<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Jonathan wrote: </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">"<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Since the TMCH is a very important protection rights protection mechanism, available to brand owners, and in most countries of the world, the general view is that GIs are a type of trademarks, I make the following alternative proposal:"</span></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Prk comment. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Not to pester a point but when we were arguing to make the TMCH public Or as an alternative to allow this WG to access certain parts of it we were told the opposite. <br><br>Sincerely,<div>Paul Keating, Esq.</div></div><div><br>On Apr 29, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Jonathan Agmon <<a href="mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal">jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Since the TMCH is a very important protection rights protection mechanism, available to brand owners, and in most countries of the world, the general view is
that GIs are a type of trademarks, I make the following alternative proposal:</span></p></div></blockquote></body></html>