See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264822043

Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical Indications

Article  in  International Journal of Intellectual Property Management · January 2009

DOI: 10.1504/IJIPM.2009.026912

CITATIONS READS

28 4,939

1 author:

Michael Leslie Blakeney

University of Western Australia
54 PUBLICATIONS   416 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Food security and the governance of local knowledge in India and Indonesia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Leslie Blakeney on 15 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Intellectual Property Management, Vol.

Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical

Indications

Michael Blakeney
Faculty of Law,
University of Western Australia,
Queen Mary, University of London, UK
E-mail: m.blakeney@qmul.ac.uk
E-mail: Michael.blakeney@uwa.edu.au

Abstract: This paper considers the extent to which Geographical Indications

(GIs) regimes might provide for the protection of Traditional Knowledge
(‘TK’), through a consideration of the debate on TK within both the WTO and
WIPO. The author relates the policy objectives, identified by WIPO as ideally
underpinning the legislative protection of TK, to the policy objectives of GIs
protection. The paper concludes with an examination of debate within the
WTO, for the extension of the special protection offered to GIs for wines and
spirits to handicrafts and other products and concludes with some case studies
of handicrafts as examples of GIs.
Keywords: international intellectual property law; WTO-TRIPS
agreement-geographical indications; GIs; geographical indications; TK;
traditional knowledge; WIPO intergovernmental committee on genetic
resources.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Blakeney, M. (2009)
‘Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical Indications’, Int. J.
Intellectual Property Management, Vol.
Biographical notes: Michael Blakeney is Herchel Smith Professor of
Intellectual Property Law at Queen Mary, University of London and Professor
of Law at the University of Western Australia. He is an arbitrator with the
International Court of Arbitration. He has advised a number of international
organisations on aspects of agricultural IP and on IP enforcement. He has
written and edited a number of books in the fields of intellectual property,
media and competition law.

1 Introduction

This paper considers the extent to which Geographical Indications (GIs) regimes might
provide for the protection of Traditional Knowledge (TK).
Proposals for the protection of TK within the existing categories of intellectual
property or as a sui generis subject of intellectual property protection is currently the
subject of intense scrutiny in a number of international fora. Probably the most important
precipitant of this scrutiny has been the impact of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS Agreement’). The immediate effect of
the TRIPS Agreement was to impose on all countries: LDCs, developing and

Copyright © 2009 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

358 M. Blakeney

industrialised, the IP standards which were formulated in industrialised countries.

The implementation of TRIPS Agreement obligations carried a tangible compliance
costs.1 Set against these costs was the promise of the TRIPS Agreement contained in
Article 7 that
“The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should
contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and
dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of
technological knowledge …”
To test the veracity of this promise, developing country members, as part of the general
review process of the Agreement, as provided in Article 71.1, have urged an analysis of
the impact the TRIPS Agreement in securing the transfer and dissemination of
technology (Stilwell and Monagle, 2000).2
This agitation for the ‘operationalisation’ of Article 7 was reflected in the agitation of
developing country members for a development agenda both within the WTO and World
Intellectual Property Organization (‘WIPO’). Those countries sought to identify those IP
issues which were considered to have greatest significance for their particular
circumstances. In this regard, the protection of TK was identified as a negotiating
priority. On 4 October, 1999 Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru
specifically proposed that the Seattle Ministerial Conference establish within the
framework of the Round a mandate.
a To carry out studies, in collaboration with other relevant international organisations
in order to make recommendations on the most appropriate means of recognising
and protecting TK as the subject matter of intellectual property rights.
b On the basis of the above-mentioned recommendations, initiate negotiations
with a view to establishing a multilateral legal framework that will grant effective
protection to the expressions and manifestations of TK.
c To complete the legal framework envisaged in paragraph (b) above in time
for it to be included as part of the results of this round of trade negotiations.3
A communication of 6 August, 1999 from Venezuela proposed that the Seattle
Ministerial should consider the establishment
“on a mandatory basis within the TRIPS Agreement a system for the protection
of intellectual property, with an ethical and economic content, applicable to the
Traditional Knowledge of local and indigenous communities, together with
recognition of the need to define the rights of collective holders.”4
The Seattle Ministerial collapsed under the pressure of anti-globalisation riots and it was
not until the Doha Ministerial in November 2001, that the question of TK as an artifact of
the international IP regime was resurrected. Clause 19 of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration 2001, instructed
“the Council for TRIPS, in pursuing its review programme ‘to examine, inter
alia, … the protection of traditional knowledge’ and to ‘be guided by the
objectives and principles set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement
and … take fully into account the development dimension.”
After the impasse of the subsequent Cancun Ministerial Meeting, which was derailed by
agricultural issues, the Hong Kong Ministerial meeting on 18 December 2005 reaffirmed
in clause 1 of the Declaration issued by it the Declarations and Decisions adopted
 Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical Indications 359

at Doha and renewed the “resolve to complete the Doha Work Programme fully and to
conclude the negotiations launched at Doha successfully in 2006”. Clause 2 of the
Hong Kong Declaration emphasised “the central importance of the development
dimension in every aspect of the Doha Work Programme” and the signatories
recommitted themselves “to making it a meaningful reality”.
Beyond, the reference in Clause 19 of the Doha Declaration to TK, the TRIPS
Council has not yet begun to address the issue of TK protection in any significant way.
As is indicated below, an alternative approach for the WTO is to consider the protection
of TK within the context of GIs protection.

2 TK within WIPO

The origins of the consideration of TK as an IP issue can probably be traced back to the
early debates which questioned the relevance of the international copyright regime for
developing countries. The Stockholm Conference for the Revision of the Berne
Convention, which was convened in June 1967, witnessed the first significant agitation
from developing countries for an acknowledgement of their particular circumstances.
In the preparations for the Stockholm Conference, it was proposed that the concerns of
developing countries could be accommodated in a separate protocol. This question
was the subject of some fairly acrimonious debates at Stockholm (Ricketson, 1987).5
The critical issues for developing countries were the definition of developing country
translation rights and compulsory licensing. The establishment of a protective regime for
folklore was a burgeoning consideration. Although a Protocol was grudgingly adopted by
the final plenary session of the Stockholm Conference it did not come into force as it
failed to secure the requisite number of ratifications.
The failure of developing countries to secure an effective protection of folklore within
the regime administered by WIPO explains initiatives undertaken within other
international organisations. In April 1973, the Government of Bolivia had sent a
memorandum to the Director General of UNESCO requesting that the Organisation
examine the opportunity of drafting an international instrument on the protection of
indigenous creative works in the form of a protocol to be attached to the Universal
Copyright Convention, which is administered by UNESCO. Following that request a
study was prepared in 1975 by the Secretariat of UNESCO on the desirability of
providing for the protection of the cultural expressions of indigenous peoples on an
international scale. Because of a perception of the broad scope of this analysis, in 1977
the Director General of UNESCO convened a Committee of Experts on the
Legal Protection of Folklore, which in a report in 1977 concluded that the
subject required sociological, psychological, ethnological, politico-historical studies
“on an interdisciplinary basis within the framework of an overall and integrated
approach”.6
Pursuant to a resolution adopted by the General Conference of the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Belgrade,
in September-October 1980 and a decision taken by the Governing Bodies of the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in November 1981, a Committee of
Governmental Experts on the Intellectual Property Aspects of the Protection of
Expressions of Folklore was convened. After a series of meetings the Committee
formulated Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of
360 M. Blakeney

Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Action which were adopted by
the two organisations in 1985. Pursuant to a resolution adopted by the General
Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) in Belgrade, in September–October 1980 and a decision taken by the
Governing Bodies of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in November
1981, a Committee of Governmental Experts on the Intellectual Property Aspects of the
Protection of Expressions of Folklore was convened. After a series of meetings the
Committee formulated Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of
Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Action which
were adopted by the two organisations in 1985.
As can be seen above, the first discussions about the possibility of the protection of
the creativity of indigenous and traditional communities occurred within the context of
folklore, which was considered to be in the area of copyright law. The first major
discussion of the protection of TK, as such, occurred in the context of the joint
UNESCO/WIPO World Forum on the Protection of Folklore, which was convened in
Phuket in April 1997. The Forum was principally concerned with the adequacy of
copyright law to protect folkloric works, such as paintings, sculptures, drama, music
and magic. At the Forum, the term ‘folklore’ was criticised for its limited scope.
For example, Mrs Mould-Idrissu, in a paper on the African Experience on the
preservation and conservation of expressions of folklore,7 observed that the western
conception of folklore tended to focus on artistic, literary and performing works, whereas
in Africa it was much more broad; encompassing all aspects of cultural heritage.8
For example, she noted that under the Ghanaian Copyright Law of 1985, folklore
included scientific knowledge.8
The particular focus of TK, which reflected the concerns of Mrs. Mould-Idrissu, were
a number of incidents of ‘biopiracy’ in which the knowledge of traditional communities
was employed in the identification and appropriation of the biological resources of
developing countries (Blakeney, 1999, 2004).9 Responding to suggestions about the
potential role of IP in preventing the misappropriation of biological resources in 1999
WIPO participated in a joint study with the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), on the role of intellectual property rights in the sharing of benefits arising from
the use of biological resources and associated TK. These matters were taken up at the
third session of WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) in September
1999. At this session the delegation of Colombia proposed the introduction into the
Patent Law Treaty, which was then under negotiation, an paper which required the
lawful acquisition of biological material upon which patent applications were based.
This issue was deferred to the subsequent negotiations for a Substantive Patent Law
Treaty. To facilitate the discussion of this matter and the related issue of the role of TK in
identifying this biological material, in a Note dated September 14, 2000, the Permanent
Mission of the Dominican Republic to the United Nations in Geneva submitted on behalf
of the Group of Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC) a request for
the creation of a Standing Committee on access to the genetic resources and TK of local
and indigenous communities.
“The work of that Standing Committee would have to be directed towards
defining internationally recognised practical methods of securing adequate
protection for the intellectual property rights in TK.”10
 Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical Indications 361

At the WIPO General Assembly the Member States agreed the establishment of an
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, TK and
Folklore. Three interrelated themes were identified to inform the deliberations of the
Committee: intellectual property issues that arise in the context of
• access to genetic resources and benefit sharing
• protection of TK, whether or not associated with those resources
• the protection of expressions of folklore (WIPO, 2000).11
At the early sessions of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and
Genetic Resources, TK and Folklore (‘IGC’) the Member States concentrated on
“the development of ‘guide contractual practices’, guidelines, and model
intellectual property clauses for contractual agreements on access to genetic
resources and benefit-sharing.”12
At its more recent sessions the IGC has reviewed key principles and objectives of TK
protection “to develop an overview of policy objectives and core principles for the
protection of TK”.13 The painstaking work of the IGC suggests that an international
instrument providing for the sui generis protection of TK is unlikely to be promulgated in
the immediate future.

3 Debates about the potential of GIs to protect TK

One reason for the delay in promulgating international sui generis legislation
for the protection of TK is the suggestion that existing principles of intellectual property
might be able to accommodate the concerns of the demandeurs of TK legislation.
However, most of the suggestions which have been made, focus upon the role
which patent law or plant breeder’s rights law which might make might make in
protecting TK. Not much attention has been paid to the role which GIs laws might make
in protecting TK.
The leading academic study of the ways in which the existing categories of
intellectual property law might be utilised to protect TK is the 2004 survey by the Max
Planck Institute, led by von Lewinski (2004).14 The Max Planck study is generally quite
pessimistic about the role which GIs might make in protecting TK. The principal chapter
on this subject is that by Kur and Knaak (2004, p.20)15 on the protection of traditional
names and designations. They note that
“The indication for a product is the subject matter of this protection, not the
product itself. For this reason tradition-based innovations and creations, as
indicated in the WIPO Report on Fact-finding Missions on Intellectual Property
and TK, cannot enjoy protection per se by means of geographical indications.
The protection of GIs may apply only to signs indicating these innovations and
creations.” (Kur and Knaak, 2004, p.227)15
This is unquestionably the case, but all GIs whether ‘Champagne’ wine, ‘Parma’ ham, or
‘Roquefort’ cheese not only protect the use of the indication, but also protect the
innovations which stand behind the indication.
362 M. Blakeney

Kur and Knaak provide no examples of how GI’s might protect indications for TK,
even indirectly. They reject the possibility that ‘Kava’ from the Pacific region and
‘Rooibos’ from South Africa could be protected under the Madrid Agreement stating that
“they are not GIs per se as they have no direct geographical meaning” (Kur and Knaak,
2004, p.228).15 This interpretation appears to add to the jurisprudence on GIs the concept
of a “per se geographical indication”. This confuses the existing jurisprudence on direct
and indirect GIs. For example, the ECJ recently held ‘Feta’ to be a GI for cheese coming
from Greece, even though there is no geographical place of that name. The ECJ did not
rule that ‘Feta’ was not a GI per se but that it was an indirect indication, much the same
way that ‘Kava’ and ‘Rooibos’ might be taken as indirect indications of the places from
which they come.
Kur and Knaak are also pessimistic about the general prohibition in Article 22 of
the TRIPS Agreement of the use of misleading GIs being of much assistance for the
protection of TK. They explain that
“As to geographical indications of indigenous communities, the general
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement are clearly not sufficient to offer adequate
protection. The general protection pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement is too
limited in its scope because … it depends on the opinions of the public in the
country where protection is claimed. Under this rule GIs of indigenous
communities being unknown as such to the public of certain countries are
unprotected in those countries.” (Kur and Knaak, 2004, pp.233, 234)15
This assessment makes some assumptions about the ignorance of persons about
indigenous communities, although, the growth of ‘ethno-marketing’ suggests that there is
an increasing awareness of indigenous communities and what they have to offer.
However, as Kur and Knaak concede, this particular problem can be overcome by the
establishment of a register for GIs.
A more optimistic assessment of the potential for GIs to protect TK is made by
Marion Panizzon and Thomas Cottier in their study: “TK and GIs: Foundations, Interests
and Negotiating Positions”.16 They observe that
“Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Geographical Indications (GIs) share a
common element insofar as they both protect accumulated knowledge typical to
a specific locality. While TK expresses the local traditions of knowledge,
GIs stand for specific geographical origin of a typical product or production
method. GIs and TK relate a product (GIs), respectively a piece of information
(TK), to a geographically confined people or a particular region or locality.”
Similarly, in its Review of Existing Intellectual Property Protection of TK17 the IGC
Secretariat observed that
“GIs as defined by Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and appellations of
origin, as defined by Article 2 of the Lisbon Agreement … rely not only on
their geographical connotation but also, essentially on human and/or natural
factors (which may have generated a given quality, reputation or other
characteristic of the good). In practice, human and/or natural factors are the
result of traditional, standard techniques which local communities have
developed and incorporated into production. Goods designated and
differentiated by geographical indications, be they wines, spirits, cheese,
handicrafts, watches, silverware and others, are as much expressions of local
cultural and community identification as other elements of traditional
knowledge can be.”18
 Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical Indications 363

Three examples provided by the Secretariat of TK protected by GIs are: ‘Cocuy the
Pecaya’ liquor from Venezuela, ‘Phu Quoc’ fish sauce and ‘Shan Tuyet Moc Chau’ tea,
both from Vietnam.

4 TK policy issues

For the guidance of the tenth session of the IGC (November 30–December 8, 2006) the
Secretariat identified some 16 policy objectives which ought to underpin the legislative
protection of TK.19 There is a good deal of overlap between these various objectives and
these have been grouped below according to their principal themes. However, from them
we can see whether there might be a role for GIs in TK protection.
The first objective identified by the Secretariat of the IGC is to ‘Recognise value’.
This is defined as follows:
“(i) recognise the holistic nature of traditional knowledge and its intrinsic
value, including its social, spiritual, economic, intellectual, scientific,
ecological, technological, commercial, educational and cultural value, and
acknowledge that traditional knowledge systems are frameworks of
ongoing innovation and distinctive intellectual and creative life that are
fundamentally important for indigenous and local communities and have
equal scientific value as other knowledge systems.”
This objective recognises the economic and commercial value of TK and that it
might function as a framework for the creative life of indigenous and local communities.
The economic benefits are obvious if traditional products can be protected as GIs.
For example, the mark of the town of Osnabrück, the centre of the Westphalian linen
industry, was held in so great respect and esteem abroad that, in England, in the middle of
the 15th century, linen bearing this mark commanded a price 20% higher than other
Westphalian linens (Schechter, 1925).20 As the first preamble to recent EC Regulation on
the protection of GIs and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs21
declared: “The production, manufacture and distribution of agricultural products and
foodstuffs play an important role in the Community economy” (Bently and Sherman,
2006).22 Thus today in the EU the 640 GIs and designations of origin for foodstuffs, and
over 4,200 registered designations for wines and spirits, together generate a turnover of
more than €40 billion annually (O’Connor and Company, 2003).23
The reference to the ‘holistic nature’ of TK draws attention to its non-economic
aspects. In this regard, promoters of GIs refer to the contribution which they can make to
non-trade issues such as to the preservation of rural landscapes and rural lifestyles.
The second group of policy objectives identified by the Secretariat of the IGC
concern the promotion of respect for TK systems and for meeting the needs of holders of
TK. Included in the promotion of respect is a concern
“… for the dignity, cultural integrity and intellectual and spiritual values
of the traditional knowledge holders who conserve and maintain those
systems; for the contribution which traditional knowledge has made in
sustaining the livelihoods and identities of traditional knowledge holders;
and for the contribution which traditional knowledge holders have made to the
conservation of the environment, to food security and sustainable agriculture,
and to the progress of science and technology.”
364 M. Blakeney

Guided by “the aspirations and expectations expressed directly by TK holders” the

Secretariat of the IGC refers to the necessity to
“respect their rights as holders and custodians of TK … and reward the
contribution made by them to their communities and to the progress of science
and socially beneficial technology.”
An interesting parallel with these policy objectives for TK protection can be found in the
non-trade benefits that have been urged as a justification for GIs throughout their history.
The attempt in 1764 to repeal the mediaeval legislation which conferred protection upon
the wine marks of the Bordeaux region (Richard, 1918; van Caenegem, 2003)24 was
sought to be repelled upon the justification of the contribution made by this legislation
both to rural employment and to the preservation of the continuity of the quality of
rural life. Similarly, the second preamble to the EC Regulation, mentioned above,
states that:
“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 favoured or remote areas,
by improving the incomes of farmers and by retaining the rural population in
these areas.”
The central cluster of policy objectives identified by the Secretariat of the IGC refer to
the importance of promoting the conservation and preservation of TK and protecting it
from misappropriation through ensuring prior informed consent for access to genetic
resources and the promotion of equitable benefit sharing. Relevant to the issue of GIs is
objective (x) which urges the promotion of innovation and creativity in the following
terms:
“(x) encourage, reward and protect tradition-based creativity and innovation
and enhance the internal transmission of traditional knowledge within
indigenous and traditional communities, including, subject to the consent
of the traditional knowledge holders, by integrating such knowledge into
educational initiatives among the communities, for the benefit of the
holders and custodians of traditional knowledge.”
In this regard, as Cottier and Panizzon observe:
“TK is associated with ‘niche’ rather than with ‘mass’ production. It therefore
fosters diversity and contributes to the preservation of natural resources.”
(Cottier and Panizzon, 2004)25
Plant breeding by the large life-sciences companies has been criticised for
encouraging monocultures. In this context the protection of TK in the field of agricultural
plant genetic resources offers the potential of ‘appropriate flanking policies’
(Biber-Klemm et al., 2005).26
A number of the policy objectives of TK legislation enumerated by the IGC
Secretariat concern the preservation and development of TK systems27 and to the
safeguarding of TK “for the primary and direct benefit of TK holders in particular, and
for the benefit of humanity in general”.28
The role of traditional communities in conserving genetic resources through the
perpetuation of their TK, as well as their entitlement to the sharing of benefits from the
exploitation of those resources is acknowledged in a number of international instruments.
 Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical Indications 365

The International Treaty for the Protection of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture acknowledges Farmer’s Rights in the following terms:
“9.1 The Contracting Parties recognise the enormous contribution that the
local and indigenous communities and farmers of all regions of the
world, particularly those in the centres of origin and crop diversity, have
made and will continue to make for the conservation and development of
plant genetic resources which constitute the basis of food and agriculture
production throughout the world.”
Similarly the Convention on Biological Diversity establishes the principle of
equitable benefit sharing when conserved biological resources are exploited
(Blakeney, 2002).29 For example, it is estimated that about 6.5% of all genetic research
undertaken in agriculture is focussed upon germplasm derived from wild species
and land races (McNeely, 2001).30 An illustration of the contribution which
traditional communities have made in the conservation of biological resources is the
conservation by traditional people in Mali of a blight resistant rice O. longistaminata
s(WIPO/UNEP, 2001).31 Although this rice was crossed into more high yielding
varieties, raising PBR and patenting issues, if GIs can contribute to the preservation of
traditional rural environments, then it can contribute to the preservation of useful genetic
reservoirs.
A similar controversy erupted in 2000 over the patenting of the Hoodia cactus which
is eaten by the San People of the Kalahari Desert as an appetite suppressant. The patent
was obtained in 1995 by CSIR over the appetite-suppressing element (P57) of Hoodia.
In 1998 Pfizer acquired the rights from the patentee to develop and market P57 as a
potential slimming drug and cure for obesity (a market worth more than £6 billion)
(UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, 2002).32 The GIs implications of this
case comes from the commercial appeal of marketing this product as a Hoodia extract.
In other words focussing upon its ‘natural’ origin and its derivation from the territory
of the San.
A concern for the authentication of traditional culture in the face of the economic,
psychological and cultural threat from alien sources is often cited as a reason
for the protection of TK (Jabbour, 1982).33 A related concern is that expressed in a
number of contemporary European GI disputes, where the producers of ‘Rioja’ wine,34
‘Grano Padano’ cheese35 and ‘Parma’ ham36 have successfully insisted on their exclusive
right to process these products within the relevant geographic region, in order to preserve
the quality and authenticity of these products.
Directly relevant to GIs is objective (xiii) which recommends the promotion of
“community development and legitimate trading activities” in the following terms:
“(xiii) if so desired by the holders of TK, promote the use of TK for
community-based development, recognising the rights of traditional
and local communities over their knowledge; and promote the
development of, and the expansion of marketing opportunities for,
authentic products of TK and associated community industries, where
TK holders seek such development and opportunities consistent with
their right to freely pursue economic development.”
The support, maintenance and development of TK systems is built into most national GI
regimes. Various consortiums of producers have been established both to monitor and
promote production in conformity with the registered GI, as well as to secure protection.
366 M. Blakeney

In a number of countries which are promoting the establishment of GIs as a marketing

tool, the establishment of producers’ consortia is being promoted.
The protection of TK is urged by the policy objectives listed by the IGC Secretariat
dealing with the repression of unfair and inequitable uses37 and precluding the grant of
improper IP rights to unauthorised parties.38
The obligation to establish machinery to prohibit the misleading use of GIs is
contained in Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. The EC Regulation on the protection
of GIs and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs contains this
prohibition in Article 13:
“1. Registered names shall be protected against:
(a) any direct or indirect commercial use of a registered name in respect of
products not covered by the registration in so far as those products are
comparable to the products registered under that name or in so far as using the
name exploits the reputation of the protected name;
(b) any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is
indicated or if the protected name is translated or accompanied by an
expression such as ‘style’, ‘type’, ‘method’, ‘as produced in’, ‘imitation’ or
similar;
(c) any other false or misleading indication as to the provenance, origin, nature
or essential qualities of the product, on the inner or outer packaging, advertising
material or documents relating to the product concerned, and the packing of the
product in a container liable to convey a false impression as to its origin;
(d) any other practice liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the
product.”
The enforcement of GIs is a more practical way for traditional communities to secure
their rights, as the expense of enforcement will be carried either by the producers’
consortium or by the administrator of the GIs system.

5 International developments on GIs

Although the TRIPS Agreement makes no reference to TK, clause 19 of the Doha
Declaration of 2001 requires the TRIPS Council to “examine the relationship between the
TRIPS Agreement, and TK and folklore” by “fully tak[ing] into account the development
dimension”. In relation to GIs, Article 24.1 of TRIPS obliged Members “to enter into
negotiations aimed at increasing the protection of individual geographic indications under
Article 23”. In order to facilitate the protection of GIs for wines, Article 23.4 provides
that
“negotiations shall be undertaken in the Council for TRIPS concerning the
establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of
geographical indications for wines eligible for protection in those Members
participating in the system.”
The TRIPS Council confined its initial efforts in relation to the review of GIs under
Article 24 to a suggestion for a multilateral register of geographical wine indications.
Prior to the Seattle Ministerial, a submission by Turkey of 9 July, 1999 proposed the
extension of GIs in TRIPS beyond wines and spirits,39 this was endorsed the African
group of countries requested that the protection of GIs be extended “to other
 Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical Indications 367

products recognisable by their geographical origins (handicrafts, agro-food products)”.40

This proposal was also taken up by Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic,
Honduras, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, Uganda and Venezuela.
At the TRIPS Council meetings in 2000, the President sought to separate the
discussion of Article 23.2 from 24.2 to avoid confusion. A response to this suggestion
was a proposal from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Iceland, India, Kenya,
Liechtenstein, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland and Turkey that the extension
of GIs to products other than wines and spirits be included as an extension of the built-in
agenda.41 This issue has also been taken up by WIPO’s Standing Committee on
Trademarks and Geographic Indications.
In opposition to the proposals for an extension of the protection of GIs for wines and
spirits under TRIPS to all products, on 29th June 2001, a communication was sent to the
TRIPS Council by Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand,
Paraguay and the USA (‘the Communication’). The Communication pointed out that
proposals for the extension of the TRIPS wines and spirits provisions to all products had
insufficiently addressed the costs and administrative burdens of this extension. However,
Clause 18 of the Doha Declaration has expressly opened the possibility of the extension
of the additional protection, through a multilateral system of registration, to products
other than wines and spirits and countries are currently exploring the cost impacts and
other practicalities of the extension.
Clause 18 of the Declaration, states that with a view to completing the work started in
the TRIPS Council, members are to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system a
register for wines and spirits, as well as the extension of GI protection beyond wines and
spirits. The principal protagonists in negotiations are the European Communities, which
favour an expanded international regime, and the USA, which argues that the current
TRIPS and trademark protections are sufficient. The EC and its supporters would see
major reform in the introduction of a multilateral system for the registration and
enforcement of GIs. June 2005 saw the European Communities (EC) submit a radical
proposal to amend the TRIPS Agreement to provide global protection for GIs in a
multilateral system of registration.42 This proposal seeks to bring international protection
for GIs into conformity with the European Union where a Community-wide system for
their registration is considered an indispensable part of agricultural policy, serving both
to preserve the incomes of small to medium-size producers and to guarantee the
sustainability of the rural economy. Given the fact that it possesses over 700 registered
GIs,43 sophisticated institutional infrastructure and technical prowess, the European
Union is Europe is exceptionally well placed to leverage the benefits of an expanded
international system of GI protection. On the other hand, the USA and its supporters
largely endorse the status quo favouring voluntary multilateral registration and the choice
of the means of protection – whether by special system or the established trade mark
system – left to national discretion.
However, it would be wrong to think that the general question of whether protection
should be afforded and indeed expanded is a simple North-South debate between the old
industrialised and the developing worlds. Newly industrialising and leading developing
countries such as India, China and Kenya are similarly well placed to take advantage of
intellectual property protection afforded agricultural GIs. On the other hand, given the
cost in establishing and maintaining the institutions necessary to intellectual property
protection, serious doubts remain over the ability of less advanced or less advantageously
placed developing nations to take advantage of GI protection. Countries such as India and
368 M. Blakeney

Kenya for example have GIs that are already known and the financial means and the
know how to enforce their protection. Other developing countries, however, may lack
either the agricultural tradition related to place or the financial means to enforce the
worldwide protection of their GIs.
In as much as these differing capacities and needs have been recognised in ongoing
negotiations in the WTO over the last decade, no ready solution to the further global
harmonisation of GIs has been found. WTO members are divided as to their capacity to
take advantage of GI protection no less than they are radically divided as to the means of
regulation. Whereas the current TRIPS provisions allow Member States to choose the
means by which they protect GIs, the deep transatlantic division between the major
powers of the EU and the USA over the method of protection risks retarding further
progress on harmonisation for the foreseeable future.
While agricultural policy remains a highly controversial issue among WTO members,
we are unlikely to see any lessening of pressure by the EC and supporting WTO
Members for the extension of specific GI protection for an unlimited range of agricultural
commodities and foodstuffs. The text of the Doha Declaration lends support to DCs who
are seeking forms of knowledge, less than high technology that they have the capacity to
exploit. It recognises “the need for all our peoples to benefit from the increased
opportunities and welfare gains that the multilateral trading system generates”.44
GIs, pertaining to both agriculture and handicrafts may contain TK which is capable of
exploitation in sophisticated consumer markets as natural medicinal, culinary, cosmetic
or lifestyle products.
Nevertheless, the USA, Australia, Canada and Argentina are among those countries
who are adamantly opposed to the proposal, being of the view that international
protection of GIs is adequate as it stands and that such a drastic development would only
serve to undermine future gains in market access for non-European food and agricultural
products.45 Developing countries are similarly divided. On the one hand, those who
support the USA and Australia have serious misgivings concerning the additional costs of
implementing a distinct system of GI protection in addition to the TRIPS obligations that
are outstanding. On the other hand, India and Kenya, as countries already in possession
of valuable GIs, are among those who support the EC proposal.
Regrettably, the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration of December 2005 does not
record any notable progress since the last Ministerial Conference, concerning the
extension of the protection of GIs to products other than wines and spirits; or the
multilateral register for GIs for wines and spirits.46 Admittedly, the momentum of
negotiations was derailed by the USA and Australian requests for consultations with the
European Communities concerning the discriminatory nature of the European registration
system. In the aftermath, the ruling of the WTO Panel of March 2005 in the case of EC
– GIs has done little to quell the strength of this regulatory dispute. In the result, the USA
and Australia successfully challenged Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 on the
protection of GIs for agricultural products (EC Regulation) as discriminatory of foreign
rightholders. In fact, the decision, which nonetheless sanctioned the substantive
provisions of the EC Regulation, only appears to have emboldened the EC’s bid to see its
system of GI protection promulgated within the TRIPS Agreement.47
To this end, the EC proposal of June 2005 would extend GI protection to all
agricultural products as well as indigenous handicrafts and see their notification in a
mandatory multilateral register.48 The emergence of the first truly global intellectual
property rights would constitute a unprecedented departure from the classical system of
 Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical Indications 369

international intellectual property law, based as it is on the territorial principle of national

systems of registration for GIs and trade marks. In addition, it would entail an erosion of
the property rights of trade mark owners and the corresponding capacity of Member
States to determine economic policy.
The future global regulation of GIs is now at a crossroads. The Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Law (TRIPS) is widely recognised as
having set new standards for the international protection of GIs, having succeeded at one
stroke in recognising GIs as a major category of intellectual property alongside patents
and copyright and trademarks (Blakeney, 2005; Evans, 1994).49 While we may have
agreement as to the fundamental principles of protection, there is a lack of precision as to
legal terms and, a number of novel legal issues arising from the proposal for extended
global protection, notably the extent to which legal effects at the national level should
affect the registration of a GIs; and legal effect attendant upon whether Members
participation in the system is on a prescriptive or voluntary basis.

6 GIs, TK and handicrafts

The international debate concerning the protection of TK is generally concerned with

patent or industrial property related matters. In contrast, the protection of folklore, or
Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) is generally discussed in a copyright context.
The inappropriateness of this bifurcation is illustrated in the debates concerning the
extension of the additional protection of GIs to handicrafts. Handicrafts may be
characterised equally either as aspects of TK or as TCEs. A number of commentators
have noted the obvious impact of the terrain upon the availability of which raw materials
for the fabrication of handicrafts (Gangjee, 2002).50 The application of these materials for
the production of handicrafts inevitably involves the application of TK. This can be seen
from the Pakistani examples of GIs to protect textiles discussed by Shah (2004, p.13).51
He refers to the production of Ajrak cloths by the people of Sindh (Shah, 2004,
pp.14, 15).51 Ajrak is usually about 2.5–3 m long, carrying geometric patterns which can
be traced back to the ancient civilisations of the Indus Valley. The Ajrak may be worn as
a turban or shawl or used as a bed-sheet or tablecloth. When worn out, it can be used
as a hammock for a baby, covers for a bullock cart and as backing to patchwork quilts.
Shah explains that Ajrak begins life as sheets of pure cotton cloth which are washed
in the river. The damp cloth is then coiled and placed on top of a copper vat, covered with
a quilt to prevent steam from escaping. The vat is heated by a log fire, throughout the
night into the next day. In the next stage the fabric is soaked in a mixture of camel dung,
seed oil and water. The dung enables the cloth to become softer and acts as a bleaching
agent. The wet cloth is then tied into an airtight bundle and kept for 5–10 days, depending
upon the weather. The cloth is then dried in the sun and it goes through another oil
treatment. The oil is curdled with Carbonate of Soda solution and then the cloth is soaked
in this mixture to ensure that the fibres receive maximum oil. After a thorough wash in
the river the next day, they are soaked in a mixture of Sakun made with Galls of
Tamarisk, dried lemons, molasses, castor oil and water. The wet cloth is then dried and
brought to the workshop for printing.
Shah describes that the printing is conducted through the use of wooden
blocks, which are carved from the Acacia Arabica trees, indigenous to the Sindh region.
The textile is first printed with a paste made with rice paste, Acacia gum and lime.
370 M. Blakeney

The second stage is the printing of the black areas called Kut with a mixture of Ferrous
Sulphate, Fuller’s earth, gum and water. For the next stage, gum is mixed with rice paste,
alum, molasses, fennel, Fuller’s earth and other herbs to form the mud resist-paste, called
the Kharrh. This mixture is then printed on the areas that are to be protected against the
indigo dye, so that the white, black and other portions become red. An indigo dye is
obtained from a local plant, Neel, while a red dye is obtained from another local plant,
Manjeet.
The red Ajraks are spread out to partially dry in the sun and artisans sprinkle water on
the cloth. Due to the alternate drying and drenching of the cloth the white areas get
bleached, whereas the coloured areas become more sharply defined. Sifted, dried, cow
dung is again applied to the cloth prior to a second dying, the Ajraks receive a final
washing.
The Ajrak is obviously a TCE of the Sindhis, but at the same time its production
involves the application of a considerable amount of TK. At the same time the quality of
the product is dependent upon a number of local ingredients rendering Ajraks.
A similar role of TK in textile production characterises the production of Shu or
Chitrali Patti which is the windproof cloth woven by the women of the high mountain
villages of Chitral.

7 Conclusion

Obviously, the most focussed protection for TK would be through the international
adoption of a mandatory sui generis system. However, in the absence of this, other
categories of intellectual property protection have to be deployed. While most of the
discussion to date has focused upon the role which patent and PVP laws might play in the
protection of TK, the objectives of GIs protection share a number of policy objectives
with TK protection.
Both TK and GIs protection seek to preserve communal rights. GIs are a collective
right owned by all producers in a geographical region who observe the specified codes
for production in that region. GIs have been described as a means of “enabling people to
translate their long-standing, collective, and patrimonial knowledge into livelihood and
income” (Bérard and Marchenay, 1996),53 which has been identified as one of the core IP
objectives of TK protection.
GI’s can be held in perpetuity, for as long as a community maintains the practices
which guarantee the distinctive quality of a local product. This overcomes the limited
terms of protection conferred by other forms of IP protection. On the other hand it should
be noted that the proponents of TK protection emphasise its dynamism and capacity for
development, which is not necessarily a characteristic of TK.
Among the strengths of GI protection is that it might provide for protection of TK
which is already in the public domain. For example, in relation to Kava the USPTO
granted Natrol, Inc., a US-based Company a US patent for ‘kavatrol’, a dietary
supplement that serves as a general relaxant, composed of Kava (Downes and Laird,
1999).53 Two German companies, William Schwabe and Krewel-Werke, obtained a
patent for Kava as a prescription drug for treating strokes, insomnia and Alzheimer’s
disease Panizzon, 2006).54 In (France, L’Oréal has patented the use of Kava against hair
loss (Panizzon, 2006).54 As these products are promoted on the basis of their derivation
 Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical Indications 371

from Kava, GIs may prove to be the second best option for protecting Kava by acting as a
substitute to patent protection of the TK related to the plant itself.
At all times it should be noted that GIs laws protect only the designations associated
with products. Indeed, IP laws seldom protect knowledge as such. The exceptions to this
are trade secrets law and patent law. However, empowering a local community or
individual holder of TK with the possibility to exclude third parties from the unauthorised
use of designations of its TK would not only better balance the sharing of benefits from
the utilisation of that TK.
Finally, the extension of the scope of registered GIs protection under TRIPS would
also provide an example for developing countries of the practical utility of an
international IP regime and a justification for the implementation of the TRIPS
Agreement.

References
Bently, L. and Sherman, B. (2006) The Impact of European Geographical Indications on National
Rights in Member States, 76 TMR 1.
Bérard, L. and Marchenay, P. (1996) ‘Tradition, regulation and intellectual property: local
agricultural products and foodstuffs in France’, in Brush, S.B. and Stabinsky, D. (Eds.):
Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous Peoples and Intellectual Property Rights, Island Press,
Covelo, CA, p.230 at 240.
Biber-Klemm, S., Cottier, T., Cullet, P. and Szymura-Berglas, D. (2005) ‘The current law of
plant genetic resources and traditional knowledge’, Traditional Knowledge on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxfordshire,
pp.57–81.
Blakeney, M. (2000) ‘Protection of traditional knowledge under intellectual property law’,
European Intellectual Property Review, pp.251–261.
Blakeney, M. (2002) ‘Intellectual property aspects of traditional agricultural knowledge’,
in Evanson, R.E., Santaniello, V. and Zilberman, D. (Eds.): Economic and Social Issues in
Agricultural Biotechnology, CABI Publishing, Oxford, pp.43–60.
Blakeney, M. (2004) ‘Bioprospecting and biopiracy’, in Ong, B. (Ed.): Intellectual Property and
Biological Resources, Marshall Cavendish, Singapore, pp.393–424.
Blakeney, M. (2005) ‘Stimulating agricultural innovation’, in Maskus, K.E. and Reichman, J.H.
(Eds.): International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized
Intellectual Property Regime, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.367–390.
Blakeney, M. (Ed.) (1999) Intellectual Property Aspects of Ethnobiology, Sweet & Maxwell,
London.
Cottier, T. and Panizzon, M. (2004) ‘Legal perspectives on traditional knowledge: the case for
intellectual property protection’, 7 Journal of International Economic Law, p.371.
Downes, D.R. and Laird, S.A. (1999) Innovative Mechanisms for Sharing Benefits of
Biodiversity and Related Knowledge Case Studies on Geographical Indications
and Trademarks, UNCTAD Biotrade Initiative, Geneva, http://www.ciel.org/Publications/
InnovativeMechanisms.pdf
Evans, G. (1994) ‘Intellectual property as a trade issue: the making of the agreement on
trade related aspects of intellectual property’, World Competition, Law and Economics
Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.137–180.
Gangjee, D.S. (2002) Geographical Indications Protection for Handicrafts under TRIPS,
MPhil Thesis, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Held at St Peter’s College,
Oxford University, p.14.
372 M. Blakeney

Jabbour, A. (1982) Folklore Protection and National Patrimony: Developments and Dilemmas
in the Legal Protection of Folklore, XVII, No. 1 Copyright Bulletin 10 at 11–12, cited in
Blakeney (2000).
Kur, A. and Knaak, R. (2004) Protection of Traditional Names and Designations, Kluwer Law Int.,
The Hague, London and New York, pp.221–258; and See also Roland Knaak’s comments
in Leistner (2004, p.90, 227, 228, 233, 234).
Leistner, M. (2004) Analysis of Different Areas of Indigenous Resources, Kluwer Law Int.,
The Hague, London and New York, p.90.
McNeely, J.A. (2001) ‘Biodiversity and agricultural development: the crucial institutional issues’,
in Lee, D.R. and Barrett, C.B. (Eds.): Tradeoffs or Synergies? Agricultural Intensification,
Economic Development and the Environment, Wallingford, CABI, pp.399, 404.
O’Connor and Company (2003) Geographical Indications and the Challenges for ACP Countries,
A Discussion Paper, Brussels, CTA, 3, http://agritrade.cta.int/
Panizzon, M. (2006) Traditional Knowledge and Geographical Indications: Foundations, Interests
and Negotiating Positions, Working Paper No. 2005/01.
Richard, A. (1918) De la Protection des Appellation d’origine en Matièe Vinicole, Imprimeries
Gounouilhou, Bordeaux.
Ricketson, S. (1987) The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works;
1886–1986, London, CCLS, pp.607–620.
Schechter, I. (1925) The Historical Foundation of the Law Relating to Trade-Marks,
Cambridge Mass, Harvard UP, pp.40–42.
Shah, S.Q. (2004) Geographical Indications: National GIs system in Pakistan. A Country Case
Study, Islamabad, Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), p.13.
Stilwell, M. and Monagle, C. (2000) Review of TRIPS Agreement under Article 71.1, South Centre,
Geneva, December.
UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2002) Integrating Intellectual Property Rights
and Development Policy Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights London
CIPR, September, ch.4.
van Caenegem, W. (2003) ‘Registered geographical indications. Between intellectual
property and rural policy-Part II’, JWIP, Vol. 861, pp.699–715.
von Lewinski, S. (Ed.) (2004) Indigenous Heritage and intellectual Property. Genetic Resources,
Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Kluwer Law Int., The Hague, London and New York.
WIPO (2000) Matters Concerning Intellectual Property Genetic Resources Traditional Knowledge
and Folklore, WIPO Doc, WO/GA/26/6, August 25, Protection of Traditional Knowledge
by Geographical Indications 17.
WIPO/UNEP (2001) The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Sharing of Benefits Arising
from the Use of Biological Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, Selected Case
Studies, Geneva, WIPO, p.13.

Notes
1
A 1996 study by UNCTAD noted for example, in Chile that the additional fixed costs to upgrade
the IP infrastructure were estimated at $718,000, with annual recurrent costs increasing to
$837,000. In Egypt, the fixed costs were estimated at $800,000 with additional annual training
costs of around $1 million. UNCTAD, The TRIPS Agreement and the Developing Countries,
UNCTAD, Geneva, 1996.
2
See E.g., Stilwell and Monagle (2000).
3
Communication from Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru, “Proposal on Protection of
the Intellectual Property Rights Relating to the Traditional Knowledge of Local and Indigenous
Communities”, World Trade Organization, WT/GC/W/362 12 October 1999.
 Protection of Traditional Knowledge by Geographical Indications 373
4
WT/GC/W/282.
5
See E.g., Ricketson (1987).
6
Study on the International Regulations of Intellectual Property, UNESCO/WIPO/WG.1/FOLK/3,
Tunis, 11–13 July 1977.
7
WIPO doc, UNESCO-WIPO/FOLK/PKT/97/1 (March 17, 1997).
8
WIPO doc, UNESCO-WIPO/FOLK/PKT/97/1 (March 17, 1997, p.3).
9
See e.g., Blakeney (1999, 2004).
10
WIPO Doc. WO/GA/26/9, Annex I, 10.
11
See WIPO (2000).
12
See WIPO Doc, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/3, September 10, 2001, para.1.
13
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para.109.
14
von Lewinski (2004).
15
Kur, A. and Knaak, R. (2004) and See also Roland Knaak’s comments in Leistner (2004, p.90,
227, 228, 233, 234).
16
This study is part of a research project entitled “Rights to Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional
Knowledge: Basic Issues and Perspectives” for the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation (SDC) of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
17
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/7 May 6, 2002.
18
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/7 May 6, 2002, para.40.
19
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/10/4, Annex, 3.
20
Schechter (1925).
21
Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006.
22
For a recent analysis of European GIs legislation, see Bently and Sherman (2006).
23
See O’Connor and Company (2003).
24
The privilège de la descente and privilege de la barrique described in Richard (1918) referred to
in van Caenegem (2003).
25
Cottier and Panizzon (2004)17 No. 6, at 8.
26
See Biber-Klemm et al. (2005).
27
E.g., WIPO/GRTKF/IC/10/4, Annex, 3, objective (vi).
28
E.g., WIPO/GRTKF/IC/10/4, Annex, 3, objective (vii).
29
See Blakeney (2002).
30
McNeely (2001).
31
See WIPO/UNEP (2001).
32
Reported in UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2002).
33
Jabbour (1982).
34
Case C-47/90.
35
Case C-469/00.
36
Case C-108/01.
37
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/10/4, Annex, 3, objective (viii).
38
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/10/4, Annex, 3, objective (xiv).
39
WT/GC/W/249, 13 July 1999.
40
Preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference the TRIPS Agreement Communication from
Kenya on Behalf of the African Group, WT/GC/W/302, 6 August 1999.
41
IP/C/W/204/Rev.1.
42
In June 2005 the EC submitted a proposal for amending Section 3 of the TRIPS Agreement with a
view to extending the regime of protection today available for geographical indications on wines
 374 M. Blakeney

and spirits to geographical indications on all products (‘extension’) and; in addition a proposal for
the inclusion of an annex to the TRIPS Agreement establishing a multilateral system of
notification and registration of geographical indications (GIs). World Trade Organization,
General Council, Trade Negotiations Committee, Council for Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights, Special Session on Geographical Indications, Communication from
the European Communities 14 June 2005, WT/GC/W/547, TN/C/W/26, TN/IP/W/11. See earlier
submissions of the EC, 22 June 2000, IP/C/W/107/Rev.1 with respect to the register and;
submission of 2002 in respect of the extension, IP/C/W/353 24 June 2002.
43
“Since 1993, more than 700 names, designating inter alia over 150 cheeses, 160 meat and
meat-based products, 150 fresh or processed fruits or vegetables and 80 types of olive oil, have
been registered in this context. The Commission has also received over 300 further applications
for the registration of names and/or amendments to specifications from Member States and third
countries”. Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Protection of Geographical Indications and
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, Commission of The European
Communities, Brussels, 5.1.2006, para.3.
44
Clause 2, Doha Ministerial Declaration, 14 November 2001, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1.
45
See US Submissions on GIs at the WTO TRIPS Council: “Joint Proposal for a Multilateral
System of Notification and Registration of Geographical Indications for Wines and Spirits”,
Communication from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, New Zealand
and the United States, TN/IP/W/9, 13 April 2004; and “Multilateral System of Notification and
Registration of Geographical Indications for Wines (and Spirits)”, Communication from
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, New Zealand and the USA, TN/IP/W/6, 29 October 2002;
and “Proposal for a Multilateral System for Notification and Registration of Geographical
Indications for Wines and Spirits based on Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement”,
Communication from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Namibia, New Zealand,
Philippines, Chinese Taipei, and the USA, TN/IP/W/5, 23 October 2002.
46
Clauses 29 and 39, Sixth Session, Hong Kong, 13–18 December 2005, Ministerial Declaration,
adopted on 18 December 2005, WT/MIN(05)/DEC. Further see Special Session of the Council for
TRIPS Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Manzoor Ahmad, to the Trade Negotiations
Committee, 23 November 2005, TN/IP/14, in which Ambassador Manzoor Ahmad lament the
lack of progress at para.5.
47
Following the decision, EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson summed up the EC’s position:
“By 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:
http://www.delcan.cec.eu.int/en/press_and_information/press_releases/2005/05PR009.shtml.
48
World Trade Organization, General Council, Trade Negotiations Committee, Council for
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Special Session on Geographical
Indications, Communication from the European Communities 14 June 2005, WT/GC/W/547,
TN/C/W/26, TN/IP/W/11.
49
Blakeney (2005) and Evans (1994).
50
See the authorities referred to in Gangjee (2002).
51
See Shah (2004, p.13–15).
52
Bérard and Marchenay (1996).
53
See Downes and Laird (2004) No. 34, p.5.
54
Panizzon (2006), No. 6, text at p.151.

View publication stats