Geographical Indications in the WTO and the Doha Negotiations Worldwide Symposium on Geographical Indications WIPO/Italian Foreign Affairs Ministry Parma, Italy, June, 2005 Miguel Rodriguez Mendoza

Outline of the Presentation Introduction “Extension” of GI protection Developing countries and the “extension” of GI protection The Decisions of the Panel on GI protection in the EU Summary and Conclusions

Introduction

GIs and the multilateral trading system GIs were not a concern to the GATT Contracting Parties GIs became a negotiating issue during the Uruguay Round GIs are today an integral part of the WTO framework (TRIPS Agreement)

The WTO legal framework on GIs Defining GIs for the first time Legal provisions in TRIPS: i. Article 22 on standard level of protection ii. Article 23 on enhanced level of protection for certain products iii. Article 24 on exceptions

Defining Geographical Indications “Geographical indications are...indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin”

On-going WTO activities on GIs In the Doha negotiations i. A multilateral register for wines and spirits ii. “Extension” of GI protection to other products iii. Negotiations on agriculture: “clawn back” proposal The Review of Article 24.2 of the TRIPS Agreement The implementation of the Panel decisions on EU protection of GIs

“Extension” of GI protection

“Extension” of GI protection: Discussions on “extension” have intensified since the beginning of the Doha negotiations Differences between proponents and opponents remain very significant It is unclear whether “extended” GI protection would be part of the Doha final package The results of the Panel decisions may have some implications for on-going discussions

The two camps on “extension”of GI protection The countries that favour it: The European Union. Switzerland Countries in Eastern Europe non-EU members. Turkey, Iceland India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka Kenya, Nigeria, Egypt and other African countries Cuba and some Andean countries (Venezuela) Jamaica, Mauritius The countries against it: United States Canada Japan Mexico Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay (MERCOSUR) South Africa Philippines Australia and New Zealand Guatemala and other developing countries

“Extension” of GI protection: the legal issues The differential level of protection and the balance of rights and obligations of WTO members The principle of territoriality: which country would determine the criteria for GI protection? Are country names to be protected? Would non-place names or non-geographical names be protected? The relationship between extended GI protection and existing trademarks

“Extension” of GI protection: economic considerations The economic impact for producers of goods that would benefit from enhanced GI protection: new market opportunities? The adjustment costs for producers in third countries that produced goods protected so far by trademarks The impact on consumers

“Extension” of GI protection: the costs and benefits of enhanced protection Adaptation of legislation and institutions Enforcement of new rules The costs for producers

Developing countries and “extension” of GI protection

GI protection and developing countries Most registered GIs originate in developed countries(784 out of 834 registered under the Lisbon Agreement), and 70 are wines and spirits. Still, developing countries could benefit from enhanced GI protection: It is an opportunity to get their rights on their products to be fully recognized It may enhance market access for their protected products It may help protect traditional knowledge and production methods

Lisbon Agreement Register: Demanded GI registration by product (2000) Wines and wine products % Spirits 728.7% Cheeses and milk derivatives 566.7% Vegetables, legumes, fruits and cereals 263.1% Mineral waters 161.9% Beers 111.3% Meat products 70.8% Pastry and cookies 40.5% Spices 40.5% Honey 40.5% Vegetables oils 20.2% Odorant plants and extracts 20.2% SUB-TOTAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS % Tobacco and cigarettes 334.0% Ceramic and ceramics products 101.2% Clothes and textiles 70.8% Crystal and glass products 40.5% Jewelry 40.5% Products for domestic use and furniture 20.2% Handicraft 20.2% Musical instruments 10.1% Arms 10.1% SUBTOTAL INDUSTRIAL AND ARTISAN PRODUCTS 647.7% Marbles, stones and mineral products 172.0% Kaolin and clay 40.5% Salts 40.5% SUB-TOTAL MINERAL PRODUCTS 253.0% TOTAL %

The Decisions of the Panel

The Decisions of the GI Panel More legal certainty: The EU regulation is going to be modified to make it fully compatible with WTO More legal clarity on the relationship between GIs and trademarks: under certain circumstances co-existence is permitted Recognition of appropriateness of higher level of protection granted by EU regulations

Summary and Conclusions

WTO debates on “extension” are so far inconclusive It is uncertain whether the issue will be part of the Doha final negotiating package This is not a North-South issue. There may be many advantages for developing countries There is a need for more empirical studies on impact of GI protection, particularly in developing countries Panel decisions have helped clarify the relationship between GI protection and existing trademarks GI legal protection is not the end of the story. There is a need for effective enforcement and coordination among producers of designated areas