A Critical Appraisal of WTO Negotiations to Establish a Multilateral Register for Geographical Indications

Abstract

To what degree should geographical indications (GIs) be protected by international law? What is the best way to protect at international level the names of well-known products, such as Rioja wine, which have a great reputation around the world? Do current international rules provide sufficient safeguards, or should governments implement another system of more effective protection? These are the questions that need to be solved by WTO Members within the scope of the Built-In Agenda of the TRIPS Agreement. It is true that TRIPS provisions undoubtedly represent a considerable improvement in the international protection of GIs with respect to that which existed under WIPO. However, this Agreement did not create a complete international protection system. Quite the contrary, these provisions continue generating considerable legal uncertainty. For these reasons, negotiations between the new and the old world must continue in order to solve outstanding issues with respect to GIs. In particular, the twin negotiating issues of the multilateral register and the additional protection for products other than wines and spirits. However, WTO Members remain divided over the nature, reach, effects and scope of this registration system. In the present author’s view, the minimalist approach defended by some of WTO Members presents the great disadvantage of limiting itself to creating a simple database without consistent legal effects. This approach is not of a multilateral character and hardly will help to facilitate GIs protection. By contrast, the consensualist approach defended by the European Union as part of a coalition of 108 WTO Members, which includes a huge number of developing countries, could truly contribute to facilitate multilateral protection as Article 23.4 TRIPS Agreement prescribes. Interestingly enough, it is apparent from recent debates that developing countries are becoming aware of the importance of GIs as instruments that contribute to the development of their economies. Therefore, the pressure exerted by these countries could bring an end to the deadlock that had continued for so many years. Otherwise, resistance to this negotiation may communicate an unfortunate message to these countries about the reality of WTO international intellectual property rights regime.