The WTO Geographical Indications Dispute
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00577_1.x |
| Author | Michael Handler |
| Published date | 01 January 2006 |
| Date | 01 January 2006 |
CASES
TheWTO Geographical Indications Dispute
Michael Handler
n
INTRODUCTION
There has been a long-standing disagreement between the EC and various other
countries, including Australia and the US, overlegal issues relating to geographical
indications of origin ^ terms applied togoods that suggest that they have particular
qualities attributable to their geographical provenance ^ for agricultural foodstu¡s.
This disagreement has manifested itself most recently in a dispute at the WTO,
European Communities ^Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricul-
tural Products and Foodstu¡s.
1
In this case, initiated byAustralia and the US, a Panel of
the Dispute Settlement Body wasasked to determine whether the EC’s methods of
protecting GIs were compatible with the TRIPS Agreement. The Reports of the
Panel address a number of complex doctrinal issues relating to the impact of the
EC’s GI laws on foreign producersand trade mark owners,which merit close atten-
tion. Although the outcome of the Panel Reports is unlikely to force a radical
change in the EC’s current legislative regime, the case i s signi¢cantbecause it helps
to throw into relief some of the broader di⁄culties with the international protec-
tion of a form of intellectual property that does not command univers al respect, as
well as some of the political strategies that countries are prepared to employ in
seeking to protect their domestic industries and interests.
The vast majorityof the world’s food GIs ^ and some of the most famous, such
as ‘Roqeufort’,‘Feta’ and ‘Prosciutto di Parma’ ^ are located within Europe. The
EC, in£uenced by Member States such as France and Italy which have a long his -
tory of subsidising regional producers of agricultural and viticultural goods, has
deemed the strong protection ofits Members’GIs tobe a vital part ofits agricul-
tural policy of sustaining the rural European economy.To this end the EC has
established, through Council Regulation 2081/92,
2
a Community-wide noti¢ca-
tion and registration system for Members’ GIs for agricultural products and food-
stu¡s.
3
This Regulation ensures that following registration of a GI, only parties
n
Senior Lecturer,Faculty of Law, University of NewSouth Wales. My thanks go toRobert Burrell,
Megan Jones and TonyTaubma n.
1 WTODocuments WT/DS174R (15 March 20 05) (‘EC-USReport’); WT/DS290R(15 March 2005)
(‘EC-Australia Report’).Thes e Reports were adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body on 20 April
2005: seeWTO DocumentsWT/DS174/23 andWT/DS290/21 (25 April 2005).
2 [1992]OJ L208/1.
3 Although the Regulation creates twocategories of registered GI, namely Protected Designations
of Origin (PDOs) and Protected GeographicalIndications (PGIs), bothwi ll be referredto as ‘GIs’.
rThe Modern LawReview Limited 2006
Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
(2006) 69(1) MLR 70^91
To continue reading
Request your trial