研控YKLD导波雷达物位计说明书[1]

Lisbon Agreement Register: Demanded GI registration by product (2000)
Wines and wine products Spirits Cheeses and milk derivatives Vegetables, legumes, fruits and cereals Mineral waters Beers Meat products Pastry and cookies Spices Honey Vegetables oils Odorant plants and extracts SUB-TOTAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS Tobacco and cigarettes Ceramic and ceramics products Clothes and textiles Crystal and glass products Jewelry Products for domestic use and furniture Handicraft Musical instruments Arms SUBTOTAL INDUSTRIAL AND ARTISAN PRODUCTS Marbles, stones and mineral products Kaolin and clay Salts SUB-TOTAL MINERAL PRODUCTS TOTAL

“Extension” of GI protection: economic considerations

The economic impact for producers of goods that would benefit from enhanced GI protection: new market opportunities? The adjustment costs for producers in third countries that produced goods protected so far by trademarks


Discussions on “extension” have intensified since the beginning of the Doha negotiations Differences between proponents and opponents remain very significant It is unclear whether “extended” GI protection would be part of the Doha final package The results of the Panel decisions may have some implications for on-going discussions


GIs are today an integral part of the WTO framework (TRIPS Agreement)
The WTO legal framework on GIs

Defining GIs for the first time Legal provisions in TRIPS:
Outline of the Presentation
Introduction “Extension” of GI protection Developing countries and the “extension” of GI protection The Decisions of the Panel on GI protection in the EU Summary and Conclusions
The Decisions of the GI Panel

More legal certainty: The EU regulation is going to be modified to make it fully compatible with WTO More legal clarity on the relationship between GIs and trademarks: under certain circumstances co-existence is permitted
Lisbon A greem ent R egisters byC ountries
Francia R ep. C heca Bulgaria Italia Argelia C uba H ungria Portugal Tunisia Israel M exico

The Decisions of the Panel
The European Union. Switzerland Countries in Eastern Europe non-EU members. Turkey, Iceland India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka Kenya, Nigeria, Egypt and other African countries Cuba and some Andean countries (Venezuela) Jamaica, Mauritius
538 72 56 26 16 11 7 4 4 4 2 2 742 33 10 7 4 4 2 2 1 1 64 17 4 4 25 831
64.7% 8.7% 6.7% 3.1% 1.9% 1.3% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 89.3% 4.0% 1.2% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 7.7% 2.0% 0.5% 0.5% 3.0% 100.0%

i.
ii.
Article 22 on standard level of protection Article 23 on enhanced level of protection for certain products iii. Article 24 on exceptions
Defining Geographical Indications
雷达物位计
Geographical Indications in the WTO and the Doha Negotiations
Worldwide Symposium on Geographical Indications
WIPO/Italian Foreign Affairs Ministry Parma, Italy, 27-29 June, 2005 Miguel Rodriguez Mendoza mrodriguez@ictsd.ch



“Extension” of GI protection: the legal issues
The differential level of protection and the balance of rights and obligations of WTO members The principle of territoriality: which country would determine the criteria for GI protection? Are country names to be protected? Would non-place names or non-geographical names be protected? The relationship between extended GI protection and existing trademarks


The Review of Article 24.2 of the TRIPS Agreement The implementation of the Panel decisions on EU protection of GIs

“Extension” of GI protection
“Extension” of GI protection:
The two camps on “extension”of GI protection
The countries that favour it:

The countries against it:
United States Canada Japan Mexico Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay (MERCOSUR) South Africa Philippines Australia and New Zealand Guatemala and other developing counivities on GIs

i. ii. iii.
In the Doha negotiations
A multilateral register for wines and spirits “Extension” of GI protection to other products Negotiations on agriculture: “clawn back” proposal



Introduction
GIs and the multilateral trading system

GIs were not a concern to the GATT Contracting Parties GIs became a negotiating issue during the Uruguay Round


Developing countries and “extension” of GI protection