IP/C/W/308/Rev.1 2 October 2001
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (01-4694)
Original: English
Revision
By means of a communication, dated 14 September 2001, the following text has been received from the Permanent Mission of Switzerland with the request that it be circulated as an unrestricted Council document. Since then, Bangladesh and Jamaica have requested that their delegations also be reflected as co-sponsors.
WORK ON ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
Extension of the protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits to geographical indications FOR other products
Introduction
In their communication which was circulated in document IP/C/W/289, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, Paraguay and the United States present their views on the extension of the protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits to geographical indications for other products. They point out potential consequences which they fear could result from such an extension.
Document IP/C/W/289 raises three concerns in particular to which the communication in question would like to respond. These are:
- potential costs to Members resulting from extending the protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits to other products;
- potential effects on consumers; and
- potential effects on trade.
- The cost of extension, if any, would be more than offset by the benefits of more effective protection of geographical indications in world trade.
- Extension does not require the establishment of a new legal or administrative protection regime such as a register, but merely an extension of the scope of the protection Members already have to provide under Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement for geographical indications for wines and spirits to those for other products. The cost factor is therefore not a valid argument against extension.
- Extension facilitates the protection and enforcement of geographical indications, since the misleading test and/or the proof of a case of unfair competition would no longer have to be established. A simple examination as to whether the product actually originates from the place indicated by the geographical indication used with that product would suffice, just as for wines and spirits. Extension therefore brings cost savings for judicial and administrative authorities as well as for those entitled to the use of a geographical indication and interested in the enforcement of their right against misuse.
- The purpose of extension is not to benefit those Members with a large number of geographical indications at the expense of those with few. The aim is to achieve a level playing field in the TRIPS Agreement for all geographical indications, enabling all Members and their products to benefit from the additional, more effective protection.
- Extension would prevent further geographical indications from becoming generic trough misuse of such indications in translations or with de-localisators. Considering the exceptions from protection as contained in Article 24, extension is of particular interest and benefit to those Members who start to make use of and intend to develop their geographical indications as a marketing tool for their products in the future.
- The reasons why the protection currently provided for geographical indications for products other than wines and spirits is insufficient, why additional protection provides more effective protection and what benefits Members would gain from extension are addressed in detail in document IP/C/W/247/Rev.1.