Monopolising Names? : The Protection of Geographical Indications in the European Community

Marketing of goods under geographical names has always been common. Aims to prevent abuse have given rise to separate forms of legal protection for geographical indications (GIs) both nationally and internationally. The European Community (EC) has also gradually enacted its own legal regime to protect geographical indications. The legal protection of GIs has traditionally been based on the idea that geographical origin endows a product exclusive qualities and characteristics. In today s world we are able to replicate almost any prod-uct anywhere, including its qualities and characteristics. One would think that this would preclude protec-tion from most geographical names, yet the number of geographical indications seems to be rising. GIs are no longer what they used to be. In the EC it is no longer required that a product is endowed exclusive characteristics by its geographical origin as long as consumers associate the product with a certain geo-graphical origin. This departure from the traditional protection of GIs is based on the premise that a geographical name extends beyond and exists apart from the product and therefore deserves protection itself. The thesis tries to clearly articulate the underlying reasons, justifications, principles and policies behind the protection of GIs in the EC and then scrutinise the scope and shape of the GI system in the light of its own justifications. The essential questions it attempts to aswer are (1) What is the basis and criteria for granting GI rights? (2) What is the scope of protection afforded to GIs? and (3) Are these both justified in the light of the functions and policies underlying granting and protecting of GIs? Despite the differences, the actual functions of GIs are in many ways identical to those of trade marks. Geographical indications have a limited role as source and quality indicators in allowing consumers to make informed and efficient choices in the market place. In the EC this role is undermined by allowing able room and discretion for uses that are arbitrary. Nevertheless, generic GIs are unable to play this role. The traditional basis for justifying legal protection seems implausible in most case. Qualities and charac-teristics are more likely to be related to transportable skill and manufacturing methods than the actual geographical location of production. Geographical indications are also incapable of protecting culture from market-induced changes. Protection against genericness, against any misuse, imitation and evocation as well as against exploiting the reputation of a GI seem to be there to protect the GI itself. Expanding or strengthening the already existing GI protection or using it to protect generic GIs cannot be justified with arguments on terroir or culture. The conclusion of the writer is that GIs themselves merit protection only in extremely rare cases and usually only the source and origin function of GIs should be protected. The approach should not be any different from one taken in trade mark law. GI protection should not be used as a means to mo-nopolise names. At the end of the day, the scope of GI protection is nevertheless a policy issue.

The Protection of Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources: The Role of Databases and Registers

"The Protection of Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources: The Role of Databases and Registers" ABSTRACT Yovana Reyes Tagle The misappropriation of TK has sparked a search for national and international laws to govern the use of indigenous peoples knowledge and protection against its commercial exploitation. There is a widespread perception that biopiracy or illegal access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (TK) continues despite national and regional efforts to address this concern. The purpose of this research is to address the question of how documentation of TK through databases and registers could protect TK, in light of indigenous peoples increasing demands to control their knowledge and benefit from its use. Throughout the international debate over the protection of TK, various options have been brought up and discussed. At its core, the discussion over the legal protection of TK comes down to these issues: 1) The doctrinal question: What is protection of TK? 2) The methodological question: How can protection of TK be achieved? 3) The legal question: What should be protected? And 4) The policy questions: Who has rights and how should they be implemented? What kind of rights should indigenous peoples have over their TK? What are the central concerns the TK databases want to solve? The acceptance of TK databases and registers may bring with it both opportunities and dangers. How can the rights of indigenous peoples over their documented knowledge be assured? Documentation of TK was envisaged as a means to protect TK, but there are concerns about how documented TK can be protected from misappropriation. The methodology used in this research seeks to contribute to the understanding of the protection of TK. The steps taken in this research attempt to describe and to explain a) what has been done to protect TK through databases and registers, b) how this protection is taking place, and c) why the establishment of TK databases can or cannot be useful for the protection of TK. The selected case studies (Peru and Venezuela) seek to illustrate the complexity and multidisciplinary nature of the establishment of TK databases, which entail not only legal but also political, socio-economic and cultural issues. The study offers some conclusions and recommendations that have emerged after reviewing the national experiences, international instruments, work of international organizations, and indigenous peoples perspectives. This thesis concludes that if TK is to be protected from disclosure and unauthorized use, confidential databases are required. Finally, the TK database strategy needs to be strengthened by the legal protection of the TK itself.