GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
THE WAY FORWARD FOR GIs IN SRI LANKA
Various national and international treaties and agreements protect goods from false and deceptive indications of source. J.M. Swaminathan examines the situation in Sri Lanka.
indications that identify goods originating in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographic origin.
C
GIs may be regarded as offshoots of indications of source and appellations of origin, which were first recognised in the Paris Convention of 1883, but there has been no uniform approach by different countries in respect of the protection of GIs. Some countries have enacted specific sui generis registration to the protection of GIs. Others protect GIs under existing laws and still others afford protection by a combination of both.
For the protection of GIs, unfair competition regulations, consumer protection laws, laws protecting
hapter XXXIII of Sri Lanka’s Intellectual Property Law No. 36 of 2003 defines geographical indications
(GIs) as
to GIs by promoting a standard definition of GI and by prescribing certain minimum standards by which they should be legally protected by all WTO member states. Some of the more important international agreements relating to GI are:
1. Te Paris Convention 1883;
2. Te Madrid Agreement for the repression of false or deceptive indications of source on goods 1891;
3. Te General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1947;
4. Te Lisbon Agreement for the protection of appellations of origin and their international registration 1958; and
5. Te TRIPS Agreement 1995.
‘GI’ is therefore a sign used on a product to denote its origin, where a specific quality, characteristic or reputation of
the product is
essentially attributable to that origin. Bordeaux, for example, is a GI for wine originating from the Bordeaux region in the South of France, which traces its origin to the eighth century. Similarly, Ceylon Tea is a geographic place name.
An indication of source is generally used to denote the geographical place of origin of a product, eg, Made in Sri Lanka. Tese need not have any definite characteristic which derives from their place of origin. Article 10 of the Paris Convention provides for the prohibition, or seizure on importation, of all goods that bear a false indication of the source of
the goods or the identity of manufacturer or merchant.
trade names and marks, laws
preventing passing off and laws relating to false and misleading trade practices are also relevant.
International treaties and agreements relating to the protection of GIs began with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, under which protection was afforded to appellations of
origin. More recently, the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of IP Rights (TRIPS) Agreement has afforded protection
www.worldipreview.com the producer,
Appellations of origin are the actual names of geographic places of origin but they go further than indications of source in that they denote a genuine qualitative link between the products and the place of origin. Te Lisbon Agreement defines an appellation of origin as “a geographical denomination of a country,
region or
which serves to designate a product originating therein, the quality and characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment including natural and human factors”.
Article 10 of the Paris Convention mentions appellations of origin, but the term ‘indications of source’ covers appellations of origin as well, as they are considered to be indicators of the source of the goods.
Article 11 bis of the Paris Convention gives the basis of protection against misleading indications of source, including appellations of origin. It obliges members to provide protection against unfair competition and contains a non-exhaustive list of acts that are prohibited, but it does not expressly provide for any special remedies against infringement.
Te Madrid Agreement for the repression of false or deceptive indications of source of goods was adopted in 1891 and revised in Washington in 1911, Te Hague 1925, London 1934 and Lisbon 1958. It was supplemented by the additional Act of Stockholm in 1967 and had been signed by 34 member states by September 1, 2006.
Te Madrid Agreement was the first multilateral agreement to provide specific rules for the repression of false and deceptive indications of source. It did not add much to the protection given by the Paris Convention but it extended its protection to deceptive indications of source in addition to false indications. A deceptive indication of source could be a true name of a place the goods originate from but which nevertheless confuses the purchaser about the quality of the goods.
locality
In this connection, provisions of Section 161 (iii) and 161 (ii) may be compared. Te main focus of the Madrid Agreement is on enforcement. It complements the Lisbon Agreement, which focuses more on registration. Te Madrid Agreement provides strong remedies, including seizure and prohibition of importation and specifically prohibits the use of wine appellations as generic names. Te principal means of enforcement is through seizure and prohibition of importation. Te relevant customs authority needs to be empowered to control cross-border movements.
Te objective of the 1891 Madrid Agreement was the “repression of false or deceptive indications of
World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2014 73
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172