An analysis of the dispute European Communities - Protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs

The dispute European Communities—Protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, which opposes the European Union with the United States and Australia, has been raised by the European regulation concerning the protection of geographical indications (GIs). This dispute has two important issues. First, the Panel has demonstrated that the European Regulation does not comply with national treatment promulgated by the Agreement on Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. Second, the Panel affirmed the possibility of some coexistence between GIs and identical prior trademarks. This article considers these issues and describes the positions of the parties at the end of the dispute over protection of GIs. The first part discusses the Panel's conclusions on national treatment and the coexistence of GIs and prior trademarks. The second part provides an analysis of the relationship between national treatment and international harmonization of the rules on the protection of GIs. This shows that if the Panel findings do not annihilate the European system of protection of GIs, the United States will find it advantageous to free ride and resist any move towards the European system of protection.

When Two Giants Collide: Article 17 and the Scope of Trademark Protection Afforded Under the Trips Agreement

The current divide within the international community over the appropriate level of protection for geographical indications (GIs) is epitomized by the conflict between the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP). While GIs receive extensive protections that go beyond international treaty standards within the EU, the US (along with other New World countries) has repeatedly opposed strengthening the existing international GI protections. The US's resistance to strong protection of GIs has become a popularized account. The history of the US's interest in GI protection, however, is more complex. Since 1929, the US has been bound by a little-known international convention that ensures strong protection of GIs: the General Inter-American Convention for Trade Mark and Commercial Protection (Inter-American Convention). The Inter-American Convention is a regional agreement that was instituted by the US with several countries in the Americas. At the time in which the Convention went into force, the provisions on GIs in the Inter-American Convention were the most developed and strongest protections available in any international agreement. And remarkably, these provisions were developed by the US. This history of the protection of GIs in the US remains enigmatic. Few scholars and lawyers are aware of the Inter-American Convention, let alone its chapter on GI protection. Why was such a chapter included, and why were similar provisions not included in the 1946 Trademark Act or subsequent international agreements? The treatment of GIs both in this convention and in the US Trademark Act is largely the result of the work of Edward Rogers and Stephen Ladas, two of the leading practitioners of US trademark law in the twentieth century. These two men had as sophisticated an understanding of US common law and international obligations as anyone at that time. The resulting texts of the Inter-American Convention and the Trademark Act - both of which they were instrumental in drafting – were no accident. As the Inter-American Convention is still in force, it indicates the minimum standards for the protection of GIs in the US, at least with respect to beneficiaries of the Convention. It is also arguably a self-executing treaty in the US. Understanding this agreement therefore offers more than historical insight; it may offer an alternate approach to the protection of GIs. The Inter-American Convention also offers lessons for developing GI protection standards in other regions, such as Asia. One reason for the Convention's inconspicuousness is that it was primarily intended to be used by US business in Latin America; it was not designed for the equal benefit of all member states. In addition, it was negotiated without the benefit of any experience protecting GIs on the part of the Latin American trading partners. Perhaps, it is not surprising then that the largely theoretical origins of the protections have resulted in the absence of a robust practice of applying them. While the focus of this book is to consider GIs in Asia, this chapter will examine a particular historical moment in the legal protection of GIs that will expose a different view of the American approach to the protection of GIs. The reason to introduce this history is to offer policy makers in this region alternative approaches to GI protection beyond the current models advanced by the EU and the US. The short story is that the EU favors strengthening the current protections of GIs - it is said to be one of their greatest assets – while the US disfavors the development of additional protection for Gls beyond those offered by trademark law. The Inter-American Convention certainly complicates this story and provides a possible alternate approach.

The issue of Geographical Indications (GIs) has been debated in India and globally at various forums like the World Trade Organization (WTO). World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provides for the protection of GIs at an international level. 'Geographical Indication' refers to an indication of goods that have originated from a definite geographical territory, used for identifying an agricultural, natural or manufactured good. Examples of GIs in India are Basmati Rice, Kanchipuram Silk Sari, Tellicherry Pepper, Nilgiris Tea, Darjeeling Tea etc. In India, Protection and Registration of GIs relating to goods comes under The Geographic Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) deals with GIs' protection at international levels. GIs have rapidly gained importance, and the WTO has initiated actions to legalize the registration of goods as GIs in the context of an increasing integrated international regime. Major objectives of this study are: i) To understand GIs in India through overview of GIs protection, registration and the challenges faced by GIs protected-agricultural, natural and manufactured- goods in the Indian context. ii) Effort has been made to identify the difference between GIs and Trademarks through this research. iii) An overview of few GIs registration of goods in India has been conducted to know how GIs have been protected and further scope for GI registration for more goods has been explored. iv) In the present study, efforts have also been made to find out the benefits and challenges of GI certification for various goods in the Indian context. The major challenges faced by goods applying for GI status are: Origin of the goods for identifying geographic territory; Registration of GIs; Monitoring and controlling specified processes, procedure and quality of GI protected goods; Protection of GIs from infringement; and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

The criterion of confusing similarity between the trademark and geographical indication as ground for refusal of registration of the mark in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine and the European Union has been studied. The degree of implementation of the norms of legislative acts in the field of trademark protection and protection of geographical indications in the Ukrainian legislation in the framework of cooperation of Ukraine with the European Union has been determined. The conclusions about the peculiarities of legal structures, similarities and differences between Ukrainian and European legislation in the context of defining the criterion of confusing similarity as ground for refusal of registration of a trademark have been made. The directions of a possible further study of the problematic of the article, taking into account the Ukrainian and European normative acts, aimed at protection of both trademarks and geographical indications as means of individualization, have been determined.

The issue of Geographical Indications (GIs) has been debated in India and globally at various forums like the World Trade Organization (WTO). World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provides for the protection of GIs at an international level. 'Geographical Indication' refers to an indication of goods that have originated from a definite geographical territory, used for identifying an agricultural, natural or manufactured good. Examples of GIs in India are Basmati Rice, Kanchipuram Silk Sari, Tellicherry Pepper, Nilgiris Tea, Darjeeling Tea etc. In India, Protection and Registration of GIs relating to goods comes under The Geographic Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) deals with GIs' protection at international levels. GIs have rapidly gained importance, and the WTO has initiated actions to legalize the registration of goods as GIs in the context of an increasing integrated international regime. Major objectives of this study are: i) To understand GIs in India through overview of GIs protection, registration and the challenges faced by GIs protected-agricultural, natural and manufactured- goods in the Indian context. ii) Effort has been made to identify the difference between GIs and Trademarks through this research. iii) An overview of few GIs registration of goods in India has been conducted to know how GIs have been protected and further scope for GI registration for more goods has been explored. iv) In the present study, efforts have also been made to find out the benefits and challenges of GI certification for various goods in the Indian context. The major challenges faced by goods applying for GI status are: Origin of the goods for identifying geographic territory; Registration of GIs; Monitoring and controlling specified processes, procedure and quality of GI protected goods; Protection of GIs from infringement; and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

The legal protection of geographical indications (GIs) has become an important concern in both developed and developing countries. In Ethiopia, despite the existence of the need and enormous potential for the protection of GIs, the issue of GIs has not been given due attention. The legal protection of GIs in Ethiopia has not been expressly regulated by any specific legislation. It may arguably be protected under a collective trademark system. However, this system only operates for distinctive GIs. Consequently, most descriptive GIs are not embraced by the system unless the distinctiveness requirement is dispensed with for the registration of GIs as collective trademarks. Moreover, the existing system needs to be redefined in light of the notion of GIs under the TRIPs Agreement. It is therefore high time that an appropriate legal framework be designed to ensure the effective protection and enforcement of GIs in Ethiopia.

Intellectual Property and the Risks of Fragmentation

ASEAN is one of the most significant business partners of China. This article analyzes the application of the international agreement on the protection of geographical indications from the perspective of protection and collaboration. It also states the constructive situation between the protection of geographical indications and the administrative system. It asserts that the collaboration under the geographical symbols area of China-ASEAN carries significant stagy meanings in politics, economy and diplomacy and a serious of constructions to establish this collaborative system. What's more, this paper advises the concluding these core contents illustrated as follows: China-ASEAN Expo as a platform for the results of the protection of geographical indications, holding, establishing topic platform of the geographical remarks and registered system of geographical symbols of China-EU.

Geographical Indications are product identification associated with a specific geographic location. Indonesia has a Geographical Indication protection system to protect local products and promote unique products that can only be found in certain areas through Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The main characteristics of Geographical Indications in Indonesia include the relationship between the product and the geographical environment, the quality and reputation attached to the product, as well as the traditions and local wisdom associated with the product. The protection of Geographical Indications in Indonesia aims to ensure that only products that comply with the specified criteria may use the Geographical Indications mark. Characteristics of Geographical Indications include links with regions and traditions, as well as the reputation of products originating from the area. This protection helps promote and sustain local culture and economy. The research methodology used in this study uses a type of normative research with various approaches, which consist of statutory approach (statute approach) and conceptual approach (conceptual approach). The sources of legal materials used in this study are in the form of primary law (primary source) and secondary law (secondary source) and non-legal material. The results of the research and the main findings are that the characteristics of geographical indications are different from other IPRsgeographic indication has unique characteristics caused by natural factors, thus giving effect to the goods or products produced by a certain region.

From the perspective of geographical indications, this article introduces the methods used by the geographical indication system to protect indigenous peoples’ diets as an intangible part of their cultural heritage. By collecting and analyzing the data of the five major intellectual property offices of the world, we can understand the protection status of the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples’ diets. Difficulties and controversies in the protection of food-related intangible cultural heritage geographical indications; the solution method is based on an in-depth understanding of development strategies, and four suggestions are provided; finally, the self-check sheet for the protection of indigenous peoples’ dietary intangible cultural heritage geographical indications is supplemented. Combining the questionnaire surveys and field visits, the conclusions are: The protection of indigenous peoples’ food culture is not a deliberate attempt at preserving traditions, but instead the market demand that is most directly oriented to the times and food; while protecting indigenous peoples’ food culture through geographical indications, revitalizing the inheritance and development of community food culture; giving more rights to the indigenous peoples, and providing a good legal protection environment for the inheritance, dissemination and innovation of intangible cultural food heritage; give full play to the potential of geographical indications and their associated benefits.

The study is interested to review the challenges of the current Tanzania institutions framework dealing with protection of geographical indications with the view of exploring the alternative changes that can enable Tanzania to effectively deal with enforcement of domestic and international laws dealing with protection of geographical indications. In the end study recommends the possible wayward to strengthen the performance of the institutions dealing with protection and enforcement of geographical indications in Tanzania.

Sui Generis or Independent Geographical Indications Protection

Geographical indications (GIs) signal provenance for regional products and function as valuable collective brands. They are increasingly protected by 'sui generis' or independent protection systems, which require the registration of a product specification. Over several decades the functions and features of these independent regimes have stabilized, forming recognizable patterns. This chapter unpacks what we mean by sui generis protection for GIs. It argues that sui generis GI registration and protection systems are important sites where GI theory meets GI practice. Traces of the distinctive, foundational normative commitments of GI protection can be seen in the architecture of sui generis GI protection.

The protection of geographical indications (GIs) has, over the years, emerged as one of the most contentious intellectual property right issues in the realm of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, with its near-universal applicability and enforceability, did have the potential to ensure effective protection for all GIs. However, even with TRIPS in place, the current status of international protection for all GIs, except those designating wines and spirits, is far from adequate because TRIPS mandates a two-level system of protection for GIs: (i) a basic protection applicable to all GIs (under Article 22) and (ii) an additional protection for the GIs designating wines and spirits (under Article 23). India, along with other like-minded countries, has long since been fighting at the WTO for an extension of the ambit of Article 23 protection to cover all products. The present article deals with this controversial issue that has now reached a state of virtual stalemate.