Introduction
Geographical Indications preserve cultural heritage, contribute to economic development, and sustain rural areas-give it a better meaning. They differentiate products in the international market, ensuring that consumers receive genuine goods whose characteristics derive from them. For agricultural products, wines and spirits, handicrafts, and foods, these confined in specific regions GIs are of paramount importance.
The protection of GIs prevents misuse, enhances the value of regional products and increases their competitiveness in global markets. A variety of international treaties have established the legal frameworks that regulate GIs toward their recognition and enforcement within plural legal systems.
International Treaties and Conventions for The Protection of Geographical Indications
As intellectual property rights (IPRs) become increasingly important in national and international trade, the benefits businesses and economies gain from trade often depend on how well these rights are protected. The TRIPS Agreement, a cornerstone of the global trade system under the World Trade Organization (WTO), establishes baseline standards for IPR protection across its member countries. Among the key areas covered by TRIPS is the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs), which ensures robust safeguards for products recognized as originating from specific regions.
Geographical Indications, defined under Articles 1(2) and 10 of the “Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property,” are considered a type of intellectual property. Their protection is reinforced through both national and international laws. Domestically, GIs are secured by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act of 1999, while on a global scale, the TRIPS Agreement serves as the primary legal framework for their recognition and enforcement.
International legal framework for the protection of GIs is discussed under the following heads:
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883
This treaty marked a groundbreaking moment as it was the first of its kind to offer protection for “appellations of origin” and “indications of source.” A key aim of the Paris Convention is to guard against unfair competition and misleading claims. The concepts of origin and appellations of origin were also recognized as important elements of industrial property in Article 1(2) of the Paris Convention. It provides as follows “The protection of industrial property has as its object patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names, indications of source or appellations of origin, and the repression of unfair competition.” The Paris Convention serves as a foundation for safeguarding against deceptive indications of origin, although it lacks provisions for remedies in the event of a breach.
Madrid Agreement for the Representation of False and Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods, 1891
The Madrid Agreement includes specific regulations to combat misleading and deceptive indications of source (IS). Established in 1891, it has undergone several revisions from 1911 to 1967. This Agreement aims to safeguard IS, yet it does not provide a definition for the term “IS.” Only the members of the Paris Convention can participate in the Madrid Agreement. It mandates the prohibition of false or misleading indications of source on products. Aside from regional appellations of origin for wine, which are regulated by the laws of the country of origin, the Madrid Agreement contains provisions for the protection of IS as per the national laws of the respective nation where the protection is sought. The Agreement also includes stipulations regarding the confiscation of goods that feature false or misleading indications. It safeguards indications of source (IS) from misleading usage.
The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration, 1958
This Agreement is specifically focused on Appellations of Origin (AO). In contrast to the Madrid Agreement, the Lisbon Agreement introduced a definition for the term ‘Appellations of Origin’. This marked the first time the term was clearly defined. Article 2 specifies two terms: “Appellations of Origin (AO)” and “Country of origin.” According to this Agreement, an AO must be the name of the location or region where the product originates and acquires its quality or characteristics. The primary goal of the Lisbon system is to facilitate the international protection of appellations of origin. The International Bureau of WIPO is responsible for overseeing the Lisbon system and maintaining the International Register of Appellations of Origin. The Lisbon Agreement includes provisions for the enhanced and absolute protection of wines and spirits, which were incorporated into the text of the TRIPS Agreement.
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1995
All of the above international conventions had provisions on geographical indications but these were not sufficient. The Paris Convention initially had only a broad statement on geographical indications (GIs), while the Madrid Agreement focused on protecting appellations of origin (AOs). The Lisbon Agreement was less effective due to its limited membership. These factors meant their influence was not very strong in practical terms. To improve this situation, the TRIPS Agreement included measures to protect GIs. It significantly impacted GIs by being the first wide-ranging international agreement to set basic standards for how GIs should be applied and protected, with clear guidelines. Many countries have signed this treaty, committing to implementing basic protection standards for GIs.
Unlike other types of intellectual property, GIs don’t always get the same level of protection. The Agreement allows for variation in GI protection depending on the product. This led to debates among different countries, with the U.S. supporting a system based on certification marks and the European Union and Switzerland preferring protection similar to that in France. Consequently, the protection of GIs differs in scope.
The TRIPS Agreement took effect on January 1, 1995. It established minimum protection standards for all GIs and offered extra protection to wines and spirits. According to the Agreement, members of the WTO must protect GIs, and Part II, Section 3, Articles 22-24 specifically detail the protections required.
Additional Protection for Geographical Indications for Wines and Spirits
Article 23 of TRIPS offers unique provisions for wines and spirits, which may be the most debated aspect of TRIPS. It establishes enhanced protection for geographical indications (GIs) related to wines and spirits. Member countries are obligated to create laws to prevent the use of GIs for wines and spirits that do not come from the specified locations. This means that wines and spirits should be safeguarded even in the absence of a risk of confusion or unfair competition. This elevated level of protection is not granted due to the distinct features of these products but rather represents a compromise made during WTO negotiations favouring the wine-producing nations. The inclusion of spirits occurred towards the conclusion of the TRIPS negotiations. Negotiators conceded to the requests of several wine-producing participants, especially within the European Union, who sought greater protection for wines and spirits compared to the general standard for geographical indications. The level of protection offered is absolute and unequivocal. The use of geographical indications for wines and spirits is strictly forbidden if the products do not originate from the specified locations. It is unnecessary to demonstrate the risk of confusion or unfair competition to restrict such uses.
Bilateral Treaties
Countries that are part of international agreements or treaties have the option to establish separate arrangements among themselves to protect geographical indications (GIs), as long as these arrangements comply with the existing agreements. In addition to these key legal frameworks, regional and bilateral agreements also play a role in safeguarding GIs. Their purpose is to prevent unauthorized commercial use and misleading representations. Under these agreements, country names receive full protection. They also require that GIs be used in accordance with the laws of their country of origin. Essentially, these bilateral agreements extend the protection granted in one country to other participating nations.
Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement (2015)
Over time, the Lisbon Agreement has undergone several amendments to meet the demands of a world that is becoming more linked and larger. The addition of geographical indications, which increased the range of items that could be protected, was one of the most important changes. At first, the goal was to preserve names associated with particular locations while highlighting the distinctive features of goods originating from those areas. The Agreement gradually started to give greater weight to the unique qualities of various regions and how they influence a region’s identity and culture.
The Geneva Act, which introduced more lenient regulations and enticed additional nations to join, was a significant step in this process. Because it creates the possibility of a more flexible and inclusive system for geographical indications, this change is extremely significant. The Geneva Act significantly increases the overall effectiveness of the agreement by allowing a greater range of items to be protected by loosening some of the regulations.
The geographical indications registration procedure is now more effective as a result of these enhancements. The process has been clearer and simpler by eliminating pointless steps and cutting down on paperwork. All stakeholders gain a greater grasp of how the system functions as a result of these modifications, which also increase trust and understanding.
Challenges in Protecting Geographical Indications
Despite the existence of international treaties, a number of variables make consistent protection difficult to provide. A thorough analysis of this problem reveals a sophisticated web of interrelated components.
- Various Legal Frameworks: The disparate legal frameworks governing intellectual property rights in various geographical areas are the cause of the uneven GI protection. Different levels of protection and enforcement result from the application of current trademark laws in certain nations and the absence of specific legal frameworks for GIs in others. Both producers and consumers may become confused and doubtful as a result of this discrepancy.
- Enforcement Challenges: Effectively protecting geographical indications (GIs) is still a major problem. Legitimate GI producers are constantly at risk from the proliferation of phony and counterfeit items, especially in the quickly growing online market. In addition to harming genuine producers’ reputations, these fake goods also jeopardize their financial stability, making it more difficult for them to continue operating their enterprises.
- High Registration Costs: It can be expensive and difficult to obtain GI protection in foreign markets. The costly and intricate registration procedures needed in several nations are particularly difficult for smaller businesses. A significant obstacle to obtaining the protection required to fairly participate in the global market is the fact that many lack the money to meet these needs.
- Trademark Disputes: Conflicts between trademark owners and holders of geographical indications (GIs) often arise, especially when a GI name is used as a brand name. These disputes can result in lengthy legal battles, making it harder to protect and promote GIs effectively. Resolving these issues requires careful consideration and well-thought-out solutions to balance the interests of both parties.
Future Prospects and Recommendations
It will take ongoing international collaboration and the creation of workable, inclusive plans to enhance the protection of geographical indications (GIs) globally in the future. A few actions could have a significant impact to accomplish this:
- Uniformed GI Standards: The creation of a more uniform and equitable system across borders may be facilitated by encouraging nations to harmonize their GI laws with globally accepted standards.
- Support for Developing Regions: By giving developing nations technical help and training, their understanding and use of GI safeguards would improve, levelling the playing field for smaller producers.
- Stronger Online Protections: Fighting counterfeit goods and guaranteeing authenticity require improving digital tools to track and stop GI abuse on e-commerce platforms.
- Educating Customers: Increased appreciation for these items and support for the communities that produce them would result from educating consumers about the significance of GIs and how to recognize authentic products.
Conclusion
Geographical Indications (GIs) are much more than just labels for products; they are symbols of the rich cultural legacy, handicrafts, and unique characteristics of places all over the world. Their protection is based on international agreements, yet problems still exist due to uneven enforcement and divergent legal interpretations. It will require sincere cooperation, workable answers, and a well-rounded strategy that honours both tradition and contemporary consumer demands to overcome these obstacles. In addition to providing genuine economic possibilities for the communities that rely on them, GIs can continue to preserve cultural traditions with the correct efforts.
