Geographical Indication (GI) options for Ethiopian Coffee and Ghanaian Cocoa

Innovation & Intellectual Property
Methods used to protect IP (n = 50)
Used trade secrets
Used geographical indications
Used industrial designs
Used trademarks
Used patents
Used copyright
16%
24%
28%
30%
28%
62%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Figure 15.4: Use of IP
Framework for IP at institutions
The respondents were asked to indicate their knowledge of the existence or
nonexistence of a policy and regulatory framework governing IP in their institutions
on a three-point scale (1 = yes, 2 = no and 3 = don’t know) and to answer five
questions on the content and nature of the framework. The researchers’ responses
(see Table 15.1) showed a lack of knowledge of the prevailing IP conditions in
their various institutions. While 54.2% of the researchers indicated that their
institutions had IP policies, the majority of the researchers did not know whether
the policy was environmentally friendly (53.2%), how ownership of the IP was
managed (53.8%), or whether the policy encouraged openness in sharing information
from publicly funded research (53.6%). In addition, 51% did not know
whether the policy articulated the management of the IP.
The researchers were asked how the IP policies of their institutions impacted:
(1) their knowledge dissemination; (2) their knowledge utilisation; and (3) their
commercialisation of research output. The results elicited by these questions are
shown in Tables 15.2 to 15.4. On knowledge dissemination (Table 15.2), between
52% and 58% did not know whether their institution’s IP policy had provision to
track the research projects that were publicly funded (57.7%); provision to review
IP and associated commercial activities and outcomes (57%); or provision to
clarify staff responsibilities in relation to IP (e.g. prevention of premature public
disclosure of research results prior to obtaining IP [54.1%]). However, 42.3% of
the researchers knew that the IP policies of their institutions provided guidance
348