Just to echo both the deputy and the minister, there is no intention to change the definition of “distinctiveness”. It was purely a modernization of the language. “Inherently capable of distinguishing” is viewed as a modern synonym for what the act says now is “distinctive”, which is that “a good is adapted so as to distinguish”.
We looked at jurisprudence and in a number of cases we found over 40 court decisions where the courts had used the new language, “inherently capable of distinguishing” as a way of explaining to modern audiences what the old language meant.
Just to be 100% clear, there was never any intention to change the policy. We've heard from the generic industries what the concerns are, but it is not a change in the policy intent of that language, it's a synonym.