Diapositiva 1

1
Protecting Geographical Indications.
in the World

• Click to edit Master text styles
• Second level
• Third level
• Fourth level
• Fifth level

TRIPs and Geographical Indications The Way
Forward Parma, June 2005
1
Prepared by DG TRADE DG MARKT for the European
Commission
1/17
2
WTO Negotiations GIs

• Agricultural support
• NAMA (Non-agricultural market access)
• Services
• Intellectual Property (including GIs)

3
Geographical Indications Why?

• Agricultural support is changing shape
• Incresing competition in the EU market (e.g.,
  wines)

4
Protecting Geographical Indications...
1996 and TRIPs A solution?

• All GIs Consumer deception (for all GIs)

• Wines Spirits Use of delocalisers,
  translations or style, like and so on.

4
Prepared by Antonio Berenguer for the European
Commission
5
TRIPs EU comparing levels of protection
Full IP (forbids evocations like imitation of
shapes tetilla)
Limited IP (forbids style of Manchego or
translation like Parmezan)
Unfair Competition (allows Parmezan of Australia)
6
GIs on wines and spirits What does TRIPs say?
(Art. 23.1)
7
GIs on wines and spirits What does TRIPs say?
(Art. 23.1)
8
GIs on wines and spirits What does TRIPs say?
(Art. 23.2)
9
GIs on wines and spirits What does TRIPs say?
(Art. 22 potentially)
10
WHERE DOES MY HAM COME FROM?
Spanish Ham?
Italian Ham?
Italian Ham?
Spanish Ham?
11
Isnt this good enough?
12
Protecting Geographical Indications...
So Why is that happening?

• Rules are not transparent and require heavy
  investments

• Protection is insufficient (non-wines spirits,
  trade dress, etc)

• Generics and other exceptions are broadly
  interpreted

What the EU is doing
The extension of the wine regime
A multilateral register for GIs (TRIPs)
A list of (mis)used GIs (CoA)
12
13
BOURBON
Notification by the US
18 Month Exam
Opposition by
Canada
Mexico
Morocco
New Zealand
China.
Effects for Bourbon

• PM- Will be presumed a GI

• AM- E.g., no one will be able to claim that its
  generic

• There will be a need to negotiate with red
  countries a bilateral agreement

14
TRIPs EU comparing levels of protection
Full IP (forbids evocations like imitation of
shapes tetilla)
Limited IP (forbids style of Manchego or
translation like Parmezan)
Unfair Competition (allows Parmezan of Australia)
15
Protecting Geographical Indications...
The shortcomings of TRIPs the Exceptions
15
16
Protecting Geographical Indications...
Why are negotiations not advancing?

• Some tactical reasons wish to extract
  concessions in Ag. Neg.

• Some economic problems past-uses of EU GIs

• A database (web-base) on GIs without any legal
  effects for wines and spirits and

• nothing else (discussions but no negotiations on
  extension and denial of negotiations on the
  list)

16
17
Protecting Geographical Indications...
The Way Forward Coherence (I)

• ex officio? China situation?

• awareness raising? How about the sherry cases?

• part of a coherent approach to IPR

• based on economic principles and not on the
  blind applications of legal principles
  (reputation, domain names, etc)

17
18
Protecting Geographical Indications...
The Way Forward Coherence (II)

• message to developing world? Truly effective?

• tactical games? Is someone thinking product
  specific?

• part of a coherent approach to IPR, particularly
  vis-à-vis third countries?

• an opportunity for everyone -- developed and
  developing countries alike?

18
19
Protecting Geographical Indications...
The Way Forward Summary of Ideas
19
20
THANKS! THE END