Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do Geographical Indications for Handicrafts Deserve a Special Regime? Insights from Worldwide Law and Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Importance of Place: Geographical Indications as a Tool for Local and Regional Development

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 58))

Abstract

According to the TRIPs Agreement, Geographical Indications (GIs) identify a good as originating in a region where a given quality, reputation or other characteristics of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin, be it an agricultural or non-agricultural product such as a handicraft. However, in Europe, and until recently in France, GIs are limited to agricultural products and foodstuffs along with wines and spirits, in contrast to the flourishing registration of GIs for handicrafts in other WTO member States, especially in Asia. Due to the absence of a uniform framework for all types of goods, negotiations in bilateral agreements are less smooth and international trade is hampered while European artisans cannot obtain protection for their handicraft’s GIs. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the legal basis for the protection of GIs over time and over practice in several countries worldwide and whatever the product is, to question the relevance of a product-based approach. The key findings of this theoretical and empirical analysis suggest that the discrimination between products is not justified, including the existence of a special regime for wines and spirits. The chapter recommends the use of the same criteria of the link to the origin to be applied to GIs for all kinds of goods. Whatever the product is, it is recommended to apply a two-level GI reference according to the presence or absence of natural factors. Such insights cast new light on the existing legal regimes for GIs and suggest potential avenues for reform: in France, which has just passed a new law on GIs for handicrafts; in the EU where the protection of GIs for handicraft is a debated issue; as well as in international treaties on GIs, be that the TRIPs or the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement for the international registration of appellations of origin and geographical indications.

This chapter draws largely on a previous publication by the same author.

Marie-Vivien (2016).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Art 22.1.

  2. 2.

    Products are listed in Annex I of the European Community Treaty and in Annexes I and II of the European Regulation No. 510/2006, replaced since 2012 by Regulation No. 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs [2012] OJ L323/1. These Annexes may be amended in order to extend or reduce the list of products eligible for the registration of PDOs and PGIs as long as they constitute agricultural products or foodstuffs.

  3. 3.

    In 2008 wines and spirits were integrated into the PDO and PGI categories; see Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the Common Organization of the Market in Wine [2008] OJ L148/1. Previously, the production of wines and spirits was regulated by a system of specific rules, due to the then extant structure of the European market in wine.

  4. 4.

    See http://www.ipindia.nic.in/girindia/ as consulted on February 29, 2016 at 16:46 pm.

  5. 5.

    See http://www.sic.gov.co/drupal/productos-con-denominacion-de-origen as consulted on February 29, 2016 at 16:48 pm.

  6. 6.

    See art. 50a of the Trademark and Indication of Source Law of Switzerland. Plutot Ordonnance sur les AOP et les IGP non agricoles (https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/official-compilation/2015/3669.pdf) (date le 2 septembre 2015) (as consulted on February 29, 2016).

  7. 7.

    See www.ipthailand.go.th/en/index.php?option=com_docman&view=docman&Itemid=434 as consulted on February 29, 2016 at 17:48 pm.

  8. 8.

    Indian GI application No. 46, filed on 9 December 2005, Geographical Indication Journal No. 13.

  9. 9.

    The negotiations of the FTA concluded in December 2, 2015, with agreement published on February 1 2016, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437.

  10. 10.

    See Trade Agreement between the European Union and Colombia and Peru at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/march/tradoc_147704.pdf.

  11. 11.

    No foreign GIs for non-agricultural goods have been protected in the Member States of the EU. See Insight Consulting, REDD & OriGIn, Study on Geographical Indications for Non-Agricultural Products in the Internal Market (Final Report, 18 Feb 2013) (Hereafter, EU Study).

  12. 12.

    GI 15-002, BOPI Marques 2015-44 du 30/10/2015.

  13. 13.

    10 new articles L.721-2 to L. 721-10 were introduced into the Intellectual Property Code, by the Law on Consomption of 17 March 2014, and its regulation of application “Décret 2015-595 du 2 juin 2015 relatif aux indications géographiques protégeant les produits industriels et artisanaux et portant diverses dispositions relatives aux marques; JORF 3 juin 2015”.

  14. 14.

    https://www.inpi.fr/sites/default/files/02122016_cp_inpi_1ere_indicationgeographique.pdf

  15. 15.

    Art. L.721-6 of the French Code of Intellectual Property provides for “the development of territories, of local traditions and know-how as well as products derived therefrom”.

  16. 16.

    Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration of 31 October 1958.

  17. 17.

    Loi du 1er août 1905 sur la repression des fraudes dans la vente des marchandises et des falsifications des denrées alimentaires et des produits agricoles (Law of 1 August 1905 on the repression of fraud in the sale of goods and adulteration of foodstuff and agricultural products) (5 Août 1905) Journal Officiel No. 210.

  18. 18.

    Loi du 28 juillet 1824 Relative aux Altérations ou Suppositions de Noms dans les Produits Fabriques (1825) 7 Bulletin des Lois no 19, 65 (Law of 28 July 1824 on the Misuse of Names for Manufactured Products).

  19. 19.

    Loi du 6 Mai 1919 Relative à la Protection des Appellations d’Origine 8 Mai 1919 Journal Officiel 4726 (Law of 6 May 1919 on the Protection of Appellations of Origin).

  20. 20.

    Loi No. 2014-344 du 17 mars 2014 relative à la consommation, Journal Officiel de la République Française No 65 du 18 mars 2014, p. 5400.

  21. 21.

    Art L. 721–2 of the Intellectual Property Code.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Art 2 of the Lisbon Agreement. The same definition was introduced in France in 1966, via Art 1 of the Law of 6 July 1966 amending and completing the Law of 6 May 1919, JO 7 July 1966, p. 5781, which is now Art L. 115-1 of the Consumer Code.

  24. 24.

    As proposed unanimously by the 4th Committee of the work and reports of the Lisbon Conference in 1956.

  25. 25.

    Art 2.1 of the Lisbon Agreement refers to product, with no further details. Consequently in practice, non-agricultural products have been registered under the Agreement.

  26. 26.

    Art 3 of the Lisbon Agreement.

  27. 27.

    Council Regulation 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the Protection of Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs [2006] OJ L93/12, which replaces Council Regulation 2081/92 of July 14, 1992 on the Protection of Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs [1992] OJ L208/1.

  28. 28.

    Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs [2012] OJ L323/1.

  29. 29.

    See Art 2(2)(a) of Regulation 510/2006; similar wording is evident in Art 5(1) of Regulation 1151/2012. For wines, the designation of origin is defined in Art 93.1(a) of Regulation 1308/2013 as:

    the name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases, a country used to describe a product referred to in Art 92.(1) that complies with the following requirements: (i) its quality and characteristics are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors; (ii) the grapes from which it is produced come exclusively from this geographical area; (iii) its production takes place in this geographical area; (iv) it is obtained from vine varieties belonging to Vitis vinifera.

  30. 30.

    See Art 3 of Regulation 510/206; Arts 5(1) and 5(3) of Regulation 1151/2012.

  31. 31.

    Exportur SA v LOR SA and Confiserie du Tech SA (C-3/91) [1992] ECR I-5529 at [28].

  32. 32.

    Art 5(2) of Regulation 1151/2012. Regarding wines, according to Art 93.1(b) of Regulation 1308/2013, a GI means ‘an indication referring to a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases, a country, used to describe a product…’ which complies with the following requirements: ‘(i) it possesses a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics attributable to that geographical origin; (ii) at least 85% of the grapes used for its production comes exclusively from this geographical area; (iii) its production takes place in this geographical area; (iv) it is obtained from vine varieties belonging to Vitis vinifera or a cross between the Vitis vinifera species and other species of the Vitis genus’. Regarding spirits, according to Art 15(1) of Regulation 110/2008, a geographical indication shall be ‘an indication which identifies a spirit drink as originating in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of that spirit drink is essentially attributable to its geographical origin’.

  33. 33.

    Carl Kühne & Others v Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH (C-269/99) [2001] ECR-I 9517. .

  34. 34.

    An example is the addition of salt, whereas mineral waters have been withdrawn. Council Regulation (EC) No 692/2003 of 8 April 2003 Amending Regulation (EEC) No.2081/92 [2003] OJ L99/1.

  35. 35.

    Art 13 of Regulation 1151/12.

  36. 36.

    According to this author, the difference between the Lisbon Appellation of Origin and the TRIPS GI is mainly focused on the additional criterion of reputation found in the latter. However, the mandatory existence of both natural and human factors in Lisbon is underestimated.

  37. 37.

    S2 of the Indian Geographical Indications of Goods Act, 1999.

  38. 38.

    GI application No. 14, filed on 7 October 2004, Geographical Indication Journal No. 4.

  39. 39.

    Interview with a manager of the weaving service centre of Kancheepuram, December 2006. On file with the author.

  40. 40.

    Chambre Syndicale des Fabricants de Dentelles et Passementeries de la Haute-Loire v Gouteyron et Jérôme [1931] Propriété Industrielle 188 (Le Puy-en-Velay Civil Court, 19 February 1931).

  41. 41.

    GI application No. 44, filed on 10 November 2005, Geographical Indication Journal No. 13.

  42. 42.

    See e.g. Section IV of TRIPS and the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs of 1925.

  43. 43.

    GI application No. 4, filed on 15 December 2003, Geographical Indication Journal No. 13.

  44. 44.

    GI application No. 22, filed on 1 February 2005, Geographical Indication Journal No. 12.

  45. 45.

    A case between the owner of the Pochampally Ikat IG and an infringer who manufactures saris with machine printed pattern. Complaint to the High Court of Delhi, 887/2005.

  46. 46.

    These simplified modern designs have proved more popular with new generations of Indian consumers.

  47. 47.

    Applicant’s reply, dated 3 November, 2005 to the letter from the GI Registry dated 21 October 2005, accessed in the file available at the GI Registry, Chennai.

  48. 48.

    Presentation of the Assistant Registrar of the GI Registry, Mr Natarajan, 17–18 September 2008, Delhi. The six criteria are: ‘Quality of raw fibre, Natural dye, Quality of water, Colour fastness, Durability, Professional skill.’

  49. 49.

    E.g. the ‘Sankheda Furniture’ GI specification insists on the use of 100 per cent teak wood.

  50. 50.

    GI application No. 87, filed on 9 April 2007, Geographical Indication Journal No. 15.

  51. 51.

    GI application No.11, filed on 22 July 2004, Geographical Indication Journal No. 3.

  52. 52.

    Personal interview with Mr Vijayan, the General Director of KSIC (Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation), the GI applicant. On file with the author.

  53. 53.

    See ‘Faïences de Moustiers’ PIBD (1992) No. 509.I.85, Ministerial Answer No. 15479 of 6 June 1991 and official journal of the Senate debates, 26 September 1991, p. 2088.

  54. 54.

    GI application No. 20, filed on 19 December 2007, Geographical Indication Journal No. 27.

  55. 55.

    See Dossier No (UK/PGI/0005/0335) at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/list.html as consulted on March 1, 2016 at 14:58 pm.

  56. 56.

    Northern Foods Plc v The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor [2005] EWHC 2971 (Admin); see also D Gangjee, ‘Melton Mowbray and the GI Pie in the Sky’ (2006) 3 IPQ 291.

  57. 57.

    Dossier No (FR/PGI/0017/0195).

  58. 58.

    Established in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the Registration of Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin under the Procedure Laid Down in Art 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 [1996] OJ L148/1. The PGI application was based on the specifications in the French Dossier LA/19/90 (Red Label).

  59. 59.

    Dossier No (FR/PGI/0005/0324).

  60. 60.

    Interview with Professor Olszak, on file with the author.

  61. 61.

    Interview with E Monticelli, on file with the author.

  62. 62.

    Specifications for the PGI ‘Calissons Aix’, Union of Manufacturers of Calissons Aix en Provence, version of 2 June 2009, http://www2.inao.gouv.fr/repository/editeur/pdf/PNO-IGP2009/CDCCalissonDAix.pdf, where are visible the amendments between the two application with the withdrawal of the local sourcing of the almonds.

  63. 63.

    Specification of the PGI « Rillettes de Tours » , https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/document_administratif-7b236d55-dae1-42bc-ab4a-8c05c7c9846b/ as consulted 29 March 2016.

  64. 64.

    GI application No. 17, filed on 25 November 2005, Geographical Indication Journal No. 17.

  65. 65.

    ‘Susruta Samhita’, Susrutacharya, 2500 BC.

  66. 66.

    See http://njavara.org; ‘Njavara Facing Extinction’, The Hindu, 21 December 2007.

  67. 67.

    See Art 4 of the Decree of 28 June 2006 concerning the ‘Chestnut Ardèche’ appellation of origin: ‘Chestnuts from local varieties of the species Castanea sativa Miller listed in the technical regulations are provided for in Art 1 of this Decree. Hybrids are prohibited.’

  68. 68.

    Letter from the European Commission, General directorate for agriculture and rural development, 9 October 2009 and interview April 2010. The PDO was registered in 1994. See Dossier No (FR/PDO/0005/00874).

  69. 69.

    GI application No. 1, filed on 27 October 2003, Geographical Indication Journal No. 1.

  70. 70.

    See Dossier No (IN/PGI/0005/0659). The objections are recorded in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1050/2011 of 20 October 2011.

  71. 71.

    For Huile d’olive de Nyons, see Dossier No (FR/PDO/0117/0142).

  72. 72.

    Loi du 26 juillet 1925 Ayant pour but de Garantir l’Appellation d'Origine du Fromage de Roquefort (30 Juillet 1925) JO 7190 (Law on the Appellation of Origin Roquefort, 26 July 1925).

  73. 73.

    Ibid.

  74. 74.

    Dossier No (FR/PDO/0217/0131).

  75. 75.

    GI application No. 85, filed on 5 April 2007, Geographical Indication Journal No. 21.

  76. 76.

    Dossier No (FR/PGI/0005/0556).

  77. 77.

    INAO, Comité National des IGP, Labels rouges et STG. PGI application ‘Saucisse de Morteau ou Jésus de Morteau’ request for additional information from the European Commission. Answer from the ODG, File No. 2008-414, 27 November 2008. The first letter of the Commission is dated 24 August 2007, the response of the applicant group is of 13 August 2008 and the response of the Commission is dated 3 October 2008.

  78. 78.

    See the Lisbon Express Registry database at http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/search/lisbon/search-struct.jsp as consulted on March 1, 2016 at 15:39 pm.

  79. 79.

    In France, following the implementation of the 1919 law which allowed for the recognition by the Court, some appellations of origin for handicraft were recognised by the Courts, e.g., the ‘Emaux de Limoges’ appellation through a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Limoges on 18 February 1946 and the ‘Cholet’ appellation through a judgment of ruling of the Angers Court of Appeals on 17 November 1936.

  80. 80.

    See Cestería Guacamaya, File no. 06-85475, registered on 19 June 2009.

  81. 81.

    GI Certificate No. 00020, National Office of Intellectual Property, Vietnam (19 July 2010).

  82. 82.

    GI application No. 46, filed on 9 December 2005, Geographical Indication Journal No. 13.

  83. 83.

    Dossier No (UK/PDO/0005/0737).

  84. 84.

    Commercial Court of Cholet, 8 January 1936, Etablissements Béra c./ Syndicat patronal des industries textiles de la région de Cholet, regional archives, Conseil général, Département Maine et Loire, côte 143a63.

  85. 85.

    1992. La Blanchisserie de la rivière Sauvagean et le blanchiment des toiles à Cholet, Cahors, Association des Amis du Musée du Textile Cholerais, REMPART. The protection of this appellation is still effective because the same Angers Court of Appeal decided in 1992 that the trademark ‘Création Maret Cholet France’ used to designate woven textile was misleading since it could be confused with the ‘Cholet’ appellation of origin, if the methods of manufacturing did not meet the appellation criteria. See Court of Appeal of Angers, Chamber 1B, 17 February 1992.

  86. 86.

    Amongst the Indian GIs, see in particular Orissa pattachitra, Nirmal paintings and Kota doria.

  87. 87.

    GI application No. 86, filed on 9 April 2007, Geographical Indication Journal No. 15.

  88. 88.

    Rules of the Chanderi Foundation; interview with the GI applicant, on file with the author.

  89. 89.

    Art. L. 721-7 of the Code of Intellectual Property.

  90. 90.

    Statement of A Mohamed Jamuluddin regarding Kancheepuram Silk GI, on file with the author.

  91. 91.

    Subodh Kumar, CII Personal interview, April 2010.

  92. 92.

    See Article R642-6 of the Rural Code; see also http://www.inao.gouv.fr/Institut-national-de-l-origine-et-de-la-qualite-INAO/L-INAO-sur-le-territoire as consulted on March 1, 2016 at 16:13 pm.

  93. 93.

    Décret 2015-595 du 2 juin 2015 relatif aux indications géographiques protégeant les produits industriels et artisanaux et portant diverses dispositions relatives aux marques; JORF 3 juin 2015.

  94. 94.

    Art. L 721-9(3) of the Intellectual Property Code.

  95. 95.

    Art. L 721-9(3) of the Intellectual Property Code.

  96. 96.

    https://www.inpi.fr/fr/la-base-des-indications-geographiques-de-l-inpi-est-en-cours-de-maintenance as consulted on March 1, 2016 at 17:19 pm.

  97. 97.

    Ibid note 55.

  98. 98.

    European Commission ‘A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights’ COM (2011) (24.05.2011).

  99. 99.

    EU Study (n 15).

  100. 100.

    European Commission, ‘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 (15.07.2014).

  101. 101.

    2015/2053(INI), Possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products.

  102. 102.

    EU Study (n 15) 318.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., 298.

  104. 104.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Agricultural Product Quality Schemes COM(2010) 733 final (10.12.2010). This also reiterates the position of maintaining the concept of the appellation of origin.

  105. 105.

    See European Commission, Green Paper on Agricultural Product Quality: Product Standards, Farming Requirements and Quality Schemes COM(2008) 0641.

  106. 106.

    European Court of Auditors, Do the Design and Management of the Geographical Indications Scheme Allow it to be Effective? (Special Report No 11, 2011).

  107. 107.

    The figures being: 33.3 per cent are in favour of two links with the origin; 26.5 per cent are against and 42.2 per cent do not have an opinion.

  108. 108.

    WIPO, ‘Protecting Innovations by Utility Models’ at: http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/utility_models/utility_models.htm, as consulted on March 12th 2016 at 12:38 pm.

  109. 109.

    Geneva, May 20, 2015, PR/2015/779.

Bibliography

  • Addor, F. & Grazzioli, A. 2002. Geographical Indications beyond wines and spirits, a roadmap for a better protection for Geographical Indications in WTO/TRIPS Agreement. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 5, 865–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allaire, G. 2004. Quality in economics: a cognitive perspective In: Harvey, M., Mcmeekin, A. & Warde, A. (eds.) Qualities of food. Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, D. 2013. From Croft to Catwalk: The Harris Tweed Certification Mark. WIPO Magazine, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audier, J. 1993. Réflexions juridiques sur la notion de terroir. Bulletin de l’O.I.V., 423–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audier, J. 2008. Passé, présent et avenir des appellations d’origine dans le monde: vers la globalisation. Bulletin de l’O.I.V., 405–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bérard, L. & Marchenay, P. 2004. Les produits de terroir, entre cultures et règlements, Paris, CNRS Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bérard, L. & Marchenay, P. 2008. From Localized products to Geographical Indications, awareness and action, Bourg-en-Bresse, CNRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biénabe, E. 2009. Le rooibos d’Afrique du Sud : comment la biodiversité s’invite dans la construction d’une indication géographique. Autrepart, 2, 117–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bienaymé, M.-H. 1995. L’appellation d’origine contrôlée. Revue de Droit Rural, 419–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caroline_Le_Goffic 2015. La saga « Laguiole » , illustration du conflit entre marques et indications géographiques. Revue Francophone de la Propriété Intellectuelle, Septembre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. E. 2012. The Strategic Exploitation of Geographical Indications and Community Trade Marks for the Marketing of Agricultural Products in the European Union. W.I.P.O.J., 1, 159–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. E. & Blakeney, M. 2006. The Protection of Geographical Indications After Doha: Quo Vadis? Journal of International Economic Law, 9, 575–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangjee, D. 2007. Quibbling Siblings: Conflicts between Trademarks and Geographical Indications. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 82, 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangjee, D. 2012. Relocating the law of Geographical Indications, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangjee, D. 2015a. Geographical Indications and Cultural Rights: The Intangible Cultural Heritage Connection? In: GEIGER, C. (ed.) Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangjee, D. 2015b. Proving Provenance? Geographical Indications Certification and Its Ambiguities. World Development, Forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C., Gervais, D., Olszak, N. & Ruzek, V. 2010. Towards a Flexible International Framework for the Protection of Geographical Indications. W.I.P.O.J., 1, 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, D. J. 2009. Traditional Knowledge: Are We Closer to the Answers? The Potential Role of Geographical Indications. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 15, 551–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan, N. S., Nair, P. S. & Babu, A. K. 2007. Exploring the Relationship between Geographical Indications and Traditional Knowledge, An Analysis of the Legal Tools for the Protection of Geographical Indications in Asia, Geneva, ICTSD Program me on IPRs and Sustainable Development, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Insight_Consulting, Origin & Redd 2013. Study on geographical indications protection for non-agricultural products in the internal market.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, M., Czerska, S. & Marie_D’avigneau, V. 2015. Public Consultations on Geographical Indication Protection for Non-agricultural Products in the EU: Summary of Results. Industrial Property Unit J1, DG Growth

    Google Scholar 

  • Kongolo, T. 2011. Any new developments with regard to GIs issues debated under WTO? E.I.P.R., 33, 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Blanchisserie de la rivière Sauvagean et le blanchiment des toiles à Cholet, Cahors, Association des Amis du Musée du Textile Cholerais, REMPART (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahias, M.-C. 1997. Les sciences et les techniques traditionnelles en Inde L’Homme, 37, 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marie-Vivien, D. 2008. From Plant Variety Definition to Geographical Indication Protection: A Search for the Link Between Basmati Rice and India/Pakistan. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 11, 321–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marie-Vivien, D. 2010. Le droit des indications géographiques en Inde: un pays de l’Ancien monde face aux droits français, européen et international, Paris, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marie-Vivien, D. 2016. A comparative analysis of GIs for handicrafts: the link to origin in culture as well as nature? In: Dev_S.Gangjee Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Geographical Indications. (pp. 292-326). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marie-Vivien, D., Bérard, L., Boutonnet, J.-P. & Casabianca, F. 2015. Are French Geographical Indications losing their soul? Analyzing recent developments in the governance of the link to the origin in France. World Development, XX.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, B. 2004. The Law of Geographical Indications, London, Cameron May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olszak, N. 2001. Le droit des appellations d’origine et des indications de provenance, Paris, Tec&Doc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plaisant, M. & Fernand-Jacq 1921. Traité des noms et appellations d’origine, Paris, Librairie Arthur Rousseau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollaud-Dulian, F. 1999. Droit de la propriété industrielle, Paris, Montchrestien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Profeta, A., Balling, R., Schoene, V. & Wirsig, A. 2009. The Protection of Origins for Agricultural Products and Foods in Europe: Status Quo, Problems and Policy Recommendations for the Green Book. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 12, 622–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangnekar, D. 2009. Geographical Indications and Localisation: A Case Study of Feni. CSGR Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thevenod-Mottet, E. 2009. Avenir des indications géographiques dans le contexte international. Revue suisse Agric., 41, 331–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thevenod-Mottet, E. & Marie-Vivien, D. 2011. Legal debates surrounding geographical indications. In: Barham, E. & Sylvander, B. (eds.) Labels of origin for food: local development, global recognition. CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Totem 2012. Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Culture: Colombia Gives an Example. 9 Jan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tregear, A. & Giraud, G. 2011. Geographical indications, consumers and citizens. In: Barham, E. & Sylvander, B. (eds.) Labels of origin for food: local development, global recognition. CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Une réussite française: l’appellation d’origine contrôlée, INAO (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO_Publication_No.952(E) Geographical Indications: An Introduction.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CIRAD, UMR Innovation, MALICA, Montpellier, France

    Delphine Marie-Vivien

  2. CIRAD, UMR Innovation, MALICA, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Delphine Marie-Vivien

Authors
  1. Delphine Marie-Vivien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Delphine Marie-Vivien .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia

    William van Caenegem

  2. University of Adelaide, Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Global Food and Resources University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Jen Cleary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

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. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 58. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53073-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53073-4_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53072-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53073-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation