Developments in international treaties and European law in the area of regulation of geographical indications of products and tensions between the European and Anglo-Saxon approaches to their protection

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.

Sui Generis or Independent Geographical Indications Protection

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.

Contemporary newspaper headlines are a constant reminder that a sense of place matters. This sensibility applies to traditional regional foodstuffs, beverages and crafts as well. Provenance matters, since our consumption choices in the aggregate have socioeconomic consequences. Our purchases have an impact on regional economic development, ecological sustainability, global transport systems and the relationship between urban and rural areas.1 Geographical indications (GI) regimes facilitate the signalling of this provenance. As a form of intellectual property (IP), they protect the collectively generated brand value associated with designations for traditional regional products. Prominent examples include "Scotch" for whisky, "Champagne" for sparkling wines, "Darjeeling" for tea and "Parmigiano Reggiano" for cheese. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in "certain jurisdictions, GIs may be protected through a system that applies specifically and exclusively to them – a sui generis system of protection. Such systems establish a specific right, a sui generis right, over GIs, separate from a trademark right or any other IP right."

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.

Intellectual Property and the Risks of Fragmentation

The dispute Communities - Protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs that opposes the European - Union to the United States and Australia, has been raised by the European regulation concerning the protection of geographical indications. This dispute has two important issues. First, the Panel demonstrated that the European regulation did not comply with national treatment promulgated by the TRIPS and the GATT 1994 Agreements. Second, the Panel affirmed the possibility of coexistence between GIs and identical prior trademarks. This article considers these two issues and depicts the position of the parties at the end of the dispute regarding GIs' protection. The first part of this article presents the conclusion of the Panel concerning national treatment and the coexistence between GIs and prior trademark. An analysis of the relations between national treatment and the international harmonization of the rules on the protection of geographical indications is presented in the second part. This analysis permits to establish that if the Panel findings do not annihilate the European system of protection of the geographical indications, the United States will find advantageous to free ride in geographical indications, refusing to move toward the European system of protection.

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 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.

The US way of protecting geographical indications (GIs) as collective or certification marks and the European way of treating GIs as sui generis intellectual property rights represent practices that could make a country's legislation conform to the TRIPS Agreement. However, the US trademark system and the European sui generis system are common knowledge, whereas the trademark regime in Europe and other countries with similar sui generis systems is less well known. This article shows how the different trademark systems, more specifically the systems of collective and certification marks, can be “designed” and thus shows the different roles that they will have in GI protection. This article has chosen to compare Europe and China because they both have developed the sui generis GI regime but have adopted contrasting approaches to an alternative tool, the trademark regime. Europe confines trademark use to a complementary purpose, which is reflected in the EU trademark reform of 2015 and the European Court of Justice case law. China is adapting the system to meet the needs of GI protection that the European trademark law is unwilling to cater to. A discussion of different ways of “designing” trademark systems will shed light on their multifaceted role.

This chapter considers the overlaps between trademark law and geographical indication (GI) protection under the context of unfair competition prevention. It outlines the emergence of independent or sui generis GI protection as a regime that has both parallels and points of difference with trademark law. Both GI and trademark regimes can regulate the use and misuse of collectively used geographical signs in the marketplace. Moreover, certification or collective marks and sui generis registered protection have emerged as the two dominant models of protection. The chapter elaborates on the efforts of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding international GI protection commitments. It explains how geographical signs can be registered as both GIs and trademarks, despite the ‘descriptive signs’ exclusion rule.

Geographical Indications (GI) are agricultural products of high economic value that play an important role in Indonesia's economic development. However, the potential for rights abuse requires protection through adequate Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regulations. This study aims to analyse international regulations related to GI, evaluate the implementation of GI protection in the Trademark Law for agricultural IPR products in Indonesia, and formulate an effective sui generis IPR regime model to protect agricultural products while supporting national economic development. The study uses a normative juridical approach with a comparative analysis of international and national regulations and a study of IPR and GI theory to formulate a comprehensive regime model. The research findings show that international regulations through Paris, Madrid, Lisbon, and TRIPs provide the basis for GI protection. However, sui generis models such as the European Union or India are more suitable for Indonesia because they can protect cultural diversity and agricultural products while supporting economic development. Second, implementing GI in the Trademark Law in Indonesia is inadequate due to registration disparities, weak quality and reputation maintenance mechanisms, and complaint-based law enforcement, so specific and compelling sui generis regulations are needed. Third, an adequate sui generis IPR regime model is structured around five pillars: simple, participatory digital registration, product quality and reputation standards, collective rights protection, proactive law enforcement through general offences, and integration into national economic development strategies, with philosophical, legal, and sociological foundations. The study concludes that a sui generis IPR regime can enhance agricultural GI protection and support sustainable economic development. The study's limitations relate to the lack of empirical implementation in the field. The research's implications guide regulators in developing a more effective GI regime. The research's originality value lies in integrating international and local perspectives to build a comprehensive sui generis IPR regime for agricultural products in Indonesia.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are important tools for the evaluation of the biodiversity and status of marine systems. However, not all MPAs are equal in their design and management; therefore, it is important to understand how different levels of protection affect the fish communities. In the present study, the shallow reef-area fishes of seven areas in Fernando de Noronha archipelago (north-eastern Brazil) with dissimilar habitat characteristics and different levels of environmental protection (no-take MPA and MPA) were compared. In total, 140 visual censuses were performed, in which 12 958 fishes of 27 families and 50 species were recorded. Differences were recorded between no-take MPAs and MPAs in the benthic composition, abiotic data and fish-community structure and composition. These differences were associated with a higher diversity, richness, density of larger fishes and top target fish families, and biomass per census (nearly 2-fold higher in the no-take MPA). Our findings suggested that the differences in the ichthyofauna were probably more related to the different levels of protection than to dissimilarities in the habitat structure among areas, and that the local no-take MPA (National Marine Park of Fernando de Noronha) is effective in maintaining the shallow reef-area fish communities healthy and diverse.

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

The article is devoted to the issue of harmonization of the legislation of Ukraine and the European Union on geographical indications. The study of the influence of the European experience in the field of protection of geographical indications is explained by the systemic reform of this institution in Ukraine. The protection of geographical indications is becoming increasingly important in the context of a gradual increase in trade between Ukraine and the European Union. Based on the analysis of the correlation of the EU law with the legislation of its member-states in the field of protection of geographical indications, a forecast of the development of this legal field in Ukraine is provided and the current tasks related to its revision and development are determined. The system of protection of geographical indications of the European Union is constantly adapted to the needs of the market. Current trends in its development include the gradual merging of the sovereignty of member states in the field of intellectual property protection, which in the long run may lead to the disappearance of relevant areas of national legislation of individual countries. Therefore, Ukraine must adapt to this trend as soon as possible at the legislative level. The ratio of sources of national legislation of Ukraine and acts of the European Union indicates that the latter significantly affect the development and functioning of the relevant legal field of Ukraine. Firstly, the Association Agreement between Ukraine, on the one hand, and the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, on the other hand, is an element of the national legal system and can be directly applied to the relevant legal relationship. Secondly, the acts of the European Union on the protection of geographical values determine the directions and parameters of the development of national legislation of Ukraine in the relevant field. In particular, the harmonization of the legislation of Ukraine to the European Union standards on geographical indications has led to amendments to the Civil Code, Economic Code and the adoption of a new version of the law “On legal protection of geographical indications”.