Transcript Geographical Indications: Prospects for the development of the International Legal Framework Tegan Brink Australian Permanent Mission to the WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.

Geographical Indications:
Prospects for the development of the
International Legal Framework
Tegan Brink
Australian Permanent Mission to the WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland
Australia’s Interests
• New world country founded on immigration
– inherited many European names and traditions
• Large agricultural exporter
– including dairy products
• Systemic interest in the IP system
2
International Context
1. Increasing business interest and use of GIs
2. No agreement on GI proposals in the
WTO
3. Little, if any, work on GIs in WIPO
3
What Prospects?
1. The current legal framework for GIs is
working well
2. There may be scope for further work &
cooperation on GIs
3. But rewriting TRIPs neither necessary nor
desirable.
4
The EC’s proposals in the WTO
1.
Extension: to extend the higher level of protection
provided to wines and spirits in Art 23 of the TRIPs
Agreement to all products (TN/IP/W/11)
2.
Register to facilitate the protection of GIs for all
products (TN/IP/W/11)
3.
“Clawback”: a list of 41 terms submitted in the
agriculture negotiations that the EC would like to
reserve for the exclusive use of its producers
(includes, feta, parmesan and champagne).
5
Australia’s position
• Oppose negotiations on GI-extension
– no problem with current system; commercial
and systemic concerns with EC proposal.
• Support a voluntary register which
facilitates the protection of wines and spirits
GIs but does not increase that protection.
• Oppose clawback
– unjustified, discriminatory, illegal
6
GI-extension (1)
Main arguments in favour of extension:
• Current dual level of protection discriminates
against products that are not wine and spirits.
• Art 22-level protection is inadequate
7
GI-extension (2)
Responses:
• Discrimination alone does not justify extension
– historical reasons: Art 23 result of a “deal”.
• No evidence why current system is inadequate
– problem with current rules or with their
enforcement?
– GIs already eligible for higher protection through
TM systems
– eg. Parmigiano-Reggiano, Roquefort, Ceylon tea,
Jamaica Blue Mountain Coffee all protected as
certification marks in Australia.
8
GI-extension (3)
Development benefits?
• Would specific developing country products be
eligible for protection?
• GIs are marketing tools – worth little without
investment in the brand.
• GIs do not create quality
• GIs do not guarantee access to markets
• Numbers: a fair trade?
9
Australia’s concerns with
GI-extension
• Costs to governments, producers and
consumers.
• Wine is not cheese!
• Costs of relabelling and remarketing
• Risks in export markets and new markets
• Links to the register
10
Implications in Export Markets
The case of feta
• Current situation
• Extension
• Extension plus register
11
Register(1)
•
In-built agenda - wines and spirits register
negotiations mandated by TRIPs Art 23.4:
–
In order to facilitate the protection of GIs for wines
[and spirits], negotiations shall be undertaken in the
Council for TRIPs concerning the establishment of a
multilateral system of notification and registration of
GIs for wines eligible for protection in those
Members participating in the system”.
12
Register (2)
• 3 proposals
1. Joint Proposal cosponsored by 17 Members
including Australia (TN/IP/W/10)
2. Hong Kong Proposal (TN/IP/W/8)
3. EC proposal (for all products) (TN/IP/W/11)
13
Register (2)
• Key Issues:
– Participation: voluntary or mandatory?
– Legal Effects: obligation to consult or obligation
to protect?
– Costs and Burdens
14
Participation
• Joint Proposal is voluntary
• HK Proposal is voluntary (but with a review clause)
• EC proposal is not voluntary
– If you don’t object to the inclusion of a term (ie
participate!) you can’t deny protection to it on such
grounds that the term doesn’t meet the definition of a GI
in your country or is generic.
15
Legal Effects
• Purpose of system is to facilitate protection
• But what does facilitate mean?
– Joint Proposal: information-based.
– EC proposal: registration = presumption of
protection in all Members.
– Hong Kong proposal: registration = (more
limited) presumption of protection in all
Members.
16
Joint Proposal
• Searchable database
• National offices would commit to consult the database,
allowing them to make more informed decisions.
• Key features:
–
–
–
–
–
voluntary–no burdens on non-participating Members.
preserves existing balance of rights & obligations
minimal costs
preserves the territoriality of IP rights.
continues to allow WTO Members to determined for
themselves the appropriate method of implementing the
TRIPs Agreement, in line Art I:1.
17
EC Register
• All terms would be presumed to be protected in all
markets
– Unless you engage in a complex reservations process
• If not, would waive right to decline protection on such
grounds as the GI not meeting the definition of a GI, or
being generic in its territory
– presumption of protection would be irrebutable
• The burden would then shift to other interested parties to
rebut the presumption on such grounds as prior use, if
permitted under the national law.
18
Australia’s concerns
• Inconsistent with negotiating mandate:
– applies to all products
– mandatory participation
– increases protection does not facilitate it
• Impact on balance of rights & obligations in TRIPs
– legal presumptions
– limitations on existing exceptions
• Inconsistency with IP principles
• Costly and burdensome
19
Implications in
Export Markets (2)
The case of feta (continued)
• GI-extension + register
– Presumption of protection
– No need to seek protection or meet definition
– Burden would shift to other parties to defend prior use
– No possibility to invoke generics exception unless
government in export market has lodged an objection
• RESULT = De facto and near universal protection of
feta as a Greek GI (“clawback by stealth”)
20
Legal Presumptions
• Why should burden of proof fall on existing users of a
generic term, rather than the party seeking exclusive
use of the term?
• Why should the existing exception for generic terms
be subject to bilateral negotiations?
• Presumptions alter the balance of rights and
obligations – does not just facilitate, but increases
protection
• Unclear how presumptions could be implemented in
systems that use TMs to protect GIs.
21
EC Register
Implications for IP Law (1)
Government-negotiated IPRs?
• Requires active government involvement in
asserting and defending private rights
• Inconsistent with the principle that IPRs are
private rights
22
EC Register
Implications for IP Law (2)
Universal IP?
• GI status in country of origin would have legal
consequence for its status in other countries.
– Inconsistent with the principle of territoriality in TRIPs
• The term would be presumed to have a certain quality or
reputation in all overseas markets that would entitle it to
TRIPs-level protection regardless of whether it has ever
been sold in those markets.
• Reservations system doesn’t solve this.
23
What about the Madrid System?
•
•
•
•
Not an appropriate model for GI register in TRIPs
Developed through incremental harmonisation
No such convergence in national GI systems
Outstanding questions
– Will registered GIs be published?
– Will there be national opposition procedures?
• Harmonisation well beyond TRIPs – better placed in
WIPO.
• And Madrid can currently be used to protect GIs as
certification marks… So what’s the problem with the
current framework?
24
Limitations to a WTO outcome
• Contested mandate
• Overreaching proposals
– Inconsistent with goals of Doha round
– Lack of widespread support
– Inconsistent with TRIPs principles
– Link to agriculture negotiations
– Presuppose a greater harmonisation than exists
25
Starting points for a more
constructive debate
•
•
•
•
Avoid improper accusations of ‘usurpation’
Respect consumers choices
Accept that some terms have become generic
Reconcile any TRIPs proposals with the TRIPs
Agreement
– recognise & accommodate different GI systems
– get the balance right
• Accept that to achieve greater harmonisation,
further work is required…in WIPO.
26
Thank you!
Any further questions?
[email protected]
27