22 (footnote original) EC request, supra at 10, paras. 44 and 45.
23 (footnote original) See the Appellate Body report on Korea – Dairy, para. 124.
24 (footnote original) See the Appellate Body report on Thailand – H-Beams, para. 93.

subject of a claim in relation to these proce dures. The narrative text also states that
the regulation at issue "does not provide adequate enforcement procedures";

 (d) Article 41.2 of the TRIPS Agreement contai ns general obligations which relate to the
operation of procedures concerning the enforc ement of intellectual property rights.
The requirements of each sentence of Article 41.2 are distinct but they are all closely
related;

 (e) Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement cont ains closely related obligations concerning
fair and equitable procedures. The requirements of each sentence in Article 42 are
distinct but they all set out specific features of fair and equitable civil judicial
procedures concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights;

 (f) the focus of the claims under Articles 41. 1, 41.2 and 42 of the TRIPS Agreement is
further clarified by the fact that the measu res at issue deal with the subject of the
protection of geographical indications a nd designations of origin, which does not
impact all intellectual property rights cove red by the Agreement, and the narrative
text also refers to the protection of trademarks and geographical indications; and

 (g) Article I of the GATT 1994 contains f our paragraphs, but the narrative text quotes
only the first paragraph. This clarifies that the obligation in Article I:1 is the subject
of a claim. The European Communities recognizes this treaty text.
25

 20. The European Communities further c ontends that it is entitled to know which
provision or aspect of Regulation No. 2081/92 is supposed to violate certain obligations and
in which way such a violation is deemed to occur. In the Panel's view, the European
Communities is seeking the arguments, rather th an just the claims, of the United States.
26
That being said, the Panel wishes to assure th e European Communities that it is fully entitled
to know the arguments of the United States during the course of the proceedings . Those
arguments must be set out and may be clarified in the United States' submissions.27 However,
Article 6.2 of the DSU does not require those arguments to be set out in the request for
establishment of a panel.
28

 21. The Panel notes that Article 6.2 of the DS U calls for sufficient clarity with respect to
the legal basis of the complaint so as to en able a defending party to begin preparing its
defence.29 Our examination of the United States ' request for establishment of a panel as a
whole, in the light of the United States' and the European Communities' respective
communications to the Panel to date and the re levant provisions of the covered agreements,
leads us to believe that the request for establis hment of a panel was sufficiently clear for the
European Communities to begin preparing its defence.

 22. For these reasons, on the basis of the fact s available to us, the Panel rules that the
United States' request for establishment of a panel did not fail to provide a brief summary of
the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly in accordance with
Article 6.2 of the DSU.

25 (footnote original) EC request, supra at 10, para. 45.
26 (footnote original) See the Appellate Body report on EC – Bananas III , para. 141; Korea – Dairy,
27 (footnote original) Ibid.
28 (footnote original) See the Appellate Body report on Korea – Dairy, para. 123.
29 (footnote original) See the Appellate Body report on Thailand – H-Beams, para. 88.

 (...) 30

 (d) Due process

 43. The European Communities is also of the view that the "deficiencies" of the requests
for establishment of a panel seriously prejudi ce its due process rights as a defending party,
notably, to know the case it has to answer.
31

 44. The Panel recalls once again that Article 6.2 of the DSU calls for sufficient clarity
with respect to the legal basis of the complain t so as to enable a defending party to begin
preparing its defence.
32 In this respect, the Panel has found that the complainants' requests
for establishment of a panel were sufficiently clear for the European Communities to begin
preparing its defence. 33 Therefore, the Panel considers that it is not necessary to make a
separate ruling on this issue, as presented by the European Communities in its request.34

 45. The Panel is mindful of the due process rights of all parties in this proceeding. In this
regard, it notes that the European Communities had a period of over four months after the
establishment of the Panel prior to its constituti on plus a period of over seven weeks prior to
receipt of the complainants' first written submissions to begin preparing its case, and will have
an additional period of four and a half weeks from receipt of the complainants' first written
submissions to continue preparation of its own first written submission, which is in excess of
the maximum period proposed in Appendix 3 to the DSU.

 (e) Timeliness

 46. The European Communities submitted its request for a preliminary ruling two days
after the composition of the Panel. It also rai sed its concerns at the DSB meetings at which
the requests for establishment of a panel were considered.
35

 47. The Panel therefore considers that the European Communities has raised its concerns
in a timely manner.
36

 (f) Conclusion

 48. In light of the foregoing, on the basis of the facts available to us, the Panel rules that
the measures and claims in Australia's a nd the United States' respective requests for
establishment of a panel did not fail to meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU that
they identify the specific measures at issue and provide a brief summary of the legal basis of
the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly. [End of 5 April 2004 ruling]

30 Note: paragraphs 23-42 of the preliminary ruling dealt with Australia's request for establishment of a
panel.
31 (footnote original) EC request, supra at 10, para. 4.
32 (footnote original) See supra at 29.
33 (footnote original) See para. 21.
34 (footnote original) The Panel takes note that the European Communities stated that it does not take a
position as to whether "the requirement of prejudice in Article 6.2 DSU" constitutes an additional requirement to
those set out in Article 6.2 of the DSU: EC request, supra at 10, para. 66, fn. 25
35 (footnote original) See the minutes of those meetings in documents WT/DSB/M/155, para. 75, and
WT/DSB/M/156, para. 32, reproduced in Exhibits EC-2 a nd EC-3, respectively. The Panel takes note that the
European Communities did not clearly raise any problem concerning the alleged failure of Australia's request to
identify the specific measures at issue on those occasions.
36 (corrected footnote original) This does not imply that these issues could not be raised later in the
proceedings.

7.3 The Panel stated expressly that its 5 April 2004 preliminary ruling was based on the facts
available to it at that time.
37 In this final report, the Panel makes further findings on the sufficiency of
the panel request, in light of submissions made later during the course of the panel proceeding. These
submissions confirm the Panel's ruling as to the mean ing of the words used in the panel request and
the Panel's assessment that the ability of the respondent to defend itself was not prejudiced.
38
7.4 First, the Panel recalls that the European Comm unities argued, in its request for a preliminary
ruling, that:
"The unspecific reference to Regulation 2081/92 made in the Panel requests does not
permit the EC to understand which specific aspects among those covered by
Regulation 2081/92 the complainants intend to raise in the context of the present
proceedings."39
7.5 The Panel ruled that Article 6.2 did not require the identification of the "specific aspects" of
the specific measures at issue. 40 In any event, after consulting the parties' first written submissions, it
is clear that the reference to "Regulation No. 2081/92, as amended" in the request for establishment of
a panel did identify certain specific aspects among those covered by the Regulation that the
complainant later raised, as follows:
(a) the United States' claims concerning national treatment (considered in Section VII:B
of this report) are based on the differences between the two sets of registration and
objection procedures set out in Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 (the "Regulation") in
Articles 5 through 7 and 12 through 12d, respectively.
41 This is one of the principal
features of the Regulation. It was clear from the request for establishment of a panel
that the complainant intended to raise these aspects of the Regulation; and
(b) the United States' claim concerning the legal protection for trademarks (considered in
Section VII:C of this report) is based on Ar ticle 14 of the Regulation. This provision
is specifically devoted to that issue. It was clear from the request for establishment of
a panel that the complainant intended to rai se this article of the Regulation, as the
European Communities itself confirmed in its request for a preliminary ruling42.
7.6 Second, the Panel recalls that the European Communities submitted in its February 2004
request for a preliminary ruling that:
"In the present case, the ambiguity of the Panel request is such that the EC is, to this
date, not sure of the case which the United States and Australia are bringing before

37 See paras. 6, 14 and 48 of the preliminary ruling set out above.
38 This is consistent with the approach of the Appellate Body in US – Carbon Steel, para. 127.
39 Quoted at para. 10 of the preliminary ruling set out above.
40 See para. 11 of the preliminary ruling set out above.
41 To the extent that the claims concern the actions of EC member State authorities in the examination,
verification and transmission of applications and objections, the European Communities expressly referred to
these actions at para. 31 of its request for a preliminary ruling, attached as Annex B-1 to this report. It also
informed the Panel during this pro ceeding that Community laws are genera lly not executed through authorities
at Community level but rather through recourse to the authorities of its member States: see para. 7.98 below.
42 The claim concerned coexistence under Article 14 (2), subject to Article 14(3). The European
Communities expressly referred to both, as well as Article 7(4), to which it referred in its defence, at paras. 47
and 61 of its request for a preliminary ruling, attached as Annex B-1 to this report. The only aspect of the
Regulation which it raised in this respect in its request fo r a preliminary ruling, that it did not later raise in its
defence, was Article 14(1): see Section VII:C of this report.

the Panel. As a consequence, the EC has been seriously hampered in its efforts to
prepare its defence."43
7.7 Specifically, with respect to the national treatment claims, it submitted as follows:
"[T]he US claim is limited to a paraphrasi ng of the treaty language of [Article 3
TRIPS and Article III:4 GATT]. The US claim does not permit to understand which
provision or aspect of Regulation 2081/92 is supposed to violate the national
treatment principle, and in which way such a violation is deemed to occur."44
7.8 The Panel's assessment was that the request for establishment of a panel was sufficiently clear
for the European Communities to begin preparing its defence. 45 After consulting the European
Communities' first written submission, and informa tion submitted by the United States, the Panel is
now aware that the European Communities had al ready presented in the Council for TRIPS in
September 2002 a statement that responded specifica lly to the United States' argument that national
treatment under the TRIPS Agreement applied to ge ographical indications. In that statement, the
European Communities quoted the texts of Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article III:4 of
GATT 1994 and argued that "[t]hose entitled to rights under TRIPS are nationals".
7.9 Further, in an attachment to a letter sent in January 2003 by Commissioner Lamy to the
United States Trade Representative, under the he ading "national treatment", the Commissioner
referred inter alia to the equivalence and reciprocity cond itions, the notion of "nationals" under the
TRIPS Agreement, and the availability to U.S. nationa ls of protection for GIs located in the European
Communities.46 These arguments are also an important defence set out in the European Communities'
first written submission, in which it is argued that "[t]he conditions for the registration of geographical
indications do not depend on nationality".47
7.10 With respect to the claim concerning minimum standards of GI protection, the European
Communities had submitted in its request for a preliminary ruling that:
"The United States alleges that Regulation 2081/92 'does not provide legal means for
interested parties to prevent the misleadi ng use of a geographical indication'. This
claim is not comprehensible to the EC. In its Article 13, Regulation 2081/92 contains
detailed provisions regarding the protecti on of geographical indications. These
provisions provide interested parties with the legal means to prevent the misleading
use of a geographical indication. In the ab sence of further explanations, the EC fails
to comprehend what is the claim that the United States is intending to establish."48

43 European Communities' request, para. 68, supra at 10.
44 Ibid., para. 44.
45 See para. 21 of the preliminary ruling set out above.
46 Exhibit US-73, attachment, page 1. The Panel notes that this letter did not form part of the
consultations under Article 4 of the DSU on the national treatment and MFN claims in this dispute, which the
United States requested in April 2003 (WT/DS174/1/Add.1). The United States first submitted only a relevant
page of the attachment to this letter, identifying it as a "Communication from the EC to the United States of
January 16, 2003". The European Communities replied that it did not consider that "this document is
attributable to the EC, and will not comment on it any further", (EC rebuttal, para. 84). The United States
therefore submitted the full text of the letter and its attachment, which includes other matters relevant to
geographical indications, including the issue of prio r trademarks, on which the United States requested
consultations in 1999 (WT/DS174/1).
47 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 114 and 123-126.
48 European Communities' request, para. 49, attached as Annex B-1 to this report.

7.11 The Panel is now aware that, in the same lette r, Commissioner Lamy had earlier confirmed to
the United States Trade Representative that "US GIs ca nnot be registered in the EU" but argued that
alternative measures besides the Regula tion provided protection for U.S. GIs.
49 In light of these
attendant circumstances, the allegation that "Re gulation 2081/92 'does not provide legal means for
interested parties to prevent the misleading use of a geographical indication'" should have been readily
comprehensible to the European Communities.
7.12 These statements support the Panel's assessment th at the relevant wording of the request for
establishment of a panel was sufficiently clear for the European Communities to begin preparing its
defence of the first national treatment claim and the claim under Article 22.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement.50
7.13 Third, the Panel notes that, in any event, th e United States' other claims (considered in
Section VII:D of this report), brought under the pr ovisions discussed in subparagraphs (a) through (g)
of paragraph 19 of the preliminary ruling, were not pursued in such detail. The Panel has found no
prima facie case or exercised judicial economy in respect of all these claims. This confirms the
Panel's assessment that no prejudice has been caused to the rights of the respondent by these claims.
2. Measures adopted after the date of establishment of the Panel
(a) Main arguments of the parties
7.14 The United States and Australia submitted, as an exhibit, a copy of Commission Regulation
(EC) No. 2400/96 51, which is effectively the register unde r Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 2081/92. Individual designations of origin and geographical indications are added to the register
by amending this Commission Regulation. The e xhibit includes amendments made up until the time
of the first written submissions in this proceeding, nine of which were adopted after the date of
establishment of the Panel. Those nine amendmen ts effected the registrations of 15 individual
designations of origin and geographical indications.52
7.15 The United States and Australia also submitted, as an exhibit, an unofficial consolidated
version of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92, which included amendments published in the
Official Journal of the European Communities up until the date of establishment of the Panel. 53 The
latest of these amendments is the Act of Accession of ten new EC member States. They also
submitted, as an exhibit, an extract from that Ac t of Accession which provides for the registration of
three Czech beer GIs under Article 17 of the Regulation.54
7.16 The United States indicates that it does not raise claims against the three Czech beer GIs but
provides them as examples relevant to issues in dispute. Nevertheless, it submits that the Panel's

49 Exhibit US-73, attachment, page 1, supra at 46. The relevant passage is quoted at para. 7.83 below.
50 See also para. 6.7 above.
51 Exhibit COMP-4b.
52 Exhibit COMP-4b.viii to xvi. The 15 GIs are "Westlandse druif"; "Alcach ofa de Benicarló" or
"Carxofa de Benicarló"; "Marrone di San Zeno"; "Mantequilla de l'Alt Urgell y la Cerdanya" or "Mantega de
l'Alt Urgell i la Cerdanya"; "Thüringer Leberwurst", "Thüringer Rotwurst", "Thüringer Rostbratwurst"; "Spressa
delle Giudicarie"; "Fraise du Périgord"; "Queso de Valdeón"; "Ensaimada de Mallorca" or "Ensaimada
mallorquina"; "Arbroath Smokies"; "C arciofo di Paestum"; "Farina di Neccio della Garfagnana"; "Agneau de
Pauillac" and "Agneau du Poitou-Charentes".
53 Exhibit COMP-1a.
54 Exhibit COMP-3c. The Czech beer GIs are "Bud ĕjovické pivo", " Českobudĕjovické pivo" and
"Budĕjovický mĕšt’anský var".

findings could affect trademark rights in future di sputes regarding allegedly infringing uses of these
three GIs.55
7.17 The European Communities responds that these measures did not yet exist at the time the
Panel was established and are therefore outside the term s of reference. In particular, it submits that
the Act of Accession was subject to ratificatio n, which was not completed on the date of
establishment of the Panel, and did not enter into force until 1 May 2004. 56 However, it understands
that the United States does not raise a claim concerning the registration of the three Czech beer GIs.57
(b) Main arguments of third parties
7.18 China argues that the wording of the request for establishment of a panel specified
amendments to the Regulation and that, therefore, they are properly included in the Panel's terms of
reference. The respondent received notice of the inclusion of amendments and had enough
opportunity to respond to the complainant's case. It is irrelevant whether the amendments came into
effect before or after the Panel was established.58
(c) Consideration by the Panel
7.19 The Panel begins by noting that Council Regul ation (EEC) No. 2081/92 (referred to in this
report as the "Regulation") has not been amended in any relevant respec ts during this panel
proceeding. It was last amended in April 2003, prio r to the date of the request for establishment of a
panel. However, certain individual registrations were effected under the Regulation after the date of
establishment of the Panel and prior to the date of the complainant's first written submission, and
registrations continue to be made after that date.
7.20 The Panel notes that the United States does not challenge any individual registrations in this
dispute. It is therefore unnecessary to rule on th ese measures. It suffices to note that individual
registrations made after the date of the request for establishment of a panel can be among the best
evidence of the way in which certain provisions of the Regulation itself, which are at issue, are
interpreted and applied.59 The Panel may therefore refer to them , as factual evidence, in the course of
its assessment of the matter before it.60
3. Claims under Article 2(2) of the Paris Conven tion (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1
of the TRIPS Agreement
(a) Main arguments of the parties
7.21 The United States claims that the Regulation imposes a requirement as to domicile or
establishment in the European Communities on the ava ilability of registration and the right to object
to registrations contrary to Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article 2.1
of the TRIPS Agreement.61 In its view, the requirement of co mmercial establishment in the European
Union under the Regulation at issue is simply an other aspect of the alleged denial of national

55 United States' comments on EC response to Panel question No. 137.
56 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 21-25.
57 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 291-292.
58 Annex C, paras. 70-71.
59 In fact, the European Communities itself has included one of these GIs in its exhibits: the 2002
publication of the application to register "Thüringer Leberwurst" is Exhibit EC-54.
60 The Panel refers to the registration of the thr ee Czech beer GIs submitte d in an exhibit by the
complainants (see para. 7.15 above) as evidence of the operation of Article 14(3) of the Regulation in
paras. 7.573 and 7.669 below.
61 United States' first written submission, paras. 84-85 and 91.

treatment and the requirement in Article 2(2) of th e Paris Convention (1967) is connected to and part
of the obligation in Article 2(1). Its request fo r establishment of a pane l referred to "national
treatment" and "Article 2" of the Paris Convention (1967), which include both paragraphs 1 and 2.
 62
7.22 The European Communities responds that these claims are outside the Panel's terms of
reference because they relate to Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) which was not explicitly
mentioned in the request for estab lishment of a panel. Article 2( 2) prohibits the imposition of
requirements as to domicile or establishment and is therefore different from, and additional to, the
obligations resulting from the national treatment provision of Article 2(1).63
(b) Consideration by the Panel
7.23 The Panel notes that the United States' request fo r establishment of a panel refers in narrative
form to the treatment of other nationals and pr oducts originating outside the European Communities
and that provided to the European Communities' own nationals and products, and cites by number
Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement "incorporating by reference Article 2 of the Paris Convention"
(1967). In its submissions to the Panel, the United States claims that certain aspects of the Regulation
are inconsistent with both Article 2(1) and 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by
Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.24 The issue for the Panel is whether the reference to national treatment and to Article 2 of the
Paris Convention (1967) is sufficient to present th e legal basis of the complaint under Articles 2(1)
and 2(2), or only Article 2(1).
7.25 The Panel considers that the mere listing of pr ovisions of the relevant covered agreements
may not satisfy the standard of Article 6.2 of the DSU, for instance, where the listed provisions
establish multiple obligations rather than one single, distinct obligation. 64 However, where the
multiple obligations are closely related and inter linked, a reference to a common obligation in the
specific listed provisions should be sufficient to me et the standard of Article 6.2 of the DSU under
certain circumstances in a particular case.65
7.26 Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Paris C onvention (1967) expresses a national treatment
obligation. Paragraph 2 prohibits local domicile or establishment requirements as a condition for the
enjoyment of any industrial property rights. The text s of paragraphs 1 and 2 are linked by the use of
the conjunction "[h]owever" which indicates that para graph 2 restricts the rule of paragraph 1.
Paragraph 2 in effect provides that certain conditions may not be imposed on foreign nationals, even if
they are imposed on a country's own nationals. 66 Paragraph 3 also reserves or excepts certain
conditions from the national treatment obligation, but by stating certain conditions which may be
imposed on foreign nationals, even if they are not imposed on a country's own nationals. Read in
context, all three paragraphs either establish a single obligation or are very closely related:

62 United States' first oral statement, para. 27; rebuttal submission, paras. 80-83.
63 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 36-42; second oral statement,
paras. 112-117.
64 See the Appellate Body report on Korea – Dairy, para. 124.
65 See the Appellate Body report on Thailand – H-Beams, para. 93.
66 A leading commentator explains the addition of the word "however" as follows: "Even when the
conditions imposed upon nationals of a country include the stipulation that those nationals can claim protection
of certain industrial property rights only if they are domiciled or established in the country, this same stipulation
cannot be imposed upon nationals of other countries of the Union." in Bodenhausen, Professor G.H.C., Guide to
the Application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property , United International Bureaux
for the Protection of Intellectual Property (BIRPI) (1969) (reprinted 1991) ("Bodenhausen"), p. 31. [Emphasis
in the original]

paragraph 1 sets out an obligation to provide nati onal treatment and paragra phs 2 and 3 limit that
obligation.
7.27 Therefore, in the Panel's view, the references in the request for establishment of a panel to
national treatment and to Article 2 of the Paris Co nvention (1967), which does not specify particular
paragraphs, as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TR IPS Agreement, is sufficient to explain the legal
basis of the complaints under both pa ragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2. Accordingly, the Panel rules that
the claims under Article 2(2) of the Paris Conven tion (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement, are within the Panel's terms of reference.
4. Claim regarding objection procedures under GATT 1994
7.28 The European Communities indicates in its responses to questions after the second
substantive meeting that, in its view, the United St ates has made a claim in relation to the objection
procedures under the TRIPS Agreement but not under GATT 1994. 67 It does not indicate the reasons
for its view.
7.29 The United States replies that it makes its claim in relation to the objection procedures under
GATT 1994 as well, and refers to passages in its rebuttal submission.68
7.30 The parties do not dispute that the United States' claim with respect to objection procedures
under GATT 1994 is within the Panel's terms of reference. Nor do they dispute that the United States'
rebuttal submission clearly raises a claim in resp ect of the objection procedures under "the national
treatment obligations of GATT 1994". However, the presentation of this claim after the first
substantive meeting raises an issue of due process. The United States chose not to pursue this claim
in its first written submission but later expected th e European Communities to defend itself against an
additional claim.
7.31 Normally, this would prejudice a respondent's ability to defend itself. However, the
overlapping nature of the United States' claims w ith respect to different aspects of the same measure
and the same type of obligation unde r different covered agreements is a feature of this dispute. The
facts and arguments submitted in support of this claim in respect of the objection procedures under the
national treatment obligations of GATT 1994 completely overlap with those in support of claims in
respect of the objection procedures under the nationa l treatment obligations in the TRIPS Agreement,
and the application procedures under the national tr eatment obligation in Article III:4 of GATT 1994.
This also serves to clarify that this claim is made under Article III:4.
7.32 The requirements of due process have been observed. The European Communities has
responded to all the relevant facts and argument s in detail, as well as a question from the Panel
concerning the justification of the objection pr ocedures under Article XX(d) of GATT 1994, although
it did not otherwise respond to this claim.
7.33 For all these reasons, the Panel will consider this claim.69
5. Request by a third party for a suggestion on ways to implement a recommendation
7.34 Mexico considers that "cochineal" should be removed from the list of products covered by the
Regulation set out in its Annex II. As a third pa rty, Mexico does not submit this as a claim, but
requests that the Panel make a suggestion to this effect pursuant to the second sentence of Article 19.1

67 See European Communities' response to Panel question No. 136(d).
68 United States' comments on EC response to Panel question No. 136(d).
69 See paras. 7.367 to 7.373 below.

of the DSU. Mexico argues that there is no require ment that a request for such a suggestion must be
forwarded by one of the parties and, if the Panel do es not deem it appropriate to make such a specific
suggestion, the same result would be achieved by a suggestion that the European Communities
withdraw the Regulation.
70
7.35 The Panel takes note of Mexico's request. The issue of the product coverage of the
Regulation is not challenged by the claims in this di spute and is therefore outsi de the Panel's terms of
reference. However, Mexico's attention is drawn to Article 10.4 of the DSU.
6. Order of analysis of claims
7.36 The claims in this dispute are made under the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994 and certain
claims under each agreement relate to the same aspect s of the measure at issue. There is no hierarchy
between these two agreements which appear in separ ate annexes to the WTO Agreement. The parties
have addressed claims under the TRIPS Agreement fi rst in their submissions, which appears logical.
Therefore, the Panel will follow that order of analysis in this report.
7.37 The Panel will consider the claims relevant to each aspect of the m easure in turn. The
following sections of the findings are organized as follows:
 – Section B National treatment claims

 – Section C Trademark claim

 – Section D Other claims

B. N
ATIONAL TREATMENT CLAIMS
1. Availability of protection
(a) Do the conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulation apply to WTO Members?
(i) Main arguments of the parties71
7.38 The United States claims that GIs located in the territory of a WTO Member outside the
European Union can only be registered under the Regulation if that Member satisfies the conditions in
Article 12(1), which require it to adopt a system for GI protection that is equivalent to that in the
European Communities and provide reciprocal protection to products from the European
Communities.72
7.39 The United States argues that these conditions are clearly set out as requirements for
registration of GIs in all third countries, incl uding WTO Members, in Articles 12 and 12a of the
Regulation. Article 12(1) does not suggest that WTO Members are excluded from its conditions and
Article 12a sets out the sole process under the Regul ation for the registration of non-EC GIs. If the
conditions in Article 12(1) do not apply to WTO Members, then they may not be recognized under
Article 12(3) and the Article 12a pr ocedure is still not available for them. It argues that the European
Communities had maintained in its public statemen ts up until the time of its first written submission

70 Annex C, paras. 115 and 117.
71 The Panel's citations of parties' submissions in this report are not exhaustive. At times, parties'
positions are elaborated in other submissions and responses to questions which are attached in full in Annexes A
and B to this report.
72 United States' first written submission, para. 22.

that the conditions did apply to WTO Members. It did not amend the conditions so that they would
not apply to WTO Members when it amended the Re gulation in April 2003. The United States would
welcome any objective clarification that the conditi ons do not apply, but the clear language of the
Regulation shows that they do. The introductory phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international
agreements" reserves flexibility to protect specific non-EC GIs through bilateral agreements.
73
7.40 The United States argues that the Panel is not bound by the European Communities'
interpretation of its own measure. It is not based on any published official no tice, it runs counter to
the terms of the Regulation and it does not appear to be authoritative or binding as a matter of EC law.
It is a statement by the European Commission whic h does not prevent the European Council, the EC
member States or individuals from contesting that interpretation before the Community courts.74
7.41 The European Communities responds that the conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulation
do not apply to geographical areas located in WTO Members. The introductory phrase of
Article 12(1) provides that it applies "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" – which
include the WTO agreements. This is made clear by the eighth recital of the April 2003 amending
Regulation which took specific account of the pr ovision of the TRIPS Agreement. WTO Members
are obliged to provide protection to geographical i ndications in accordance with Section 3 of Part II
and the general provisions and basic principles of the TRIPS Agreement. For this reason,
Article 12(1) and 12(3) do not apply to WTO Members. Accordingly, the registration of GIs from
other WTO Members is subject to exactly the same conditions as the registration of GIs from the
European Communities.
75
7.42 The European Communities argues that the procedure under Article 12a of the Regulation is
not limited to the cases covered by Article 12(3). Th e term "third country" in Articles 12 through 12d
does or does not include WTO Members depending on the wording, context and objectives of each
specific provision. The evidence of prior statements by Community officials does not contradict the
EC's interpretation in this Panel proceeding and mo re recent statements support it. The statements
made by the agents of the European Commission before the Panel commit and engage the European
Communities but their intention is not to create new legal obligations in pub lic international or in
Community law. They are made on behalf of th e European Communities as a whole and not only the
Commission. Community legislation must, so far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is
consistent with international law, in particular where its provisions are intended specifically to give
effect to an international agreement conclude d by the Community, as indicated by the phrase
"[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements". An interpretation that limited that phrase to
bilateral agreements would largely deprive it of its useful value.76
7.43 The European Communities does not consider that the Panel is "bound" by the EC's
interpretation of its own measure. However, it s ubmits that the Panel must take due account of the
fact that the Regulation is a measure of EC domestic law and establish its meaning as a factual
element. This means that: (1) the burden of proof is on the complainant to establish the meaning of
the measure. Given that the claim in th e present dispute is based on the measure per se and not as
applied, the complainant must establish "beyond doubt " that the measure entails a violation; (2) in

73 United States' first oral statement, paras. 7-16; rebuttal submission, paras. 8 and 20-21; second oral
statement, paras. 18-22. In this regard, the United St ates also makes a reference to Australia's first written
submission and responses to Panel questions in a footnote to para. 8 of its rebuttal submission, and states that
the United States "and Australia" have documented numerous cases of EC explanations of its views, in its
comment on the EC response to Panel question No. 97.
74 United States' response to Panel question No. 1 and rebuttal submission, para. 12.
75 European Communities' first written submission, para s. 62-67; first oral statement, paras. 41-44;
rebuttal submission, para. 52.
76 European Communities' responses to Panel question Nos. 7, 8, 15 and 16; rebuttal submission,
paras. 11, 58-60 and 71-87; second oral statement, paras. 45 and 50.

making an objective assessment of the facts and the in terpretation of the measure, the Panel should be
guided by the rules of interpretation customary in th e EC's domestic legal order; and (3) it is the EC's
authorities who must interpret and apply the measure and therefore its explanations must be given
considerable deference.
77
(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.44 Argentina asserts that the conditions of equivalence and reciprocity apply to GIs located in
all third countries. It is unconvinced by the Europ ean Communities' explanation of its measure. If its
intention had been to distinguish between WTO Members and other third countries, it could have
done so more explicitly.
78
7.45 Brazil asserts that the conditions of equivalence and reciprocity apply to GIs located in all
third countries. It considers that the European Commission's interpretation of the phrase "without
prejudice to international agreements" would not necessarily withstand scrutiny by a judicial body and
is unlikely given that the provisions that refer to "third countries" would have been drafted with only a
handful of non-WTO Members in mind. The referen ce in Article 12(2) indicates that third countries
means all third countries outside the European Communities, although in Articles 12a(2) and 12d(1) it
could mean non-WTO Members. The EC's interpretation could a contrario indicate a recognition that
the equivalence and reciprocity conditions violat e national treatment obligations in GATT 1994 and
TRIPS.
79
7.46 Canada considers that Article 12 of the Regulation, read in context with Articles 12a, 12b
and 12d, cannot support the interp retation advanced by the European Communities. The ambiguous
reference to "international agreements" is insufficient to counter their clear wording. There would not
appear to be an alternative le gal basis for filing applications for countries outside the European
Communities besides Article 12 due to the wording of Article 12a(1). Artic les 12b and 12d refer to
"WTO Members" and "third countries" which suggest s no differential application to "third countries"
in Articles 12 and 12a. The European Communities indicated that Article 12 applied to all WTO
Members in a statement in September 2002 to the Council for TRIPS.80
7.47 China argues that the European Communities' in terpretation is not accompanied by any
supporting evidence and that there is no regulatory language in the provisions to exclude expressly the
application of these provisions to WTO Members. The preamble to the April 2003 amending
Regulation refers specifically to WTO Members in relation to the right of objection, but does not
exclude WTO Members from the equivalence and r eciprocity conditions. Had the drafters intended
that it should not apply, they would have inserted a clause to that effect in the preamble. The
European Communities appears to have admitted that portions of Article 12, regarding product
specifications and inspection, do apply to WTO Members.
81
7.48 Colombia submits that, if the European Communities' interpretation of "without prejudice to
international agreements" is correct, the Panel should recommend that it modify its legislation in such
a way that that phrase acquires the scope and meaning that are assigned to it in the EC's first written
submission.82

77 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 1; second oral statement, paras. 5-7.
78 Annex C, para. 17.
79 Annex C, paras. 23-24.
80 Annex C, paras. 47-50.
81 Annex C, para. 72.
82 Annex C, para. 99.

7.49 Mexico submits that the language of Article 12( 1) of the Regulation is precise and
unequivocal. Third countries must satisfy conditions of equivalence and reciprocity in order to
receive the same protection as EC member States.83
7.50 New Zealand submits that the European Communities' interpretation of Article 12(1) and (3)
and the phrase "without prejudice to international agreements" is novel and does not withstand close
scrutiny. It runs counter to the usual meaning of that phrase and effectively admits that requiring
nationals of WTO Members to satisfy the procedures in Article 12(1) and (3) would be contrary to
WTO obligations. It is inconsistent with the word ing of the Regulation itself and, if Article 12(3)
does not apply to WTO Members, then the applica tion procedure in Article 12a would not either.
This is the first time that this interpretation h as been raised by the Eu ropean Communities. The
alternative interpretation adopted by the complain ant is consistent with the wording of the
Regulation.84
7.51 Chinese Taipei asserts that the conditions of equivalence and reciprocity apply to GIs located
in all third countries.85
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.52 The first issue in this claim concerns th e conditions for registration of GIs under the
Regulation. It is not disputed that a GI locat ed outside the European Communities has never been
registered nor the subject of an application made under the Regulation. 86 Therefore, the provisions
concerning the protection of such GIs have never been applied in a particular instance. However, the
United States challenges this aspect of the Regulation "as such".
7.53 The parties agree that the conditions set out in Article 12(1) of the Regulation do not apply to
the protection of GIs located within the territory of the European Communities. They disagree as to
whether they apply to the protection of GIs locat ed in other WTO Members. The United States
claims that they do so apply, and it is not disput ed that the European Communities never made a clear
statement that these conditions did not so apply prior to this panel proceeding. However, the
European Communities responds in its submissions to the Panel that the conditions only apply to third
countries that are not WTO Members.
7.54 The European Communities' position, as expressed in its submissions to the Panel, has been
welcomed in principle by the complainants and by two third parties 87. If the United States were
satisfied with this position, it would provide a pos itive solution to many of the national treatment
claims in this dispute. However, the United St ates is not persuaded that the European Communities
would be able to implement the position that it has pr esented to the Panel in light of the terms of the
Regulation on its face, allegedly prior inconsiste nt statements by the European Communities to the
Council for TRIPS, the Commission's Guide to th e Regulation and elsewhe re, and inconsistent
statements made during this Panel pr oceeding by the European Communities. 88 Therefore, although
the European Communities submits that the Regulation already is in conformity with its obligations,
the Panel is obliged to proceed with its assessm ent of the national treatment claims based on
Article 12(1) of the Regulation.

83 Annex C, para. 110.
84 Annex C, paras. 126-128.
85 Annex C, paras. 171-172.
86 See the parties' respective responses to Panel question Nos. 11 and 12 and third parties' comments in
Annex C. For the sake of brevity, the Panel refers to a name that refers to a geographical area located in a
Member as a GI located in that Member.
87 See para. 7 of the United States' first oral statem ent, endorsed by Australia, first oral statement,
para. 33, and summaries of arguments of Brazil and Canada, Annex C, paras. 24 and 47.

7.55 The fact that this is an "as such" challenge, and that the parties disagree sharply on whether
the European Communities' interpretation of its ow n measure is correct, requires the Panel to conduct
a detailed examination of the Regulation. In do ing so, it examines the Regulation solely for the
purpose of determining its conformity with relevant obligations under the WTO covered
agreements.
89 Although the Regulation is part of the European Communities' domestic law, the
parties agree that the Panel is not bound by th e European Communities' interpretation of its
provisions.90 Rather, the Panel is obliged, in accordan ce with its mandate, to make an objective
assessment of the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Regulation. In this context, the Panel is
mindful that, objectively, a Member is normally well placed to explain the meaning of its own law.
To the extent that either party advances a particular interpretation of a provision of the Regulation at
issue, it bears the burden of proof that its interpretation is correct.
7.56 Turning to the Regulation, the Panel notes that it applies to the registration of "designations of
origin" and "geographical indications", as defined.
91 For ease of reference, and without prejudice to
their consistency with the definition of a geogr aphical indication in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement, we shall refer to them both as "GIs" in this report, except where the context requires
otherwise.
7.57 Certain facts are agreed. The parties agree that the Regulation contains two sets of detailed
procedures for the registration of GIs for agricultura l products and foodstuffs. The first procedure, in
Articles 5 through 7, applies to the names of geographical areas located in the European
Communities.92 It has been part of the Regulation since its adoption in 1992, although it has been
amended subsequently in certain respects. The second procedure, principally found in Articles 12a
and 12b, applies to the names of geographical areas located in third countries outside the European
Communities.93 It was inserted in the Regulation in April 2003. A third procedure for registration of
GIs protected under the national law of EC member States was formerly available under Article 17,
but was deleted in April 2003. A fourth possibility is registration by means of an international
agreement, discussed below.
7.58 The parties disagree as to whether the second of these procedures is subject to additional
conditions found in Article 12(1) of the Regulati on that do not apply to the first procedure.
Article 12(1) provides as follows:
"1. Without prejudice to international ag reements, this Regulation may apply to
an agricultural product or foodstuff from a third country provided that:
- the third country is able to give gua rantees identical or equivalent to those
referred to in Article 4,

89 This was the approach of the Appellate Body in India – Patents (US), paras. 65-68.
90 Parties' respective responses to Panel question No. 1.
91 The terms "designation of origin" and "geographical indication" are defined in Article 2(2) of the
Regulation and they and the abbreviations "PDO" and "PGI" are found in Article 4 of the Regulation
(Exhibits COMP-1b and EC-1). Detailed rules of application of the Regulation are found in Commission
Regulation (EEC) No. 2037/93 (Exhibit COMP-2).
92 This is apparent from Article 5(4) of the Regula tion which provides that "[t]he application shall be
sent to the Member State in which the geographical area is located", and was confirmed by the European
Communities in its response to Panel question No. 2. The European Communities also notes that Articles 12a
and 12b refer to certain provisions in Articles 5 to 7 as well.
93 This is apparent from Article 12a(1) of the Regulation which provides that "if a group of a natural or
legal person ... in a third country wishes to have a name registered under this Regulation it shall send a
registration application to the authorities in the country in which the geographical area is located", and was
confirmed by the European Communities in its response to Panel question No. 2.

- the third country concerned has inspection arrangements and a right to
objection equivalent to those laid down in this Regulation,
- the third country concerned is prepared to provide protection equivalent to
that available in the Community to corresponding agricultural products or
foodstuffs coming from the Community."
7.59 Article 12 has been part of the Regulation since its adoption in 1992, although it was amended
in April 2003 by the insertion of the requirement of a right of objection equivalent to those laid down
in the Regulation, when Article 12(3) and Articl es 12a through 12d, including the second procedure
described above, among other provisions, were inserted. It is not in dispute that many WTO
Members, including the United States, do not satisfy the conditions set out in Article 12(1).
7.60 The factual issue for the Panel to decide is whether the conditions set out in Article 12(1)
apply to the availability of protection for GIs locate d in WTO Members. In other words, the factual
issue is whether the registration procedure in Artic les 12a and 12b is available for GIs located in
WTO Members that do not satisfy the conditions in Article 12(1).
7.61 The United States presents two types of evidence. The first is the text of the Regulation and
the second consists of the European Communities' own statements concerning the Regulation prior to,
and during, this Panel proceeding.
7.62 The Panel begins its analysis by reviewing the measure on its face.
94 The procedure in
Articles 12a and 12b of the Regulati on begins with the filing of an application under paragraph 1 of
Article 12a and continues with its initial examina tion under paragraph 2. The text of paragraph 1
begins "[i]n the case provided for in Article 12(3)", which immediatel y limits the availability of the
procedure according to the terms of Article 12(3). Th e text of paragraph 2 of Article 12a begins "[i]f
the third country referred to in paragraph 1 deems ..." which confirms that this aspect of the procedure
is limited in the same way as paragraph 1. Paragr aph 1 of Article 12b sets out the next step in the
same procedure and refers to the registration request sent by "the third country", which is the third
country described in Article 12b(2).
7.63 Article 12(3) of the Regulation provides as follows:
"3. The Commission shall examine, at the request of the country concerned, and
in accordance with the procedure laid dow n in Article 15 whether a third country
satisfies the equivalence conditions and offers guarantees within the meaning of
paragraph 1 as a result of its national legislation. Where the Commission decision is
in the affirmative, the procedure set out in Article 12a shall apply."
7.64 The case provided for in this paragraph is clear: it refers to a third country which satisfies the
conditions in Article 12(1). The initial clause of Article 12a, as confirmed by the chain of cross-
references in Articles 12a(2) and 12b(1), therefore limits the procedure in Articles 12a and 12b to
such third countries. No other provision in Ar ticle 12a or 12b indicates that that procedure is
available for the registration of GIs located in a th ird country which does not satisfy the conditions in
Article 12(1), even if it is a WTO Member. This is consistent with Article 12b(2), which provides for
objections in the same procedure, and expressly distinguishes between a "Member State of the
European Union or a WTO member" and "a third country meeting the equivalence conditions of

94 This was the Appellate Body's approach to an "as such" claim in its report on US – Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Sunset Review, at para. 168.

Article 12(3)". The implication is that a WTO Member is not necessarily a third country meeting
those conditions.
95
7.65 The only other provision in the Regulation whic h could indicate the possibility of registration
of GIs located in a third country which does not satisfy the conditions in Article 12(1) is the
introductory phrase of Article 12(1) itself, which prefaces the conditions with the clause "[w]ithout
prejudice to international agreements". The Eur opean Communities concedes that the application of
the conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulation would prejudice its obligations under Article III:4 of
GATT 1994 and submits to the Panel that, as a conse quence, it would not apply those conditions to
GIs located in WTO Members. Nevertheless, it does not follow that the procedure in Articles 12a and
12b is available for the registration of GIs located in WTO Members. That procedure is limited to
third countries which satisfy the conditions in Artic le 12(1) and there is no other procedure in the
Regulation available for WTO Members that do not satisfy those conditions. There is the possibility
of protection pursuant to an international agreemen t, but no existing international agreement either
incorporates the procedure under Articles 12a and 12b of the Regulation or contains an application
and registration procedure for GIs located in all WTO Members. In particular, neither GATT 1994
nor the TRIPS Agreement contains any such procedure.
7.66 Other provisions in the Regulation may also shed light on this issue. Article 12d(1), which
provides a right of objection to registration of GIs located in the European Communities, distinguishes
twice between persons from "a WTO Member co untry or a third country recognized under the
procedure provided for in Article 12(3)".
96 This expressly grants a right of objection to persons from
WTO Members and is a further indication that wh ere the Regulation refers to "a third country
recognized under the procedure provided for in Article 12(3)" it does not include a WTO Member
unless it has been recognized under that procedure.
7.67 Four other provisions also refer to "a third country recognized under the procedure provided
for in Article 12(3)" (or analogous terms) without referring to a WTO Member: Article 5(5) on
registration of GIs that straddle the external border of the European Communities, Article 6(6) on
homonymous GIs, Article 10(3) on inspection stru ctures and Article 13(5) on the coexistence of
registered and unregistered GIs. The European Comm unities' view of Article 10(3) is that it includes
WTO Members 97, and there seems to be no reason why th e other three provisions should exclude
WTO Members. These provisions seem to confirm that WTO Members are included in the term
"third countries" and therefore require recognition under the procedure provided for in Article 12(3).
7.68 The preamble of the Regulation, which has cont ained the conditions in Article 12(1) more or
less in their current form since the original version was adopted in 1992, sets out its justification. The
19
th recital reads as follows:
"Whereas provision should be made for trad e with third countries offering equivalent
guarantees for the issue and inspection of ge ographical indications or designations of
origin granted on their territory;"98

95 The second sentence of Article 12(3) provides that the procedure in Article 12a shall apply to third
countries which the Commission decides satisfy the conditi ons in Article 12(1). This sentence alone does not
exclude the possibility that the procedure might apply to other third countries which do not satisfy those
conditions, but there is no other provision in the Regulation to that effect.
96 This is considered in detail in para.7.349 below.
97 European Communities' responses to Panel question Nos. 126(a) and (b).
98 Exhibits COMP-1b and EC-1.

7.69 The phrase "equivalent guarantees for the issue and inspection" of GIs is a clear reference to
the conditions in Article 12(1). There is no recita l referring to the possibility of GIs located in any
other third countries which do not satisfy these conditions.
7.70 The preamble to the April 2003 amending Regulation, which modified Article 12 and inserted
a detailed procedure for applications and objections from third countries in Articles 12a through 12d,
sets out the justification for the amendments as follows:
"(8) The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS Agreement 1994, contained in Annex 1C to the Agreement
establishing the World Trade Organisation contains detailed provisions on the
existence, acquisition, scope, maintena nce and enforcement of intellectual
property rights.
(9) The protection provided by regist ration under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92
is open to third countries' names by reciprocity and under equivalence
conditions as provided for in Article 12 of that Regulation. That
Article should be supplemented so as to guarantee that the Community
registration procedure is available to the countries meeting those conditions.
(10) Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 specifies how objections are to be
made and dealt with. To satisfy the obligation resulting from Article 22 of
the TRIPS Agreement it should be made cl ear that in this matter nationals of
WTO member countries are covered by these arrangements and that the
provisions in question apply without prejudice to international agreements, as
provided for in Article 12 of the said Regulation. (...)"
99
7.71 Paragraph 8 recalls the subject-matter of th e TRIPS Agreement without elaborating on its
relevance to the Regulation. This clarifies the reference to Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement in
paragraph 10 but it is not clear whether it also relate s to paragraph 9. In any event, on the European
Communities' later interpretation, the TRIPS Agreem ent is not relevant to the WTO-consistency of
the conditions provided for in Article 12, as referre d to in paragraph 9. Rather, the European
Communities submits that GATT 1994 ensures their WT O-consistency. GATT 1994 is not recited in
the preamble.
7.72 Paragraph 9 contains no qualifie r referring to WTO Members, which appears to confirm the
position that the conditions in Article 12(1) apply to the availability of protection of GIs located in all
third countries and that the registration procedure in Articles 12a and 12b is not available for GIs
located in WTO Members that do not satisfy those conditions.
7.73 Paragraph 10 includes the phrase "without prejudi ce to international agreements, as provided
for in Article 12", but it only relates to the right of objection granted to WTO Members' nationals.
This is a clear reference to Articles 12b(2) a nd 12d(1), which were inserted by the amending
Regulation. It can be noted that they are the only two provisions in the current version of the
Regulation that expressly refer to a "WTO Member ", where they also distinguish a WTO Member
from a third country recognized under Article 12(3).
7.74 In the Panel's view, the meaning and content of these aspects of the Regulation, together with
the amending Regulation, are sufficiently clear on thei r face for the United States to have discharged
its burden of proof of establishing that, under the Re gulation "as such", the availability of protection

99 Exhibit COMP-1h.

for GIs located in WTO Members is contingent upon satisfaction of the conditions set out in
Article 12(1) and recognition by the Commission under Article 12(3).
100
7.75 There is no supporting evidence of the meaning of these aspects of the Regulation in the form
of an interpretation of the relevant provisions by the European Court of Justice or any other domestic
court.101 This is partly explained by the facts that no requests for registration of foreign GIs have been
made under the Regulation and that Articles 12a through 12d were inserted only recently, in April
2003.
7.76 The United States also presents evidence cons isting of various statements by executive
authorities of the European Communities which contai n interpretations of the Regulation. The Panel
considers that such statements can be useful as, objectively, a WTO Member is normally well placed
to explain the meaning of its own domestic law. 102 However, the usefulness of any particular
statement will depend on its contents and the ci rcumstances in which it was made. The Panel has
weighed the evidence and considers that one statement in particular, in light of the clarity of its
contents and the official capacity in which it was delivered, is highly relevant to the issue at hand.
7.77 In a lengthy statement to the Council for TRI PS in September 2002 (prior to the insertion of
Articles 12a through 12d), the European Commun ities specifically responded to the following view
expressed by a group of Members, including the United States:
"[U]nder the current EC regulations, the EC does not appear to provide protection for
non-EC geographical indications (i.e., place names of other WTO Members), except
on the basis of bilateral agreements, or if the EC has determined that a country has a
system for geographical indications that is equivalent to the detailed system of the
EC."
103
7.78 The European Communities introduced the relevant part of its response as follows:
"(...) I would like to address one issue that is raised regarding the fact that the EU
register for GIs on foodstuffs does not allow the registration of foreign GI unless it is
determined that a third country has an e quivalent or reciprocal system of GI
protection."
104
7.79 The Panel notes that the Eur opean Communities was emphatic at that time that registration
systems should primarily be aimed at domestic GIs and it quoted the legislation of several other WTO
Members which allegedly do not register fore ign GIs without an international agreement. 105 This
statement by the European Communities in Sept ember 2002 to the Council for TRIPS therefore
appears to support the United States' interpretation of the Regulation on its face.
7.80 The European Communities argues that the interpretation set forth in its September 2002
statement to the Council for TRIPS "is not incompa tible with the text of Regulation 2081/92 as in
force at the time it was made or with the statements of the EC in the present case". In its view, its

100 The European Commission has not recognized any other country under this procedure: see
European Communities' response to Panel question No. 10. It is not contested that the Commission cannot
recognize a third country under Article 12(3) that does not satisfy the equivalence and reciprocity conditions.
101 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 19.
102 See para. 7.55 above.
103 Communication from Australia, Canada, Guatemala, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines and
the United States (IP/C/W/360), para. 4.
104 See the statement in the Annex to the minutes of that meeting in document IP/C/M/37/Add.1.
105 Ibid.

intention at that time was not primarily to explain the EC system for the protection of geographical
indications and its statement did not take account of amendments made in April 2003.
7.81 In the Panel's view, the European Communities' September 2002 statement was very clear in
its interpretation of the relevant point of the Regul ation. Further, nothing in the April 2003 amending
Regulation appears to render that statement incompatib le with the current version of the Regulation.
In fact, the Panel's examination of the inserti on of Article 12(3) and Articles 12a through 12d
confirms that the conditions in Article 12(1) remain applicable on the same terms.
7.82 The United States also refers to the explanati on of the amendments given by the European
Commission at the time it proposed them, in March 2002. The Panel considers that this evidence
corroborates the previous statement b ecause of the clarity of its conten ts and the capacity in which it
was made. In a press release, the Commission explained that, in order to comply with the TRIPS
Agreement, it proposed to extend the right of objection to certain other WTO Member country
nationals and further stated:
"Beyond mere TRIPS consistency, the Commission proposes important amendments
designed to promote the EU system of denominations of origin as a model to the rest
of the world. The driving idea behind is the wish to improve protection of European
quality products also outside the EU. As the EU cannot force non-EU countries to do
so, they would be invited to do so on a 'reciprocal basis'. If a non-EU country
introduced an 'equivalent system' including the right of objection for the EU and the
commitment to protect EU names on their territory, the EU would offer a specific
protection to register their products for the EU market."
106
The references to a reciprocal basis and an equivalent system are clear references to the conditions in
Article 12(1) of the Regulation.107
7.83 The Panel notes that this interpretation is fu rther corroborated by a letter from Commissioner
Lamy to the United States Trade Representative in January 2003, as follows:
"While it is true that US GIs cannot be regi stered in the EU, this does not mean that
they are not protected! Any US GI can:
(1) be registered as a certification trademark (...)
(2) get protection without registration by invoking before any tribunal in the EU
Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/13 on labelling (...)
(3) invoke the unfair competition rules of the Member States (...)"
108
7.84 In its submissions to the Panel, the Europ ean Communities rejects that interpretation and
submits that, due to the introductory phrase of Article 12(1) of the Regulation, "[w]ithout prejudice to
international agreements", the conditions in Article 12(1) do not apply to the availability of protection
for GIs located in WTO Members. It refers to a statement it made to the Council for TRIPS in June

106 European Commission: "Food quality: Commission proposes better protection for geographical
names" (Press Release Reference: IP/02/422), Brussels, 15 March 2002 set out in Exhibit US-22.
107 The amendments effected are identical in this respect to those proposed. The Commission's
explanatory memorandum to its Proposal for the amending Regulation also stated that "Article 12 applies the
Regulation by reciprocity and under equivalence conditions to agricultural products or foodstuffs originating in
a third country, without prejudice to international agreements", Brussels, 15 March 2002 set out in Exhibit
US-20 at page 3.
108 Exhibit US-73, attachment, page 1, supra at note 46.

2004 in the days before the first s ubstantive meeting of this Panel
109 and a second edition of the
Commission's Guide to the Regulation published in August 2004 in the days prior to the second
substantive meeting of this Panel. 110 It advises that "[t]he guide w as not prepared in connection with
the Panel proceedings".111
7.85 The Panel recalls its reasoning in paragraph 7.65 above, and reit erates its view that, even if
the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" had the effect of subjecting the conditions
in Article 12(1) to the terms of GATT 1994 or the TRIPS Agreement, those agreements do not
contain a procedure for applications and registra tion for GIs located in all WTO Members. WTO
Members would still have to satisfy the conditions in Article 12(1) in order for their GIs to gain
access to the procedure in Articles 12a and 12b.
7.86 The European Communities admits that this would be a "nonsensical result". 112 However, it
is unable to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how this result could be avoided in light of the
wording of Article 12a, which begi ns "[i]n the case provided for in Article 12(3)". The European
Communities points out that Article 12(3) refers to the conditions in Article 12(1) and since, in its
view, those conditions do not apply to WTO Memb ers, the procedure in Article 12(3) and the
reference in Article 12a do not apply to them either.113
7.87 The Panel agrees that Article 12(3) provid es for a Commission decision on whether a third
country satisfies the conditions in Article 12(1) and accepts that, if those conditions do not apply to a
third country, there would be no relevant decision un der Article 12(3). Yet this does not alter the text
of Article 12a which applies "[i]n the case provided for in Article 12(3)". Article 12a does not appear,
on its face, to apply to the registration of a GI lo cated in a third country, including a WTO Member,
which is not recognized under Article 12(3). For th ese reasons, the Panel is not persuaded that the
European Communities' interpretation is correct.
7.88 It is not necessary for the purposes of this dispute to determine which are the precise
international agreements covered by the phrase "[w]it hout prejudice to international agreements". It
suffices to note that there is a plausi ble alternative interpretation that it refers to bilateral agreements
under which the European Commun ities would protect specific GIs. 114 The European Communities
does not exclude this, but argues that there is no reason why only such specific agreements should be
covered.115 There are currently no such bilateral agreemen ts for agricultural products and foodstuffs,
although one has been foreshadowed in a joint declaration with Switzerland.116
7.89 In any event, the Panel is not persuaded by the European Communities' explanations during
this Panel proceeding of the phrase "[w]ithout prej udice to international agreements" as used in

109 See the minutes of that meeting in IP/C/M/44, paras. 62-63, quoted in the European Communities'
response to Panel question No. 16 prior to circulation and also set out in Exhibit EC-83. Responses given by the
European Communities to questions posed by two othe r WTO Members in the TRIPS Council review of its
legislation in 1996-1997, before the insertion of Articles 12a through 12d, are inconclusive on this issue as they
contain no clear statement that equiva lence and reciprocity conditions do not apply to the registration of GIs
located outside the European Communities in countries without a bilateral agreement: see European
Communities' response to Panel question No. 97.
110 Exhibit EC-64.
111 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 96.
112 European Communities' second oral statement, para. 48.
113 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 7.
114 United States' first oral statement, para. 8.
116 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 21, and see the European Community –
Switzerland Joint Declaration on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of
agricultural products and foodstuffs, 21 June 1999, OJ L 144/350 at 366 set out in Exhibit US-6.

Article 12(1) of the Regulation. At the first substa ntive meeting, in support of its first defence, it
provided the following explanation of that phrase:
"(...) Such international agreements include the WTO Agreements. This is made clear
by the 8 th recital of Regulation 692/2003, wh ich amended the procedures for the
registration of non-EC geographical indicati ons, and in this context took specific
account of the provisions of the TRIPS.
"WTO Members are obliged to provide protection to geographical indications in
accordance with Section 3 of Part II and the general provisions and basic principles of
the TRIPS Agreement. For this reason, Ar ticle 12 (1) and (3) of Regulation 2081/92
do not apply to WTO Members. (...)"
117
7.90 This explanation was also reflected in a June 2004 statement that the European Communities
made to the Council for TRIPS 118 and the August 2004 edition of the Commission's Guide to the
Regulation119.
7.91 At the same time, the European Communities' second defence was that the conditions in
Article 12(1) of the Regulation were not inconsistent with the nati onal treatment obligations in the
TRIPS Agreement, essentially because they discrimin ate according to the location of GIs and not
according to the nationality of persons with rights in relation to GIs.120
7.92 It was not clear how these two de fences could be reconciled. If the first defence implied that
the conditions did not apply because they woul d prejudice the European Communities' national
treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, it would have contradicted the second defence that
these conditions were not inconsistent with th e national treatment obligations in the TRIPS
Agreement. The Panel sought clarification from the European Communities by posing the question
"does the EC contest that equivalence and reciprocity conditions such as those under Article 12(1) and
(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 2081/92, if applied to other WTO Members, would be inconsistent with
the national treatment obligations in the TRIPS Ag reement and/or Article III:4 of the GATT 1994?".
The European Communities declined to give a specif ic answer to the Panel's question and concluded
as follows:
"As regards the specific conditions contained in Article 12 (1) of Regulation 2081/92,
the EC has already confirmed that it does not apply these to WTO Members. For this
reason, the EC considers that the questi on whether these conditions are inconsistent
with the national treatment obligations of the TRIPS Agreement and the GATT does
not arise."121

117 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 65-66. It reiterated this in its first oral
statement, at para. 43, and confirmed it in its response to Panel question No. 3 adding as follows:
"At the time that Regulation 2081/92 was adopte d, the GATT was one of the agreements to
which the 'without prejudice' clause applied. Moreover, at the time that Regulation 2081/92
was adopted, the TRIPS Agreement was in the final phases of its negotiation. It was therefore
the objective that the 'without prejudice' clause should also apply to the TRIPS and other
WTO agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round."
118 See the minutes of that meeting in document IP/C/M/44, paras. 62-63, cited in response to Panel
question Nos. 16 and 95 and set out in Exhibit EC-83.
119 Set out in Exhibit EC-64.
120 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 123-126; first oral statement, paras. 46-47;
rebuttal submission, para. 43.
121 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 20.

7.93 The United States then submitted that the Eur opean Communities had decided not to defend
the conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulation an d that it had apparently conceded that any such
requirement was contrary to national treatment and MFN obligations.
122
7.94 The Panel again sought clarification at the second substantive meeting, by asking which
precise obligations under an intern ational agreement would be prejudiced by the application of the
specific conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regula tion to WTO Members. The European Communities
responded that it was its obligations under Article III:4 of GATT 1994, but not Article 3.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement, because the Regulation did not i nvolve any discrimination between nationals. It
later confirmed this in writing. 123 Therefore, to the extent that the European Communities'
explanation of the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to inte rnational agreements" as used in Article 12(1) of
the Regulation relies on the TRIPS Agreement, the European Communities has expressly denied that
the phrase refers to its own obligations and the Pa nel does not consider that possible explanation
further.124
7.95 At this time, the European Communities' explanation of the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to
international agreements" as used in Article 12(1) of the Regulation relies on GATT 1994. In light of
the European Communities' analysis that this phr ase ensures that "should a conflict between the two
acts or provisions occur, then the act or provision to which the 'without prejudice' reference is made
prevails"
125, it is clear that this explanation depends on the view that the equivalence and reciprocity
conditions are inconsistent with the European Communities' obligations under Article III:4 of GATT
1994. However, this is difficult to reconcile with the European Communities' earlier view that the
question whether these conditions are inconsistent with the national treatment obligations of GATT
does not arise, quoted at paragraph 7.92 above. It was also omitted from the earlier explanation that
the conditions did not apply because of obliga tions under the TRIPS Agreement, quoted at
paragraph 7.89 above. Further, the evidence su bmitted by the European Communities provides no
additional support for this explanation, as the am ending Regulation recites the TRIPS Agreement but
not GATT 1994, and the evidence identified at paragraph 7.90 above also reflects the explanation
quoted at paragraph 7.89 above.126
7.96 For all these reasons, the Panel is not persuade d by the European Communities' explanations
of the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" as used in Article 12(1) of the
Regulation.
7.97 The Panel takes note that there are vari ous executive authorities involved in the
implementation of the Regulation, including represent atives of EC member States. Article 15 of the
Regulation provides for a regulatory procedure under which the Commission shall be assisted by a
regulatory committee composed of the representatives of the EC member States and chaired by the
representative of the Commission, who does not vot e. The representative of the Commission shall
submit to the committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The committee shall deliver its opinion
on the draft within a time-limit by qualified ma jority voting. The Commission shall adopt the
measures envisaged if they are in accordance with the opinion of the committee. If the measures are
not in accordance with the opinion of the committee, or if no opinion is delivered, the Commission

122 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 3 and 9.
123 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 94.
124 In the same question, the Panel also sought clar ification of the relevance of the reference to the
TRIPS Agreement in the European Communities' first written submission, quoted at paragraph 7.89 above. The
European Communities' response does not provide a clear explanation of the relationship between the
obligations of WTO Members under the TRIPS Agreement and the applicability of the equivalence and
reciprocity conditions under the EC's GI Regulation: see its response to question No. 94(b), second paragraph.
126 The United States drew attention to the problems in reconciling the European Communities'
submissions on this point in its comment on the EC response to Panel question No. 94.

shall, without delay, submit to the Council a propo sal relating to the measures to be taken and shall
inform the European Parliament. The Council may act by qualified majority on the proposal within
three months. If the Council indicates by qualified majority that it opposes the proposal, the
Commission shall re-examine it. If the Council neith er adopts the proposed measure nor indicates its
opposition within three months, the Commission shall adopt the proposed measure.
127
7.98 The European Communities' delegation to this pa nel proceeding confirms that the statements
made by agents of the European Commission be fore the Panel commit and engage the European
Communities.128 It indicates that Community laws are generally not executed through authorities at
Community level but rather through recourse to the authorities of its member States which, in such a
situation, "act de facto as organs of the Community, for which the Community would be responsible
under WTO law and international law in general". 129 The Panel accepts this explanation of what
amounts to the European Communities' domestic c onstitutional arrangements and accepts that the
submissions of the European Communities' delegation to this panel proceeding are made on behalf of
all the executive authorities of the European Communities.130
7.99 The parties have presented evidence with respect to the approach that would be taken by the
European Court of Justice if the executive authoriti es registered a GI that was not the subject of an
international agreement and that was located in a th ird country that did not satisfy the conditions in
Article 12(1) of the Regulation. The European Communities submits that, according to the settled
case law of the European Court of Justice:
"Community legislation must, so far as possi ble, be interpreted in a manner that is
consistent with international law, in pa rticular where its provisions are intended
specifically to give effect to an in ternational agreement concluded by the
Community."131
7.100 The Panel is not persuaded that it is possible to interpret the relevant aspects of the Regulation
in the manner advanced by the European Commun ities in these proceedings, for the reasons already
given. The Panel also notes that the basic Regulation does not indicate that its provisions are intended
specifically to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the Community. Whilst the
April 2003 amending Regulation recites the TRIPS Agre ement, it would only seem to do so to justify
extending the right of objection to nationals of WTO Members. In any case, the European
Communities' later explanation is that the interp retation must take account of GATT 1994, which is
not mentioned at all.

127 Article 15 of the Regulation, set out in Exhib its COMP-1b and EC-1, Article 5 of Council Decision
(EC) No. 1999/468 set out in Exhibit COMP-8 and the European Communities' first written submission,
paras. 81-82. There have been instances where the Co mmission's draft measures have not been in accordance
with the opinion of the Committee and where the Council of Ministers has adopted measures under the
Regulation: see Exhibit EC-28.
128 European Communities' responses to Panel questions Nos. 15 and 18.
129 European Communities' second oral statement, para. 148.
130 The delegation of the European Communities to the meetings with the Panel was composed of
officials of the European Commission and delegates of certain EC member States. The European Communities
indicated that its statements to the Panel "commit and engage the European Communities": see response to
Panel question No. 15. The Panel accepts that explanation, for the same reasons as those explained by the Panel
in US – Section 301 Trade Act , at para. 7.123. See also, in this regard, paras. 7.269, 7.339, 7.450 and 7.725 of
the present report.
131 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 15 quoting Case C-341/95, Bettati, [1998]
ECR I-4355, para. 20; which cited Case C-61/94, Commission/Germany [1996] ECR I-4006, para. 52, set out in
Exhibits EC-13 and EC-14.

7.101 Article 11 of the DSU requires that "a pane l should make an objective assessment of the
matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case ...". In our view, our duty
to make an objective assessment prohibits us from accepting the interpretation of th e applicability of
the conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulati on presented by the European Communities in this
proceeding, for the reasons set out above.
7.102 Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Unite d States has made a prima facie case that the
equivalence and reciprocity conditions in Article 12( 1) of the Regulation apply to the availability of
protection for GIs located in third countries, including WTO Members. In other words, the
registration procedure in Articles 12a and 12b is no t available for GIs located in third countries,
including WTO Members, that do not satisfy th e conditions in Article 12(1). The European
Communities has not succeeded in rebutting that case.
7.103 The Panel has evaluated the European Communitie s' interpretation of the applicability of the
equivalence and reciprocity conditions and not found it reflected in the text of the Regulation. Had
this interpretation been reflected in the text of the Regulation, the Panel could have reached a different
conclusion which would have rendered it unnecessary to continue with an examination of the
consistency of those conditions with the provisions of the covered agreements.
(b) National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.104 The United States claims that the Regulation is inconsis tent with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement and Article 2(1) of the Paris Conventio n (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement, because it imposes conditions of reciprocity and equivalence on the availability of
protection. National treatment requires protection of the intellectual property of other Members'
nationals regardless of how those other Members tr eat their own nationals. National treatment does
not allow a Member to require that other Members a dopt particular standards or procedural rules as a
condition for protecting their nationals' intellectual property. This is underscored by Article 1.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement which provides that Members are not obligated to select any particular means of
implementation over another. There is a wide va riety of mechanisms used to implement the GI
obligations and one Member cannot require a particular method of implementation as a condition for
protecting the GI rights of other Members' nationals.
132
7.105 The United States argues that the conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulation apply to
nationals because EC nationals are permitted to register their home-based EC GIs but U.S. nationals
(and nationals of most other WTO Members) are currently not able to register their home-based U.S.
GIs.133 The distinction between the location of a geographical area and the nationality of the right
holder is not meaningful as right holders are ove rwhelmingly nationals of the place where their
respective GIs are located. There is an obvious link and close relationship between the nationality of
the persons who would seek GI protect ion for agricultural products and foodstuffs and the territory of
the Member in which they are growing or producin g such products, which is supported by data on the
applicants for certification marks in the United States. 134 The European Communities is a "separate
customs territory" within the meaning of footnot e 1 to the TRIPS Agreement and, as such, its

132 United States' first written submission, paras. 35, 42, 46, 48 and 49.
133 United States' first written submission, paras. 59, 65 and 76. The United States also cites the GATT
Panel report on US – Malt Beverages in support of an argument that it is not relevant that certain EC nationals
with GIs based outside the EC might be faced with the same conditions because nationals of other WTO
Members are entitled to the treatment accorded to the most-favoured EC nationals.
134 United States' first oral statement, paras. 22-27; response to Panel question No. 27; rebuttal
submission, para. 26.

"nationals" are persons domiciled in its territory or legal persons who have a real and effective
industrial and commercial establishment in its territory. 135 As a practical matter, any commercial
entity growing agricultural products or processing f oodstuffs in an EC member State will set up a
legal entity under the laws of that EC member State for that purpose. 136 The Regulation protects
indications of source, for which th e relevant persons are "interested parties" defined in Article 10 of
the Paris Convention (1967) to include any local ly established producer, regardless of nationality. 137
The April 2003 amending Regulation itself equates nati onals with persons resi dent and established in
a Member with respect to the right of objection.138
7.106 The United States argues that the conditions in Ar ticle 12(1) of the Regulation accord neither
the same protection nor no less favourable treatment to non-EC nationals because they are currently
unable to register their home-based GIs. The only wa y that they might be able to register home-based
GIs in the European Communities is for their countries to grant reciprocal GI protection for
agricultural products and foodstuffs from the Europ ean Communities and adopt an equivalent system
of GI protection. The explicit purpose of the Re gulation is to bestow significant commercial and
competitive advantages through the registration of GI s, including higher profits, the right to use a
label, rights to prevent uses by third parties, enforcement and guarantees against the GI becoming
generic.139 This amounts to a denial of "effective eq uality of opportunities" with respect to the
protection of GIs.140
7.107 The United States argues that jurisprudence on Article III:4 of GATT 1994 offers useful
guidance in the interpretation of Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The broad and fundamental
purpose of Article III is to avoid protectionism in the application of tax and regulatory measures. This
is easily extrapolated to the TRIPS Agreement in which the national treatment obligation is intended
to avoid protectionism with respect to the protection of intellectual property rights. Like the measures
considered in previous disputes under Article III, th e Regulation at issue in this dispute has a plain
protective structure in that it systematically denies advantages to nationals producing in their country
of nationality where that country does not satisfy the conditions of reciprocity and equivalence.141
7.108 The United States argues that the obligations in Article III:4 of GATT 1994 are separate from
those in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967) and that the
European Communities must satisfy both sets of obligations. 142 The lack of a general exception like
Article XX of GATT 1994 is not re levant to whether there is de facto discrimination under the TRIPS
Agreement or to the interpretation of Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement.143
7.109 The United States also claims that the Regula tion imposes a requirement of establishment in
the European Communities which is inconsistent w ith Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967)
because a foreign national can only register a GI for a product if he is producing or processing it in the
European Communities.144
7.110 The European Communities responds that this claim must fail . Its first defence is that it
does not, in fact, apply the conditions in Article 12( 1) of the Regulation to geographical areas located
in WTO Members. That defence has been considered in the previous sub-section.

135 United States' response to Panel question No. 23; rebuttal submission, paras. 27-31.
136 United States' response to Panel question No. 22; rebuttal submission, para. 32.
137 United States' first written submission, paras. 38-39; rebuttal submission, para. 33.
138 United States' second oral statement, para. 9.
139 United States' first written submission, paras. 58, 61 and 62; response to Panel question No. 31.
140 United States' response to Panel question No. 101.
141 United States' first written submission, paras. 69-75.
143 United States' response to Panel question No. 103.
144 United States' first written submission, paras. 84-85; rebuttal submission, paras. 84-86.

7.111 The European Communities does not contest that national treatment under the TRIPS
Agreement applies to more extensive protection gr anted in respect of intellectual property rights
addressed in the TRIPS Agreement.
145
7.112 The European Communities argues that the conditio ns in Article 12(1) of the Regulation do
not depend on nationality. The Regulation sets out two procedures for registration: one for
geographical areas located within the European Communities and one for those located outside the
European Communities. Whether the geographical ar ea is located within or outside the European
Communities is in no way linked to the question of the nationality of the producers concerned. 146
This may concern the origin of the product but has nothing to do with the nationality of the producer,
which is simply of no relevance for the registration of the GI. 147 There are no legal requirements
which ensure that applicants for GIs for geogra phical areas located in the European Communities are
always, or usually, EC nationals. 148 There is no reason why a foreign national cannot produce
products in accordance with a product specification in a GI registration located in the European
Communities, and there are examples of foreign co mpanies which have invested in the European
Communities in this way.149 If an applicant or user sets up a lega l entity in the geographical area, that
is simply a practical consequence of the fact that products must be produced in accordance with
product specifications. 150 Nationality is determined by the laws of each State and is not simply a
matter of domicile or establishment, which is highlighted by the specific rules in Article 3 of the Paris
Convention (1967) and footnote 1 to the TRIPS Agreement which would otherwise be unnecessary.151
The European Communities is not a "separate custom s territory" within the meaning of footnote 1 to
the TRIPS Agreement.152 The meaning of "interested parties" in Article 10(2) of the Paris Convention
(1967) is inapplicable in Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement. 153 Nationality is not linked to the points
of attachment but must be given a uniform meaning for all intellectual property rights. 154 T h e
Regulation does not require any comparison of nationals because it does not contain any
discrimination on the basis of nationality.155
7.113 The European Communities argues that the exis tence of different procedures which apply
according to location of geographical areas is not sufficient to show less favourable treatment but
rather there must be a substantive difference be tween those provisions which entails less favourable
treatment. A measure would have to modify the conditions regarding the pr otection of intellectual
property rights within the meaning of the TRIPS Agreement to the detriment of foreign nationals.156
7.114 The European Communities argues that the ju risprudence on Article III:2 of GATT 1994 is
not relevant to the present dispute because of diffe rences between paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III
and between Article III and Article 3.1 of the TRI PS Agreement. There is no general concept of
discrimination common to all WTO agreements. There has never been a de facto application of
Article 3.1 and the concept of conditions of co mpetition is not easily transposable to the TRIPS
Agreement. Whilst it may be possible under certain circumstances that measures which are neutral on
their face accord less favourable treatment to nationals, the Panel shoul d take account of the

145 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 111.
146 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 123-126.
147 European Communities' first oral statement, paras. 46-47; response to Panel question No. 106.
148 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 22.
149 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 45-48; second oral statement, paras. 28-30;
response to Panel question No. 106.
150 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 107; second oral statement, paras. 29-30.
151 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 23; rebuttal submission, paras. 37-40.
153 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 24.
154 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 26.
155 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 101 and comments on that response.
156 European Communities' second oral statement, paras. 39-41; response to Panel question No. 113.

following: (1) the present case relates primarily to the origin of goods which is already dealt with
more appropriately in the context of Article III:4 of GATT 1994, not the TRIPS Agreement; (2)
de facto discrimination is a notion closely related to preventing circumvention of national treatment
obligations, which does not exist wh en the specific issue is dealt with in other national treatment
provisions, such as those of GATT; and (3) the na tional treatment provisions of GATT and the TRIPS
Agreement should not systematically overlap. In addition, the TRIPS Agreement does not contain
any provision corresponding to Article XX of GA TT 1994 and it would not seem appropriate for a
measure justified on the basis of Article XX to be found incompatible with the covered agreements on
the basis of a de facto application of TRIPS national treatment.157
(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.115 Brazil submits that the equivalence and recipr ocity conditions in the Regulation are
inconsistent with national treatme nt under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. In most cases under
the Regulation, discrimination according to geographical areas is discrimination between nationals.158
7.116 Canada submits that the equivalence and recipr ocity conditions in the Regulation are
inconsistent with national treatment under Artic les 2.1 and 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Discrimination on the basis of geographical area di scriminates on the basis of nationality because of
the "simple and incontestable" reality that EC nati onals are likely to register for protection of GIs
located in the European Communities and non-EC nationals are likely to register for protection of GIs
located outside the European Communities. The explicit requirement that the physical production of a
good that qualifies for a GI take place in the area i ndicated by the GI, means that an applicant for a GI
located in the European Communities will, in all pr obability be a national of an EC member State.
The treatment of "nationals" under the TRIPS Agreement extends de jure to geographical area.
159
7.117 China considers that "nationals" within the meaning of the TRIPS Agreement includes
natural persons who are domiciled, or legal persons who have a r eal and effective industrial and
commercial establishment, in that Member.160
7.118 Colombia considers that any distinction that in an y way identifies the GIs of the European
Communities clearly entails a violation of national treatment obligations.161
7.119 India considers that the only valid interpretation of "treatment with regard to the protection "
in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement is that no less favourable treatment to nationals of other WTO
Members cannot be provided unless no less favourable treatment is also provided to the GIs for which
they apply, whether located in the European Communities or in other WTO Members. The only
available exceptions are found in Article 3.2.162
7.120 Mexico considers that the equivalence and reciproc ity conditions prevent nationals of other
WTO Members enjoying the protection afforded by th e Regulation, which is contrary to the national
treatment principle in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.163
7.121 New Zealand submits that the term "nationals" clear ly has a geographical connotation in the
context of the TRIPS Agreement. Article 3 of the Paris Convention (1967) sets out a criterion for

157 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 29; rebuttal submission, para. 49; second
oral statement, paras. 33-37; response to Panel question No. 103.
158 Annex C, paras. 23 and 34.
159 Annex C, paras. 57-63.
160 Annex C, para. 93.
161 Annex C, para. 101.
162 Annex C, para. 104.
163 Annex C, para. 110.

eligibility for protection to which the definition of "nationals" in Article 1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement
refers. Footnote 1 to Article 1.3 of the TRIPS Ag reement provides further support. The definition of
an applicant in the Regulation includes persons acco rding to their location. The most favourable
treatment accorded to EC nationals should be compared with that received by WTO Member
nationals. "Less favourable treatment" requires not only a difference in applicable laws but some
disadvantage as a result of that difference. At wo rst, the difference means that the benefits of
registration are entirely unavailable. At best, it means that other WTO Member nationals are subject
to "extra hurdles" and disadvantaged. As a result, they do not have the same opportunities to protect
their GIs through registration as do EC nationals. The individual's right to apply for protection is
conditioned on factors over which the applicant has no control. The advantages granted by
registration include those under Article 13 and, according to the preamble, higher incomes.
164
7.122 Chinese Taipei submits that the equivalence and reci procity conditions violate the national
treatment obligation in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Ag reement and Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention
(1967). It recalls that national treatment under the TRIPS Agreement applies to "nationals" and that
the European Communities compares EC nationals and non-EC nationals with GIs located in the
European Communities. It treats them complete ly independently of EC nationals and non-EC
nationals with GIs located outside the European Co mmunities. This essentially is an argument that
the European Communities can establis h a separate set of rules for, and discriminate against, non-EC
GIs as it wishes. Chinese Taipei submits that the Panel should examine whether any person, whether
an European Communities or a non-EC national, with a GI, whether located in the European
Communities or outside the European Communities, receives treatment less favourable than that
accorded to an EC national with a GI located in the European Communities. Footnote 1 to the TRIPS
Agreement applies to the European Communities as a separate customs territory.165
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
National treatment obligations in the TRIPS Agreement
7.123 These claims are made under two national treatment obligations: one found in Article 3 of the
TRIPS Agreement, which forms part of the text of th at agreement, and the other found in Article 2 of
the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article 2.1 of th e TRIPS Agreement. The Panel will
first consider the claim under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.124 Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement provides as follows:
"1. Each Member shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no
less favourable than that it accords to its ow n nationals with regard to the protection
of intellectual property, subject to the exceptions already provided in, respectively,
the Paris Convention (1967), the Berne C onvention (1971), the Rome Convention or
the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits. ..." [footnote 3
omitted]
7.125 Two elements must be satisfied to establish an inconsistency with this obligation: (1) the
measure at issue must apply with regard to the protection of intellectual property; and (2) the
nationals of other Members must be accorded "l ess favourable" treatment than the Member's own
nationals. The Panel will address each of these elem ents in turn. The parties do not agree on the
meaning of "nationals" for the purposes of this clai m. The Panel will therefore address that issue in
the course of its consideration of the second element of this claim.

164 Annex C, paras. 130-132.
165 Annex C, paras. 168-172.

Protection of intellectual property
7.126 The national treatment obligation in Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement applies "with regard to
the protection of intellectual property". Footnote 3 provides an inclusive definition of the term
"protection" as used in Articles 3 and 4. It reads as follows:
"For the purposes of Articles 3 and 4, 'protection' shall include matters affecting the
availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property
rights as well as those matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights
specifically addressed in this Agreement."
7.127 Article 1.2 explains the term "intellectual property":
"2. For the purposes of this Ag reement, the term 'intellectual property' refers to
all categories of intellectual property that ar e the subject of Sections 1 through 7 of
Part II."
7.128 Turning to the Regulation, Article 12(1) refers to how the Regulation "may apply", which is a
reference to the availability of intellectual property rights in relation to "designations of origin" and
"geographical indications", as defined in the Regula tion. It is not disputed that "designations of
origin" and "geographical indications", as defined in the Regulation, fall within the category of
"geographical indications", the subject of Section 3 of Part II, and therefore part of a category of
intellectual property within the meaning of Article 1.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.129 Therefore, this claim concerns the "protecti on" of intellectual property, as clarified in
footnote 3 to the TRIPS Agreement, within the scope of the national treatment obligation in Article 3
of that Agreement.
7.130 It is not necessary to show that the Regulation implements the minimum standards in Part II
of the TRIPS Agreement for the purposes of these claims. National treatment is required with regard
to the protection of intellectual property, even where measures provide a higher level of protection.
Less favourable treatment accorded to the nationals of other Members

Less favourable treatment
7.131 The Panel now examines the second element of th is claim which is whether the nationals of
other Members are accorded less favourable tr eatment than the Eur opean Communities' own
nationals. It is useful to recall that Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement combines elements of national
treatment both from pre-existing intellect ual property agreements and GATT 1994. 166 Like the pre-
existing intellectual property conven tions, Article 3.1 applies to "na tionals", not products. Like
GATT 1994, Article 3.1 refers to "no less favourable" treatment, not the advantages or rights that laws
now grant or may hereafter grant, but it does not refe r to likeness. This combination of elements is
reflected in the preamble to the TRIPS Agre ement which explains the purpose of the "basic
principles" in Articles 3 and 4 (a term highlighted in the title of Part I) as follows:

166 Three of these national treatment obligations ar e incorporated in the TRIPS Agreement itself:
Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967) (considered belo w at paras. 7.214 and following), Article 5 of the
Berne Convention (1971) and Article 5 of the IPIC Treaty, which are incorporated by Articles 2.1, 9.1 and 35 of
the TRIPS Agreement, respectively.

"Recognizing, to this end, the need for new rules and disciplines concerning:
(a) the applicability of the basic principles of GATT 1994 and of relevant
international intellectual property agreements or conventions;"
7.132 The "no less favourable" treatment standard set out in the first sentence of Article 3.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement is subject to certain specific ex ceptions, some of them found in the pre-existing
intellectual property conventions. None of the excepti ons in Article 3.1 and 3.2 are relevant to this
dispute.
167 Where these exceptions and limitations do not apply, the language of the basic obligation
in the first sentence of Article 3.1 is very broad, referring to treatment that is "no less favourable".
7.133 We recall that the Panel in US – Section 211 Appropriations Act , in a finding with which the
Appellate Body agreed168, found that the appropriate standard of examination under Article 3.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement is that enunc iated by the GATT Panel in US – Section 337 . That GATT Panel
made the following findings on the "no less favour able" treatment standard under Article III:4 of
GATT 1947:
"The words 'treatment no less favourable' in paragraph 4 call for effective equality of
opportunities for imported products in respect of the application of laws, regulations
and requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase,
transportation, distribution or use of products. This clearly sets a minimum
permissible standard as a basis."
169
7.134 Therefore, the Panel will examine whether the difference in treatment affects the "effective
equality of opportunities" between the nationals of other Members and the European Communities'
own nationals with regard to the "protection" of intellectual property rights, to the detriment of
nationals of other Members.
7.135 The interpretation of the "no less favourable " treatment standard under other covered
agreements may be relevant in interpreting Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, taking account of its
context in each agreement including, in particular, any differences arising from its application to like
products or like services and service suppliers, rather than to nationals.170
7.136 Under Article III:4 of GATT 1994, the Appellate Body in US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC) has
explained its approach to the examination of whether measures affecting the internal sale of products
accord "treatment no less favourable" as follows:
"The examination of whether a measure involves 'less favourable treatment' of
imported products within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 must be
grounded in close scrutiny of the 'fundamental thrust and effect of the measure itself'.
This examination cannot rest on simple assertion, but must be founded on a careful
analysis of the contested measure and of its implications in the marketplace. At the

167 Article 24.9 also provides that there shall be no obligation under this Agreement to protect GIs
which are not or cease to be protected in their country of origin or which have fallen into disuse in that country.
168 See the Panel report on US – Section 211 Appropriations Act , at paras. 8.131-8.133 and the
169 GATT panel report in US – Section 337, at para. 5.11.
170 In US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, the Panel considered that the jurisprudence on Article III:4
of GATT 1994 may be useful in interpreting Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement due to the similarity of their
language: see the Panel report at para. 8.129; Appellate Body report at para. 242.

same time, however, the examination need not be based on the actual effects of the
contested measure in the marketplace."171
7.137 Similarly, in the present dispute, the Panel c onsiders it appropriate to base its examination
under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement on the funda mental thrust and effect of the Regulation,
including an analysis of its terms and its prac tical implications. However, as far as the TRIPS
Agreement is concerned, the relevant practical impl ications are those on opportunities with regard to
the protection of intellectual property. The imp lications in the marketplace for the agricultural
products and foodstuffs in respect of which GIs ma y be protected are relevant to the examination
under Article III:4 of GATT 1994, considered later in this report.
7.138 The parties disagree on whether the equivalence a nd reciprocity conditions in Article 12(1) of
the Regulation apply to GIs located in other WTO Members outside the European Communities. The
Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7.102 that they do so apply.
7.139 Although the parties disagree on whether the e quivalence and reciprocity conditions in
Article 12(1) of the Regulation discriminate in a ma nner inconsistent with the covered agreements, it
is not disputed that those conditions accord less favour able treatment to persons with interests in the
GIs to which those conditions apply. 172 The Panel considers that those conditions modify the
effective equality of opportunities to obtain protect ion with respect to intellectual property in two
ways. First, GI protection is not available under the Regulation in respect of geographical areas
located in third countries which the Commission has not recognized under Article 12(3). The
European Communities confirms that the Commission has not rec ognized any third countries.
Second, GI protection under the Regulation may become available if the third country in which the GI
is located enters into an international agreement or satisfies the conditions in Article 12(1). Both of
those requirements represent a significant "extra hurdle" in obtaining GI protection that does not apply
to geographical areas located in the European Communities.
173 The significance of the hurdle is
reflected in the fact that currently no third country has entered into such an agreement or satisfied
those conditions.
7.140 Accordingly, the Panel finds that the equiva lence and reciprocity conditions modify the
effective equality of opportunities with respect to th e availability of protection to persons who wish to
obtain GI protection under the Regulation, to the detr iment of those who wish to obtain protection in
respect of geographical areas located in third co untries, including WTO Members. This is less
favourable treatment.
Nationals of other Members
7.141 The issue for the Panel is how the less favour able treatment accorded under the Regulation
with respect to the availability of protection affect s the treatment accorded to the nationals of other
Members and that accorded to the European Communities' own nationals for the purposes of

171Appellate Body Report, US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC), para. 215, quoting reports in Korea – Various
Measures on Beef, para. 142, and Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, at 110.
172 United States' first written submission, paras. 57-6 0. Note that the European Communities asserts
only that the product specifications and inspection regimes for individual GIs do not constitute less favourable
treatment. With respect to the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, it asserts that it does not apply them and
that they do not depend on nationality, but not that they do not accord less fa vourable treatment where they
apply: see its first written submission, paras. 113-126, an d paras. 62-69. It also concedes that they constitute
less favourable treatment for the purposes of Article III:4 of GATT 1994, but does not consider that the meaning
of the phrase is necessarily the same as in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement: see its responses to Panel
question Nos. 94(a) and 113.
173 This was also the approach of the Appellate Body in US – Section 211 Appropriations Act to an
"extra hurdle" imposed only on foreign nationals: see para. 268 of its report.

Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article 1.3 de fines "nationals of other Members" in order to
determine the persons to whom Members shall accord treatment, which includes national treatment.
174
It provides as follows:
"3. Members shall accord the treatment pr ovided for in this Agreement to the
nationals of other Members. In respect of the relevant intellectual property right, the
nationals of other Members shall be unders tood as those natural or legal persons that
would meet the criteria for eligibility for protection provided for in the Paris
Convention (1967), the Berne Convention (1971), the Rome Convention and the
Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits, were all Members of
the WTO members of those conventions. (...)" [footnote 1 omitted]
7.142 In respect of the intellectual property rights relevant to this dispute, it is not disputed that the
criteria for eligibility for protection that apply ar e those found in the Paris Convention (1967).
Articles 2 and 3 of the Paris Convention (1967) pr ovide how nationals and persons assimilated to
nationals are to be treated. In the Panel's view, th ese are "criteria for eligibility for protection" for the
purposes of the TRIPS Agreement.
175
7.143 Articles 2 and 3 of the Paris Convention (1967) refer to "nationals" without defining that
term. Article 3 of the Paris Convention (1967) provides for the assimilation of certain persons to
nationals as follows:
"Nationals of countries outside the Union who are domiciled or who have real and
effective industrial or commercial establis hments in the territory of one of the
countries of the Union shall be treated in the same manner as nationals of the
countries of the Union."176
7.144 The rule in Article 3 of the Paris Convention (1967) only applies to nationals of countries
outside the Paris Union. According to Article 1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, these criteria shall be
understood as if "all Members of the WTO" were me mbers of that Convention. Therefore, for the
purposes of the TRIPS Agreement, that rule of assimi lation only applies to persons that are nationals
of a country that is not a WTO Member . It does not apply to nationals of other WTO Members, such
as the United States. Therefore, it does not mean that all persons who have a domicile or a real and
effective industrial and commercial establishment in a WTO Member are necessarily nationals of that
WTO Member for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.145 Otherwise, the Paris Convention (1967) contains no common rules on the meaning of
"nationals". It can be noted that the original Paris Convention of 1883 appeared to use the term
"subjects and citizens" and "natio nals" interchangeably. The phrase "subjects and citizens" was

174 This can be contrasted with the detailed definitions in Article XXVIII of GATS of "natural person
of another Member", "juridical person of another Member", "juridical person" and a juridical person "owned" or
"controlled" by persons of a Member or "affiliated" with another person.
175 Article 1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement also refers to the criteria for eligibility for protection in the
Berne Convention (1971). It can be observed that the title inserted to facilitate identification of Article 3 of the
Berne Convention (1971), which concerns authors who are na tionals or assimilated to nationals, also refers to
"Criteria of Eligibility for Protection". This is consiste nt with the Panel's view of the criteria in the Paris
Convention (1967) for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement.
176 These are the same criteria at those used in footnote 1 to the TRIPS Agreement, set out at
para. 7.154 below.

replaced with "nationals" in Articles 2 and 3 in th e Hague Act of 1925 without , apparently, changing
the scope of the Convention.177
7.146 A leading commentator on the Paris Conventio n (1967) explains the practice under that
Convention as follows:
"With respect to natural persons, nationality is a qua lity accorded or withdrawn by
the legislation of the State whose nationality is claimed. Therefore, it is only the
legislation of that State which can defi ne the said nationality and which must be
applied also in other countries where it is invoked.
"With respect to legal persons, the question is more complicated because generally no
'nationality' as such is granted to legal pe rsons by existing legislations. Where these
legal persons are the State themselves, or State enterprises, or other bodies of public
status, it would be logical to accord to them the nationality of their country. With
regard to corporate bodies of private status, such as companies and associations, the
authorities of the countries where application of the Convention is sought will have to
decide on the criterion of 'nationality' which they will employ. This 'nationality' can
be made dependent upon the law according to which these legal persons have been
constituted, or upon the law of their actual headquarters, or even on other criteria.
Such law will also decide whether a legal person or entity really exists." [original
footnote omitted]178
7.147 This is consistent with the pos ition under public international law. 179 With respect to the
meaning of "nationals of other Members" for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement, WTO Members
have, through Article 1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, incorporated the meaning of "nationals" as it was
understood in the Paris Convention (1967) and under pub lic international law. With respect to natural
persons, they refer first to the law of th e Member of which nationality is claimed. 180 With respect to
legal persons, each Member first applies its own criteria to determine nationality.
7.148 The meaning of "nationals" under public internati onal law is also relevant to the meaning of a
Member's "own nationals". Whilst the TRIPS Agreement does not create obligations for a Member to
accord treatment to its own nationals, it does refer to the treatment that each Member accords to its
own nationals as the benchmark for its obligation to accord national treatment under Article 3.1, as
well as under the other national treatment obligations incorporated by reference, including Article 2 of
the Paris Convention (1967). To that extent, the way in which a Member defines its own nationals

177 Article 2 originally provided that "subjects a nd citizens" will enjoy the advantages granted to
"nationals". As early as 1897, the Chair of the Brussels Diplomatic Conference commented that, in practice, the
rights conferred on physical persons must belong equally to juridical persons and it seemed to be unanimously
recognized that this was the scope of the Convention, see Actes de Paris, 1897, 3rd session, p. 196. "Subjects and
citizens" was replaced with the word "nationals" at th e 1925 Hague Diplomatic Conference because, in its
brevity, it was considered more comprehensive, and was consistent with the terminology of the Convention: see
Actes de Paris, 1925, report of drafting committee, p. 538.
178 See Bodenhausen, supra at note 66, pp. 27-28.
179 See, for example, A.A. Fatouros, "National Lega l Persons in Internationa l Law" in R. Bernhardt
(ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume III (1997) pp. 495-501; and I. Brownlie, Principles of
Public International Law (5th edition, Oxford, 1998), p.426, submitted to the Panel by the European
Communities in Exhibits EC-88 and EC-115, respectively.
180 With respect to natural persons, the Panel also notes that a State may not be bound to recognize a
grant of nationality if it does not represent a genuine connection between the natural person and the State
granting the nationality: see the judgement of the International Court of Justice in the Nottenbohm case
(Liechtenstein v Guatemala) (second phase), ICJ Reports (1955), 4.

can also be subject to review for the purposes of determining conformity with its national treatment
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
7.149 The European Communities has explained to the Panel that, with respect to natural persons,
under the domestic law of the European Communities, any person who is a national of an EC member
State is a citizen of the European Union and, accordingly, an EC national.
181 It has explained that,
with respect to legal persons, the domestic law of the European Communities does not contain a
specific definition of nationality, but nor does the domestic law of many other WTO Members. 182
However, the European Communities informs the Pane l that any legal person considered a national
under the laws of an EC member State would also be an EC national. The criteria used by the EC
member States to determine the nationality of a le gal person may vary and include criteria such as the
place of incorporation and the place of the seat of the company or a combination of such criteria.183
7.150 The United States has not challenged the crite ria used by the European Communities to
determine nationality. The Panel notes that these criteria appear to be the same as those used in public
international law. 184 Therefore, the Panel can use them to determine which pers ons are "nationals"
under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.151 Turning to the Regulation, it is agreed that it do es not, on its face, refer to "nationals". It
refers to the location of geographical areas, or GI s. In theory, there may be foreign citizens or
corporations who are entitled to use GIs located in the European Communities and obtain protection
under the Regulation. The issue for the Panel is to determine the treatment accorded to the nationals
of other Members and that accorded to the Eu ropean Communities' own nationals, when such
treatment depends on the location of GIs.
Specific definitions of "nationals"
7.152 The United States argues that there are specific de finitions of "nationals" applicable in this
dispute, either of which would identify the nationalit y of persons with the location of GIs. The first
specific definition would apply to the European Communities and the other would apply to GIs. The
Panel finds that the following graphic, based on one set out in Chinese Taipei's third party submission,
provides a useful framework for its analysis of this issue.
1. 3.
EC national with
GI located in the EC
EC national with
GI located outside the EC
2. 4.
Non-EC national with
GI located in the EC
Non-EC national with
GI located outside the EC

Graphic 1

181 Article 8 of the EC Treaty.
182 Article 58 of the EC Treaty prov ides that companies or firms form ed in accordance with the law of
an EC member State and having thei r registered office, central administ ration or principal place of business
within the European Community shall, for the purposes of Chapter 2 of the EC Treaty on the right of
establishment, be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of EC member States.
183 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 105. It also referred to a criterion based on
the nationality of controlling shareholders, but the evidence submitted in support does not appear to indicate that
this is of relevance to corporate nationality under the TRIPS Agreement.
184 See supra at note 179.

7.153 The graphic depicts the four relevant possible combinations of nationality of persons and the
location of a GI, each in a separate numbered quad rant. In terms of this graphic, the Panel's
conclusion at paragraph 7.102 is that the conditions of reciprocity and equivalence in Article 12(1) of
the Regulation apply to the persons in quadrants 3 and 4 only. There is therefore discrimination
between the persons in quadrants 1 and 2, on the one hand, and those in quadrants 3 and 4, on the
other hand.
7.154 The United States argues that a special regime to determine nationals applies to the European
Communities as a separate customs territory Member of the WTO within the meaning of footnote 1 to
Article 1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. Footnote 1 provides as follows:
"Footnote 1: When 'nationals' are referre d to in this Agreement, they shall be
deemed, in the case of a separate customs territory Member of the WTO, to mean
persons, natural or legal, who are domiciled or who ha ve a real and effective
industrial or commercial establishment in that customs territory."185
7.155 If the European Communities is a "separate customs territory Member of the WTO" within
the meaning of footnote 1, references to its "n ationals" in the TRIPS Agreement mean all persons,
natural or legal, who are domicil ed or who have a real and e ffective industrial or commercial
establishment in the European Comm unities, irrespective of the citizenship of an individual or the
nationality of a corporation under pu blic international law. Persons who are entitled to a GI in a
particular geographical area within the territory of the European Communities, may correspond to this
definition of nationals, even if they are foreign citizens or corporations. This would conflate
quadrants 1 and 2, to which conditions of reciproc ity and equivalence do not apply, and require any
comparison of treatment for the purposes of the nationa l treatment obligation to be made with persons
in either or both of quadrants 3 and 4, to whom those additional conditions do apply.
7.156 The European Communities submits that it is not a separate customs territory Member of the
WTO.
7.157 The Panel notes that the term "separate customs te rritory" in the text of footnote 1 is qualified
by the term "Member of the WTO". The parties re fer us to certain interpretative guidance in the
WTO Agreement as to the meaning of these terms.
7.158 The original Members of the WTO are described in Article XI:1 of the WTO Agreement as
"[t]he contracting parties to GATT 1947 as of [1 January 1995], and the European Communities".
This simply reflects the fact that the European Co mmunities is the only original Member that was not
a Contracting Party to GATT 1947, but does not address the issue whether or not it is a separate
customs territory Member of the WTO. The votin g rules in Article IX:1 of the WTO Agreement
reflect the sui generis character of the European Communities among the Members of the WTO.
7.159 Accession of new Members to the WTO is possible under Article XII of the WTO
Agreement, paragraph 1 of which refers to "[a]ny State or separate customs territory possessing full
autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial re lations and of the other matters provided for in
this Agreement and the Multilateral Trade Agreements ". It is not disputed that the European
Communities is not a State, but it did not accede to the WTO under the terms of Article XII and the
terms of that Article are therefore inapplicable to it.

185 These are the same criteria as those used in Ar ticle 3 of the Paris Convention (1967), set out at
paragraph 7.143 above.

7.160 The first explanatory note to the WTO Agre ement only refers to countries and separate
customs territories Members of the WTO.
186 The European Communities is not a country, but this
note might not be relevant if all references to a "country" in the relevant agreements can be adequately
understood in relation to the European Communities.187
7.161 The second explanatory note to the WTO Agreem ent provides guidance where an expression
in that agreement and the multilateral trade agreements is qualified by the term "national" in the case
of a "separate customs territory Member of the WTO". 188 Footnote 1 to the TRIPS Agreement is not
within the scope of this explanatory note becau se it uses the word "national" as a noun and not as a
qualifying expression. In any case, the explanat ory note does not indicate if the European
Communities is a separate customs territory Member of the WTO.
7.162 The Panel considers these provisions inconclusive as regards the question before it and must
therefore interpret the term "separate customs territo ry Member of the WTO" according to the general
rule of treaty interpretation. It is not dis puted that the European Communities is a customs
territory.189 The key word appears to be "separate", which can be defined as follows:
"Put apart, disunite, part, (two or more persons or things, or one from another);
detach, disconnect, treat as distinct, (one thing) ; make a division between (two
things)." [emphasis added]190
7.163 We highlight the definition "treat as distinct, (one thing)", given that a "separate customs
territory Member of the WTO" is one thing, and th e word "distinct" corresponds to the term used in
that phrase in the French and Spanish versions, which are equally authentic. 191 It is not disputed that
all Members of the WTO are separate, or distinct, from one another. Most Members that are not part
of a customs union are a customs territory separ ate from other customs territories. The word
"separate" would be redundant if this is all it mean t. Logically, it must indicate a customs territory
that is separate from another Member in some other way.
7.164 The context elsewhere in the WTO Agreement bears this out. The term "separate customs
territory" is used in Article XXVI:5 of GATT 1994 192, which treats a separate customs territory as a

186 The first explanatory note provides as follows:
"The terms 'country' or 'countries' as used in this Agreement a nd the Multilateral Trade
Agreements are to be understood to include any separate customs territory Member of the
WTO."
187 For example, references in the covered agreem ents to "developing countries", "least-developed
countries", "importing country", "exporting country", "third country" and "country of origin".
188 The second explanatory note provides as follows:
"In the case of a separate customs territory Memb er of the WTO, where an expression in this
Agreement and the Multilateral Trade Agreements is qualified by the term 'national', such
expression shall be read as pertaining to that customs territory, unless otherwise specified."
189 This is consistent with the definition of a "customs territory" for the purposes of GATT 1994 in
Article XXIV:2.
190 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993).
191 See the final clause of the WTO Agreement.
192 Article XXVI:5 provides as follows:
"(a) Each government accepting this Ag reement does so in respect of its metropolitan territory and
of the other territories for which it has international responsibility, except such separate customs
territories as it shall notify to the Executive Secr etary to the CONTRACTING PARTIES at the time of
its own acceptance.
"(b) Any government, which has so notified the Ex ecutive Secretary unde r the exceptions in
subparagraph ( a) of this paragraph, may at any time give notice to the Executiv e Secretary that its
acceptance shall be effective in respect of any separate customs territory or territories so excepted and

territory for which a GATT Contr acting Party, now a WTO Member 193, has international
responsibility, and is distinguished from a metropolitan territory. It is also found in Article XXXIII of
GATT 1994.194
7.165 The object and purpose of the TRIPS Agreemen t includes the conferral of intellectual
property protection on the nationals of WTO Member s. Footnote 1 is a deeming provision for the
purposes of nationality. This confirms that the reason for the inclusion of footnote 1 was that separate
customs territories do not confer nationality and, hence, a supplementary definition was required.
7.166 The European Communities does not form a separate part of the territory of a country.
Rather, the territory of the Eur opean Communities is made up primar ily of the territories in Europe,
that is, where relevant, the metropolitan territori es, of a group of countries, the number of which
increased to 25 during this Panel proceeding. 195 It is neither a territory part of another country, nor a
separate territory for which other WTO Members ha ve international responsibility. The European
Communities has informed the Panel that it has a citizenship for natural persons, and, generally
speaking, treats legal persons organized under the laws of an EC member State as EC nationals under
its domestic law, as described above.196
7.167 Therefore, the Panel accepts the European Comm unities' submission that it is not a "separate
customs territory Member of the WTO" within th e meaning of footnote 1 to the TRIPS Agreement,
and finds that its nationals, for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement, are not defined by that footnote.
The Panel would like to stress that its finding is lim ited solely to footnote 1 of the TRIPS Agreement
and is not intended to be a finding of general application for other covered agreements.
7.168 The United States also argues that the criteri a for eligibility for protection in the Paris
Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, include Article 10(2) of
the Paris Convention (1967). It argues that Article 10(2) sets out a specific criterion of eligibility of
protection in respect of designations of origin and geographical indications, which defines the
"nationals of other Members" in respect of those industrial property rights for the purposes of the
TRIPS Agreement. Persons entitled to use a GI in a geographical area in a WTO Member outside the
territory of the European Communities may corres pond to this definition of nationals of other
Members. This argument would conflate quadrants 3 and 4 in the graphic set out earlier, to which the
conditions of reciprocity and equi valence apply, and require any comparison of treatment for the

such notice shall take effect on the thirtieth day following the da y on which it is received by the
Executive Secretary.
"(c) If any of the customs territories, in respect of which a contracting party has accepted this
Agreement, possesses or acquires full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations and
of the other matters provided for in this Agreement, such territory shall, upon sponsorship through a
declaration by the responsible contracting party establishing the above-mentioned fact, be deemed to be
a contracting party." [footnotes omitted]
193 Read in accordance with explanatory note 2(a) to GATT 1994.
194 Article XXXIII provides as follows:
"A government not party to this Agreement, or a government acting on behalf of a separate customs
territory possessing full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations and of the other
matters provided for in this Agr eement, may accede to this Agreement, on its own behalf or on behalf
of that territory, on terms to be agreed between such government and the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Decisions of the CONTRACTING PARTIES under this paragraph shall be taken by a two-thirds
majority."
195 Under Article 182 of the EC Treaty, the EC memb er States agree to asso ciate with the Community
the non-European countries and territories which have sp ecial relations with Denmar k, France, the Netherlands
and the United Kingdom listed in Annex II to the Treaty.
196 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 105.

purposes of the national treatment obligation to be made with persons in either or both of quadrants 1
and 2, to whom those additional conditions do not apply.
7.169 The United States observes that the GI obligations in Articles 22 and 23 of the TRIPS
Agreement refer to the persons entitled to protection as "interested parties" and that Article 10(2) of
the Paris Convention (1967) sets out persons who shall be deemed an "interested party" for the
purposes of an obligation related to certain false indications. Article 10(2) refers inter alia to
establishment in the locality or country falsely indi cated. The United States argues that this provides
guidance as to the persons who shall be deemed an "interested party" for the purposes of Articles 22
and 23 of the TRIPS Agreement and, hence, the national treatment obligation in Article 3.1.
7.170 The Panel accepts that an "interested party" is a person who is entitled to receive protection
under Articles 22 and 23 of the TRIPS Agreement. Howe ver, in the Panel's view, Article 10(2) of the
Paris Convention (1967) does not set out a criterion fo r eligibility for protection. Article 10(2) is a
deeming provision for the term "interested party" u sed in Article 9(3) of the Paris Convention (1967),
as made applicable under Article 10(1). Once a pe rson has qualified as a national, Article 10(2) may
provide guidance on whether that person may be treat ed as an interested pa rty for the purposes of
Articles 22 and 23 of the TRIPS Agreement. However, Article 10(2) does not set out a criterion for
eligibility for protection under the Paris Conventio n (1967) for the purposes of Article 1.3 of the
TRIPS Agreement.
7.171 Therefore, the Panel rejects the specific definitions of "nationals" advanced by the
United States and confirms its finding at paragra ph 7.150 as to the criteria that can be used to
determine which persons are "nationals" for the pur poses of Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, for
the purposes of this dispute.
Formally identical provisions
7.172 The issue for the Panel remains that of determin ing the treatment accorded to the nationals of
other Members and to the European Communities' own nationals. On its face, the Regulation
contains formally identical provisions vis-à-vis the na tionals of different Members, with respect to the
availability of GI protection.
7.173 It is well recognized that the concept of " no less favourable" treatment under Article III:4 of
GATT 1994 is sufficiently broad to include situations where the application of formally identical legal
provisions would in practice accord less favourable treatment. The GATT Panel in US – Section 337,
which considered an intellectual property enforcem ent measure prior to the conclusion of the TRIPS
Agreement, interpreted the "no less favourable" standard under Article III:4 as follows:
"On the one hand, contracting parties ma y apply to imported products different
formal legal requirements if doing so would accord imported products more
favourable treatment. On the other hand, it also has to be recognised that there may
be cases where application of formally identical legal provisions would in practice
accord less favourable treatment to imported products and a contracting party might
thus have to apply different legal provisions to imported products to ensure that the
treatment accorded them is in fact no less favourable."
197
7.174 The Appellate Body in Korea – Various Measures on Beef , in a dispute concerning formally
different treatment, quoted this passage and drew the conclusion that "[a] formal difference in

197 GATT panel report in US – Section 337, para. 5.11.

treatment between imported and like domestic products is thus neither necessary, nor sufficient, to
show a violation of Article III:4".198 It then proceeded to apply the relevant standard of examination.
7.175 The Panel in Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents also considered that claims against both
formal and practical discrimination are possible under the TRIPS Agreement, although that dispute
concerned minimum standards of protection in Part II and not the basic principles in Part I.199
7.176 We consider that this reasoning applies with equal force to the no less favourable treatment
standard in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. In our view, even if the provisions of the Regulation
are formally identical in the treatment that they accord to the nationals of other Members and to the
European Communities' own nationals, this is not su fficient to demonstrate that there is no violation
of Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Whether or not the Regulation accords less favourable
treatment to the nationals of other Members th an it accords to the European Communities' own
nationals should be examined instead according to the standard we set out at paragraph 7.134, namely,
the "effective equality of opportunities" with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights. In
this examination, we will follow the approach th at we set out at paragraph 7.137, which focuses on
the "fundamental thrust and effect" of the Regulation.
Which nationals to compare?
7.177 The text of Article 3.1 expressly calls for a comparison when it provides that "[e]ach Member
shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its
own nationals" (emphasis added). Th e question arises as to which nationals it is appropriate to
compare.
7.178 The United States submits that the Panel shoul d compare the treatment of a hypothetical EC
national with a GI located in the European Communities, and the treatment of a hypothetical
U.S. national with a GI located in the United States. This is a comparison of a person in quadrant 1
with a person in quadrant 4 in the graphic set out earlier.
7.179 The Panel recalls that the Regulation contains formally identical provisions vis-à-vis the
nationals of different Members. In the absen ce of less favourable treatment based on a formal
criterion of nationality, or a criterion that fully corre sponds with nationality, the Panel is reluctant to
compare a hypothetical national of one Member with a national of another Member simply because
they both claim rights to the same category of intell ectual property. This is a very low threshold with
possibly unforeseen systemic implications for all in tellectual property rights covered by the TRIPS
Agreement.
7.180 The United States also submits that there is discrimination according to nationality on the
basis of a comparison of the group of the European Communities' own nationals who wish to obtain
GI protection under the Regulation, with the group of nationals of other WTO Members who wish to
obtain GI protection under the Regulation. This is a comparison of the persons in both quadrants 1
and 3 with the persons in both quadrants 2 and 4 in the graphic set out earlier.
7.181 The Panel recalls that the standard of ex amination is based on "effective equality of
opportunities". It follows that the nationals that ar e relevant to an examin ation under Article 3.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement should be those who seek oppor tunities with respect to the same type of

198 Appellate Body report on Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 137. This view is also
consistent with the findings of the Appellate Body in its report on EC – Bananas III with respect to the phrase
"treatment no less favourable" as used in the MFN obligation in relation to trade in services in Article II of
GATS, at para. 233.
199 Panel report on Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents, at paras. 7.100-7.105.

intellectual property in comparable situations.
200 On the one hand, this excludes a comparison of
opportunities for nationals with respect to different categories of intellectual property, such as GIs and
copyright. On the other hand, no reason has been advanced as to why the equality of opportunities
should be limited a priori to rights with a territorial link to a particular Member.201
7.182 The Panel therefore considers it appropriate for the purposes of this claim to compare the
effective equality of opportunities for the group of nationals of other Members who may wish to seek
GI protection under the Regulation and the group of the European Communities' own nationals who
may wish to seek GI protection under the Regulation. On this approach, there is no need to make a
factual assumption that every person who wishes to obtain protection for a GI in a particular Member
is a national of that Member.
202
7.183 The European Communities disagrees with this approach. It argues that the concept of
de facto discrimination should be limited to cases of circumvention of obligations, which is
unnecessary in this dispute because of the applicab ility of the national treat ment obligation under
GATT 1994.203
7.184 The Panel is mindful of the need to ensure a harmonious interpre tation of the national
treatment obligation within the TRIPS Agreement it self as applied to different intellectual property
rights. The fact that circumvention of that obligation may be prevented, uniquely, under GATT 1994
in certain cases concerning geographical indications, does not justify a different interpretation of
Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement from that whic h would be applicable to all other intellectual
property rights, which do not have an inherent link to the territorial origin of a product. The Panel's
interpretation preserves internal coherence in the interpretation of national treatment under the TRIPS
Agreement.
Comparison of treatment accorded to the nationals of other Members and that
accorded to the European Communities' own nationals
7.185 Articles 5 through 7 of the Regulation set out a registration procedure for GIs that refer to a
geographical area located within the te rritory of the European Communities.
204 Articles 12a and 12b

200 The Appellate Body in EC – Asbestos adopted an analogous approach to the term "like" products in
Article III:4 of GATT 1994, which it interpreted in terms of the competitive relationship between products: see
its report at para. 99.
201 See the European Communities' responses to Panel question Nos. 25, 101 and 103.
202 The Panel notes that its approach based on the respective treatment accorded to groups (of nationals)
is consistent with an approach based on the respective treatment accorded to groups (of products) contemplated
by the Appellate Body in EC – Asbestos , in the context of the national treatment obligation in Article III:4 of
GATT 1994:
"(...) A complaining Member must still establish that the measure accords to the group of 'like'
 imported products "less favourable treatment" than it accords to the group of 'like' domestic
products. The term 'less favourable treatment' expr esses the general principle, in Article III:1,
that internal regulations 'should not be applied … so as to afford protection to domestic
production'. If there is 'less favourable treatment' of the group of 'like' imported products,
there is, conversely, 'protection' of the group of 'like' domestic products. However, a Member
may draw distinctions between products which have been found to be 'like', without, for this
reason alone, according to the group of 'like' imported products 'less favourable treatment'
than that accorded to the group of 'like' domestic products. (...)" at para. 100.
203 European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 49; response to Panel question No. 29.
204 This is reflected in the fact that under Article 5(4) an application under the procedures set out in
Articles 5 through 7 shall be sent to the EC member St ate in which the geographical area is located but under
Article 12a(1) an application under the procedures set out in Articles 12a and 12b shall be sent to the authorities
in the country in which the geographical area is located. This was confirmed by the European Communities in
its response to Panel question No. 2.

set out a registration procedure for GIs that refers to geographical areas located in third countries,
including WTO Members. The conditions in Article 12(1) only apply to the latter procedures and,
hence, only to GIs that refer to geographical areas located in third countries.
7.186 There is a link between the location of a geogra phical area to which a GI refers and certain
persons. Article 5(1) and 5(2) provides that the following persons may apply for registration of a GI:
1. Only a group or, subject to certain conditions to be laid down in accordance
with the procedure provided for in Article 15 205, a natural or legal person, shall be
entitled to apply for registration.
For the purposes of this Article, 'Group' me ans any association, irrespective of its
legal form or composition, of producers a nd/or processors working with the same
agricultural product or foodstuff. Other interested parties may participate in the
group.
2. A group or a natural or legal person ma y apply for registration only in respect
of agricultural products or foodstuffs which it produces or obtains within the meaning
of Article 2(2)(a) or (b).
7.187 These definitions of applicants cross-refer to the definitions of designations of origin and
geographical indications in the Regulation in Article 2(2)(a) and (b), which provide as follows:
"2. For the purposes of this Regulation:
(a) designation of origin : means the name of a region, a specific
place or, in exceptional cases, a country, used to describe an
agricultural product or a foodstuff:
– originating in that region, specific place or country, and
– the quality or characteristics of which are essentially or
exclusively due to a particular geographical
environment with its inhe rent natural and human
factors, and the production, processing and preparation
of which take place in the defined geographical area;
(b) geographical indication : means the name of a region, a
specific place or, in excepti onal cases, a country, used to
describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff:
– originating in that region, specific place or country, and
– which possesses a specific quality, reputation or other
characteristics attributable to that geographical origin
and the production and/or processing and/or
preparation of which take place in the defined
geographical area."

205 The European Commission has laid down in Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No. 2037/93 that applications for registration pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 may be
submitted by a natural or legal person not complying with the definition in the second subparagraph of
Article 5(1) in exceptional, duly substantiated cases wh ere the person concerned is the only producer in the
geographical area defined at the time the application is submitted.

7.188 Registration confers certain protection, but on ly agricultural products or foodstuffs that
comply with a specification are eligible to "use" a registered GI. Article 4(2) sets out the minimum
requirements which must be included in a product specification, which include inter alia "evidence
that the agricultural product or the foodstuff origin ates in the geographical area", "a description of the
method of obtaining the agricultural product or f oodstuff and, if appropriate, the authentic and
unvarying local methods" and "the details bearing out the link with the geographical environment or
the geographical origin" (from items (d), (e) and (f), respectively). Any person, and not merely the
applicant, that produces or obtains the products in accordance with the specification in the registration
is entitled to use the GI.
7.189 These provisions create a link between persons, the territory of a particular Member, and the
availability of protection. The definition of a "d esignation of origin" requires that the applicant and
users must produce, process and prepare the produc ts covered by a registration in the relevant
geographical area, whilst the definition of a "geograp hical indication" requires that the applicant and
users must carry out at least one, or some combin ation, of these three activities in the geographical
area, and must do so in accordance with a specification.
7.190 Accordingly, insofar as the Regulation discrim inates with respect to the availability of
protection between GIs located in the European Co mmunities, on the one hand, and those located in
third countries, including WTO Members, on the othe r hand, it formally discriminates between those
persons who produce, process and/or prepare a pr oduct in accordance with a specification, in the
European Communities, on the one hand, and tho se persons who produce, process and/or prepare a
product in accordance with a specification, in thir d countries, including WTO Members, on the other
hand.
7.191 The Panel recalls its finding in paragraph 7.182 that it is appropriate for the purposes of this
dispute to compare the treatment accorded to the group of nationals of other Members who may wish
to seek GI protection under the Regulation and the group of the European Communities' own
nationals, who may wish to seek GI protection under the Regulation.
7.192 The United States argues that there is an extrem ely close fit between a distinction based on
where a legal person is established and producin g agricultural products and foodstuffs, and a
distinction based on nationality.
206
7.193 The European Communities does not deny this. It relies on the fact that the Regulation itself
contains no legal obstacle to foreign nationals ta king advantage of EC geographical indications and
disputes that any person who is producing a product must necessarily have the nationality of the place
where the product is produced.207 However, in the Panel's view, that is not dispositive of the issue.
7.194 The Panel agrees that the vast majority of natural and legal persons who produce, process
and/or prepare products according to a GI specification within the territory of a WTO Member party
to this dispute will be nationals of that Member. The fact that there may be cases where such a person
does not qualify as a national – and none has been brought to its attention – does not alter the fact that
the distinction made by the Regulation on the basis of the location of a GI will operate in practice to
discriminate between the group of nationals of othe r Members who wish to obtain GI protection, and
the group of the European Communities' own nationa ls who wish to obtain GI protection, to the
detriment of the nationals of other Members. This will not occur as a random outcome in a particular
case but as a feature of the design and structure of the system. This design is evident in the
Regulation's objective characteristics, in particular , the definitions of "designation of origin" and

206 United States' response to Panel question No. 102. Brazil and Canada expressed the same view: see
Annex C, paras. 24 and 47.
207 European Communities' comment on US responses to Panel question Nos. 102 and 103.

"geographical indication" and the requirements of th e product specifications. The structure is evident
in the different registration procedures.
7.195 Complete data on the persons who have actua lly availed themselves of protection under the
Regulation is not available. Any person who produces, processes and/or prepares a product according
to the specification in a GI registration is entitled to use the GI. Data on the persons who have applied
for, and obtained, protection under the Regulation an d their respective addresses is available but their
nationality is not recorded. However, there is no clear evidence that even a single person who has
applied for or is entitled to use a registered GI is not one of the European Communities' own
nationals.
7.196 Whilst certain of the European Communities' own nationals may wish to obtain protection for
GIs located outside the European Communities as well, it cannot seriously be contested that the GIs
for which nationals of other WTO Members would wish to obtain protection are overwhelmingly
located outside the European Communities. Th is is supported by evidence presented by the
United States showing that the nationality of certa in French, German, Italian, Spanish and U.S.
holders of certification marks for principally place names registered in the United States is that of the
country in which the relevant geographical area is located.208
7.197 The European Communities presen ted evidence intended to sh ow that certain foreign
nationals have actually obtained protection unde r the Regulation. The Panel notes that all its
examples consist of a foreign national, or a corpora tion incorporated under the laws of an EC member
State, that acquired another corporation incorporat ed under the laws of an EC member State, which
produces products entitled to GI protection. 209 Those subsidiary corpora tions obtaining the benefit of
protection appear to be the European Communities' own nationals, according to a place of
incorporation test. Evidence is not available on th e place of their company seat but such cases appear
to be rare. This evidence confirms, rather than c ontradicts, the link between the treatment accorded to
GIs located in the European Communities and EC nationality.
7.198 The text of the TRIPS Agreement contains a recognition that discrimination according to
residence and establishment will be a close substitute for nationality. The criteria set out in footnote 1
to the TRIPS Agreement are clearly intended to provide close substitute criteria to determine
nationality where criteria to determine nationality as such are not available in a Member's domestic
law. These criteria are "domicile" and "real and effective industrial or commercial establishment".
They are taken from the criteria used for the assim ilation of nationals in Article 3 of the Paris
Convention (1967). It is clear that, in using these terms, the drafters of footnote 1 of the TRIPS
Agreement chose terms that were already unders tood in this pre-existing intellectual property
convention. Under Article 3 of the Paris Convention (1967), "domic ile" is not generally understood
to indicate a legal situation, but rather a more or less permanent residence of a natural person, and an

208 Set out in Exhibit US-43. Some of these marks relate to wines which are not a product covered by
the Regulation at issue. This does not imply any view as to whether certification marks are an adequate means
of protecting GIs.
209 The evidence is as follows: Mr. Jens-Reidar Larsen, a Norwegian national, acquired a French
cognac firm in 1928. Cognac is not a product covered by the Regulation at issue; Sara Lee Personal Products
SpA, an Italian corporation under common control wi th Sara Lee Charcuterie SA, a French corporation
belonging to the Sara Lee group, acquired Al Ponte Prosciutto SRL, an Italian corporation; Kraft Foods Group,
which has an Italian subsidiary, acquired the business of Giovanni Invernizzi, an Italian, and partly sold it to
Lactalis, a French dairy compan y with an Italian subsidiary; Nestlé sold Vismara, a salami firm, to an Italian
company. The persons who acquired GI protection in these three examples may all be the European
Communities' own nationals. The European Communities also refers to the website of a private beer label
collector who disclaims accuracy but suggests that a Be lgian company used to produ ce a beer with a German
GI, possibly before the Regulation entered into force. The Panel considers this example unreliable. See
Exhibits EC-36, EC-61, EC-62, EC-63 and EC-89 and the United States' response to Panel question No. 102.

actual headquarters of a legal person. A "real and effective industrial and co mmercial establishment"
is intended to refer to all but a sham or ephemeral establishment.
210
7.199 The object and purpose of the TRIPS Agreement depends on the obligation in Article 1.3 to
accord the treatment provided for in the Agreement to the nationals of other Members, including
national treatment under Article 3.1. That object and purpose would be severely undermined if a
Member could avoid its obligations by simply accord ing treatment to its own nationals on the basis of
close substitute criteria, such as place of producti on, or establishment, and denying treatment to the
nationals of other WTO Members who produce or are established in their own countries.
7.200 Further, the Panel recalls its finding at paragra ph 7.182 and considers that Article 3.1 calls for
a comparison of the effective equality of opportuni ties for the group of nationals of other Members
who may wish to seek GI protection under th e Regulation and the group of the European
Communities' own nationals who may wish to seek GI protection under the Regulation. An objective
assessment of that comparison cannot ignore the di fference in treatment between quadrants 1 and 2
and quadrants 3 and 4 in the graphic set out earlier.
7.201 The Panel also notes that the close link between nationality, on the one hand, and residence
and establishment, on the other, appears to be rec ognized in the Regulation itself. Article 12d of the
Regulation accords a right of objection to persons, which the European Communities confirms is a
reference to persons resident or established outsi de the European Communities, regardless of their
nationality.
211 Yet the April 2003 amending Regulation, which inserted Article 12d, explained that it
granted the right of objection to the nationals of other WTO Members.212
7.202 The European Communities argues that any differe nce in treatment of the nationals of other
Members is not attributable to the Regulation. In its view, if a person sets up a legal entity in the area
where the GI is located, "[i]t is si mply a practical consequence of the fact that products have to be
produced in accordance with the product specification, which may require that an important part of
the production process takes place in the geographical ar ea concerned." It argues that if, for practical
considerations related for instance to taxation or la bour law, a person producing in conformity with a
product specification chooses to set up a legal entity in the area where the geographical area is
located, this is not related to the Regulation.213
7.203 The Panel considers that this constitutes part of the fundamental thrust and effect of the
Regulation, including its practical implications, and that therefore it must be taken into account in
assessing whether the Regulation accords less favourab le treatment. Whilst the Regulation does not
prevent a foreign national from producing goods with in the territory of the European Communities
which would be entitled to use a GI, the implicati ons of its design and structure on the opportunities
for protection are such that its different procedur es will operate to accord different treatment to the
European Communities' own nationals and to the nati onals of other Members, to the detriment of the
nationals of other Members.214

210 Bodenhausen, supra at note 66, p. 33, citing Ladas, The International Protection of Industrial
Property, pp. 187-188, and Roubier, Le Droit de la propriété industrielle I, pp. 268-269. This is confirmed by
the Official Records of the Paris Convention provided to the Panel by the International Bureau of WIPO and
quoted in Bodenhausen, ibid., p. 34.
211 European Communities' first written submission, para. 142.
212 See paragraph 10 of the recitals to the April 2003 amending Regulation, set out in para. 7.70 above.
213 European Communities' second oral statement, paras. 29-30; response to Panel question No. 107.
214 Article 8a of the EC Treaty provides that every citizen of the European Union shall have the right to
move and reside freely within the territory of the EC member States. Article 52 (in conjunction with Article 58)
provides for the progressive abolition of restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of an EC
member State. These provisions remove obstacles to persons who wish to produce products according to a GI

7.204 Accordingly, the Panel's preliminary conclusion is that, with respect to the availability of
protection, the treatment accorded to the group of nationals of other Members is different from, and
less favourable than, that accorded to the European Communities' own nationals.
Defences based on systemic considerations
7.205 The European Communities argues that the interpretation of the national treatment obligations
in the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994 should not lead to "systematic overlap" between them.
7.206 The Panel notes that the demonstration of less favourable treatment under each agreement
remains a distinct exercise since national treatment under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement ensures
effective equality of opportunities fo r nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property
rights, whereas national treatment under GATT 1994 ensures equality of conditions of competition
between products.215
7.207 The European Communities also argues that one must take account of the absence in the
TRIPS Agreement of a general exceptions provision analogous to Article XX of GATT 1994.
7.208 The Panel notes that there is no hierarch y between the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994,
which appear in separate annexes to the WTO Agreem ent. The ordinary meaning of the texts of the
TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994, as well as Article II:2 of the WT O Agreement, taken together,
indicates that obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994 can co-exist and that one does
not override the other. This is analogous to the finding of the Panel in Canada – Periodicals, with
which the Appellate Bo dy agreed, concerning the respecti ve scopes of GATS and GATT 1994. 216
Further, a "harmonious interpretation" does not re quire an interpretation of one that shadows the
contours of the other. It is well established that the covered agreements apply cumulatively and that
consistency with one does not necessarily imply consistency with them all.217
7.209 More specifically, the Panel notes that Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement sets out the
principles of that agreement. Article 8.1 provides as follows:
"1. Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt
measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public
interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological
development, provided that such measures ar e consistent with the provisions of this
Agreement."
7.210 These principles reflect the fact that the TRI PS Agreement does not generally provide for the
grant of positive rights to exploit or use certain s ubject matter, but rather provides for the grant of
negative rights to prevent certain acts. This fu ndamental feature of intellectual property protection
inherently grants Members freedom to pursu e legitimate public policy objectives since many
measures to attain those public policy objectives lie outside the scope of intellectual property rights
and do not require an exception under the TRIPS Agreement.

specification within the territory of the European Communities, but apply to the European Communities' own
nationals only.
215 See the Appellate Body report on Korea – Various Measures on Beef , paras. 137 and 144 and the
GATT Panel report on US – Section 337, para. 5.11.
216 Panel report on Canada – Periodicals , at para. 5.17; Appellate Body report on Canada –
Periodicals, DSR 1997:I, 449, at 465.
217 See, for example, the Appellate Body report on Argentina – Footwear (EC), para. 81; the Appellate
Body report on Korea – Dairy, para. 74; and the Panel reports in EC – Bananas III, para. 7.160.

7.211 The scope of the national treatment obligation in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement also
differs from that of the national treatment obligatio n in Article III:4 of GATT 1994, as it is subject to
certain exceptions in Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 5, one of which is inspired by the language of Article XX of
GATT 1994.
218 There is also a series of specific exceptions in the provisions relating to the minimum
standards in Part II of the TRIPS Agreement and Pa rt VII contains a provision on security exceptions
analogous to Article XXI of GATT 1994, but none on general exceptions.
7.212 For all these reasons, in the Panel's view, th e fact that a general exceptions provision
analogous to Article XX of GATT 1994 was not incl uded in the TRIPS Agreement has no impact on
its analysis of Article 3.1.
Conclusion with respect to Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement
7.213 Therefore, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the equivalence and reciprocity
conditions, as applicable to the availability of GI protection, the Regulation accords treatment to the
nationals of other Members less favourable than that it accords to the Eu ropean Communities' own
nationals, inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967)
7.214 The United States also makes claims under the national treatment obligation set out in
Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967). These cl aims are made under paragraphs 1 and 2 of that
article, which provide as follows:
(1) Nationals of any country of the Union shall, as regards the protection of
industrial property, enjoy in all the other countries of the Union the advantages that
their respective laws now grant, or may he reafter grant, to nationals; all without
prejudice to the rights specially provided for by this Convention. Consequently, they
shall have the same protection as the latter, and the same legal remedy against any
infringement of their rights, provided th at the conditions and formalities imposed
upon nationals are complied with.
(2) However, no requirement as to domicile or establishment in the country
where protection is claimed may be imposed upon nationals of countries of the Union
for the enjoyment of any industrial property rights.
7.215 The text refers to the "countries of the Uni on" for the purposes of identifying States which
bear the obligation to accord national treatment unde r that provision. Howe ver, Article 2.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement obliges WTO Members to comply w ith Articles 1 through 12, and Article 19, of
that Convention.
219 Therefore, as a WTO Member, the European Communities owes obligations
under Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
7.216 With respect to the claim under paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967), as
incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, the Panel observes that, unlike Article 3.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement, Article 2(1) of the Paris Conventi on (1967) refers to "the advantages that ... laws
now grant, or may hereafter grant" and not to "no less favourable" treatment. Therefore, the Panel has

218 Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement also provides that there shall be no obligation under the
TRIPS Agreement to protect geographical indications which are not or cease to be prot ected in their country of
origin, or which have fallen into disuse in that country.
219 The Appellate Body report on US – Section 211 Appropriations Act also notes that the obligations
of countries of the Paris Union under the Paris Convention (1967) are also obligations of WTO Members by
virtue of Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, para. 125.

not actually reached a conclusion on this claim. Ho wever, further findings on this claim would not
provide any additional contribution to a positive solution to this dispute and are therefore unnecessary.
7.217 With respect to the claim under paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967), as
incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreemen t, the Panel does not consider that the Regulation
contains a requirement of domicile or establishment. 220 We have found that the design and structure
of the Regulation will operate to ensure that persons who use a protected GI, located in the European
Communities, will have a domicile or establishm ent within the territory of the European
Communities. We have also found that the avai lability of protection for GIs located in third
countries, including WTO Members, is dependent on whether the third country in which the GI is
located satisfies the conditions of equivalence or reci procity or enters into an international agreement
with the European Communities. It is irrelevant to the protection of a GI located in a third country
whether or not the person who seeks protection h as a domicile or establishment in the European
Communities.
7.218 Therefore, the Panel concludes that, with r espect to the availability of protection, the
Regulation does not impose a requirement as to dom icile or establishment inconsistently with
Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
(c) National treatment under GATT 1994
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.219 The United States claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994
because it imposes conditions of reciprocity and equivalence on the benefits of registration. It argues
that the Regulation applies to products from the European Communities and third countries which are
like products because the only difference between produc ts that do, and do not, benefit from
registration without conditions of reciprocity and equivalence, is their origin in the European
Communities or a third country.
221 It argues that the Regulation is a measure affecting the internal
sale, offering for sale, purchase, distribution or use of the imported product because it governs the
manner in which registered names can be used on products which are sold, offered for sale,
purchased, distributed or used, it governs use of the logo which allegedly provides competitive
advantages and it provides protection for products th at qualify for registered GIs broad protections
against competitive and disparaging uses and against their names becoming generic.222
7.220 The United States argues that the Regulation accords less favourable treatment to imported
products because it does not permit registration of GIs on the same conditions as those for products
from the European Communities but imposes subs tantial and often insurmountable additional
conditions.223 The Regulation is motivated by the Europ ean Communities' belief that producers of
products with GI protection fare much better in the marketplace than those whose products do not
have such protection.224 Registration permits use of the GI and the logo and provides broad protection
against competing and disparaging uses and against their names becoming generic. 225 The effects of
registration, listed in Article 13(1) of the Regula tion, authorize judicial and administrative authorities
to issue orders preventing all other products from being promoted or sold accompanied by names or
labels that fall within the scope of the registrati on. These include removal of terms that evoke the

220 The Panel recalls its findings at para. 7.198 above on the meaning of those terms as understood
under Article 3 of the Paris Convention (1967).
221 United States' first written submission, paras. 99-100.
222 United States' first written submission, paras. 101-102.
223 United States' response to Panel question No. 109.
224 United States' first written submission, para. 97.
225 United States' first written submission, paras. 103-105.

protected GI, which may be an important selling po int for the imported product. Another effect of
registration, mentioned in Article 13(3) of the Regulation, prevents names becoming generic and
thereby losing their status as an identifier of source.
226 The Regulation itself indicates that both the
intent and the effect of the Regulation is to provi de competitive benefits to products that satisfy the
registration criteria.227
7.221 The European Communities responds that the Regulation is fully compatible with
Article III:4 of GATT 1994. It does not contest that products from the European Communities and
from third countries falling under the scope of the Regulation may be like products , although it
stresses that this alone does not preclude the Eu ropean Communities from applying the conditions for
registration to individual GIs. 228 It does not contest that the Regulation is a measure affecting the
internal sale of products.229
7.222 The European Communities argues th at the Regulation does not accord less favourable
treatment to imported products because it does not apply the conditions in Article 12(1) to the
registration of GIs from other WTO Members. 230 It concedes that the app lication of those conditions
would prejudice its obligations under Article III:4 of GATT 1994.231
(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.223 Brazil argues the GATT– and WTO– underlying principle of national treatment would be
completely voided of any meaning if it were ma de conditional on requirements of reciprocity and
adoption of equivalent legislation.232
7.224 China argues that the different treatment accorded to GIs by the Regulation will amount to
less favourable treatment if it is found to modi fy the conditions of competition under which like
imported and EC products compete in the EC market to the disadvantage of imported products.233
7.225 New Zealand considers that the complainants have demonstrated all three elements
constituting a violation of Article III:4 of GATT 1994. The only issue under debate is whether the
Regulation confers "less favourable treatment" on imported products. As the same phrase is used in
Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, all arguments raised under that claim apply equally here.
234
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.226 The Panel notes that the European Communities concedes that the conditions of equivalence
and reciprocity in Article 12(1) of the Regulation, if applied to WTO Members, are inconsistent with
Article III:4 of GATT 1994. 235 Given that the Panel has found that the Regulation "as such" imposes
those conditions on the registration of GIs located in other WTO Members, there is no longer any
defence before the Panel to the claim that, in th is respect, the Regulation is inconsistent with
Article III:4 of GATT 1994. It suffices to recall below that the essential elements of an inconsistency
with Article III:4 are all met in this claim. These elements are the following: that the imported and
domestic products at issue are "like products"; that the measure at issue is a "law, regulation, or

226 United States' response to Panel question No. 108.
227 United States' response to Panel question No. 32.
228 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 195-197.
229 European Communities' first written submission, para. 194.
231 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 94.
232 Annex C, para. 25.
233 Annex C, para. 95.
234 Annex C, para. 141.
235 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 94(a).

requirement affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution, or
use"; and that the imported products are accorded "less favourable" treatment than that accorded to
like domestic products.236
7.227 The Regulation sets down requirements concerning the use of certain names in the
presentation for sale of agricultural products and foodstuffs. 237 It is therefore a law or regulation
affecting the internal sale and offering for sale of products within the meaning of Article III:4 of
GATT 1994. This is not altered by the fact that the Regulation is also an intellectual property
measure covered by the TRIPS Agreement sin ce GATT 1994 and the TRIPS Agreement apply
cumulatively.238
7.228 The Regulation links the protection of the name of a product to the territory of a particular
country.239 In the case of "designations of origin", as define d in Article 2 of the Regulation, this is the
place of production, processing and preparation of the product and, in the case of "geographical
indications", as defined in Article 2 of the Regul ation, this is the place of production, processing
and/or preparation. It is not disputed that in most cases these criteria are sufficient to confer origin on
the products. Given that the Panel has found that the protection of names of products from other
WTO Members is contingent on satisfaction of certain conditions of equivalence and reciprocity that
do not apply to the names of products from the European Communities, the Regulation formally
discriminates between imported prod ucts and products of European Communities origin within the
meaning of Article III:4 of GATT 1994.
7.229 The Regulation applies to the names of a wide class of products described in Article 1(1),
which refers to the large number of agricultural products intended for human consumption referred to
in Annex 1 to the EC Treaty as well as 13 additio nal types of agricultural products and foodstuffs
listed in the annexes to the Regulation. The Eur opean Communities does not contest that there are,
among this group, "like products" among the im ported products and products of European
Communities origin. The European Communities and other WTO Members produce the same types
of covered agricultural products a nd foodstuffs with GIs that may be eligible for protection.
Article 13(1)(a) of the Regulation provides that protection is provided against use of a name in respect
of products "comparable to the products registered under that name". It is axiomatic that one must
compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. In this dispute, it is not contested that
Tasmanian apples may be like pommes de Savoie
240 and Florida citrus may be like cítricos
valencianos241 for the purposes of Article III:4 of GATT 1994.

236 These three elements are also set out in the Appellate Body report on Korea – Various Measures on
Beef at para. 133.
237 Article 1(1) of the Regulation provides that it "lays down rules on the protection of designations of
origin and geographical indications of agricultural products ... and of ... foodstuffs ..." and Commission
Regulation (EEC) No. 2037/93 sets out detailed rules on the application of the Regulation, including use of the
PDO and PGI logos in the promotion of products (see Exhibit COMP-2). Article 13(1) of the Regulation sets
out uses against which registered names are protected.
238 The Panel recalls its comment on the order of analysis in para. 7.36 and its findings in para. 7.208,
that there is no hierarchy between GA TT 1994 and the TRIPS Agreement, which appear in separate annexes to
the WTO Agreement. Further, an intellectual property measure was the subject of conclusions under
Article III:4 of GATT 1947 in the GATT Panel report on US – Section 337 . The Panel does not consider that
the conclusion of the TRIPS Agreement reduced the scope of application of GATT: see, on the same point with
respect to GATS, the Appellate Body report on Canada – Periodicals, DSR 1997:I, 449, at 465.
239 Exceptionally, it may extend across a border of more than one country, see Articles 5(5) and 12a(1)
of the Regulation.
240 Registered by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1107/96, p. 13, Exhibit COMP-3a.
241 Registered by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 865/2003, Exhibit COMP-4b.i.

7.230 In our analysis of the question of "less favourab le treatment", we follow the approach of the
Appellate Body in Korea – Various Measures on Beef and US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC) that this
standard should be assessed under Article III:4 of GATT 1994 by examining whether the measures at
issue modify the conditions of competition between domestic and imported pr oducts in the relevant
market to the detriment of imported products. This examination must closely scrutinize the
"fundamental thrust and effect of the measure itself" founded on a careful analysis of the contested
measure and of its implications in the marketplace.
242
7.231 The Regulation provides in Article 13 that regist ered GIs shall be protected against certain
commercial uses and other practices. Registration provides the legal means to prevent the sale and
offering for sale of products, including competitive products, where they use, imitate or evoke a
registered GI, which is a substantive advantage conferred on products that comply with the GI
registration. Registration does not grant a right to exclude competition, or deny the possibility of sale
without a registered GI but, where products, includi ng competitive products, bear an indication that
falls within the protection granted by registration, they may be removed from sale. This is a
substantive advantage that affects the conditions of competition of the relevant products.
7.232 The declared purposes of the Regulation set out in its preamble include the following, which
links GIs to demand for products:
"Whereas, moreover, it has been observed in recent years that consumers are tending
to attach greater importance to the quality of foodstuffs rather than to quantity;
whereas this quest for specific products generates a growing de mand for agricultural
products or foodstuffs with an identifiable geographical origin;"
7.233 Agricultural products and foodstuffs from the European Communities may obtain this
advantage where they satisfy the eligibility criteri a in the Regulation. Like products imported from
WTO Members that the Commission has not decided me et the equivalence and reciprocity conditions
in Article 12(1) of the Regulation – which is all of them – are not able to obtain that advantage and,
hence, are accorded less favourable treatment. Products from WTO Members which can satisfy the
equivalence and reciprocity conditions in Article 12(1) still face an "extra hurdle" in obtaining the
advantage of registration since the Commission must d ecide that their country of origin meets those
conditions – a step which is not required of like products from the European Communities. This is
also less favourable treatment.
7.234 The United States cites other alleged advantages c onferred by registration. It refers to the
entitlement to use the indications "PDO" and "PGI " and a Community symbol or logo with products
that comply with a registration.
243 The graphic manual annexed to the rules under the Regulation
states inter alia that "[t]he logo will allow producers of fo od products to increase awareness of their
products among consumers in the European Union"; that the logo provides producers with "a
marketing tool"; and that, because of the l ogo, "products will inspire more confidence". 244 T h e
United States also cites the preamble to the Regul ation which refers to higher incomes for producers
from the promotion of their products as one of the justifications for protection.

242 See the Appellate Body report on Korea – Various Measures on Beef , paras. 137 and 142; and also
243 Under Article 8 of the Regulation and the detailed rules of application of the Regulation in
Exhibit COMP-2.
244 Exhibit COMP-2.

7.235 The European Communities does not contest that these are benefits of protection under the
Regulation, and also refers to the right to u se the designation and logo under Article 8 and the
possibility of excluding others from use of the GI under Article 13.245
7.236 The United States submits a powerpoint presenta tion prepared by the European Commission
which lists some random facts on the prices of certain products with protected names, the results of an
opinion poll on consumer perceptions conducted by a group of nougat producers, and economic data
contrasting cheese production in Franche-Comté and Emmental. 246 It is not clear to what extent the
advantages illustrated in this data flow from the protection of the indications or from better marketing,
increased advertising and superior product quality. In any event, in view of the significant
competitive advantage conferred under Article 13 of the Regulation, it is unnecessary to determine the
weight to be given to this evidence.
7.237 Lastly, the Panel notes that there is the possibility that a WTO Member could conclude an
international agreement with th e European Communities for the pr otection of specific GIs for its
agricultural products and foodstuffs. It is not in dispute that this possibility would provide less
favourable treatment to imported agricultural prod ucts and foodstuffs than the procedure for the
registration of GIs provides for agricultural products and foodstuffs from the European Communities.
7.238 Therefore, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the equivalence and reciprocity
conditions, as applicable to the availability of pr otection, the Regulation accords less favourable
treatment to imported products, inconsistently with Article III:4 of GATT 1994.
247
7.239 The European Communities has not asserted that , with respect to the availability of
protection, the Regulation is justified by Article XX(d) of GATT 1994.248
2. Application procedures
(a) Description of application procedures under Articles 5 and 12a of the Regulation
7.240 The parties agree on the features of the application procedures under the Regulation. There
are separate provisions setting out the procedures for applications for registration of GIs which apply
according to the location of the GI. 249 Article 5 applies where the GI is located in an EC member
State. Article 12a applies where the GI is located in a third country.
7.241 Article 5(4) and 5(5) provide, relevantly, as follows:
"4. The application shall be sent to th e Member State in which the geographical
area is located.

246 Exhibit US-44 cited in the United States' response to Panel question No. 32.
247 This conclusion is without prejudice to the Panel' s examination of the inspection structures required
for registration, considered later in this report.
248 See the European Communities' first written su bmission, paras. 224-225, in which it asserts
Article XX(d) as a defence only in relation to Article 12a, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 10, of the
Regulation. See also its rebuttal submission, paras. 22 8-242, and its second oral statement, paras. 132 and 135,
in which it asserts Article XX(d) as a defence only with respect to inspec tions, application procedures and the
labelling requirement. Despite broader references to th e Regulation in its first written submission, para. 190,
and first oral statement, para. 73, the European Communities did not prov ide any specific arguments in defence
of the equivalence and reciprocity conditions under Article XX(d).
249 For the sake of brevity, the Panel refers to a name that refers to a geogra phical area located in a
Member as a GI located in that Member.

5. The Member State shall check that the application is justified and shall
forward the application, including the produc t specification referred to in Article 4
and other documents on which it has based its decision, to the Commission, if it
considers that it satisfies the requirements of this Regulation. [...]"
7.242 Article 12a(1) and 12a(2) provide, relevantly, as follows:
"1. In the case provided for in Article 12(3), if a group or a natural or legal
person as referred to in Article 5(1) and (2) in a third country wishes to have a name
registered under this Regulation it shall send a registration application to the
authorities in the country in which the geographical area is located. [...]
2. If the third country referred to in paragraph 1 deems the requirements of this
Regulation to be satisfied it shall tran smit the registration application to the
Commission accompanied by:
(a) a description of the legal provisions an d the usage on the basis of which the
designation of origin or the geographical indication is protected or established in the
country,
(b) a declaration that the structures provided for in Article 10 are established on
its territory, and
(c) other documents on which it has based its assessment."
7.243 After an application is forwarded by an EC member State or a third country, Articles 6(1) and
12b(1) of the Regulation oblige the Commission to verify whether the registration application
includes all the requisite particulars and satisfies th e conditions for protection. There are differences
in the drafting of Articles 6(1) and 12b(1) which rela te, respectively, to applications forwarded by EC
member States and those transmitted by third countries, which the United States has not put in issue.
(b) National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.244 The United States claims that the Regulation is incons istent with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement and Article 2(1) of the Paris Conventio n (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement, because application procedures do not allow applications for registration in
respect of geographical areas located in third count ries to be filed directly with the competent
authorities in Europe. This is less favourable treatment because the Regulation provides the direct
means for EC nationals to apply through their EC member States to the Commission, whilst non-EC
nationals who wish to file an application for regi stration of a GI located in their own country must
petition their government to apply on their behalf.
250 The Regulation does not accord equal treatment
because third country governments only comply vol untarily whereas EC member States have a legal
obligation to do so.251
7.245 The United States argues that it is irrelevant whether the Regulation accords equal treatment
to other WTO Members and EC member States because the TRIPS Agreement requires that no less

250 United States' first written submission, paras. 81-82; rebuttal submission, paras. 68 and 71.

favourable treatment be accorded to nationals of WTO Members. 252 Intellectual property rights are
private rights.253
7.246 The United States argues that whilst it would probably not be too difficult to designate an
office in the U.S. government to perform a purely ministerial act of transmitting documents to the
Commission, it might be difficult for some Members and, in any event, the Regulation requires more
than mere transmission of documents . Third country governments must inter alia determine that the
application meets the Regulation's requirements a nd demonstrate how the GI is protected in its
country of origin. 254 This is a substantial burden and invol ves an active role in the registration
procedure in which the third country government must administer and enforce the Regulation on its
own territory.
255 This is neither appropriate nor necessar y and results in less favourable treatment. 256
Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement does not require this. 257 Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement
does not justify this, because other systems of GI protection do not put the government in a better
position than the right holder to provide inform ation on protection in the country of origin.
258 This is
a unilateral requirement that foreign governments verify compliance with the Regulation and not an
example of international cooperation.259
7.247 The European Communities responds that this claim must fail. Its first defence is that the
application procedures do not apply to nationality but according to the location of geographical areas.
That defence has been considered above.
7.248 The European Communities argues that th e application procedures do not accord less
favourable treatment because the role of third country govern ments corresponds exactly to that of EC
member States. The transmission of applications by governments in fact ensures equal treatment. 260
The authorities of third countries and EC member St ates are best placed to evaluate whether a GI
fulfils the conditions for protection, which requires familiarity with a host of factors and may require
knowledge of the market conditions in the country of origin. The evaluation of whether a GI is
protected in the country of origin requires the implication of the authorities of the third country.
Verification in a third country calls for respect fo r its sovereignty. Involvement of third country
authorities facilitates cooperation durin g the registration process and should be of practical benefit to
the applicant.
261
7.249 The European Communities argues that the verification and transmission of an application are
not overly burdensome for another WTO Member. Another WTO Member cannot invoke its own
unwillingness to cooperate in the registration process in order to demonstrate a national treatment
violation on the part of the European Communities. 262 There are many examples of international
cooperation between governments in the protection of private rights including, in the field of
intellectual property protection, such as the Madrid Protocol, the Lisbon Agreement and
Article 6quinquiesA(1) of the Paris Convention, and in the fields of certificates of origin, technical
standards, conformity assessment, transport, fish eries and judicial cooperation. These examples

252 United States' first oral statement, paras. 30-31.
253 United States' first oral statement, para. 37.
254 United States' first oral statement, para. 28 and response to Panel question No. 38. The third
country government must also declare that the inspection structures are established on its territory. This is
discussed in a later section of this report.
255 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 64-67.
257 United States' second oral statement, para. 34.
258 United States' second closing oral statement, para. 11-12.
259 United States' second oral statement, para. 36; second closing oral statement, para. 13.
260 European Communities' first written submission, para. 130.
261 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 33; rebuttal submission, paras. 124-129.
262 European Communities' first written submission, para. 131.

illustrate that in an increasingly in terdependent world, the effective protection of individual rights in
cross-border situations inevitably engenders a need for cross-border cooperation.
263
7.250 The European Communities does not want to im pose obligations on third countries, but the
protection of GIs located in the territory of thir d countries depends on their cooperation. This is
partially mandated by the definition of a GI in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires
verification of whether certain characteristics of a good are essentially attributable to its geographical
origin. This is an obligation for all Members and should normally facilitate the examination of
whether the name fulfils the criteria in the Regulation. The description of how a GI is protected in its
country of origin reflects the provision in Article 24. 9 of the TRIPS Agreement. Even where there is
no specific registration system in the country of origin, that is still a TRIPS requirement for the
European Communities and a matter of foreign law.
264 The transmission of the application by the
same government is not a significant extra burden.265
(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.251 Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, New Zealand and Chinese Taipei all inform the Panel
that they are not aware of any person ever having a ttempted to file with their respective authorities an
application for registration under the Regulation.266
7.252 Argentina expresses uncertainty regarding the consistency of the application procedures with
the characterization of intellectual property rights under the TRIPS Agreement, in that they require
States to manage the registration of a GI instead of right holders who are private persons.267
7.253 Brazil argues that the application procedures require WTO Members to "pre-approve"
applications before they forward them to the Eu ropean Commission, which is a striking violation of
the national treatment obligation in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement for two reasons: (1) this is an
additional procedure for other WTO Members; and (2) the approval process must be conducted
according to EC law, not the law of the other WTO Member. 268
7.254 China argues that the provisions on verification and publication do not afford clarity. The
procedures for EC member States and third countries are in parallel but are not the same in substance.
The provisions on verification by, and transmission to, the Commission differ between the procedures
which suggests that third countries must satisfy more than an EC member State.
7.255 Colombia expresses uncertainty as to whether the country of origin must in all cases provide
a declaration under Article 12a(2) with a descripti on of the legal provisions under which the GI is
protected. This is, in practice, a condition which en tails an evaluation of the system of GI protection
in the country of origin contrary to Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.269
7.256 Mexico refers to cochineal as a practical exampl e of the way in which Mexican producers
would be required to go through specific procedures which EC nationals are not.270
7.257 New Zealand submits that, although the requirement to submit all applications through
government applies equally to applications from EC member States and other WTO Member

263 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 37.
264 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 131-134; response to Panel question No. 114.
266 See their respective comments in Annex C at paras. 18, 32, 103, 118, 160 and 179.
267 Annex C, paras. 2-15.
268 Annex C, para. 27.
269 Annex C, para. 99.
270 Annex C, paras. 115-117.

nationals, its effect is to disadvantage nationals from other WTO Members. EC nationals have an
enforceable right that applications that satisfy the requirements of the Regulation are forwarded to the
Commission. Submission of an application via an EC member State is essentially a formality. Other
WTO Member nationals have no such enforceable right.271
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.258 These claims are made under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 2 of the Paris
Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel will first
consider the claim under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.259 The Panel recalls that two elements must be sa tisfied to establish an inconsistency with this
obligation: (1) the measure at issue must apply with regard to the protection of intellectual property;
and (2) the nationals of other Members must be accorded "less favourable " treatment than the
Member's own nationals. The Panel will address each of these elements in turn.
Protection of intellectual property
7.260 This claim concerns procedures for filing and ex amination of applications for registration of
"designations of origin and "geographical indicati ons", as defined in the Regulation. They are
referred to in this report, for the sake of brevity, as "application procedures".
7.261 The Panel recalls that the national treatment ob ligation in Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement
applies to the treatment accorded by a Member "with regard to the protection of intellectual property".
Footnote 3 provides an inclusive definition of the te rm "protection" as used in Articles 3 and 4. It
reads as follows:
"For the purposes of Articles 3 and 4, 'protection' shall include matters affecting the
availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property
rights as well as those matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights
specifically addressed in this Agreement."
7.262 Turning to the Regulation, procedures for the filing and examination of applications for
registration are matters affecting the acquisition of intellectual property rights in relation to
"designations of origin" and "geographical indications", as defined in the Regulation.
7.263 It is not disputed that "designations of orig in" and "geographical indications", as defined in
the Regulation, are a subset of "geographical indica tions", the subject of Section 3 of Part II, and
therefore part of a category of intellectual propert y within the meaning of Article 1.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
7.264 Therefore, this claim concerns the "protecti on" of intellectual property, as clarified in
footnote 3 to the TRIPS Agreement, within the scope of the national treatment obligation in
Article 3.1 of that Agreement.
Less favourable treatment accorded to the nationals of other Members

7.265 The Panel recalls its findings:
(a) at paragraphs 7.185 to 7.190 as to the treatme nt accorded to the "nationals of other
Members" under the Regulation by its treatment according to the location of GIs; and

271 Annex C, paras. 136-137.

(b) at paragraph 7.134 that under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement we must examine
the "effective equality of opportunities" with regard to the protection of intellectual
property rights and at paragr aph 7.137 that in this exam ination we will focus on the
"fundamental thrust and effect" of the Regulation.
7.266 The parties and third parties who responded to the Panel's question on this point all reported
that they were not aware of any application for the registration of a name of an area located in a third
country outside the European Communities ever ha ving been filed with the authorities of a third
country.
272 However, the United States challenges the Regulation, in this respect, "as such".
7.267 The United States claims that the treatment accorded under th e application procedures in
Article 12a(1) and (2) is less favourable than that accorded under the applications procedures in
Article 5(4) and (5). There is an apparent equi valence in the drafting of these provisions but the
question is whether this would imply a modificatio n of the effective equality of opportunities with
regard to the protection of intellectual property.
7.268 The Panel notes that the initial steps in the application procedures can be broken down as
follows.
(a) as a first step, all applicants are required to submit their application to the authorities
in the country in which the geographical ar ea is located. These will be authorities of
an EC member State or a third country, depending on the case;
(b) as a second step, the authorities who receive an application consider whether the
application is justified or satisfies the requirements of the Regulation. This involves a
detailed examination of the application in accordance with the criteria in the EC
Regulation, not the domestic law of the country where the application is filed; and
(c) as a third step, if the authorities who receive an application consider that the
application is justified or satisfies the requirements of the Regulation, they forward or
transmit it to the Commission. If the application concerns a geographical area located
outside the European Communities, the authorities must also transmit a description of
the protection of the GI in its country of origin, as well as a declaration concerning
inspection structures.
273
7.269 We recall the European Communities' e xplanation of its domestic constitutional
arrangements, set out at paragraph 7.98, that Community laws are generally not executed through
authorities at Community level but rather through r ecourse to the authorities of its member States
which, in such a situation, "act de facto as organs of the Community, for which the Community would
be responsible under WTO law and international law in general". 274 It follows that any application
relating to a geographical area located in an EC member State is filed directly with a " de facto organ

272 However, the United States provided evidence from the Idaho Potato Commission that it could not
obtain protection for its U.S. certification mark in the European Union. Its attorneys in three EC member States
had advised that there were no steps it could take to stop use of the term "Idaho" by other companies in Europe:
see testimony to the Committee on Agriculture in the U.S. House of Representatives of 22 July 2003, in
response to Panel question No. 12, and reproduced in Exhibit US-38. The European Communities responds that
this is based on a misperception of th e content of the Regulation, that it does not contain evidence of an attempt
to register a GI under the Regulation, and that it seems to relate more to the protection of trademarks than GIs:
273 For the purposes of this report, references to examination and transmission of "applications" include
examination and transmission of these supporting documen ts. The declaration concer ning inspection structures
is considered later in this report.
274 European Communities' second oral statement, para. 148.

of the Community" which also carries out the initia l examination. An application relating to a
geographical area located in a third country cannot be filed directly, but must be filed with a foreign
government. This is a formal difference in treatment.
7.270 Further, Article 5 of the Regulation provides fo r application procedures for GIs located in the
European Communities. Paragraph 6 provides as follows:
"6. Member States shall introduce the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with this Article."
7.271 An EC member State has an obligation to est ablish application procedures for the purposes of
the Regulation. Under Community law, an EC member State has an obligation to examine an
application and decide whether it is justified and, if it is justified, to forward it to the Commission. A
group or person who submits an application in an EC member State may enforce these obligations
through recourse to judicial procedures based on the Regulation. In contrast, a third country
government has no obligation under Community law or any other law to examine an application or to
transmit it or any other document to the Commission. A group or person who submits an application
in a third country has no right to such treatment.
7.272 Therefore, applicants for GIs that refer to geographical areas located in third countries do not
have a right in the application procedures that is provided to applicants for GIs that refer to
geographical areas located in the European Communities. Applicants in third countries face an "extra
hurdle" in ensuring that the authorities in those countries carry out the functions reserved to them
under the Regulation, which applicants in EC me mber States do not face. Consequently, certain
applications and requisite supportin g documents may not be examined or transmitted. Each of these
considerations significantly reduces the opportuniti es available to the nationals of other WTO
Members in the acquisition of rights under the Re gulation below those available to the European
Communities' own nationals.
7.273 The European Communities submits that that "[t] he Regulation does not require anything that
would be outside the scope of any WTO Member with a normally functioning government". 275 The
Panel notes that, whilst a normally functioning government might have the capacity to carry out the
first and third steps, it cannot be assumed that it would have the capacity to carry out the examination
according to EC law required by the second step. WTO Members have no obligation to implement a
system of protection for geographical indications comparable to that of the European Communities
and there is no reason to believe that they w ould nevertheless have the capacity to carry out
examinations of technical issues that involve interpreta tions of EC law. In this regard, we note that
one third party in this Panel proceeding indicates that its authorities w ould be devoid of legal
competence to perform this analysis.
276 Whilst a WTO Member that provided equivalent protection
under its domestic law might presumably have the tec hnical capacity, if not the legal competence, to
perform this analysis, the provision of such equiva lent protection forms part of the conditions under
Article 12(1) of the Regulation. We have found that requirement, as a precondition to the availability
of GI protection, to be inconsistent with the na tional treatment obligations in the TRIPS Agreement
and GATT 1994.
7.274 In any event, even if any normally functioni ng government could perform these three steps,
that would not alter the Panel's conclusion. The obligation to accord national treatment with respect
to a measure of the European Communities is the ob ligation of the European Communities. This is
highlighted in the text of Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement under which "[e]ach Member" shall
accord to the nationals of other Members no less favourable treatment.

276 See comments by Brazil in Annex C, para. 32.

7.275 In accordance with its domestic law, the Europ ean Communities is entitled to delegate certain
functions under its measure to the authorities of EC member States. However, under the Regulation,
the European Communities has purported to delegate part of this obligation to other WTO Members,
who must carry out these three steps in the appli cation procedures in order to ensure that no less
favourable treatment is accorded to their respective nationals. To that extent, the European
Communities fails to accord no less favourable treatment itself to the nationals of other Members.
277
7.276 The Panel notes that the European Commission doe s not have the discretion to ensure that
applications for GIs that refer to geographical areas located in third countries receive no less
favourable treatment than those located in the Eu ropean Communities because it has structured the
Regulation in such a way that certain functions are completely outside its control.
7.277 The European Communities drew the Panel's a ttention to many examples of international
cooperation in the protection of private rights, including in the field of intellectual property
protection.
278 The Panel notes that under two of them, the Patent Cooperation Treaty and the Madrid
Protocol, the possibility of filing an application with an office in the applicant's own country does not
prevent the applicant filing an application directly in the another country. The Panel certainly does
not intend to discourage interna tional cooperation. However, in each of these examples, cooperation
is provided in the framework of treaties in whic h contracting parties have voluntarily agreed to
participate. In contrast, the Regulation is a domestic law adopted by one Member.
7.278 The Panel also confirms that nothing in these findings purports to diminish the rights of
Members under Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreemen t, which provides, in essence, that there is no
obligation under this Agreement to protect geographi cal indications which are not protected in their
country of origin279.
7.279 The Panel further confirms that the European Communities is entitled, under Article 62.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement, to require that applicants comply with reasonable procedures and formalities
that are consistent with the Agreement in order to prove that they meet the conditions of protection.
However, Article 62 is outside the Panel's terms of reference.
7.280 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7. 212 that the fact that a general exceptions
provision analogous to Article XX of GATT 1994 was not included in the TRIPS Agreement has no
impact on its analysis of Article 3.1.
7.281 For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the application procedures,
insofar as they require examination and transmission of applications by governments, the Regulation
accords other WTO Member nationals less favourab le treatment than it accords the European
Communities' own nationals, inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.282 In view of that conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider the consiste ncy of the Regulation,
with respect to the application procedures, with Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), as
incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

277 See further paras. 7.741 to 7.743 below.
278 See European Communities' response to Panel question No. 37, and Exhibits EC-20 through EC-27.
279 Nothing in these findings purports to diminish the rights of Members under Article 5 of the TRIPS
Agreement either.

(c) National treatment under GATT 1994
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.283 The United States claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994
because an application for registration must be submitted by a WTO Member on behalf of its national.
It reiterates its arguments in relation to the conditi ons of equivalence and reciprocity and Article III:4
of GATT 1994, it reiterates its arguments in relation to the application procedures and Article 3.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement, and it adds that the applicat ion procedures deny the benefits of registration
which accords less favourable treatment to imported products. 280 Products imported from Members,
like the United States, which l ack a mechanism to assess complian ce under the Regulation, will be
denied these benefits for reasons unrelated to the ch aracteristics of the product itself, but for reasons
related to the products' origin.281
7.284 The United States argues that the relevant aspects of the application procedures are not
justified under Article XX(d) of GATT 1994. They do not satisfy paragraph (d) because they do not
"secure compliance". At best, they solicit other Members' views but the decision on registration is
made by the European Communities. Whether a product satisfies the Regulation's requirements is a
legal judgement and has nothing to do with complia nce with the Regulation. These aspects shift the
burden for assessing compliance from the European Communities onto other Members. The
Regulation itself is not a law consistent with GAT T 1994, which is the fundamental issue in this
dispute. These aspects are not "necessary" to secu re compliance because another Member's views or
on-site checks will not always be required, by the EC's own admission. There is no reason why
alternative measures are not reasonably available, such as allowing nationals to file applications
directly with the European Communities, or establish by other means that a GI is protected in its
country of origin.
282 These aspects do not satisfy the chapeau of Article XX because the European
Communities favours countries that protect GIs the way it does, which arbitrarily and unjustifiably
discriminates between countries where the same conditions apply.283
7.285 The European Communities responds that this claim must fail. It reiterates its arguments
that the application procedures provide equal treatment, not less favourable treatment.284
7.286 The European Communities asserts that verifica tion and transmission of applications by the
government of the home country of the GI is justified by Article XX(d) of GATT 1994. 285 It argues
that this is necessary to secure co mpliance with the Regulation itself, in particular, the definition of a
GI, the product specifications, protection in the c ountry of origin, establishment of the inspection
structures and the requirement that only products th at comply with a specification bear the PDO and
PGI indications. It argues that the cooperation of the home government is indispensable for the
implementation of the Regulation which, in partic ular, requires the evaluation of factual and legal
questions which only the home country of the GI is in a position to carry out. These requirements for
cooperation do not go beyond what is necessary for the implementation of the Regulation. The
requirement of transmission follows naturally from the required intergovernmental cooperation and is
not particularly burdensome for WTO Members. Ar ticle XX(d) does not exclude that the measures
and the laws and regulations with which they secure compliance may be part of the same legal act. In
addition, there is nothing which limits measures which secure compliance to ex post enforcement and

280 United States' first written submission, paras. 104(d) and 105; rebuttal submission, para. 95.
281 United States' second oral statement, para. 45.
282 United States' second oral statement, para. 55.
283 United States' second oral statement, para. 57 and comments on EC responses to Panel question
Nos. 135 and 136.
285 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 237-239.

excludes safeguards in the registration process. Th e Regulation is not inconsistent with GATT 1994
because it implements an obligation under Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement and a higher level of
protection permitted by Article 1.1. It is applie d in a manner consistent with the chapeau of
Article XX.
286
7.287 The European Communities argues that, with respect to verification that the GI is protected in
its country of origin, verification requires knowledge of local factors that typically only the country of
origin will have and which may also require on-site checks. Submission of a registration certificate
authenticated by the country of origin would norma lly provide sufficient evidence that the indication
is protected in the country of origin. However, it is not an option for those Members which do not
have a specific register, such as the United States. Verification by third country governments is
particularly necessary where they do not have a specific register as evaluation of protection in the
country of origin may be more difficult. It is not credible that the United States government would
not be better qualified than the right holder or the European Communities. Transmission of
applications by third country governments is an inte gral part of the application procedure and should
not be viewed in isolation. It has no significan t impact on trade in goods. It makes no difference
whether the European Communities asks for coopera tion from a third country government before or
after an application is filed.287
(ii) Main arguments by third parties
7.288 Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico and Chinese Taipei inform the Panel that direct
applications to register GIs located in third countries are possible under their respective national
legislation.288
7.289 Brazil argues that the application procedures require WTO Members to "pre-approve"
applications before they forward them to the Eu ropean Commission, which is a striking violation of
the national treatment obligation in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.289
7.290 New Zealand considers that, as the same phrase "l ess favourable treatment" is used in
Article III:4 as in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreemen t, all arguments raised under that claim apply
equally here. New Zealand does not consider that the measure can be justified as "necessary" within
the meaning of Article XX(d) of GATT 1994. The Commission conducts its own six-month
investigation of an application so that it is not n ecessary for applications to be passed through a third
country government filter.
290
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.291 This claim concerns procedures for applications for registration under the Regulation. The
Panel recalls its findings:
(a) at paragraph 7.227, that the Regulation is a law or regulation affecting the internal
sale and offering for sale of products within the meaning of Article III:4 of GATT
1994;
(b) at paragraph 7.228 that the Regulation links the protection of the name of a product to
the territory of a particular country a nd formally discriminat es between imported

286 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 237-239; responses to Panel question
No. 135(a), (b) and (c) and 136(a).
287 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 136(b), (c) and (d).
288 See their respective comments in Annex C at paras. 18, 27, 103, 118 and 180.
289 Annex C, para. 27.
290 Annex C, paras. 141-143.

products and products of European Comm unities origin within the meaning of
Article III:4 of GATT 1994;
(c) at paragraph 7.229 that the European Communities does not contest that there are,
among the group of products covered by the Regulation, "like products" among the
imported products and products of European Communities origin;
(d) at paragraph 7.230, that under Article III:4 of GATT 1994 we must examine whether
the measure modifies the conditions of co mpetition between domestic and imported
products and that in this examination we will focus on the "fundamental thrust and
effect of the measure itself";
(e) at paragraph 7.231 to 7.235 on the substantive advantage provided under Article 13 of
the Regulation that affects the conditions of competition of the relevant products;
(f) at paragraphs 7.268 to 7. 272 concerning the differences between the application
procedures for GIs that refer to geographical areas located in EC member States and
those located in third countries. These di fferences can result in some applications
from third countries, including WTO Members, not being examined and transmitted
to the Commission; and
(g) at paragraph 7.276 that the European Communities has no discretion in the
implementation of the Regulation to ensure that all applications from third countries
are transmitted to the Commission.
7.292 A failure to transmit an application would entail non-registration of GIs, which would lead to
failure of the products from those third countries to obtain the benefits of registration set out in
Article 13 of the Regulation. Therefore, the Pane l concludes that, with respect to the application
procedures, insofar as they require examination and transmission of applications by governments, the
Regulation accords less favourable treatment to imported products th an domestic products,
inconsistently with Article III:4 of GATT 1994.
7.293 The European Communities asserts that these pr ocedures are justified by Article XX(d) of
GATT 1994. As the party invoking th is affirmative defence, the European Communities bears the
burden of proof that the conditions of the defence are met.
7.294 Article XX provides exceptions for certain measu res. The "measures" which the European
Communities needs to justify at this point are th e requirements of examination and transmission of
applications for registration by governments under the Regulation. These apply to applications from
both EC member States and third countries. Howe ver, it does not need to justify the less favourable
treatment which denies applicants for GIs located in third countries the opportunity to file direct
applications.
291
7.295 Paragraph (d) of Article XX refers to "measures" falling within the following description:
"(d) necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, including those relating to
customs enforcement, the enforcement of monopolies operated under

291 This is consistent with the approach of the Appellate Body in US – Gasoline , according to which
one must examine whether the relevant "measure", rather than the legal finding of less favourable treatment,
falls within a paragraph of Article XX: see DSR 1996:I, 3, at 15.

paragraph 4 of Article II and Article XV II, the protection of patents, trade
marks and copyrights, and the prevention of deceptive practices;"
7.296 The Panel takes note that paragraph (d) refers to laws or regulations, including those relating
to "the protection of patents, trade marks and co pyrights, and the preventi on of deceptive practices".
The Regulation provides for the protection of GIs and is an analogous law or regulation, as the
European Communities points out.
292 However, the term "laws or regulations" is qualified by the
phrase "not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement".
7.297 The European Communities argues that the requi rements of examination and transmission of
applications by governments secure compliance with the Regulation. 293 The Panel has found that the
Regulation is inconsistent with th e provisions of GATT 1994 for the reasons set out in this report.
Therefore, the Regulation is not a law or regulation within the meaning of paragraph (d). In response
to questions, the European Communities argued th at these requirements secure compliance with a
provision within the Regulation. However, if that provision could itself be a law or regulation within
the meaning of paragraph (d), the European Co mmunities did not demonstrate that it was "not
inconsistent" with GATT 1994.294
7.298 The Panel also notes the use of the term "nece ssary" in paragraph (d). We recall the
clarification of that term provided by the Appellate Body in Korea – Various Measures on Beef , as
follows:
"We believe that, as used in the context of Article XX(d), the reach of the word
'necessary' is not limited to that which is 'i ndispensable' or 'of absolute necessity' or
'inevitable'. Measures which are indispensable or of absolute necessity or inevitable
to secure compliance certainly fulfil the requirements of Article XX(d). But other
measures, too, may fall within the ambit of this exception. As used in Article XX(d),
the term 'necessary' refers, in our view, to a range of degrees of necessity. At one end
of this continuum lies 'necessary' understood as 'indispensable'; at the other end, is
'necessary' taken to mean as 'making a contribution to'. We consider that a 'necessary'
measure is, in this continuum, located significantly closer to the pole of
'indispensable' than to the opposite pole of simply 'making a contribution to'."
[footnote omitted]
295
7.299 The Appellate Body summed up its approach to the determination of whether a measure
which is not "indispensable" may nevertheless be "ne cessary" within the meaning of Article XX(d) as
a process of weighing and balancing a series of factors. It approved the approach of the GATT Panel
in US – Section 337 as a way in which to apply this process as follows:
"In our view, the weighing and balancing process we have outlined is comprehended
in the determination of whether a WTO-c onsistent alternative measure which the

294 The European Communities argued that verification (and incidentally also the transmission) of
applications by the government of the country of origin served the purpose of establishing whether the
requirements of the Regulation for registration of GIs are satisfied and, accordingl y, secured compliance with
the requirement in Article 8 that the PDO, PGI and equi valent indications may appear only on products that
comply with the Regulation. However, it only expl ained how the Regulation itself was, in its view, not
inconsistent with GATT 1994: see its responses to Panel questions No. 135(a), (c) and (d).
295 Appellate Body report on Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 161.

Member concerned could 'reasonably be expect ed to employ' is available, or whether
a less WTO-inconsistent measure is 'reasonably available'."296
7.300 The Panel will follow this approach.
7.301 The United States argues that the European Co mmunities could reasonably be expected to
allow applicants to file applications directly w ith its authorities without prior examination by third
country governments, and that this is WTO-cons istent. Many other WTO Members employ such a
procedure.297 It is not disputed that such a procedure would be WTO-consistent.
7.302 The European Communities submits that the cooperation of the government of the country
where the GI is located is indi spensable because the registration of GIs requires the evaluation of
factual and legal questions which "only the home country of the GI is in a position to carry out".298
7.303 The Panel observes that Articles 6(2) and 12b(1) of the Regulation provide that the
Commission makes the decision on whether the conditions are satisfied so as to warrant publication.
It is not clear why an additional examination of th e conditions by other governments is also required.
Nor is it clear that a third country government is even able to conduct an examination according to the
requirements, not of its own law, but of an EC Regulation. The European Communities has not
explained why physical proximity or potential knowledge of certain questions in the country of origin
implies a capacity to assess matters of EC law. Ther efore, it is not clear to what extent examination
by governments, including third country governments, contributes to securing compliance with the
conditions for registration.
7.304 With respect to factual and legal questions that can , as part of the examination, be verified in
the country of origin, the European Communitie s does not explain why the Regulation does not
permit applicants to provide objec tive and impartial evidence that may verify their applications nor
does it explain why the Commission cannot seek consent to carry out its own verifications. In its
responses to the Panel's questions, the European Communities indicates that "typically" only the
country of origin has the required knowledge of lo cal factors and that verification "may" require on-
site checks which the Commission cannot carry out in third countries without express consent.
299 The
Panel considers that these responses constitute an admi ssion that, in some cases, verification by third
country governments is not necessary and that, if it sought and obtained consent, the Commission
could conduct verifications itself. The Europ ean Communities has not demonstrated the factual
premise of its defence that only th e government of the country of origin is in a position to carry out
the evaluation of these factual and legal questions. Therefore, the Panel does not need to consider
further the requirement of examination by governments.
7.305 With respect to the transmission of applica tions, the European Communities is unable to
explain why a procedure permitting applicants to f ile applications directly with its competent
authorities would not permit an examination of wh ether an application for a GI in another WTO
Member complies with the conditions in the Regulation. It submitted that transmission of
applications by governments should not be viewed in isolation. Given that it has not established that
examination by governments, including third country governments, is necessary, it has not established
that transmission by them is necessary either.

296 Ibid. para. 166. The Appellate Body also followed this approach to the word "necessary" as used in
paragraph (b) of Article XX in EC – Asbestos, para. 172.
297 See comments of Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, New Zealand and Chinese Taipei as third parties
in Annex C, paras. 18, 28, 103, 118, 161 and 180.
299 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 136(a).

7.306 Therefore, the Panel considers that the Eur opean Communities has not discharged its burden
of proving that the requirements of examination an d transmission of applications by governments is
covered by paragraph (d) of Article XX. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the chapeau of
Article XX.
7.307 For these reasons, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the application procedures, insofar
as they require examination and transmission of a pplications by governments, the Regulation accords
less favourable treatment to imported products inco nsistently with Article III:4 of GATT 1994, and
these requirements are not justified by Article XX(d).
3. Objection procedures
(a) Description of objection procedures under Articles 7, 12b and 12d of the Regulation
7.308 The parties agree on most features of the objec tion procedures under the Regulation. There
are separate provisions setting out the procedures for obj ections to applications for registration of GIs
which apply according to the location of the geog raphical area and the location of the person who
wishes to file an objection. Article 7 applies wh ere the geographical area and the person who wishes
to file an objection are both located in EC member States. Article 12b applies where the geographical
area is located in a third country. Article 12d appli es where the geographical area is located in an EC
member State and the person who wishes to file an objection is located in a third country.
7.309 Article 7(1) and 7(3) provide as follows:
"1. Within six months of the date of publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities referred to in Article 6(2), any Member State may object to
the registration.
3. Any legitimately concerned natura l or legal person may object to the
proposed registration by sending a duly substantiated statement to the competent
authority of the Member State in which he resides or is established. The competent
authority shall take the necessary measures to consider these comments or objection
within the deadline laid down."
7.310 Article 12b(2) provides, relevantly, as follows:
"2. Within six months of the date of publication as provided for in
paragraph 1(a), any natural or legal person with a legitimate interest may object to the
application published in accordance with paragraph 1(a) on the following terms:
(a) where the objection comes from a Member State of the European Union or a
WTO Member, Article 7(1), (2) and (3) or Article 12d respectively shall apply;
(b) where the objection comes from a th ird country meeting the equivalence
conditions of Article 12(3), a duly substantiated statement of objection shall be
addressed to the country in which the above mentioned natural or legal person resides
or is established, which shall forward it to the Commission."
7.311 Article 12d(1) provides, relevantly, as follows:
"1. Within six months of the date of the notice in the Official Journal of the
European Union specified in Article 6(2) relating to a registration application
submitted by a Member State, any natural or legal person that has a legitimate interest

and is from a WTO member country or a third country recognised under the
procedure provided for in Article 12(3) ma y object to the proposed registration by
sending a duly substantiated statement to the country in which it resides or is
established, which shall transmit it, made out or translated into a Community
language, to the Commission."
7.312 Article 7(4) sets out the grounds for admissi on of objections. Artic les 12b(3) and 12d(2)
provide that the Commission shall examine the admi ssibility of objections in accordance with the
criteria laid down in Article 7(4).
(b) National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.313 The United States claims that the Regulation is inconsis tent with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement and Article 2 of the Paris Convention ( 1967), as incorporated in Article 2.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement, because the objection procedures accord less favourable treatment to non-EC nationals. It
argues that the right of to object to registration of a GI is part of the protection of industrial property
and of intellectual property because it is part of the ability to prevent others from using indications in
a way that is misleading as to source.
300
7.314 The United States argues that EC nationals have a direct means to object to registrations but
non-EC nationals do not. Objections must be filed with the authorities of the third country or EC
member State in which the objector resides or is established. The competent authority of an EC
member State has an obligation under Article 7(3) of the Regulation to take the necessary measures.
The authorities in the third country do not. They are responsible for verification and transmission of
the objection. This represents an extra hurdle for non-EC nationals and less fa vourable treatment. It
also constitutes a requirement of domicile or establishm ent inconsistent with Article 2(2) of the Paris
Convention (1967).301
7.315 The United States argues that Article 12d of th e Regulation limits the persons who may file
objections to those resident or established in a country that satisfies the conditions of equivalence and
reciprocity.302
7.316 The United States argues that Article 12d of the Regulation provides standing to object to
non-EC nationals who have a "legitimate interest". Non-EC nationals are at a disadvantage because
they are less likely to have a product on the EC market with a competing name due to the
discrimination in availability of protection. Article 7(3) provides standing to object to EC nationals
who are "legitimately concerned" which is a lo wer standard that makes it easier to object. 303 It cites
dictionary definitions which show that "concern" is broader than "interest". Article 12d was inserted
by the April 2003 amending Regulation – if the standard were the same it would have been logical to
use the same word.304
7.317 The European Communities responds that these claims must fail. The verification and
transmission of an objection by a third country should not be particularly burdensome and does not
amount to an "extra hurdle" for third country reside nts. A third country is not required to conduct a
substantive verification under Article 7(4) the Re gulation – which is clear from the wording of

300 United States' first written submission, para. 87.
301 United States' first written submission, paras. 89-91; second oral statement, paras. 40 and 43.
303 United States' first written submission, paras. 93-94; first oral statement, para. 34.
304 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 87-88; second oral statement, para. 42.

Article12d(2) that indicates that the criteria must be assessed in relation to the territory of the
Community. Rather, the third country verifies wh ether the person objecting is indeed resident or
established there. It could also be useful to have an official contact point if questions arise concerning
the territory of the third country, it should be beneficial to the person objecting to deal directly with an
authority in the third country and, if the objection is admissible, the third country is to be consulted
before the Commission takes its decision on registration.
305
7.318 The European Communities argues that Article 12d grants a right of objection to persons
from WTO Members because the phrase "recognised under the procedure provided for in
Article 12(3)" only applies to other third countries. The conditions of equivalence and reciprocity do
not apply to WTO Members' right to object. Otherwise, the specific reference to "WTO Members"
would be meaningless. This is also clear in Article 12b(2). 306 It also argues that Article 12d does not
discriminate according to nationality but according to r esidence or establishment. It cannot simply be
assumed that the reference to "nationals" in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 2 of the
Paris Convention (1967) also applies to persons who are domiciled or established abroad, regardless
of their nationality.307
7.319 The European Communities argues that the requirements for standing to object by persons
from within the European Communities do not di ffer from those for persons from outside the
European Communities. There is no substantive difference between the two expressions "legitimately
concerned" and "legitimately interested". It c ites a dictionary definition of "concerned" which
includes "interested".308
(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.320 Argentina, India, Mexico, New Zealand and Chinese Taipei all inform the Panel that they
are not aware of any person ever having attempted to file with their respective authorities an objection
to registration under the Regulation.309
7.321 Brazil considers that the requirement to file objections with the country in which the objector
resides or is established is an "unnecessarily co mplicated or costly" procedure in breach of
Article 41.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Brazil sees no necessity that would justify preventing private
parties forwarding objections directly to the Eu ropean Commission as many countries, including
Brazil, allow for direct access for foreigners to object.310
7.322 Mexico argues that the Regulation is inconsistent with national treatment because it imposes
conditions of reciprocity and preven ts third country nationals filing obj ections directly with European
authorities. Non-EC WTO Member nationals have an additional burden to involve their national
authorities and delegate to them the objection pro cess. Mexico refers to cochineal as a practical
example of the way in which Mexican producers woul d be required to go through specific procedures
which EC nationals are not.311

305 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 34; rebuttal submission, paras. 155-159;
second oral statement, paras. 89-94.
306 European Communities' first written submission, para s. 73-75; first oral statement, para. 50;
second oral statement, paras. 86-88.
308 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 76-78 and 151; rebuttal submission,
paras. 160-163.
309 See their respective comments in Annex C at paras. 18, 103, 118, 160 and 179.
310 Annex C, para. 28.
311 Annex C, para. 110.

7.323 New Zealand argues that the objection procedure can pot entially result in an application for
registration not proceeding. Not having the right to object is a loss of a valuable right of a producer to
protect its intellectual property rights. Objections under the Regulation are subject to equivalence and
reciprocity requirements: the distinction betw een WTO Members and other third countries in
Article 12d(1) could have been made clear by inser ting a comma or other words. Objections must
also be submitted through governments. At worst, the benefits of the right to object are entirely
unavailable to third country producers. As a result, the system virtually guarantees that no objections
will be received from WTO Member nationals to applications for registration of GIs.312
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.324 These claims concern procedures for filing and exam ination of objections to applications for
registration of "designations of origin and "geograp hical indications", as defined in the Regulation.
They are referred to in this report, for the sake of brevity, as "objection procedures".
7.325 The claims relate to three separate issues: (1) regarding verification and transmission;
(2) regarding equivalence and reciprocity conditions; and (3) regarding standing requirements to raise
an objection. The Panel will address these issues in turn.
7.326 These claims are made under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 2 of the Paris
Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel will first
consider the claims under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.327 The Panel recalls that two elements must be sa tisfied to establish an inconsistency with this
obligation: (1) the measure at issue must apply with regard to the protection of intellectual property;
and (2) the nationals of other Members must be accorded "less favourable " treatment than the
Member's own nationals. The Panel will address each of these elements in turn.
Verification and transmission
Protection of intellectual property
7.328 The Panel recalls that the national treatment ob ligation in Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement
applies to the treatment accorded by a Member "with regard to the protection of intellectual property".
Footnote 3 provides an inclusive definition of the term "protection" as used in Articles 3 and 4:
"For the purposes of Articles 3 and 4, 'protection' shall include matters affecting the
availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property
rights as well as those matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights
specifically addressed in this Agreement."
7.329 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7.262 that procedures for the filing and examination
of applications for registration are matters affecting the acquisition of intellectual property rights,
within the scope of "protection" of intellectua l property as clarified in footnote 3 of the TRIPS
Agreement. Procedures for objections to such applications are related to the procedures for
acquisition, as recognized in the fourth paragra ph of Article 62 (which uses the word "opposition")
and the title of that article. Hence, opposition pro cedures are also matters "affecting" the acquisition
of intellectual property rights which concern the "pro tection" of intellectual property, as clarified in
footnote 3 to the TRIPS Agreement.

312 Annex C, paras. 139-140.

7.330 It is not disputed that "designations of orig in" and "geographical indications", as defined in
the Regulation, are a subset of geographical indica tions, the subject of Section 3 of Part II, and
therefore part of a category of intellectual propert y within the meaning of Article 1.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
7.331 Therefore, this claim concerns the "protecti on" of intellectual property, as clarified in
footnote 3 to the TRIPS Agreement, within the scope of the national treatment obligation in
Article 3.1 of that Agreement.
Less favourable treatment accorded to the nationals of other Members
7.332 The United States claims that the procedures relating to verification and transmission of
objections are inconsistent with the national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
7.333 The Panel notes that, unlike the application procedures, the objection procedures do not
concern the location of the geographical area to whic h the GI refers. Rather, they refer to the place
where the objector resides or is established. The Panel recalls its findings at paragraphs 7.185 to
7.203 and considers, for the same reasons a fortiori, that the treatment accorded by the Regulation to
persons resident or established in certain countries will, objectively, translate into treatment of persons
with the nationality of those countries.
7.334 The Panel notes once again that the close link between nationality, on the one hand, and
residence and establishment, on the other, appear s to be recognized in the Regulation itself.
Articles 12b(2)(a) and 12d(1) of the Regulation acco rd a right of objection to persons, which the
European Communities confirms refers to persons resident or established outside the European
Communities regardless of their nationality.
313 Yet the April 2003 amending Regulation, which
inserted these provisions, explained that Article 12d granted the right of objection to the nationals of
other WTO Members.314
7.335 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7.134 that under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement we must examine the "e ffective equality of opportunities" with regard to the protection of
intellectual property rights and at paragraph 7.137 that in this examination we will focus on the
"fundamental thrust and effect" of the Regulation.
7.336 The parties and third parties who responded to the Panel's question on this point all reported
that they were not aware of any objections to registration of GIs under the Regulation ever having
been filed with the authorities of a third country. 315 However, the United States challenges the
Regulation, in this respect, "as such".
7.337 The United States claims that the treatment accorded under the objection procedures in
Articles 12b(2) and 12d(1) is less favourable than that accorded under the objection procedure in
Article 7(3). There is an apparent equivalence in the drafting of these provisions but the question is
whether this would imply a modification of the effe ctive equality of opportunities with regard to the
protection of intellectual property.

313 European Communities' first written submission, para. 142.
314 See paragraph 10 of the recitals to the April 2003 amending Regulation, set out in para. 7.70 above.
315 However, the United States provided evidence from the U.S. Dairy Export Council and the National
Milk Producers Federation that U.S. dairy producers and pr ocessors had been unable to prevent the registration
as protected GIs in the European Un ion of a number of cheese types that they considered generic prior to
registration: see letter dated 26 March 2004 to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, in response
to Panel question No. 36, reproduced in Exhibit US-39. The European Communities responds that this is based
on a misperception of the content of the Regulation: see its rebuttal submission, para. 85.

7.338 The Panel notes that the initial steps in the procedures for objections by private persons can
be broken down as follows:
(a) as a first step, all objectors are required to submit their objection to the authorities in
the country in which they reside or are established. These will be authorities of an
EC member State or a third country, depending on the case; and
(b) as a second step, the authorities who receive an objection verify certain formal
matters
316 and forward or transmit it to the Commission.
7.339 We recall the European Communities' expl anation of what amounts to its domestic
constitutional arrangements, set out at paragraph 7.98, that Community laws are generally not
executed through authorities at Community level but ra ther through recourse to the authorities of its
member States which, in such a situation, "act de facto as organs of the Community, for which the
Community would be responsible under WTO law and international law in general".317 It follows that
any objection from a person in an EC memb er State is filed directly with a " de facto organ of the
Community". An objection from a person in a third country cannot be filed directly, but must be filed
with a foreign government. This is a formal difference in treatment.
7.340 An EC member State has an obligation under Community law to verify an objection and
forward it to the Commission. A group or person who submits an objection in an EC member State
may enforce these obligations through recourse to j udicial procedures based on the Regulation. In
contrast, a third country government has no oblig ation under Community law or any other law to
receive an objection or to transmit it to the Commission. A group or person who submits an objection
in a third country has no right to such treatment.
7.341 Therefore, persons resident or established in third countries, including other WTO Members,
who wish to object to applications for registrati on under the Regulation do not have a right in the
objection procedures that is provide d to persons in the European Communities. Objectors in third
countries face an "extra hurdle" in ensuring that the authorities in those countries carry out the
functions reserved to them under the Regulation, wh ich objectors in EC member States do not face.
Consequently, certain objections may not be verified or transmitted. Each of these considerations
significantly reduces the opportunities available to ot her WTO Member nationals in matters affecting
the acquisition of rights under the Regulation compared with those available to EC nationals. For this
reason, the Regulation accords nationals of othe r WTO Members "less favourable treatment" within
the meaning of Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.342 The European Communities submits that the re quirement that statements of objection be
transmitted by the country where the person is resident or established is not an unreasonable condition
and that, if there is no objective reason for the thir d country government to refuse to cooperate, it is
not the European Communities' rules which create an extra hurdle for third country residents.
318 The
Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7.274 that the obligation to accord national treatment with
respect to a measure of the European Communities is the obligation of the European Communities.
For the reason set out in paragra ph 7.275 in relation to applicatio n procedures, the Panel considers

316 The Panel takes note of the European Communities' position that it does not require third country
governments to verify whether the objections are admissible, but it agrees that it does require them to verify
certain formal matters: see European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 155-156.
317 European Communities' second oral statement, para. 148.

that the European Communities has failed to accord no less favourable treatment itself to the nationals
of other Members.
319
7.343 The Panel confirms that the European Comm unities is entitled, under Article 62.4 of the
TRIPS Agreement, to provide for procedures for objec tions that comply with the general principles in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 41. However, Article 62 is outside the Panel's terms of reference.
7.344 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7. 212 that the fact that a general exceptions
provision analogous to Article XX of GATT 1994 was not included in the TRIPS Agreement has no
impact on its analysis of Article 3.1.
7.345 Therefore, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the objection procedures, insofar as they
require the verification and transmission of objecti ons by governments, the Regulation accords less
favourable treatment to the nationals of other Member s, inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967)
7.346 In view of the conclusion at paragraph 7.345 w ith respect to the objection procedures, insofar
as they require the verification and transmission of objections by governments, it is unnecessary to
consider their consistency with Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by
Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.347 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7.2 17 and, for the same reasons, concludes that,
with respect to the opposition procedures, the Re gulation does not impose a requirement of domicile
or establishment inconsistently with Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by
Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Equivalence and reciprocity conditions

7.348 The United States claims that the right to file an objection under Article 12d(1) of the
Regulation is limited to countries that satisfy the equivalence and reci procity conditions in
Article 12(1), based on a reading of the phrase "a WTO member country or a third country recognised
under the procedure provided for in Article 12(3)" as if it read "a WTO member country recognised
under the procedure provided for in Article 12(3) or a third country recognised under the procedure
provided for in Article 12(3)". It is necessary for the Panel to make an objective assessment of the
meaning of that phrase in this provision, although so lely for the purpose of determining the European
Communities' compliance with its WTO obligations.
320
7.349 The Panel observes that this claim is based entir ely on the absence of a comma. A reading of
the text of Article 12d(1), set out in full at paragraph 7.311, shows that if there were a comma after the
words "a WTO member country", it would be clear that it was separate from the following words "or
a third country recognised under the procedure provided for in Article 12(3)". However, in the Panel's
view, even without a comma, it is unlikely that the phrase "recognised under the procedure provided
for in Article 12(3)" refers to both a "WTO member country" and a "third country" in this context. If
that were the correct reading, then there woul d be no need to specify a "WTO member country"
separately because, outside the European Communi ties, a "WTO member country" is necessarily a
third country. There would be no need to refer specifically to a "WTO member country" if it was not
distinguished in some way from any other third country. The difference must be that a third country
is only included if it is recognized under the pr ocedure provided for in Article 12(3) so that,

319 See further paras. 7.741 to 7.743 below.
320 In this regard, the Panel recalls its comments at para. 7.55 above.

consequently, this phrase would not apply to a "WTO member country". Indeed, the fact that there is
no need for a WTO Member to obtain recognition unde r Article 12(3) for its residents to object seems
to be precisely the reason that it is included. Theref ore, the Panel's interpretation of Article 12d of the
Regulation is that it does not apply conditions of equi valence and reciprocity to the right of objection
for nationals of other WTO Members.
7.350 This is consistent with the fact that Article 12b(2), in which the format is clearer, creates a
right of objection for WTO Member and other th ird country nationals but clearly indicates that
recognition under the procedure in Article 12(3) do es not apply to WTO Members in this respect.
Further confirmation is provided by the recitals to the April 2003 amending Regulation. Those
recitals explained the justification for the insertion of the right of objection in Articles 12b and 12d in
terms of WTO Members, but limited the explanation of the equivalence and reciprocity conditions to
the issue of protection provided by registration to foreign names.321
7.351 The European Communities confirms that the Pa nel's interpretation of this aspect of the
Regulation is correct and submits undisputed evidence that since the entry into force of
Article 12d(1), the publications of all applicati ons for registration of a geographical indication
specifically refer to the possibility for residents from WTO countries to object to the application.322
7.352 Therefore, based on this interpretation of Article 12d(1) of the Regulation, the Panel
concludes that, with respect to the equivalence a nd reciprocity conditions, as allegedly applicable to
objections, the United States has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims under Article 3.1
of the TRIPS Agreement or Article 2(1) of the Pa ris Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article 2.1
of the TRIPS Agreement.
Standing requirements
7.353 The United States also claims that there is a difference in the requirements for standing to
object under the Regulation, based on the difference between the words:
(a) "[a]ny legitimately concerned natural or legal person may object" in Article 7(3);
(b) "any natural or legal person with a legitim ate interest may object" in Article 12b(2);
and
(c) "any natural or legal person that has a legitimate interest ... may object", in
Article 12d(1).
7.354 The requirement in Article 7(3) of the Regul ation applies to persons who wish to file
objections who reside or are established in the European Communities, wh ilst the requirements in
Articles 12b(2) and 12d(1) apply to persons who wish to file objections who reside or are established
in other WTO Members and third countries.
7.355 The United States' claims are based on the pr emise that a "legitimate interest" is a higher
standard than "legitimately concerned".

321 Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the recitals to Counc il Regulation (EC) No. 692/2003 set out in Exhibit
COMP-1h.
322 European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 152, attaching as an example the publication of
the application to register "Lardo di Colonnata" dated 5 June 2003, set out in Exhibit EC-56.

7.356 The Panel notes that the Regulation, on its face, uses two different words in the standing
requirements applicable to persons resident a nd established within or outside the European
Communities. The word "interest" can be defined as follows:
"The fact or relation of having a share or concern in, or a right to, something, esp. by
law; a right or title, esp. to (a share in) property or a use or benefit relating to
property; (a) share in something."
7.357 The word "concern" can be defined as follows:
"Reference, respect, relation. Now spec. important relation, importance, interest
(chiefly in of concern (to))."
323
7.358 The difference between these two words is appare ntly minor, particularly since each appears
in the definition of the other quoted above.
7.359 The Regulation uses the same term "legitimate inte rest" in a related context where it refers to
persons who may have access to applic ations filed with an EC member State in Article 7(2). It uses
the more specific term "legitimate economic interest " where it refers to pers ons who may consult an
application in Articles 7(2) and 12d(1), and contra sts it with "legitimate interest" in Article 7(2),
which confirms that they have different meanings . However, there is nothing in the context that
would suggest that there is a difference between a person with a "legitimate interest" and a
"legitimately concerned" person.
7.360 It is pertinent to note that in many places th e Regulation uses slightly different words or
formulations to refer to an identical concept. Fo r instance, it refers variously to "a third country
recognised in accordance with the procedure in Article 12(3)", "[i]n the case provided for in
Article 12(3)"; "a third country meeting the equi valence conditions of Article 12(3)"; "a third
country recognised under the procedure provided for in Article 12(3)" in Articles 6(6), 12a(1),
12b(2)(b), 12d(1) and 13(5), respectively. There is no suggestion that these mean different things.
7.361 It is also pertinent to recall that Article 7(3) was adopted in 1992, but Articles 12b and 12d
were drafted separately and inserted in April 2003. This may explain minor differences between
them.
7.362 Even if the meaning of these provisions is different, it appears that the European
Communities can apply them in the same manner. Indeed, the European Communities indicates to the
Panel that it considers that these two terms have the same meaning and it confirms that the
Commission would implement them in the same way. Further, if the Commission's interpretation was
ever challenged, the institution with ultimate author ity to interpret the measure is the European Court
of Justice. We recall the European Communities' explanation of its domestic law set out at
paragraph 7.99 that:
"Community legislation must, so far as possi ble, be interpreted in a manner that is
consistent with international law, in particular where its provision are intended
specifically to give effect to an in ternational agreement concluded by the
Community."
324
7.363 We note that paragraph 10 of the recitals to the amending Regulation expressly states as
follows:

323 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993).
324 See supra at note 131.

"(10) (...) The right of objection should be granted to WTO member countries'
nationals with a legitimate interest on the same terms as laid down in
Article 7(4) of the said Regulation. (...)."
325
7.364 This confirms that the difference in the wording of the standing requirements is not intended
to create a lower standard for objectors resident or established in WTO Members outside the
European Communities but rather that a person that has a "legitimate interest" and a "legitimately
concerned" person should be interpreted in the same way.
7.365 Therefore, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the standing requirements for objections,
the United States has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims under Article 3.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement and Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement.
Summary of conclusions regarding objection procedures and the TRIPS Agreement
7.366 In summary:
(a) with respect to the objection procedures, in sofar as they require the verification and
transmission of objections by governments, the Regulation accords the nationals of
other Members less favourable treatment than the European Communities' own
nationals inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement;
(b) with respect to the objection procedures, the Regulation does not impose a
requirement of domicile or establishment incons istently with Article 2(2) of the Paris
Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement;
(c) with respect to the equivalence and reciproc ity conditions, as allegedly applicable to
the objection procedures, the United States has not made a prima facie case in support
of its claims; and
(d) with respect to the standing requirements for objections, the United States has not
made a prima facie case in support of its claims.
(c) National treatment under GATT 1994
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.367 The United States claims that the Regulation is incons istent with the national treatment
obligations under GATT 1994 because it applies conditions of equivalence and reciprocity to the right
of objection.326
7.368 The United States also claims that the requi rement that WTO Members themselves become
active participants and advocates for their nationa ls in analyzing and submitting GI registration
applications and objections also amounts to less favourable treatment of non-EC products. This
requirement is imposed unilaterally and is both burdensome and unnecessary and acts as an additional
barrier to market access for non-EC goods.327

325 Exhibit COMP-1h.
326 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 89-94.

7.369 The European Communities does not respond to this claim, although it does submit that the
right of objection does not affect the treatment of products under GATT 1994.
328 However, in
response to a question from the Panel, it indicated that transmission of objections is necessary within
the meaning of Article XX(d) of GATT 1994 because it has no significant impact on trade in goods
and is a purely ministerial act which would not pose particular difficulties.
329
(ii) Consideration by the Panel
7.370 The Panel recalls its findings in paragraphs 7.30 to 7.33 that the United States presented this
claim after the first substantive meeting but that, in the circumstances of this dispute, this had not
prejudiced the European Communities' ability to defend itself. For that reason, the Panel decided to
consider this claim.
7.371 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7.3 49 that Article 12d of the Regulation does not
apply conditions of equivalence and reciprocity to the right of objection for nationals of other WTO
Members.
7.372 The Panel recalls its findings at paragraph 7.338 to 7.341 on the verification and transmission
of objections under the Regulation. In the single pa ragraph of its rebuttal s ubmission devoted to this
aspect of the objection procedures and GATT 1994, the United States asserts, but does not
demonstrate, that this treatment accorded to nationals amounts to less favourable treatment of
products. The arguments concerning verification and tr ansmission in earlier submissions relate to the
application procedures only. The rebuttal submissi on does refer to the procedures for protection of
GIs for "products", but that also apparently relat es to application procedures only, not the objection
procedures which are the subject of this claim.
7.373 The United States has not explained the link betw een the interests of a person who wishes to
file an objection, and the conditions of competiti on between a product for which GI registration is
granted and other products. The Panel declines to embark on an examination of the grounds for
objection and speculate on the possible link between those and trade in goods, as it is unable to relieve
the United States of the burden of proving all elements of its claim. Accordingly, the Panel considers
that the United States has not made a prima facie cas e in support of its claim with respect to objection
procedures under Article III:4 of GATT 1994.
4. Inspection structures
(a) Description of inspection structures (Articles 4, 10 and 12a of the Regulation)330
7.374 The condition in Article 12(1) of the Regulati on that a "third country ... has inspection
arrangements ... equivalent to those laid down in this Regulation" was considered earlier as one of the
equivalence and reciprocity conditions. That is a per-country condition. The condition at issue here
concerns the inspection structures required by Artic le 10 of the Regulation under the procedures for
registration of individual GIs. This is, allegedly, a per-product requirement.
7.375 The Panel continues its examination in respect of this particular requirement, bearing in mind
the aim of the dispute settlement mechanism, which is to secure a positive solution to a dispute331, and
the views of the Appellate Body in Australia – Salmon on the principle of judicial economy. 332 Were

328 European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 173 (in response to Australia's claim concerning
individual registrations under the simplified procedure in the former Article 17 of the Regulation).
329 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 136(d).
330 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 50-55; rebuttal submission, paras. 96-100.
331 Article 3.7 of the DSU.
332 Appellate Body report on Australia – Salmon, para. 223.

the Panel not to examine the claim with respect to the inspection structures requirements within the
application procedures, its conclusion on the insp ection structures condition in Article 12(1) would
not enable the DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings so as to allow for
prompt compliance in order to ensure effective resolution of this dispute.
7.376 The Regulation provides that an application for registration of a GI must be accompanied by
certain documents. The first is the product specifi cation. Article 5(3) provides as follows with
respect to an application to register a GI located within the European Communities:
"3. The application for registration shall include the product specification
referred to in Article 4."
7.377 Article 12a(1) of the Regulation provides as follows with respect to applications to register
GIs located in third countries:
"1. Applications must be accompanied by the specification referred to in
Article 4 for each name."
7.378 With respect to the specification, Article 4 provides as follows:
"1. To be eligible to use a protected designation of origin (PDO) or a protected
geographical indication (PGI) an agricultural product or foodstuff must comply with a
specification.
2. The product specification shall include at least: (...)
(g) details of the inspection structures provided for in Article 10;"
7.379 A specification refers to a particular product a nd the list of items that must be included in a
product specification all appear to be product-specific.
7.380 Applications to register GIs located in th ird countries must also be accompanied by a
declaration by a third country government. Article 12a(2)(b) of the Regulation provides for a third
country to transmit to the Commission an application to register a GI located in its territory
accompanied by:
"(b) a declaration that the structures provided for in Article 10 are established on
its territory."
7.381 This declaration is not required of an EC me mber State when it transmits to the Commission
an application to register a GI located within the European Communities. However, EC member
States have an obligation under Article 10 itself to en sure that inspection structures are in place. The
European Communities confirms that the requirement s are the same for EC member States and third
countries.
333
7.382 Article 10(1) explains that the function of insp ection structures is "to ensure that agricultural
products and foodstuffs bearing a protected name meet the requirements laid down in the
specifications". Article 10(2) provides that an "inspection structure" may comprise one or more
"designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies approved for that purpose" by the EC member
State. Article 10(3) lays down requirements regard ing the characteristics and duties of the inspection
authorities and/or private bodies but not the product-specific requirements which appear in product

333 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 126(a).

specifications. We highlight the requirements for inspection authorities under Article 10(3) which are
relevant to the claims below.
7.383 The characteristics of the inspection authorities and/or private bodies include the following:
"Designated inspection authorities and/or approved private bodies must offer
adequate guarantees of objectivity and impar tiality with regard to all producers or
processors subject to their control and have permanently at their disposal the qualified
staff and resources necessary to carry out inspection of agricultural products and
foodstuffs bearing a protected name."
7.384 The inspection authorities and/or private bodies may outsource certain functions as follows:
"If an inspection structure uses the services of another body for some inspections, that
body must offer the same guarantees. In that event, the designated inspection
authorities and/or approved private bodies sh all, however, continue to be responsible
vis-à-vis the Member State for all inspections."
7.385 The applicable standards for private bodies are described as follows:
"As from 1 January 1998, in order to be approved by the Member States for the
purpose of this Regulation, private bodies must fulfil the requirements laid down in
standard EN 45011 of 26 June 1989.
The standard or the applicable version of standard EN 45011, whose requirements
private bodies must fulfil for approval purpo ses, shall be established or amended in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15.
The equivalent standard or the applicable version of the equivalent standard in the
case of third countries recognised pursuant to Article 12(3), whose requirements
private bodies must fulfil for approval purpo ses, shall be established or amended in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15."
7.386 Standard EN 45011 sets out "General require ments for bodies operating product certification
systems". It specifies general requirements that a third party operating a product certification system
shall meet if it is to be recognized as competent and reliable. These include requirements relating to
the certification body itself and its personnel; chang es in the certification requirements; applications
for, evaluation of, and decisions on, certification; surveillance; use of licences, certificates and marks
of conformity; and complaints to suppliers. It applies for EC member States although the European
Communities has not yet established the standard or the applicable version of that standard on the
basis of Article 10(3) of the Regulation.
7.387 Standard EN 45011 is a European standard that takes over the text of ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996
prepared by the ISO Committee on Conformity A ssessment (CASCO). The European Communities
has not established an equivalent standard in the case of third countries, but the European
Communities informs the Panel that ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 is an example of such an equivalent
international standard.
334

334 The European Communities supplied copies of EN 45011 and ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 to the Panel
in Exhibits EC-2 and EC-3, respectively. See European Communities' response to Panel question No. 126(c).

7.388 The responsibilities of governments with respect to inspection structures are set out in
Article 10(1) and (2). 335 Governments must ensure that inspection structures are in place by
designating a public inspection authority and/or approving a private inspection body and then notify
them to the Commission. Where the government d esignates a public inspection authority, it carries
out inspections itself. Where the government a pproves a private inspection body, it must ascertain
that the private body is capable of fulfilling its functions in accordance with Article 10(1) and meets
the requirements of Article 10(3), set out above. Th e basic criterion for the approval process is that
the private body can effectively ensure that products comply with a specification. After designation
and/or approval, the government is responsible fo r continued monitoring that an approved private
body continues to meet the requirements.
336
(b) National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.389 The United States claims that the inspection structures requirement is contrary to the national
treatment obligations in the TRIPS Agreement, in cluding that in the Paris Convention (1967). The
United States submits that it is important to a resolu tion of this dispute that the Panel make a finding
on this particular requirement, as otherwise the Eu ropean Communities could remove Article 12(1) of
the Regulation but impose equivalence by an other name through the requirement under
Article 12a(2)(b) that another WTO Member provide a declaration that inspection structures are
established on its territory.
337
7.390 The United States argues that the government participation by another WTO Member is
inconsistent with national treatment under the TRIPS Agreement because a foreign applicant must
petition its government to provide a declaration under Article 12a(2)(b).338 Even though the European
Communities argues that the requirement for specifi c inspection structures accords equal treatment,
in cases of formally different legal provisions, th e respondent bears the burden of showing that, in
spite of such differences, the less favourable treatment standard is met. The inspection structures do
not accord equal treatment to EC and other WTO Member nationals because EC member States have
an obligation to establish specific structures under the Regulation so that the EC national
automatically has a qualifying inspection structur e which other WTO Member nationals do not.
Many WTO Members have no such inspection structures. Therefore, all EC nationals are in a
position to satisfy the inspection structures requireme nt but nationals of other Members cannot satisfy
this condition, at least where the WTO Member concerned has not established the EC inspection
structures.
339 It is not clear on what basis a U.S. government authority would be in a position to assess
that inspection structures are in place in its terr itory which would meet the requirements of the
Regulation.340
7.391 The United States argues that the inspection structure requirements are highly prescriptive
and go beyond simply assuring that products meet the product specifications. The issue is not which
particular aspects of the inspection structures are objectionable. The issue is that, if a Member
demands that other WTO Members establish the sa me particular inspection structures that it has
chosen for itself as a precondition for granting TRIPS rights to nationals of other Members, it accords
less favourable treatment. The United States does not disagree that the European Communities can

335 Article 10(1) and (2) refers to EC member States but, in conjunction with Article 12a(2)(a), they
also apply to the governments of third countries.
336 Uncontested information provided by the European Communities in its responses to Panel question
Nos. 127 and 132. See the United States' comments on those EC responses.
337 United States' rebuttal submission, para. 48; response to Panel question No. 56.
338 United States' first written submission, para. 81; response to Panel question No. 56.
339 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 47-48; second oral statement, para. 25.

require, as a condition of registration, that the applic ant itself be in a position to control use of the GI
and ensure that products bearing the GI are entitled to it. Intellectual property rights are private rights,
so the applicant must be in a position to satisfy the requirements for protection and not have to depend
on actions of government outside its control. The European Communities has overstated the
flexibility in its requirements. Article 12a(2) refers to the structures provided for in Article 10, which
refers to a "structure" under whic h particular bodies may be authori zed to conduct inspections. This
requires a broad inspection structure capable of inspecting all agricultural products and foodstuffs, not
just the one which the applicant seeks to register. It imposes specific requirements that go far beyond
what is necessary to ensure the integrity of a GI. The inspection authority must have staff
"permanently at its disposal" and, if it is a private body, fulfil the requirements of a European standard
and continue to be responsible vis-à-vis the EC member State for all inspections.
341 It is not possible
to separate the requirement that the government es tablish particular inspection systems from other
aspects of those systems.342
7.392 The United States also argues that, even if certain certification mark holders might qualify as
inspection authorities, the Regulation still accords less favourable treatment to the nationals of other
Members because (1) the governments of other Members must ensure compliance by providing the
declaration under Article 12a(2)(b) and monitoring priv ate inspection bodies; and (2) some other GI
right holders who are able to assure the integrity of their GI, such as collective mark owners and
common law GI owners, would be excluded. The United States is not challenging the European
Communities' basic standard for wh at constitutes a GI, but it does asser t that if a product meets that
standard, the non-EC national should be able to regi ster it under the Regulation, regardless of whether
its home government has established the same inspection structures as the EC member States.343
7.393 The United States argues that the issue of what is necessary does not arise under the national
treatment obligations in the TRIPS Agreement a nd the Paris Convention (1967). In any case, the
inspection structures required by the Regulation are not necessary. There is no reason to assume that
only the government, as opposed to the right holder, can sufficiently assure that products qualify for
protection. It is not clear why the government, not the right holder, has to approve or authorize
inspection structures.344
7.394 The European Communities responds that the requirement of inspection structures does not
involve any less favourable treatment of foreign nationals. Indeed, it represents equal treatment.345
7.395 The European Communities denies that the Regul ation imposes equivalence by another name
because it requires inspection structures only for pr oducts for which protection is sought and on a
product-specific basis.346 It does not impose an EC-model becau se it merely requires that inspection
structures must exist according to the general pr inciples set out in Article 10. This leaves
considerable flexibility in the design of the actual structures. In particular, it provides a choice
between public and private elements. This flexibility is illustrated by the variety of structures notified
by EC member States under Article 10(2). Public b odies are situated at the national, regional and
local levels of government; frequently they are general public administrations dealing with many
other policy issues besides inspections under the Regulation; private bodies may be commercial

341 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 51-54; second closing oral statement, para. 10.
342 United States' response to Panel question No. 130.
343 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 55-61.
344 United States' second oral statement, paras. 27-29; comment on EC response to Panel question
No. 127.
345 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 94-95.
346 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 96-98.

enterprises or not-for-profit and may engage in ot her activities besides inspections. The European
Communities provides examples of two firms which provide inspections as a commercial service.347
7.396 The European Communities submits that a GI is less reliable and informative for consumers if
its proper use is not ensured by an effective inspec tion regime. The function of inspection structures
is to ensure that products bearing a protected name comply with the product specifications. They are
inseparably linked with the object and purpose of the Regulation and their removal would undermine
the EC's system of GI protection. In response to the suggested alternative of unfair competition laws,
the European Communities does not contest that they may be one way of protecting GIs, but they
could not provide an equivalent degree of GI pr otection as that achieved by the Regulation. For
example, a producer would have to have recourse to legal action and could not rely on controls carried
out by an inspection body. A consumer would onl y have the assurance that a competitor might take
legal action against non-conforming products. This would also affect the value of the GI for
producers and undermine confidence in the EC system. There would be a "free rider" problem if
producers from third countries were able to benefit from the EC system without complying with
inspection structures.
348
(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.397 Argentina submits that the inspection structures requirements in the Regulation are
inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement. It notes that Article 4(h) [sic] of the Regulation refers to the
inspection structures provided for in Article 10, which does not state what is the applicable criterion to
identify these structures when the applicant is from a third country. Article 12 requires that a third
country must have inspection arra ngements equivalent to those laid down in the Regulation. This
creates an obstacle which completely escapes the decision of a natural or legal person to accept the
requirements of Article 4, given that the decision to create inspection structures is restricted to
government and is not foreseen in all third countri es. Even in those third countries which do have
inspection structures, their structures might not satis fy the requirement of equivalence in Articles 10
and 12 of the Regulation.
349
7.398 China notes that Article 10 of the Regulation sets out detailed provisions on inspection
structures in EC member States but not for othe r WTO Members. Article 12a(2) requires a third
country to transmit with an application a declarati on that the structures provided for in Article 10 are
established on its territory. The Commission de termines whether the declaration satisfies the
conditions of the Regulation. EC member States are obliged to establish the Article 10 inspection
structures and, hence, they are not obliged to guarantee them when they transmit an application and
can reasonably expect no objection from the Commission to their designated authorities. It appears
that WTO Members are required to establish an "e quivalent standard" for private inspection bodies
and possibly also for "designated inspection auth orities" but there is no guidance as to what
constitutes an equivalent standard as th e European Communities has submitted ISO/IEC
Guide 65:1996 only by way of example. China agrees with the European Communities that product
specifications and inspection structures are essential to the value and quality of GIs, but does not find
its argument that equivalence and reciprocity conditions apply only in these two respects and not as an
outright requirement of a third country's overall system of GI protection.350

347 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 101-107.
348 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 109-121.
349 Annex C, paras. 9-10.
350 Annex C, paras. 84-91.

(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.399 These claims are brought under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 2 of the Paris
Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel will consider
the claim under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement first.
7.400 The Panel recalls that two elements must be sa tisfied to establish an inconsistency with this
obligation: (1) the measure at issue must apply with regard to the protection of intellectual property;
and (2) the nationals of other Members must be accorded "less favourable " treatment than the
Member's own nationals. The Panel will address each of these elements in turn.
Protection of intellectual property

7.401 This claim concerns the inspec tion structures required in respect of particular products for
which individual GIs are registered under the Regulation.
7.402 The Panel recalls that the national treatment ob ligation in Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement
applies to the treatment accorded by a Member "with regard to the protection of intellectual property".
Footnote 3 provides an inclusive definition of the te rm "protection" as used in Articles 3 and 4. It
reads as follows:
"For the purposes of Articles 3 and 4, "prot ection" shall include matters affecting the
availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property
rights as well as those matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights
specifically addressed in this Agreement."
7.403 Turning to the Regulation, inspection structures ensure that products meet the requirements in
the specifications. Whatever else may be the legal character of those structures, it is clear that the
specifications include details of the inspection structures and these must be included in, or
accompany, all applications for registration. The declaration under Article 12a(2)(b) must also
accompany applications to register GIs located in third countries. Therefore, under this Regulation,
the inspection structures are a matter affecting the availability and acquisition of protection for GIs.
7.404 It is not disputed that "designations of orig in" and "geographical indications", as defined in
the Regulation, are a subset of "geographical indica tions", the subject of Section 3 of Part II, and
therefore part of a category of intellectual propert y within the meaning of Article 1.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
7.405 Therefore, this claim concerns the "protecti on" of intellectual property, as clarified in
footnote 3 to the TRIPS Agreement, within the scope of the national treatment obligation in
Article 3.1 of that Agreement.
Less favourable treatment accorded to the nationals of other Members

7.406 The Panel recalls its findings:
(a) at paragraphs 7.185 to 7.203 as to the treatme nt accorded to the "nationals of other
Members" in this dispute; and
(b) at paragraph 7.134 that under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement we must examine
the "effective equality of opportunities" with regard to the protection of intellectual
property rights and at paragr aph 7.137 that in this exam ination we will focus on the
"fundamental thrust and effect" of the Regulation.

7.407 No application for registration of a GI located in a third country has ever been filed under the
Regulation. However, the United States challenges the Regulation, in this respect, "as such".
7.408 The United States claims that the treatment accorded under the inspection structures
requirements for GIs located in third countries is less favourable than that accorded under the
inspection structures requirements for GIs located within the European Communities, based on two
main aspects: the first relates to the allegedly prescriptive nature of the requirements and the second
to the issue of government participation. We will take them up in that order.
Allegedly prescriptive requirements for inspection structures
7.409 The Panel notes that the text of Article 10 cont ains virtually no formal difference between the
requirements that apply to GIs located within th e European Communities an d those located in the
territory of third countries. The same substantiv e requirements for the design of inspection structures
apply to the protection of all GIs registered unde r the Regulation. There is a choice of public
inspection authorities, private inspection bodies or both. 351 All authorities and bodies must offer
adequate guarantees of objectivity and impartiality and all must have permanently at their disposal the
qualified staff and resources necessary to carry out inspections. These requirements apply both to GIs
located within the European Communities and to those located in third countries.
7.410 There is one formal difference in Article 10. 352 Paragraph 3 provides that private inspection
bodies located in EC member States must fulfil the requirements laid down in standard EN 45011 and
those located in third countries must fulfil the requ irements laid down in an "equivalent" standard.
The Panel notes that standard EN 45011 and ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996, which the European
Communities informs us is an example of an equivalent international standard, have the same text and
are basically identical. Therefore, this does not app ear to amount to a substantive formal difference in
Article 10(3). The provisions on public inspection authorities are identical.
7.411 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7.176 that, even if the provisions of the Regulation
are formally identical in the treatment that they accord to the nationals of other Members and to the
European Communities' own nationals, this is not su fficient to demonstrate that there is no violation
of Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The ques tion is whether this would imply a modification of
the effective equality of opportunities with regard to the protection of intellectual property.
7.412 The United States argues that these provisions, in practice, accord less favourable treatment to
the nationals of other Members who enjoy GI protection without inspection structures, or without
inspection structures that would satisfy Article 10 of the Regulation, in the territory of other WTO
Members. Specifically, it asserts that certain hol ders of certification marks, collective marks and
common law rights would not satisfy the requirement s of Article 10(3) and standard EN45011, for
instance, with respect to the independence of the inspection body from the producers.
7.413 The Panel recalls that the European Communitie s' obligation under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement is to accord no less favourable treatment to the nationals of other Members than it accords
to its own nationals. The benchmark for the obligation is the treatment accorded by the European
Communities to the European Communities' own na tionals. The treatment accorded by other
Members to their own respective nationals is not relevant to this claim. The level of protection in the
country of origin does not affect GI protection in the country where GI protection is sought under the

351 The European Communities provided a copy of a list published by the Commission of inspection
structures notified by EC member States in accordan ce with Article 10(2) of th e Regulation in OJ C 69,
18.3.2002, p.1, reproduced in Exhibit EC-48.
352 Article 12a(2)(b), which contains a formal difference applicable to third countries only, is dealt with
below.

TRIPS Agreement, except to the extent that a lack of GI protection in the country of origin provides a
ground to deny GI protection in accordance with Article 24.9.
353
7.414 The Panel agrees with the European Communiti es that WTO Members are entitled to aim for
objective assessment of product conformity, provided that they implement this objective in a WTO-
consistent manner. The implication of the United States' argument would be to oblige the European
Communities to recognize forms of protection granted by the United States. This would be a kind of
reverse equivalence condition.
7.415 It is not contested that the European Communities would apply the same criteria for
protection in Article 2, the same requirements fo r product specifications in Article 4 and the same
inspection structures requirements in Article 10 to all applications for registration under the
Regulation, both those in respect of GIs located within the European Comm unities, and those located
outside the European Communities. It therefore appe ars to accord equal treatment. In any event, the
Panel notes that Article 10 of the Regulation permit s a certain degree of flexibility. Both public
inspection authorities and private inspection bodies may be used. 354 The European Communities has
also confirmed to the Panel that inspection bodies need not be established for the sole purpose of
conducting inspections under Article 10 of the Re gulation – public inspection authorities may be
general public administrations dealing with pub lic policy issues besides inspection under this
Regulation whilst private inspection bodies may engage in a number of other activities.355
7.416 The United States objects, in particular, to the requirement in Article 10(3) of the Regulation
that inspection bodies must have qualified staff permanently at their disposal. However, the European
Communities responds that this may be interpreted flex ibly. It submits that this requirement does not
exclude the possibility of products for which the enti re production process is confined to part of the
year, and for which the need for inspection arises only or primarily during that time of the year. In
such a case, it submits that the Regulation would not require unnecessary levels of staff to be
maintained throughout the year.356
7.417 The Panel also notes that the standard specified in the Regulation has the same text and is
basically identical to a guide emanating from the International Organization for Standardization and
the International Electrotechnical Commission. Furt her, Article 10(3) permits an "equivalent", and
not necessarily identical, standard for GIs located outside the European Communities, which may
provide certain flexibility for GIs located outside the European Communities.
7.418 The United States has not referred to an alte rnative model of independent, objective and
impartial assessment of product conformity whic h would clearly be refused recognition by the
European Communities for reasons other than th e requirements of government participation,
discussed below.
7.419 The United States also argues that the inspection structures requirements go beyond simply
assuring that products meet the product specificati ons. This does not disclose a lack of national
treatment.

353 See also the consideration of the United States' claim under Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement at
paras. 7.762 to 7.767 below.
354 The European Communities has provided a list of inspection structures notified by EC member
States in accordance with Article 10 (2) of the Regulation which shows a wide range of public inspection
authorities and private inspection bodies. This list is reproduced in Exhibit EC-48.
355 European Communities' rebuttal submission; paras. 105-106.
356 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 136(f).

7.420 Therefore, in view of the lack of evidence of different treatment, the Panel concludes that,
with respect to the allegedly prescriptive requireme nts for inspection structures, the United States has
not made a prima facie case in support of its claim under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Government participation in inspection structures
7.421 The Panel notes that the text of Article 10 of the Regulation, when read in conjunction with
Article 12a(2)(b), contains a formal difference be tween the requirements that apply to GIs located
within the European Communities and those located in third countries.
7.422 Article 10 obliges EC member States to ensure th at inspection structures are in place. These
require that the EC member States designate insp ection authorities and/or approve private bodies for
that purpose, and monitor them. Third country go vernments do not have th ese obligations under the
Regulation. However, Article 12a(2)(b) require s that a third country government provide a
declaration that the inspection structures are establishe d on its territory together with an application to
register a GI located in that territory. This is a condition in the application procedures.
7.423 The parties do not agree as to the content of this declaration. The United States alleges that it
relates to the existence of inspection structures in respect of the full range of agricultural products and
foodstuffs covered by the Regulation. The Europe an Communities responds that it only applies with
respect to particular products.
7.424 The Panel observes that the second equivalence re quirement in Article 12(1) appears to relate
to inspection structures for the full range of produc ts, whilst the declaration in Article 12a(2)(a) is
forwarded with an application for a particular produc t. Therefore, it appears that this declaration
relates only to the inspection structures for a particular product. In any event, it is not disputed that it
is only required to accompany applications to register GIs located outside the European Communities.
This is a formal difference in treatment.
7.425 The requirement for a third country government to provide a declaration under
Article 12a(2)(b) that the inspection structures are esta blished on its territory and the obligation for an
EC member State to establish inspection structures complement one another. Both are expressly
intended to serve the same purpose of ensuring th at agricultural products and foodstuffs bearing a
protected name meet the requirements laid dow n in the specifications. Both depend on the
government designating and/or approving, and monitoring, inspection structures.
7.426 An EC member State has an ob ligation to designate and/or approve, and monitor, inspection
structures under the Regulation. In contrast, a third country government has no obligation under
Community law to do so nor to provide the declar ation under Article 12a(2)(a). Although the TRIPS
Agreement contains obligations to protect GIs, it is not asserted that WTO Members have any
obligation under that agreement to establish in spection structures such as those required under
Article 10 of the Regulation.
7.427 A group or person who submits an application in a third country has no right to have
inspection structures designated and/or approved, an d monitored, by its own government, and has no
right to the requisite declaration by its own government. Moreover, a group or person who submits an
application in a third country cannot nominate in spection structures notified under the Regulation by
an EC member State and dispense w ith the declaration by its own government. This is apparent from
the terms of the declaration requi red under Article 12a(2)(b). It h as also been confirmed by the
European Communities.
357 A group or person who submits an appl ication in a third country must use
an inspection authority or private body notified by its own governme nt. As a result, if the third

357 European Communities' responses to Panel question Nos. 131 and 136(f).

country government does not designate and/or ap prove, and monitor, inspection structures and
provide the declaration, the group or person cannot obtain protection under the Regulation.
7.428 Therefore, applicants for GIs that refer to geographical areas located in third countries do not
have a right in the availability of protection and a pplication procedures that is provided to applicants
for GIs that refer to geographical areas located within the European Communities. Applicants in third
countries face an "extra hurdle" in ensuring that the authorities in those countries carry out the
functions reserved to them under the Regulation, whic h applicants in EC member States do not face.
Consequently, certain applications may be rej ected. This significantly reduces the opportunities
available to the nationals of other WTO Members in the availability and acquisition of rights under
the Regulation below those availabl e to the European Communities' own nationals. For this reason,
the Regulation accords nationals of other WTO Me mbers "less favourable treatment" within the
meaning of Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreemen t than it accords the European Communities' own
nationals.
7.429 The Panel confirms that the European Comm unities is entitled, under Article 62.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement, to require that applicants comp ly with reasonable procedures and formalities that
are consistent with the Agreement in order to prove that they meet the conditions of protection. These
might include requirements for applicants to demonstrate that they comply with standards of objective
and impartial assessment of conformity. However, Article 62 lies outside the Panel's terms of
reference.
7.430 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7. 212 that the fact that a general exceptions
provision analogous to Article XX of GATT 1994 was not included in the TRIPS Agreement has no
impact on its analysis of Article 3.1.
7.431 For these reasons, the Panel concludes that, w ith respect to the government participation
required in the inspection structures under Article 10, and the provision of the declaration by
governments under Article 12a(2)(b), the Regulation accords less favourable treatment to the
nationals of other Members than to the European Communities' own nationals , inconsistently with
Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.432 The United States has not separately argued its claim under Article 2(1) of the Paris
Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to the
inspection structures requirements.
358 Accordingly, the Panel concludes that, in this respect, it has not
made a prima facie case in support of its claim under that provision.
(c) National treatment under GATT 1994
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.433 The United States claims that the inspection structures requirement is contrary to Article III:4
of GATT 1994. It argues that the Regulation does not accord equal treatment because it conditions
the granting of national treatment on another WTO Member adopting the same compliance structure
as the European Communities. This is precisely the reciprocity and equivalence conditionality that
the national treatment obligation was designed to a void. An imported product from the U.S. that
satisfies the definitions of a GI in the Regulation should receive no less favourable treatment than the
domestic product that meets those definitions. However, the product imported from the U.S. is denied
protection for reasons unrelated to the characteristics of the product.359 They are like products.360 The

358 See United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 49 and 60, which refer to no less favourable treatment.
359 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 89-94.
360 United States' second oral statement, paras. 47-48.

additional requirements that the European Comm unities imposes on other WTO Members, notably to
establish specific inspection structures, are simply equivalence by another name and are designed to
discourage the registration and protection of foreign GIs.361
7.434 The United States argues that the Regulation accords imported products less favourable
treatment than domestic products because it requires substantial government participation by another
WTO Member in the registration process. The government must make a declaration under
Article 12a(2). It must establish particular in spection structures, approve inspection bodies, remain
responsible for those bodies and satisfy all of the requirements for those bodies and structures as set
forth in Article 10 of the Regulation. 362 It appears that the Regulation's approach is unprecedented as
the European Communities declined to indicat e any other area in which it requires foreign
involvement in the designation/approval of c onformity assessment bodies where mutual recognition
agreements do not already exist.363
7.435 The United States argues that this less favourable treatment for imported products cannot be
justified under Article XX of GATT 1994. 364 The European Communities has not discharged its
burden of proof to show that the in spection structures are so justified. 365 The inspection structures do
not appear to have any relationship to any of the product specification requirements in Article 4(2) of
the Regulation and therefore do not "secure complia nce" with them. The European Communities has
not shown how the product specifications are not inconsistent with GATT 1994. The European
Communities has not shown that the inspection stru ctures are "necessary" and that there are no WTO-
consistent alternatives. It is not clear at all th at approval of, and responsibility for, inspection bodies
by government rather than the right holde r is even preferable, let alone necessary. 366 The European
Communities argues that on-site checks "may also" be required which suggests that they are not
necessary, and that government involvement is not n ecessary either. It is untrue that the European
Communities cannot provide for on-site inspections outside the European Communities in the absence
of a WTO agreement. 367 The inspection structures favour countr ies that protect GIs in the way that
the European Communities does, wh ich arbitrarily and unjustifiably discriminates between countries
where the same conditions prevail, contrary to the chapeau of Article XX.368
7.436 The European Communities responds that this claim should be rejected. The Regulation is
fully compatible with Article III:4 of GATT 1994 because the requirements imposed by Article 12a of
the Regulation, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 10, do not provide less favourable treatment to
imported like products. The European Communities must ensure that GIs from third countries
comply with the conditions set out in the Regulation. 369 The European Communities refers to its
arguments concerning inspection structures in re lation to national treatment under the TRIPS
Agreement: they represent equal, not unequal, treat ment; they are not equivalence by another name;
they do not impose an EC model of inspection struct ures and their existence is necessary for attaining
the objectives of the Regulation.370
7.437 The European Communities submits, in the alte rnative, that the requirements imposed by
Article 12a, in conjunction with Ar ticles 4 and 10, with respect to individual GIs, are justified by
Article XX(d) of GATT 1994. In particular, they are necessary to ensure that products which use a GI

361 United States' second oral statement, para. 49; comment on EC response to Panel question No. 136.
362 United States' first written submission, paras. 104(d) and 107; response to Panel question No. 129.
363 United States' comment on EC response to Panel question No. 131.
365 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 100-103.
366 United States' second oral statement, paras. 53-57.
367 United States' comment on EC response to Panel question No. 136.
368 United States' second oral statement, para. 60.
369 European Communities' first written submission, para. 204.
370 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 109-121 and 214-215.

and benefit from GI protection conform to the defini tions in Article 2(2) of the Regulation, which is
itself fully consistent with GATT 1994.
371 Later, it argues that th e inspection structures secure
compliance with Articles 4(1) and 8 of the Regul ation that a product must comply with a product
specification and can only bear the PDO and PGI indi cations if they do so. Article XX(d) does not
exclude that "measures necessary to secure complia nce" and the "laws and regulations" with which
they secure compliance may be part of the same legal act. The objectives of the Regulation may be
relevant for establishing the meaning of the provisions with which compliance is secured.372
7.438 The European Communities refers to its ar guments concerning inspection structures in
relation to national treatment under the TRIPS Agreem ent: they are necessary for the attainment of
the objectives of the Regulation by providing a high degree of assurance for producers and consumers
that a product bearing a registered GI does, in fa ct, correspond to the required product specifications;
a similar degree of protection could not be achie ved through other means such as unfair competition
laws; they do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of the Regulation but leave
considerable flexibility in the design of the concrete structures. Moreover, they are not applied in a
manner inconsistent with the ch apeau of Article XX of GATT 1994. 373 It is necessary for the third
country government to designate the inspection authority because the European Communities cannot
designate them itself. Designation may require on -site inspections and audits outside the EC's
territory. Inspections typically require a presence in or near the area where the GI is located. It is
necessary for the bodies to remain responsible to the third country government as some form of public
oversight is required to ensure objectivity and impartiality.374
7.439 The European Communities refers to the c onformity assessment procedures foreseen in
Article 6 of the TBT Agreement. Nothing in that agreement obliges Members simply to accept
conformity assessment carried out by bodies of anot her Member. Article 6.1 of the TBT Agreement
obliges Members to accept conform ity assessment in other Members only under specific conditions,
and recognizes that prior consultations may be n ecessary. Article 6.2 (sic) encourages Members to
enter into negotiations for the mutual recognition of conformity assessment procedures. Article 6.4
encourages Members to permit participation of co nformity assessment bodies located in the territories
of other Members in their conformity assessment procedures but it is not a legal obligation to permit
such participation. The United States has concl uded a mutual recognition agreement which permits
bodies designated by those countries to carry out conf ormity assessment with respect to EC standards
and vice versa.
375 The United States has failed to explain why government involvement in
designation of inspection bodies is problematic.376
(ii) Consideration by the Panel
7.440 This claim concerns the inspection structures re quirements for particular products. The Panel
recalls its findings:
(a) at paragraph 7.227, that the Regulation is a law or regulation affecting the internal
sale and offering for sale of products within the meaning of Article III:4 of GATT
1994;
(b) at paragraph 7.228 that the Regulation links the protection of the name of a product to
the territory of a particular country a nd formally discriminat es between imported

371 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 225-226.
372 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 135.
373 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 232-236.
374 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 136.
375 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 131.
376 European Communities' comment on United States' response to Panel question No. 128.

products and products of European Comm unities origin within the meaning of
Article III:4 of GATT 1994;
(c) at paragraph 7.229 that the European Communities does not contest that there are,
among the group of products covered by the Regulation, "like products" among the
imported products and products of European Communities origin;
(d) at paragraph 7.230, that under Article III:4 of GATT 1994 we must examine whether
the measure modifies the conditions of co mpetition between domestic and imported
products and that in this examination we will focus on the "fundamental thrust and
effect of the measure itself";
(e) at paragraph 7.231 to 7.235 on the substantive advantage provided under Article 13 of
the Regulation that affects the conditions of competition of the relevant products;
(f) at paragraphs 7.409 and 7.410 on the lack of a substantive formal difference between
the allegedly prescriptive requirements and at paragraphs 7.414 to 7.419 on the lack
of evidence of different treatment accorded by those requirements;
(g) at paragraphs 7.426 and 7.427 concerni ng the differences between government
participation in the inspection structur e requirements which can result in some
applications for registration of GIs located in third countries, but not those in EC
member States, being rejected; and
(h) at paragraph 7.428 that rejection of an application would entail non-registration of
GIs.
7.441 Non-registration of GIs would lead to a failure of the products from those third countries to
obtain the benefits of registration set out in Artic le 13 of the Regulation. Therefore, the Panel
concludes that:
(a) with respect to the allegedly prescriptive requirements for inspection structures, the
United States has not made a prima facie case in support of its claim under
Article III:4 of GATT 1994; but
(b) with respect to the requirements of gove rnment participation in the inspection
structures under Article 10, and the provi sion of the declaration by governments
under Article 12a(2)(b), the Regulation accord s less favourable treatment to imported
products than domestic products, inconsistently with Article III:4 of GATT 1994.
7.442 The European Communities asserts that the inspection structures requirements are justified by
Article XX(d) of GATT 1994. As the party invoki ng this affirmative defence, the European
Communities bears the burden of proof that the conditions of the defence are met.
7.443 At this point, the measures that the Europ ean Communities needs to justify are only the
requirements for government participation in the designation and/or approval, and monitoring, of
inspection structures, and the declaration by governments under Article 12a2(b).
377

377 The United States submits that the measures rele vant to Article XX(d) are the measures that it
alleges are inconsistent with GATT 1994 (United States' comments on EC responses to Panel question No. 135).
However, the Panel has not found that the allegedly pr escriptive requirements are inconsistent with GATT 1994
and, consequently, it only examines whether the government participation required in the inspection structures is
justified under Article XX (d). The Panel does not examine whether the less favour able treatment that those

7.444 The Panel notes, once again, that paragraph (d ) of Article XX refers to "measures" falling
within the following description:
"(d) necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, including those relating to
customs enforcement, the enforcement of monopolies operated under
paragraph 4 of Article II and Article XV II, the protection of patents, trade
marks and copyrights, and the prevention of deceptive practices;"
7.445 The Panel observes that paragraph (d) refers to measures necessary to "secure compliance".
The Regulation states expressly in Article 10(1) that the function of the inspection structures is "to
ensure that agricultural products and foodstuffs bear ing a protected name meet the requirements laid
down in the specifications". On its face, this appears to be an express confirmation that the inspection
structures are intended to "secure compliance" with the product specifications.
378
7.446 The Panel takes note that paragraph (d) refers to measures that secure compliance with laws
or regulations, including those relating to "the prot ection of patents, trade marks and copyrights, and
the prevention of deceptive practices". The Regula tion provides for the protection of GIs and is an
analogous law or regulation, as the European Communities points out. 379 However, the term "laws or
regulations" is qualified by the phrase "not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement".
7.447 The European Communities submitted that the requirement of inspection structures is
"necessary for the attainment of the objectives" of the Regulation. 380 The Panel agrees with previous
panels that measures that merely secure compliance with the objectives of a law or regulation, rather
than with the laws or regulations themselves, do not fall within the purview of Article XX(d) of
GATT 1994 for the reasons explained by the GATT Panel in EEC – Parts and Components.381

requirements accord is justified under Article XX(d), consistently with the approach of the Appellate Body in
US – Gasoline, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 15.
378 See further note 383 below. It is not clear to what extent the inspection structures secure
compliance with the requirement in Artic le 4(1) of the Regulation, which refers to eligibility. Nor is it clear to
what extent they cover use of the PDO, PGI and equivalent indications and, hence, secure compliance with
Article 8 of the Regulation.
380 European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 232, citing paras 109-121. The European
Communities agrees that the measure to be justified must secure compliance with the provisions of the law or
regulation in question but that "the objectives of a regulation may be relevant for establishing the meaning of the
provisions with which compliance is secured": see its response to Panel question No. 135(b).
381 See the Panel report on Canada – Periodicals , paras. 5.8-5.10; and Panel report on Korea –
Various Measures on Beef, at para. 658; both citing the GATT Panel report on EEC – Parts and Components
which included the following finding at para. 5.17:
"If the qualification 'to secure compliance with la ws and regulations' is interpreted to mean 'to
ensure the attainment of the objectives of the laws and regulations', the function of Article XX(d)
would be substantially broader. Whenever the objective of a law consistent with the General
Agreement cannot be attained by enforcing the obligations under that law, the imposition of further
obligations inconsistent with the General Agreement could then be justified under Article XX(d) on
the grounds that this secures compliance with the objectives of that law. This cannot, in the view
of the Panel, be the purpose of Article XX(d): each of the exceptions in the General Agreement –
such as Articles VI, XII or XIX – recognizes the legitimacy of a policy objective but at the same
time sets out conditions as to the obligations which may be imposed to secure the attainment of that
objective. These conditions would no longer be effective if it were possible to justify under
Article XX(d) the enforcement of obligations that may not be imposed consistently with these
exceptions on the grounds that the objective recognized to be legitimate by the exception cannot be
attained within the framework of the conditions set out in the exception.
"

7.448 The European Communities submits that the requi rement of inspection structures is necessary
to secure compliance with requirements in the Regulation. 382 The Panel has found that the Regulation
is inconsistent with the provisions of GATT 1994 for the reasons set out in this report. Therefore, the
Regulation is not a law or regulation within the mean ing of paragraph (d). In response to questions,
the European Communities argued th at these requirements secure comp liance with provisions within
the Regulation. However, if those provisions coul d themselves be "laws or regulations" within the
meaning of paragraph (d), the European Communities did not demonstrate that they were "not
inconsistent" with GATT 1994.
383
7.449 The Panel notes, once again, the use of the term "necessary" in paragraph (d) of Article XX
and recalls the views of the Appellate Body in Korea – Various Measures on Beef set out at paragraph
7.298 above that, in this context, a necessary measur e is "located significantly closer to the pole of
'indispensable' than to the opposite pole of simply 'making a contribution to'". 384 The Appellate Body
summed up its approach to the determination of wh ether a measure which is not "indispensable" may
nevertheless be "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(d) as a process of weighing and
balancing a series of factors. It appr oved the approach of the GATT Panel in US – Section 337 that
this process is "comprehended" in the determination of whether a WTO-consistent alternative measure
which the Member concerned could "reasonably be e xpected to employ" is available, or whether a
less WTO-inconsistent measure is "reasonably available".
385 The Panel will once again follow this
approach.
7.450 We recall the European Communities' e xplanation of its domestic constitutional
arrangements, set out at paragraph 7.98, that Community laws are generally not executed through
authorities at Community level but rather through r ecourse to the authorities of its member States
which, in such a situation, "act de facto as organs of the Community, for which the Community would
be responsible under WTO law and international law in general". 386 In accordance with its domestic
law, the European Communities is entitled to delegate certain func tions under its measure to the
authorities of EC member States. However, it is unable to explain adequately why it is necessary for
all governments, including third country government s, to designate inspection authorities, approve
private inspection bodies, and monitor them, and for third country governments to provide a
declaration that they do so, for the purposes of securing compliance with an EC Regulation.
7.451 The European Communities is entitled under GA TT 1994 to pursue the objectives set out in
Article 10(3) of the Regulation of ensuring that in spection structures are objective and impartial with
regard to all producers or processors subject to th eir control, which might require assessment by a
neutral entity. It is not obliged to accept a producer's or supplier's declaration of conformity.
7.452 The European Communities may also be correct, in many cases, that it cannot designate or
approve bodies located outside its territory itself because it is unable to ascertain and continuously
monitor whether those bodies are capable of fulfillin g their functions and meeting the requirements in
Article 10(1) and (3), set out above.
387 It is not obliged to enter in to mutual recognition agreements,

383 The European Communities argued that the function of inspection structures is to secure compliance
with the requirement in Article 4(1) of the Regulation that products bearing a protected name must comply with
a product specification. Similarly, the requirement of inspection structures also secures compliance with the
requirement in Article 8 of the Regulation that the PDO, PGI and equivalent indications may appear only on
products that comply with the Regulation. However, it only explained how the Regulation itself was, in its
view, not inconsistent with GATT 1994: see its responses to Panel questions No. 135(a), (c) and (d).
384 Appellate Body report on Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 161.
385 Ibid., para. 166. The Appellate Body also followed this approach to the word "necessary" as used in
paragraph (b) of Article XX in EC – Asbestos, para. 172.
386 European Communities' second oral statement, para. 148.
387 European Communities' responses to Panel question Nos. 131 and 136(f).

although we note that it has recognized numerous c onformity assessment bodies designated by other
countries, including the United States, in other sectors.
388
7.453 However, at the same time, the European Co mmunities does not allow the products of other
WTO Members to be inspected by its own designated authorities and approved bodies. A group or
person who submits an application in a third country must use an inspection structure located in the
territory of that country. Such a group or person cannot use an inspection structure notified by an EC
member State. The European Communities requir es that each government, including third country
governments, participate in the inspection structures for products originating in its own territory. Yet
we note that, in other areas such as technical re gulations, its own designated authorities and approved
bodies are open to exporters for assessment of conformity with technical regulations.
389
7.454 The United States has indicated that the normal practice in conformity assessment is that an
importing country imposes its own inspection requirements in its own territory, as necessary, to
ensure that imported products meet applicable requi rements. It submits that it is unusual that the
conformity assessment bodies of the European Communities, as the importing country, cannot be used
for imported products under the Regulation.
390 The United States has also explained that, even in
those instances in which inspection of manufacturing facilities is required, for instance, with respect
to pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities, such inspections are primarily carried out by the
administering authorities of the importing country. The exporting country government itself is not
required to establish and be responsible for inspection systems.
391
7.455 The combination of the absence of recognized in spection structures in third countries, and the
fact that notified bodies in the European Communities are not available to applicants for GIs located
in third countries, effectively excludes the products of third countries from the benefits of protection
granted under the Regulation. This is a conseque nce of the requisite government participation in
inspection structures under the Regulation.
7.456 The European Communities has not explained why the conditions of protection and the
general requirement that a product beari ng a registered GI must comply with a product specification,
for which it requires every government to designate its own bodies, distinguish the GI Regulation
from other areas, such as technical regulations, where it permits exporters to use notified bodies
within the European Communities, where it seeks permission to conduct inspections in exporting
countries or where it sometimes recognizes bodies located outside its territory, through mutual
recognition agreements or accreditation.
7.457 The European Communities has referred to the contents of a product specification required
under Article 4(1) of the Regulation, in particular , the detailed description of the raw materials and
methods and processes according to which a product is obtained.
392 On the basis of these items, it

388 See European Communities' response to Panel question No. 131.
389 The European Communities has explained its conformity assessment system to the TBT Committee
as follows: "In respect of the Global Approach, which was relevant to conformity assessment, the fundamental
point was that the manufacturer (or his authorised representative in the case of imported goods) was responsible
for conformity. There was an effort to limit the number of different types of conformity assessment procedures
to a reasonably small range (these were referred to as "m odules" in the Global Approa ch). In most cases, the
manufacturer was aided by a Notified Body (a certifi cation body – or conformity assessment body) and there
was an element of choice in that the manufacturer could chose any Notified Body." See document
390 See the European Communities' comment on responses to Panel question No. 128, in which it
confirms that the inspection bodies will be located on the territory of the country of origin of the GI.
391 United States' comments on EC responses to Panel question No. 136(f).
392 The European Communities provides examples of product specifications for "Pruneaux d'Agen",
"Melons du Haut Poitou", "Dorset Blue Cheese" and "Thüringer Leberwurst" in Exhibits EC-51 through EC-54.

argues that "inspection structures ... may involve on-site inspections at the place of production". 393
The United States argues that there is little or no re lationship between the product specifications and
the inspection structures.394
7.458 The Panel notes that the Regulation requires th at the product specifications for each product
include the items to which th e European Communities refers. 395 However, the European
Communities has not explained how and to what ex tent compliance with th em cannot be assessed
through reporting requirements or through an inspect ion of the physical characteristics of products on
import by designated bodies located within the Europ ean Communities. The Panel accepts that there
might be a reason why compliance with these specifi c requirements must be assessed in the place of
production outside the European Communities' territo ry and that, in these cases, it may be reasonable
for the European Communities, as an importing count ry, to expect certain cooperation from exporting
country governments, in particular with respect to information related to the production methods of an
agricultural product or foodstuff, in accordance with the provisions of covered agreements.
7.459 However, the European Communities has not e xplained why the cooperation that it requires
from third country governments must take the form of establishing a mandatory inspection structure
in which the government plays a central role. It confirms that governments, including third country
governments, must carry out inspec tions to ensure compliance with product specifications in an EC
GI registration, or ascertain that a private inspecti on body can effectively ensure that products comply
with the specification and remain responsible for continued monitoring that the private body meets the
requirements of the Regulation and, where they ar e third country governments, provide declarations
that they have done so. 396 It asserts, but has not demonstrated, that "[o]nly through some form of
public oversight can it be ensured that the inspecti on body will at all times carry out its functions duly
and appropriately in accordance with the requirements of the Regulation". 397 However, in response to
a question from the Panel, it was unable to id entify any EC Directives governing assessment of
conformity to EC technical regulations in the goods area that require third country government
participation in the designation and approval of conformity assessment bodies.398 It has not explained
what aspect of GI protection distinguishes it from th ese other areas and makes it necessary to require
government participation, including third country government participation, to the extent that it does.
7.460 The European Communities argues that it does not itself have the inspection bodies that are
needed to conduct inspection outside its territory. It also notes that the costs of inspection must be
borne by the producer as stipulated in Article 10(7) of the Regulation. It argues that if it were to carry
out inspections of imported products bearing a GI, th is would result in less favourable treatment for
products of domestic origin. 399 The Panel's findings do not imply that the European Communities
must establish inspection bodies outside its territory nor that it cannot continue to require producers to
bear the costs. The Panel sees th ese issues as separate from the extent of government participation in
inspections required by the Regulation.
7.461 For these reasons, the Panel considers that ther e are alternative measures available to the
European Communities which it could reasonably be expected to employ and which are not

393 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras 112-113 in relation to the same aspect of the
Regulation with respect to national treatment under th e TRIPS Agreement. See also its response to Panel
question No. 136(f).
394 United States' comment on EC response to Panel question No. 135.
395 Article 4(2)(b), (d) and (e) of the Regulation, respectively.
396 This information was provided by the European Communities in its responses to Panel question
Nos. 127 and 132 and not contested. See the United States' comments on EC responses.
397 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 136(g).
398 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 131.
399 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 136(h).

inconsistent with GATT 1994 to ensure that produc ts using a registered GI comply with their
specifications.
7.462 Therefore, the Panel considers that the Eur opean Communities has not discharged its burden
of proving that government participation in the designation, approval and monitoring of inspection
structures, and the provision of a declaration by governments concerning these matters, is covered by
paragraph (d) of Article XX. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the chapeau of Article XX.
7.463 For these reasons, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the requirements of government
participation in the inspection structures under Artic le 10, and the provision of the declaration by
governments under Article 12a(2)(b), but in no other respects related to the inspection structures, the
Regulation accords less favourable treatment to imported products th an domestic products,
inconsistently with Article III:4 of GATT 1994, and these requirements are not justified by
Article XX(d).
5. Labelling requirement
(a) Factual aspects of the labelling requirement in Article 12(2) of the Regulation
(i) Text of Article 12(2) of the Regulation
7.464 This claim concerns a labelling requirement in the second indent of Article 12(2) of the
Regulation. The parties disagree sharply on the me aning and scope of this provision, read in its
context. Therefore, the Panel will begin by quoting Article 12(2) in full before turning to the factual
arguments of the parties.
"2. If a protected name of a third country is identical to a Community protected
name, registration shall be granted with due regard for local and traditional usage and
the practical risks of confusion.
Use of such names shall be authorized only if the country of origin of the product is
clearly and visibly indicated on the label."
(ii) Main arguments of the parties
7.465 The United States claims that this labelling requirement applies to any use of a GI in
connection with products from other WTO Members. It notes that this requirement appears as an
unlabelled paragraph within Article 12, which addresses GIs located in third countries in general, and
not just those that are identical to GIs located in the European Communities. However, it pursues this
claim even if it applies only to GIs identical to a GI located in the European Communities.
400
7.466 The United States claims that this labelling requirement only applies to third country GIs,
not the GI located in the European Communities with which they are identical. It argues that this
requirement does not address the conditions of re gistration of GIs located in the European
Communities. There is simply no basis for readi ng this as applying also to GIs located in the
European Communities.401
7.467 The United States argues that there is nothing in Article 6(6) of the Regulation that would
permit the Commission to import the requirement of Ar ticle 12(2) into the registration of a GI located

400 United States' first written submission, para. 25; rebuttal submission, paras. 76 and 97.
401 United States' first oral statement, para. 35; response to Panel question No. 48; rebuttal submission,
paras. 77 and 98; second oral statement, para. 38.

in the European Communities. Under Article 6(6), an EC GI that gives rise to a "clear distinction in
practice" with a homonymous prior registered GI woul d have to be registered without indicating the
country of origin on the label of products. Un der Article 12(2), a third country GI must be
accompanied by the country of origin.402
7.468 The European Communities responds that the second subparagraph of Article 12(2) only
applies to the GIs in the situation referred to in its first subparagraph. It only applies in cases of
identical or homonymous names and not to third country names in general. 403 It confirms that there
have been no cases in which this provision has been applied in practice.404
7.469 The European Communities argues that "such na mes" in the second subparagraph refers to
both "a protected name of a third country" and a "Community protected name", so that the
requirement to indicate the country of origin can apply to both the third country name and the
Community name. In practice, this would mean that whichever indication is registered later would
normally be required to indicate the country of origin.
405 In both these terms, "protected" means, in
principle, "protected under Regulation 2081/92" but "the provision also applies where protection is
sought for a protected name from a third country". "Community protected name" covers only
protected names of geographical areas located in the European Communities. 406 Article 12(2) covers
both a situation where a third country GI is a homonym of an EC GI already on the register, as well as
an EC GI which is a homonym of a third country GI already on the register. 407 "Such names" is
written in the plural which clearly indicates that the requirement can relate to both the EC and third
country GIs.
408 Nothing in the wording of the provision prevents it applying to GIs from both third
countries and the European Communities. 409 Even if "Community protected name" referred to EC
and third country names already on the register, "protected name of a third country" should be
interpreted to include names protected in a th ird country, whether or not from the European
Communities or a third country. 410 In the European Communities' view, Article 12(2) has no specific
link with Article 12(1).411
7.470 The European Communities argues that, in cases of homonymous GIs from the European
Communities, the last indent of Article 6(6) also requires a clear distinction in practice between them
which would normally, in practice, require the indication of the country of origin. 412 The only reason
why the last indent of Article 6(6) does not explicitl y require the indication of the country of origin is
that this provision deals with a wide r set of conflicts than Article 12(2). 413 There is no difference
between the word "homonymous" in Article 6(6) and "identical" in Article 12(2) as the English
definitions of those words are synonymous and the Fr ench and Spanish versions use the same term in
both provisions. 414 Article 6(6) deals with a wider set of conflicts than Article 12(2), such as
homonyms from within the European Communities, homonyms from within the same third country or

402 United States' response to Panel question No. 118.
403 European Communities' first written submission, para s. 88 and 133; rebuttal submission, para. 144;
second oral statement, para. 80.
404 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 44.
405 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 88, 134-135 and 211; rebuttal submission,
para. 145.
406 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 41.
407 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 43.
409 European Communities' second oral statement, para. 81.
410 European Communities' second oral statement, para. 82.
411 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 117.
412 European Communities' first written submission, para. 89; response to Panel question No. 118.
413 European Communities' first written submission, para. 479.
414 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 119.

different third countries.
415 Article 6(6) simply refers to "p rotected names" from the European
Communities and a third country, without specifying which of these is the one the subject of an
application and which is already on the register.416
7.471 The European Communities argues that "clearly an d visibly indicated" must be evaluated in
each specific case from the point of view of what a normally attentive consumer can easily notice and
not be induced in error as to the origin of the product.417
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.472 The Panel begins by noting that the second indent of Article 12(2) of the Regulation expressly
sets out a requirement that concerns what is indicated on "the label" of a product. Therefore, for the
sake of brevity, the Panel refers to it as "the labelling requirement".
418 The labelling requirement has
not been applied in practice. However, the Un ited States challenges this aspect of the Regulation
"as such".
7.473 The meaning of the various terms in the second indent of Article 12(2) is essential to a
resolution of this claim. Therefore, it is necessar y for the Panel to make an objective assessment of
the meaning of this provision, although solely for the purpose of determining the European
Communities' compliance with WTO obligations.419
7.474 The parties disagree on the scope of the labelli ng requirement. The United States argues that
it applies to all GIs from third countries, like the wi der context in Article 12, which applies to all GIs
from third countries that satisfy the conditions in paragraph 1 and are recognized as equivalent under
paragraph 3. The European Communities responds that it applies only to identical or homonymous
GIs, consistent with the immediate context in paragraph 2 of Article 12.
7.475 The Panel observes that the scope of the labelli ng requirement is indicated by its subject:
"[u]se of such names". "Such" is a demonstrativ e adjective that refers to something previously
specified, which expressly requires an examination of the context. The context indicates that "such
names" refers to the subject of the previous indent , which is eligible GIs from third countries that are
identical to a Community protected name. This is confirmed by the content of the two indents: the
first refers to practical risks of confusion, and the second imposes a requirement that a detail be
clearly and visibly indicated, which appears to be a specific requirement that addresses the more
general consideration in the first. Whilst it is possi ble to look back further in the context and read the
phrase "[u]se of such names" as referring to the na mes or GIs in the preceding paragraph 1, such a
reading is, in our view, constrained. We note th at the position of paragraph 2 near the beginning of
Articles 12 through 12d might suggest that it is a more general provision, but its position can perhaps
be explained by the fact that it is one of the tw o original provisions on GIs from third countries that
predate the insertion of Articles 12(3) and 12a through 12d. The European Communities has
confirmed that "such names" refers to the previous indent, which covers only identical GIs. On the
basis of the text of the provision, which has not been applied, the Panel agrees.
7.476 The parties disagree on the meaning of "such na mes" even if it only refers to "identical"
GIs.420 The United States argues that it refers to the subject of the previous indent, which is "a

415 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 42.
417 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 120.
418 The use of this term does not prejudge whether this is a "labelling requirement" as used in
Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement.
419 In this regard, the Panel recalls its comments at para. 7.55.
420 The Panel notes that, whilst the English version of the Regulation uses the word "identical" in
Article 12(2), two other official versions of the Regulation use words corresponding to the English word

protected name of a third country" that is identi cal to a Community protected name. The European
Communities responds that it refers not only to "a protected name of a third country" which is
identical, but also to the "Community protected name" with which it is identical.
7.477 The Panel considers, once again, that, "such na mes" refers to the subject of the previous
indent, which is eligible GIs from third countries th at are identical to a Community protected name.
Although the term "a Community protected name" also appears in the previous indent, its registration
is not in issue. It appears that the first indent relates only to the registration of GIs from a third
country. The second indent attaches a condition to that registration which, logically, only applies to
the use of GIs from a third country.
7.478 This reading is confirmed by the wider cont ext in Articles 12 through 12b which relates only
to the registration of GIs from third countries. Th e registration of GIs located within the European
Communities is dealt with in Articles 5 through 7. A provision permitting objections to such
registrations from persons in third countries was inser ted in Article 12d in April 2003. It would be a
very special reading if the second indent of Article 12(2) were the sole provision in the scheme of
Articles 12 through 12b that attached a condition to registration of GIs located within the European
Communities, which is unlikely, given that context. The Panel takes note that the term "such names"
is in the plural, unlike "a protected name of a th ird country" which is in the singular. However, the
qualifier "such names" is linked to "the product" which is in the singular, so that the plural form is not
determinative of the issue before us.
7.479 Therefore, the Panel concludes that Article 12(2), including the labelling requirement in the
second indent, refers only to the registration and use of a GI from a third country that is identical to a
"Community protected name." It appears that this refers to a GI that is already registered under the
Regulation, as no party has suggested a reason w hy it would matter for this requirement where the
prior GI was located, as long as it was identical.
7.480 The Panel also notes that the first indent of Article 12(2) contains language almost identical to
that found in Article 6(6) of the Regulation. Both refer to registration of na mes "with due regard for
local and traditional usage and the actual risk [or practical risks] of confusion". However, Article 6(6)
applies to an application to register a GI located within the European Communities which "concerns a
homonym of an already registered name from the European Union or a third country recognised in
accordance with the procedure in Article 12(3)". Unlike the second indent of Article 12(2), the last
tiret of Article 6(6) sets out the following requirement:
"[T]he use of a registered homonymous name shall be subject to there being a clear
distinction in practice between the homonym registered subsequently and the name
already on the register, having regard to th e need to treat the producers concerned in
an equitable manner and not to mislead consumers".
7.481 The Panel will revert to the parallel in the c onstruction of the requirements in Articles 12(2)
and 6(6) in its consideration of this claim.

"homonymous": these are homonyme in the French version and homónima in the Spanish version. The Panel
assumes that the meaning of the different versions of the text can be reconciled, and uses the word "identical" in
relation to Article 12(2) in the English version of this report in such a sense. See further para. 7.492 below.

(b) National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.482 The United States claims that the Regulation accords less favourable treatment to third
country nationals than to EC nationals because Article 12(2) imposes a requirement on the registration
of GIs located in third countries that does not a pply to GIs located in the European Communities,
inconsistently with the national treatment obligations in the TRIPS Agreement.
421 It provides that the
third country GI must be burdened by a clear and visible indication of the country of origin on the
label, which is a violation of national treatment oblig ations. This is in the nature of a qualifier that
detracts from the value of the GI by implying that it is something other than the "true" GI. There is
also the issue of labelling costs, although that will depend on how particul ar imported products are
labelled in the first place. This remains an additi onal burden on foreign nationals that is not faced by
EC nationals. The United States does not believe th at existing marks of origin requirements in the
European Communities would satisfy this requirement.
422
7.483 The European Communities argues that Article 12(2) of the Regulation does not
discriminate between nationals because it applies acc ording to the location of geographical areas, not
nationality.423 It can relate to both EC and third country GIs. Application of the requirement to
indicate the country of origin to the later regist ered GI is the only feasible option because, according
to Article 4(2)(h), the specifications of the GI already on the register will include specific labelling
details which it is not easy to amend. 424 The European Communities does not see in which way a
requirement to indicate truthfully the origin of a product constitutes less favourable treatment.425
(ii) Consideration by the Panel
7.484 This claim is brought under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel recalls that two
elements must be satisfied to establish an inconsiste ncy with this obligation: (1) the measure at issue
must apply with regard to the protection of inte llectual property; and (2) the nationals of other
Members must be accorded "less favourable" treatment than the Member's own nationals.
Protection of intellectual property
7.485 This claim concerns the labelling requirement in respect of a limited subset of GIs that may
be registered under the Regulation. Footnote 3 provides an inclusive definition of the term
"protection" as used in Articles 3 and 4. It reads as follows:
"For the purposes of Articles 3 and 4, 'protection' shall include matters affecting the
availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property
rights as well as those matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights
specifically addressed in this Agreement."
7.486 Turning to the Regulation, the labelling requirement relates to the "use" of an identical GI on
a product. Whatever else may be the legal character of this requirement, through its inclusion in the
provisions of Article 12, which sets out the cond itions on which the Regulation may apply to GIs
located in third countries, it attaches a specific cond ition to registration of certain GIs. Therefore,

421 United States' first written submission, para. 68.
422 United States' response to Panel question No. 120.
423 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 137-138.
425 European Communities' second oral statement, para. 83.

under this Regulation, the labelling requirement is a matter affecting the acquisition of protection for
GIs.426
7.487 It is not disputed that "designations of orig in" and "geographical indications", as defined in
the Regulation, are a subset of "geographical indica tions", the subject of Section 3 of Part II, and
therefore part of a category of intellectual propert y within the meaning of Article 1.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
7.488 Therefore, this claim concerns the "protecti on" of intellectual property, as clarified in
footnote 3 to the TRIPS Agreement, within the scope of the national treatment obligation in Article 3
of that Agreement.
Less favourable treatment accorded to the nationals of other Members
7.489 The Panel recalls its findings:
(a) at paragraphs 7.185 to 7.203 as to the treatme nt accorded to the "nationals of other
Members" in this dispute; and
(b) at paragraph 7.134 that under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement we must examine
the "effective equality of opportunities" with regard to the protection of intellectual
property rights and at paragr aph 7.137 that in this exam ination we will focus on the
"fundamental thrust and effect" of the Regulation.
7.490 The United States claims that the treatment a ccorded under the labelling requirement for GIs
located in third countries, including WTO Members, is less favourable than that accorded to GIs
located within the European Communities.
7.491 The Panel has found at paragraph 7.479 that the labelling requirement only applies to GIs
from third countries that are identical to a Co mmunity protected name. This is a narrow
circumstance.
7.492 The Panel notes that Articles 12(2) and 6(6) share almost identical language that indicates that
the purpose of each provision is to minimize actual, or practical, risks of confusion between the use of
two registered identical or homonymous GIs. An obvious difference in the English version is that
Article 12(2) uses the word "identical" and Article 6(6) uses the word "homonymous". However, two
other official versions of the Regulation use the same word in both provisions ( homonyme in French
and homónima in Spanish). The Panel assumes that the mean ing of the different ve rsions of the text
can be reconciled, and that, therefore, the words in Articles 12(2) and 6(6) can have the same meaning
in English as well.
7.493 Both requirements are mandatory, providing that us e "shall" be authorized only if a particular
condition is met or "shall" be subject to a particular condition. However, there is a formal difference
in that Article 12(2) states the condition expressly that "the country of origin of the product is clearly
and visibly indicated on the label". In contrast, Ar ticle 6(6) states the condition in terms of factors
that "a clear distinction in practice between th e homonym registered subsequently and the name
already on the register, having regard to the need to treat the producers concerned in an equitable
manner and not to mislead consumers".

426 It can be noted that the second indent of Article 12(2) is not the only provision of the Regulation
which refers to "use". Article 4 of the Regulation refers to "use" of a GI by a product in accordance with a
specification, which includes labelling under Article 4(h) and which, according to Articles 5(3) and 12a(1), is
part of the application for registration.

7.494 In light of the applicable standard of examination set out at 7.489(b), the Panel does not
consider that the mere fact that nationals of other Members and the European Communities' own
nationals are subject to different legal provisi ons is in itself conclusive in establishing an
inconsistency with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
427
7.495 The European Communities explains that this di fference between the wording of the relevant
provisions is due to the fact that Article 6(6) applies to a wider class of GIs. For example, it could
apply to identical GIs located in different EC memb er States, as well as to a GI within the European
Communities identical to a GI located in a third country, which Article 12(2) cannot.
7.496 The essential point is that nothing in the text appears to prevent th e European Communities
implementing the two requirements in the same manner where an application is made to register a GI,
whether located within the European Communities or in a third country, that is identical to a prior
registered GI. It appears that the wording of Ar ticle 6(6) permits the European Communities to apply
the same condition found in the text of Article 12(2) so that both requirements would be applied
according to which GI was registered later in time, irrespective of the nationality of the applicant or
user or the location of the GI. The European Co mmunities has confirmed to the Panel that the clear
distinction in practice would normally require the indication of the country of origin.428
7.497 The United States has not provided any evidence th at the formal difference in the wording of
the two requirements leads to any difference in treat ment nor that it accords any different treatment to
the nationals of other Members. It has not pr ovided evidence that, where the European Commission
applies the same condition under the labelling requir ement in Article 12(2) and the last tiret of
Article 6(6), that such a practice would not surviv e a legal challenge before the European Court of
Justice.
7.498 The Panel recalls the European Communities' submission that, according to the settled case
law of the European Court of Justice, "Community legislation must, so far as possible, be interpreted
in a manner that is consistent with international law".
429
7.499 Therefore, for the above reasons, in particular the confirmation by the European Communities
that the clear distinction in practice under Article 6(6) would normally require the indication of the
country of origin, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the labelling requirement, the United States
has not made a prima facie case in support of its claim under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
(c) National treatment under GATT 1994
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.500 The United States claims that the Regulation accords l ess favourable treatment to imported
products than to EC products because Article 12(2) imposes a requirement on the registration of GIs
located outside the European Communities that do es not apply to GIs locat ed in the European
Communities, inconsistently with Article III:4 of GATT 1994.430
7.501 The United States argues that this requirement provides that the third country GI must be
burdened by a clear and visible indication of the country of origin on the label, which is a violation of
national treatment obligations. This is in the natu re of a qualifier that detracts from the value of the

427 See also the GATT Panel report on US – Section 337, at para. 5.11, regarding the no less favourable
treatment standard, cited with approval by the Appellate Body in US – Section 211 Appropriations Act,
para. 264.
428 European Communities' first written submission, para. 479; response to Panel question No. 118.
429 See supra at note 131.
430 United States' first written submission, para. 106.

GI by implying that it is something other than the "tru e" GI. There is also the issue of labelling costs,
although that will depend on how partic ular imported products are labelle d in the first place. This
remains an additional burden on imported produc ts that is not faced by EC products. The
United States does not believe that existing ma rks of origin requirements in the European
Communities would satisfy this requirement.431
7.502 The United States does not consider that this is a general country of origin requirement as
described in Article IX of GATT 1994 but rather is a special rule triggered by the fact that a third
country product is characterized as a GI and is intended to encumber the third country GI itself. There
is nothing in Article IX that exempts such a requirement from the obligation to provide no less
favourable treatment to imported products.
432
7.503 The United States argues that the European Communities has not made a prima facie case
under Article XX(d) of GATT 1994 and has failed to make any showing that the requirement that
third country GIs be identified with a country of origin is necessary to ensure compliance with a
WTO-consistent law or regulation. In any case, the less favourable treatment under the Regulation
cannot be justified under that provision. 433 The fact that the requirement is not mandatory for EC GIs
under Article 6(6) of the Regulation is an admission that the requirement is not "necessary".434
7.504 The European Communities responds that this claim is unf ounded. Article 12(2) of the
Regulation does not accord less favourable treatment but rather treats EC and imported products
alike.
435
7.505 The European Communities argues that Article III: 4 is not applicable. Marks of origin are
dealt with in Article IX of GATT 1994, which contains an MFN obligation but not a national
treatment obligation. This omission implies that Members are free to impose country of origin
marking requirements only with respect to imported products and not domestic products.436
7.506 The European Communities argues, in the altern ative, that the requirement to indicate the
country of origin is justified by Article XX(d) of GATT 1994. It serves the purpose of achieving a
clear distinction in practice between homonymous GIs and prevents consumer confusion.
Article 12(2) achieves this in the least intrusive way by requiring that the GI registered later, which is
typically the one less known to the consumer, be th e one for which the country of origin must be
indicated. This complies with paragraph (d) and the chapeau of Article XX.
437
(ii) Consideration by the Panel
7.507 This claim concerns the labelling requirement in Article 12(2) of the Regulation "as such".
The Panel recalls its findings:
(a) at paragraph 7.227, that the Regulation is a law or regulation affecting the internal
sale and offering for sale of products within the meaning of Article III:4 of GATT
1994;

431 United States' response to Panel question No. 120.
432 United States' first oral statement, para. 35; rebuttal submission, para. 99; response to Panel
question No. 122.
434 United States' comment on EC response to Panel question No. 136.
435 European Communities' first written submission, para. 212.
436 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 213-217.
437 European Communities' first oral statement, para. 73; rebuttal submission, paras. 240-242.

(b) at paragraph 7.228 that the Regulation links the protection of the name of a product to
the territory of a particular country a nd formally discriminat es between imported
products and products of European Comm unities origin within the meaning of
Article III:4 of GATT 1994;
(c) at paragraph 7.229 that the European Communities does not contest that there are,
among the group of products covered by the Regulation, "like products" among the
imported products and products of European Communities origin;
(d) at paragraph 7.230, that under Article III:4 of GATT 1994 we must examine whether
the measure modifies the conditions of co mpetition between domestic and imported
products and that in this examination we will focus on the "fundamental thrust and
effect of the measure itself"; and
(e) at paragraph 7.479 that the labelling requirement only applies to identical GIs.
7.508 In light of the applicable standard of examination set out at 7.507(d), the Panel does not
consider that the mere fact that imported products are subject to legal provisions that are different
from those applying to products of national origin is in itself conclusive in establishing inconsistency
with Article III:4.
438
 However, the Panel recalls its findings:
(a) at paragraph 7.496 concerning the differen ces in the wording of Articles 12(2) and
6(6) of the Regulation; and
(b) at paragraph 7.497 that the United States has not provided any evidence that the
formal difference in the wording of th e requirements in the second indent of
Article 12(2) and the last tiret of Article 6(6) leads to any difference in treatment.
7.509 Therefore, for the above reasons, in particular the confirmation by the European Communities
that the clear distinction in practice under Article 6(6) would normally require the indication of the
country of origin, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the labelling requirement, the United States
has not made a prima facie case in support of its claim under Article III:4 of GATT 1994.
7.510 As for the European Communities' argument that this labelling requirement cannot be subject
to the national treatment obligation in Article III:4 of GATT 1994 due to the terms of Article IX of
GATT 1994 on marks of origin, it suffices to note th at the labelling requirement is part of the
Regulation, which is a law or regulation affecting the internal sale and offering for sale of products
within the meaning of Article III:4 of GATT 1994. In an y event, it has not been shown that this is, in
fact, a requirement to display a mark of origin.439
7.511 However, in view of our finding at paragraph 7.509 that the United States has not made a
prima facie case in support of this claim, it is unne cessary for the purposes of this dispute to reach a
definitive view on these questions, and the Panel's vi ews do not imply any view on the relationship of
Articles III:4 and IX:1 of GATT 1994.

438 See also the GATT Panel report on US – Section 337, at para. 5.11.
439 For example, the GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES Recommendation of 21 November 1958 on
marks of origin, para. 5, "Countries should accept as a satisfactory marking the indication of the name of the
country of origin in the English language introduced by the words 'made in'": BISD 7S/30. That example shows
that a mark of origin can be different from the labelling requirement at issue.

C. TRADEMARK CLAIM
1. The relationship between GIs and prior trademarks
(a) Introduction
7.512 The United States claims that the Regulation is inconsis tent with Article 16.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement because it does not ensure that a trad emark owner may prevent uses of GIs which would
result in a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark. 440 Its claim only concerns valid prior
trademarks, not trademarks liable to invalidati on because they lack dis tinctiveness or mislead
consumers as to the origin of goods. 441 It does not dispute that GIs th at are identical or similar to
trademarks may be used, but only to the extent that they do not result in a likelihood of confusion with
respect to prior trademarks.442
7.513 The European Communities responds that this claim is unfounded for several reasons:
(1) Article 14(3) of the Regulation, in fact, prevents the registration of GIs, use of which would result
in a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark; (2) Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement provides
for the "coexistence" of GIs and prior trademarks ; (3) Article 24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement requires
the European Communities to mainta in "coexistence"; and (4) in any event, Article 14(2) of the
Regulation would be justified as a limited exception under Article 17 of the TRIPS Agreement.443
7.514 For the sake of brevity, the Panel uses the term "coexistence" in this report to refer to a legal
regime under which a GI and a trademark can both be used concurrently to some extent even though
the use of one or both of them would otherwise in fringe the rights conferred by the other. The use of
this term does not imply any view on whether such a regime is justified.
7.515 The Panel will begin its examination of this claim by describing Article 14(2) of the
Regulation and how the Regulation can, in principl e, limit the rights of the owner of a trademark
subject to Article 14(2) against the use of a GI. We will then assess whether Article 14(3) of the
Regulation prevents a situation from occurring in which a trademark would be subject to
Article 14(2). If Article 14(3) cannot prevent that situation from occurring, we will proceed to
examine whether Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement requires Members to make available to
trademark owners the right to prevent confusing uses of signs, even where the signs are used as GIs.
If it does, we will consider whether Article 24.5 pr ovides authority to limit that right and, if
Article 24.5 does not, conclude our examination by assessing whether Article 17 or Article 24.3 of the
TRIPS Agreement permits or requires the European Communities to limit that right with respect to
uses of signs used as GIs.
(b) Description of Article 14(2) of the Regulation
7.516 Article 13 of the Regulation sets out the protecti on conferred by registration of a GI under the
Regulation. Paragraph 1 provides for the prevention of certain uses of the GI and other practices.
These are negative rights to prevent, essentially, u ses which are misleading as to the origin of a
product or otherwise unfair.
7.517 Under the European Communities' domestic la w, it is considered that the Regulation
impliedly grants the positive right to use the GI in accordance with the product specification and other
terms of its registration to the exclusion of any other sign. The European Communities explains, and

440 United States' first written submission, para. 170.
441 United States' first oral statement, paras. 42-43.
443 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 268-273.

the United States does not contest, that under the Eu ropean Communities' domestic law, this positive
right is implicit in several provisions, including Ar ticle 4(1), which refers to eligibility to use a
protected designation of origin or a protected geogra phical indication; Article 8, which provides that
the indications PDO and PGI and equivalent natio nal indications may appear only on agricultural
products and foodstuffs that comply with the Regulation; and Article 13(1)(a) which provides
protection for registered names against direct or indirect commercial use on certain conditions.
Without this positive right, in the European Commun ities' view, the protection granted by Article 13
would be "meaningless". Accordingly, under the Eu ropean Communities' domestic law, that positive
right prevails over the rights of trademark owne rs to prevent the use of a sign that infringes
trademarks.
444
7.518 A registered GI may be used together with other signs or as part of a combination of signs but
the registration does not confer a positive right to use any such other signs or combination of signs or
to use the name in any linguistic versions not entered in the register.
445 Therefore, the registration
does not affect the right of trademark owners to exercise their rights with respect to such uses.446
7.519 Article 14 of the Regulation governs the relationship of GIs and trademarks under
Community law. Paragraph 1 deals with later trad emarks. It provides for the refusal of trademark
applications where use of the trademark would infri nge the rights in a GI already registered under the
Regulation. This, in effect, ensures that a registered GI prevails over a later trademark.
7.520 Paragraph 2 of Article 14 deals with prior trademarks. It provides as follows:
"2. With due regard to Community law, a trademark the use of which engenders
one of the situations indicated in Artic le 13 and which has been applied for,
registered, or established by use, if that possibility is provided for by the legislation
concerned, in good faith within the territory of the Community, before either the date
of protection in the country of origin or the date of submissi on to the Commission of
the application for registration of the designa tion of origin or geographical indication,
may continue to be used notwithstanding th e registration of a designation of origin or
geographical indication, provided that no grounds for its invalidity or revocation exist
as specified by Council Directive 89/194/EEC of 21 December 1998 to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and/or Council Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark." [footnotes omitted]
7.521 This is an exception to Article 13, as it provid es for the continued use of a prior trademark
even though use of that trademark would conflict w ith the rights conferred by registration of a GI
under the Regulation. It prevents the exercise of rights conferred by registration of a GI against the
continued use of that particular prior trademark and is an express recognition that, in principle, a GI

444 Confirmed in the European Communities' response to Panel question No. 139.
445 The European Communities explains that "[t]he positive right extends only to the linguistic versions
that have been entered into the register" in its response to Panel question No. 140; see also its rebuttal
submission, paras. 288 and 293; response to Panel question No. 137 and comment on US response to that
question. A different "linguistic version" means a translation which renders the name differently. Some GIs are
registered in more than one linguistic version: see, for example, the second, four th and eleventh GIs set out
supra at note 52.
446 Under Community law, those rights would become meaningless if there was no positive right to use
the registered GI. See European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 301; responses to Panel question Nos.
139 and 140 (but contrast its comment on Australia's response to Panel question No. 137).

and a trademark can coexist under Community law. It is intended to implement Article 24.5 of the
TRIPS Agreement.447
7.522 Article 14(2) only applies:
(a) with respect to the GI, where a particul ar indication satisfies the conditions for
protection, including the definitions of a "designation of origin" or a "geographical
indication", and is not subject to refusal on any grounds, including those in
paragraph 3 of Article 14 (discussed below);
(b) with respect to the trademark, where a par ticular sign has already been applied for,
registered, or established by use in good faith and there are no grounds for its
invalidity or revocation; and
(c) where use of that trademark would infringe the GI registration.
7.523 The scope of Article 14(2) is confined temporally to those trademarks applied for, registered
or established by use either before the GI is protected in its country of origin or before the date of
submission to the Commission of an application for GI registration.
7.524 The text of Article 14(2) begins with the introductory phrase "[w]ith due regard to
Community law". This refers, among other things , to the Community Trademark Regulation and the
First Trademark Directive
448, both of which provide that trademark registration confers the right to
prevent "all third parties" from certain uses of "any sign", including uses where there exists a
likelihood of confusion. 449 This corresponds to the right provided for in Article 16.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
7.525 However, Article 159 of the Community Trademark Regulation, as amended 450, provides as
follows:
"This Regulation shall not affect Counc il Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural
products and foodstuffs of 14 July 1992, a nd in particular Article 14 thereof."
[original footnote omitted]
7.526 This ensures that the rights conferred by a tr ademark registration against "all third parties"
and uses of "any sign" do not prevail over a third party using a registered GI in accordance with its
registration. It does not limit the rights conferred by a trademark registration against any other third

447 Paragraph 11 of the recitals to the April 2003 amending Regulation explained that the dates referred
to in Article 14(2) should be amended in line with Ar ticle 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement: see Exhibit COMP-
1h. Article 14(2) has been interpreted once by the European Court of Justice, in Case C-87/97, Consorzio per la
tutela del frommagio Gorgonzola v Käserai Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co Kg [1999] ECR I-1301,
concerning the trademark CAMBOZOLA for cheese and the GI "Gorgonzola". The opinion of the Advocate-
General was submitted by the United States in Exhibit US -17 and the judgement of the Court was submitted by
the European Communities in Exhibit EC-32.
448 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 138. The "Community Trademark
Regulation" refers to Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council
Regulation (EC) No. 1992/2003 and Council Regulation (EC) No. 422/2004, set out in Exhibit COMP-7. The
"First Trademark Directive" refers to the First Counc il Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the
member States relating to trade marks, set out in Exhibit COMP-6.
449 Article 9 of the Community Trademark Regulation and Article 5 of the First Trademark Directive.
450 Article 142 of the original Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 was renumbered Article 159 by
Article 156(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1992/2003.

party.
451 The same applies to trademarks protected unde r the national laws of the EC member States:
due to the principle of the primacy of Community legislation, a trademark owner's rights cannot
prevail over a third party using a GI register ed under the Regulation in accordance with its
registration. The rights conferred by a trademark registration against other third parties are not
affected.
7.527 Accordingly, the trademark owner's right pr ovided by trademark legislation in the
implementation of Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, in principle, cannot be exercised against a
person who uses a registered GI in accordance with its registration where the trademark is subject to
Article 14(2) of the Regulation.
7.528 The phrase "[w]ith due regard to Community law" also refers to other legislation, such as
labelling and misleading advertising legislation, which qualify the right to continue use of a trademark
under Article 14(2). Conversely, the same legislatio n allows persons, including trademark owners, to
take action against certain uses of a registered GI which are not covered by the GI registration.
452
7.529 Paragraph 3 of Article 14 provides as follows:
"3. A designation of origin or geographi cal indication shall not be registered
where, in the light of a trade mark's reputation and renown and the length of time it
has been used, registration is liable to mislea d the consumer as to the true identity of
the product."
7.530 This is a condition for the registration of a GI, as it provides for the refusal of registration of a
GI that is liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product in light of certain factors
relevant to a prior trademark. This, in effect, provides that a prior trademark may prevail over a later
application for GI registration under certain conditions.
7.531 The European Communities argues that Article 14(3) of the Regulation, together with the
criteria for registrability of trademarks applied under EC law, prevent the registration of a GI, use of
which would result in a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark. The United States disagrees.
The Panel will consider this factual issue below.
(c) Article 14(3) of the Regulation
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.532 The United States submits that the Panel's task is to make an objective assessment of the
facts, including with respect to the meaning of Artic le 14(3) of the Regulation. It argues that the
European Communities' interpretati on is irreconcilable with the way in which the terms included in
this provision have been interpreted in other provisions.
7.533 The United States argues that it is no defence that the number of trademarks deprived of the
right provided for in Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Ag reement may be small (a fact that it does not
concede). Trademarks can incorporate certain geographical elements. If that geographical name
subsequently qualifies for GI protection under th e Regulation, it will inhibit the ability of the
trademark owner from preventing confusing uses. Non-geographical names can be registered as GIs

451 European Communities' first written submission, para. 317; response to Panel question No. 76;
rebuttal submission, para. 336.
452 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 140.

under the Regulation. There are actual examples of geographical names registered as trademarks in
the European Communities without distinctiveness acquired through use.453
7.534 The United States argues that Article 14(3) is the sole provision in the Regulation that
addresses the confusing use of registered GIs vis-à-vis trademarks and it does not satisfy the
obligations under Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreem ent. Article 16.1 provides a right owed to the
owner of any valid registered trademark but Article 14(3) of the Regulation is limited to a subset of
trademarks by its reference to "a trade mark's reputation and renown and the length of time it has been
used". There is no guidance in the Regulation with respect to this standard.
454 A seminar presentation
by an EC official in March 2004 characterized this as a requirement of "long use" and the
Commission Guide to the Regulation also explai ns Article 14 without referring to likelihood of
confusion.
455 The criteria in Article 14(3) are different from, and more restrictive than, those in
Article 16.1. Had the Regulation been intended to implement Article 16.1, why did it use language
not found in Article 16.1 that was plainly more restrictive? 456 The United States refers to the opinion
of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market of the European Parliament on the
Commission's proposal to insert the current text of Article 14(2). That Committee had proposed an
addition to Article 14(2) which would have subjected the Regulation to the ri ght to bring proceedings
for trademark infringement but this was not accepted by the Commission.457
7.535 The United States argues that the threshold prere quisites of reputation, renown, and length of
time used are factors generally used to determine the scope of protection given to "well-known" or
"famous" trademarks under Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention (1967) and Articles 16.2 and 16.3 of
the TRIPS Agreement. They correspond to the factors used for this purpose in the Joint
Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Prot ection of Well-Known Marks adopted by the
Assembly of the Paris Union and th e General Assembly of WIPO in 1999. 458 A statement of
Ministerial reasoning in Hungary indicated that its rule on the protection of a prior well-known mark
corresponds to the ground for refusal of a GI regi stration in Article 14(3) of the Regulation. The
Community Trademark Regulation and Trademark Direc tive refer to "reputation" in their provisions
on rights to prevent confusing uses of signs on dissim ilar goods. The interpretation of that factor by
the European Court of Justice and the practice of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
indicate at the very least uninterrupted use for a considerable number of years. 459 "Reputation" is not
relevant in assessing likelihood of confusion in all cases, such as identical si gns for identical goods.
A trademark registered in only one EC member State without reputation, renown, or length of time of
use would also fail the standard in Article 14(3) of the Regulation.460
7.536 The United States argues that Article 14(3) do es not provide a right to the "owner of a
trademark", as required by Article 16.1, but merely authorizes the EC authorities to decline

453 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 167-170; second oral statement, paras. 74-75.
454 The United States' first written submission refers to a trademark that has been used for a "long" time
and has "considerable" reputation and renown: see paras. 1 58-159. Its first oral statement refers to trademarks
of a "certain" reputation or "particular" renown, and used for "any" length of time: see para. 52.
455 Exhibits US-23 and US-24.
456 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 143-144.
457 United States' first written submission, paras. 166-169. The Opinion (document 2002/0066(CNS)
dated 10 September 2002) is reproduced in Exhibit US-21 and attached to the Report of the Committee on
Agriculture and Rural Development (document A5-0375/2002 dated 6 November 2002) reproduced in
Exhibit COMP-14. The United States also cites certain statements by the Advocate-General of the European
Court of Justice and the European Commission that Article 14(2) envisages "coexistence" of registered GIs
with a valid prior trademark. This issue has been considered at para. 7.521.
458 The Joint Recommendation is reproduced in Exhibit US-58.
459 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 146-152.
460 United States' second oral statement, para. 85.

registration of a GI in limited circumstances. Intellectual property rights are private rights.
461
Article 14(3) does not afford a right to prevent uses as the trademark owner cannot necessarily tell, at
the time of registration of the GI, whether its subse quent use will be confusing. For example, a GI
may be used in a "trademark like manner", in transl ation or in a manner that emphasizes certain of its
aspects or letters in a way that causes a likelihood of confusion. 462 The product specifications do not
always limit the way in which GIs are used so that it is not always evident what use will be protected
by registration. 463 In litigation pending in an EC member State, a Czech brewer has argued that
registration grants the right to use the disputed name s in translations. In other proceedings in an EC
member State and outside the European Communities, one of the Czech beer GIs registered under the
Regulation was considered confusingly similar to the trademark BUDWEISER. 464 The Czech beer
GIs also show that registration is also possible out side the established procedures in the Regulation,
such as through an accession treaty, in a manner that precludes objections based on Article 14(3) or
any other provision.
465
7.537 The United States argues that if an action can be brought under Article 230 of the EC Treaty
for annulment of a registration, EC rules require it to be brought within two-months of the publication
of the registration. Actual confusing uses of a re gistered GI may not become apparent within two-
months and Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement does not permit an y such expiration. Referrals
under the preliminary ruling procedure in Article 234 of the EC Treaty are also subject to the two-
month deadline if the trademark owner could ha ve challenged the registration under Article 230.
466
Even the European Communities does not assert that all trademark owners would have the
opportunity to challenge a registration after the tw o-month deadline under Article 230. Registrations
pursuant to accession protocols do not appear to be subject to challenge at all.
7.538 The United States argues that Articles 7(4) a nd 14(3) of the Regulation must be read
cumulatively. If Articles 7(4) and 14(3) were bot h applied to all trademarks, the phrase "reputation
and renown and length of time used" would be read out of Article 14(3). Articles 7(5)(b) and 14(3)
must also be read cumulatively. If Article 14(3) is interpreted in the light of Article 7(5)(b), it still
only applies to trademarks that sa tisfy the factors in Article 14(3). In any case, Article 7(5)(b) only
applies where EC member States are unable to agree. 467 Article 7(4) is insufficient to implement
Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in the registration procedure because the European
Communities does not consider that Article 16.1 confer s a right of objection. In any case, there is no
right of objection under the Article 17 procedure or where GIs are registered through an act of
accession. The United States also argues that it is insufficient because it is not available on a non-
discriminatory basis. This argument has been considered earlier.468
7.539 The United States argues that Community law on labelling, advertising and unfair
competition do not offer trademark owners the standa rd of protection required by Article 16.1 of the

462 United States' first oral statement, paras. 54-55; rebuttal submission, para. 131.
463 United States' second oral statement, para. 78. The United States provides copies of the applications
for the following registered GIs: "Timoleague Brown Pudding", "Lausitzer Leinöl", "Kanterkaas",
"Kanternagelkass", "Kanterkomijnekass" and "Newcastle Brown Ale". The summaries of product specifications
show labelling requirements that are e ither "PGI" or the protected terms th emselves. These are reproduced in
Exhibit US-77.
464 United States' response to Panel question No. 137.
465 United States' response to Panel question No. 67.
466 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 138-140; second oral statement, para. 83.
467 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 160-164.

TRIPS Agreement. For example, a right to prev ent injurious, deceptive advertising is no substitute
for the right to prevent confusing uses of an identical or similar sign.469
7.540 The European Communities argues that, as a factual matter, the risk of registration of a GI
confusingly similar to a prior tr ademark is very limited due to the criteria for registrability of
trademarks applied under EC law. Moreover, Article 14(3) of the Regulation, if properly interpreted,
is sufficient to prevent the registration of any confusing GIs. 470 The complainant bears the burden of
proving that its interpretation of Article 14(3) is the only reasonable one and that the European
Communities' interpretation is not reasonable or that the provision is being applied in a manner which
results in the registration of confusing GIs.471
7.541 The European Communities argues that the criteria for the registrability of trademarks limit
a priori the possibility of conflicts between GIs and earlier trademarks. Geographical names are
primarily non-distinctive and, as such, are not apt for registration as trademarks. Their use may also
be deceptive insofar as they are used for goods that do not originate in the location that they designate.
Under EC law, they may only be registered as a trademark where the geographical name is not
currently associated, and it can reasonably be assumed th at it will not be associated in the future, with
the product concerned; or where the name has acquired distinctiveness through use.472
7.542 The European Commission considers that the crite ria listed in Article 14(3) of the Regulation
are not exhaustive, so that other relevant criteria may be taken into account in order to assess whether
the registration of the GI will result in a likelihood of confusion, such as the similarity between the
signs or between the goods concerned. The likeli hood of confusion will depend to a large extent on
the degree of distinctiveness which the trademark has acquired through use. A trademark consisting
of a GI, which has never been used or has no reputa tion or renown, should not have been registered in
the first place because it would lack the required distinctiveness. 473 The length of time a trademark
has been used does not limit Article 14(3) to cases wh ere the trademark has been used for a long time
as it is conceivable that a trademark which has been used for a relatively short period of time may
have become strongly distinctive through other means, e.g. publicity.
474
7.543 The European Communities submits that reputation, renown, and length of time of use are not
threshold prerequisites under Article 14(3) of the Regulation but are criteria for assessing whether the
GI is misleading. They are relevant for the purposes of establishing likelihood of confusion even
where a trademark is not a "well-known" mark. Re putation functions as a thre shold pre-requisite in
the context of the "anti-dilution" provisions in the Community Trademark Regulation and the
Trademark Directive but that would not be justifie d in a situation involving signs for similar goods.
There is no credible evidence that it functions this way under Article 14(3): the presentation cited by
the United States is oversimplified and has no lega l authority; the Commission's Guide to the
Regulation repeats verbatim the working of Article 14(3) and alludes to other cases of conflicts in
Article 13(1); and the provision of Hungary's la w cited by the United States does not implement the
Regulation.475
7.544 The European Communities informs the Panel th at the only instance in which Article 14(3)
has been applied was the registration of "Bayerisches Bier" as a GI. There was no suggestion that this
decision was based on the fact that the trademarks concerned were not famous enough or had not been

469 United States' second oral statement, para. 81.
470 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 275-277.
471 European Communities' first written submission, para. 292; rebuttal submission, paras. 271-276.
472 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 278-285; rebuttal submission, para. 270.
473 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 286-291.
474 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 68.
475 European Communities' second oral statement, paras. 163-172.

used for long enough. The complainants have not identified an example of a GI which gives rise to a
likelihood of confusion with an earlier trademark. Registration covers only the term in the
specification and not its translations into other languages unless the term is the same in translation.
The three Czech beer GIs also contain a unique endorsement that they apply "without prejudice to any
beer trademark or other rights existing in the European Union on the date of accession".
476
7.545 The European Communities argues that Article 14(3) requires the EC authorities to refuse
registrations and does not allow for a margin of discr etion. It can be invoked before the courts after
registration of a GI, including in trademark infringeme nt proceedings brought against a user of a GI.
This applies to registrations under the ordinary pro cedure in Article 6 or the "fast-track" procedure in
Article 17. A trademark owner may raise the inva lidity of the measure before the courts under the
preliminary ruling procedure in Article 234 of the EC Treaty. Depending on the factual
circumstances of each case, a trademark owner may also have standing to bring an action in
annulment under Article 230 of the EC Treaty, if a GI registration were considered to affect adversely
specific substantive trademark rights. A two-month ti me limit applies to the action in annulment and,
in specific circumstances, may also a pply to the preliminary ruling procedure.
477 Under both
procedures, judicial review is available on points of fact and law. The cancellation procedure is set
out in Article 11a of the Regulation and the grounds mentioned in Articles 11 and 11a are
exhaustive.478
7.546 The European Communities notes that Article 7(4) of the Regulation provides that an
objection is admissible if it "shows that the regi stration of the name proposed would jeopardize the
existence ... of a mark". It argues that this language is broad enough to encompass any instance of
likelihood of confusion with any mark. Logically, Article 14(3) must permit registration to be refused
in such cases. Article 7(5)(b) refers expressly to a decision having regard to the "likelihood of
confusion".479
7.547 The European Communities argues th at, in principle, a GI which has been found not to be
confusing per se following the assessment required by Article 14(3) should not subsequently give rise
to confusion.480 In its view, GIs and trademarks can be presented in a similar fashion. Whether or not
a particular sign falls within the scope of a particular GI registration is a factual question to be
resolved by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
481
7.548 The European Communities argues that Community law provides the means to prevent use of
a registered GI in a confusing manner. Failure to comply with the product specifications in the
registration may lead to cancellation. The right co nferred by registration does not extend to other
names or signs not in the registration. Registration does not cover translations. A presentation of a
GI in a mutilated or deformed manner may be deemed different from the registered sign and not
protected. Use of a GI is subject to the Community directives on labelling, presentation and
advertising of foodstuffs and on misleading advertising and the EC member States' unfair competition
laws.
482

476 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 286-293; response to Panel question No. 142.
477 European Communities' responses to Australia's question Nos. 2 and 3 after the second substantive
meeting.
478 European Communities' responses to Panel question Nos. 67 and 142; rebuttal submission,
paras. 294-297; second oral statement, paras. 174-179.
479 European Communities' first written submission, para. 336; response to Panel question No. 68;
rebuttal submission, paras. 282-285.
480 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 137.
481 European Communities' second oral statement, paras. 182-184.
482 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 298-303; response to Panel question No. 63.

7.549 The European Communities argues that few, if any, Members provide a remedy to prevent
confusing use of a registered trademark without first obtaining cancellation, invalidation or revocation
of the trademark registration. In the same way, Community law does not provide a remedy to prevent
use of a registered GI on the grounds that it is c onfusing, although the trademark owner may request a
judicial ruling that the GI registration is invalid on those grounds.483
(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.550 Argentina, Brazil, India and Mexico indicated, in response to a question from the Panel, that
they were not aware of any GIs registered under th e Regulation that were identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark owned by their respec tive nationals and protected in the European
Communities.484
7.551 Brazil argues that Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreem ent deals with trademarks in general and
not only with those referred to in the narrow terms of Article 14(3) of the Regulation, which refers to
the trademark's reputation, renown, and the length of time it has been used, and its liability to mislead
the consumer as to the true identity of the product.485
7.552 New Zealand argues that Article 14(3) conditions the rights of a prior registered trademark
owner on certain factors, such as reputation, renown and length of time of use, for which there is no
basis in Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.486
7.553 Chinese Taipei argues that Article 14(3) of the Regulation only prevents the registration of a
trademark if it fulfils the conditions of reputation, renown and length of time of use. This provision
negates the right granted to trademark owners pursuant to Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.487
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.554 The United States does not take issue in this dis pute with trademarks protected later in time
than a GI. Therefore, there is no need to consider Article 14(1) of the Regulation. Moreover, it does
not take issue in this dispute with the dates for establishing which trademarks are considered earlier
than a GI under Article 14(2) of the Regulation. Th erefore, there is no need to consider that issue
either.
7.555 The United States challenges coexistence under the Regulation "as such". It relies on the fact
that Article 14(2) of the Regulation, on its face, can apply to certain trademarks and, when it does,
the Regulation will limit the right of the owner of such a trademark against the use of a GI.488
7.556 The parties largely agree on the factual implications, in principle, of the application of
Article 14(2). It allows the continued use of a tr ademark on certain conditions but, at the same time,
the Regulation confers a positive right to use a GI which prevents the owner of a trademark from
exercising the right conferred by that trademar k against a person who uses a registered GI in
accordance with its registration. The particular right of a trademark owner at issue is the right to

483 European Communities' second oral statement, para. 181; response to Panel question No. 139.
484 See their comments in Annex C at paras. 19, 37, 106 and 120.
485 Annex C, para. 29.
486 Annex C, paras. 148-152.
487 Annex C, para. 178.
488 Although Article 14(2) of the Regulation is drafted as an exception to GI protection in Article 13, it
is not disputed that in most of the situations described in Article 13, in which Article 14(2) applies, the use of
the GI would otherwise constitute infringement of the trad emark. If Article 14(3) were able to prevent the
registration of any GI, use of which could otherwise constitute a trademark infringement, Article 14(2) would be
redundant in all of these situations.

prevent uses of a sign that would result in a likeliho od of confusion, which is discussed in paragraphs
7.598 to 7.603 below.
7.557 The European Communities' first defence is that Article 14(3) can prevent the registration of
any GI which would subject a prior trademark to Article 14(2), where the GI could be used in a
manner that would result in a likelihood of confusion. This is a factual issue for the Panel to decide.
This involves matters of interpretation of an EC Regulation which forms part of the European
Communities' domestic law. It is necessary for th e Panel to make an objective assessment of the
meaning of this provision, although solely for the purpose of determining the European Communities'
compliance with its WTO obligations.
489
7.558 As a preliminary remark, the Panel does not consider that this defence is necessarily
contradicted by the European Communities' other de fences that it is fully entitled and even required
under the TRIPS Agreement to apply its coexiste nce regime, regardless of whether a GI would
otherwise infringe the rights in a prior trademark. However, given that this is the European
Communities' view of its rights and obligatio ns under the TRIPS Agreement, it would seem
coincidental if Article 14(3) of the Regulation could operate in a way that a GI would never, in fact,
otherwise infringe the rights in a prior trademark.
7.559 Turning to the text of Article 14(3) of the Regul ation, the Panel's first observation is that it
requires GI registration to be refused where it would be "liable to mislead the consumer as to the true
identity of the product". This is limited to liability to mislead as to a single issue, and not with respect
to anything else.
7.560 The Panel's second observation is that Article 14( 3) specifically prohibits GI registration "in
light of a trade mark's reputation and renown and the length of time it has been used". It is clear that
these factors must all be taken into account in the a pplication of Article 14(3). It is difficult to
imagine how Article 14(3) could be applied without some consideration of the similarity of the signs
and goods as well. 490 However, even if these factors are not exhaustive, and even if they do not
require strong reputation, wide renown and long use, they indicate that the scope of Article 14(3) is
limited to a subset of trademarks which, as a minimum, excludes trademarks with no reputation,
renown or use. Article 14(3) does not prevent the registration of a GI on the basis that its use would
affect any prior trademark outside that subset.
7.561 The Panel's third observation on the text of Article 14(3) is that it does not refer to use (of the
GI) or to likelihood or to confusion, when other provisions of the Regulation do. Articles 7(5)(b),
12b(3) and 12d(3) permit refusal of a GI registrati on "having regard to" or "taking account of" factors
including the "actual likelihood of confusion" and the "actual risk of confusion".
491 This indicates that
the standard in Article 14(3) that registration woul d "mislead the consumer as to the true identity of
the product" is intended to apply in a narrower set of circumstances than th e trademark owner's right
to prevent use that would result in a likelihood of confusion.492

489 In this regard, the Panel recalls its comments at para. 7.55.
490 Article 14(3) presupposes the applicability of Ar ticle 13, which requires a consideration of the
similarity of the goods and signs.
491 Articles 7(5)(b) and 12d(3) do not apply to GIs located in third countries. To the extent that they
apply to GIs located in the European Communities, they only apply in limited circumstances where there is an
admissible objection from an EC member State, other than the one which transmitted the application, or a third
country, and they do not provide that the actual likelihood or risk of confusion is an absolute ground for refusal.
492 The TRIPS Agreement does not define the terms "likelihood of confusion" and "mislead the public
as to the geographical origin". These terms define the scope of protection provided for in Articles 16.1 and 22.2
of the TRIPS Agreement and apply in a very wide range of factual situations. Therefore, the Panel considers it

7.562 For these reasons, the Panel considers that the United States has made a prima facie case that
Article 14(3) of the Regulation cannot prevent all situations from occurring in which Article 14(2)
would, in fact, limit the rights of a trademark owner.
7.563 Consistent with this view, it can be noted that the European Communities specifically rejected
a proposal by a Committee of the European Parliament to amend Article 14(2) so as to subject it to the
trademark owners' rights when Article 14 was amended in April 2003. 493 This at least suggests that
Article 14(3) was considered different from a blanket protection of trademark rights.
7.564 The European Communities has submitted that the United States' interpretation of
Article 14(3) would conflict with Article 7(4), whic h provides that a statement of objection shall be
admissible inter alia if it shows that the proposed GI registration would jeopardize the existence of a
mark. It asserts that this langua ge encompasses any instance of likelihood of confusion between the
proposed GI and a prior trademark. 494 It has not explained why the text does not set forth the
likelihood of confusion standard, when the followin g provision of the Regulation in Article 7(5)(b)
does. The contrast is marked. Article 7(5)(b) set s out a procedure to reach agreement in cases where
an objection is admissible, which appears to indicate that it contains a lower standard than the ground
for objection in Article 7(4).
7.565 The European Communities has submitted that th e criteria for registrability of a trademark
limit a priori the risk of GIs being confused with a prio r trademark, but it does not submit that they
completely eliminate that risk. The evidence show s that signs eligible for protection as GIs can and
have been registered as trademarks in the Community. 495 The European Communities has not shown
that the criteria for registrability of trademarks ca n anticipate adequately a situation in which a GI
could be used in a way that results in a like lihood of confusion with a trademark, wherever
Article 14(3) of the Regulation does not provide for re fusal of registration of a GI. Those criteria and
Article 14(3) would have to offset each other in every case. However, Article 14(2) and (3) apply to
trademarks that are already protected. They cannot apply to signs which do not satisfy the trademark
registrability criteria, either because they are ge ographical names or for whatever other reason, and
have been refused registration, are subject to i nvalidation or are otherwise unprotected. These signs
are filtered out before Article 14 of the GI Regulation comes into play. Given that Article 14(3)
applies to a subset of protected trademarks, those to which it does not apply have by definition already
satisfied the trademark registrability criteria.
7.566 There is also the question of how Article 14( 3) can protect a trademark owner's right to
prevent uses which occur subsequent to GI registration. In response to a question from the Panel as to
whether Article 14(3) could be invoked if use of the GI would otherwise infringe the trademark
subsequent to GI registration, the European Communities submitted that it could.
496 The parties then
made various submissions on this point, based on which the Panel makes the following observations:
(a) the Regulation does not refer to invalida tion under Article 14(3). It sets out
cancellation procedures in Articles 11 and 11a, the grounds for which do not appear

inappropriate to embark on a detailed interpretation of these or similar terms unless necessary for the purposes
of the resolution of the dispute, which is not the case here.
493 The Committee proposal is set out in Exhibits COMP-14 and US-21.
494 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 68; rebuttal submission, paras. 282-285.
495 For example, the following are registered Co mmunity trademarks: CALABRIA for pasta; DERBY
for milk and chocolate based products; WIENERWALD for prepared meals, condiments and other goods and
services. Extracts of registrations are reproduced in Exhibits US-74, US-75 and US-76, respectively.
496 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 67; see also its rebuttal submission,
paras. 270 and 296. The Panel's findings do not imply any view on whether a requirement to seek GI
invalidation as a condition precedent to obtaining relief against trademark infringement would be consistent
with the enforcement obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

to relate to the improper application of Ar ticle 14(3). If invalidation procedures are
possible, it would be as a matter of general Community law under the EC Treaty;
(b) Article 230 of the EC Treaty provides a pr ocedure for a direct challenge to the
validity of a Community measure before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on the condition that the app licant "is directly and individually
concerned" by the measure. It is not submitted by any party that all trademark
owners can satisfy that condition. Further, this procedure is subject to a two-month
time limit which could rende r it unavailable to certain trademark owners who did
satisfy that condition
497;
(c) Article 234 of the EC Treaty provides a procedure for an indirect challenge to a
Community measure under which a court of an EC member State can refer a question
to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. This procedure could be
invoked in a trademark infringement proceeding to obtain invalidation of a GI
registration. It is not clear in what circ umstances this procedure is available to a
trademark owner who could have invoked th e Article 230 procedure. The procedure
under Article 234 would only be available where the court of the EC member State
considered the question of validity of th e GI necessary to resolve the trademark
infringement action. In any case, the decision not to refuse a registration under
Article 14(3) of the Regulation would be in terpreted in the preliminary ruling as at
the time of that decision, and not at the ti me of the subsequent allegedly infringing
use
498; and
(d) Article 14(3) may not be applicable in all cases as it is not clear whether GIs
registered in accordance with the terms of an Act of Accession to the European Union
(there are three such GIs) can be invalidated on the basis of that provision.499
7.567 In light of these observations, the Panel considers that there is no evidence to show that it is
possible to seek invalidation of a GI registration under Article 14(3) in all cases in which use of a GI
would otherwise be found to infringe a prior trademark. In those cases where it is not possible, it
would be necessary for the owner of a prior trademark to be able to anticipate, at the time of the
proposed GI registration, all subsequent uses of th e proposed GI that would result in a likelihood of
confusion. There is no reason to believe that this is possible. The evidence submitted to the Panel
shows that GI registrations under the Regulation si mply refer to names without limiting the way in
which they are used. Indeed, it became apparent in the course of the proceedings that what the United
States regards as "trademark-like use" is, in the European Communities, considered perfectly
legitimate use as a GI.500
7.568 The European Communities has submitted that the food labelling and mi sleading advertising
directives and unfair competition laws of the EC me mber States also prevent confusing uses. We
understand, and the European Communities does not deny , that this is only possible where the use is
not in accordance with the GI registration. In any ev ent, the scope of the directives is narrower than

497 United States' comment on EC response to Panel question No. 142 and Exhibits US-99 and
US-100; European Communities' second oral statement, para. 177.
498 United States' comment on EC response to Panel question No. 142 and Exhibits US-100 and
US-101; European Communities' second oral statement, para. 178.
499 See European Communities' response to Panel qu estion No. 142(c) and cont rast the United States'
comment on that response and Exhibit US-101.
500 The United States submitted copies of the packag ing of cheeses bearing the GIs "Esrom", "Bitto",
"Bra" and "Tomme de Savoie" in Exhibit US-52. The European Communities submitted the approved
specifications for these GIs in Exhibits EC-99 through EC-102. See the European Communities' response to
Panel question No. 140 and the United States' comment on that response.

that of the GI Regulation and the standards whic h they apply are different from the right of a
trademark owner to prevent use which would result in a likelihood of confusion, for the following
reasons:
(a) the food labelling directive only applies to th e labelling of foodstu ffs to be delivered
as such to the ultimate consumer and cert ain aspects relating to the presentation and
advertising thereof. It provides that "labe lling and methods used must not be such as
could mislead the purchaser to a material degree, particularly ... as to the
characteristics of the foodstuff and, in particul ar, as to its nature, identity, properties,
composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufacture or
production"
501; and
(b) the misleading advertising directive applies to "any advertising which in any way,
including presentation, deceives or is likel y to deceive the persons to whom it is
addressed or whom it reaches and which, by reason of its deceptive nature is likely to
affect their economic behaviour or which, for those reasons, injures or is likely to
injure a competitor".502
7.569 The unfair competition laws of the EC member States apply subject to the terms of
registration under the Regulation, due to the primacy of Community law. It is not clear to what extent
these laws apply in addition to the Regulation but, to the extent that they do, they use various
standards, some of which require deception, which is narrower than confusion, and some of which
appear only to apply the misleading standard which is embodied in the Regulation itself.503
7.570 The United States also refers to specific cases in which the Regulation has been applied in
support of its claim, as set out in the following paragraphs.
7.571 Article 14(3) of the Regulation has only b een applied once. This was the case of
"Bayerisches Bier", which was registered as a prot ected geographical indication in 2001 subject to the
proviso that the use of certain prior trademar ks, for example, BAVARIA and HØKER BAJER, was
permitted to continue under Article 14(2). The GI refers to a beer and the trademarks are registered in
respect of beer. The GI and the trademarks are, respectively, the words "Bavaria" or "Bavarian Beer"
rendered in the German, English and Danish langu ages. Upon its registration, the EC Council
concluded that the GI would not mislead the public as to the identity of the product, which is the
standard embodied in Article 14(3) of the Regulation.
 504
7.572 The United States alleges that the GI "Bayeri sches Bier" could be used in a manner that
would result in a likelihood of confusion with these prior trademarks. 505 In response to a direct
question from the Panel, the European Communities di d not deny this specific allegation. It only

501 Articles 1 and 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States re lating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
foodstuffs, referred to in the European Communities' resp onses to Panel question No. 63, fn 38; United States'
comments on EC response to Panel question No. 140, fn. 74, and reproduced in Exhibit EC-30.
502 Article 2(2) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC rela ting to the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Me mber States concerning misleading adve rtising, referred to in European
Communities' responses to Panel question No. 63, fn 39, United States' comments on EC response to Panel
question No. 140, fn. 74, and reproduced in Exhibit EC-31.
503 See information supplied by the European Communities and some of its member States to the
Council for TRIPS in the review under Article 24.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, document IP/C/W/117/Add.10,
reproduced in Exhibit EC-29. The European Communities did not supply information on the unfair competition
laws of its ten new member States.
504 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2001 reproduced in Exhibits US-41 and EC-9.
505 See the United States' response to Panel question No. 137.

responded that "in principle" a name registered following the assessment required by Article 14(3)
"should not give rise to confusion when used subse quently" and submitted that "in practice" this may
happen only when the registered name is used togeth er with other signs or as part of a combination of
signs. This was a conspicuous choice of words because in the same respon se it commented in detail
on two other specific cases which it considered irrelevant to the dispute.
506
7.573 The United States also alleges th at three Czech beer GIs, "Bud ĕjovické pivo",
"Českobudĕjovické pivo" and "Bud ĕjovický mĕšt’anský var" could be used in a manner that would
result in a likelihood of confusion with the prior trademarks BUDWEISER and BUD, registered in
respect of beer.
507 The evidence shows that a court in a non-EC WTO Member found a reasonable
probability that a substantial num ber of persons would be confused if the marks BUDEJOVICKY
BUDVAR depicted in a special script, and BUDWEISER and BUD, were used together in relation to
beer in a normal and fair manner and in the ordinary course of business, particularly the mark BUD.508
However, courts in two other non-EC WTO Members found that the use of "Budìjovický Budvar" on
specific beer labels did not give rise to a likeli hood of confusion with the trademarks BUDWEISER
and BUD, registered in respect of beer.
509 In response to a direct question from the Panel, the
European Communities did not deny that these GIs c ould be used in a manner that would result in a
likelihood of confusion with these prior trademarks . Instead, it pointed to an endorsement on the
three GI registrations that they apply "without prejudice to any beer trademark or other rights existing
in the European Union on the date of accession".
510 This might imply that it accepts a likelihood of
confusion, but considers that there are other means b esides Article 14(3) to deal with that. It also
argued that these GIs were outside the terms of reference but the United States expressly clarified that
it referred to them only as evidence in support of its claim and did not challenge these individual
registrations in this panel proceeding.511
7.574 There appears to be an inconsistency betw een the European Communities' position that
Article 14(3) of the Regulation, in practice, prevents the registration of GIs, use of which would result
in a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark, and its decision to avoid contesting that there may
be circumstances in which the four specific GIs re ferred to above could be used which would not
result in a likelihood of confusion with these specific prior trademarks.
7.575 For the above reasons, the Panel considers th at the European Communities has not rebutted
the United States' prima facie case that Article 14(3) of the Regulation cannot prevent all situations

506 The European Communities submitted twice that the EC Council had concluded that the registration
of this GI would not lead to a likelihood of confusion w ith these prior trademarks but this is different from the
EC Council's conclusion as stated in the decision on re gistration. The European Communities later indicated in
response to a question from the Panel that the EC Council's conclusion was that the signs were not sufficiently
similar to mislead the public, which is closer to the wording of the conclusion as stated in the decision, but not
necessarily a likelihood of confusion: see European Co mmunities' first written submission, para. 288, fn. 140;
rebuttal submission, para. 287; and responses to Panel questions Nos. 137 and 143 and compare Council
Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2001 reproduced in Exhibits US-41 and EC-9 and the Commission Guide to the
Regulation (August 2004 edition, p. 12) in Exhibit EC-64.
507 The evidence indicates that thes e trademarks are registered in at least two EC member States and
rights to them appear to have been acquired through use in another EC member State: see Exhibits US-53,
508 Judgement of the High Court of South Africa in Budweiser Budvar National Corporation v
Anheuser-Busch Corporation, dated 3 December 2003, reproduced in Exhibit US-82.
509 Judgement of the Federal Court of Australia in Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Budìjovický Budvar, Národní
Podnik, [2002] FCA 390 (dated 5 April 2002); judgement of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in Anheuser
Busch Incorporated v Budweiser Budwar National Corporation & Ors [2002] NZCA 264 (dated 19 September
2002) reproduced in Exhibits EC-117 and EC-118, respectively.
510 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 286-293; response to Panel question No. 142.
511 United States' response to Panel question No. 137 and European Communities' comment on that
response. See the Panel's comments on individual registrations at para. 7.20.

from occurring in which a trademark would be subject to Article 14(2) and, hence, in which the
Regulation would limit the rights of the owner of such a trademark.
7.576 The Panel will now proceed to examine whether the TRIPS Agreement requires Members to
make available to trademark owners rights against the use of GIs.
(d) Relationship between protection of GIs and prior trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.577 The United States argues that the ordinary meaning of the terms used in Article 16.1 show
that the rights to prevent certain uses are exclusive, are valid against all third parties and cover
identical or similar signs, including GIs.512
7.578 The United States argues that the context shows that the TRIPS Agreement explicitly clarifies
the relationship among individual rights in GIs and tr ademarks, where there is a need. For instance,
Article 22.3 explicitly provides for the refusal or in validation of trademark registrations that contain
or consist of a GI, in certain circumstances. In contrast, Article 24.5 does not explicitly set out an
exception to trademark rights but only creates an exception to GI protection. 513 Compromises
between rights to exclude, including simultaneous u ses of identical place names, are spelt out in the
text. For instance, Article 23.3 provides for hom onymous GIs for wines. There is no explicit
provision for simultaneous use of a GI and a pr ior trademark where use of the GI would be
inconsistent with the rights under Article 16.1.514
7.579 The United States submits that Article 24.5 is cl early titled as an exception to GI protection.
It protects certain grandfathered trademarks but is not an exception to trademark protection. 515 I t
does not create any positive rights.516 The phrase "validity of the registration of a trademark" must be
read in connection with the legal authority accorded by trademark registration, which is the right
provided under Article 16.1, in addition to rights under domestic law. Trademark registration is
virtually meaningless without the associated rights under Article 16.1. The drafting history shows
that the predecessor of Article 24.5 in the Brussel s Draft set out a simple prohibition against
invalidation of registration. This became a re quirement that Members not even "prejudice" the
validity of the registration which is a more stringent requirement.
517 The obligations not to prejudice
the "right to use a trademark" would include an obl igation with respect to both registered trademarks
and trademarks to which rights are acquired through use. If the owner cannot exclude confusing uses
of identical or similar signs, the owner's ability to use the trademark for its purpose is severely
prejudiced. The corresponding provision in the Brussels Draft did not refer to the right to use.518
7.580 The United States emphasizes the exclusivity of the rights provided for in Article 16.1.
Exclusivity has been recognized as the core of a trad emark right by the European Court of Justice and
the United States Supreme Court.519 A trademark can only fulfil its role of identifying an undertaking
or the quality of goods if it is exclusive.520 This is confirmed by Article 15.1.521

512 United States' first written submission, paras. 137-140.
513 United States' first written submission, paras. 141-142; first oral statement, para. 58.
514 United States' first written submission, para. 143.
516 United States' response to Panel question No. 145.
517 United States' first oral statement, para. 65; response to Panel question Nos. 76, 145 and 147.
518 United States' response to Panel question No. 76.
519 United States' first written submission, paras. 145-150.
520 United States' first oral statement, para. 67.
521 United States' rebuttal submission, para. 174; response to Panel question No. 76.

7.581 The United States argues that there is no conflict between Articles 16.1 and 22. It is possible
to comply simultaneously with both.
522 A conflict may occur between right holders in an individual
trademark and an individual GI, but this is not a conflict between obligations in the TRIPS
Agreement.523 If a trademark misleads consumers as to the origin of goods, its registration should be
refused or invalidated.524 Articles 16.1 and 22.3 can both be im plemented in a way that gives each its
full scope. They should be interpreted in a way th at does not presume a conflict. If a trademark is
misleading, its registration may be refused or invalid ated. As long as the registration remains valid, it
must provide the owner with the right to exclude others from confusing uses.525
7.582 The United States argues that the European Communities bears the burden of proof in relation
to Article 24.5 because it asserts that provisi on as an affirmative defence to the claim under
Article 16.1.526
7.583 The European Communities responds that this claim is unfounded. 527 The TRIPS
Agreement recognizes trademarks and GIs as intell ectual property rights on the same level, and
confers no superiority to trademarks over GIs. The provisions of Section 3 of Part II on GI protection
are not "exceptions" to the provision of Article 16.1 on trademark rights. The criteria for registrability
of trademarks limit a priori the possibility of conflicts between GI s and trademarks but conflicts may
arise. Article 16.1 does not address this issue. Rather, the boundary between GIs and trademarks is
defined by Article 24.5 which provides for coexisten ce with earlier trademarks. Article 24.5 must be
read with Article 22.3 and Article 23.2 which also provide protection to GIs vis-à-vis trademarks. 528
Section 2 of Part II cannot be applied without having regard to Section 3.529
7.584 The European Communities argues that Article 24.5 has two implications: (1) with respect to
grandfathered trademarks (or app lications): (a) Members are not allowed to prejudice the validity of
the registration (or the eligibility of the application or the right to use the trademark), but (b) Members
may prejudice other rights of the trademark owner, in cluding in particular the right to prevent others
from using the sign of which the trademark consists ; and (2) with respect to other trademarks (or
applications), Members may prejudice any right.530
7.585 The European Communities argues that the ordinary meaning of the word "prejudice" used in
all three official versions includes the notion of "j udge beforehand" but only the word in the English
version includes the notion of "cause injury, damage or harm". 531 The phrase "validity of the
registration" does not necessarily imply that the registration must confer exclusive rights vis-à-vis all
third parties. The fact that the owner cannot preven t use of the same or a similar sign by the GI right
holder does not mean that the registration is set aside. The phrase "the right to use a trademark" refers
to the basic right of the trademark owner to use the trademark, whether it has been acquired through
registration or use.
532 It is the right to use a sign, which is different from the right to prevent others
from using the same or a similar sign. If that ri ght were inherent in the term "validity of the
registration", it would have been supe rfluous to refer to the "right to use a trademark" as well. If that
right had been intended, the drafters would have refe rred to the "exclusive right to use a trademark".
If that right were inherently exclusive, it would ha ve been superfluous to provide in Article 16.1 that

522 United States' response to Panel question No. 146.
523 United States' second oral statement, para. 71.
524 United States' response to Panel question No. 146.
525 United States' response to Panel question No. 79.
526 United States' response to Panel question No. 75(a); rebuttal submission, para. 173.
527 European Communities' first written submission, para. 269-273.
528 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 294-300.
529 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 306-307.
530 European Communities' first written submission, para. 301.
531 European Communities' comment on US response to Panel question No. 145.
532 European Communities' first written submission, para. 305; response to Panel question No. 76.

the owners of trademarks shall have exclusive ri ghts. The drafting history shows that the Brussels
Draft referred to the continued use of a GI as a tr ademark, which envisaged coexistence, in a separate
provision from the predecessor to Article 24.5. Its tr ansfer to Article 24.5 in the final version did not
alter its meaning or purpose.533
7.586 The European Communities argues that Article 24.5 is drafted in mandatory terms and
imposes self-standing obligations which go beyond t hose in Section 2 of Part II. This may be
illustrated by the case of a Member which provides for the refusal or invalidati on of registration of a
trademark in terms broader than those in Article 22.3, or which prohibits the use of any trademark
acquired by use in terms broader than those in Article 22.2. Both would be consistent with Section 2
of Part II but Article 24.5 would prevent either ap plying to prior trademarks. This would be an
obligation arising exclusively under Article 24.5.534
7.587 The European Communities argues that if Ar ticle 24.5 did not allow coexistence, the
protection of GIs provided under S ection 3 of Part II would become pointless whenever there is a
grandfathered trademark. The phrase "measures ad opted to implement this Section" assumes that
Members will continue to protect GIs notwithstandi ng the existence of grandfathered trademarks.
Coexistence may not be a perfect solution to resolv e conflicts between different types of intellectual
property rights but there is no such perfect solution. 535 It is not an unusual solution, since coexistence
is envisaged in Articles 23.2 (with respect to a GI and a trademark that is not misleading), 23.3, 24.3
(where pre-existing protection provided for coex istence) 24.4 and 16.1 (vis-à-vis existing prior
rights).
536 Article 24.5 embodies a compromise. The Eu ropean Communities and other participants
agreed to make it mandatory on the understanding th at the trademark owners would have the right to
use the trademark but not the right to exclude use by GI right holders.537
7.588 There is no "conflict" between Articles 16.1 a nd 22.3 but there is a potential "conflict"
between Articles 16.1 and 22.2(a), and possibly 23.1. Article 22.2 confers on GI right holders the
right to prevent certain uses of trademarks, which may conflict with the right of the trademark owner
under Article 16.1 to prevent certain uses of signs. The simultaneous exercise of both rights would
lead to a situation where neither the trademark ow ner nor the GI right holders could use the sign in
question. Neither would be able to fulfil its purpose. This conflict is resolved by Articles 22.3, 23.2
and 24.5.538
7.589 The European Communities argues that only the object and purpose of the treaty as a whole is
relevant to the general rule of treaty interpretation. To the extent that the exclusivity of a trademark is
an object and purpose of the TRIPS Agreement, it subm its that exclusivity is as essential to a GI or
even more essential, because the choice of a GI is not arbitrary, unlike a trademark, and the
establishment of a GI takes longer than a trademark.539
7.590 The European Communities argues that the complainant bears the burden of proof that a
measure falls within the scope of the obligations provided in Article 16.1. Article 24.5 is not an
exception but defines the boundary between the obliga tions in Article 16.1 and a Member's right to
implement GI protection. It does not provide an exemption from an obligation but places a limit on
the measures that Members must or may take when implementing GI protection under Section 3 of
Part II. It confers a right to use a trademark, a right which owners of trademarks acquired through use

533 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 76; rebuttal submission, paras. 327-328.
534 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 145.
535 European Communities' first written submission, para. 307; response to Panel question No. 77.
536 European Communities' first written submission, para. 308; response to Panel question No. 76.
537 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 147.
538 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 308-310; response to Panel question No. 146.
539 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 76.

do not have under Article 16.1 because rights the basis of use are optional under Article 16.1. It notes
that the United States stated a claim under Article 24.5 in its request for establishment of a panel.
540
(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.591 Argentina argues that coexistence is inconsistent wi th Articles 16.1 and 22.3 of the TRIPS
Agreement. Article 24.5 sets out a cut-off date di fferent from the one in the Regulation and does not
provide for the possibility of limiting the trademark owner's right as the Regulation does. Article 24.4
determines the boundaries for alternatives available to Members in the implementation of measures
relating to GI protection and its link to trademarks.541
7.592 Brazil argues GIs which are identical to trademarks are likely to create confusion and,
consequently, may affect the value of trademarks. Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement provides for
a right that covers the use of any sign, and not only that of a trademark, which might cause confusion.
The possibility of coexistence between a tradem ark and a GI is only acceptable in terms of
Articles 24.5 and 16.1, read in conjunction, which mean that the use of a GI and the need to protect it
must not be at the expense of both trademark owne rs and consumers, which may undermine the value
of a trademark contrary to the "exclusive rights" of a trademark owner under Article 16.1.542
7.593 Colombia argues that, under the TRIPS Agreement, no form of protection is superior to
another. Therefore, the Regulation cannot deny the right of the trademark owner under Article 16.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement. Such denial constitutes a clear violation of WTO obligations.543
7.594 Mexico argues that the exclusive right in Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement is severely
nullified by Article 14(2) of the Regulation as it permits coexistence between a prior registered
trademark and a later GI. The European Communities' explanation that coexistence is not the perfect
solution is an inadequate justification but a recogni tion of inconsistency. By ignoring the "first in
time, first in right" rule, the Regulation not only contravenes Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement but
also a recognized general principle of law.544
7.595 New Zealand argues that Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement provides for a right against
"all third parties". Despite an appearance of conf lict between the rights in Articles 16.1 and 22.2,
each must be read to the fullest extent permissible without conflicting with the other. Article 24.5 is a
provision that resolves conflict by compromising this exclusivity, but in all other cases, the rights
provided for in Articles 16.1 and 22.2 must both be upheld. Article 14(2) of the Regulation excludes
users of a registered GI from the scope of "all third parties" against whom a trademark owner should
be able to exercise rights, and is inconsistent with Article 16.1.
545
7.596 Chinese Taipei argues that Articles 16.1 and 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement must be given
their full scope in a manner that would not cause conflict. The Regulation creates precisely such a
conflict, rendering Article 16.1 inu tile, as the right of trademark owne rs under that article is negated
by coexistence under Article 14(2) of the Regulation. The result is the creation of a hierarchy in
which GIs have a superior status than tradem arks, which is not contemplated by the TRIPS
Agreement.546

540 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 75; rebuttal submission, paras. 312-315.
541 Annex C, para. 5.
542 Annex C, para. 30.
543 Annex C, para. 102.
544 Annex C, para. 114.
545 Annex C, paras. 148-151.
546 Annex C, para. 178.

(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.597 The Panel will now proceed to examine whether the TRIPS Agreement requires Members to
make available to trademark owners rights against the use of GIs. This involves two steps: first, we
examine the right of trademark owners provided for in Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and then
we continue by examining whether Article 24.5 provides authority to limit that right.
Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement
7.598 Part II of the TRIPS Agreement contains mi nimum standards concerning the availability,
scope and use of intellectual property rights. The first seven Sections of Part II contain standards
relating to categories of intellectual property righ ts. Each Section sets out, as a minimum, the subject
matter which is eligible for protection, the scope of the rights conferred by the relevant category of
intellectual property and permitted exceptions to those rights.
7.599 Although each of the Sections in Part II provides for a different category of intellectual
property, at times they refer to one another 547, as certain subject matter may be eligible for protection
by more than one category of intellectual property. This is particularly apparent in the case of
trademarks and GIs, both of which are, in general terms, forms of distinctive signs. The potential for
overlap is expressly confirmed by Articles 22.3 and 23.2, which provide for the refusal or invalidation
of the registration of a trademark which contains or consists of a GI.548
7.600 Section 2 of Part II provides for the categor y of trademarks. Article 15.1 sets out the
definition of the subject matter which is capable of constituting a trademark. These are signs that
satisfy certain criteria. Article 16.1 sets out a right which must be conferred on the owner of a
registered trademark, and which may also be acquired on the basis of use, as follows:
"1. The owner of a registered trademark sh all have the exclusive right to prevent
all third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade
identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those
in respect of which the trademark is regi stered where such use would result in a
likelihood of confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods or
services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed. The rights described above
shall not prejudice any existing prior rights, nor shall they affect the possibility of
Members making rights available on the basis of use."
7.601 The right which must be conferred on the owner of a registered trademark is set out in the
first sentence of the text. There are certain limitations on that right which relate to use in the course of
trade, the signs, the goods or services for which the signs are used and those with respect to which
they are registered and the likelihood of confusion. The ordinary meaning of the text indicates that,
basically, this right applies to use in the course of trade of identical or similar signs, on identical or
similar goods, where such use would result in a lik elihood of confusion. It does not specifically
exclude use of signs protected as GIs.
7.602 The text of Article 16.1 stipulates that the right for which it provides is an "exclusive" right.
This must signify more than the fact that it is a ri ght to "exclude" others, since that notion is already
captured in the use of the word "prevent". Rather, it indicates that this right belongs to the owner of
the registered trademark alone, who may exercise it to prevent certain uses by "all third parties" not

547 For instance, Article 25.2 of the TRIPS Agreement refers to more than one category of intellectual
property, as does Article 4 of the IPIC Treaty, as incorporated by Article 35 of the TRIPS Agreement.
548 Articles 22.3 and 23.2, respectively.

having the owner's consent. The last sentence provid es for an exception to that right, which is that it
shall not prejudice any existing prior rights. Otherwise, the text of Article 16.1 is unqualified.
7.603 Other exceptions to the right under Article 16. 1 are provided for in Article 17 and possibly
elsewhere in the TRIPS Agreement. However, ther e is no implied limitation vis-à-vis GIs in the text
of Article 16.1 on the exclusive right which Me mbers must make available to the owner of a
registered trademark. That right may be exercised against a third party not having the owner's consent
on the same terms, whether or not the third part y uses the sign in accordance with GI protection,
subject to any applicable exception.
Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement

7.604 The parties have referred to Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. This appears in Section 3
of Part II, which provides for the category of GIs.549 Article 24.5 provides as follows:
"5. Where a trademark has been applied for or registered in good faith, or where
rights to a trademark have been acquired through use in good faith either:
(a) before the date of application of these provisions in that
Member as defined in Part VI; or
(b) before the geographical indication is protected in its country
of origin;
measures adopted to implement this Secti on shall not prejudice eligibility for or the
validity of the registration of a trademark, or the right to use a trademark, on the basis
that such a trademark is identical with, or similar to, a geographical indication."
7.605 The Panel must interpret this provision, like a ll other provisions of the covered agreements
relevant to this dispute, in accordance with the customary rules of interpretation of public
international law, as required by Article 3.2 of th e DSU. For present purposes, this means the general
rule of treaty interpretation contained in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This requires an interpretation in good faith in acco rdance with the ordinary meaning to be given to
the terms in their context and in the light of th e object and purpose of the agreement. Recourse may
be had to supplementary means of interpretation in accordance with Article 32 of that Convention.
550
7.606 Commencing with the terms of the provision, we observe that Article 24.5 consists of a single
sentence, of which the subject is "measures adopted to implement this Section". Article 24.5 appears
in Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, the reference to "this Section" is a
reference to Section 3.551

549 Section 3 of Part II consists of three articles: Articles 22, 23 and 24. Article 23 concerns only GIs
for wines and spirits, which are not covered by the Regulation. Nevertheless, the meaning of that article is
important in understanding Section 3 in general and Article 24 in particular. The Panel therefore refers to it in
its examination, where that is helpful.
550 See, for example, the Appellate Body report on US – Gasoline , DSR 1996:I, 3, at 16; Appellate
Body report on Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, DSR 1996:I, 97, at 104; and Appellate Body report on India –
Patents (US), paras. 45-46.
551 The parties referred to th e text above and below subparagraphs (a) and (b) as a chapeau and a
chaussette. The Panel attaches no importance to the allegedly sartorial format of the paragraph.

7.607 The principal verb in Article 24.5 is "shall not prejudice". There are various definitions of the
verb "prejudice" used in the three authentic language versions of the TRIPS Agreement. 552 The
ordinary meaning of the verb "prejudice" in E nglish can be defined as "affect adversely or
unfavourably; injure or impair the validity of (a righ t, claim, etc.)". The latter part of this definition
appears particularly apposite in this context since it refers to a right or claim, and the objects of the
verb in Article 24.5 are legal rights. However, the European Communities emphasizes that the verbs
used in the French and Spanish versions, préjuger and prejuzgar respectively, correspond to the
modern English verb "prejudge". The Panel notes that this is an archaic sense of the English verb
"prejudice" now analogous to its use in the phrase "w ithout prejudice". Other usages of the English
verb "prejudice" in the TRIPS Agreement outside Ar ticle 24 have been rendered differently in the
French and Spanish versions , which are equally authentic 553, to capture the sense of adverse effect or
injury, so that that sense should not be read into Article 24.5. Nevertheless, the essence of all these
definitions is that the provision does not affect certain other rights. The Panel's task in this dispute is
to determine the applicability of Article 24.5. For that purpose, it suffices to note that the verb "shall
not prejudice" denotes that the measures that are the subject of that provision shall not affect certain
other rights.
7.608 The United States argues that the word "p rejudice" connotes additional protection for
trademark rights under Article 24.5. However, the Panel notes that the word "prejudice" is relatively
common in all three versions of the TRIPS Agreement and the phrase "shall not prejudice" or "shall in
no way prejudice" occurs three other times in the English version, including once in another exception
in Article 24, and once in relation to prior rights in Article 16.1 itself.
554 Read in context, "prejudice"
simply appears to be a word which the drafters us ed to indicate that a particular measure shall not
affect certain other rights, including prior rights.
7.609 The objects of the principal verb in Article 24.5 are "the eligibility for or the validity of the
registration of a trademark" and "the right to use a trademark". The context indicates the relevance of
these rights in Article 24.5. The choice of words "the eligibility for or the validity of the registration
of a trademark" reflects the fact that these are the aspects of trademark protection which might
otherwise be prejudiced by the obligations to "refuse or invalidate the registration of a trademark" and
that "registration of a trademark ... shall be refused or invalidated" in Articles 22.3 and 23.2. In the
same way, the choice of the words "the right to use a trademark" reflects the fact that this is the aspect
of trademark protection which would otherwise be pr ejudiced by the obligations to provide the legal
means to prevent certain uses in Articles 22.2 and 23.1.
 555

552 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993); Le Nouveau Petit Robert: Dictionnaire de la
langue française (June 2000) and Diccionario de la Lengua Española, 21st edition, (1992).
553 See the final clause of the WTO Agreement.
554 The phrase "shall in no way prejudice" appears in all three versions in Article 24.8, and "shall not
prejudice" appears in Articles 16.1 and 53.2 in the English version. The phrase "without prejudice" appears in
Articles 10.2, 40.3, 50.6, 57 and 59, and the word "prejudice" appears in the exception clauses in Articles 13,
26.2 and 30 (and Article 27.2 in the English version), and also in Article 63.4.
555 The order of these two exceptions in Article 24.5 reverses the order of the types of protection in
relation to uses and in relation to registration of a trademark in Article 22.2 and 22.3 and in Article 23.1 and
23.2. However, it can be observed that the exceptions fo llowed the same order as th e corresponding rights in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the GI exceptions provision in the Brussels Draft, which were the predecessors of
Article 24.4 and 24.5 in the final version. Draft paragraph 1 referred to a GI that had been "used", "including
use as a trademark", and draft paragraph 2 only referred to "action to refuse or invalidate registration of a
trademark": see document MTN.TNC/W/35/Rev.1 dated 3 December 1990 entitled "Draft Final Act
Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilat eral Trade Negotiations – Revision", the so-called
"Brussels Draft". The phrase "including use as a trademark" was later deleted from paragraph 1, and prior
trademark issues, including the right to use a trademark, we re dealt with in Article 24.5 in the final version, in
that order.

7.610 The European Communities asserts that the words "the right to use a trademark" provide for
an additional positive right to use a trademark. Ho wever, in the Panel's view, the verb "shall not
prejudice" is not capable of supporting this interpretation. It does not provide for the conferral of new
rights on trademark owners or GI holders, but provides that the specifically mentioned rights shall not
be affected by the measures that are the subject of the provision. If the drafters had intended to grant
a positive right, they would have used positive lang uage. Indeed, Article 14(2) of the Regulation
(which was adopted prior to the end of the TRI PS negotiations) expressly provides that "a trademark
... may continue to be used" under certain conditions. In contrast, there is no language in Article 24.5
of the TRIPS Agreement which would provide for the conferral of a right to use a trademark. Instead,
it is a saving provision which ensures that "the right to use a trademark" is not prejudiced, or affected,
by measures adopted to implement Section 3 of Pa rt II. Irrespective of how the right to use a
trademark arises, there is no obligation under Article 24.5 to confer it.
556
7.611 Even if the TRIPS Agreement does not expressly provide for a "right to use a trademark"
elsewhere, this does not mean that a provision that measures "shall not prejudice" that right provides
for it instead. The right to use a trademark is a right that Members may provide under national law.
557
This is the right saved by Article 24.5 where it provides that certain measures "shall not prejudice ...
the right to use a trademark".558
7.612 The context in other paragraphs of Article 24 confirms the Panel's interpretation of "the
eligibility for or the validity of the registration of a trademark" and "the right to use a trademark", as
used in paragraph 5. Other exceptions in that artic le also refer to the implications of these two types
of protection. Paragraph 4 re fers to "continued and similar use of a particular [GI] ... identifying
wines and spirits"; paragraph 7 refers to "any re quest made under this Section in connection with the
use or registration of a trademark "; and paragraph 8 refers to "the right of any person to use, in the
course of trade, that person's name".
7.613 There is no reason to limit the "right to use a trademark" to tradem arks acquired through use
due to the optical symmetry between, on the one hand, the passive subjects of the first relative clause:
"a trademark applied for ... in good faith", "a trad emark ... registered in good faith" and "rights to a
trademark ... acquired through use in good faith" a nd, on the other hand, the active objects of the
principal verb: "eligibility for ... the registration of a trademark", "the validity of the registration of a

556 The European Communities raises the issue of a Member that provides additional GI protection
beyond that which is required by Article 22, in suppor t of its view that Article 24.5 imposes self-standing
obligations. It argues that in this situation Article 24.5, not Article 22 nor Section 2, would prohibit that
Member from invalidating or denying protection to prior trademarks inconsistent with that additional protection.
In the Panel's view, this overlooks the subject of Ar ticle 24.5 which is "measures adopted to implement ...
Section [3]". To the extent that measures implement GI protection beyond that which is required by Article 22
for products other than wines and spirits they are, by definition, not measures adopted to implement Section 3
and Article 24.5 is irrelevant to them. It has not been argued by any party that the Regulation is not such a
measure. See European Communities' response to Panel question No. 145 and United States' comment on that
response.
557 This is confirmed in WIPO publications, including Introduction to Trademark Law & Practice, The
Basic Concepts, A WIPO Training Manual (1993), pp. 51-52, and WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook:
Policy, Law and Use , (June 2001) at p. 82, cited by the European Communities in its rebuttal submission,
para. 324 and its response to Panel question No. 76. See, for example, Australia's Trade Marks Act 1995,
Section 20(1)(a), reproduced in Exhibit EC-58.
558 Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement only provides for a negative right to prevent all third parties
from using signs in certain circumstances. Article 15.3 permits Members to make registrability depend on use
and Article 19.1 permits Members to require use in order to maintain a registration, which might imply a right to
use the trademark, but any su ch right is subject to the general law. Article 20 does not preclude a requirement
prescribing the use of a trademark in a certain way.

trademark" and "the right to use a trademark". The operative parallel is between the rights which
shall not be prejudiced and the types of GI protection which would otherwise prejudice them.
7.614 Therefore, according to their ordinary mean ing read in context, the terms "shall not
prejudice", "the eligibility for or the validity of the registration of a trademark" and "the right to use a
trademark", as used in paragraph 5 of Article 24, i ndicate the creation of exceptions to the obligations
to provide two types of GI protection in Section 3. Both these types of protection could otherwise
affect the rights identified in paragraph 5. Indeed , the refusal or invalidation of the registration of a
trademark has no other function but to extinguish the eligibility for or the validity of the registration
of a trademark. Paragraph 5 ensures that each of these types of protection shall not affect those rights.
7.615 Accordingly, the Panel considers that Article 24. 5 creates an exception to GI protection - as
reflected in the title of Article 24.
7.616 Both parties submit that Article 24.5 implies cer tain things. The United States argues that the
term "validity of the registration" impliedly refers to all the rights which flow from registration,
including the right to prevent uses that would result in a likelihood of confusion. In contrast, the
European Communities argues that the use of the more specific language in Article 24.5 in fact
implies a limitation on the trademark owner's right to exclude use.
559
7.617 As to the United States' argument, the Panel not es the contrast between the use of the specific
terms "eligibility for or the validity of the registrati on" in Article 24.5, rather than simply "existing
prior rights", which is the language used in the last sentence of Article 16.1. The use of language such
as "existing prior rights" would have clearly preserved the right to prevent certain uses without any
need for implication. The more specific language used in Article 24.5 does not, which suggests that
Article 24.5 does not impliedly preserve that right. However, this does not mean that Article 24.5
authorizes Members to prejudice that right. Members may prejudice that right if there is another
provision that obliges or permits them to do so.
7.618 As to the European Communities' argument, the Panel considers that it is difficult to sustain
an argument that a limitation which is allegedly implied can prevail over an obligation in a WTO
covered agreement which is express. It is ev idently the position under the European Communities'
domestic law that an implied positive right to use a re gistered GI prevails over the negative right of a
prior trademark holder to prevent confusing uses.
560 However, such an interpretation of the TRIPS
Agreement is not possible without a suitable basis in the treaty text. The text of Article 24.5 expressly
preserves the right to use a trademark - which is not expressly provided for in the TRIPS Agreement –
and is silent as to any limitation on the trademark ow ner's exclusive right to prevent confusing uses of
signs - which is expressly provided for in the TRIPS Agreement – when the sign is used as a GI.
7.619 Accordingly, the Panel's preliminary conclusi on is that it is inappropriate to imply in
Article 24.5 either the right to prevent confusing uses or a limitation on the right to prevent confusing
uses.
7.620 The ordinary meaning of the terms in their context must also be interpreted in light of the
object and purpose of the agreement. The object an d purpose of the TRIPS Agreement, as indicated
by Articles 9 through 62 and 70 and reflected in the preamble, includes the provision of adequate
standards and principles concerning the availability , scope, use and enforcement of trade-related

559 European Communities' first written submission, para. 301; response to Panel question No. 147.
560 That position may be evidenced by, among other things, the express provision in Article 159 of the
Community Trademark Regulation that it sh all not affect the GI Regulation and in particular Article 14 thereof.
There is no such provision in Section 2 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement on trademarks that refers to Section 3
of Part II on GIs.

intellectual property rights. This confirms that a limitation on the standards for trademark or GI
protection should not be implied unless it is supported by the text.
7.621 The standards of protection in Part II of the Agreement and, hence, the procedures for their
enforcement under Part III, could be undermined by systematic conflicts between the standards for
different categories of intellectual property availabl e to different parties but applied to the same
subject matter. This is particularly apparent in th e case of trademarks and GIs due to the similarity of
the subject matter eligible for protection by those two categories of intellectual property and the fact
that the rights in respect of uses are indifferent as to whether the infringing subject matter is protected
by another category of intellectual property. The subject matter eligible for protection overlaps whilst
the rights conferred by each category intersect.
7.622 The European Communities submits that this is a conflict resolved by Article 22.3 (and
Article 23.2) by effectively giving priority to the GI.
561 The Panel agrees that Articles 22.3 and 23.2
can resolve conflicts with later trademarks but they do not resolve conflicts with prior trademarks that
meet the conditions set out in Article 24.5.
7.623 Both the United States and the European Communities agree that the simultaneous exercise of
two negative rights to prevent uses provided for in Articles 16.1 and 22.2 (and 23.1) can lead to a
conflict between different private parties who wish to use an individual sign as a trademark and as a
GI. The European Communities sees this potential for conflict as a matter which should be avoided in
the interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement. The United States distinguishes this from a conflict
between Members' obligations under the Agreemen t, and argues that the need for a harmonious
interpretation of the Agreement does not require th e treaty interpreter to resolve potential conflicts
between private parties.
7.624 The Panel notes that the parties do not dispute that Members may comply simultaneously with
both obligations in the TRIPS Agreement. They do not allege that there are conflicting provisions in
the treaty itself. 562 The general rule of treaty interpretati on requires us to interpret the treaty in
accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context in the light of its object
and purpose. The Panel has had recourse to supplemen tary means of interpretation, in particular a
draft text, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of the general rule of treaty
interpretation, which has not left the meaning ambi guous or obscure or led to a result which is
manifestly absurd or unreasonable. We would not adopt an approach in treaty interpretation that
produced a result that might, on one view, further the object and purpose of the Agreement, but which
is not supported by the ordinary meaning to be gi ven to its terms in their context. The following
statement by the Appellate Body in EC – Hormones appears apposite:
"The fundamental rule of treaty interpretati on requires a treaty interpreter to read and
interpret the words actually used by the ag reement under examination, not words the
interpreter may feel should have been used."
563
7.625 Therefore, the Panel concludes that, under Ar ticle 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, Members
are required to make available to trademark owners a right against certain uses, including uses as a GI.
The Regulation limits the availability of that right fo r the owners of trademarks which are subject to
Article 14(2). Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement is inapplicable and does not provide authority to
limit that right.

561 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 146.
562 In this respect, the Panel recalls the findings in the Panel reports on Indonesia – Autos at para 14.28;
Turkey – Textiles at paras. 9.92-9.95; and EC – Bananas III at paras. 7.151-7.163.
563 Appellate Body report on EC – Hormones, para. 181.

7.626 The European Communities raises two other defen ces that, in this respect, the Regulation is
justified by exceptions found in Articles 24.3 an d 17 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel will
consider each of these in turn.
(e) Article 24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.627 The United States argues that Article 24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement is an exception with
respect to the implementation of the GI Section of the Agreement and does not impose any exception
to the obligation to provide trademark rights under Ar ticle 16.1. The EC's interpretation would create
a major and permanent exception to the trademar k Section of the TRIPS Agreement which would
require a Member to apply all aspects of its pre-TRIPS GI regime to all GIs – including those
registered after 1 January 1996 – so that the Memb er would never fully implement the rights granted
to trademark owners by Article 16.1. 564 The "protection" of GIs, within the meaning of Article 24.3,
could just as easily mean protection as it relates to individual GIs as it could mean the general scope
or level of protection overall.
565
7.628 The European Communities argues that it is required to maintain coexistence of GIs and
earlier trademarks by Article 24.3 of the TRIPS Ag reement, which is a standstill obligation that
prohibits Members from diminishing the level of GI protection that existed at the time of entry into
force of the WTO Agreement. The Regulation provid ed for coexistence in Article 14(2) immediately
prior to the entry into force of the WTO Agre ement. If the European Communities allowed the
owners of prior registered trademarks to preven t the use of later GIs, this would diminish the
protection of GIs contrary to Article 24.3.
566 The standstill obligation applies to the general level of
protection of GIs available in a Member on 1 Janua ry 1995 rather than the protection of individual
GIs registered or applied for on that date. The rele vant verb, "existed", appears in the singular in the
French and Spanish versions, which indicates that it refers to the whole phrase "protection of
geographical indications" rather than the plural noun "geographical indications". It is an additional
obligation, not an exception. It refers to GI pr otection, which expressly includes protection vis-à-vis
trademark rights in Articles 22.3, 23.2 and 24.5. Those provisions limit the trademark obligations
under Article 16.1, as does Article 24.3.567 Article 24.3 applies "[i]n implementing this Section". The
Section includes Article 24.5, which prevents Me mbers from invalidating and prohibiting the use of
grandfathered trademarks.568
(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.629 New Zealand informs the Panel that no GIs were registered under the Regulation prior to the
entry into force of the TRIPS Agreement. In an y case, Article 24.3 is qualified by the phrase "[i]n
implementing this Section" and does not justify a breach of the Section on trademarks.569
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.630 The Panel now considers the European Communitie s' argument that it is required to maintain
coexistence of GIs and earlier trademarks by Article 24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. That provision
reads as follows:

564 United States' first oral statement, paras. 70-73.
566 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 272, 312-314.
567 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 74.
568 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 152.
569 Annex C, para. 158.

"3. In implementing this Section, a Member shall not diminish the protection of
geographical indications that existed in that Member immediately prior to the date of
entry into force of the WTO Agreement."
7.631 Article 24.3 appears in Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. The reference to "this
Section" is therefore a reference to Section 3, whic h sets out standards for the protection of GIs. The
"date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement" was 1 January 1995.
7.632 The scope of Article 24.3 is limited by the introductory phrase "[i]n implementing this
Section". It does not apply to measures adopted to implement provisions outside Section 3.
Trademark owners' rights, which Members must make available in the implementation of
Article 16.1, are found in Section 2. Therefore, Article 24.3 is inapplicable.
7.633 Turning to the ordinary meaning of the terms u sed in the rest of the provision, the principal
verb is "shall not diminish". This indicates that th is is a standstill provision, and that it is mandatory.
The parties do not agree on the meaning of the object of that verb, which is the phrase "the protection
of geographical indications" as qualified by the final relative clause. In the English version of the
text, that phrase could refer either to "the protectio n of GIs" as a whole, or to "the protection" of
individual GIs. In the French and Span ish versions, which are equally authentic
570, the verb "existed"
in the relative clause is in the singular, whic h indicates that the "protection of geographical
indications" must be interpreted as a whole. It is unclear in all three versions whether this refers to the
legal framework or system of protection in a Memb er that existed immediately prior to 1 January
1995, or to the state of GI protection in a Member th at existed at that time in terms of the individual
rights which were protected.
7.634 If Article 24.3 referred to a system of protecti on in a Member, this w ould have two important
consequences. First, as a mandatory provision, it would prevent a Member which had a system that
granted a higher level of protection than th at provided for in the TRIPS Agreement from
implementing the same minimum standards of protection as other Members, even if it wished to do
so. For example, in the European Communities, Ar ticle 14 of the Regulation entered into force in
1993 but was amended in April 2003 in respect of trademark rights acquired through use.
571 To the
extent that those amendments diminished the gene ral level of protection of GIs under the European
Communities' system, they would be inconsistent with Article 24.3 on its own view.
7.635 Second, a standstill provision for a system of protection would exclude from the scope of
Section 3 not only individual rights already in force under that system as at the date of entry into force
of the WTO Agreement, but also ri ghts subsequently granted under that system in perpetuity. This
would be a sweeping exclusion which would grow, rather than diminish, in importance, as an
increasing number of GIs were protected under the pr ior legislation. The Panel is reluctant to find
such an exclusion in the absence of any clear language to that effect, and none has been drawn to its
attention. In this respect, it can be noted that the TRIPS Agreement does contain an exclusion for a
type of system (in respect of phonograms) in Artic le 14.4 but it is optional, it clearly refers to a
"system" and it is subject to a proviso against abuse. Article 24.3 contains none of these features.
7.636 For these reasons, the Panel interprets the phrase "the protection of geographical indications
that existed in that Member immediately prior to th e date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement"
to mean the state of protection of GIs immediately prior to 1 January 1995, in terms of the individual
GIs which were protected at that point in time. In the present dispute, the parties agree that no GIs
were registered under the Regulation prior to 1 January 1995. Therefore, Article 24.3 is inapplicable.

570 See the final clause of the WTO Agreement.
571 See Council Regulation (EC) No. 692/2003, Article 13 and paragraph 11 of the recitals, set out in
Exhibit COMP-1h.

7.637 For all the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that Article 24.3 is inapplicable.
(f) Article 17 of the TRIPS Agreement
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.638 The United States argues that the European Communities has not shown that Article 14(2)
constitutes a limited exception within the meaning of Article 17 of the TRIPS Agreement. The United
States interprets a "limited exception" to connot e an exception which makes only a small diminution
of the rights in question. The blanket inability of trademark owners to prevent confusing uses is not
"limited" because it does not involve a small diminuti on of rights and there is no limit on the number
of potential users of a registered GI. United States trademark law, to which the European
Communities referred, allows fair use of descriptive terms otherwise than as a mark , i.e. in a non-
distinctive sense, and calls for a case-by-case analysis . The EC GI Regulation does neither. Even if
geographical names are descriptive terms, the Regulation allows registration of some non-
geographical names. Even if Article 14(3) of the Regulation prevents registration of well-known
marks, these are a narrow subset of all trademarks and, in any case, the analysis must be conducted for
each trademark individually. Article 17 presupposes a certain degree of likelihood of confusion for a
particular trademark but not the unlimited degree permitted by the Regulation.
572
7.639 The United States argues that the "legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark" could be
the owner's interest in the economic value of the ri ghts the trademark confers. The Regulation places
no limits on the manner in which a GI can be used which could, in most cases, destroy the economic
value of the trademark. It is not tailored in any way to the legitimate interests of a particular
trademark owner. The largest set of "third parties" are consumers, and also trademark licensees. It
should be possible to inform consumers about the or igin of a product and its characteristics through
the use of descriptive terms in a non-trademark se nse without confusing the consumer about the
source of the goods. Allowing confusing use of a GI harms the interests of consumers. Labelling,
misleading advertising and unfair competition laws are irrelevant because they simply add
prohibitions and do not affect whether a particular use is a trademark infringement.
573
7.640 The European Communities argues that, in the alternative, the coexistence of GIs and earlier
trademarks would be justified under Article 17 of the TRIPS Agreement. It considers that Article 17
is an exception to the obligations in Article 16 and that previous panels have taken the view that the
burden of invoking similar exceptions was on the r espondent. It accepts that it bears the burden of
proof. Article 14(2) of the Regulation is a "limit ed exception" because it only allows use by those
producers who are established in the geographical area on products that comply with the specification.
The trademark owner retains the exclusive right to prevent use by any other persons. Coexistence
falls within the example of "fair use of descriptiv e terms" because GIs are descriptive terms, even
where they consist of a non-geographical name, and th eir use to indicate the true origin of goods and
the characteristic associated with that origin is "fair".574
7.641 The European Communities argues that the legitimate interests of the trademark owner and of
third parties are taken into account because Article 14(3) of the Regulation would prevent the most
significant cases of confusion, and legislation on labelling, misleading advertising and unfair
competition still applies. The legitimate interests of the trademark owner are less than full enjoyment

572 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 198-201, 205-207; second oral statement, paras. 100 and
102; responses to Panel question Nos. 154 and 155; comments on EC responses to Panel question Nos. 153 and
156.
573 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 202-205 and 209-210.
574 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 315-318; rebuttal submission,
paras. 333-338, 348-350; responses to Panel question No. 75(b).

of all exclusive rights under Article 16.1 of the TRI PS Agreement. The legitimate interests of third
parties include the interests of producers who use GIs as well as consumers. GIs inform consumers
about the origin of products and take account of the interests of third parties in that way. Article 17 of
the TRIPS Agreement does not require the avoidan ce of all likelihood of confusion, otherwise it
would be superfluous, nor does it require confusion to be confined to that which is strictly necessary,
which would render the example of "fair use of descr iptive term" irrelevant. Article 17 calls for a
balancing of different interests which, in the presen t dispute, requires that account should be taken of
the fact that trademarks are arbitrary and much e asier to create than GIs and GIs are collective rights
and also serve a public interest of informing consumers.
575
(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.642 Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico and New Zealand indicated, in response to a question
from the Panel, that they provide certain exceptions to exclusive trademark rights. Examples included
honest concurrent use, prior use in good faith, co mparative advertising, uses for spare parts and
certain non-commercial fair uses.576
7.643 New Zealand also argues that coexistence is not a " limited" exception within the meaning of
Article 17 of the TRIPS Agreement because it ex cludes an entire group of producers from the
trademark owner's right to prevent confusing uses, which is a major exception.577
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
Introduction
7.644 The Panel will now consider the European Commun ities' argument that its particular regime
of coexistence between GIs and prior trademar ks is justified under Ar ticle 17 of the TRIPS
Agreement. The European Communities defends its re gime of coexistence "as such", not as applied.
Therefore, our consideration of this defence focu ses almost entirely on the terms of the measure and
its potential effects, rather than any actual effects. Nevertheless, we will refer to the few examples of
how the GI Regulation has been applied with respect to prior trademarks, where that is instructive.
7.645 The United States submits that the European Communities, as the party asserting that its
measure is covered by the exception in Article 17, bears the burden of proving that assertion. The
European Communities does not contest this position. 578 Therefore, the Panel will follow this
approach in the present dispute.

575 European Communities' first written submission, pa ra. 319; rebuttal submission, paras. 339-347;
responses to Panel question Nos. 153 and 154; comment on US response to Panel question No. 154.
576 See Annex C.
577 Annex C, para. 159.
578 All parties note that it was the approach of two previous panels to exceptions provisions in Part II of
the TRIPS Agreement: see Panel reports on US – Section 110(5) Copyright Act , para. 6.239; and Canada –
Pharmaceutical Patents, para. 7.16. This approach was not contested in those disputes and was adopted without
discussion, although the Panel in Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents observed that a respondent cannot
demonstrate that no legitimate interest of a patent ow ner has been prejudiced until it knows what claims of
legitimate interests can be made by the complainant. Similarly, the weight of legitimate third party interests
cannot be fully appraised until the legitimacy of the patent owner's legitimate interests, if any, are defined: see
para. 7.60 of its report. These practical problems also apply in disputes under Article 17. In this regard, the
Panel recalls the distinction between the rights and obligations owed by WTO Members to one another under
the covered agreements, and the rights conferred by Members on nationals by individual intellectual property
rights under the TRIPS Agreement. The burden of proof in WTO dispute settlement between Members relates

7.646 Article 17 provides as follows:
"Exceptions
Members may provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, such
as fair use of descriptive terms, provided that such exceptions take account of the
legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties."
7.647 Article 17 expressly permits Members to provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by
a trademark, which include the right provided for in Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel
has already found that the Regulation limits the availability of the right provided for in Article 16.1.
Therefore, to the extent that it satisfies the conditio ns in Article 17, this limitation will be permitted
under the TRIPS Agreement.
7.648 Article 17 permits "limited exceptions". It provides an example of a limited exception, and is
subject to a proviso that "such exceptions take accoun t of the legitimate interests of the owner of the
trademark and of third parties". The ordinary mean ing of the terms indicates that an exception must
not only be "limited" but must also comply with the proviso in order to satisfy Article 17. The
example of "fair use of descriptive terms" is illustrative only, but it can provide interpretative
guidance because, a priori, it falls within the meaning of a "limited" exception and must be capable of
satisfying the proviso in some circumstances. Any interpretation of the term "limited" or of the
proviso which excluded the example would be manifestly incorrect.
7.649 The structure of Article 17 differs from that of other exceptions provisions to which the
parties refer. It can be noted that Articles 13, 26.2 and 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, as well as
Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention (1971) as incor porated by Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement,
also permit exceptions to intellectual property right s and all contain, to varying degrees, similar
language to Article 17. However, unlike these othe r provisions, Article 17 c ontains no reference to
"conflict with a [or the] normal exploitation", no reference to "unreasonabl[e] prejudice" to the
legitimate interests" of the right holder or owner, and it not only refers to the legitimate interests of
third parties but treats them on par with those of the right holder. It is also the only one of these
provisions which contains an example. Further, Article 17 permits exceptions to trademark rights,
which differ from each of the intellectual propert y rights to which these other exceptions apply.
Therefore, whilst it is instructive to refer to the inte rpretation by two previous panels of certain shared
elements found in Articles 13 and 30, it is important to interpret Article 17 according to its own terms.
Limited exceptions

7.650 The first issue to decide is the meaning of the term "limited exceptions" as used in Article 17.
The United States interprets this in terms of a sm all diminution of rights. The European Communities
does not disagree with this approach. The Pa nel agrees with the views of the Panel in Canada –
Pharmaceutical Patents , which interpreted the identical term in Article 30, that "[t]he word
'exception' by itself connotes a limited derogation, one that does not undercut the body of rules from
which it is made". 579 The addition of the word "limited" emphasizes that the exception must be
narrow and permit only a small diminution of rights. The limited exceptions apply "to the rights
conferred by a trademark". They do not apply to th e set of all trademarks or all trademark owners.
Accordingly, the fact that it may affect only few tr ademarks or few trademark owners is irrelevant to
the question whether an exception is limited. The issue is whether the exception to the rights
conferred by a trademark is narrow.

to the first set of rights and obligations and not to the f act that a provision creates exceptions to the rights to be
conferred by Members on the nationals of other Members.
579 Panel report on Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents, para. 7.30.

7.651 There is only one right conferred by a trademark at issue in this dispute, namely the exclusive
right to prevent certain uses of a sign, provided fo r in Article 16.1. Therefore, it is necessary to
examine the exception on an individua l "per right" basis. This is a legal assessment of the extent to
which the exception curtails that right. There is no indication in the text of Article 17 that this
involves an economic assessment, although economic impact can be taken into account in the proviso.
In this regard, we note the absence of any referen ce to a "normal exploitation" of the trademark in
Article 17, and the absence of any reference in S ection 2, to which Article 17 permits exceptions, to
rights to exclude legitimate competition. Rather, they confer, inter alia, the right to prevent uses that
would result in a likelihood of confusion, which can lead to the removal of products from sale where
they are marketed using particular signs, but without otherwise restraining the manufacture, sale or
importation of competing goods or services.
7.652 The right provided for in Article 16.1 contains several elements and an exception could, in
principle, curtail the right in respect of any of th em. We recall these elements in the text of that
provision as follows:
"The owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all
third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade
identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those
in respect of which the trademark is re gistered where such use would result in a
likelihood of confusion." [emphasis added]
7.653 In principle, an exception could curtail the right of the owner in respect of the third parties
concerned, or with respect to th e identity or the similarity of the signs or the goods or services
concerned or with respect to the degree of likeliho od of confusion, or some combination of these.
There may be other possibilities as well. The overri ding requirement is that the exception must be
"limited" and it must also satisfy the proviso, cons idered below. These elements provide a useful
framework for an assessment of the extent to which an exception curt ails the right provided for in
Article 16.1.
7.654 The example in the text, "fair use of descrip tive terms", provides guidance as to what is
considered a "limited exception", although it is illu strative only. Fair use of descriptive terms is
inherently limited in terms of the sign which may be used and the degree of likelihood of confusion
which may result from its use, as a purely descriptive term on its own is not distinctive and is not
protectable as a trademark. Fair use of descriptive terms is not limited in terms of the number of third
parties who may benefit, nor in terms of the quantit y of goods or services with respect to which they
use the descriptive terms, although implicitly it only applies to those third parties who would use
those terms in the course of trade and to those g oods or services which those terms describe. The
number of trademarks or trademar k owners affected is irrelevant , although implicitly it would only
affect those marks which can consist of, or include, signs that can be used in a descriptive manner.
According to the text, this is a "limited" exception for the purposes of Article 17.
7.655 Turning to the Regulation, it curtails the trad emark owner's right in respect of certain goods
but not all goods identical or similar to those in re spect of which the trademark is registered. It
prevents the trademark owner from exercising the ri ght to prevent confusing uses of a sign for the
agricultural product or foodstuff produced in accord ance with the product specification in the GI
registration. We recall that, according to Article 2(2) of the Regulation, which is set out above at
paragraph 7.187, those goods must all be produced, processed and/or prepared in the region, specific
place or, in exceptional cases, country, the name of wh ich is used to describe them. Goods that are
not from that geographical area may not use the GI. Further, according to Article 4 of the Regulation,
all products using a GI must comply with a product specification. Products that do not so comply
may not use the GI even if they are from the geogr aphical area. The trademark owner's right against
all other goods is not curtailed. We note that ther e is no limit in terms of the quantity of goods which

may benefit from the exception, as long as they conf orm to the product specification. However, this
cannot prevent the limitation on rights of owners of trademarks subject to Article 14(2) from
constituting a limited exception for the purposes of Artic le 17, as fair use of descriptive terms implies
no limit in terms of quantity either, and the text indi cates that it is a limited exception for the purposes
of Article 17. The quantity of goods which be nefits from an exception may be related to the
curtailment of the rights to prevent the acts of making, selling or importing a product, but these are
not rights conferred by a trademark.
7.656 The Regulation curtails the trademark owner's ri ght against certain third parties, but not "all
third parties". It prevents the trademark owner from exercising the right to prevent confusing uses
against persons using a registered GI on a good in accordance with its registration. This is a limitation
on the third parties who may benefit from the exception. The trademark owner's right is not curtailed
with respect to any other third parties.580
7.657 The Regulation curtails the trademark owner's right in respect of certain signs but not all signs
identical or similar to the one protected as a tr ademark. It prevents the trademark owner from
exercising its right to prevent use of an indica tion registered as a GI in accordance with its
registration. We recall our finding in paragraph 7.518 that the GI registration does not confer a
positive right to use any other signs or combination of signs nor to use the name in any linguistic
versions not entered in the register . The tradem ark owner's right is not curtailed against any such
uses. If the GI registration prevented the trad emark owner from exercising its rights against these
signs, combinations of signs or linguistic versions, which do not appear expressly in the GI
registration, it would seriously expand the exception and undermine the limitations on its scope.
7.658 Under the Regulation, once a GI has been regi stered and a trademark is subject to the
coexistence regime under Article 14(2), set out above at paragraph 7.520, the GI may, in principle, be
used without regard to the likelihood of confusion that it may cause. However, the Regulation refers
to the likelihood or risk of confusion, with a gi ven mark, which would result from use as a GI of an
identical or similar sign, in Articles 7(5)(b), 12b(3) and 12d(3), in relation to the decision on whether
to register a GI where an objection is admissible. Article 7(4) and, hence, Article 12b(3), provide a
ground for objection where registration would jeopard ize the existence of a mark, and Article 14(3)
provides a ground for refusal of registration which refers to the trademark's reputation and renown
and the length of time it has been used. These fa ctors are relevant to the likelihood of confusion
which could result from subsequent use of the GI . We recall our finding in paragraph 7.521 that
Article 14(2) is an exception to Article 13, which presupposes a consideration of the similarity of the
signs and goods as well. They are essential to an analysis of a likelihood of confusion. Whilst
Articles 7(4), 12b(3) and 14(3) do not specifically refer to the concept of likelihood of confusion
between a GI and a trademark subject to the ex ception in Article 14(2), they, together with
Articles 7(5)(b), 12b(3) and 12d(3) can ensure that, in cases where the likelihood of confusion is
relatively high, the exception simply does not apply.
7.659 The United States submitted that Article 14(2) eliminates the trademark owner's right,
granting the owner only the right to continue to use the trademark. However, the European
Communities has emphasized that the trademark owner retains the right to prevent the use of a name
registered as a GI by any person in relation to an y goods which originate in a different geographical

580 The United States refers to a case of trademark infringement in which the German Federal Supreme
Court held that the concurrent use by Fiat of the SL trademark owned by Mercedes-Benz could put at risk the
very existence of that trademark. note that, in coming to its decision, the Court observed that "it could be
expected that other vehicle manufacturers might soon follow the defendant's example." See United States'
rebuttal submission, para. 173, fn. 167 and Exhibit US-67. The opportunity for all other potential competitors to
use a trademark does not arise under the GI Regulation as it only permits use of a GI in accordance with its
registration, including the product specifications.

area or which do not comply with the specifications
581, and that the positive right to use the GI
extends only to the linguistic versions that have been entered in the register and not to other names or
signs which have not been registered 582. Accordingly, on the basis of the terms of the GI Regulation
and of the Community Trademark Regulation, and th e explanation of them provided by the European
Communities, the Panel finds that not only may the trademark continue to be used, but that the
trademark owner's right to prevent confusing uses, is unaffected except with respect to the use of a GI
as entered in the GI register in accordance with its re gistration. In view of these limitations, the scope
of the exception in Article 14(2) falls far short of that which the United States initially claimed.583
7.660 Furthermore, the European Communities has explai ned that the use of a name registered as a
GI is subject to the applicable provisions of the food labelling and misleading advertising directives so
that the ways in which it may be used are not unlimited.584
7.661 For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Regulation creates a "limited exception" within
the meaning of Article 17 of the TRIPS Agreement.
The proviso to Article 17
7.662 Limited exceptions must satisfy the proviso that "such exceptions take account of the
legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties" in order to benefit from
Article 17. We must first establish what are "legi timate interests". Read in context, the "legitimate
interests" of the trademark owner are contrasted with the "rights conferred by a trademark", which
also belong to the trademark owner. Given that Ar ticle 17 creates an exception to the rights conferred
by a trademark, the "legitimate interests" of th e trademark owner must be something different from
full enjoyment of those legal rights. The "legitim ate interests" of the trademark owner are also
compared with those of "third parties", who have no rights conferred by the trademark. Therefore, the
"legitimate interests", at least of third parties, ar e something different from simply the enjoyment of
their legal rights. This is confirmed by the use of the verb "take account of", which is less than
"protect".
7.663 We agree with the following view of the Panel in Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents , which
interpreted the term "legitimate interests" of a pa tent owner and third parties in the context of
Article 30 as follows:
"To make sense of the term 'legitimate inter ests' in this context, that term must be
defined in the way that it is often used in legal discourse – as a normative claim
calling for protection of interests that are 'justifiable' in the sense that they are
supported by relevant public policies or other social norms."585
In our view, this is also true of the term "legitimate interests" of a trademark owner and third parties in
the context of Article 17.

responses to Panel question Nos. 76 and 153.
582 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 288, 293 and 301; responses to Panel question
Nos. 63, 137 and 140; and comment on US response to Panel question No. 137.
583 See United States' first oral statement, para. 75. The United States appears to acknowledge that the
GI registration does not extinguish the trademark owner's rights against other third parties, although it alleges
that use of the GI will affect the distinctiveness of th e trademark: see United States' second oral statement,
para. 101. The Panel considers that issue in relation to the proviso to Article 17.
584 European Communities' first written submission, para. 319; response to Panel question No. 153.
585 Panel report on Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents, para. 7.69.

7.664 The legitimacy of some interest of the tradem ark owner is assumed because the owner of the
trademark is specifically identified in Article 17. The TRIPS Agreement itself sets out a statement of
what all WTO Members consider adequate standard s and principles concerning trademark protection.
Although it sets out standards for legal rights, it also provides guidance as to WTO Members' shared
understandings of the policies and norms relevant to trademarks and, hence, what might be the
legitimate interests of trademark owners. The func tion of trademarks can be understood by reference
to Article 15.1 as distinguishing goods and services of undertakings in the course of trade. Every
trademark owner has a legitimate interest in preserving the distinctiveness, or capacity to distinguish,
of its trademark so that it can perform that functio n. This includes its interest in using its own
trademark in connection with the relevant goods a nd services of its own and authorized undertakings.
Taking account of that legitimate interest will also take account of the trademark owner's interest in
the economic value of its mark arising from the reputation that it enjoys and the quality that it denotes.
7.665 Turning to the Regulation, th e evidence shows that the owne r's legitimate interest in
preserving the distinctiveness, or capacity to distinguis h, of its trademark can be taken into account in
various ways. Article 7(4) of the Regulation provides that a statement of objection shall be admissible
inter alia if it shows that the registration of the propo sed GI would "jeopardize the existence ... of a
mark". This requires GI registration to be refused.
7.666 Article 14(3) also requires the refusal of GI re gistration in light of a trademark's reputation
and renown and the length of time it has been used , if a particular condition is fulfilled. This
addresses the distinctiveness, or capacity to distingui sh, of prior trademarks and can ensure that, in
cases where trademark owners' legitimate interests w ould be most likely to be affected, the exception
in Article 14(2) simply does not apply.
7.667 In the one instance in which Article 14(3) has been applied, th e European Communities
informs the Panel that its authorities:
"[T]ook account of the submissions made by the interested parties and by some
Member States, as well as of the discussions which took place within the Committee.
The main facts taken into consideration were the similarity of the signs; the
similarity of the products, having regard to the production methods and organoleptic
properties; the date of registration of the trademark; the recognition of the trademark
in the different EC member States, having rega rd in particular to the level of exports;
and the labeling practices of the trademark and the proposed geographical
indication."
586
7.668 This indicates to the Panel that Article 14(3) of the Regulation was, in fact, applied to take
account inter alia of the legitimate interest of the trademar k owners to protect the distinctiveness of
their respective marks.
7.669 In the other instance to which the parties refer, the registration of the three Czech beer GIs
contains an endorsement that they apply "without prejudice to any beer trademark or other rights
existing in the European Union on the date of accession".587 Although the European Communities has
confirmed that such an endorsement is unique and it has not explained in what other circumstances
such an endorsement might be possible, this exampl e does show that, at least in this case, not only the
legitimate interests of trademark owners, but also their rights, have been taken into account.

586 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 143. Although there is no supporting
evidence, all of the considerations cited by the Eu ropean Communities correspond to factors set out in
Articles 13 and 14(3) of the Regulation.
587 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 286-293; response to Panel question No. 142.

7.670 Where Articles 7(4) and 14(3) of the Regulation are unavailable, and a trademark is subject to
Article 14(2), there remains the possibility that its distinctiveness will be affected by the use of the GI.
We do not consider this fatal to the applicability of Article 17 given that, as a provision permitting an
exception to the exclusive right to prevent uses th at would result in a likelihood of confusion, it
presupposes that a certain degree of likelihood of conf usion can be permitted. In the light of the
provisions of Articles 7(4) and 14(3), we are satis fied that where the likelihood of confusion is
relatively high, the exception in Article 14(2) will not apply. In any event, even where the exception
does apply, Article 14(2) expressly provides that th e trademark may continue to be used, on certain
conditions.
7.671 We also note that the proviso to Article 17 requires only that exceptions "take account" of the
legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark, and does not refer to "unreasonabl[e] prejudice" to
those interests, unlike the provisos in Articl es 13, 26.2 and 30 of the TRIPS Agreement and
Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention (1971) as incor porated by Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
This suggests that a lesser standard of regard for the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark
is required.
7.672 The United States submits that Article 17 of the TRIPS Agreement requires a case-by-case
analysis and that a blanket exception a priori does not take into account the legitimate interests of
trademark owners. The Panel observes that Articl es 7(4) and 14(3) of the Regulation do require a
case-by-case analysis at the time of a decision on GI registration and, even though they do not require
a case-by-case analysis at the time of subsequent use, nothing in the text of Article 17 indicates that a
case-by-case analysis is a requirement under the TRIPS Agreement. Whilst it may be true that in the
United States the doctrine of "fair use" is app lied by courts on a case-by-case basis, we do not
consider that this is necessarily implied in the use of those words in the TRIPS Agreement.
588
7.673 The Panel notes that there may be situations wh ere, in order to take account of the legitimate
interests of the owner of a trademark and third parties, practical conditions may be required to
distinguish the goods with the trademark from those using the GI and to distinguish the respective
undertakings.
7.674 For these reasons, the Panel considers that th e exception created by the Regulation takes
account of the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark within the meaning of Article 17.
This finding is confirmed by responses to a questi on from the Panel which revealed that, of over 600
GIs registered under the Regulation over a period of eight years, the complainants and third parties are
unable to identify any that, in their view, could be used in a way that would result in a likelihood of
confusion with a prior trademark, with four excep tions. Three of these are the Czech beer GIs, the
registration of which is subject to the endorsemen t set out above. The only remaining example is
"Bayerisches Bier", in respect of which the co mplainants have not shown an example of actual
likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark.
7.675 We will now consider whether the exception cr eated by the Regulation takes account of the
legitimate interests of third parties.
7.676 The parties to this dispute agree that "third parties" for the purposes of Article 17 include
consumers. The function of a trademark is to di stinguish goods and services of undertakings in the

588 If there were any doubt on this point, can observe that this language in Article 17 was proposed in
the TRIPS negotiations by the European Communities and Austria, and was not apparently intended to reflect
the United States' practice: see "Synoptic tables setting out existing international standards and proposed
standards and principles", prepared by the GATT Secretariat at the request of the Negotiating Group on Trade-
related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, including trade in counterfeit goods, (document
MTN.GNG/NG11/W/32/Rev.2 dated 2 February 1990, p. 51)

course of trade. That function is served not only fo r the owner, but also for consumers. Accordingly,
the relevant third parties include consumers. 589 Consumers have a legitimate interest in being able to
distinguish the goods and services of one undertaking from those of another, and to avoid confusion.
7.677 Turning to the Regulation, Article 14(3) expr essly addresses consumers, by providing for the
refusal of GI registration where "registration is liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of
the product". In the one instance in which Article 14(3) has been applied, the European Communities
informs the Panel that:
"In essence, it was concluded that, although th e products were similar, the signs were
not sufficiently similar to mislead the public, having regard to the degree of
recognition of the trademark in the different Member States."
590
7.678 This indicates to the Panel that Article 14(3) of the Regulation was, in fact, applied to take
account inter alia of the legitimate interests of consumers.
7.679 The Panel also observes, once again, that a na me can only be registered as a GI where it is
used to describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff. It is a precondition to GI registration that some
consumers do, in fact, understand that the GI refe rs to the product from that geographical area with
particular qualities or characteristics, which means that they do not consider that it indicates the
trademark owner's goods.
7.680 The United States submits that the "third pa rties" for the purposes of Article 17 include
trademark licensees. This may be correct, but the le gitimate interests of trademark licensees are, to a
large extent, identified with those of the trademark owner, and can be taken into account at the same
time. It is not clear how their interests could be taken into account as a separate issue.
7.681 The European Communities submits that "third pa rties" for the purposes of Article 17 include
persons using a GI in accordance with a GI registration. The Panel agrees. Article 17 permits an
exception to the rights conferred by a trademark whic h include, according to Article 16.1, a right to
prevent "all third parties" from using certain signs. The basis of the complainant's claim is that those
third parties include GI users. It is logical that, if GI users are included in the third parties subject to
the trademark owner's right, they are also included in the third parties taken into account in assessing
the availability of an exception to that right.
7.682 The legitimacy of the interests of GI users is reflected in the TRIPS Agreement itself, to
which all WTO Members have subscribed. Under Section 3 of Part II, all WTO Members agree to
provide certain protection to GIs, although they re main free to determine the appropriate method of
implementing those provisions in accordance with Articl e 1.1. The definition of a GI in Article 22.1
reflects a legitimate interest that a person may have in identifying the source and other characteristics
of a good by the name of the place where it is from, if the name would serve that purpose.
Nevertheless, as "legitimate interests", the interests of GI users as third parties within the meaning of
Article 17 would be different from the legal protection provided for in Articles 22 and 23.
7.683 The Panel recalls that the example contained in Article 17 itself of "fair use of descriptive
terms" provides some guidance as to what may satisfy its proviso. Its use of the word "fair" and the
nature of descriptive terms illustrate a public policy concern that certain terms should be available for
use under certain conditions. Although GIs are intellectual property rights, and not purely descriptive
terms, the function of the terms in the example is analogous to a descriptive function of GIs and

589 This is confirmed by the reference in Article 16.2 to "the relevant sector of the public", in relation to
well-known trademarks.
590 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 143.

provides contextual support for the notion that the interest of GIs users in using a place name to
indicate their products is "legitimate".
7.684 Turning to the Regulation, Article 2(2) provides that a "designation of origin" or a
"geographical indication" "means the name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases, a
country, used to describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff ..." (emphasis added). There are
additional conditions relevant to th e origin and quality, reputation or characteristics of the product.
Further, the European Communities has confirme d that use of a GI remains subject to the
requirements of the food labelling and misleading advertising directives which prohibit certain
misleading and deceptive uses.
591 These considerations support the view that the interests of GI users
of which the Regulation takes account are "legitimate".
7.685 Article 13 of the Regulation sets out the protection conferred by GI registration. In providing
such protection, the Regulation not only "takes acc ount" of this legitimate interest, it also provides
legally enforceable rights.
7.686 For these reasons, the Panel considers that th e exception created by the Regulation takes
account of the legitimate interests of third parties within the meaning of Article 17.
7.687 On the basis of the evidence pr esented to the Panel, which is necessarily limited given that
Article 14(3) of the Regulation has only been applie d once, and for all of the above reasons, the Panel
concludes that the European Comm unities has succeeded in raising a presumption that the exception
created by the Regulation to the trademark owner' s right provided for in Article 16.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement is justified by Article 17 of the TRI PS Agreement. The United States has not succeeded
in rebutting that presumption.
7.688 Therefore, the Panel concludes that, with r espect to the coexistence of GIs with prior
trademarks, the Regulation is inconsistent with Ar ticle 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement but, on the basis
of the evidence presented to the Pa nel, this is justified by Artic le 17 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Article 24.3 and Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement are inapplicable.
D. OTHER CLAIMS
1. MFN treatment claims
(a) Availability of protection: MFN treatment under the TRIPS Agreement
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.689 The United States claims that the Regulation is incons istent with the most-favoured-nation
obligations in Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreem ent "and the Paris Convention" because it imposes
conditions of reciprocity and equivalence on the availability of protection. None of the exceptions in
Article 4 permit reciprocity in relation to the prot ection of geographical indications. It cites the
GATT panel report in Belgium – Family Allowances in which entitlement to an advantage for
imported goods made conditional upon the system of family allowances in the exporting Member was
found inconsistent with the MFN treatment ob ligation in GATT. The Regulation does not
immediately and unconditionally accord the same advantages with respect to availability of protection
that it accords to EC nationals. Nationals of WTO Members that satisfy those conditions are accorded

591 See supra at note 482 and European Communities' first written submission, para. 319; response to
Panel question No. 153.

more favourable treatment than nationals of WTO Members that do not. The conditions are placed on
third country governments but deny rights to third country nationals.592
7.690 The United States draws attention to a joint declaration by the European Community and
Switzerland for the mutual protection of GIs to be in corporated in a bilateral agreement. However, it
challenges the Regulation "as such". The terms of the Regulation prevent the European Commission
from determining that all WTO Members satisfy the conditions in Article 12(1): some may satisfy
those conditions but others do not. The Regulation cannot be administered in such a way that will
treat nationals of all WTO Members as favourably as each other and as favourably as EC nationals.
The availability of registration is conditioned on a country-by-country basis. If the Commission
refused to apply the Regulation to all third countries, this would theoretically ensure equal treatment
but would be inconsistent with the national treatment obligation. In any case, the Regulation does not
appear to permit the Commission to refuse to apply it to all third countries.593
7.691 The European Communities responds that this claim must fail. It argues that it does not, in
fact, apply the conditions in Article 12(1) of th e Regulation to geographical areas located in WTO
Members.594 It also argues that the conditions on availa bility of protection do not apply to nationality
but according to the location of geographical areas. 595 These defences were considered in paragraphs
7.52 to 7.103 above.
7.692 The European Communities argues that the joint declaration of the European Community and
Switzerland is irrelevant to this dispute because it is merely a political declaration stating the intention
of the parties to incorporate, at a later stage, provisions on the protection of GIs in an agreement on
trade in agricultural products, which has not ye t occurred. It argues that the conditions in
Article 12(1) of the Regulation are the same for all third countries which fall under that provision.
7.693 In the absence of a decision under Article 12(3) of the Regulation, Article 12 does not confer
any advantage on a third country. It no tes that, in GATT panel reports in both Belgium - Family
Allowances and EEC – Imports of Beef from Canada , violations were found after the respondents had
actually granted advantages to certain third countrie s. In response to a question from the Panel, it
indicated that if the conditions in Article 12(1) are fulfilled, the Commission will normally recognize
the country in question but Article 12(1) creates no legal "obligation" as against the third country.
This follows from the wording in Article 12(1) that "this Regulation may apply".
596
7.694 The European Communities does not contest that MFN treatment under the TRIPS
Agreement applies to more extensive protection gr anted in respect of intellectual property rights
addressed in the TRIPS Agreement.597

592 United States' first written submission, paras. 117-1 22; rebuttal submission, para. 104; second oral
statement, para. 60.
593 United States' rebuttal submission, paras. 107-108; first oral statement, para. 36; second oral
statement, para. 64.
594 European Communities' first written submission, pa ras. 231-234. From an abundance of caution,
the European Communities also stated its view that the product-specific conditions for the registration of
individual GIs are examined for each product individually and do not disc riminate according to nationality or
product origin: see its first written submission, paras. 235-238.
595 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 241-247.
596 European Communities' first written submission, pa ras. 239-245; first oral statement, para. 79;
second oral statement, para. 139; response to Panel question No. 112.
597 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 111.

(ii) Main arguments of third parties
7.695 Mexico submits that the Regulation violates the MFN treatment obligation in Article 4 of the
TRIPS Agreement. Article 12(1) of the Regulation prescribes treatment which discriminates among
third countries to the detriment of those which do not satisfy the conditions of reciprocity.
598
7.696 Chinese Taipei submits that the Regulation violates the MFN treatment obligation in
Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement. Having grante d protection to the nationals of a WTO Member
who hold GIs located in the territory of that Memb er, the Regulation denies the same advantage to the
nationals of other Members who hold GIs located in other territories.599
(iii) Consideration by the Panel
7.697 This claim is made under the MFN treatment obligation in Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement,
which provides, relevantly, as follows:
"With regard to the protection of inte llectual property, any advantage, favour,
privilege or immunity granted by a Member to the nationals of any other country
shall be accorded immediately and uncondi tionally to the nationals of all other
Members."
7.698 The following two elements must be satisfied to establish an inconsistency with this
obligation: (1) the measure at issue must apply with regard to the protection of intellectual property;
and (2) the nationals of other Members are not "immediately and unconditionally" accorded any
advantage, favour, privilege or imm unity granted by a Member to the nationals of any other country.
The Panel will consider each of these elements in turn.
Protection of intellectual property
7.699 The MFN treatment obligation in Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement applies "with regard to
the protection of intellectual property". Footnote 3 provides an inclusive definition of the term
"protection" as used in Articles 3 and 4, which is quoted at paragraphs 7.126 above.
7.700 The Panel recalls its findings at paragraphs 7.128 and 7.129 of this report that the conditions
of reciprocity and equivalence in Article 12(1) of the Regulation are matters affecting the availability
of intellectual property rights, in relation to "designations of origin" and "geographical indications", as
defined in the Regulation, which are part of a cate gory of intellectual property within the meaning of
Article 1.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.701 Therefore, this claim concerns the "protecti on" of intellectual property, as clarified in
footnote 3 to the TRIPS Agreement, within the scope of the MFN treatment obligation in Article 4 of
that Agreement.
7.702 It is not necessary to show that the Regulation implements the minimum standards in Part II
of the TRIPS Agreement for the purposes of these clai ms. MFN treatment applies to the protection of
intellectual property, even where measures provide a higher level of protection. Indeed, MFN
treatment under the TRIPS Agreement generally only has an independent application where a
Member grants to the nationals of any other country a level of protection that is higher than it grants
to its own nationals and higher than the minimum standards laid down in the TRIPS Agreement.

598 Annex C, para. 111.
599 Annex C, paras. 173-176.

Any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity gr anted by a Member to the nationals of any
other country
7.703 The Panel recalls its conclusion at paragr aph 7.102 that the United States has made a
prima facie case that the registration procedure in Articles 12a and 12b of the Regulation is not
available for GIs located in third countries, in cluding WTO Members, that do not satisfy the
conditions in Article 12(1). As a result, the Pane l found that GI protection is not available under the
Regulation in respect of geographical areas located in third countries which the Commission has not
recognized under Article 12(3), although GI protec tion under the Regulation may become available if
the third country in which the GI is located enters into an international agreement or satisfies the
conditions in Article 12(1).
7.704 This constitutes an "advantage, favour, privile ge or immunity" granted by the European
Communities with regard to the protection of intellectua l property. It is subject to the satisfaction of
the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, or the c onclusion of an international agreement, or both,
which indicates that it is not accorded "immediately and unconditionally".
7.705 However, that is not sufficient to demonstrate an inconsistency with Article 4 of the TRIPS
Agreement, as it must be shown that the advantage, favour, privilege or immunity is granted by a
Member "to the nationals of any other country". It is unnecessary for the purposes of this claim to re-
examine the issue of how the Regulation discrimin ates according to nationality, considered in
Section VII:B of this report, because the European Commission has not recognized any other country
as satisfying the conditions under Article 12(1) under the procedure in Article 12(3). However, the
United States challenges the Regulation "as such".
7.706 The Panel notes that various GATT and WT O panels have applied the so-called
"mandatory/discretionary distinction" as an anal ytical tool for evaluating claims brought against
legislation "as such". 600 Although the Appellate Body has not yet pronounced generally upon its
continuing relevance or significance, it has observed that its importance may vary from case to case
and it has cautioned against the application of this distinction in a mechanistic fashion.601
7.707 Turning to the Regulation at issue in this dis pute, the United States accepts that, theoretically,
a refusal to apply the Regulation to any third country would ensure that no advantage, favour,
privilege or immunity would be granted to the natio nals of any third country within the meaning of
Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement, although it would be inconsistent with the European Communities'
national treatment obligations under Article 3. 602 However, the United States submits that, where the
conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulation are satisfied, "it appears that the Commission would
have to make an affirmative decision to that effect".603
7.708 The European Communities does not indicate that the Commission would exercise any
discretion in an MFN-consistent manner by refu sing to recognize any third country but expressly
states that if the conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulation are fulfilled the Commission will
normally recognize the country in question. Its prim ary defence is that the conditions in paragraph 1
and the recognition procedure in paragraph 3 do not apply to WTO Members, which we have found in
Section VII:B of this report is not the case.

600 Appellate Body report on US – 1916 Act , paras. 61 and 88, citing the GATT Panel report on US –
Tobacco at para. 118.
601 US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 93.
602 United States' rebuttal submission, para. 108. It is also clear that the application of the Regulation to
all third countries would also be consistent with MFN treatm ent. However, it is not disputed that, to the extent
that the conditions apply, the Commission cannot recognize all third countries.
603 United States' response to Panel question No. 112.

7.709 In these circumstances, the Panel considers it appropriate to recall that, in view of its
conclusion at paragraph 7.213 above, even if the Commission can refuse to recognize all third
countries under the procedure in Article 12(3), this would necessarily be inconsistent with its national
treatment obligation under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Given that the Panel has already
found that the Regulation is inconsistent with that obligation, a further conclusion on the MFN
obligation would provide no additional positive contribution to a solu tion to this dispute. Therefore,
the Panel exercises judicial economy with respect to this claim.
(b) Availability of protection: MFN treatment under GATT 1994
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.710 The United States claims that the Regulation is incons istent with Article I:1 of GATT 1994
because it applies conditions of equivalence and reciprocity to the benefits of registration. It reiterates
its arguments from its national tr eatment claim under Article III:4 that the Regulation applies to like
products and is a measure affecting internal sale etc. and argues that, therefore, it is a matter referred
to in paragraph 4 of Article III within the meaning of Article I:1 of GATT 1994. It reiterates its
arguments concerning less favourable treatment of imported products and argues that these are
significant advantages granted to products imported from a third country that are not immediately and
unconditionally accorded to the products of all other Members.
604
7.711 The European Communities responds that there is no violation of Article I:1 of GATT 1994.
It reiterates its arguments in relation to MFN treatme nt under TRIPS that it does not, in fact, apply the
conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulation to geographical areas located in WTO Members; and
that the conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regula tion are the same for all third countries which fall
under that provision.605
(ii) Consideration by the Panel
7.712 The Panel notes that Article I:1 of GATT 1994 provides, relevantly, as follows:
"... with respect to all matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III,* any
advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by any contracting party to any
product originating in or destined for any other country shall be accorded
immediately and unconditionally to the like pr oduct originating in or destined for the
territories of all other contracting parties."
7.713 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7.22 7 that the Regulation is a law or regulation
affecting the internal sale and offering for sale of products within the meaning of Article III:4 of
GATT 1994. It therefore falls within the "matters re ferred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III" as
that phrase is used in Article I:1.
7.714 The Panel also recalls its finding at paragra ph 7.229 that the Regulation discriminates on its
face among products and that the European Communities does not contest that there are, among this
group, "like products" among the impor ted products and pr oducts of European Communities origin,
for the purposes of Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Pr otection under the Regulation is provided against
use of a name in respect of products "comparable to the products registered under that name". In the

604 United States' first written submission, paras. 123-127.
605 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 261 and 263. From an abundance of
caution, the European Communities also stated its view that the product-specific conditions for the registration
of individual GIs are examined for each product individually and do not discriminate according to nationality or
product origin. As such, there is no violation of Article I:1 of GATT 1994 and, in the alternative, they are
justified under Article XX(d): see its first written submission, paras. 262, 265-266.

Panel's view, this is sufficient basis to concl ude that there are "like products" among the imported
products of other countries including WTO Members for the purposes of Article I:1 of GATT 1994.
7.715 The Panel also recalls its finding at paragraph 7.704, that the advantage of availability of
protection is not accorded "immediately and unconditionally".
7.716 However, in view of the Panel's conclusion at paragraph 7.238 above, even if the Commission
can refuse to recognize all third countries under the procedure in Article 12(3), this would necessarily
be inconsistent with the national treatment obliga tion in Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Given that the
Panel has already found that, in this respect, the Re gulation is inconsistent with that obligation, a
further conclusion with respect to the Europ ean Communities' MFN treatment obligation would
provide no additional positive contribution to a soluti on to this dispute. Therefore, the Panel chooses
to exercise judicial economy with respect to this claim.
(c) Application and objection procedures
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.717 The United States submits that the Regulation "is inconsistent with the most-favoured nation
obligation of the TRIPS Agreement for the same reas ons that it is inconsistent with the national
treatment obligation of the TRIPS Agreement". 606 It argues that nationals of other WTO Members
can register their home-based GIs if they are from a country which agrees to substantial participation
in administering and enforcing the Re gulation on behalf of its nationals. 607 There is no room for the
Commission to determine that all WTO Members sa tisfy the conditions of the Regulation. Some
Members might be able to prosecute applications su ccessfully on behalf of their nationals but others
cannot.608 The United States also argues that the right to object is subject to WTO Members'
satisfaction of conditions of equivalence and reciprocity.609 For these reasons, the Regulation does
not immediately and unconditionally accord to nationals of all WTO Members the advantages
accorded to EC nationals.610
7.718 The European Communities does not respond specifically to this claim in relation to the
right to object. 611 However, in its description of the Regulation it argues that Article 12d grants a
right of objection to persons from WTO Members because the phrase "recognised under the procedure
provided for in Article 12(3)" only applies to other third countries. The conditions of equivalence and
reciprocity do not apply to WTO Members to the right to object. Otherwise, the specific reference to
"WTO Members" would be meaningless. This is also clear in Article 12b(2).612
(ii) Consideration by the Panel
7.719 The Panel recalls its findings at paragraphs 7.262 and 7.329 that the application and objection
procedures under the Regulation are matters affecting the acquisition of intellectual property rights, in
relation to "designations of origin" and "geographi cal indications", as defined in the Regulation,
which are part of a category of intellectual propert y within the meaning of Article 1.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement. Therefore, these claims concern the "protection" of inte llectual property, as clarified in

606 United States' first written submission, para. 118.
611 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 227-256.
612 European Communities' first written submission, para s. 73-75; first oral statement, para. 50;
second oral statement, paras. 86-88.

footnote 3 to the TRIPS Agreement, within the scope of the MFN treatment obligation in Article 4 of
that Agreement.
7.720 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7.352 that the procedure for recognition of third
countries under Article 12(3) of the Regulation does not apply to WTO Members with respect to
objection procedures.
7.721 The Panel has not found that there is any difference in the application and objection
procedures under Articles 12b and 12d of the Regula tion regarding the nationals of different WTO
Members. Any differences that arise in practice would appear to depend on the actions of various
other WTO Member governments. However, the MFN obligation in Article 4 of the TRIPS
Agreement applies only to any advantage, favour, priv ilege or immunity "granted by a Member", in
this case, the European Communities. The United States has not shown how the differences in the
treatment accorded to nationals of different Me mbers are granted by th e European Communities.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the United Stat es has not made a prima facie case in support of
this claim.
(d) Execution of the Regulation by authorities of EC member States
(i) Main arguments of the parties
7.722 The United States argues that nationals of EC member States – which are WTO Members in
their own right – are accorded more favourable treatment than nationals of WTO Members outside the
European Communities. EC member States are not ex cused from this obligation by the fact that they
are acting pursuant to an EC Regulation. Measures of EC member States are within the terms of
reference because the request for establishment of a panel specifies not only the Regulation but also
"its related implementation and enforcement measures".
613
7.723 The European Communities argues that EC member States do not grant "advantages" within
the meaning of the MFN treatment obligation because the Regulation is a Community measure
adopted to harmonize Community law and the Europ ean Communities is an original Member of the
WTO in its own right. The European Communities is the respondent in this Panel proceeding and
claims of violations by EC member States cannot be raised. In any event, the United States has not
identified any measures of EC member States.614
(ii) Consideration by the Panel
7.724 The Panel observes that in this claim the United States asserts, in effect, that nationals of EC
member States are "nationals of any other country " within the meaning of Article 4 of the TRIPS
Agreement, quoted at paragraph 7. 697 above. This, in turn, depends on the interpretation that each
EC member State constitutes "any other country" w ithin the meaning of Article 4 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
7.725 The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph 7.150 as to which persons are the European
Communities' own nationals. The Panel also recalls its findings at paragraph 7.98 that it has accepted
the European Communities' explanation of what amount to its sui generis domestic constitutional
arrangements that Community laws are generally not executed through authorities at Community
level but rather through recourse to the authorities of its member States which, in such a situation, "act

613 United States' first written submission, para. 121; first oral statement, para. 37; rebuttal submission,
614 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 249-255; rebuttal submission, paras.
252-256; second oral statement, paras. 145-149.

de facto as organs of the Community, for which the Community would be responsible under WTO
law and international law in general".615 Therefore, to the extent that advantages are granted under the
Regulation, by the Community and EC member State authorities exercising powers under the
Regulation, to the European Communities' own nati onals, those advantages are not granted to "the
nationals of any other country", within the meaning of Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.726 Therefore, the Panel rejects this claim, to th e extent that it is based on the execution of the
Regulation by the authorities of EC member States.
7.727 The Panel wishes to confirm that it has accepted the European Communities' explanation as to
the way in which Community laws are executed not only for this MFN claim but also for the national
treatment claims616. This has repercussions for the Europ ean Communities' defences to those other
claims, in particular concerning the application and objection procedures, as noted at paragraphs
7.269 and 7.339 of this report. The Panel has applied this explanation of the way in which
Community laws are executed in a consistent manner to all relevant claims in this dispute.
7.728 Finally, the Panel notes that the United States has also referred to the Paris Convention
(1967), which does not contain a MFN treatment obligation. There is no need to consider this further.
7.729 In summary, with respect to the MFN treatment claims:
(a) under Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement:
(i) with respect to the availability of pr otection, the Panel exercises judicial
economy;
(ii) with respect to the application and objection procedures, the United States
has not made a prima facie case in support of its claim; and
(iii) with respect to the execution of th e Regulation by the authorities of
EC member States, the Panel rejects the claim; and
(b) under Article I:1 of GATT 1994, the Panel exercises judicial economy.
2. Minimum standards of GI protection
(a) Main arguments of the parties
7.730 The United States claims that the Regulation is inconsis tent with Article 22.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement because it does not provide interested parties in other WTO Members which do not satisfy
the equivalence and reciprocity conditions , including inspection structures, the legal means to protect
their GIs on a uniform basis throughout the territory of the European Communities. Article 2 of the
Regulation provides that GIs for certain produc ts "shall be obtained" in accordance with the
Regulation and does not appear to pe rmit GI protection through other means. 617 Once a complainant
presents a prima facie case that a measure is inconsis tent with a WTO obligation, the respondent then
bears the burden to rebut that case by showing that there is no in consistency, which may include
demonstrating that other domestic measures eliminat e the alleged inconsistency. If there were other
measures somewhere in the legal system of the European Communities or its member States that

615 European Communities' second oral statement, para. 148.
616 See para. 7.98 above.
617 United States' first written submission, paras. 171-176; rebuttal submission, paras. 212 and 216.

compensated for the inconsistencies in the Regula tion, the United States submits that the European
Communities would have and should have come forward with them, but that it has failed to do so.
618
7.731 The United States also claims that the Regulati on is inconsistent with Article 22.2 of the
TRIPS Agreement because interested parties in ot her WTO Members must depend on their respective
governments to intercede on their behalf in the verification and transmission of applications.619
7.732 The United States also claims that the Regulati on is inconsistent with Article 22.2 of the
TRIPS Agreement with respect to objections because (1) persons who wish to object to the
registration of a GI cannot do so directly620; (2) the Regulation does not permit persons in other WTO
Members which do not satisfy the equivalence and reciprocity conditions the right to object 621;
(3) persons who wish to object to the registration of a GI must have a legitimate interest or a
legitimate economic interest in the European Co mmunities, but an interested party can be any
producer or seller established in the region fal sely indicated as the source in a given territory 622; and
(4) the grounds for objection based on a prior trademark in Article 7(4) of the Regulation are narrower
than the rights required to be made available under Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. A
registered GI could be misleading. Registration gr ants an affirmative right to use, which cannot be
prevented after registration, so that the right of objection to registration must be available to all
interested parties.623 The United States confirms that it do es not make any claim under Part IV of the
TRIPS Agreement but that a measure can violate both Parts II and IV.624
7.733 The European Communities responds that the conditions of equivalence and reciprocity do
not apply to WTO Members. 625 In any event, even if all the United States' arguments were correct,
the European Communities would still comply with Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement because the
Regulation is not the only means made available by the European Communities and its member States
in order to prevent the acts mentioned in Article 22.2. Specifically, additional means of protection are
provided in the foodstuffs labelling, misleading advertising and trademar ks directives, and the
implementing legislation of the EC member States, the Community Trademark Regulation and the
unfair competition laws of the EC member States. These laws have been notified under the TRIPS
Agreement and identified in responses to questions in the TRIPS Council review under Article 24.2 of
the TRIPS Agreement. These various measures and the Regulation apply cumulatively. They are
sufficient to implement the European Communitie s' obligation under Article 22.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement and are outside the Panel's terms of reference.
 626 The complainants were well aware of the
existence of these other measures. Had they been of the view that they were insufficient to comply
with Article 22.2 they could and should have menti oned them in their panel requests. They cannot
shift the burden of proof to the respondent simply by asserting that the respondent provides no means
of implementation.627
7.734 The European Communities submits that the transmission of applications is a modality of the
registration process. The United States has not s hown that it is unreasonable and inconsistent with

618 United States' response to Panel question No. 158.
619 United States' first written submission, paras. 177-178; rebuttal submission, para. 213.
621 United States' first written submission, para. 180.
623 United States' first written submission, para. 182; re buttal submission, paras. 215-216; second oral
statement, para. 69.
624 United States' response to Panel question No. 84.
625 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 422-423.
626 European Communities' first written submission, para s. 421, 433-436; response to Panel question
No. 159.
627 European Communities' response to Panel question No. 162.

Article 62.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Such a claim would be outside the Panel's terms of
reference.628
7.735 The European Communities submits th at Article 22.2 does not confer a right to object to the
registration of a GI. Even if it did, (1) the right s conferred under Article 22.2 can be made subject to
compliance with reasonable procedures and forma lities, and transmission through governments is
neither excessive nor unreasonable; (2) the conditi ons of reciprocity and equivalence do not apply to
the right of objection; (3) although persons who wish to object must have an economic interest in the
European Communities, this does not require them to establish or do business within the European
Communities; (4) there are grounds for objection un der Article 7(4) and it does not see what other
acts of unfair competition could arise from the valid registration of a GI. 629 The European
Communities agrees that a procedure for the acquisiti on of an intellectual property right may violate
both Parts I and IV, and both Parts II and IV, of the TRIPS Agreement, but Article 22.2 does not
regulate expressly the right of opposition and it may not be assumed that this derogates from the
generally applicable rules under Part IV. 630 Further, registration of a GI is not a "use" covered by
Article 22.2.631
(b) Consideration by the Panel
(i) Introduction
7.736 The Panel begins by recalling that the United States, in its request for establishment of a
panel, cited Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement in the series of numbered provisions and, in the
narrative text, paraphrased the text of subparagraph (a) of Article 22.2. It was clear on a plain reading
of the request that the series of numbered provisions was not to be limited to what appeared in the
narrative text, even though it did not pa raphrase subparagraph (b) of Article 22.2. 632 It is unnecessary
for the purposes of this report to distinguish furthe r between subparagraphs (a) and (b) as our findings
apply with equal force to both.
7.737 Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement provides as follows:
"2. In respect of geographical indica tions, Members shall provide the legal
means for interested parties to prevent:
(a) the use of any means in the designation or presentation of a
good that indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in
a geographical area other than the true place of origin in a manner
which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good;
(b) any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within
the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967)."
7.738 The term "geographical indications " is defined in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. It is
not disputed that registered "designations of orig in" and registered "geographical indications", as
defined in the Article 2(2) of the Regulation, are a subset of "geographical indications" as defined in
Article 22.1 and therefore relevant to the European Communities' implementation of Article 22.2.

628 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 424-426.
629 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 427-432.
630 European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 395-397.
632 See paras. 15-19 of the Panel's preliminary ruling set out in para. 7.2 above.

(ii) Equivalence and reciprocity conditions; examination and transmission of applications
7.739 The Panel recalls its conclusion in paragr aphs 7.213, 7.238, 7.281 and 7.307 that the
equivalence and reciprocity conditio ns in Article 12(1) of the Regulation, and the procedures for
examination and transmission of applications, ar e inconsistent with the European Communities'
national treatment obligations. Now we must consid er whether they also deny the legal means that
Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement requires the European Communities to provide for interested
parties who are nationals of other Members.
7.740 The Panel recalls its findings:
(a) at paragraph 7.102 that the United States has made a prima facie case that, due to the
applicability of the equivalence and recipr ocity conditions in Article 12(1) of the
Regulation, the registration procedure in Ar ticles 12a and 12b is not available for GIs
located in third countries, including WTO Members, that do not satisfy those
conditions; and
(b) at paragraph 7.272 that a group or pers on who submits an application in a third
country has no right to have its appli cation examined or transmitted to the
Commission where its Member government does not examine and transmit the
application.
7.741 Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement imposes an obligation on Members. The obligation is
owed to other Members, as the TRIPS Agreement creates rights and obligations between WTO
Members. In this regard, it can be noted that the dispute settlement system of the WTO serves,
inter alia to preserve the rights and obligations of Members under the covered agre ements (emphasis
added).
633 However, a particularity of the TRIPS Agre ement is that the assessment of the conformity
of measures with Members' obligations generally re quires an assessment of the manner in which they
confer rights or protection on private parties.
7.742 Article 1.3 provides that "Members shall accord the treatment provided for in this Agreement
to the nationals of other Members". That includ es the protection provided for in Article 22.2, which
obliges Members to provide legal means for "interested parties". The interested parties must qualify
as "nationals of other Members" in accordance with the criteria referred to in Article 1.3. These
persons can be private parties, which is reflected in the fourth recital of the preamble to the
agreement, which reads "[r]ecognizing that intellectual property rights are private rights".
7.743 Therefore, in order to determine whether the European Communities has implemented its
obligation owed to other Members in Article 22.2, the Panel must examine whether it has provided
the legal means required by that provision for interested parties who are nationals of other Members.
7.744 Naturally, the treatment that Members are oblig ed to accord under the TRIPS Agreement is
not limited to the bundle of rights conferred on indi viduals by the grant of an intellectual property
right. Whilst Article 22.2 sets out protection conferred by a GI, Article 16.1 sets out rights conferred
by a trademark and other provisions in each of the Sections of Part II set out the rights conferred by
other categories of intellectual property, these repr esent a subset of the treatment that Members are
obliged to accord under the TRIPS Agreement. All of the obligations of Members considered in this
report, including the obligations to accord national treatment and MFN treatment, form part of the
treatment to be accorded under the TRIPS Agreement, but only the exclusive rights provided for the

633 See Article 3.2 of the DSU.

owner of a trademark and the legal means for interest ed parties considered in Sections VII:C and D:2
of this report constitute rights or protection conferred on a person by an intellectual property right.634
7.745 Turning to the Regulation, we note that it make s protection available, in the sense that it
provides legal means to protect GIs. However, those legal means have not been provided to interested
parties with respect to GIs located in a third country, including a WTO Member, that does not satisfy
the equivalence and reciprocit y conditions, and the government of which does not examine and
transmit an application. These interested partie s include persons who are "nationals of other
Members" within the meaning of Article 1.3 of the TR IPS Agreement. Further, to the extent that the
legal means may be provided to interested parties wi th respect to such GIs, the Regulation alone does
not provide them, because protection is continge nt on satisfaction of conditions and execution of
certain functions by governments of third countries. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the United
States has made a prima facie case in support of its claim that the Regulation does not make available
the legal means to interested parties in accordance with Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
7.746 However, the obligation under Article 22.2 is placed on the European Communities , not on
the Regulation. The TRIPS Agreement creates positive obligations in Parts II and III to accord
protection according to certain minimum standa rds, in addition to the prohibitions against
discrimination found in the basic principles under Part I. In accordance with Article 1.1, the European
Communities is free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of the
Agreement within its own legal system and practice. It is not obliged to ensure that this particular
Regulation implements Article 22.2 where it has other measures that do so.
7.747 The United States has challenged the Regulation only, and not other means by which the
European Communities may have implemented Arti cle 22.2. In doing so, the United States has
complied with the requirement of Article 6.2 of th e DSU that it "identify the specific measures at
issue" and has not challenged any and all unsp ecified measures which th e European Communities
might have. Yet proof of the treatment accorded by that one specific measure may be inadequate to
demonstrate that a Member has not implemented a positive obligation to accord certain treatment.
7.748 The United States submits that the Regulation is an exclusive means of implementation of
Article 22.2, at least for agricultural products and foodstuffs, due to the terms of its Article 2(1),
which provides as follows:
"Community protection of designations of or igin and of geographical indications of
agricultural products and foodstuffs sha ll be obtained in accordance with this
Regulation."
7.749 This provision ensures that "designations of origin" and "geographical indications", as defined
in Article 2(2) of the Regulation, which are regi stered for agricultural products and foodstuffs under
the Regulation, are protected under the Regulation at the Community level. However, it is not clear
that this provision ensures that protection is ex clusively available under the Regulation. It may
simply reflect the matters set out in the eleventh recital in the preamble which refers to the pre-
existing "diversity in the national practices for im plementing registered designations of origin and
geographical indications" and states that "a Community approach should be envisaged". This does
not indicate that the Regulation is exclusive, particularly for GIs that are not registered under it, which
presently appears to include all GIs of the nationals of other Members.

634 The Panel is aware of the Appellate Body's comments in Canada – Patent Term , at para. 56, but
confirms the distinction between national treatment and MFN treatment, which must be accorded to the
nationals of other Members, and the rights or protection which must be conferred on interested parties in respect
of GIs, as intellectual property rights, for the reasons explained in this report.

7.750 The European Communities submits that it impl ements Article 22.2 through other measures
besides the Regulation, including the foodstuffs labelling and misleading advertising directives and
implementing legislation of the EC member States. It identified the foodstu ffs labelling directive and
other measures prior to the Panel proceeding as part of the Community's implementation of the GI
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement in a review in the Council for TRIPS and in a letter from
Commissioner Lamy to the United Stat es Trade Representative in January 2003
635 and it also listed
them in its first written submission and first oral stat ement. It also referred to unfair competition laws
of EC member States. 636 These other means of protection, while not specifically providing for the
protection of GIs, prohibit business practices which can involve the misuse of GIs. A broad range of
laws of this nature have been referred to by many Members, including the United States, in their
implementation of the provisions of Section 3 in the review conducted in the Council for TRIPS under
Article 24.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.637
7.751 Nevertheless, the United States chose to challe nge only the Regulation, as amended, "and its
related implementing and enforcement measures". It has not demonstrated that these alternative
measures, which lie outside the Panel's terms of refe rence, are inadequate to provide GI protection to
for interested parties nationals of other Memb ers as required under Article 22.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement. Therefore, it has not presented suffi cient evidence to raise a presumption that the
European Communities (as opposed to the Regulat ion) does not implement its obligations under
Article 22.2. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that , with respect to the equivalence and reciprocity
conditions and the examination and transmission of applications under the Regulation, the United
States has not made a prima facie case that the European Communities has failed to implement its
obligation under Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.638
(iii) Objections
7.752 The United States also bases its claim under Ar ticle 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement on four
arguments that relate to the rights of persons who wi sh to object to a GI registration, the fourth of
which concerns the grounds for objection available to trademark owners.
7.753 The Panel notes that Article 22.2 is found in Pa rt II of the TRIPS Agreement, which sets out
minimum standards concerning the availability, scope and use of intellectual property rights. The first
seven Sections of Part II contain standards relating to categories of intellectual property rights. Each
Section provides for a different category of intellect ual property, although at times they refer to one
another, setting out, as a minimum, the subject matter which is eligible for protection, the scope of the
rights conferred by the relevant category of inte llectual property and perm itted exceptions to those
rights. Section 2 provides for trademarks. Article 22.2 is located in Section 3, which provides for the
category of GIs. Whilst the provisions on protection of GIs affect the protection of trademarks, as
expressly recognized in Articles 22.3 and 23.2, Sec tion 3 does not provide for trademark protection,
except to the extent that trademark systems are used to protect GIs.

635 Exhibit US-73, attachment, page 1, supra at note 46.
636 Responses to the Checklist of questions received from the Eu ropean Communities in the TRIPS
Council "Review under Article 24.2 of the application of the provisions of the section of the TRIPS Agreement
on geographical indications", document IP/C/W/117/Add.10, dated 26 November 1998, set out in Exhibit
EC-29. European Communities' first written submission, para. 434; first oral statement, para. 35.
637 See document IP/C/W/253/Rev.1, pp. 6-8.
638 The Panel's findings are limited to the circumstances of this particular dispute and do not imply that
a respondent can avoid a finding of inconsistency with an affirmative obligation to implement protection simply
by asserting that alternative measures outside the Panel's terms of reference implement its obligations. It can be
noted that in previous disputes which also involved an obligation to provide particular "means" under the TRIPS
Agreement, the Panels and the Appellate Body referred to alternative measures which allegedly implemented
the obligation, but it was not contested that the alternativ e measures lay outside the terms of reference: see the
reports in India – Patents (US) and (EC) (documents WT/DS50/R; WT/DS50/AB/R and WT/DS79/R).

7.754 Article 22.2 does not provide for a right of objection to the registration of a GI.
Although Article 15.5 provides for a right of objecti on to registration of a trademark, no provision in
Part II of the TRIPS Agreement provides for objections to the registration of a GI.
7.755 Therefore, the Panel rejects the United States' arguments in support of this claim insofar as
they relate to objections to GI registration, including objections by trademark owners.
7.756 There are provisions on the acquisition and maintenance of intellectual property rights,
including GIs, in Article 62. These specifically refer to related inter partes procedures such as
opposition, revocation and cancellation, in paragraph 4, which is cro ss-referenced in paragraph 5,
where a Member's law provides for su ch procedures. The opportunity or right to object forms part of
an opposition procedure. However, Article 62 lies outside the Panel's terms of reference.
7.757 The Panel also recalls its finding at paragra ph 7.352 that the equivalence and reciprocity
conditions do not apply to the right of objection by persons resident or established in WTO Members.
The United States' second argument relating to objecti ons in support of its claim under Article 22.2 is
unfounded for this reason as well.
(iv) Conclusion with respect to Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement
7.758 In view of the findings at paragraphs 7.751, 7. 755 and 7.757, with respect to this claim, the
Panel concludes that the United States has not made a prima facie case that the European
Communities has failed to implement its obligation under Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
3. Claims under Part III of the TRIPS Agreement
(a) Main arguments of the parties
7.759 The United States claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Articles 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42
and 44.1 of the TRIPS Agreement because it denies the owner of a registered trademark the right
provided for in Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreemen t, and because it does not, with respect to a GI,
provide the rights provided for in Ar ticle 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. 639 It requests a finding that
the enforcement obligations of the TRIPS Agreemen t apply to the Regulation to the extent that it
makes unavailable to right holders the requisite enforcement procedures and remedies.640
7.760 The European Communities responds that these claims are unfounded because Part III of
the TRIPS Agreement does not apply to the Regulation. The Regulation lays down an administrative
procedure for the acquisition of GIs via a system of registration and does not purport to regulate
enforcement procedures, which are the subject of Part III of the TRIPS Agreement.
641
(b) Consideration by the Panel
7.761 These claims are made under the obligations with respect to enforcement procedures found in
Part III of the TRIPS Agreement. The obligations in Part III are applicable to acts of infringement of
geographical indications by virtue of the use of th e term "intellectual property" in Part III and the
definition of "intellectual property" in Article 1.2. However, the United Stat es' claims are dependent
on its claims concerning the minimum standards in Part II of the Agreement, specifically Articles 16.1
and 22.2. Given that the Panel has ruled on the claims under Articles 16.1 and 22.2, further findings

639 United States' first written submission, paras. 184-188; rebuttal submission, para. 218.
641 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 357-386, 390-397.

on the claims under Part III would not provide any additional contribution to a positive solution to this
dispute. Therefore, the Panel exercises judicial economy with respect to these claims.
642
4. Claim under Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement
(a) Main arguments of the parties
7.762 The United States claims that the inspection structures requirements force Members to adopt
a particular set of rules to implement the TRIPS Ag reement, contrary to Article 1.1. Protection is
conditioned on the existence of inspection struct ures that the European Communities unilaterally
decides are equivalent to those in the European Communities. 643 The United States does not
challenge the EC inspection system itself, it challenges whether the Eu ropean Communities can
unilaterally require that other WTO Members adopt its system.644
7.763 The European Communities responds that the requirement of inspection structures is
consistent with Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreemen t because it exclusively concerns GI protection in
the European Communities and not other Members' systems of protection.645
(b) Consideration by the Panel
7.764 Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement provides as follows:
"1. Members shall give effect to the provisions of this Agreement. Members
may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection
than is required by this Agreement, provided that such protection does not contravene
the provisions of this Agreement. Members shall be free to determine the appropriate
method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal
system and practice."
7.765 To the extent that this claim concerns th e equivalence and reciprocity conditions in
Article 12(1) of the Regulation, which condition th e treatment accorded to the nationals of other
Members on the system of protection in those othe r Members, the Panel has made abundant findings
in Section VII:B of this report.
7.766 To the extent that this claim concerns the inspection structures requirement for particular
products, the Panel recognizes that these requirement s may require inspections to take place not only
within the European Communities but also within th e territory of other WTO Members, for example,
where the specifications concern production processes or other matters not related to the physical
characteristics of the product itself. The eviden ce before the Panel does not disclose that these
inspections concern other WTO Members' system of protection but, rather, only compliance with the
product specifications, which are a feature of the European Communities' system of protection.
7.767 Therefore, the evidence does not suggest that th ey are inconsistent with the freedom granted
under the third sentence of Article 1.1. For this reason, the Panel rejects this claim.
646

642 In this respect, see the United States' responses to Panel question Nos. 82 and 83.
643 United States' first written submission, paras. 59, 64.
644 United States' second oral statement, para. 30.
646 This conclusion refers only to the United States' claim under Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement
and is without prejudice to the Panel's conclusion at paragraph 7.431 that certain aspects of the inspection
structures requirements are inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Those aspects contravene the
provisions of the Agreement within the meaning of the proviso in the second sentence of Article 1.1.

5. Claim under Article 65.1 of the TRIPS Agreement
(a) Main arguments of the parties
7.768 The United States claims that the Regulation is inconsis tent with Article 65.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement, which obliged the European Communities to apply the provisions of the TRIPS
Agreement by 1 January 1996, because it is still in consistent with several provisions of the
Agreement.647
7.769 The European Communities responds that this claim is de pendent on the substantive claims
and is equally unfounded.648
(b) Consideration by the Panel
7.770 The Panel notes that this is a consequential cl aim and considers that a finding on it would not
provide any additional contribution to a positive solution to this di spute. Therefore, the Panel
exercises judicial economy with respect to this claim.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
8.1 In light of the findings set out in this report, the Panel concludes as follows:
From Section A of the findings:
(a) the measures and claims in the United States ' request for establishment of a panel did
not fail to meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU that it identify the specific
measures at issue and provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint
sufficient to present the problem clearly;
(b) the claims under Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) are within the Panel's
terms of reference;
From Section B of the findings:
(c) the United States has made a prima facie case that the equivalence and reciprocity
conditions in Article 12(1) of the Regulation apply to the availability of protection for
GIs that refer to geographical areas located in third countries outside the European
Communities, including WTO Members, and the European Communities has not
succeeded in rebutting that case;
(d) the Regulation is inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement:
(i) with respect to the equivalence and re ciprocity conditions, as applicable to
the availability of protection for GIs;
(ii) with respect to the application pr ocedures, insofar as they require
examination and transmission of applications by governments;
(iii) with respect to the objection procedur es, insofar as they require verification
and transmission of objections by governments; and

647 United States' first written submission, paras. 189-190.
648 European Communities' first written submission, paras. 502-503.

(iv) with respect to the requirements of government participation in the inspection
structures under Article 10, and the provision of the declaration by
governments under Article 12a(2)(b);
(e) the United States has not made a prima faci e case in support of its claim that the
Regulation is inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement:
(i) with respect to the equivalence a nd reciprocity conditions, as allegedly
applicable to objections;
(ii) with respect to the standing requirements for objections;
(iii) with respect to the allegedly pr escriptive requirements for inspection
structures; or
(iv) with respect to the labelling requirement;
(f) the United States has not made a prima faci e case in support of its claim that the
Regulation is inconsistent with Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention, as incorporated
by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement:
(i) with respect to the equivalence a nd reciprocity conditions, as allegedly
applicable to objections;
(ii) with respect to the standing requirements for objections; or
(iii) with respect to the inspection structures;
(g) the Regulation does not impose a requirement of domicile or establishment
inconsistently with Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by
Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement:
(i) with respect to the availability of protection for GIs; or
(ii) with respect to the objection procedures;
(h) the Regulation is inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994:
(i) with respect to the reciprocity and eq uivalence conditions, as applicable to
the availability of protection for GIs;
(ii) with respect to the application pr ocedures, insofar as they require
examination and transmission of appli cations by governments, and these
requirements are not justified by Article XX(d) of GATT 1994; and
(iii) with respect to the requirements of government participation in the inspection
structures under Article 10, and the provision of the declaration by
governments under Article 12a(2)(b), and these requirements are not justified
by Article XX(d) of GATT 1994;
(i) the United States has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims that the
Regulation is inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994:

(i) with respect to the equivalence a nd reciprocity conditions, as allegedly
applicable to objections;
(ii) with respect to the objection procedur es, insofar as they require verification
and transmission of objections by governments;
(iii) with respect to the allegedly pr escriptive requirements for inspection
structures; or
(iv) with respect to the labelling requirement;
From Section C of the findings:
(j) the Regulation is inconsistent with Articl e 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect
to the coexistence of GIs with prior trademar ks but this is justified by Article 17 of
the TRIPS Agreement. In this respect:
(i) Article 24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement is inapplicable; and
(ii) Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement is inapplicable;
From Section D of the findings:
(k) the United States has not made a prima facie case in support of its claim under
Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement, with respect to the application and objection
procedures;
(l) the Panel rejects the United States' claim under Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement ,
with respect to the execution of the Regul ation by the authorities of EC member
States;
(m) the United States has not made a prima facie case that the European Communities has
failed to implement its obligation under Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement; and
(n) the Panel rejects the United States' claim that the Regulation is inconsistent with
Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
8.2 The Panel exercises judicial economy with respect to the United States' claims under:
(a) Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement (except as noted at paragraph 8.1(f));
(b) Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement, (except as noted at paragraph 8.1(k) and (l));
(c) Articles 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1 and 65.1 of the TRIPS Agreement; and
(d) Article I:1 of GATT 1994.
8.3 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations
assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of
nullification or impairment. The Panel concludes th at, to the extent that the Regulation as such is
inconsistent with the covered agre ements, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the United
States under these agreements.

8.4 In light of these conclusions, the Panel recomme nds pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU that
the European Communities bring the Regulation in to conformity with the TRIPS Agreement and
GATT 1994.
8.5 The Panel suggests, pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, that one way in which the European
Communities could implement the above recommenda tion with respect to the equivalence and
reciprocity conditions, would be to amend the Regulation so as for those conditions not to apply to the
procedures for registration of GIs located in other WTO Members which, it subm itted to the Panel, is
already the case. This suggestion is not inte nded to diminish the importance of the above
recommendation with respect to any of the Panel's other conclusions.