38Dwijen Rangnekar - <strong>Geographical</strong> <strong>Indications</strong>distinguishing product characteristics? How shouldthese characteristics be codified and at whatstages along the distribution chain should they beregulated? What product promotion strategiesshould be adopted and in which markets?! What are the hurdles in actualising the potentialavailable in GI-protection? Here, the analysisshould consider issues concerning the distributionchain and how relevant groups might respond tocodification of product characteristics? Inaddition, there might be external hurdles, such assanitary and phytosanitary requirements. Theseare pertinent in assessing the potential economicvalue of GIs.! What are the burdens and costs associated withprotecting indications of other Member countries?How will this impact on the national/localeconomy?Third, any substantive economic and statistical analysisof GI-extension cannot be blind to the political realityof multilateral negotiations and the evident tradeoffsthat will be struck. Thus, the study should acknowledgeand assess the bargain that might be struck to achieveGI-extension. In addition, the specific burden associatedwith protecting indications of other Member countriesrequires closer assessment.The above are substantive questions that urgentlyrequire attention. Studies that bring in economic andstatistical evidence will shed useful insights on thesubject and help Member countries in their on-goingnegotiations.
ICTSD-UNCTAD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development39END NOTES1 Note that under Article XI.1 of the WTO Agreement, the "European Communities", and not the European Union (EU),shall become a Member of the WTO. The European Communities are a sub-entity of the EU. As opposed to the EU,the European Communities have comprehensive legal personality. The "European Communities" are made up of twoCommunities: the European Community (EC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) as founded bythe Treaties of Rome of 1957. Contrary to the language employed in Article XI.1 of the WTO Agreement, it is only theEC, and not EURATOM, which has become a Member of the WTO. Therefore, the acronym "EC" is used in the singular.2 The WTO Secretariat (IP/C/W/253) uses this term as a common denominator to refer to the various terms andinstruments used by member countries to indicate the geographical origin of goods, in order to avoid confusion withspecific terms that are otherwise legally defined, e.g. geographical indications, indications of source andappellations of origin. This paper adopts a similar convention.3 It is interesting to note that EC and its Member States have only recently made a submission on the issue (viz.IP/C/W/353).4 By way of short-hand, this issue of demanding extension of the scope of application of Article 23 to products otherthan wines and spirits will be referred to as ‘GI-extension’ throughout the paper. See our discussion below, section3.3, on the hierarchy in the levels of protection in Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPs Agreement.5 Here we draw attention to and discuss the shared principles that provide the public policy rationale for protectingtrademarks and IGOs. No doubt, there are differences between trademarks and IGOs and that unanswered questionsremain on how to resolve the real and imminent overlap between the two (see Section 3 below and box 5).6 See Grossman and Shapiro (1988b) for an analytical treatment of this situation, the paragraph is based on theirexposition.7It is often suggested that in certain countries, such as southern European countries, there is a strong link betweenIGO and the product; thus, for example, “the denomination Beaufort signifies all the elements which are included inthe cheese it designates: area of production, breeds of cows and their food, methods of production, etc. and also allthe immaterial substance the denomination is endowed with: tradition, landscape, regional identity value, etc.”(Thévenod-Mottet, 2001).8 The Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property was agreed in 1883 and has been revised at Brussels(1900), The Hague (1925), London (1934), Lisbon (1958) and Stockholm (1967). The Convention was amended in 1979.9 The Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive <strong>Indications</strong> of Source of Goods was adopted in 1891and revised at Washington (1911), The Hague (1925), London (1934), Lisbon (1958) and Stockholm (1967).10The Madrid Agreement also has special measures for ‘regional appellations concerning the source of products of thevine’ (article 4; cf. Baeumer, 1999 for a discussion). Escudero (2001, p10) suggests this is as a possible origin for thedifferential treatment of products under Section 3 of the TRIPS Agreement.11 The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their Registration was agreed in 1958 andhas been revised at Stockholm (1967) and amended in 1979.12 Mention should also be made of the fact that membership of and adherence to either the Madrid or the LisbonAgreements has remained limited. For example, US, Germany and Italy are not members of the Madrid Agreement.13 Conrad, A., 1996: The protection of geographical indications in the TRIPS Agreement. The Trademark Reporter, 86,11-46. Cited in Watal (2001).14 This appears to be the first acknowledged use of the term ‘geographical indications’ (WIPO – International Bureau,2001a, paragraph 71).
Change language