MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS

REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN, AMBASSADOR ALFREDO SUESCUM (PANAMA)

_______________

1.  I present this report on my own responsibility and without prejudice to the positions of delegations or to the outcome of negotiations under the mandate to establish a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications (GIs) for wines and spirits (the "GI Register") in the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS.

2.  Since my last written report (_TN/IP/34 of 4 December 2024), no new proposals have been submitted, and no Member has approached me to discuss the work of the Special Session. As I noted in my oral update to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) in May 2025, I have, however, maintained informal contacts with interested industry stakeholders to help gauge whether there may be any renewed interest in this issue.

3.  In the course of these informal contacts, I have sought to maintain a balanced approach by engaging with stakeholders across the spectrum, including both proponents of strong GI protection and those advocating for the safeguarding of common names. Interestingly, most stakeholders appeared unaware that the TRIPS Special Session remains in existence. They were also unaware that informal consultations have continued and that the possibility for engagement remains open. Nonetheless, most reacted positively to the opportunity for dialogue and indicated that they would reflect further within their associations and umbrella organizations, which could, in turn, inform how Members may choose to engage in the WTO context.

4.  The informal exchanges also revealed nuances in the views expressed:

·_              Initial views from proponents of strong GI protection suggest that a multilateral GI register could still hold potential value, particularly as a useful complement to developments such as regional and bilateral agreements and the Geneva Act of the WIPO Lisbon System. This new context, which has evolved since the last active phase of discussions in 2011, may change the vision of what may be a satisfactory or necessary outcome in revived negotiations.

·_              Initial views from stakeholders advocating for the safeguarding of common names suggested that it would be important to adhere strictly to the existing mandate, reflecting concerns that expanding the mandate beyond what is currently agreed might affect the balance between GI protection and the use of common names. These views did not necessarily reflect opposition to the concept of GIs as such but, rather caution about approaches that could reduce rights and protections, or restrict fair market access.

5.  Looking ahead, after the summer, I intend to continue my consultations and shift the focus back to delegations - including existing proponents, non-proponents, potential new active Members, and other interested delegations and stakeholders - to explore whether there is scope for renewed engagement within the mandate of the Special Session. As part of this process, and consistent with the three steps outlined by the Director-General, in her capacity as Chair of the TNC, for Members' consideration at the TNC meeting on 12 December 2024 (_JOB/TNC/125), I also intend to revisit the idea of holding informal information-sharing sessions. Industry stakeholders considered that such sessions could be useful, given the significant period of time that has passed since substantive discussions were last held. They would provide delegations - and in particular new delegates – with an opportunity to take stock of recent developments relating to GIs, while also becoming familiar with the history of the TRIPS Special Session.

__________