M. Geuze
- The Hong Kong, China proposal.35 The Hong Kong government has
proposed a voluntary system whereby a registered GI would create a rebuttable
presumption or “prima facie evidence” in participating members with regard to
the ownership of the GI, compliance with the Article 22.1 definition and
protection in the country of origin. While Hong Kong, China is not a producer
of wines and spirits, it has made the proposal for systemic reasons. Its concern is
that failure in this negotiating group might endanger the whole Doha
Development Agenda.
The special session has also discussed costs and other burdens that the future
system might entail.36
Extension of the protection of Article 23 to GIs for other products
The issue of extension was discussed in the regular session of the TRIPS Council
up to the end of 2002. Thereafter, it has become the subject of consultations chaired
by the Director General of the WTO.
Proponents for extension claim that the higher protection of GIs for wines and
spirits is a discrimination, which could be corrected by extending that protection to
GIs for other products. They have proposed accordingly, i.e., Article 23 should apply
to GIs for all products and the Article 24 exceptions should apply mutatis mutandis.
Moreover, the multilateral register to be negotiated for GIs for wines and spirits
should apply to all GIs.37
Their opponents hold the view that this discrimination could as well be corrected
through suppressing Article 23 and limiting the protection of GIs in all sectors to that
provided by Article 22.
The merits of extension have been extensively debated.38 The divide in the talks is
the same as in the negotiations on the multilateral register, namely, the EC, other
European countries and several developing countries on one side, and the same
countries that have sponsored or expressed sympathy for the joint proposal, together
with some other developing countries, on the other side. The debate revolves around
issues such as the possible benefits of GI extension to GI holders; the cost for non-GI
holders; the costs for consumers; and the impact of extension in third markets.
EC’s claw-back proposal in the agriculture negotiations
In the context of the agriculture negotiations, the EC has submitted a proposal that
is relevant to the geographical indications debate. It concerns a list of names that, in
the EC, constitute geographical indications but that in other countries are used
generically to indicate a type or kind of product. The proposal aims to “claw back”
such names by reserving their use for EC producers in the geographical locations to
59
Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy