 
  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/IP/W/9 
13 April 2004 
 
 (04-1635) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights Special Session Original:   English 
 
  
JOINT PROPOSAL FOR A MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION AND 
REGISTRATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS 
 
Communication from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador,
  
New Zealand and the United States  
  
 The following communication, dated 6 April 2004, from the Delegations of Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Chile, Ecuador , El Salvador, New Zealand a nd the United States is being 
circulated to the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS.  
_______________ 
 
 
Questions and Answers
 
What are Members’ current obligations on geographical indications?   
 The TRIPS Agreement provides two kinds of protection for geographical indications. 
  Article 22 provides protection to all goods based on the objective of preventing unfair 
competition and avoiding consumer deception.  It requires that Members provide the legal means to 
prevent the use of a geographical indication that "suggests that the good in question originates in a 
geographical area other than the true place of orig in in a manner which misleads the public as to the 
geographical origin of the good", as well as "any u se which constitutes an act of unfair competition" 
within the meaning of the Paris Convention (1967).    
 Article 23 provides a higher level of protecti on for geographical indications for wines and 
spirits by prohibiting the use of GIs when the goods  do not come from the place named, even when 
the true origin of the good is indicated.  Article 23 also prohibits the use of a GI even when it is 
accompanied by expressions such as "kind", "type" or  "style", terms which are specifically intended to 
protect the consumer from deception as to the origin of the goods.
1 
 
 Article 24 affords Members a number of ex ceptions to the protection of GIs.   
  At the same time, the TRIPS Agreement prov ides Members with important flexibility on how 
to implement their obligations.  TRIPS Article 1.1 st ates:  "… Members shall be free to determine the 
appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system 
and practice."  Accordingly, governments around the world have implemented their TRIPS GI 
                                                     
 
1 The new kind of protection provided in Article 23, for goods falling under just two tariff lines, was a 
specific and limited concession granted in the context of a larger negotiating package during the Uruguay 
Round.  
TN/IP/W/9 Page 2 
 
 
 obligations in four main ways:  sui generis  registration systems, ad hoc statutes, certification and 
collective mark systems, and unfair competition systems.
2 
 
What is the purpose of the negotiations on  the register for wines and spirits?  
  The purpose of the negotiations is stated  in TRIPS Article 23.4:  "In order to facilitate  the 
protection of geographical indications for wines, negotiations shall be undertaken in the Council for 
TRIPS concerning the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines eligible for protection in those Members participating in the 
system " (emphasis added).
3 
  Participation in the system is voluntary
.  Also, the system should not add to or diminish 
Members’ existing rights and obligations  under the TRIPS Agreement, regardless of whether or not a 
Member chooses to participate in the system.  
 
 Members agree that, in the wo rds of the Chair of the TRIPS Council Special Session in 2003, 
"… the purpose of the multilateral system should not  be to increase the level of protection for 
geographical indications for wines and spirits provid ed for in the TRIPS Agreement, but to facilitate 
the obtaining of that level of protection".   
 Pursuant to TRIPS Article 1.1, Members ar e free to determine the appropriate method of 
implementing their TRIPS GI obligations.  Members are also free to determine for themselves whether or not a particular term qualifies for prot ection as a GI in its territory, consistent with 
Section 3 of the TRIPS Agreement.    What is the "joint proposal"?  How would it fa cilitate the protection of wines and spirits GIs? 
 
 The joint proposal seeks to facilitate the current  level of protection of wines and spirits GIs, 
while minimizing the burdens and costs for Member s and preserving the existing balance of rights and 
obligations in the TRIPS Agreement.
4 This is consistent with TRI PS Article 23.4 and paragraph 18 of 
the Doha Declaration.   
 
 Specifically, Members would establish a multilateral system of notification and registration consisting of a searchable database of all GIs for wi nes and spirits that are notified by participating 
Members.  The database would be available to Members in hard copy and on the WTO Internet 
website, and would be updated as required.   
 
 The system would provide national intellectual property offices with information on GI rights 
claimed by producers in the territory of another WT O Member.  This information could be used by 
national offices when making decisions regarding th e recognition and protection of GIs for wines and 
spirits, in accordance with national legislation.  Under the joint proposal, such decisions by national 
offices would continue to be made entirely at the national level, consistent  with Article 1.1 and 
Articles 22, 23 and 24 of TRIPS.  In making those decisions, WTO Members who choose to 
participate would commit to consult the system, along with other sources of information.   
                                                     
 
2 See WIPO document SCT/6/3Rev, from the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, 
Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications.  It can be found in WIPO document SCT/8/4. 
3 See also Paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration. 
4 See TN/IP/W/5 of 23 October 2002, co-sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, 
Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Namibia, New Zealand, 
Philippines, Chinese Taipei, and the United States.  
 TN/IP/W/9 
 Page 3 
 
 
  The system envisaged in the joint proposal would provide a new tool to help Members meet 
their TRIPS obligations.  Currently, national of fices do not have any single place to look for 
information about which terms are recognized in other countries as GIs.  The joint proposal’s 
multilateral system of notification and registration would, without impeding national sovereignty and 
the application of national law, provide the info rmation that national offices need to make better 
informed decisions with regard to both trademarks and GIs.  
  The information available through this system would thus facilitate the protection of wines and spirits GIs by making available to Members much  more information on the status of names used 
to describe wines and spirits around the world.   
 
Under the joint proposal, would participation in the system be voluntary? 
 
 Yes.  Members would be free to choose whether or not to participate in the system, as set out in the mandate under TRIPS Article 23.4.  Members who chose not to participate would not have to 
notify any GIs, and would not commit to use the system or consult the information therein when 
making decisions on GIs.  At the same time, how ever, non-participating Members would be free to 
consult this information if they chose to do so.  Re ferring to the system would not, by itself, constitute 
participation in the system.    What are the legal effects of the joint proposal?    
 There would be no legal effect whatsoever on Members who chose not to participate, as noted 
above.  
 For those Members choosing to participate, ther e would be no change to the substantive rights 
and obligations currently contained in the TRIPS Agreement.  These Members would commit to refer 
to the system for notification and registration when making decisions regarding GIs under domestic 
law.  In this way, the TRIPS obligations with re spect to GIs could be more easily implemented by 
WTO Members consulting the system.  Yet, all d ecisions regarding the protection of GIs would 
continue to be made in accordance with the domestic law of each WTO Member, consistent with 
current obligations in the TRIPS Agreement.  The decision by each Member regarding the legal 
means for implementing GI protection would be le ft in the hands of that Member’s national 
authorities.  The decision about whether or not a term  was a GI would also be left in the hands of 
national authorities.  The joint proposal would not be "TRIPS-plus".  
 Each Member would have the right to decide whether or not to participate in the system, 
including by determining for itself its capacity to op erate within the system.  A Member could decide 
to participate at any time.  A Member could deci de to withdraw its participation at any time. 
 
Under the joint proposal, what would happen if there were objections to a GI notified by a 
Member? 
  The existing rights and obligations  under TRIPS would apply.   
  Specifically, under the joint proposal all GIs duly notified by participating Members would be 
entered into the system for notification and regi stration.  The information in the system would 
include:  the date on which recognition was granted under the legislation of the notifying Member;  
the date, if any, on which protection expires;  and any international ag reements under which the 
notified GI is protected.  Decisions on the eligibility for protection of a notified GI in another Member’s territory would be made by that Member, in accordance with its own legislation and domestic procedures.   
TN/IP/W/9 Page 4 
 
 
  
 As is currently the case when an intellectual property right is contested, any party could 
choose to bring a challenge under the national law of the notifying Member.     Under the joint proposal, why is it not necessary  to establish a new system to resolve disputes, 
such as compulsory bilateral negotiations or binding arbitration?  
 As outlined in the preceding answer, all GIs dul y notified by participating Members would be 
entered into the system for notification and registra tion.  If a party wanted to challenge the eligibility 
for protection of a notified GI, it could do so in  accordance with the legislation and domestic 
procedures of the Member(s) in question.  There would be no need to establish a new international 
dispute settlement procedure given that the res ponsibilities for enforcing protection remain grounded 
in national law.  
 As is presently the case, if a Member believed another Member was not fully implementing 
its obligations under TRIPS, the complaining Member  could make use of the provisions of the WTO’s 
Dispute Settlement Understanding.    
Is the joint proposal "multilateral", as required by Article 23.4? 
 
 Yes.  All WTO Members are free to participate in the negotiations to establish the system, as 
set out in TRIPS Article 23.4.  Under the joint proposal, all WTO Members would have access to the information in the system once it is established.  A ll WTO Members could participate in the system at 
any time.    
 At the same time, the joint proposal is consiste nt with our mandate to establish a "multilateral 
system of notification and registration of geographi cal indications for wines eligible for protection in 
those Members participating in the system" (emphasis added).  Clearly, the drafters of Article 23 did 
not intend to compel all WTO Memb ers to participate in the system. 
  The joint proposal would be multilateral in the same way as the multilateral "Code of Good 
Practice" in Annex 3 of the Agreement on Technica l Barriers to Trade, which is open to acceptance 
by the standardizing bodies of any Member, but is not compulsory for all Members.   
__________  