Institutional and Legal Framework for GIs: Needs and Governance

Similar documents
Geographical indications. Iustinianus Primus, March 16, 2016 Dr. Anke Moerland

Geographical Indications in the WTO

Main Provisions and Benefits of the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement (2015)

National Intellectual Property Center of Georgia Sakpatenti

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE TO NATIONAL GROUPS

Geographical Indications and Overview of the Lisbon System

LIST OF KEY MARKET ACCESS BARRIERS IN MEXICO UNDER THE MARKET ACCESS STRATEGY 22 September 2016 MAAC/

Questions to be Addressed in Response to the Survey on the Lisbon System

Worldwide Symposium on Geographical Indications. Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province, 29 June to 1 July 2017

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE TO NATIONAL GROUPS

Intellectual Property in WTO Dispute Settlement

EU Trade Policy and IPRs Generally, all EU external economic policies including trade policies are first drafted and considered by the European Commis

THE TREATMENT OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS IN RECENT REGIONAL AND BILATERAL FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS 1

Report of the XXVI negotiation round on the trade part of the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement. Brussels, October 2016

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE TO NATIONAL GROUPS

Villa San Giovanni, October 21, 2010

Answers to the QUESTIONNAIRE on Global Health

WTO Plus Commitments in RTAs. Presented By: Shailja Singh Assistant Professor Centre for WTO Studies New Delhi

EU-Georgia Deep and Comprehensive Free-Trade Area

National Intellectual Property Center of Georgia Sakpatenti. Sofia, November, 2016

Report of the 15 th EU-Japan FTA/EPA negotiating round Brussels, 29 February - 4 March 2016

Geographical Indications: Implications for Africa. By Catherine Grant For the Trade Law Centre of Southern Africa

Summary Report. Question Q191. Relationship between trademarks and geographical indications

Israel Israël Israel. Report Q191. in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND. Relationship between trademarks and geographical indications

Intellectual Property Provisions of Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements in Light of U.S. Federal Law

Protection of GIs through their International Registration - how well advanced is the work in WIPO on the conclusion of a treaty?

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS. Allen Johnson Consortium for Common Food Names

Meeting of 25 June DG AGRI working document on international protection of EU Geographical Indications: objectives, outcome and challenges

origin flash Questions to be Addressed in Response to the Survey on the Lisbon System

ANNEX VI REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 24 PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Presentation on TPP & TTIP Background and Implications. by Dr V.S. SESHADRI at Centre for WTO Studies New Delhi 3 March 2014

EU-China Workshop on Trademark Law

Non-Tariff Measures to Trade Economic and Policy Issues for Developing countries.

BACKGROUND NOTE PROPOSAL TO PERMANENTLY EXCLUDE NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS FROM THE WTO TRIPS AGREEMENT. 20 September

MODULE X CURRENT TRIPS ISSUES*

DRAFT REPORT. EN United in diversity EN 2012/2135(INI)

WORLDWIDE SYMPOSIUM ON GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS

WIPO-ESCAP-IIUM Regional Workshop on Intellectual Property and Public Health and Environment Policy for Asia and Pacific

PROTECTION SYSTEMS & EXAMINATION AUTHORITY

DITC DID YOU KNOW... Division on International Trade in Goods and Services, and Commodities PROSPERITY FOR ALL

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Glossary. account where we post news about TTIP. requiring all US. judges a disputed issue outside a court

INTERATIONAL LEAGUE OF COMPETITION LAW. Geneva Congress 6-3 October Question B

Geographical Indications: Overview of the Current Work at WIPO

Intellectual property rights intensive industries: contribution to economic performance and employment in Czech Republic

Establishing GIs in Israel s olive sector: now and in the future. Jerusalem

WIPO NATIONAL SEMINAR ON THE PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS

Collective Trademarks : application and validity in the EU. Annick Mottet Haugaard ECTA President ASIPI - 31 October 2011

Brussels, September 2016

Chapter 2 Beyond the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol: Other Instruments that Affect ABS and Intellectual Property

EU Trade Mark Reform. Consequences in Latvia

New Regulation on the European protection system of geographical indications What does it mean for Geographical Indications producers?

Concept of IPRs International Protection and Enforcement in EU Trade Agreements

Equivalence and Mutual Recognition in International Food Trade SADC Regional Food Safety Training Workshop November, 2013 Pretoria South Africa

WIPO Seminar, Geneva, 23 June

Introduction to the WTO Non-tariff Measures and the SPS & TBT Agreements

The Future of TRIPS issues in the Doha Round

MODULE. Conclusion. ESTIMATED TIME: 3 hours

Growth, Investment and Trade Challenges: India and Japan

Dr. Biswajit Dhar Professor Centre for Economic Studies and Planning Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi

SUMMARY. Geneva, Switzerland

Trade led Growth in Times of Crisis Asia Pacific Trade Economists Conference 2 3 November 2009, Bangkok. Session 2

South-South Exchanges related to Patents in Developing Countries and LDCs: A Civil Society Reading

EUROPEAN UNION Council Regulation on geographical indications and designations of origin

SINER-GI Meeting Parma, June 2005

Trade and Public Policies: NTMs in the WTO

Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Annex to the SADC Protocol on Trade:

Intellectual Property Rights for Geographical Indications

Ethiopia applied to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) in However,

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2013)0161),

COMMENTS ON THE KENYA DRAFT GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS BILL

Comments on the List of Issues from Japan (TCEs/EoF)

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Speech by EU Ambassador Vincent Guérend at the TCF Seminar "The Future of Geographical Indications in Indonesia"

TRIPs & Access to Medicines A choice between patents and patients! March 2010

The Protection of Traditional Knowledge:

New rules and mechanisms for the protection of geographical indications

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION. on the conclusion of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Japan

Singapore 23 July 2012.

Trademark Rights; Overview of Provisions in the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement

International Regulation: Lessons from the IP Experience for the Internet

Peru s Experience on Free Trade Agreement s Equivalence Provisions

The Latest Development in the Transatlantic Big Stink over Cheeses. and other Geographical Indications

Response to the EC consultation on the future direction of EU trade policy. 28 July 2010

ECTA POSITION PAPER. Brussels, 19 September 2012

Developing intellectual property regimes in the Gulf BY NADIA NAIM

The Parties exchanged views and sought clarifications on, amongst others, the following issues:

Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015: Section-by-Section Summary

CHAPTER 6 SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES ARTICLE 6.1. Scope

AN EU PERSPECTIVE ON THE ROLE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN THE US-EU TTIP NEGOTIATIONS

Woonho Lee Standing Commissioner Korea Trade Commission

Working Group on the Development of the Lisbon System (Appellations of Origin)

The International Law Relation Between TRIPS and Subsequent TRIPS-plus Free Trade Agreements Towards Safeguarding TRIPS Flexibilities?

The Development of FTA Rules of Origin Functions

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS COMMITTEE

INTERLEGES STEPHEN RAYNER AWARD 2009 GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND TRADEMARKS: SYNERGIES AND CONFLICTS

Joint Report on the EU-Canada Scoping Exercise March 5, 2009

TRADEMARK FILING REQUIREMENTS SINGAPORE

Workshop. The Competition Policy in Cambodia

Transcription:

Institutional and Legal Framework for GIs: Needs and Governance Discussion Points FAO/SINER-GI Meeting on Sharing Views on Quality Products Linked to Geographical Origin: How Can They Contribute to Rural Development? Christoph Spennemann, Legal Expert, IP Team Division on Investment, Technology and Enterprise Development UNCTAD UNCTAD/CD-TFT 1

Basic requirements for GIs domestic legal frameworks (1) Domestic laws on GI protection need to reflect A country s economic policy goals & industry structure A country s legal traditions & international commitments A country s institutional framework UNCTAD/CD-TFT 2

Basic requirements for GIs domestic legal frameworks (2) Domestic protection is a prerequisite for any effective international protection Article 24.9, TRIPS Agreement Article 1 (2), Lisbon Agreement UNCTAD/CD-TFT 3

Diversity of domestic legal protection for GIs: different degrees TRIPS minimum standards Laws on unfair business practices; or trademark (TM) approach; or sui generis GIs TRIPS-plus Article 23 TRIPS extension to other products (mandatory exceptions under Article 24, e.g. prior use of TM) Appellation of origin approach (Lisbon): right to authorize termination of use of prior TMs, Article 5 (6) Bilateral recognition of names & practices Automatic protection (no examination of GI eligibility) Absolute protection (no exceptions: mandatory termination of use of prior TMs) UNCTAD/CD-TFT 4

Degree of protection Permissive system («Type A») Prescriptive system («Type D») or Variations in between («Types B, C») Choice depends on Policy goals & structure of domestic production Legal traditions & international commitments Existing institutional infrastructure UNCTAD/CD-TFT 5

Policy goals & structure of domestic production (1) Prescriptive system (sui generis GI, AO) where Small scale producers of niche & luxury products GIs as alternatives to mass production GIs as incentives to promote knowledge in traditional production methods, ecological production & sustainable use of biodiversity (UNCTAD BioTrade Facilitation Program for developing countries; www.biotrade.org) UNCTAD/CD-TFT 6

Policy goals & structure of domestic production (2) Permissive system (TRIPS minimum; TM approach) where Large scale exporters of mass food production no interest in niche products strict AO/sui generis approach would prevent use of foreign names on home market Food processing industries & food marketers AO/sui generis systems extend protection to food processing may affect industry Example: 2003 judgment of European Court of Justice Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma : not only production, but slicing & packaging as part of GI UNCTAD/CD-TFT 7

Legal traditions & international commitments GIs protection & promotion through state actors (sui generis/ao systems) GIs protection & promotion through private actors (TM systems) Commitments under international regimes: GI TM interface TRIPS Article 16: Prior TMs have general priority over GIs (EC/US WTO Panel; possible exceptions under Article 17) US FTAs: Refusal of GIs if consumer confusion with prior TMs EU FTAs: TRIPS-plus: GI priority over conflicting TMs irrespective of consumer confusion or prior TM use UNCTAD/CD-TFT 8

Existing institutional infrastructure (1) For efficient sui generis system, legislation alone is not sufficient Creation of infrastructure Producers associations Administrative & quality control agencies Enforcement authorities controlling misuses Know how by producers as to showing link between origin and product characteristics Know how & continuous efforts as to marketing Considerable expertise & resources required UNCTAD/CD-TFT 9

Existing institutional infrastructure (2) Consequence: no «one-size-fits-all» solutions, but case-by-case examination of local conditions regarding each particular product UNCTAD BioTrade Facilitation Program case studies (2005) Maca plant (Peru; nutritive & medical properties): favorable conditions Borojo fruit (Colombia): lack of origin quality link; lack of expertise & bodies to ensure uniform quality UNCTAD/CD-TFT 10

GIs and market access GIs provide negative right; no guarantee to access foreign markets Foreign sanitary requirements may act as potential market access barriers Foreign GI adminstrative system may complicate market access. Example: EU Regulation 510/2006 (agricultural products & foodstuffs): national inspection structures required for marketing of all GI products within EU UNCTAD/CD-TFT 11

Conclusions Succesful marketing of GI products requires elaborate legal & administrative framework, resources, expertise and political commitment Domestic legal frameworks should take account of policy priorities, structure of industry and available infrastructure & administration UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs & Sustainable Development: assistance to DC governments & firms in the use of GIs Regional workshops (Africa, Asia, Latin America) Case studies of successful GI marketing Exchange of experiences in GI management (regulatory councils) UNCTAD/CD-TFT 12

Contact Christoph Spennemann Legal Expert Intellectual Property Team Division on Investment, Technology and Enterprise Development (DITE) UNCTAD E-mail: Christoph.Spennemann@unctad.org Tel: ++41 (0) 22 917 59 99 Fax: ++41 (0) 22 917 01 94 http://www.iprsonline.org UNCTAD/CD-TFT 13