Protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) in India

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 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.

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.

Geographical indications (GIs) are means of identifying the source and denoting the quality and reputation of regionally distinct goods. (Kevin. M. Murphy (2003), ‘Conflict, Confusion, and Bias Under TRIPs Articles 22-24’, American University International Law Review, Volume 19, Issue 5/2003.) They contribute to enhancing the goods’ value, thereby generating profits for entrepreneurs and countries. Vietnam, a country with many agricultural and regional products, has been actively integrating with the world, typically by becoming a member of the WTO (World Trade Organization (Member List at, https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_ e/org6_e.htm (accessed 04 May 2023))) and participating in agreements such as the European Union-Vietnam The Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) (European Union-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement), https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/ EVFTA-guidance_0.pdf (accessed 04 May 2023) and the TRIPs (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf (accessed 04 May 2023)). To align its legal framework with international standards, Vietnam has amended and supplemented to its Intellectual Property (IP) Law of 2005 in 2009, 2019, and 2022, introducing new regulations on GIs. These changes have had a significant impact on the protection of GIs in Vietnam. With this in mind, we analyse the current GI protection provisions in Vietnam’s IP laws and assess their compatibility with the requirements in international agreements. We will also explore the influence of the GI protection provisions on the actual registration and utilization of GIs in Vietnam. Based on our findings, we have prepared recommendations to improve Vietnam’s regulations on GI protection and enhance the practical effectiveness of those GI protection measures. Geographical Indications, TRIPs Agreement, EVFTA Agreement, Vietnam Intellectual Property Law, Geographical Indication Protection, Vietnam, Agricultural products, Homonymous Geographical Indications

Introduction On December 11, 2001, China became the 143rd member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). After more than 15 years of exhaustive negotiations, China finally joined the international trading body. As with other WTO members, China abides by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). Together with more than two dozen other international agreements China has joined, the TRIPS Agreement lays out the international framework impacting intellectual property developments in China (Yu 2011e: 221-3). Part II of the TRIPS Agreement stipulates the high minimum standards for intellectual property protection and enforcement in a large variety of areas, including copyrights, patents, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, plant variety protection, integrated circuit topographies, and protection of undisclosed information. Part III delineates for the first time international standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including civil, administrative, and criminal procedures and remedies and measures related to border control. In addition, Article 64 requires that the mandatory WTO dispute settlement process be used to settle all intellectual property disputes arising under the Agreement. This chapter reviews intellectual property developments in China in its first decade of WTO membership, focusing primarily on developments within the organization. It shows how China has transformed from a passive taker of international intellectual property norms to one that has slowly assumed the additional roles of both a norm shaker and a norm maker. The chapter begins by providing an overview of reforms China undertook in the run-up to the accession. It examines the low profile China maintained in the WTO in the first few post-accession years. It also acknowledges China’s limited interest in international intellectual property norm-setting, including its rare submission to the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Committee). The chapter then examines the recent U.S.–China WTO dispute over the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights and its high-profile intervention in the June 2010 meeting of the Council on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (TRIPS Council). It concludes with a discussion of China’s increased assertiveness in the international intellectual property arena, including the WTO.

This chapter looks at the international intellectual property regimes for the protection of trademarks and geographical indications (GIs), both of which play a role in food labelling. It is important for those involved in the marketing of food that they have to deal with harmonised trademark and GIs rules, so that they do not require a multiplicity of labels to comply with a multiplicity of rules. As this chapter explains a high level of harmonisation is achieved by the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual property Rights (TRIPS). As compliance with TRIPS is an obligation of all WTO members, this chapter focuses on the trademark and GIs provisions of TRIPS, while mentioning the other international instruments which deal with these subjects.

Patently robbing the poor to serve the rich

Typical food and geographical indicaTions Over the past decades, traditional food systems have evolved from poorly coordinated networks to globalized complexes of regulated trade, and the geographical indications (GIs) agro-food market size is approximately $50 billion. Belonging to the intellectual property law as collective property rights, the “GI is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place of origin” (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 2011). The global impact of “GI” is widely testified through the scientific, social, and economic importance of traditional foods (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 2011; World Trade Organization (WTO), 2011). In fact, GIs are known to be the earliest type of trademarks. From an edible perspective, this concept is simply and well presented by Bisson et al. (2002): “consumers expect wine from a particular region to possess unique qualities that differentiate it from other wines of the same varietal from other regions.” The GI system is based upon the concept of “terroir,” a French word used to describe all geographical aspects of the environment, including the climate, geology, cultivar, human, technical, and cultural practices (and the interactions of these factors) that can influence local production. The form of protection is generally in accordance with signed accords and treaties such as the TRIPS (Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement or the Lisbon Agreement. Even if at the national level, they are specifically protected by a variety of laws or instruments. For instance, in the European Union (EU), GIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs are protected by (EC Regulation 510/2006, 2006; these rules do not apply to wine-sector products which are covCsoma et al., 2010; Valmorri et al., 2010; Cocolin et al., 2011; Cordero-Bueso et al., 2011; Tristezza et al., 2011). In GIs product specification, the microbial attributes are recognized as geographical (territorial) traits and/or as a part of production characteristics (list of autochthonous species and strains, preparation of the natural starter culture, use of specific commercial starter cultures, the chemico-physical foodstuff factors responsible of microbial development). It is important to underline that the commercial starter cultures use might lead to losses in “unique qualities,” while the pursuit of wild natural fermentations (natural starter culture) can result in fermentation arrests and/or the production of undesired metabolites responsible for food depreciation or human toxicity.

Geographical indication is one of the intellectual property rights protected by several multilateral agreements. Among these agreements, Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) has the most members and is most influential as well, but a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications has not been established up to now. In order to give better protection to China’s geographical indications in overseas market, additional measures must be taken. Firstly, China’s geographical indications can be registered in target countries. Secondly, the Chinese government should sign bilateral agreements on geographical indications protection with other countries. Thirdly, China has been taking part in several negotiations on free trade area, and the protection of geographical indications should also be taken into consideration. Lastly, the Madrid system of international registration for trademarks is also a practical way.

Developing countries fear that a proposed treaty to harmonize patent laws globally could have a devastating impact on their access to essential medicines, diagnostics and vaccines. A passionate and fractious debate around the proposed treaty underscores the vital role of trade and intellectual property for public health. Indian HIV/AIDS activists and an international lawyers' group lodged an objection in late March 2006 to a patent application for an AIDS drug filed by a multinational company in India, arguing the patent would restrict access to this medicine. The case illustrates the impact that global harmonization of patent law could have on public health in developing countries, as it could remove the legal basis for such objections in future. Last year, India, an important global provider of cheap generic medicines to other developing nations, adopted a new law on patents to bring the country in line with the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Under the new law, the Indian Government retained the right of its people or companies to oppose new applications for patents in India prior to approval by national patent offices. Now, groups fighting to improve access to medicines say proposals for global patent harmonization could strip national patent offices of this and other responsibilities. The TRIPS Agreement established minimum standards for patents in WTO member states, but left room for each country to decide which patents to grant. In addition, TRIPS provided flexibilities, which were reinforced in the 2001 WTO Doha Ministerial Declaration, so that countries could escape some provisions in a public health emergency. Countries have barely used these flexibilities (see story on pp. 342-343) and now the work of another Geneva-based international body--the UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) threatens to eliminate them entirely. Some TRIPS provisions were first proposed when WIPO started working on global patent harmonization in the 1980s. In 2000, some procedures for patent filing worldwide were streamlined under the WIPO Patent Law Treaty. Since then, the European Union, Japan and the United States have pushed for further harmonization by reviving WIPO's efforts to harmonize substantive aspects of patent processing, i.e. aspects that go beyond procedure. But most of WIPO's 183 members stand firmly opposed to this. The primary vehicle for harmonization at WIPO is the proposed Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT), which is being negotiated by the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents. But since it was first proposed in 2001, the SPLT has snagged year after year, partly because its chief promoters, the European Union, Japan and the United States--the "trilateral" countries-- cannot agree, but also because developing countries see little advantage in proceeding with it. Developing countries fear that the proposed treaty would mean less autonomy in national decision-making with regard to patents, loss of TRIPS flexibilities, and higher prices for medicines. "Quite clearly, it is not in the interests of developing countries to seek either a 'light' SPLT or a more comprehensive SPLT, since they have little to gain from a broader harmonization of substantive patent law," said Professor Carlos Correa, Director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies on Industrial Property and Economics Law at the University of Buenos Aires. Correa and Sisule Musungu, Acting Coordinator of the Programme on Innovation, Access to Knowledge and Intellectual Property at the Geneva-based South Centre, argue that harmonization will lead to a situation where the United States' definition of patent law is imposed on all countries. They have called for an assessment--governmental or independent--of the impact patent harmonization would have on developing countries. Trilateral industry groups, meanwhile, are stepping up the pressure on WIPO to make progress towards harmonization. …

This chapter recounts the first international agreements on the protection of the name of products having characteristics linked to their geographical origin administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTP Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) made it compulsory for all WTO members to protect geographical indications (GIs) in their national legislation. This chapter outlines the advantages and disadvantages of protecting GIs under a sui generis system or by using the trade mark system. The chapter highlights the need for African states to choose the most appropriate system, taking into account the cost and type of products to be protected. The chapter further highlights the necessity to go beyond mere registration of GIs to fully benefit from the advantages associated with a GI.

The principle of territoriality is one of the fundamental principles in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) which is regulated in Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). This principle gives authority to the state to regulate IPR according to the circumstances and needs of the state. This territorial principle allows a country to design intellectual property laws in a way that is consistent with its goals. This study uses a normative juridical method with a statutory and comparative law approach. Regulations regarding territorial principles in the regulation of Geographical Indications (GI) are contained in Article 22 (1) TRIPs, where TRIPs are the basis for the rules (minimum standards) for regulating GI protection. In addition, GI protection is contained in the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appeals of Origin and their International Registration 1958 and in the Madrid Protocol. Indonesia regulates GI protection in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications and in Government Regulation Number 12 of 2019 concerning Geographical Indications. Indonesia must regulate GI well because it has great potential to increase people's income. Apart from that, Indonesia must also register Indonesian GIs in the international registration room, so that there is no misuse in their use.

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) Agreement on Trade–Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). The hierarchical nature of protection for GIs under TRIPs fails to provide full protection for GIs other than those designating wines and spirits. Aware of this inadequacy, India, along with other like–minded countries, has been pressing for the “extension” of the higher level of protection, currently granted only to GIs of wines and spirits, to all GIs. However, the issue has reached a stalemate at the WTO for quite some time now. Against this backdrop, this article provides a cogent account of a range of issues in the context of GI protection, with a particular focus on India.

Among developing countries, one can identify both proponents and opponents of extending the use of geographical indications (GIs) beyond wines and spirits. Such an extension is currently being discussed under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization. While labeling is mostly based on private initiatives, GIs are considered to be long-term public rights. Proponents therefore regard GIs as the stronger tools for protecting their national property rights and offering them new opportunities to develop their export markets. Opponents, however, consider GIs to be new barriers to trade that impede their export opportunities. This article clarifies these positions and pulls together some evidence on costs and benefits related to GIs versus labels.

Developing countries fear that a proposed treaty to harmonize patent laws globally could have a devastating impact on their access to essential medicines, diagnostics and vaccines. A passionate and fractious debate around the proposed treaty underscores the vital role of trade and intellectual property for public health. Indian HIV/AIDS activists and an international lawyers' group lodged an objection in late March 2006 to a patent application for an AIDS drug filed by a multinational company in India, arguing the patent would restrict access to this medicine. The case illustrates the impact that global harmonization of patent law could have on public health in developing countries, as it could remove the legal basis for such objections in future. Last year, India, an important global provider of cheap generic medicines to other developing nations, adopted a new law on patents to bring the country in line with the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Under the new the Indian Government retained the right of its people or companies to oppose new applications for patents in India prior to approval by national patent offices. Now, groups fighting to improve access to medicines say proposals for global patent harmonization could strip national patent offices of this and other responsibilities. The TRIPS Agreement established minimum standards for patents in WTO member states, but left room for each country to decide which patents to grant. In addition, TRIPS provided flexibilities, which were reinforced in the 2001 WTO Doha Ministerial Declaration, so that countries could escape some provisions in a public health emergency. Countries have barely used these flexibilities (see story on pp. 342-343) and now the work of another Geneva-based international body--the UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) threatens to eliminate them entirely. Some TRIPS provisions were first proposed when WIPO started working on global patent harmonization in the 1980s. In 2000, some procedures for patent filing worldwide were streamlined under the WIPO Patent Law Treaty. Since then, the European Union, Japan and the United States have pushed for further harmonization by reviving WIPO's efforts to harmonize substantive aspects of patent processing, i.e. aspects that go beyond procedure. But most of WIPO's 183 members stand firmly opposed to this. The primary vehicle for harmonization at WIPO is the proposed Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT), which is being negotiated by the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents. But since it was first proposed in 2001, the SPLT has snagged year after year, partly because its chief promoters, the European Union, Japan and the United States--the trilateral countries-- cannot agree, but also because developing countries see little advantage in proceeding with it. Developing countries fear that the proposed treaty would mean less autonomy in national decision-making with regard to patents, loss of TRIPS flexibilities, and higher prices for medicines. Quite clearly, it is not in the interests of developing countries to seek either a 'light' SPLT or a more comprehensive SPLT, since they have little to gain from a broader harmonization of substantive patent law, said Professor Carlos Correa, Director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies on Industrial Property and Economics Law at the University of Buenos Aires. Correa and Sisule Musungu, Acting Coordinator of the Programme on Innovation, Access to Knowledge and Intellectual Property at the Geneva-based South Centre, argue that harmonization will lead to a situation where the United States' definition of patent law is imposed on all countries. They have called for an assessment--governmental or independent--of the impact patent harmonization would have on developing countries. Trilateral industry groups, meanwhile, are stepping up the pressure on WIPO to make progress towards harmonization. …