all acp gis conference

1. All ACP GIs Conference 3-5 November 2010, Brussels

3. Geographical Indications What are Geographical Indications? Roquefort, Waterford Crystal, Bordeaux The restricted use of a public name Case Study: Parma Names which have become generic Case Study: Feta I: GIs: Art. 22 TRIPS: In simple terms, Geographical Indications (GIs) are the names given to certain traditional products produced according to traditional methods in a particular place. In law, GIs are a form of intellectual property. They identify a good as originating in the territory of a particular country, or a region or locality in a country, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to the physical place of origin. I:1: Restricted Use: The general rule is that any public name should remain public for use by anyone who wants to use it, within of course, the confines of normal law (I.e. you should not abuse the general right so as to deceive etc). However, the public authority can decide, in certain very specific circumstances, to limit the use of the public name to a specific product. Thus, in the example of Parma, the word remains a public name for use by anyone except in relation to two specific products: ham and cheese. The legislator decides that use of the public name can be restricted when it is linked to these two products. Those producers of hams and cheeses located in a specific area and producing to specific criteria are given the exclusive right to use the public word in a quasi private manner. I:3: Generic: On the basis of a detailed examination of the history of the name, the opinions of producers, the opinions of consumers, an examination of the ways in which the cheese was marketed, the public authority came to the view that the name had not become generic and thus the name was capable of describing a specific product from a specific origin and thus could be registered as a GI.   I: GIs: Art. 22 TRIPS: In simple terms, Geographical Indications (GIs) are the names given to certain traditional products produced according to traditional methods in a particular place. In law, GIs are a form of intellectual property. They identify a good as originating in the territory of a particular country, or a region or locality in a country, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to the physical place of origin. I:1: Restricted Use: The general rule is that any public name should remain public for use by anyone who wants to use it, within of course, the confines of normal law (I.e. you should not abuse the general right so as to deceive etc). However, the public authority can decide, in certain very specific circumstances, to limit the use of the public name to a specific product. Thus, in the example of Parma, the word remains a public name for use by anyone except in relation to two specific products: ham and cheese. The legislator decides that use of the public name can be restricted when it is linked to these two products. Those producers of hams and cheeses located in a specific area and producing to specific criteria are given the exclusive right to use the public word in a quasi private manner. I:3: Generic: On the basis of a detailed examination of the history of the name, the opinions of producers, the opinions of consumers, an examination of the ways in which the cheese was marketed, the public authority came to the view that the name had not become generic and thus the name was capable of describing a specific product from a specific origin and thus could be registered as a GI.  

4. International Treaties for the Protection of GIs The Paris Convention on Intellectual Property Indications of Source The 1891 Madrid Agreement on Indications of Source The 1958 Lisbon Agreement Appellations of Origin The 1891 Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of IP Rights Geographical Indications II:1: The 1883 Paris Convention on Intellectual Property: The Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property was agreed in 1883 and complemented by the Madrid Protocol of 1891. Article 1(2) of the Paris Convention provides:  “The protection of industrial property has as its object patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names, indications of source or appellation of origin, and the repression of unfair competition”. II:2: The 1891 Madrid Agreement on indications of source: The Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source of Goods was adopted in 1891. Article 1(1) of the Madrid Agreement provides that: “(A)ll goods bearing a false or deceptive indication by which one of the countries to which this Agreement applies, or a place situated therein, is directly or indirectly indicated as being the country or place of origin shall be seized on importation into any of the said countries.” II:3: The 1958 Lisbon Agreement: This Agreement for the Protection of Appellation of Origin and their International registration was concluded in Lisbon on 31 October 1958. ACP Countries who are signatories to the Lisbon Agreement: Burkina Faso, Congo, Cuba, Gabon, Haiti and Togo. Article 2 of the Agreement: “The geographical name of a country, region, or locality, which serves to designate a product originating therein, the quality and characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographic environment, including natural and human factors”. Article 6 of the Agreement extends protection to: “any usurpation or imitation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the appellation is used in translated form or accompanied by terms such as “kind”, “type”, “make”, “imitation” or the like”. II:4: The 1891 Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks: The Madrid system comprises two treaties: the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, which dates from 1891, and the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of 1989. II:5: The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: Article 22 of the TRIPs Agreement: “... 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”.   II:1: The 1883 Paris Convention on Intellectual Property: The Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property was agreed in 1883 and complemented by the Madrid Protocol of 1891. Article 1(2) of the Paris Convention provides:  “The protection of industrial property has as its object patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names, indications of source or appellation of origin, and the repression of unfair competition”. II:2: The 1891 Madrid Agreement on indications of source: The Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source of Goods was adopted in 1891. Article 1(1) of the Madrid Agreement provides that: “(A)ll goods bearing a false or deceptive indication by which one of the countries to which this Agreement applies, or a place situated therein, is directly or indirectly indicated as being the country or place of origin shall be seized on importation into any of the said countries.” II:3: The 1958 Lisbon Agreement: This Agreement for the Protection of Appellation of Origin and their International registration was concluded in Lisbon on 31 October 1958. ACP Countries who are signatories to the Lisbon Agreement: Burkina Faso, Congo, Cuba, Gabon, Haiti and Togo. Article 2 of the Agreement: “The geographical name of a country, region, or locality, which serves to designate a product originating therein, the quality and characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographic environment, including natural and human factors”. Article 6 of the Agreement extends protection to: “any usurpation or imitation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the appellation is used in translated form or accompanied by terms such as “kind”, “type”, “make”, “imitation” or the like”. II:4: The 1891 Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks: The Madrid system comprises two treaties: the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, which dates from 1891, and the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of 1989. II:5: The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: Article 22 of the TRIPs Agreement: “... 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”.  

5. Protection of GIs:Sui Generis Protection System Specific introduction of domestic legislation by a state with the aim of regulating the use of geographical indications Passive protection or Registration system GI registration system: co-ordinated domestic GI registrar TRIPS agreement: broad definition of goods – agricultural and industrial products – but not services Specify names which cannot be registered as GIs: generic names. Homonyms and previously registered trademarks Art 22 TRIPS scope of protection: prevents acts of unfair competition and misrepresentation as to origin of goods VI:1: Sui Generis Protection of Gis: Scope of protection provided for geographical indications in the TRIPs Agreement: First, any use of geographical indications which, in accordance with Article 10bis of the Paris Convention, may be qualified as an act of unfair competition, is not permitted. Second, use of geographical indications in any manner which “indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good”, is deemed unlawful. ACP countries with sui generis GI protection: Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Côte d’Ivoire, Jamaica, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Zimbabwe. VI:1: Sui Generis Protection of Gis: Scope of protection provided for geographical indications in the TRIPs Agreement: First, any use of geographical indications which, in accordance with Article 10bis of the Paris Convention, may be qualified as an act of unfair competition, is not permitted. Second, use of geographical indications in any manner which “indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good”, is deemed unlawful. ACP countries with sui generis GI protection: Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Côte d’Ivoire, Jamaica, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Zimbabwe.

6. Protection of GIs as Trademarks Geographical terms are protected as GIs or valid trademarks when they constitute fanciful words (e.g. “Antarctic” for orange juice) or acquire secondary meaning (“Montblanc” for jewellery) National Trademark Office maintains a Registrar of Trademarks WTO: any sign capable of distinguishing good can be registered Trademarks must not be of such a nature as to deceive the public in relation to the nature, quality or origin of goods Trademark regime protects a specific logo while a sui generis system protects a geographical name Trademark protection of GIs - Types of trademarks: ordinary, collective, certification or guarantee trademarks. VI:2: Protection of GIs as Trademarks: There are two situations when geographical terms could be registered as trademarks for goods and lead to controversy. First, when the geographical word or symbol has acquired recognition or secondary meaning in favour of a particular enterprise (I.e., “Montblanc” for writing equipment and jewellery). Another situation when geographical words or symbols are accepted as parts of trademarks, it is when they are understood as fanciful words (I.e., “Antarctic” for orange juice, “Vesuvius” for chimneys and heating equipment, etc.). A second specific common feature, shared by many jurisdictions, which distinguishes sui generis protection provided to geographical indications from trademark protection, is that the trademark regime protects a specific logo (I.e., the combination of signs, words, pictures and colours) while a sui generis system protects a geographical name as such and prevents any commercial use of the protected name. ACP countries with Trademark protection systems: Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Congo (Dem. Rep. Zaire), Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Libya, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Western Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, St. Kitts & Nevis, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Uganda and Zambia. VI:2: Protection of GIs as Trademarks: There are two situations when geographical terms could be registered as trademarks for goods and lead to controversy. First, when the geographical word or symbol has acquired recognition or secondary meaning in favour of a particular enterprise (I.e., “Montblanc” for writing equipment and jewellery). Another situation when geographical words or symbols are accepted as parts of trademarks, it is when they are understood as fanciful words (I.e., “Antarctic” for orange juice, “Vesuvius” for chimneys and heating equipment, etc.). A second specific common feature, shared by many jurisdictions, which distinguishes sui generis protection provided to geographical indications from trademark protection, is that the trademark regime protects a specific logo (I.e., the combination of signs, words, pictures and colours) while a sui generis system protects a geographical name as such and prevents any commercial use of the protected name. ACP countries with Trademark protection systems: Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Congo (Dem. Rep. Zaire), Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Libya, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Western Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, St. Kitts & Nevis, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Uganda and Zambia.

7. The Internal EU Policy on GIs Development of the EC Policy on GIs - Sui Generis Protection System Case Study: Lentilles vertes du Puy Council Regulation 2081/92 introduced EC GI rules for agricultural products - not industrial products or services Counicll Regulation 510/2006 allows for easier registration in the EU of GIs from third countries E.g.: Coffee from Colombia III:1: Development of the EC policy on Gis: Before 1992 there were no common EC rules for the protection of GIs. Each Member State adopted its own approach either through general or specific laws. At the EC level, several laws regulating designations of origin for wines and spirits were adopted over the years but there were no rules for general agricultural products and foodstuffs. Council Regulation 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs introduced general Community GI rules for agricultural products, but failed to provide for the protection of industrial products determined by their geographical origin.   III:3: WTO dispute challenging the EU system of Protection of GIs: Because of this ruling the EU changed the law (Regulation 510/2006) so as to make it easier for GIs from other countries to be registered. In essence if the GI is protected at home and it complies with the EU rules it can be protected in Europe. In simple terms the panel found that GIs and Trademarks were ‘equal’ types of intellectual property and one type (trademarks) did not trump the other (GIs). Regulation 510/2006 now provides a firm foundation upon which international relations between the EU and ACP members can be established.   III:1: Development of the EC policy on Gis: Before 1992 there were no common EC rules for the protection of GIs. Each Member State adopted its own approach either through general or specific laws. At the EC level, several laws regulating designations of origin for wines and spirits were adopted over the years but there were no rules for general agricultural products and foodstuffs. Council Regulation 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs introduced general Community GI rules for agricultural products, but failed to provide for the protection of industrial products determined by their geographical origin.   III:3: WTO dispute challenging the EU system of Protection of GIs: Because of this ruling the EU changed the law (Regulation 510/2006) so as to make it easier for GIs from other countries to be registered. In essence if the GI is protected at home and it complies with the EU rules it can be protected in Europe. In simple terms the panel found that GIs and Trademarks were ‘equal’ types of intellectual property and one type (trademarks) did not trump the other (GIs). Regulation 510/2006 now provides a firm foundation upon which international relations between the EU and ACP members can be established.  

8. Scope of Regulation 510/2006 The scope of Council Regulation 510/2006 is limited to agricultural products and foodstuffs where there is a clear link between the product and its geographical origin. Names of most foods and agricultural products for human consumption can be registered as Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) or Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) Regulation establishes registration system Regulation specifies products which cannot be registered Regulation gives holders of GIs exclusive right to use the geographical name for specific products that comply with the registered specifications III:2: Scope of Regulation 510/2006: The scope of Council Regulation 510/2006 is limited to certain agricultural products and foodstuffs where there is a clear link between the product or foodstuff and its geographical origin. Pursuant to the Regulation, the names of most foods can be registered as Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) or Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs). However, pre-cooked meals, prepared condiment sauces, soups and broths, ice cream and sorbets, chocolate (and other food preparations containing cocoa) may not be registered as PGIs or PDOs. Names of certain agricultural products not intended for human consumption (such as hay, wool, osier, and essential oils) can also be registered as PDOs or PGIs. III:2: Scope of Regulation 510/2006: The scope of Council Regulation 510/2006 is limited to certain agricultural products and foodstuffs where there is a clear link between the product or foodstuff and its geographical origin. Pursuant to the Regulation, the names of most foods can be registered as Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) or Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs). However, pre-cooked meals, prepared condiment sauces, soups and broths, ice cream and sorbets, chocolate (and other food preparations containing cocoa) may not be registered as PGIs or PDOs. Names of certain agricultural products not intended for human consumption (such as hay, wool, osier, and essential oils) can also be registered as PDOs or PGIs.

9. Regulation 2081/92 was challenged by the US and Australia, as inconsistent with the EC’s obligations under the TRIPs Agreement and GATT 1994 Complaints: 1. National treatment violation - the Regulation imposed reciprocity and equivalence on the availability of protection; 2. Protection of trademarks - the concurrent use of similar GIs would result in a likelihood of confusion, and therefore should be prevented. III:3: WTO dispute challenging the EU system of Protection of GIs: Because of this ruling the EU changed the law (Regulation 510/2006) so as to make it easier for GIs from other countries to be registered. In essence if the GI is protected at home and it complies with the EU rules it can be protected in Europe. In simple terms the panel found that GIs and Trademarks were ‘equal’ types of intellectual property and one type (trademarks) did not trump the other (GIs). Regulation 510/2006 now provides a firm foundation upon which international relations between the EU and ACP members can be established. III:3: WTO dispute challenging the EU system of Protection of GIs: Because of this ruling the EU changed the law (Regulation 510/2006) so as to make it easier for GIs from other countries to be registered. In essence if the GI is protected at home and it complies with the EU rules it can be protected in Europe. In simple terms the panel found that GIs and Trademarks were ‘equal’ types of intellectual property and one type (trademarks) did not trump the other (GIs). Regulation 510/2006 now provides a firm foundation upon which international relations between the EU and ACP members can be established.

10. WTO Panel Ruling Reciprocity and equivalence: accorded nationals of other WTO countries “less favourable treatment” - Arts 2 & 3 TRIPS Agreement, Art 2 Paris Convention - “extra hurdle” Regulation 510/2006 makes it easier for GIs from other countries to be registered - if afforded protection at home “Co-existence”: a legal regime under which a GI and a trademark can both be used concurrently Article 24.5: GIs “shall not prejudice eligibility for or the validity of the registration of a trademark, or the right to use a trademark” GIs and Trademarks were ‘equal’ types of intellectual property and one type (trademarks) did not trump the other (GIs).

11. Protection of GIs in Plurilateral and Regional Agreements The African Intellectual Property Organsiation Agreement (OAPI)1977 The OAPI (Bangui) Agreement replaced the 1962 Libreville Agreement establishing the African Intellectual Property Organisation The agreement is based on the national laws of the member states of the OAPI and applies directly The agreement provides for the official recognition of GIs and the protection of appellation of origin products Art I defines GIs; Art 4 establishes Conditions for Protection IV:1: The African Intellectual Property Organisation (OAPI) Agreement: The 1977 OAPI (Bangui) Agreement, replaced the1962 Libreville Agreement, which established the African Intellectual Property Organisation. Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central Africa, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo are Parties to the OAPI Agreement, which is based on the national laws of the Member States of the African Intellectual Property Organisation and, therefore, applies directly in each of those States. Article 1:Definitions: (a) geographical indication means an indication that serves to identify a product as originating from a territory, a region, or a locality within that territory, in those cases where the quality, reputation or other specific characteristic of the product may be essentially attributed to such geographical origin;  Article 4:Conditions for Protection: (1) Geographical indications shall be protected as such if they have been registered by the Organization or are to be treated as having been registered by virtue of an international convention to which the member States are party. (2) Geographical indications foreign to the territories of the member States of the Organization may be registered by the Organization only where provided for in an international convention to which the member States are party or in the enforcing legislation.   IV:1: The African Intellectual Property Organisation (OAPI) Agreement: The 1977 OAPI (Bangui) Agreement, replaced the1962 Libreville Agreement, which established the African Intellectual Property Organisation. Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central Africa, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo are Parties to the OAPI Agreement, which is based on the national laws of the Member States of the African Intellectual Property Organisation and, therefore, applies directly in each of those States. Article 1:Definitions: (a) geographical indication means an indication that serves to identify a product as originating from a territory, a region, or a locality within that territory, in those cases where the quality, reputation or other specific characteristic of the product may be essentially attributed to such geographical origin;  Article 4:Conditions for Protection: (1) Geographical indications shall be protected as such if they have been registered by the Organization or are to be treated as having been registered by virtue of an international convention to which the member States are party. (2) Geographical indications foreign to the territories of the member States of the Organization may be registered by the Organization only where provided for in an international convention to which the member States are party or in the enforcing legislation.  

12. Protection of GIs in Plurilateral and Regional Agreements The African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation - Lusaka Agreement 1976 Purpose of ARIPO: To consolidate the resources of its member countires in industrial property matters The Banjul Protocol on Marks 1993 - Establishes a trademark filing system 1997 Protocol made the Agreement compatible with the TRIPS Agreement and the Trademark Law Treaty, as well as making it more user-friendly   IV:2: The Banjul Protocol on Marks the African Regional Intellectual Property: The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization was established by the 1976 Lusaka Agreement. The purpose of ARIPO was to consolidate the resources of its member countries (English speaking African countries) in industrial property matters in order to avoid duplication of work. The Banjul Protocol on Marks, which was adopted by the Administrative Council in 1993, establishes a trademark filing system. States currently party to the Banjul Protocol are: Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe (Total: 8 states). It is expected that other ARIPO member states will ratify or accede to the Protocol in the near future.   IV:2: The Banjul Protocol on Marks the African Regional Intellectual Property: The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization was established by the 1976 Lusaka Agreement. The purpose of ARIPO was to consolidate the resources of its member countries (English speaking African countries) in industrial property matters in order to avoid duplication of work. The Banjul Protocol on Marks, which was adopted by the Administrative Council in 1993, establishes a trademark filing system. States currently party to the Banjul Protocol are: Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe (Total: 8 states). It is expected that other ARIPO member states will ratify or accede to the Protocol in the near future.

13. Bilateral Agreements concluded by EU for the protection of GIs EU-South Africa Agreement on Trade, Development & Cooperation 1999 Annex X: the names “port” and “sherry” could not be used for exports to the EU 2002: 2 specific agreements for the protection of GIs for wines and spirits Wines Agreement: GIs granted greater protection for the EU than at multilateral level under the TRIPS Agreement Annex II: List of protected wine names EU provided import aid for SA restructuring of wine industry V:1: EU- South Africa Bilateral Agreement: The basic 1999 EC-South Africa Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation under Annex X provided that the names “port” and “sherry” should not be used for exports to the European Union. In 2002, the EC and South Africa signed two specific agreements for the protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits. Under the Agreement for wines, geographical indications, including appellations of origin, are granted better protection, for the EU, than at multilateral level under the TRIPs agreement. Annex II to the Agreement on Wine contains a full list of GIs for wines that are protected – essentially, an exchange of lists of protected names. V:1: EU- South Africa Bilateral Agreement: The basic 1999 EC-South Africa Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation under Annex X provided that the names “port” and “sherry” should not be used for exports to the European Union. In 2002, the EC and South Africa signed two specific agreements for the protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits. Under the Agreement for wines, geographical indications, including appellations of origin, are granted better protection, for the EU, than at multilateral level under the TRIPs agreement. Annex II to the Agreement on Wine contains a full list of GIs for wines that are protected – essentially, an exchange of lists of protected names.

14. Bilateral agreements could help to regulate the conflicts in respect to use of the GIs among the ACP countries ACP States can negotiate the protection of their GIs vis-à-vis third countries. Experience would help to build stronger relationship and better understanding between the EU and ACP countries V:2: Lessons for the ACP countries from the experience of EU bilateral negotiations: The objectives of the EPAs are the promotion of sustainable development and a coordinated effort to eradicate poverty in the ACP by helping the ACP countries to integrate into the world economy, through a stepping stone process of gradually building their ability to compete in larger markets. The Cariforum-EC EPA on Innovation and Intellectual Property specifies that, with respect to Geographical indications (art.145), in the absence of a regulatory framework in the Cariforum countries (Caribbean region), the EPA provides for a rendez-vous clause according to which no later than 1 January 2014 the Cariforum countries will establish a system of protection for GIs. V:2: Lessons for the ACP countries from the experience of EU bilateral negotiations: The objectives of the EPAs are the promotion of sustainable development and a coordinated effort to eradicate poverty in the ACP by helping the ACP countries to integrate into the world economy, through a stepping stone process of gradually building their ability to compete in larger markets. The Cariforum-EC EPA on Innovation and Intellectual Property specifies that, with respect to Geographical indications (art.145), in the absence of a regulatory framework in the Cariforum countries (Caribbean region), the EPA provides for a rendez-vous clause according to which no later than 1 January 2014 the Cariforum countries will establish a system of protection for GIs.

15. EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations on the establishment of regional free trade agreements between the EU and the ACP countries Moves to ensure that the current trade relationship between the two organisations is compatible with WTO rules Cariforum-EC EPA on Innovation and Intellectual Property: Art 145: Cariforum (Caribbean) EPA provides for a rendez-vous clause according to which the Cariforum countries will establish a system of protection for GIs by 2014, when they will enter into negotiations with the EU on a definitive agreement for GIs.  Aim: Foster cooperation and identify and promote Cariforum GIs The Cariforum-EC EPA on Innovation and Intellectual Property specifies that, with respect to Geographical indications (art.145), in the absence of a regulatory framework in the Cariforum countries (Caribbean region), the EPA provides for a rendez-vous clause according to which no later than 1 January 2014 the Cariforum countries will establish a system of protection for GIs. The Cariforum-EC EPA on Innovation and Intellectual Property specifies that, with respect to Geographical indications (art.145), in the absence of a regulatory framework in the Cariforum countries (Caribbean region), the EPA provides for a rendez-vous clause according to which no later than 1 January 2014 the Cariforum countries will establish a system of protection for GIs.

16. The EU approach to GIs in the WTO Doha Development Agenda – GIs Agreement “to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits by the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference”. Issues: 1. The extension of the higher level of protection for wines and spirits to other goods 2. The establishment of the multilateral register of geographical indications VII:1: Doha Development Agenda and the issue of Geographical Indications: The Doha Ministerial Declaration recognised the ongoing WTO Council debate on geographical indications and, without committing members to a specific resolution, acknowledged the agreement “to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits by the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference”. VII:1: Doha Development Agenda and the issue of Geographical Indications: The Doha Ministerial Declaration recognised the ongoing WTO Council debate on geographical indications and, without committing members to a specific resolution, acknowledged the agreement “to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits by the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference”.

17. Extension of protection WTO Members continue to disagree on whether negotiations were also mandated for the extension of the high level of protection to products other than wines or spirits Debate: Response to demands made by WTO Members (from Asia, Africa and Europe) that additional protection should not be limited to wines & spirits, but should include other products that are economically important to them. Countries that have been inclined to oppose additional protection are mainly from the Americas (North and South), or Australia and New Zealand, which are all major exporters of commodity agricultural products. VII:2: Extension of protection of GIs to products other than wines and spirits: WTO Members continue to disagree on whether negotiations were also mandated for the extension of the high level of protection to products other than wines or spirits. Members that have been seeking the extension of the scope of protection of geographical indications are mainly from Asia, Europe and Africa. Those countries that have been inclined to oppose additional protection are mainly from the Americas (North and South), or Australia and New Zealand, which are all major exporters of commodity agricultural products. VII:2: Extension of protection of GIs to products other than wines and spirits: WTO Members continue to disagree on whether negotiations were also mandated for the extension of the high level of protection to products other than wines or spirits. Members that have been seeking the extension of the scope of protection of geographical indications are mainly from Asia, Europe and Africa. Those countries that have been inclined to oppose additional protection are mainly from the Americas (North and South), or Australia and New Zealand, which are all major exporters of commodity agricultural products.

18. Establishment of Multilateral Register on GIs TRIPs Article 23.4 foresees the establishment of a multilateral register of protected GIs. 2 arguments: The EU proposal envisages multilateral registration as a three-step process: notification, examination and registration. The proposed system would go beyond a database of information on GIs and would establish a register with a legal effect. The joint US-Japan proposal is less ambitious then the EU paper, suggesting the establishment of a non-binding system pursuant to which the WTO Member may notify their GIs to the WTO, and having no real legal effect VI:3: Establishment of Multilateral Register on GIs: TRIPs Article 23.4 foresees the establishment of a multilateral register of protected GIs. The EU submitted a negotiating proposal on the multilateral register in July 1998. The proposed system would go beyond a database of information on GIs and would establish a register with a legal effect. Therefore, registration would create the presumption of eligibility for protection. The approach of establishing a multilateral register has gained favour amongst certain ACP countries, including Jamaica, Cuba, Kenya, Nigeria and Mauritius, and is seen as a means of incorporating affirmative protection of GIs for products of interest to their economies. In March 1999, the United States and Japan tabled a proposal on a GI Register, which was supported by Canada and Chile in July 1999. The joint US proposal is less ambitious then the EU paper, suggesting the establishment of a non-binding system pursuant to which the WTO Member may notify their GIs to the WTO. This conservative approach to GI protection is supported by the ACP countries, Namibia and the Dominican Republic. VI:3: Establishment of Multilateral Register on GIs: TRIPs Article 23.4 foresees the establishment of a multilateral register of protected GIs. The EU submitted a negotiating proposal on the multilateral register in July 1998. The proposed system would go beyond a database of information on GIs and would establish a register with a legal effect. Therefore, registration would create the presumption of eligibility for protection. The approach of establishing a multilateral register has gained favour amongst certain ACP countries, including Jamaica, Cuba, Kenya, Nigeria and Mauritius, and is seen as a means of incorporating affirmative protection of GIs for products of interest to their economies. In March 1999, the United States and Japan tabled a proposal on a GI Register, which was supported by Canada and Chile in July 1999. The joint US proposal is less ambitious then the EU paper, suggesting the establishment of a non-binding system pursuant to which the WTO Member may notify their GIs to the WTO. This conservative approach to GI protection is supported by the ACP countries, Namibia and the Dominican Republic.

19. The EU’s approach to GIs in the WTO The EU believes that unauthorised use of geographical indications is harmful to consumers and legitimate producers The EU objectives can be summarised as follows: to obtain effective protection against usurpation of names in the food and beverages sector; to make market access effective, by ensuring that product which have the right to use a certain denomination are not prevented from using such a name on the market; to ensure consumer protection and fair competition through regulation of labelling. VII:4: The EU’s approach to GIs in the WTO: The EU believes that unauthorised use of geographical indications is harmful to consumers and legitimate producers. Therefore, the EU position in respect to increased market access goes hand in hand with enhanced protection. VII:4: The EU’s approach to GIs in the WTO: The EU believes that unauthorised use of geographical indications is harmful to consumers and legitimate producers. Therefore, the EU position in respect to increased market access goes hand in hand with enhanced protection.

20. Arguments for and against GIs in the WTO Arguments for GIs: GIs are an excellent means to promote rural development GIs are effective market access tool GIs are a tool to preserve local know-how and natural resources GIs are an important part of our culture Arguments against GIs: The extension would involve extra costs for governments, producers and consumers GIs are complex - their protection could be used to block imports Cultural grounds: many names have travelled with migrants Protection of GIs = barrier to trade because ensuring better protection of GIs would lead to the closing of markets   VII:5: Arguments for and against GIs in the WTO: Better protection for GIs of all products on a level similar to that granted at present for wines and spirits by Article 23 of the TRIPs Agreement would not create a barrier to trade, but would instead promote trade and investment, in particular for all the developing and developed countries which depend on exports of primary commodities.   VII:5: Arguments for and against GIs in the WTO: Better protection for GIs of all products on a level similar to that granted at present for wines and spirits by Article 23 of the TRIPs Agreement would not create a barrier to trade, but would instead promote trade and investment, in particular for all the developing and developed countries which depend on exports of primary commodities.

21. DDA: ACP members became “demandeurs” in intellectual property, requesting that the additional protection afforded under TRIPs to GIs on wines and spirits be extended to all products. Better exploitation and promotion of GIs would make it possible to afford better protection for the economic interests of the communities with traditional knowledge. The way forward: The ACP group should demand both extension of the high level of protection to all goods and a binding register of names The CARIFORUM-EC EPA shows a way forward, a way where GIs can be protected and domestic economies can use recognition and protection to seek economic prosperity. VII:6: The Significance of the Geographical Indications Debate for ACP Countries: ACP countries would gain from the extension of protection of GIs since GIs could be used for the protection of traditional knowledge. GIs could be used by the ACP countries to enhance the commercial value of natural, traditional and craft products of all kinds if their particular characteristics may be attributed to their geographical origin. Better exploitation and promotion of GIs would make it possible to afford better protection for the economic interests of the communities with traditional knowledge.   VII:7: The Way Forward: The ACP group should raise its voice on GIs. With the wide range of traditional products found in the ACP, traditional producers can only benefit. Traditional products with protected GIs can sell for up to 40% more than non-named but similar products. Evidence suggests that the increased value flows down the distribution chain to the primary producer. VII:6: The Significance of the Geographical Indications Debate for ACP Countries: ACP countries would gain from the extension of protection of GIs since GIs could be used for the protection of traditional knowledge. GIs could be used by the ACP countries to enhance the commercial value of natural, traditional and craft products of all kinds if their particular characteristics may be attributed to their geographical origin. Better exploitation and promotion of GIs would make it possible to afford better protection for the economic interests of the communities with traditional knowledge.   VII:7: The Way Forward: The ACP group should raise its voice on GIs. With the wide range of traditional products found in the ACP, traditional producers can only benefit. Traditional products with protected GIs can sell for up to 40% more than non-named but similar products. Evidence suggests that the increased value flows down the distribution chain to the primary producer.