Transcript GEOGRAPHIC INDICATIONS

GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS
Is the only Champagne French Champagne?
Erik W. Ibele
Neider & Boucher, S.C./UW Law School
What are geographical
indications?
• Link a product to a particular region
• Indicate qualities, attributes, reputation
associated with geographic origin
• Suggest connection to region’s inherent
characteristics (e.g., soil, climate, terrior)
• May also imply production skills/processes
associated with region
Examples of geographical
indications
Columbia
India
Greece
France
Mexico
Italy
Switzerland
Portugal
Columbian coffee
Basmati (rice)
Ouzo (spirit)
Champagne (sparkling wine),
Roquefort (cheese)
Tequila (spirit)
Parma ham
Etivaz, Gruyere (cheese)
Port (wine)
Geographical indications and
trademarks
•
•
GIs are closely related to trademarks;
both indicate product origin
GIs and trademarks differ in two ways:
1. A trademark belongs to a particular
company; it distinguishes that company’s
products. GIs are shared by all producers
in the region identified by the GI.
2. GIs attach to a location; trademarks don’t.
Territorial nature of GIs,
Trademarks
• GI, Trademark protection is territorial
• International measures
– multilateral agreements (Paris, Madrid)
– national laws (Section 44, Trademark Act)
– regional application mechanisms
• Registration procedures, protection a
function of national law
Why are geographical indications
valuable?
• GIs are a marketing tool
• Reputation for quality associated with
place name used on labels, advertising
• GI-identified products are believed to
command higher prices
• Of particular interest to developing
countries
What’s the controversy?
• Consumer vs. producer interests
• Long-time, generic use of expressions that
have geographic origins (parmesan)
• Differing national treatment of GIs
-weaker: (Canada, US) “Canadian
Champagne;” “American-made Pecorino
cheese”
-stronger: (EU) GI use reserved to producers in
the region, even if other origin is indicated
International GI protection:
WTO/TRIPS Agreement
•
•
•
Members obligated to prevent use of
GIs by nonoriginal producers so as to
mislead as to product origin, or
constitute competition
Higher level of protection for wines,
spirits
Exceptions:
(i) GIs used prior to TRIPS Agreement
(ii) GIs that have become part of common usage
International GI protection:
bilateral agreements
• EU agreements for wines, spirits with
Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, South
Africa.
• EU-US Agreemetn on Trade in Wines
(2005)
– US to limit use of semi-generic names
– current use “grandfathered”
– greater US access to EU wine market
GIs in the WTO Doha
Development Round (2001-2008)
• Establishment of multilateral system for
registration of geographical indications
• Extension of higher level of protection to
products other than wines, spirits
• “claw back” of certain GIs
• EU agenda
Multilateral GI register
• Scope of coverage: only wines and spirits
vs. additional products
• Legal effect of registered GIs: legal
presumption of protection and obligation to
protect GIs vs. advisory function of register
• Legal effect in nonparticipating
countries
Extension of higher level of
protection for GIs
• Procedural issues under WTO treaty
• Developing country interests
– India, Kenya, Thailand
– have non-wine/spirit GIs
• New World producers
• Pragmatic arguments
– consumer choice
– existing level of protection sufficient
EU “Claw-back” proposal
• Would prohibit use of GIs by nonoriginal
producers worldwide
• Examples: Gorgonzola, Parmigiano
Reggiano, Roquefort
• Many GIs have become generic in certain
countries
• Doha Ministerial Declaration procedure
dispute
Current status of GI discussion
• Failure of Doha Development Agenda
– larger agricultural issues remain unresolved
• Post-crash perspective
– many GI products are luxury goods
– reduction in consumer spending
– limited development budgets
• GIs and sustainable development