Abstract
European law and policies on geographical indications (GIs) have come into conflict with those of “New World” nations such as the US and Australia. This conflict has come to a head in two areas. First, the US and Australia have brought actions under the WTO dispute resolution mechanism claiming that the national treatment principle of the TRIPS Agreement is violated by the EU’s legislation on GIs. Second, the US has taken the position in the TRIPS Council that the additional operation of the TRIPS Agreement in relation to wines and spirits ought not to be extended to other products, whereas the EU takes the position that a Multilateral Register in relation to agricultural products and handicrafts needs to be established.
In view of the 2004 WTO Ministerial Conference, this conflict profoundly dominates not only the TRIPS, but also the agricultural agenda.
This contribution aims at analysing the points of view underlying the two conflict areas, the future solutions for protecting GIs internationally, as well as alternatives to GI protection.
In view of the 2004 WTO Ministerial Conference, this conflict profoundly dominates not only the TRIPS, but also the agricultural agenda.
This contribution aims at analysing the points of view underlying the two conflict areas, the future solutions for protecting GIs internationally, as well as alternatives to GI protection.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | New Frontiers of Intellectual Property Law |
| Subtitle of host publication | IP and Cultural Heritage - Geographical Indications - Enforcement - Overprotection |
| Editors | C. Health, A.W.J. Kamperman Sanders |
| Place of Publication | London |
| Publisher | Hart Publishing |
| Chapter | 6 |
| Pages | 133-148 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-1-4725-6344-6 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-1-8411-3571-7 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2005 |