Felix Addor and Alexandra Grazioli, ‘Geographical Indications beyond Wines and Spirits: A Roadmap for a Better Protection for Geographical Indications’, in: WTO/TRIPS Agreement, 5 Journal of World Intellectual Property 865-897 (2005).
Addor/Grazioli – Geographical Indications beyond Wines and Spirits
Background
Except for the provisions on geographical indications (GIs) for wines and spirits, the protection of GIs for products the quality of which is essentially attributable to the intrinsic characteristics or modes of production in a particular place has been for quite some time limited to disciplines of unfair competition law. The TRIPS Agreement, for example, does not prohibit, under certain conditions, the use of a geographical name in combination with a special label or the mention of the origin of production. Behind these technicalities lie major economic interests in protecting geographical indications in Europe, in conflict with the interests of New World and of some developing countries in being able to continue using European denominations for their products unimpeded. In the process of turning away from intensive in favour of sustainable agriculture, speciality products originating in particular regions are of increasing importance. Simon Holzer, in his Ph.D. dissertation entitled Geschützte Ursprungsbezeichungen (GUB) und geschützte geographische Angaben (GGA) landwirtschaftlicher Erzeugnisse: Ihre Stellung im globalen, europäischen und schweizerischen Recht zum Schutze geographischer Herkunftsangaben (Berne: Staempfli 2005), offered a detailed analysis of this emerging field of law in Europe.
The European Union, Switzerland and some developing countries, including India in particular, engaged in a campaign to extend GI protection upon the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, drawing attention to the potential such denominations may have for marketing traditional origin products from developing countries on world markets. Such denominations heretofore had mainly been used in the informal sector and based on traditional modes of production. Switzerland engaged in assisting developing countries in developing and marketing such kinds of products, using the various intellectual property disciplines. Eventually, attitudes of developing countries, began to change as they discovered the potential of GIs for their own products. New proposals on GIs were tabled at the WTO, without actual progress on the level of multilateral negotiations despite an inbuilt mandate to negotiate in the TRIPS Agreement. Progress partly materialized in domestic law and in preferential trade agreements. Such agreements normally protect GIs on the basis of reciprocal listings which are inherently limited to bilateral relations and cannot be multilateralized short of advanced disciplines in the TRIPS Agreement.
Summary
The paper by Felix Addor and Alexandra Grazioli, written while both were at the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), expounds in detail upon the differences between indications of source, appellations of origin, trademarks and geographical indications. The potential for extending existing standards applicable to wines and spirits to other foodstuffs and products is explored and argued for with a view to supporting a corresponding proposal made at the WTO on the basis of the negotiating mandate of the Doha Round (2001). The paper discusses in detail the attitude of different countries and the state of play in domestic measures and bilateral agreements. The authors show how countries have gradually adopted the concept of GIs in pursuit of their economic interests, exploring the potential of GIs for the protection of “traditional knowledge” − a new and emerging discipline in international intellectual property law. The paper is a good example of how to support negotiations by means of thorough academic research.