Last Friday, the IPKat attended the Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute together with Fordham School of Law Dialogue on Geographical Indications. Too much was said during the circular tabular array to convey y'all a blow-by-blow account, together with so instead the IPKat volition special some of the most interesting points that were raised:
♦There was a major tension betwixt the USA together with European Union attitudes to GIs. The Americans saw them equally anti-competitive together with equally an example of European Union protectionism. It was suggested that GIs granted monopolies inwards generic terms to sure enough traders together with thus resulted inwards horizontal marketplace pose partitioning betwixt those traders who are fortunate plenty to hold upwardly entitled to move GIs. The Europeans introduce tended to accept a less hard-line approach, recognising that, yesteryear providing consumers amongst data virtually the products inwards question, GIs tin own got pro-competitive effects. One proposed solution from the American delegation was that every GI holder should also own got to money a generic description of his/her production together with so that competitors volition hold upwardly able to adequately pull their products if they are similar to those covered yesteryear the GI. was non especially persuaded yesteryear the American position. GIs aren’t equally much of a threat to contest equally was asserted. GIs arrive at non halt competitors from producing similar or fifty-fifty identical products equally long equally they arrive at non marketplace pose them nether the GI. Certainly they’ll own got to discovery some other agency of describing the nature of their products but this should hold upwardly possible although it may require some effort. Additionally, few GIs are genuinely generic. Most are used inwards conjunction amongst a form out generic term e.g. the “ham” chemical ingredient of “Parma ham”.
♦It was suggested that geographical indications are part of the anti-globalisation tendency because of their focus on unique regional specialities. isn’t also sure enough virtually this: proponents essay protection for the same GIs all over the world. As a result, at that spot are sure enough GIs that are recognised equally luxury products the footing over.
♦It was asked why spirits were included inwards the Doha Declaration whereas TRIPs had but covered wine.
♦The economic science of GIs were discussed. Although it was recognised that overly-restrictive GI protection tin bound the availability of production data together with thus own got a negative economical effect, the fact that it tin incentivise GI holders to invest inwards their goods was also noted, equally was the might of GIs to protect the livelihood together with cultural heritage of local producers. Other associated costs, such equally the expense of running a register of GIs, were also highlighted.
From the IPKat’s indicate of view, the principal number is this: There are other, lengthier ways for competitors to pull the characteristics of their goods. Whether nosotros mean value it is reasonable to await competitors to move those methods, rather than the to a greater extent than convenient GIs depends on: (i) the damage nosotros are prepared to impose on competitors who move inwards the marketplace pose – searching for suitable descriptive terms rather than using the GI equally a shortcut imposes a burden on competitors together with (ii) the damage we’re prepared to impose on consumers inwards the search for products amongst sure enough characteristics – it volition hold upwardly easier for consumers if they tin search for goods similar to those that acquit a GI if the similar goods tin move the GI inwards some agency e.g. “Tastes but similar Parma Ham” or “Gorgonzola-style cheese, made inwards England”
The USA pose on GIs here
The European Union on GIs here together with here
WIPO on GIs here
WTO on GIs here
Famous GIs here, here and here.
♦There was a major tension betwixt the USA together with European Union attitudes to GIs. The Americans saw them equally anti-competitive together with equally an example of European Union protectionism. It was suggested that GIs granted monopolies inwards generic terms to sure enough traders together with thus resulted inwards horizontal marketplace pose partitioning betwixt those traders who are fortunate plenty to hold upwardly entitled to move GIs. The Europeans introduce tended to accept a less hard-line approach, recognising that, yesteryear providing consumers amongst data virtually the products inwards question, GIs tin own got pro-competitive effects. One proposed solution from the American delegation was that every GI holder should also own got to money a generic description of his/her production together with so that competitors volition hold upwardly able to adequately pull their products if they are similar to those covered yesteryear the GI. was non especially persuaded yesteryear the American position. GIs aren’t equally much of a threat to contest equally was asserted. GIs arrive at non halt competitors from producing similar or fifty-fifty identical products equally long equally they arrive at non marketplace pose them nether the GI. Certainly they’ll own got to discovery some other agency of describing the nature of their products but this should hold upwardly possible although it may require some effort. Additionally, few GIs are genuinely generic. Most are used inwards conjunction amongst a form out generic term e.g. the “ham” chemical ingredient of “Parma ham”.
♦It was suggested that geographical indications are part of the anti-globalisation tendency because of their focus on unique regional specialities. isn’t also sure enough virtually this: proponents essay protection for the same GIs all over the world. As a result, at that spot are sure enough GIs that are recognised equally luxury products the footing over.
♦It was asked why spirits were included inwards the Doha Declaration whereas TRIPs had but covered wine.
♦The economic science of GIs were discussed. Although it was recognised that overly-restrictive GI protection tin bound the availability of production data together with thus own got a negative economical effect, the fact that it tin incentivise GI holders to invest inwards their goods was also noted, equally was the might of GIs to protect the livelihood together with cultural heritage of local producers. Other associated costs, such equally the expense of running a register of GIs, were also highlighted.
From the IPKat’s indicate of view, the principal number is this: There are other, lengthier ways for competitors to pull the characteristics of their goods. Whether nosotros mean value it is reasonable to await competitors to move those methods, rather than the to a greater extent than convenient GIs depends on: (i) the damage nosotros are prepared to impose on competitors who move inwards the marketplace pose – searching for suitable descriptive terms rather than using the GI equally a shortcut imposes a burden on competitors together with (ii) the damage we’re prepared to impose on consumers inwards the search for products amongst sure enough characteristics – it volition hold upwardly easier for consumers if they tin search for goods similar to those that acquit a GI if the similar goods tin move the GI inwards some agency e.g. “Tastes but similar Parma Ham” or “Gorgonzola-style cheese, made inwards England”
The USA pose on GIs here
The European Union on GIs here together with here
WIPO on GIs here
WTO on GIs here
Famous GIs here, here and here.
Komentar
Posting Komentar