[Ecommerce] IP Watch re WTO and GIs: Both sides claim victory

[Manon Ress]

in IP-Watch:

Both Sides Claim Victory In Geographic Indications Dispute

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index_test.php?p=3D30

15/3/2005
Both Sides Claim Victory In Geographic Indications Dispute

by William New @ 9:44 pm

Both sides claimed victory Tuesday in a World Trade Organisation dispute
brought by Australia and the United States against the European Union=92s
protection of foods with names deriving from specific geographical regions.

The WTO panel ruling Tuesday found that the EU system of protection for
geographical indications for agricultural products may continue to
exist, but said the system discriminates against non-EU products. The
two sides disagreed whether the ruling found the EU system to be in
violation of WTO rules.

The case brought by the United States and Australia challenged a 1992 EU
system under which more than 600 European products, such as Roquefort
cheese, are registered for protection to ensure =93quality.=94 The challeng=
e
involves the registering in Europe of foreign agricultural products with
place-names such as Florida oranges. It excludes wines and spirits,
which fall under another regime.

The United States charged that the EU regulation discriminated against
U.S. geographic indications, a violation of the =93national treatment=94
rule that all WTO members should treat each other=92s products the same as
their own, and that it failed to protect U.S. trademarks.

U.S. officials were pleased with the outcome. =93It=92s a clear win for
American farmers and food processors,=94 Peter Allgeier, acting U.S. Trade
Representative, said in a statement. =93For years, Europe effectively had
a =91Do Not Apply=92 sign directed at foreign producers. We believed that,
under WTO rules, U.S. farmers, ranchers, and other food producers should
have the same access to protection for geographical indications as
European food producers, and that the European system discriminated
against us.=94

=93Today, the WTO issued a crystal clear ruling that agreed with our view
that Europe failed to provide Americans fair access,=94 Allgeier said.

The European Union said the ruling confirms the rights of the holders of
the nearly 700 geographical indications.

=93By confirming that geographical indications are both legal and
compatible with existing trademark systems, this WTO decision will help
the EU to ensure wider recognition of geographical indications and
protection of regional and local product identities, which is one of our
goals in the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations,=94 EU Trade
Commissioner Peter Mandelson said in a statement.

A U.S. trade official said in a telephone press briefing Tuesday that
the U.S. concern was that geographic indication holders could use
translations of their holdings in a =93confusing way=94 and could interfere
with trademark holders=92 right to use them.

The U.S. official also said the ruling could provide guidance to
negotiators in the Doha Development Agenda. The U.S. position is that
the existing WTO rules are sufficient, he noted.

The United States will look for the European Union to issue a legal
instrument that eliminates the discrimination in the system, the
official added. U.S. geographic indications holders have not had a place
to register their status, he said.

The EU interpretation of the ruling on the relationship between
geographic indications and trademarks was that the panel confirmed that
the provision of the EU system allowing for the =91coexistence=92 of such
indications with prior trademarks under certain circumstances is fully
justified under the TRIPS Agreement.

The European Union added that it has repeatedly sought to dispel charges
that its system discriminates against geographic indications relating to
geographical areas in third countries in violation of the WTO national
treatment rules.

=93In fact, the EU system is open also to applications for registration of
[geographic indications] from third countries,=94 it said. =93The panel
report asks the EU to clarify the rules in this respect, to allow
producer groups from third countries to apply directly rather than
having to go through their governments.=94

--
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax: +1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent, London,
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax:
+44(0)207 354 0607