European Union’s Geographical Indications Regime Essay

Abstract

      European Union’s Geographical Indication has raised a lot of issues. This dissertation tried to identify the origin of GI and its provision as well as the history of Europe and its borders, structures, people, and culture were also discussed here. The geographical indication as laid out by the European Union was changed under the Trade Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights. There have been changes in the Geographical Indication provisions before and under TRIPS and the issues that were raised involved certain organizations and its people.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            The study is aimed at further developing the Geographical Indications Regime of the European Union and the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’ researches and also helping out other people who became interested in the topic.

Objectives

1. To know if there are differences between Geographical Indications (GI) and Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

2. To know what are the differences between Geographical Indications (GI) and Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

3. To know the underlying themes of Geographical Indications (GI).

Introduction

            In today’s world where every country is interdependent with one another, it is important to know the distinctions between and among different countries. Interdependence means that every country needs one another to meet their individual subsistence to attain prominence and maintain its position in economic aspect. This interdependence is not that salient for different nations seldom admit on the benefits they derived from other countries. Most of the countries would profess that they are self-reliant. An example of this is China with their closed door policy wherein they only patronize their own products. Another example is Russia when they were converted into a Socialist country, they have announced that they will build their nation on their own, but in the long run, the socialism died because they have not met some preconditions that Karl Marx have predicted.[1]

            We are now living in a borderless society characterised by technological advancement. Thus, we can communicate with almost every people in the world with just a blink away. Technological and economic advancement come hand in hand with progress resulting to substantial development of one another. With the increasing world relations, we are now living in a competitive world where every country exchanges everything that they can get or produce from the latest technological advancement and even fashion. Many corporations, manufacturers and other producers have emerged; they all supply the products that are available in the world market. Because of this, trade organizations have emerged to protect the rights of individual, country – one good example is the World Trade Organization (WTO).

            Because of the blooming businesses, certain products’ inventors became concerned of their crafts, thus Intellectual Property Rights was created applicable to all countries encompassing different products. In the case of the European Countries, they become very strict in protecting their products. Their vigilance has led to their issuance of policies on geographical indications of products in order to avoid product piracy in the market. The geographical indications regime of the European countries which is commonly abbreviated as GI is considered as a name or sign which is used to identify certain products and a representation of a specific geographical location or origin. The use of geographical indication also certifies that a certain product has a unique quality and sound reputation based on its geographical origin.

            The European Union has created common policy and currency for advantageous cooperation. While this Union has been prosperous for regional advantages, it has also taken a toll on the adjustment of unique European nation-states towards the conglomeration of Europe as a whole. The “feta wars” are an example of a nation trying to preserve the origin of a certain product. The overall symbolism of this paper is the effect of a globalizing market versus country specific culture and origin.[2]

2. European Unions

Greece
France
Germany
Belgium
Denmark
United Kingdom
The Netherlands
Spain
Portugal
10. Italy

2.1 GI on Member States

            One of the major difficulties for the international protection of geographical indications has always been the diversity of the concepts across various nations. Geographical indications are addressed in laws concerning unfair competition, trademarks, advertising and labeling, foods and health, as well as on special regulations. Some of the countries which are promoting international protection have developed a system that combines so may of the different approaches that it can hardly serve as a model law for the international arena. France, for example, is perhaps the country with the most specific protection for appellations of origin and indications of source, nevertheless, its laws and regulations on the matter are distributed among its statutes resulting to an immense complication.

            However, in almost all countries that protect geographical indications, two underlying principles can be discerned: (1) the protection of consumers from misleading information and (2) the integrity of trade, i.e. the protection of producers and merchants from unfair competition. Of course, the two concepts are closely interrelated and the value of any provision depends on how well it balances these interests.[3]

            There are two basic systems of protection, the one based on unfair competition law and the other on registration procedures analogous to trademark law. Germany follows the first system and France the second. But, both of them have their advantages and disadvantages.

            Even if an exhaustive geographical indications’ protection can be attained with unfair competition law, problems arise when the concept is elevated into an international level. The first problem is that one has to determine the protection of the public where the competition takes place in order to evaluate the degree of deceptiveness of a name. Since foreign products are generally less patronized than domestic ones, foreign geographical names may not give rise to a “goods place association.”[4]

            The registration problems’ approach are more practical than theoretical in nature: If the registration system were agreed upon at an international level, all countries are obligated  to adopt a similar system and lists of the protected goods would have to be exchanged – as was already done under some international agreements. However there are always products which are not on the lists or which might not even be protected in their own country of origin because they do not comply with its set standards.

            Both of the above described approaches present problems if they are to be used as models for an international minimum standard for protection. It is not mere chance that the countries which have fully developed system of protection for geographical indications all combine the two notions in one way or another.

            From the view point of comparative law, it can be concluded also that there are two different legal treatments for indications of geographical origin. The first group of countries protects both the function of origin and the function of guarantee of quality, like Italy, Greece and France and the second only the function of origin, like USA and Germany, which after the enactment of the aforementioned Regulations by the EU, has changed its law the last years.[5]

            The EU, being aware of the fact that there is a considerable body of national legislation in force concerning this issue among its Member States has published in the European Communities’ Official Journal a list of all relevant national legislations[6] in order to clarify the situation.

2.1.1 Greece

            Article 3 of Act 146/14 on Unfair Competition in conjunction with Act 2251/94 on the protection of consumers, prohibits inaccurate statements as far as geographical indications are concerned, on the basis that such indications are a type of misleading advertising,[7] resulting to an unfavorable and inaccurate impression on the consumers as to the product on offer. Greek legislation, following the example set by the German model, deals with the misleading geographical indication of origin not as an intangible asset, like a trademark, but rather as a case of deceptive advertisement and considers that it is adequately regulated under Articles 3-5 of Act 146/14 on unfair Competition.[8] This leads to higher protection as well as boost the morale of consumers and competitors and a minimal protection for the local producers.

            Protection is also provided by Articles 13-15 and additionally by the general provisions of Article 1 of the same Act. The said law strictly prohibits any entity or individual to unfairly exploit a third party’s reputation. The unfair use of designations of origin and geographical indications falls under the category of unfair exploitation of third party’s reputation and these indications “are protected as distinctive signs and as such they form part of the goodwill of an enterprise.”[9] These are provisions of law of general character.

            Additionally, there is a specific legislation on the geographical origin’s indications  concerning several agricultural products. Accordingly, Act 2040/92, under Article 11 provides the possibility of special legislation for indications concerning “fine olive oil.” Presidential Decree No 81/93 has been enacted to implement this provision, which provides the terms and conditions under which an indication of origin is protected. The indication must be widely known, at least on the domestic market, have special quality features which can be attributed to the place of origin, and the place of origin, if possible, be clearly delineated. These conditions are not exclusive and additional ones may be added if necessary.

            Regarding wines, Presidential Decree No 243/96 has been issued on the protection of wine production. In relation to the wine sector, after the enactment of Regulations 822/87, 2392/89 and 3201/90 by the EU, Greece recently issued Ministerial Order No 392/1999 on general terms of use of the indication “Local Wine” as descriptive element of table wine,[10] which sets out the conditions under which manufacturers are permitted to use the indication “Local Wine” in conjunction with the relevant designations of origin.

            Recently, Greece’s Ministerial Order No 336/2000 on the appellation of quality wines produced in the specific region of Rhodes was issued which under Article 1 states that those wines are entitled to bear such a designation of origin.

2.1.2 France

            As EU’s member state, France has developed the most significant concerns in the strictest possible protection of designations of origin and geographical indications, for a variety of reasons. The most important of which is the fact that these indications are mainly used in the wine and cheese sector, which constitutes a substantial volume of French exports while at the same time sheltering the country’s economy. Having the goal of protecting the relevant sectors of the economy; the French legislation focuses on the protection of the proprietors of the distinctive signs rather than the protection of the consumers.

            This country follows a system based on the division into two categories of geographical indications. On the other hand, the indications of source are protected through unfair competition law and through the law of August 1, 1905.[11] Appellations of origin on the other hand receive a more detailed protection under the law of May 6, 1919.[12] For a product to be acknowledged as an appellation of origin, it has to be recognized in such a way that it will pass through the judgment of a court or an administrative act. The link between the regions of origin and certain characteristics of the products must be indicated.

            A clear indication of the significance placed on designations of origin is the “champagne case.” The Organization of Champagne producers, the Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), and the Institut National des Appellations d’ Origine (INAO), filed an action against the designer Yves Saint Laurent for using the famous designation for perfume. The French Court decided that the designation was infringed and that the designer should cease to use it by 1998 world-wide, even though it was used to distinguish products other than sparkling wine. In France, Germany and Switzerland its use on the bottles of perfume was prohibited from the day the decision was issued.[13]

            Problems over the “champagne’s” indication have been created between France and other countries too, including the USA and Germany. As far as the latter country is concerned, the use of this indication has been already prohibited for all German producers since 1919 under Articles 274 275 of the Versailles’ Treaty.

2.1.3 Germany

            On the 1st January 1995, the new Trade Marks Act came into force in the Federal Republic of Germany. Before that date, the protection of trademarks, service marks, identifications rights and geographical indications of origin was regulated by various laws. These regulations have now been combined in the Trade Marks Act (MarkenG), to some extent with modifications.[14] Under the new Act, geographical indications of origin are protected with Articles 126-129 and Article 3 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).

            German law has until recently protected geographical indications exclusively through the law of unfair competition. According to Article 3, of the German Unfair Competition Act:

“Any person, who, in course of business activity, for purposes of competition, makes deceptive statements, in particular concerning… The origin of individual goods or commercial services… May enjoined from making such statements”.

The above stated provision is aimed at protecting the integrity of trade and the reliance of consumers on true representations concerning origin. And in this regard, the protection of producers is indirect.

            Two factors are necessary for establishing a violation of Article 3 of the Unfair Competition Act. First Statement used on a product must be geographically descriptive; and second, the statement must be deceptive or misleading. It is misleading, if consumers actually perceive it as an indication of origin (and not e.g., a fantasy name) and if that perception is relevant on their decision to buy. Both factors are determined by the impact that the alleged geographical (mis)description affects consumers or the relevant trade circles. To determine the factual question of whether a statement is misleading the courts sometimes conduct surveys.             According to German Trademark law, the proprietor of a right of this kind has a claim for omission of a right to apply for the third party to cease the use and indemnification rights similar to those provided in the case of a Trademark infringement (risk of confusion). The special characteristics or the quality of the products due to their geographical origin, well as the existence of reputation are a sine qua non requirement for the grant of protection. If the marks have a wide reputation they are protected even though there is no risk of confusion, as long as the use of a geographical indication without proper cause harms the reputation of this indication or dilutes its distinctive character (Article 126 MarkenG).[15]

            In pursuance of the EC-Regulation, it is possible to register geographical indications, either in the European Register of Geographical Indications, (Articles 130-135, 138, 139 MarkenG) or as a collective mark (Article 99 MarkenG).

            Additional provisions can be found in Article 10 of the Wine Act (Weingesetz) and in Article 17 of the Food Act (Lebensmittel-und Bedarfsgegenstandegesetz).[16]

2.1.4 Belgium

            For Belgium, geographical indications of origin are protected through the application of the provisions of unfair competition law and the law on the protection of consumers. The uniform Benelux law on trade marks explicitly provides henceforth a possibility to apply for the registration of a sign the purpose of which is to designate the geographical origin of products as a collective mark, with however the important reservation that the mark cannot be opposed by a third party entitled to use such a denomination.

            As far as Regulation No 2081/92 is concerned, the latter one is subject to harsh criticism mainly because its correct interpretation is currently ambiguous.[17]

2.1.5 Denmark

            According to Section 2(1) of the 1994 Danish Marketing Practices Act, it is unlawful to give false, misleading or unreasonably incomplete commercial information, which is able to influence the decision of consumers on the demand of goods. The basic criterion is the ability of the information to influence the demand of the goods in question.

            A typical case concerning these indications was the application before the Danish Trademark Office regarding the trademark “Champagne” for perfumes. However, as Regulation 2392/89/EEC applies only to wine and similar goods, the registration of “Champagne” as a trademark of perfume could not be denied by way of a direct reference to the Regulation. It was held, nonetheless, that “Champagne,” which is a protected denomination, is extremely well-known and although it is not a trademark it has a commercial value similar to that of a trademark. The exploitation of this commercial value should be reserved for the producers in the Champagne district, and on this background the mark was refused from registration as it was held to be misleading.[18]

2.1.6 United Kingdom

            The Community legislation for designations of origin and geographical indications has been heavily criticized in the UK. As far as Regulation No 2392/89 is concerned it was argued that there is no proper provision for the case of conflict with prior trademarks.[19] The main objections and comments are the following: a) there is inadequate explanation in the preamble, which is mostly concerned to try to justify its legitimacy; b) Only a Member State may object to registration of a geographical indication or a designation of origin. The right of the individual proprietor, of a prior established or registered trademark, is confined to sending his objection to the authorities of his Member State. The Member State cannot be compelled to put forward the objection. A party from a country outside the EU has no right of objection at all. Moreover, under Article 17, the registration of a certain geographical indications that is existent should not have any objection but if there is such, it is still allowable under Article 4. Meanwhile, Article 5 states that the Commission is to “ask Member States concerned to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures within three months.” It does not appear that the objector has any right to be heard, or to pre-set arguments in support of the objection; d) There is no possibility of seeking cancellation of a geographical indication or designation of origin, even if such has been wrongly registered; e) Although Article 14 makes provision permitting continued use of a trademark registered in good faith before the date on which the application to register the geographical indication or designation of origin was lodged, unless there are grounds for invalidity or revocation of the trademark as provided for in the EC Directive; and f) Article 14 also does not provide adequately for the well-known unregistered mark.[20]

            The aforementioned critical approach does not mean that British law ignores Community legislation and the dicta of the ECJ’s decisions. On the contrary, the “Chiemsee” judgement was the reason that the Patent Office and Trademark Registry issued the Practice Amendment Circular PAC 7/99 “Change of Registry Practice – UK Geographical Locations.” The judgement was not a major departure from an existing UK practice.

            Nevertheless, the Court’s findings indicated that some adjustments of practice were appropriate. In particular, the judgment suggested that more attention should be given to the recognition of the sign as a geographical name by the public, and the nature of the goods or services involved compared with the characteristics of the place described by the name, in assessing its likely use as a geographical indicator.[21]

            Also relevant to geographical indications of origin is the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 –Origin Marking, which applies to Statements about all goods other than statements that are required under various agricultural or horticultural controls. However, voluntary indications of origin on agricultural or horticultural produce would be caught by the Act and other food labeling. Recently, DTI has issued Guidance Notes for Traders to help traders to indicate the origin of their goods, according to the provisions of the Act.[22]

            Relevant to Regulation No.2081/92 is the Case Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v. ASDA Stores Ltd and Another of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division.[23] In this case the first defendant sold in its stores pre-sliced, pre-packaged Parma ham, supplied by the second defendant who obtained it boned and ready to slice by a Parma producer, member of the Consorzio. The Consorzio claimed that the sale of the ham by the first defendant under the designation “Parma ham” was in breach of Council Regulations No. 2081/92 and 1107/96 because these Regulations had incorporated the Italian regulations relating to the designation “Parma ham”. According to the latter the ham had to be packaged in the Parma region under the supervision of the Consorzio. High Court ruled that “although the Italian slicing and packaging regulations were referred to in the specification attached to the application, there was nothing in Article 4 which requires the product specification to include the subsequent commercial stages, such as slicing and packaging by persons other than farmers. There is no reason to suppose that every rule or provision of national law becomes protected simply because it is included in an application for registration of a name made to the Commission which is subsequently approved, and every reason to suppose the contrary”.

            The Court held that, as established by Cases “Prantl” and “Delhaize.” quantitative restrictions are prohibited, “the Italian rules on slicing and packaging may amount to quantitative restriction on exports and consequently that the Regulations should be interpreted in such a way as not to allow such restrictions”.

2.1.7 The Netherlands

            According to the Dutch law, geographical indications of origin are protected by: A) The Netherlands Civil Code, Article 6:194 against the misuse of these indications. The origin of goods or services is explicitly mentioned as one of the aspects, giving misleading information on which to the public is considered a tort. If the Court determines that the geographical indication is misleading in the sense of Article 6:194 Civil Code, the following actions can be imposed: 1) prohibition of the use of the name or presentation in the future, strengthened by a fine, 2) rectification, 3) under certain conditions: compensation of damages. Consumers and competitors may file an action against the person who misleads the public in this way. B) By provisions of Criminal Law as stated under Articles 328bis and 337. C) In regard to community legislation, as far as regulations on the market on wine are concerned two organizations have been created in order to ensure proper protection: for wines the “Productschap voor wijn” and for spirits the “productschap voor gedistilleerde dranken”.[24]

2.1.8 Spain

            In Spain geographical indications and designations of origin are protected according to the provisions of unfair competition law and trade mark law. There is also the Statute on Vineyards, Wine and Alcohols Law No. 25 of 2-12-1970 and it’s implementing Regulation of 23-3-1972. Furthermore, the Penal Code defines under Article 275 as a criminal offence involving industrial property the use in trade of a legally protected appellation of origin or geographical indication representing a specific quality on goods protected by the same provided such use is made in the awareness that the said appellation is protected.[25]

2.1.9 Portugal

            On 24 January 1995, a new Industrial Property Code was enacted in Portugal, which entered into force from the 1st of June 1995, in order to harmonize Portuguese legislation with the European rules. The new Code recognizes appellations of origin and geographical indications as a special category of industrial property rights, and it regulates them in the chapter entitled “Other Industrial Property Rights”.[26]

2.1.10 Italy

            Italy’s geographical indications are generally protected under Article 2598 of the Civil Code as part of the unfair competition law. Italy has based its relevant case law largely the European Regulations mentioned above. Furthermore, for the adjustment of its legislation to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement the government has issued Legislative Decree No. 198 of 19-3 1996, Article 10 of which amended Law 1992/164 on the protection of indications of origin in the wine sector.[27]

            The same law has introduced, under Article 31, a specific discipline for geographical indications, providing that, a geographical indication is intended to be the one that indicates a country, a region or a resort, when it is used to identify a product that is originally of that area and whose quality or reputation or features are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment of origin, comprehensive of natural, human and traditional factors. The norm foresees also, that the use of geographical indications is considered an act of unfair competition, when it is suitable for deceiving the public, as well as any means in the designation or presentation of a product, that may point out or suggest that this product might originate from a resort different from the real place of origin, or that the product might present the qualities that are typical of the products that come from a resort designated by a geographical indication.[28]

            In the relevant case Pilsner Urquell v Industrie Poretti SpA[29] the Milan Court dealt with the case of a Czech brewer who sued an Italian brewer for using the indication “Pilsen,” his registered trademark, on the Italian beer Labels. The Milan’s Court of Appeal ruled that a) a designation of origin could not become the subject of exclusive rights if used to refer to the quality of the product in question and that b) a name descriptive of a product’s reputation for quality and excellence were derived simply from the name.

            The case was brought before the Court of Cassation who stated that protection of geographical indications was aimed at reassuring the consumer of a product’s place of origin, which is itself an assurance of quality. In contrast, a trademark enables the consumer to distinguish with certainty the identity of the product; where the only element of a trademark, which is used by a defendant, is in itself a geographical indication that the law on geographical indications, not trademark law, should govern the present case. The Court ordered the submission of evidence so as to decide whether following its registration as a trademark, geographical indication has ceased to serve as such and has become a generic term.[30]

3. EC Regulation 2081/92

            In order to harmonize the use and control of geographic indications across the European Union, Regulation 2018/92 was promulgated.[31] Prior to its passage, there was no EU-wide regulation of geographic indications; regulation and enforcement was handled on a national level by the individual Member States, and as a result, geographic indications had practical application only in the countries where they were adopted, absent agreements to extend protection to other countries.[32] Such agreements were formed, both internationally and bilaterally, to create some reciprocity and harmony among the multiple regulation regimes.[33]

            The preamble to Regulation 2081/92 raises other reasons, alongside harmonization, why the regulation of geographical indications should be accomplished at the European Union level, rather than the state level, including: balancing supply and demand by diversifying agricultural production; benefiting the rural economy; meeting the increasing consumer interest in quality – rather than quantity – of foodstuffs and particularly in foodstuffs with identifiable geographic origins; and empowering consumers to make informed choices.[34] Boiled down, the European Union is aimed to serve two broad purposes in protecting GIs: one, benefiting consumers and their ability to make informed choices, and two, protecting local producers in a tough global market.

            Two different types of geographical indication are protected under Regulation 2081/92: protected designations of origin (“PDOs”) and protected geographical indications (“PGIs”).[35] Although the regulation draws this definitional distinction, the procedures and protections of the regulation apply to both types equally,[36] thus this paper will refer to both with the general term geographical indications, or GIs. The distinction has significance primarily in terms of what label (PDO or PGI) is affixed to products protected under the regulation. Only products meeting the requirements of this regulation may bear such labels.[37]

4. EC Regulation 510/2006

            The European Council Regulation (EC) No. 510/2006 of 20 March 2006, on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuff states the following:

(1) The production, manufacture and distribution of agricultural products and foodstuffs play an important role in the Community economy.

(2) The diversification of agricultural production should be encouraged so as to achieve a better balance between supply and demand on the markets. The promotion of products having certain characteristics can be of considerable benefit to the rural economy, particularly in less-favored or remote areas, by improving the incomes of farmers and by retaining the rural population in these areas.

(3) A constantly increasing number of consumers attach greater importance to the quality of foodstuffs in their diet rather than to quantity. This quest for specific products generates a demand for agricultural products or foodstuffs with an identifiable geographical origin.

(4) In view of the wide variety of products marketed and the abundance of product information provided, the consumer should, in order to be able to make the best choices, be given clear and succinct information regarding the product origin.

(5) The labeling of agricultural products and foodstuffs is subject to the general rules laid down in Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labeling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. In view of their specific nature, additional special provisions should be adopted for agricultural products and foodstuffs from a defined geographical area requiring producers to use the appropriate Community symbols or indications on packaging. The use of such symbols or indications should be made obligatory in the case of Community designations, on the one hand, to make this category of products and the guarantees attached to them better known to consumers and, on the other, to permit easier identification of these products on the market so as to facilitate checks. A reasonable length of time should be allowed for operators to adjust to this obligation.

(6) Provision should be made for a Community approach to designations of origin and geographical indications. A framework of Community rules on a system of protection permits the development of geographical indications and designations of origin since, by providing a more uniform approach, such a framework ensures fair competition between the producers of products bearing such indications and enhances the credibility of the products in the consumer’s eyes.

(7) The rules provided for should apply without interfering with existing Community legislation on wines and spirit drinks.

(8) The scope of this Regulation should be limited to certain agricultural products and foodstuffs for which a link exists between product or foodstuff characteristics and geographical origin. However, its scope could be enlarged to encompass other agricultural products or foodstuffs.

(9) In the light of existing practices, two different types of geographical description should be defined, namely protected geographical indications and protected designations of origin.

(10) An agricultural product or foodstuff bearing such a description should meet certain conditions set out in a specification.

(11) To qualify for protection in the Member States, geographical indications and designations of origin should be registered at Community level. Entry in a register should also provide information to those involved in the trade and to consumers. To ensure that Community-registered names meet the conditions lay down by this Regulation; applications should be examined by the national authorities of the Member State concerned, subject to compliance with minimum common provisions, including a national objection procedure. The Commission should subsequently be involved in a scrutiny procedure to ensure that applications satisfy the conditions lay down by this Regulation and that the approach is uniform across the Member States.

(12) The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement 1994, contained in Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization) contains detailed provisions on the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

(13) The protection afforded by this Regulation, subject to registration, should be open to the geographical indications of third countries where these are protected in their country of origin.

(14) The registration procedure should enable any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest in a Member State or a third country to exercise their rights by notifying their objections.

(15)There should be procedures to permit amendment of specifications on request of groups having a legitimate interest, after registration, in the light of technological progress and cancellation of the geographical indication or designation of origin for an agricultural product or foodstuff, in particular if that product or foodstuff ceases to conform with the specifications on the basis of which the geographical indication or designation of origin was granted.

(16) The designations of origin and geographical indications protected on Community territory should be subjected to a monitoring system of official controls, based on a system of checks in line with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, including a system of checks to ensure compliance with the specifications of the agricultural products and foodstuffs concerned.

(17) Member States should be authorized to charge a fee to cover the costs incurred.

(18) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.

(19) The names already registered under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs on the date of entry into force of this Regulation should continue to be protected under this Regulation and automatically included in the register. Provision should also be made for transitional measures applicable to registration applications received by the Commission before the entry into force of this Regulation.

(20) In the interests of clarity and transparency, Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 should be repealed and replaced by this Regulation.[38]

5. Geographical Indications (GI)

5.1 Definition

            Descriptions of food, every agricultural products, spirits, aromatized drinks, and wines are needed in accordance to the law of the European Union regarding the protected geographical indications. The International Intellectual Property Law has Geographical Indications Law which is comparable with the product’s Geographical Origin, which is, in a way or two Geographical Indications of the International Intellectual Property Law is similar with the Geographical Origin of the product which in a way or two is related with trade marks. This geographical indication has a primordial role in the development of a common agricultural policy in the European Union (EU).

            There is also a general system which is composed of – PDO or the Protected Designations of Origin and the PGI or the Protected Geographical Indications. The former is being used for spirits and aromatized drinks while the latter is being used for wines which are also known as the appellations. The origin of a product is considered as a single criterion for use of the protected terms because there is Traditional Specialty Guaranteed or TSG which is a criterion for the quality of a product. The said secluded term does not demand any limitations on the geographical origin of the product.

            The terms, designations of origin and geographical indications were being used interchangeably which causes confusion. Sometimes, designation of origin is called appellations of origin while the geographical indication is called indications of provenance and there are a lot of terms that were created by different legislations. The general term, indications of geographical origin also means designations of origin and the indications of origin.[39]

Professor A. Liakopoulos defined indications of geographical origin as, “indications, which denote the geographical origin of the product, either the origin alone or together with typical characteristics or certain quality of the product.”[40] Taken from Article 2 of EC Regulation No. 2081/92,

“A designation of origin means the name of a region, specific place, or a country used to describe an agricultural product or foodstuff originating in that region, specific place or country, and the quality or characteristics of which are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors, and the production, processing and preparation of which take place in the defined geographical area. On the other hand, geographic indication means the name of a region, a specific place or a country which is used to describe an agricultural product or foodstuff originating in that region, specific place or country and which possess a specific quality, reputation other characteristics attributable to that geographical origin and the production and/or processing and/or preparation of which take place in the defined geographical area. ”[41]

            In designations of origin, the connection between the product and the place is much important as compared with the geographical indications. The former also represents particular distinctive or renowned qualities associated with the product’s origin, although both of them refer to geographical locations. In the wine sector, in accordance to Article 50 (2) of Regulation 1493/1999,

“Geographical Indication is taken to mean which identify a product as originating in the territory of the third country which is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) or in a region or locality within that territory, in cases where a certain quality, reputation or other given characteristic of the product may be attributed essentially to that geographical place of origin.”[42]

Meanwhile, taken from the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which includes Trade in Counterfeit Goods, Article 22 (1) states:

“Geographical indications, for the purpose of this Agreement, are identifying a good as originating in the territory, where given quality, reputation and other characteristics of the good are essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”[43]

            Aside from the indications of geographical origin there are also other significant indications. These are: 1) Direct Indications – those which are used when the product itself or the characterization of the product consists of a geographical name like ‘India’, or a local adjective such as ‘Indian Cuisine’, or other indications like ‘Made in China.’ 2) Indirect Indications- those which are not geographical region due to the fact that they have specific signs which are traditionally connected with a specific place or with its local culture like the flag of a country on the product. There are other indications, such as but not limited to, indications of kind – identifying a product based on its nature. It is possible that there is a generic indication of geographical origin; Community names – regulated by secondary community legislation define the characteristics and method of elaboration of the product throughout the community. They can be distributed in all member sates without any restrictions;  Imaginary indications – describe products, which refer to a place at which it is not possible to have been produced or manufactured whereas this place does not add any additional qualities; Currently non-existent – due to historical evolution, no longer indicate a specific place or country. This is somehow similar to imaginary indications; Generic names – part of the national legacy of a country and can be used by any producer.[44] According to Article 3 (1) of Regulation 208/92, to wit:

“Generic name is a name of an agricultural product or foodstuff which, although it relates to the place or the region where this product or foodstuff was originally produced or marketed, has become the common name of an agricultural product or a foodstuff.”[45]

And lastly, there is the Commercial names which is defined by Directive 79/112/EEC, Article 5 (1) as,

“The name under which the foodstuff is sold shall be the name laid down by whatever laws, regulations or administrative provisions apply to the foodstuff in question or, in the absence of any such name, the name customary in the Member State where the product is sold to the ultimate consumer or a description of the foodstuff and if necessary, of its use, that is sufficiently precise to uniform the purchaser of its true nature and to enable it to be distinguished from products with which it could be confused.”

            As compared to other intellectual property rights, geographical indication has no single definition or terminology and it has no definition that is accepted worldwide.

“With the exception of design law, there is probably no category of intellectual property law where there exists such a variety of concepts of protection as in the field of geographical indications. This is maybe best demonstrated by the term ‘geographical indication’ itself, which is relatively new and appeared only recently in international negotiations.”[46]

            Article 22 of the Agreement provides a definition of geographical indications by stating that they are:

“… indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”[47]

This definition seems to be based on the concept of appellation of origin contained in Article 2 of the Lisbon Agreement. Nevertheless, it is broader because according to Bauemer it confers,

“… protection to goods which merely derive a reputation from their place of origin without possessing a given quality or other characteristics which is due to that place. In contrast, the Lisbon Agreement requires that the quality and the characteristics of the product in question are due, exclusively or essentially, to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors. Goods which owe merely a certain reputation but not a specific quality, to their place or origin are thus not covered by the Lisbon Agreement.”[48]

According to the TRIPS Agreement a geographical indication to be protected as such, needs just to be “an indication,” but not necessarily the name of a geographical place on earth.[49] The “indication” has to identify goods as originating in the territory of a Member (could be the name of a WTO country Member), a region or a locality of that territory. This definition also indicates that goods to be protected should originate in the territory, region or locality to which it is associated. This means that licenses for the use of geographical indications cannot be protected under the TRIPS Agreement.

            The definition given by the Agreement provides Members State with alternatives to link the protected geographical indication with the product concerned: a given quality, or reputation or other characteristic of the good should be “essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”

            In other words the TRIPS Agreement provides Members with at least three independent criteria for the protection of a given product through a geographical indication: quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good attributable to its geographical origin.

Because of the difficulty in having a specific term related to this concept, the World Trade Organization’s Secretariat, while summarizing the responses to the checklist of questions posed to its Members in relation to the protection of geographical indications, has created a new term – “indications of geographical origin” and tries to be a common denominator to designate the different expressions used by World Trade Organization’s Members to protect geographical origin of products, given that geographical indication has a specific meaning under Article 22.1 of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. The said conception did not easily pass through the WTO’s Members Council Meeting in April 2001. The Secretariat talked about the new concept as “to avoid any appearance of prejudicing the rights and obligations of Members.”[50] The latter have explained the new coined term as a mere summation of the paper in describing the national laws with regards to the protection of the geographical indications.[51]

5.2 Objectives

            The main purpose of geographical indication is to boost the income of the producers or those they classified as the “right holders.” Included in the Regulations are what the consumers want or to simply put, their demands in terms of product quality. The goals for the protection are also included in the Regulation. These demands and goals are – promoting the products bearing particular characteristics, especially to products originating from the remote areas; to compensate the exerted efforts of the farmers in producing quality products, there should be the improvement in their incomes; maintaining the population in rural areas; and lastly, the proper dissemination of information regarding the origin of the product.

            The aforementioned provisions are for the benefits of the consumers and producers who took the cudgel of providing utmost importance in the effort of producing quality products. But on the contrary, the said provisions are similar with the trademarks.[52]

5.3 History

            The overwhelming impression an impartial observer takes from the discussions of the current geographical indication controversy, in this country at least, is that the European system somehow emerged from whole cloth – designed almost intentionally to beleaguer American producers of European style foods. As the discussion below will demonstrate, however, European geographical indication law actually was forged through a slow process of pressure and reaction, as European governments tried to devise ways to protect both their consumers and small businessmen against fraud and trickery.[53]

      Given France’s unparalleled reputation for culinary arts, it is not surprising to find that the process of developing geographical indications has relatively long roots in that country.[54]   The influence of France’s geographical indication law is so overwhelming; that it became a model of “registration rights” had been adopted widely across Europe and elsewhere.[55]

            There is no doubt that France began thinking about the issues inherent in geographical indication early in its august history, perhaps as early as the waning of the Middle Ages.[56] By the early modern period, for example, while there was no specific law on fraud or geographical indication as we understand them, it is clear that the system of monopolistic “corporations” chartered by the crown to undertake specific trades was motivated by some of the same intuitions that fuel protection today.[57] The details of enforcement in the period are sketchy, of course – but a fundamental idea of how monopoly based geographical indication might have worked is provided by a famous story told to chronicle the birth of the restaurant as an institution. As the tale goes, in the mid-18th century a Parisian innkeeper named Boulanger[58] cooked a creamy, white sauce flavored with calves’ feet instead of his usual restaurant, a thin broth like soup.  This drew the ire of Paris’s guild of traiteurs, who claimed exclusive jurisdiction over the dining industry.[59] After much lower court litigation, we are told, the case was eventually presented before the Parlement de Paris, then France’s highest court. Sadly for the enterprising cook, Boulanger lost on the merits – but won in the court of public opinion, in the annals of which he is remembered as the inventor of the modern restaurant.

            The best historical thinking suggests that the Boulanger story is likely to be false.[60] But we do know that such suits were possible.[61] And if your guild was granted the monopoly over the cheese brie, for instance, one can imagine without much difficulty a similar suit to keep an upstart cheese monger from cannibalizing your business.[62]

            The reason we never saw more developed geographical indication in the 18th century, however, or under Napoleon, is a relatively simple side effect of technological development. While some products could certainly be transported long distances in the era before rail,[63] most of the kinds of produce the food historian and lawyer is concerned about could not be imitated in a way that made commercial sense. It is therefore unsurprising to see that the earliest laws concerning geographical protection mainly surrounded products that could comfortably travel long distances, and were expensive enough to merit imitation. The medieval German beer purity laws are a sterling example of such targeted protection – beer, after all, is a remarkably robust product.[64]

       The first definitive move towards protection of geographical indication, therefore, had to wait until the 19th century, as preservative technology improved to allow greater trade across regions. A first, failed attempt to impose liability for fraud was found in the draconian law of 22 Germinal in the XI year of the French Revolution – that is to say, 1803.[65] Though the law certainly protected trademarks in the most basic sense of fraud,[66] the criminal remedies involved were far too severe to ever apply.[67] Second, far more serious attempt to protect geographical indication was codified in statute by the law of July 28, 1824, which established criminal penalties for those who falsely indicated the origin of goods, [68] or for those who lied about the producer of goods.[69] There was no obligation to actually label your product – if the producer wished; they could certainly remain “anonymous”.[70] But if you did choose to speak about your product’s origin, what you said had to be true. Though this law was necessarily a primitive development, it has never been abrogated,[71] and its enforcement has continued despite the arrival of more sophisticated statutes. By 1930, for example, the 1824 statute was still being used to determine that Algerian oranges could not be labeled as Spanish.[72] There is a clear preliminary effort to assign a geographical indication; the 1824 statute was the first step in a long road to the modern law.

5.4 Functions

            Geographical indications guarantee the origin of the product, constitute proof of the product’s quality, add to the reputation of the product and protect the interests of producers and consumers against deceptive information.

            More specifically, designations of origin serve a distinctive function as well as a guarantee function whereas geographical indications serve only the distinctive function.

            Designations of origin serve, inter alia, the function of guaranteeing the specific characteristics of the product, which are attributed to the fact that goods originate from specific geographical area. The reason for their protection by the law is the protection of producers against unfair competition and the protection of consumers against information which is likely to cause confusion and deceive them.

            Geographical indications on the other hand provide information for the place of production of the goods without connecting the goods with a specific characteristic of quality attributed to this place. For this reason, they are not subject to the same degree of protection in all countries and by all Conventions. In some cases, like the Lisbon Agreement, they are not included at all within the scope of protection. This, of course, does not mean that they are not protected with the provisions of unfair competition law.

            For the protection of the guarantee function of designations of origin, geographical indications can be placed on the same product which already bears a designation of origin, under the condition that there is no risk of confusion.[73] With this provision the risk of confusion of consumers is eliminated as far as which indication, identifying a specific place, is the one which at the same time denotes additionally a certain quality of the product.

            Besides the function of quality and origin, indications of geographical origin have an advertising function as well. Namely, they provide the producers with an additional distinctive sign for the distinction of their products from other similar ones and their commercial promotion in the market and to compete with multinational companies, which have the means to support expensive advertising campaigns.[74]

5.5 Economic Importance

            The development of agriculture and more specifically the production, manufacture and distribution of agricultural products is instrumental for the economy of the European Union. It is indicative of the importance attributed to agriculture that special provisions were already laid down in the First Part of the European Treaty, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam on the 2nd October 1997[75], Article 3, para (e)[76] and in the Third Part of the Treaty, the Second Title of which exclusively concerns agriculture (Articles 32-41, ex Articles 38-45). These provisions and their place in the Treaty prove that grant agriculture equal significance with the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital.[77]

            In order to achieve the aims set out in the Common Agricultural Policy it is vital that diversification in agricultural production is promoted so as to achieve the best possible balance between market supply and demand. In order to create diversification of agricultural products using the criterion of origin from a specific place, a large body of legislation has been enacted concerning indications of geographical origin. These indications have two very important functions for the economy. They are “important means of individualization of the products” and at the same time “it is possible to signify a certain quality or some specific virtues of the merchandise”.[78]

            The protection of indications of geographical origin[79] is important for each link of the production-trading- consumption chain of the products, and as a result for each national economy.

            Local producers are therefore prejudiced because firstly, when the indications of their region are used by a third party not entitled thereto, their reputation is diluted[80] and secondly, the number of their customers is diminished.

            Traders and the business world are economically harmed because the non-original products are usually cheaper than the original and consumers, unaware that the indication of geographical origin is deceptive and inaccurate, will naturally buy the cheapest version, being the non-original. Additionally, enterprises have a vital interest in the protection of these indications not only against illegal use from parties not entitled to them, but also against unfair and irrational monopolization by the legitimate owners of these rights.

            Consumers on the other hand are harmed because they believe that they buy goods produced at a certain place and of particular quality, whereas this is far from the truth.[81] The importance of the protection of goods today is growing since an ever-increasing number of goods are circulated in the Common Market.[82] Furthermore, “it has been observed in recent years that consumers are tending to attach greater importance to the quality of foodstuffs rather than quantity and this quest for specific products generates a growing demand for agricultural products or foodstuffs with an identifiable geographical origin”.[83]

            As a consequence, national economies of Member States are damaged since the foodstuff market is extremely significant for economical development. The promotion of goods with unique features is to the advantage of an agricultural economy’s development, and especially for regions which are remote and whose economy is based on such agricultural products only which is especially true for countries such as Greece, with basically agricultural economy. In countries where the economy is based on traditional products, indications of geographical origin are the right which establishes and confirms economic growth.

            In addition, the uniform protection of indications of geographical origin at a European level promotes market integration, whereas divergent national treatments lead to partition and isolation. In the face of the integration of the internal market in the field of foodstuffs, “economic operators should be provided with instruments that would enable them to enhance the market value of their products while protecting consumers against improper practices and guaranteeing at the same time fair trade”.[84]

            The recent Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 dated 17 May 1999, on the common organization of the market in wine[85] sets out in terms the economic interests which are served by the protection of indications of geographical origin, according to Article 47 of the Regulation the objectives of such protection are the following:

“a) the protection of legitimate interests of consumers;

b) the protection of legitimate interests of producers;

c) the smooth operation of the internal market;

d) the promotion of the production of quality products.”

            Regardless of their economic importance, geographical indications and designations of origin are also a form of cultural legacy. The development of typical products and foodstuffs in a specific region is part of its history. Through direct or indirect references to products’ geographical indication of origin, namely of the place of production, gathering or exportation, it is possible to be connected with significant historical incidents or cultural works.[86] The Countries which have strong tradition of recognizing geographical indications are not only concerned about the economic consequences of a dilution of their geographical names, but also about a part of their cultural heritage.

5.6 GI as part of the Doha Round Negotiations

            There was a declaration of the November 2001 Fourth Ministerial Conference which provides the mandate for negotiations on a range of subjects and other works particularly on agriculture and services. Ministers also approved a linked decision on implementation – problems developing countries faces in implementing the current WTO agreements.[87]

            Taken from the Ministerial declarations, the following are the salient features regarding the geographical indications,

“17.  We stress the importance we attach to implementation and interpretation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) in a manner supportive of public health, by promoting both access to existing medicines and research and development into new medicines and, in this connection, are adopting a separate declaration.

18.  With a view to completing the work started in the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Council for TRIPS) on the implementation of Article 23.4, we agree to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits by the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference. We note that issues related to the extension of the protection of geographical indications provided for in Article 23 to products other than wines and spirits will be addressed in the Council for TRIPS pursuant to paragraph 12 of this declaration.

19.  We instruct the Council for TRIPS, in pursuing its work programme including under the review of Article 27.3(b), the review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement under Article 71.1 and the work foreseen pursuant to paragraph 12 of this declaration, to examine, inter alia, the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore, and other relevant new developments raised by members pursuant to Article 71.1. In undertaking this work, the TRIPS Council shall be guided by the objectives and principles set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement and shall take fully into account the development dimension.”[88]

5.7 Geographical Indications before TRIPS

            International treaties such as the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agreement, and the Lisbon Agreement have already made provisions on the protection of Geographical Indications but the provisions made by the said treaties were not enough because of two reasons: 1) Paris Convention has general provision on this matter only; and 2) There is a limited membership in both Madrid and Lisbon Agreements. Nonetheless, the aforementioned treaties have influenced the TRIPS Agreement.[89]

             The Paris Convention, without any doubt was one of the most important treaties adopted in the late 19th century, agreed in 1883 and complemented by the Madrid Protocol of 1891, has a great influence in the industrial property laws adopted by many countries throughout the 20th century but was later revised at Brussels (1900), Washington (1911), The Hague (1925), London (1934), Lisbon (1958), and Stockholm (1967), and amended in 1979. The Paris Convention gained 160 signatures as of 15 October 2000.[90]

            This treaty was the first multilateral agreement which provided protection for indications of source and appellations of origin. Compared with the protection given by the TRIPS Agreement to geographical indications, this was a very general and weak protection but it was the first international treaty on protecting these categories of intellectual property rights. In this respect, Article 1(2) of the Paris Convention includes some indications of source and appellations of origin as subject matter of industrial property protection. Article 10(1)[91] provides for an indications of source, the same remedies prescribed, in respect of goods unlawfully bearing a trademark or a trade name in case of direct or indirect use of a false indication of source of the goods or the identity of the producer, manufacturer, or merchant. “This means that no indication of source may be used that refers to a geographical area from which the products in question do not originate.”[92] According to the Convention, the main remedies for unlawfully bearing an indication of source are seizure of the product upon importation, or at least prohibition of importation, or seizure within the country. According to Article 10(2) of the Paris Convention, any…

“…producer, manufacturer, or merchant whether a natural person or legal entity, engaged in the production or manufacture of or trade in such goods and established either in the locality falsely indicated as the source, or in the region where such locality is situated, or in the country falsely indicated, or in the country where the false indication of source is used, shall in any case be deemed an interested party.”[93]

Article 10 of the Paris Convention does not refer to appellations of origin expressly. Nevertheless it should be understood that they are covered by the expression “indication of source” because: (i) the Paris Convention originally treats both expressions as synonymous, and (ii) conceptually speaking, all appellations of origin constitute an indication of source. Article 11bis of the Paris Convention obliges members to provide protection against unfair competition and contains a non-exhaustive list of some acts which are to be prohibited. This provision gives the basis for the protection against misleading indications of source, including appellations of origin. The Paris Convention does not provide for remedies in case of infringement of this provision.[94]

            The Madrid Agreement was adopted in 1891 and revised at Washington (1911), The Hague (1925), London (1934), and Lisbon (1958),[95] was supplemented by the Additional Act of Stockholm (1967), and had a membership of 33 signatory states as of January 5, 2001.[96] In the last 25 years (1975-2000) only five new states were added as party to the treaty. Unlike the Paris Convention, which is a general treaty that provides protection for a broad range of different categories of industrial property rights, the Madrid Agreement provides specific rules for the repression of false and deceptive indications of source. According to Bauemer,

“Deceptive indications are those which, although literally true, may be misleading. For example, where two geographical areas, possibly in two different countries, have the same denomination but only one of them so far has been used for the purposes of an indication of source for certain products, and such indication is used for products originating from the other geographical area in a way that the public believes that the product originate from the first area, namely, the area to which the indication of source traditionally referred, then such use is to be considered as a deceptive use because the public believes that the products originate from the geographical area for which the indication traditionally has been used.”[97]

Article 1(1) of the Madrid Agreement provides that,

“(A)ll goods bearing a false or deceptive indication by which one of the countries to which this Agreement applies, or a place situated therein, is directly or indirectly indicated as being the country or the place of origin shall be seized on importation into any of the said countries.” Seizure shall also be affected in the country where the false or deceptive indication has been applied or into which the goods bearing that false indication have been imported.[98]

            Furthermore, the Agreement established rules on how seizure should take place and defined the competent authority to enforce these kinds of measures. The Madrid Agreement does not add much to the protection already given by the Paris Convention on this aspect. Nevertheless, it extends the protection to deceptive indications as well as false indications of source which also contains a special provision by which courts of each country can decide what indications of source do not fall within the provisions of the Agreement, because of their generic character; but regional appellations concerning the source of products of the vine are excluded from such a reservation. This provision in Article 4 of the Madrid Agreement could probably be considered as the origin of the need for having special protection for sector geographical indications, especially for geographical indications concerning wines and spirits and it is also interesting to note that historically this provision was subjected to various efforts to extend the exception for wine products to other kinds of products.[99]

            Finally, it has to be noted that geographical indications could be protected as collective marks, certification marks or guarantee marks.[100] This means that an international registration system for trademarks, such as the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of 1981, (also known as the Madrid Agreement), and the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of 1989, could also serve as appropriate means for the international protection of geographical indications.[101]

            The Lisbon Agreement was concluded in Lisbon on 31 October 1958[102] revised in Stockholm in 1967 and amended in 1979. Any member of the Paris Convention may accede to the treaty. As of 26 October 2000, there were 19 member states party to the Agreement. In the last 22 years (1978-2000) only three new member states have adhered to the agreement.[103]

            There are two basic requirements for an appellation of origin to be protected, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement: 1) the appellation of origin should be protected in its country of origin, and 2) the appellation of origin should be registered in the International Register of WIPO. Article 2 of the treaty declares that the purpose of the Lisbon Agreement is to grant protection to wit:

“Geographical name of a country, region or locality, which serves to designate a product originating therein, whose quality and characteristics are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors.”[104]

            According to the Lisbon Agreement Regulations,[105] applications for the international registration of an appellation of origin is to be addressed to the International Bureau in Geneva by the competent office of the country of whose name, or the country in which is situated the region or locality whose name constitutes the appellation of origin which has given the product its reputation. The competent office acts on behalf of any natural persons, or legal entities, public or private, having a right to use such appellation, according to their domestic law.[106]

            The competent office applying for registration may state that it renounces protection in one or some of the countries specified by name, which are party to the Agreement. Any application shall be declined by the International Bureau if it has not in timely possession of all the information required or the competent office making the application has not paid the full amount of the registration fee.[107]

            According to Rule 5 of the Regulations of the Lisbon Agreement, the International Register shall indicate, in respect of each appellation of origin, information on the country of origin; the competent office to receive notifications from the International Bureau; the registration date; the owner or owners of the appellation of origin; the appellation of origin itself; the product to which the appellation of origin applies; the area in which the product is produced; the title and date of legislative or administrative provisions or of judicial decisions recognizing protection in the country of origin, among others.[108]

            The International Bureau must  notify immediately the various members of the Agreement on the application for registration of an appellation of origin being made. Contracting Parties must protect the appellation of origin to which international protection was requested by the applicant, except if a Contracting Party declares, within a period of one year that it cannot ensure the protection for a certain application, with an indication of the grounds therefore. Grounds for refusal are not specified in the Agreement. Article 5(5) of the Agreement provides that interested parties may resort, in the refusing country, to all judicial and administrative remedies available to nationals of that country. Any competent office could modify, cancel or renounce its register.[109]

            The protection given by the treaty shall be ensured against any usurpation or imitation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the appellation is used in a translated form or accompanied by terms such as “kind”, “type”, “make”, “imitation” or the like.[110]

            Another important effect of the protection given by the Agreement is that once an appellation of origin has been protected in one signatory state, it cannot be deemed to become generic as long as it maintains the domestic protection in the country of origin. It has also the effect that if a protected appellation of origin has already been used by third parties (for instance as a trademark), and from a date prior to the notification, the competent office of the country, where the protection was given, shall have the right to grant to such third parties a period not exceeding two years to terminate such use.[111]

            The duration of the protection of an international registration is for as long as it is maintained protected as an appellation of origin in the country of origin. There is no requirement for international renewal.[112]

5.8 Geographical Indications under TRIPS

            Probably one of the most important effects of the TRIPS Agreement in the area of geographical indications was precisely that it became the first international treaty, with more than 130 signatories, bound not only to protect geographical indications through substantive provisions but also to enforce its application according to minimum standards. It also provides a strong dispute settlement mechanism under the WTO system. Article 71 of the TRIPS Agreement provides for periodic review and article 23 for renegotiations aimed at increasing the protection of individual geographical indications.[113]

            One of the features of the TRIPS Agreement at the time of its adoption was that not all different categories of intellectual property rights regulated therein had either the same degree of legal or doctrinaire development or the same degree of acceptance among countries. This was the case of geographical indications; where a terminology problem still remains as recognized by WIPO within the Standing Committee on Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications.[114] However, according to the TRIPS Agreement, geographical indications are subject to the same general principles applicable to all other categories of intellectual property rights included in the Agreement, mainly the minimum standards, the national treatment and the MFN clause.[115]

            During the negotiation of the TRIPS Agreement, the protection of geographical indications was a very sensitive and delicate issue.[116] Only at the very end of the Uruguay Round negotiations was the agreement reached, basically due to the linkage of this issue with the agricultural negotiations.

            Although the issue of intellectual property was included in the Uruguay Round at the very beginning,[117] early proposals were only tabled by negotiators during 1990. In effect, the first’s texts that were presented during the Uruguay Round negotiations — as a systematic document providing disciplines for the whole issue of intellectual property — were known only almost a year after the Montreal midterm review of the negotiation process (1988). The proposals were presented by the European Communities,[118] the United States,[119] a group of developing countries,[120] Switzerland[121] and Japan.[122]

            The first text presented — and which ignited the process towards the current text of the TRIPS Agreement — was a proposal from the European Communities. Its Section C (articles 19 to 21) was devoted to “geographical indications, including appellations of origin.” In this proposal there appeared for the first time, one of the two elements that afterwards became part of the so-called “additional protection for wines and spirits” of the TRIPS Agreement. This element refers to the prevention of the use of a geographical indication identifying wines or spirits not originating in the place indicated by the geographical indication, even where the true origin of goods is indicated or the indication is used in translation or accompanied by expressions such as “kind”, “style”, “imitation” or the like. However, in the EC proposal this type of prevention was to apply to geographical indications relating to all products and not only to wines and spirits.

In the EC proposal a reference was also made to the fact that:

“When appropriate, protection should be accorded to appellations of origin, in particular for products of the vine, to the extent that it is accorded in the country of origin.”[123]

            Finally, it is necessary to add that this EC proposal included other elements incorporated in the so called “additional protection” for wines and spirits of the TRIPS Agreement. It referred to the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines eligible for protection in those countries participating in the system, finally incorporated in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement.[124] The original proposal also included some procedural mechanisms for the certification of a given geographical indication. In this regard it stated that:

“(i) in appropriate cases the use of documents certifying the right to use the relevant geographical indication should be provided for.”[125]

This latter idea was not incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement.

            The second proposal presented during the Uruguay Round negotiations came from the United States. Paragraphs 18 and 19 referred to geographical indications. The United States proposed to protect geographical indications “that certify regional origin by providing for their registration as certification or collective marks.”[126] This is the current system under the United States law. The United Sates proposal also sought protection:

“…for non generic appellations of origin for wine by prohibiting their use when such use would mislead the public as to true geographic origin of the wine.”[127]

Chapter III of the proposal made by a group of developing countries referred to the protection of geographical indications, but in a very succinct single provision. This provision invited countries:

“… to provide protection for geographical indications including appellations of origin against any use which is likely to confuse or mislead the public as to the true origin of the product.”[128] A footnote to this proposal provided that “Geographical indications are any designation, expression or sign which aim at indicating that a product originates from a country, region or locality.”[129]

Paragraphs 220 and 221 of subsection C of the Swiss proposal — probably the most complete and comprehensive one — referred to the protection of geographical indications, including appellations of origin. This proposal included a more specific definition for “geographical indications” and “appellations of origin.”[130] Protection for geographical indications related to services was expressly included in this proposal.[131]

            Finally, the Japanese proposal contained only a short provision related to geographical indications, without any express mention of appellations of origin.[132] It proposed:

“…protection for geographical indications by complying with the provisions under the Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False Deceptive Indications of Source of Goods of 1891, as last revised in 1967.”

            On 23 July 1990 the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, including Trade in Counterfeit Goods, (Ambassador Lars Anell from Sweden) made a report on the state of the negotiations so far.[133] This report corresponded to a consolidated text of the basic proposals made by negotiators and included two approaches,[134] which not only differed in substance but also in structure. Approach “A” envisaged a single TRIPS Agreement, encompassing all the areas of negotiations and dealing with all seven categories of intellectual property on which proposals had been made,[135] which would be implemented as an integral part of the General Agreement. The “B” approach, provided for two parts: one on trade in counterfeit and pirated goods and the other on standards and principles concerning the availability, scope, and use on intellectual property rights.

            Section 3 of the Chairman’s proposal referred to the protection of geographical indications (already the term appellation of origin was left aside). This proposal included the obligation to protect geographical indications from:

“any usurpation imitation or evocation, even where the true origin of the product is indicated or the appellation or designation is used in translation or accompanied by expressions such as “kind”, “type”, “style”, “imitation” or the like.”[136] The proposal also included an obligation to “… co-operate with a view to establishing an international register for protected geographical indications, in order to facilitate the protection of geographical indications including appellations of origin.”[137]

Compared to “the Composite Text”, the one presented to the Brussels Ministerial Conference was a more elaborate one.[138] In this text — and for the first time — the concept of “additional protection” was incorporated, but only referred to wines (and not to spirits).[139]

The additional protection for wines consisted in: (a) “… to prevent use of a geographical indication identifying wines for wines not originating in the place indicated by the geographical indication in question, even where the true origin of the goods is indicated or the geographical indication is used in translation or accompanied by expressions such as “kind”, “type”, “style”, “imitation” or the like; and (b) the obligation to refuse the registration of a trademark “… for wines which contain or consists of a geographical indication identifying wines…” not having that origin.”[140]

In order to facilitate the protection of geographical indications, the bracketed “Composite Text” indicated that:

“… the Committee shall [examine the establishment of] [establish] a multilateral system for the notification and registration of geographical indications eligible for protection in the Parties participating in the system.”[141] This proposal referred to geographical indications for all kind of products and not only for wines. The establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines became part of the so-called “additional protection” only in the “Dunkel Text.”[142]

At the stocktaking of the progress of work in the negotiating groups that took place after the failure of the Brussels Ministerial Meeting,[143] it was recognized that on TRIPS there still remained 20 key issues to be resolved in three main areas: patents, copyrights and geographical indications.

Specifically, in the area of geographical indications:

“…it has to be decided whether additional protection should be available for wine and spirits, and the scope of and conditions on exemptions to that protection.”[144] It was recognized that the intellectual property problems that were still without a solution arose because negotiators linked the remaining issues to the results of the round of negotiations as a whole.[145]

As a way of resolving all of the different matters still pending in the negotiations, Mr. Arthur Dunkel, Director General of the GATT at that time, tabled a new text attempting to balance the different positions. This document corresponded to the “Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations” and was known as “the Dunkel Text.”[146]

            Section 3 of the new document referred to geographical indications, and it was the same text approved at the Marrakesh Ministerial Meeting.

5.9 The United States’ Case

The US argument before the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Resolution Panel has essentially two prongs. First, the United States has argued that it has no obligation to institute a European style protected geographical indication system domestically. Indeed, the US alleges that European PGI regulations, whether or not they are universally available to all members of the WTO, are in clear violation of the TRIPS agreement.[147]

This argument is based largely on what the United States argues is a fundamental incongruity between Article 16.1 of TRIPS and Article 14 of Regulation 2081/92, which establishes the European PGI rules. Article 16.1 of TRIPS, very simply, is designed to guarantee the international protection of trademark law:

The owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owners consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. [148]

Article 14 of the European regulation, however, treats the relationship between PGI and trademarks.[149] As the US argues, the objectionable part of Article 14 is not the fact that it establishes geographical indications (which the United States concedes should be on equal footing with other trademarks[150]), but that it seems to explicitly exclude trademark owners who filed their marks before the geographical indication from enjoying exclusive rights.[151] Article 14(2), specifically, provides that trademarks registered before equivalent GI provisions can continue to be used, but only concurrently with the new geographical indication.[152] This, the United States has argued, is a clear violation of both TRIPS and the principles of intellectual property. “Article 16.1 enshrines a principle of trademark protection recognized in the jurisprudence of both the United States and the EC”[153] – but “Article 14 of the EC GI regulation reinforces that owners of registered trademarks are denied their rights under Article 16.1 of the TRIPS agreement”.[154] Second, the US has claimed that the European regulations are illegal as applied because they violate the so-called “national treatment” obligation by excluding non-European members of the WTO from participation. As is well known, “national treatment” is thought to be at the core of international trade agreements[155] – the WTO appellate panel itself has called it “a fundamental principle of the world trading system”.[156] As the US has pointed out, the plain meaning of this obligation is clear – “whatever advantages a Member grants to its own national with respect to the intellectual property rights at issue, must also be granted to the nationals of other members”.[157]

The US has argued, therefore, that the European regulations impermissibly limit PGI status to European producers, and therefore violate substantive international law.  It is true, the US agrees, that the European regulations do not explicitly restrict non-European registrations.[158] The reality, however, is different. As the United States has argued, the only way for US producers to get access to PGI protection is through Article 12 of the regulation, which requires that the non-European WTO member must both adopt an equivalent GI scheme to that of Europe, and must offer Europe reciprocity.[159] This, the US maintains, is clearly a violation of the national treatment norm – GATT does not allow members to demand reciprocity and equivalency in return for protection.[160]

The EC has made various arguments in response. First, they claim that the United States has misunderstood the empirics – non-Europeans are welcome to apply for PGI protection.[161] Second, Europe has claimed that the EU regulation does not offend the national treatment provisions because it discriminates on the basis of origin rather than nationality – there would be no impediment, Europe as argued, to American producers moving to Europe and receiving PGI protection there.[162] But the US has responded forcefully to these claims, noting that Europe deserves no “deference” on the empirics, as they claim[163], and that the ECs “national” v. “origin” distinction “does not hold up”.[164]

The resolution produced by the Dispute Resolution panel is telling, both for what it provides the Americans, and for what it leaves out. First the DRP clearly ruled that the European regulation as written did, as a matter of fact, discriminate against non-European actors – [165] “the panel has evaluated the European Communities’ interpretation of the applicability of the equivalence and reciprocity conditions and not found it reflected in the text of the Regulation”.[166] Because this was true, the panel was then compelled to examine whether this discrimination violated any of the relevant treaties, as the United States claimed.[167] Taking on the substantive issues, the panel sided with the United States on the most important, at least superficially – the panel ruled that the system of forcing WTO members to have equivalent geographical indication systems and to offer reciprocal protection was a violation of Article 3.1 of the TRIPS agreement.[168]

            On the issue of trademark protection, however, the panel was less positive towards the US position. Though they agreed that the European provisions did violate Article 16.1 of the TRIPS agreement, they ruled that the violation was justified based on Article 17 of the agreement, which allows for limited exceptions.[169] Particularly, the panel found, the GI regulation was a limited exception to Article 16.1 of TRIPS because the trademark owner was not completely divested of his power to exclude others – rather, this power was limited only by a properly registered GI that actually came from the specified geographical zone.[170]

6. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

            The WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), negotiated in the 1986-94 Uruguay Round, introduced intellectual property rules into the multilateral trading system for the first time.[171]

            Ideas and knowledge are an increasingly important part of trade. Most of the value of new medicines and other high technology products lies in the amount of invention, innovation, research, design and testing involved. Films, music recordings, books, computer software and on-line services are bought and sold because of the information and creativity they contain, not usually because of the plastic, metal or paper used to produce them. Many products that used to be traded as low-technology goods or commodities now contain a higher proportion of invention and design in their value — for example brand named clothing or new varieties of plants. Creators can be given the right to prevent others from using their inventions, designs or other creations — and to use that right to negotiate payment in return for others using them. These are “intellectual property rights”. They take a number of forms. For example books, paintings and films come under copyright; inventions can be patented; brand names and product logos can be registered as trademarks[172]; and so on. Governments and parliaments have given creators these rights as incentive to produce ideas that will benefit society as a whole. The extent of protection and enforcement of these rights varied widely around the world; and as intellectual property became more important in trade, these differences became a source of tension in international economic relations. New internationally-agreed trade rules for intellectual property rights were seen as a way to introduce more order and predictability, and for disputes to be settled more systematically. The Uruguay Round achieved that. The WTO’s TRIPS Agreement is an attempt to narrow the gaps in the way these rights are protected around the world, and to bring them under common international rules. It establishes minimum levels of protection that each government has to give to the intellectual property of fellow WTO members. In doing so, it strikes a balance between the long term benefits and possible short term costs to society. Society benefits in the long term when intellectual property protection encourages creation and invention, especially when the period of protection expires and the creations and inventions enter the public domain. Governments are allowed to reduce any short term costs through various exceptions, for example to tackle public health problems. And, when there are trade disputes over intellectual property rights, the WTO’s dispute settlement system is now available.[173]

Taken from the Uruguay Round of WTO, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights cover five broad issues[174],

“ 1. how basic principles of the trading system and other international intellectual property agreements should be applied

2. how to give adequate protection to intellectual property rights

3. how countries should enforce those rights adequately in their own territories

4. how to settle disputes on intellectual property between members of the WTO

5. special transitional arrangements during the period when the new system is being introduced.”

6.1 Intellectual Property Rights

            Intellectual property rights consist of the legal means or ways that can protect certain output of intellectual activities such as inventions, literary and artistic works, as well as symbols, names, expressions and designs used in trade. Its discipline aims to protect the exclusive rights for creators and producers of those which are considered as ‘intellectual products’ and to protect consumers and civil society in the exercise of such rights.[175]  The balance is considered as one of the important issues in intellectual property policy.[176]

6.1.1 Geographical Indications and Trademark Law

            There are seven different categories of intellectual property rights under the TRIPS Agreement. These are – copyrights and related rights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, lay-out design of integrated circuits, and undisclosed information. But consumers can classify the products of their choice based on two categories of those intellectual property rights – trademarks and geographical indications. The former are expressions such as ‘Pepsi’, ‘Jaguar’, ‘Winston’, and ‘Citibank’. All of them distinguish products or services and/or their producer, manufacturer, or provider. Trademarks personalize and identify products or services from a specific manufacturer, producer or service provider, in order to differentiate such goods or services. Here, human creativity is involved. It is capable of creating an original novel sign or expression which permits a certain product or service to be distinguished from similar products or services. This put much emphasis on the producer of the product. On the other hand, the latter are expressions such as ‘Cognac’, ‘Pilsen’, ‘Tequila’, and ‘Champagne’. All of them distinguish the geographical origin of a given product. Geographical indications identify the place of origin of the product. This is linked to topography, human work, climate or other factors and is used typically on agricultural or related products such as but not limited to wines and spirits. A geographical indication may also highlight specific characteristics of a given product due to factors other than the geographical such as human factors, an example is the term, ‘Swiss made’. These two (trademark and geographical indications) can acquire a high reputation and commercial value and for these reasons may be exposed to misappropriation, counterfeiting or misuse.[177]

            Indeed, Geographical Indication and Trademark have a lot of differences. But the basic similarities between them is that both of them serve a function of origin or distinctive function and they also have a registry, as provided for a) by Regulation 40/1994 for community Trademarks and by Act 2239.94 for Greek trademarks and b) by Regulations 2081/92 and 2400/96 for appellations and indications of origin. Finally, both of them are confined by the territoriality principle, as limited today.[178]

            Their differences are, firstly, that appellations of origin and indications of origin cannot be subject to a license agreement and secondly cannot be used for services but are restricted to agricultural, industrial and handicraft products. Thirdly, the right deriving from the trademark is absolute whereas the one from geographical indications of origin, according to current Greek law, is not absolute. Fourthly, geographical indications of origin, contrary to trademarks, do not serve distinctive function of the products from the enterprise that produces them with very few exceptions, such as when the geographical indication of origin is known to a commercial circle as distinguishing goods coming from one specific enterprise or when the specific geographical area (estate) is the property of a certain person or enterprise or when it is a collective trademark.[179]

            The filing of geographical indications of origin as a trademark is admissible in two cases, the first of which is when it is filed as a collective trademark in order to promote the economic interests of the producers living in a specific region. This is provided by Regulation 2392/89 Article 40 (2). Their registration as a trademark therefore does not mean that a third party residing in the same region is excluded from using the sign registered as a trademark; on the contrary he is still entitled to do so.

            The registration of geographical designations as a collective trade mark is very common. In February 1989, 657 collective trademarks were registered in the Benelux Trademark Register and 565 international collective marks, a significant part of which were geographical indications.[180]

            And the second case is when the geographical indication, either due to its nature or due to the specific circumstances, does not denote the geographical origin of the product and therefore its registration as a trademark is not unfair. This is the case when the indication, although a geographical name, serves the function of origin of the product, because the connection between the sign and the product is so arbitrary, namely so original and unexpected, that it is possible to identify the origin of the product from a specific enterprise in comparison to other similar products produced by other enterprises.

            The conditions and the procedure of registering a geographical sign as trademark are referred in an exhaustive manner in the Directive and Regulation on trademarks and the Regulations on designations of origin and geographical indications.[181]

6.1.2 Conflict with Geographical Indication

            As a general rule, trademarks that consist of or contain a geographical indication cannot be protected if the use of such trademark would mislead the public as to the true origin of the product. Normally, national laws exclude geographical terms from registration as a trademark, because it must not be descriptive or deceptive. Article 22.3 of the TRIPS Agreement states that WTO Members shall refuse or invalidate the registration of a trademark which contains or consists of a geographical indication with respect to goods not originating in the territory indicated, if the use of such indication in the trademark misleads the public as to the true place of origin. This means that if there is no misleading as to the true place of origin, the provision does not apply. A special rule in the same vein could be found under Article 23.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, in relation to the registration of a trademark for wines which contain or consist of a geographical indication identifying wines. The same rule applies in the case of the registration of a trademark for spirits which contain or consist of a geographical indication identifying spirits. Nevertheless, in the case of wines and spirits, the refusal or invalidation of the trademark shall apply, whether the use of the trademark misleads the public or not, as to the true place of origin of the product. Article 24.5 also provides that where a trademark has been applied for or registered in good faith, or where rights to a trademark have been acquired through use in good faith before a certain date, measures adopted to implement Section 3 of the Agreement shall not prejudice eligibility or validity for registration of a trademark or the right to use it, on the basis that such trademark is identical or similar to a geographical indication.[182]

7. Conclusion

            It can be noticed that Geographical Indication or GI is just part of the Trade-Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Right or TRIPS.  Thus, they are just one and the same except that TRIPS has a broader scope. I also think that they somewhat overlaps with each other. There are domains that TRIPS can cover alone. But in terms of GI, TRIPS can be more likely a generalized law. The GI as proposed by the European Union has raised a lot of issues. In the end it was just the battle of the two big nations – the United States of America and the European Union. But their dispute did not stay long because of the World Trade Organizations and other trade-related organizations. But that does not stop there because there are issues like that of the Feta Cheese and other products that are not yet resolved.

            There is conflict of interest because of the single objective or aim of protecting the genuine condition of every product. That is where GI and TRIPS are similar. But then, we should not forget that the General Indications’ main concern is the geographical origin of a product, whereas Trade-Related Aspect of the Intellectual Property Rights’ main concern is the producer or inventor of a product.

            Importance of geographical indications as a category of intellectual property rights is unlike trademarks; whose creation may be unrestricted, geographical indications are quite circumscribed by the definition, which may limit the possibilities of each country to create new geographical indications. This may explain why trademarks are much more numerous than geographical indications. According to WIPO statistics, more than 1,6 million trademarks applications were presented in 1998 in more than 90 countries (including renewals). It is estimated that more than 6 million trademarks remain currently in force worldwide. This is a large number if we compare it with only the 766 appellations of origin already registered under the Lisbon Agreement.[183]

            These figures might not diminish the importance that certain countries attach to geographical indications, especially those that have developed a “tradition” on its protection. Moreover, in bilateral agreements some countries (especially developing countries) have accepted — within their territories — the protection of a large number of geographical indications in return for the recognition of only a small number of their own in the other territory.[184]

            Economic importance of geographical indications is quite similar to that of trademarks. There are millions of registered trademarks worldwide, but only a small proportion of them are of economic importance. There are also hundreds of geographical indications, but only a small number of them have real economic value.[185]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

L. Baumer, “Protection of Geographical Indications under WIPO Treaties and Questions Concerning the Relationship between those Treaties and the TRIPS Agreement”.

O. Brouwer, “Community Protection of Geographical Indications and Specific Character as a means of Enhancing Foodstuff Quality”, Common Market Law Review 28: 615-646, 1991.

A. Conrad, “The Protection of Geographical Indications in the TRIPS Agreement”, Vol.86 TMR, at p. 14.

A. Liakopoulos, “Industrial Property, 5th edition, Law and Economy”, P. N. Sakkoulas Publications, Athens 2000, under footnote 4, p. 404.

J.T. Masterson, Jr., “International Trademarks and Copyrights”, American Bar Association Section of Int’l Law and Practice, Section of International Law and Practice, American Bar Association, 2004.

G. Michalopoulos, “Protection of Wines”, Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications, Athens, 1998, p. 47.

N.S. Mussis, “European Union, Law-Economy-Politics”, Papasis Publications, 8th revised edition, 1999.

C.F. Novoa, “La protección internacional de las denominaciones geográficas de los productos”, Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, 1970.

M.G. Puder, “Phantom Menace or New Hope: Member State Public Tort Liability After the Double Bladed Light Saber Duel Between the European Court of Justice and the German Bundesgericht in Brasserie de Pecheur”, 33 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 311, n.4

G. Ritzer, “Sociological Theory”, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill Publication, New York, 2000, p.40.

N.K. Rokas, “Indications of Geographical Origin”, (A form of deceptive advertisement), Contribution to Industrial Property Law, Athens 1979.

J.C. Ross and J.A. Wasserman, “Trade –Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights”, edited by Terence Stewart, Kluwer Law, Taxation Publishers, Boston, 1993.

A. Sinanioti-Maroudi, in the collective work “Unfair Competition”, edited by N. Rokas, Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications, Athens, 1996, p. 282.

El. Skalidis, Service Trademark composed by the foreign words “THE BEST OF GREECE”, 1996, p. 642.

L.E. Simon, “Appellations of Origin: The Continuing Controversy”, 5 Nw. J. Int’l L. ; Bus. 132, 137 (1983); Danielle B. Shalov, 11 Cardozo J. Int’l ; Comp. L. 1099, 1111.

E. Soufleros, in the collective work “Unfair Competition”, edited by N. K. Rokas, Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications, Athens, 1996, p. 282.

D.F. Vagts, “Transnational Business Problems”, (2003).

WIPO, “Intellectual Property Reading Material”, WIPO publication No. 476(E), 1998.

WIPO, “Intellectual Property Reading Material”.

Homer, “the Odyssey”, Book 1X. Translated by E.V. Rieu, Penguin Books.

ONLINE JOURNAL

G. Economou, TED Case Studies, 2003 http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/feta2.htm

S. Escudero, “International Protection of Geographical Indications and Developing Countries”, South Center Organization, 2001, http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf

C. Xourafa, “Protection of Designations of Origin and Geographical Indications Under the Law of the European Union”, http://www.marques.org/lgms/Downloads/2000%20Winner.PDF

Official Journal of the European Union, http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/762/Chu06.html

Journal of the European Union, 2001.

R. Melkonian, “The History and Future of Geographical Indications in Europe and the United States”, 2005, http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.rtf

MAGAZINE / ARTICLES

Prosper Montagne, “Larousse Gastronomique”,  806 (1st American ed., 1964)

Paul Roubier, “Le Droit de la Propriete Industrielle”,  65 (1954).

Rebecca L. Spang, “The Invention of the Restaurant”, ch. 1 (2000).

Government Gazette B’ 1985, 8-11-1999, No 3921169

Journal Official, August 5, 1905.

Association Internationale Pour La Protection De La Propriete Industrielle, AIPPI, XXXVIIth Congress – Rio De Janeiro 1998, Yearbook, Groups Reports Q62: Appellations of Origin, Indications of Source and Geographical Indications.

EUROPEAN LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS

C344 of 15th November 1996.

Fleet Street Reports [1998], 697.

Food and Drug L.J. 2, 26 (1984).

Document PROP.COM (86)/W/41/Rev.1 of 16 July 1986.

Document MTN/ GNG/ NG11/ W/ 68, of 29 March 1990.

Document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/70.

Document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/71.

Document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/73.

Document MTN.TNC/W/89/Add.1, dated 7 November 1991.

Document MTN.TNC/W/FA.

STATUTES

Regulation 2081/92.

Regulation 510/2006.

Annex A to the WTO Note from the Secretariat, JOB (00)/5619, pp. 71-78.

Note by the WTO Secretariat IP/C/W/253, dated April 2001.

Council Regulation (EEC) NO 2392/89 of 24 July 1989.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 of 14 July 1992.

U.S Oral Statement at the First Panel Meeting WT/DS 174 (June 23, 2004).

European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs – Complaint by the United States – Report of the Panel, WT/DS174/R, 38 (7.103).

TREATIES

1951 International Convention on the Use of Designations of Origins and Names for Cheeses

1958 Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration

The Treaty Establishing the European Union Consolidated Edition, EE C 340, 10/11/1997.

Uruguay Round Agreement

INTERNET SITES

http://www.champagnes.com/info/cham other name.html

http://www.hepnet.de

http://www.patent.gov.uk/dtrademark/pac/pac1999/pac799.html

http://www.dti.gov.uk/CACP/ca/origimar.htm

http://www.ccfa.pt/ccfa npi.html

http://www.agriline.it/wol/wol eng/introbl.htmand

http://www.ines.it/does.itaconta97ing/tipici.htm

http://www.marques.org

http://europastar.com/ES Watch/features/swissmade.html

http://www.wto.org

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.htm

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm

http://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/news.htm#GI

http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/feta2.htm

[1] G. Ritzer, Sociological Theory, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill Publication, New York, 2000, p.40.
[2] G. Economou, “TED Case Studies”, 2003, http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/feta2.htm
[3] A. Conrad, “The Protection of Geographical Indications in the TRIPS Agreement”, Vol.86 TMR, at p. 14.
[4] A Conrad, “The Protection of Geographical Indications in the TRIPS Agreement”, Vol.86 TMR, at p. 14.
[5] G.Michalopoulos, “Protection of Wines”, Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications, Athens, 1998, p. 47.
[6] C344 of 15th November 1996.
[7] A.Sinanioti – Maroudi, in the collective work “Unfair Competition”, edited by N. Rokas, Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications, Athens, 1996, p. 282.
[8] El. Skalidis, Service Trademark composed by the foreign words “THE BEST OF GREECE”, EempD, 1996, p. 642.
[9] See E. Soufleros, in the collective work “Unfair Competition”, edited by N. K. Rokas, Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications, Athens, 1996, p. 282.
[10] Government Gazette B’ 1985, 8-11-1999, No 3921169.
[11] Journal Officiel, August 5, 1905.
[12] Last amended in 1990 and incorporated into the Code de la Consommation (Law No 93-949 of July 23, 1993, Journal Officiel July 27, 1993, amended in 1994, Journal Officiel, January 4, 1994).
[13] Champagne by any other name, http:champagnes.com/info/cham other name.html.
[14] The Hoffman-Eitle Library, http://hepnet.de
[15] A. Liakopoulos, Industrial Property, 5th edition, Law and Economy, P. N. Sakkoulas Publications,Athens 2000, under

footnote 4, p. 404.
[16] A.Conrad, The Protection of Geographical Indications in the TRIPS Agreement, Vol. 86 TMR, at p. 14.
[17] Association Internationale Pour La Protection De La Propriete Industrielle, AIPPI, XXXVIIth Congress – Rio De Janeiro

1998, Yearbook, Groups Reports Q62 : Appellations of Origin, Indications of Source and Geographical Indications, p. 33.
[18] Association Internationale Pour De La Propriete Industrielle, AIPPI, XXXVIIth Congress – Rio De Janeiro 1998,

Yearbook, Groups Reports Q 62 : Appellations of Origin, Indications of Source and Geographical Indications, p. 57.
[19] Although British Courts have not based their decisions principally on these regulations, the case before the Court of

Appeal, Tattinger v Allbey Ltd [1993] FSR 641 is relevant to the wine sector Regulations.
[20] Association Internationale Pour La Protection De La Propriete Industrielle, AIPPI, XXXVIIth Congress – Rio De Janeiro

1998, Yearbook, Groups Reports Q62 : Appellations of Origin, Indications of Source and Geographical Indications, p. 103.
[21] Practice Amendment Circular, PAC 7/99, Change of Registry Practice – UK Geographical Locations,

http://patent.gov.uk/dtrademark/pac/pac1999/pac799.html
[22] DTI, Guidance Notes for Traders, http://dti.gov.uk/CACP/ca/origimar,htm
[23] Fleet Street Reports [1998],697.
[24] Association Internationale Pour La Protection De La Propriete Industrielle, AIPPI, XXXVIIth Congress – Rio De Janeiro

1998, Yearbook, Groups Report q 62 : Appellations of Origin, Indications of Source and Geographical Indications, p.

142-146.
[25] Association Internationale Pour La Protection De La Propriete Industrielle, AIPPI, XXXVIIth Congress – Rio De Janeiro

1998, Yearbook, Groups Reports q 62 : Appellations of Origin, Indications of Source and Geographical Indications, p. 182.
[26] The New Portuguese Industrial Code, http://www.ccfa.pt/ccfa npi.html
[27] See http://www.agriline.it/wol/wol eng/introbl.htmand

Http://www.ines.it/does.itaconta97ing/tipici.htm
[28] C. Xourafa, Protection of Designations of Origin and Geographical Indications Under the Law of the European Union, http://www.marques.org/lgms/Downloads/2000%20Winner.PDF, p.42
[29] Marques, Case Notes,http://www.marques.org
[30] C. Xourafa, Protection of Designations of Origin and Geographical Indications Under the Law of the European Union, http://www.marques.org/lgms/Downloads/2000%20Winner.PDF, p.42
[31] The preamble to the regulation states in part: “Whereas, however, there is diversity in the national practices for implementing registered designations or [sic] origin and geographical indications; whereas a Community approach should be envisaged; whereas a framework of Community rules on protection will permit the development of geographical indications and designations of origin since, by providing a more uniform approach, such a framework will ensure fair competition between the producers of products bearing such indications and enhance the credibility of the products in the consumers’ eyes.” Regulation 2018/92, Preamble. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_

also see http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[32] Faulhaber, at 626. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_

also see http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[33] Id. at 628 – 29. Faulhaber describes how the 1951 International Convention on the Use of Designations of Origins and Names for Cheeses (the Stresa Convention) and the 1958 Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration were responses to the “problems inherent in the existence of multiple regimes.” Id. at 628. The former prohibited, among other things, false information about the origin of cheeses, id., and the latter created an international registration system for appellations of origins (“AOCs”), id. at 629, which are granted only when products are processed in the same region from which their raw agricultural commodities came, id. at 626. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_

also see http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[34] Regulation 2081/92, note 9, preamble. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_

also see http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[35] Regulation 2081/92, supra note 9, preamble, arts. 2(2)(a) – (b). See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_

also see http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[36] See Faulhaber, at 630, 630 n. 48. For general discussion about the distinctions between the two categories, see, for example, id. The regulation excludes GI protection for terms that have become generic. Regulation 2081/92, supra note 9, art. 3. The three most important factors in determining whether a name had become generic were: 1) “the existing situation in the Member State in which the name originates and in areas of consumption”; 2) “the existing situation in other Member States”: 3) “the relevant national or Community laws.” Id., art. 3(1). See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_

also see http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[37] Regulation 2081/92, supra note 9, art. 8. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_also see http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html

[38] See Official Journal of the European Union, http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/762/Chu06.html. See also http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc;lg=EN;numdoc=32006 and http://www.henryckliu.com/page9.html
[39] C. Xoufara, Protection of Designations of Origin and Geographical Indications under the Law of the European Union, Marques: The Association of European Trade Mark Owners, 2000, http://www.marques.org/lgms/Downloads/2000%20Winner.PDF
[40] A. Liakopoulos, Industrial Property, 5th edition, Law and Economy, P.N.Sakkoulas Publications Athens 2000, p. 85.
[41] Regulation 2081/92, supra note 9, art. 8. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_also see http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[42] Regulation 1493/1999, see http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[43] Article 22 of TRIPS Counterfeit Goods see http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[44] C. Xoufara, Protection of Designations of Origin and Geographical Indications under the Law of the European Union, Marques: The Association of European Trade Mark Owners, 2000, http://www.marques.org/lgms/Downloads/2000%20Winner.PDF
[45] Regulation 208/92 see http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/documentos/muestraDocumentos.jsp?idFicha=0000003653;formato=html_xml;nom
[46] WIPO, “Intellectual Property Reading Material”, WIPO publication No. 476(E), 1998, p. 115. See also  http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[47] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[48] Ludwig Baeumer, “Protection of Geographical Indications under WIPO Treaties and Questions Concerning

the Relationship between those Treaties and the TRIPS Agreement”, op. cit., p. 12. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[49] There are a number of examples of a “geographical indication” whose expression does not correspond to the

name of a territory, region or locality of that territory. See the list of examples of geographical indications

attached as Annex A to the WTO Note from the Secretariat, JOB(00)/5619, pp. 71-78.
[50] See Note by the WTO Secretariat IP/C/W/253, dated April 2001, on “Review under Article 24.2 of the application of the provisions of the section of the TRIPS Agreement on geographical indications. Summary of the responses to the checklist of questions (IP/C/13 and Add.1).” See also http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[51] S. Escudero, “International Protection of Geographical Indications and Developing Countries”, 2001, http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[52] Journal of the European Union, 2001.
[53] See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[54] Lori E. Simon, Appellations of Origin: The Continuing Controversy, 5 Nw. J. Int’l L. ; Bus. 132, 137 (1983); Danielle B. Shalov, 11 Cardozo J. Int’l ; Comp. L. 1099, 1111.
[55] Albrecht Conrad, The Protection of Geographical Indications in the TRIPS Agreement 86 Trademark Rep. 11 (1996); For South America, see Ernesto D. Aracama-Zorrquin, The Protection of Geographic Indications in South America, in Cohen Jehoram, Protection of Geographic Denominations and Services (1980). See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[56] See Paul Roubier, 2 Le Droit de la Propriete Industrielle 65 (1954); see also Jeffrey Belson, Certification Marks (2002) 16. See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[57] Paul Roubier, the definitive scholar of French intellectual property law,  provides a brief discussion of the history of intellectual property, beginning in England. He contrasts the early English development to what he sees as the slow and anachronistic development in France. It should be noted, however, that Roubier is writing in a deep tradition of disdain among modern French observers of anything that preceded the Revolution – the ancient regime, in this story, is thought to have been a muddle of sclerotic elite interests, all swept away by the cleansing experience of the Revolution. More modern historical analysis has started to revise the traditional depiction of pre-revolutionary France as a sort of feudal museum. But Roubier almost certainly right that the corporations were not an ideal method of intellectual property protection. Paul Roubier, 2 Le Droit de la Propriete Industrielle 65 (1954).  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[58] We have never discerned exactly what the first name of Mr. Boulanger is supposed to have been. Prosper Montagne, Larousse Gastronomique  806 (1st American ed., 1964). See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[59] See id. at 807. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[60] Rebecca L. Spang, The Invention of the Restaurant ch. 1 (2000). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[61] See id. See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[62] See Paul Roubier, 1 Le Droit de la Propriete Industrielle  64-65 (1954). For additional, fascinating information about the a guild based system of food regulation, see Peter Barton Hutt, A History of Food Regulation, 39 Food and Drug L.J. 2, 26 (1984). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[63] See Roubier, supra note 12. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[64] See a brief history of the German beer purity laws in Markus G. Puder, Phantom Menace or New Hope: Member State Public Tort Liability After the Double Bladed Light Saber Duel Between the European Court of Justice and the German Bundesgericht in Brasserie de Pecheur, 33 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 311, n.4; See also Case 178/84, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, 1987 E.C.R. 1227, (1988) 1 C.M.L.R. 780.
[65] See Roubier, supra note 6, at 755. See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[66] See id.. (“En dehors de la loi du 22 Germinal an XI sur les marques (art. 17) qui visait deja l’emploi irregulier d’un nom de lieu de fabrication inexact, loi qui ne put pas etre appliqué a cause de l’excessive rigueur de ses sanctions . . . “).See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[67] See id. See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[68] Id. See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[69] See Roubier, supra note 6 at 755. See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[70] Id. at 815. See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[71] Id. at 755.. This continues to be true. See Chavanne, Albert ; Jean-Jacques Burst, Droit de la Propriete Industrielle (4th edition, 1993). See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[72] See Roubier, supra note 6 at 814. See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[73] Council Regulation (EEC) NO 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts, OJ L 232, 09/08/1989, p. 0013-0037, and G. Michalopoulos, Protection of Wines, Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications,Athens, 1998,p.22.
[74] It is also referred that in some cases the advertising function prevails over the function of origin, as in the case of

“Ardenner Ham” (ham of the Belgian Ardennes) which is to a large extent manufactured with meat which comes from England, where pig farms raise bigger sows. See O. Brouwer, Community Protection of Geographical Indications and Specific Character as a means of Enhancing Foodstuff Quality, Common Market Law Review 28: 615-646, 1991, p. 631.
[75] The Treaty Establishing the European Union, Consolidated Edition, EE C 340, 10/11/1997, p. 137-308.
[76] For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein :…( e) a common policy in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries…”
[77] E. Soufleros, The Application of Competition Rules of the European Treaty in the Production and Trading of Agricultural

Products, Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Regulation No 26/62, Studies of Company Law – 3, A. N. Sakkuolas

Publications, Athens – Komotini, 1987, p. 23. Concerning the agricultural policy of the EU see also K. A. Stefanou,

European Integration, 4th revised edition, Vol. C, Policies and Dynamics of the Integration, A. N. Sakkoulas Publications,

1999, p.38.
[78] N.K. Rokas, Indications of Geographical Origin, (A form of deceptive advertisement), Contribution to Industrial Property

Law, Athens 1979, pp. 17-18.
[79] Indications of geographical origin are basically important for agricultural products, wines and other alcoholic drinks. Also they are frequently used for indicating the origin of industrial or handicraft products. Nevertheless, there is no community legislation to protect such indications, and their protection relies on the national legislation of the Member States, if any, or on existing bilateral agreements. For this reason this study focuses only on those indications which concern agricultural products. An example of indication of geographical origin, which does not concern foodstuffs or wines, is the indication “Swiss” for watches. Since June 1997, the EU has complied with the prohibition of Switzerland, as stated in the decree of 23-12-1971, that manufacturers of watches within the EU are prohibited from using this indication. See http://europastar.com/ES Watch/features/swissmade.html
[80] As far as the meaning of “dilution of the third party’s reputation” is concerned, see E. Soufleros, The Unfair Exploitation

of Third Party’s Reputation and Organisation as Provided in the General Rule of Article 1, Act No146/1914 about Unfair

Competition, Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications, Athens, 1996, p. 103 and also edited at the collective work Unfair Competition, edited by N.K. Rokas, Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications, Athens 1996,p.161.
[81] See, A. Sinanioti Maroudi, in the collective work Unfair Competition, edited by N.K.Rokas, Nomiki Vivliothiki

Publications, Athens,1996, p. 283.
[82] N.S. Mussis, European Union, Law-Economy-Politics, Papasis Publications, 8th revised edition,1999,p.505.
[83] Preamable of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ L 208, 24/07/1992, p. 0001-0008. See also http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc;lg=EN;numdoc=32006 and

http://www.henryckliu.com/page9.html
[84] Preamble of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 of 14 July 1992 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ L 208,24-07-1992, p. 0009-0014.
[85] OJ L 179, 14/07/1999,p. 0001-0084.
[86] The manner of production of “Feta”, Cases 289/96, 293/96,299/96, cited below, as submitted by the Greek party in the relevant case before the ECJ, is described in Homers’ Odyssey where it is stated that the mythical creature Polifimos “…sat down to milk his ewes and bleating goats, which he did methodically putting the young to each mother as he finished. He then curdled half the white milk, gathered it all up and stored it in wicker baskets”, Homer, the Odyssey, Book 1X. Translated by E.V. Rieu, Penguin Books, p, 145.
[87] See Doha Development Agenda, http://www.wto.org
[88] See Doha WTO Ministerial Declaration 2001,  http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.htm
[89] http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf , S. Escudero, “International Protection of Geographical Indications and Developing Countries”, 2001.
[90] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf.

[91] This provision was modified at Brussels in 1900, The Hague in 1925, London in 1934, Lisbon in 1958, the later, the most important one. See Carlos Fernández Novoa, “La protección internacional de las denominaciones geográficas de los productos”, Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, 1970, pp. 83-103. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf.
[92] WIPO, “Intellectual Property Reading Material”. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf.
[93] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf.

[94] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf.
[95] See http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/documentos/muestraDocumentos.jsp?idFicha=0000003653;formato=html_xml;nom
[96] See http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/economic/Occassional/Geographical-Indications.pdf
[97] Ludwig Baumer, “Various forms of protection of geographical indications and possible consequences for an

International treaty”, p.17. See also http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[98] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[99] See Carlos Fernández Novoa, pp. 132-140. See also http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[100] A collective mark is that owned by an association which itself does not use the collective mark but whose

members may use it. Certification mark is that used in accordance with defined standards that the product shall

meet. See WIPO, “Intellectual Property Reading Material”, pp. 61-62. See also http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[101] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[102] http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/documentos/muestraDocumentos.jsp?idFicha=0000003653;formato=html_xml;nom
[103]  See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[104] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[105] These Regulations are subject to modifications in a Working Group created to this effect in the WIPO, which have held two meetings to date. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[106] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[107] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[108] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[109] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[110] Similar expressions are included not only in the TRIPS Agreement but also in the International Convention for

the use of appellation d’origine and denominations of cheeses, signed at Stresa in 1951. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[111] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[112] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[113] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[114] WIPO, Standing Committee on the law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications,

“Possible solutions for conflicts between trademarks and geographical indications and for conflicts between

homonymous geographical indications”, document SCT/5/3, prepared by the International Bureau, Fifth

Session, Geneva, 11/15 September 2000. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[115] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[116] For the negotiating history of the Agreement, see Julie Chasen Ross and Jessica, A. Wasserman, “Trade -Related

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights”, edited by Terence Stewart, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Boston, 1993. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[117] See for instance the proposals made by Japan and the United States, Document PREP.COM(86)SR/3, of 11

April 1986. Nevertheless, some countries presented proposals opposed to the inclusion of this issue in the new round. See for instance Document PROP.COM(86)/W/41/Rev.1 of 16 July 1986. In the end, the issue of trade

related aspects of intellectual property rights, including trade in counterfeit goods was included by Ministers in

its declaration. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[118] Document MTN/ GNG/ NG11/ W/ 68, of 29 March 1990. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[119] Document MTN/ GNG/ NG11/ W/ 70, of 11 May 1990. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[120] Document MTN/ GNG/ NG11/ W/ 71, of 14 May 1990 and presented by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China,

Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Peru, Tanzania and Uruguay. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[121] Document MTN/ GNG/ NG11/ W/ 73, of 14 May 1990. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[122] Document MTN/ GNG/ NG11/ W/ 74, 15 May 1990. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[123] Article 20(2) of the EC proposal, Document MTN/ GNG/ NG11/ W/ 68. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[124] See article 21(3) of the EC proposal, Document MTN/ GNG/ NG11/ W/ 68. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[125] Ibid. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[126] See article 18 of the US proposal, Document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/70. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[127] See article 19 of the US proposal, Document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/70. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[128] See article 9 of a Group of Developing Countries proposal, Document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/71. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[129] See footnote 2 of Document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/71. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[130] See articles 220(2) and 220(3) of the Swiss proposal, Document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/73. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[131] Ibid., article 220(4). See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[132] See article 2 of Part I of Section I of the Japanese proposal, Document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/74. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[133] See Document MTN.GG/NG11/W/76. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[134] This text also was known as the “Chairman’s draft” or “Composite text.” See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[135] Copyrights and related rights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, layout-designs

(topographies) of integrated circuits and undisclosed information. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[136] Section 3, article 2b1 of Document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/76.  See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[137] Ibid, article 3. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[138] See Document MTN.TNC/35/ Rev.1, 3 December 1990. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[139] See article 25 of Document MTN.TNC/35/ Rev.1. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[140] Ibid, paras. 1/2. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[141] See article 27 of Document MTN.TNC/35/ Rev.1. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[142] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[143] See Document MTN.TNC/W/89/Add.1, dated 7 November 1991. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[144] Ibid. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[145] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[146] This document was circulated under the reference MTN.TNC/W/FA and was presented on 20 December 1991. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[147] See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[148] TRIPS, art. 16.1, quoted in First Submission of the United States WT/DS 174 (April 23, 2004) 42. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[149] EC Regulation 2081/92 at art. 14. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[150] U.S Oral Statement at the First Panel Meeting WT/DS 174 (June 23, 2004), 9. (“The EC’s assertions notwithstanding, the United States agrees that there is no hierarchy between trademarks and GIs. In fact, the United States took great pains in its first submission to make it clear that it is important to give all of the TRIPS provisions their full scope”).  See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[151] Id. See See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[152] EC Regulation 2081/92 art. 14(2), quoted in First Submission of the United States WT/DS174 (April 23, 2004), 47. (“To the contrary, Article 14 of the EC GI regulation reinforces that owners of registered trademarks are denied their rights under Article 16.1 of the TRIPS agreement. Most obvious is Article 14(2) which addresses the situation of a trademark right that predates the GI right”). See See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[153] First Submission of the United States, WT/DS174 (April 23, 2004), 46.  See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[154] See id. at 47. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[155] See generally, Detlev F. Vagts, Transnational Business PRoblems (2003). See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[156] First Submission of the United States WT/DS174 (April 23, 2004) 9;  See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[157] Id. at 11. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[158]Closing Statement of the US at the Second Substantive Meeting of the Panel, WT/DS174 (August 12, 2004), 2. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[159] EC Regulation, 2081/92, art. 12; See also,  First Submission of the United States, WT/DS174, (April 23, 2004), 20 (“In other words, a U.S. National is not able to acquire, does not have available to him, and is unable to enforce, the same rights to his U.S. based GIs as EC national have with respect to their EC-based GIs, unless the United States (1) harmonizes its GI protection system to that of the EC (and therefore drops its current system of protection through certification and collective mark system and creates two separate GI protection systems, one specific to GIS, the other trademark based and (2) offers reciprocity with respect to European products). See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[160] First Submission of the United States, WT/DS174, (April 23, 2004), 20. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[161] First Written Submission of the European Communities, WT/DS174 (May 25, 2004) para. 117. (“Accordingly, the EC does not condition the registration of geographical indications relating to the territory of another WTI member to the condition that it reciprocally grant equivalent protection for agricultural products and foodstuffs coming from the EC and that it adopts a system for protecting geographical indications equivalent to that in the EC”). See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[162] See id. at para. 110. (“In their first written submissions, [the United States and Austria make no attempt to establish that Regulation 2081/92 discriminations between nationals of the EC and nationals of other WTO members.”). See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[163] Closing Statement of the US at the Second Substantive Meeting of the Panel, WT/DS174 (August 12, 2004) 2. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[164] Id. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[165] European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs – Complaint by the United States – Report of the Panel, WT/DS174/R, 38 (7.103). See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[166] See id. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[167] See id. The panel did not that if the European Union’s arguments that the regulation’s text didn’t reflect reality were accepted, obviously, such further investigation would not have been necessary – “Had this interpretation been reflected in the text of the Regulation, the Panel could have reached a different conclusion which would have rendered it unnecessary to continue with an examination of the consistency of those conditions with the provisions of the covered agreements”. Id.  See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[168] See id at 38, 165.
[169] See id. at 146, (7.661). See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[170] See id. at 145 (7.659). See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2005)0698_/com_com(2005)0698_ and http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/689/Melkonian05.html
[171] See http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm, “Understanding the World Trade Organization”

[172] See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc;lg=EN;numdoc=32006 and http://www.henryckliu.com/page9.html
[173] See http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm, “Understanding the World Trade Organization”
[174] See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc;lg=EN;numdoc=32006 and http://www.henryckliu.com/page9.html
[175] S. Escudero, International Protection of Geographical Indications and Developing Countries, South Center Organization, 2001, http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[176] S. Escudero, International Protection of Geographical Indications and Developing Countries, South Center Organization, 2001, http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[177] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf, S. Escudero, International Protection of Geographical Indications and Developing Countries, South Center Organization, 2001.
[178] For the limits of the territoriality principle in the context of globalisation see A. Liakopoulos, Intellectual Property Law in Greece, Kluwer Law International – Sakkoulas, 1999, p. 47. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[179] E. Soufleros, The Unfair Exploitation of Third Party’s Reputation and Organisation as Provided in the General Rule of Article 1, Act No 146/1914 about Unfair Competition, Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications, Athens, 1996, p. 55.
[180] O.Brouwer, Community Protection of Geographical indications and Specific Character as a means of Enhancing Foodstuff

Quality, Common Market Law Review 28: 615-646, 1991,p. 635.
[181] Ibid.
[182] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf, S. Escudero, International Protection of Geographical Indications and Developing Countries, South Center Organization, 2001.
[183] See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf , S. Escudero, International Protection of Geographical Indications and Developing Countries

South Center Organization, 2000.
[184] Ibid. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf
[185] Ibid. See http://www.southcentre.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.pdf