1. GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
Is the only Champagne French Champagne?
Erik W. Ibele
Neider & Boucher, S.C./UW Law School

2. What are geographical indications?
Link a product to a particular region
Indicate qualities, attributes, reputation associated with geographic origin
Suggest connection to region’s inherent characteristics (e.g., soil, climate, terrior)
May also imply production skills/processes associated with region

3. Examples of geographical indications
Columbia Columbian coffee
India Basmati (rice)
Greece Ouzo (spirit)
France Champagne (sparkling wine), Roquefort (cheese)
Mexico Tequila (spirit)
Italy Parma ham
Switzerland Etivaz, Gruyere (cheese)
Portugal Port (wine)

4. Geographical indications and trademarks
GIs are closely related to trademarks; both indicate product origin
GIs and trademarks differ in two ways:
A trademark belongs to a particular company; it distinguishes that company’s products. GIs are shared by all producers in the region identified by the GI.
GIs attach to a location; trademarks don’t.

5. Territorial nature of GIs, Trademarks
GI, Trademark protection is territorial
International measures
multilateral agreements (Paris, Madrid)
national laws (Section 44, Trademark Act)
regional application mechanisms
Registration procedures, protection a function of national law

6. Why are geographical indications valuable?
GIs are a marketing tool
Reputation for quality associated with place name used on labels, advertising
GI-identified products are believed to command higher prices
Of particular interest to developing countries

7. What’s the controversy?
Consumer vs. producer interests
Long-time, generic use of expressions that have geographic origins (parmesan)
Differing national treatment of GIs
-weaker: (Canada, US) “Canadian Champagne;” “American-made Pecorino cheese”
-stronger: (EU) GI use reserved to producers in the region, even if other origin is indicated

8. International GI protection: WTO/TRIPS Agreement
Members obligated to prevent use of GIs by nonoriginal producers so as to mislead as to product origin, or constitute competition
Higher level of protection for wines, spirits
Exceptions:
GIs used prior to TRIPS Agreement
(ii) GIs that have become part of common usage

9. International GI protection: bilateral agreements
EU agreements for wines, spirits with Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, South Africa.
EU-US Agreemetn on Trade in Wines (2005)
US to limit use of semi-generic names
current use “grandfathered”
greater US access to EU wine market

10. GIs in the WTO Doha Development Round (2001-2008)
Establishment of multilateral system for registration of geographical indications
Extension of higher level of protection to products other than wines, spirits
“claw back” of certain GIs
EU agenda

11. Multilateral GI register
Scope of coverage: only wines and spirits vs. additional products
Legal effect of registered GIs: legal presumption of protection and obligation to protect GIs vs. advisory function of register
Legal effect in nonparticipating countries

12. Extension of higher level of protection for GIs
Procedural issues under WTO treaty
Developing country interests
India, Kenya, Thailand
have non-wine/spirit GIs
New World producers
Pragmatic arguments
consumer choice
existing level of protection sufficient

13. EU “Claw-back” proposal
Would prohibit use of GIs by nonoriginal producers worldwide
Examples: Gorgonzola, Parmigiano Reggiano, Roquefort
Many GIs have become generic in certain countries
Doha Ministerial Declaration procedure dispute

14. Current status of GI discussion
Failure of Doha Development Agenda
larger agricultural issues remain unresolved
Post-crash perspective
many GI products are luxury goods
reduction in consumer spending
limited development budgets
GIs and sustainable development