Skip to main content

Geographical Indications of Traditional Handicrafts: A Cultural Element in a Predominantly Economic Activity

Abstract

The effect of globalization has seen a cross-cultural exchange of cultural forms and cultural diversity. This demands seeking the most effective, comprehensive, and appropriate mechanisms to safeguard and protect traditional knowledge. Established international treaties and regional/national conventions appear to cover the international trade in products but to what degree they discriminate among products should be tested. In order to do so international and regional legislation as well as bilateral agreements between the European Union and Latin American countries will be considered. Additionally, when handicrafts are at issue the debate over the relationship between cultural heritage and intellectual property is relevant. This paper addresses the topic of geographical indications as a tool to protect, but also to safeguard and preserve, traditional handicrafts. By examining local frameworks and the importance of international harmony, the study will show that the protection of geographical indications goes beyond economic goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    TK generally includes the intellectual and intangible cultural heritage, practices and knowledge systems of indigenous and local communities – called “TK lato sensu” since it embraces the content of the knowledge itself as well as its expression (TCEs are included). “TK stricto sensu” refers to knowledge as such, including know-how, practices, skills and innovations. Throughout this paper, the term TK will be used to refer to TK stricto sensu and not directly to TCEs, unless indicated otherwise.

  2. 2.

    Castonguay (2006).

  3. 3.

    De la Cruz (2006), p. 8.

  4. 4.

    Ariza and Parra (2010), p. 10.

  5. 5.

    Lenzerine (2011), p. 108.

  6. 6.

    For background, see Chan (2014) a study on ceramic craftspeople in Chulucanas, Peru.

  7. 7.

    Deepak (2008), p. 197.

  8. 8.

    Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Other instruments that refer to TK are the Nagoya Protocol (to the CBD); International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

  9. 9.

    This paper does not seek to establish or debate the concept of TCE. However, it is important to establish its meaning by looking at the characteristic debated at WIPO.

  10. 10.

    Proposed Art. 2 of the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions: Draft Articles Facilitators’ Rev. 2 (as at the close of IGC 33 on 3 March 2017).

  11. 11.

    Deepak (2008), p. 198.

  12. 12.

    Deepak (2008), p. 198.

  13. 13.

    Gervais (2009), p. 555.

  14. 14.

    This leaves aside the discussion of stewardship, secret and sacred TCEs, and ownership, among others.

  15. 15.

    Deepak (2008), p. 199.

  16. 16.

    UNESCO.ITC (1997).

  17. 17.

    Deepak (2008), p. 198.

  18. 18.

    Proposed Art. 2 of the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions: Draft Articles Facilitators’ Rev. 2 (as at the close of IGC 33 on 3 March 2017).

  19. 19.

    Goss (2017).

  20. 20.

    See for example the UNESCO Recommendation for the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, 1989; the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2003; and the UNESCO Convention for the Promotion and Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, 2005.

  21. 21.

    Intangible cultural heritage is defined as “the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage”.

  22. 22.

    Latin America is the region with the highest number of ratifications of the ILO Convention 169 (15 states have ratified it). The indigenous population in this region constitutes a significant percentage of the total population, for example: Guatemala where some 60% of its population is made up of indigenous peoples; in Mexico the indigenous population represents 15.1% of the total population; and in Peru it represents 14% of the national population. See the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs at http://www.iwgia.org/regions/latin-america/.

  23. 23.

    Article 31 UNDRIP.

  24. 24.

    Article 31.1 UNDRIP.

  25. 25.

    Article 2.2(b) ILO Convention 169.

  26. 26.

    Article 23.1 ILO Convention 169.

  27. 27.

    Artesanias de Colombia, Fortalecimineto de la Produccion artesanal como Estrategia de Generacion de Empleo de la Poblacion Islena del Departamento Insular de San Andres, Providencia y Santa Catalina – Cartilla Marca Colectiva y Denominacion de Origen para las Comunidades Artesanales de Colombia (Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo, Artesanias de Colombia S.A., 2010), p. 16.

  28. 28.

    Gervais (2009), p. 560; Covarrubia (2011), pp. 330–338.

  29. 29.

    Gervais (2009), p. 560.

  30. 30.

    Gervais (2009), p. 560; Covarrubia (2016b), pp. 129–131. Due to this wide understanding of the word “products”, Brazil even extends the GI regime to protect services.

  31. 31.

    This is not to be confused with the fact that only five countries in the region are members of the Lisbon Agreement (out of the 28 members).

  32. 32.

    In line with the previous discussion regarding “products” and “goods”, the Geneva Act opted to use the term “good”.

  33. 33.

    Thi Thu Ha (2017).

  34. 34.

    Covarrubia (2016b), pp. 129–131.

  35. 35.

    Parasecoli (2017), p. 13.

  36. 36.

    Thi Thu Ha (2017), p. 43.

  37. 37.

    The European Commission is exploring the possibility of extending GI protection to non-agricultural products.

  38. 38.

    The trade agreement has been provisionally applied with Peru since 1 March 2013 and with Colombia since 1 August 2013. Official Journal of the European Union, L 254, 21 December 2012.

  39. 39.

    The EU, with Ecuador, Colombia and Peru, signed the Protocol of Accession of Ecuador to the Trade Agreement on 11 November 2016. On 1 January 2017 Ecuador joined the trade agreement. Official Journal of the European Union, L 356, 24 December 2016.

  40. 40.

    The trade agreement has been provisionally applied at different times: Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama since August 2013, Costa Rica and El Salvador since October 2013, and Guatemala since December 2016. Official Journal of the European Union, L 111, 15 April 2014.

  41. 41.

    Originally the Andean Community was formed by six states. In 1976 Chile withdrew its membership and in 2006 Venezuela left the Andean Community.

  42. 42.

    See European Commission, Country and regions: Andean Community, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/regions/andean-community/ (accessed 30 May 2018).

  43. 43.

    See European Commission, Country and regions: Central America, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/regions/central-america/ (accessed 30 May 2017).

  44. 44.

    The Economist (2017).

  45. 45.

    See World Bank (2018).

  46. 46.

    As indicated for example in the Trade Agreement between the EU and Colombia and Peru, Art. 207(d).

  47. 47.

    See the study run by the European Commission (2014).

  48. 48.

    OriGin and Agridea (2009).

  49. 49.

    Covarrubia (2017).

  50. 50.

    European Commission (2013).

  51. 51.

    Dossier No. 273038-2006. Resolution 011517.

  52. 52.

    EUTM No. 004074449. Expired in 2014.

  53. 53.

    See Ecuador: Constitution, Art. 84 and Intellectual Property Law, Art. 377; Peru: Constitution, Art. 89. All Andean countries are signatories of the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, and of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

  54. 54.

    Colombia: Law No. 397 of 1997, Arts. 4 and 13, and Law No. 99 of 1993, Art. 22; Venezuela: Organization Act on Indigenous Peoples and Communities, Arts. 101–103; Law No. 530 of 23 May 2014, on Bolivian Cultural Heritage.

  55. 55.

    Since 2000 WIPO has been trying to clarify the legal status of indigenous peoples and TK. See Parasecoli (2017), p. 16.

  56. 56.

    United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), “Geographical Indications: Experiences in Peru”, http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Session18-Geographical%20Indications-Peru.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2018).

  57. 57.

    Marie-Vivien (2016), pp. 292–326; Marie-Vivien (2017), pp. 221–252.

  58. 58.

    In Europe some national legislation recognizes GIs for handicrafts; France recently adopted such a position.

  59. 59.

    Marie-Vivien (2016), pp. 292–326; Marie-Vivien (2017), pp. 221–252.

  60. 60.

    Executive Order No. MSP 22/Dr.P/66-107 of 12 December 1966 of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs.

  61. 61.

    Law of 6 May 1919 regarding the protection of appellations of origin; Executive Order of the Cour de Cassation (Civil Chamber) of 18 November 1930.

  62. 62.

    Barham (2003), pp. 127–138.

  63. 63.

    European Commission Consultation ended in October 2014.

  64. 64.

    European Parliament Resolution of 6 October 2015 on the possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products.

  65. 65.

    Brazil too.

  66. 66.

    The new Geneva Act introduces two tiers of protection: AOs and GIs. The difference between the two is that the latter has a weak link with the place of origin. Bear in mind that the Paris Convention refers to indications of source.

  67. 67.

    Art. 221 Decision 486 – Andean Community. The Paris Convention also uses this term.

  68. 68.

    This is not the case in Brazil where several indication of source products have been registered.

  69. 69.

    Observe that the Spanish version of Decision 486 (regulating Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru) refers to “Denominación de Origen”. The English version refers to “Appellation of Origin”. The DO term is the one used throughout this paper so as to keep it close to what their legislators wished for.

  70. 70.

    See Art. 23 TRIPS which only applies to wines and spirits.

  71. 71.

    Mexico too.

  72. 72.

    Quinua Real del Antiplano Sur Bolivia (for quinoa), Aji Chusquisaqueño (for chilli) and Singani (for spirit).

  73. 73.

    Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio, “La Superintendencia en el corazon de las Denominacion de Origen” (SIC noticias), at http://www.sic.gov.co/noticias/la-sic-en-el-corazon-de-las-denominaciones-de-origen (accessed on 4 October 2018).

  74. 74.

    Resolution 66272, 29 November 2010.

  75. 75.

    Resolution 30000, 19 June 2009.

  76. 76.

    Resolution 71098, 7 December 2011.

  77. 77.

    Resolution 71097, 7 December 2011.

  78. 78.

    Resolution 70849, 6 December 2011.

  79. 79.

    Resolution 69302, 30 November 2011.

  80. 80.

    Resolution 69304, 30 November 2011.

  81. 81.

    Resolution 71791, 12 December 2011.

  82. 82.

    Resolution 70002, 30 November 2011.

  83. 83.

    Resolution 29488, 1 June 2015.

  84. 84.

    Resolution No. 988698, 20 March 2007.

  85. 85.

    Paz and Pomareda (2009), pp. 1–23.

  86. 86.

    Guatemala’s Decree 57-2000, Industrial Property Law regulates GIs. Honduras: the GI regime is regulated by the Industrial Property Law (Decree No. 12-99-E). Panama: Industrial Property Law 35, 1996 regulates GIs.

  87. 87.

    Costa Rica regulates GIs under Law 7978, 2000 Trade Marks and other Distinctive Signs. Nicaragua: regulated by the Trade Marks and other Distinctive Signs Law (Law No. 380, 2001). El Salvador regulates GIs under Law 868, 2002 Trade Marks and other Distinctive Signs.

  88. 88.

    Paz and Pomareda (2009), pp. 1–23.

  89. 89.

    Paz and Pomareda (2009), pp. 1–23.

  90. 90.

    Costa Rica has registered Café de Costa Rica (GI), Banano de Costa Rica (GI) and Queso Turrialba (for cheese) (DO) – there is a pending DO for Tarrazú (coffee). Guatemala has registrations for Acatenango (for coffee), Café Antigua, Ron de Guatemala (GI). Honduras has only registered DOs in the coffee sector as follows: Café de Marcala (DO) – Resolution No. 01 2011 Conacafe – which was the first national DO registered in the whole of Central America, Honduras Western Coffee’s (GI), Cafés del Occidente Hondureño, Café Camapara, Café Cagual, Café Congolon, Café Erapuca, and Café Guisayote. Nicaragua has two DOs: Café de Nicaragua and Queso Chontales. Finally, El Salvador has three DOs: Apaneca-Ilamatepec (coffee), Bálsamo de El Salvador (Decree No. 162) and Café de Marcala.

  91. 91.

    The National Mayan Weavers Movement has proposed a legal strategy (Law No. 5247) which has been formally accepted and must now go through Congress to protect its legacy and ensure that the intellectual property of indigenous peoples is recognized. While the idea is first to protect the güipiles (distinctive clothing of the Mayas), the reform is expected to benefit more arts and crafts. See Fernandez (2017).

  92. 92.

    Lucas (2014).

  93. 93.

    OMPI (2012).

  94. 94.

    Registration is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Collectives and Folkloric Expressions of the General Directorate of Industrial Property (DIGERPI) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries.

  95. 95.

    Resolution No. 1, 22 November 2002 DIGERPI.

  96. 96.

    WIPO (2015).

  97. 97.

    Resolution No. 13297, 22 July 2009 DIGERPI.

  98. 98.

    Resolution No. 13298, 22 July 2009 DIGERPI.

  99. 99.

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and SINER-GIFAO (2010), p. 3.

  100. 100.

    See European Commission (2013).

  101. 101.

    Barham (2003), pp. 127–138.

  102. 102.

    Barham (2003), pp. 127–138.

  103. 103.

    Barham (2003), pp. 127–138.

  104. 104.

    This is in line with GIs for services in which the terroir factor is not easily established.

  105. 105.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed.

  106. 106.

    Barham (2003), pp. 127–138.

  107. 107.

    Gangjee (2017), pp. 129–130.

  108. 108.

    Gangjee (2017), pp. 129–130. He extends this so as to establish that terroir is also crucial because it establishes the physical geography and thus draws the boundaries of the region of origin.

  109. 109.

    Barham (2003), p. 132.

  110. 110.

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and SINER-GIFAO (2010).

  111. 111.

    Barham (2003), p. 130.

  112. 112.

    Barham (2003), p. 130.

  113. 113.

    Parasecoli (2017), p. 17.

  114. 114.

    Gangjee (2017), pp. 129–132.

  115. 115.

    Barham (2003), p. 131.

  116. 116.

    A different debate is when practitioners migrate.

  117. 117.

    Wilson (1998), p. 55.

  118. 118.

    Gangjee (2017), pp. 129–133.

  119. 119.

    See the example of Cantucci Toscani in Official Journal, L17, 26 January 2016.

  120. 120.

    Gangjee (2017), pp. 129, 132.

  121. 121.

    Exportur SA and LOR SA v Confiserie du Tech (C-3/91) (Turron case) [1992] ECR I-5529.

  122. 122.

    In France, for example, as in other European countries the GI regime cost is heavily subsidized by the government, reflecting the importance placed on this type of production, Barham (2003), p. 133.

  123. 123.

    According to Claude Vermont-Desroches, dedicated to the production of cheese Comté and chairman of the inter-professional committee for this milk in France, young people prefer to stay in Comté since they “believe there is a future and they invest in improving this appellation of origin”. See Indecopi (2011).

  124. 124.

    GIs do not mummify a product.

  125. 125.

    Covarrubia (2015).

  126. 126.

    Covarrubia (2016a), pp. 55–87.

  127. 127.

    Covarrubia (2016a), pp. 55–87.

  128. 128.

    Only recently have Latin American producers been investing in the protection of their collective rights; however, it remains to be seen if they have the means to enforce them.

  129. 129.

    See OriGin and Agridea (2009).

  130. 130.

    Parasecoli (2017), p. 20.

  131. 131.

    Calboli (2015a), p. 760; Calboli (2015c), p. 373; Calboli (2015b), pp. 156–180.

  132. 132.

    Parasecoli (2017), p. 20.

  133. 133.

    See for example the request made by Colombia for international assistance from the Intangible Heritage Fund in 2017 – Case File No. 01211.

  134. 134.

    Deepak (2008), p. 206.

  135. 135.

    Argumedo and Pimbert (Argumedo and Pimbert 2006), pp. 1–16.

  136. 136.

    Indecopi (2011a).

  137. 137.

    Indecopi (2011b).

  138. 138.

    IEPI (2016).

  139. 139.

    Waterman (2016).

  140. 140.

    Camari has been registered as a collective trade mark in Ecuador.

  141. 141.

    International Living, “Import–export opportunities in Ecuador” (International Living Publishing Ltd., Ireland 2012).

  142. 142.

    Garcia (2014).

  143. 143.

    Parasecoli (2017), p. 13.

  144. 144.

    Parasecoli (2017), p. 14.

  145. 145.

    The list was established in 2008.

  146. 146.

    Inscribed in 2012 (7.COM) on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Decision 7.COM 11.12.

  147. 147.

    Inscribed in 2008 (3.COM) on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity (originally proclaimed in 2005). Decision 3.COM 1.

  148. 148.

    Decision of the Intergovernmental Committee, 12.COM 11.B.24.

  149. 149.

    Carrera (2013).

  150. 150.

    Melgarejo and Giuliani (2014).

  151. 151.

    Melgarejo and Giuliani (2014).

  152. 152.

    European Commission (2014).

  153. 153.

    Thi Thu Ha (2017), p. 44.

  154. 154.

    Melgarejo and Giuliani (2014).

  155. 155.

    Thi Thu Ha (2017), p. 45.

  156. 156.

    Thi Thu Ha (2017), p. 45.

  157. 157.

    Thi Thu Ha (2017), p. 47.

  158. 158.

    European Commission (2014).

  159. 159.

    European Commission (2014).

  160. 160.

    Melgarejo and Giuliani (2014). See also WIPO (2017).

  161. 161.

    The Times of India (2013).

  162. 162.

    European Commission (2014).

References

  1. Argumedo A, Pimbert M (2006) Protecting indigenous knowledge against biopiracy in the Andes. IIED, London, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ariza L, Parra A (2010) Protegiendo nuestra identidad. Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo y Artesanías de Colombia S.A., Bogotá, p 10

  3. Barham E (2003) Translating terroir: the global challenge of French AOC labelling. J Rural Stud 19:127–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Calboli I (2015a) Geographical indications of origin at the crossroads of local development, consumer protection, and marketing strategies. Int’l Rev Intell Prop Compet L 46(7):760

    Google Scholar 

  5. Calboli I (2015b) Intellectual property protection for fame, luxury, wines, and spirits: lex specialis for a corporate “dolce vita” or a “good quality life”? In: Dinwoodie G (ed) Intellectual property and general legal principles: is IP a lex specialis?. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 156–180

    Google Scholar 

  6. Calboli I (2015c) Time to say local cheese and smile at geographical indications of origin? International trade and local development in the United States. HousLR 53:373

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carrera GL (2013) Denominaciones de origen en el Ecuador. Consorcios de origen (paper presented in Bogotá, Colombia, 11 December 2013, sponsored by the Ecuadorian National Intellectual Property Office and Artesanías de Colombia)

  8. Castonguay S (2006) Arts and crafts of Colombia. WIPO Magazine Issue 6, http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/06/article_0002.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2018

  9. Chan AS (2014) Networking peripheries: technological futures and the myth of digital universalism. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Covarrubia P (2011) The EU and Colombia/Peru free trade agreement on GIs: adjusting Colombian and Peruvian national laws? J Intell Prop Law Pract 6(5):330–338

    Google Scholar 

  11. Covarrubia P (2015) Geographical indications: to be or not to be (some thoughts). IPtango, blog, http://iptango.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=geographical+indication. Accessed 6 June 2018

  12. Covarrubia P (2016a) Colombia: intellectual property and aboriginal handicraft. In: Sargent S, Samanta J (eds) Indigenous rights – changes and challenges for the 21st century. The University of Buckingham Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  13. Covarrubia P (2016b) Protection of non-agricultural GIs: a window on what is happening in Latin America. European Intellectual Property Review 38(3):129–131

    Google Scholar 

  14. Covarrubia P (2017) France and Peru present cooperation action. IPtango, blog, http://iptango.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/france-and-peru-present-cooperation.html. Accessed 22 June 2018

  15. De la Cruz R (2006) Conocimientos tradicionales y el derecho consuetudinario. Unión Mundial para la Naturaleza (UICN) Documento Revisado, Chile

  16. Deepak J (2008) Protection of traditional handicrafts under Indian intellectual property laws. J Intell Prop Rights 13:197–207

    Google Scholar 

  17. European Commission (2013) Geographical indications. 28 June 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/intellectual-property/geographical-indications/. Accessed 23 June 2018

  18. European Commission (2014) Results of the public consultation and public conference on the Green Paper making the most out of Europe’s traditional know-how: a possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products. COM(2014) 469 final (15 July 2014)

  19. Fernandez C (2017) Protecting collective intellectual property: the case of the Mayan women. IPtango, blog, http://iptango.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/protecting-collective-intellectual.html. Accessed 28 June 2018

  20. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and SINER-GIFAO (2010) Linking people, places and products: a guide for promoting quality linked to geographical origin and sustainable geographical indications. 2nd edn. FAO, http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1760e/i1760e.pdf, p 3. Accessed 7 June 2018

  21. Gangjee D (2017) GIs beyond wine: time to rethink the link? Int’l Rev Intell Prop Compet L 48(2):129–133

    Google Scholar 

  22. Garcia A (2014) Presentan nuevas denominaciones de origen e indicación geográfica del café centroamericano. IICA Noticias, http://www.iica.int/es/prensa/noticias/presentan-nuevas-denominaciones-de-origen-e-indicaci%C3%B3n-geogr%C3%A1fica-del-caf%C3%A9. Accessed 23 June 2018

  23. Gervais DJ (2009) Traditional knowledge: are we closer to the answers? The potential role of geographical indications. ILSA J Int Comp Law 15(2):555, 560

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goss I (2017) Information note for IGC 33. Note from the WIPO Secretariat: The chair of the IGC. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/33

  25. IEPI (2016) Proyecto de propiedad intelectual, turismo y cultura. IEPI Boletín No. 071, https://www.propiedadintelectual.gob.ec/ecuador-forma-parte-del-proyecto-piloto-propiedad-intelectual-turismo-y-cultura/. Accessed 8 June 2018

  26. Indecopi (2011a), INDECOPI y la FAO capacitan a productores para vender con éxito productos con denominación de origen. Indecopi Noticias, 8 November 2011, https://www.indecopi.gob.pe. Accessed 13 June 2018

  27. Indecopi (2011b) Productores son esenciales para lograr el éxito de las denominaciones de origen. Indecopi Noticias, 23 June 2011, https://www.indecopi.gob.pe. Accessed 9 June 2018

  28. Lenzerine F (2011) Intangible cultural heritage: the living culture of peoples. Eur J Int Law 22(1):108

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lucas C (2014) Indicaciones geográficas: competitividad y mercadeo. Estrategia y Negocios, newspaper, Honduras

  30. Marie-Vivien D (2016) A comparative analysis of GIs for handicrafts: the link to origin in culture as well as nature? In: Gangjee D (ed) Research handbook on intellectual property and geographical indications. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 292–326

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Marie-Vivien D (2017) Do geographical indications for handicrafts deserve a special regime? Insights from worldwide law and practice. In: van Caenegem W, Cleary J (eds) The importance of place: geographical indications as a tool for local and regional development. Springer, Berlin, pp 221–252

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Melgarejo J, Giuliani A (2014) Geographical indications of handicrafts: a tool to improve livelihood and protect biopiracy in remote communities? Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management and Rural Development, Tropetag, https://www.bfh.ch/fileadmin/data/publikationen/2014/11_Giuliani_Geographical_Indicators.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2018

  33. OMPI (2012) Panamá: tres marcas para el desarrollo. Revista de la OMPI 2/2012, Geneva

  34. OriGin, Agridea (2009) Study on the protection of geographical indications for products other than wines, spirits, agricultural products or foodstuffs. Study commissioned by the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission, Geneva

  35. Parasecoli F (2017) Geographical indications, intellectual property and the global market. In: May S, et al. (eds), Taste – power – tradition: Geographical indications as cultural property. Göttingen Studies in Cultural Property, vol 10:13–14, 17, 20

  36. Paz J, Pomareda C (2009) Indicaciones geográficas y denominaciones de origen en Centroamérica: situación y perspectivas. Policy discussion paper, Centro Internacional para el Comercio y el Desarrollo Sostenible – International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), pp 1–23

  37. The Economist (2017) Building bridges – Latin America’s new trade agenda: A report by The Economist Intelligence Unit

  38. The Times of India (2013) We must protect traditional Indian products in the international market to boost growth. The Times of India, New Delhi, 21 January 2013

  39. Thi Thu Ha L (2017) Facilitating the protection of geographical indications in ASEAN. SECO/WTI Academic Cooperation Project Working Paper Series 2017/01. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2905623. Accessed 9 July 2018

  40. UNESCO.ITC (1997) International symposium on crafts and the international market: trade and customs codification; final report. CLT/CONF/604/7

  41. Waterman A (2016) Artisan Report: EXPOARTESANÍAS, Colombia. The Kindcraft, http://thekindcraft.com/artisan-report-expoartesanias-colombia/. Accessed 22 June 2018

  42. Wilson J (1998) Terroir: The role of geology, climate and culture in the making of French wines. Mitchell Beazley, London, p 55

    Google Scholar 

  43. WIPO (2015) Panama: empowering indigenous women through a better protection and marketing of handicrafts. http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2005/06/article_0005.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2018

  44. WIPO (2017) Protect and promote your culture: a practical guide to intellectual property for indigenous peoples and local communities. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1048.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2018

  45. World Bank (2018) Indigenous Latin America in the twenty-first century. http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/lac/brief/indigenous-latin-america-in-the-twenty-first-century-brief-report-page. Accessed 21 June 2018

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia Covarrubia.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Covarrubia, P. Geographical Indications of Traditional Handicrafts: A Cultural Element in a Predominantly Economic Activity. IIC 50, 441–466 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00810-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Geographical indications
  • Traditional cultural expressions
  • Non-agricultural products
  • Latin America
  • European Union
  • TRIPS
  • UNESCO