M. Geuze
However, what has not changed after the conclusion of the WTO Agreement is the
wide diversity in the means of protection for geographical indications available from
country to country. This was another aspect recognized by the Uruguay Round
negotiators when they incorporated a number of built-in agenda items on geographical
indications in the TRIPS Agreement. This diversity not only was confirmed in the peer
group review of national implementing legislation in the WTO’s TRIPS Council, but
also is illustrated by the summary paper4 the WTO Secretariat prepared of information
on national systems for the protection of geographical indications by individual WTO
members in the context of the TRIPS Council’s review of the application of the TRIPS
Agreement’s provisions on geographical indications under the built-in agenda item
stipulated in Article 24.2 of the agreement.
Neither have geographical indications lost their controversial character after the
entry into force of the WTO Agreement. In this regard it should be noted that, in the
Uruguay Round, a link was made by some delegations between the negotiation of
obligations with respect to trade in agricultural products and the negotiation of
obligations to provide protection for geographical indications in the context of the
TRIPS Agreement. This link has obviously not been forgotten by delegations at work
in either area since 1995. The WTO system is designed to establish conditions of
competition aimed at regulating the opportunities for goods from its members in the
competitive environment of their markets and at liberalizing trade in goods, building
upon about half a century of experience in the GATT. When, as a result of the
negotiations in the Uruguay Round, trade in agricultural products came under the
discipline of a rule-based system, a consequence thereof was believed to be that this
might encourage moves towards added value in agricultural production and exports,
since market shares will be increasingly determined by basic competitiveness rather
than the ability and inclination to subsidize. Consequently, investments for the
development of quality products like high-value, consumer-ready food preparations
and other food and drink items increased. At the same time, however, the demands for
protection against misappropriation of geographical indications and other forms of
intellectual property became stronger.5
Standards for the Protection of Geographical
Indications under Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS
Agreement6
The structure of the TRIPS Agreement’s section on geographical indications is
such that its provisions can be outlined by dividing them into four main parts:
- first, a definition of geographical indications;
52
Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy