Abstract
The EU’s extraterritoriality strategy of geographical indication (GI) protection through free trade agreements (FTAs) generates a conflict of rights between the cross-border protection of GIs and the prior user rights in the rest of the world. It constitutes a more specific attempt by the EU to obtain additional protection outside its territory for agricultural products. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provides for specific exceptions to GI exclusive rights. The exceptions enable the continuity of use of protected terms under certain conditions.
Although the different forms of protection are welcome to distinguish and add value to products, extraterritorial protection through FTAs collides with pre-existing private rights modifying the principle of non-retroactivity of international treaties, affects competition and constitutes a market access restriction for local and imported products.
The concerns relate to the request for exclusivity for common names that have become part of the public domain, trademarks obtained in good faith, and names of plant varieties and animal breeds. In short, the objection is to undermine the rights of producers outside European territory, granted under the TRIPS exceptions, affecting GATT/WTO principles and the balance of rights and obligations resulting from the Uruguay Round.
Affiliated Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany. Member of the Observatory of Buenos Aires and of the Board of Directors of the “Smart IP for Latin America” Association. Head of the Specialization Program in Negotiations and International Trade in Agro-industries, University of Buenos Aires (UBA) School of Agricultural Sciences. Researcher, UBA Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies on Industrial and Economic Law (CEIDIE). Professor, Master Program in Intellectual Property, FLACSO Argentina. Professor, Latin American Integration Institute, University of La Plata School of Legal and Social Sciences.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Kerr and Clark (2022).
- 2.
Blasetti (2022), p. 107.
- 3.
Zappalaglio et al. (2022).
- 4.
Raustiala and Munzer (2007).
- 5.
Kennedy (2021).
- 6.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 28 states the general principle that a treaty shall not be applied retroactively “unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established”. Absent a contrary intention, a treaty cannot apply to acts or facts which took place, or situations which ceased to exist, before the date of its entry into force.
- 7.
Pick (2023).
- 8.
GATT 1994 Arts. I and III.
- 9.
MERCOSUR State Parties: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
- 10.
The oppositions have confidential status under the national procedures.
- 11.
Blasetti (2022).
- 12.
WTO (2001), paras. 17–19.
- 13.
Calboli and Wee Loon (2017).
- 14.
Blasetti et al. (2022).
- 15.
The examples are taken from the oppositions filed in Argentina under Resolution 319/2017 of the Ministry of Agro-Industry.
- 16.
The production area of the DO Toro wines covers the southeast of the province of Zamora and the southwest of the province of Valladolid, in the far west of the region of Castilla y León.
- 17.
Art. 24.5 TRIPS.
- 18.
Article X.35.3 (d), IP Chapter, EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.
- 19.
For more information, see https://fecovita.com/en/home-en/
- 20.
Under Resolution 319/2017.
- 21.
It should be noted that it was not until the 1970s that the first steps were taken to create what would eventually become the designation of origin Toro, whose recognition was achieved in 1987.
- 22.
For more information, see https://toro.com.ar/#nuestrahistoria
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
For more information, see https://www.fecovita.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Informe_Sustentabilidad_2019.pdf
- 26.
For more information, see https://fecovita.com/en/our-wineries/
- 27.
Law 22,362 on Trademarks and Designations.
- 28.
Art. 24.5 TRIPS.
- 29.
For more information, see https://toro.com.ar/#toro
- 30.
Within MERCOSUR, well-known marks are protected under Article 9.5 of Decision 8/95. Protection is provided through the application of Art. 6bis of the Paris Convention.
- 31.
- 32.
Article X.35.3, IP Chapter, EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.
- 33.
Ibid. (d).
- 34.
Ibid. (e).
- 35.
See the European list of GIs on https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/09242a36-a438-40fd-a7af-fe32e36cbd0e/library/fd3f6c9f-1371-440f-b2ff-9357ea63bcc2/details
- 36.
Blasetti (2022).
- 37.
Art. 24.6 TRIPS.
- 38.
For more information, see https://www.oiv.int/public/medias/2273/oiv-liste-publication-2013-complete.pdf
- 39.
Under Resolution 319/2017.
- 40.
For more information, see https://www.agw.org.au/
- 41.
Article X.35.4, IP Chapter, EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.
- 42.
Ibid. fn. 11.
- 43.
See fn. 73 to the European list of GIs in Annex II, IP Chapter, EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.
- 44.
Art. 24.6 TRIPS.
- 45.
Art. X.35.6, IP Chapter, EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.
- 46.
- 47.
Under Resolution 319/2017.
- 48.
Law 24,425/1994.
- 49.
Sect. 236 Law 18,284.
- 50.
- 51.
Resolution C. 43/98.
- 52.
Sect. 8 Law 22,802/1983.
- 53.
García Sellart (2003), p. 61; Jardel and Gatti (2003), p. 28; Molina (2015), p. 64; Schiavone (2003), p. 29; Otamendi (2002), p. 86.
- 54.
National Court of Appeals for Federal Contentious Administrative Matters of September 19, 1957 as confirmed by National Supreme Court of Justice of November 14, 1960 (Judgments 248:385 et seq.). National Court of Appeals for Federal Civil and Commercial Matters of December 23, 1981, 0360.
- 55.
Art. X.35.6, IP Chapter, EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.
- 56.
Ibid. art. X.35.9.
- 57.
See European List of GIs in Annex II, IP Chapter, EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.
- 58.
Art. 23.3 TRIPS.
- 59.
Art. X.35.8, IP Chapter, EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
National Court of First Instance for Federal Contentious Administrative Matters No. 4 of February 24, 2011, 36619/2004.
- 63.
Supreme Court of Justice of December 29, 2015, 1442/2012(48-C).
- 64.
Under Resolution 319/2017.
- 65.
Coello and Gonzalez Botija (2003), p. 25.
- 66.
ECLAC (2021).
- 67.
- 68.
Art. X.35.8, IP Chapter, EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.
- 69.
Annex II Part A, IP Chapter, EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.
- 70.
Blasetti (2020) p. 1113.
References
Blasetti R (2020) Geographical indications: a major challenge for MERCOSUR. GRUR Int 69:1113–1122. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa124
Blasetti R (2022) Strengthening the EU system of geographical indications: impact on farmers and food producers around the world. GRUR Int 72:107–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac133
Blasetti R, Carls S, Batista PHD (2022) Distinctive signs for collective use in Latin America: development promotion by valuing origin and quality. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper 22–15. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4153286
Calboli I, Wee Loon N (2017) Geographical indications at the crossroads of trade, development and culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316711002
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (2021) La Rioja en el siglo XXI: desafíos y oportunidades para su transformación productiva, Documentos de Proyectos (LC/TS.2021/164; LC/BUE/TS.2021/5). ECLAC, Santiago. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/47561/1/S2100691_es.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2023
Kennedy M (2021) Un nuevo régimen para las indicaciones geográficas en el MERCOSUR. Revista de Derecho de la Propiedad Intelectual y la Transformación Digital 1:IJ-MCLXXVI-562. https://ijeditores.com/pop.php?option=articulo&Hash=f55fd290538a6145b8ad2c94dab55f76. Accessed 3 Feb 2023
Kerr WA, Clark LF (2022) Are geographical indications sustainable in the face of climate change? Queen Mary J Intellect Prop 12:226–241. https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2022.02.04
Pick B (2023) Intellectual property and development: geographical indications in practice. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003352105
Raustiala K, Munzer SR (2007) The global struggle over geographic indications. EJIL 18:337–365. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm016
Zappalaglio A (2023) Understanding the functioning of EU geographical indications. Policy brief. The South Centre. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4391671
Zappalaglio A, Carls S, Gocci A et al (2022) Study on the functioning of the EU GI system. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Papers. https://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/forschung/Study_on_the_Functioning_of_the_EU_GI_System.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2023
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blasetti, R.C. (2024). The Protection of Geographical Indications Through FTAs and the Collision with Prior User Rights. In: Thouvenin, F., Peukert, A., Jaeger, T., Geiger, C. (eds) Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68599-0_61
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68599-0_61
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-68598-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-68599-0
eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)