arsh preet
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
1/14
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
Presented by:-
Arshpreet Singh(14139)
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
2/14
What are geographical indicators?
Form of Intellectual Property
Negotiated under the 1994 TRIPS Agreement
Protected in similar ways as copyrights, trademarks, and
patentsDefinition
indications, which identify a good as originating in the territory of aMember, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality,
reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentiallyattributable to their geographic origin
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
3/14
Examples of Geographic Indicators
Columbia Columbian coffee
India Basmati (rice)
Greece Ouzo (spirit)
France Champagne (sparkling wine),Roquefort (cheese)
Mexico Tequila (spirit)
Italy Parma hamSwitzerland Etivaz, Gruyere (cheese)
Portugal Port (wine)
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
4/14
Why is this a trade issue?
Protecting a products name is like protecting
a brand
Consumers need to know that the product is
authentic
Designates a particular quality
Yet some Indicators have become generic
terms
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
5/14
GIs are a marketing tool
Reputation for quality associated with placename used on labels, advertising
GI-identified products are believed to
command higher prices Of particular interest to developing countries
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
6/14
Whats the controversy?
Consumer vs. producer interests
Long-time, generic use of expressions thathave 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 theregion, even if other origin is indicated
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
7/14
International GI protection:
WTO/TRIPS Agreement
Members obligated to prevent use of GIs bynonoriginal producers so as to mislead as toproduct 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
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
8/14
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
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
9/14
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
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
10/14
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
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
11/14
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
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
12/14
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
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
13/14
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
-
7/28/2019 Arsh Preet
14/14
THANK YOU