ࡱ> 1 3         ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + 2 @ U bjbjFF X ,,QY$_Jd"H ,,,4,DVDVDVhV4[,0:aFNg(vgxlxlWm!DB=!103030303030303Rl5&30Q,SmWm30`,`,xlxl0 (((:0`,8xl,xl10(10(( j%,,M xl` ["(DV"'0<06V6xM ,,`,`,`,`,6,M PMd9 H(OT98MMM3030,0 ($.X(.,(World Trade OrganizationWT/DS290/R 15 March 2005(05-0936)Original: English EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS Complaint by Australia Report of the Panel TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. FACTUAL ASPECTS 2 A. Measure at Issue 2 B. Procedural History 2 1. Preliminary ruling prior to the first written submissions 2 2. Request for extension of time 3 3. Request for separate reports 3 4. Request for factual information from the International Bureau of WIPO 3 III. PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 A. Australia 4 B. European Communities 4 IV. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 4 V. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES 5 VI. interim review 5 VII. FINDINGS 14 A. Preliminary Issues 14 1. Consistency of panel requests with Article6.2 of the DSU 14 2. Measures no longer in force at the date of establishment of the Panel 22 3. Measures adopted after the date of establishment of the Panel 24 4. Claims under Article2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement 26 5. Claim under Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and, consequently, under Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement 27 6. Claim under Article41 in conjunction with Articles43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 49 of the TRIPS Agreement 29 7. Claim under Article20 of the TRIPS Agreement 30 8. Claims under Article4 of the TRIPS Agreement, ArticleI:1 of GATT 1994 and Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement 31 9. Claim under Articles1, 63.1 and 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement 31 10. Claim regarding application procedures under the TRIPS Agreement 31 11. Claim regarding the labelling requirement under GATT 1994 32 12. Endorsement of arguments by another complainant 33 13. Exhibits containing legislation of other Members 35 14. Request by a third party for a suggestion on ways to implement a recommendation 35 15. Order of analysis of claims 36 B. National Treatment Claims 36 1. Availability of protection 36 (a) Do the conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation apply to ϲʹ Members? 36 (b) National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement 49 (c) National treatment under GATT 1994 69 2. Application procedures 73 (a) Description of application procedures under Articles5 and 12a of the Regulation 73 (b) National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement 74 (c) National treatment under GATT 1994 80 3. Objection procedures 85 (a) Description of objection procedures under Articles7, 12b and 12d of the Regulation 85 (b) National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement 86 4. Regulatory committee 92 (a) Description of procedure laid down in Article15 of the Regulation 92 (b) National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement 93 (c) National treatment under GATT 1994 95 5. Labelling requirement 96 (a) Factual aspects of the labelling requirement in Article12(2) of the Regulation 96 (b) National treatment under the TBT Agreement 100 C. Trade-Restrictiveness Claim 110 1. Inspection structures 110 (a) Description of inspection structures (Articles4.2(g), 10 and 12a of the Regulation) 110 (b) Trade-restrictiveness under the TBT Agreement 112 D. Trademark Claims 117 1. The relationship between GIs and prior trademarks 117 (a) Introduction 117 (b) Description of Article14(2) of the Regulation 118 (c) Article14(3) of the Regulation 121 (d) Relationship between protection of GIs and prior trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement 130 (e) Article24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement 139 (f) Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement 141 2. Identical signs for identical goods 150 (a) Presumption of confusion 150 3. Trademark owners' right to object to GI registration 152 (a) Admissibility of objections 152 (b) Consideration of objections 153 E. Other Claims 154 1. Minimum standards of GI protection 154 2. Articles10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention (1967) 156 3. Claims under Part III of the TRIPS Agreement 159 4. Claims concerning transitional national protection 159 5. Claims concerning individual registrations 160 6. Claim under Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement 163 7. Consequential claims 164 VIII. conclusions and recommendation 164 LIST OF ANNEXES ANNEX A SUBMISSIONS BY AUSTRALIA ContentsPageAnnex A-1 Australia's Response to the European Communities' Request for a Preliminary Ruling (15 March 2004)A-2Annex A-2 First Written Submission of Australia (23 April 2004)A-14Annex A-3 Oral Statement of Australia First Substantive Meeting (23June2004)A-81Annex A-4 Replies by Australia to Questions posed by the Panel and the European Communities to the Complaining Parties following the First Substantive Meeting (8 July 2004)A-87Annex A-5 Written Rebuttal Submission of Australia (22 July 2004)A-117Annex A-6 Opening Statement of Australia Second Substantive Meeting (11August 2004)A-166Annex A-7 Closing Statement of Australia Second Substantive Meeting (12August 2004)A-183Annex A-8 Replies by Australia to Questions posed by the Panel following the Second Substantive Meeting (26 August 2004)A-185Annex A-9 Comments of Australia on the European Communities' Replies to Questions posed by the Panel and to Questions posed by Australia following the Second Substantive Meeting (2 September 2004)A-216Annex A-10 Comments of Australia on the Reply of the International Bureau of WIPO to the Panel's Letter of 9July 2004 (28September 2004)A-230 ANNEX B SUBMISSIONS BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ContentsPageAnnex B-1 European Communities' Request for a Preliminary Ruling (24February2004)B-2Annex B-2 First Written Submission of the European Communities (25 May 2004)B-20Annex B-3 Oral Statement of the European Communities First Substantive Meeting (23June2004)B-107Annex B-4 Replies by the European Communities to Questions posed by the Panel following the First Substantive Meeting (8 July 2004)B-121Annex B-5 Second Written Submission of the European Communities (22July2004)B-164Annex B-6 Oral Statement of the European Communities Second Substantive Meeting (11August 2004)B-238Annex B-7 Replies by the European Communities to Questions posed by the Panel following the Second Substantive Meeting (26 August 2004)B-288Annex B-8 Replies by the European Communities to Questions posed by Australia following the Second Substantive Meeting (26 August 2004)B-347Annex B-9 Comments of the European Communities on Australia's and the UnitedStates' Replies to Questions posed by the Panel following the Second Substantive Meeting (2September 2004)B-351Annex B-10 Comments of the European Communities on the Reply of the International Bureau of WIPO to the Panel's Letter of 9July2004 (28September 2004)B-376 ANNEX C ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES PageARGENTINAC-1BRAZILC-5CANADAC-10CHINAC-19COLOMBIAC-25INDIAC-26MEXICOC-27NEW ZEALANDC-31SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSUC-44EXHIBIT NZ-1C-49EXHIBIT NZ-2C-52 ANNEX D MISCELLANEOUS ContentsPageAnnex D-1 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by AustraliaD-2Annex D-2 Letter dated 9 July 2004 from the Panel to the International Bureau of WIPOD-4Annex D-3 Reply from the International Bureau of WIPO to the Panel's Letter dated 9 July 2004, received by the Panel and the ϲʹ Secretariat on 14September 2004D-5 TABLE OF CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT Short TitleFull Case Title and CitationArgentina Footwear(EC)Appellate Body Report, Argentina Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12January2000, DSR2000:I,515Australia SalmonAppellate Body Report, Australia Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6November1998, DSR1998:VIII, 3327Brazil AircraftAppellate Body Report, Brazil Export Financing Programme for Aircraft, WT/DS46/AB/R, adopted 20August1999, DSR1999:III,1161Canada Patent TermAppellate Body Report, Canada Term of Patent Protection, WT/DS170/AB/R, adopted 12October2000, DSR2000:X, 5093Canada PeriodicalsAppellate Body Report, Canada Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30July1997, DSR1997:I,449Canada Pharmaceutical PatentsPanel Report, Canada Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R, adopted 7April2000, DSR2000:V,2289ECAsbestosAppellate Body Report, European Communities Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5April2001, DSR 2001:VII, 3243ECBananasIIIAppellate Body Report, European Communities Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25September1997, DSR1997:II,591ECBananasIII (US)Panel Report, European Communities Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas Complaint by the United States, WT/DS27/R/USA, adopted 25September1997, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR1997:II,943ECHormonesAppellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13February1998, DSR1998:I,135ECSardinesAppellate Body Report, European Communities Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23October2002ECTariff PreferencesAppellate Body Report, European Communities Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted 20 April 2004.EEC Parts and ComponentsGATT Panel Report, European Economic Community Regulation on Imports of Parts and Components, adopted 16May1990, BISD37S/132India Patents(US)Appellate Body Report, India Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16January1998, DSR1998:I,9India Patents(US)Panel Report, India Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products Complaint by the United States, WT/DS50/R, adopted 16January1998, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS50/AB/R, DSR1998:I,41India Patents(EC)Panel Report, India Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products Complaint by the European Communities, WT/DS79/R, adopted 22September1998, DSR1998:VI,2661Indonesia AutosPanel Report, Indonesia Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R and Corr.1, 2, 3, and 4, adopted 23July1998, DSR1998:VI,2201Japan Alcoholic BeveragesIIAppellate Body Report, Japan Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1November1996, DSR1996:I,97 Korea DairyAppellate Body Report, Korea Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12January2000, DSR2000:I,3Korea Various Measures on BeefAppellate Body Report, Korea Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10January2001, DSR2001:I, 5Korea Various Measures on BeefPanel Report, Korea Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/R, WT/DS169/R, adopted 10January2001, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, DSR2001:I, 59Thailand H-BeamsAppellate Body Report, Thailand Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/AB/R, adopted 5April2001, DSR 2001:VII, 2701Turkey TextilesPanel Report, Turkey Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, WT/DS34/R, adopted 19November1999, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS34/AB/R, DSR1999:VI,2363US 1916ActAppellate Body Report, United States Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted 26September2000, DSR2000:X, 4793US Carbon SteelAppellate Body Report, United States Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany, WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19December2002US Certain EC ProductsAppellate Body Report, United States Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, WT/DS165/AB/R, adopted 10January2001, DSR2001:I, 373US Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset ReviewAppellate Body Report, United States Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan, WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004US FSC (Article 21.5 EC)Appellate Body Report, United States Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities, WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29January2002US GasolineAppellate Body Report, United States Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20May1996, DSR1996:I,3US Section 110(5) Copyright ActPanel Report, United States Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, adopted 27July2000, DSR2000:VIII, 3769US Section211 Appropriations ActAppellate Body Report, United States Section211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, WT/DS176/AB/R, adopted 1February2002US Section301 Trade ActPanel Report, United States Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, WT/DS152/R, adopted 27January2000, DSR2000:II,815US Section 337GATT Panel Report, United States Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, adopted 7November1989, BISD36S/345 INTRODUCTION On 17 April 2003, Australia requested consultations with the European Communities pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT1994"), Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS Agreement") and Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade ("TBTAgreement") concerning the protection of trademarks and the registration and protection of geographical indications for foodstuffs and agricultural products in the European Communities. The request was circulated to Members on 23 April 2003 in document WT/DS290/1. Consultations were held on 27 May 2003 but did not lead to a resolution of the dispute. On 18 August 2003, Australia requested the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") to establish a panel pursuant to Articles4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994, Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 14 of the TBT Agreement. 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). At that meeting, the parties to the 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." 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. On 23 February 2004, the Director-General accordingly composed the Panel as follows: Chair: Mr Miguel Rodrguez Mendoza Members: Prof. Seung Wha Chang Mr Peter Kam-fai Cheung Argentina, Australia (in respect of the United States' complaint), Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (hereinafter referred to as "Chinese Taipei"), Turkey and the UnitedStates (in respect of Australia's complaint) reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties. The Panel met with the parties on 23-24 June 2004 and on 11-12 August 2004. It met with the third parties on 24June 2004. The Panel submitted its interim report to the parties on 16 November 2004. The Panel submitted its final report to the parties on 21 December 2004. FACTUAL ASPECTS Measure at Issue The measure at issue in this dispute is identified in Australia's request for establishment of a panel as 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, any amendments thereto (including Council Regulation (EC) No. 692/2003 of 8 April 2003, published in the Official Journal of the European Union No. L99 of 17April 2003), and related implementing and enforcement measures. Procedural History Preliminary ruling prior to the first written submissions 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. The European Communities considered it appropriate that the Panel issue a preliminary ruling before the first written submissions of the parties were due. At the organizational meeting, the Panel sought the parties' views on appropriate 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 submissions but requested additional time for the filing of their first written submissions. 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. On 5 April 2004, the Panel issued a preliminary ruling, which is set out in full in SectionVII:A of this report. 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 raise issues of law regarding the interpretation of Article6.2 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 reports and whether the findings contained in the ruling would be an integral part of the final reports. 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. 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 the Panel's final reports, and could, therefore, be appealed in the same way as any legal interpretation contained in these reports. 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. Request for extension of time 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 large number of claims. It also alleged that the timetable was unbalanced in favour of the complainants. On 16 March 2004, the United States and Australia 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. On 22 March 2004, the Panel revised its timetable, 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. Request for separate reports On 3 March 2004, after the conclusion of the Panel'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 Panel acknowledged receipt of such request. The complainants did not comment on this request. On 23 April 2004, the Panel informed the parties that it would submit separate reports on this dispute, as requested by the European Communities. 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 Panel 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 separate responses to questions, although they did submit 16 common exhibits with their respective first written submissions; (c) the complainants have not collectively endorsed the arguments made in one another's submissions although Australia, in its first oral statement, expressly endorsed certain comments made by the United States, and the UnitedStates, on occasions, cited information and arguments submitted by Australia in support of its arguments; and (d) although each complainant reserved 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. Request for factual information from the International Bureau of WIPO 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 available to it relevant to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The parties were given the opportunity to comment. The International Bureau's reply was received by the Panel and the ϲʹ Secretariat on 14September 2004. The Panel gave the parties an opportunity to submit comments on the reply by 28 September 2004. The parties submitted their comments accordingly. The factual information provided by the International Bureau consists of a note it prepared and five annexes containing excerpts from the Official Records of the various Diplomatic Conferences which adopted, amended or revised the provisions currently contained in Articles2 and 3 of the Paris Convention (Stockholm Act of 1967). PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Australia Australia requests that the Panel find that the measures at issue are inconsistent with the European Communities' obligations under: Articles1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 16.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.3, 42, and 65.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, incorporating Articles2(1) and 2(2), 10bis(1) and 10ter(1) of the Paris Convention (1967); Article III:4 of GATT 1994; Articles2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the ϲʹ Agreement. Australia requests that the Panel recommend that the European Communities bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the ϲʹ Agreement, including in respect of the TRIPS Agreement, GATT 1994 and the TBT Agreement. European Communities The European Communities requests that the Panel: find that certain measures no longer in force or not yet adopted at the time the Panel was established, and Australia's claims "under Articles43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 of the TRIPS Agreement", under Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) and "under Article 4 of the Paris Convention (1967)" as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, are outside the Panel's terms of reference; and reject all claims within the Panel's terms of reference. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES The arguments of the European Communities and Australia, as set out in their submissions (European Communities' request for a preliminary ruling; Australia's response to the European Communities' request for 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 International Bureau of WIPO), are attached as Annexes A and B. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES The arguments of those third parties that made submissions to the Panel (first written submissions, oral statements and responses to questions) are summarized and attached as Annex C. interim review On 16 November 2004, the Panel submitted its interim report to the parties. On 30 November 2004, Australia and the European Communities submitted written requests for review of precise aspects of the interim report. On 7December 2004, Australia and the European Communities submitted written comments on each other's request for interim review. The Panel has modified aspects of its report in light of the parties' comments where it considered appropriate, as explained below. The Panel has also made certain revisions and technical corrections for the purposes of clarity and accuracy. References to paragraph numbers and footnotes in this Section VI refer to those in the interim report, except as otherwise noted. Further comments on 5 April 2004 preliminary ruling The European Communities requests the deletion of paragraphs 7.3 to 7.7 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, the references to discussions that take place in other fora, such as the Council for TRIPS, are irrelevant for this purpose. Australia responds that nothing in the DSU precludes the Panel noting that subsequent events confirmed the correctness of a particular conclusion. The Panel recalls that the European Communities 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 preliminary ruling accordingly, in which 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 evidence relevant to that ruling submitted later in the course of the proceeding, other than the references to what took place during the consultations, which were without prejudice to the rights of the European Communities and other parties in these proceedings, in accordance with Article 4.6 of the DSU. The Panel has modified the relevant paragraphs, numbered REF _Ref91298986 \r \h 7.3 to  REF _Ref91299010 \r \h 7.9 of the final report, to elaborate on the reasons for their inclusion. Other preliminary rulings Australia requests that the Panel elaborate its reasoning in paragraphs 7.35 to 7.39 and 7.42 to 7.45 with a view to reconciling it with that of the Appellate Body in Korea Various Measures on Beef. Australia asserts that at paragraph 88 of its report on that dispute, the Appellate Body held that a panel could validly examine a ϲʹ provision not specified in the panel request for the purposes of determining the consistency of a measure with a provision that was specified in the panel request. As a general comment, the European Communities considers that the interim review stage should not serve as an occasion to restate major parts of a party's arguments, nor to relitigate substantial parts of the interim report. Accordingly, the European Communities indicates that it refrains from commenting on all but two of the numerous issues raised by Australia without implying its agreement to the others. Specifically, the European Communities asks the Panel to include the preliminary rulings in these paragraphs in its conclusions at paragraph 8.1. The Panel notes that paragraph 7.38, numbered  REF _Ref91299151 \r \h 7.42 in the final report, already explains why the assertion of an inconsistency with Article 4 of the Paris Convention (1967) amounts to a claim, rather than an argument. That distinction is referred to in the passage which Australia cites in its interim review comments. The Panel has added further detail and quotations of language where Australia in effect asserted its claim and made consequential amendments. The Panel notes that paragraph 39 of the Panel's preliminary ruling set out at paragraph7.2 of the report already explains the basis on which the Panel accepted that the claim under Article 41 of the TRIPS Agreement was within its terms of reference. The Panel did not rule that Article 41 was within the terms of reference in all respects. This situation is quite different from that of the claims and arguments in the case to which Australia refers. Claims regarding the "EC measure as a whole" Australia comments that, apart from one limited aspect relating to the regulatory committee, the Panel has not addressed its claim that the EC measure as a whole accords less favourable treatment to imported products bearing an EC-defined GI than to like domestic products bearing an EC-defined GI, contrary to Article III:4 of GATT 1994. It requests that the Panel address the claim and reflect its finding on the "EC measure as a whole" in the conclusions. The Panel notes that Australia made claims regarding the "EC measure as a whole" under both the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994. With respect to the claims under the TRIPS Agreement, Australia referred in paragraphs 195 to 205 of its first written submission to five aspects of the Regulation which the Panel dealt with separately in sub-sections B.2, B.1, E.5, B.3 and E.3 of the findings, respectively. With respect to the claims under Article III:4 of GATT 1994, Australia listed eight bullet points at paragraph 177 of its first written submission and referred to their cumulative effect at paragraph 178. The Panel dealt with the third to sixth points in sub-section B.1 of the findings, the seventh point in sub-section B.2 and the eighth point in sub-section B.4. The Panel has added paragraphs  REF _Ref90880982 \r \h 7.274 and  REF _Ref91299263 \r \h 7.275 of the final report to explain why it is unnecessary to consider further the first and second points or the cumulative effect, and revised paragraph 7.66, numbered  REF _Ref91299325 \r \h 7.68 in the final report, with respect to the labelling requirement, which was not mentioned in the first written submission in support of this claim. As for the conclusions, the Panel specifically sought the parties' views on whether they sought separate rulings on the procedural aspects of the Regulation or a ruling on the Regulation as a whole, in Panel question No. 49. In its response, Australia requested "that the Panel's findings be sufficiently detailed so as to facilitate a positive solution to the current dispute". The Panel has identified specific aspects of the Regulation in its conclusions which it has found inconsistent with a covered agreement in order to enable the European Communities to implement the recommendation. The Panel has not added a separate conclusion on the measure as a whole as this would not facilitate a positive solution to this dispute. Endorsement of arguments by co-complainant Australia requests that the Panel amend paragraphs 7.67 to 7.75. It comments that it did endorse generally all U.S. arguments, and did not just purport or attempt to endorse the arguments. This is a separate issue from whether the Panel considered any arguments that arose from this general endorsement. Australia recalls that a panel is not bound to accept the arguments of any party and is free to develop its own legal reasoning. Where there is a single panel, but multiple complainants and multiple reports, a panel can use arguments put to it by either party in assessing common claims. In this context, Australia has the right either on grounds of efficiency or by way of endorsing either similar or alternative arguments to endorse, in general terms, arguments by the other complainant in this dispute. With respect to the timing of the general endorsement, Australia recalls the Appellate Body's comment in India Patents (US) (at para. 88) that arguments as distinct from claims "are set out and progressively clarified in the first written submissions, the rebuttal submission and the first and second Panel meetings with the parties as a case proceeds" and asserts that, in this dispute, the timing of the general endorsement can be readily explained when the appropriate context is recalled. At the time of the first opening statement, Australia endorsed U.S. arguments relating to the European Communities' obligations concerning the overlapping claims that Australia and the United States had made with regard to national treatment (under the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994) and trademark rights. The rest of Australia's first opening statement covered mainly claims that had not been made by the United States, namely, claims under Article22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement and under the TBT Agreement. Australia repeated this endorsement at the opening of the second panel hearing. During the second hearing, however, the European Communities sought to make much of the fact that the United States and Australia did not have exactly the same arguments and that this meant that the European Communities' arguments were correct. It was in seeking to reject the European Communities' attempt to make more of the different arguments by the complainants that Australia responded by clarifying that it endorsed all of the United States' arguments. Australia accepts that it could have made clearer that its general endorsement was on the basis of endorsing the United States' arguments as alternative arguments wherever these were inconsistent with Australian arguments. However, Australia maintains that any differences between the UnitedStates' and Australian arguments are not material to the matter before the Panel. For example, regardless of the interpretation of Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement, both Australia and the UnitedStates agree that it does not provide the European Communities with an excuse for its breach of Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Australia refers to the statement in paragraph 7.72 that the Panel (or the European Communities) should not have to sift through the United States or Australian arguments looking for any inconsistency in order to understand the Australian case (where it intersects with the general endorsement of the United States' arguments). The Panel's comments may indicate that it does not consider a careful sifting of all of the arguments put to it, including Australia's, to be a necessary and integral part of its role. As such a view would be clearly contrary to Article 11 of the DSU, Australia requests that the statement be amended or withdrawn. Australia refers to the statement at paragraph 7.74 and asserts that the Panel attributes, without evidence, certain motives to Australia and, as a consequence, impugns Australia's conduct. However, it asserts that the Panel's assessment of Australia's motives is wrong and requests that the statement be withdrawn. While the Panel is right to ensure that a respondent's due process rights are protected, Australia comments that it is also incumbent on the Panel to respect the rights of a complainant and to ensure a fair hearing for all parties to a dispute. The European Communities did not object to a single panel being established by the DSB. Further, the European Communities was given extra time to prepare its first written submission, notwithstanding the largely overlapping nature of the claims by both complainants. In the hearings, the European Communities was allowed to speak as long as it wished, to introduce irrelevant material late in the process, to continuously reiterate immaterial points, and to waste time by asking the complainants a large number of irrelevant questions. This hardly suggests that the European Communities has suffered in any way from the single panel considering, for both reports, all the arguments put to it by either of the complainants. Further, as the European Communities had ample opportunity to counter the United States' arguments, Australia's general endorsement of the United States' arguments did not increase the "case" the European Communities had to answer or that the Panel had to consider. The European Communities expresses regret that Australia, in its comments on paragraphs7.72, 7.74 and 7.75, summarily dismisses arguments made by the European Communities as irrelevant or immaterial. The Panel agrees that a complainant can endorse a co-complainant's arguments. However, the Panel does not consider that Australia's comment in its closing statement at the second substantive meeting that "Australia endorses all of the arguments put forward by the United States" was a sufficient basis for the Panel to consider that Australia's arguments as presented earlier were modified, given that there were material differences between those arguments and no information was provided as to how they should be reconciled. Paragraphs 7.71 and 7.72 already explained this point but the Panel has expanded them into paragraphs  REF _Ref91299473 \r \h 7.73 to  REF _Ref91299488 \r \h 7.79 in the final report to illustrate the problem. The Panel has examined the parties' arguments in the course of its objective assessment under Article11 of the DSU but it does not undertake tasks inconsistent with that function. The Panel has expanded paragraph 7.72, numbered  REF _Ref91299488 \r \h 7.79 in the final report, for the avoidance of doubt. The Panel has been mindful of the due process rights of all parties in these proceedings. The European Communities' consent to the establishment of a single panel did not relieve Australia of its burden of making a prima facie case in support of all its claims. The Panel takes note of Australia's explanation of the surrounding circumstances. Paragraph7.74 reflected the oral interventions at the second substantive meeting. If Australia intended to respond to the European Communities' emphasis of differences between the complainants' respective arguments, then the mere assertion that those differences were not material was ineffective, and the endorsement would have transformed differences between the complainants' cases into contradictions within Australia's own case. Australia's interim review comments do not present any circumstances that would justify the Panel taking a different approach but, rather, point out differences between the arguments Australia presented itself and those of the United States. Therefore, the Panel has retained the first and second sentences of paragraph 7.74, numbered  REF _Ref91299532 \r \h 7.81 in the final report, but deleted the following discussion. The Panel has also corrected paragraph2.15. The phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" The European Communities requests the deletion of paragraphs 7.132 to 7.137 because it did not argue that the application of Article 12 of the Regulation would prejudice "the EC's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement". It quotes paragraph 66 of its first 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 Agreement would be prejudiced by the application of Article 12 of Regulation 2081/92. Rather, the reference to the obligation to provide protection for geographical indications was clearly intended as a reference to the obligation of other ϲʹ Members to provide protection. This is also what the EC explained in response to the Panel's QuestionNo.94(b)." The European Communities agrees that it is true that it did not provide an explicit response to Panel question No. 20 but it asserts that it did, however, address this point in response to Panel question No.94, in which it clarified that whereas the application of these conditions would not prejudice the European Communities' national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, it would prejudice its national treatment obligations under the GATT. Given this context, it comments that the Panel is wrong to read 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 Communities also requests the deletion of paragraph 7.247 for the same reason and because it is unnecessary to the legal analysis which precedes it. Australia responds that, in its view, the Panel's summation of the arguments put forward by the European Communities is accurate. Australia notes that the statements quoted by the European Communities from its first written submission, first oral statement and response to question No. 94, in fact concern what Australia has referred to in this dispute as "TRIPS-defined GIs" of which the "EC-defined GIs" covered by the Regulation are generally a subset. However, the dispute has not concerned the European Communities' implementation of its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994 concerning TRIPS-defined GIs more generally, it has concerned the European Communities' implementation of its obligations in relation to EC-defined GIs. Australia suggests that the relevance of the European Communities' arguments might be better understood if the Panel were to recall the relevance of the distinction between a "TRIPS-defined GI" and an "EC-defined GI". At the same time, however, Australia is of the view that the Panel's analysis of the arguments put forward by the European Communities is entirely correct. Since the allegedly incorrect nature of the statements was the only basis on which the European Communities requested that paragraphs 7.132 to 7.137 be deleted and paragraph 7.247 be amended, Australia suggests that the paragraphs be retained. The Panel takes note of the parties' comments 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 consistent with the European Communities' own detailed analysis of the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" in its rebuttal submission; and (b) the European Communities repeatedly emphasized the importance of its own obligations in the interpretation of the equivalence and reciprocity conditions but there is no clear explanation on the record of this dispute as to how the obligations of other ϲʹ Members would render the equivalence and reciprocity conditions under the European Communities' own Regulation inapplicable and the Panel declines to speculate. Therefore, the Panel has expanded and revised, rather than deleted, the relevant paragraphs, numbered  REF _Ref90838197 \r \h 7.139 to  REF _Ref91299619 \r \h 7.145 in the final report, and deleted the other paragraph without affecting the preceding legal analysis. The Panel takes note that, although the European Communities has now requested the deletion of most consideration of its own arguments concerning the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements", this point is important to its defence and those arguments have not been withdrawn. Therefore, the Panel considers it important 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. Specific definitions of "nationals" Australia comments that, in view of the Panel's ruling that it cannot be considered to have endorsed all of the UnitedStates' arguments in its closing statement at the second substantive meeting, Australia has not argued that the European Communities is a separate customs territory Member of the ϲʹ within the meaning of footnote1 to Article1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement or that, as a consequence, a special regime to determine nationals applies. Notwithstanding that Australia has pointed to some seeming anomalies in the European Communities' responses to the UnitedStates' arguments on the issue in Australia's response to Panel question No. 104, Australia's views on the meaning of the term "national" are as set out in its response to Panel question No. 23 (and referred to in paragraph 7.146). It is not contested by Australia that the determination of which persons are EC nationals is generally a matter for determination by the European Communities under its own law. The Panel had observed that Australia's views on the meaning of "national", as reflected in the interim report, include references to persons who are domiciled or who have a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in a separate customs territory Member of the ϲʹ. Consequently, the Panel considered it necessary to address the applicability of that specific definition. However, in light of Australia's confirmation in its interim review comments that it did not argue that the European Communities is a separate customs territory Member of the ϲʹ, the Panel has revised paragraph7.194, numbered  REF _Ref91299708 \r \h 7.201 in the final report, and deleted the reasoning regarding that issue. Examination of applications for registration The European Communities requests the amendment of paragraph 7.307(b) to take account of the requirement in Article 12a(2)(a) of the Regulation 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 7.307 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. Australia believes that the Panel's statement at paragraph 7.307 is accurate. It does not preclude information concerning the domestic law of the country of origin being one of the criteria referred to in Article 12a(2)(a) of the Regulation. Consequently, Australia suggests that there is no need for any change to paragraph 7.317. While the Panel may choose to elaborate its reasoning in respect of the consequences of Article 24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement, Australia does not believe such elaboration is necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The Panel takes note of the European Communities' request and notes that the description of protection in the country of origin is already included in paragraph 7.307, numbered  REF _Ref88144669 \r \h 7.303 in the final report, which is the logical place for it. The Panel considers it inappropriate to make further findings in the paragraph. The Panel's findings on transmission 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 Article12a(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 implementation, but it lies outside the Panel's terms of reference, as explained in paragraph  REF _Ref91299848 \r \h 7.314 of the final report. The Panel has also replaced, where appropriate, the word "verification" 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 consideration of the national treatment claim under the TRIPS Agreement. Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement Australia requests that the Panel review the reasoning set out in paragraphs 7.475 to 7.484, and elaborate its reasoning for the first sentence of paragraph 7.469 and the last sentence of paragraph 7.471. It comments that the Panel's analysis of the "less favourable treatment" elements of this claim seems premised on a misunderstanding of the basis of Australia's claim, which is the fact that Article12(2) of the Regulation mandates in the specified circumstances a labelling requirement for an imported product bearing a GI that is not similarly mandated for a domestically produced product bearing a GI. Further, that mandated differential treatment results in less favourable treatment for an imported product bearing a GI. Australia comments that, as the Panel noted, the challenge is made to the relevant provision "as such". Thus, the fact that the European Communities may have the discretion to impose the same labelling requirement on a domestically produced product in the specified circumstances does not overcome the inconsistency of the labelling requirement set out in Article12(2) of the Regulation with the European Communities' national treatment obligation under the TBT Agreement. If the Panel concludes that some revisions are necessary, it requests that the Panel complete its analysis of this claim. On the issue of "like products", it requests the insertion in paragraph 7.471 of an example from its arguments. The European Communities opposes Australia's request regarding "like products". The example given is one on which no discussion has taken place, and this is an issue on which Australia has made no claims or arguments. Regarding marks of origin, the European Communities requests the deletion of point (b) of paragraph 7.469, with which it does not agree. The use of the words "made 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 the references in that paragraph to indication "in pictorial matter" nor by indication "alongside the GI" nor how this is relevant. Given the Panel's findings, it considers it unnecessary to reach a conclusion on this issue. The Panel notes that the interim report already explains why Australia's argument does not demonstrate any difference in treatment but has made an addition to paragraph  REF _Ref91299994 \r \h 7.469 in the final report. The reasoning in the paragraphs identified by Australia forms the basis for the statements it references in paragraphs 7.465 and 7.467 and the Panel sees no need to elaborate. The Panel has also retained the factual point in the paragraph, numbered  REF _Ref91300059 \r \h 7.461 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 The European Communities considers that it would be useful to recall in paragraph 7.530, 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. The Panel has added a footnote 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 Article 14(2) of the Regulation. However, the Panel declines to amend the referenced paragraph as requested because the protection granted by Article 13 of the Regulation is already addressed elsewhere and it has not been shown to what extent Article13(1)(b) covers translations. Exceptions in trademark legislation with respect to the use of GIs The European Communities comments that the assertion in paragraph 7.569 to the effect that the its trademark legislation provides no exceptions with respect to the use of geographical indications is factually incorrect, and refers to its response to Panel question No. 153 and, specifically, to Article6.1(b) of the First Trademark Directive and Article 12(b) of the Community Trademark Regulation. Therefore, even where a trademark owner 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". Australia notes that the European Communities' comment is premised on the basis that an "indication concerning the ... geographical origin ... of goods" necessarily includes a GI, which is not always the case. In any case, the European Communities' comment intersects with the issue raised by Australia concerning whether a TRIPS-defined GI and thus an EC-defined GI can be analogous to "a descriptive term" within the meaning of Article 17 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel takes note of the European Communities' factual correction and has deleted the paragraph. Scope of a limited exception for GIs in translation The European Communities suggests a redraft of paragraph 7.668 for the following reasons: (a) lest it imply that the European Communities agrees with the last sentence of paragraph 7.666; (b)to include all the relevant limitations to the exception in Article 14(2) of the Regulation relied upon by the Panel including "what is undoubtedly the most crucial one, namely that the trademark owner maintains the right to prevent any 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 7.668 may suggest otherwise. Australia requests that the argument attributed to it in the first sentence of paragraph 7.668 should be referenced or deleted. Should the Panel retain the paragraph, Australia notes that the suggested re-draft by the European Communities eliminates the final point of the second sentence that registration "does not cover the name where rendered differently in another language". In Australia's view, the Panel's finding on this point is an accurate summation of the European Communities' own description of the effect of registration of a term as a GI, and it cites various statements in the European Communities' submissions. Australia suggests that any redraft of the existing second sentence of the paragraph retain the point, given the arguments actually made by the European Communities. The Panel has taken careful note of the parties' comments and has amended the paragraph, numbered  REF _Ref91300239 \r \h 7.659 in the final report, to track more closely the wording of the explanations in the European Communities' own submissions, and then made a finding on the basis of the terms of the legislation and those explanations. It has also deleted the reference to Australia, and added references in the succeeding paragraph and elsewhere to the limitation provided by certain directives which the European Communities explained during the proceeding. Descriptive terms Australia requests that the Panel elaborate its reasoning at paragraph 7.689 which assumes that a GI is analogous to a descriptive term within the meaning of the example in Article 17, taking account of the arguments put forward by the parties, including those made by Australia in relation to the design and architecture of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel has revised this and the preceding paragraph for clarity and added a reference to certain directives which the European Communities explained during the proceeding that provide further explanation of the legitimacy of certain interests. However, further elaboration on descriptiveness is unnecessary given that the Panel has expressly recognized that GIs are intellectual property rights, has not found that GIs are purely descriptive terms, and has noted the express requirements in Article2(2) of the Regulation that GIs registered under the Regulation must describe certain matters. Comparison of exceptions provisions Australia requests that paragraph 7.679 be substantially revised as it is not possible to consider differences in the language of the various provisos in isolation from the nature of the minimum standards for the intellectual property rights concerned. The Panel has interpreted Article 17 in light of the minimum standards of which it forms a part, and has noted differences from rights granted by other forms of intellectual property protection where appropriate elsewhere. The Panel considers an observation of how the text differs from analogous texts in the same agreement to be relevant and does not base its reasoning on that observation alone. The Panel has modified the paragraph, numbered  REF _Ref91300366 \r \h 7.671, in light of the comment received. Articles10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention (1967) Australia comments that the reasoning as currently expressed in paragraphs 7.729 to 7.733 seems to indicate that a responding party's assertion that it does not understand a claim is of itself a sufficient defence to a claim. Australia requests that the Panel review the content of these paragraphs and make appropriate amendments. In Australia's view, the key issue is whether the Panel understood Australia's claim and arguments and, if it did not, the steps it took to undertake an objective assessment. Moreover, it asserts that when the European Communities said it could not understand the claim because it could not see how a situation could arise where there would be an act of unfair competition, that this indicated that the European Communities did understand the claim, but did not agree that a relevant circumstance could arise. This does not affect the relevant obligation under the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel takes note of Australia's comments and has expanded and revised the paragraphs, numbered  REF _Ref91300503 \r \h 7.721 to  REF _Ref91300529 \r \h 7.726 in the final report, to remove this impression and to clarify the full extent of the argumentation in support of this claim on which the Panel was called upon to make its assessment. Individual registrations Australia requests that the Panel elaborate its reasoning in paragraph 7.753. It seeks clarification whether Australia's failure to specify any individual registrations in respect of which it requires relief affected the Panel's conclusion, and whether the Panel exercises judicial economy concerning ongoing registrations. The Panel has reworded its existing reasoning in the paragraph numbered  REF _Ref91300653 \r \h 7.750 in the final report. Australia's failure to specify any particular individual registration effected after the date of establishment of the Panel was relevant to the exercise of judicial economy on the preliminary ruling but not the conclusion on the claim, and this has been clarified in paragraph REF _Ref91300717 \r \h 7.26 for the avoidance of doubt. Conclusions Australia asks whether the Panel exercises judicial economy on the claims under Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel has revised paragraph  REF _Ref91300774 \r \h 7.252 to state its reasons for exercising judicial economy in relation to this provision, and reflected this in its conclusions in paragraph 8.1. Suggestion by the Panel on a way to implement its recommendation Australia comments that it may assist the resolution of the dispute if the Panel were not to make any recommendation on how the European Communities could bring its measure into conformity. In Australia's view, amending the Regulation to accord with the interpretation that the European Communities submitted to the Panel would not necessarily bring the measure into conformity, even with respect to the reciprocity and equivalence conditions. This is because the European Communities consistently argued that the reciprocity and equivalence conditions of the Regulation were not inconsistent with the European Communities' national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. In addition, Australia is concerned that a recommendation by the Panel in respect of just one finding could be seen to suggest that the Panel's other findings of inconsistency are of lesser importance. The European Communities expresses surprise at Australia's suggestion as it would appear that a clarification that the European Communities does not apply conditions of reciprocity and equivalence would remove the concern expressed by Australia regarding the protection of its GIs under the Regulation. As regards Australia's argument that "the EC consistently argued that the reciprocity and equivalence conditions of the Regulation were not inconsistent with the EC's national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement", the European Communities recalls that it conceded that the application of such conditions would be incompatible with the GATT. Furthermore, the European Communities fails to see the relevance of Australia's comment in the context of the discussion of paragraph 8.5, which concerns an issue of implementation. Finally, as regards Australia's concern that certain of the Panel's findings should not be regarded as being of lesser importance than others, the European Communities fails to see why a suggestion made by a Panel in respect of one of its findings would indicate that this finding is more or less important than other findings. For these reasons, the European Communities requests that paragraph 8.5 not be deleted. The Panel has modified its suggestion in paragraph 8.5 but, on the basis of the European Communities' remarks on interim review, considers it helpful to retain it. This suggestion does not imply that the Panel's other findings of inconsistency are of lesser importance. Other requests for review Australia also requested deletion of paragraphs 7.64, 7.65 and 7.357 and footnote 526, and modifications to paragraphs 7.194, 7.214, 7.439, 7.473, 7.515 to 7.523, 7.589, 7.621, 7.700 and 8.2 and footnotes 565 and 591. It also makes some clerical observations. The Panel has modified its report in light of those comments. The European Communities also requested modification of paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2. The Panel has modified those paragraphs and paragraph  REF _Ref91251840 \n \h 7.758 in light of those comments. FINDINGS Preliminary Issues Consistency of panel requests with Article6.2 of the DSU On 24 February 2004, the day after the Panel was composed and prior to the organizational meeting, the European Communities submitted a detailed request 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 Article6.2 of the DSU. In accordance with the Panel's timetable, the United States and Australia submitted responses to the European Communities' request for a preliminary ruling. On 5 April 2004, the Panel issued the following preliminary ruling. (a) Introduction 1. The European Communities is of the view that the requests for establishment of a panel in this matter do not meet the requirements of Article6.2 of the DSU. It has requested that the Panel issue a preliminary ruling regarding this question. (...) 3. Australia is of the view that its request for establishment of a panel fully complies with the requirements of Article6.2 of the DSU. It submits that the substantive basis of the European Communities' request for a preliminary ruling should be denied in full. 4. Article6.2 of the DSU provides as follows: "2. The request for the establishment of a panel shall be made in writing. It shall indicate whether consultations were held, identify the specific measures at issue and provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem 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 Article6.2: they fail to identify the specific measure at issue; and they do not provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly. 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' respective communications to the Panel to date and the relevant provisions of the covered agreements to assess its compliance with each of these requirements in the sections below. (...) (c) Australia's request for establishment of a panel (i) Identification of the specific measure at issue 23. Australia's request, in its fourth paragraph, identifies the following measures at issue: "The measure at issue is 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, any amendments thereto (including Council Regulation (EC) No. 692/2003 of 8 April 2003, published in the Official Journal of the European Union No. L99 of 17 April 2003), and related implementing and enforcement measures ('the EC measure'). The EC measure lays down and implements rules on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, excluding wines and spirits." Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 and any amendments thereto 24. Australia's 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, including one amendment which is identified by the name of the authority which adopted it, by its number, by its date of adoption, by its full title and by the date and place of its publication. This is a specific measure,  and the request has identified it. There is no doubt as to which specific measure is in issue, as the European Communities has itself demonstrated by annexing a consolidated text of the regulation to the request for a preliminary ruling. 25. 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) 26. The Panel considers the ordinary meaning of the terms of the text in Article6.2 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 measures at issue". They do not require the identification of the "specific aspects" of these "specific measures." "related implementing and enforcement measures" 27. Australia's request identifies, in addition to the regulation and any amendments thereto, "related implementing and enforcement measures". This phrase 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. 28. The Regulation as amended itself expressly provides for the taking of particular types of decisions and actions and the adoption of rules of procedure for applying the Regulation. For example, Article6 provides for the Commission 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 notified, 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. Article11a provides that the Commission may cancel the registration of a name. Article12 provides for decisions by the Commission as to whether a third country satisfies the equivalence conditions and offers the requisite guarantees. Article12b 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. Article16 provides for detailed rules for applying the Regulation to be adopted. 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. In the Panel's view, this does not imply that there is any uncertainty as to which measures 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 Australia's request for establishment of a panel. 29. For these reasons, on the basis of the facts available to us, the Panel rules that Australia's request for establishment of a panel did not fail to identify the specific measures at issue in accordance with Article6.2 of the DSU. (ii) A brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly 30. Australia's request, in its fifth paragraph, sets out in eight bullet points alleged inconsistencies with the covered agreements, by providing narrative text quoting or paraphrasing treaty text accompanied by provisions of the covered agreements identified by number. The numbered provisions identify every article of every covered agreement at issue and, in most cases where there are paragraphs within an article, such paragraphs are identified. 31. The European Communities takes issue with Australia's reference to whether Regulation No.2081/92 is a "technical regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1 to the TBT Agreement because the definition does not impose any obligations which could have been violated. 32. The Panel notes that the definition of "technical regulation" per se is not an obligation but rather defines a term used in other provisions of the TBT Agreement set out in Australia's request. The reference to the definition actually presents the problem more, rather than less, clearly because it explains why Australia considers that the measures at issue are subject to the relevant obligations. 33. The European Communities also takes issue with the reference to Article2 of the TRIPS Agreement (incorporating by reference Articles10, 10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention). It argues that Articles10, 10bis and 10ter are "complex provisions" divided into various paragraphs, and imposing numerous distinct obligations. 34. Australia replies that, irrespective of the accuracy of the European Communities' portrayal of these provisions, its claim is that the measures at issue diminish the legal protection for trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement, contrary to all aspects of these cited provisions. 35. The Panel considers that the mere listing of provisions of the relevant covered agreements may not satisfy the standard of Article6.2 of the DSU, for instance, where the listed provisions establish multiple obligations rather than one single, distinct obligation. However, where the multiple obligations are closely related and interlinked, a reference to a common obligation in the specific listed provisions may be sufficient to meet the standard of Article6.2 of the DSU under certain circumstances in a particular case. 36. With these considerations in mind, the Panel now examines the articles to which the European Communities has referred in Australia's request for establishment of a panel. The Panel notes that, on their face, the provisions within each of these articles are interlinked and very closely related, and that the separate paragraphs do not necessarily create distinct obligations. In particular: (a) Article10 of the Paris Convention (1967) extends the application of the provisions of Article9, which relates to seizure of goods, to false indications of source. The second paragraph of Article10 sets out a deeming provision for the purposes of the first paragraph; (b) Article10bis of the Paris Convention (1967) sets out a single obligation in paragraph(1) regarding unfair competition which is clarified in, and therefore closely related to, paragraphs (2) and (3); and (c) Article10ter of the Paris Convention (1967) sets out in paragraph (1) an obligation regarding legal remedies to repress all the acts referred to in Articles9, 10 and 10bis, and in paragraph(2) an obligation regarding action to repress the same acts by particular types of legal person. 37. The European Communities also takes issue with the reference to "Articles41 and/or 42 of the TRIPS Agreement". It submits that Article41 is a "complex provision" subdivided into a number of paragraphs, which contain a number of different obligations; that Article42 comprises several sentences establishing distinct obligations; and that it "does not understand the 'and/or' which seems to indicate that Articles41 and 42 of the TRIPS Agreement are somehow alternative obligations". 38. Australia replies that its reference to the essential elements of the relevant provisions is sufficient in this dispute to shed light on the nature of the obligations at issue in relation to the specific measures at issue. It also states that, in accordance with common usage, the expression "and/or" applies to all of the provisions cited. 39. The Panel makes the following observations: (a) Article41 of the TRIPS Agreement contains general obligations which relate to acts of infringement of intellectual property rights covered by this Agreement. The accompanying narrative text of Australia's request clarifies that this claim is made because the measure at issue allegedly "diminishes the legal protection for trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement". The general obligations in Article41 relate to "enforcement procedures as specified in [Part III]". Certain of those enforcement procedures, namely under Article42, are also raised which clarifies that the general obligations are the subject of a claim in relation to these procedures. In particular, Article42 is entitled "fair and equitable procedures" which is the subject of an obligation in Article41.2; (b) Article42 of the TRIPS Agreement contains closely related obligations concerning fair and equitable procedures. The accompanying narrative text clarifies that this claim is made in relation to "the legal protection for trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement". The requirements of each sentence in Article42 are distinct but they all set out specific features of fair and equitable civil judicial procedures concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights; and (c) the use of the term "and/or" at the end of a series or list of items connected by commas is a standard means of indicating that all items in that series or list may apply cumulatively or separately. There is nothing in the context of Australia's request for the establishment of a panel that would indicate that it refers only to the last two items in the series. There is nothing which prevents a complainant making claims in the alternative. This puts the respondent on notice that the complainant effectively makes all these claims. 40. The European Communities further contends 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 than just the claims, of Australia. That being said, the Panel wishes to assure the European Communities that it is fully entitled to know the arguments of Australia during the course of the proceedings. Those arguments must be set out and may be clarified in Australia's submissions. However, Article6.2 of the DSU does not require those arguments to be set out in the request for establishment of a panel. 41. The Panel notes that Article6.2 of the DSU calls for sufficient clarity with respect to the legal basis of the complaint so as to enable a defending party to begin preparing its defence. Our examination of Australia's request for establishment of a panel as a whole, in the light of Australia's and the European Communities' respective communications to the Panel to date and the relevant provisions of the covered agreements, leads us to believe that the request for establishment of a panel was sufficiently clear for the European Communities to begin preparing its defence. 42. For these reasons, on the basis of the facts available to us, the Panel rules that Australia's 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 Article6.2 of the DSU. (d) Due process 43. The European Communities is also of the view that the "deficiencies" of the requests for establishment of a panel seriously prejudice its due process rights as a defending party, notably, to know the case it has to answer. 44. The Panel recalls once again that Article6.2 of the DSU calls for sufficient clarity with respect to the legal basis of the complaint so as to enable a defending party to begin preparing its defence. 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. 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. 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 constitution 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 raised its concerns at the DSB meetings at which the requests for establishment of a panel were considered. 47. The Panel therefore considers that the European Communities has raised its concerns in a timely manner. (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 and the United States' respective requests for establishment of a panel did not fail to meet the requirements of Article6.2 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] The Panel stated expressly that its 5 April 2004 preliminary ruling was based on the facts available to it at that time. 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 meaning 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. First, the Panel recalls that the European Communities 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." The Panel ruled that Article 6.2 did not require the identification of the "specific aspects" of the specific measures at issue. 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: Australia's principal claims concerning national treatment (considered in SectionVII: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 Articles5 through 7 and 12 through 12d, respectively. 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 Australia's principal claim concerning the legal protection for trademarks (considered in Section VII:D of this report) is based on Article14 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 raise this article of the Regulation, as the European Communities itself confirmed in its request for a preliminary ruling. 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 the Panel. As a consequence, the EC has been seriously hampered in its efforts to prepare its defence." Specifically, with respect to the national treatment claims, it submitted as follows: "[T]he US claim is limited to a paraphrasing 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"; and "Like the US claims, Australia's claims [regarding inter alia national treatment under Article 3.1 TRIPS and Article III:4 GATT] are limited to the restatement of language already contained in treaty provisions, and therefore encounter the same objections." 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. After consulting the European Communities' first written submission, and information submitted by Australia, the Panel is now aware that prior to the date of the request for establishment of a panel, the European Communities had already presented in the Council for TRIPS in September 2002 a statement that responded specifically to the argument that national treatment under the TRIPS Agreement applied to geographical indications. In that statement, the European Communities quoted the texts of Article3 of the TRIPS Agreement and ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 and argued that "[t]hose entitled to rights under TRIPS are nationals". This is 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". This supports the Panel's assessment that 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. Third, the Panel notes that, in any event, Australia's other claims (considered in SectionVII:E of this report), brought under the provisions discussed in paragraphs 36 and 39 of the preliminary ruling, were not pursued in such detail. The Panel has found no prima facie case or rejected all these claims. This confirms the Panel's assessment that no prejudice has been caused to the rights of the respondent by these claims. Measures no longer in force at the date of establishment of the Panel Main arguments of the parties Australia challenges Council Regulation (EEC) No.2081/92, including not only the current version of that Regulation as in force as at the date of establishment of the Panel but also two prior versions of the Regulation as originally adopted in 1992 and as amended in 1997. Australia's claims refer variously to the current version and these two prior versions of the Regulation. The European Communities responds that Australia's request for establishment of a panel does not make it clear that Australia intends to challenge several versions of the same measure resulting from subsequent amendments made over time. It also submits that the measure at issue is the Regulation as in force at the time the Panel was established and that an analysis of historical versions is not useful for the purposes of settling the present dispute. Consideration by the Panel The Panel notes that Australia's request for establishment of a panel specifies the Regulation as well as "any amendments thereto, (including Council Regulation (EC) No.692/2003 ...)". Whilst this wording can be read to encompass the original version of the Regulation, and a subsequent amended version, which are no longer in force, it is unnecessary to rule on whether those measures are within the Panel's terms of reference, for the reasons given below. In its submissions, Australia seeks relief in respect of these prior versions of the Regulation. For example, it claims that registration procedures under versions of Articles7(4) and 14(1) of the Regulation, which were deleted and replaced in April 2003, were inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement. Australia expressly seeks "rulings and recommendations" from the Panel in respect of prior versions of the Regulation to the degree necessary to establish the extent to which individual registrations were inconsistent with the covered agreements, and therefore the extent to which those registrations continued the alleged violations. It cites Articles3.7, 11, 12.7 and 19.1 of the DSU in support of its request. The Panel notes the distinction between provisions of the Regulation which established procedures, but are no longer in force, and individual registrations effected under them. With respect to the former, the Panel recalls that its mandate to make recommendations in this dispute is found in Article19.1 of the DSU, which foresees only one type of recommendation, namely, that a Member bring a measure into conformity with a covered agreement. It is obvious that versions of the Regulation cannot be brought into conformity if they have already ceased to exist. Therefore, the Panel will not make any recommendation with respect to prior versions of the Regulation that are no longer in force. However, individual GI registrations effected under prior versions of the Regulation remain in force. There is, in principle, no reason why it should not be possible to challenge them under the TRIPS Agreement. They are measures which may affect the operation of that agreement. Australia's request for establishment of a panel specifically identified "[the Regulation and any amendments thereto] and related implementing ... measures" as part of the measure at issue. Registrations under Articles6 and 12b of the Regulation, and under the former Article17, constitute such implementing measures. Therefore, they are within the Panel's terms of reference. Given that they remain in force, the Panel can make a recommendation that the respondent Member bring them into conformity with a covered agreement. Therefore, the Panel may examine these individual registrations as part of the matter before it. The Panel wishes to note that, in certain respects, Australia's description of provisions of prior versions of the Regulation assists it in understanding provisions of the current version of the Regulation. For example, the description of Articles12 and following of the Regulation prior to its amendment in April 2003 assists the Panel in understanding the European Commission's contemporaneous explanations of the Regulation, as discussed in Section VII:B of this report. Moreover, a description of the Regulation as it stood prior to 1January 1995 would be essential in applying Article24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, which refers to a state of affairs "immediately prior to the date of entry into force of the ϲʹ Agreement", according to the European Communities' interpretation of that provision, as discussed in Section VII:D of this report. Further, a description of the simplified registration procedure under the former Article17 of the Regulation, which has been repealed, demonstrates that there is no evidence that individual registrations effected under that procedure involved a denial of national treatment to persons who wished to object, as discussed in Section VII:E of this report. Therefore, in the course of its assessment of the matter before it, the Panel will make findings with respect to prior versions of the Regulation where they serve some useful purpose in reaching conclusions with respect to measures within its terms of reference, including individual registrations, that are currently in force. References in this report to the "Regulation" refer to the current version, unless the context indicates otherwise. Measures adopted after the date of establishment of the Panel Main arguments of the parties Australia and the United States submitted, as an exhibit, a copy of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2400/96, which is effectively the register under Article6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No.2081/92. Individual designations of origin and geographical indications are added to the register by amending the Commission Regulation. The exhibit 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 amendments effected the registrations of 15 individual designations of origin and geographical indications. Australia and the United States 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. 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 Act of Accession which provides for the registration of three Czech beer GIs under Article17 of the Regulation. Australia challenges individual registrations effected under the Regulation and notes that registrations are "ongoing". The European Communities responds that these measures did not yet exist at the time the Panel was established and are therefore outside the terms of reference. In particular, it submits that the Act of Accession was subject to ratification, which was not completed on the date of establishment of the Panel, and did not enter into force until 1 May 2004. Main arguments of third parties 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. Consideration by the Panel The Panel begins by noting that Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 (referred to in this report as the "Regulation") has not been amended in any relevant respects during this panel proceeding. It was last amended in April 2003, prior to the date of the request for establishment of a panel. The Panel's terms of reference include not only the Regulation, but also its "related implementing and enforcement measures". The Panel considers that this phrase in the request for establishment of a panel is broad enough to include individual registrations, for the reasons given in paragraph 28 of its preliminary ruling of 5 April 2004, and in paragraph  REF _Ref87945556 \n \p \h 7.15 above. The individual GIs which are entered in the Register under Articles6 and 17 of the Regulation are set out in Commission Regulations (EC) No.2400/96 and No. 1107/96. New registrations take the form of amendments to these Commission Regulations. Certain individual registrations were effected after the date of establishment of the Panel and prior to the date of the complainants' first written submissions, and registrations continue to be made after that date. Australia's challenge of the individual registrations includes those effected after the date of establishment of the Panel. Each of the individual registrations applies to a different GI, is used by different producers and/or processors and may, in turn, affect rights in different trademarks. They are distinct measures. Those effected after the date of establishment of the Panel have added to the implementing measures as they stood at that date, although they have not affected the essence of the implementing measures vis--vis other registrations as they stood at that date. However, Australia has not sought particular relief in respect of individual registrations effected after the date of establishment of the Panel, as opposed to those effected earlier, and the Panel has found no prima facie case in support of the claims in respect of individual registrations effected at any time. Therefore, the Panel does not consider it necessary to rule on whether the individual registrations effected after the date of establishment of the Panel fall within the terms of reference in order to secure a positive solution to this dispute. The Panel wishes to note that individual registrations effected 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. The Panel therefore refers to them, as factual evidence, in the course of its assessment of the matter beforeit. References in this report to the "Regulation" refer to the basic Regulation rather than related and implementing measures, unless the context indicates otherwise. Claims under Article2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the Regulation imposes on other ϲʹ Member nationals a requirement as to domicile or establishment in the European Communities for the enjoyment of rights contrary to Article2(1) and 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. In its view, Article2(2) is an integral aspect of the national treatment obligation under Article2(1). The European Communities responds that these claims are outside the Panel's terms of reference because they relate to Article2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) which was not explicitly mentioned in the request for establishment of a panel. Article2(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 Article2(1). Consideration by the Panel The Panel notes that Australia's request for establishment of a panel adapts the text of the national treatment obligations in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. Australia's request then cites by number both those articles as well as Article2 of the TRIPS Agreement "incorporating by reference Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967)". In its submissions to the Panel, Australia claims that certain aspects of the Regulation are inconsistent with both Article2(1) and 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The issue for the Panel is whether the reference to national treatment and to Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967) is sufficient to present the legal basis of the complaint under Article 2(1) and 2(2), or only Article2(1). The Panel considers that the mere listing of provisions of the relevant covered agreements may not satisfy the standard of Article6.2 of the DSU, for instance, where the listed provisions establish multiple obligations rather than one single, distinct obligation. However, where the multiple obligations are closely related and interlinked, a reference to a common obligation in the specific listed provisions should be sufficient to meet the standard of Article6.2 of the DSU under certain circumstances in a particular case. Paragraph 1 of Article2 of the Paris Convention (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 texts of paragraphs 1 and 2 are linked by the use of the conjunction "[h]owever" which indicates that paragraph 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. 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: paragraph1 sets out an obligation to provide national treatment and paragraphs 2 and 3 limit that obligation. Therefore, in the Panel's view, the references in the request for establishment of a panel to national treatment and to Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967), which does not specify particular paragraphs, as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, is sufficient to explain the legal basis of the complaints under both paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article2. Accordingly, the Panel rules that the claims under Article 2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, are within the Panel's terms of reference. Claim under Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and, consequently, under Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that Article14(1) of the Regulation does not afford the right of priority in respect of trademark applications required to be granted by Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967), contrary to Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. In its view, the reference to Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement in its request for establishment of a panel permits the Panel to examine the consistency of the Regulation with Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967) and, indeed, that examination is necessary for such a determination. It argues that the obligation not to prejudice eligibility for the registration of a trademark is plain on a reading of Article24.5 and, given the express obligation on the European Communities to comply with Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967), it was clear that non-compliance with that provision would constitute prejudice to the eligibility for registration of a trademark. Article6.2 of the DSU should not be interpreted and applied in such a way as to require that a complaining party must have fully developed its argumentation for a dispute before presenting its request for establishment of a panel.  The European Communities responds that this claim is outside the Panel's terms of reference because Australia's request for establishment of a panel did not refer to Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967). Consideration by the Panel The Panel recalls that Australia's request for establishment of a panel includes the following passage: "Australia is of the view that the EC measure: diminishes the legal protection for trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement, contrary to Articles1, 2 (incorporating by reference Articles6quinques(B), 10, 10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention (1967)), 16, 20, 24.5, 41 and/or 42 of the TRIPS Agreement;" It is not disputed that the Panel's terms of reference include the general issue whether the Regulation diminishes protection for trademarks contrary to Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, since that is expressly set out in Australia's request for establishment of a panel. The parties' evidence and arguments address in detail the extent to which Article24.5 prohibits Members from diminishing the protection of trademarks in the course of protecting geographical indications, and the Panel makes detailed findings on this issue in this report. The reference to Article24.5 in Australia's request for establishment of a panel appears to relate to this issue. It is not disputed that Article24.5 refers to three aspects of the protection of trademarks, one of which is the eligibility of a trademark for registration. This concerns trademark applications. However, in the Panel's view, the reference to protection of trademarks and Article24.5 does not necessarily concern each and every possible aspect of trademark application procedures. Article15 of the TRIPS Agreement and numerous distinct obligations under the ParisConvention (1967), including Articles4, 6, 6bis, 6quinquies and 7 relate to trademark applications and procedures. If a mere allegation of diminished protection of trademarks contrary to Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement could include the specific obligation to accord priority filing dates for trademark applications, it could conceivably relate to all of these other distinct obligations as well. The Panel recalls that Article6.2 of the DSU requires that a request for establishment of a panel shall "provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly". This calls for sufficient clarity with respect to the legal basis of the complaint so as to enable a defending party to begin preparing its defence. Australia's request for establishment of a panel makes no mention of the right of priority, or Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, or their relationship with prejudice to trademark applications under Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. In that request, the obligation under Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967) is not "express" or implied. There was simply no way for the European Communities to know that the right of priority under Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967) was at issue. In its first written submission, Australia described why, in its view, Article 14(1) of the Regulation covered a situation within the meaning of Article 24.5. In order to explain the alleged inconsistency, it addressed Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967), "and in particular paragraph B of that provision, incorporated by TRIPS Article2.1" and concluded as follows: "Article 14.1 of Regulation No. 2081/93#3 does not afford the right of priority in respect of an application for registration of a trademark previously filed in another ϲʹ Member required to be granted by Paris Article 4 where that trademark is identical with or similar to an EC-defined GI which is later registered. By not doing so, Article 14.1 of Regulation No. 2081/93#3 continues to prejudice, or adversely affect, the eligibility for registration of a trademark for which an application has been made in good faith, contrary to TRIPS Article 24.5." Australia was not required to disclose its arguments until its first written submission, but its assertion of an inconsistency with Article4 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and, consequently, Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement, amounts to a claim under Article 4, which should have been disclosed in the request for establishment of a panel. The inclusion of this claim for the first time in the first written submission took the European Communities by surprise and deprived it of the right to begin preparing its defence to this claim earlier. Therefore, in this respect, the request for establishment of a panel does not satisfy the requirement of Article6.2 to "provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly". Accordingly, this claim is outside the Panel's terms of reference. Claim under Article41 in conjunction with Articles43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 49 of the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia argues in its first written submission that the European Communities has not ensured that enforcement procedures as specified in Part III of the TRIPS Agreement are available under its law, contrary to Article41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, as a consequence of inter alia the fact that the Regulation does not grant the Consultative Committee the authority required by Articles43, 44, 45, 46 and 48 of the TRIPS Agreement, and does not provide judicial authorities with the authority required by Articles43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 49. Australia submits that the reference to Article41 of the TRIPS Agreement in its request for establishment of a panel permits the Panel to examine the consistency of the Regulation with Articles43 to 49 respectively and, indeed, that such an examination is necessary for such a determination. The European Communities responds that this amounts to a claim under Articles43 to 49 of the TRIPS Agreement not mentioned in the request for establishment of a panel and is therefore outside the Panel's terms of reference. The reference to Article41 in the request for establishment of a panel is not sufficient to specify Articles43 to 49 and, more specifically, Article41.1 is a purely introductory provision which does not create separate legal obligations. Consideration by the Panel The Panel recalls that Article6.2 of the DSU requires that a request for establishment of a panel shall "provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly". This calls for sufficient clarity with respect to the legal basis of the complaint so as to enable a defending party to begin preparing its defence. The Panel recalls that in its preliminary ruling dated 5 April 2004, reproduced above, it considered the relationship between Article41, which is specifically identified in the request for establishment of a panel, and the enforcement procedures in Part III of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular, in Article42, which is also specifically identified in that request. The Panel did not rule that Article 41 was clearly within the terms of reference in all respects. After consulting the parties' first written submissions, it is clear that the relevant references in the request for establishment of a panel did not identify all the claims that Australia subsequently raised. Australia's request for establishment of a panel does not refer to Articles43, 44, 45, 46, 48 or 49 or the other provisions of Part III. The textual link in the TRIPS Agreement between Article41 and the other articles of Part III is found in paragraph 1 of Article41, which provides that "Members shall ensure that enforcement procedures as specified in this Part are available under their law ...". Australia's request for establishment of a panel does not indicate which of these other enforcement procedures are at issue, does not cite this text, nor does it refer specifically to paragraph 1 of Article41. The Panel considers that Article41.1 imposes an obligation. The language of that provision is expressed in terms of what Members "shall" ensure and is not hortatory. The substance of the provision adds qualitative elements to the procedures specified in Part III through use of terms such as "effective", "expeditious" and "deterrent" and is not redundant. However, it was not possible for the European Communities to know from the request for establishment of a panel that the claim under Article41 put in issue the procedures required under any of Articles43 through 49. The inclusion of a claim in Australia's first written submission under Article41 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Articles43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 49 took the European Communities by surprise and deprived it of the right to begin preparing its defence of this claim earlier. Therefore, in this respect, the request for establishment of a panel does not satisfy the requirement of Article6.2 to "provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly". Accordingly, the claim under Article41 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Articles43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 49 is outside the Panel's terms of reference. In any event, the Panel rejects all of Australia's claims under Articles41 and 42 of the TRIPS Agreement, for the reason given in paragraph  REF _Ref88143527 \n \h 7.731 of this report, which applies with equal force to all grounds on which these claims were purportedly made. Claim under Article20 of the TRIPS Agreement Australia includes in its request for establishment of a panel a claim that the Regulation diminishes the legal protection of trademarks contrary to Article20 of the TRIPS Agreement. It presents arguments in support of that claim in its first written submission. The European Communities responds that the Regulation is not inconsistent with Article20 of the TRIPS Agreement. In its second oral statement, Australia withdrew its claim under Article20 of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, the Panel does not consider this claim any further. Claims under Article4 of the TRIPS Agreement, ArticleI:1 of GATT 1994 and Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement Australia includes in its request for establishment of a panel claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with the MFN treatment obligations in Article4 of the TRIPS Agreement, ArticleI:1 of GATT 1994 and Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement. In its first written submission, Australia "reserves the right" to pursue these claims in the event that the European Communities is applying protection under the Regulation to GIs from another ϲʹ Member or begins to do so. Australia did not pursue these claims. Therefore, the Panel does not consider them any further. Claim under Articles1, 63.1 and 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement Australia includes in its request for establishment of a panel a claim that the Regulation is not applied in a transparent manner contrary to Articles1, 63.1 and 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. In its first written submission, Australia "reserves the right" to pursue the claim under Articles63.1 and 63.3 in the event that the European Communities should in fact have in place criteria and/or guidelines for the purposes of making assessments and/or determinations under "various provisions" of the Regulation. Australia did not pursue the claim regarding transparency under Articles1, 63.1 or 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, the Panel does not consider it any further. Claim regarding application procedures under the TRIPS Agreement The European Communities submits that Australia has not made a claim concerning the application procedures under the TRIPS Agreement but only under GATT 1994. It does not indicate the reasons for its view. Australia replies that it makes its claim in relation to the application procedures under the TRIPS Agreement as well and refers to passages in its first written submission. The Panel has reviewed the passages in Australia's first written submission, to which it refers. They appear under a heading which refers expressly to "national treatment" and specific national treatment provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. They include the following statements: "198. However, non-EC nationals seeking to register, and thus protect, an EC-defined GI in respect of a geographical location in the territory of another ϲʹ Member pursuant to Regulation No. 2081/92 are not able to apply directly to the EC (whether to the Commission or another Community level body) to register an EC-defined GI. (...) "205. Moreover, notwithstanding any outward appearance of symmetry of treatment, the EC measure accords non-EC nationals less favourable treatment than that accorded to EC nationals in respect of the registration of an EC-defined GI from another ϲʹ Member and in respect of the enforcement of trademark rights concerning the proposed registration of an EC-defined GI. The fact that the EC and its Member States have legally defined rights and obligations in relation to each other and to EC Member State nationals makes the registration and objection processes for EC nationals fundamentally different to those for non-EC nationals. Few other ϲʹ Member governments have such legally defined relationships affecting the maintenance and enforcement of an intellectual property right, a right expressly recognised as a private right by the TRIPS Agreement." The Panel considers that the claim in respect of the application procedures under the TRIPS Agreement, whilst it could have been expressed more clearly, does appear in these passages in Australia's first written submission. The references to persons seeking to register a GI, or the proposed registration of a GI, include the application procedures. The submission refers expressly to the lack of direct applications for non-EC nationals and the obligations of EC member States in the registration process, which are the basis for this claim. Any doubts which the European Communities had in this respect should have been dispelled by Australia's express confirmation in its first oral statement that it had made this argument in support of its claim that the measure as a whole does not accord national treatment to non-EC nationals. A respondent that chooses not to respond to a claim does so at its own risk. The European Communities has suffered no prejudice to its ability to defend itself, because it has responded to overlapping claims presented by Australia based on the same aspects of the application procedures under GATT 1994 and the opposition procedures based on the same obligation under the TRIPS Agreement, as well as the same claim as made by the United States based on the same aspects of the application procedures under GATT 1994. For these reasons, the Panel will consider this claim. Claim regarding the labelling requirement under GATT 1994 Australia claimed in its first written submission that the labelling requirement in Article12(2) of the Regulation was inconsistent with Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement, but it did not claim at that time that it was inconsistent with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. The European Communities responded to Australia's claim in its first written submission, arguing that Article12(2) of the Regulation did not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement and was not otherwise incompatible with Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement. It responded to the United States' claim that Article12(2) was inconsistent with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 and noted that Australia did not make such a claim in this regard. In its rebuttal, Australia submitted that, should the Panel consider that Article12(2) of the Regulation did not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement, it nevertheless accorded treatment less favourable to imported products inconsistently with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. In its second oral statement, the European Communities maintained that Australia had challenged Article12(2) of the Regulation under Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement and that the UnitedStates had challenged it under ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. The Panel notes that Australia only asks the Panel to address Article 12(2) of the Regulation under Article III:4 of GATT 1994 should the Panel consider that Article12(2) does not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Annex1.1 of the TBT Agreement. This premise has not been met and further consideration is therefore unnecessary. Endorsement of arguments by another complainant Australia, in its opening statement at the first substantive meeting with the Panel, formally endorsed certain comments made by the United States. These were "those comments concerning the rights required to be granted in respect of trademarks" and "the comments made by the United States concerning the EC's national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994". Australia also offered "additional comments" in its first oral statement. The Panel understands that these endorsements refer to comments made by the United States in its first opening oral statement. By virtue of these endorsements, the referenced comments of the United States form part of Australia's case. This was confirmed in Australia's opening statement at the second substantive meeting as follows: "Our case in total would include of course all the material we have submitted to the Panel directly, or via endorsement of arguments made by the US in this dispute." However, the next day, in its closing statement, the representative of Australia said the following: "Australia endorses allof the arguments put forward by the United States. Where there are differences between the complainants, these are a result ofdifferent understandingsof the flawed measure at issue in this disputeand, in any case, are not material differences." The European Communities objected orally during the same meeting. It informed the Panel that it did not know which particular arguments Australia was endorsing because at times the UnitedStates' arguments contradicted Australia's arguments. Further, an overall endorsement did not respect its rights of defence. The Panel notes, by way of illustration, the following examples provided by the European Communities of differences between the arguments presented by Australia and the United States. First, Australia had argued as follows with respect to the interpretation of Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement: "[T]he right to use a trademark refers to the ongoing ability to use a trademark where rights to a trademark have been acquired through use in good faith." In its closing statement, Australia said that it endorsed arguments which include the following: "'[T]he right to use a trademark' is not specifically limited in the text to trademarks whose rights are acquired through use (although it would appear to include such trademarks). Rather the obligation not to prejudice the right to use a trademark to harm or damage the permitted or forbidden activity associated with application of a trademark to its purpose would include an obligation with respect both to registered and non-registered trademarks (...)" Australia's endorsement in its closing statement does not enable the Panel to ascertain the case that Australia asks it to consider on this key point (considered in Section VII:D of this report). Second, when the Panel asked Australia whether it alleged that Article 12(2) of the Regulation provides any less favourable treatment to imported products besides labelling costs, Australia replied "No." In its closing statement, Australia said that it endorsed arguments which included the following: "The requirement of Article 12(2) that GIs for imported products, but not for domestic products, must be accompanied by a clear and visible indication of country of origin on the label is not simply a labeling cost issue. This requirement provides less favorable treatment to non-EC nationals and products in part because the non-EC GI, unlike the EC GI, is being burdened by an additional labeling requirement that is in the nature of a qualifier that detracts from the value of the GI (...)" Australia's endorsement in its closing statement does not enable the Panel to ascertain the case that Australia asks it to consider on this point (considered in Section VII:B of this report). By way of further illustration, the Panel notes that the UnitedStates has presented arguments in support of its MFN claims which Australia chose not to pursue after the establishment of the Panel (mentioned in Section VII:A of this report). Therefore, the Panel does not agree with Australia that there are no material differences between the complainants' respective cases. Australia's endorsement in its closing statement was sweeping and unlimited. More information was required in order to explain how it related to parts of Australia's case as presented prior to the end of the second substantive meeting with the Panel. The Panel has examined the parties' arguments in the course of its assessment of the matter before it. However, it is not part of the Panel's function to participate in making a party's case, as this would compromise its duty to make an objective assessment. The Panel should not have to sift Australia's and the United States' respective arguments and make an assessment of where there are possible contradictions, where there is possible support for a claim and where the UnitedStates' arguments are irrelevant to Australia's claims, simply in order to establish what case Australia wished to bring. Further, the European Communities, as the respondent, is entitled to know the case that it has to answer from each complainant. It is unable to know with certainty what Australia's case actually is in the final analysis, as regards the endorsement in the closing statement. Australia bore the responsibility to make its own case clear and, as regards the arguments covered by this endorsement, it has failed to discharge that responsibility. The lateness of this endorsement also raises an issue of due process. Whilst the overlapping nature of the claims presented by the two complainants is a particular feature of this dispute, a respondent may choose to defend certain arguments in support of one claim, but not others. After the enlargement of one complainant's case at the end of the second substantive meeting, the respondent may understandably wish to respond to certain arguments for the first time. However, at that stage, it only has the opportunity to respond to written questions and comment on the other parties' responses, which may provide insufficient opportunity to respond to those arguments. This could compromise the respondent's ability to defend itself against each complainant. There are no relevant specific circumstances in this proceeding to take into account. Australia had ample opportunity to make its case. It did not endorse all the United States' arguments earlier when it endorsed specific comments, either at the first substantive meeting or in its opening statement at the second substantive meeting. Accordingly, the Panel does not consider that Australia's statement that it endorsed all of the UnitedStates' arguments was a sufficient basis for the Panel to consider that Australia's arguments as presented earlier were modified. Nevertheless, the Panel accepts Australia's earlier endorsements of certain comments of the United States, as described in paragraphs  REF _Ref88143120 \n \h 7.69- REF _Ref97347624 \n \h 7.70above, and takes note of the referenced comments. Exhibits containing legislation of other Members Australia requests that the Panel reject six exhibits submitted by the European Communities which consist of extracts of legislation of Australia and two third parties. This request is made on the grounds that the exhibits are allegedly not relevant. The Panel does not consider it appropriate to remove these exhibits from the record. They form part of the respondent's submission. To the extent that they lack evidentiary worth, they will suffer from that defect and the Panel will disregard them. Request by a third party for a suggestion on ways to implement a recommendation 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 party, 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 Article19.1 of the DSU. Mexico argues that there is no requirement that a request for such a suggestion must be forwarded by one of the parties. If the Panel does 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. 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 dispute and is therefore outside the Panel's terms of reference. However, Mexico's attention is drawn to Article10.4 of the DSU. Order of analysis of claims The claims in this dispute are made under the TRIPS Agreement, GATT 1994 and the TBT Agreement. Certain claims under the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994 relate to the same aspects of the measure at issue. There is no hierarchy between these two agreements, which appear in separate annexes to the ϲʹ Agreement. One logical approach would be to begin in each instance with the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel will follow that order of analysis in this report. The Panel will consider the claims relevant to each aspect of the measure in turn. The following sections of the findings are organized as follows: Section B National treatment claims Section C Trade-restrictiveness claim Section D Trademark claims Section E Other claims National Treatment Claims Availability of protection Do the conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation apply to ϲʹ Members? Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that GIs (as defined in the Regulation) located in the territory of a ϲʹ Members outside the European Union can only be registered under the Regulation if the Member government in whose territory the GI is located is able and willing to meet the conditions in Article12(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. It specifically endorses comments made by the United States in its first oral statement concerning the European Communities' national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994. Australia argues that the European Communities had consistently led other ϲʹ Members to believe that Article12(1) of the Regulation applied to them. It argues that the European Communities' interpretation of the Regulation does not invalidate the meaning of the provisions submitted by Australia, and is not supported by the text of Articles12 to 12d, which only distinguish between nationals of ϲʹ Members and other third countries where the express language so provides. The Regulation would not be interpreted by the European Court of Justice in light of the European Communities' international obligations because it does not state that it is intended to implement a particular GATT 1947 or ϲʹ obligation. Australia understands that the introductory phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" was intended to allow for an international agreement whether bilateral or plurilateral to incorporate different conditions but it does not, and was not intended to, incorporate the European Communities' obligations under the ϲʹ Agreement. Australia argues that the Panel is not bound by the European Communities' interpretation of its own measure to any extent. The Panel's obligation is to appraise whether that interpretation is supported by the text of the Regulation, having regard to all relevant factors including the plain text of the relevant provisions, the European Communities' previous explanations of their meaning, its failure to explain inconsistencies in its new interpretation and the fact that the statements of EC representatives to the Panel do not create new legal obligations in Community law. The European Communities responds that the conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation do not apply to geographical areas located in ϲʹ Members. The introductory phrase of Article12(1) provides that it applies "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" which include the ϲʹ agreements. This is made clear by the eighth recital of the April 2003 amending Regulation which took specific account of the provision of the TRIPS Agreement. ϲʹ 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, Article12(1) and 12(3) do not apply to ϲʹ Members. Accordingly, the registration of GIs from other ϲʹ Members is subject to exactly the same conditions as the registration of GIs from the European Communities. The European Communities argues that the procedure under Article12a of the Regulation is not limited to the cases covered by Article12(3). The term "third country" in Articles12 through 12d does or does not include ϲʹ Members depending on the wording, context and objectives of each specific provision. The evidence of prior statements by Community officials does not contradict the European Communities' interpretation in this Panel proceeding and more 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 public international or in Community law. They are made on behalf of the 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 concluded 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. The European Communities does not consider that the Panel is "bound" by the EC's interpretation of its own measure. However, it submits 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 the 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 making an objective assessment of the facts and the interpretation of the measure, the Panel should be guided by the rules of interpretation customary in the 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. Main arguments of third parties Argentina asserts that the conditions of equivalence and reciprocity apply to GIs located in all third countries. It is unconvinced by the European Communities' explanation of its measure. If its intention had been to distinguish between ϲʹ Members and other third countries, it could have done so more explicitly. 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-ϲʹ Members in mind. The reference in Article12(2) indicates that third countries means all third countries outside the European Communities, although in Articles12a(2) and 12d(1) it could mean non-ϲʹ Members. The EC's interpretation could a contrario indicate a recognition that the equivalence and reciprocity conditions violate national treatment obligations in GATT 1994 and TRIPS. Canada considers that Article12 of the Regulation, read in context with Articles12a, 12b and 12d, cannot support the interpretation advanced by the European Communities. The ambiguous reference to "international agreements" is insufficient to counter the clear wording. There would not appear to be an alternative legal basis for filing applications for countries outside the European Communities besides Article12 due to the wording of Article12a(1). Articles12b and 12d refer to "ϲʹ Members" and "third countries" which suggests no differential application to "third countries" in Articles12 and 12a. The European Communities indicated that Article12 applied to all ϲʹ Members in a statement in September 2002 to the Council for TRIPS. China argues that the European Communities' interpretation 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 ϲʹ Members. The preamble to the April 2003 amending Regulation refers specifically to ϲʹ Members in relation to the right of objection, but does not exclude ϲʹ Members from the equivalence and reciprocity 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 Article12, regarding product specifications and inspection, do apply to ϲʹ Members. 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. Mexico submits that the language of Article12(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. New Zealand submits that the European Communities' interpretation of Article12(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 ϲʹ Members to satisfy the procedures in Article12(1) and (3) would be contrary to ϲʹ obligations. It is inconsistent with the wording of the Regulation itself and, if Article12(3) does not apply to ϲʹ Members, then the application procedure in Article12a would not either. This is the first time that this interpretation has been raised by the European Communities. The alternative interpretation adopted by the complainant is consistent with the wording of the Regulation. Chinese Taipei asserts that the conditions of equivalence and reciprocity apply to GIs located in all third countries. Consideration by the Panel The first issue in this dispute concerns the conditions for registration of GIs under the Regulation. It is not disputed that a GI located outside the European Communities has never been registered nor the subject of an application made under the Regulation, and that no attempt has ever been made to file an application to register such a GI under the Regulation. Therefore, the provisions concerning the protection of such GIs have never been applied in a particular instance. However, Australia challenges this aspect of the Regulation "as such". The parties agree that the conditions set out in Article12(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 located in other ϲʹ Members. Australia claims that they do so apply, and it is not disputed 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 ϲʹ Members. 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. If Australia were satisfied with this position, it would provide a positive solution to many of the national treatment claims in this dispute. However, Australia is not persuaded that the European Communities would be able to implement the position that it has presented to the Panel in light of the terms of the Regulation on its face, allegedly prior inconsistent statements by the European Communities in the Council for TRIPS, the Commission's Guide to the Regulation and elsewhere, and inconsistent statements made during this Panel proceeding by the European Communities. Australia submits that only formal amendments of the provisions of the Regulation could ensure their interpretation in a manner consistent with the European Communities' obligations. Therefore, although the European Communities submits that the Regulation already is in conformity with its obligations, the Panel is obliged to proceed with its assessment of the national treatment claims based on Article12(1) of the Regulation. The fact that this is an "as such" challenge, and that the parties disagree sharply on whether the European Communities' interpretation of its own measure is correct, requires the Panel to conduct a detailed examination of the Regulation. In doing so, the Panel examines the Regulation solely for the purpose of determining its conformity with relevant obligations under the ϲʹ covered agreements. Although the Regulation is part of the European Communities' domestic law, the parties agree that the Panel is not bound by the European Communities' interpretation of its provisions. Rather, the Panel is obliged, in accordance 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. Turning to the Regulation, the Panel notes that it applies to the registration of "designations of origin" and "geographical indications", as defined. For ease of reference, and without prejudice to their consistency with the definition of a geographical indication in Article22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, we shall refer to them both as "GIs" in this report, except where the context requires otherwise. Certain facts are agreed. The parties agree that the Regulation contains two sets of detailed procedures for the registration of GIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs. The first procedure, in Articles5 through 7, applies to the names of geographical areas located in the European Communities. 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 Articles12a and 12b, applies to the names of geographical areas located in third countries outside the European Communities. 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 Article17, but was deleted in April 2003. A fourth possibility is registration by means of an international agreement, discussed below. The parties disagree as to whether the second of these procedures is subject to additional conditions found in Article12(1) of the Regulation that do not apply to the first procedure. Article12(1) provides as follows: "1. Without prejudice to international agreements, this Regulation may apply to an agricultural product or foodstuff from a third country provided that: - the third country is able to give guarantees identical or equivalent to those referred to in Article4, - 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." Article12 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 Articles12a through 12d, including the second procedure described above, were inserted. It is not in dispute that many ϲʹ Members, including Australia, do not satisfy the conditions set out in Article12(1). The factual issue for the Panel to decide is whether the conditions set out in Article12(1) apply to the availability of protection for GIs located in ϲʹ Members. In other words, the factual issue is whether the registration procedure in Articles12a and 12b is available for GIs located in ϲʹ Members that do not satisfy the conditions in Article12(1). Australia 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. The Panel begins its analysis by reviewing the measure on its face. The procedure in Articles12a and 12b of the Regulation begins with the filing of an application under paragraph 1 of Article12a and continues with its initial examination under paragraph 2. The text of paragraph 1 begins "[i]n the case provided for in Article12(3)", which immediately limits the availability of the procedure according to the terms of Article12(3). The text of paragraph 2 of Article12a 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. Paragraph 1 of Article12b 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 Article12b(2). Article12(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 down in Article15 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 Article12a shall apply." The case provided for in this paragraph is clear: it refers to a third country which satisfies the conditions in Article12(1). The initial clause of Article12a, as confirmed by the chain of cross-references in Articles12a(2) and 12b(1), therefore limits the procedure in Articles12a and 12b to such third countries. No other provision in Article12a or 12b indicates that that procedure is available for the registration of GIs located in a third country which does not satisfy the conditions in Article12(1), even if it is a ϲʹ Member. This is consistent with Article12b(2), which provides for objections in the same procedure, and expressly distinguishes between a "Member State of the European Union or a ϲʹ member" and "a third country meeting the equivalence conditions of Article12(3)". The implication is that a ϲʹ Member is not necessarily a third country meeting those conditions. The only other provision in the Regulation which could indicate the possibility of registration of GIs located in a third country which does not satisfy the conditions in Article12(1) is the introductory phrase of Article12(1) itself, which prefaces the conditions with the clause "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements". The European Communities concedes that the application of the conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation would prejudice its obligations under ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 and submits to the Panel that, as a consequence, it would not apply those conditions to GIs located in ϲʹ Members. Nevertheless, it does not follow that the procedure in Articles12a and 12b is available for the registration of GIs located in ϲʹ Members. That procedure is limited to third countries which satisfy the conditions in Article12(1) and there is no other procedure in the Regulation available for ϲʹ Members that do not satisfy those conditions. There is the possibility of protection pursuant to an international agreement, but no existing international agreement either incorporates the procedure under Articles12a and 12b of the Regulation or contains an application and registration procedure for GIs located in all ϲʹ Members. In particular, neither GATT1994 nor the TRIPS Agreement contains any such procedure. Other provisions in the Regulation may also shed light on this issue. Article12d(1), which provides a right of objection to registration of GIs located in the European Communities, distinguishes twice between persons from "a ϲʹ Member country or a third country recognized under the procedure provided for in Article12(3)". This expressly grants a right of objection to persons from ϲʹ Members and is a further indication that where the Regulation refers to "a third country recognized under the procedure provided for in Article12(3)" it does not include a ϲʹ Member unless it has been recognized under that procedure. Four other provisions also refer to "a third country recognized under the procedure provided for in Article12(3)" (or analogous terms) without referring to a ϲʹ Member: Article5(5) on registration of GIs that straddle the external border of the European Communities, Article6(6) on homonymous GIs, Article10(3) on inspection structures and Article13(5) on the coexistence of registered and unregistered GIs. The European Communities' view of Article10(3) is that it includes ϲʹ Members, and there seems to be no reason why the other three provisions should exclude ϲʹ Members. These provisions seem to confirm that ϲʹ Members are included in the term "third countries" and therefore require recognition under the procedure provided for in Article12(3). The preamble of the Regulation, which has contained the conditions in Article12(1) more or less in their current form since the original version was adopted in 1992, sets out its justification. The 19th recital reads as follows: "Whereas provision should be made for trade with third countries offering equivalent guarantees for the issue and inspection of geographical indications or designations of origin granted on their territory;" The phrase "equivalent guarantees for the issue and inspection" of GIs is a clear reference to the conditions in Article12(1). There is no recital referring to the possibility of GIs located in any other third countries which do not satisfy these conditions. The preamble to the April 2003 amending Regulation, which modified Article12 and inserted a detailed procedure for applications and objections from third countries in Articles12a 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, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property rights. (9) The protection provided by registration under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 is open to third countries' names by reciprocity and under equivalence conditions as provided for in Article12 of that Regulation. That Articleshould be supplemented so as to guarantee that the Community registration procedure is available to the countries meeting those conditions. (10) Article7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 specifies how objections are to be made and dealt with. To satisfy the obligation resulting from Article22 of the TRIPS Agreement it should be made clear that in this matter nationals of ϲʹ member countries are covered by these arrangements and that the provisions in question apply without prejudice to international agreements, as provided for in Article12 of the said Regulation. (...)" Paragraph 8 recalls the subject-matter of the TRIPS Agreement without elaborating on its relevance to the Regulation. This clarifies the reference to Article22 of the TRIPS Agreement in paragraph10 but it is not clear whether it also relates to paragraph9. In any event, on the European Communities' later interpretation, the TRIPS Agreement is not relevant to the ϲʹ-consistency of the conditions provided for in Article12, as referred to in paragraph 9. Rather, the European Communities submits that GATT 1994 ensures their ϲʹ-consistency. GATT 1994 is not recited in the preamble. Paragraph 9 contains no qualifier referring to ϲʹ Members, which appears to confirm the position that the conditions in Article12(1) apply to the availability of protection of GIs located in third countries and that the registration procedure in Articles12a and 12b is not available for GIs located in ϲʹ Members that do not satisfy those conditions. Paragraph 10 includes the phrase "without prejudice to international agreements, as provided for in Article12", but it only relates to the right of objection granted to ϲʹ Members' nationals. This is a clear reference to Articles12b(2) and 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 "ϲʹ Member", where they also distinguish a ϲʹ Member from a third country recognized under Article12(3). In the Panel's view, the meaning and content of these aspects of the Regulation, together with the amending Regulation, are sufficiently clear on their face for Australia to have discharged its burden of proof of establishing that, under the Regulation "as such", the availability of protection for GIs located in ϲʹ Members is contingent upon satisfaction of the conditions set out in Article12(1) and recognition by the Commission under Article12(3). 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. This is partly explained by the facts that no requests for registration of foreign GIs have been made under the Regulation and that Articles12a through 12d were inserted only recently, in April 2003. Australia also presents evidence consisting of various statements by executive authorities of the European Communities which contain interpretations of the Regulation. The Panel considers that such statements can be useful as, objectively, a ϲʹ Member is normally well placed to explain the meaning of its own domestic law. However, the usefulness of any particular statement will depend on its contents and the circumstances 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. In a lengthy statement to the Council for TRIPS in September 2002 (prior to the insertion of Articles12a through 12d), the European Communities specifically responded to the following view expressed by a group of Members, including Australia: "[U]nder the current EC regulations, the EC does not appear to provide protection for nonEC geographical indications (i.e., place names of other ϲʹ 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." 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 equivalent or reciprocal system of GI protection." The Panel notes that the European Communities was emphatic at that time that registration systems should primarily be aimed at domestic GIs and it quoted the legislation of several other ϲʹ Members which allegedly do not register foreign GIs without an international agreement. This statement by the European Communities in September 2002 to the Council for TRIPS therefore appears to support Australia's interpretation of the Regulation on its face. The European Communities argues that the interpretation set forth in its September 2002 statement to the Council for TRIPS "is not incompatible 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 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. In the Panel's view, the European Communities' September 2002 statement was very clear in its interpretation of the relevant point of the Regulation. Further, nothing in the April 2003 amending Regulation appears to render that statement incompatible with the current version of the Regulation. In fact, the Panel's examination of the insertion of Article12(3) and Articles12a through 12d confirms that the conditions in Article12(1) remain applicable on the same terms. Australia also refers to the explanation 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 because of the clarity of its contents 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 ϲʹ 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." The references to a reciprocal basis and an equivalent system are clear references to the conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation. In its submissions to the Panel, the European Communities rejects that interpretation and submits that, due to the introductory phrase of Article12(1) of the Regulation, "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements", the conditions in Article12(1) do not apply to the availability of protection for GIs located in ϲʹ Members. It refers to a statement it made to the Council for TRIPS in June 2004 in the days before the first substantive meeting of this Panel 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. It advises that "[t]he guide was not prepared in connection with the Panel proceedings". The Panel recalls its reasoning in paragraph  REF _Ref81019352 \n \h 7.116 above, and reiterates its view that, even if the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" had the effect of subjecting the conditions in Article12(1) to the terms of GATT 1994 or the TRIPS Agreement, those agreements do not contain a procedure for applications and registration for GIs located in all ϲʹ Members. ϲʹ Members would still have to satisfy the conditions in Article12(1) in order for their GIs to gain access to the procedure in Articles12a and 12b. The European Communities admits that this would be a "nonsensical result". However, it is unable to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how this result could be avoided in light of the wording of Article12a, which begins "[i]n the case provided for in Article12(3)". The European Communities points out that Article12(3) refers to the conditions in Article12(1) and since, in its view, those conditions do not apply to ϲʹ Members, the procedure in Article12(3) and the reference in Article12a do not apply to them either. The Panel agrees that Article12(3) provides for a Commission decision on whether a third country satisfies the conditions in Article12(1) and accepts that, if those conditions do not apply to a third country, there would be no relevant decision under Article12(3). Yet this does not alter the text of Article12a which applies "[i]n the case provided for in Article12(3)". Article12a does not appear, on its face, to apply to the registration of a GI located in a third country, including a ϲʹ Member, which is not recognized under Article12(3). For these reasons, the Panel is not persuaded that the European Communities' interpretation is correct. It is not necessary for the purposes of this dispute to determine which are the precise international agreements covered by the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements". It suffices to note that there is a plausible alternative interpretation that it refers to bilateral agreements under which the European Communities would protect specific GIs. The European Communities does not exclude this, but argues that there is no reason why only such specific agreements should be covered. There are currently no such bilateral agreements for agricultural products and foodstuffs, although one has been foreshadowed in a joint declaration with Switzerland. In any event, the Panel is not persuaded by the European Communities' explanations during this Panel proceeding of the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" as used in Article12(1) of the Regulation. At the first substantive meeting, in support of its first defence, it provided the following explanation of that phrase: "(...) Such international agreements include the ϲʹ Agreements. This is made clear by the 8th recital of Regulation 692/2003, which amended the procedures for the registration of non-EC geographical indications, and in this context took specific account of the provisions of the TRIPS. "ϲʹ 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, Article 12 (1) and (3) of Regulation 2081/92 do not apply to ϲʹ Members. (...)" This explanation was also reflected in a June 2004 statement that the European Communities made to the Council for TRIPS and the August 2004 edition of the Commission's Guide to the Regulation. At the same time, the European Communities' second defence was that the conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation were not inconsistent with the national treatment obligations in the TRIPS Agreement, essentially because they discriminate according to the location of GIs and not according to the nationality of persons with rights in relation to GIs. It was not clear how these two defences could be reconciled. If the first defence implied that the conditions did not apply because they would 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 the 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 Article12(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No. 2081/92, if applied to other ϲʹ Members, would be inconsistent with the national treatment obligations in the TRIPS Agreement and/or ArticleIII:4 of the GATT 1994?". The European Communities declined to give a specific 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 ϲʹ Members. For this reason, the EC considers that the question whether these conditions are inconsistent with the national treatment obligations of the TRIPS Agreement and the GATT does not arise." Australia then submitted that the European Communities had impliedly admitted that the conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation were contrary to ϲʹ obligations. The Panel again sought clarification at the second substantive meeting, by asking which precise obligations under an international agreement would be prejudiced by the application of the specific conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation to ϲʹ Members. The European Communities responded that it was its obligations under ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994, but not Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, because the Regulation did not involve any discrimination between nationals. It later confirmed this in writing. Therefore, to the extent that the European Communities' explanation of the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" as used in Article12(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 Panel does not consider that possible explanation further. At this time, the European Communities' explanation of the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" as used in Article12(1) of the Regulation relies on GATT 1994. In light of the European Communities' analysis that this phrase 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", 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 REF _Ref90838294 \n \h 7.142 above. It was also omitted from the earlier explanation that the conditions did not apply because of obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, quoted at paragraph  REF _Ref90838197 \n \h 7.139 above. Further, the evidence submitted by the European Communities provides no additional support for this explanation, as the amending Regulation recites the TRIPS Agreement but not GATT 1994, and the evidence identified at paragraph  REF _Ref90619862 \r \h 7.140 above also reflects the explanation quoted at paragraph  REF _Ref90838197 \n \h 7.139 above. For all these reasons, the Panel is not persuaded by the European Communities' explanations of the phrase "[w]ithout prejudice to international agreements" as used in Article12(1) of the Regulation. The Panel takes note that there are various executive authorities involved in the implementation of the Regulation, including representatives of EC member States. Article15 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 vote. The European Communities' delegation to this panel proceeding confirms that the submissions made by agents of the European Commission before the Panel commit and engage the European Communities. It also 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 ϲʹ law and international law in general". The Panel accepts this explanation of what amounts to the European Communities' domestic constitutional 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. The parties have presented evidence with respect to the approach that would be taken by the European Court of Justice if the executive authorities registered a GI that was not the subject of an international agreement and that was located in a third country that did not satisfy the conditions in Article12(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 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 concluded by the Community." The Panel is not persuaded that it is possible to interpret the relevant aspects of the Regulation in the manner advanced by the European Communities 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 any international agreement concluded by the Community. Whilst the April 2003 amending Regulation recites the TRIPS Agreement, it would only seem to do so to justify extending the right of objection to nationals of ϲʹ Members. In any case, the European Communities' later explanation is that the interpretation must take account of GATT 1994, which is not mentioned at all, rather than the TRIPS Agreement. Article11 of the DSU requires that "a panel 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 the applicability of the conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation presented by the European Communities in this proceeding, for the reasons set out above. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Australia has made a prima facie case that the equivalence and reciprocity conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation apply to the availability of protection for GIs located in third countries, including ϲʹ Members. In other words, the registration procedure in Articles12a and 12b is not available for GIs located in third countries, including ϲʹ Members, that do not satisfy the conditions in Article12(1). The European Communities has not succeeded in rebutting that case. The Panel wishes to note that it has evaluated the European Communities' 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. National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, because it imposes conditions of reciprocity and equivalence on the availability of protection. Unless the ϲʹ Member government in whose territory the geographical location at issue is situated is able and willing to meet the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, non-EC nationals are not able to access the rights available to EC nationals, including the advantages of registration. Australia, at the first substantive meeting, expressly endorsed the comments made by the United States concerning the EC's national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Australia argues that at least one right at issue in this dispute is the right to obtain registration. Under the Regulation, a non-EC national seeking to register a GI for an area located outside the EU is treated less favourably than an EC national seeking to register a GI for an area located within the EU. It is not necessary to make assumptions about the population of other categories of nationals and the location of their rights. In its view, a national for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement, in the case of a natural person, is a person who possesses the nationality of a state in accordance with that state's laws or a person who is domiciled or who has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in a separate customs territory, as a proxy for the ordinary notion of nationality. In the case of a legal person, it is a person who is domiciled or who is established in the Member in accordance with whose laws nationality is claimed. Australia considers that less favourable treatment under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement does not preclude formally different treatment, and could include disadvantages or costs, whereas Article2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967) requires the granting of the same advantages. It argues that the perceived advantages of registration under the Regulation include protection against a registered name becoming generic, broad-ranging protection, including even against evocation of a registered GI, as well as ex officio Community-wide protection. Australia refers to the jurisprudence on ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 and considers that "treatment no less favourable" in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement could be examined in terms of whether the effect of a measure is to modify the conditions of competition in the EC market to the detriment of nationals of other ϲʹ Members with regard to the protection of intellectual property. The effect of the Regulation at issue in this dispute is to accord less favourable treatment to non-EC nationals because the additional requirements for GIs located outside the EC overwhelmingly apply to non-EC nationals, given the reality that persons with an interest in securing the registration of the name of a geographical area will almost always be nationals of the Member in which that geographical area is located. Australia considers that an overarching exceptions provision analogous to ArticleXX of GATT 1994 was unnecessary in the TRIPS Agreement and is irrelevant to the assessment of de facto discrimination under that agreement because there were pre-existing multilateral intellectual property conventions already in place; Members may take account of legitimate public policy objectives as recognized in Articles7 and 8 but then must apply them in accordance with national treatment and MFN treatment; specific exceptions exist in the TRIPS Agreement for separate categories of intellectual property rights. Australia also claims that the Regulation imposes a requirement of establishment in the EC inconsistently with Article2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967). The European Communities responds that this claim must fail. Its first defence is that it does not, in fact, apply the conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation to geographical areas located in ϲʹ Members. That defence has been considered in the previous sub-section. The European Communities does not contest that national treatment under the TRIPS Agreement applies to more extensive protection granted in respect of intellectual property rights addressed in the TRIPS Agreement. The European Communities argues that the conditions in Article12(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 area is located within or outside the European Communities is in no way linked to the question of the nationality of the producers concerned. 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. There are no legal requirements which ensure that applicants for GIs for geographical areas located in the European Communities are always, or usually, EC nationals. 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 companies which have invested in the European Communities in this way. If an applicant or user sets up a legal entity in the geographical area, that is simply a practical consequence of the fact that products must be produced in accordance with product specifications. 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 Article3 of the Paris Convention (1967) and footnote 1 to the TRIPS Agreement which would otherwise be unnecessary. The European Communities is not a "separate customs territory" within the meaning of footnote 1 to the TRIPS Agreement. The meaning of "interested parties" in Article10(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) is inapplicable in Article22 of the TRIPS Agreement. Nationality is not linked to the points of attachment but must be given a uniform meaning for all intellectual property rights. The Regulation does not require any comparison of nationals because it does not contain any discrimination on the basis of nationality. The European Communities argues that the existence 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 between those provisions which entails less favourable treatment. A measure would have to modify the conditions regarding the protection of intellectual property rights within the meaning of the TRIPS Agreement to the detriment of foreign nationals. The European Communities argues that the jurisprudence on ArticleIII:2 of GATT 1994 is not relevant to the present dispute because of differences between paragraphs 2 and 4 of ArticleIII and between ArticleIII and Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. There is no general concept of discrimination common to all ϲʹ agreements. There has never been a de facto application of Article3.1 and the concept of conditions of competition 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 should take account of the following: (1) the present case relates primarily to the origin of goods which is already dealt with more appropriately in the context of ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994, not the TRIPS Agreement; (2) defacto discrimination is a notion closely related to preventing circumvention of national treatment obligations, which does not exist when the specific issue is dealt with in other national treatment provisions, such as those of GATT; and (3) the national treatment provisions of GATT and the TRIPS Agreement should not systematically overlap. In addition, the TRIPS Agreement does not contain any provision corresponding to ArticleXX of GATT 1994 and it would not seem appropriate for a measure justified on the basis of ArticleXX to be found incompatible with the covered agreements on the basis of a de facto application of TRIPS national treatment. Main arguments of third parties Brazil submits that the equivalence and reciprocity conditions in the Regulation are inconsistent with national treatment under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. In most cases under the Regulation, discrimination according to geographical areas is discrimination between nationals. Canada submits that the equivalence and reciprocity conditions in the Regulation are inconsistent with national treatment under Articles2.1 and 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Discrimination on the basis of geographical area discriminates on the basis of nationality because of the "simple and incontestable" reality that EC nationals 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 indicated by the GI, means that an applicant for a GI located in the European Communities will, in all probability be a national of an EC member State. The treatment of "nationals" under the TRIPS Agreement extends de jure to geographical area. China considers that "nationals" within the meaning of the TRIPS Agreement includes natural persons who are domiciled, or legal persons who have a real and effective industrial and commercial establishment, in that Member. Colombia considers that any distinction that in any way identifies the GIs of the European Communities clearly entails a violation of national treatment obligations. India considers that the only valid interpretation of "treatment with regard to the protection " in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement is that no less favourable treatment to nationals of other ϲʹ 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 ϲʹ Members. The only available exceptions are found in Article3.2. Mexico considers that the equivalence and reciprocity conditions prevent nationals of other ϲʹ Members enjoying the protection afforded by the Regulation, which is contrary to the national treatment principle in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. New Zealand submits that the term "nationals" clearly has a geographical connotation in the context of the TRIPS Agreement. Article3 of the Paris Convention (1967) sets out a criterion for eligibility for protection to which the definition of "nationals" in Article1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement refers. Footnote 1 to Article1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement provides further support. The definition of an applicant in the Regulation includes persons according to their location. The most favourable treatment accorded to EC nationals should be compared with that received by ϲʹ Member nationals. "Less favourable treatment" requires not only a difference in applicable laws but some disadvantage as a result of that difference. At worst, the difference means that the benefits of registration are entirely unavailable. At best, it means that other ϲʹ 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 Article13 and, according to the preamble, higher incomes. Chinese Taipei submits that the equivalence and reciprocity conditions violate the national treatment obligation in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article2(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 completely independently of EC nationals and non-EC nationals with GIs located outside the European Communities. This essentially is an argument that the European Communities can establish 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 EC 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. Consideration by the Panel National treatment obligations in the TRIPS Agreement These claims are made under two national treatment obligations: one found in Article3 of the TRIPS Agreement, which forms part of the text of that agreement, and the other found elsewhere, in Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel will first consider the claim under Article3 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article3.1 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 own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property, subject to the exceptions already provided in, respectively, the Paris Convention (1967), the Berne Convention(1971), the Rome Convention or the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits. ..." [footnote 3 omitted] 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 "less favourable" treatment than the Member's own nationals. The Panel will address each of these elements in turn. The parties do not agree on the meaning of "nationals" for the purposes of this claim. The Panel will therefore address that issue in the course of its consideration of the second element of this claim. Protection of intellectual property The national treatment obligation in Article3 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 Articles3 and 4. It reads as follows: "For the purposes of Articles3 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." Article1.2 explains the term "intellectual property": "2. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term 'intellectual property' refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of Sections 1 through 7 of Part II." Turning to the Regulation, Article12(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 Regulation. 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 Article1.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, this claim concerns the "protection" of intellectual property, as clarified in footnote3 to the TRIPS Agreement, within the scope of the national treatment obligation in Article3 of that Agreement. 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 The Panel now examines the second element of this claim which is whether the nationals of other Members are accorded less favourable treatment than the European Communities' own nationals. It is useful to recall that Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement combines elements of national treatment both from pre-existing intellectual property agreements and GATT 1994. Like the pre-existing intellectual property conventions, Article3.1 applies to "nationals", not products. Like GATT 1994, Article3.1 refers to "no less favourable" treatment, not the advantages or rights that laws now grant or may hereafter grant, but it does not refer to likeness. This combination of elements is reflected in the preamble to the TRIPS Agreement which explains the purpose of the "basic principles" in Articles3 and 4 (a term highlighted in the title of Part I) as follows: "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;" The "no less favourable" treatment standard set out in the first sentence of Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement is subject to certain specific exceptions, some of them found in the pre-existing intellectual property conventions. None of the exceptions in Article3.1 and 3.2 are relevant to this dispute. Where these exceptions and limitations do not apply, the language of the basic obligation in the first sentence of Article3 is very broad, referring to treatment that is "no less favourable". We recall that the Panel in US Section 211 Appropriations Act, in a finding with which the Appellate Body agreed, found that the appropriate standard of examination under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement is that enunciated by the GATT Panel in US Section337. That GATT Panel made the following findings on the "no less favourable" treatment standard under ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1947: "The words 'treatment no less favourable' in paragraph4 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." 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. The interpretation of the "no less favourable" treatment standard under other covered agreements may be relevant in interpreting Article3.1 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. Under ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994, the Appellate Body in US FSC (Article21.5 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 ArticleIII: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 same time, however, the examination need not be based on the actual effects of the contested measure in the marketplace." Similarly, in the present dispute, the Panel considers it appropriate to base its examination under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement on the fundamental thrust and effect of the Regulation, including an analysis of its terms and its practical implications. However, as far as the TRIPS Agreement is concerned, the relevant practical implications are those on opportunities with regard to the protection of intellectual property. The implications in the marketplace for the agricultural products and foodstuffs in respect of which GIs may be protected are relevant to the examination under ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994, considered later in this report. The parties disagree on whether the equivalence and reciprocity conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation apply to GIs located in other ϲʹ Members outside the European Communities. The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref88143891 \n \h 7.152 that they do so apply. Although the parties disagree on whether the equivalence and reciprocity conditions in Article12(1) of the Regulation discriminate in a manner inconsistent with the covered agreements, it is not disputed that those conditions accord less favourable treatment to persons with interests in the GIs to which those conditions apply. The Panel considers that those conditions modify the effective equality of opportunities to obtain protection 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 Article12(3). The European Communities confirms that the Commission has not recognized 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 Article12(1). Both of those requirements represent a significant "extra hurdle" in obtaining protection that does not apply to geographical areas located in the European Communities. 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. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the equivalence and reciprocity conditions modify the effective equality of opportunities with respect to the availability of protection to persons who wish to obtain GI protection under the Regulation, to the detriment of those who wish to obtain protection in respect of geographical areas located in third countries, including ϲʹ Members. This is less favourable treatment. Nationals of other Members The issue for the Panel is how the less favourable treatment accorded under the Regulation with respect to the availability of protection affects the treatment accorded to the nationals of other Members and that accorded to the European Communities' own nationals for the purposes of Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article1.3 defines "nationals of other Members" in order to determine the persons to whom Members shall accord treatment, which includes national treatment. It provides as follows: "3. Members shall accord the treatment provided 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 understood 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 ϲʹ members of those conventions. (...)" [footnote 1 omitted] In respect of the intellectual property rights relevant to this dispute, it is not disputed that the criteria for eligibility for protection that apply are those found in the Paris Convention (1967). Articles2 and 3 of the Paris Convention (1967) provide how nationals and persons assimilated to nationals are to be treated. In the Panel's view, these are "criteria for eligibility for protection" for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement. Articles2 and 3 of the Paris Convention (1967) refer to "nationals" without defining that term. Article3 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 establishments 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." The rule in Article3 of the Paris Convention (1967) only applies to nationals of countries outside the Paris Union. According to Article1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, these criteria shall be understood as if "all Members of the ϲʹ" were members of that Convention. Therefore, for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement, that rule of assimilation only applies to persons that are nationals of a country that is not a ϲʹ Member. It does not apply to nationals of other ϲʹ Members, such as Australia. Therefore, it does not mean that all persons who have a domicile or a real and effective industrial and commercial establishment in a ϲʹ Member are necessarily nationals of that ϲʹ Members for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement. 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 "nationals" interchangeably. The phrase "subjects and citizens" was replaced with "nationals" in Articles2 and 3 in the Hague Act of 1925 without, apparently, changing the scope of the Convention. A leading commentator on the Paris Convention (1967) explains the practice under that Convention as follows: "With respect to natural persons, nationality is a quality accorded or withdrawn by the legislation of the State whose nationality is claimed. Therefore, it is only the legislation of that State which can define 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 persons 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] This is consistent with the position under public international law. With respect to the meaning of "nationals of other Members" for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement, ϲʹ Members have, through Article1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, incorporated the meaning of "nationals" as it was understood in the Paris Convention (1967) and under public international law. With respect to natural persons, they refer first to the law of the Member of which nationality is claimed. With respect to legal persons, each Member first applies its own criteria to determine nationality. The meaning of "nationals" under public international 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 Article3.1, as well as the other national treatment obligations incorporated by reference, including Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967). To that extent, the way in which a Member defines its own nationals can also be subject to review for the purposes of determining conformity with its national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. 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. 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 ϲʹ Members. However, the European Communities informs the Panel 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 legal 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. Australia has not challenged the criteria 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. Therefore, the Panel can use them to determine which persons are "nationals" under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Australia has referred to the specific definition of "nationals" in footnote 1 to the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel notes that that specific definition only applies in the case of a separate customs territory Member of the ϲʹ. The European Communities submits that it is not such a Member and Australia does not assert that it is. Therefore, the Panel does not consider this specific definition further. Australia also refers to Article10(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) which 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 interalia to establishment in the locality or country falsely indicated. The Panel accepts that an "interested party" is a person who is entitled to receive protection under Articles22 and 23 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article10(2) is a deeming provision for the term "interested party" used in Article9(3) of the Paris Convention (1967), as made applicable under Article10(1). Once a person has qualified as a national, Article10(2) may provide guidance on whether that person may be treated as an interested party for the purposes of Articles22 and 23 of the TRIPS Agreement. However, Article10(2) does not set out a criterion for eligibility for protection under the Paris Convention (1967) for the purposes of Article1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, the Panel finds no specific definition of "nationals" applicable in this dispute and confirms its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref88220144 \n \h 7.200 as to the criteria that can be used to determine which persons are "nationals" for the purposes of Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, for the purposes of this dispute. Turning to the Regulation, it is agreed that it does not, on its face, refer to "nationals". It refers to the location of geographical areas, or GIs. 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 European Communities' own nationals, when such treatment depends on the location of GIs. Formally identical provisions On its face, the Regulation contains formally identical provisions vis--vis the nationals of different Members, with respect to the availability of GI protection. It is well recognized that the concept of "no less favourable" treatment under ArticleIII: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 enforcement measure prior to the conclusion of the TRIPS Agreement, interpreted the "no less favourable" standard under ArticleIII:4 as follows: "On the one hand, contracting parties may 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." 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 treatment between imported and like domestic products is thus neither necessary, nor sufficient, to show a violation of ArticleIII:4". It then proceeded to apply the relevant standard of examination. 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. We consider that this reasoning applies with equal force to the no less favourable treatment standard in Article3.1 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 sufficient to demonstrate that there is no violation of Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Whether or not the Regulation accords less favourable treatment to the nationals of other Members than it accords to the European Communities' own nationals should be examined instead according to the standard we set out at paragraph  REF _Ref88218667 \n \h 7.184, namely, the "effective equality of opportunities" with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights. In this examination, we will follow the approach that we set out at paragraph  REF _Ref88143994 \n \h 7.187, which focuses on the "fundamental thrust and effect" of the Regulation. Which nationals to compare? The text of Article3.1 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). The question arises as to which nationals it is appropriate to compare. 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 ECEC national with GI located outside the EC2.4.Non-EC national with GI located in the ECNon-EC national with GI located outside the EC Graphic 1 The graphic depicts the four relevant possible combinations of nationality of persons and the location of a GI, each in a separate numbered quadrant. In terms of this graphic, the Panel's conclusion at paragraph  REF _Ref88143891 \n \h 7.152 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. Australia submits that the Panel should compare the treatment of a hypothetical EC national with a GI located in the European Communities, and the treatment of a hypothetical non-EC national with a GI located outside the European Communities. This is a comparison of a person in quadrant 1 with a person in quadrant 4 in the graphic. The Panel recalls that the Regulation contains formally identical provisions vis--vis the nationals of different Members. In the absence of less favourable treatment based on a formal criterion of nationality, or a criterion that fully corresponds 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 intellectual property. This is a very low threshold with possibly unforeseen systemic implications for all intellectual property rights covered by the TRIPS Agreement. Australia 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 ϲʹ Members who wish to obtain GI protection under the Regulation. This is a comparison of the persons in both quadrants1 and 3 with the persons in both quadrants 2 and 4, in the graphic. The Panel recalls that the standard of examination is based on "effective equality of opportunities". It follows that the nationals that are relevant to an examination under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement should be those who seek opportunities with respect to the same type of intellectual property in comparable situations. 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. 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. The European Communities disagrees with this approach. It argues that the concept of defacto discrimination should be limited to cases of circumvention of obligations, which is unnecessary in this dispute because of the applicability of the national treatment obligation under GATT 1994. The Panel is mindful of the need to ensure a harmonious interpretation of the national treatment obligation within the TRIPS Agreement itself 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 Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement from that which 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 Articles5 through 7 of the Regulation set out a registration procedure for GIs that refer to a geographical area located within the territory of the European Communities. Articles12a and 12b set out a registration procedure for GIs that refers to a geographical area located in third countries, including ϲʹ Members. The conditions in Article12(1) only apply to the latter procedures and, hence, only to GIs that refer to geographical areas located in third countries. There is a link between the location of a geographical area to which a GI refers and certain persons. Article5(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 Article15, a natural or legal person, shall be entitled to apply for registration. For the purposes of this Article, 'Group' means any association, irrespective of its legal form or composition, of producers and/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 may apply for registration only in respect of agricultural products or foodstuffs which it produces or obtains within the meaning of Article2(2)(a) or (b). These definitions of applicants cross-refer to the definitions of designations of origin and geographical indications in the Regulation in Article2(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 inherent 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 exceptional 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." Registration confers certain protection, but only agricultural products or foodstuffs that comply with a specification are eligible to "use" a registered GI. Article4(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 originates in the geographical area", "a description of the method of obtaining the agricultural product or foodstuff 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. These provisions create a link between persons, the territory of a particular Member, and the availability of protection. The definition of a "designation of origin" requires that the applicant and users must produce, process and prepare the products covered by a registration in the relevant geographical area, whilst the definition of a "geographical indication" requires that the applicant and users must carry out at least one, or some combination, of these three activities, in the geographical area, and must do so in accordance with a GI specification. Accordingly, insofar as the Regulation discriminates with respect to the availability of protection between GIs located in the European Communities, on the one hand, and those located in third countries, including ϲʹ Members, on the other hand, it formally discriminates between those persons who produce, process and/or prepare a product, in accordance with a specification, in the European Communities, on the one hand, and those persons who produce, process and/or prepare a product, in accordance with a specification, in third countries, including ϲʹ Members, on the other hand. The Panel recalls its finding in paragraph  REF _Ref85971707 \n \h 7.218 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. Australia argues that the reality is that persons with an interest in securing registration of the name of a geographical area as a GI under the Regulation will overwhelmingly be nationals of the ϲʹ Member in which that geographical area is located. The European Communities does not deny this. It relies on the fact that the Regulation itself contains no legal obstacle to foreign nationals taking 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. However, in the Panel's view, that is not dispositive of the issue. 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 ϲʹ 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 other Members who wish to obtain GI protection, and the group of the European Communities' own nationals 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 "geographical indication" and the requirements of the product specifications. The structure is evident in the different registration procedures. Complete data on the persons who have actually availed themselves of protection under the Regulation is not available. Any person who produces and/or processes and/or prepares products according to the specifications in a GI registration is entitled to use the GI. Data on the persons who have applied for, and obtained, protection under the Regulation and 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. 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 ϲʹ Members would wish to obtain protection are overwhelmingly located outside the European Communities. The European Communities presented evidence intended to show that certain foreign nationals have actually obtained protection under the Regulation. The Panel notes that all its examples consist of a foreign national, or a corporation incorporated under the laws of an EC member State, that acquired another corporation incorporated under the laws of an EC member State, which produces products entitled to GI protection. Those subsidiary corporations 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 the place of their company seat but such cases appear to be rare. This evidence confirms, rather than contradicts, the link between the treatment accorded to GIs located in the European Communities and EC nationality. 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 footnote1 to the TRIPS Agreement, which apply in the case of a separate customs territory Member of the ϲʹ, 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 assimilation of nationals in Article3 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 understood in this pre-existing intellectual property convention. Under Article3 of the Paris Convention (1967), "domicile" is not generally understood to indicate a legal situation, but rather a more or less permanent residence of a natural person, and an actual headquarters of a legal person. A "real and effective industrial and commercial establishment" is intended to refer to all but a sham or ephemeral establishment. The object and purpose of the TRIPS Agreement depends on the obligation in Article1.3 to accord the treatment provided for in the Agreement to the nationals of other Members, including national treatment under Article3.1. That object and purpose would be severely undermined if a Member could avoid its obligations by simply according treatment to its own nationals on the basis of close substitute criteria, such as place of production, or establishment, and denying treatment to the nationals of other ϲʹ Members who produce or are established in their own countries. Further, the Panel recalls its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref85971707 \n \h 7.218 that it is appropriate for the purposes of this claim under Article3.1 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. An objective assessment of that comparison cannot ignore the difference in treatment between quadrants 1 and 2 and quadrants 3 and4 in the graphic set out earlier. The Panel also notes that the close link between nationality, on the one hand, and residence and establishment, on the other, appears to be recognized in the Regulation itself. Article12d of the Regulation accords a right of objection to persons, which the European Communities confirms is a reference to persons resident or established outside the European Communities, regardless of their nationality. Yet the April 2003 amending Regulation, which inserted Article12d, explained that it granted the right of objection to the nationals of other ϲʹ Members. The European Communities argues that any difference 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 simply 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 area concerned." It argues that if, for practical considerations related for instance to taxation or labour 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. 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 favourable treatment. Whilst the Regulation does not prevent a foreign national from producing goods within the territory of the European Communities which would be entitled to use a GI, the implications of its design and structure on the opportunities for protection are such that its different procedures will operate to accord different treatment to the European Communities' own nationals and to the nationals of other Members, to the detriment of the nationals of other Members. 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 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. 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 for nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights, whereas national treatment under GATT 1994 ensures equality of conditions of competition between products. The European Communities also argues that one must take account of the absence in the TRIPS Agreement of a general exceptions provision analogous to ArticleXX of GATT 1994. The Panel notes that there is no hierarchy between the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994, which appear in separate annexes to the ϲʹ Agreement. The ordinary meaning of the texts of the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994, as well as ArticleII:2 of the ϲʹ 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 Body agreed, concerning the respective scopes of GATS and GATT 1994. Further, a "harmonious interpretation" does not require 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. More specifically, the Panel notes that Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement sets out the principles of that agreement. Article8.1 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 are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement." These principles reflect the fact that the agreement does not generally provide for the grant of positive rights to exploit or use certain subject matter, but rather provides for the grant of negative rights to prevent certain acts. This fundamental feature of intellectual property protection inherently grants Members freedom to pursue 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. The scope of the national treatment obligation in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement also differs from that of the national treatment obligation in Article III:4 of GATT 1994, as it is subject to certain exceptions in Articles3.1, 3.2 and 5, one of which is inspired by the language of ArticleXX of GATT 1994. There is also a series of specific exceptions in the provisions relating to the minimum standards in Part II of the TRIPS Agreement and Part VII contains a provision on security exceptions analogous to ArticleXXI of GATT 1994, but none on general exceptions. For all these reasons, in the Panel's view, the fact that a general exceptions provision analogous to ArticleXX of GATT 1994 was not included in the TRIPS Agreement has no impact on its analysis of Article3.1. Conclusion with respect to Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement 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 European Communities' own nationals, inconsistently with Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967) Australia also makes claims under the national treatment obligation set out in Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967). These claims 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 hereafter 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 that 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. The text refers to the "countries of the Union" for the purposes of identifying States which bear the obligation to accord national treatment under that provision. However, Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement obliges ϲʹ Members to comply with Articles1 through 12, and Article19, of that Convention. Therefore, as a ϲʹ Member, the European Communities owes obligations under Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. 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 Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967) refers to "the advantages that ... laws now grant, or may hereafter grant" and not to "no less favourable" treatment. Therefore, the Panel has not actually reached a conclusion on this claim. However, further findings on this claim would not provide any additional contribution to a positive solution to this dispute and are therefore unnecessary. 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 Agreement, the Panel does not consider that the Regulation contains a requirement of domicile or establishment. 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 establishment within the territory of the European Communities. We have also found that the availability of protection for GIs located in third countries, including ϲʹ Members, is dependent on whether the third country in which the GI is located satisfies the conditions of equivalence or reciprocity 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 has a domicile or establishment in the European Communities. Therefore, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the availability of protection, the Regulation does not impose a requirement as to domicile or establishment inconsistently with Article2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. National treatment under GATT 1994 Main arguments of the parties Australia claims the Regulation is inconsistent with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 because it imposes conditions of reciprocity and equivalence on the availability of protection. The agricultural products and foodstuffs from the European Communities and from third countries for which GIs may be registered under the Regulation are like products in the sense of ArticleIII:4. The reciprocity condition in Article12(1) of the Regulation refers to protection of "corresponding products" from the European Communities which encompasses, at least, like products. It argues that the Regulation is a measure affecting the internal sale and/or offering for sale of imported products because imported products can only benefit from the Community-wide protection under the Regulation and/or the esteem purportedly attached where they are registered, and imported products may not bear a registered GI even if it is the common name for a product in the country of origin and/or in the course of trade. Australia argues that the Regulation accords less favourable treatment to imported products because it imposes distinct additional requirements of equivalence and reciprocity for registration to which domestic products are not subject. Those additional requirements significantly modify the conditions of competition for imported products because if another ϲʹ Member is not willing and able to satisfy them, GIs from that Member are unable to be registered and protected for products imported from that Member into the EC market. The European Communities responds that the Regulation is fully compatible with ArticleIII: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 European Communities from applying the conditions for registration to individual GIs. It does not contest that the Regulation is a measure affecting the internal sale of products. The European Communities argues that the Regulation does not accord less favourable treatment to imported products because it does not apply the conditions in Article12(1) to the registration of GIs from other ϲʹ Members. It concedes that the application of those conditions would prejudice its obligations under ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. Main arguments of third parties Brazil argues the GATT and ϲʹϖ underlying principle of national treatment would be completely voided of any meaning if it were made conditional on requirements of reciprocity and adoption of equivalent legislation. China argues that the different treatment accorded to GIs by the Regulation will amount to less favourable treatment if it is found to modify the conditions of competition under which like imported and EC products compete in the EC market to the disadvantage of imported products. New Zealand considers that the complainant has demonstrated all three elements constituting a violation of ArticleIII: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 Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, all arguments raised in relation to that claim apply equally here. Consideration by the Panel The Panel notes that the European Communities concedes that the conditions of equivalence and reciprocity in Article12(1) of the Regulation, if applied to ϲʹ Members, are inconsistent with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. Given that the Panel has found that the Regulation "as such" imposes those conditions on the registration of GIs located in other ϲʹ Members, there is no longer any defence before the Panel to the claim that, in this respect, the Regulation is inconsistent with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. It suffices to recall below that the essential elements of an inconsistency with ArticleIII:4 are all met in this claim. These are that the imported and domestic products at issue are "like products"; that the measure at issue is a "law, regulation, or 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. The Regulation sets down requirements concerning the use of certain names in the presentation for sale of agricultural products and foodstuffs. It is therefore a law or regulation affecting the internal sale and offering for sale of products within the meaning of ArticleIII: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 since GATT 1994 and the TRIPS Agreement apply cumulatively. The Regulation links the protection of the name of a product to the territory of a particular country. In the case of "designations of origin", as defined in Article2 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 Article2 of the Regulation, 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 ϲʹ 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 products and products of European Communities origin within the meaning of ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. The Regulation applies to the names of a wide class of products described in Article1(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 additional types of agricultural products and foodstuffs listed in the annexes to the Regulation. The European Communities does not contest that there are, among this group, "like products" among the imported products and products of European Communities origin. The European Communities and other ϲʹ Members produce the same types of covered agricultural products and foodstuffs with GIs that may be eligible for protection. Article13(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 and Florida citrus may be like ctricos valencianos for the purposes of ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. In our analysis of the question of "less favourable treatment", we follow the approach of the Appellate Body in Korea Various Measures on Beef and US FSC (Article21.5 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 products 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. The Regulation provides in Article13 that registered 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, including 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. 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 demand for agricultural products or foodstuffs with an identifiable geographical origin;" Agricultural products and foodstuffs from the European Communities may obtain this advantage where they satisfy the eligibility criteria in the Regulation. Like products imported from ϲʹ Members that the Commission has not decided meet the equivalence and reciprocity conditions in Article12(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 ϲʹ Members which can satisfy the equivalence and reciprocity conditions in Article12(1) still face an "extra hurdle" in obtaining the advantage of registration since the Commission must decide 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. The European Communities does not contest that these are benefits of protection under the Regulation. It refers to the right to use the designation and logo under Article 8 and the possibility of excluding others from use of the GI under Article 13. The Panel also notes that there is the possibility that a ϲʹ Member could conclude an international agreement with the European Communities for the protection 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 products and foodstuffs than the procedure for the registration of GIs provides for agricultural products and foodstuffs from the European Communities. Therefore, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, as applicable to the availability of protection, the Regulation accords less favourable treatment to imported products, inconsistently with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. The European Communities has not asserted that, with respect to the availability of protection, the Regulation is justified by ArticleXX(d) of GATT 1994. Australia argues that less favourable treatment is accorded by the EuropeanCommunities' "inability to state clearly" what is required by Article12 of the Regulation, or to state the decision-making criteria that would govern the assessments required to be made under Article12 of the Regulation. However, the Panel notes that, given the European Communities' defence that it did not apply the conditions in Article 12 to ϲʹ Members, there was little discussion of what precisely is required by those conditions. In view of the Panel's conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider this issue further. Australia also argues that the disadvantage accorded by the Regulation to imported products bearing a GI located in another Member is "cumulative", by reference to the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, the application procedures, the regulatory committee (considered below) and the two factors in paragraph  REF _Ref90880982 \n \h 7.274. However, given that Australia did not elaborate on how the cumulative effect of these aspects of the Regulation allegedly accords less favourable treatment distinct from that accorded by each of them separately, the Panel does not consider it necessary to consider this issue further. Application procedures Description of application procedures under Articles5 and 12a of the Regulation 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. Article5 applies where it is located in an EC member State. Article12a applies where the GI is located in a third country. Article5(4) and 5(5) provide, relevantly, as follows: "4. The application shall be sent to the Member State in which the geographical area is located. 5. The Member State shall check that the application is justified and shall forward the application, including the product specification referred to in Article4 and other documents on which it has based its decision, to the Commission, if it considers that it satisfies the requirements of this Regulation. [...]" Article12a(1) and 12a(2) provide, relevantly, as follows: "1. In the case provided for in Article12(3), if a group or a natural or legal person as referred to in Article5(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 transmit the registration application to the Commission accompanied by: (a) 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, (b) a declaration that the structures provided for in Article10 are established on its territory, and (c) other documents on which it has based its assessment." After an application is forwarded by an EC member State or a third country, Articles6(1) and 12b(1) of the Regulation oblige the Commission to verify whether the registration application includes all the requisite particulars and satisfies the conditions for protection. There are differences in the drafting of Articles6(1) and 12b(1) which relate, respectively, to applications forwarded by EC member States and those transmitted by third countries which Australia has not put in issue. National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, because non-EC nationals seeking to register a GI located in the territory of another ϲʹ Member are not able to apply for registration directly to the European Communities whether to the Commission or another Community-level body. Articles12(3) and 12a of the Regulation, read together, require that another ϲʹ Member in which the GI is located pre-approve every application. The European Communities has an obligation to provide the means for intellectual property right holders to exercise their rights without intervention by another government. Australia argues that the legally defined rights and obligations between the European Communities and EC member States and EC member State nationals makes the registration process for EC nationals fundamentally different for non-EC nationals. Australia adopts Canada's portrayal of the issues concerning the relationship between ϲʹ Members, the European Communities, the EC member States and nationals. If the subject matter of this dispute lies within the exclusive competence of the European Communities, not EC member States, then any functions carried out by EC member States in implementing the Regulation are carried out as sub-national units of the European Communities. Any outward appearance of symmetry of treatment therefore masks a fundamentally different situation. Australia would transmit an application for registration to the Commission if it became aware of one from within Australia, but it could not state positively that it could meet the equivalence and reciprocity conditions. Australia also claims that the Regulation imposes a requirement of establishment in the European Communities inconsistently with Article2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967). 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. The European Communities argues that the application procedures do not accord less favourable treatment because the role of third country governments corresponds exactly to that of EC member States. The transmission of applications by governments in fact ensures equal treatment. The authorities of third countries and EC member States 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 for its sovereignty. Involvement of third country authorities facilitates cooperation during the registration process and should be of practical benefit to the applicant. The European Communities argues that the verification and transmission of an application are not overly burdensome for another ϲʹ Member. Another ϲʹ 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 EC. 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 Article6quinquiesA(1) of the Paris Convention, and in the fields of certificates of origin, technical standards, conformity assessment, transport, fisheries and judicial cooperation. These examples illustrate that in an increasingly interdependent world, the effective protection of individual rights in cross-border situations inevitably engenders a need for cross-border cooperation. The European Communities does not want to impose obligations on third countries, but the protection of GIs located in the territory of third countries depends on their cooperation. This is partially mandated by the definition of a GI in Article22.1 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 Article24.9 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. The transmission of the application by the same government is not a significant extra burden. Main arguments of third parties Argentina, Brazil, 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 application for registration under the Regulation. 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. Brazil argues that the application procedures require ϲʹ Members to "pre-approve" applications before they forward them to the European Commission, which is a striking violation of the national treatment obligation in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement for two reasons: (1) this is an additional procedure for other ϲʹ Members; and (2) the approval process must be conducted according to EC law, not the law of the other ϲʹ Member.  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. Colombia expresses uncertainty as to whether the country of origin must in all cases provide a declaration under Article12a(2) with a description of the legal provisions under which the GI is protected. This is, in practice, a condition which entails an evaluation of the system of GI protection in the country of origin contrary to Article1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Mexico refers to cochineal as a practical example of the way in which Mexican producers would be required to go through specific procedures which EC nationals are not. New Zealand submits that, although the requirement to submit all applications through government applies equally to applications from EC member States and other ϲʹ Member nationals, its effect is to disadvantage nationals from other ϲʹ 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 ϲʹ Member nationals have no such enforceable right. Consideration by the Panel These claims are made under the national treatment obligations in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel will first consider the claim under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel recalls that 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 "less favourable" treatment than the Member's own nationals. The Panel will address each of these elements in turn. Protection of intellectual property This claim concerns procedures for filing and examination of applications for registration of "designations of origin" and "geographical indications", as defined in the Regulation. They are referred to in this report, for the sake of brevity, as "application procedures". The Panel recalls that the national treatment obligation in Article3 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 Articles3 and 4. It reads as follows: "For the purposes of Articles3 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." 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. It is not disputed that "designations of origin" and "geographical indications", as defined in the Regulation, are a subset of "geographical indications", the subject of Section 3 of Part II, and therefore part of a category of intellectual property within the meaning of Article1.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, this claim concerns the "protection" of intellectual property, as clarified in footnote3 to the TRIPS Agreement, within the scope of the national treatment obligation in Article3.1 of that Agreement. Less favourable treatment accorded to the nationals of other Members The Panel recalls its findings: at paragraphs  REF _Ref88144432 \n \h 7.221 to  REF _Ref90881112 \n \h 7.239 as to the treatment accorded to the "nationals of other Members" under the Regulation by its treatment according to the location of GIs; and at paragraph  REF _Ref88218667 \n \h 7.184 that under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement we must examine the "effective equality of opportunities" with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights and, at paragraph  REF _Ref88143994 \n \h 7.187 that in this examination we will focus on the "fundamental thrust and effect" of the Regulation. 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 having been filed with the authorities of a third country. However, Australia challenges the Regulation, in this respect, "assuch". Australia claims that the treatment accorded under the application procedures in Article12a(1) and (2) is less favourable treatment than that accorded under the applications procedures in Article5(4) and (5). There is an apparent equivalence in the drafting of these provisions but the question is whether this would imply a modification of the effective equality of opportunities with regard to the protection of intellectual property. The Panel notes that the initial steps in the application procedures can be broken down as follows. as a first step, all applicants are required to submit their application to the authorities in the country in which the geographical area is located. These will be authorities of an EC member State or a third country, depending on the case; 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 European Communities' Regulation, not the domestic law of the country where the application is filed; and 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. We recall the European Communities' explanation of its domestic constitutional arrangements, set out at paragraph  REF _Ref88143204 \n \h 7.148, 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 ϲʹ law and international law in general". It follows that any application relating to a geographical area located in an EC member State is filed directly with a "de facto organ of the Community" which also carries out the initial 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. Further, Article5 of the Regulation provides for 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." An EC member State has an obligation to establish 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. 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 member States do not face. Consequently, certain applications and requisite supporting documents may not be examined or transmitted. Each of these considerations significantly reduces the opportunities available to the nationals of other ϲʹ Members in the acquisition of rights under the Regulation below those available to the European Communities' own nationals. The European Communities submits that that "[t]he Regulation does not require anything that would be outside the scope of any ϲʹ Member with a normally functioning government". 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. ϲʹ 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 would nevertheless have the capacity to carry out examinations of technical issues that involve interpretations of EC law. In this regard, we note that one third party in this Panel proceeding indicates that its authorities would be devoid of legal competence to perform this analysis. Whilst a ϲʹ Member that provided equivalent protection under its domestic law might presumably have the technical capacity, if not the legal competence, to perform this analysis, the provision of such protection forms part of the conditions under Article12(1) of the Regulation. We have found that requirement, as a precondition to the availability of GI protection, to be inconsistent with the national treatment obligations in the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994. In any event, even if any normally functioning 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 obligation of the European Communities. This is highlighted in the text of Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement under which "[e]ach Member" shall accord to the nationals of other Members no less favourable treatment. In accordance with its domestic law, the European 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 ϲʹ Members, who must carry out these three steps in the application 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. The Panel notes that the European Commission does 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 European Communities because it has structured the Regulation in such a way that certain functions are completely outside its control. The European Communities drew the Panel's attention to many examples of international cooperation in the protection of private rights, including in the field of intellectual property protection. 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 international cooperation. However, in each of these examples, cooperation is provided in the framework of treaties in which contracting parties have voluntarily agreed to participate. In contrast, the Regulation is a domestic law adopted by one Member. The Panel also confirms that nothing in these findings purports to diminish the rights of Members under Article24.9 of the TRIPS Agreement, which provides, in essence, that there is no obligation under this Agreement to protect geographical indications which are not protected in their country of origin. The Panel further confirms that the European Communities is entitled, under Article62.1 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, Article62 is outside the Panel's terms of reference. The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref88144599 \n \h 7.248 that the fact that a general exceptions provision analogous to ArticleXX of GATT 1994 was not included in the TRIPS Agreement has no impact on its analysis of Article3.1. 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 ϲʹ Member nationals less favourable treatment than it accords the European Communities' own nationals, inconsistently with Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. In view of that conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider the consistency of the Regulation, with respect to the application procedures, with Article2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. With respect to Article2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967), the Panel recalls its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref83700982 \n \h 7.251 and, for the same reasons, concludes that, with respect to the application procedures, the Regulation does not impose a requirement of domicile or establishment inconsistently with that provision, as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. National treatment under GATT 1994 Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 because it requires the ϲʹ Member in whose territory a geographical area is located to pre-approve each and every application for registration. This is a distinct and additional requirement imposed on products imported into the European Communities which significantly modifies the conditions of competition for imported products vis--vis domestic like products in the EC market. Any outward appearance of symmetry of treatment therefore masks a fundamentally different situation, for the reasons given earlier. Australia argues that the relevant aspects of the application procedures are not justified under ArticleXX(d) of GATT 1994. They do not satisfy the "necessary" test in paragraph (d) because, as in Korea Various Measures on Beef, alternative measures are reasonably available. The European Communities could leave it to the applicant to provide the required information and/or it could ask for the cooperation of another ϲʹ Member government after an application has been filed should such cooperation be necessary to enable an application to be assessed. They do not satisfy the chapeau of ArticleXX because if the term is already registered, the applicant could provide a registration certificate as readily as the third country government. As in US Shrimp, the Regulation requires other ϲʹ Members to adopt a regulatory framework that is not merely comparable but essentially the same. The European Communities responds that this claim must fail. It reiterates its arguments that the application procedures provide equal treatment, not less favourable treatment. The European Communities asserts that verification and transmission of applications by the government of the home country of the GI is justified by ArticleXX(d) of GATT 1994. It argues that this is necessary to secure compliance with the Regulation itself, in particular, the definition of a GI, the product specifications, protection in the country of origin, establishment of the inspection structures and the requirement that only products that 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 particular, 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 ϲʹ Members. ArticleXX(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 excludes safeguards in the registration process. The Regulation is not inconsistent with GATT 1994 because it implements an obligation under Article22 of the TRIPS Agreement and a higher level of protection permitted by Article1.1. It is applied in a manner consistent with the chapeau of ArticleXX. 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 normally 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 Australia. 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 Australian government would not be better qualified than the right holder or the European Communities. Transmission of applications by third country governments is an integral part of the application procedure and should not be viewed in isolation. It has no significant impact on trade in goods. It makes no difference whether the European Communities asks for cooperation from a third country government before or after an application is filed. Main arguments by third parties 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. Brazil argues that the application procedures require ϲʹ Members to "pre-approve" applications before they forward them to the European Commission, which is a striking violation of the national treatment obligation in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. New Zealand considers that, as the same phrase "less favourable treatment" is used in ArticleIII:4 as in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, 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 ArticleXX(d) of GATT 1994. The Commission conducts its own six-month investigation of an application so that it is not necessary for applications to be passed through a third country government filter. Consideration by the Panel This claim concerns procedures for applications for registration under the Regulation. The Panel recalls its findings: at paragraph  REF _Ref81199229 \n \h 7.263, that the Regulation is a law or regulation affecting the internal sale and offering for sale of products within the meaning of ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994; at paragraph  REF _Ref81199386 \n \h 7.264 that the Regulation links the protection of the name of a product to the territory of a particular country and formally discriminates between imported products and products of European Communities origin within the meaning of ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994; at paragraph  REF _Ref88144652 \n \h 7.265 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; at paragraph  REF _Ref91149483 \n \h 7.266, that under Article III:4 of GATT 1994 we must examine whether the measure modifies the conditions of competitionbetween domestic and imported products and that in this examination we will focus on the "fundamental thrust and effect of the measure itself"; and at paragraphs  REF _Ref88144712 \n \h 7.267 to  REF _Ref88144713 \n \h 7.269 on the substantive advantage provided under Article13 of the Regulation that affects the conditions of competition of the relevant products; at paragraphs  REF _Ref88144669 \n \h 7.303 to  REF _Ref88144670 \n \h 7.307 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 differences can result in some applications from third countries, including ϲʹ Members, not being transmitted to the Commission; and at paragraph  REF _Ref81275213 \n \h 7.311 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. 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 Article13 of the Regulation. Therefore, the Panel 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 than domestic products, inconsistently with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. The European Communities asserts that these procedures are justified by ArticleXX(d) of GATT 1994. As the party invoking this affirmative defence, the European Communities bears the burden of proof that the conditions of the defence are met. ArticleXX provides exceptions for certain measures. The "measures" which the European Communities needs to justify at this point are the 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. However, 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. Paragraph (d) of ArticleXX 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 ArticleII and ArticleXVII, the protection of patents, trade marks and copyrights, and the prevention of deceptive practices;" The Panel takes note that paragraph (d) refers to laws or regulations, including those relating to "the protection of patents, trade marks and copyrights, and the prevention of deceptive practices". The Regulation provides for the protection of GIs and is an analogous law or regulation, as the European Communities points out. However, the term "laws or regulations" is qualified by the phrase "not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement". The European Communities argues that the requirements of examination and transmission of applications by governments secure compliance with the Regulation. However, the Panel has found that the Regulation itself 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 meaning of paragraph (d). In response to questions, the European Communities argued that 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 Communities did not demonstrate that it was "not inconsistent" with GATT 1994. The Panel also notes the use of the term "necessary" in paragraph (d) of ArticleXX. 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 ArticleXX(d), the reach of the word 'necessary' is not limited to that which is 'indispensable' or 'of absolute necessity' or 'inevitable'. Measures which are indispensable or of absolute necessity or inevitable to secure compliance certainly fulfil the requirements of ArticleXX(d). But other measures, too, may fall within the ambit of this exception. As used in ArticleXX(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] The Appellate Body summed up its approach to the determination of whether a measure which is not "indispensable" may nevertheless be "necessary" within the meaning of ArticleXX(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 ϲʹ-consistent alternative measure which the Member concerned could 'reasonably be expected to employ' is available, or whether a less ϲʹ-inconsistent measure is 'reasonably available'." The Panel will follow this approach. Australia argues that the European Communities could reasonably be expected to allow applicants to file applications directly with its authorities without prior verification by third country governments, and that this is ϲʹ-consistent. Many other ϲʹ Members employ such a procedure. It is not disputed that such a procedure would be ϲʹ-consistent. The European Communities submits that the cooperation of the government of the country where the GI is located is indispensable 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". The Panel observes that Articles6(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 the 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. Therefore, it is not clear to what extent examination by governments, including third country governments, contributes to securing compliance with the conditions for registration. With respect to factual and legal questions that, as part of the examination, can be verified in the country of origin, the European Communities does not explain why the Regulation does not permit applicants to provide objective 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 local factors and that verification "may" require on-site checks which the Commission cannot carry out in third countries without express consent. The Panel considers that these responses constitute an admission 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 European Communities has not demonstrated the factual premise of its defence that only the 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. With respect to the transmission of applications, the European Communities is unable to explain why a procedure permitting applicants to file applications directly with its competent authorities would not permit an examination of whether an application for a GI in another ϲʹ 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. Therefore, the Panel considers that the European Communities has not discharged its burden of proving that examination and transmission of applications by governments are covered by paragraph(d) of ArticleXX. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the chapeau of ArticleXX. For these 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 less favourable treatment to imported products inconsistently with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994, and these requirements are not justified by ArticleXX(d). Objection procedures Description of objection procedures under Articles7, 12b and 12d of the Regulation The parties agree on most features of the objection procedures under the Regulation. There are separate provisions setting out the procedures for objections to applications for registration of GIs which apply according to the location of the geographical area and the location of the person who wishes to file an objection. Article7 applies where the geographical area and the person who wishes to file an objection are both located in EC member States. Article12b applies where the geographical area is located in a third country. Article12d applies 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. Article7(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 Article6(2), any Member State may object to the registration. 3. Any legitimately concerned natural 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." Article12b(2) provides, relevantly, as follows: "2. Within six months of the date of publication as provided for in paragraph1(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 ϲʹ Member, Article7(1), (2) and (3) or Article12d respectively shall apply; (b) where the objection comes from a third country meeting the equivalence conditions of Article12(3), a duly substantiated statement of objection shall be addressed to the country in which the abovementioned natural or legal person resides or is established, which shall forward it to the Commission." Article12d(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 Article6(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 ϲʹ member country or a third country recognised under the procedure provided for in Article12(3) may 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." Article7(4) sets out the grounds for admission of objections. Articles12b(3) and 12d(2) provide that the Commission shall examine the admissibility of objections in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article7(4). National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, because the objection procedures accord less favourable treatment to non-EC nationals. Australia argues that a non-EC national resident or established in a third country has no direct means to object to registration but must lodge an objection through the government of the ϲʹ Member in which that person resides or is established. That government is responsible for verification and transmission of the objection. Australia argues that, with respect to objection procedures, as with respect to application procedures, the legally defined rights and obligations between the European Communities and EC member States and EC member State nationals makes the registration process for EC nationals fundamentally different for non-EC nationals. Any outward appearance of symmetry of treatment therefore masks a fundamentally different situation. Australia submits that Article12d of the Regulation limits the persons who may file objections to those resident or established in a country that satisfies the conditions of equivalence and reciprocity. Australia argues that certain individual registrations, which remain in force, were effected under the simplified procedure in Article17 of the Regulation prior to its deletion in April 2003, without granting a right of objection to ϲʹ Member nationals. It refers to the Bayerisches Bier registration (considered in Section VII:D below) and argues that there was a mechanism available to at least some EC trademark right holders to make their objections known. Australia also claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement because certain individual registrations, which remain in force, were effected under Article6 of the Regulation prior to its amendment by the insertion of Article12d in April 2003, without granting a right of objection to ϲʹ Member nationals. This claim is dealt with in SectionVII:E of this report under the heading "individual registrations". 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 residents. A third country is not required to conduct a substantive verification under Article7(4) the Regulation which is clear from the wording of Article12d(2) that indicates that the criteria must be assessed in relation to the territory of the Community. Rather, the third country verifies whether 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. The European Communities argues that Article12d grants a right of objection to persons from ϲʹ Members because the phrase "recognised under the procedure provided for in Article12(3)" only applies to other third countries. The conditions of equivalence and reciprocity do not apply to ϲʹ Members' right to object. Otherwise, the specific reference to "ϲʹ Members" would be meaningless. This is also clear in Article12b(2). It also argues that Article12d does not discriminate according to nationality but according to residence or establishment. It cannot simply be assumed that the reference to "nationals" in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967) also applies to persons who are domiciled or established abroad, regardless of their nationality. Main arguments of third parties 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. Brazil considers that the requirement to file objections with the country in which the objector resides or is established is an "unnecessarily complicated or costly" procedure in breach of Article41.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Brazil sees no necessity that would justify preventing private parties forwarding objections directly to the European Commission as many countries, including Brazil, allow for direct access for foreigners to object. Mexico argues that the Regulation is inconsistent with national treatment because it imposes conditions of reciprocity and prevents third country nationals filing objections directly with European authorities. Non-EC ϲʹ Member nationals have an additional burden to involve their national authorities and delegate to them the objection process. Mexico refers to cochineal as a practical example of the way in which Mexican producers would be required to go through specific procedures which EC nationals are not. New Zealand argues that the objection procedure can potentially 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 between ϲʹ Members and other third countries in Article12d(1) could have been made clear by inserting 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 ϲʹ Member nationals to applications for registration of GIs. Consideration by the Panel These claims concern procedures for filing and examination of objections to applications for registration of "designations of origin" and "geographical indications", as defined in the Regulation. They are referred to in this report, for the sake of brevity, as "opposition procedures". These claims relate to two separate issues: (1) regarding verification and transmission of objections by governments; and (2) regarding equivalence and reciprocity conditions. The Panel will address these issues in turn. Verification and transmission These claims are made under the national treatment obligations in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel will first consider the claim under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel recalls that 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 "less favourable" treatment than the Member's own nationals. The Panel will address each of these elements in turn. Protection of intellectual property The Panel recalls that the national treatment obligation in Article3 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 Articles3 and 4: "For the purposes of Articles3 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." The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref88218020 \n \h 7.299 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 intellectual 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 paragraph of Article62 (which uses the word "opposition") and the title of that article. Hence, opposition procedures are also matters "affecting" the acquisition of intellectual property rights which concern the "protection" of intellectual property, as clarified in footnote3 to the TRIPS Agreement. It is not disputed that "designations of origin" and "geographical indications", as defined in the Regulation, are a subset of geographical indications, the subject of Section 3 of Part II, and therefore part of a category of intellectual property within the meaning of Article1.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, the objection procedures are subject to the national treatment obligation in Article3.1 of that Agreement. Less favourable treatment accorded to the nationals of other Members Australia claims that the procedures relating to verification and transmission of objections are inconsistent with the national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel notes that, unlike the application procedures, the objection procedures do not concern the location of the geographical area to which the GI refers. Rather, they refer to the place where the objector resides or is established. The Panel recalls its findings at paragraphs  REF _Ref88144432 \n \h 7.221 to  REF _Ref90881112 \n \h 7.239 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. The Panel notes once again that the close link between nationality, on the one hand, and residence and establishment, on the other, appears to be recognized in the Regulation itself. Articles12b(2)(a) and 12d(1) of the Regulation accord 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. Yet the April 2003 amending Regulation, which inserted these provisions, explained that Article12d granted the right of objection to the nationals of other ϲʹ Members. The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref88218667 \n \h 7.184 that under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement we must examine the "effective equality of opportunities" with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights and at paragraph  REF _Ref88143994 \n \h 7.187 that in this examination we will focus on the "fundamental thrust and effect" of the Regulation. 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. However, Australia challenges the Regulation, in this respect, "as such". Australia claims that the treatment accorded under the objection procedures in Articles12b(2) and 12d(1) is less favourable treatment than that accorded under Article7(3). There is an apparent equivalence in the drafting of these provisions but the question is whether this would imply a modification of the effective equality of opportunities with regard to the protection of intellectual property. The Panel notes that the initial steps in the procedures for objections by private persons can be broken down as follows: 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 as a second step, the authorities who receive an objection verify certain formal matters and forward or transmit it to the Commission. We recall the European Communities' explanation of what amounts to its domestic constitutional arrangements, set out at paragraph  REF _Ref88143204 \n \h 7.148, 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 ϲʹ law and international law in general". It follows that any objection from a person in an EC member 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. 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 judicial procedures based on the Regulation. In contrast, a third country government has no obligation 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. Therefore, persons resident or established in third countries, including other ϲʹ Members, who wish to object to applications for registration under the Regulation do not have a right in the objection procedures that is provided 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, which 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 other ϲʹ 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 other ϲʹ Members "less favourable treatment" within the meaning of Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The European Communities submits that the requirement 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 third country government to refuse to cooperate, it is not the European Communities' rules which create an "extra hurdle" for third country residents. The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref88145081 \n \h 7.309 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 paragraph REF _Ref97624112 \n \h 7.310 in relation to application procedures, the Panel considers that the European Communities has failed to accord no less favourable treatment itself to the nationals of other Members. The Panel confirms that the European Communities is entitled, under Article62.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, to provide for procedures for objections that comply with the general principles in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article41. However, Article62 is outside the Panel's terms of reference. The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref88144599 \n \h 7.248 that the fact that a general exceptions provision along the lines of ArticleXX of GATT 1994 was not included in the TRIPS Agreement has no impact on its analysis of Article3.1. Therefore, the Panel concludes that, with respect to the objection procedures, insofar as they require the verification and transmission of objections by governments, the Regulation accords less favourable treatment to the nationals of other Members, inconsistently with Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article 2 of the Paris Convention (1967) In view of the conclusion at paragraph  REF _Ref90832751 \n \h 7.378 with 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 Article2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref90832786 \n \h 7.253 and, for the same reasons, concludes that, with respect to the opposition procedures, the Regulation does not impose a requirement of domicile or establishment inconsistently with Article2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Equivalence and reciprocity conditions Australia claims that the right to file an objection under Article12d(1) of the Regulation is limited to countries that satisfy the equivalence and reciprocity conditions in Article12(1) based on a reading of the phrase "a ϲʹ member country or a third country recognised under the procedure provided for in Article12(3)" as if it read "a ϲʹ member country recognised under the procedure provided for in Article12(3) or a third country recognised under the procedure provided for in Article12(3)". It is necessary for the Panel to make an objective assessment of the meaning of that phrase in this provision, although solely for the purpose of determining the European Communities' compliance with its ϲʹ obligations. The Panel observes that this claim is based entirely on the absence of a comma. A reading of the text of Article12d(1), set out in full at paragraph  REF _Ref85533788 \n \h 7.346 shows that if there were a comma after the words "a ϲʹ 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 Article12(3)". However, in the Panel's view, even without a comma, it is unlikely that the phrase "recognised under the procedure provided for in Article12(3)" refers to both a "ϲʹ member country" and a "third country" in this context. If that were the correct reading, then there would be no need to specify a "ϲʹ member country" separately because, outside the European Communities, a "ϲʹ member country" is necessarily a third country. There would be no need to refer specifically to a "ϲʹ 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 procedure provided for in Article12(3) so that, consequently, this phrase would not apply to a "ϲʹ member country". Indeed, the fact that there is no need for a ϲʹ Member to obtain recognition under Article12(3) for its residents to object seems to be precisely the reason that it is included. This is consistent with the fact that Article12b(2), in which the format is clearer, creates a right of objection for ϲʹ Member and other third country nationals but clearly indicates that recognition under the procedure in Article12(3) does not apply to ϲʹ Members in this respect. Further confirmation is provided by the recitals to the April 2003 amending Regulation which explained the justification for the insertion of the right of objection in Articles12b and 12d in terms of ϲʹ Members, but limited the explanation of the equivalence and reciprocity conditions to the issue of protection provided by registration to foreign names. The European Communities confirms that the Panel's interpretation of this aspect of the Regulation is correct and submits undisputed evidence that since the entry into force of Article12d(1), the publications of all applications for registration of a geographical indication specifically refer to the possibility for residents from ϲʹ countries to object to the application. Therefore, based on this understanding of Article12d(1) of the Regulation, the Panel concludes that with respect to the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, as allegedly applicable to objections, Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement or Article2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Summary of conclusions regarding objection procedures In summary: with respect to the objection procedures, insofar 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 Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement; with respect to the objection procedures, the Regulation does not impose a requirement of domicile or establishment inconsistently with Article2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement; and Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims with respect to the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, as allegedly applicable to the objection procedures. Regulatory committee Description of procedure laid down in Article15 of the Regulation The Regulation provides that certain decisions shall be taken by the European Commission "in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article15". These include decisions not to proceed with registration of a GI under Articles6(5) and 12b(1)(b); decisions whether or not to proceed with registration of a GI where an objection is admissible under Articles7(5)(b), 12b(3) and 12d(3); decisions to cancel registration of a GI under Article11a; and decisions whether a third country satisfies the equivalence and reciprocity conditions under Article12(3). The Regulation provides that the Commission may ask the committee provided for in Article15 for its opinion prior to taking certain other decisions. These include decisions to proceed with registration of a GI located in a third country under Article12b(1)(a) and decisions to register a homonym of an already registered GI under Article6(6). Article15 of the Regulation provides, relevantly, as follows: "1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. 2. Where reference is made to this Article, Articles5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply. (...)" Decision 1999/468/EC (the so-called "Comitology Decision") lays down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. Article5 of that Decision sets out a regulatory procedure which provides that 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 vote. 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 majority 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 shall, without delay, submit to the Council a proposal 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 neither adopts the proposed measure nor indicates its opposition within three months, the Commission shall adopt the proposed measure. National treatment under the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia argues that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement (incorporating Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967)) because "a non-EC national trademark right holder does not have a national representative on the Committee to speak for its interests". It set out the procedure that is established under Article15. The European Communities responds that this claim is manifestly unfounded. The decision-maker is the Commission, or exceptionally the Council. The Committee merely assists the Commission but does not take decisions itself. EC member State representatives on the Committee do not speak for particular right holders, but represent the respective EC member State. Australia has not provided arguments to substantiate its claim. Main arguments of third parties China notes the procedure under Article15 and that the committee is composed only of representatives of EC member States. This procedure for the resolution of possible disputes on publication is available to names from ϲʹ Members, but the process does not invite ϲʹ Members to participate. Consideration by the Panel These claims are made under the national treatment obligations in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel can consider these claims together. The parties agree that the regulatory procedure established under Article15 of the Regulation is as described above. The procedure under Article15 has been applied to the consideration of particular applications to register GIs located within the European Communities where there was an admissible objection from an EC member State. In several cases the Commission's draft measures were not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee and therefore had to be submitted to the Council of Ministers. In most of these cases the Council did not act and the Commission then adopted the measures. The Council adopted the measures itself in the cases of "Bayerisches Bier", "Aceto Balsamico tradizionale di Modena" and "Aceto Balsamico tradizionale di Reggio Emilia". The Panel notes that this regulatory procedure, which is set out in Article5 of the Comitology Decision, appears to be a standard procedure for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the European Commission under Community law. However, in the context of this Regulation, the standard regulatory procedure operates in conjunction with the application and objection procedures, which require the EC member States to examine and transmit applications and objections to the Commission. Australia's claims rest on the premise that the representatives of the EC member States on the regulatory committee act as representatives of groups who submit an application for registration of a GI located in their respective territories, of persons who wish to object who are resident or established in their respective territories, and of interests in products the subject of an application for registration of a GI located in their respective territories. The Panel notes that the regulatory committee must be consulted in cases where the Commission proposes to register a GI and there is an admissible objection. In these cases, the representatives of both the EC member State that forwarded the application and the EC member State that objects participate in the Committee's consideration of the matter, as well as in any action taken by the Council of Ministers. However, according to Article5(5), the EC member State which transmitted the application has already decided that the application satisfies the requirements of the Regulation and, according to Article7, the EC member State that objects has already taken the view that there are grounds to do so. The Panel notes that the Regulation refers to both persons and EC member States, as well as third countries. With respect to applicants, Article5 of the Regulation refers to an applicant group but an EC member State checks and forwards the application and, thereafter, the Commission communicates with the "Member State concerned". With respect to objections, Article7(1) grants only the EC member States the right to raise objections to registration before the Commission, whilst Article7(3) provides that any legitimately concerned natural or legal person may object to the proposed registration by sending its statement to the EC member State in which he resides or is established. Where an objection is acknowledged to be admissible within the meaning of Article7(4), Article7(5) provides that the Commission is to ask the "Member States concerned" to seek agreement among themselves: it makes no provision for any intervention by individuals. Articles6(1), 9 and 11 also refer to the "Member State(s) concerned" in the procedures under the Regulation. The Panel recalls that it has already accepted the European Communities' explanation 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 ϲʹ law and international law in general". We note its explanation that: "When fulfilling their functions under Regulation 2081/92, a Member State is in no way identified with the applicant or the person raising the objection. In verifying the applications or statements of objection, the Member State must correctly, impartially and objectively apply the terms of the Regulation. Similarly, when exercising its role in the Committee, the Member States must be guided by the terms of the Regulation, and not act as a representative of any individual applicant or objecting person." The Panel does not consider that these features of the Regulation "as such" compel any different treatment of different GIs. Under the national treatment obligations of the TRIPS Agreement, evidence is required that, in the application of these procedures, the authorities cannot, do not or will not apply the Regulation in the same way to the nationals of other Members and the European Communities' own nationals. Australia has not provided any such evidence. Further, Australia's references to procedural fairness, due process and/or transparency in the regulatory committee's decision-making process do not appear to relate to the national treatment obligations, but rather other provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims with respect to the regulatory committee under Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. National treatment under GATT 1994 Main arguments of the parties Australia argues that the Regulation is inconsistent with ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 because the outcome of applications for registration are determined through a process, that is, the Committee of EC member State representatives, "in which there is no representative or advocate for the registration of a GI for an imported product and no requirement for procedural fairness, due process and/or transparency concerning that Committee's decision-making process". The European Communities responds that Australia's claim to have a representative on the Committee is not reasonable. The public authorities of a ϲʹ Member must be presumed to administer their duties properly and fairly. This is independent of the nationality of the civil servants and employees working for such authorities. There are no "EC representatives" in the public authorities and agencies of Australia. Consideration by the Panel The Panel notes that this claim, like those claims in respect of the regulatory committee brought under the TRIPS Agreement, rests on the premise that the representatives of the EC member States on the regulatory committee act as representatives of groups who submit an application for registration of a GI located in their respective territories, of persons who wish to object who are resident or established in their respective territories, and of interests in products the subject of an application for registration of a GI located in their respective territories. The Panel recalls its finding at paragraph  REF _Ref88145261 \n \h 7.400 that the relevant features of the Regulation "as such" do not compel any different treatment of different GIs. Under the national treatment obligation in Article III:4 of GATT 1994, evidence is required that, in the application of these procedures, the authorities cannot, do not or will not apply the Regulation in the same way to imported products and EC products and that this accords less favourable treatment. Australia has not provided any such evidence. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claim with respect to the regulatory committee under Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Labelling requirement Factual aspects of the labelling requirement in Article12(2) of the Regulation Text of Article12(2) of the Regulation This claim concerns a labelling requirement in the second indent of Article12(2) of the Regulation. The parties disagree sharply on the meaning and scope of this provision, read in its context. Therefore, the Panel will begin by quoting Article12(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." Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that this labelling requirement applies to the use of GIs from other ϲʹ Members so that use of a GI on a product from another ϲʹ Member can be authorized only if it meets this labelling requirement. Australia does not consider that Article12(2) of the Regulation can apply to the registration of both EC and third country GIs in view of its actual text which expressly relates to a situation where the later registered GI is "a protected name of a third country". As long as it is drafted in that form, the European Communities is not bound to apply the interpretation that it has offered, and the European Court of Justice would enforce the specific terms of the Regulation. Australia also argues that the European Communities' explanation of the country of origin labelling requirement in Article12(2) is not supported by the actual text of Article 12(2), particularly when read together with Article6(6), which applies to the registration of a GI located in the European Communities. Australia submits that the meaning of "such names" is unclear but understands that it refers to a third country GI protected in that third country and which is identical to a prior GI on the EC register. It submits that the meaning of "protected name of a third country" is ambiguous but, given the context, it assumes that it refers to a third country GI protected in that third country. Later, it argues that the term "Community protected name" refers to a GI already on the register whether from the European Communities or a third country. Australia argues that "clearly and visibly indicated" means that the label must be noticeably evident in the same field of vision as the GI and the GI symbol. The European Communities responds that the second subparagraph of Article12(2) only applies to the GIs in the situation referred to in its first subparagraph. It only applies in cases of homonyms and not to third country names in general. It confirms that there have been no cases in which this provision has been applied in practice. The European Communities argues that "such names" 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. 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 EC. Article12(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. "Such names" is written in the plural which clearly indicates that the requirement can relate to both the EC and third country GIs. Nothing in the wording of the provision prevents it applying to GIs from both third countries and the EC. 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 third country, whether or not from the European Communities or a third country. In the EC's view, Article12(2) has no specific link with Article12(1). The European Communities argues that, in cases of homonymous GIs from the European Communities, the last indent of Article6(6) also requires a clear distinction in practice between them which would normally, in practice, require the indication of the country of origin. The only reason why the last indent of Article6(6) does not explicitly require the indication of the country of origin is that this provision deals with a wider set of conflicts than Article12(2). There is no difference between the word "homonymous" in Article6(6) and "identical" in Article12(2) as the English definitions of those words are synonymous and the French and Spanish versions use the same term in both provisions. Article6(6) deals with a wider set of conflicts than Article12(2), such as homonyms from within the European Communities, homonyms from within the same third country or different third countries. Article6(6) simply refers to "protected 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. The European Communities argues that "clearly and 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. Consideration by the Panel The Panel begins by noting that the second indent of Article12(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". The labelling requirement has not been applied in practice. However, Australia challenges this aspect of the Regulation "as such". The meaning of the various terms in the second indent of Article12(2) is essential to a resolution of this claim. Therefore, it is necessary 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 its ϲʹ obligations. The parties disagree on the scope of the labelling requirement. Australia does not exclude that it may apply to all GIs from third countries, like the wider context in Article12, 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 Article12. The Panel observes that the scope of the labelling requirement is indicated by its subject: "[u]se of such names". "Such" is a demonstrative 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 possible to look back further in the context and read the phrase "[u]se of such names" as referring to the names or GIs in the preceding paragraph 1, such a reading is, in our view, constrained. We note that the position of paragraph 2 near the beginning of Articles12 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 two original provisions on GIs from third countries that predate the insertion of Articles12(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. Even though Australia understands that the provision only refers to "identical" GIs, the parties disagree on the meaning of "such names". Australia assumes from the context that it refers to the subject of the previous indent, which is "a protected name of a third country" that is identical 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. The Panel considers, once again, 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. 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. This reading is confirmed by the wider context in Articles12 through 12b which relates only to the registration of GIs from third countries. The registration of GIs located within the European Communities is dealt with in Articles5 through 7. A provision permitting objections to such registrations from persons in third countries was inserted in Article12d in April 2003. It would be a very special reading if the second indent of Article12(2) were the sole provision in the scheme of Articles12 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 third 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. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Article12(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 why it would matter for this requirement where the prior GI was located, as long as it was identical. The Panel also notes that the first indent of Article12(2) contains language almost identical to that found in Article6(6) of the Regulation. Both refer to registration of names "with due regard for local and traditional usage and the actual risk [or practical risks] of confusion". However, Article6(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 Article12(3)". Unlike the second indent of Article12(2), the last tiret of Article6(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 the need to treat the producers concerned in an equitable manner and not to mislead consumers." The Panel will revert to the parallel in the construction of the requirements in Articles12(2) and 6(6) in its consideration of this claim. National treatment under the TBT Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement because the labelling requirement in Article12(2) accords less favourable treatment to imported products. Firstly, it argues that the labelling requirement in Article 12(2) of the Regulation falls within the definition of a "technical regulation" in Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement. Australia argues that the Regulation applies to an "identifiable group of products" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement because Article 12(2) applies to agricultural products and foodstuffs for which GI protection is sought where the GI is identical to a GI already on the EC register. These are not expressly identified in the Regulation but they are identifiable. Although it applies to GIs, these exist with regard to specific agricultural products or foodstuffs for which the homonymous GIs have been registered. Australia argues that the Regulation lays down "product characteristics or their related processes" within the meaning of the definition in Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement, in that it sets out a specific labelling requirement. It provides that the use of GIs from other ϲʹ Members will only be authorized "if the country of origin of the product is clearly and visibly indicated on the label." To that extent, the Regulation is a document which "include[s ] ... labelling requirements as they apply to a product" within the meaning of a technical regulation as defined in Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement. If this requirement was not considered to relate to a product, it would render the concept of a label meaningless. The words "as they apply to" refer to a product, as opposed to the characteristics of a product. In any case, the origin of a product is inextricably linked to that product by virtue of the definitions of a "designation of origin" and "geographical indication" in Article2(2) of the Regulation and inherently involves a product. Australia does not argue that "origin" isproduct characteristic, but that the labelling requirementitself is a product characteristic. Australia argues that the labelling requirement is "mandatory" within the meaning of Annex1.1 of the TBT Agreement because Article12(2) uses the term "shall". Australia does not dispute that it is not a precondition for the marketing of a product in the European Communities. However, it is mandatory for trading an imported product in the European Communities with a GI in the same competitive conditions as those afforded to a domestic product in the European Communities with a GI. An imported product does not benefit from the protection against unauthorized use provided by registration, nor from the reputation of superior quality engendered by registration. Australia submits that the labelling requirement concerns both imported and domestic products that are "like" within the meaning of Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement. It is sufficient for the Panel to consider the issues in the context of a general presumption of likeness. GIs are intellectual property rights and do not affect the analysis of likeness of the underlying products. Products bearing a GI from an area that straddles the external border of the European Communities could be exactly the same although some would be imported. Further, GI protection under the Regulation concerns unfair competition between products which normally involves a high degree of similarity or likeness. Jurisprudence on ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 can be looked to for clarification of the national treatment obligation in Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement.  Australia claims that Article12(2) provides different treatment to imported products because Article6(6) does not mandate that corresponding domestic products bear a country of origin label. It alleges that this is less favourable treatment because "there are likely to be situations" where the labelling requirement modifies the conditions of competition to the detriment of imported products. Specifically, it creates costs of additional labelling or re-labelling. It does not allege that it accords any other less favourable treatment. It accepts that in some cases existing labels may, coincidentally, satisfy the labelling requirement. However, where a different, or additional, label is required to be produced and attached to a product, this will create extra expense that can be expected to modify the conditions of competition to the detriment of producers of the imported product. The appropriate standard for determining less favourable treatment is that whether the measure modifies the conditions of competition in the relevant market to the detriment of imported products. The European Communities bears the burden of proving that ArticleXX of GATT 1994 has any significance in the context of the TBT Agreement but it has not presented any supporting arguments. Australia accepts that, if the European Communities were to interpret Article12(2) of the Regulation according to whichever GI was registered later, that this could be expected to overcome its inconsistency with Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement. However, in the situation covered by Article12(2) which is the subject of its claim, Article6(6) of the Regulation has no relevance. It refers to Article6(6) only in relation to the factual issue of the proper interpretation of Article12(2). Australia argues that a measure implementing matters concerning intellectual property rights is not necessarily excluded from the scope of the TBT Agreement. The assessment of whether a measure is a technical regulation within the meaning of the TBT Agreement is a threshold issue for the application of that agreement but is not determinative of a violation. ϲʹ obligations are generally cumulative. Australia argues that the labelling requirement mandates a means of distinguishing an imported product, rather than functioning as a mark of origin per se. Even if it is a mark of origin, Article12(2) is the means by which the Regulation compulsorily differentiates between GIs on imported and domestic products. ArticleIX:1 of GATT 1994 is silent on the issue of national treatment and marks of origin. However, even if excludes the application of ArticleIII of GATT 1994, it does not exclude the application of Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement if the measure is a "technical regulation". Further, even if Article2.1 did conflict with ArticleIX, Article2.1 would prevail in accordance with the General Interpretative Note to Annex 1A to the ϲʹ Agreement. The European Communities responds that Article12(2) of the Regulation is not a technical regulation within the meaning of Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement. It is not a labelling requirement but merely sets out the conditions under which a GI will be registered in a situation where there are homonyms from the European Communities and a third country. The European Communities argues that Article12(2) does not apply to identifiable products within the meaning of Annex 1.1 because the Regulation itself does not allow one to identify the products which might be affected by the requirement to indicate the country of origin. The European Communities argues that Article12(2) does not lay down product characteristics within the meaning of Annex 1.1 because it does not contain a specific labelling requirement for any specific product. It is not Article12(2) itself which imposes a labelling requirement but rather, according to Article4(2)(h), the product specification for an individual GI, which contains the specific labelling details. Further, it does not relate to a product, process or its production method but merely to a product's geographic origin which is different from the product itself. Origin may confer specific characteristics or a reputation on a product which may entitle it for protection as a GI but those issues are already covered by TRIPS and do not need to be addressed by the TBT Agreement. Origin marking is already covered by ArticleIX of GATT 1994. In addition, the phrase "labelling requirements as they apply to a product" appears to refer to the application of labelling requirements to characteristics of a product, process or production method. The European Communities argues that Article12(2) is not mandatory within the meaning of Annex 1.1 because the possibility to apply for GI protection is a right, not an obligation. GI registration is voluntary and not a precondition for the marketing of products. The European Communities argues that Australia has failed to establish that products bearing homonymous GIs from the European Communities covered by Article6(6) and a product from a third country covered by Article12(2) would be "like". The comparable situation under Article6(6) is that of two homonymous GIs from the European Communities, not one from the European Communities and one from a third country. It is therefore unnecessary to resolve the meaning of "like products" in Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement. The European Communities argues that Article12(2) does not accord less favourable treatment because it applies in a non-discriminatory fashion to European Communities and third country GIs. The requirement applies to homonyms from the European Communities and a third country and will be a condition for the registration of the GI for which protection is sought later. Article6(6) does not explicitly require the indication of a country of origin because it deals with a wider set of conflicts, in particular, homonyms from the same EC member State, where the country of origin would not make a "clear distinction" in practice". It could also deal with other conflicts not resolved by Article12(2) such as homonyms from the same third country, or different third countries. An indication of the country of origin of the later registered GI avoids practical risks of confusion because, typically, the prior registered GI will have been marketed longer under that GI and be known by consumers. It also takes into account the fact that the prior registration cannot easily be amended. Imported products would not necessarily have to be re-labelled as the country of origin may already be clearly and visibly indicated on the label. Existing marks of origin may be sufficient. The affixation of an additional label clearly and visibly indicating the country of origin would also be sufficient. The legitimate regulatory objectives of the Member concerned must be taken into account in the application of both Article2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Alternatively, the Panel would have to consider whether ArticleXX of GATT 1994 is applicable within the context of the TBT Agreement. The European Communities argues that the requirement under Article12(2) is a mark of origin covered by ArticleIX of GATT 1994, which excludes national treatment obligations. It is not possible to distinguish marks of origin which fall under the TBT Agreement and those which do not. There is no textual basis for distinguishing general origin marking requirements and those which cover only specific products. If Article12(2) was considered a technical regulation, Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement could not apply to origin marking requirements lest it render ArticleIX:1 useless. The European Communities does not argue that there is a conflict, but rather that ArticleIX:1 and Article2.1 should be interpreted in a harmonious way that gives meaning to both of them. Finally, Article1.2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin deals interalia with ArticleIX on marks of origin but makes no mention of the TBT Agreement, which would be hard to explain if the TBT Agreement applied to marks of origin. Main arguments of third parties New Zealand supports the arguments of Australia in its first written submission that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Consideration by the Panel This claim concerns Article12(2) of the Regulation "as such". Article2.1 provides as follows: "2.1 Members shall ensure that in respect of technical regulations, products imported from the territory of any Member shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like products originating in any other country." The Panel considers that the essential elements of an inconsistency with Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement are, as a minimum, that the measure at issue is a "technical regulation"; that the imported and domestic products at issue are "like products" within the meaning of that provision; and that the imported products are accorded "less favourable" treatment than that accorded to like domestic products. We will consider these elements below. Technical regulation The threshold issue for the Panel to decide is whether the requirement in Article12(2) of the Regulation is a "technical regulation" within the meaning of the TBT Agreement. If it is not, then Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement will not be applicable. Annex 1.1 of that agreement provides as follows: "For the purpose of this Agreement, however, the following definitions shall apply: 1. Technicalregulation Document which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions, with which compliance is mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method." [Explanatorynote omitted] The parties refer to the two elements that appear in the text of this definition, namely that a technical regulation is a "[d]ocument which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions" and "with which compliance is mandatory", as well as to the issue that a technical regulation must be applicable to an identifiable product or group of products, explained by the Appellate Body in EC Asbestos and EC Sardines. The Panel will address these in turn. The parties disagree as to whether the second indent of Article12(2) itself lays down a labelling detail. In the Panel's view, it clearly does. The text of the second indent of Article12(2) expressly sets out the condition that the country of origin must be clearly and visibly indicated on the label. Even though the product specifications under Article4.2(h) lay down the labelling details for products relating to each individual GI as it is registered, this does not alter the terms of Article12(2). The parties disagree as to whether the second indent of Article12(2) of the Regulation lays down a product characteristic. The Panel notes that it expressly sets out a requirement that concerns what must be indicated on "the label" of a product. That is a labelling requirement. The second sentence of the definition of "technical regulation" in Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement expressly refers to "labelling requirements" as an example of a technical regulation. The Panel notes that this example in the definition in Annex 1.1 is qualified by the words "as they apply to a product, process or production method". The text does not limit the scope of the example by stating what the labels must indicate in order for them to constitute a technical regulation. Rather, they explain to what the labelling requirements "apply". This simply means that a requirement concerning a product label is a labelling requirement that applies to a product. The context shows that the subject of the second sentence, "[i]t" refers back to the noun "[d]ocument" as qualified by the relative clause beginning "which lays down" and ending with the word "mandatory". Were this not so, the element that "compliance is mandatory", for example, would not apply to the items described in the second sentence, which would be contrary to the object and purpose of the obligations concerning technical regulations. As a result, a document that "deal[s] exclusively with ... labelling requirements as they apply to a product" can be an example of a "[d]ocument that lays down product characteristics". The issue is not whether the content of the label refers to a product characteristic: the label on a product is a product characteristic. Therefore, the second indent of Article12(2) of the Regulation deals exclusively with a labelling requirement "as it applies to a product". In any event, the second indent of Article12(2) requires that the country of origin be clearly and visibly indicated on the label of a product in order to provide a means of identification where two GIs are identical. In the Panel's view, the purpose of this requirement is indicated by the first indent of Article12(2), namely, that it is a means to avoid the practical risks of confusion. In other words, it is a means of identification. In this respect, the Panel agrees with the view of the Appellate Body in EC Asbestos and EC Sardines that a means of identification is, itself, a product characteristic. In summary, a document that lays down a requirement that a product label must contain a particular detail, in fact, lays down a product characteristic. This interpretation is consistent with a Decision of the TBT Committee in which Members agreed as follows: "In conformity with Article2.9 of the Agreement, Members are obliged to notify all mandatory labelling requirements that are not based substantially on a relevant international standard and that may have a significant effect on the trade of other Members. That obligation is not dependent upon the kind of information which is provided on the label, whether it is in the nature of a technical specification or not." Therefore, the Panel considers that the second indent of Article12(2) is a "[d]ocument which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions" and a labelling requirement that applies to a product, within the meaning of the definition of "technical regulation". The Panel will now consider whether compliance is mandatory with the second indent of Article12(2) of the Regulation. The ordinary meaning of the word "mandatory" can be defined in the case of an action as "obligatory in consequence of a command, compulsory. (Foll. by upon)". The second indent uses the word "shall", which indicates that it is mandatory for products subject to Article12(2) to obtain the benefits of registration under the Regulation. As to the European Communities' argument that this is not a mandatory requirement in order to market the relevant products in the European Communities, the Panel notes the approach taken to a similar argument made by the European Communities in a previous dispute. The panel in that dispute recalled that a document may require positively that a product contain certain characteristics or it may require negatively that the product not possess certain characteristics. That panel reasoned that, by requiring the use of a particular type of product under a particular trade description, the measure at issue in effect lay down product characteristics in a negative form, that is, by excluding other products from being marketed under that description. In the present dispute, the Panel notes that only products that comply with a product specification in a GI registration may use the indications PDO, PGI or equivalent national indications. Further, agricultural products and foodstuffs bearing an unregistered identical GI may not be marketed in the European Communities under that name where they infringe prior registered GIs which, given that the GI is identical, appears inevitable unless the products are not comparable. The second indent of Article12(2) makes a distinction between those products using a GI identical to a Community protected name that satisfy the labelling requirement, and those which do not. The negative implication that follows from this requirement is that products with a GI identical to a Community protected name that do not satisfy this labelling requirement must not use the indications PDO, PGI or equivalent national indications and, to the extent that they fall within the protection granted to a prior identical Community protected name, must not be marketed in the European Communities using that GI. Therefore, the second indent of Article12(2) is an obligatory or mandatory requirement. The Panel agrees with the view of the Appellate Body that compliance would be impossible with a technical regulation if it were not applicable to identifiable products. The parties disagree as to whether the second indent of Article12(2) applies to an identifiable product. It refers to "the product" but does not name any product. However, Article12(2) forms part of the Regulation which has a defined product coverage described in Article1(1) as those agricultural products intended for human consumption referred to in Annex I to the EC Treaty, the foodstuffs listed in Annex I to the Regulation and the agricultural products listed in Annex II to the Regulation, subject to certain exceptions for wine-sector products, except wine vinegars or spirit drinks. A procedure is specified for the amendment of the product coverage in Annexes I and II to the Regulation. That is a large, but defined, group of products. Article12(2) is applicable to them all, although it lays down a specific requirement that is only triggered where a name is identical to a Community protected name. The identical criterion permits identification of the products to which this requirement will apply in a given case. To date, there have not been any. Therefore, the Panel considers that compliance is mandatory with the second indent of Article12(2) of the Regulation, within the meaning of the definition of "technical regulation", and that this requirement applies to identifiable products. Accordingly, the Panel's preliminary finding is that the labelling requirement is a "technical regulation" within the meaning of the definition in the TBT Agreement and that Article2.1 of that agreement may be applicable. The European Communities argues that this labelling requirement cannot be subject to the national treatment obligation in Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement due to the terms of ArticleIX of GATT 1994 on marks of origin. The Panel considers it unnecessary to reach a definitive view on this issue, in view of its findings below on "less favourable treatment". It suffices for the purposes of this dispute to note that the definition of a "technical regulation" in Annex1.1 and the preamble to the TBT Agreement specifically include "marking and labelling requirements" without any indication that marks of origin are excluded. Article1.4 and 1.5 specifically exclude certain purchasing specifications addressed in the Agreement on Government Procurement and sanitary and phytosanitary measures as defined in the SPS Agreement, but there is no express exclusion for marks of origin. In any event, it has not been shown that Article 12(2) of the Regulation is, in fact, a requirement to display a mark of origin. The Panel also recalls the views of the Appellate Body in EC Asbestos and EC Sardines that, when examining whether a measure is a technical regulation, "the proper legal character of the measure at issue cannot be determined unless the measure is examined as a whole". The second indent of Article12(2) is a small part of the Regulation which applies in a narrow circumstance. Clearly, the Regulation is an intellectual property measure but the parties do not ask the Panel to take a position on whether the product specifications required under Article4(2) are technical regulations and the inspection structures required under Article10 are conformity assessment procedures within the meaning of the TBT Agreement. The characterization of the whole measure is therefore a complex issue on which there has been little argument and which the Panel considers unnecessary to decide for the purposes of this claim. Like products Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement refers to "products imported from the territory of any Member" and inter alia "like products of national origin". An essential element of a claim under Article2.1 is the existence of like products. Australia submits that it is sufficient for the Panel to consider the issues in the context of "a general presumption of likeness". The European Communities contests the likeness of products within the meaning of Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement. The Panel considers it unnecessary to reach any view on this issue, in view of the findings below on "less favourable treatment". Less favourable treatment Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement refers to "treatment no less favourable". An essential element of a claim under Article2.1 is that, in respect of technical regulations, the treatment accorded to imported products is "less favourable" than that accorded to like products of national origin. The Panel notes the similarity in the terms used in Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement and ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994, which also refers to "treatment no less favourable". The preamble to the TBT Agreement expressly sets out the desire "to further the objectives of GATT 1994". However, in view of its findings below, the Panel considers it sufficient for the purposes of this dispute simply to observe that the starting point for this analysis must be whether the measure at issue accords any difference in treatment. Australia claims that the treatment accorded under the labelling requirement for GIs located in third countries, including ϲʹ Members, is less favourable than that accorded to GIs located within the European Communities. The Panel has found at paragraph  REF _Ref88231996 \n \h 7.423 that the labelling requirement only applies to products bearing GIs from third countries that are identical to a Community protected name. This is a narrow circumstance. The Panel notes that Articles12(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 Article12(2) uses the word "identical" and Article6(6) uses the word "homonymous". However, two other official versions of the Regulation use the same word in both provisions (homonyme in French and homnima in Spanish). The Panel assumes that the meaning of the different versions of the text can be reconciled, and that, therefore, the words in Articles12(2) and 6(6) can have the same meaning in English as well. Both requirements are mandatory, providing that use "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 Article12(2) states the condition expressly by providing that "the country of origin of the product is clearly and visibly indicated on the label". In contrast, Article6(6) states the condition in terms of factors that "a clear distinction in practice between the 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". The Panel does not consider that the mere fact that imported products and products of European Communities' origin are subject to different legal provisions is in itself conclusive in establishing an inconsistency with the national treatment obligation in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Nor is it conclusive that the indication of the "country of origin" is both mandatory and express in the Regulation for imported products only, since the Regulation does not mandate that the European Communities must not impose the same labelling requirement on domestic products. The European Communities explains that the difference in wording of the relevant provisions is due to the fact that Article6(6) applies to a wider class of GIs. For example, it could apply to identical GIs located in different EC member States, as well as to a GI within the European Communities identical to a GI located in a third country, which Article12(2) does not. The essential point is that nothing in the text appears to prevent the 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 Article6(6) of the Regulation permits the European Communities to apply the same condition found in the text of Article12(2) so that both requirements would be applied to the GI registered later in time, irrespective of the origin of the product or the location of the GI. The European Communities has confirmed to the Panel that the clear distinction in practice would normally require the indication of the country of origin. Australia accepts that, if the European Communities were to interpret Article12(2) of the Regulation according to whichever GI was registered later in time, this could be expected to overcome its inconsistency with Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Although it later argued that Article6(6) was of no relevance, the Panel does not agree for the reasons set out above. Australia has not provided any evidence that the formal difference in the wording of the two requirements leads to any difference in treatment nor that it accords any different treatment to imported products. It has not provided evidence that, where the European Commission applies the same condition under the labelling requirement in Article12(2) and the last tiret of Article6(6), that such a practice would not survive a legal challenge before the European Court of Justice. 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". 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 Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of this claim. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider whether an assessment of conformity with Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement requires reference to be had to the regulatory objective pursued by a measure as referred to in Article2.2 of the TBT agreement, or the absence in the text of the TBT Agreement of a general exceptions provision such as ArticleXX of GATT 1994. C. Trade-Restrictiveness Claim Inspection structures Description of inspection structures (Articles4.2(g), 10 and 12a of the Regulation) The condition in Article12(1) of the Regulation 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 Article10 of the Regulation under the procedures for registration of individual GIs. This is, allegedly, a per-product requirement. The Panel continues its examination in respect of these particular requirements, bearing in mind the aim of the dispute settlement mechanism, which is to secure a positive solution to a dispute, and the views of the Appellate Body in Australia Salmon on the principle of judicial economy. Were the Panel not to examine the claim with respect to the inspection structures requirements within the application procedures, its conclusion on the inspection structures condition in Article12(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. An application for registration of a GI must be accompanied by certain documents. The first is the product specification. Article5(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 Article4." Article12a(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 Article4 for each name." With respect to the specification, Article4 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 Article10;" A specification refers to a particular product and the list of items that Article 4 requires to be included in a product specification all appear to be product-specific. Applications to register GIs located in third countries must also be accompanied by a declaration by a third country government. Article12a(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 Article10 are established on its territory." This declaration is not required of an EC member 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 Article10 itself to ensure that inspection structures are in place. The European Communities confirms that the requirements are the same for EC member States and third countries. Article10(1) explains that the function of inspection structures is "to ensure that agricultural products and foodstuffs bearing a protected name meet the requirements laid down in the specifications". Article10(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. Article10(3) lays down requirements regarding the characteristics and duties of the inspection authorities and/or private bodies but not the product-specific requirements which appear in product specifications. We highlight the requirements for inspection authorities under Article 10(3) which are relevant to the claims below. 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 impartiality 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." 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 shall, however, continue to be responsible vis--vis the Member State for all inspections." 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 purposes, shall be established or amended in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article15. The equivalent standard or the applicable version of the equivalent standard in the case of third countries recognised pursuant to Article12(3), whose requirements private bodies must fulfil for approval purposes, shall be established or amended in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article15." Standard EN 45011 sets out "General requirements 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; changes 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 Article10(3) of the Regulation. Standard EN 45011 is a European standard that takes over the text of ISO/IEC Guide65:1996 prepared by the ISO Committee on Conformity Assessment (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. The responsibilities of governments are set out in Article10(1) and (2). 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 designates a public inspection authority, it carries out inspections itself. Where the government approves a private inspection body, it must ascertain that the private body is capable of fulfilling its functions in accordance with Article10(1) and meets the requirements of Article10(3), set out above. The 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 for continued monitoring that an approved private body continues to meet the requirements. Trade-restrictiveness under the TBT Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the inspection structures required by Articles4, 10 and 12(1) of the Regulation are inconsistent with Article2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Article10 requires that EC member States have in place these inspection structures. Article12a(2)(b) requires that other ϲʹ Members provide a declaration that the structures provided for in Article10 are established in its territory. Australia argues that the Regulation is a "technical regulation" within the definition in Annex1.1 of the TBT Agreement because Articles10 and 4 (in particular Article4.2(g)) together require inspection structures to check that products using a GI comply with the product specifications in the GI registration. Article4.2(b) and (e) provide that product specifications include "product characteristics". The process of checking compliance with the specifications is a regular sequence of actions, i.e. a process, and falls within the meaning of "product characteristics or their related processes". Australia does not take a position on whether the definitions of "technical regulation" and "standard" and the definition of a "conformity assessment procedure" in Annex1 are necessarily mutually exclusive, but agrees that a conformity assessment procedure requires at the very least a separate technical regulation or standard against which products are to be assessed. Australia submits that it is irrelevant to this claim whether or not the Regulation is an intellectual property measure and also subject to another ϲʹ covered agreement. Australia argues that the inspection structure requirements are mandatory for products that use a registered GI. Therefore, they are mandatory for trading an imported product in the same competitive conditions as those afforded to a domestic product that uses a registered GI. Australia does not dispute that inspection structures, and GI registration, are not a precondition for the marketing of a product in the EC. Australia does not contest that the Regulation could pursue legitimate objectives or that it is capable of generally fulfilling those legitimate objectives. It argues that the Regulation is more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil its legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create, contrary to Article2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Its claim is based on the allegation that the Regulation imposes an "absolute requirement" for an EC model inspection structure as a condition for the registration of a GI, irrespective of the circumstances in the Member in which the GI is located or of the circumstances of the trade in the relevant products. Australia argues that the Regulation mandates the type of structure or design for inspection that other ϲʹ Members must have in place. Such a requirement cannot be necessary to fulfil the Regulation's legitimate objective unless the European Communities had determined that no other systems in any ϲʹ Member would in any circumstances provide the same degree of assurance as its own system. Inspection structures in a ϲʹ Member where the good is produced is meaningless where the unauthorized use involving goods from a third country ϲʹ Member occurs in the European Communities. Australia does not contest that inspection structures may be required with respect to a specific product for which protection is sought or that some type of compliance verification mechanism may be necessary in most cases. Nor does it consider that government involvement is necessarily problematic. It challenges the fact that the Regulation dictates specific design features: Article10(3) provides that an inspection structure must have permanently have at its disposal the necessary qualified staff, yet temporary staff may be all that is necessary to provide the required level of assurance; Article10 does not allow for the possibility that inspection structures might be unnecessary; Article12a(2)(b) requires a declaration as to the structures provided for in Article10, which excludes alternative measures that are not inspection structures at all, such as systems of laws. However, Australia does not challenge these specific elements, rather it challenges the fact that the Article10-type inspection structure is imposed on other ϲʹ Members regardless of their existing inspection structures or other systems that would perform the same function. Australia argues that alternative measures can achieve the EC's legitimate objectives with the same degree of effectiveness, such as laws against misleading and deceptive commercial practices enforced by an investigating authority, which may operate in conjunction with food labelling laws enforced by a food authority. These authorities could ensure that products comply with their specifications and address any risks created by non-fulfilment. Further alternative measures include the tort of passing off, industry certifications, self-regulation by producers and consumer protection mechanisms. The European Communities responds that none of these provisions are a "technical regulation" within the meaning of the TBT Agreement. Article4 does not lay down product characteristics for specific products. These characteristics are contained in the application for registration. Article4 simply sets out the requirements with which a product specification must comply in order to permit GI registration. The product characteristics are contained in an individual GI application. Inspection structures are not "related processes" within the definition of a technical regulation in Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement because they are not related to the product characteristics and, if they were, then all conformity assessment procedures would be technical regulations which would lead to a systematic overlap between the various provisions of the TBT Agreement. The European Communities submits that the purpose of Article4.2(g) in conjunction with Article10 is to ensure conformity with the product specification, not to lay down product characteristics. The TBT Agreement makes a clear distinction between technical regulations and standards in Articles2 to 4 and procedures to assess conformity with them in Articles5 to 9. The dividing line between them is perfectly clear in the definitions in Annex 1. This claim does not fall within Article2 but appears to fall within Articles5 to 9 of the TBT Agreement. The inspection structure requirements are not a technical regulation. They cannot be both a technical regulation and a conformity assessment procedure. It does not contest that a conformity assessment procedure assesses conformity with a technical regulation or a standard as defined in Annex 1.3 of the TBT Agreement but does not consider it necessary for the Panel to decide whether the inspection structures are indeed conformity assessment procedures. It does not contend that the general requirement that a GI must correspond to certain product specifications constitutes a technical regulation since it is merely a condition for the grant of an intellectual property right. A different question would be whether individual product specifications for individual GIs would be technical regulations but that is an issue which the Panel does not need to address. The European Communities argues that Articles4 and 10 are not mandatory because GI protection is voluntary. It is not a precondition for placing products on the market. The European Communities argues that the existence of inspection structures is not more trade-restrictive than necessary because it is only required with respect to the specific product for which protection is sought; it does not determine the specific design of the inspection structures; and they are necessary to achieve the legitimate objectives of the Regulation. Unfair competition laws might be adequate to implement GI protection under Article22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement but Article1.1 allows Members to implement more extensive protection. This discretion under Article1.1 cannot be limited on the basis of Article2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The European Communities refers to its arguments on this point in relation to the claim under national treatment obligations of the TRIPS Agreement. The European Communities refers to the conformity assessment procedures foreseen in Article6 of the TBT Agreement. Nothing in that agreement obliges Members simply to accept conformity assessment carried out by bodies of another Member. While Article6.1 of the TBT Agreement stipulates that Members ensure, whenever possible, that they accept the results of conformity assessment procedures in other Members, this only applies when certain conditions are fulfilled. Article6.3 encourages Members to enter into negotiations for the mutual recognition of conformity assessment procedures. Article6.4 encourages Members to permit participation of conformity 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. Australia has concluded a mutual recognition agreement which permits bodies designated by those countries to carry out conformity assessment with respect to EC standards and vice versa. Australia has failed to explain why government involvement in designation of inspection bodies is problematic. Main arguments of third parties New Zealand supports the arguments of Australia in its first written submission that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Consideration by the Panel This claim is made under Article2.2 of the TBT Agreement, which provides as follows: "2.2 Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. For this purpose, technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create. Such legitimate objectives are, inter alia: national security requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment. In assessing such risks, relevant elements of consideration are, inter alia: available scientific and technical information, related processing technology or intended end-uses of products." The threshold issue for the Panel to decide is whether the inspection structures requirements under Article 10 of the Regulation, read together with the product specifications of Article 4 of the Regulation, are a "technical regulation" within the meaning of the TBT Agreement. We note, once again, that the definition of that term in Annex 1.1 provides as follows: "For the purpose of this Agreement, however, the following definitions shall apply: 1. Technicalregulation Document which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions, with which compliance is mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method." [Explanatorynote omitted] The Panel will first examine whether Articles4 and 10, read together, are a "[d]ocument which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions". If they are not, they cannot be a technical regulation within the meaning of this definition and it is unnecessary to examine whether "compliance [with it] is mandatory" or whether it applies to identifiable products. Australia claims that the inspection structures requirements lay down a "process" which is related to an identifiable group of products. Whilst it appears that the specification for a particular product described in Article4 must lay down product characteristics and related production methods, Australia has not pursued a claim in respect of product specifications except insofar as they relate to the inspection structures requirements. The Panel must consider whether the inspection structures requirements, read together with Article 4 of the Regulation, are a "process" within the meaning of the definition of a "technical regulation". The ordinary meaning of the term "process" can be defined as follows: "A thing that goes on or is carried on; a continuous series of actions, events or changes; a course of action, a procedure; esp. a continuous and regular action or succession of actions occurring or performed in a definite manner; a systematic series of actions or operations directed to some end, as in manufacturing, printing, photography, etc." Inspections of particular product specifications, in a general sense, may correspond to this definition. However, the context of the term "technical regulation" in Annex 1 shows that it is one of a suite of definitions that includes "standard" and "conformity assessment procedures". The terms "technical regulations" and "standards" themselves form part of the definition of the term "conformity assessment procedures", which is defined as follows: "3. Conformityassessmentprocedures Any procedure used, directly or indirectly, to determine that relevant requirements in technical regulations or standards are fulfilled. Explanatorynote Conformity assessment procedures include, interalia, procedures for sampling, testing and inspection; evaluation, verification and assurance of conformity; registration, accreditation and approval as well as their combinations." This definition shows that "conformity assessment procedures" assess conformity with "technical regulations" and "standards". This suggests that they are not only distinct from one other, but mutually exclusive. Whilst a single measure can combine both a technical regulation and a procedure to assess conformity with that technical regulation, it would be an odd result if a conformity assessment procedure could fall within the definition of a technical regulation as well. The object and purpose of the TBT Agreement is, in large part, disclosed by the two main groups of substantive provisions that it contains: one that relates to technical regulations and standards in Articles2 to 4, and another that relates to conformity assessment procedures in Articles5 to 9. It is also reflected in the preamble, of which the fifth recital, and also the third and fourth recitals, draw this distinction. If the Panel were to embed measures subject to Articles5 to 9 in the definition of a technical regulation and thereby subject them to the technical regulations provisions in Articles2 to 4 as well, it would lead to an unreasonable result. In this respect, we note that the explanatory note refers to "procedures for ... inspection" as an example of conformity assessment procedures. This suggests that a procedure for inspection is not a technical regulation. Turning to the Regulation, the Panel notes that the inspection structures provided for in Article10 of the Regulation do not set out "acontinuous series of actions, events or changes" or a "course of action, a procedure" within the ordinary meaning set out at paragraph  REF _Ref91232051 \n \h 7.510 above. It does not set out the steps that are to be undertaken to ensure compliance with a product specification, such as with the product specifications contained in Article 4 of the Regulation. Rather, it merely sets out the requirements for the design of inspection authorities and private bodies. It does not deal with the process by which these inspection authorities and private bodies are to conduct their inspections once they are established. Further, these inspection structures may be excluded a priori from the definition of a "technical regulation" under the TBT Agreement, in view of the context of that definition and the object and purpose of the Agreement, as explained at paragraphs  REF _Ref91232081 \n \h 7.511 to  REF _Ref91232083 \n \h 7.513 above. However, it is unnecessary to consider this issue further for the purposes of this dispute. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the inspection structures requirements in the Regulation, read together with Article 4 of the Regulation, are not a "technical regulation" within the definition of that term in Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Article2.2 of the TBT Agreement is inapplicable and rejects Australia's claim. Trademark Claims The relationship between GIs and prior trademarks Introduction Australia claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement because it denies the owner of a registered trademark the exclusive right to prevent uses of GIs which would result in a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark. Its claim does not concern conflicts involving the future acquisition of trademark rights and GIs. The European Communities responds that this claim is unfounded for several reasons: (1)Article14(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)Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement provides for the "coexistence" of GIs and prior trademarks; (3)Article24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement requires the European Communities to maintain "coexistence"; and (4) in any event, Article14(2) of the Regulation would be justified as a limited exception under Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement. 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 infringe the rights conferred by the other. The use of this term does not imply any view on whether such a regime is justified. The Panel will begin its examination of this claim by describing Article14(2) of the Regulation and how the Regulation can, in principle, limit the right of the owner of a trademark subject to Article14(2) against the use of a GI. We will then assess whether Article14(3) of the Regulation prevents a situation from occurring in which a trademark would be subject to Article14(2). If Article14(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 provides authority to limit that right and, if Article24.5 does not, conclude our examination by assessing whether Article17 or Article24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement permits or requires the European Communities to limit that right with respect to uses of signs used as GIs. Description of Article14(2) of the Regulation Article13 of the Regulation sets out the protection 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, uses which are misleading as to the origin of a product or otherwise unfair. Under the European Communities' domestic law, 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 Australia does not contest, that under the European Communities' domestic law, this positive right is implicit in several provisions, including Article4(1), which refers to eligibility to use a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication; Article8, which provides that the indications PDO and PGI and equivalent national indications may appear only on agricultural products and foodstuffs that comply with the Regulation; and Article13(1)(a) which provides protection for registered names against direct or indirect commercial use on certain conditions. Without this positive right, in the European Communities' view, the protection granted by Article13 would be "meaningless". Accordingly, under the European Communities' domestic law, that positive right prevails over the rights of trademark owners to prevent the use of a sign that infringes trademarks. 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. Therefore, the registration does not affect the right of trademark owners to exercise their rights with respect to such uses. Article14 of the Regulation governs the relationship of GIs and trademarks under Community law. Paragraph 1 deals with later trademarks. It provides for the refusal of trademark applications where use of the trademark would infringe the rights in a GI already registered under the Regulation. This, in effect, ensures that a registered GI prevails over a later trademark. Paragraph 2 of Article14 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 Article13 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 submission to the Commission of the application for registration of the designation of origin or geographical indication, may continue to be used notwithstanding the 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] This is an exception to Article13, as it provides for the continued use of a prior trademark even though use of that trademark would conflict with 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 and a trademark can coexist under Community law. It is intended to implement Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article14(2) only applies: with respect to the GI, where a particular 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 paragraph3 of Article14 (discussed below); with respect to the trademark, where a particular 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 where use of that trademark would infringe the GI registration. The scope of Article14(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. The text of Article14(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, 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. This corresponds to the right provided for in Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. However, Article159 of the Community Trademark Regulation, as amended, provides as follows: "This Regulation shall not affect Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs of 14 July 1992, and in particular Article14 thereof." [original footnote omitted] This ensures that the rights conferred by a trademark 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 party. The same applies to trademarks protected under 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 registered under the Regulation in accordance with its registration. The rights conferred by a trademark registration against other third parties are not affected. Accordingly, the trademark owner's right provided by trademark legislation in the implementation of Article16.1 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 Article14(2) of the Regulation. 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 Article14(2). Conversely, the same legislation allows persons, including trademark owners, to take action against certain uses of a registered GI which are not covered by the GI registration. Paragraph 3 of Article14 provides as follows: "3. A designation of origin or geographical 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 mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product." 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. The European Communities argues that Article14(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. Australia disagrees. The Panel will consider this factual issue below. Article14(3) of the Regulation Main arguments of the parties Australia argues that Article14(3) of the Regulation does not concern use that is liable to "confuse" but rather concerns use that is liable to "mislead". "Misleading" is a stricter evidentiary standard than "confusing". The ordinary meaning of "confusing" is "perplexing, bewildering". Although the two words can be synonyms, the context of "mislead" in Article22.2 and 22.3 of the TRIPS Agreement refers to misleading use which positively provokes an error on the part of a consumer. The standard of confusing established by Article16.1 is a separate standard. The wording, context and aim of Article14(3) of the Regulation confirm that its use of "misleading" is similar to that in Article22.2 and 22.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, the express terms of Article14(3) do not exclude registration of GIs whose use would be confusing but not necessarily misleading. If this were not so, the reference in Article14(2) to grounds for revocation of a trademark in the Community Trademark Regulation and Trademark Directive would be meaningless because those grounds include liability to "mislead the public ... as to ... geographical origin" and are distinguished from the exclusive right to prevent use where there exists a "likelihood of confusion". The reference to revocation imports that differentiation into the Regulation. The word "confusion" is used in Articles6.6, 7.5(b), 12.2, 12b(3) and 12d(3) of the Regulation in the sense of wondering about the source of the good, but the word "misleading" is used in Articles3.2, 6.6, 13.1(c), 13.1(d) and 14.3 in the sense of an action which positively provokes an error on the part of the consumer. Australia argues that Article14(3) requires consideration of a trademark's reputation, renown and the length of time it has been used, which are not required by Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Trademark owners cannot exercise their rights against GIs where their use would be misleading for other reasons. Trademarks that do not meet the tests expressly established by Article14(3) of the Regulation cannot be protected by the right provided for in Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Australia notes that the right provided for in Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement refers to where "such use would result in a likelihood of confusion". It argues that this implies that there is, or is intended to be, active use of a trademark and that the right encompasses pre-emptive action. The way in which the trademark rights have been acquired does not affect the assessment as it is the prospective use of the second sign that is in issue. Reputation is not a prerequisite and it is possible to cause confusion with a registered trademark even where it has little use and no reputation. The right to prevent confusing use applies both at the time of the application for registration of the later trademark or GI and at later stages of use, including in the case of changed circumstances which would result in a likelihood of confusion on the basis of a likelihood of confusion. Australia argues that the only instance in which Article14(3) has been applied shows that there was no consideration of the issue whether registration of the GI "Bayerisches Bier" would constitute confusing use in relation to the prior trademark "BAVARIA". In response to a question from the Panel, Australia argued that the registered GIs "Bayerisches Bier", "Budejovick pivo" and "Gorgonzola" could be used in accordance with their respective registrations in a way that results in a likelihood of confusion with particular trademarks. Australia argues that the protection provided by the Regulation, in particular Article13.1, makes clear that the owner of a registered trademark would not be able to prevent "confusingly similar or identical use of a sign for similar or identical goods". The right of a trademark owner to initiate an infringement action on the grounds that a GI as used is different from the GI as registered depends on the circumstances of the case. Trademarks registered in particular EC member States only, could still enjoy reputation in other EC member States. The European Communities has not explained how owners of those trademarks would have standing to initiate legal action under labelling, misleading advertising or unfair competition laws. Australia notes that Article7(4) of the Regulation provides that an objection is admissible if it "shows that the registration of the name proposed would jeopardize the existence ... of a mark". This refers to a threat to the very being of the mark which is a far more rigorous standard than a likelihood of confusion. This is also true of the French and Spanish versions of the Regulation. Australia denies the allegation that it is requesting a remedy against GI rights that it does not provide with respect to trademark rights under its own law. It submits that the Panel should not consider the provisions of the trademark laws of other Members in isolation. For example, whilst Australia's trademark law excepts certain actions from infringing an earlier trademark right, it applies only where the prior right holder expressly consented to the coexistence or failed to prevent the acquisition of the later trademark right. The European Communities argues that, as a factual matter, the risk of registration of a GI confusingly similar to a prior trademark is very limited due to the criteria for registrability of trademarks applied under EC law. Moreover, Article14(3) of the Regulation, if properly interpreted, is sufficient to prevent the registration of any confusing GIs. The complainant bears the burden of proving that its interpretation of Article14(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. The European Communities argues that the criteria for the registrability of trademarks limit apriori 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 that it will not be associated in the future, with the product concerned; or where the name has acquired distinctiveness through use. The European Commission considers that the criteria listed in Article14(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 likelihood 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 reputation or renown, should not have been registered in the first place because it would lack the required distinctiveness. The length of time a trademark has been used does not limit Article14(3) to cases where 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. It asserts that Australia bears the burden of proving that the EC's interpretation of "misleading" is less reasonable or that it is impossible to interpret "misleading" consistently with Article16.1. One of the ordinary meanings of "misleading" is "confusing". The European Communities informs the Panel that the only instance in which Article14(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 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". The European Communities argues that Article14(3) requires the EC authorities to refuse registrations and does not allow for a margin of discretion. It can be invoked before the courts after registration of a GI, including in trademark infringement proceedings brought against a user of a GI. This applies to registrations under the ordinary procedure in Article6 or the "fast-track" procedure in Article17. A trademark owner may raise the invalidity of the measure before the courts under the preliminary ruling procedure in Article234 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 Article230 of the EC Treaty, if a GI registration were considered to affect adversely specific substantive trademark rights. A two-month time limit applies to the action in annulment and, in specific circumstances, may also apply to the preliminary ruling procedure. Under both procedures, judicial review is available on points of fact and law. The cancellation procedure is set out in Article11a of the Regulation and the grounds mentioned in Articles11 and 11a are exhaustive. The European Communities notes that Article7(4) of the Regulation provides that an objection is admissible if it "shows that the registration 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, Article14(3) must permit registration to be refused in such cases. Article7(5)(b) refers expressly to a decision having regard to the "likelihood of confusion". 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 conferred 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. 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 confusing, although the trademark owner may request a judicial ruling that the GI registration is invalid on those grounds. Main arguments of third parties Argentina, Brazil, India and Mexico indicated, in response to a question from the Panel, that they were not aware of any GIs registered under the Regulation that were identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by their respective nationals and protected in the European Communities. Brazil argues that Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement deals with trademarks in general and not only with those referred to in the narrow terms of Article14(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. New Zealand argues that Article14(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 Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Chinese Taipei argues that Article14(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 Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Consideration by the Panel Australia does not take issue in this dispute with trademark rights acquired after a GI is registered. Therefore, there is no need to consider Article14(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 Article14(2) of the Regulation. Therefore, there is no need to consider that issue either. Australia challenges coexistence under the Regulation "as such". It relies on the fact that Article14(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. The parties largely agree on the factual implications, in principle, of the application of Article14(2). It allows the continued use of a trademark 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 trademark 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 prevent uses of a sign that would result in a likelihood of confusion, which is discussed in paragraphs  REF _Ref91395107 \r \h 7.598 to  REF _Ref91395122 \r \h 7.603 below. The European Communities' first defence is that Article14(3) can prevent the registration of any GI which would subject a prior trademark to Article14(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 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 its ϲʹ obligations. As a preliminary remark, the Panel does not consider that this defence is necessarily contradicted by the European Communities' other defences that it is fully entitled and even required under the TRIPS Agreement to apply its coexistence 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 obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, it would seem coincidental if Article14(3) of the Regulation could operate in a way that a GI would never, in fact, otherwise infringe the rights in a prior trademark. Turning to the text of Article14(3) of the Regulation, the Panel's first observation is that Article 14(3) 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. The Panel's second observation is that Article14(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 application of Article14(3). It is difficult to imagine how Article14(3) could be applied without some consideration of the similarity of the signs and goods as well. 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 Article14(3) is limited to a subset of trademarks which, as a minimum, excludes trademarks with no reputation, renown or use. Otherwise, Article14(3) does not prevent the registration of a GI, on the basis that its use would affect any prior trademark outside that subset. The Panel's third observation on the text of Article14(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. Articles7(5)(b), 12b(3) and 12d(3) permit refusal of a GI registration "having regard to" or "taking account of" factors including the "actual likelihood of confusion" and the "actual risk of confusion". This indicates that the standard in Article14(3) that registration would "mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product" is intended to apply in a narrower set of circumstances than the trademark owner's right to prevent use that would result in a likelihood of confusion. For these reasons, the Panel considers that Australia has made a primafacie case that Article14(3) of the Regulation cannot prevent all situations from occurring in which Article14(2) would, in fact, limit the rights of a trademark owner. 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 Article14(2) so as to subject it to the trademark owners' rights when Article14 was amended in April 2003. This at least suggests that Article14(3) was considered different from a blanket protection of trademark rights. The European Communities has submitted that Australia's interpretation of Article14(3) would conflict with Article7(4), which provides that a statement of objection shall be admissible interalia if it shows that the proposed GI registration would jeopardize the existence of a mark. It asserts that this language encompasses any instance of likelihood of confusion between the proposed GI and a prior trademark. It has not explained why the text does not set forth the likelihood of confusion standard, when the following provision of the Regulation in Article7(5)(b) does. The contrast is marked. Article7(5)(b) sets 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 Article7(4). The European Communities has submitted that the criteria for registrability of a trademark limit apriori the risk of GIs being confused with a prior trademark, but it does not submit that they completely eliminate this risk. The evidence shows that signs eligible for protection as GIs can and have been registered as trademarks in the Community. The European Communities has not shown that the criteria for registrability of trademarks can anticipate adequately a situation in which a GI could be used in a way that results in a likelihood of confusion with a trademark, wherever Article14(3) of the Regulation does not provide for refusal of registration of a GI. Those criteria and Article14(3) would have to offset each other in every case. However, Article14(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 geographical names or for whatever other reason, and have been refused registration, are subject to invalidation or are otherwise unprotected. These signs are filtered out before Article14 of the GI Regulation comes into play. Given that Article14(3) applies to a subset of protected trademarks, those to which it does not apply have by definition already satisfied the trademark registrability criteria. There is also the question of how Article14(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 Article14(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. The parties then made various submissions on this point, based on which the Panel makes the following observations: the Regulation does not refer to invalidation under Article14(3). It sets out cancellation procedures in Articles11 and 11a, the grounds for which do not appear to relate to improper application of Article14(3). If invalidation procedures are possible, it would be as a matter of general Community law under the EC Treaty; Article230 of the EC Treaty provides a procedure 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 applicant "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 render it unavailable to certain trademark owners who did satisfy that condition; Article234 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 circumstances this procedure is available to a trademark owner who could have invoked the 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 the GI necessary to resolve the trademark infringement action. In any case, the decision not to refuse a registration under Article14(3) of the Regulation would be interpreted in the preliminary ruling as at the time of that decision, and not at the time of the subsequent allegedly infringing use; and Article14(3) is apparently not mandatory in all cases as three GIs registered in accordance with the terms of an Act of Accession to the European Union cannot be invalidated on the basis of Article14(3). 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 Article14(3) in all cases in which use of a GI would otherwise 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 the 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 simply refer to names without limiting the way in which they are used. The European Communities has submitted that the food labelling and misleading advertising directives and unfair competition laws of the EC member 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 event, the scope of the directives is narrower than that of the GI Regulation and the standards which 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: the food labelling directive only applies to the labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer and certain aspects relating to the presentation and advertising thereof. It provides that "labelling 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 particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufacture or production"; and the misleading advertising directive applies to "any advertising which in any way, including presentation, deceives or is likely 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". 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. Australia also refers to some specific cases in which the Regulation has been applied in support of its claim, as set out in the following paragraphs. Article14(3) of the Regulation has only been applied once. This was the case of "Bayerisches Bier", which was registered as a protected geographical indication in 2001 subject to the proviso that the use of certain prior trademarks, for example, BAVARIA and HKER BAJER, was permitted to continue under Article14(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 languages. 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 Article14(3) of the Regulation. Australia alleges that the GI "Bayerisches Bier" could be used in a manner that would result in a likelihood of confusion with these prior trademarks. In response to a direct question from the Panel, the European Communities did not deny this specific allegation. It only responded that "in principle" a name registered following the assessment required by Article14(3) "should not give rise to confusion when used subsequently" and submitted that "in practice" this may happen only when the registered name is used together with other signs or as part of a combination of signs. This was a conspicuous choice of words because in the same response it commented in detail on two other specific cases which it considered irrelevant to the dispute. Australia also alleges that three Czech beer GIs, "Budjovick pivo", " eskobudjovick pivo" and "Budjovick mat ansk 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. In response to a direct question from the Panel, the European Communities did not deny that these GIs could 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". This might imply that it accepts a likelihood of confusion, but considers that there are other means besides Article14(3) to deal with that. There appears to be an inconsistency between the European Communities' position that Article14(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 referred to above could be used which would not result in such a likelihood of confusion with these specific prior trademarks. For the above reasons, the Panel considers that the European Communities has not rebutted Australia's prima facie case that Article14(3) of the Regulation cannot prevent all situations from occurring in which a trademark would be subject to Article14(2) and, hence, in which the Regulation would limit the rights of the owner of such a trademark. The Panel will now proceed to examine whether the TRIPS Agreement requires Members to make available to trademark owners rights against signs when they are used as GIs. Relationship between protection of GIs and prior trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia argues that nothing in the TRIPS Agreement justifies a failure to grant the right provided for in Article16.1. Had the negotiators intended to permit Members to act inconsistently with this obligation, they would have said so explicitly. Article17 is an express exception to trademarks and nothing in Section 3 of Part II on GI protection could be interpreted in such a way as to create an exception to trademarks. Australia does not argue that trademarks must prevail over later GIs. Rather, it argues that Article24.5, together with Articles22.3 and 23.2, defines the boundaries of the range of possible actions open to a Member to implement GI protection in relation to trademarks. Article24.5 does not require or permit any negation or other limitation of the trademark owner's right under Article16.1. It can only be an exception to the provisions of Section 3 on GI protection in view of its location and title. It also creates a positive right that specified trademark rights cannot be adversely affected. Australia argues that the "validity of the registration of a trademark" refers to the ongoing legality of the good faith registration of a trademark. The legal bundle of rights contained in a validly registered trademark includes the exclusive right to prevent confusing use granted under Article16.1. Measures adopted to implement GI protection cannot undermine that exclusive right. The "right to use a trademark" refers to the ongoing ability to use a trademark to which rights have been acquired through use. Measures adopted to implement GI protection cannot adversely affect such rights. Whatever may have been intended by the phrase the "right to use a trademark", it is separate from, and additional to, the exclusive right to prevent confusing uses required under Article16.1. It is not required under Section 2 of Part II. Article24.5 does not refer to the "exclusive" right to use a trademark because trademark rights acquired through use are not always exclusive. Australia argues that there is no conflict between Articles16.1 and 22. With respect to Article22.2, the only relevance of Article22.2(a) to trademark rights would be in the context of acquisition of new trademark rights. With respect to Article22.3, for example, Australian trademark law expressly provides that registration of a trademark may be opposed if it contains or consists of a false GI. Australia argues that a complaining party bears the burden of proof where it alleges a breach of obligations pursuant to Article24.5 but a responding party bears the burden of proof where it relies on Article24.5 to excuse or justify a measure's inconsistency with another provision. Article24.5 does not alter the scope of Article16.1 but confirms the continued applicability of the rights granted under Article16.1 in the circumstances covered by Article24.5. The European Communities responds that this claim is unfounded. The TRIPS Agreement recognizes trademarks and GIs as intellectual 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 Article16.1 on trademark rights. The criteria for registrability of trademarks limit apriori the possibility of conflicts between GIs and trademarks but conflicts may arise. Article16.1 does not address this issue. Rather, the boundary between GIs and trademarks is defined by Article24.5 which provides for coexistence with earlier trademarks. Article24.5 must be read with Articles22.3 and 23.2 which also provide protection to GIs vis--vis trademarks. Section2 of Part II cannot be applied without having regard to Section 3. The European Communities argues that Article24.5 has two implications: (1) with respect to grandfathered trademarks (or applications): (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, including 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. The European Communities argues that the ordinary meaning of the word "prejudice" used in all three official versions includes the notion of "judge beforehand" but only the word in the English version includes the notion of "cause injury, damage or harm". The phrase "validity of the registration" does not necessarily imply that the registration must confer exclusive rights vis--vis all third parties. The fact that the owner cannot prevent 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. 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 right were inherent in the term "validity of the registration", it would have been superfluous to refer to the "right to use a trademark" as well. If that right had been intended, the drafters would have referred to the "exclusive right to use a trademark". If that right were inherently exclusive, it would have been superfluous to provide in Article16.1 that the owners of trademarks shall have exclusive rights. The drafting history shows that the Brussels Draft referred to the continued use of a GI as a trademark, which envisaged coexistence, in a separate provision from the predecessor to Article24.5. Its transfer to Article24.5 in the final version did not alter its meaning or purpose. The European Communities argues that Article24.5 is drafted in mandatory terms and imposes self-standing obligations which go beyond those in Section 2 of Part II. This may be illustrated by the case of a Member which provides for the refusal or invalidation of registration of a trademark in terms broader than those in Article22.3, or which prohibits the use of any trademark acquired by use in terms broader than those in Article22.2. Both would be consistent with Section 2 of Part II but Article24.5 would prevent either applying to prior trademarks. This would be an obligation arising exclusively under Article24.5. The European Communities argues that if Article24.5 did not allow coexistence, the protection of GIs provided under Section 3 of Part II would become pointless whenever there is a grandfathered trademark. The phrase "measures adopted to implement this Section" assumes that Members will continue to protect GIs notwithstanding the existence of grandfathered trademarks. Coexistence may not be a perfect solution to resolve conflicts between different types of intellectual property rights but there is no such perfect solution. It is not an unusual solution, since coexistence is envisaged in Articles23.2 (with respect to a GI and a trademark that is not misleading), 23.3, 24.3 (where pre-existing protection provided for coexistence) 24.4 and 16.1 (vis--vis existing prior rights). Article24.5 embodies a compromise. The European Communities and other participants agreed to make it mandatory on the understanding that the trademark owners would have the right to use the trademark but not the right to exclude use by GI right holders. The European Communities argues that there is no "conflict" between Articles16.1 and 22.3 but that there is a potential "conflict" between Articles16.1 and 22.2(a), and possibly 23.1. Article22.2 confers on GI right holders the right to prevent certain uses of trademarks, which may conflict with the right of the trademark owner under Article16.1 to prevent certain uses of signs. The simultaneous exercise of both rights would lead to a situation where neither the trademark owner nor the GI right holders could use the sign in question. Neither would be able to fulfil its purpose. This conflict is resolved by Articles22.3, 23.2 and 24.5. 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 submits 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. The European Communities argues that the complainant bears the burden of proof that a measure falls within the scope of the obligations provided in Article16.1. Article24.5 is not an exception but defines the boundary between the obligations in Article16.1 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 do not have under Article16.1 because rights the basis of use are optional under Article16.1. It notes that Australia cited Article24.5 in its request for establishment of a panel and makes a claim under that provision in its first written submission. Main arguments of third parties Argentina argues that coexistence is inconsistent with Articles16.1 and 22.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article24.5 sets out a cut-off date different from the one in the Regulation and does not provide for the possibility of limiting the trademark owner's right as the Regulation does. Article24.4 determines the boundaries for alternatives available to Members in the implementation of measures relating to GI protection and its link to trademarks. Brazil argues GIs which are identical to trademarks are likely to create confusion and, consequently, may affect the value of trademarks. Article16.1 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 trademark and a GI is only acceptable in terms of Articles24.5 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 owners and consumers, which may undermine the value of a trademark contrary to the "exclusive rights" of a trademark owner under Article16.1. 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 Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Such denial constitutes a clear violation of ϲʹ obligations. Mexico argues that the exclusive right in Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement is severely nullified by Article14(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 recognition of inconsistency. By ignoring the "first in time, first in right" rule, the Regulation not only contravenes Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement but also a recognized general principle of law. New Zealand argues that Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement provides for a right against "all third parties". Despite an appearance of conflict between the rights in Articles16.1 and 22.2, each must be read to the fullest extent permissible without conflicting with the other. Article24.5 is a provision that resolves conflict by compromising this exclusivity, but in all other cases, the rights provided for in Articles16.1 and 22.2 must both be upheld. Article14(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 Article16.1. Chinese Taipei argues that Articles16.1 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 Article16.1 inutile, as the right of trademark owners under that article is negated by coexistence under Article14(2) of the Regulation. The result is the creation of a hierarchy in which GIs have a superior status than trademarks, which is not contemplated by the TRIPS Agreement. Consideration by the Panel 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 Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and then we continue by examining whether Article24.5 provides authority to limit that right. Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement Part II of the TRIPS Agreement contains minimum standards concerning the availability, scope and use of intellectual property rights. The first seven Sections contain standards relating to categories of intellectual property rights. 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. Although each of the Sections in Part II provides for a different category of intellectual property, at times they refer to one another, 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 Articles22.3 and 23.2, which provide for the refusal or invalidation of the registration of a trademark which contains or consists of a GI. Section 2 of Part II provides for the category of trademarks. Article15.1 sets out the definition of the subject matter which is capable of constituting a trademark. These are signs that satisfy certain criteria. Article16.1 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 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 registered 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." 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 likelihood of confusion. It does not specifically exclude use of signs protected as GIs. The text of Article16.1 stipulates that the right for which it provides is an "exclusive" right. This must signify more than the fact that it is a right 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 having the owner's consent. The last sentence provides for an exception to that right, which is that it shall not prejudice any existing prior rights. Otherwise, the text of Article16.1 is unqualified. Other exceptions to the right under Article16.1 are provided for in Article17 and possibly elsewhere in the TRIPS Agreement. However, there is no implied limitation vis--vis GIs in the text of Article16.1 on the exclusive right which Members 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 party uses the sign in accordance with GI protection, subject to any applicable exception. Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement The parties have referred to Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. This appears in Section3 of Part II, which provides for the category of GIs. Article24.5 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 PartVI; or (b) before the geographical indication is protected in its country of origin; measures adopted to implement this Section 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." The Panel must interpret this provision, like all 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 Article3.2 of the DSU. For present purposes, this means the general rule of treaty interpretation contained in Article31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This requires an interpretation in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the agreement. Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation in accordance with Article32 of that Convention. Commencing with the terms of the provision, we observe that Article24.5 consists of a single sentence, of which the subject is "measures adopted to implement this Section". Article24.5 appears in Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, the reference to "this Section" is a reference to Section3. The principal verb in Article24.5 is "shall not prejudice". There are various definitions of the verb "prejudice" used in the three authentic language versions of the TRIPS Agreement. The ordinary meaning of the verb "prejudice" in English can be defined as "affect adversely or unfavourably; injure or impair the validity of (a right, 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 Article24.5 are legal rights. However, the European Communities emphasizes that the verbs used in the French and Spanish versions, prjuger 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 "without prejudice". Other usages of the English verb "prejudice" in the TRIPS Agreement outside Article24 have been rendered differently in the French and Spanish versions, which are equally authentic, to capture the sense of adverse effect or injury, so that that sense should not be read into Article24.5. 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 Article24.5. 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. 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 Article24, and once in relation to prior rights in Article16.1 itself. Read in context, "prejudice" simply appears to be a word which the drafters used to indicate that a particular measure shall not affect certain other rights, including prior rights. The objects of the principal verb in Article24.5 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 Article24.5. 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 Articles22.3 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 prejudiced by the obligations to provide the legal means to prevent certain uses in Articles22.2 and 23.1.  The European Communities asserts that the words "the right to use a trademark" provide for an additional positive right to use a trademark. However, 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 language. Indeed, Article14(2) of the Regulation (which was adopted prior to the end of the TRIPS negotiations) expressly provides that "a trademark ... may continue to be used" under certain conditions. In contrast, there is no language in Article24.5 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 Part II. Irrespective of how the right to use a trademark arises, there is no obligation under Article24.5 to confer it. 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. This is the right saved by Article24.5 where it provides that certain measures "shall not prejudice ... the right to use a trademark". The context in other paragraphs of Article24 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 article also refer to the implications of these two types of protection. Paragraph 4 refers to "continued and similar use of a particular [GI] ... identifying wines and spirits"; paragraph 7 refers to "any request 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". There is no reason to limit the "right to use a trademark" to trademarks 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 trademark ... registered in good faith" and "rights to a trademark ... acquired through use in good faith" and, 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 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. Therefore, according to their ordinary meaning 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 Article24 indicate 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. Accordingly, the Panel considers that Article24.5 creates an exception to GI protection - as reflected in the title of Article24. Both parties submit that Article24.5 implies certain things. Australia 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 Article24.5 in fact implies a limitation on the trademark owner's right to exclude use. As to Australia's argument, the Panel notes the contrast between the use of the specific terms "eligibility for or the validity of the registration" in Article24.5, rather than simply "existing prior rights", which is the language used in the last sentence of Article16.1. 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 Article24.5 does not, which suggests that Article24.5 does not impliedly preserve that right. However, this does not mean that Article24.5 authorizes Members to prejudice that right. Members may prejudice that right if there is another provision that obliges or permits them to do so. 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 ϲʹ covered agreement which is express. It is evidently the position under the European Communities' domestic law that an implied positive right to use a registered GI prevails over the negative right of a prior trademark holder to prevent confusing uses. However, such an interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement is not possible without a suitable basis in the treaty text. The text of Article24.5 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 owner'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. Accordingly, the Panel's preliminary conclusion is that it is inappropriate to imply in Article24.5 either the right to prevent confusing uses or a limitation on the right to prevent confusing uses. 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 and purpose of the TRIPS Agreement, as indicated by Articles9 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 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. 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 available to different parties but applied to the same subject matter. This is particularly apparent in the 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. The European Communities submits that this is a conflict resolved by Article22.3 (and 23.2) by effectively giving priority to the GI. The Panel agrees that Article22.3 and Article 23.2 can resolve conflicts with later trademarks but they do not resolve conflicts with prior trademarks that meet the conditions set out in Article24.5. The European Communities notes that the simultaneous exercise of two negative rights to prevent uses provided for in Articles16.1 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. It sees this potential for conflict as a matter which should be avoided in the interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement. 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. The general rule of treaty interpretation 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 supplementary 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 ambiguous 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 given to its terms in their context. The following statement by the Appellate Body in EC Hormones appears apposite: "The fundamental rule of treaty interpretation requires a treaty interpreter to read and interpret the words actually used by the agreement under examination, not words the interpreter may feel should have been used." Therefore, the Panel concludes that, under Article16.1 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 for the owners of trademarks subject to Article14(2). Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement is inapplicable and does not provide authority to limit that right. The European Communities raises two other defences that, in this respect, the Regulation is justified by exceptions found in Articles24.3 and 17 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel will consider each of these in turn. Article24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia argues that Article24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement refers to the protection provided by Article13 of the Regulation, which is subject to the exception in Article14(2). Removal of the coexistence standard in Article14(2) of the Regulation would not diminish that protection. Further, Article24.3 encompasses protection for individual GIs as of 31 December 1994. As of that date, there were no GIs registered under the Regulation, but only GIs registered under the laws of the EC member States. Finally, Article24.3 relates only to the implementation of Section 3 and not the trademark right under Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The European Communities argues that it is required to maintain coexistence of GIs and earlier trademarks by Article24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, 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 ϲʹ Agreement. The Regulation provided for coexistence in Article14(2) immediately prior to the entry into force of the ϲʹ Agreement. If the European Communities allowed the owners of prior registered trademarks to prevent the use of later GIs, this would diminish the protection of GIs contrary to Article24.3. The standstill obligation applies to the general level of protection of GIs available in a Member on 1January 1995 rather than the protection of individual GIs registered or applied for on that date. The relevant 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 protection, which expressly includes protection vis--vis trademark rights in Articles22.3, 23.2 and 24.5. Those provisions limit the trademark obligations under Article16.1, as does Article24.3. Article24.3 applies "[i]n implementing this Section". The Section includes Article24.5, which prevents Members from invalidating and prohibiting the use of grandfathered trademarks. Main arguments of third parties New Zealand informs the Panel that no GIs were registered under the Regulation prior to the entry into force of the TRIPS Agreement. In any case, Article24.3 is qualified by the phrase "[i]n implementing this Section" and does not justify a breach of the Section on trademarks. Consideration by the Panel The Panel now considers the European Communities' argument that it is required to maintain coexistence of GIs and earlier trademarks by Article24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. That provision reads as follows: "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 ϲʹ Agreement." Article24.3 appears in Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. The reference to "this Section" is therefore a reference to Section 3, which sets out standards for the protection of GIs. The "date of entry into force of the ϲʹ Agreement" was 1 January 1995. The scope of Article24.3 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 Article16.1, are found in Section 2. Therefore, Article24.3 is inapplicable. Turning to the ordinary meaning of the terms used in the rest of the provision, the principal verb is "shall not diminish". This indicates that this 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 protection of GIs" as a whole, or to "the protection" of individual GIs. In the French and Spanish versions, which are equally authentic, the verb "existed" in the relative clause is in the singular, which 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 Member that existed immediately prior to 1 January 1995, or to the state of GI protection in a Member that existed at that time in terms of the individual rights which were protected. If Article24.3 referred to a system of protection in a Member, this would 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 that 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, Article14 of the Regulation entered into force in 1993 but was amended in April 2003 in respect of trademark rights acquired through use. To the extent that those amendments diminished the general level of protection of GIs under the European Communities' system, they would be inconsistent with Article24.3 on its own view. 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 ϲʹ Agreement, but also rights 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 prior 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 Article14.4 but it is optional, it clearly refers to a "system" and it is subject to a proviso against abuse. Article24.3 contains none of these features. For these reasons, the Panel interprets the phrase "the protection of geographical indications that existed in that Member immediately prior to the date of entry into force of the ϲʹ 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, Article24.3 is inapplicable. For all the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that Article24.3 is inapplicable. Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia argues that the European Communities has not met its burden of proof to establish that the conditions of Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement are fulfilled. Australia interprets "limited exception" to mean small diminutions to trademark rights. Article14(2) of the Regulation is not a "limited exception" because it allows coexistence with a pre-existing trademark in every case in which a GI is registered. If Article17 covered this situation it would render Article24.5 meaningless. Fair use of descriptive terms does not include use of all descriptive terms, but only such use as is fair. Use of a term in a way with a signifying function, rather than a purely descriptive function, is not "fair use". If a GI was purely descriptive, there would be no need or basis for an intellectual property right and thus, for Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. A trademark does not attract the same spectrum of rights as other categories of intellectual property: it attracts only one right, to prevent uses which result in a likelihood of confusion. Article14(2) does not take account of the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark because it denies the exclusive right to prevent confusingly similar or identical use required by Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. A legitimate interest of the owner is to maintain the trademark's capacity to distinguish the owner's goods. Article17 only permits a small diminution of the capacity to distinguish. The third parties would normally include consumers and other traders. Consumers have a legitimate interest in being able to purchase products which they intended to purchase. Other traders have a legitimate interest in being able to use signs that they need to use. For this reason, Article17 gives the example of fair use of descriptive terms. Having regard to the text of Article17 and the design and architecture of the TRIPS Agreement generally, Article17 does not permit a general release from a Member's obligation to grant the basic right attached to a registered trademark in the event of acquisition of another type of intellectual property right without some express recognition of that fact. The European Communities argues that, in the alternative, the coexistence of GIs and earlier trademarks would be justified under Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement. It considers that Article17 is an exception to the obligations in Article16 and that previous panels have taken the view that the burden of invoking similar exceptions was on the respondent. It accepts that it bears the burden of proof. Article14(2) of the Regulation is a "limited 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 descriptive terms" because GIs are descriptive terms, even where they consist of a non-geographical name, and their use to indicate the true origin of goods and the characteristic associated with that origin is "fair". The European Communities argues that the legitimate interests of the trademark owner and of third parties are taken into account because Article14(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 of all exclusive rights under Article16.1 of the TRIPS 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. Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement does not require the avoidance 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 descriptive term" irrelevant. Article17 calls for a balancing of different interests which, in the present dispute, requires that account should be taken of the fact that trademarks are arbitrary and much easier to create than GIs and GIs are collective rights and also serve a public interest of informing consumers. Main arguments of third parties 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, comparative advertising, uses for spare parts and certain non-commercial fair uses. New Zealand also argues that coexistence is not a "limited" exception within the meaning of Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement because it excludes an entire group of producers from the trademark owner's right to prevent confusing uses, which is a major exception. Consideration by the Panel Introduction The Panel will now consider the European Communities' argument that its particular regime of coexistence between GIs and prior trademarks is justified under Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement. The European Communities defends its regime of coexistence "as such", not as applied. Therefore, our consideration of this defence focuses 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. Australia submits that the European Communities, as the party asserting that its measure is covered by the exception in Article17, bears the burden of proving that assertion. The European Communities does not contest this position. Therefore, the Panel will follow this approach in the present dispute. Article17 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." Article17 expressly permits Members to provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, which include the right provided for in Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The Panel has already found that the Regulation limits the availability of the right provided for in Article16.1. Therefore, to the extent that it satisfies the conditions in Article17, this limitation will be permitted under the TRIPS Agreement. Article17 permits "limited exceptions". It provides an example of a limited exception, and is subject to a proviso that "such exceptions take account of the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties". The ordinary meaning of the terms indicates that an exception must not only be "limited" but must also comply with the proviso in order to satisfy Article17. The example of "fair use of descriptive terms" is illustrative only, but it can provide interpretative guidance because, apriori, 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. The structure of Article17 differs from that of other exceptions provisions to which the parties refer. It can be noted that Articles13, 26.2 and 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, as well as Article9(2) of the Berne Convention (1971) as incorporated by Article9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, also permit exceptions to intellectual property rights and all contain, to varying degrees, similar language to Article17. However, unlike these other provisions, Article17 contains 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, Article17 permits exceptions to trademark rights, which differ from each of the intellectual property rights to which these other exceptions apply. Therefore, whilst it is instructive to refer to the interpretation by two previous panels of certain shared elements found in Articles13 and 30, it is important to interpret Article17 according to its own terms. Limited exceptions The first issue to decide is the meaning of the term "limited exceptions" as used in Article17. Australia interprets this in terms of a small diminution of rights. The European Communities does not disagree with this approach. The Panel agrees with the views of the Panel in Canada Pharmaceutical Patents, which interpreted the identical term in Article30, 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". 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 the set of all trademarks or all trademark owners. Accordingly, the fact that it may affect only few trademarks 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. 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 for in Article16.1. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the exception on an individual "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 Article17 that this involves an economic assessment, although economic impact can be taken into account in the proviso. In this regard, the Panel notes the absence of any reference to a "normal exploitation" of the trademark in Article17, and the absence of any reference in Section 2, to which Article17 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 import of competing goods or services. The right provided for in Article16.1 contains several elements and an exception could, in principle, curtail the right in respect of any of them. The Panel recalls 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 registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion." [emphasis added] In principle, an exception could curtail the right of the owner in respect of the third parties concerned, or with respect to the identity or the similarity of the signs or the goods or services concerned or with respect to the degree of likelihood of confusion, or some combination of these. There may be other possibilities as well. The overriding requirement is that the exception must be "limited" and it must also satisfy the proviso, considered below. These elements provide a useful framework for an assessment of the extent to which an exception curtails the right provided for in Article16.1. The example in the text, "fair use of descriptive terms", provides guidance as to what is considered a "limited exception", although it is illustrative 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 quantity 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 goods or services which those terms describe. The number of trademarks or trademark 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 Article17. Turning to the Regulation, it curtails the trademark owner's right in respect of certain goods but not all goods identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered. It prevents the trademark owner from exercising the right to prevent confusing uses of a sign for the agricultural product or foodstuff produced in accordance with the product specification in the GI registration. The Panel recalls that, according to Article2(2) of the Regulation, set out above at paragraph  REF _Ref88202514 \r \h 7.223, those goods must all be produced, processed and/or prepared in the region, specific place or, in exceptional cases, country, the name of which is used to describe them. Goods that are not from that geographical area may not use the GI. Further, according to Article4 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 geographical area. The trademark owner's right against all other goods is not curtailed. The Panel notes that there is no limit in terms of the quantity of goods which may benefit from the exception, as long as they conform to the product specification. However, this cannot prevent the limitation on rights of owners of trademarks subject to Article14(2) from constituting a limited exception for the purposes of Article17, as fair use of descriptive terms implies no limit in terms of quantity either, and the text indicates that it is a limited exception for the purposes of Article17. The quantity of goods which benefits 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. The Regulation curtails the trademark owner's right 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. 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 trademark. It prevents the trademark owner from exercising its right to prevent use of an indication registered as a GI in accordance with its registration. The Panel recalls its finding earlier in paragraph  REF _Ref88202546 \n \h 7.522 that the GI registration does not confer a positive right to use any other signs or combinations of signs nor to use the name in any linguistic versions not entered in the register. The trademark owner's right is not curtailed against any such uses. If the GI registration prevented the trademark 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. Under the Regulation, once a GI has been registered and a trademark is subject to the coexistence regime under Article14(2), set out above at paragraph  REF _Ref91328559 \r \h 7.524, 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 given mark, which would result from use as a GI of an identical or similar sign, in Articles7(5)(b), 12b(3) and 12d(3) in relation to the decision on whether to register a GI where an objection is admissible. Article7(4) (and hence Article12b(3)) provides a ground for objection where registration would jeopardize the existence of a mark, and Article14(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 factors are relevant to the likelihood of confusion which could result from subsequent use of the GI. The Panel recalls its finding in paragraph  REF _Ref88202587 \n \h 7.525 that Article14(2) is an exception to Article13, 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 Articles7(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 exception in Article14(2), they, together with Articles7(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. The Panel notes that Article14(2) only expressly provides that the trademark may continue to be used. 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 any goods which originate in a different geographical area or which do not comply with the specifications, 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. Accordingly, on the basis of the terms of the GI Regulation and of the Community Trademark Regulation, and the 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 registration. Furthermore, the European Communities has explained 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. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Regulation creates a "limited exception" within the meaning of Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement. The proviso to Article17 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 Article17. The Panel must first establish what are "legitimate 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 Article17 creates an exception to the rights conferred by a trademark, the "legitimate interests" of the trademark owner must be something different from full enjoyment of those legal rights. The "legitimate 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, are 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". The Panel agrees with the following view of the Panel in Canada Pharmaceutical Patents, which interpreted the term "legitimate interests" of a patent owner and third parties in the context of Article30 as follows: "To make sense of the term 'legitimate interests' 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." In our view, this is also true of the term "legitimate interests" of a trademark owner and third parties in the context of Article17. The legitimacy of some interest of the trademark owner is assumed because the owner of the trademark is specifically identified in Article17. The TRIPS Agreement itself sets out a statement of what all ϲʹ Members consider adequate standards and principles concerning trademark protection. Although it sets out standards for legal rights, it also provides guidance as to ϲʹ Members' shared understandings of the policies and norms relevant to trademarks and, hence, what might be the legitimate interests of trademark owners. The function of trademarks can be understood by reference to Article15.1 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 function. This includes its interest in using its own trademark in connection with the relevant goods and 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. Turning to the Regulation, the evidence shows that the owner's legitimate interest in preserving the distinctiveness, or capacity to distinguish, of its trademark can be taken into account in various ways. Article7(4) of the Regulation provides that a statement of objection shall be admissible inter alia if it shows that the registration of the proposed GI would "jeopardize the existence ... of a mark". This requires GI registration to be refused. Article14(3) also requires the refusal of GI registration 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 distinguish, of prior trademarks and can ensure that, in cases where trademark owners' legitimate interests would be most likely to be affected, the exception in Article14(2) simply does not apply. In the one instance in which Article14(3) has been applied, the 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 regard in particular to the level of exports; and the labeling practices of the trademark and the proposed geographical indication." This indicates to the Panel that Article14(3) of the Regulation was, in fact, applied to take account inter alia of the legitimate interest of the trademark owners to protect the distinctiveness of their respective marks. 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". 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 example 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. Where Articles7(4) and 14(3) of the Regulation are unavailable, and a trademark is subject to Article14(2), there remains the possibility that its distinctiveness will be affected by the use of the GI. The Panel does not consider this fatal to the applicability of Article17 given that, as a provision permitting an exception to the exclusive right to prevent uses that would result in a likelihood of confusion, it presupposes that a certain degree of likelihood of confusion can be permitted. In the light of the provisions of Articles7(4) and14(3), we are satisfied that where the likelihood of confusion is relatively high, the exception in Article14(2) will not apply. In any event, even where the exception does apply, Article14(2) expressly provides that the trademark may continue to be used, on certain conditions. The Panel notes that the proviso to Article17 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 Articles13, 26.2 and 30 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article9(2) of the Berne Convention (1971) as incorporated by Article9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. This suggests that a lesser standard of regard for the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark is required. The Panel also notes that there may be situations where, 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. For these reasons, the Panel considers that the exception created by the Regulation takes account of the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark within the meaning of Article17. This finding is confirmed by responses to a question 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 exceptions. Three of these are the Czech beer GIs, the registration of which is subject to the endorsement set out earlier. The only remaining example is "Bayerisches Bier", in respect of which the complainants have not shown an example of actual likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark. The Panel will now consider whether the exception created by the Regulation takes account of the legitimate interests of third parties. The parties to this dispute agree that "third parties" for the purposes of Article 17 include consumers. The function of a trademark is to distinguish goods and services of undertakings in the course of trade. That function is served not only for the owner, but also for consumers. Accordingly, the relevant third parties include consumers. 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. Turning to the Regulation, Article14(3) expressly 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 Article14(3) has been applied, the European Communities informs the Panel that: "In essence, it was concluded that, although the 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." This indicates to the Panel that Article14(3) of the Regulation was, in fact, applied to take account inter alia of the legitimate interests of consumers. The Panel also observes, once again, that a name 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 refers 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. The European Communities submits that "third parties" for the purposes of Article17 include persons using a GI in accordance with a GI registration. The Panel agrees. Article17 permits an exception to the rights conferred by a trademark which include, according to Article16.1, 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. The legitimacy of the interests of GI users is reflected in the TRIPS Agreement itself, to which all ϲʹ Members have subscribed. Under Section 3 of Part II, all ϲʹ Members agree to provide certain protection to GIs, although they remain free to determine the appropriate method of implementing those provisions in accordance with Article1.1. The definition of a GI in Article22.1 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 Article17 would be different from the legal protection provided for in Articles22 and 23. The Panel recalls that the example contained in Article17 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 provides contextual support for the notion that the interest of GIs users in using a place name to indicate their products is "legitimate". Turning to the Regulation, Article2(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 the origin and quality, reputation or characteristics of the product. Further, the European Communities has confirmed 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. These considerations support the view that the interests of GI users of which the Regulation takes account are "legitimate". Article13 of the Regulation sets out the protection conferred by GI registration. In providing such protection, the Regulation not only "takes account" of this legitimate interest, it also provides legally enforceable rights. For these reasons, the Panel considers that the exception created by the Regulation takes account of the legitimate interests of third parties within the meaning of Article17. On the basis of the evidence presented to the Panel, which is necessarily limited given that Article14(3) of the Regulation has only been applied once, and for all of the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the European Communities has succeeded in raising a presumption that the exception created by the Regulation to the trademark owner's right provided for in Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement is justified by Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement. Australia has not succeeded in rebutting that presumption. Therefore, the Panel concludes that with respect to the coexistence of GIs with prior trademarks, the Regulation is inconsistent with Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement but, on the basis of the evidence presented to the Panel, this is justified by Article17 of the TRIPS Agreement. Articles24.3 and Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement are inapplicable. Identical signs for identical goods Presumption of confusion Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement because it does not "provide for" or "implement" the presumption of a likelihood of confusion in the case of use of an identical sign for identical goods. The provisions of the Regulation do not grant to the authorities the necessary discretion to apply that presumption. The European Communities refers to its defence to the previous claim and makes some additional comments: Members are not required to reproduce explicitly the presumption of Article16.1 in their domestic law as long as the authorities have the necessary discretion and comply with the presumption in practice. It is extremely unlikely that this situation will ever present itself in practice in view of the trademark registrability criteria and the GI definitions and product specifications. If the situation should arise, Article14(3) of the Regulation would permit the authorities to implement the presumption. This claim is purely theoretical as none of the GIs actually registered fall within this situation. Main arguments of third parties Brazil does not agree with the European Communities that there is no need to "reproduce explicitly" the presumption in Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement as long as the registering authority or the courts had adequate discretion to apply it. In Brazil's view, even if the domestic law of each EC member State incorporated the presumption, this would not mean that the Community-level registration under the Regulation also provided for its incorporation. New Zealand refers to the second ground for admissibility of objections in Article7(4) of the Regulation. It agrees with Australia that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement because the owner of a registered trademark may not be able to object successfully to a proposed GI registration even if its use would constitute use of an identical or similar sign that would result in a likelihood of confusion. Consideration by the Panel Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, in its first sentence, provides for a right that refers to "identical or similar" "signs" and "goods or services" and depends on a "likelihood of confusion". In its second sentence, it provides for a presumption of a "likelihood of confusion" with respect to use of an "identical sign for identical goods or services". Therefore, the second sentence clarifies how the first sentence is implemented, in particular circumstances. The Panel refers to its conclusion on the previous claim, which is based on the finding that the first sentence of Article16.1 is applicable, and that the Regulation prevents the exercise of the right that it requires to be conferred. It follows that the presumption in the second sentence, which governs implementation of the first sentence, is also applicable, in the particular circumstances that it sets out. Australia has argued that the measure at issue does not "provide for" or "implement" a presumption of a likelihood of confusion in the case of use of an identical sign for identical goods. There is no requirement that the text of the GI Regulation, or its related or implementing measures, should explicitly "provide for" this presumption. As for the discretion granted to authorities under the Regulation, Australia has only demonstrated that the Regulation "as such" does not permit the authorities to implement the presumption in the second sentence only to the extent that it does not permit them to implement the right provided for in the first sentence. Therefore, a finding on this claim will not provide any additional contribution to a positive solution to this dispute and the Panel declines to consider it further. Trademark owners' right to object to GI registration Admissibility of objections Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement because it does not ensure that objections to registration are admissible on the grounds that use of the GI would result in a likelihood of confusion. Article7(4) of the Regulation provides that objections are only admissible if the GI does not comply with the conditions in the Regulation or registration would "jeopardize the existence" of an entirely or partly identical trademark. This requirement also applies to objections by persons resident or established in other ϲʹ Members by virtue of Articles12b(3) and 12d(2). Australia argues that a right of objection is necessary to allow exercise of the right expressly required by Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, although a right of objection itself may not be expressly required. An objection procedure is the only means available to a trademark owner to prevent a confusing use. The standard of "jeopardize the existence" is a far more rigorous standard than a "likelihood of confusion". The European Communities responds that Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement does not grant a right to object to the registration of trademarks, GIs or other intellectual property rights. Objection procedures in general are addressed in Article62.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and trademark objection procedures specifically are addressed in Article15.5. The right to object is not necessary to "exercise" effectively the substantive right provided for in Article16 if final registration decisions are subject to judicial review in accordance with Article62.5. The European Communities argues that Article7(4) of the Regulation permits objections if the proposed GI would jeopardize the existence of the mark, regardless of whether it is entirely or partially identical. It refers to the French and Spanish versions of the Regulation and asserts that this ground is broad enough to encompass the likelihood of confusion with the trademark. This is confirmed by the fact that Australia is unable to identify any case in which the grounds of objection were limited in the manner alleged. Australia bears the burden of proof and must show that this reading is unreasonable and that it is impossible to read Article7(4) of the Regulation consistently with Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Main arguments of third parties Brazil argues that EC nationals would be able to protect a GI to the detriment of a prior registered trademark much more rapidly and efficiently than another ϲʹ Member national would be able to defend trademark rights vis--vis an application for registration. Consideration by the Panel Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement sets out the minimum right which Members must provide to the owners of registered trademarks and which they may also make available on the basis of use. It is a right for trademark owners to prevent certain uses. The Panel takes note that trademark owners are not able to exercise their right to prevent use of a GI after GI registration. However, Australia has not explained why the trademark owner's right to prevent use implies a right to object to GI registration. Article15.5 provides for a right of objection to registration of a trademark but there is no corresponding provision in Part II regarding the registration of a GI. There are provisions on the acquisition and maintenance of intellectual property rights, including GIs, in Article62. These specifically refer to related inter partes procedures such as opposition, revocation and cancellation, in paragraph 4, which is cross-referenced in paragraph 5. The opportunity or right to object forms part of an opposition procedure. However, Article62 lies outside the Panel's terms of reference. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of this claim. Consideration of objections Main arguments of the parties Australia also claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement because it does not ensure that an objection by the owner of a registered trademark will be considered by the "ultimate decision maker", being the regulatory committee of EC member States. This applies to objections filed by persons resident or established in an EC member State under Article7(1) of the Regulation and also objections filed by persons resident or established in other ϲʹ Members under Article12b(2) and 12d(1). Australia argues that consideration of an objection by the regulatory committee is essential to a registered trademark owner being able to exercise the rights required to be conferred by Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Australia disagrees with the European Communities' views on estoppel. The European Communities refers to its defence to the previous claim. It adds that the Committee established under Article15 of the Regulation is not the "ultimate decision maker". Further, the authorities of the EC member States are not required to transmit objections to the Commission, but their decisions are not discretionary and may be subject to judicial review based on procedural requirements of their respective administrative laws. Whilst the authorities of other ϲʹ Members enjoy complete discretion in the transmission of objections to the Commission, those Members would be estopped from complaining that the refusal of their own authorities to transmit an objection had infringed the trademark rights of their own nationals. Consideration by the Panel The Panel refers to its findings at paragraphs  REF _Ref88146224 \n \h 7.699 and  REF _Ref88146226 \n \h 7.700 and concludes, for the same reasons, that Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of this claim. Other Claims Minimum standards of GI protection Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the European Communities fails to provide at Community level the legal means for interested parties to prevent uses in respect of a GI registered, or proposed to be registered, under the Regulation, contrary to Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. It argues that the obligation under Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement creates an obligation "in respect of" GIs which means "as concerns" GIs. The obligation is not limited to actions to protect GIs, but extends to any situation that concerns GIs, including a situation involving the proposed registration of a GI that potentially constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967). Australia argues, by way of example, that it is entirely possible that there are products which, while originally based on a European production process, have been further developed and refined outside the European country of origin and which have subsequently come to represent the "international" trading standard for that product. Registration of that name as a GI although it may qualify for registration - could well constitute misleading use or an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967). Australia does not challenge any particular GI as contrary to Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, but argues that the European Communities has failed to provide the legal means by which interested parties can seek to test "such issues" in relation to the registration of a GI under the Regulation. Australia argues that the European Communities is not obliged to comply with a particular obligation through a single measure applicable throughout its territory but rather, while it can choose to offer more extensive protection of GIs at the Community level, it must also ensure that it does not breach its TRIPS obligations in doing so. The European Communities has effectively implemented a TRIPS right at the Community level without also effectively implementing at the same level the concurrent TRIPS obligations. An assertion that the European Communities complies with Article22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement under the laws of the EC member States is an admission that the Regulation itself does not comply. The Regulation disturbs what may otherwise be sufficient to meet the European Communities' obligations. The European Communities considers that this claim is insufficiently argued but responds as follows: (1) It considers that Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement is concerned exclusively with the protection of GIs. It cannot be invoked by a trademark right holder to prevent the use of a GI; (2)The use of a validly registered GI, which is otherwise consistent with the TRIPS Agreement, cannot mislead the public as to the geographical origin of the goods. Registration of the GI seeks to avoid precisely that; and (3) Registration or use of a GI consistently with domestic law cannot constitute an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967). In any event, registered GIs remain subject to EC labelling and misleading advertising legislation and the unfair competition laws of the EC member States. These other measures and the Regulation apply cumulatively. In any event, registration of a GI is not a "use". (4) There is no requirement that protection must be at the Community level. The European Communities comments as follows on the example of a product name which has become generic: (a) It does not understand how use of a name which is not generic but is a GI in the country of protection could be misleading; (b) Article 22.2 concerns acts against the holders of GIs as defined in Article22.1, not other parties; (c) the exercise of a right conferred by a Member to comply with the TRIPS Agreement is not a dishonest practice in international trade; and (d)Article22.2(a) requires the protection of GIs unless they have become generic in the country of protection, but Australia's example implies that Article 22.2(b) prevents the protection of GIs if they have become generic in another country. Consideration by the Panel The Panel begins its consideration of this claim by noting that Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement provides as follows: "2. In respect of geographical indications, 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 Article10bis of the Paris Convention (1967)." The term "geographical indications" is defined in Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. It is not disputed that registered "designations of origin" 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. Article 22.2 creates an obligation that applies "in respect of" geographical indications. The ordinary meaning of the word "respect" as used in that phrase can be defined as "relation, connection, reference, regard. Earliest in have respect to; now chiefly in with respect to, inrespectto". This is a very broad phrase. However, in accordance with the general rule of treaty interpretation, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "in respect of" must be interpreted in context and in the light of the object and purpose of the Agreement. Article 22.2 is found in Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. Part II sets out minimum standards concerning the availability, scope and use of intellectual property rights, which is one of the objects and purposes of the Agreement, as highlighted in paragraph (b) of the second recital in its preamble. The first seven sections of Part II contain standards relating to categories of intellectual property rights. Each Section provides for a different category of intellectual property, setting 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. Section 3 contains all these features for the category of GIs, as highlighted in its title, which reads "Protection of Geographical Indications". Article 23.1 expressly provides for protection to prevent use of a GI for wines and spirits. Whilst the protection of GIs affects the protection of trademarks, as expressly recognized in Articles22.3 and 23.2, Section 3 does not provide for trademark protection, except to the extent that trademark systems are used to protect GIs. Therefore, read in context, the obligation in Article22.2 to provide certain legal means "in respect of" GIs, is an obligation to provide for the protection of GIs. Australia's claim does not appear to concern the protection of GIs, but rather the protection of other subject matter against the protection of GIs. Therefore, it does not disclose a cause of action under Article 22.2. With respect to the example of product names that may satisfy the conditions for protection in the Member where protection is sought but which have become the international trading standard for a product, it is not entirely clear what Australia means by the term "international trading standard". However, it suffices to note that Article22.2 applies to geographical indications that satisfy the definition in Article22.1. Article 22.2 does not apply to generic terms, as confirmed by Article 24.6. Each Member applies the definition of GIs with respect to its own territory so that the question whether the indication is generic or otherwise not entitled to protection in another Member's territory is not relevant, unless the other Member is the country of origin. Australia's example does not concern another Member that is the country of origin, and therefore is inapposite to Article 22.2. With respect to the suggestion that the European Communities must provide the legal means to test issues such as those in the above example, the Panel notes that Article 22.2 creates an obligation to provide the legal means to prevent certain uses. To the extent that Australia's reference to the testing of issues relates to the right to seek eventual legal relief, it has failed to demonstrate what uses covered by Article 22.2 are permitted by the Regulation without a legal means of prevention. For the above reasons, the Panel rejects Australia's claim under Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Articles10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention (1967) Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the European Communities denies to nationals of other ϲʹ Members effective protection against unfair competition and appropriate legal remedies to repress effectively all acts of unfair competition, contrary to Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement "incorporating Articles10bis(1) and 10ter(1) of the Paris Convention (1967)". This claim is based on the argument that the Regulation provides a Community-wide system of registration of GIs that provides effective protection from acts of unfair competition, including in relation to later trademark applications, within the Community, but not a Community-wide system of effective protection of trademarks from acts of unfair competition arising from the later registration of GIs under the Regulation. Australia argues that Article 10bis(1) includes the obligation to protect trademarks against unfair competition from a GI and that Article 10ter(1) therefore ensures that a Member provides the mechanisms necessary to assure protection against unfair competition "in any guise" and to assure to nationals of other Members effective protection against unfair competition that permits account to be taken of honest practices established in international trade. Australia confirms that it seeks distinct findings in respect of its claim under Article 10bis pursuant to Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and its claim under Article 22.2(b) of the TRIPS Agreement. The European Communities responds that this claim is insufficiently argued and difficult to understand. Australia does not explain how the use of a registered GI, which is otherwise consistent with the TRIPS Agreement and, in particular, Articles16 and 24.5, could constitute an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis(1) of the Paris Convention (1967). In any event, the use of a registered GI remains subject to EC legislation on labelling and misleading advertising, as well as the laws of the EC member States on unfair competition, which are outside the Panel's terms of reference. There is no basis in Article 10bis(1), or anywhere else in the Paris Convention (1967) for the proposition that the protection against unfair competition must be provided at any given territorial level. The claim under Article 10ter(1) of the Paris Convention (1967) is unfounded for the same reasons. The European Communities responded to the claim under Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement separately, and argued that, as a consequence of the other two claims, this claim was also unfounded. Consideration by the Panel The Panel notes that Australia's claims relate to two provisions of the Paris Convention (1967) and the protection of trademarks against acts of unfair competition arising from the later registration of GIs. These claims are based on the assertion that where the European Communities implements "Community-wide" protection for GIs against unfair competition arising from trademark protection, it must also implement Community-wide protection for trademarks against unfair competition arising from GI protection. The European Communities indicated that it had difficulty understanding the claims but it responded as set out in paragraph  REF _Ref90825176 \r \h 7.720. Australia's response to the European Communities' concerns was that "[i]t is irrelevant that the EC might not understand" how the use of a TRIPS-consistent GI could constitute an act of unfair competition and that "[i]t is also irrelevant" that the use of a registered GI remains subject to legislation on labelling, misleading advertising and unfair competition laws. However, it did provide an additional element to its arguments when it referred to Article 10bis(2) and speculated as follows: "It may be that, having regard to the principle of territoriality and to developments in international trade over time, recognition of a TRIPS-defined GI could constitute an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Paris Article10bis(2)." The Panel sought clarification from Australia as to the relevance of the fact that a measure is or is not applicable throughout a Member's territory, and whether Australia's claim was related to the fact that the EC member States are also ϲʹ Members. Australia reiterated the assertion in its claim, but added that the European Communities had effectively implemented a "TRIPS right", at Community level, without also effectively implementing at the same level the concurrent "TRIPS obligations". Australia did not explain why, in its view, the right to provide more extensive protection than that required by the minimum standards of the TRIPS Agreement entailed "concurrent" obligations. The Panel observed that these claims related to trademark protection and sought clarification from Australia on the need for additional conclusions if there were a conclusion on the claims under Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Australia reiterated its assertion of an obligation to protect trademarks against unfair competition from a GI, but added that these provisions together ensure that a Member actually provides the mechanisms necessary to ensure protection against unfair competition "in any guise". Australia did not elaborate on why, in its view, the GI Regulation should provide such protection. Its final comments on these claims were as follows: "The obligations established by Paris Articles10bis(1) and 10ter(1) are straightforward, and ϲʹ Members are required to comply with those obligations by the terms of TRIPS Article2.1. Australia does not have to explain how the use of a registered EC-defined GI could constitute an act of unfair competition within the meaning of those provisions of the Paris Convention. That would be determined by the body required to be empowered by the EC to consider such matters in the event that the holder of an industrial property right within the EC considered that such issues may be raised by the registration of an EC-defined GI." [emphasis added] The Panel has reviewed Australia's submissions, statements and responses to questions and notes that, whilst Australia has repeatedly stated the obligations with which it alleges inconsistencies, it has not clearly explained the fundamental premise of its claims, which is that the European Communities must provide at Community-level protection for trademarks against unfair competition arising from GIs. Nor has it clearly explained why the measure at issue should provide that protection. The Panel considers that those issues needed to be explained. The Panel itself sought clarification of certain issues and notes that the respondent also raised these matters in its first written submission. The Panel cannot relieve Australia of its responsibility to prove its case. Some evidence, although not necessarily specific instances, was required to indicate what uses covered by Article10bis of the Paris Convention (1967) are permitted by the Regulation without a legal means of prevention. Australia's speculative remark "having regard to the principle of territoriality and to developments in international trade over time" restated the nature of the measure at issue and the nature of the obligation at issue without making a clear link between the two. Australia's example of products that have become the "international" trading standard, considered in the previous sub-section in relation to Article 22.2(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, does not appear to relate to the present claim, which relates to the protection of trademarks from acts of unfair competition. Consequently, Australia has not demonstrated that legal remedies are required in accordance with Article10ter(1) either. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims under Articles10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention (1967) "as incorporated in" the TRIPS Agreement. Claims under Part III of the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Articles41.1, 41.2, 41.3 and 42 of the TRIPS Agreement because of the provisions concerning objections by a trademark right holder, and the functioning of the regulatory committee. 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. Consideration by the Panel 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 intellectual property rights covered by the Agreement, including geographical indications, by virtue of the definition of "intellectual property" in Article 1.2 and the first sentence of Part III. However, Australia's claims concern an inter partes procedure permitting objections which is related to the acquisition of intellectual property rights under the Regulation. As such, it is covered by Part IV of the TRIPS Agreement, not Part III. The general principles in Article 41.2 and 41.3 apply to such inter partes procedures, where a Member's law provides for them, by virtue of Article 62.4 of the TRIPS Agreement. However, Article 62.4 is outside the Panel's terms of reference. Accordingly, the Panel rejects these claims. Claims concerning transitional national protection Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the Regulation does not ensure that decisions by EC member States to grant transitional national protection pursuant to Article 5(5) do not diminish the protection of trademarks under the TRIPS Agreement, in the same way as registration of GIs at the Community level. As a consequence, it claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article 2.1 ("incorporating Articles10bis(1) and 10ter(1) of the Paris Convention (1967)"), Articles16.1, 41.1, 41.2, 41.3 and/or 42 of the TRIPS Agreement. It submits that these claims are independent of its other claims. The European Communities responds that these claims are dependent on the substantive claims and are equally unfounded. Consideration by the Panel These claims concern Article 5(5) of the Regulation, which provides that, in certain circumstances, an EC member State may "on a transitional basis only, grant on the national level a protection in the sense of the present Regulation" for GIs pending a decision on registration by the Commission. The Panel recalls once again that, in its preliminary ruling of 5 April 2004, it assured the European Communities that "it is fully entitled to know the arguments of Australia during the course of the proceedings. Those arguments must be set out and may be clarified in Australia's submissions." Australia has cited a series of numbered provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and provided narrative text that paraphrases those provisions, but it has set out little in the way of supporting arguments. It has not explained whether Article 5(5) grants EC member States authority to continue to apply national legislation, what is the nature or content of that protection, how it can diminish trademark protection "in the same way" as the protection granted by registration under the Regulation nor how this is alleged to violate enforcement obligations in Part III of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, it is not clear why Australia considers that the Regulation should ensure that decisions of ECmember States should be taken with proper regard to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. Accordingly, Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claim. Claims concerning individual registrations Main arguments of the parties Australia claims, for reasons related to the amendment of the Regulation in April 2003, violations of the national treatment obligations in Articles2(1) and 2(2) of the Paris Convention as incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, and in Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, the obligation in Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement to comply with Articles1 through 12 and 19 of the Paris Convention (1967), and the obligation in Article 1.3 of the TRIPS Agreement to accord the treatment provided for in the TRIPS Agreement to the nationals of other Members. Australia notes that as of April 2003, more than 120 GIs had been registered under the Regulation according to a procedure which granted a right of objection to persons resident or established in an EC member States but not to nationals of other ϲʹ Members not resident or established in an EC member State. The amendment inserted Article 12d which grants a right of objection to persons resident or established in ϲʹ Members, but did not provide any right of objection to GIs already registered or adjust the period for lodgement of objections to applications which were pending. Australia also notes that as of April 2003, more than 480 GIs had been registered under a simplified procedure under the former Article 17 which granted a right of objection to EC member States but not to the nationals of other ϲʹ Members. The amendment repealed Article 17 but did not grant a right of objection to nationals of other ϲʹ Members in respect of GIs already registered or affect the continuing registrations in any other way. In response to a question from the Panel, Australia indicated that it seeks relief in respect of existing registration for which the European Communities did not comply with Articles16.1, 22.2, 41.1, 41.2, 41.3 and 42 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. It submits that its claims under these provisions, as well as its claims under Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, "incorporating" Articles10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention (1967), and Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement, encompass the registration of 480 GIs under the simplified procedure. However, it does not challenge any specific individual registration. The European Communities responds that the individual registrations themselves are not in violation of national treatment obligations. Australia's claim is based exclusively on the argument that no right of objection was available to third country nationals under the Regulation prior to its amendment. The rules governing the procedure leading up to the adoption of the measure are not the same as the measure itself. It is not clear how an individual registration that grants protection to a specific GI could grant less favourable treatment to third country nationals. Moreover, under the simplified procedure, there was no right of objection to European Communities residents or third country residents. The European Communities considers it important to remark that Australia is seeking a retroactive remedy that it could not have obtained had it attacked the measure while it was still in force. It submits that it is universally accepted that Article 19.1 of the DSU signifies that the recommendations of panels and the Appellate Body are prospective, not retrospective, in nature. Even if Australia had challenged the Regulation before it was amended, it could not have claimed that the European Communities undo all the registrations already carried out or reopen a possibility of objection against such registrations or provide compensation. The European Communities considers that Australia's claims under provisions other than the national treatment provisions were raised after its first written submission and without any supporting arguments. In any case, these claims relate to objection procedures, which are optional under the TRIPS Agreement and unrelated to the treatment of products under GATT 1994. Consideration by the Panel The Panel notes that these claims concern individual registrations effected under the former Article 17 of the Regulation, which has been repealed, and under Article 6 of the Regulation, which remains in effect. With respect to individual registrations effected under the former Article 17 of the Regulation, the Panel recalls its ruling in paragraph  REF _Ref88144810 \n \h 7.17 that it will make findings with respect to prior versions of the Regulation where they serve some useful purpose in reaching conclusions with respect to measures within its terms of reference, including individual registrations, that are currently in force. The simplified procedure under the former Article 17 of the Regulation granted no right of objection. Article 7 provides for objections, but the former Article17(2) provided that Article 7 "shall not apply" under the simplified procedure. Australia directs our attention to a judgement of the European Court of Justice, concerning protection of the name "Feta", which made reference to Article17(2). However, the Panel notes that the findings of the Court in that judgement do not suggest that a right of objection under Article 7 applied under the simplified procedure. The Panel noticed that the initial registrations under Article 17 in 1996 recited provisions of the Regulation that concerned prior trademark rights. In response to a question from the Panel, the European Communities explains that this was an implicit reference to "Bayerisches Bier" which was not registered at that time "[b]ecause of the concerns raised by the owners of the trademarks at issue and by some Member States". On the basis of that statement alone, Australia asserts that "[c]learly, there was indeed a mechanism available to at least some EC trademark right holders to make their objections known in the context of the decision-making process provided by Article15 of Regulation No. 2081/92." However, Australia has not been any more specific concerning this mechanism. Therefore, Australia has not demonstrated the first premise of its national treatment claim with respect to individual registrations effected under the former Article 17, which was that there was a difference in the procedures or opportunities for objections themselves. With respect to individual registrations effected under Article 6 of the Regulation, Article7(3) provides a prior right to submit statements of objections to EC member States to persons resident or established within the European Communities. The European Communities amended the Regulation in April 2003 by inserting Article 12d, which provides a right to submit statements of objections to the authorities of other ϲʹ Members to persons resident or established in those other ϲʹ Members. Therefore, with respect to registrations effected under Article 6, there was previously a difference in the objection procedures. However, Australia does not challenge the procedures for objections as they stood prior to the April 2003 amendment. It challenges individual registrations effected under the Regulation, including all those effected prior to that amendment, which remain in effect. It does not challenge any specific individual registration. The Panel observes that the act of registration, and the omission of not allowing objections from foreign residents, both occurred in the past, prior to the date of establishment of the Panel. The provisions of the Regulation which provided for these acts and omissions have been amended and no longer exist as they did at the time of the registrations. However, the individual registrations, in terms of the legal protection which flows from those registrations in accordance with Article 13 of the Regulation, constitute subject matter which continues to exist. Therefore, the TRIPS Agreement is applicable to them. Nevertheless, Australia has not demonstrated how individual registrations, as opposed to the procedures under which they were granted, either under the former Article 17 or the current Article 6, are inconsistent with the European Communities' obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, either in respect of national treatment or any of the other obligations that that agreement lists, because it effectively asserts the identity of the past act of registration and the presently existing subject matter. The continuing individual registrations are the subject of Australia's claims here, but Australia does not submit any evidence relating to them, either individually or as a group, other than the circumstances surrounding the act of registration, and the fact that they remain in force. Therefore, in view of the finding in paragraph  REF _Ref91300653 \r \h 7.750 and, additionally with respect to individual registrations under Article 17, the findings in paragraph  REF _Ref88143355 \r \h 7.747, the Panel concludes that Australia has failed to make a prima facie case in support of its claims with respect to individual registrations. Claim under Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that, as a consequence of the Regulation's inconsistencies with various provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, the European Communities has failed to comply with Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. This claim does not address a separate aspect of the Regulation but Australia does seek confirmation that a ϲʹ Member is obliged to give effect to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement before it is able to offer more extensive protection for one particular category of intellectual property right. The European Communities responds that these claims are dependent on the substantive claims and are equally unfounded. Consideration by the Panel 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." The Panel notes that the first sentence creates an obligation for Members to give effect to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and the second sentence recognizes Members' freedom to implement more extensive protection, subject to a condition. After the expiry of the transitional arrangements in Articles65 and 66 (and 70.8 and 70.9), as applicable, a Member is obliged to give effect to the provisions of the Agreement with respect to each category of intellectual property right, irrespective of whether it implements more extensive protection in the same or another category of intellectual property right. The Panel notes that Australia's claim under Article 1.1 is a consequential claim and considers that further findings on it would not provide any additional contribution to a positive solution to this dispute. The Panel exercises judicial economy with respect to this claim. Consequential claims Main arguments of the parties Australia claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article 65.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which obliged the European Communities to apply the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement no later than 1 January 1996, because the actions alleged in its other claims constitute contraventions of the European Communities' obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Australia claims that the European Communities has not complied with Article XVI:4 of the ϲʹ Agreement. as a consequence of the Regulation's inconsistency with various provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, GATT 1994 and the TBT Agreement, and of the European Communities' failure to observe its obligations pursuant to Articles1.1, 2.1 and 65.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. The European Communities responds that these claims are dependent on the substantive claims and are equally unfounded. Consideration by the Panel The Panel notes that these are consequential claims and considers that findings on them would not provide any additional contribution to a positive solution to this dispute. Therefore, the Panel exercises judicial economy with respect to these claims. conclusions and recommendation In light of the findings set out in this report, the Panel concludes as follows: From Section A of the findings: the measures and claims in Australia's request for establishment of a panel did not fail to meet the requirements of Article6.2 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; the claims under Article2(2) of the Paris Convention (1967) are within the Panel's terms of reference; the claim under Article 4 of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and, consequently, under Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement, is outside the Panel's terms of reference; the claim under Article 41 in conjunction with Articles43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 49 of the TRIPS Agreement is outside the Panel's terms of reference; From Section B of the findings: Australia 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 ϲʹ Members and the European Communities has not succeeded in rebutting that case; the Regulation is inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement: with respect to the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, as applicable to the availability of protection; with respect to the application procedures, insofar as they require examination and transmission of applications by governments; and with respect to the objection procedures, insofar as they require verification and transmission of objections by governments; Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and with Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (1967) as incorporated by Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement: with respect to the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, as allegedly applicable to objections; or with respect to the regulatory committee; 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: with respect to the availability of protection for GIs; with respect to the application procedures; or with respect to the objection procedures; the Regulation is inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994: with respect to the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, as applicable to the availability of protection; and with respect to the application procedures, insofar as they require examination and transmission of applications by governments, and these requirements are not justified by ArticleXX(d) of GATT 1994; Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994 with respect to the regulatory committee; Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claim that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement with respect to the labelling requirement; From Section C of the findings: Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement is inapplicable to the inspection structures requirements, read together with Article 4 of the Regulation, and the Panel rejects Australia's claim; From Section D of the findings: the Regulation is inconsistent with Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to the coexistence of GIs with prior trademarks but this is justified by Article 17 of the TRIPS Agreement. In this respect: Article 24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement is inapplicable; and Article 24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement is inapplicable; Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to the right of objection of trademark owners; From Section E of the findings: the Panel rejects Australia's claim under Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement; Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims that the Regulation is inconsistent with Article 10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention (1967) "as incorporated in the TRIPS Agreement"; the Panel rejects Australia's claims under 41.1, 41.2, 41.3 and 42 of the TRIPS Agreement (except as noted at paragraph 8.1 REF _Ref91232385 \n \h (d)); Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims with respect to transitional national protection; and Australia has not made a prima facie case in support of its claims with respect to individual registrations. The Panel exercises judicial economy with respect to Australia's claims under: 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 REF _Ref90837888 \n \h (g)) Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement (with respect to the presumption of confusion); Articles1.1 and Article 65.1 of the TRIPS Agreement; Article III:4 of GATT 1994 (except as noted in paragraph 8.1); and Article XVI:4 of the ϲʹ Agreement. 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 that, to the extent that the Regulation as such is inconsistent with the covered agreements, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Australia under these agreements. In light of these conclusions, the Panel recommends pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU that the European Communities bring the Regulation into conformity with the TRIPS Agreement and GATT 1994. The Panel suggests, pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, that one way in which the European Communities could implement the above recommendation 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 ϲʹ Members which, it submitted to the Panel, is already the case. This suggestion is not intended to diminish the importance of the above recommendation with respect to any of the Panel's other conclusions. __________  WT/DS290/1.  WT/DS290/18.  WT/DS290/19 and Corr.1.  Australia also stated that it endorsed all arguments put forward by the United States in its closing statement at the second substantive meeting. This is considered in paragraphs  REF _Ref88143120 \n \h 7.69- REF _Ref88143123 \n \h 7.82, below.  Attached as Annex D-2 to this report.  The submissions are attached to this report as Annexes A-10 and B-10.  The International Bureau's Note, but not its annexes, are attached as Annex D-3 to this report.  Australia withdrew a claim made under Article 20 of the TRIPS Agreement as described in paragraph REF _Ref88143155 \n \h 7.53 below.  The preliminary ruling is reproduced with minor editorial changes.  (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.]  Note: paragraph 2 of the preliminary ruling dealt with the United States' request for establishment of a panel.  (footnote original) Australia's comments on EC request, dated 15 March 2004 ("Australia's response"), paras. 1 and 48. [Note: those comments are attached as Annex A-1 to this final report.]  (footnote original) This is consistent with the approach of the Appellate Body in US Carbon Steel.  Note: paragraphs 7-22 of the preliminary ruling dealt with the United States' request for establishment of a panel.  (footnote original) Document WT/DS290/18.  (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 accordance with Article6.2 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".  (footnote original) Exhibit EC-1 annexed to EC request, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242281 \h 10. A list containing the names, numbers and dates of the amendments reflected in the consolidated text of the regulation can be found on page1 of that document.  (footnote original) Exhibit EC-1.  (footnote original) EC request, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242281 \h 10, para. 30.  (footnote original) See supra at  NOTEREF _Ref68946397 \h 16.  (footnote original) EC request, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242281 \h 10, para. 63.  (footnote original) Australia's response, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242328 \h 12, para. 25.  (footnote original) See the Appellate Body report on Korea Dairy, para. 124.  (footnote original) See the Appellate Body report on Thailand H-Beams, para.93.  (footnote original) EC request, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242281 \h 10, para. 57.  (footnote original) Australia's response, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242328 \h 12, paras. 23 and 24.  (footnote original) The Oxford English Dictionary defines "and/or" as "a formula denoting that the items joined by it can be taken either together or as alternatives". (A Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, R.W.Burchfield (ed.) (Clarendon Press, 1972, reprinted, with corrections, 1980, Vol. I).  (footnote original) See the Appellate Body reports in EC Bananas III, para.141; Korea Dairy, para. 139; and US Carbon Steel, para.173.  (footnote original) See supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242372 \h 24.  (footnote original) See the Appellate Body report on Korea Dairy, para. 123.  (footnote original) See Appellate Body report on Thailand H-Beams, para. 88.  (footnote original) EC request, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242281 \h 10, para. 4.  (footnote original) See supra at  NOTEREF _Ref68929451 \h 31.  (footnote original) See para. 41.  (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 Article6.2 DSU" constitutes an additional requirement to those set out in Article6.2 of the DSU: EC request, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242281 \h 10, para. 66, fn. 25.  (footnote original) See the minutes of those meetings in documents WT/DSB/M/155, para. 75 and M/156, para.32, reproduced in Exhibits EC-2 and 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.  (corrected footnote original) This does not imply that these issues could not be raised later in the proceedings.  See paras. 6, 29 and 48 of the preliminary ruling set out above.  This is consistent with the approach of the Appellate Body in US Carbon Steel, para. 127.  Quoted at para. 25 of the preliminary ruling set out above.  See para. 11 of the preliminary ruling set out above.  To the extent that the claims concern the actions of EC member State authorities in the verification and transmission of applications and objections, the European Communities expressly referred to these actions in its request for a preliminary ruling, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242281 \h 10, para. 31. It also informed the Panel during this proceeding that Community laws are generally not executed through authorities at Community level but rather through recourse to the authorities of its member States: see para.  REF _Ref88143204 \n \h 7.148 below.  The claim concerned coexistence under Article14(2), subject to Article14(3). The European Communities expressly referred to both, as well as Article7(4), to which it referred in its defence, in its request for a preliminary ruling, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242281 \h 10, paras. 47 and 61. The only aspect of the Regulation which it raised in this respect in its request for a preliminary ruling, that it did not later raise in its defence, was Article14(1): see Section VII:D of this report.  European Communities' request, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref91242281 \h 10, para. 68.  Ibid,, paras. 44 and 61.  See para. 41 of the preliminary ruling set out above.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 114 and 123-126.  See also para.  REF _Ref91242670 \n \h 6.5 above.  Australia's first written submission, para. 20.  Amendment effected by Council Regulation (EC) No. 692/2003, set out in Exhibit COMP-1h.  Australia's first written submission, para. 18, defines "Regulation No. 2081/92" "#1", "#2" and "#3".  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 13-20. The European Communities addressed the individual registrations on the basis of the preliminary ruling by the Panel but reserved its right to raise this issue in the context of a possible appeal: see its second oral statement, para. 105 and fn. 80.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 89 and 86, respectively.  Australia's first oral statement, paras. 13-14 and its response to Panel question No. 88.  This was also the approach of the Appellate Body in US Certain EC Products, at para. 81.  This is subject to comments in para.  REF _Ref88143276 \n \h 7.26 concerning individual registrations adopted after the date of establishment of the Panel. See also the Panel's conclusion at para.  REF _Ref88143404 \r \h 7.751 below.  Exhibit AUS-4 and documents IP/Q2/EEC/1 and IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para.142 and Annex.  See para.  REF _Ref88143332 \n \h 7.628.  See paras.  REF _Ref88143353 \n \h 7.746 and  REF _Ref88143355 \n \h 7.747.  Exhibit COMP-4.  Exhibit COMP-4b.viii to xvi. The 15 GIs are "Westlandse druif"; "Alcachofa de Benicarl" or "Carxofa de Benicarl"; "Marrone di San Zeno"; "Mantequilla de l'Alt Urgell y la Cerdanya" or "Mantega de l'Alt Urgell i la Cerdanya"; "Thringer Leberwurst", "Thringer Rotwurst", "Thringer Rostbratwurst"; "Spressa delle Giudicarie"; "Fraise du Prigord"; "Queso de Valden"; "Ensaimada de Mallorca" or "Ensaimada mallorquina"; "Arbroath Smokies"; "Carciofo di Paestum"; "Farina di Neccio della Garfagnana"; "Agneau de Pauillac" and "Agneau du Poitou-Charentes".  Exhibit COMP-1a.  Exhibit COMP-3c. The Czech beer GIs are "Budjovick pivo", " eskobudjovick pivo" and "Budjovickmat ansk var".  Australia's first written submission, paras. 20 and 33.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 21-25.  Annex C, para. 96.  Set out in Exhibits COMP-4a and 3a, respectively.  See supra at  NOTEREF _Ref88145574 \h 61 and  NOTEREF _Ref90838603 \h 63 .  This is consistent with the approach of the Appellate Body in Brazil Aircraft, para. 132 and Chile Price Band System at paras. 135-144.  Australia's responses to Panel questions Nos. 91 and 93.  See para.  REF _Ref88143404 \n \h 7.751 below.  In fact, the European Communities itself has included one of these GIs in its exhibits: the 2002 publication of the application to register "Thringer Leberwurst" is Exhibit EC-54.  The Panel refers to the registration of the Czech beer GIs submitted in an exhibit by the complainants (see para.  REF _Ref90827558 \n \h 7.18 above) as evidence of the operation of Article 14(3) of the Regulation in paras. REF _Ref90827657 \n \h 7.574 and  REF _Ref88143447 \n \h 7.669.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 189 and 194.  Australia's first oral statement, para. 16.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 36-42; second oral statement, paras.112117.  See the Appellate Body report on Korea Dairy, para. 124.  See the Appellate Body report on Thailand H-Beams, para. 93.  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]  Australia's first written submission, paras. 81-87.  Australia's first oral statement, para. 15.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 162; rebuttal submission, para. 25.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 28-30; first oral statement, para. 6. The European Communities also submits that Australia has not clarified this claim, despite a request to do so, and that Australia has not identified a single application for a trademark that falls within the situation that Australia alleges in this claim: see European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 356-357.  See the Appellate Body report on Thailand H-Beams, para. 88.  Australia's first written submission, para. 148.  Australia's first oral statement, para. 15.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 31-35.  See the Appellate Body report on Thailand H-Beams, para. 88.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 108-112.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 345-351.  Australia's second oral statement, para. 99.  Australia's first written submission, para. 65; noted by the European Communities in its first written submission, para. 227, fn. 108 and para. 239, fn. 112.  Australia's first written submission, para. 66.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 127; and its rebuttal submission, para. 122.  Australia's first oral statement, para. 34, citing its first written submission, paras. 198-199 and 205.  See paras.  REF _Ref88143555 \n \h 7.276 and following below.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 157-180 and 264.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 437-457, 469-482, 209 and fn. 100.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 179.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 129.  See para.  REF _Ref90798204 \r \h 7.459 below.  Australia's first oral statement, paras. 30 and 33.  Australia's opening statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 2.  Australia's closing statement at the second substantive meeting, second paragraph. In its comments on the descriptive part of this report, it requested that paragraph 2.15 be elaborated to make clear that Australia made this endorsement.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 76.  United States' response to Panel question No. 76.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 52.  United States' response to Panel question No. 120.  Australia's second oral statement, para. 104. Australia also requests that the Panel exclude these and other exhibits submitted by the European Communities consisting of extracts of legislation of other Members, on the grounds that it has failed to establish the meaning of the legal provisions within the legal order of those Members: see Australia's comments on the EC's responses to questions, paras. 2-4. This does not concern the record of the proceedings and can be dealt with, if necessary, in the consideration of the relevant claim.  Annex C, para. 117.  In its rebuttal, Australia also referred to a claim under GATT 1994 as an alternative to one of its claims under the TBT Agreement. The Panel's approach to this issue is discussed in paras.  REF _Ref88143673 \n \h 7.64- REF _Ref88143674 \n \h 7.68.  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.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 165-168, 172-173 and 199.  Australia's first oral statement, para. 33. The United States' first oral statement included inter alia comments that Article12(1) does not suggest that ϲʹ Members are excluded from its conditions and Article12a sets out the sole process under the Regulation for the registration of non-EC GIs. If the conditions in Article12(1) do not apply to ϲʹ Members, then they may not be recognized under Article12(3) and the Article12a procedure is still not available for them.  Australia's first oral statement, paras. 18-23; rebuttal submission, paras. 33-49; second oral statement, paras. 3-9.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 6.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 1; rebuttal submission, paras. 69-71.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 62-67; first oral statement, paras. 41-44; rebuttal submission, para. 52.  European Communities' responses to Panel questions Nos. 7, 8, 15 and 16; rebuttal submission, paras. 11, 58-60 and 71-87; second oral statement, paras. 45 and 50.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 1; second oral statement, paras. 5-7.  Annex C, para. 17.  Annex C, paras. 23-24.  Annex C, paras. 47-50.  Annex C, para. 72.  Annex C, para. 99.  Annex C, para. 110.  Annex C, paras. 126-128.  Annex C, paras. 171-172.  See the parties' respective responses to Panel questions Nos. 11 and 12 and third party 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.  See para. 7 of the United States' first oral statement, endorsed by Australia, first oral statement, para.33, and summaries of arguments of Brazil and Canada, Annex C, paras. 24 and 47.  Australia's first oral statement, para. 19; rebuttal submission, paras. 32-49.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 72.  This was the approach of the Appellate Body in India Patents (US), paras. 65-68.  Parties' respective responses to Panel question No. 1.  The terms "designation of origin" and "geographical indication" are defined in Article2(2) of the Regulation and they and the abbreviations "PDO" and "PGI" are found in Article4 of the Regulation (ExhibitsCOMP-1b and EC-1). Detailed rules of application of the Regulation are found in Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2037/93 (Exhibit COMP-2).  This is apparent from Article5(4) of the Regulation 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 noted that Articles12a and 12b refer to certain provisions in Articles5 to 7 as well.  This is apparent from Article12a(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.  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.  The second sentence of Article12(3) provides that the procedure in Article12a shall apply to third countries which the Commission decides satisfy the conditions in Article12(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.  This is considered in detail in para.  REF _Ref90828363 \n \h 7.382 below.  European Communities' responses to Panel question Nos. 126(a) and (b).  Exhibits COMP-1b and EC-1.  Exhibit COMP-1h.  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 Article12(3) that does not satisfy the equivalence and reciprocity conditions.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 19.  See para.  REF _Ref83698116 \n \h 7.106 above.  Communication from Australia, Canada, Guatemala, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines and the United States (IP/C/W/360) para. 4.  See the statement in the Annex to the minutes of that meeting in document IP/C/M/37/Add.1.  Ibid.  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 AUS-4.  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 other ϲʹ Members in the TRIPS Council review of its legislation in 1996-1997, before the insertion of Articles12a through 12d, are inconclusive on this issue as they contain no clear statement that equivalence 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.  Exhibit EC-64.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 96.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 48.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 7.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 6.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 69.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 21.  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 adopted, 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 ϲʹ agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round."  See the minutes of that meeting in document IP/C/M/44, paras. 62-63, cited in response to Panel questions Nos. 16 and 95 and set out in Exhibit EC-83.  Set out in Exhibit EC-64.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 123-126; first oral statement, paras. 46-47; rebuttal submission, para. 43.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 20.  Australia's first oral statement, para. 23; rebuttal submission, para. 177; second oral statement, para. 61.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 94.  In the same question, the Panel also sought clarification of the relevance of the reference to the TRIPS Agreement in the European Communities' first written submission, quoted at paragraph  REF _Ref90838197 \n \h 7.139 above. The European Communities' response does not provide a clear explanation of the relationship between the obligations of ϲʹ 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.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 55.  This procedure is described in detail in paras.  REF _Ref88143818 \n \h 7.388 to  REF _Ref88143820 \n \h 7.389 below.  European Communities' responses to Panel questions Nos. 15 and 18.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 148.  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.  REF _Ref90829659 \n \h 7.304,  REF _Ref90829689 \n \h 7.372 and  REF _Ref90829792 \n \h 7.399 of the present report.  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.  Australia's first written submission, para. 199.  Australia's first oral statement, para. 33. The United States' first oral statement included inter alia comments that the distinction between the location of a geographical area and the nationality of the right holder is not meaningful as right holders are overwhelmingly nationals of the place where their respective GIs are located and that there is an obvious link and close relationship between the nationality of the persons who would seek GI protection for agricultural products and foodstuffs and the territory of the Member in which they are growing or producing such products, which is supported by data on the applicants for certification marks in the UnitedStates.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 101.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 23.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 31.  Australia's first written submission, para. 197.  Australia's second oral statement, para. 74; response to Panel question No. 103.  Australia's responses to Panel questions Nos. 22, 27 and 102; rebuttal submission, para. 184.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 103.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 199 and 206.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 111.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 123-126.  European Communities' first oral statement, paras. 46-47; response to Panel question No. 106.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 22.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 45-48; second oral statement, paras. 28-30; response to Panel question No. 106.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 107; second oral statement, paras. 29-30.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 23; rebuttal submission, paras. 37-40.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 35.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 24.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 26.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 101 and comments on that response.  European Communities' second oral statement, paras. 39-41; response to Panel question No. 113.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 29; rebuttal submission, para. 49; second oral statement, paras. 33-37; response to Panel question No. 103.  Annex C, paras. 23 and 34.  Annex C, paras. 57-63.  Annex C, para. 93.  Annex C, para. 101.  Annex C, para. 104.  Annex C, para. 110.  Annex C, paras. 130-132.  Annex C, paras. 168-172.  Three of these national treatment obligations are incorporated in the TRIPS Agreement itself: Article2 of the Paris Convention (1967), (considered below at paras.  REF _Ref90695620 \n \h 7.250 and following) Article5 of the Berne Convention (1971) and Article5 of the IPIC Treaty, which are incorporated by Articles2.1, 9.1 and 35 of the TRIPS Agreement, respectively.  Article24.9 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.  See the Panel report on US Section 211 Appropriations Act, at paras. 8.131-8.133, the Appellate Body report, at para. 258. The Appellate Body has also assessed "no less favourable" treatment in the context of trade in goods under ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 in terms of whether the measure modifies conditions of competition: see its report in Korea Various Measures on Beef, paras. 137 and 144  GATT Panel report on US Section 337, para. 5.11.  In US Section 211 Appropriations Act, the Panel considered that the jurisprudence on ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 may be useful in interpreting Article3.1 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. Appellate Body Report, US FSC (Article21.5 EC), para. 215, quoting reports in Korea Various Measures on Beef, para. 142, and Japan Alcoholic BeveragesII, at 110.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 196, 199 and 206. 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 favourable treatment where they apply: see its first written submission, paras. 62-69 and 113-126. It also concedes that they constitute less favourable treatment for the purposes of ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994, but does not consider that the meaning of the phrase is necessarily the same as in Article3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement: see its responses to Panel questions Nos. 94(a) and 113.  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.  This can be contrasted with the detailed definitions in ArticleXXVIII 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.  Article1.3 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 nationals or assimilated to nationals, also refers to "Criteria of Eligibility for Protection". This is consistent with the Panel's view of the criteria in the Paris Convention (1967) for the purposes of the TRIPS Agreement.  Article2 originally provided that "subjects and 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 the 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.  See Bodenhausen supra at  NOTEREF _Ref88129212 \h 79, pp. 27-28.  See, for example, A.A. Fatouros, "National Legal Persons in International 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.  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.  Article8 of the EC Treaty.  Article58 of the EC Treaty provides that companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of an EC member State and having their registered office, central administration 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.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 105. It also referred to a criterion based on the nationality of controlling shareholders, but the evidence in support does not appear to indicate that this is of relevance to corporate nationality under the TRIPS Agreement.  Supra at  NOTEREF _Ref87519828 \h 216.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 23.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 104.  GATT Panel report on US Section 337, para. 5.11.  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 ArticleII of GATS, at para. 233.  Panel report on Canada Pharmaceutical Patents, at paras. 7.100-7.105.  The Appellate Body in EC Asbestos adopted an analogous approach to the term "like" products in ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994, which it interpreted in terms of the competitive relationship between products: see its report at para. 99.  See the European Communities' responses to Panel questions Nos. 25, 101 and 103.  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 ArticleIII: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' expresses the general principle, in ArticleIII: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.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 49; response to Panel question No. 29.  This is reflected in the fact that under Article5(4) an application under the procedures set out in Articles5 through 7 shall be sent to the EC member State in which the geographical area is located but under Article12a(1) an application under the procedures set out in Articles12a 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.  The European Commission has laid down in Article1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No.2037/93 that applications for registration pursuant to Article5 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 Article5(1) in exceptional, duly substantiated cases where the person concerned is the only producer in the geographical area defined at the time the application is submitted.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 184 and response to Panel question No. 102. Brazil and Canada expressed the same view: see Annex C, paras. 24 and 47.  European Communities' comment on US responses to Panel questions Nos. 102 and 103.  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 with 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 company with an Italian subsidiary; Nestl which 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 Belgian company used to produce 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.  Bodenhausen, supra at  NOTEREF _Ref88129212 \h 79, p. 33, citing Ladas, The International Protection of Industrial Property, pp. 187-188, and Roubier, Le Droit de la proprit 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.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 142.  See paragraph 10 of the recitals to the April 2003 amending Regulation, set out in para.  REF _Ref88144090 \n \h 7.121.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 107.  Article8a 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. Article52 (in conjunction with Article58) 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 specification within the territory of the European Communities, but apply to the European Communities' own nationals only.  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.  Panel report on Canada Periodicals, at para. 5.17; Appellate Body report on Canada Periodicals, DSR 1997:I, 449, at 465.  See, for example, the Appellate Body report on Argentina Footwear (EC), para. 81; and the Appellate Body report on Korea Dairy, para. 74; and the Panel reports on EC Bananas III, para. 7.160.  Article24.9 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 protected in their country of origin, or which have fallen into disuse in that country.  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 ϲʹ Members by virtue of Article2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, para. 125.  The Panel recalls its findings at para.  REF _Ref91324814 \r \h 7.234 above on the meaning of those terms as understood under Article 3 of the Paris Convention (1967).  Australia's first written submission, paras. 161-162 and 166-167.  Australia's first written submission, para. 164.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 168 and 179; response to Panel question No. 32.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 195-197.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 194.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 203; rebuttal submission, para. 212.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 94.  Annex C, para. 25.  Annex C, para. 95.  Annex C, para. 141.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 94(a).  These three elements are also set out in the Appellate Body report on Korea Various Measures on Beef at para. 133.  Article1(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 with respect to use of the PDO and PGI logos in the promotion of products. (see Exhibit COMP-2). Article13(1) of the Regulation sets out uses against which registered names are protected.  The Panel recalls its comment on the order of analysis in para.  REF _Ref88144312 \n \h 7.87 and its findings in para. REF _Ref93982045 \n \h 7.244, that there is no hierarchy between GATT 1994 and the TRIPS Agreement, which appear in separate annexes to the ϲʹ Agreement. Further, an intellectual property measure was the subject of conclusions under ArticleIII: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.  Exceptionally, it may extend across a border of more than one country, see Articles5(5) and 12a(1) of the Regulation.  Registered by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1107/96, p. 13, Exhibit COMP-3a.  Registered by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 865/2003, Exhibit COMP-4b.i.  See the Appellate Body report on Korea Various Measures on Beef, paras. 137 and 142; and also US FSC (Article21.5 EC), para. 215, quoted at para.  REF _Ref88144383 \n \h 7.186 above.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 118.  This conclusion is without prejudice to the Panel's examination of the inspection structures required for registration, considered later in this report.  See the European Communities' first written submission, paras. 224-225, in which it asserts ArticleXX(d) as a defence only in relation to Article12a, in conjunction with Articles4 and 10, of the Regulation. See also its rebuttal submission, paras. 228-242, and its second oral statement, paras. 132 and 135, in which it assert ArticleXX(d) as a defence only with respect to inspections, application procedures and the labelling requirement. Despite broader references to the Regulation in its first written submission , para. 190, and first oral statement, para. 73, the European Communities did not provide any specific arguments in defence of the equivalence and reciprocity conditions under ArticleXX(d).  Australia's first written submission, para. 177.  Australia's first written submission, para. 178; response to Panel question No. 32.  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.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 172 and 198; first oral statement, para. 34.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 38.  Australia's first written submission, para. 205; first oral statement, para. 34.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 174-176, citing Canada's third party oral statement; and Australia's second oral statement, para. 77.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 38.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 198 and 206.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 130.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 33; rebuttal submission, paras. 124-129.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 131.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 37.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 131-134; response to Panel question No. 114.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 139.  See their respective responses in Annex C, paras. 18, 32, 103, 118, 160 and 179.  Annex C, paras. 7-15.  Annex C, para. 27.  Annex C, para. 99.  Annex C, paras. 115-117.  Annex C, paras. 136-137.  However, the United States provided evidence from the Idaho Potato Commission that it could not obtain protection for its US 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. The European Communities responds that this is based on a misperception of the 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: see its rebuttal submission, para. 85.  For the purposes of this report, references to examination and transmission of "applications" include examination and transmission of these supporting documents. Inspection structures requirements are considered later in this report.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 148.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 141; second oral statement, para. 142.  See comments by Brazil in Annex C, para. 32.  See European Communities' response to Panel question No. 37, and Exhibits EC-20 through EC-27.  Nothing in these findings purports to diminish the rights of Members under Article5 of the TRIPS Agreement either.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 172-174.  Australia's second oral statement paras. 66-70.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 207; rebuttal submission, para. 218.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 237-239.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 237-239; responses to Panel question Nos.135(a), (b) and (c) and 136(a).  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 136(b), (c) and (d).  See their respective responses in Annex C at paras. 18, 27, 103, 118 and 180.  Annex C, para. 27.  Annex C, paras. 141-143.  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 ArticleXX: see DSR 1996:I, 3, at 15.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 234.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 226; rebuttal submission, para. 238.  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, accordingly, secured compliance with the requirement in Article 8 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).  Appellate Body report on Korea Various Measures on Beef, para. 161.  Ibid. para. 166. The Appellate Body also followed this approach to the word "necessary" as used in paragraph (b) of ArticleXX in EC Asbestos, para. 172.  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.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 237.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 136(a).  Australia's first written submission, para. 203 and second oral statement, para. 77.  Australia's first written submission, para. 203.  Australia's first written submission, para. 205; first oral statement, para. 34.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 174-176, citing Canada's third party oral statement; and Australia's second oral statement, para. 77.  Australia's first written submission, para. 204.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 190-194.  Australia's comments on EC response to question No. 163.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 184-189.  Australia mentioned ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994 in response to Panel question No. 92 but has not raised a claim under GATT 1994 in relation to the objection procedures.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 34; rebuttal submission, paras. 155-159; second oral statement, paras. 89-94.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 73-75; first oral statement, para. 50; second oral statement, paras. 86-88.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 142; first oral statement, para. 51.  See their respective comments in Annex C in paras. 18, 103, 118, 110 and 179.  Annex C, para. 28.  Annex C, para. 110.  Annex C, paras. 139-140.  Australia also makes a claim with respect to the right of objection under the former Article17 of the Regulation, which has been repealed. The Panel recalls its decision in paras.  REF _Ref88144807 \n \h 7.14 and  REF _Ref88144810 \n \h 7.17 that it would not make any recommendation with respect to prior versions of the Regulation that are no longer in force but it would make findings with respect to prior versions of the Regulation where they serve some useful purpose in reaching conclusions with respect to measures within its terms of reference, including individual registrations, that are currently in force. The Panel makes certain findings on the right of objection under the former Article17 for that purpose in para.  REF _Ref88143353 \n \h 7.746.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 142.  See paragraph 10 of the recitals to the April 2003 amending Regulation, set out in para.  REF _Ref88144090 \n \h 7.121 above.  However, the United States provided evidence from the US Dairy Export Council and the National Milk Producers Federation that US dairy producers and processors had been unable to prevent the registration as protected GIs in the European Union of a number of cheese types that they considered generic prior to registration. The European Communities responds that this is based on a misperception of the content of the Regulation: see its rebuttal submission, para. 85.  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.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 148.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 157.  In this regard, the Panel recalls its comments at para.  REF _Ref88377707 \n \h 7.106 above.  Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the recitals to Council Regulation (EC) No. 692/2003 set out at para.  REF _Ref88144090 \n \h 7.121 above.  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.  Where no agreement is reached among EC member States.  Under the simplified procedure in the former Article17 of the Regulation, the Commission was required to register all names in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article15.  The procedure under Article15 is also applicable in certain other cases, including Articles1(1), 2(5) and 5(5).  It is reproduced in full in Exhibit COMP-8.  Article15 of the Regulation, set out in Exhibits COMP-1b and EC-1, Article5 of Council Decision (EC) No. 1999/468 set out in Exhibit COMP-8 and the European Communities' first written submission, paras.81-82. The three month time-limit is set by Article15 of the Regulation.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 58 and 203. In relation to a claim under Article41 of the TRIPS Agreement, it also referred to the Committee as the ultimate decision-making body for the enforcement of trademark rights in the circumstances governed by the Regulation: see para. 147.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 154.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 100.  See Annex C, para. 83.  This included the first registration of "Feta" which was later annulled.  This information was provided by the European Communities in a table of applications for registration on which the Committee established by Article15 was consulted. See Exhibit EC-28.  Confirmed by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-215/00, SCEA La Conqueste v Commission [2001] ECR II-181, para. 45, reproduced in Exhibit COMP-12.  Article11 establishes a process for cancellation due to non-compliance with specifications among "Member States concerned". Article11a also distinguishes between requests for cancellation by persons and the State which submitted the original application.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 148.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 39.  Australia's first written submission, para. 177.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 155.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 220 and 223.  Australia's first oral statement, para. 25; response to Panel question No. 53.  Australia's first written submission, para. 34; first oral statement, para. 26.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 235-236.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 65.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 120.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 445-446 and 475-476.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 44.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 88 and 134-135; rebuttal submission, para.145.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 41.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 43.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 147.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 81.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 82.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 117.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 89; response to Panel question No. 118.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 479.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 119.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 42.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 146.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 120.  The use of this term does not prejudge whether this is a "labelling requirement" as used in Annex1.1 of the TBT Agreement. That issue is considered at paras.  REF _Ref88377818 \n \h 7.448- REF _Ref88377819 \n \h 7.449.  In this regard, the Panel recalls its comments at para.  REF _Ref88377707 \n \h 7.106.  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 "homonymous": these are homonyme in the French version and homnima 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.  REF _Ref91146228 \n \h 7.467 below.  Australia's first written submission, para. 241.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 209-213; rebuttal submission, para. 192.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 191.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 219-220; response to Panel question No. 122 and comment on EC response to that question.  Australia's first written submission, para. 223; rebuttal submission, paras. 195-196.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 226, 230-233; rebuttal submission, para. 207.  Australia's first written submission, para. 237; rebuttal submission, para. 209.  Australia's first written submission, para. 239.  Australia's responses to Panel questions Nos. 52, 120 and 121.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 125.  Australia's comment on EC response to Panel question No. 125.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 53.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 118.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 121.  Australia's first oral statement, para. 41.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 203.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 212-213; responses to Panel question Nos. 123-124.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 439 and 457.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 449; response to Panel question No. 50.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 447.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 448-452; responses to Panel question Nos.50 and 122.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 122.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 453-456.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 51.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 477-479; response to Panel question No.42.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 54.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 120.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 125.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 481; first oral statement, para. 72; responses to Panel questions Nos. 123 and 124.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 245.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 122.  Annex C, para. 124.  In this sub-section will refer to it as the "second indent of Article12(2)" as the words "labelling requirement" appear in the text of Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement.  Australia's first written submission, para. 210, and the European Communities' first written submission, paras. 441-442, both cite the Appellate Body report on EC Sardines, para. 176, which referred to the Appellate Body report on EC Asbestos, paras. 66-70.  It is not contested that it cannot be a labelling requirement because it only lays down one product characteristic.  Appellate Body reports on EC Asbestos, para. 67, and EC Sardines, para. 191.  "Decisions and Recommendations adopted by the Committee since 1 January 1995", document G/TBT/1/Rev. 8 of 23 May 2003.  The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993).  Panel report on EC Sardines, paras. 7.43-7.45, citing the Appellate Body report on EC Asbestos, para. 69.  "A 'technical regulation' must, of course, be applicable to an identifiable product, or group of products. Otherwise, enforcement of the regulation will, in practical terms, be impossible": Appellate Body report in EC Asbestos, para. 70, cited in EC Sardines, para. 185.  Many Members, including the parties to this dispute, have notified marks and labels of origin to the TBT Committee. See, for example, G/TBT/Notif.95.155, G/TBT/Notif.95.106, G/TBT/Notif.95.438, G/TBT/Notif.96.42, G/TBT/Notif.96.269, G/TBT/Notif.96.364, G/TBT/Notif.96.450, G/TBT/Notif.97.112, G/TBT/Notif.97.113, G/TBT/Notif.98.206, G/TBT/Notif.98.448, G/TBT/Notif.99.548, G/TBT/Notif.99.668, G/TBT/Notif.00.65, G/TBT/Notif.00.94, G/TBT/Notif.00.289, G/TBT/Notif.00.483, G/TBT/N/ARG/7, G/TBT/N/ARG/9, G/TBT/N/JPN/7, G/TBT/N/JPN/12, G/TBT/N/PER/A, G/TBT/N/CHL/33, G/TBT/N/THA/92, G/TBT/N/THA/94, G/TBT/N/USA/25, G/TBT/N/JPN/78, G/TBT/N/GBR/7, G/TBT/N/JPN/123, G/TBT/N/JPN/124, G/TBT/N/KOR/76, G/TBT/N/ISR/36 and G/TBT/N/ISR/42. Further, there was a general understanding among signatories of the Tokyo Round TBT Agreement, recorded in the 1994 Annual Report of the Committee established under that agreement, that mandatory marking requirements applied in the context of marking the origin of products were covered by the provisions of that agreement, but one signatory (not a party to the current dispute) could not join a consensus on that issue: see GATT document L/7558 of 30November 1994 in BISD 41S/718 at 719. The Tokyo Round TBT agreement, like the current TBT Agreement, referred to "marking and labelling requirements".  This implies no view as to whether ArticleIX of GATT 1994, which includes an MFN treatment obligation but no national treatment obligation, impliedly excludes marks of origin from the scope of the obligation in ArticleIII:4 of GATT 1994. That is an issue which need not, and do not, decide.  See, 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.  Appellate Body reports in EC Asbestos, para. 64, and EC Sardines, paras. 192-193.  See the parties' respective responses to Panel question No. 60 and the European Communities' response to Panel question No. 134.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 479; response to Panel question No. 118.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 53.  See supra at  NOTEREF _Ref90724921 \h 172.  Article3.7 of the DSU.  Appellate Body report on Australia Salmon, para. 223.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 126(a).  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).  Article10(1) and (2) refers to EC member States but, in conjunction with Article12a(2)(a), they also apply to the governments of third countries.  Uncontested information provided by the European Communities in its responses to Panel question Nos. 127 and 132.  Australia's first written submission, para. 249.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 221-222, 224; rebuttal submission, paras. 201-202; response to Panel question No. 133 and comment on EC response to Panel question No. 134.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 60.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 203.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 221-222, 224; rebuttal submission, paras. 195-197.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 247-248.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 58.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 249-254.  Australia's first written submission, para. 256.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 219; response to Panel question No. 128.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 217  Australia's first written submission, para. 255; rebuttal submission, para. 217.  Australia's second oral statement, paras. 94-95.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 258-260; response to Panel question No. 62; rebuttal submission , para. 219.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 464-465.  European Communities' second oral statement paras. 246-247.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 460-463.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 406; response to Panel question No. 133.  European Communities' second written submission, paras. 407-408.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 467.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 484-501.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 415.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 131.  European Communities' comment on Australia's response to Panel question No. 128.  Annex C, para. 124.  These issues are set out in paras.  REF _Ref88145490 \n \h 7.446 and following in relation to the claim under Article2.1 of the TBT Agreement.  The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993).  They provide as follows: "Recognizing the important contribution that international standards and conformity assessment systems can make in this regard by improving efficiency of production and facilitating the conduct of international trade; Desiring therefore to encourage the development of such international standards and conformity assessment systems; Desiring however to ensure that technical regulations and standards, including packaging, marking and labelling requirements, and procedures for assessment of conformity with technical regulations and standards do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade" [emphasis added]  Australia's first written submission, paras. 6, 60 and 102-103.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 95.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 268-273.  Confirmed in the European Communities' response to Panel question No. 139.  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, fourth and eleventh GIs set out supra at note  NOTEREF _Ref88145574 \h 61.  Under Community law, those rights would become meaningless if there was no positive right to use the registered GI. See the European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 301; responses to Panel questions Nos. 139 and 140 (but contrast its comment on Australia's response to Panel question No. 137).  Paragraph 11 of the recitals to the April 2003 amending Regulation explained that the dates referred to in Article14(2) should be amended in line with Article24.5 of the TRIPS Agreement: see Exhibit COMP1h. Article14(2) has been interpreted once by the European Court of Justice, in Case C-87/97, Consorzio per la tutela del frommagio Gorgonzola v Kserai Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co Kg [1999] ECR I-1301, concerning the trademark CAMBOZOLA for cheese and the GI "Gorgonzola". The judgement of the Court was submitted by the European Communities' in Exhibit EC-32.  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 Council Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the member States relating to trade marks, set out in Exhibit COMP-6.  Article9 of the Community Trademark Regulation and Article5 of the First Trademark Directive.  Article142 of the original Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 was renumbered Article159 by Article156(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1992/2003.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 317; response to Panel question No. 76; rebuttal submission, para. 336.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 140.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 104-106; in its second oral statement it referred to the difference between "mislead" and "confuse" as causing a consumer to "mistake" the true identity of a product and to be "puzzled" about the true identity of a product: see para. 15.  Australia's second oral statement, paras. 18-19.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 149.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 107-108.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 148.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 110.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 137.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 137.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 133; second oral statement, paras. 20-21 and 23.  Australia's comment on EC responses to Panel question Nos. 137 and 139.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 275-277.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 292; rebuttal submission, paras. 271-276.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 278-285; rebuttal submission, para. 270.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 286-291.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 68.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 162.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 286-293; response to Panel question No. 142.  European Communities' responses to Australia's questions Nos. 2 and 3 after the second substantive meeting.  European Communities' responses to Panel questions Nos. 67 and 142; rebuttal submission, paras.294-297; second oral statement, paras. 174-179.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 336; response to Panel question No. 68; rebuttal submission, paras. 282-285.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 63; rebuttal submission, paras. 298-303.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 181; response to Panel question No. 139.  See their respective comments in Annex C, see paras. 19, 37, 106 and 120.  Annex C, para. 29.  Annex C, paras. 148-152.  Annex C, para. 178.  Although Article14(2) of the Regulation is drafted as an exception to GI protection in Article13, it is not disputed that in most of the situations described in Article13, in which Article14(2) applies, the use of the GI would otherwise constitute infringement of the trademark. If Article14(3) were able to prevent the registration of any GI, use of which could otherwise constitute a trademark infringement, Article14(2) would be redundant in all of these situations.  In this regard, the Panel recalls its comments at para.  REF _Ref88377707 \n \h 7.106.  Article14(3) presupposes the applicability of Article13, which requires a consideration of the similarity of the goods and signs.  Articles7(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.  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 Articles16.1 and 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement and apply in a very wide range of factual situations. Therefore, the Panel considers it 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.  The Committee proposal is set out in Exhibit COMP-14.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 68; rebuttal submission, paras. 282-285.  For example, the following are registered Community trademarks: CALABRIA for pasta; DERBY for milk and chocolate based products; WIENERWALD for prepared meals, condiments and other goods and services.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 67; see also 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.  Australia's comment on EC response to Panel question Nos. 159 and 160; European Communities' second oral statement, para. 177.  Australia's comment on EC responses to Panel question Nos. 159 and 160; European Communities' second oral statement, para. 178.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 142(c).  Articles1 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 relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, referred to in the European Communities' responses to Panel question No. 63, fn 38, and reproduced in Exhibit EC-30.  Article2(2) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising, referred to in the European Communities' responses to Panel question No. 63, fn 39, and reproduced in Exhibit EC-31.  See information supplied by the European Communities' and some of its member States to the Council for TRIPS in the review under Article24.2 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.  Council Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2001 reproduced in Exhibit EC-9.  See Australia's response to Panel question No. 137.  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 with these prior trademarks but this is different from the EC Council's conclusion as stated in the decision on registration. 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 Communities' first written submission, fn. 140 to para. 288; rebuttal submission, para.287; and responses to Panel questions Nos. 137 and 143 and compare Council Regulation (EC) No.1347/2001 supra at  NOTEREF _Ref85342605 \h 516 and the Commission Guide to the Regulation (August 2004 edition, p. 12) in Exhibit EC-64.  The evidence indicates that these 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, Section 3.6; US-51, para. 26; and US-82.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 286-293; response to Panel question No. 142.  Australia's first written submission, para. 104.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 96.  Australia's first written submission, para. 74.  Australia's first written submission, para. 106; response to Panel question No. 72.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 78; rebuttal submission, para. 93.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 145.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 76; rebuttal submission, para. 100.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 77.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 99.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 100.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 146.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 79.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 75(a).  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 269-273.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 294-300.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 306-307.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 301.  European Communities' comment on US response to Panel question No. 145.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 305; response to Panel question No. 76.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 76; rebuttal submission, paras. 327-328.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 145.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 307; response to Panel question No. 77.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 308; response to Panel question No. 76.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 147.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 308-310; response to Panel question No. 146.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 76.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 75; rebuttal submission, paras. 312-315.  Annex C, para. 5.  Annex C, para. 36.  Annex C, para. 102.  Annex C, para. 114.  Annex C, paras. 148-151.  Annex C, para. 178.  For instance, Article25.2 of the TRIPS Agreement refers to more than one category of intellectual property, as does Article4 of the IPIC Treaty as incorporated by Article35 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Articles22.3 and 23.2, respectively.  Section 3 of Part II consists of three articles: Articles22, 23 and 24. Article23 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 Article24 in particular. The Panel therefore refers to it in its examination, where that is helpful.  See, for example, the Appellate Body report on US Gasoline, DSR 1996:I, 3, at 16; Appellate Body report on Japan Alcoholic BeveragesII, DSR 1996:I, 97, at 104; and Appellate Body report on India Patents (US), paras. 45-46.  The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993); Le Nouveau Petit Robert: Dictionnaire de la langue franaise (June 2000) and Diccionario de la Lengua Espaola, 21st edition, (1992).  See the final clause of the ϲʹ Agreement.  The phrase "shall in no way prejudice" appears in all three versions in Article24.8, and "shall not prejudice" appears in Articles16.1 and 53.2 in the English version. The phrase "without prejudice" appears in Articles10.2, 40.3, 50.6, 57 and 59, and the word "prejudice" appears in the exception clauses in Articles13, 26.2 and 30 (and Article27.2 in the English version), and also in Article63.4.  The order of these two exceptions in Article24.5 reverses the order of the types of protection in relation to uses and in relation to registration of a trademark in Article22.2 and 22.3 and in Article23.1 and 23.2. However, it can be observed that the exceptions followed the same order as the corresponding rights in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the GI exceptions provision in the Brussels Draft, which were the predecessors of Article24.4 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 Multilateral 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, were dealt with in Article24.5 in the final version, in that order.  The European Communities' raises the issue of a Member that provides additional GI protection beyond that which is required by Article22, in support of its view that Article24.5 imposes self-standing obligations. It argues that in this situation Article24.5, not Article22 nor Section2, would prohibit that Member from invalidating or denying protection to prior trademarks inconsistent with that additional protection. See the European Communities' response to Panel question No. 145. In the Panel's view, this overlooks the subject of Article24.5 which is "measures adopted to implement ... Section [3]". To the extent that measures implement GI protection beyond that which is required by Article22 for products other than wines and spirits they are, by definition, not measures adopted to implement Section 3 and Article24.5 is irrelevant to them. It has not been argued by any party that the Regulation is not such a measure.  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, Section20(1)(a), reproduced in Exhibit EC-58.  Article16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement only provides for a negative right to prevent all third parties from using signs in certain circumstances. Article15.3 permits Members to make registrability depend on use and Article19.1 permits Members to require use in order to maintain a registration, which might imply a right to use the trademark, but any such right is subject to the general law. Article20 does not preclude a requirement prescribing the use of a trademark in a certain way.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 301; response to Panel question No. 147.  That position may be evidenced by, among other things, the express provision in the Community Trademark Regulation that it shall not affect the GI Regulation and, in particular, Article14 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.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 146.  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.  Appellate Body report on EC Hormones, para. 181.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 111-117; second oral statement, para. 27.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 272, 312-314.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 74.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 152.  Annex C, para. 158.  See the final clause of the ϲʹ Agreement.  See Council Regulation (EC) No. 692/2003, Article13, and paragraph 11 of the recitals, set out in Exhibit COMP-1h.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 120-124; responses to Panel question Nos. 154-156.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 125-127; response to Panel question No. 154.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 315-318; rebuttal submission, paras.333338, 348-350; responses to Panel question No. 75(b).  European Communities' first written submission, para. 319; rebuttal submission, paras. 339-347; responses to Panel questions Nos. 153 and 154; comment on US response to Panel question No. 154.  See their respective comments in Annex C.  Annex C, para. 159.  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 Pharmaceuticals observed that a respondent cannot demonstrate that no legitimate interest of a patent owner 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 Article17. In this regard, the Panel recalls the distinction between the rights and obligations owed by ϲʹ 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 ϲʹ dispute settlement between Members relates to the first set of rights and obligations and not to the fact that a provision creates exceptions to the rights to be conferred by Members on the nationals of other Members.  Panel report on Canada Pharmaceutical Patents, para. 7.30.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 317; rebuttal submission, para. 336; responses to Panel questions Nos. 76 and 153.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 288, 293 and 301; responses to Panel questions Nos. 63, 137 and 140; and comment on US response to Panel question No. 137.  Supra at note  NOTEREF _Ref91069169 \h 495 and European Communities' first written submission, para. 319; response to Panel question No. 153.  Panel report on Canada Pharmaceutical Patents, para. 7.69.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 143. Although there is no supporting evidence, all of the considerations cited by the European Communities correspond to factors set out in Articles13 and 14(3) of the Regulation.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 286-293; response to Panel question No. 142.  See responses to Panel question No. 47 and Annex C.  This is confirmed by the reference in Article16.2 to "the relevant sector of the public", in relation to well-known trademarks.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 143.  Supra at note  NOTEREF _Ref91069169 \h 495 and European Communities' first written submission, para. 319; response to Panel question No. 153.  Australia's first written submission, para. 93 and subheading.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 138.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 320-324.  Annex C, para. 30.  Annex C, para. 153.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 88-92.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 131, 133.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 327-333.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 334-338.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, para. 353, citing Australia's response to EC question No. 1.  European Communities' second oral statement, para. 230.  Annex C, para. 31.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 94-99.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 73-83.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 339-344; second oral statement, para. 231.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 7 and 61.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 154-155.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 170. See also its response to Panel question No. 24.  Australia's second oral statement, para. 85.  Australia's responses to Panel questions Nos. 81 and 82.  Australia's second oral statement, para. 112.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 411-415; rebuttal submission, para. 393; response to Panel question No. 159.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 386-392.  The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993).  Consequently, whilst Article 22.4 provides for protection against GIs, it only applies to the protection of other GIs.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 6 and 60. Australia quotes the text of Articles10bis and 10ter and Bodenhausen, see supra at  NOTEREF _Ref88129212 \h 79, p. 144, on the meaning of Article 10bis(2), in first written submission, paras. 75 and 76, fns. 32, 33 and 34; and rebuttal submission, para. 144, referring to the same source and WIPO Model Provisions on Protection against Unfair Competition set out in Exhibit AUS-9.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 10, 113-118.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 82.  Australia's rebuttal submission, paras. 144-145.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 161.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 398-402.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 403-404.  Australia's rebuttal submission, para. 146.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 81.  This does not imply any view as to whether and in what respects Articles10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention (1967) are incorporated by Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 119-148.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 357-389, 393-397.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 149-150; rebuttal submission, paras. 162-165.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 407-408.  See para. 40 of the 5 April 2004 preliminary ruling set out in para. 7.2 of this report.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 189 and 194.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 184-188.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 190-193.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 92.  Australia's comment on the EC response to Panel question No. 163.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 158-161, 171.  European Communities' first written submission, para. 172; rebuttal submission, paras. 186-190.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 162-169, 171; rebuttal submission, paras.179-185 and 191-196.  European Communities' rebuttal submission, paras. 171-173; response to Panel question No. 163.  Denmark, Germany and France v Commission, joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96 [1999] ECR I-01541: see Australia's first written submission, para. 191 and Exhibit COMP-11. The Panel refers to para. 92 of the findings of the Court.  Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1107/96 set out in Exhibit COMP-3a.  European Communities' response to Panel question No. 144.  Australia's comment on the EC response to Panel question No. 163.  Australia's national treatment claims under the TRIPS Agreement with respect to the regulatory procedure under Article 15 are considered at paragraphs  REF _Ref91397794 \r \h 7.390 to  REF _Ref91397799 \r \h 7.402 above.  The Panel asked Australia to clarify the form of the recommendations which it seeks in respect of individual registrations. Australia did not identify any specific individual registrations. Instead, it replied that "Australia seeks rulings and recommendations to the degree necessary to establish the extent to which the EC's actions in registering and thus providing ongoing protection to more than 600 EC-defined GIs were inconsistent with the EC's obligations under the covered agreements at the time at which those EC defined GIs were registered, thus enabling those continuing registrations to be brought into conformity with the EC's obligations under the covered agreements". The Panel also asked Australia whether it sought relief in respect of individual registrations in respect of their continuing inconsistency with trademark rights to be conferred under Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and, if so, to list the individual registrations. It replied that "Australia is not able to say which individual registrations may have constituted a denial of rights to trademark right holders ... or to another party with a legitimate interest under any of the cited provisions. With due respect, however, nor can the EC legitimately say that its actions have not resulted in a denial of rights required to have been granted or made available under the TRIPS Agreement ...." See Australia's responses to Panel questions Nos.91 and 93.  This is consistent with the approach of the Appellate Body to patents granted prior to the date of application of the TRIPS Agreement in Canada Patent Term)*,78:<=?BDHI\def¼¶wkY#hdh 56B*CJ aJ phh>;5B*CJ phhdht>*B*CJ phhdhd>*B*CJ phht5B*CJ phh)5B*CJ phh>; ht5 hdCJ h.CJ htCJ hDht hDhDhD hD5hDhD5 ht:CJ,ht ht>*ht5:CJ, HJkdo$$Ifl40+p# +E 4 lalf4$d$Ifa$Hkd$$Ifl40+p#`+E 4 lalf4 $$Ifa$ $dh$Ifa$QcxU U U *89:DEFG[EkdQ$$Ifl0+p#+E 4 lal $$Ifa$Hkd$$Ifl40+p# +E 4 lalf4 $$Ifa$gd)GHI]^_`abcd][[[[[[Ekd+$$Ifl0+p#+E 4 lal 6 @$If $$Ifa$Gkd$$Ifl`0+p#+E 4 lal def  2 H ^ v E  *)($a$gd $a$   " # / 1 2 5 6 E G H J K [ ] ^ ` a s u v x y ײmmmmmm"h h@k5CJaJmHnHu"h h@k:CJaJmHnHuh h@kmHnHu%h h@k5;CJaJmHnHu'h h@k0J@>*B*mHnHphuh ht5 h 5h<h #hdht56B*CJ aJ ph#hdh.56B*CJ aJ ph* B D E I J | ~        & ) * , - f i j l m l o p ˸˦˦˸˸˸˸˦"h h@k:CJaJmHnHu%h h@k5;CJaJmHnHuh h@kmHnHu"h h@k5CJaJmHnHu'h h@k0J@>**ԱuA  * j p  1t4l'yL +*)(p r s    ! " M V -0134@Ipstwx03478hklop˯"h h@k:CJaJmHnHuhmHnHu!h0Z0J@>*B*mHnHphuh h@kmHnHu"h h@k5CJaJmHnHu'h h@k0J@>**Աu> #&'*+uxy|}$-HKLOP| #$Pݹݩݩݩݹݩݩݩݹݩ!h0Z0J@>*B*mHnHphuh h@kCJaJmHnHu"h h@k5CJaJmHnHu"h h@k:CJaJmHnHuh h@kmHnHu'h h@k0J@>**Աu*B*mHnHphu"h h@k:CJaJmHnHu"h h@k5CJaJmHnHu'h h@k0J@>*B*mHnHphuh h@kCJaJmHnHuh h@kmHnHu< To3Z-U 4UV)*+(,-01PTUXY   /3478PTUWXں̺ڪ̪ڪ̪ڪ̪ڪ̪ڪ̪ڪ̪ں̺ڪ̪ں̺ڪ̪ڪ̪h h@kCJaJmHnHu"h h@k5CJaJmHnHuh h@kmHnHu'h h@k0J@>*B*mHnHphu"h h@k:CJaJmHnHuC#%(/2QUVXY'+,./CGHMNlpqr̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̓̓̀|hKe%h h@k5;CJaJmHnHu*h h@k0J@6>**Աu!h0Z0J@>*B*mHnHphu"h h@k5CJaJmHnHu'h h@k0J@>*B*mHnHphu"h h@k:CJaJmHnHuh h@kmHnHu0,Hqr $$Ifa$gdW~gdK$a$gdK(*rsv{STY]^defgh !!!!y"z"~""""""""""8#<#p#s#t#####޷he%h= h}hK5 hNhKh! h,hKhf hK5aJh 8QhK5aJ hK5h<_2hK5hKhK5>* hK5>*hKB#'zn $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~skd$$Ifl70Y#U04 la'(hmx $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkd+$$Ifl0Y#U04 lamn|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdKqkd$$Ifl0Y#U04 larw|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkdO$$Ifl0Y#U04 lawx|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd$$Ifl0Y#U04 la|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkds$$Ifl0Y#U04 lav||p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd$$Ifl0Y#U04 la|}|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd$$Ifl0Y#U04 la|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd)$$Ifl0Y#U04 laTZ|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd$$Ifl0Y#U04 laZ[\]fg~~rr $$Ifa$gdW~$a$gdKgdKqkdM$$Ifl0Y#U04 la zn $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~skd$$Ifl70#\04 laEJx $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkd{ $$Ifl0#\04 laJK|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdKqkd $$Ifl0#\04 la6<|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd $$Ifl0#\04 la<=|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd? $$Ifl0#\04 la|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd $$Ifl0#\04 la |p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkdq $$Ifl0#\04 la !!|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd $$Ifl0#\04 la!!!!|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd $$Ifl0#\04 la!!u"{"|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd'$$Ifl0#\04 la{"|"}"~""""""""~y~~hh\ $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~gd2?$a$gdKgdKqkd$$Ifl0#\04 la """"zqe $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~kdK$$IflFd#0    4 la""""x $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkd$$Ifl0#\04 la""""x $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkd$$Ifl0#\04 la""""x $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkdA$$Ifl0#\04 la""""x $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkd$$Ifl0#\04 la""""x $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkde$$Ifl0#\04 la""# #x $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkd$$Ifl0#\04 la # ###x $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkd$$Ifl0#\04 la##<#]#b#x $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkd$$Ifl0#\04 lab#c#p#u#x $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkd$$Ifl0#\04 lau#v###x $$Ifa$gdW~ $IfgdW~qkd?$$Ifl0#\04 la###########zzzzznn $$Ifa$gdW~$a$gdK p# gdKqkd$$Ifl0#\04 la ######$$!%"%-%.%J%L%e%f%~%%%&&&M&&&&&&!'5'6'N'p''''' (@(_(`(o((((((()S)x)))))) *G*ҹhj5@CJh}hj5@CJH*h}hj56@CJh}hj5@CJhQhj556@CJh}hj55@CJ hQhj5 hj55h h'ghK5hK hK59####zn $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~skdc$$Ifl70#\04 la##N$R$|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd$$Ifl0#\04 laR$S$$$|p $$Ifa$gdW~`$If^``gdW~qkd$$Ifl0#\04 la$$$$!%"%.%K%~rr $$Ifa$gdj5gdj5$a$gdj5qkd#$$Ifl0#\04 laK%L%g%%}t $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5vkd$$Ifl440 p# 0#4 laf4%%&&~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkdP$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4&&& '~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4 '!'7''~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4'''?(~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4?(@(a((~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4((()~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkdH$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4)))F*~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4F*G*^*U+ $IfgdMtkdx$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4G*\*]*l**V+c+d+|+++ , ,#,W,,,,,,--- -7-9-S-T-Y-g-------.S...../////(0c0t0u0ĹйĹйЩЩĠййĹйh}hj56@CJH*hL.Lhj5CJhL.Lhj56CJh}hj5CJ hj5CJh}hj56CJh}hj5@CJh}hj5@CJH*h}hj56@CJh}h= @CJh}h= @CJH*h}h= 6@CJ2U+V+e++~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4++ ,,~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4,,,8-~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd@$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf48-9-T--~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4---.~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkdp $$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4.../~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd!$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4///b0~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd!$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4b0c0v001~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd8"$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4u00011O1P1h111112P222223M3m3n3}33L4^4_4w44 5 5"53545C55566C66666&7\7t7u7778E8F8G8^8888899.999˿˶h}hj55@CJh}hj5CJh}hj56CJH*h}hj56CJhj5@CJh}hj5@CJH*h}hj56@CJh}hj5@CJ>0111Q11~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd"$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf41112~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkdh#$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4222L3~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd$$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4L3M3o3K4~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd$$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4K4L4`4!5~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd0%$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4!5"5555~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd%$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf45566~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd`&$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4666[7~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd&$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4[7\7v78~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd'$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf488G88~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd(($$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf48899~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd($$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4999u:~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkdX)$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf499999C:v::::;8;P;;;;;<S<c<d<i<w<<<<<<<<<====>>4@N@򴩴晐򉅁}vivevevah$h$jhj-h90JU hj-h9h9hth h^hj5hL.Lhj5CJ hj5CJhL.Lhj56CJh}h= @CJh}h= 6@CJh}hj56B*CJphh}hj5@CJh}hj5@CJH*h}hj56@CJh}hj5B*CJph&u:v::;~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd)$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4;;9;;~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd*$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4;;;R< $IfgdMtkd +$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4R<S<d<<~u $Ifgdj5 $$Ifa$gdj5tkd+$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4<<<<<< @BDDEDEyppkppfgd92gd9 gd9 $ gd9gdj5tkdP,$$Ifl40 p# 0#4 laf4 N@P@S@W@`@a@u@~@@@@@AAAAD&E*E FlFzF|FFF GGGGaGeGGGGGGHH H"H2HBHhHjHkHvHHHHIIIII3JEJFJJJ>SNSVVXX[ h`h9 h8h9 hh9 hHh9hbe6 hj-h1h1hxmh(4 h%Zh9jhj-h90JUh0Z hj-h9h$h9ADEEEeEEEGG"H2HCH3JFJJhLMN;OcQRSTTlVWgd9 $ gd9 & Fgd9 $ gd9 $ gd9 gd9gd9WXX*ZZ__abiccc+de,e[eeif~ffBh{hh gd9 & Fgd9 $ gd9 $ gd9gd9 $ gd9 gd9[[@]K]]]]]]]]]B^_______`````aaa=asauavaabbdbkbnbbbb$c-cdcec+d4dddddddddȾhL^h96mHnHu hXIh9h0Zjh90JU hhh9jh$0JUhdMFh hh9 h`h9hhA}jhA}0JUhRyh. h9h$6ddddee,e5eefgg/g6g?gpgggg{hh|i_jfjgjhjjj*h9hGh5j;1hUj0hUjE0hUj/hUh&Fh3 Fh5 h*Yh h6]h30h6] h>*hYlvh5hh^ujh&FU09ݬ9wRvN#Piyqbgdm gdߧ ݬ ɵʵ v9;]rԹк 12:;NRmn$9MҾ·Ƴ¨Ƴ hIhheh5j12hUh^uj1hUhjhUh$h6hinh6h]h5 hGhhGh>*h h9h9;ҾӾԾپھTiis/57@AYZ[`aw@AYZ[`aj +23Ncpz<=>Q[q̶䥟h@h5h5Th>*aJ haJhIhaJh!Ch5j3hUj'3hUhhh*>h5hT}h5hh^ujhUj2hU723KLMRS7Lde}~2FfgKPQ['1Ǽڡ~hT/h5hh+4h5hm j5hUhfjhfU hh+4hhThh5 hF hhMrh]h5j4hUh^uj4hUhjhUh h7h1.?Q'$+c]vT"c1gdKE=gdgdm '+469@CcmF_`^_wxy~v %&ཷj6hUhkh2mh5j6hUj 6hUh[h>*aJ haJhIhaJh?P#h5hL^h6mHnHuh0Zhh^uj5hUhfjhfU2&':RSklmqrtu:=cm80lE2D/5Jݕjp8hGUjhm:Uhm:hoBh hqihhRfh5 haJh7h5hm j7hUh+mh5h^ujz7hUjhfUhhkhf5LI I J    Zp^pgdKE=2 ^`gdKE= 0^`0gdKE=gdKE=gdKE= & FgdKE=$gdKE= $ & FUgdKE=, - 0 5 6 9 < = m n q t  T  0Vz{|qrsbcB-.^yz=>!! hp(hKE=hM]hKE=6hc<hKE=0J hUlhKE=h hKE=>* hKE=6h hKE=6 h 6jh%0JUh%jhKE=0JUh jh$`0JUhKE=>  . / 7 8 o p     zde, & F ^gdKE=3gdKE=2 ^`gdKE=gdKE= 0^`0gdKE=  p^pgdKE=,^_  !!##$$%%(() `^``gdKE=gdKE= 0^`0gdKE=$$0^`0gd%$$gd%!-"3"""$ $$$$$J$S$Y$\$c$f$g$$%%%% & &&&(&/&@&k&s&v&&&&&&&&&'''(***x+y+++,,(,+,,hJhKE=6mHnHuh0ZmHnHu hIhKE=jhKE=0JUh_.hKE=6hKE=mHnHuhKE=6mHnHuhjThKE=6mHnHuh0Z h_.hKE=hL^hKE=6mHnHuhKE=8))**x+y+,,..//!0"05363557787::Q<R<|=}=gdKE= `^``gdKE= 0^`0gdKE=,,,,A.J...//1343@4e4m44558894999::::~====r>s>D?E???@@@ALAAA CCCC D D|D}DDDDD\FFFFFNHOH2IsIIIAJBJyKKɿɸɿɱɿɿ hPZh[RJ hBZh[RJjh[RJ0JUh[RJ hkzhKE=h h5hKE=6 hthKE=jhKE=0JUh0ZhKE= hjThKE=F}===v>w>@@ C CCCDD~DDDD[F\FRHHI2gd[RJgd[RJ gdKE=gdKE=$$0^`0gd.s $$gd.s 0^`0gdKE=$gdIyKuM*OOPQ[R^S>XY3ZQZ[]]_Vbeh]moXovoqgdKE=$gdKE=$gdKE=gd(gd= $2gd"j2gdB_gdKE=gd[RJKKKKTLULzLLLL-MOMqMtMMMMNN%O&O'O*OOPPPRR\S]S^SSSTTTTU!U*U0UUUVV3V:VVVVVVVVVVUWVWXWX6Xǿ󻷻h&hKE=5 hq0hKE=hhHhUhAh$`hIh# hIhKE=h-j hzAhKE=jhKE=0JUh@phKE=h$zhKE=5B>)*KLԗݗÙ̙͙ՙE~ўڞߣ  &EPҔhHh{vhQ!hdMFhShhKE=6mHnHuhKE=mHnHuhLdhKE=6mHnHuh@p h=6h0ZhR_h= h \AhKE=h&hKE=5hwhKE=0JhMjhKE=0JUhKE=5CEޜGߣVmӮİ/>$?nx$gdKE=$gdKE=gdHgdKE= 2 & F%`%gd=2gd=Ĥ8:>ե0¨Ī3< dmϮЮ׮!{#+,ʹҴӴִ"˵ڵhi#鱭h%h h hKE=hdMFjhKE=0JUhL^hKE=6mHnHu hKE=5h0Zh#h@phKE=h=h{vhH hFhQ!D#2ir»ֻ߻dmʼ˼̼ѼҼӼ?@nxvw|ѾOPmq34@Iq{q hE&hKE=hE&hKE=5jhKE=0JU h \AhKE=hChKE=5h84q3^.BJ;-gqR!>L^gd62gdKE=$gdKE=gdKE=qr^bw.8NRXuv"?ABGIJK[lmZcOaa*+,-gqnouPQch*HchKE=5hY,hKE=5hFhKE=6]hdMF hFhKE=h@phL[ht+hKE=5 ht+hKE=h0ZhKE=jhKE=0JUCcm !*=>?il󶨶vd"jhKE=0JU]aJmH sH hyhKE=0J<6aJmH sH "hEmMhKE=0J<6>*aJmH sH hEmMhKE=0J<6aJmH sH hEmMhKE=0J<6]aJhKE=0J<6aJmH sH h xkh*hau!hKE=5jh850JUh[dh85hujhKE=0JUhKE=h hKE=5%LMZ[\]^bvQT[`abe{q{mieqiahh@Gh-+ h*jh)"0JU h)"h)"h)"h6h!b h6h h6hL[ h6hJ h6h)" h6h6h*hKE=5 h6hKE= h%hKE=jhKE=0JU hKE=aJhyhKE=aJhyhKE=0J<6aJhKE=0J<6aJhKE= hEmMhKE=&eZ{032.~ ogdKE=$gdKE=2gd@GgdKE=2gd)"gd6   +XZc%&BLyz{ 9<qr,//IMftu  $$%PnмhMh@CAh!bhAhZ*h8WhKE=hJjh@G0JUh@Gjh-+ 0JUh*h-+ hh6H Yai6Mc!)3<./1jl +-.X[~h}i9 hKE=aJhnhKE=aJjhKE=0JU hnhKE=hNhKE=5j\:h*Uh^uj9h*Ujh*Uh*hZ*hhMhhJhKE=hL[7~ &{|xy?@]r{0¾·³©·¢›‘©~©z~v~©h0ZhMh}i9h}shKE=5 h}shKE=jhL[0JU h& hKE= hvhKE=jhKE=0JUh a hIhKE=h.s hKE= h,oWhKE=jhKE=0JUaJ hZ:.aJ hKE=aJh,oWhKE=aJ hKE=5aJhiWhKE=5aJ.1|Cl ###%gdKE=$gdKE=$gdKE=$gdKE=$gdKE=gdKE=0Fjk         ?+4`iƻhM hKE=5hvhKE=6h^\hvhKE=5hGqhKE=mHnHuhKE=mHnHuhKE=6mHnHuhL^hKE=6mHnHuh0Z h}i9h}i9 h}shKE=h}shKE=5jhKE=0JUhKE=h}i94gp @U$    # ###### $$k$$%%%%%R([(((((ԼԼhJghIGh)hL[jhKE=0JUaJ hL[aJ hKE=aJh}shKE=5 hP=hKE= hWhKE= hKE=5hWhKE=5h>p' hXhKE=hMh9hKE=5jhKE=0JUh0ZhKE= h9hKE=4%9(,026677z8;9:h<H=@@SBE#KMPQRRYSWTUVX 20^`0gdKE=2gdKE=gdKE=((((((((2)7)}))++++,--^._.//// 0 090001122K3T333]4f4446666667989:9;99,:5::ҺҴҮ擣hL[huhKE=6h)h0Z h~bhKE= h)aJ h>p'aJ hL[aJjhKE=0JUaJ h|aJ hKE=aJjhKE=0JUhphKE=jhJg0JUh>'󴳲-7::;;<<G=H=====)C2CgCpCEElFpFHHKJTJuJ}J~JzKKjLkLLLAMBMcMMOOPPdQfQQQORPRQRVR]RRRSST TWTXTXXXX(Yۣ hhKE=hhKE=H* hythKE=hBjhL[0JUhL[h^xh^uhC\hKE=6jhKE=0JU h)aJh>p'h0ZhKE=h& hKE=6>(Y-YYY[\u\~\\\\\+]5]H]Q]]]__A`B`D```aaaaaa b#c$cddddqeteffgg"g#g'h(hhhhh?i@iBiDiVilimipiklllnl}lllll4m6m9m>mGmWm h2YhKE=h^x h2Yh^xh&h>p'h)jhKE=0JUjh(0JUhBh0ZhKE=hcKX[h\z^E`a|dpefg)hikmorruuwy[|~RqU2gdgd & FgdKE=2gdKE=gdKE=Wmimwmmmmmmm q qqq"q#qHqIqZq[qqqrrrrrzt{tttuusutuuuuuuuuvvvvvvvw wwkwowwwww3x=xfxuxyy|||}}} ~h|Mh0Zh^uj:hKE=UjhKE=Uh_hKE=6jhKE=0JUh^xhch) h2YhKE=hKE=E ~%~P~Q~~~Ol  EPQU o 256AG89^j>?R3MƿƵƵƵƧƵƝƕƑhiqh0CmH sH jh0C0JU hh/i hwuTh/ijh/i0JU hl&h/ih/ijh0JU hH*hh^xh0Ch)jhKE=0JUhKE=h$nhKE=67U17>LWFs]ǴȽ$gdKE=$gdKE=2gdKE=gdKE=2gd/igd/i  ƑǑȑ͑ΑϑԒՒ֒ےܒ./0567zDNdyzIQ˗బଚh "hKE=6jh"x,0JUh"x,jhf0JUh&hKE= h`[ih/ij<hUjH<h/iUjh/iUj;h'yUh/ih^ujR;h'yUhjhU2˗̗֙ۙ.@yzќ0?@cm!${TVw٦ڦ$KL  [\vdsh;gXhKE=6hDjhQ$hKE=6hyt9h~hKE=6 hhKE=hhKE=5 hzhKE=hBh$h0Z hKE=6h>'/%󰭷=󰭷=05<RSTZ2hL^hKE=6mHnHuh^\hMh0Zh[ihKE=5 h%6h "hKE=6h%hkhKE=6jhKE=0JUhKE=jh[hKE=0JU h[hKE=@ȽT46 B<8}2gdKE=gdKE=$gdKE=gdKE=234=\aPXfz&+5Uh0Zh h^x h"C3hKE=hChj6 h"ShKE= hMhMhM hrYhKE= hXhKE=hrYhKE=5 hzhKE=h%h[ihKE=5hKE=jhKE=0JU;  AB?hux;<Q|}}qrz!"78 hKE=6jhKE=0JUh0hKE=6h41jhA0JU h!z7hKE=hA hChCh*ThKE=hhC h &hKE=hMhKE=6 hKE=hhfahKE=hh0ZhKE=hMhKE=h8}ENiZw'4 (   ;yV2gdKE=gdKE=gdC(2;gh(MN8>?Guv@OYwx  LOpq̭h hBYh-hKE=6h^uj>=U_հ< .h_h%hlPhKE=6 hKE=6h34hKE=6h41hChKE=jhKE=0JU:N $'@Vg"'BZir* T Y   $ % ' ( 2 =       ( )   AOh%hFhKE=6 h66hKE=hT}jhawhKE=0JUhBh7/hKE=6 h7hKE= hKE=6hc`&hKE=6hCjhKE=0JUh0ZhKE=B*phhKE=hDj<$%789; .0NR[co\]_w%121quz$%'0<>AK#Fklnh-jh*N0JUh*NjhT}0JUhOQjhKE=0JU hPthKE= hR:hKE=jhR:hKE=0JUh%hKE=EVy ""#%'/)E*5.Q./.01040x$Ifgdsl>'2gdKE=gd"x,gd-gd{gdKE='PQlz2;OR      !!"f##$$''''((<)[)C*D***d,r,,꽹ꦟjhKE=0JU hKE=6hOQ hIdh-h-h^uj=hKUhKjhKUh%h0ZhKE=6mHnHuhL^hKE=6mHnHuh8zhKE=jh`[`0JUh`[`h{7,,,,,---------------- .!.(.3......//S/Y/b/c//.0E0F0k0l0000000x hJch2? h!kh2?h2?h-hpyhKE=6 hpyhKE= h*hKE= h-hKE=hhKE=6h-hKE=6 h"C3hKE=j>hUUjh_Uh_h^uj4>hKUhKjhKUhhKE=h/4050[00ll$x$Ifa$gdsl>zkd*?$$Ifl0nu3  t0644 la0000oox$Ifgdsl>zkd?$$Ifl0nu3   t0644 la0000ll$x$Ifa$gdsl>Tzkd@$$Ifl0nu3  t0644 la000003T46q8;=>>A||wrmhhhhhhgdKE=gd2?gd-gd-$a$gd2?zkd@$$Ifl0nu3  t0644 la 0#1/111111111111113D4G4448899::;;S;^;==o=q=r=w=x=:>;>N?^?GAUAAA+B,B.B7BvBwBDDFFGGGֱֵֽֽֽֽֽֽ֤֩֠֜֜֕ h?hKE=h0Zh hKE=6h "hKE=6h_hNhKE=6jhKE=0JUh% hKE=hX}h hKE=h^ujAh-Ujh-UhOQ hkah-h-:AA^C"DDEFoGG>H{HI+JhJJKNPSTUW[] & F@ 0^@ `0gdKE= & F^`gdKE= 3p0^p`0gdKE=2gdKE=gdKE=gd%GIIIIKJKYLcLQQRR$R&RRRRRRRS&S3S4SLSMSNSSSTSUSSSSPTTTUUVVVVh\m\]]]]``aa[cceeef'fUgVggǸhg29hN?hh82hKE=6jhKE=0JUh^uj{AhKE=UjhKE=Uhh1hL^hKE=6mHnHuhz/hKE=6hhKE=6 h?hKE=hKE=<];_bWgikn qstuuww'xr{|_}Ɓق;d9gdN?gd gdKE= @gdKE=2gd_Ugd_U$$gdKE=gd%gdKE=ggiiiiiiii'j3j>jwmxmmnnn q q+q?OPs(139;h=AhKE=5h,|hKE=6 hMhMh+-hKE=6hfhchKE=5 huthKE=hjhKE=0JUh0ZhDjhhKE=hMD&Q(<lHl}/IiK3gdKE=2gdKE=gdKE=$gdKE=gdKE=;@BHIJVZi&9:<9:<Clu :;HI}Cܪh0Z hKE=hh hU8ph9 h;hKE=hh"ShKE=5h6zIhKE=5h"[hKE=5 hP*hKE=hP*hKE=5jhKE=0JU h 5h=Ah 5hKE=h=AhKE=59gsJLHvwxEXYqrsxyz%2ıh< .jChKUhU8pjhU8pUjgChUh6jh6Uh^ujBhUUhnjhnUhhUshDh9 h)hKE=hO1hKE=6h0ZhKE=hhMhKE=h223KLMRSYamDHzae5pqrGHz{ ಮ࠘؍hBYh "hKE=6jDhUUjhnUhjh90JUh6fh9hThKE=6hFW,h{S$hU8pjhKE=0JUhjPhnhhKE=h^uj]Dh< .Uh< .jh< .U2PDuhP  c pjSvu (!c'(,$gdKE=$gdKE=2gdKE=gdKE=gdKE=                  7=Uir $c5hUh6fh h0Zhh^ujSEhUUhnjhnUjh90JUjhKE=0JUhhDh0;hKE=6 h;[=hKE=hFhKE=h9:56NOPUVTk "s t y  &!'!!!& &&&`'a'b'c'h(i(c*n***++$,%,H,h^\hph hsXhKE=hh7?hKE=6h6hKE=5 h6hKE=h6hKE=6 hKE=6jhKE=0JUhfhMhI`1hKE=5 hH|hKE=h^ujEhKE=UhKE=jhKE=U4(,H, - . 0$00i123458780:$;=w=>@CWDG)I\J2gdKE= 20^`0gdKE=gdFigd~YgdKE=gdKE=$gdKE=H,Q,S,Y,[,`,b,i,m,|, - - -- . . ..+...000 0#0$000000000051i1v1w11111122222222ļı󢚢ļĄj?GhUUjFh~YUjh~YUh~Y hhKE=h^ujIFhUUjhnUhn hhKE= h@hKE=hf h0ihKE=hP*hKE=5jhKE=0JUhKE=h0ihKE=5422333333334644444444444555555555555555555664777D7E7F7^7_7`7e7f78ͺͯj!JhUUhApjIhUUj+IhUUhnjHh~YUj5Hh~YUjh~YUh~Y h}hFih^ujGh7- UjhFiUhFihKE=jhnU48899 9!9e9q9u99:$;;;; <==y=z=>+@,@r@@@@@@HAIAAAA8BCCC)DIDGGHHXJYJKKKMMMM%MvMyMMMOOePPRͼ͸͸ͪh7h0ZhYjhUs0JUhUs h}hQ`jhQ`0JUhQ` hKE=6jhKE=0JUhh9h6fh }rh hNhKE=h>>\JJKM5PU~WXY Z]Z]@]]T__r`a@bqbdeee$gdKE=$gd2?2gdKE=$$gdKE=$gdKE=$gdKE=gdYgdQ`gdKE=RRTTTUUVVVW'W(WWWX%X=X>XXXXXXXXXXXYYY"YYYYYY Z3Z*B*phhLhKE=0J@>*B*phhQ`h6fh h0Z h9hKE= h5zhKE=h8{hKE=hUshHhYjhY0JU8eeeggagxggg"h@hhiiiiijjjjjjNkYkkkkklll"lll/mGmnn|n}nnnnn>r?r6sRsmsnsssbucuuuuuuuuu˾h=hKE=5h7hg1hKE=5hfhShKE=6jhLfhKE=0JU hKE=6hLfhKE=6hM h+[hKE= h~&hKE=jhKE=0JUhhKE=5hKE=>egjjl~nArduulv)x/zA}\}{~\z 1Y-r%ҎgdAp2gdKE=gdUsgd+[$gdKE=gdKE=uuujvkvlvsvtv'x(x)x/xxx,z-z/z;z=}>}@}A}}}~~+,-\z|~ 1GPXYnwɄʄ˄Єф҄hh^ujJhKUhApjhApUhMhKE=hh0Z hKE=hh h+[hUshU8ph{S$ hyhKE=h7h:hKE=5 hhKE=hhKE=5jhKE=0JUh=hKE=5hKE=4҄F^-Fqr%z~12?ABZ[\abfgmsy|}7@"#ѾɺѲjhKE=0JUh0Z hzhKE=h|}hKE=6jKhUh&jh&Uh^ujKhUUjhe oUhe ohy hKE=6hU8phUsh hD h3hKE=h_hKE=6hKE=2Ύώю֏׏YNOґ';,͔&•Õȕɕ寥󎆎{ʆjMhUUjhe oUhe o hihKE=hFW,h7h0ZjhU8p0JUhU8phjLhApUjhApUh^uj LhKUhKjhKUhApjhKE=0JUhKE=h+XhKE=60ҎY0&*;Pooˤ1xĵеgd gdUsgdUsgd|gdKE=gdKE=gdU8pgdApɕ goiٜ(IJÝ˝CDPQnoxyz&,-P-9ۤۙ hChKE= hKE=6h0;hKE=6jMhDUjhDUh^uj~MhUUhe ojhe oUhAphAp\hAphKE=\hAphDh7 he>hKE=jhKE=0JUh "hKE=6hKE=49Anz   \]uvw|} ǧȧ,-EFGLMܫݫƾƳھƫګƘƑƇƾ|ھu hNhUsjOhUsUjhUs0JU h-hUshAjjOh+Uh2<jh2<UjNhUsUjhUsUhUsh6fh h0Zhh^ujtNhUUhe ojhe oU hChKE=hKE=.ݫtu 7Y47õĵ'3Էclst67ei6?  67Zɽɳɳɬɳɳɳɤɳɜɳɳh]dhKE=5huxhKE=5 hZ3hKE=jhKE=0JUhhKE=6h6fhKE=h7h hUh2< hUs0J<6hHe;hUs0J<6jhUs0JUh0ZhUs<ռ u:Z\"R$gdKE=2gdKE=gdKE=$gdKE= $ & FgdKE=gd2<gdKE=Z`B~g;@rwNObj!"59>ÿõõÿññíñõéõáõõÝÖÿÿÿhahKE=6 hh< .h!h "hKE=6h0ZhDh{IxjhKE=0JUh hKE=hhKE=aJjhKE=0JUaJnHtHhhKE=aJnHtHhKE=aJnHtHhY|hKE=58; 8`i (b\2gdKE=$gdKE=gdDgd!$gdKE=$gdKE=gdKE=:;E  $"*D -.FGHMNO| ;I&'Ǽ˸˴hMh+[ h^hKE=hDhKE=5hbh.%hh^uj`PhUUhe ojhe oUherhDhFh!jhKE=0JUh*ahKE=5 h)7hKE=hKE=:89J^`aZ[vw}XYZorh{Ixjh}0JUh}h2< h"#hKE= h#hhKE=h^\hMh. hJhKE=hJhKE=5jhKE=0JUhKE=h+[C\w Z9 $ 2`6s!g$r)d+,/^1r26$gdKE=2gdKE=gd}gdKE=$gdKE=#, HIRSWX[V _   G\!26^_  6@HAO/0jhDhKE=PJh'yjhKE=0JUh"bhKE=5h h"#hKE=h2<h{Ixh:BhKE=6h,@;jh|0JUh+[h0Zhe ohKE=h|?ju&) *Wpqrstu= R !!d$e$f$'%(%%%''((((p)q)))h*i***b+c+,,,,--.žܺܶܶܬܦܬܬܬܬܶܬܶܬܬܬܬܬܘhL^hKE=6mHnHu hKE=0JjhKE=0JUhMh^\ hDhKE= hWhKE=jhKE=0JPJU]aJhKE= hKE=PJ\hDhKE=PJ\hDhKE=PJ hKE=PJ<....///00011F1Z1[1b1v1p2q2v225566 7'777838899(999F:[:::<<==->.>-?.?T@U@BBBB`CaCCCCCJDKDlDxDEEaEbEIźh\hKE=5hKE=6mHnHuhL^hKE=6mHnHuh{Ixh^\ hJhKE=hMhJhKE=5jhKE=0JUhKE=h'yD679V@LDlDE#EEFYHnHIIJKMOQVlYpZ\u]B_4bdfgd|2gdKE=$gdKE=gdKE=IIIJfMtMxMMMMMMNOO(O,OKOWOP+PPPPPTVWVYYY&YjYkYpZqZ\\\]]^^^^__``a$a2b3bbbccdde h=hKE=herh7h;&<hKE=6h/hKE=6h{Ixh`(hKE=6 h"#hKE=h`v&hD`IhKE=6 hqMhKE=jhKE=0JU hKE=6herhKE=6hKE=h ^hKE=6:ee>fBfffffff}g~ghlilsllllllmmnn#o(ooopppp q&qFq}q~qqqqqrrrrNsjsWtXtttuu+u,uuuwwwwhL^hKE=6mHnHuh<hKE=6hmhKE=@aJjhc5(0JUhc5( hKE=6herh2<h6fh{IxjhKE=0JUh7h/hKE=6hKE=h+hKE=6h}hMjhKE=0JUh7hKE=6Z:۔ѕ9^OAkК^0_Ԣv"̭2gdKE=gdKE=gd ^)ߘ\]]g1 !kl ˭&/BQUgoxyرٱOP>HԵڵ%+?@ABe»󰩰h'y h+-hKE= hwhKE=h0Z h/hKE=h\hKE=5h h{Ix hRhKE=hv~hKE=6h7jhKE=0JUh.%hKE=hKE=B*phA̭|ܱQ58chXJ2gdKE=gdKE=gd MN<Qڹ۹!37Hxպܺ|}~ʻ˻VW12K`uvT]"#KOlq67_`bhdh0ZhwhKE=6h\hKE=5 h+-hKE=h'yhMjhKE=0JUhKE=Obc[\{W}ENSXOhmHIJUz2&+]fklzhdhxvhKE=6herhKE=6 h2hKE=h.%h7hh0ZhhKE=6h'y hKE=6h\hKE=5jhKE=0JUhKE= h52hKE=B30cq(t2gdKE=$gdKE=$gdKE= $ & FgdKE=gdKE= 2$$$a$gd2$$gd.%*@Ar{Dn$%=>?DEF CL !"'(,-EFGLMN?q{wxlⷳ˷˷h,hKE=5hMjLRh= UjQh= UhkjhkUhRs\hKE=6h Hh^ujVQh= Ujh.%Uh.%hh0ZjhKE=0JUhKE=h77l$%twDx~>CIY(r6    p q x    OP#$ij h7hPhXChs;hKE=6jhMr0JUh hh0ZhYxwhI)hdjhKE=0JUhKE=hMH    & 40n} #&(*,,/$gdKE=$gdKE=$gdKe2gdKE=gdKE=gdKE= ' qrBCen y z ####$$&&G(\(((****,,,, . .)/*/0/E///111111y4z455556hXC h ]whKE=hSYphKE=6 h)O4hKE= hhKE=hMh Hh0ZjhKE=0JUh^!hKE=5 hDLhKE=hfhmhKE=hNhKE=6hOJhKE=6>,/169g>_@CDE)FG~HIIYKvLOQSFUXN[B\]`8f!hiigdKE=gd}$gdKE=gdKE=6667 7788999999==@>I>c>d>k>>[@\@^@_@ C CDDE E EEEEEEE&EEE'F(F)F/FGGGG|H}H~HHIIIII%Jžh HhXChzhKE=5hL|hKE=5hGIhKE=5 hDLhKE= h h h 5hDLhKE=5h0Z h)O4hKE=jhhhKE=0JU hhhKE=hKE=jhKE=0JU;%JJJJJJJJJJK&KK1LtLuLNNNNNNNNNNOOO O OOPP=PPQQQQQQQQ0R4RS,SpSqSSSSSSSTҿʻҰʻh#p h}hKE=jh}0JUh} hKE=aJjBSh#Uh^ujRh#UjhmUhmjhKE=0JUhKE=CJaJmH sH hhSYphKE=6hXChKE=8T&T4TNT\TTTEUFURU{UUUUUUVVVWW!WnWWWWWWWWWX4XjXkXXXYY#Y&Y^YgYYYYYYY*Z+Z-ZL[M[y[z[K]L]]]8^9^{^^^hTF6mHnHuhL^hKE=6mHnHuh h:hKE=h jhm0JU hmhmh0ZhmjhKE=0JUhXChKE=h#p hmLhKE=@^^__`_NaOaPaWaaaaaIbJbddee7f8fffXgcggghhiiiiijjjgkhkikjkkkkkkll4lFllmm0m?u(Zb Y]WXnֵֵ֢֖֖֩֩֏֩֩ hBLhKE=h=HhKE=6mH sH  hbHhKE=hFmH sH hWjhKE=0JUmH sH h ^mH sH hFhKE=mH sH hKE=mH sH  hAhKE=hFhhKE=6hKE=jhKE=0JU8 !85MN";$*\d2?-./*ENٻٷٷٷٯ٪ãٟٛhPh> ` hmRhKE= hKE=6hShKE=6hhnhKE=6jhKE=0JUh ^h0ZhFhKE= hhKE=hBLhKE=6mH sH hFmH sH hKE=mH sH =l m r    !*UVybr&5LQ4!8!!!!!##$$$$%%((b*c*h*}*$.%.3󫤜 hKE=6h Hh hKE=5 hlhlhlhnhKE=6h+hdjh)0JU hzhKE= hKE=5hg:{hKE=5h0Zh6ghKE=5jhKE=0JUhKE=h|fhKE=5:Yy~LV70!!!!%d*(.3>345557/9gdKE=gdt6#gdl$gdKE=2gdKE=gdKE=$gdKE=33=3>3G3I3O3Q3V3X3^3c3o3~4444555888.9Q9\9;;;;7;l;;;>>> >>>??_ChCDDDDDDDEEEF'G6GeGGGIIII񻶻񶭶hQbhKE=6h9 hB36h0Z hKE=6hXhKE=6h+hhKE=6h"KZ hg:{hKE=h hKE=5hDLhKE=5 hDLhKE=hKE=jhKE=0JU?/9P9\9N:<?CCGKL;NPT[]/aygWkVllmpq ss & FgdKE=gd[&gdKE=2gdKE=2$a$gdKE=gdKE=IJJJJxLLLLM$MeMMMM N&N`RdRoVyVVVVVVVVVVVVXY Y Y`[t[w[z[[[[[U]z]^^^^^^^^^ _______λƷj8ThcCUjh+Uh+h+h^ujSh:PUjhGUhGhthKE=6h,FhKE=6h"KZhhKE=6hhKE=6mHnHuhKE==_"_/__````a`w``aaaaaaaaa;b@bbbc$ce eeeee e-e.eFeGeHeMeNeOe_e`ef'fff@gPgygggghhhiiiiiijjjjjjɶjh[&0JUh[&j.UhcCUjh+Uh+h"KZh0Zh^ujTh:PUjhvWUhvWhWh+hKE=h HBjk2kWkTlUlVlmmJoYoppYphpspppppqq*q@qAqIqssst#v:vvvvvwwwsy}yzzk{l{{{H|I|Y|~~jhKE=0JUmH sH hKE=mH sH h' hKE=mH sH h+h+hKE=mH sH hL^hKE=6mHnHujhKE=0JU hB36 hKE=6hh%h~@eh"KZjh[&0JUh[&hKE=3sJxz{I|~~Ɂ GW>ܐ 0x).$gdKE=gd+2gdKE=gdKE=~wx̀Ѐρ؁߃2Br  Gwst(8CDQr֌׌:̮̼h9hf>jh+0JUhcChR'Bh[&h"KZh0Zh+jh' hKE=0JU h' hKE=hKE=hKE=mH sH h' hKE=6mHnHsH u@:FirstVW:;ܐ hy#/0:@AS]kr+} ӵ hhKE=hnhKE=mH sH h0Zh~@eh0hKE=mH sH hZvhKE=mH sH h' hKE=6mHnHsH ujhKE=0JUmH sH hKE=mH sH h' hKE=mH sH jh[&0JUhKE=h[&hcCh0wxОўRKT hzefl56W]^ !,-ت٪ڪgȸȸаЬШШОЬОаОЖООІhh<hY h(hKE= hKE=5hI_hKE=5jhKE=0JUhEf'h> `h8hKE=5h0ZmH sH hcCmH sH hKE=mH sH hKE=h~@eh~@emH sH jh~@e0JUhWGh~@e6h~@ehhKE=mH sH 3Ңh7W!ڪȬg۱0aAahDa$gdKE=gdKE=$gdKE=$gdKE=%&RU_hq,-4H_`ݹ޹qr?@ahfg;#¿Ͽiowzrsu쮤hN,phKE=5jh9 0JUh9 h~@ehFhKE=6hm;zhKE=6h fh(hKE=5jhKE=0JUh0ZhshKE=5h,N?hKE=h hEf'hYhh<<    12389'(ST[pzijABQhKE=6B*phhKE=B*phh f hghKE=h8 XhKE=5hL^hKE=6mHnHuhH2hKE=5 h,hKE=j$VhUUh^ujUhUUhUjhUUjhKE=0JUhKE= hN,phKE=3WmEaQcp=23gdKE=2gdKE=$gdKE= $ & FgdKE=$gdKE=$gdKE=$gdKE=gdKE=Vhw2= #OW: $'JKLMNɶɶhFh*0aJjh*00JU h*0aJhHYyh*05hL^h*06mHnHuh*0 hhKE=h hABh0ZhyhKE=6 h NhKE=jhKE=0JU hKE=6hKE=hKE=B*phh fB*ph4Hm+   2 $   9l$gdKE=gdKE= $ & FgdKE=$gdKE=gd-72gd*0gd*0$gd*0$gd*0   ##$Uu~[^egvy|򐛌h^ujVhUjh*0Uh~@ehF h*06h0Zhth*05jh*00JUmHnHuhx h*06mHnHujh*00JUhL^h*06mHnHuh*0h*0mHnHu4 !$YZ\lm<Dstu~ INez)*glU`h s  hhDh*06hL^h*06mHnHuh&h%h@h*06h&h*06h0Z h@h*0h!bjh-70JUhFh-7h*0h#Yh*06]<               1 2 ; l u " # ( =   FSUb89&)OX򸱩Ը|ԸnnhL^hKE=6mHnHuha{hKE=5 hP'hKE=h53hKE=6h%hjhKE=5jhKE=0JUhkhKE=5 h hKE=hKE=jh*00JUhL^h*06mHnHuh0Zh.>h*0mHnHuh.>h*06mHnHuh*0h*0mHnHu+XMN*4ijt  V!_!!!C"L"N"Q"X"["\"z"""6#K#p%q%%%%%(())p+q+jhUUhk-hKE=6hKE=mHnHuhKE=6mHnHuhL^hKE=6mHnHu hYhKE=h0ZhM-hKE=5 hM-hKE=h%hMhnhKE=5jhKE=0JUhKE=9Oj!Lj 2#%()**,.36+9A<=== $ & FgdKE=$gdKE=$gdKE=gdKE=q++++++++++---.....l/m/////001111112R2Z2]2222485<5r5{566666'9(9::::::ݼݼݵݵݼݼݫʧݧݧݼݗݏh9 hABhyshhh6hjh0JU h*~hKE=jhKE=0JUhqahhahKE=6 hahKE=hKE=hh^ujhUUjWhUUhU8::::;!;;;;;;<=<@<p<q<<<<<<<<=========>>??? @k@l@CCDE!F"F,FGGGGGGûh }rh }rhKE=5h2hKE=5 h`whKE=hmh0ZjhKE=0JUhnhKE=5 h2hKE=hjXh#Uh^ujWh#UjhUhh<.hKE=h9 4=?m@@@pBDEF"FGHnIIJJJK>LLMgdOT$$gdH $$ & FgdH $$ & FgdH$gdH$gdKE=$gdKE=2gdKE=$gd$gdgdKE=GGHHHHHIlImIJJK1K=K;LLLLM)M/MMMN4N5NJNUNQOOPPPP&Q2QjQuQvQQQQQLRRRR&U2U6UBUUUUxVVVWÿÿúӫӧӧӫӜӧӫӫhbhu6hk hhuh6f hh< .hTwhu6 hu6hHhOT h0hOT hOT6hujhKE=0JUhnhKE=5h }rh0ZhKE=jh }r0JU:MN5NOONPPQQLRRRSST1TqTTU_VW7WW XX & Fgdu$$gd> ` $$ & Fgd> `gd }rgdugdu & FgdugdOTW6W7WWWW X XLYMYfYqYrYYYZ9Z:ZZZZ[[ [ [X[[[[[[[[[[[\\\\\\)]]]]]]]]]]]^!^꤯hljYh'yUjh }rUh^ujXh= UjhkUh }rhL^hu6mHnHu hhu hh< .hhumH sH humH sH hkhuhTwhu6 hu66XYMYZ:ZZX[[o\\+]]$^\^^^a`$aFcQc_cnccgd9$a$gd6ogd &% gdugd }rgdu $ & FgdRgdugdu!^"^$^-^0^X^[^^^^^^^^Z_e_f_______?`I`a`~`````````$aEcFcPcQcRc_c`cncoccc>d?dWdXdYdjYhDUjhDUhDjhD0JU huhu hu5h &% h.hu hhu huaJhhuaJhh< .aJhu|huaJhhuaJh2hkh0Zh }rhu3Yd]d^d_d`dxdydzd~ddddddddZe[eeeeeeeeee+f,f.fAffffngogqgg0h1h3hFhhhhhhiii$i:i;i=iPiiikkkkkkkkklhL^hD6mHnHu hb1hD hohhDhOhD5 hD6jwZhDUjhD0JUjYhDUhDjhDUh^uBcdddZee+ffng0hhi:ikll6mzmm0nnn,oop^qqqgdKE=gd$`gd9gdA}lllllllllllllmm m m%m&m'm)m*m6m7m9mLmPmUmYmZmsmtmumwmxmzm{m}mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnn n!n#n$n0nj\hDUjc\hDUj[hDUjm[hDUhL^hD6mHnHu hD6jhD0JUhDh^ujhDUjZhDU=0n1n3nFngntnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooo o,o-o/oBoXo]oaobo{o|o}ooooooooo@pmpppppqq q-q?qAqCqPq^q_qaqtqxq}qqοοhhD6hB)hD6j]hDUh^ujY]hDUjhDUhL^hD6mHnHuhU hD6 hD6hDjhD0JU@qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq r'r9rDrErFrHr[rgrlrprqrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrǽǔNJzjE_h)/hD@UjhD@UhkhD6@mHnHuj^hDUhL^hD6mHnHuhyhD6@ hD@hhD6 hD6jhD0JUh^ujO^hDUhDjhDU-qErrrsPtu4vwvvwKw~yw{{{|i|||1}}~|΀"gdlhDU hD6jkhDUjHkhDUh^ujjhDUjhDU h=)hDh_hD6jhD0JU hRhDhD>j\Ex R; H&mvgdKE=gd0C#$<=>CD[\]DEFxyؽ !RS;<   HI&' h~hD6hxhD6hL^hD6mHnHuh=~hD6 hD6jhD0JU hh;hDj4mhDUh^ujlhDUjhDUhD; mnuvw ()CD  &'(>N]^_cŧh34hD6hLehD6 h*hD hJVhD hD6h^ujmhDUjhDUhB hD6hDjhD0JUhhD6B (C'^6Z '.<NgdAgdKE=,.67Z[   '( !./Rqrtu}||| hthDh^uj*nhDUjhDUhL^hD6mHnHu hm'hDhm'hDH*hawhD6hzhD6h,"hD6 hD6hhD6hRhD6jhD0JUhD hD@ hD6@0}sz{|<=ƢjhDUhL^hD6mHnHuhD0JmH sH hV!hD0JmH sH  hD0J6hV!hD0J6 hD0JhV!hD0J hPthDjhD0JUhwhDH*hwhD6 hwhD hD6hD.NOVg6NOPgu;<~BK01,ghAB9: h$;ghD hQxhD h )hhD h(hDh(hD6 h4 hDh^hD6 h*hD hD6jhD0JUhDh^ujhDUjnhDU=NO;0gA9E,> =gdN?4gdKE=gdKE=+PQT EF,-Oo#=>?o B h)zhDh^)hD6johDU hfhD hD6h^uj ohDUjhDUhL^hD6mHnHujhD0JU hJVhDhD?B0T$*+,BC[\]bcm  =>z{34{,-j qhDUjphDU h)hDhhD6h^ujphDUjhDU hhD hD6jhD0JUhDhDB*ph?=z38 M  K    =  ' X  < m gdUgdJ.gdKE=-.34:J 789  M N p         K L M R ]           = >   ' ( X Y   < = m n      h~hD6 h;0hD he1chDhJijhD6jqhDUh34hD6jhD0JUh8hD6 hD6hDh^ujhDUBm   H   " \ ' " Q  ( `   /   I ^ gdKE= H I     " # [ \ ] ' ( ! " # Q R     ( ) ` a     / 0     I J ^ _ y z        # $          U b ht!hDhtehD6 hD6 hUhDh hD6h]hD6jhD0JUhDN^ y   #   q  ? ~   \   X   w    3 H ^ y  gdYgdUsgdQ`gdKE=b p q r    ? @ ~      \ ]    ! X Y     w x       3 4 H I ^ _ y z 1 2 J K L P Q V W o p q u v      b c { | } jrhDUhahD6 hahDj}rhDUh^ujrhDUjhDUhRhD6jhD0JU hPhDhDB}         6 7 8 = > F G " " I# J# # # # # # # # $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ~$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ h% i% j% % % Z& [& & & & & ( ( C) D) ) ) ) ) ) ) * * * * 3+ R+ hD6h|}hD6jithDUjshDUh hD6jsshDUjhD0JUhDjhDUh^uE  F " I# # # $ $ i% % Z& & & ( C) ) ) ) * * + , , - :- w- - . gdUsgdU8pgdKE=R+ + + , , , , - - :- ;- w- x- - - . . X. Y. . . . . . . =/ >/ ?/ y/ z/ / / 0 0 W0 X0 0 0 0 0 1 1 =1 >1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 T2 U2 2 2 2 2 j3 k3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 j_uhDUh^ujthDUjhDUhqMhD6hbhD6jhD0JUhDK. X. . . . >/ y/ / 0 W0 0 0 1 =1 1 1 2 T2 2 2 3 4 @6 s6 6 6 7 7 98 gd|gd}gdKE=4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 /6 06 16 66 76 @6 A6 s6 t6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 98 :8 8 8 8 8 9 9 39 49 s9 t9 9 9 9 9 : : 6: 7: d: e: : : ; ; h; i; ; ; < < P< Q< < < < < 3= 4= n= o= = = = = jUvhDU hD6hhD6jhD0JUhDh^ujhDUjuhDUL98 8 8 9 39 s9 9 9 : 6: d: : ; h; ; < P< < < 3= n= = = t> > > ? ? @ ,A gdKE== t> u> > > > > ? ? ? ? N@ [@ @ @ @ @ @ ,A -A HA WA eA rA A A A A A $B *B +B ,B -B >B MB B B B B B B B yC C C C C C C C zF {F H H H J J K K K K K K K K K K tL uL L htZhDhlqhD6 h\hD h/hD h+hDh;&<hD6 h;&<hD hmJhD hD6jhD0JUhDF,A A A ,B B C H J K K tL L M 8M RM M M N *O O O P P P RQ Q Q Q &R gdKE=L L M M M M M M 0M 1M 2M 5M 6M 7M 8M 9M RM SM mM M M M M M M N N *O +O O O O O O P P P P P P RQ SQ Q Q Q Q Q Q &R 'R yR zR R R R R ,S -S S S S S *T +T lT mT T T U U hhD6 h_^ ^ ^ _ _ n_ _ ` ` Vb Wb b b Oc Pc c c d d %e &e Xe Ye e e e e e e f f Of Pf f f f f (g )g jg kg g g 0h 1h rh sh h h h h Ki Li i i Lj Mj j j 4k 5k k k k k k k l l &l 'l n n hD6h+jhD0JUh^ujwhDUhDjhDUR=^ ` Vb b Oc c d %e Xe e e e f Of f f (g jg g 0h rh h h Ki i Lj j 4k k k gdKE=k k l &l n bn n p r r 0s t fu u ov v x 3y z z { ~   . [ gdBgdAgdmgd}gdKE=n ?n @n Xn Yn Zn _n `n bn cn n n p p r r r r 0s 1s s t t fu gu u u u 5v =v nv ov pv v v x x 3y 4y z z z z { { ~ $~ (~ )~ B~ C~ D~ G~ H~ ~ ~     . / [ \ jxhDUhL^hD6mHnHuh/NThD6 h,hD hKhD hKhDjhD0JUh^ujAxhDUjhDUhDA 4 f  D v ۂ  _ ك # !   0 E [ q gdKE= 4 5 f g   D E v w ۂ ܂   _ ` ك ڃ # $ ! "    0 1 E F [ \ q r n o < I { Ҋ " + hFb'hD6 hpvhD hD6hu EhD6 hN-hDjhD0JUhDQ n ދ v e .  ~ ˚  ț T ֜  ( U ˝ (  ޟ gdgdKE=+ h x ދ ߋ v w  e f  > - . /   ~  ʚ ˚ ̚   Q b s Ǜ ț ɛ T U ֜ ל   ( ) U V ʝ ˝ hhD h!uhDhDmH sH h(hD6h7-hD6h?vhD6jhD0JUhjENhDH* hD6hp24hD6hDhP-hhD6A˝ ̝ ( )   ޟ ߟ ! ՠ  q r < =        G H ̩ ͩ Ω      2 ǸhDmH sH  hXZhDh^uj7yhDUjhDUhL^hD6mHnHu h`1hD hD6hhD6hDjhD0JU@ޟ q <  G ̩  ު N c y ' i Ӭ " X gd~@egd+gd[&gdKE=2 3 4 7 8 ު ߪ N O c d y z ' ( i j Ӭ Ԭ  " # X Y & ' ^ _ ' ( W X ߯    4 < G P Q ˰ ̰ - 0 7 : hL^hD6mHnHuhGEhD6 hD6h+hD6h_hD6jhD0JUhDh^ujhDUjyhDUEX & ^ ' W ߯  P ˰ ò ' Y ݳ < & q ϵ  l gd-7gd*0gdKE=: P U Y Z s t u w x z ò IJ ' ( Y Z ݳ ޳ < = & ' q r ϵ е   l m   I J Է շ 7 8    <   I J ɺ h!hD6jhD0JUhDmHnHuh^uj-zhDUjhDUhL^hD6mHnHuhDJl  I Է 7   I ɺ ^ T RT T T T 5U wU xU U U 6 C#gdDogd }rgdKE=ɺ ʺ b c { | } ^ _ T T T T RT ST T T T T T T 5U 6U wU xU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 񽶫񶫶 huhuh43h^umHnHujhDhDU hDhDh}# hk-hDU hD6j#{hDUh^ujzhDUjhDUhDjhD0JU9, at para. 69.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 153, 189, 194, 206.  Australia's response to Panel question No. 82.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 405-406.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 207-208.  Australia's first written submission, paras. 266-267.  European Communities' first written submission, paras. 502-503. WT/DS290/R Page  PAGE 42 WT/DS290/R Page  PAGE 165 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U $a$gd6o65 6 C#B#gdD6 C#B#gdDo 6 C#gdD# 0. A!"#$%3 000P:p . A!"#$%-0P:pTE. A!"#$%m$$Ifl!vh5+5E #v+#vE :V l4+5+5E 4alf4q$$Ifl!vh5+5E #v+#vE :V l4+5+5E 4alf4m$$Ifl!vh5+5E #v+#vE :V l4+5+5E 4alf4p$$Ifl!vh5+5E #v+#vE :V l5+5E / 4alf$$Ifl!vh5+5E #v+#vE :V l`5+5E 4alb$$Ifl!vh5+5E #v+#vE :V l5+5E 4al$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l70,55U4$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l055U4$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l055U4$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l055U4$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l055U4$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l055U4$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l055U4$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l055U4$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l055U4$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l055U4$$If!vh55U#v#vU:V l055U4$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l70,5\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\5/ 4$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\5/ 4$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l0555/  / / 4$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l70,5\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5\5#v\#v:V l05\54$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l440#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4$$If!vh5 5#v #v:V l40#5 54f4{DyK  _Ref91298986{DyK  _Ref91299010{DyK  _Ref91299151{DyK  _Ref90880982{DyK  _Ref91299263{DyK  _Ref91299325{DyK  _Ref91299473{DyK  _Ref91299488{DyK  _Ref91299488{DyK  _Ref91299532{DyK  _Ref90838197{DyK  _Ref91299619{DyK  _Ref91299708{DyK  _Ref88144669{DyK  _Ref91299848{DyK  _Ref91299994{DyK  _Ref91300059{DyK  _Ref91300239{DyK  _Ref91300366{DyK  _Ref91300503{DyK  _Ref91300529{DyK  _Ref91300653{DyK  _Ref91300717{DyK  _Ref91300774{DyK  _Ref91251840{DyK  _Ref87945556{DyK  _Ref88143527{DyK  _Ref88143120{DyK  _Ref97347624{DyK  _Ref81019352{DyK  _Ref90838294{DyK  _Ref90838197{DyK  _Ref90619862{DyK  _Ref90838197{DyK  _Ref88143891{DyK  _Ref88220144{DyK  _Ref88218667{DyK  _Ref88143994p$$If!vh53 5 #v3 #v :V>l t653 5 / a~$$If!vh53 5 #v3 #v :V>l t653 5 / / ap$$If!vh53 5 #v3 #v :V>l t653 5 / ap$$If!vh53 5 #v3 #v :V>l t653 5 / a{DyK  _Ref88143891{DyK  _Ref85971707{DyK  _Ref85971707{DyK  _Ref90880982{DyK  _Ref88144432{DyK  _Ref90881112{DyK  _Ref88218667{DyK  _Ref88143994{DyK  _Ref88143204{DyK  _Ref88144599{DyK  _Ref83700982{DyK  _Ref81199229{DyK  _Ref81199386{DyK  _Ref88144652{DyK  _Ref91149483{DyK  _Ref88144712{DyK  _Ref88144713{DyK  _Ref88144669{DyK  _Ref88144670{DyK  _Ref81275213{DyK  _Ref88218020{DyK  _Ref88144432{DyK  _Ref90881112{DyK  _Ref88218667{DyK  _Ref88143994{DyK  _Ref88143204{DyK  _Ref88145081{DyK  _Ref97624112{DyK  _Ref88144599{DyK  _Ref90832751{DyK  _Ref90832786{DyK  _Ref85533788{DyK  _Ref88145261{DyK  _Ref88231996{DyK  _Ref91232051{DyK  _Ref91232081{DyK  _Ref91232083{DyK  _Ref91395107{DyK  _Ref91395122{DyK  _Ref88202514{DyK  _Ref88202546{DyK  _Ref91328559{DyK  _Ref88202587{DyK  _Ref88146224{DyK  _Ref88146226{DyK  _Ref90825176{DyK  _Ref88144810{DyK  _Ref91300653{DyK  _Ref88143355{DyK  _Ref91232385{DyK  _Ref90837888{DyK  _Ref88143120{DyK  _Ref88143123{DyK  _Ref88143155{DyK  _Ref91242281{DyK  _Ref91242281{DyK  _Ref68946397{DyK  _Ref91242281{DyK  _Ref91242328{DyK  _Ref91242281{DyK  _Ref91242328{DyK  _Ref91242372{DyK  _Ref91242281{DyK  _Ref68929451{DyK  _Ref91242281{DyK  _Ref91242281{DyK  _Ref88143204{DyK  _Ref91242281{DyK  _Ref91242281{DyK  _Ref91242670{DyK  _Ref88143276{DyK  _Ref88143404{DyK  _Ref88143332{DyK  _Ref88143353{DyK  _Ref88143355{DyK  _Ref88145574{DyK  _Ref90838603{DyK  _Ref88143404{DyK  _Ref90827558{DyK  _Ref90827657{DyK  _Ref88143447{DyK  _Ref88143555{DyK  _Ref90798204{DyK  _Ref88143673{DyK  _Ref88143674{DyK  _Ref90828363{DyK  _Ref83698116{DyK  _Ref90838197{DyK  _Ref88143818{DyK  _Ref88143820{DyK  _Ref90829659{DyK  _Ref90829689{DyK  _Ref90829792{DyK  _Ref90695620{DyK  _Ref88129212{DyK  _Ref87519828{DyK  _Ref88129212{DyK  _Ref88144090{DyK  _Ref91324814{DyK  _Ref88144312{DyK  _Ref93982045{DyK  _Ref88144383{DyK  _Ref88144807{DyK  _Ref88144810{DyK  _Ref88143353{DyK  _Ref88144090{DyK  _Ref88377707{DyK  _Ref88144090{DyK  _Ref88377818{DyK  _Ref88377819{DyK  _Ref88377707{DyK  _Ref91146228{DyK  _Ref90724921{DyK  _Ref88145490{DyK  _Ref88145574{DyK  _Ref88377707{DyK  _Ref85342605{DyK  _Ref91069169{DyK  _Ref91069169{DyK  _Ref88129212{DyK  _Ref91397794{DyK  _Ref91397799DJ@J Normal$ a$CJ_HmH sH tH F@"F Heading 1$ & FT@&5;D@2D Heading 2$ & FT@&:D@BD Heading 3$ & FT@&5@@R@ Heading 4$ & FT@&b@bb CHeading 5,Heading 5 Char$ & FT@&6H@rH C Heading 6$@&^>*aJ@@@ C Heading 7$@&^L@L KE= Heading 8 <@&6CJ]aJtH N @N KE= Heading 9 <@&OJQJ^JaJtH DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List :B@: Body Text  & FTDT@D Block Text]^JP@J Body Text 2,b2 & FT JQ@"J Body Text 3,b3 & FT DO2D Body Text 4 & FT >+B>  Endnote Text$a$CJf&@Qf %Footnote Reference,Ref,de nota al pieH*B@bB  Footnote Text `CJNOqN KE=Footnote Text Char2_HmH sH tH : : Index 1#^`#6!6  Index Heading:0@: List Bullet  & FT6@T List Bullet 2  & F 0^`0X8@X List Bullet 4# & F p0^p`0@1@@ List Number & F hT:@T List Number 2  & F 0^`0<Z@< Plain Text CJOJQJ6J@6 Subtitle $@&a$D,D Table of Authorities!D#D Table of Figures " 6>@26 Title#$a$ 5;KH4OB4 Title 2$$a$>*4OR4 Title 3%$a$6@Ob@ Title Country&$a$;6.6  TOA Heading'5Z@Z TOC 10($ p# 0<<]^`0a$5;X@X TOC 20)$ p# 0<<]^`0a$:\@\ TOC 33*$ p#@J0<<]^`0a$5T@T TOC 40+$ p# 0<<]^`0a$XX TOC 50,$ p# 0<<]^`0a$6PP TOC 6(-$ p# <<]^a$CJPP TOC 7(.$ p# L<<]^La$CJPP TOC 8(/$ p# )<<]^)a$CJPP TOC 9(0$ p# <<]^a$CJh$@h Envelope Address!1@ &+D/^@ CJOJQJBO"B Quotation2]^PO2P Quotation Double3]^TOBT Footnote Quotation4]^CJ4 @R4 Footer 5 C#:@b: Header6$ C#a$.)@q. 9 Page NumberB'B 1Comment ReferenceCJaJ88 1 Comment Text9CJ@j@ 1Comment Subject:5\HH 1 Balloon Text;CJOJQJ^JaJ.X@. KE=Emphasis6]DOD KE=WTO Num= & FdhxxCJx@x KE= Table Grid7:V?0>$ a$HC@H KE=Body Text Indent?^6U@6 K Hyperlink >*B*ph*W@* ApStrong5\NO!N  ; AI-93 TofC"5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH 0l10Y 1 / a / iC F589UXZd[],5mr b y=&'-0122r6D778 <|<>AD&HKyˏٞK[tw Ȱڱ.<ƵR27gup$7 \1kP C"135:6+:<MNXU_wef iktoZrpsxTZˋ~.o}tb̜4ݦӯ^6>O9qGz s&`$$ % &(5+8H9;?XBCEJ__aabcdf|f>jkbmjn'p,r=u,w"ΆNnts6 6N &8`ZXW/qe' p!h""b#$$'(Z)p*-./145-7T8:`;J<=a=EHjQTV2Z}_gh}ijWlǀā]\ kxةOAMڱʳV1u"6_[H@w$pi qBy "$ &)')y,-.15c6[8 ;<'>?|@AtDIN*RLSKU_WIZ_gcfgnjpAruMvxyR{/yKh+Éڋ ;˛Мҝ_$mT )ɯp-ZVs-lU b $$)~*+.;^_Tbitwvss:e5ؠ,_ݯq?fr'SiAK #" M  p$l%&'','/45k6==l?¸   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~77_ Fgk )  0 C x RKo&-&{PH+}Wi *!e!!!!D"" #C##)%e%%%7&x&)R)))t+++,V,,,-B--...//o///30h0001 2@2q22445678u999{:#;;;;;;;<#<><9==J>w>>?d@ApCCEE%FBFUFGGG~HHHIOL`LLLM>MuMMPPPWQQR>RbTTU^UU XX'Y[\2\c\\\K]}]]]9^^^Y__`S```%aa.bKbdbybbbbbbmdDef g8hh llmorrMtuuwxxx/yfyzz{=|߀:=rێnǒuL˔)dyYE`œby֡[Y4oѤ ^v֥N;uѩaתAޫ\ (<tҮ7 - ϴBz&4 (4qͽ2kοVP ~/i=A{&b?l(>;"2<o"SqTA|Y#][c.KdH#;zCO?p9j(UYw9tm p.g9l0|!\hA   O F~]6zRH <g%VK3   1!!!/"j"""" # #;#Q#$G$%&`''%)`-124-5z66w778J88889z99/::;;; A_AAB/CnC[DDD{EELFFFFG(G`GGGHHHHI8III JlJJJKKKKzL6NrNNNOJOOOOPP Q~QQRWRRRR\>R@@AyCuE*GGHI[J^K>PQ3RQRSUUWVZ]`]egXgvgillmnoopZtvxzn{{#}~G[;l4CEޔGߛVmӦĨ/>$?nx4q3^.ݾBJ;-gqR!>L^eZ{032.~ o1|Cl   9 $(*..//z0;12h4H588S:=#CEHIRJYKWLMNPShTzVEXY|\p]^_)`acegjjumoq[tvRxqyzU{|17>LWFs]ǬȵĽT46 B<8}ENiZw'4(;y V y/!E"5&Q&'(((+T,.q035>699^;"<<=>o??>@{@A+BhBJCFHKLMOSU;WZW_acf iklmmwo'prst_uwyzz;|d|9}R&fA[~ f hmٮկIJ`7N @ݻ]ξ5p^9&Q(<lHl}/IiK3PDuhPc  p jSvu(c($H$ % & ($((i)*+,-8/002$35w568;W<?)A\BBCE5HM~OPQ R]RU@UUTWWrXY@ZqZ\]]]_bbd~fAjdmmln)p/rAu\u{v\wzwx z1zY{|-r%҆Y0&*;Poo˜1xĭЭմ u:Z\"R; 8`i (b\w Z9$ 2 `  6sgr!d#$'^)r*./1V8L<l<=#==>Y@n@AABCEGINlQpRTuUBW4Z\^cdebfim,moorstwzN|}ˀA% VЇZ:یэ9^OAkВ^0_Ԛv"̥|ܩQ58chXJ30cq(t&40    n} "$,').1g6_8;<=)>?~@AAYCvDGIKFMPNSBTUX8^!`iakcggjlonpCrrux{}:O/ʼn!?ԝc&qV,˯ֱLp5tukyRO^wX!NL'T/nYy~LV  70d ($)>)*+++-//P/\/N02599=AB;DFJQS/Wy]WaVbbcfg iiJnpqIrt~uw {}G~W>܆ 0x).Ҙh7W!ڠȢgۧ0aAahԶDaýھWmEaQcp=2Hm+2$9l O j   !Lj2  "$),+/3335m666p8:;<"<=>n??@@@A>BBCD5DEENFFQGLHHø 00 0 0  0 0 0  0 @0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000#0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 T 0T 044T 044204T 044T 0440404040404T 044T 044T 044 T 0T 05@5@ 0E@E@T 05@5@*T 0IBIBT 0\B\BT 0\B\BT 0\B\BT 0\B\BT 0\B\BT 0\B\BT 0\B\BT 0\B\B*T 0IBIBT 0 LLT 0 LLT 0 LL*T 0IBIBT 0 PPT 0 PPT 0PP*T 0IBIBT 0WWT 0WWT 0WW T 0T 0[[ 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0^^T 0^^T 0^^ T 0 0`` T 0 0~b~b T 0 0UcUcT 0UcUcZ0UcT 0Uc6fT 0Uc6fT 0Uc6fZ0UcT 0UcmT 0UcmT 0UcmZ0UcT 0UcuT 0 UcuZ0UcT 0 Uc4T 0 Uc4T 0 Uc4T 0 Uc4T 0Uc4T 0Uc4T 0Uc4T 0Uc4T 0Uc4Z0UcT 0UcT 0UcT 0UcT 0UcZ0UcT 0UcT 0UcZ0UcT 0UcշT 0UcշT 0UcշT 0UcշZ0UcT 0UcT 0UcT 0UcT 0 UcZ0UcT 0!UcBT 0"UcBZ0UcT 0#UcT 0$UcT 0%UcZ0UcT 0&Uc!T 0'Uc!T 0(Uc!Z0UcT 0)UckT 0*UckZ0UcT 0+Uc/Z0UcT 0-UcT 0.UcZ0UcT 0/UcMT 00UcMZ0UcT 01UcT 02UcZ0UcT 03Uc+T 04Uc+T 05Uc+Z0UcT 06UcT 07Uc T 0U 0*T 0 022T 022020202020202020202022020202T 0i2T 0i20202020202020202020220202020202020230202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202T 022T 022202T 022T 0C2T 0C2T 022202T 02202202T 022ET 0 *BT 0:CT 0RRET 0 IRIRET 0 IRIR:CT 0RRET 0 UUET 0 UUET 0UUET 0UUET 0UUET 0UU*BT 0:CT 02g2gET 0pgpgET 0pgpgET 0pgpgET 0pgpg:CT 02g2gET 0mm:CT 02g2gET 0ooET 0ooET 0ooET 0ooET 0oo*BT 0:CT 0zzET 0'{'{ET 0'{'{:CT 0zzET 0~~ET 0~~ET 0 ~~ET 0!~~ET 0"~~*BT 0:CT 0..ET 0#ET 0$:CT 0..ET 0%@20@ 20ET 0&ET 0'ET 0(A 0Ue @20ET 0*ET 0+*BT 0:CT 0ET 0,``ET 0-``:CT 0ET 0.ET 0/ET 00ET 01ET 02*BT 0ET 0333ET 0433ET 0533*BT 0ET 06ET 07*BT 0ET 08**ET 09***BT 0 ET 0:ET 0;ET 0<@20@20@20ET 0=ET 0>ET 0?*BT 0 ET 0@##ET 0A##ET 0B##ET 0C##ET 0D##*BT 0 ET 0EET 0F@20ET 0G@20ET 0HET 0I@20ET 0J@20ET 0KET 0L@20ET 0MET 0NET 0OET 0PET 0QET 0R*BT 0 ET 0SET 0T*BT 0 ET 0U%%ET 0V%%*BT 0ET 0WET 0X@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0AT 0*BT 0:CT 0JDT 0ET 0YET 0ZET 0[ET 0\ET 0]ET 0^JDT 0ET 0_' ' ET 0`' ' ET 0a' ' ET 0b' ' ET 0c' ' ET 0d' ' ET 0e' ' ET 0f' ' JDT 0ET 0g!!ET 0h!!ET 0i!!ET 0j!!ET 0k!!ET 0l!!ET 0m!!@20!@20!@20!@20!ET 0n!!ET 0o!!ET 0p!!ET 0q!!ET 0r!!@20!ET 0s!!ET 0t!!ET 0u!!ET 0v!!ET 0w!!@20!ET 0x!!ET 0y!!@20!@20!@20!ET 0z!!ET 0{!!ET 0|!!ET 0}!!ET 0~!!ET 0!!ET 0!!@20!ET 0!!@20!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!@20!@0!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!@20!@20!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!@20!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!@20!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!ET 0!!:CT 0JDT 0ET 0IIET 0IIET 0IIET 0IIET 0IIET 0IIET 0IIET 0IIET 0IIET 0IIET 0IIJDT 0ET 0~~ET 0~~ET 0~~ET 0~~ET 0~~ET 0~~ET 0~~ET 0~~JDT 0Z@0ET 0ET 0@20ET 0Z@0ET 0@20ET 0@20ET 0ET 0ET 0Z@0j@0ET 0[@20[@20[ET 0[ET 0[@20[ET 0[ET 0[ET 0[@20[ET 0[ET 0[ET 0[ET 0[j@0ET 0@20ET 0ET 0@20ET 0ET 0ET 0@20@20ET 0ET 0ET 0ET 0ET 0ET 0ET 0ET 0ET 0Z@0ET 0"ET 0"@20"ET 0"ET 0"ET 0"Z@0ET 0.@0@0@0.ET 0.ET 0.ET 0.ET 0.ET 0.ET 0.ET 0.ET 0.j@0.ET 0AET 0A@20A@20A@20AET 0A@20A@30A@0A@0A@30A@0A@0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0AET 0Aj@0.ET 0`uET 0`uET 0`uET 0`uET 0`u@20`uET 0`uET 0`uET 0`uZ@0ET 0Z@0ET 0@20@20ET 0ET 0ET 0ET 0:CT 0JDT 0ET 0++ET 0++ET 0++ET 0++JDT 0ET 0ET 0ET 0JDT 0ET 0 ,,ET 0 ,,ET 0 ,,ET 0 ,,ET 0 ,,ET 0,,ET 0,,@20,ET 0,,ET 0,,ET 0,,ET 0,,ET 0,,ET 0,,ET 0,,*BT 0:CT 0ET 033ET 033@203@203ET 033@203@203@203@203@203ET 033:CT 0JDT 0CCET 0ppET 0ppET 0ppET 0ppET 0ppET 0 ppET 0!ppJDT 0CCET 0"ET 0#ET 0$ET 0%ET 0&ET 0'ET 0(JDT 0CCET 0)ET 0*Z@0ET 0+-ET 0,-@20-ET 0--ET 0.-Z@0ET 0/FT 0.FT 0.ET 00ET 01ET 02FT 0FT 0FT 0ET 03ET 04@20ET 05ET 06ET 07ET 08ET 09ET 0:ET 0;ET 0<ET 0=ET 0>ET 0?ET 0@:CT 0JDT 0  ET 0A,,ET 0B,,ET 0C,,ET 0D,,ET 0E,,JDT 0  ET 0F,,ET 0G,,ET 0H,,JDT 0  ET 0I00FT 000FT 000FT 000T 00FT 000FT 000FT 000ET 0J00ET 0K00ET 0L00ET 0M00@200ET 0N00ET 0O00ET 0P00@200ET 0Q00@200ET 0R00ET 0S00ET 0T00ET 0U00ET 0V00ET 0W00ET 0X00ET 0Y00*BT 0:CT 0ZZET 0ZZZET 0[ZZ@20Z@20ZET 0\ZZ@20Z@20Z@20ZET 0]ZZ@20ZET 0^ZZ:CT 0ZZJDT 0xfxfET 0_ffET 0`ffET 0affET 0bffET 0cffET 0dffET 0effJDT 0xfxfET 0fvKT 0>vKT 0>KKT 0?KKT 0@KKT 0AKKT 0KllT 0LllT 0MllT 0Nll:T 0ջջJT 0[[T 0O>\>\T 0P>\>\T 0Q>\>\T 0R>\>\T 0S>\>\T 0T>\>\T 0U>\>\T 0V>\>\T 0W>\>\T 0X>\>\T 0Y>\>\T 0Z>\>\T 0[>\>\JT 0[[T 0\ՁՁT 0]ՁՁT 0^ՁՁT 0_ՁՁT 0`ՁՁT 0aՁՁJT 0[[T 0bZ0T 0cT 0dT 0e20T 0fT 0gT 0hZ0T 0i+20+30+30+30+T 0j+T 0k+T 0l+T 0m+T 0n+T 0o+T 0p+T 0q+T 0r+T 0s+T 0t+T 0u+T 0v+T 0w+T 0x+T 0y+T 0z+T 0{+T 0|+T 0}+20+T 0~+T 0+:T 0ջջJT 0T 0##T 0##JT 0T 0JT 0T 020T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0:T 0ջջJT 000T 0RRT 0RRT 0RRT 0RRJ 000T 0T 0JT 000Z09 T 09 T T 09 T T 09 T 20T 20T T 09 T T 09 T T 09 T Z09 T 09 T 09 T 09 20T 09 T 09 T 09 T 09 T 09 T 09 T 09 T 0T 09 Z09 T 09 CT 09 C20C0CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 C20CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 C20CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 CT 09 C*T 0ĻĻ:T 0||JT 0}}T 0'}'}T 0'}'}JT 0}}T 0ssT 0ssJT 0}}T 0T 0T 0*T 0ĻĻ:T 0++JT 0``T 0||T 0||T 0||T 0||JT 0``T 0ƔƔJT 0``T 0T 0T 0:T 0++JT 0ؚؚT 0T 0JT 0ؚؚT 0<<T 0pc*T 0GG: 0TTT 0xxT 0xxT 0xxT 0xxT 0xx:T 0TTT 0203030T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0*T 0GG:T 0<<T 0ttT 0tt:T 0<<T 0T 0T 020T 0T 020T 0T 0T 0*T 0GG: 0rrT 0T 0:T 0rrT 0*T 0GG:T 0T 0T 0:T 0T 0T 0T 0*T 0GG:T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0:T 0T 0{{T 0{{T 0{{T 0{{T 0{{T 0{{T 0{{*T 0GG: 0T 0T 0:T 0T 020T 0T 0*T 0GG:T 0T 0++T 0++T 0++:T 0T 0!! T 0 0##0#T 0#T 0#0#0#0#T 0!##T 0!##T 0'#T 0'#T 0'#T 0#T 0#0Rlø 0 *89:DEFGHI]^_`abcdef     2H^vE*jp1t4l'yL T o  3 Z - U 4UV,Hqr#'(hmnrwxv|}TZ[\]fgEJK6<=u{|}~  <]bcpuvNRS!".KLg !7? @ a !!!F"G"^"U#V#e### $$$$8%9%T%%%%&&&'''b(c(v(0)1)Q))))***L+M+o+K,L,`,!-"-5---....[/\/v/00G0001111u2v223393333R4S4d4444444 8:<<=D=E=e===??"@2@C@3BFBBhDEF;GcIJKLLlNOPP*RRWWYZi[[[+\],][]]i^~^^B`{``hbb?cNcd fTfg1hm7m,oZq u:uw~~&9ݤ9wRvN#Piyqb.?Q'$+c]vT"c1LIIJ./78opzd e    , ^ _   !!""x#y#$$&&''!("(5+6+--7/8/22Q4R4|5}555v6w688 ; ;;;<<~<<<<[>\>R@@AyCuE*GGHI[J^K>PQ3RQRSUUWVZ]`]egXgvgillmnoopZtvxzn{{#}~G[;l4CEޔGߛVmӦĨ/>$?nx4q3^.ݾBJ;-gqR!>L^eZ{032.~ o1|Cl   9 $(*..//z0;12h4H588S:=#CEHIRJYKWLMNPShTzVEXY|\p]^_)`acegjjumoq[tvRxqyzU{|17>LWFs]ǬȵĽT46 B<8}ENiZw'4(;y V y/!E"5&Q&'.(1(4(5([((((((((((((+T,.q035>699^;"<<=>o??>@{@A+BhBJCFHKLMOSU;WZW_acf iklmmwo'prst_uwyzz;|d|9}R&fA[~ f hmٮկIJ`7N @ݻ]ξ5p^9&Q(<lHl}/IiK3PDuhPc  p jSvu(c($H$ % & ($((i)*+,-8/002$35w568;W<?)A\BBCE5HM~OPQ R]RU@UUTWWrXY@ZqZ\]]]_bbd~fAjdmmln)p/rAu\u{v\wzwx z1zY{|-r%҆Y0&*;Poo˜1xĭЭմ u:Z\"R; 8`i (b\w Z9$ 2 `  6sgr!d#$'^)r*./1V8L<l<=#==>Y@n@AABCEGINlQpRTuUBW4Z\^cdebfim,moorstwzN|}ˀA% VЇZ:یэ9^OAkВ^0_Ԛv"̥|ܩQ58chXJ30cq(t&40    n} "$,').1g6_8;<=)>?~@AAYCvDGIKFMPNSBTUX8^!`iakcggjlonpCrrux{}:O/ʼn!?ԝc&qV,˯ֱLp5tukyRO^wX!NL'T/nYy~LV  70d ($)>)*+++-//P/\/N02599=AB;DFJQS/Wy]WaVbbcfg iiJnpqIrt~uw {}G~W>܆ 0x).Ҙh7W!ڠȢgۧ0aAahԶDaýھWmEaQcp=2Hm+2$9l O j   !Lj2  "$),+/A23335m666p8:;<"<=>n??@@@A>BBCD5DEENFFQGLHHHIIJ1JqJJK_LM7MM NNOMOP:PPXQQoRR+SS$T\TTTaV$WFYQY_YnYYZZZZ[[+\\n]0^^_:_abb6czcc0ddd,eef^gggEhhhiPjk4lwllmKm~owqqqrirrr1sstu|uuv"wRwwwyz{zzz {?{{#|^||L}z~~~Kmт#ń9g"d6jч<J;,]‹04"kNƒI̓tє-CYtIȗW/Mܞ-v٠Iϡ,4%_ƦΧm"Tj\Ex R;ζ H&m߹vغʻ (C'^6Z '.<NO;0gA9E,> =z38MK='X<mH"\ '   " Q  ( `   /   I ^ y   # q  ? ~  \  X   w    3 H ^ y   F  I     i  Z    C      ! ! " :" w" " # X# # # # >$ y$ $ % W% % % & =& & & ' T' ' ' ( ) @+ s+ + + , , 9- - - . 3. s. . . / 6/ d/ / 0 h0 0 1 P1 1 1 32 n2 2 2 t3 3 3 4 4 5 ,6 6 6 ,7 7 8 = ? @ @ tA A B 8B RB B B C *D D D E E E RF F F F &G yG G G ,H H H *I lI I J HJ J J K TK jK L 4L OL )M M N O /O qO O R =S U VW W OX X Y %Z XZ Z Z Z [ O[ [ [ (\ j\ \ 0] r] ] ] K^ ^ L_ _ 4` ` ` ` a &a c bc c e g g 0h i fj j ok k m 3n o o p s t t .u [u u u 4v fv v v w Dw vw w w x _x x x #y y y !z z z { { { | 0| E| [| q| | | n} }   ހ v e .  ~ ˏ  Ȑ T ֑  ( U ˒ (  ޔ q <  G ̞  ޟ N c y ' i ӡ " X & ^ ' W ߤ  P ˥ ç ' Y ݨ < & q Ϫ  l  I Ԭ 7   I ɯ ^ O · 2 t u ø 0000 000 000 000 0000060 000000000000000000000(0(0)0)0*0*0*0*0(0)0)0(0(0(0(0)0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0)0*0+0+0+0*0+0+0+0*0+0+0*0+0+0+0*0+0+0)0*0+0+0)0*0+0+0+0+0+0+0*0+0*0+0+0)0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0(000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000T 0T 044T 044204T 044T 0440404040404T 044T 044T 044T 0T 0"@"@ 02@2@T 0"@"@(T 03B3BT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFB(T 03B3BT 0 LLT 0 LLT 0 LL(T 03B3BT 0 PPT 0 PPT 0PP(T 03B3BT 0WWT 0WWT 0WWT 0T 0i[i[ 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0i[i[T 0i^i^T 0~^i^T 0~^i^T 0 0{`{`T 0 0hbhbT 0 0?c?cT 0?c?cX0?cT 0?c fT 0?c fT 0?c fX0?cT 0?cmT 0?cmT 0?cmX0?cT 0?c uT 0 ?c uX0?cT 0 ?c~T 0 ?c~T 0 ?c~T 0 ?c~T 0?c~T 0?c~T 0?c~T 0?c~T 0?c~X0?cT 0?cT 0?cT 0?cT 0?cX0?cT 0?cRT 0?cRX0?cT 0?c#T 0?c#T 0?c#T 0?c#X0?cT 0?cT 0?cT 0?cT 0 ?cX0?cT 0!?cbT 0"?cbX0?cT 0#?cT 0$?cT 0%?cX0?cT 0&?cT 0'?cT 0(?cX0?cT 0)?c?T 0*?c?X0?cT 0+?cT 0,?cX0?cT 0-?c+T 0.?c+X0?cT 0/?c]T 00?c]X0?cT 01?cT 02?cX0?cT 03?c"T 04?c"T 05?c"X0?cT 06?cT 07?cT 0U 0(T 0 0T 000000000002000T 0IT 0I000000000020000000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000T 0T 020T 0T 0AT 0AT 020T 02020T 0T 0(T 08T 0QQT 0 3R3RT 0 3R3R8T 0QQT 0 UUT 0 UUT 0 UUT 0UUT 0UUT 0UU(T 08T 0ggT 0XgXgT 0XgXgT 0XgXgT 0XgXg8T 0ggT 0mm8T 0ggT 0ooT 0ooT 0ooT 0ooT 0oo(T 08T 0zzT 0n{n{T 0n{n{8T 0zzT 0~~T 0~~T 0~~T 0 ~~T 0!~~(T 08T 0llT 0"T 0#8T 0llT 0$20 20T 0%T 0&T 0'T 0(20T 0)T 0*(T 08T 0T 0+mmT 0,mm8T 0T 0-T 0.T 0/T 00T 01(T 0T 02??T 03??T 04??(T 0T 05T 06(T 0T 0744T 0844(T 0 T 09T 0:T 0;202020T 0<T 0=T 0>(T 0 T 0?--T 0@--T 0A--T 0B--T 0C--(T 0 T 0DT 0E20T 0F20T 0GT 0H20T 0I20T 0JT 0K20T 0LT 0MT 0NT 0OT 0PT 0Q(T 0 T 0RT 0S(T 0 T 0T..T 0U..(T 0T 0VT 0W00000000T 0(T 08T 0HT 011T 0X||T 0Y||T 0Z||T 0[||T 0\||T 0]||HT 011T 0^  T 0_  T 0`  T 0a  T 0b  T 0c  T 0d  T 0e  HT 011T 0fT 0gT 0hT 0iT 0jT 0kT 0l20202020T 0mT 0nT 0oT 0pT 0q20T 0rT 0sT 0tT 0uT 0v20T 0wT 0x202020T 0yT 0zT 0{T 0|T 0}T 0~T 020T 020T 0T 0T 0T 0200T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 02020T 0T 0T 020T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 020T 0T 0T 0T 08T 0HT 0FFT 0ssT 0ssT 0ssT 0ssT 0ssT 0ssT 0ssT 0ssT 0ssT 0ssT 0ssHT 0FFT 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0HT 0FFX0T 0T 020T 0X0T 020T 020T 0T 0T 0X0h08T 0}20}20}T 0}T 0}20}T 0}T 0}T 0}20}T 0}T 0}T 0}T 0}h08T 020T 0T 020T 0T 0T 02020T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0h08T 0T 020T 0T 0T 0h08T 05&T 05&05& 05& 05& 05& 05& 05& 05& 05& 05& 05& 05& 05& 05&05&05&T 05&T 05&T 05&T 05&T 05&T 05&T 05&T 05&h08T 09T 09209209209T 0920930909093090909T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09T 09h08T 0lT 0lT 0lT 0lT 0l20lT 0lT 0lT 0lX0T 0zX0T 0;|20;|20;|T 0;|T 0;|T 0;|T 0;|8T 0HT 0[[T 0~~T 0~~T 0~~T 0~~HT 0[[T 0T 0T 0HT 0[[T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0 T 0 T 0 20T 0 T 0 T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0(T 08T 077T 0NNT 0NN20N20NT 0NN20N20N20N20N20NT 0NN8T 077HT 0^^T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0HT 0^^T 0T 0T 0 T 0!T 0"T 0#T 0$HT 0^^T 0%T 0&X0T 0'HT 0(H20HT 0)HT 0*HX0T 0+T 0IT 0IT 0,T 0-T 0.T 0T 0T 0T 0/T 0020T 01T 02T 03T 04T 05T 06T 07T 08T 09T 0:T 0;T 0<8T 077HT 0SST 0=vvT 0>vvT 0?vvT 0@vvT 0AvvHT 0SST 0B($($T 0C($($T 0D($($HT 0SST 0E ( (T 0$( (T 0$( (T 0$( (T 0$( (T 0$( (T 0$( (T 0$( (T 0F ( (T 0G ( (T 0H ( (T 0I ( (20 (T 0J ( (T 0K ( (T 0L ( (20 (T 0M ( (20 (T 0N ( (T 0O ( (T 0P ( (T 0Q ( (T 0R ( (T 0S ( (T 0T ( (T 0U ( ((T 08T 0QQT 0V R RT 0W R R20 R20 RT 0X R R20 R20 R20 RT 0Y R R20 RT 0Z R R8T 0QQHT 0]]T 0[]]T 0\]]T 0]]]T 0^]]T 0_]]T 0`]]T 0a]]HT 0]]T 0bdmdmT 0cdmdmT 0ddmdmT 0edmdmHT 0]]T 0fAuAuT 0gAuAuX0AuT 0hAu\wT 0iAu\wh0\wT 0jAu z20 zT 0kAu zh0\wT 0lAu-T 0mAu-T 0nAu-T 0oAu-T 0pAu-T 0qAu-T 0rAu-T 00-T 00-T 0sAu-T 0tAu-T 0uAu-T 0vAu-T 0wAu-T 0xAu-T 0yAu-h0\wT 0zAuT 0{AuX0AuT 0|AuT 0}AuT 0~AuT 0AuT 0AuX0AuT 0AuT 0ĭT 0ĭT 0ĭ( 08T 0T 0T 02020T 08T 0HT 0T 0T 0HT 0T 0::HT 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 020T 0T 0T 08T 0HT 0T 0T 0HT 0T 0T 0(T 08T 0HT 0T 088208208HT 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0HT 0T 0\\T 0\\T 0\\T 0\\T 0\\T 0\\T 0\\T 0\\T 0\\20\T 0\\8T 0HT 0  T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0HT 0  T 0L<L<HT 0  T 0==20=T 0==X0=T 0=Y@20Y@20Y@20Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@20Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@T 0=Y@X0=T 0=mX0=T 0=oT 0=oT 0=oT 0=oT 0=oT 0=oT 0=oT 0=oT 0=oT 0=oT 0=oT 0=oT 0=o0( 0Ї8T 0T 0T 0T 020T 020T 0202020T 0T 020T 0T 0T 020T 020T 0202020T 0T 0T 08T 0HT 0T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥T 0̥̥HT 0T 0HT 0T 020T 0202020T 0T 0T 020T 020202020T 0T 0T 0T 0 0(T 08T 000T 0ccT 0ccT 0ccT 0cc8T 000T 0ttT 0ttT 0 ttT 0 ttT 0 tt20tT 0 ttT 0 ttT 0tT 0tT 0tT 0ttT 0ttT 0tt20tT 0ttT 0ttT 0ttT 0tt20tT 0ttT 0tt8T 000HT 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0 T 0!T 0"T 0#T 0$T 0%HT 0T 0&<<T 0'<<T 0(<<T 0)<<HT 0T 0*AAT 0+AAT 0,AAT 0-AAT 0.AAT 0/AAT 00AAT 01AAT 02AAT 03AAT 04AAT 05AAT 06AAT 08^AT 08^AT 08^AT 08^AT 07AAT 08AAT 0jAT 0jAT 09AAT 0:AAT 0;AAT 0<AAT 0=AAT 0>AAT 0?AAT 0@AA8T 000HT 0T 0AT 0BT 0CT 0DT 0ET 0FT 0GT 0HT 0IT 0JT 0KT 0LT 0MHT 0T 0NqqT 0OqqT 0PqqT 0QqqT 0RqqT 0SqqHT 0T 0TX0T 0ULT 0VLT 0WL20LT 0XLT 0YLT 0ZLX0T 0[y20y30y30y20yT 0\yT 0]yT 0^yT 0_yT 0`yT 0ayT 0byT 0cyT 0dyT 0eyT 0fyT 0gyT 0hyT 0iyT 0jyT 0kyT 0lyT 0myT 0nyT 0oy20yT 0pyT 0qy8T 000HT 0T 0rT 0sHT 0T 0tYYHT 0T 0u20T 0vT 0wT 0xT 0yT 0zT 0{T 0|8T 000HT 0T 0}T 0~T 0T 0HT 0T 0))T 0))HT 0X0+T 0++T 0++T 0++20+20+T 0++T 0++T 0++X0+T 0+9T 0+9T 0+9209T 0+9T 0+9T 0+9T 0+9T 0+9T 0+9T 0+9T 0+9T 0+9X0+T 0+bT 0+b20b0bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+b20bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+b20bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+bT 0+b(T 08T 0HT 0T 0ҘҘT 0ҘҘHT 0T 077T 077HT 0T 0ڠڠT 0ڠڠT 0ڠڠ(T 08T 0HT 0ۧۧT 0T 0T 0T 0HT 0ۧۧT 0AAHT 0ۧۧT 0hhT 0hhT 0hh8T 0HT 0DDT 0aaT 0aaHT 0DDT 0T 0(T 08 0T 0ھھT 0ھھT 0ھھT 0ھھT 0ھھ8T 0T 0EE20E30E30ET 0EET 0EET 0EET 0EET 0EET 0EET 0EET 0EE(T 08T 0T 0T 08T 0T 0T 0T 020T 0T 020T 0T 0T 0(T 08 0T 0T 08T 0T 0(T 08T 099T 0llT 0ll8T 099T 0O O T 0O O T 0O O (T 08T 0!!T 0LLT 0LLT 0LLT 0LLT 0LLT 0LLT 0LL8T 0!!T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0(T 08 033T 033T 0338T 033T 0m6m620m6T 0m6m6T 0m6m6(T 08T 0;;T 0<<T 0<<T 0<<8T 0;;T 0n?n?T 0 0@@0@T 0@@T 0@@T 0@@T 0@@0@T 0@@T 0@@T 0E@T 0E@T 0E@T 0@@T 0QG@T 0QG@T 0@@T 0H@T 0H@T 0H@T 0@@T 01J@T 01J@T 0 @@T 0 @@0@T 0 @@0@T 0 @@T 0 N@T 0 N@T 0 @@0@T 0@@T 0@@T 0@@T 0@@T 0@@T 0@@T 0R@T 0R@T 0R@T 0R@T 0R@T 0@@T 0@@T 0@@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@40@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@40@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@40@40@40@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0(@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00q@60@60@60@0@60@60@60@0@50@0@50@0@60@0@50@0000 0ø 0 89:DEFGHI]^_`abcdef     2H^vE*jp1t4l'yL T o  3 Z - U 4UV,Hqr#'(hmnrwxv|}TZ[\]fgEJK6<=u{|}~  <]bcpuvNRS!".KLg !7? @ a !!!F"G"^"U#V#e### $$$$8%9%T%%%%&&&'''b(c(v(0)1)Q))))***L+M+o+K,L,`,!-"-5---....[/\/v/00G0001111u2v223393333R4S4d4444444 8:<<=D=E=e===??"@2@C@3BFBBhDEF;GcIJKLLlNOPP*RRWWYZi[[[+\],][]]i^~^^B`{``hbb?cNcd fTfg1hm7m,oZq u:uw~~&9ݤ9wRvN#Piyqb.?Q'$+c]vT"c1LIIJ./78opzd e    , ^ _   !!""x#y#$$&&''!("(5+6+--7/8/22Q4R4|5}555v6w688 ; ;;;<<~<<<<[>\>R@@AyCuE*GGHI[J^K>PQ3RQRSUUWVZ]`]egXgvgillmnoopZtvxzn{{#}~G[;l4CEޔGߛVmӦĨ/>$?nx4q3^.ݾBJ;-gqR!>L^eZ{032.~ o1|Cl   9 $(*..//z0;12h4H588S:=#CEHIRJYKWLMNPShTzVEXY|\p]^_)`acegjjumoq[tvRxqyzU{|17>LWFs]ǬȵĽT46 B<8}ENiZw'4(;y V y/!E"5&Q&'.(1(4(5([((((((((((((+T,.q035>699^;"<<=>o??>@{@A+BhBJCFHKLMOSU;WZW_acf iklmmwo'prst_uwyzz;|d|9}R&fA[~ f hmٮկIJ`7N @ݻ]ξ5p^9&Q(<lHl}/IiK3PDuhPc  p jSvu(c($H$ % & ($((i)*+,-8/002$35w568;W<?)A\BBCE5HM~OPQ R]RU@UUTWWrXY@ZqZ\]]]_bbd~fAjdmmln)p/rAu\u{v\wzwx z1zY{|-r%҆Y0&*;Poo˜1xĭЭմ u:Z\"R; 8`i (b\w Z9$ 2 `  6sgr!d#$'^)r*./1V8L<l<=#==>Y@n@AABCEGINlQpRTuUBW4Z\^cdebfim,moorstwzN|}ˀA% VЇZ:یэ9^OAkВ^0_Ԛv"̥|ܩQ58chXJ30cq(t&40    n} "$,').1g6_8;<=)>?~@AAYCvDGIKFMPNSBTUX8^!`iakcggjlonpCrrux{}:O/ʼn!?ԝc&qV,˯ֱLp5tukyRO^wX!NL'T/nYy~LV  70d ($)>)*+++-//P/\/N02599=AB;DFJQS/Wy]WaVbbcfg iiJnpqIrt~uw {}G~W>܆ 0x).Ҙh7W!ڠȢgۧ0aAahԶDaýھWmEaQcp=2Hm+2$9l O j   !Lj2  "$),+/A23335m666p8:;<"<=>n??@@@A>BBCD5DEENFFQGLHHHIIJ1JqJJK_LM7MM NNOMOP:PPXQQoRR+SS$T\TTTaV$WFYQY_YnYYZZZZ[[+\\n]0^^_:_abb6czcc0ddd,eef^gggEhhhiPjk4lwllmKm~owqqqrirrr1sstu|uuv"wRwwwyz{zzz {?{{#|^||L}z~~~Kmт#ń9g"d6jч<J;,]‹04"kNƒI̓tє-CYtIȗW/Mܞ-v٠Iϡ,4%_ƦΧm"Tj\Ex R;ζ H&m߹vغʻ (C'^6Z '.<NO;0gA9E,> =z38MK='X<mH"\ '   " Q  ( `   /   I ^ y   # q  ? ~  \  X   w    3 H ^ y   F  I     i  Z    C      ! ! " :" w" " # X# # # # >$ y$ $ % W% % % & =& & & ' T' ' ' ( ) @+ s+ + + , , 9- - - . 3. s. . . / 6/ d/ / 0 h0 0 1 P1 1 1 32 n2 2 2 t3 3 3 4 4 5 ,6 6 6 ,7 7 8 = ? @ @ tA A B 8B RB B B C *D D D E E E RF F F F &G yG G G ,H H H *I lI I J HJ J J K TK jK L 4L OL )M M N O /O qO O R =S U VW W OX X Y %Z XZ Z Z Z [ O[ [ [ (\ j\ \ 0] r] ] ] K^ ^ L_ _ 4` ` ` ` a &a c bc c e g g 0h i fj j ok k m 3n o o p s t t .u [u u u 4v fv v v w Dw vw w w x _x x x #y y y !z z z { { { | 0| E| [| q| | | n} }   ހ v e .  ~ ˏ  Ȑ T ֑  ( U ˒ (  ޔ q <  G ̞  ޟ N c y ' i ӡ " X & ^ ' W ߤ  P ˥ ç ' Y ݨ < & q Ϫ  l  I Ԭ 7   I ɯ ^ O · 2 t u ø 0000 000 00000000006000000000000000000000(0(0)0)0*0*0*0*0(0)0)0(0(0(0(0)0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0)0*0+0+0+0*0+0+0+0*0+0+0*0+0+0+0*0+0+0)0*0+0+0)0*0+0+0+0+0+0+0*0+0*0+0+0)0*0*0*0*0*0*0*0(000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000T 0T 044T 044204T 044T 0440404040404T 044T 044T 044T 0T 0"@"@ 02@2@T 0"@"@(T 03B3BT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFBT 0FBFB(T 03B3BT 0 LLT 0 LLT 0 LL(T 03B3BT 0 PPT 0 PPT 0PP(T 03B3BT 0WWT 0WWT 0WWT 0T 0i[i[ 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0[[T 0i[i[T 0i^i^T 0~^i^T 0~^i^T 0 0{`{`T 0 0hbhbT 0 0?c?cT 0?c?cX0?cT 0?c fT 0?c fT 0?c fX0?cT 0?cmT 0?cmT 0?cmX0?cT 0?c uT 0 ?c uX0?cT 0 ?c~T 0 ?c~T 0 ?c~T 0 ?c~T 0?c~T 0?c~T 0?c~T 0?c~T 0?c~X0?cT 0?cT 0?cT 0?cT 0?cX0?cT 0?cRT 0?cRX0?cT 0?c#T 0?c#T 0?c#T 0?c#X0?cT 0?cT 0?cT 0?cT 0 ?cX0?cT 0!?cbT 0"?cbX0?cT 0#?cT 0$?cT 0%?cX0?cT 0&?cT 0'?cT 0(?cX0?cT 0)?c?T 0*?c?X0?cT 0+?cT 0,?cX0?cT 0-?c+T 0.?c+X0?cT 0/?c]T 00?c]X0?cT 01?cT 02?cX0?cT 03?c"T 04?c"T 05?c"X0?cT 06?cT 07?cT 0U 0(T 0 0T 000000000002000T 0IT 0I000000000020000000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000T 0T 020T 0T 0AT 0AT 020T 02020T 0T 0(T 08T 0QQT 0 3R3RT 0 3R3R8T 0QQT 0 UUT 0 UUT 0 UUT 0UUT 0UUT 0UU(T 08T 0ggT 0XgXgT 0XgXgT 0XgXgT 0XgXg8T 0ggT 0mm8T 0ggT 0ooT 0ooT 0ooT 0ooT 0oo(T 08T 0zzT 0n{n{T 0n{n{8T 0zzT 0~~T 0~~T 0~~T 0 ~~T 0!~~(T 08T 0llT 0"T 0#8T 0llT 0$20 20T 0%T 0&T 0'T 0(20T 0)T 0*(T 08T 0T 0+mmT 0,mm8T 0T 0-T 0.T 0/T 00T 01(T 0T 02??T 03??T 04??(T 0T 05T 06(T 0T 0744T 0844(T 0 T 09T 0:T 0;202020T 0<T 0=T 0>(T 0 T 0?--T 0@--T 0A--T 0B--T 0C--(T 0 T 0DT 0E20T 0F20T 0GT 0H20T 0I20T 0JT 0K20T 0LT 0MT 0NT 0OT 0PT 0Q(T 0 T 0RT 0S(T 0 T 0T..T 0U..(T 0T 0VT 0W00000000T 0(T 08T 0HT 011T 0X||T 0Y||T 0Z||T 0[||T 0\||T 0]||HT 011T 0^  T 0_  T 0`  T 0a  T 0b  T 0c  T 0d  T 0e  HT 011T 0fT 0gT 0hT 0iT 0jT 0kT 0l20202020T 0mT 0nT 0oT 0pT 0q20T 0rT 0sT 0tT 0uT 0v20T 0wT 0x202020T 0yT 0zT 0{T 0|T 0}T 0~T 020T 020T 0T 0T 0T 0200T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 02020T 0T 0T 020T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 020T 0T 0T 0T 08T 0HT 0T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  HT 0T 0>>T 0>>T 0>>T 0>>T 0>>T 0>>T 0>>T 0>>HT 0X0T 0T 020T 0X0T 0U20UT 0U20UT 0UT 0UT 0UX0h0T 02020T 0T 020T 0T 0T 020T 0T 0T 0T 0h0T 0k20kT 0kT 0k20kT 0kT 0kT 0k20k20kT 0kT 0kT 0kT 0kT 0kT 0kT 0kT 0kT 0kh0T 0tT 0t20tT 0tT 0tT 0th0T 0n'T 0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'0n'T 0n'T 0n'T 0n'T 0n'T 0n'T 0n'T 0n'T 0n'h0T 09:T 09:209:209:209:T 09:209:309:09:09:309:09:09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:T 09:h0T 0AnT 0AnT 0AnT 0AnT 0An20AnT 0AnT 0AnT 0AnX0T 0{X0T 0}20}20}T 0}T 0}T 0}T 0}8T 0HT 0T 0ʊʊT 0ʊʊT 0ʊʊT 0ʊʊHT 0T 088T 088T 088HT 0T 0˗˗T 0˗˗T 0˗˗T 0˗˗T 0 ˗˗T 0 ˗˗T 0 ˗˗20˗T 0 ˗˗T 0 ˗˗T 0˗˗T 0˗˗T 0˗˗T 0˗˗T 0˗˗(T 08T 0T 0T 02020T 02020202020T 08T 0HT 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0HT 0T 0TTT 0TTT 0 TTT 0!TTT 0"TTT 0#TTT 0$TTHT 0T 0%T 0&X0T 0'T 0(20T 0)T 0*X0T 0+QT 0QT 0QT 0,QT 0-QT 0.QT 09QT 09QT 09QT 0/QT 00Q20QT 01QT 02QT 03QT 04QT 05QT 06QT 07QT 08QT 09QT 0:QT 0;QT 0<Q8T 0HT 0T 0=T 0>T 0?T 0@T 0AHT 0T 0B%%T 0C%%T 0D%%HT 0T 0Eg)g)T 0)g)T 0)g)T 0)g)T 0)g)T 0)g)T 0)g)T 0)g)T 0Fg)g)T 0Gg)g)T 0Hg)g)T 0Ig)g)20g)T 0Jg)g)T 0Kg)g)T 0Lg)g)20g)T 0Mg)g)20g)T 0Ng)g)T 0Og)g)T 0Pg)g)T 0Qg)g)T 0Rg)g)T 0Sg)g)T 0Tg)g)T 0Ug)g)(T 08T 0RSRST 0VgSgST 0WgSgS20gS20gST 0XgSgS20gS20gS20gST 0YgSgS20gST 0ZgSgS8T 0RSRSHT 0^^T 0[+_+_T 0\+_+_T 0]+_+_T 0^+_+_T 0_+_+_T 0`+_+_T 0a+_+_HT 0^^T 0bnnT 0cnnT 0dnnT 0ennHT 0^^T 0fvvT 0gvvX0vT 0hvxT 0ivxh0xT 0jvk{20k{T 0kvk{h0xT 0lvT 0mvT 0nvT 0ovT 0pvT 0qvT 0rvT 0T 0T 0svT 0tvT 0uvT 0vvT 0wvT 0xvT 0yvh0xT 0zvT 0{vX0vT 0|vT 0}vT 0~vT 0vT 0vX0vT 0vT 0JT 0JT 0J( 08T 011T 0GGT 0GG20G20GT 0GG8T 011HT 0;;T 0iiT 0iiHT 0;;T 0HT 0;;T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 020T 0T 0T 08T 011HT 0T 0T 0HT 0T 044T 044(T 08T 0^^HT 0ttT 02020HT 0ttT 0xxT 0xxT 0xxT 0xxT 0xxT 0xxT 0xxT 0xxHT 0ttT 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 020T 08T 0^^HT 0yyT 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0HT 0yyT 0==HT 0yyT 0>>20>T 0>>X0>T 0>A20A20A20AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>A20AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AT 0>AX0>T 0>nX0>T 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$qT 0>$q0( 0a8T 0T 0T 0T 020T 020T 0202020T 0T 020T 0T 0T 020T 020T 0202020T 0T 0T 08T 0HT 0//T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]T 0]]HT 0//T 0__HT 0//T 020T 0202020T 0T 0T 020T 020202020T 0T 0T 0T 0 0(T 08T 0T 0T 0T 0T 08T 0T 0T 0T 0 T 0 T 0 20T 0 T 0 T 0.T 0.T 0.T 0T 0T 020T 0T 0T 0T 020T 0T 08T 0HT 0bbT 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0 T 0!T 0"T 0#T 0$T 0%HT 0bbT 0&>>T 0'>>T 0(>>T 0)>>HT 0bbT 0*GCGCT 0+GCGCT 0,GCGCT 0-GCGCT 0.GCGCT 0/GCGCT 00GCGCT 01GCGCT 02GCGCT 03GCGCT 04GCGCT 05GCGCT 06GCGCT 0_GCT 0_GCT 0_GCT 0_GCT 07GCGCT 08GCGCT 0\lGCT 0\lGCT 09GCGCT 0:GCGCT 0;GCGCT 0<GCGCT 0=GCGCT 0>GCGCT 0?GCGCT 0@GCGC8T 0HT 0T 0A܁܁T 0B܁܁T 0C܁܁T 0D܁܁T 0E܁܁T 0F܁܁T 0G܁܁T 0H܁܁T 0I܁܁T 0J܁܁T 0K܁܁T 0L܁܁T 0M܁܁HT 0T 0N11T 0O11T 0P11T 0Q11T 0R11T 0S11HT 0T 0T{{X0{T 0U{ T 0V{ T 0W{ 20 T 0X{ T 0Y{ T 0Z{ X0{T 0[{:20:30:30:20:T 0\{:T 0]{:T 0^{:T 0_{:T 0`{:T 0a{:T 0b{:T 0c{:T 0d{:T 0e{:T 0f{:T 0g{:T 0h{:T 0i{:T 0j{:T 0k{:T 0l{:T 0m{:T 0n{:T 0o{:20:T 0p{:T 0q{:8T 0HT 0hhT 0rT 0sHT 0hhT 0tHT 0hhT 0uZZ20ZT 0vZZT 0wZZT 0xZZT 0yZZT 0zZZT 0{ZZT 0|ZZ8T 0HT 0PPT 0}rrT 0~rrT 0rrT 0rrHT 0PPT 0**T 0**HT 0PPX0N-T 0N-i-T 0N-i-T 0N-i-20i-20i-T 0N-i-T 0N-i-T 0N-i-X0N-T 0N-};T 0N-};T 0N-};20};T 0N-};T 0N-};T 0N-};T 0N-};T 0N-};T 0N-};T 0N-};T 0N-};T 0N-};X0N-T 0N-dT 0N-d20d0dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-d20dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-d20dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-dT 0N-d(T 08T 0ZZHT 0T 0T 0HT 0T 0T 0HT 0T 0T 0T 0(T 08T 0llHT 0T 0T 0T 0T 0HT 0T 0HT 0T 0..T 0..T 0..8T 0llHT 0  T 0''T 0''HT 0  T 0nnT 0(T 0oo8 0||T 0T 0T 0T 0T 08T 0||T 0  20 30 30 T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  T 0  (T 0oo8T 0``T 0T 08T 0``T 0T 0T 020T 0T 020T 0T 0T 0(T 0oo8 0T 0T 08T 0T 0XX(T 0oo8T 0T 02 2 T 02 2 8T 0T 0  T 0  T 0  (T 0oo8T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 08T 0T 0!!T 0!!T 0!!T 0!!T 0!!T 0!!T 0!!T 0!!(T 0oo8 0n5n5T 055T 0558T 0n5n5T 038382038T 03838T 03838(T 0oo8T 0==T 0==T 0==T 0==8T 0==T 04A4AT 0 0LBLB0LBT 0kBLBT 0kBLBT 0kBLBT 0kBLB0LBT 0kBLBT 0kBLBT 0_GLBT 0_GLBT 0_GLBT 0kBLBT 0ILBT 0ILBT 0kBLBT 0JLBT 0JLBT 0JLBT 0kBLBT 0KLBT 0KLBT 0 kBLBT 0 kBLB0LBT 0 kBLB0LBT 0 kBLBT 0OLBT 0OLBT 0 kBLB0LBT 0kBLBT 0kBLBT 0kBLBT 0kBLBT 0kBLBT 0LBLBT 0TLBT 0TLBT 0RL@T 0RL@T 0RL@T 0L@L@T 0L@L@T 0L@L@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@40@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@40@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@40@40@40@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 0q@60@0@60@0 0[|ACEGIIIIIIIIIIIIIL p Pr#G*u09N@[dt3Ҿ&!,K#qc~0(:(YWm ~˗sݹ2,0GgZzL#ջ;2 5H,28Reu҄ɕ9ݫZj.Iew^bl 6%JT^m+Цs3I_j: Xq+:GW!^Ydl0nqr~yJ }B- b } R+ 4 = L U \ n + ˝ 2 : ɺ U "+8>ABDEGHIKLNQSVWXZ[\^_abcefgijlmnpqstuvxy{|}    "#%')Gd 'mw|ZJ< !!{"""""""" ##b#u####R$$K%%& ''?(()F*U++,8--./b00112L3K4!556[7889u:;;R<<DEWh ,)}=Iq%XUȽ}V40000A]9ٶ&(,\JeҎ\6f̭,/iiԧY/9s=MXcq"9kvN=m ^  . 98 ,A &R =^ k ޟ X l U U       !#$%&'()*,-./012345679:;<=?@CFJMOPRTUY]`dhkorwz~  !$&(+U llllllqqq-zGzMzSzmzsz{3{8{fۗrɭӶٶ@Z`@Z`2LRd~f^x~%RlqtYrvrr˴Ѵmmm lj͉Պۊ/5 $%%%%%)))3KMKSKaaawXrx2LR   5OU(((v)))***+++,,,,-------.E/_/e/|||A[afևȍy \v|,FL-GMsss$>D!',FLFFFFG GLLLTUUWWW-[G[M[ 28p!!!p222233QQQSSS¸ 18<L!! (-m  # & T o r  + . 0KN:=n$$?BPkn)CGTnt(.4NT!""!"<"?"#3#9#o$$$$$%% %&%.//?0Y0_0555555EEEGGGRSSTTTT UUWWWWWWWWWcccrrrxxxUpsOio ˜ܘ$+1̻ſ-GM39;U[>X^   BBBEEEM#M&MW+W1W6WPWVW&_HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH8@0(  B S  ?¸ C _Ref91300595 Symbol1_trefCommittee_tref Language_tref _Toc84736035 _Toc87957155 _Toc87957570 _Toc88279720 _Toc88280426 _Toc88378273 _Toc90953705 _Ref91242679 _Toc91302322 _Toc91391614 _Toc91391801 _Toc91403492 _Toc84736036 _Toc87957156 _Toc87957571 _Toc88279721 _Toc88280427 _Toc88378274 _Toc90953706 _Toc91302323 _Toc91391615 _Toc91391802 _Toc91403493 _Toc84736037 _Toc87957157 _Toc87957572 _Toc88279722 _Toc88280428 _Toc88378275 _Toc90953707 _Toc91302324 _Toc91391616 _Toc91391803 _Toc91403494 _Ref90808629 _Toc84736038 _Toc87957158 _Toc87957573 _Toc88279723 _Toc88280429 _Toc88378276 _Toc90953708 _Toc91302325 _Toc91391617 _Toc91391804 _Toc91403495 _Toc84736039 _Toc87957159 _Toc87957574 _Toc88279724 _Toc88280430 _Toc88378277 _Toc90953709 _Toc91302326 _Toc91391618 _Toc91391805 _Toc91403496 _Toc84736040 _Toc87957160 _Toc87957575 _Toc88279725 _Toc88280431 _Toc88378278 _Toc90953710 _Toc91302327 _Toc91391619 _Toc91391806 _Toc91403497 _Toc84736041 _Toc87957161 _Toc87957576 _Toc88279726 _Toc88280432 _Toc88378279 _Toc90953711 _Toc91302328 _Toc91391620 _Toc91391807 _Toc91403498 _Toc84736042 _Toc87957162 _Toc87957577 _Toc88279727 _Toc88280433 _Toc88378280 _Toc90953712 _Toc91302329 _Toc91391621 _Toc91391808 _Toc91403499 _Toc84736043 _Toc87957163 _Toc87957578 _Toc88279728 _Toc88280434 _Toc88378281 _Toc90953713 _Toc91302330 _Toc91391622 _Toc91391809 _Toc91403500 _Toc84736044 _Toc87957164 _Toc87957579 _Toc88279729 _Toc88280435 _Toc88378282 _Toc90953714 _Toc91302331 _Toc91391623 _Toc91391810 _Toc91403501 _Toc84736045 _Toc87957165 _Toc87957580 _Toc88279730 _Toc88280436 _Toc88378283 _Toc90953715 _Toc91302332 _Toc91391624 _Toc91391811 _Toc91403502 _Toc84736046 _Toc87957166 _Toc87957581 _Toc88279731 _Toc88280437 _Toc88378284 _Toc90953716 _Toc91302333 _Toc91391625 _Toc91391812 _Toc91403503 _Toc84736047 _Toc87957167 _Toc87957582 _Toc88279732 _Toc88280438 _Toc88378285 _Toc90953717 _Toc91302334 _Toc91391626 _Toc91391813 _Toc91403504 _Toc87957168 _Toc87957583 _Toc88279733 _Toc88280439 _Toc88378286 _Toc90953718 _Toc91302335 _Toc91391627 _Toc91391814 _Toc91403505 _Toc90953719 _Toc91391628 _Ref91242670 _Toc90953720 _Toc91391629 _Toc90953721 _Toc91391630 _Toc90953722 _Toc91391631 _Toc90953723 _Toc91391632 _Toc90953724 _Toc91391633 _Toc90953725 _Toc91391634 _Toc90953726 _Toc91391635 _Toc90953727 _Toc91391636 _Toc90953728 _Toc91391637 _Toc90953729 _Toc91391638 _Toc90953730 _Toc91391639 _Toc90953731 _Toc91391640 _Toc90953732 _Toc91391641 _Toc90953733 _Toc91391642 _Toc90953734 _Toc91391643 _Toc90953735 _Toc91391644 _Toc90953736 _Toc91391645 _Toc87957169 _Toc87957584 _Toc88279734 _Toc88280440 _Toc88378287 _Toc90953737 _Toc91302336 _Toc91391646 _Toc91391815 _Toc91403506 _Toc87886044 _Toc87940402 _Toc87947426 _Toc87957170 _Toc87957585 _Toc88279735 _Toc88280441 _Toc88378288 _Toc90953738 _Toc91302337 _Toc91391647 _Toc91391816 _Toc91403507 _Toc87886045 _Toc87940403 _Toc87947427 _Toc87957171 _Toc87957586 _Toc88279736 _Toc88280442 _Toc88378289 _Toc90953739 _Toc91302338 _Toc91391648 _Toc91391817 _Toc91403508 _Toc87886046 _Ref91242281 _Ref91242328 _Toc87886050 _Toc87886051 _Ref68946397 _Toc87886052 _Ref91242372 _Ref68857773 _Ref68929726 _Ref68929451 _Toc87886053temp _Toc87886054 _Toc87886055 _Ref91298986 _Ref91299010 _Toc87886056 _Toc87940404 _Toc87947428 _Toc87957172 _Toc87957587 _Toc88279737 _Toc88280443 _Toc88378290 _Toc90953740 _Toc91302339 _Toc91391649 _Toc91391818 _Toc91403509 _Toc87940405 _Toc87947429 _Toc87957173 _Toc87957588 _Toc88279738 _Toc88280444 _Toc88378291 _Toc90953741 _Toc91302340 _Toc91391650 _Toc91391819 _Toc91403510 _Toc87940406 _Toc87947430 _Toc87957174 _Toc87957589 _Toc88279739 _Toc88280445 _Toc88378292 _Toc90953742 _Toc91302341 _Toc91391651 _Toc91391820 _Toc91403511 _Ref88144807 _Ref87945556 _Ref88144810 _Toc87886057 _Toc87940407 _Toc87947431 _Toc87957175 _Toc87957590 _Toc88279740 _Toc88280446 _Toc88378293 _Toc90953743 _Toc91302342 _Toc91391652 _Toc91391821 _Toc91403512 _Toc87940408 _Toc87947432 _Toc87957176 _Toc87957591 _Toc88279741 _Toc88280447 _Toc88378294 _Toc90953744 _Toc91302343 _Toc91391653 _Toc91391822 _Toc91403513 _Ref90827558 _Ref88145574 _Ref90838603 _Toc87940409 _Toc87947433 _Toc87957177 _Toc87957592 _Toc88279742 _Toc88280448 _Toc88378295 _Toc90953745 _Toc91302344 _Toc91391654 _Toc91391823 _Toc91403514 _Toc87940410 _Toc87947434 _Toc87957178 _Toc87957593 _Toc88279743 _Toc88280449 _Toc88378296 _Toc90953746 _Toc91302345 _Toc91391655 _Toc91391824 _Toc91403515 _Ref88143276 _Ref91300717 _Toc87886058 _Toc87940411 _Toc87947435 _Toc87957179 _Toc87957594 _Toc88279744 _Toc88280450 _Toc88378297 _Toc90953747 _Toc91302346 _Toc91391656 _Toc91391825 _Toc91403516 _Toc87940412 _Toc87947436 _Toc87957180 _Toc87957595 _Toc88279745 _Toc88280451 _Toc88378298 _Toc90953748 _Toc91302347 _Toc91391657 _Toc91391826 _Toc91403517 _Toc87940413 _Toc87947437 _Toc87957181 _Toc87957596 _Toc88279746 _Toc88280452 _Toc88378299 _Toc90953749 _Toc91302348 _Toc91391658 _Toc91391827 _Toc91403518 _Ref88228183 _Ref88129212 _Ref88228185 _Toc87886059 _Toc87940414 _Toc87947438 _Toc87957182 _Toc87957597 _Toc88279747 _Toc88280453 _Toc88378300 _Toc90953750 _Toc91302349 _Toc91391659 _Toc91391828 _Toc91403519 _Toc87940415 _Toc87947439 _Toc87957183 _Toc87957598 _Toc88279748 _Toc88280454 _Toc88378301 _Toc90953751 _Toc91302350 _Toc91391660 _Toc91391829 _Toc91403520 _Toc87940416 _Toc87947440 _Toc87957184 _Toc87957599 _Toc88279749 _Toc88280455 _Toc88378302 _Toc90953752 _Toc91302351 _Toc91391661 _Toc91391830 _Toc91403521 _Ref90796376 _Ref91299151 _Toc87886060 _Toc87940417 _Toc87947441 _Toc87957185 _Toc87957600 _Toc88279750 _Toc88280456 _Toc88378303 _Toc90953753 _Toc91302352 _Toc91391662 _Toc91391831 _Toc91403522 _Toc87940418 _Toc87947442 _Toc87957186 _Toc87957601 _Toc88279751 _Toc88280457 _Toc88378304 _Toc90953754 _Toc91302353 _Toc91391663 _Toc91391832 _Toc91403523 _Toc87940419 _Toc87947443 _Toc87957187 _Toc87957602 _Toc88279752 _Toc88280458 _Toc88378305 _Toc90953755 _Toc91302354 _Toc91391664 _Toc91391833 _Toc91403524 _Toc84756047 _Toc85368094 _Toc85429967 _Toc87886061 _Toc87940420 _Toc87947444 _Toc87957188 _Toc87957603 _Toc88279753 _Toc88280459 _Toc88378306 _Toc90953756 _Toc91302355 _Toc91391665 _Toc91391834 _Toc91403525 _Ref88143155 _Toc87886062 _Toc87940421 _Toc87947445 _Toc87957189 _Toc87957604 _Toc88279754 _Toc88280460 _Toc88378307 _Toc90953757 _Toc91302356 _Toc91391666 _Toc91391835 _Toc91403526 _Toc87886063 _Toc87940422 _Toc87947446 _Toc87957190 _Toc87957605 _Toc88279755 _Toc88280461 _Toc88378308 _Toc90953758 _Toc91302357 _Toc91391667 _Toc91391836 _Toc91403527 _Toc87886064 _Toc87940423 _Toc87947447 _Toc87957191 _Toc87957606 _Toc88279756 _Toc88280462 _Toc88378309 _Toc90953759 _Toc91302358 _Toc91391668 _Toc91391837 _Toc91403528 _Toc87886066 _Toc87940425 _Toc87947449 _Toc87957192 _Toc87957607 _Toc88279757 _Toc88280463 _Toc88378310 _Toc90953760 _Toc91302359 _Toc91391669 _Toc91391838 _Toc91403529 _Ref88143673 _Ref88143674 _Ref91299325 _Toc87886067 _Toc87940426 _Toc87947450 _Toc87957193 _Toc87957608 _Toc88279758 _Toc88280464 _Toc88378311 _Toc90953761 _Toc91302360 _Toc91391670 _Toc91391839 _Toc91403530 _Ref88143120 _Ref97347624 _Ref91299473 _Ref91299488 _Ref91299532 _Ref88143123 _Toc87886068 _Toc87940427 _Toc87947451 _Toc87957194 _Toc87957609 _Toc88279759 _Toc88280465 _Toc88378312 _Toc90953762 _Toc91302361 _Toc91391671 _Toc91391840 _Toc91403531 _Toc87886069 _Toc87940428 _Toc87947452 _Toc87957195 _Toc87957610 _Toc88279760 _Toc88280466 _Toc88378313 _Toc90953763 _Toc91302362 _Toc91391672 _Toc91391841 _Toc91403532 _Toc84756057 _Toc85368105 _Toc85429978 _Toc87886070 _Toc87940429 _Toc87947453 _Toc87957196 _Toc87957611 _Toc88279761 _Toc88280467 _Toc88378314 _Toc90953764 _Toc91302363 _Toc91391673 _Toc91391842 _Toc91403533 _Ref88144312 _Toc87940430 _Toc87947454 _Toc87957197 _Toc87957612 _Toc88279762 _Toc88280468 _Toc88378315 _Toc90953765 _Toc91302364 _Toc91391674 _Toc91391843 _Toc91403534 _Toc87886085 _Toc87940431 _Toc87947455 _Toc87957198 _Toc87957613 _Toc88279763 _Toc88280469 _Toc88378316 _Toc90953766 _Toc91302365 _Toc91391675 _Toc91391844 _Toc91403535 _Toc87886086 _Toc87940432 _Toc87947456 _Toc87957199 _Toc87957614 _Toc88279764 _Toc88280470 _Toc88378317 _Toc90953767 _Toc91302366 _Toc91391676 _Toc91391845 _Toc91403536 _Toc87940433 _Toc87947457 _Toc87957200 _Toc87957615 _Toc88279765 _Toc88280471 _Toc88378318 _Toc90953768 _Toc91302367 _Toc91391677 _Toc91391846 _Toc91403537 _Toc87940434 _Toc87947458 _Toc87957201 _Toc87957616 _Toc88279766 _Toc88280472 _Toc88378319 _Toc90953769 _Toc91302368 _Toc91391678 _Toc91391847 _Toc91403538 _Toc87940435 _Toc87947459 _Toc87957202 _Toc87957617 _Toc88279767 _Toc88280473 _Toc88378320 _Toc90953770 _Toc91302369 _Toc91391679 _Toc91391848 _Toc91403539 _Ref83698116 _Ref88377707 _Ref81019352 _Ref88144090 _Ref80605111 _Ref90826832 _Ref85453488 _Ref81801728 _Ref90838197 _Ref90619862 _Ref90619324 _Ref90838294 _Ref90618293 _Ref91299619 _Ref85362405 _Ref88143204 _Ref81281900 _Ref90724921 _Ref81197730 _Ref81195384 _Ref88143891 _Toc87957203 _Toc87957618 _Toc88279768 _Toc88280474 _Toc88378321 _Toc90953771 _Toc91302370 _Toc91391680 _Toc91391849 _Toc91403540 _Toc87940437 _Toc87947461 _Toc87957204 _Toc87957619 _Toc88279769 _Toc88280475 _Toc88378322 _Toc90953772 _Toc91302371 _Toc91391681 _Toc91391850 _Toc91403541 _Toc87940438 _Toc87947462 _Toc87957205 _Toc87957620 _Toc88279770 _Toc88280476 _Toc88378323 _Toc90953773 _Toc91302372 _Toc91391682 _Toc91391851 _Toc91403542 _Toc87940439 _Toc87947463 _Toc87957206 _Toc87957621 _Toc88279771 _Toc88280477 _Toc88378324 _Toc90953774 _Toc91302373 _Toc91391683 _Toc91391852 _Toc91403543 _Toc91391684 _Toc91391685 _Ref83699979 _Ref83728623 _Toc91391686 _Ref90831355 _Ref88143978 _Ref88218667 _Ref88144383 _Ref88143994 _Ref85881238 _Ref88315721 _Ref87519828 _Ref88220144 _Ref91299708 _Ref85971707 _Ref88219980 _Ref88144432 _Ref88202514 _Ref81709434 _Ref83698604 _Ref81709436 _Ref91324814 _Ref88144124 _Ref88144552 _Ref81282680 _Ref90881112 _Ref93982045 _Ref88314093 _Ref88144599 _Toc91391687 _Toc91391688 _Ref90695620 _Ref83700982 _Ref88145127 _Ref91300774 _Ref90832786 _Toc87886088 _Toc87940440 _Toc87947464 _Toc87957207 _Toc87957622 _Toc88279772 _Toc88280478 _Toc88378325 _Toc90953775 _Toc91302374 _Toc91391689 _Toc91391853 _Toc91403544 _Toc87940441 _Toc87947465 _Toc87957208 _Toc87957623 _Toc88279773 _Toc88280479 _Toc88378326 _Toc90953776 _Toc91302375 _Toc91391690 _Toc91391854 _Toc91403545 _Toc87940442 _Toc87947466 _Toc87957209 _Toc87957624 _Toc88279774 _Toc88280480 _Toc88378327 _Toc90953777 _Toc91302376 _Toc91391691 _Toc91391855 _Toc91403546 _Toc87940443 _Toc87947467 _Toc87957210 _Toc87957625 _Toc88279775 _Toc88280481 _Toc88378328 _Toc90953778 _Toc91302377 _Toc91391692 _Toc91391856 _Toc91403547 _Ref81199229 _Ref81199386 _Ref81199565 _Ref88144652 _Ref91149483 _Ref81211299 _Ref88144712 _Ref88144713 _Ref88229141 _Ref90880982 _Ref91299263 _Toc87886089 _Toc87940444 _Toc87947468 _Toc87957211 _Toc87957626 _Toc88279776 _Toc88280482 _Toc88378329 _Toc90953779 _Toc91302378 _Toc91391693 _Toc91391857 _Toc91403548 _Toc87886090 _Toc87940445 _Toc87947469 _Toc87957212 _Toc87957627 _Toc88279777 _Toc88280483 _Toc88378330 _Toc90953780 _Toc91302379 _Toc91391694 _Toc91391858 _Toc91403549 _Ref88143555 _Toc87957213 _Toc87957628 _Toc88279778 _Toc88280484 _Toc88378331 _Toc90953781 _Toc91302380 _Toc91391695 _Toc91391859 _Toc91403550 _Toc87940447 _Toc87947471 _Toc87957214 _Toc87957629 _Toc88279779 _Toc88280485 _Toc88378332 _Toc90953782 _Toc91302381 _Toc91391696 _Toc91391860 _Toc91403551 _Toc87940448 _Toc87947472 _Toc87957215 _Toc87957630 _Toc88279780 _Toc88280486 _Toc88378333 _Toc90953783 _Toc91302382 _Toc91391697 _Toc91391861 _Toc91403552 _Toc87940449 _Toc87947473 _Toc87957216 _Toc87957631 _Toc88279781 _Toc88280487 _Toc88378334 _Toc90953784 _Toc91302383 _Toc91391698 _Toc91391862 _Toc91403553 _Toc91391699 _Ref88218020 _Toc91391700 _Ref88144669 _Ref81211083 _Ref90829659 _Ref88144670 _Ref81211089 _Ref88145081 _Ref97624112 _Ref81275213 _Ref81210924 _Ref91299848 _Toc87886092 _Toc87940450 _Toc87947474 _Toc87957217 _Toc87957632 _Toc88279782 _Toc88280488 _Toc88378335 _Toc90953785 _Toc91302384 _Toc91391701 _Toc91391863 _Toc91403554 _Toc87940451 _Toc87947475 _Toc87957218 _Toc87957633 _Toc88279783 _Toc88280489 _Toc88378336 _Toc90953786 _Toc91302385 _Toc91391702 _Toc91391864 _Toc91403555 _Toc87940452 _Toc87947476 _Toc87957219 _Toc87957634 _Toc88279784 _Toc88280490 _Toc88378337 _Toc90953787 _Toc91302386 _Toc91391703 _Toc91391865 _Toc91403556 _Toc87940453 _Toc87947477 _Toc87957220 _Toc87957635 _Toc88279785 _Toc88280491 _Toc88378338 _Toc90953788 _Toc91302387 _Toc91391704 _Toc91391866 _Toc91403557 _Toc87886093 _Toc87940454 _Toc87947478 _Toc87957221 _Toc87957636 _Toc88279786 _Toc88280492 _Toc88378339 _Toc90953789 _Toc91302388 _Toc91391705 _Toc91391867 _Toc91403558 _Toc87886094 _Toc87940455 _Toc87947479 _Toc87957222 _Toc87957637 _Toc88279787 _Toc88280493 _Toc88378340 _Toc90953790 _Toc91302389 _Toc91391706 _Toc91391868 _Toc91403559 _Ref85533788 _Toc87957223 _Toc87957638 _Toc88279788 _Toc88280494 _Toc88378341 _Toc90953791 _Toc91302390 _Toc91391707 _Toc91391869 _Toc91403560 _Toc87940457 _Toc87947481 _Toc87957224 _Toc87957639 _Toc88279789 _Toc88280495 _Toc88378342 _Toc90953792 _Toc91302391 _Toc91391708 _Toc91391870 _Toc91403561 _Toc87940458 _Toc87947482 _Toc87957225 _Toc87957640 _Toc88279790 _Toc88280496 _Toc88378343 _Toc90953793 _Toc91302392 _Toc91391709 _Toc91391871 _Toc91403562 _Toc87940459 _Toc87947483 _Toc87957226 _Toc87957641 _Toc88279791 _Toc88280497 _Toc88378344 _Toc90953794 _Toc91302393 _Toc91391710 _Toc91391872 _Toc91403563 _Toc91391711 _Ref81283917 _Ref90829689 _Ref81283920 _Ref90832751 _Toc91391712 _Toc91391713 _Ref81297390 _Ref90828363 _Toc91391714 _Toc87525722 _Toc87886097 _Toc87940463 _Toc87947487 _Toc87957229 _Toc87957642 _Toc88279792 _Toc88280498 _Toc88378345 _Toc90953795 _Toc91302394 _Toc91391715 _Toc91391873 _Toc91403564 _Toc87525723 _Toc87886098 _Toc87940464 _Toc87947488 _Toc87957230 _Toc87957643 _Toc88279793 _Toc88280499 _Toc88378346 _Toc90953796 _Toc91302395 _Toc91391716 _Toc91391874 _Toc91403565 _Ref88143818 _Ref88143820 _Toc87957231 _Toc87957644 _Toc88279794 _Toc88280500 _Toc88378347 _Toc90953797 _Toc91302396 _Toc91391717 _Toc91391875 _Toc91403566 _Toc87940466 _Toc87947490 _Toc87957232 _Toc87957645 _Toc88279795 _Toc88280501 _Toc88378348 _Toc90953798 _Toc91302397 _Toc91391718 _Toc91391876 _Toc91403567 _Ref91397794 _Toc87940467 _Toc87947491 _Toc87957233 _Toc87957646 _Toc88279796 _Toc88280502 _Toc88378349 _Toc90953799 _Toc91302398 _Toc91391719 _Toc91391877 _Toc91403568 _Toc87940468 _Toc87947492 _Toc87957234 _Toc87957647 _Toc88279797 _Toc88280503 _Toc88378350 _Toc90953800 _Toc91302399 _Toc91391720 _Toc91391878 _Toc91403569 _Ref86116831 _Ref90829792 _Ref88145261 _Ref91397799 _Toc87525725 _Toc87886100 _Toc87940469 _Toc87947493 _Toc87957235 _Toc87957648 _Toc88279798 _Toc88280504 _Toc88378351 _Toc90953801 _Toc91302400 _Toc91391721 _Toc91391879 _Toc91403570 _Toc87940470 _Toc87947494 _Toc87957236 _Toc87957649 _Toc88279799 _Toc88280505 _Toc88378352 _Toc90953802 _Toc91302401 _Toc91391722 _Toc91391880 _Toc91403571 _Toc87940471 _Toc87947495 _Toc87957237 _Toc87957650 _Toc88279800 _Toc88280506 _Toc88378353 _Toc90953803 _Toc91302402 _Toc91391723 _Toc91391881 _Toc91403572 _Toc83129936 _Toc83628894 _Toc83726460 _Toc87525730 _Toc87886105 _Toc87940481 _Toc87947505 _Toc87957238 _Toc87957651 _Toc88279801 _Toc88280507 _Toc88378354 _Toc90953804 _Toc91302403 _Toc91391724 _Toc91391882 _Toc91403573 _Toc83129937 _Toc83628895 _Toc83726461 _Toc87525731 _Toc87886106 _Toc87940482 _Toc87947506 _Toc87957239 _Toc87957652 _Toc88279802 _Toc88280508 _Toc88378355 _Toc90953805 _Toc91302404 _Toc91391725 _Toc91391883 _Toc91403574 _Toc87940483 _Toc87947507 _Toc87957240 _Toc87957653 _Toc88279803 _Toc88280509 _Toc88378356 _Toc90953806 _Toc91302405 _Toc91391726 _Toc91391884 _Toc91403575 _Toc87940484 _Toc87947508 _Toc87957241 _Toc87957654 _Toc88279804 _Toc88280510 _Toc88378357 _Toc90953807 _Toc91302406 _Toc91391727 _Toc91391885 _Toc91403576 _Toc87940485 _Toc87947509 _Toc87957242 _Toc87957655 _Toc88279805 _Toc88280511 _Toc88378358 _Toc90953808 _Toc91302407 _Toc91391728 _Toc91391886 _Toc91403577 _Ref88145449 _Ref88231996 _Toc83129940 _Toc83628898 _Toc83726464 _Toc87525734 _Toc87886109 _Toc87940492 _Toc87947516 _Toc87957243 _Toc87957656 _Toc88279806 _Toc88280512 _Toc88378359 _Toc90953809 _Toc91302408 _Toc91391729 _Toc91391887 _Toc91403578 _Toc87940493 _Toc87947517 _Toc87957244 _Toc87957657 _Toc88279807 _Toc88280513 _Toc88378360 _Toc90953810 _Toc91302409 _Toc91391730 _Toc91391888 _Toc91403579 _Toc87940494 _Toc87947518 _Toc87957245 _Toc87957658 _Toc88279808 _Toc88280514 _Toc88378361 _Toc90953811 _Toc91302410 _Toc91391731 _Toc91391889 _Toc91403580 _Toc87940495 _Toc87947519 _Toc87957246 _Toc87957659 _Toc88279809 _Toc88280515 _Toc88378362 _Toc90953812 _Toc91302411 _Toc91391732 _Toc91391890 _Toc91403581 _Ref88145490 _Ref88377818 _Ref88377819 _Ref86467908 _Ref90798204 _Ref91300059 _Ref91146228 _Ref91299994 _Toc83129941 _Toc83628899 _Toc83726465 _Toc87525735 _Toc87886110 _Toc87940496 _Toc87947520 _Toc87957247 _Toc87957660 _Toc88279810 _Toc88280516 _Toc88378363 _Toc90953813 _Toc91302412 _Toc91391733 _Toc91391891 _Toc91403582 _Toc83129942 _Toc83628900 _Toc83726466 _Toc87525736 _Toc87886111 _Toc87940497 _Toc87947521 _Toc87957248 _Toc87957661 _Toc88279811 _Toc88280517 _Toc88378364 _Toc90953814 _Toc91302413 _Toc91391734 _Toc91391892 _Toc91403583 _Toc88279812 _Toc88280518 _Toc88378365 _Toc90953815 _Toc91302414 _Toc91391735 _Toc91391893 _Toc91403584 _Toc83129943 _Toc83628901 _Toc83726467 _Toc87525737 _Toc87886112 _Toc87940498 _Toc87947522 _Toc87957249 _Toc87957662 _Toc88279813 _Toc88280519 _Toc88378366 _Toc90953816 _Toc91302415 _Toc91391736 _Toc91391894 _Toc91403585 _Toc87940499 _Toc87947523 _Toc87957250 _Toc87957663 _Toc88279814 _Toc88280520 _Toc88378367 _Toc90953817 _Toc91302416 _Toc91391737 _Toc91391895 _Toc91403586 _Toc87940500 _Toc87947524 _Toc87957251 _Toc87957664 _Toc88279815 _Toc88280521 _Toc88378368 _Toc90953818 _Toc91302417 _Toc91391738 _Toc91391896 _Toc91403587 _Toc87940501 _Toc87947525 _Toc87957252 _Toc87957665 _Toc88279816 _Toc88280522 _Toc88378369 _Toc90953819 _Toc91302418 _Toc91391739 _Toc91391897 _Toc91403588 _Ref91232051 _Ref91232081 _Ref91232083 _Toc87886444 _Toc87940502 _Toc87947526 _Toc87957253 _Toc87957666 _Toc88279817 _Toc88280523 _Toc88378370 _Toc90953820 _Toc91302419 _Toc91391740 _Toc91391898 _Toc91403589 _Toc87886445 _Toc87940503 _Toc87947527 _Toc87957254 _Toc87957667 _Toc88279818 _Toc88280524 _Toc88378371 _Toc90953821 _Toc91302420 _Toc91391741 _Toc91391899 _Toc91403590 _Toc87886446 _Toc87940504 _Toc87947528 _Toc87957255 _Toc87957668 _Toc88279819 _Toc88280525 _Toc88378372 _Toc90953822 _Toc91302421 _Toc91391742 _Toc91391900 _Toc91403591 _Toc87886447 _Toc87940505 _Toc87947529 _Toc87957256 _Toc87957669 _Toc88279820 _Toc88280526 _Toc88378373 _Toc90953823 _Toc91302422 _Toc91391743 _Toc91391901 _Toc91403592 _Ref88202546 _Ref91328559 _Ref88202587 _Ref88145783 _Ref88145643 _Toc87886448 _Toc87940506 _Toc87947530 _Toc87957257 _Toc87957670 _Toc88279821 _Toc88280527 _Toc88378374 _Toc90953824 _Toc91302423 _Toc91391744 _Toc91391902 _Toc91403593 _Toc87940507 _Toc87947531 _Toc87957258 _Toc87957671 _Toc88279822 _Toc88280528 _Toc88378375 _Toc90953825 _Toc91302424 _Toc91391745 _Toc91391903 _Toc91403594 _Ref88143432 _Ref91069169 _Toc87940508 _Toc87947532 _Toc87957259 _Toc87957672 _Toc88279823 _Toc88280529 _Toc88378376 _Toc90953826 _Toc91302425 _Toc91391746 _Toc91391904 _Toc91403595 _Toc87940509 _Toc87947533 _Toc87957260 _Toc87957673 _Toc88279824 _Toc88280530 _Toc88378377 _Toc90953827 _Toc91302426 _Toc91391747 _Toc91391905 _Toc91403596 _Ref85359637 _Ref85342605 _Ref88143440 _Ref90827657 _Toc87886449 _Toc87940510 _Toc87947534 _Toc87957261 _Toc87957674 _Toc88279825 _Toc88280531 _Toc88378378 _Toc90953828 _Toc91302427 _Toc91391748 _Toc91391906 _Toc91403597 _Toc87940511 _Toc87947535 _Toc87957262 _Toc87957675 _Toc88279826 _Toc88280532 _Toc88378379 _Toc90953829 _Toc91302428 _Toc91391749 _Toc91391907 _Toc91403598 _Toc87940512 _Toc87947536 _Toc87957263 _Toc87957676 _Toc88279827 _Toc88280533 _Toc88378380 _Toc90953830 _Toc91302429 _Toc91391750 _Toc91391908 _Toc91403599 _Toc87940513 _Toc87947537 _Toc87957264 _Toc87957677 _Toc88279828 _Toc88280534 _Toc88378381 _Toc90953831 _Toc91302430 _Toc91391751 _Toc91391909 _Toc91403600 _Toc91391752 _Ref91395107 _Ref91395122 _Toc91391753 _Ref84838367 _Toc87886450 _Toc87940514 _Toc87947538 _Toc87957265 _Toc87957678 _Toc88279829 _Toc88280535 _Toc88378382 _Toc90953832 _Toc91302431 _Toc91391754 _Toc91391910 _Toc91403601 _Toc87940515 _Toc87947539 _Toc87957266 _Toc87957679 _Toc88279830 _Toc88280536 _Toc88378383 _Toc90953833 _Toc91302432 _Toc91391755 _Toc91391911 _Toc91403602 _Ref88143332 _Toc87940516 _Toc87947540 _Toc87957267 _Toc87957680 _Toc88279831 _Toc88280537 _Toc88378384 _Toc90953834 _Toc91302433 _Toc91391756 _Toc91391912 _Toc91403603 _Toc87940517 _Toc87947541 _Toc87957268 _Toc87957681 _Toc88279832 _Toc88280538 _Toc88378385 _Toc90953835 _Toc91302434 _Toc91391757 _Toc91391913 _Toc91403604 _Toc87886451 _Toc87940518 _Toc87947542 _Toc87957269 _Toc87957682 _Toc88279833 _Toc88280539 _Toc88378386 _Toc90953836 _Toc91302435 _Toc91391758 _Toc91391914 _Toc91403605 _Toc88279834 _Toc88280540 _Toc88378387 _Toc90953837 _Toc91302436 _Toc91391759 _Toc91391915 _Toc91403606 _Toc87940519 _Toc87947543 _Toc87957270 _Toc87957683 _Toc88279835 _Toc88280541 _Toc88378388 _Toc90953838 _Toc91302437 _Toc91391760 _Toc91391916 _Toc91403607 _Toc87940520 _Toc87947544 _Toc87957271 _Toc87957684 _Toc88279836 _Toc88280542 _Toc88378389 _Toc90953839 _Toc91302438 _Toc91391761 _Toc91391917 _Toc91403608 _Toc91391762 _Toc91391763 _Ref91300239 _Ref91068736 _Toc91391764 _Ref88143447 _Ref91300366 _Ref88143450 _Toc87886452 _Toc87940521 _Toc87947545 _Toc87957272 _Toc87957685 _Toc88279837 _Toc88280543 _Toc88378390 _Toc90953840 _Toc91302439 _Toc91391765 _Toc91391918 _Toc91403609 _Toc87886453 _Toc87940522 _Toc87947546 _Toc87957273 _Toc87957686 _Toc88279838 _Toc88280544 _Toc88378391 _Toc90953841 _Toc91302440 _Toc91391766 _Toc91391919 _Toc91403610 _Toc87940523 _Toc87947547 _Toc87957274 _Toc87957687 _Toc88279839 _Toc88280545 _Toc88378392 _Toc90953842 _Toc91302441 _Toc91391767 _Toc91391920 _Toc91403611 _Toc87940524 _Toc87947548 _Toc87957275 _Toc87957688 _Toc88279840 _Toc88280546 _Toc88378393 _Toc90953843 _Toc91302442 _Toc91391768 _Toc91391921 _Toc91403612 _Toc87940525 _Toc87947549 _Toc87957276 _Toc87957689 _Toc88279841 _Toc88280547 _Toc88378394 _Toc90953844 _Toc91302443 _Toc91391769 _Toc91391922 _Toc91403613 _Toc87886454 _Toc87940526 _Toc87947550 _Toc87957277 _Toc87957690 _Toc88279842 _Toc88280548 _Toc88378395 _Toc90953845 _Toc91302444 _Toc91391770 _Toc91391923 _Toc91403614 _Toc87886455 _Toc87940527 _Toc87947551 _Toc87957278 _Toc87957691 _Toc88279843 _Toc88280549 _Toc88378396 _Toc90953846 _Toc91302445 _Toc91391771 _Toc91391924 _Toc91403615 _Toc87940528 _Toc87947552 _Toc87957279 _Toc87957692 _Toc88279844 _Toc88280550 _Toc88378397 _Toc90953847 _Toc91302446 _Toc91391772 _Toc91391925 _Toc91403616 _Toc87940529 _Toc87947553 _Toc87957280 _Toc87957693 _Toc88279845 _Toc88280551 _Toc88378398 _Toc90953848 _Toc91302447 _Toc91391773 _Toc91391926 _Toc91403617 _Toc87940530 _Toc87947554 _Toc87957281 _Toc87957694 _Toc88279846 _Toc88280552 _Toc88378399 _Toc90953849 _Toc91302448 _Toc91391774 _Toc91391927 _Toc91403618 _Ref88146224 _Ref88146226 _Toc87886456 _Toc87940531 _Toc87947555 _Toc87957282 _Toc87957695 _Toc88279847 _Toc88280553 _Toc88378400 _Toc90953850 _Toc91302449 _Toc91391775 _Toc91391928 _Toc91403619 _Toc87940532 _Toc87947556 _Toc87957283 _Toc87957696 _Toc88279848 _Toc88280554 _Toc88378401 _Toc90953851 _Toc91302450 _Toc91391776 _Toc91391929 _Toc91403620 _Toc87940533 _Toc87947557 _Toc87957284 _Toc87957697 _Toc88279849 _Toc88280555 _Toc88378402 _Toc90953852 _Toc91302451 _Toc91391777 _Toc91391930 _Toc91403621 _Toc84157115 _Toc87886117 _Toc87940534 _Toc87947558 _Toc87957285 _Toc87957698 _Toc88279850 _Toc88280556 _Toc88378403 _Toc90953853 _Toc91302452 _Toc91391778 _Toc91391931 _Toc91403622 _Toc87886119 _Toc87940546 _Toc87947570 _Toc87957286 _Toc87957699 _Toc88279851 _Toc88280557 _Toc88378404 _Toc90953854 _Toc91302453 _Toc91391779 _Toc91391932 _Toc91403623 _Toc87940550 _Toc87947576 _Toc87957287 _Toc87957700 _Toc88279852 _Toc88280558 _Toc88378405 _Toc90953855 _Toc91302454 _Toc91391780 _Toc91391933 _Toc91403624 _Toc87940551 _Toc87947577 _Toc87957288 _Toc87957701 _Toc88279853 _Toc88280559 _Toc88378406 _Toc90953856 _Toc91302455 _Toc91391781 _Toc91391934 _Toc91403625 _Toc87886120 _Toc87940552 _Toc87947578 _Toc87957289 _Toc87957702 _Toc88279854 _Toc88280560 _Toc88378407 _Toc90953857 _Toc91302456 _Toc91391782 _Toc91391935 _Toc91403626 _Toc90953858 _Toc91302457 _Toc91391783 _Toc91391936 _Toc91403627 _Ref90825176 _Toc90953859 _Toc91302458 _Toc91391784 _Toc91391937 _Toc91403628 _Ref91300503 _Ref91300529 _Toc87886121 _Toc87940555 _Toc87947581 _Toc87957292 _Toc87957705 _Toc88279857 _Toc88280563 _Toc88378410 _Toc90953860 _Toc91302459 _Toc91391785 _Toc91391938 _Toc91403629 _Toc87940559 _Toc87947585 _Toc87957293 _Toc87957706 _Toc88279858 _Toc88280564 _Toc88378411 _Toc90953861 _Toc91302460 _Toc91391786 _Toc91391939 _Toc91403630 _Toc87940560 _Toc87947586 _Toc87957294 _Toc87957707 _Toc88279859 _Toc88280565 _Toc88378412 _Toc90953862 _Toc91302461 _Toc91391787 _Toc91391940 _Toc91403631 _Ref88143527 _Toc87886122 _Toc87940561 _Toc87947587 _Toc87957295 _Toc87957708 _Toc88279860 _Toc88280566 _Toc88378413 _Toc90953863 _Toc91302462 _Toc91391788 _Toc91391941 _Toc91403632 _Toc87940562 _Toc87947588 _Toc87957296 _Toc87957709 _Toc88279861 _Toc88280567 _Toc88378414 _Toc90953864 _Toc91302463 _Toc91391789 _Toc91391942 _Toc91403633 _Toc87940563 _Toc87947589 _Toc87957297 _Toc87957710 _Toc88279862 _Toc88280568 _Toc88378415 _Toc90953865 _Toc91302464 _Toc91391790 _Toc91391943 _Toc91403634 _Toc87886123 _Toc87940564 _Toc87947590 _Toc87957298 _Toc87957711 _Toc88279863 _Toc88280569 _Toc88378416 _Toc90953866 _Toc91302465 _Toc91391791 _Toc91391944 _Toc91403635 _Toc87940565 _Toc87947591 _Toc87957299 _Toc87957712 _Toc88279864 _Toc88280570 _Toc88378417 _Toc90953867 _Toc91302466 _Toc91391792 _Toc91391945 _Toc91403636 _Toc87940566 _Toc87947592 _Toc87957300 _Toc87957713 _Toc88279865 _Toc88280571 _Toc88378418 _Toc90953868 _Toc91302467 _Toc91391793 _Toc91391946 _Toc91403637 _Ref88143401 _Ref88143353 _Ref88143355 _Ref91300578 _Ref91300653 _Ref88143404 _Toc87886124 _Toc87940567 _Toc87947593 _Toc87957301 _Toc87957714 _Toc88279866 _Toc88280572 _Toc88378419 _Toc90953869 _Toc91302468 _Toc91391794 _Toc91391947 _Toc91403638 _Toc87940571 _Toc87947597 _Toc87957302 _Toc87957715 _Toc88279867 _Toc88280573 _Toc88378420 _Toc90953870 _Toc91302469 _Toc91391795 _Toc91391948 _Toc91403639 _Toc87940572 _Toc87947598 _Toc87957303 _Toc87957716 _Toc88279868 _Toc88280574 _Toc88378421 _Toc90953871 _Toc91302470 _Toc91391796 _Toc91391949 _Toc91403640 _Toc87886126 _Toc87940576 _Toc87947602 _Toc87957304 _Toc87957717 _Toc88279869 _Toc88280575 _Toc88378422 _Toc90953872 _Toc91302471 _Toc91391797 _Toc91391950 _Toc91403641 _Toc87940577 _Toc87947603 _Toc87957305 _Toc87957718 _Toc88279870 _Toc88280576 _Toc88378423 _Toc90953873 _Toc91302472 _Toc91391798 _Toc91391951 _Toc91403642 _Ref91251840 _Toc87940578 _Toc87947604 _Toc87957306 _Toc87957719 _Toc88279871 _Toc88280577 _Toc88378424 _Toc90953874 _Toc91302473 _Toc91391799 _Toc91391952 _Toc91403643 _Toc87957307 _Toc87957720 _Toc88279872 _Toc88280578 _Toc88378425 _Toc90953875 _Toc91302474 _Toc91391800 _Toc91391953 _Toc91403644 _Ref91232385 _Ref90837888 _Hlt91384313 _Hlt91384314HI444444444444"@"@"@"@"@"@"@"@"@"@"@2@2@2@2@2@2@2@2@2@2@2@C@3B3B3B3B3B3B3B3B3B3B3BFBFBFBFBFBFBFBFBFBFBFBLLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPPWWWWWWWWWWWi[i[i[i[i[i[i[i[i[i[i[[[[[[[[[[[[i^i^i^i^i^i^i^i^i^i^i^{`{`{`{`{`{`{`{`{`{`{`hbhbhbhbhbhbhbhbhbhbhb?c?c?c?c?c?c?c?c?c?c f f1hmm u u~~RR##bb??++]]""8pr 022}5 ; ;<\>OPQQQQQQQQQQQQQ3R3R3R3R3R3R3R3R3R3R3R3RUUUUUUUUUUUUVZ]]egggggggggggggXgXgXgXgXgXgXgXgXgXgXgXgvgilmmmmmmmmmmmmoooooooooooovvzzzzzzzzzzzzzn{n{n{n{n{n{n{n{n{n{n{n{~~~~~~~~~~~~w;lllllllllllllmmmmmmmmmmmm@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@4444444444444-------------g!............. 1111111111111||||||||||||            $$=YKzV^jvvzU{|LLFFFFFFFFFFssssssssssss8iw339>FHHZU_ad i'prsyz;|d|&&f[[[[[[[[[[[[[~~~~~~~~~~~~f  hٮ`7777777777777NNNNNNNNNNNNN^^^^^^^^^^H/PuPc  SSSSSSSSSSSSSvvvvvvvvvvvv($($($($($($($($($($($($ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (QQQQQQQQQQQQQ R R R R R R R R R R R R R@Z]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]dmdmdmdmdmdmdmdmdmdmdmdmAuAuAuAuAuAuAuAuAuAuAuAu\w0&;ou::::::::::::R888888888888\\\\\\\\\\\\9                 L<L<L<L<L<L<L<L<L<L<L<L<============CGI_d itzЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇZZZZZZZ̥̥̥̥̥̥̥̥̥̥̥̥J0000000000000cccccccccccccttttttttttttt. ;<<<<<<<<<<<<AAAAAAAAAAAAnuxyqqqqqqqqqqqqLpkynYYYYYYYYYYYY))))))))))))+++++++++++++9y]Wab~u {ҘҘҘҘҘҘҘҘҘҘҘҘ777777777777ڠڠڠڠڠڠڠڠڠڠڠڠۧۧۧۧۧۧۧۧۧۧۧۧۧAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhDDDDDDDDDDDDDaaaaaaaaaaaaھھھھھھھھھھھھEEEEEEEEEEEEm9999999999999llllllllllllO O O O O O O O O O O O !!!!!!!!!!!!!LLLLLLLLLLLL "$,+/33333333333333333333333333m6m6m6m6m6m6m6m6m6m6m6m6;;;;;;;;;;;;;<<<<<<<<<<<<=n?n?n?n?n?n?n?n?n?n?n?n?@@@@@@@@@@CQGQ Q ø   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./012345768:9;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%./0123456&'()*+,-789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYlmnopqrsZ[\]^_`abcdefghijktuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@A@B@HI4444444444441@1@1@1@1@1@1@1@1@1@1@B@B@B@B@B@B@B@B@B@B@B@2BEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPPWWWWWWWWWWW[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[}^}^}^}^}^}^}^}^}^}^}^```````````bbbbbbbbbbbMcMcMcMcMcMcMcMcMcMcSfSfm5m5m9u9u~~88uuOO--KP&&bbuubbKKKKKKKKKKKKKns  02P45 ;;<O@Q2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2RPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRUUUUUUUUUUUU]`gWgWgWgWgWgWgWgWgWgWgWgWgWgugugugugugugugugugugugugiilnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooowxm{m{m{m{m{m{m{m{m{m{m{m{m{{{{{{{{{{{{{xk333333333333ޡlllllllllllllèèèèèèèèèèèè@@@mmmmmmmmmmmmmppppppppppppp]]]]]]]]]]]]]fffffffffffffo             =2222222222222}}}}}}}}}}}}}        0000000000000{{{{{{{{{{{{{            7(("CTLAX_tmExQxT{007=Vrrrrrrrrrrýýýýýýýýýýýý5A7|MY55[;n?HKKV_V_cfkqswzzc|7}c>>@}}}}}}}}}}}}}            c egަl׮ԯ6MMMMMMMMMMMMM''''''''''''kHOA}`o uuuuuuuuuuuuuG$G$G$G$G$G$G$G$G$G$G$G$#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(RRRRRRRRRRRRR\R\R\R\R\R\R\R\R\R\R\R\R\RpZ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]mmmmmmmmmmmm[u[u[u[u[u[u[u[u[u[u[u[uyw)IʜíԴYYYYYYYYYYYY::::::::::::77777777777777____________            vvvvvvvvvvvv            555555555555k<k<k<k<k<k<k<k<k<k<k<k<"="="="="="="="="="="="=EINce~i}wM|YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY˥˥˥˥˥˥˥˥ /////////////aaaaaaaaaaaaaooooooooooooo%1 ;============AAAAAAAAAAAAnuy{999999999999ձձձձձձձձձձձձo2vVxxxxxxxxxxxx=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)+++++++++++++9VaUbcw }јјјјјјјјјјјјјVVVVVVVVVVVVڧڧڧڧڧڧڧڧڧڧڧڧڧ````````````}Ѷ_____________~~~~~~~~~~~~½½½½½½½½½½½½ؾؾؾؾؾؾؾؾؾؾؾؾؾ____________*1111111111117kkkkkkkkkkkkki i i i i i i i i i i i KKKKKKKKKKKKKiiiiiiiiiiii             $((/>233333333333333333333333333666666666666<<<<<<<<<<<<<!<!<!<!<!<!<!<!<!<!<!<!<>????????????@@@@@@@@@@DKHR R ø 5΄\,Qτ\,PЄ\Oф\,Q҄\,Oӄ\Ԅ\LՄ\ ք\̛ׄ\؄\Lل\ ڄ\̚ۄ\܄\L݄\ ބ\߄\L\ \L\ \̗\L\ \̖\\L\ \\L\ \\L\ \\L\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\L\ \\L\ \̌\\ \\ \̊\\L \  \̉ \ \L \ \̈\\L\ \̇\\L\ \̆\\L\̅\ \\L\ \̄\L \ !\"\ #\̂$\?E %\l5&\I? '\ (\T@ )\? *\ +\,t,\|-\.\t /\P0\P1\TX? 2\T? 3\? 4\\)? 5\)? 6\$? 7\? 8\T? 9\? :\D&? ;\&? <\'? =\$L? >\dL? ?\4? @\6? A\D6? B\dP? C\P? D\LE\F\4G\ <"H\/? I\>? J\?? K\\(? L\G? M\B? N\B? O\l;? P\Q\R\,S\*? T\*? U\@? V\@? W\DY? X\Y? Y\Y? Z\Z? [\DZ? \\Z? ]\!^\!_\,!`\l!a\!b\!c\td\e\4f\tg\h\,Mi\lMj\Mk\Ml\,Nm\lNn\No\r@ p\r@ q\4s@ r\ts@ s\s@ t\s@ u\tt@ v\f w\Tf x\f y\f z\g {\Tg |\g }\g ~\h \,\l\\\,\l\\ \ \< \ \ \| \ \ \j \j \4k \tk \k \tl \l \l \4m \m \m \4n \tn \n \|\\<\\<\\\<\\\<\|\\\ @ \L@ \@ \@ \ @ \L@ \@ \ @ \L@ \@ \@ \ @ \@ \ @ \@ \ @ \G@ \\H@ \H@ \H@ \I@ \\I@ \I@ \\J@ …\J@ Å\K@ ą\K@ Ņ\L@ ƅ\L@ Dž\M@ ȅ\\M@ Ʌ\M@ ʅ\ @ ˅\L@ ̅\@ ͅ\L@ ΅\@ υ\L@ Ѕ\@ х\L@ ҅\@ Ӆ\ @ ԅ\L@ Յ\@ օ\@ ׅ\ @ ؅\L@ م\@ څ\@ ۅ\L@ ܅\@ ݅\ @ ޅ\L@ ߅\4@ \t@ \@ \4@ \t@ \@ \@ \4@ \t@ \@ \@ \4@ \t@ \@ \@ \4@ \t@ \@ \@ \4@ \t@ \@ \@ \4@ \t@ \@ \4@ \t@ \ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L \ \ \  \L \\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\  \6G !\6G "\<7G #\|7G $\7G %\7G &\<8G '\|8G (\8G )\8G *\<9G +\|9G ,\9G -\9G .\<:G /\|:G 0\:G 1\:G 2\<;G 3\|;G 4\;G 5\;G 6\<\<>G ?\|>G @\>G A\>G B\A \l>A \>A \>A \,?A \l?A \?A \ 0E  \L0E  \0E  \0E  \ 1E  \L1E \1E \1E \ 2E \L2E \2E \2E \ 3E \L3E \3E \3E \ 4E \L4E \4E \4E \ 5E \L5E \5E \5E  \ 6E !\L6E "\6E #\6E $\ 7E %\L7E &\7E '\7E (\ 8E )\L8E *\8E +\8E ,\ 9E -\L9E .\9E /\9E 0\ :E 1\L:E 2\:E 3\:E 4\ ;E 5\L;E 6\;E 7\;E 8\ \=E ?\=E @\ >E A\L>E B\DQ; C\Q; D\Q; E\R; F\DR; G\R; H\R; I\S; J\DS; K\S; L\S; M\T; N\DT; O\T; P\T; Q\U; R\DU; S\U; T\U; U\V; V\DV; W\V; X\V; Y\W; Z\DW; [\W; \\W; ]\X; ^\DX; _\X; `\X; a\Y; b\DY; c\Y; d\Y; e\Z; f\DZ; g\Z; h\Z; i\[; j\D[; k\[; l\[; m\\; n\D\; o\\; p\\; q\]; r\D]; s\]; t\]; u\^; v\D^; w\^; x\^; y\_; z\D_; {\_; |\_; }\ 0C ~\L0C \0C \0C \ 1C \L1C \1C \1C \ 2C \L2C \2C \2C \ 3C \L3C \3C \3C \ 4C \L4C \4C \4C \ 5C \L5C \5C \5C \ 6C \L6C \6C \6C \ 7C \L7C \7C \7C \ 8C \L8C \8C \8C \ 9C \L9C \9C \9C \ :C \L:C \:C \:C \ ;C \L;C \;C \;C \ C \L>C \>C \>C \ ?C \L?C \?C \Lw@ \w@ \w@ \ x@ \Lx@ \x@ ‡\x@ Ç\ y@ ć\Ly@ Ň\y@ Ƈ\y@ LJ\ z@ ȇ\Lz@ ɇ\z@ ʇ\z@ ˇ\ {@ ̇\L{@ ͇\{@ ·\{@ χ\ |@ Ї\L|@ ч\|@ ҇\|@ Ӈ\ }@ ԇ\L}@ Շ\}@ և\}@ ׇ\ ~@ ؇\L~@ ه\~@ ڇ\~@ ۇ\ @ ܇\L@ ݇\@ އ\@ ߇\ @ \L@ \@ \̀@ \ @ \L@ \@ \́@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̂@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̃@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̄@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̅@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̆@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̇@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̈@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̉@ \ @ \L@  \@  \̊@  \ @  \L@  \@ \̋@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̌@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̍@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̎@ \ @ \L@ \@ \̏@ \ @  \L@ !\d"\#\$\$%\d&\'\(\$)\d*\+\,\$-\d.\/\0\$1\d2\3\4\$5\d6\7\8\$9\d:\;\<\$=\d>\?\@\$A\dB\C\D\$E\dF\G\H\$I\dJ\K\L\$M\dN\O\P\$Q\dR\S\T\$U\dV\W\X\$Y\dZ\[\\\$]\d^\_\`\$ a\d b\ c\ d\$!e\d!f\!g\!h\$"i\d"j\"k\"l\$#m\d#n\#o\#p\$$q\d$r\$s\$t\$%u\d%v\%w\%x\$&y\d&z\&{\&|\$'}\d'~\'\'\$(\d(\(\(\$)\d)\)\)\$*\d*\*\*\$+\d+\+\+\$,\d,\,\,\$-\d-\-\-\$.\d.\.\.\$/\d/\/\/\$0\d0\0\0\$1\d1\1\1\$2\d2\2\2\$3\d3\3\3\$4\d4\4\4\$5\d5\5\5\$6\d6\6\6\$7\d7\7\7\$8\d8ˆ\8È\8Ĉ\$9ň\d9ƈ\9Lj\9Ȉ\$:Ɉ\d:ʈ\:ˈ\:̈\d;͈\;Έ\$<ψ\d<Ј\<ш\<҈\$=ӈ\d=Ԉ\=Ո\=ֈ\$>׈\d>؈\>و\>ڈ\$?ۈ\d?܈\?݈\Lވ\߈\̠\ \L\\̡\ \L\\̢\ \L\\̣\ \L\\̤\ \L\̥\ \L\\̦\ \L\\̧\ \L\\̨\ \L\\̩\ \L\\̪\ \L \ \̫ \  \L \\̬\ \L\\̭\ \L\\̮\ \L\\̯\ \L\\̰\  \L!\"\̱#\ $\L%\&\̲'\ (\L)\*\̳+\ ,\L-\.\̴/\ 0\L1\2\̵3\ 4\L5\6\̶7\ 8\L9\:\ ;\<\̸=\ >\?\ @\LA\B\̺C\ D\LE\F\̻G\ H\LI\J\̼K\ L\LM\N\̽O\ P\LQ\R\̾S\ T\LU\V\̿W\ X\LY\Z\[\ \\L]\^\_\ `\La\b\c\ d\Le\f\g\ h\Li\j\k\ l\Lm\n\o\ p\Lq\r\s\ t\Lu\v\w\ x\Ly\z\{\ |\L}\~\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\‰\ É\Lĉ\ʼn\Ɖ\ lj\Lȉ\ɉ\ʉ\ ˉ\L̉\͉\Ή\ ω\LЉ\щ\҉\ Ӊ\Lԉ\Չ\։\ ׉\L؉\ى\ډ\ ۉ\L܉\݉\ މ\L߉\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\L\\\ \L\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L \ \ \  \L \\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\ \L\\\  \L!\"\#\ $\L%\&\'\ (\L)\*\+\ ,\L-\.\/\ 0\L1\2\3\ 4\L5\6\7\ 8\L9\:\;\ <\L=\>\?\ @\LA\B\C\ D\LE\F\G\ H\LI\J\K\ L\LM\N\O\ P\LQ\R\S\ T\LU\V\W\ X\LY\Z\[\ \\L]\^\_\ `\La\b\c\ d\Le\f\g\ h\Li\j\k\ l\Lm\n\o\ p\Lq\r\s\ t\Lu\v\w\x\, y\l z\ {\ |\,!}\l!~\!\!\,"\"\"\,#\l#\#\#\,$\l$\$\$\,%\l%\%\%\,&\l&\&\&\,'\l'\'\'\,(\l(\(\(\,)\l)\)\)\,*\l*\*\*\,+\l+\+\+\,,\l,\,\,\,-\l-\-\-\,.\l.\.\.\,/\l/\/\/\,0\l0\0\0\,1\l1\1\1\,2\l2\2Š\2Ê\,3Ċ\l3Ŋ\3Ɗ\3NJ\,4Ȋ\l4Ɋ\4ʊ\4ˊ\,5̊\l5͊\5Ί\5ϊ\,6Њ\l6ъ\6Ҋ\6ӊ\,7Ԋ\l7Պ\7֊\7׊\,8؊\l8ي\8ڊ\8ۊ\,9܊\l9݊\9ފ\9ߊ\,:\l:\:\:\,;\l;\;\;\,<\l<\<\<\,=\l=\=\=\,>\l>\>\>\,?\l?\?\?\,@\l@\@\@\,A\lA\A\A\,B\lB\B\B\,C\lC\C\,D\lD\D \D \,E \lE \E \E\,F\lF\F\F\,G\lG\G\G\,H\lH\H\H\,I\lI\I\I\,J\lJ \J!\J"\,K#\lK$\K%\K&\,L'\lL(\L)\L*\,M+\lM,\M-\M.\,N/\lN0\N1\N2\,O3\lO4\O5\O6\,P7\lP8\P9\P:\,Q;\Q<\,R=\lR>\R?\,S@\lSA\SB\SC\,TD\lTE\TF\TG\,UH\lUI\UJ\UK\,VL\lVM\VN\VO\,WP\lWQ\WR\WS\,XT\lXU\XV\XW\,YX\lYY\YZ\Y[\,Z\\lZ]\Z^\Z_\,[`\l[a\[b\[c\,\d\l\e\\f\\g\,]h\l]i\]j\]k\,^l\l^m\^n\^o\,_p\l_q\_r\_s\,`t\l`u\`v\`w\,ax\lay\az\a{\,b|\lb}\b~\b\,c\lc\c\c\,d\ld\d\d\,e\le\e\e\,f\lf\f\f\,g\lg\g\g\,h\lh\h\h\,i\li\i\i\,j\lj\j\j\,k\lk\k\k\,l\ll\l\l\,m\lm\m\m\,n\ln\n\n\,o\lo\o\o\,p\lp\p\p\,q\lq\q\q\,r\lr\r\r\,s\ls\s‹\sË\,tċ\ltŋ\tƋ\tNj\,uȋ\luɋ\uʋ\uˋ\,v̋\lv͋\v΋\vϋ\,wЋ\lwы\wҋ\wӋ\,xԋ\lxՋ\x֋\x׋\,y؋\lyً\yڋ\yۋ\,z܋\lz݋\zދ\zߋ\,{\l{\{\{\l|\|\|\,}\l}\}\}\,~\l~\~\~\,\l\\?\$@\d@\@\@\$A\dA\A\A\$B\dB\B\B\$C\dC\C\C\$D*::NNY>>f4A8)~uMMaaUb  '/<<DWLLge!!7! @ @ l!!!!"""""""#e## $p$$)%%%%%k&&&4'X'''=(c(c(|(|(()1)1)Q)`)`)h)))))h*******-+M+M+u+u+}++,L,L,`,o,o,w,,,-"-"-;-;-C---..J/v//G011111Z2293P3P3333304w4w4477 888 9`9`999::;;];];o;o;<1<1<C<C<<??@AE'F'F9F9FF>G HHfIKLoNNNNNOPQ-RWsYY<[<[[[[[]]Qcccc+duEuE'H'H9H9HeJeJpJpJiPiPgSgSSSGTGTUUWW-^-^``vgvgggiijjllmnn:rZtZtvv{{{{$$44&&֬֬KKnn  ӹӹqqtt..aa%%ggccKK!!::,,MM::22DD[[wwBB{{YYRR''##qqMM))ee33~~CCll      ##22h4h4YYe]e]aaeevvppܞܞ55]]ĽĽ44"Z++++..LL rL|L|d|d|]}}O  Ƥ..iip((33;;BBJJll33!!H$H$S$S$[$[$b$b$ % % & &&&<?BBUUUVVV]]S`S`bbbbmmmmmmmmlnlnPoPooo)p)pqq/r/rrrZZZZ\\WW^  CCJ22DD  ((66ttggr!r!d#d#$$//l<l<<<TEP^innrrˀˀAAkkrݚ||RRQQ&&55^^GG  qqxx}}''  ""##--??AAYCYCzSzSUUCrCrssttuu::OO//ʼnʼnݤݤVV,,UU H<yyF oo>)>)I)I)Q)Q)X)X)c)c)**--,:,:WWNN!!ggttaauuddJJ[[3311KKDDUU``22(( 9 9     **;;<##''''{+{+\1\1y1y1535333 5 5::"<"<<==QGQGKK_L_LMMMOMOLPLPjQjQoRoRSS?V?VYYYY\[\[~\9]9]]]]]]r^^^z_ccBeBefmkmkrr3s3stt u uu}z}z{%|%||~|~~~ooӂӂcc;;ff88ӇӇ==  ..__ċċ((OOCC$$mmPPȒȒЖЖ$$KK((/М^^iiqq||ʢaaGGzz""TT==жж88~PP6UlCCV  ??W))ZZ>>oo66E E b 4 4 * * b b  ^ ^ " " Z Z     { { U U B   " " y" y" " " # # Z# Z# # # # # B+ B+ u+ u+ + + + + , , , , ;- ;- - - - - . . 5. 5. u. u. . . . . / / 8/ 8/ f/ f/ 4 4 .6 6 6 7 7 X? @ A A D D D D E E E E E E TF TF F F F F F F (G (G {G {G G G G G .H .H $K $K L L N N O O S S T T Y Y 'Z 'Z ZZ ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z [ [ Q[ Q[ [ [ [ [ p^ p^ rh rh h h h hj hj j j o o t t 0u 0u ]u ]u u u u u 6v 6v hv hv v v v v w w Fw Fw xw xw w w x x   ݋ ݋ ʐ   ͒ ͒ * * ě ě { { $ $ Z Z ( ( ` ` ) ) . . ͥ ͥ ŧ ŧ ) ) ߨ ߨ s s ' n n   K K ˯ ˯ ° ° / / % %   Q Q ķ ķ ø       !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFIGHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQSRTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456798:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstvuwyxz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./012347##??!WWfGGt?RC4VVnn`s&.88BBJ\UUut ''E- F F x!!!!3""""" #-#s##$$$6%%%%%z&&&C'f'''N(l(l(((()6)6)_)f)m)m)))))w*******<+R+R+{++++,T,T,n,u,,,,, -(-(-A-I-I---..Z//0U0%111 2 2e22G3]3]33333?4444778%8%89m9m999::;;j;j;x;x;+<><><L<L<<?? @AE4F4FBFBFFKG.HHsIK%L|NNNNNOPQ:RWYYA[A[[[[[]]acccc:dEdEd@fgg@m@m n npprrssuuCuCu&w&wwwxxy||~~IIDDDDˆˆȇȇ "" DD ƋƋYYییÍÍ ss^^ИИ;;͙͙էէ˨˨ ssrrtt==MMqqggZZgg00PPllOOFFll..XFFom m !!  11  &&((..0011x1x144>~E~E4H4HBHBHgJgJyJyJrPrPpSpSTTPTPTUUWW6^6^``ggggiijjllm n nFrctctvv${${{{--==((ɐɐ//  ߬߬TTwwܹܹzz}}77  jj..pp&&llXX**GG55VV!!CC;;QQddKKbb[[00,,~~VV22rr<<LLuu        (#(#22q4q4YYn]n]aaeevvyyBBffʽʽ<<0_$44++..LLrQ|Q|m|m|b}}T  Ԥŵŵ77ouu%%1199@@HHUU%%tt<<!!Q$Q$Y$Y$`$`$h$h$%%&&&&%<?BBUUUVVV]]\`\` b bbbmmmmmmmmrnrnVoVooo/p/pqq:r:r{{cc  __bb]ccIOO;;MM11??}}pp{!{!m#m#%%//w<w<<<bEQ _innrrԀԀJJ!qww[[ZZ//>>gg''PPzz00""!!""##--??AAbCbCSSUULrLrssttuuCCXX88ΉΉ\\77^^.XJT xxG)G)O)O)V)V)^)^)n)n)**..5:5:]]TT,,pp    }}gg  ~~mm%%SSdd<<::TTMM^^ii;;11 B B     33DDJ##''((++e1e111>3>33355::+<+<<==ZGZGKKhLhLMMVOVOUPUPsQsQxRxRSSHVHVYYYYe[e[\F]F]]]]]]^^^_ccKeKefvkvkrr. >. ~. ~. . . . . / / A/ A/ o/ o/ 4 4 <6 6 6 7 7 h? @ A A D D D D E E E E E E ]F ]F F F F F F F 1G 1G G G G G H H 7H 7H -K -K L L N N O O S S T T Y Y 0Z 0Z cZ cZ Z Z Z Z Z Z ([ ([ Z[ Z[ [ [ [ [ y^ y^ zh zh h h h qj qj j j o o u u 9u 9u fu fu u u u u ?v ?v qv qv v v v v !w !w Ow Ow w w w w x x   ؐ ֒ ֒ 3 3 ƛ ƛ - - c c 1 1 i i ȣ ȣ 2 2 4 4 ֥ ֥ Χ Χ 2 2   | | 3 w w # # T T ԯ ԯ ˰ ˰ 8 8 . .   Z Z ͷ ͷ   ø   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFHIGJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQSRTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456798:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstvuwyxz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./01234 9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStateV*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonNamehttp://www.microsoft.comh//*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName_33*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/V44*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/855*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate8  *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagstime 4110111213141516171819195819891990199219941995199619971998199922020002001200220032004200521222324252627283303145576789DayHourMinuteMonthYear53/2%43434/4/4/434353/2%4353/2(4353/2+4353/2,4353/2-4353/2-4353/"2-4353/.2,53/$2.53/ 253/!2)53/2+53/-2,53/2,53/2-53/"2-4353/"2-434353/2.53/.2,53/$2.4343434343434343443444353/.2,53/.2,53/2.4353/24353/+24353/2-4353/24353/&2,4353/,2(53/)2(4/53/!2.4/4353/!2.53/253/253/2(53 /2)4353/24353/24353/2.434/353/2,434/353/24353/2434/353/2434/353/2434/34353/)2(434/353/ 253/ 253/24/353/2)53/#2,4353/24/353/#24353 /,253/2(53/#2)53/ 2-4353/243434343434353/2434353/253/ 2+53/253/253/2(53/-2%434353/)2(53/2(53/)2(53/2(53/$2(53/"2(53/2%434353/2%53/%2%53/-2%53/2(53/.2,53/2.53/$2.4/43434353/253/&24353/,24353/)2(4343434343434343434343 1*0)43434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434/434343434343434343434343434343434353/)2(43434353/2(434343434343434343434343434343434353/)2(43434343434343434343434343434343434353/2)4353/)2(43434/434343434/4343434343434343434343434343434343434343434434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434444/4434/434343434343434/434444434343434343434434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434443434343434343434343434343434343434/434343434/44444343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343453/253 /"2+43434343434343434343434343434343434353/2,434343434344343434343434343434343434443434343434343434343434343434353/'253/24353/253/24343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434/434343434343434343434343434343434353/)2(434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434353/2434343434343434343434343434353/ 2434352%/3434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434434343434343434/52%/343434343434343434343434343/43434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434443434343434343434343434343434343434343434353/)2+434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434352/352)/34/52/3 434343434343434343434343434343434/4343434434343434343434343434344/443434343434343434343434343434343434/4343434343434343434343434343434343434/43434343434343434353/)2(434343434343434343434343434343437;DJLRW\IMvy / 2 z!}!5"8"D#G###%%|&&}''P(S()!)))y*|*>+A+<,?,----~..0 00111g2j233A4D4445566N8Q88888!9$999R;U;;;<<2=;=U=Z=[=^=q=x=6><>>>D>I>N>CC%G*GHHsQvQWWXXH]K]Z^]^@bDbffVgZgggRlUloo͌ЌKN ouMPHK>A*-rs  ~115282w5z566; ;;;==CCEEPP4Z7Z[[jbobccFeKeՂ؂$'qtqtHK 03CHT\$)]`IO]cp6q62737>?uB}Bt]x]q_s_hhhhhhhh/i1iiiiiiijjVk\knnppsstt~ww]_ǠɠNOff ()4ccdd:f?f(3<ABKLXY[\binoxy    +.gjVY0!3!Z"]"##\$_$''((--1177F8I8N9Q9@:C:;;!<$<<<>>AADAGA DD!I$IKKKKMM>RAReTlT|VVZZZZ]]]]=e@effxg{ghhhhIlLl?mBmnoooqqqqvvvv%{({ˆΆLO}>Aȏˏӡ֡z}  X[loz}ILQT"%? B Q\epquU%c%f't':/E/*Y8YZZl\z\^+^/s:sssssuuxxxxxyyy yyy"y#y&y $)267  )747"H-HMrPr{{ ȵε }~LR[a%%&%&&&c>f>AALLJMMMTTVVXW[WQY\\]]__}``,c0ccc&d*dvdzddd"e&eeeofrfgg0g4gSgWggg;h?hhhhhiijj>jBjjjjj:l?lllllmmsnwnOoSopp`qeqqqqqqqQrVrtrxrrrYs]ssstttuBuGuuuuuvv ww(w,wXw]wwwwwwx xxx!x%x.x2x9x:xղԲܲyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy,78qv%( <@26ejNRos "@D % !268=z~OS        G K P U        " \ a ( - T X i n u x        d h 4 8  0 4 R V    H M       0 5 U Y w |       > B S W i n * / \ `       9 > x |     x |   ( - . 0 1 :   ? D 8 < u y     3 7 ; D Y \ e i ! ! /" 3" l" p" " " " " -# 1# N# R# # # # # !$ &$ $ $ $ $ % % % % % % o& s& & & ' ' 7( :( c( h( ( ( ) ) * * + + h+ l+ + + + + + + ", ', , , , , - - .- 2- a- e- - - - - ,/ 0/ Y/ ]/ / / / / :0 >0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 3 :3 >3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 ]5 a5 5 5 W6 [6 t6 x6 M7 R7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 : : ; ; f= j= = = = = => @> }? ? )@ -@ @ @ @ @ A A MB PB B B C C D D D E &E +E E E F F BF GF zF F F F G G IG MG G G G G G G H #H TH YH H H H H I I \I aI I I I J =J AJ zJ J J J _K cK K K K K N N %O )O aO fO P P R R nT wT T T T T T T T T T T T U X X X X 0Y 5Y Z Z JZ OZ Z Z [ [ [ [ [ [ Z\ _\ \ \ \ \ \ ] %] )] b] g] ] ] ^ ^ _ _ <_ A_ ~_ _ _ _ $` )` c` g` ` ` ` ` a a a a 9c =c h %h rh zh h h Yi ^i j j bk fk k k r r r r t t t t #u 'u Qu Uu u u u u *v .v v v w w 9w =w x x Ox Tx x x x x Uy Yy y y Sz Wz z z L{ Q{ | | '| +| ;| ?| P| T| f| j| || | | | *} .} K N     D P ^ g x | ي ݊  N R f j " ' J N  ! K P ؓ ݓ K O l q   ו ە     i n P T ٝ ޝ m q ş ɟ   > C Y ] n r Ԡ ٠   Y ^     J O {   N S L P  ? J æ Ȧ   . 2   ͨ Ҩ    X ] Ī     R V Ы ի  Ĭ  ' , i n ݭ r u ݮ   4 9 " ' d i u ø 88(G*GGGMMf]h]B`H`$a2a|v~vxxķȷ?CžZ\+-,"(  / 6  !E*K*--EE~IIJJN!NPPZZ8]@]mbobccIeKeyffii3l;lssttwwgiɷ˷^`|~FH') 48////9R:2;6;??rCvCQUUUssYx]x>®7<B3>%>>s?v???AAnFpF[OcOZZqq%x'x#~)~܉މؒڒvxdfdkȝKN ҾӾ9>οҿAM+PRDFY\=@m&o&B'E'--8/:/2!222===>??p@s@.E2EQQYY ] ]ebsb#c+cdd=f?fghkkln}nssvvy y||15&*6:P\_pr@&B&''++::;;L?S?QQ[[,mm7q9qouruuvchЌ،SZpqݱR[2?.v!  ##++8 8<;@; > @ @ vA A A A :B QB TB B C C E E 4E ?E E E *F 5F (G NG RG ]G {G G G G G $H bH mH H H H I ,I bI nI I I I I J J BJ JJ J J J K K L 3L O *O 1O gO sO O O O R R T T XW W QX X X X Y 6Y 'Z PZ Z Z Z [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ '\ *\ `\ l\ \ \ \ \ ] ] ] 2] h] ] ] ] ^ $^ /^ M^ ^ ^ _ _ B_ N_ _ _ _ ` ` 6` h` i` ` ` ` c c h h h h `i li j j 2k =k r r yt ~t t t t t t t 0u Vu u u v v v v v w w >w w x x Ux ax x x x %y Zy [y y y y #z Xz \z gz z z z z !{ R{ S{ { { { p} } ~ ~ S U ( -  S W b p y ʐ  ( 0 9 V ͒ ' * Q Y d ˓  P T _ ݕ      s ; > o U Y d ߝ 4 ; r v ˟ ݟ   D ڠ ۠  ) _ k ա  Z ¢  % ` & ) Q Y ä   O  ʦ ٦ ڦ   [ Ө ߨ  ( ^ Ѫ  \ ^ Ŭ Ƭ Ӭ ֬   9 o | Ǯ  ; N 4 j u ø 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333339:f#(hnrxv}TEK6=u]NS".Lg!7@ a !!G"^"V#e## $$$9%T%%%&&''c(v(1)Q)))L,`,"-5--...\/v/0111v2239333S4d444X::h==^??"@C@AFBFFLLPPXYYZ[[],]i^~^{``hbb?cNcXlllllmm7mqq-zNzSztz{9{frɭRvڶ#P@a@a2Sdf?Q'^]v&Rrt=>\>3RQRUUXgvgmnooYrrn{{~4mĨҴ.ο 1  ..uB}B^IIPPRSmmzz Ή܊6sĽXy} ;$%%%5&Q&.(5((((())==3KTKFSSaalmst[ ٮ7Nֻݻ&wXy2S  5V((v))**++,,,----.E/f/||Abfևɍy\},M-Nss$E(,MFFF GLLTUWW-[N[9p!!p2223QQSSPYQY>Z^Z_ZZ[[ab c*cYcxcccd$de eaeeggphhhhj   ~  j( ( ( ( ( ) + 7+ B 6B K K Q R ?c `c (s Hs   8 Y x b s u ø uB}BQYu ø [| d} (̠~4'< ԹHN\HW~S(<4..x>ʭ_!VPt֮p(P>K>I@kV)) '(&I! >{P '(&Ea NU<1Cj Bl? :47 v&`[M(L|̼W#[:xZ'zdva'(&+P#q@]<zQPIX(?!)b^T!3N7lb! D&$^ >%~6$):&'(&('(&c( AQ)KI )._&'+c.x y.N2@DV B4BW(6E5&7'(&o8'(&K< #%?#Q@ w@@(DA> E b|E*t_ Fh(6KKG~nOUDsG8'I UnI CK'(&XLذw] RLSRL2U>A/ZBhZ)b^[ m\8!S-^tg>E2_'(&]c fZ`; jL6Up23pe&1Bq)h'0,r@DVw:es%~~}}||222247 22222 >%~}|222247 22222 >%<'z&'+&'+&'+&'+222222222222$H 2pH 2H 2I 2TI 2I 2222222222I 2pJ 2J 2K 2TK 2K 2K 28L 2L 2L 2M 2hM 2M 2N 2LN 2N 2N 20O 2|O 2O 2P 2`P 2P 2P 222222222 >%<SR2DQ 6Up2Q UDsGP3~2Q 2V 3p2hV K<l? IXLV XLt XL  hOc(By2@ m                 P>m P>m      $h       *M Rn$`fuY 9 = -+ 5 7- 9 .s %STpFim +p CGJg71< +3,MQeUs#}dN  Q!")"t6#= $F${S$ &%.%e%| &&`v&V'Ef'>p'c5(I)*@*|+ m+I,FW,"x, -X-< .Z:.<.J.-V.o /*0,043B3:Z3(4`485d5j5p5be6Z7 8g29}i9yt9m:/;;>; ;,@;t;g<KE=N>?2?,?N?k?䴡w'o-0Xc `N`Q``[`m` aa!bKbMbdm&d[dKe+e~@e f6fhf/i@k xkxmme o6o#pU8piqrFr }rssys/t^uv{vYxw* x*x{Ix'yJZyz."z'z8{;U{%|SU|q|W~ ,~ T}q /IGL$-sA|a&KdY$}#DjApqae[h'I OT ud n[&)-7h. Mr:JW8zCh<T!l2L[))9Y%w^1bnk*Fn8-j!!^#Ed"j ^ 1q)41DVA}M}.N5G&F{Cf9uJ+K9dk p$fWb)wF_W9cVD=er_= {h+<AMX*cf>W`J@p1757nv0UH}B%'&#U6lj%;H 62IYHt$5>}oFj6BjP {,= ktP-!>rXhMP$.n'UP@{(m!'h 2<2Kt%H$DfBX~Yv^xRy3 ^7T+ .7Me [K_M)/F89:DEFGHI]^#'(hmnrwxv|}TZ[gEJK6<=u{|  ]bcpuvNRS!".KLg !7? @ a !!!F"G"^"U#V#e### $$$$8%9%T%%%%&&&'''b(c(v(0)1)Q))))***L+M+o+K,L,`,!-"-5---....[/\/v/00G0001111u2v223393333R4S4d444.(1(4(5([(((((((((QY[qE{? @ t ø yp0yp0yp0yp0yp0yp0@Lxzz{ ¸ @ @ @@Unknownpain Gz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial;|i0Batang?5 z Courier New5& z!TahomaY CG TimesTimes New Roman;Wingdings;SimSun[SO#qh,s&s&?QD'?QD'!24d U U 3qH)?I,ZC:\program files\microsoft office\templates\1033\Legal Affairs\Draft for panel reports.dotDraft for panel reportspain gabriellix[                           ! " # $ % & ' (C) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Oh+'0 0 DP l x  Draft for panel reportsrafpain foainGlobal template and macrosDraft for panel reports.dot gabriellipa28rMicrosoft Word 10.0@ҏ.$@Z鼈(@]b@(?Q՜.+,D՜.+,<x  Legal AffairsWTega OMC - ϲʹir'D U Draft for panel reports TitleP 4<Symbol1 WT/DS290/R   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                  . Root Entry F`"(0 Data -{1Tablek 8WordDocumentX SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8 CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry F (6 Data -{1Tablek 8WordDocumentX          5 4  @,hSymbol1_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName WT/DS290/R "job 7958.4 7959.4 distr. 15.03.05Chantal.Gabrielli@wto.orgGabrielli, ChantalSummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q՜.+,D՜.+,<x  Legal AffairsWTega OMC - ϲʹir'D U Draft for panel reports Title