Wee Loon Ng-Loy

How Would Geographical Indications from Asia Fare in Europe

Asian countries are discovering geographical indications (GIs). There are two reasons for this. First, the recognition that GIs can serve as an advantageous identifier for the marketing of domestic products abroad. Second, a system for the protection of GIs has become an obligation under bilateral and multilateral agreements. The question of how GIs from Asia can be protected abroad thereby becomes of interest. This chapter analyses how Asian GIs would fare in Europe. ‘Would’, because as of yet there is very little actual experience in this respect. Very few GIs from Asia have been registered in Europe, be it as GIs or trademarks, and even fewer have been litigated. The examples used in this chapter demonstrate how ‘foreign’ GIs can, did or did not find protection in Europe, either at the level of European Community law or the domestic laws of individual European Union (EU) Member States. This chapter is divided into four sections. Section 2 gives a brief overview of the interplay between social, economic and legal considerations when approaching the topic of protecting domestic GIs abroad. Section 3 discusses the possibilities for Asian GIs to obtain protection in Europe, be it under the sui generis protection offered by EU law or on the basis of bilateral or international agreements. Section 4 discusses protection under EU trademark

Geographical Indications and Mega-Regional Trade Agreements and Negotiations

In the presentation of this chapter in draft form, I asked the following question, ‘how do you spot a dodgy international intellectual property claim?’ One possible answer to that question is that those who own intellectual property (IP) rights in one jurisdiction, where those rights have developed from local or regional policies, want those locally grounded rights exported to other legal systems in order to protect IP-related products exported to those jurisdictions. That proposition alone cannot be the only way to spot a ‘dodgy IP claim’ because that is a description ofmany international IP negotiations where there are attempts to gain at least some international agreement on minimum standards of protection. The ‘dodgy’ aspect arises when incumbents want more protection (without convincing evidence that more protection is needed), and in seeking that greater protection, those incumbents suggest that newcomers will gain immeasurable bounty. This is exactly how the European Union presents its geographical indications (GIs) policy to its trading partners. The argument usually involves three steps. First, multiple GIs have worked in Europe. Second, there are one or two instances of GIs working for developing countries. The following statement from the European Commission illustrates these first two steps:

Rethinking the Work of Geographical Indications in Asia: Addressing Hidden Geographies of Gendered Labor

Geographical Indications (GIs) were established as a distinctive category of intellectual property (IP) in the 1994 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Agreement. Reflecting this broad field of legal vehicles, marks indicating conditions of origin (MICOs) denote indications of source, appellations of origin, denominations of origin, and collective trademarks and certification marks. This chapter recognizes the limitations of GIs, examining a need for greater empirical study of the regulations governing their use. Most academic scholarship fails to investigate the social relations between labourers, landowners, producers, and GI institutions, or political movements for decolonization. This chapter, therefore, suggests that local GI governance must be analyzed within a broader scope that encompasses class, ethnicity, and gender. We begin by exploring Darjeeling Tea as a famous form of national GI in India that reflects some of the ideological tendencies of MICO systems. We then demonstrate the global significance of MICO governance by providing insight into contemporary political ecology in Southeast Asia. By examining palm oil expansion, the decline in swidden agriculture, and subsequent environmental and cultural effects, we outline a crisis of biocultural diversity in the region. Lastly, this chapter inquires into the future of MICOs, looking specifically at emerging practices that might encourage alternative value systems to address both environmental and social justice concerns, including greater gender equity. Ultimately, this chapter illustrates how current uses of MICOs uphold entrenched social hierarchies and therefore must be reoriented towards rights-based development and social justice objectives.

Sunshine in a Bottle? Geographical Indications, the Australian Wine Industry, and the Promise of Rural Development

Running through the various detailed justifications for intellectual property is a grand promise. By enacting laws that confer some degree of exclusivity over intangibles such as knowledge, data, and information, a country is promised a better future. In the case of geographical indications (GIs) the promise is of rural development. The recitals to a 1992Council Regulation of the European Community, which set up a framework for registering GIs relating to agricultural products and foodstuffs, imply this promise, suggesting that GIs could improve farmer income and help keep people in ‘less-favoured or remote areas’. A regulatory tool that promises to improve the lot of the poor, especially the rural poor, deserves serious attention. With more and more of the world’s population moving into cities, governments everywhere are interested in policy ideas that will help keep some people in agricultural production. In the case of the European Union’s (EU) twenty-eight members, some 23 per cent of the population live in rural regions. More and more people, and not just Europeans, are looking to participate in the economic life of cities. More of us are drawn to shopping malls than barns.

Protection of Geographical Indications in Taiwan: Turning a Legal Conundrum into a Policy Tool for Development

Intellectual property (IP) protection is nothing new to Taiwan. Prior to the 1980s, Taiwanese IP laws were criticized for their limited recognition and protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs), inadequate deterrence for infringements, and protectionist provisions. Foreign entities were denied the same treatment as nationals, and unrecognized foreign entities were often denied protection for their IPRs as well as the standing to seek redress for infringement.Under the threat of trade retaliation by the United States (US), Taiwan began amajor IP law reform in the 1980s.The “crucial turning point” in the development of Taiwanese IP law occurred when Taiwan realized the political and economic importance of its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its accompanying obligation to protect IP. This particular goal drove Taiwan to implement more IP reforms. By 1998, one commentator was able to proudly claim that “Taiwan’s statutory regime for intellectual property protection now by and large complies with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). In some areas, the regime reaches beyond the TRIPS

The Potentials, and Current Challenges, of Protecting Geographical Indications in Sri Lanka

In a country like Sri Lanka, the importance of obtaining protection for unique products can hardly be overstated. Sri Lanka is a small nation, both in size and in production capacity. Still, Sri Lanka is known globally for its tea, in particular, Ceylon Tea. Although China and Kenya produce more tea than Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka remains one of the largest global exporters of tea. This has been achieved partly due to the fact that the name of its famous tea, Ceylon Tea, is protected as a registered certification mark and under the regime for the protection of geographical indications (GIs), as is the logo identifying the “Ceylon Tea.” Sri Lanka is also famous for its “true cinnamon,” the Ceylon Cinnamon, which is also widely exported, and which also enjoys protection as a certification mark and under the current GI regime. But what if Sri Lanka could make better use of its existing protection for geographical names and protect additional products coming from specific geographical areas in the country? For example, Sri Lanka is famous for Ceylon Sapphires, Dumbara Mats, and Beeralu Lace – just to name a few products. Yet, the producers of these products have not been successful at

Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture: Focus on Asia-Pacific

Historically, few topics have proven to be so controversial in international intellectual property as the protection of geographical indications (GIs). The adoption of TRIPS in 1994 did not resolve disagreements, and countries worldwide continue to quarrel today as to the nature, the scope, and the enforcement of GI protection nationally and internationally. Thus far, however, there is little literature addressing GI protection from the point of view of the AsiaPacific region, even though countries in this region have actively discussed the topic and in several instances have promoted GIs as a mechanism to foster local development and safeguard local culture. This book, edited by renowned intellectual property scholars, fills the void in the current literature and offers a variety of contributions focusing on the framework and effects of GI protection in the Asia-Pacific region. The book is available Open Access at http://dx.doi.org/10 .1017/9781316711002.

The Geographical Indication Act 2013: Protection of Traditional Knowledge in Bangladesh with Special Reference to Jamdani

Geographical indications (GIs) refer to signs or symbols that are used to denote a product, the distinctive characteristics of which are linked to its place of origin. GIs are different from other intellectual property rights because of their unique characteristics, namely, the fact that they can be collectively owned by a group of producers. Additionally, GIs have a connection to the territory from which the products originate, both in terms of geographical origin as well as quality and characteristics of the products. The inclusion of GIs in the provisions of the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was controversial precisely due to the differences between “old world” and “new world” countries, with respect to some of the theories supporting GI protection. After a long debate, GI protection was nevertheless introduced into TRIPS, and subsequently had to be protected in most countries worldwide. Nevertheless, although TRIPS requires for the protection of GIs, it does not provide for the specific mechanism that members of TRIPS should adopt to protect GIs under their national laws. Consequently, individual countries

A Unique Type of Cocktail: Protection of Geographical Indications in China

China is a nation with a large population and vast territory with numerous products originating in specific parts of the country. The introduction of a geographical indication (GI) regime in China can assist in preserving the authenticity of these products, both in terms of their geographical origin and the characteristics. The history of GI protection in China can be traced back to the mid-1980s when China joined the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention). Under the obligations of the Paris Convention, China started to protect indications of source and appellations of origin by way of administrative decrees. In 1989, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) issued an administrative decree to protect the FrenchGI ‘Champagne’ from beingmisused as a generic term for a type of

European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement: A New Chapter for Geographical Indications in Singapore

As a signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Singapore is obliged to confer protection to geographical indications (GIs). For the past fifteen years, the relevant legislation in Singapore has been the Geographical Indications Act (GI Act 1999),which came into force on 15 January 1999. However, with the successful conclusion of negotiations of the European Union (EU) and Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EU-Singapore FTA) in 2013, the law on GIs in Singapore is set to change. One key takeaway from the EU-Singapore FTA Intellectual Property Chapter is that the EU and Singapore reached an agreement and Singapore will enhance its existing regime for the protection of GIs. Consequently, a new Geographical Indications Act (GI Act 2014) for Singapore has been passed by Parliament on 14 April 2014. The new GI Act 2014 will replace the current GI Act 1999 once it is brought into force (as at the date of this writing and as of February 2017, just before this book goes to press, the GI Act 2014 has still not been brought into force in Singapore). Under the