Geographical Indications in the WTO and the Doha Negotiations

1. Geographical Indications in the WTO and the Doha Negotiations Worldwide Symposium on Geographical Indications WIPO/Italian Foreign Affairs Ministry Parma, Italy, 27-29 June, 2005 Miguel Rodriguez Mendoza mrodriguez@ictsd.ch

2. 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

3. Introduction

4. 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)

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

6. Defining Geographical Indications “Geographical indications are...indications which identify a good as originatingin the territory ofaMember, or a region or locality in thatterritory, where a givenquality, reputation or othercharacteristic of the good is essentiallyattributable to itsgeographical origin”

7. On-going WTO activities on GIs • In the Doha negotiations • A multilateral register for wines and spirits • “Extension” of GI protection to other products • 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

8. “Extension” of GI protection

9. “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

10. 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 The two camps on “extension”of GI protection

11. “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

12. “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

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

14. Developing countries and “extension” of GI protection

15. 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

16. Lisbon Agreement Register: Demanded GI registration by product (2000) Wines and wine products 538 64.7% Spirits 72 8.7% Cheeses and milk derivatives 56 6.7% Vegetables, legumes, fruits and cereals 26 3.1% Mineral waters 16 1.9% Beers 11 1.3% Meat products 7 0.8% Pastry and cookies 4 0.5% Spices 4 0.5% Honey 4 0.5% Vegetables oils 2 0.2% Odorant plants and extracts 2 0.2% SUB-TOTAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 742 89.3% Tobacco and cigarettes 33 4.0% Ceramic and ceramics products 10 1.2% Clothes and textiles 7 0.8% Crystal and glass products 4 0.5% Jewelry 4 0.5% Products for domestic use and furniture 2 0.2% Handicraft 2 0.2% Musical instruments 1 0.1% Arms 1 0.1% SUBTOTAL INDUSTRIAL AND ARTISAN PRODUCTS 64 7.7% Marbles, stones and mineral products 17 2.0% Kaolin and clay 4 0.5% Salts 4 0.5% SUB-TOTAL MINERAL PRODUCTS 25 3.0% TOTAL 831 100.0%

18. The Decisions of the Panel

19. 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

20. Summary and Conclusions

21. 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