Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:19:03.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Continents, Divided by Deep Philosophical Waters?

Why Geographical Indications Pose a Challenge to the Completion of the TTIP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Benjamin Farrand
Benjamin Farrand*
Affiliation:
University of Warwick, contactable at b.farrand@ warwick.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The May 2016 leak of draft texts produced within the context of the on–going Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations has provided an interesting insight into the positions of the EU and US with regard to different dimensions of regulatory cooperation, with some chapters being complete or near completion (as other articles in this mini–symposium discuss), and others still in a more rudimentary format. One such field of regulation, covered in the leaked ‘Tactical State of Play’ document, covers geographical indicators (hereafter GIs). However, this coverage is very brief, stating that ‘discussions focused on the preparation of an intersessional discussion prior to the next round’. GIs, marks identifying the geographical origin, and by extension (so the argument goes) quality of goods, have continued to be a source of consternation in international trade regulation, with states unable to see eye–to–eye on how they should be protected, if at all.

Type
Symposium on TTIP Leaks
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 269 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Greenpeace Netherlands TTIP Leak, ‘Note – Tactical State of Play of the TTIP Negotiations’ (2016) at p. 21.

2 It must be stated that there are specific additional regimes for the protection of wines and spirits – in the interests of brevity, and to focus on this core issue of controversy, these additional regimes are not considered here.

3 Feta being the name for a traditional cheese produced in Greece since ‘ancient times’, using either ewe's milk exclusively, or a mixture of ewe and goat milk, as per Regulation No 1829/2002 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name ‘Feta’

4 O’Connor, Bernard, ‘The Legal Protection of Geographical Indications’ Intellectual Property Quarterly (2004) pp. 35 et seqq, at p. 35.Google Scholar

5 Trips, Article 22(1)

6 Blakeney, Michael, ‘Geographical Indications: What Do They Indicate?’ 6 WIPO Journal (2014) pp. 50 et seqq, at p. 50.Google Scholar

7 Mantrov, Vadim, EU Law on Indications of Geographical Origin: Theory and Practice (Berlin: Springer 2014) at p. 32.Google Scholar

8 Although it must be stated that membership of this agreement is low, limiting upon its international impact, as indicated by Pila, Justine and Torremans, Paul, European Intellectual Property Law (Oxford: OUP 2016) p. 469 Google Scholar; Kerr, William A, ‘Enjoying a Good Port with a Clear Conscience: Geographic Indicators, Rent Seeking and Development’ in William A Kerr (ed), Conflict, Chaos and Confusion (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing 2010) p. 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 See Kerr (n 8) p. 88.

10 On this point see Evans, Gail E, ‘The Protection of Geographical Indications in the European Union and the United States under Sui Generis and Trade Mark Systems: Signs of Harmonization?’ Intellectual Property Quarterly (2013) pp. 18 et seqq, p. 20Google Scholar; Taubman, Antony, Wager, Hannu and Watal, Jayashree (eds), A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012) pp. 77–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Gangjee, Dev, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012) p. 184.Google Scholar

12 See for example Drahos, Peter and Braithwaite, John , Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? (Abingdon: Earthscan 2002)Google Scholar; Correa, Carlos María and Yusuf, Abdulqawi (eds), Intellectual Property and International Trade: The TRIPs Agreement (Aalphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2008)Google Scholar.

13 Scherer, FM and Watal, Jayashree, ‘Post–Trips Options for Access to Patented Medicines in Developing Nations’ 5 Journal of International Economic Law (2002) pp. 913 et seqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Taubman, Wager and Watal (n 10) p. 77.

15 Sanders, Anselm K, ‘Geographical Indications of Origin: When GIs Become Commodities, All Gloves Come off’ 46 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2015) pp. 755 et seqq, p. 755CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Pugatch, Meir Perez, ‘Intellectual Property Policy-Making in the 21st Century’ 3 WIPO Journal (2011) pp. 71 et seqq, p. 72Google Scholar; Josling, Tim, ‘The War on Terroir: Geographical Indications as a Transatlantic Trade Conflict’ 57 Journal of Agricultural Economics (2006) pp. 337 et seqq, pp. 339–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 O’Connor, (n 2) p. 35; Luisa Menapace and others, ‘Consumers’ Preferences for Geographical Origin Labels: Evidence from the Canadian Olive Oil Market’ 38 European Review of Agricultural Economics (2011) pp. 193 et seqq Google Scholar.

17 Dür, Andreas, ‘Bringing Economic Interests Back into the Study of EU Trade Policy–Making’ 10 The British Journal of Politics & International Relations (2008) pp. 27 et seqq, p. 35.Google Scholar

18 Dagne, Tesh W, ‘Beyond Economic Considerations: (Re)conceptualising Geographical Indications for Protecting Traditional Agricultural Products’ 46 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2015) pp. 682 et seqq, pp. 684–685;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ferrari, Matteo, ‘The Narratives of Geographical Indications’ 10 International Journal of the Law in Context (2014) pp. 222 et seqq, p. 225.Google Scholar

19 Ferrari (n 18) p. 225; O’Connor (n 2) p. 36.

20 For more on this see Menapace and others (n 16).

21 Arete Research & Consulting in Economics, ‘Study on Assessing the Added Value of PDO/PGI Products’ (Commissioned by the European Commission 2013) pp. 5–6.

22 Tanguy Chever and others, ‘Value of Production of Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Wines, Aromatised Wines and Spirits Protected by a Geographical Indication’ (European Commission 2012) p. 16.

23 Regulation No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

24 Ibid, Article 1

25 Defined in Article 3(7) as processing, production and packaging

26 Although for the stronger Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) protection, all three steps must take place within that area.

27 Joined cases C-465/02 and C-466/02 Federal Republic of Germany and Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities EU:C:2005:636

28 Raustiala, Kal and Munzer, Stephen R, ‘The Global Struggle over Geographic Indications’ 18 European Journal of International Law (2007) pp. 337 et seqq, p. 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 As quoted in Torsen, Molly, ‘Apples and Oranges (and Wine): Why the International Conversation Regarding Geographic Indications Is at a Standstill’ 87 Journal of the Patent and Trademark Society (2005) pp. 31 et seqq, p. 52.Google Scholar

30 Blakeney (n 6) p. 52.

31 Evans (n 10) p. 23.

32 The Lanham (Trademark) Act 15 USC § 1054

33 Josling (n 15) p. 347.

34 ibid.

35 Evans (n 10) p. 26.

36 ibid.

37 Blakeney, Michael, ‘Scope of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the Trans–Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA)’ 21 International Trade Law& Regulation (2015) pp. 14 et seqq, p. 16Google Scholar; see also Rangnekar, Dwijen and Kumar, Sanjay, ‘Another Look at Basmati: Genericity and the Problems of a Transborder Geographical Indication’ 13 The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2010) pp. 202 et seqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Hayes, Dermot J, Lence, Sergio H and Babcock, Bruce, ‘Geographic Indications and Farmer–Owned Brands: Why Do the US and EU Disagree?’ 4 EuroChoices (2005) pp. 28 et seqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Regulation No 1151/2012, Article 14(1)

40 Ibid, Article 14(2); see also WTO Disputes WT/DS/174 and WT/DS/290 EC – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs (2005)

41 See also Bramley, Cerkia, Marie–Vivien, Delphine and Biénabe, Estelle, ‘Considerations in Designing an Appropriate Legal Framework for GIs in Southern Countries’ in Bramley, Cerkia, Bienabe, Estelle and Kirsten, Johann (eds), Developing Geographical Indications in the South (Berlin: Springer 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marette, Stephan, Clemens, Roxanne and Babcock, Bruce, ‘Recent International and Regulatory Decisions about Geographical Indications’ 24 Agribusiness (2008) pp. 453 et seqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Office of the United States Trade Representative, ‘Intellectual Property Chapter Summary’ (2015) p. 3.

43 A view supported by Blakeney (n 37) p. 16.

44 Calboli, Irene, ‘Geographical Indications of Origin at the Crossroads of Local Development, Consumer Protection and Marketing Strategies’ 46 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2015) pp. 760 et seqq, p. 765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Engelhardt, Tim, ‘Geographical Indications under Recent EU Trade Agreements’ 46 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2015) pp. 781 et seqq, p. 783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 ibid p. 816.

47 Araujo, Billy A Melo, ‘The EU's Deep Trade Agenda: Stumbling Block or Stepping Stone Towards Multilateral Liberalisation?’ in Herrmann, Christoph, Krajewski, Markus and Terhechte, Jörg Philipp (eds), European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2014 (Springer: Berlin 2013) p. 281.Google Scholar

48 European Commission, ‘Follow Up to the Strategy for the Protection and Enforcement of IP Rights in Third Countries - GIs’ (2015) 2; Alan Matthews, ‘Geographical Indications (GIs) in the US-EU TTIP Negotiations’ <http://capreform.eu/geographical-indications-gis-in-the-us-eu-ttip-negotiations/> accessed 19 May 2016.

49 Hans von der Burchard, ‘POLITICO Pro's Morning Trade: EU Flexes Muscles on Food Protection in TTIP — Wallonians Reject CETA’ (Politico, 29 April 2016) <http://www.politico.eu/newsletter/morning-trade/politico-pros-morning-trade-eu-flexes-muscles-on-food-protection-in-ttip-wallonians-reject-ceta/> accessed 19 May 2016.

50 ibid.

51 Hans von der Burchard and Emmet Livingtstone, ‘Transatlantic Trade Deal Could Be Bogged down … by Feta Cheese’ (Politico, 12 May 2016) <http://www.politico.eu/article/transatlantic-trade-deal-could-be-bogged-down-by-feta-cheese-ttip-champagne/> accessed 19 May 2016.

52 ibid.