Volume 10 Number 1 2009/p. 50-64 esteyjournal.

com

The Estey Centre Journal of

International Law
and Trade Policy

The Provisions on Geographical

Indications in the TRIPS Agreement
Matthijs Geuze1
Senior Counsellor, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva

This article provides an overview of the provisions on geographical indications

contained in the TRIPS Agreement and how they came about in the Uruguay Round of
multilateral trade negotiations, which took place from 1986 to 1994 and resulted in the
establishment of the World Trade Organization. The article underscores the difficulties
involved in arriving at international standards in this area of intellectual property by
putting the TRIPS provisions on geographical indications in their historical perspective
of more than 120 years of international negotiations and by explaining their
compromise character in the context of the single undertaking of the Uruguay Round
and the continuing discussions at the international level, notably under the Doha
Development Agenda.

Keywords: agriculture, geographical indications, intellectual property, WIPO, WTO

Editorial Office: 410 22nd St. E., Suite 820, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7K 5T6.
Phone (306) 244-4800; Fax (306) 244-7839; email: kerr.w@esteycentre.com 50
 M. Geuze

Introduction

W ith respect to geographical indications, the TRIPS Agreement reflects a very

sensitive compromise in an area that was one of the most difficult to negotiate
in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, which took place between
1986 and 1994 among trading partners under the auspices of the GATT (General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and which resulted in the establishment of the World
Trade Organization. In fact, on certain issues concerning geographical indications,
further work was still required once the negotiations were concluded and, as a result,
the TRIPS Agreement contains a number of provisions requiring such further work
within the framework of the WTO.
The history of the discussions on geographical indication protection at the
international level goes back to the late 19th century, and it is sometimes revealing to
see how that history has determined the issues in this area that present themselves
today in the international arena. I refer to the development towards sui generis
systems for geographical indication protection, such as in France; the debate resulting
in the incorporation of a number of provisions on the subject into the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1883; the conclusion of the
Madrid Agreement on the Repression of False Indications of Source in 1891; the
debate at, for example, the Paris Convention Revision Conference in 1911 in
Washington; the conclusion of the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of
Appellations of Origin and their International Registration in 1958; and subsequent
attempts to arrive at, for example, a new international registration treaty.2 Many of the
questions that were on the negotiating table in the past continue to be issues dividing
governments on geographical indications under the built-in agenda items in the
WTO’s TRIPS Council, in discussions at WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of
Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications and in the negotiations
under the WTO’s Doha Development Agenda.
Of course, one big difference from the pre-WTO situation is that geographical
indications are now embedded in the WTO system, as they comprise one of the
categories of intellectual property that are the subject of the TRIPS Agreement, which
itself is an integral part of the WTO Agreement.3 Consequently, non-compliance with
TRIPS obligations on geographical indications can be challenged under the WTO
dispute settlement mechanism, and if a country fails to implement a ruling, if it is
indeed not in compliance, it could eventually be faced with sanctions in areas of
international trade governed by other parts of the WTO Agreement and lose benefits
that accrue to it under that agreement for as long as it does not remedy the situation.

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 51

 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

Sta n d a r d s f o r t h e P r o t e c t i o n o f G eo g r a p h i c a l
Indications under Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS
Agreement 6

T he 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;

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 52

 M. Geuze

- second, the general standards of protection that must be available for all
geographical indications;
- third, the additional protection that must be accorded to geographical indications
for wines and spirits;
- fourth, the provisions concerning, on the one hand, future negotiations aimed at
increasing the protection of geographical indications and, on the other, permissible
exceptions to the protection required under the agreement.
The protection provided under the agreement has to be available to rights holders
from WTO members without discrimination as to their nationality.7 The agreement
also specifies in some detail the procedures and remedies that must be available so as
to allow rights holders to effectively enforce their rights with the assistance of judicial
or other competent authorities.8 It also incorporates, by reference, the provisions of the
Paris Convention relating to geographical indications.9

Definition
The agreement defines geographical indications in Article 22.1 as indications which
identify a good as originating in the territory of a member, or a region or locality in
that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is
essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Thus, this definition specifies that
the quality, reputation or other characteristics of a good can each be a sufficient basis
for eligibility as a geographical indication, where these are essentially attributable to
the geographical origin of the good.10 11

General Standards of Protection

Article 22.2 refers to the general standards of protection that must be available for all
geographical indications. In particular, the agreement provides that legal means must
be provided to prevent the use of geographical indications in ways that mislead the
public as to the geographical origin of the good.12 In addition, the agreement requires
that legal means must be provided to prevent use which constitutes an act of unfair
competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention.13 Protection
must also be available against the registration of a trademark that contains a
geographical indication with respect to goods not originating in the territory indicated
whose use for such goods would be of such a nature as to mislead the public as to the
true place of origin.14

Additional Protection for Wines and Spirits

Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement provides for additional protection in relation to
geographical indications for wines and spirits. Pursuant to Article 23.1, interested
parties must have the legal means to prevent the mere use of a geographical indication

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 53

 M. Geuze

identifying a wine when used on a wine that does not originate in the place indicated
by that geographical indication. In other words, for this form of protection to apply,
there is no requirement to show that the use in question might mislead the public or
amounts to unfair competition, irrespective of whether the true origin of the good is
indicated or the geographical indication is accompanied by expressions such as
“kind”, “style”, “type”, “imitation” or the like. Protection must also be available
against the registration of a trademark for wines, if the trademark contains a
geographical indication identifying wines and the wines do not have the origin
indicated by the geographical indication.15 Similar protection must be given to
geographical indications identifying spirits. With respect to use of these geographical
indications for other products, the general standards of protection under Article 22
apply.
In the case of homonymous geographical indications (that is, different
geographical indications that consist of or contain the same identifier),16 protection
should be accorded to each homonymous indication. However, this protection may not
hold if use of one of the homonymous geographical indications in a given WTO
member would falsely represent to the public in that member that the products in
question originate in the territory of the other homonymous geographical indication.17
The agreement contains a specific rule18 concerning homonymous geographical
indications for wines, laying down that, in the case of such geographical indications,
practical conditions must be determined so as to differentiate the homonymous
indications, taking into account the need to ensure equitable treatment of the relevant
producers and also to ensure that consumers are not misled.

Exceptions
Article 24 contains a number of exceptions regarding the protection of geographical
indications. They should be read in conjunction with the provisions in the same
article19 concerning negotiations aimed at increasing the protection of geographical
indications and which WTO members are not allowed to refuse to enter into or
conclude on the basis of the existing exceptions applied in accordance with Article 24.
There are three main exceptions that are of particular relevance with respect to the
additional protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits. The first main
exception provides that a member state is not obliged to protect a geographical
indication in cases where a geographical indication has become the generic name in a
country for the products in question or for a grape variety.20
The second main exception deals with the situation where a geographical
indication may conflict with pre-existing trademark rights acquired in good faith,
which should be protected in accordance with the TRIPS provisions on trademarks, as

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 54

 M. Geuze

contained in Section 2 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement.21 In addition, the agreement

specifies that measures adopted to implement the TRIPS provisions on geographical
indications shall not prejudice the eligibility for or the validity of the registration of a
trademark, or the right to use a trademark, on the basis that such a trademark is
identical with or similar to a geographical indication.22
The third main exception allows, under certain circumstances, continued use of a
geographical indication that has been used in a WTO member prior to the conclusion
of the Uruguay Round,23 even where the indication in question has not become
generic and a pre-existing trademark right does not exist. The scope of this exception,
however, is heavily circumscribed. It only applies to geographical indications which
identify a wine or those which identify a spirit. It can only benefit those nationals or
domiciliaries of the WTO member using the exception who had previously used the
geographical indication in good faith or for at least 10 years prior to the conclusion of
the Uruguay Round, and in any case continuously. Moreover, use of the geographical
indication under the exception must be “similar” to the previous use. “Similar” use
has been taken to mean that the subsequent use must be similar in scale and nature.24
The agreement also provides that the exceptions cannot be used to diminish the
protection of geographical indications that existed immediately prior to the entry into
force of the TRIPS Agreement.25

B uilt-i n A g e n d a Ite ms 26

T hree of the TRIPS Agreement’s built-in agenda items relate to the protection of
geographical indications and are based on Articles 23.4, 24.1 and 24.2. In 2001,
part of this work became part of the work programme of the Doha Development
Agenda, as adopted by the WTO’s Ministerial Conference.

Article 24.1
There are situations where a particular geographical indication may not enjoy, or may
not fully enjoy, the protection provided for in Article 22 or 23, in accordance with the
exceptions provisions contained in Article 24 as applied by a country with respect to
that geographical indication. The relevant indication may, in that country, for example,
be a generic term in accordance with Article 24.6, or the subject of prior trademark
rights in accordance with Article 24.5. If the country of origin of the geographical
indication in question would like to change such a situation, it will have to resort to
bilateral or multilateral negotiations. In this regard, reference should be made to the
provisions of Article 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which establish a negotiating right
in this respect for the country of origin.

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 55

 M. Geuze

Article 24.2
In November 1996, the TRIPS Council initiated, under Article 24.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement, its review of the application of the provisions of the section of the
agreement pertaining to geographical indications. In the context of this review, a
checklist of questions was prepared concerning various aspects of national regimes for
the protection of geographical indications.27 Following the submission of responses by
members, the WTO Secretariat issued a summary paper of these responses, as
requested by the council.28 Following the receipt of further responses, the document
has meanwhile been updated once.29
This summary paper provides, in its first section, a general overview of the
various means of protection that exist in this area of law. The succeeding seven
sections of the summary paper enter into the details that members provided as to the
following features of the systems they are employing:
(a) the various definitions of protectable subject matter and any other substantive
criteria that may need to be complied with in order for a geographical indication to be
eligible for protection;
(b) procedures applied in relation to the formal recognition of geographical
indications as being eligible for protection;
(c) who is entitled to use a protected geographical indication and any procedures
that apply to obtain such an entitlement; the duration of protection of geographical
indications; arrangements regarding cancellation or forfeiture of geographical
indications; and arrangements for monitoring the use of geographical indications;
(d) protection available to prevent unauthorised use of geographical indications,
including use by those who are not from within the area to which the geographical
indication refers and those who are eligible or authorised users but are not using the
geographical indication properly;
(e) enforcement procedures;
(f) the relationship of geographical indications to trademarks, including
protection provided to prevent the registration as trademarks of signs containing or
consisting of geographical indications.
The summary paper treats the differing means of protection in three broad
categories. The first relates to laws focusing on business practices. Typically, the issue
at stake in legal proceedings regarding the use of a geographical indication under such
laws is not whether the geographical indication as such is eligible for protection but,
rather, whether a specific act involving the use of a geographical indication has
contravened the general standards contained in laws covering unfair competition,
consumer protection, trade descriptions, food standards, etc. The second category

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 56

 M. Geuze

concerns protection through trademark law. Trademark law may provide two types of
protection for geographical indications. On the one hand, protection may be provided
against the registration and use of geographical indications as trademarks. On the
other hand, protection may be provided through collective, guarantee or certification
marks. In contrast to the general means of protection of the first and second
categories, the third category of protection concerns means specifically dedicated to
the protection of geographical indications. Some of these means provide sui generis
protection for geographical indications that relate to products with specifically defined
characteristics or methods of production; other means apply without such specific
definitions.

The Doha Work Programme 30

At the Fourth Ministerial Conference, held in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001,
ministers adopted the Doha Ministerial Declaration,31 which provides the mandate for
negotiations on a range of subjects, including on agriculture and services, as well as
issues concerning the implementation of the various agreements that form part of the
WTO Agreement. Paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration in particular says that
With a view to completing the work started in the Council for Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Council for TRIPS) on the implementation of
Article 23(4), we agree to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of
notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits by the
Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference. We note that issues related to the
extension of the protection of geographical indications provided for in Article 23 to
products other than wines and spirits will be addressed in the Council for TRIPS
pursuant to paragraph 12 of this Declaration.
The first sentence extends the mandate of Article 23.4 for the negotiation of the
multilateral system of notification and registration of GIs for wines to spirits. The
second sentence, which deals with the protection of GIs for other products, refers to
paragraph 12 of the Doha Declaration, which reads in turn that
Negotiations on outstanding implementation issues shall be an integral part of the
[Doha] Work Programme ... (1) where we provide a specific negotiating mandate in
this Declaration, the relevant implementation issues shall be addressed under that
mandate; (2) the other outstanding implementation issues shall be addressed as a
matter of priority by the relevant WTO bodies, which shall report to the Trade
Negotiations Committee, established under paragraph 46 below, by the end of 2002
for appropriate action.
Members have different views on the interpretation of Paragraph 18 with regard to
the issue of “extension”: proponents of extension (see below) have advanced that

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 57

 M. Geuze

there is a clear mandate to launch negotiations, while opponents have claimed that
there is no agreement to negotiate any extension.
For purposes of negotiations regarding the register, an ad hoc negotiating group,
the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS, has been established.

Negotiations on a multilateral register of GIs for wines and spirits

The special session established by the Doha Declaration has, to date, not
managed to achieve a significant narrowing of differences of view between
members. The two key issues are (1) what the legal effects or consequences should
be of a registration under the system to be negotiated and (2) whether participation
in the system should be voluntary or mandatory for WTO members. There are
currently three proposals on the table:32
- The joint proposal.33 This proposal is sponsored by Argentina, Australia,
Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Paraguay,
Chinese Taipei and the United States. These members propose a purely
voluntary system. Members wishing to participate would notify a list of GIs,
which would then be recorded on a database administered by the WTO
Secretariat. Participating members would commit to ensure that their procedures
include the provision to consult the database when making decisions regarding
registration and protection of trademarks and GIs for wines and spirits in
accordance with their domestic law. Non-participating members would be
encouraged, but would not be obliged, to consult the database.
- The EC proposal.34 This proposal calls for a system whereby members
electing to participate would notify GIs into the system. Upon publication, other
members would have an 18-month period during which to lodge a reservation
against (i.e., to challenge) the notified GI on certain grounds, such as non-
compliance with the Article 22.1 definition or genericness. In the absence of
challenges or if the challenges were withdrawn, the GI would be registered.
Differences regarding challenges would be resolved through direct negotiations
between the notifying and challenging members. Once registered, the GI would
produce an irrebuttable (i.e., no longer challengeable) presumption of eligibility
for protection in the members who have not challenged the GI or have
withdrawn the challenges. This presumption also applies to non-participating
members that have not lodged reservations within the 18 months. The registered
GI can be challenged at any time in participating members on other grounds
such as prior trademarks or grandfathered uses.

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 58

 M. Geuze

- The Hong Kong, China proposal.35 The Hong Kong government has
proposed a voluntary system whereby a registered GI would create a rebuttable
presumption or “prima facie evidence” in participating members with regard to
the ownership of the GI, compliance with the Article 22.1 definition and
protection in the country of origin. While Hong Kong, China is not a producer
of wines and spirits, it has made the proposal for systemic reasons. Its concern is
that failure in this negotiating group might endanger the whole Doha
Development Agenda.
The special session has also discussed costs and other burdens that the future
system might entail.36

Extension of the protection of Article 23 to GIs for other products

The issue of extension was discussed in the regular session of the TRIPS Council
up to the end of 2002. Thereafter, it has become the subject of consultations chaired
by the Director General of the WTO.
Proponents for extension claim that the higher protection of GIs for wines and
spirits is a discrimination, which could be corrected by extending that protection to
GIs for other products. They have proposed accordingly, i.e., Article 23 should apply
to GIs for all products and the Article 24 exceptions should apply mutatis mutandis.
Moreover, the multilateral register to be negotiated for GIs for wines and spirits
should apply to all GIs.37
Their opponents hold the view that this discrimination could as well be corrected
through suppressing Article 23 and limiting the protection of GIs in all sectors to that
provided by Article 22.
The merits of extension have been extensively debated.38 The divide in the talks is
the same as in the negotiations on the multilateral register, namely, the EC, other
European countries and several developing countries on one side, and the same
countries that have sponsored or expressed sympathy for the joint proposal, together
with some other developing countries, on the other side. The debate revolves around
issues such as the possible benefits of GI extension to GI holders; the cost for non-GI
holders; the costs for consumers; and the impact of extension in third markets.

EC’s claw-back proposal in the agriculture negotiations

In the context of the agriculture negotiations, the EC has submitted a proposal that
is relevant to the geographical indications debate. It concerns a list of names that, in
the EC, constitute geographical indications but that in other countries are used
generically to indicate a type or kind of product. The proposal aims to “claw back”
such names by reserving their use for EC producers in the geographical locations to

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 59

 M. Geuze

which such names refer. Some other members have argued that the Doha text on
agriculture does not provide a mandate for such a proposal.

Outlook

T he International Symposium that WIPO organized together with the Government

of China in Beijing in June 200739 showed once more that, for the protection of
geographical indications, there would not appear to be a “one size fits all” solution.
Important elements determining how a country protects geographical indications are
linked to the national infrastructure for the production and commercialization of
products, historical factors and the political power of producer groups. Thus, for their
coffee, Ethiopia has been pursuing an approach different from Colombia’s; the
European Union has its various systems for geographical indication protection; and
China has a basis for its certification mark system different from that of the United
States.
For a number of years, the Chinese government has been strongly promoting
among its enterprises protection of the value-added component of their products with
the help of trademarks and, where possible, geographical indications. Similar policies
exist in other countries, such as, for example, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and
Indonesia. At the abovementioned symposium, China underlined the importance of
this policy for, in particular, their farmers, whose income had increased significantly
as a result. Some results of studies into the relationship between geographical
indication protection and price premia were also contained in the WTO’s World Trade
Report of 2004 – with respect to Bordeaux wine and Darjeeling tea – but the report
concluded that more study into this relationship was clearly needed.
The history of the birth of the geographical indication system in France shows the
strong sentiments among wine producers from an area famous for its wine who
wanted the government to do something to protect them from wine producers who
were using the name of the area but not able to produce the same quality wine – thus
prejudicing the interests of those who are able to produce the quality wine. Illustrative
in this respect is the following adaptation of an article that appeared in The
Economist.40 The adapted version is entitled “Running Out of Grapes in Champagne”
and reads as follows:
One of the world’s most valuable GIs is Champagne. In the 1850s, it sold around
10 million bottles; by 1999, it had sold 327 million bottles, becoming a US$7 billion
industry. The major manufacturers and marketers of Champagne are corporate giants,
but small farmers of grapes have retained their sway in the industry. Controlling 90
per cent of the vineyards, some 15,000 grape growers have forced the big companies

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 60

 M. Geuze

to conform to their interests. The law prohibits big companies from buying out small
landholders. In 1911, when the companies sought to buy grapes from outside the
region there was a riot. An attempt to expand the geography of the “Champagne”
region also led to violence. Small growers have retained their clout because increasing
demand for Champagne requires an ever-increasing supply. But vineyards are fixed,
and grape prices can only rise. Further, as GIs are about “quality”, and with
consumers becoming more discerning, small farmers are increasingly becoming their
own producers of “exclusive” Champagne. This is like in Burgundy, where the best
wines are made and bottled by small farmers. EU rulings on anti-competition prohibit
companies from colluding with growers to fix grape prices. An analysis of
Champagne’s evolution has two lessons for new GI marketing in Asia-Pacific. First, it
takes a lot of time, patience, savvy marketing and quality control to create a valuable
GI. (Champagne took 150 years.) Second, pro-development legal regulations by the
state can empower small farmers and users of traditional knowledge to retain their
influence over corporate juggernauts.
In many, if not all, countries, unfair competition laws or consumer protection laws
contain general provisions dealing with the misappropriation of indications serving to
designate products that originate in a geographical area. In addition, many countries
have also put in place special systems aimed at providing the necessary transparency
about those geographical indications that deserve special protection because of the
specific, geographically determined qualifications that make certain products unique.
Securing protection for such geographical indications in other countries has, however,
been complicated due to differences in approach as to whether protection is justified
or what kind of protection is appropriate, and due to the difficulty to reconcile these
differences given their historical, economic or commercial context.
International rules for the protection of geographical indications would perhaps
better be designed starting from the premise that a wide diversity in national systems
simply exists. In particular, procedures for the international registration of
geographical indications should recognize this. A flexible interpretation and
application of the Lisbon Agreement provides a possible basis for a solution in this
respect, as does the possible creation of a link between the Lisbon Agreement and the
Madrid Protocol.41

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 61

 M. Geuze

Endnotes

1. Matthijs Geuze has been Senior Counsellor in the World Intellectual Property
Organization since 2002. From 1989 to 2002 he was employed by the Secretariat
of the GATT and the World Trade Organization, and from 1981 to 1989 by the
Dutch Patent Office. The views expressed are his personal views rather than those
of the organisations with which he is or has been affiliated.
2. See WIPO document SCT/8/4.
3. The WTO Agreement is a reflection of the single undertaking embarked upon in
the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations: a negotiating package
consisting of subjects put forward by the various trading partners, which, when
negotiated on their own, would not likely have led to a successful outcome among
all trading partners. This negotiating package had to be adopted as a whole, i.e.,
“nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.”
4. WTO document IP/C/W/253 and IP/C/W/253/Rev.1.
5. Matthijs Geuze, “Protection of Geographical Indications under the TRIPS
Agreement and Related Work of the World Trade Organization.” WIPO
Symposium on the International Protection of Geographical Indications in the
Worldwide Context, Eger, Hungary, 24-25 October 1997. WIPO Publication No.
760.
6. Dariel de Sousa, “Protection of Geographical Indications under the TRIPS
Agreement and Related Work of the World Trade Organization (WTO).” WIPO
Symposium on the International Protection of Geographical Indications,
Montevideo, Uruguay, 28-29 November 2001.
7. The provisions that lay down these obligations are contained in Articles 3 and 4 of
the TRIPS Agreement. Australia and the United States initiated dispute settlement
procedures against the European Communities for its non-compliance with these
obligations. See the panel reports contained in WTO documents WT/DS174/R
and WT/DS290/R.
8. Part III of the TRIPS Agreement (i.e., Articles 41 to 61).
9. Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
10. For background information on proposals tabled in the negotiations, reference is
made to Daniel Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement – Drafting History and Analysis.
2nd edition. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2003.
11. As regards the definition of the Lisbon Agreement, reference is made to Matthijs
Geuze, “Let’s Have An Other Look at the Lisbon Agreement – its Terms in their

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 62

 M. Geuze

Context and in the Light of its Object and Purpose.” WIPO International
Symposium on Geographical Indications, Beijing, China, 26-28 June 2007.
12. TRIPS, Article 22.2(a).
13. TRIPS, Article 22.2(b). Pursuant to Article 10bis of the Paris Convention, this
includes “any act of competition contrary to honest practices in industrial or
commercial matters”, in particular
- “All acts of such a nature as to create confusion by any means whatever with the
establishment, the goods, or the industrial and commercial activities, of a
competitor;
- “False allegations in the course of trade of such a nature as to discredit the
establishment, the goods or the industrial and commercial activities, of a
competitor;
- “Indications or allegations the use of which in the course of trade is liable to
mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, the characteristics,
the suitability for their purpose, or the quality of the goods.”
14. TRIPS, Article 22.3.
15. TRIPS, Article 23.2.
16. An example is “Rioja”, La Rioja being the name of wine-producing regions that
exist in both Argentina and Spain.
17. TRIPS, Article 22.4.
18. TRIPS, Article 23.3.
19. See section III below.
20. TRIPS, Article 24.6.
21. Australia and the United States initiated dispute settlement procedures against the
European Communities for its alleged non-compliance with these obligations. See
the panel reports contained in WTO documents WT/DS174/R and WT/DS290/R.
22. TRIPS, Article 24.5.
23. 15 April 1994.
24. TRIPS, Article 24.4.
25. TRIPS, Article 24.3.
26. Dariel de Sousa, “Protection of Geographical Indications under the TRIPS
Agreement and Related Work of the World Trade Organization (WTO).” WIPO
Symposium on the International Protection of Geographical Indications,
Montevideo, Uruguay, 28-29 November 2001.

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 63

 M. Geuze

27. IP/C/13 and IP/C/13/Add.1.

28. IP/C/W/253.
29. IP/C/W/253/Rev.1.
30. Thu-Lang Tran Wasescha, “Geographical Indications in the International Arena –
the Current Situation.” WIPO International Symposium on Geographical
Indications, Beijing, China, 26-28 June 2007.
31. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1.
See http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.htm.
32. For a side-by-side presentation of these proposals, see WTO document
TN/IP/W/12.
33. WTO document TN/IP/W/10.
34. WTO document TN/IP/W/11.
35. WTO document TN/IP/W/8.
36. See WTO documents TN/IP/W/12/Add.1 and Corr.1.
37. See WTO documents TN/C/W/14/Add.2, JOB(05)61/Add.2 and TN/C/W/26.
38. A compilation of issues raised and views expressed is contained in WTO
document TN/C/W/25-WT/GC7W/546.
39. WIPO organizes such symposia every other year in cooperation with a host
government. The presentations at these symposia have been published by WIPO,
between 1988 and 1999 in book form and thereafter on the WIPO website.
40. The original article “Uncorking Success”, published in The Economist of 21
December 2002, was published in the adapted version – quoted here – in
“Geographical Indications as Trade-Related Intellectual Property”, Discussion
Paper, Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Initiative, UNDP regional Centre in
Colombo, January 2007.
41. Matthijs Geuze, “Let’s Have An Other Look at the Lisbon Agreement – its Terms
in their Context and in the Light of its Object and Purpose.” WIPO International
Symposium on Geographical Indications, Beijing, China, 26-28 June 2007; and
“International Registration of GIs: Building on Existing Systems.” WIPO
International Symposium on Geographical Indications, Parma, Italy, 27-29 June
2005.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those
of the Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy nor the Estey
Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade. © The Estey Centre for Law
and Economics in International Trade. ISSN: 1496-5208

Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 64