Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Soc'y 221
Tunisia L. Staten
Copyright © 2005 by the Patent and Trademark Office Society; Tunisia L. Staten
I. INTRODUCTION
The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement, commonly known as the TRIPS
Agreement, is designed to provide intellectual protection to members of the World Trade Organization
(“WTO”) worldwide. [FN1] Given the diversity that exists among WTO Members, it is not surprising
that the TRIPS Agreement represents a compromise between industrialized and developing nations
over the scope of protection afforded to intellectual property. [FN2]
The question of the proper standard of protection to be afforded to “geographical indications” has
been the subject of recent controversy. [FN3]Geographical indications are source indicators, which
indicate that a good originated in a specific place or region. [FN4] The TRIPS Agreement currently
provides a two-tiered system of protection for goods: a higher level of protection is afforded to
geographical indications that identify the origin of wine and spirits, than is provided for all other
goods. [FN5]
Critics of the existing geographical indications TRIPS rules argue that the rules should be amended
to extend protection, not just to wines and spirits, but to all goods. [FN6] The critics have noted that
the current regime is insufficient protection against the misuse of geographical
indications. [FN7] Proponents of the current TRIPS geographical indication scheme base their support
on the view that any changes that are made, ought to be made at the national, not the international
level. [FN8]
The Article 23 extension dispute is a classic example of an “Old School” versus “New School”
dispute. Extension advocates represent the Old School, which does not view geographical indications
as a form of intellectual property, or property at all for that matter. Conversely, extension opponents
represent the New School who views geographical indications as a form of intellectual property to be
owned by interested parties. [FN9] In meeting the TRIPS obligations, both extension advocates and
extension opponents have implemented systems of geographical indication protection that reflect their
respective philosophic view. [FN10]
An amendment to the existing TRIPS regime will not resolve the dispute among WTO members
regarding geographical indications because extension does not address the fundamental issue in the
dispute: the different philosophic perspectives of the scope of intellectual property. The extension of
Article 23 protection to all products would facilitate new disputes and criticisms of the rules governing
geographical indications under the TRIPS Agreement. This time, however, the complainants and
initiators would be the extension opponents, who have been adversely affected by the extension.
In order to quiet both the Old School extension advocates and New School extension opponents
and thereby end the frequently debated issue of geographical indications protection in the WTO, a
compromise must be made by one of the groups. The most obvious compromise is that extension
advocates could agree to maintain the status quo despite their dissatisfaction with the current regime,
or alternatively extension opponents could agree to extend Article 23 protection to all other products
despite the adverse affects and economic burdens that they will inevitably sustain. [FN11]
A more dramatic compromise would involve a unification of position regarding the proprietary
nature of geographical indications. Thus, the Old School would have to adopt the view that
geographical indications are property, or the New School would have to adopt the view that
geographical indications are not property. The compromise does not end here. The groups would then
have to agree on a uniform system of protection or at least a system that produces similar results.
Part II of this article defines geographical indications and explains why and how they are protected
under the TRIPS Agreement. Part III details the respective arguments of the Old School and the New
School regarding Article 23 extension. Part IV describes the various national laws implemented by
WTO Members to meet the TRIPS obligations. Part V discusses why extension will not resolve the
geographical indications debate in the WTO and proposes an alternative solution: the adoption of a
uniform system of protection. Part V further discusses why the United States' system of trademark
registration should serve as the uniform model for WTO Members. Part VI concludes that while
extension will not quash the continuous disputes in the WTO regarding geographical indications,
the adoption of an international model will.
Geographical indications, similar to trademarks, are source indicators: they point to a specific
place or region of production that determines the characteristics of the product that originates
therein. [FN12] Geographical indications, however, do not inform the consumer of the specific
producer of a product in the same way as trademarks. [FN13]
Article 22(1) of the TRIPS Agreement defines geographical indications as “indications, which
identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory,
where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to
its geographical origin.”[FN14] Examples of geographical indications include
“Vidalia” [FN15] onions, “Roquefort” [FN16] cheese, “Darjeeling” [FN17] tea,
“Swiss” [FN18] chocolate, “Florida” [FN19] oranges, and “Banshu Somen” [FN20] noodles.
Geographical indications, like trademarks, are a valuable marketing tool in the global
economy. [FN21] First, they not only identify goods as originating in a particular territory or region,
they also indicate quality by letting consumers know that the goods come from an area where a
given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to
their geographic origin.[FN22] Moreover, because geographical indications exist solely to promote
the goods of a particular region, they are business interests, and thus are intellectual property, eligible
for relief from acts of infringement and unfair competition. [FN23]
While the United States otherwise took a pro-protectionist, pro-property position in the TRIPS
negotiations, they staunchly opposed the inclusion ofgeographical indications protection. [FN24] As
a result, the inclusion ofgeographical indications in the TRIPS Agreement was quite
controversial. [FN25]The United States lacks the wealth of industries tied to geographical regions
and thus would not benefit from the protection of geographical indications to the same extent as
European countries. [FN26]
In contrast, the European Union (“EU”) insisted during the negotiations that TRIPS provide
protection for geographical indications, especially for wine, because of its substantial
interest. [FN27] After intense debate, the United States and EU reached a compromise and as a result
the TRIPS Agreement historically provides the highest level of
international geographical indications protection.[FN28]
Under Article 22(2) of the TRIPS Agreement, WTO Members are required to provide the legal
means for interested parties to prevent the use of ageographical indication that: (1) indicates or
suggests that a good originates in ageographical area other than the true place of origin in a manner
which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good; or (2) constitutes an act of
unfair competition. [FN29] Hence, Article 22 limits the protection of geographicalindications to
situations where the public may be misled as to the truegeographical origin of the product by the
use of a geographical indication, or where the use of a geographical indication results in unfair
competition. [FN30]This standard is referred to as the “misleading test.” [FN31]
In addition, TRIPS provides an “enhanced” minimum level of protection
forgeographical indications that identify wines and spirits. [FN32] Article 23 of the TRIPS
Agreement requires WTO Members to provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent the
use of geographical indications even if they do not imply that wines or spirits originate in a place
other than the true place of origin. [FN33]Simply stated, even if the public would not be deceived by
the use of a particulargeographical indication, a geographical indication may not be used if the
wines or spirits do not originate in the place indicated by the geographical indication.[FN34] It is
also impermissible to use terms such as, “kind,” “type,” or “style” in connection with products covered
by enhanced protection. [FN35]
The TRIPS Agreement provides some exceptions to the requirements set forth in Articles 22 and
23. [FN36] For example, TRIPS does not require that WTO Members extend protection to a
geographical indication if that geographical indication is the “generic” [FN37] name for goods in the
Member State. [FN38] “Swiss” cheese and “Danish” pastries are examples of generic geographical
indication in the United States. Additionally, WTO Members are not required to provide geographical
indication protection when a trademark already exists. [FN39]
The inclusion of geographical indications in the TRIPS Agreement has not been the cure-all for the
controversy concerning such intellectual property rights. [FN40]During the TRIPS negotiations, the
United States and EU failed to address pertinent issues such as, the proprietary nature of geographical
indications and a uniform system of protection. [FN41] Their failure to address such issues has led to
continuous controversy in the WTO.
The disparate levels of protection under the two-tiered system of the TRIPS Agreement has been
the subject of considerable debate in the WTO. [FN42] The European Union (joined by allies including
Bulgaria, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Mauritius,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey, and Venezuela) is seeking to expand
“enhanced” geographical protection beyond wines and spirits to include all products. [FN43] In WTO
Communications, these countries have sought to explain the rationale for why protection provided by
Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement, the only protection available for products other than wines and
spirits, is inadequate.[FN44] They also describe how the protection provided under Article 23 of the
TRIPS Agreement for wines and spirits, if extended to other products, would address the issue of the
inadequate protection of the geographical indications under the current regime. [FN45]
According to extension advocates, “the limited protection granted by Article 22 as compared to
Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement entails several deficiencies.”[FN46] First, “Article 22 enables free
riding on geographical indications.” [FN47] To qualify for Article 22 protection, the use of a
geographical indication must mislead the public as to the geographical origin of the product or must
constitute an act of unfair competition. [FN48] The misleading test in Article 22 “is tailored to suit
unfair competition or consumer protection regulation but not intellectual property
protection.” [FN49] Under the misleading test, a producer can use a geographical indication for his
product, even if it does not originate in the purported territory, so long as the product's true origin is
indicated on the label. [FN50] Consequently, Article 22 enables free riding because a producer can
profit from the use of a famous geographical indication while simultaneously arguing that it is not
misleading to the consumer. [FN51] For these reasons, extension advocates contend that extending
Article 23 protection, which does not require the “misleading test” or evidence of unfair competition,
will provide an adequate level of protection to geographical indications for all products. [FN52]
Second, extension advocates assert that because Article 22 does not prohibit the use of
geographical indications accompanied by expressions such as, “style,” “type,” “kind,” “imitation” or
the like, it puts geographical indications at risk to become generic terms. [FN53] For example, “Etivaz”
is a specially flavored cheese produced in a specific region in Switzerland. [FN54] “Labeling cheese not
originating in the area of Etivaz with expressions such as “Etivaz-like” should not be allowed.
Otherwise, there is a risk that Etivaz [will] become a generic term for all cheese tasting similar to
Etivaz.” [FN55]
Third, extension advocates also argue that “the misleading test of Article 22 leads to legal
uncertainty as to the enforcement of protection for an individual geographical indication at the
international level” because judges may reach different decisions on whether the public is misled or
not. [FN56] “Such legal uncertainty undermines and damages the good functioning of international
trade in goods having the added value of a geographical indication.” [FN57]
Fourth, extension advocates point out the heavy burden of proof put on the producers. [FN58] To
defend a geographical indication, “a plaintiff must prove to judicial or administrative authorities that
the public has been misled, or that there has been an act of unfair competition.” [FN59] In contrast,
producers of wine and spirits have no such burden. [FN60] Moreover, Article 23 provides a per se
prohibition on the use of geographical indications for wine and spirits not from the geographic
area. [FN61]
Lastly, proponents of extension contend that there is no justification for two levels of protection
for geographical indications. [FN62] “None of the other fields of intellectual property, [e.g., patents,
trademarks, and copyrights], differentiate the level of protection according to product
categories.” [FN63] Accordingly, enhanced Article 23 protection should be extended to all
products. [FN64]
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, Paraguay, and the United States
oppose the extension of Article 23 enhanced protection for wines and spirits to other
products. [FN65] They are not convinced that the existing TRIPS regime for geographical indications is
inadequate. [FN66] Opponents of extension contend that, extension advocates have neither
“sufficiently demonstrated how [the] existing TRIPS rules fail to provide sufficient protection for
geographical indications... [nor] provide[d] examples of cases where interested parties have sought to
enforce TRIPS-consistent Article 22 level protection, and have failed.” [FN67]
Additionally, opponents assert that, even if Article 22 protection is insufficient, the financial and
administrative burdens that would result from extension outweighs the benefit of more effective
protection of geographical indications for other products on an equal footing with wines and
spirits. [FN68] More significantly, opponents argue that extension of enhanced protection to all
products is not the most efficient means of providing better geographical indications. [FN69] Instead,
opponents contend that protection for geographical indications is best provided under national laws
because “it is not treaty language but actual national laws that provide protection or legal means in
relation to geographical indications.” [FN70]
A. APPELLATIONS OF ORIGINS
France, in 1824, was the first country to legislate the protection of geographical
indications. [FN92] It is the country with the most specific albeit complicated protection for
appellations of origin and indications of source. [FN93]
In France, the system of appellations of controlled origin, or appellations d'origine controlee
(AOCs) regulates the production methods of certain foods and beverages. [FN94] The French Code la
Consommation defines an AOC as “the designation of a country, region, or locality that serves to
indicate that a product originates from that place and owes its quality or characteristics to its
geographic surroundings.” [FN95] In other words, an AOC is a special kind of geographical indication,
used on products that have a specific quality that is exclusively or essentially due to the geographical
environment, including natural and human factors. [FN96] In the context of AOC, natural factors refer
to the cultural factors that make a product distinctive, while human factors recognize the value added
when farmers transform raw materials into well-known foods or beverages. [FN97]
The French AOC system is one of the more stringent systems of geographical indication
protection. [FN98] First, an AOC never falls into the public domain because it cannot become
generic. [FN99] Second, an AOC's geographic signal “may not be used for any similar product or for
any product or service as long as such a use is capable of altering or weakening the distinctiveness of
the appellation of origin.” [FN100] Hence, French law prohibits not only the use of “Chablis” to
designate wines produced outside of Chablis, but also the use of “Chablis” as the name of any other
product. [FN101] Third, the AOC system provides farmers with monopoly power over certain prized
foods and beverages.[FN102]
Under the French Code de la Consommation, farmers equipped with AOC rights enjoy “(1) the
privilege of producing and marketing an AOC-protected wine or cheese, (2) rights and claims against
others who misappropriate the informational value of an AOC, (3) the power to challenge an AOC not
granted in accordance with previously established geographic criteria, and (4) immunity against the
transformation of an AOC into a generic label resting in the public domain.”[FN103]
Although an AOC clothes farmers with substantial power, there is a major limitation in the
commercial context. “An AOC-protected farmer may not transfer or transport her production and
processing rights to a third party.” [FN104] This limitation is consistent with the fact that “the very
idea of appellation of origin having property value is completely foreign to Europeans, even in the field
of intellectual property law.” [FN105] For Europeans, an AOC is merely a device to inform
consumers. [FN106] The AOC is not a brand name jointly owned by a group of producers and it can
never be privately owned. [FN107] Hence, there is no property owner since an AOC belongs to no one,
and this is where AOC law substantially differs from the United States' system of geographical
indication protection. [FN108]
B. UNFAIR COMPETITION AND PASSING OFF
Some countries provide geographical indication protection under laws that are targeted at
preventing unlawful commercial acts from business competitors such as, unfair competition and
passing off. [FN109] Both unfair competition and passing off are common law torts. [FN110]
1. Unfair Competition
Prior to 1994, German law [FN111] protected geographical indications solely through unfair
competition law. [FN112] Under Article 3 of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG), “any person
who, in the course of business activity and for purposes of competition, makes deceptive statements,
in particular concerning... the origin of individual goods or commercial services... may be enjoined
from making such statements.” [FN113] To prevent use of a geographical indication under the Article
3 of the UWG, the plaintiff must prove two elements. [FN114]First, the plaintiff must establish that the
statement on the product is geographically misdescriptive, and second, that the statement is
deceptive or misleading. [FN115] A statement is misleading if consumers actually believe that a
product originates in the stated geographic locale and thereby base their decision to purchase the
product on that misguided belief. [FN116]
In addition to UWG protection, Germany also protects geographical indications under Articles 126-
129 of the German Trademark Act of 1994. [FN117] Pursuant to Sections 126 to 129 of the German
Trademarks Act of 1994, natural and legal persons having the right to use a given unregistered
geographical indication are entitled to request courts to prevent use of that geographical indication by
unauthorized parties and to accord damages for such use. [FN118] “Sections 126 to 129 are based on
principles developed by the courts in applying the law against unfair competition in order to prevent
unauthorized use of geographical indications, if such use would be misleading or would take unfair
advantage of the reputation of a geographical indication.” [FN119]
A small portion of the Paris Convention, an international treaty for the protection of industrial
property, deals with the protection of geographical indication. [FN120] Article 10bis of the Paris
Convention establishes a general international rule concerning protection against unfair
competition. [FN121] It requires all States that are party to the Paris Convention to provide effective
protection against unfair competition, which is defined as “any act of competition contrary to honest
practices in industrial or commercial matters.” [FN122] Article 10bis further specifies that Article 9 is
applicable in cases where there is “direct or indirect use of a false indication of the source of the goods
or the identity of the producer, manufacturer or merchant.” [FN123] Pursuant to Article 9, goods
bearing an “unlawful” indication of source are subject to seizure upon importation into Paris
Convention countries. [FN124]
Although at the national level protection against unfair competition has developed differently in
countries, there is at least one common objective: to provide those in trade with an effective remedy
against unlawful and dishonest business practices of their competitors. [FN125] To determine whether
a given commercial act is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, national
laws concerning unfair competition must be applied. [FN126] However, it is widely accepted by
countries that commercial activities that are misleading or are likely to mislead with respect to an
enterprise or the geographical origin of products offered by such enterprise constitute an act of unfair
competition.[FN127]
Generally, to challenge the use of a geographical indication on the grounds of unfair competition, a
plaintiff must demonstrate that the use of the geographical indication at issue is misleading, and that
damages or a likelihood of damages will ensue. [FN128] In addition, the plaintiff must also show that
geographical indication at issue is distinctive; that is, the public associates goods under that
geographical indication with a distinct geographical origin or certain qualities or reputation. [FN129]
2. Passing Off
New Zealand complies with the TRIPS obligations by protecting geographical indications under the
law of passing off. [FN130] Passing off occurs when a producer falsely represents his product as that
of another in an attempt to deceive potential buyers. [FN131] The passing off action provides the
plaintiff with a legal remedy if he loses customers because the defendant led them to believe that they
were buying the plaintiff's goods, rather than the defendant's goods. [FN132]
With respect to the geographical indications, a plaintiff's passing off action will prevail if he
establishes that: (1) he is the supplier of goods on which a geographical indication is used; (2)
goodwill or reputation is attached to those goods; (3) the defendant misrepresented to the public that
goods offered by him are the plaintiff's goods; and (4) the plaintiff has suffered damage as a result of
the defendant's misrepresentation. [FN133]
C. TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
1. Certification Mark
The United States protects geographical indications through a trademark system, generally known
as certification marks. [FN134] “Although the certification mark is named and defined in the Lanham
Act, a federal statute dealing primarily with trademarks, it is a distinct mark, which differs from a
trademark.” [FN135]Section 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1127, defines a certification mark
as:
any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof (1) used by a person other than
its owner, or (2) which its owner has a bona fide intention to permit a person other than the owner to
use in commerce and files an application to register on the principal register established by this
chapter, to certify regional or other origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality accuracy, or other
characteristics of such person's goods or services or that the work or labor on the goods or services
was performed by a union or other organization. [FN136]
In other words, a certification mark is “protected like a trademark but is still a distinct kind of
mark,” which indicates to consumers that the goods or services have met certain quality standards or
originate from a particular region or were produced. [FN137] The owner of the certification mark
certifies that the goods or services on which the certification mark is used have those
qualities. [FN138] As a basic rule, the owner of a certification mark does not have the right to use the
mark. [FN139] This principle is known as the “anti-use by owner rule.” [FN140]
The certifier is the party who owns the certification mark, not the authorized user or the agent
acting under the certifier's instruction.” [FN141] The owner of a certification mark may be a person,
nation, state, municipality, or any other public or private legal entity administering the use of the
mark. [FN142] Because a certification mark is used only to certify the goods of others, the producer of
the goods or performer of the services is prohibited from being the owner of a certification
mark. [FN143] Accordingly, a geographic term used to indicate regional origin cannot be owned by
any one producer or even by a group of individual producers. [FN144] However, an organization such
as a trade association, which does not have an economic interest in sales of the products may own a
mark used to certify the geographic origin of products of its members. [FN145]
There are three types of certification marks. [FN146] First, there are marks, which certify that
products originate in a specific geographic region. [FN147] These marks do not have to include the
geographic name of the region in the mark.[FN148] Second, some marks certify that products meet
certain standards concerning quality, materials, or mode of manufacture. [FN149] Third, there are
marks that certify that the producer has met certain standards or belongs to a certain
organization. [FN150] Although there are three types of certification marks, the same mark can be
used to certify more than one characteristic of the goods or services in more than one certification
category. [FN151] For example, the mark ROQUEFORT is used to indicate that cheese has been
manufactured from sheep's milk as well as that it is cured in the caves of the Community of
Roquefort, France in accordance with their long established methods and processes. [FN152]
The owner of a certification mark administers use of the mark. [FN153] The administrative duties
of a certification mark holder include authorizing use of the mark, guaranteeing the quality of the
product or service, and protecting the mark.[FN154] The certification mark owner must grant the right
to use the mark to those whose products or services are certified as meeting certain standards to
serve as regional source identifiers. [FN155] Additionally, the owner of the certification mark must
ensure that the goods or services on which the certification is used possess the certified
quality. [FN156] In order to carry out this certification function in a neutral and impartial manner, the
owner of the certification mark has to file, together with the application for the registration of the
certification mark, detailed regulations, which prescribe, inter alia, the characteristics certified by the
mark, the authorized users and details concerning the certification and control.[FN157] The anti-use
by owner rule also ensures the certification mark holder's objectivity in authorizing use of the
certification mark. [FN158] An owner's failure to comply with the rule invalidates the certification
mark. [FN159] Lastly, because the owner must initiate an action for infringement of a certification
mark, he is also responsible for protecting the mark. [FN160]
2. Collective Marks
Collective marks are another way that geographical indications are protected in the United
States. [FN161] Under the United States Trademark Act, a collective mark is:
a trademark or service mark (1) used by the members of a cooperative, an association, or other
collective group or organization, or (2) which suchcooperative, association, or other collective group or
organization has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal
register established by this chapter, and includes marks indicating membership in a union, an
association, or other organization. [FN162]
Essentially, collective marks are owned by a group or organization, e.g., a trade association or an
association of producers or manufacturers, and serve to indicate that the person who uses the
collective mark is a group member. [FN163]
There are two types of collective marks: collective trade (or service) marks and collective
membership marks. [FN164] There are collective trademarks and service marks, which are like regular
trademarks and service marks because they indicate commercial origin of goods or
service. [FN165] That is, the mark indicates that the source is a member of the group. [FN166] Florida
Orange Growers Mark of Purity is one example. [FN167] Ownership of the collective mark is not
vested in the producer or service provider, but in the group, which the producer or provider is a
member. [FN168] All group members use the mark and therefore the collective organization holds title
to the collectively used mark. [FN169] There are also collective membership marks, which do not
serve any origination function. [FN170]Instead, these marks simply indicate
membership. [FN171] The Good House Keeping Seal is one example of a collective membership
mark. [FN172]
Because the difference between certification marks and collective marks is one of form rather than
substance, they are difficult to distinguish. [FN173] The two marks, however, are
distinguishable. [FN174] As previously stated, collective marks are owned by a collective body rather
than an individual owner. [FN175]Also, unlike certification mark owners, collective mark owners are
not barred from using the mark themselves. [FN176]
Finally, the protection of collective marks is enforced under general trademark law. [FN177] And
therefore, the owner of the collective mark initiates an action for infringement. [FN178] For example,
the collective body would bring an action for infringement against a nonmember who has used the
mark. [FN179]
Another way to protect geographical indications in the United States is through common law
without registration. [FN180] In Institut National Des Appellations v. Brown-Forman
Corp., [FN181] the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) held that “COGNAC” is protected as a
common-law (unregistered) certification mark because purchasers in the United States primarily
understand the “Cognac” designation to refer to brandy originating in the Cognac region of France,
and not to brandy produced elsewhere. [FN182] The TTAB holding that “COGNAC” is a valid common-
law regional certification mark, rather than a generic term, was also based on the fact that opposers
control and limit the use of the designation, which meets certain standards of regional origin. [FN183]
Generic terms of any kind, including geographic names, are not protected under trademark
law. [FN184] Over time, a geographical name associated with a product may become generic if it is so
widely used that the public comes to understand it as the name for a category of all the products of
the same type, but not a source indicator. [FN185] Upon becoming generic, a geographical name can
no longer receive legal protection as a geographical indication. [FN186] Examples of commonly used
geographic indicators as generic terms are “Bermuda” Shorts, “Dijon” Mustard, “Belgian” Waffles, and
“Canadian” Bacon. [FN187] Although these terms are geographic indicators, they are not protected as
such because they are generic.
V. EXTENSION OF ARTICLE 23 PROTECTION IS NOT THE SOLUTION
The extension of Article 23 enhanced protection to all products will not end the debate in the WTO
regarding geographical indications protection. Extension will only shift the role of complainant from
extension advocates to extension proponents who have been adversely affected by extension. [FN188]
The national laws of the Old School and New School are significantly different and thereby produce
different results concerning important issues such as, generics and infringement. Therefore, the key to
resolving the ongoing geographicalindications debate in the WTO is a settlement between the Old
School and New School regarding the proprietary nature of geographical indications and the
adoption of an international model, which reflects that settlement. Because the Old School's
philosophical position that geographical indications are not intellectual property rights does not
withstand scrutiny, even according to their own logic, the New School's view is more persuasive. With
respect to the adoption of an international system of geographical indications protection, a review
of the United States system proves that trademark registration is the best model.
The Old School extension advocates' view that geographical indications are not
intellectual property rights does not survive scrutiny. [FN189] The Old School views trademarks as
intellectual property rights. Their view of geographicalindications, however, is irreconcilable
since geographical indications and trademarks are fundamentally similar. [FN190] Trademarks are
source indicators.[FN191] Geographical indications are source indicators. [FN192] Both
trademarks and geographical indications are quality indicators. [FN193] And like
trademarks,geographical indications are business interests. [FN194] Additionally, extension
opponents point out that, “the fact that Articles 22 — 24 of the TRIPS Agreement create an
inextricable link between trademarks and geographical indicationsbolsters the philosophic
perspective of geographical indications as a special form of trademark.” [FN195]
In light of the fact that trademarks and geographical indications are undeniably similar, the Old
School's view and treatment of geographicalindications is unsound. Therefore, the Old School
should be the compromising party on this issue. Extension advocates should agree to adopt a system
ofgeographical indication protection, which treats geographical indications as intellectual
property to be owned by individuals.
Of the various national laws providing geographical indications protection, the United States
system of trademark registration, which is often criticized as being far less protective in comparison to
other systems, is a good model of a system that is efficient, transparent, easy to use, and
fair. [FN196] There are various benefits of the United States system. [FN197]
By protecting geographical indications as certification marks and collective marks, not only does
the United States system meet the TRIPS obligation, but geographical indications are efficiently
protected under the existing trademark regime. [FN198] Because the geographical indication system
of protection is a part of the trademark system, the same governmental authority that processes the
applications for each also arbitrates the dispute settlement procedures for each.[FN199] Additionally,
the United States' use of the administrative trademark structures already in place eliminates the costly
and difficult measure of developing and implementing a body of law that specifically governs
geographical indications, such as the French system of appellations of controlled origin.
Another efficient feature of the United States system is that it is self-policing.[FN200] This system
places the onus on the owner of the geographical indication to police and enforce the mark since the
owner is the one that benefits from owning the geographical indication. [FN201] The owner of a
certification mark or collective mark acquires the benefit of controlling, regulating, and licensing use of
the mark. [FN202] As a result, the United States system sets off the benefit sustained by the owner
by placing the burden of enforcement on his shoulders. In doing so, no additional enforcement
resources are necessary. [FN203]
Under the United States system, the right to own geographical indications is not unjustly
limited to the government. Rather, the United States allows interested private parties to
own geographical indications, so long as the requirements for a certification or collective mark are
met.
This approach is fair for three reasons. First, because interested parties, who own
the geographical indications create, maintain, assert, defend, and
challengegeographical indications rights, they do not have to rely or wait on the government for
such legal action. [FN204] Second, since the United States government does not
own geographical indications and is not responsible for enforcing the mark, taxpayers are not
burdened with the costs of enforcinggeographical indications rights. [FN205] Instead, the private
owner bears the burden of such costs.
Third, by allowing private parties to own geographical indications, the discovery
of geographical indicators is encouraged, an act which stimulates commerce as well as the
economy of both the originating region and country. As previously stated, a certification mark may
only be used by parties other than the owner of the mark, making a license agreement “essential to
the function of a certification mark.” [FN206] As in the case of a patent owner, the owner of a
geographical indication protected as a certification mark sustains financial gain from his exclusive right
to license the mark. Accordingly, individuals are motivated to discover and develop new geographical
indicating goods under the United States system.
Such motivation is thwarted in a country such as France, where the government owns the
geographical indication after it has been discovered. [FN207] Under the French system, the discoverer
loses all rights to the mark with the exception of using the mark on his goods. [FN208] Once
competitors enter the developer's market, the financial benefits realized by the developer's ability to
license the mark substantially outweighs the financial benefits realized through his or her mere use of
the mark. Thus, the right to own a geographical mark is of greater value than the right to use the
mark.
The United States system also offers three forms of geographical indication protection, including
certification marks, collective marks and common law protection. [FN209] Where the party seeking to
protect a geographical indication is not a producer of the good, he can apply for a certification
mark. [FN210]Alternatively, if the party seeking geographical indication protection is a producer who
wants to continue producing the good, he can form a group of producers in order to apply for a
collective mark. [FN211] Unlike the owner of a certification mark, the owner of a collective mark is a
collective body, who is not barred from using the mark. [FN212] In the event that interested parties
fail to apply for either a certification mark or a collective mark, the mark may be protected under
United States common law so long as the mark is not generic and is one which consumers primarily
understand to originate in the purported place. [FN213] For all of these reasons, the United States
system of geographical indications protection is ideal for an international model.
VI. CONCLUSION
Extending Article 23 enhanced protection for wines and spirits to all products will not resolve the
dispute in the WTO regarding geographical indications protection. To resolve the dispute, WTO
Members, the Old School and New School, must reach an agreement on the proprietary nature of
geographical indications and then adopt a uniform system reflecting that agreement. Undoubtedly,
geographical indications are fundamentally similar to trademarks. And for this reason, geographical
indications should be protected under Members' trademark registration systems as intellectual
property rights.
[FN1]. Stacy D. Goldberg, Comment, Who Will Raise the White Flag? The Battle Between the United
States and the European Union Over the Protection of Geographical Indications, 222 U. Pa. J. Int'l
Econ. L. 107, 110 (2001).
[FN2]. Andrew P. Vance, Memorial Writing Competition Winners Can't Get There From Here: How
NAFTA and GATT Have Reduced Protection for Geographical Trademarks, 26 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 1097,
1115 (2001).
[FN3]. See WTO Secretariat, Communications from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile Guatemala,
New Zealand, Paraguay, and the United States, IP/C/W/289 (June 29,2001)
[hereinafter Communications from Argentina]; WTO Secretariat,Communications from Australia,
IP/C/W/211 (Oct. 19, 2000) [hereinafterCommunications from Australia]; WTO Secretariat, Proposals
from Bulgaria, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Liechtenstein,
Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey and Venezuela, IP/C/W/ 247/
Rev. 1 (March 29, 2001)[hereinafter Proposal from Bulgaria].
[FN4]. See Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, art.
22(1). 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1125 [hereinafter TRIPS Agreement].
[FN5]. Id. at art. 22-24. See also Steven A. Bowers, Location, Location, Location: The Case Against
Extending Geographical Indication Protection Under the TRIPS Agreement, 31 AIPLA Q.J. 129, 144
(2003) (noting that, “although there is one identical definition for all geographical indications, Part II,
Section 3 [of the TRIPS Agreement], provides two different levels of protection of geographical
indications”).
[FN6]. See WTO Secretariat, Proposals from Bulgaria, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Iceland, India,
Jamaica, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey
and Venezuela, IP/C/W/ 247/ Rev. 1 (March 29, 2001)[hereinafter Proposal from Bulgaria].
[FN7]. Id.
[FN8]. WTO Secretariat, Communications from Australia, IP/C/W/211 at 2 (Oct. 19, 2000)
[hereinafter Communications from Australia].
[FN11]. See Steven A. Bowers, Location, Location, Location: The Case Against Extending Geographical
Indication Protection Under the TRIPS Agreement, 31 AIPLA Q.J. 129, 155.
[FN12]. Leigh Ann Lindquist, Champagne or Champagne? An Examination of United States Failure to
Comply with Geographical Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, 27 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 309, 311-312
(1999).
[FN13]. Id.
[FN22]. Id.
[FN23]. Id.
[FN24]. Christine Haight Farley, Conflicts Between United States Law and International Treaties
Concerning Geographical Indications, 22 Whittier L. Rev. 73, 75 (2000). See also,
Goldberg, supra note 1.
[FN26]. Christine Haight Farley, Conflicts Between United States Law and International Treaties
Concerning Geographical Indications, 22 Whittier L. Rev. 73, 74 (2000).
[FN28]. Id.
[FN33]. Id.
[FN34]. Id.
[FN37]. A generic term is one that describes something generally without designating the thing's
source or creator, such as the word “tea” or “shoe.” Generic terms cannot be protected as trademarks.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 694 (7th ed. 1999).
[FN39]. Id.
[FN40]. See WTO Secretariat, Communications from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile Guatemala,
New Zealand, Paraguay, and the United States, IP/C/W/289 (June 29, 2001)
[hereinafter Communications from Argentina]; WTO Secretariat,Communications from Australia,
IP/C/W/211 (Oct. 19, 2000) [hereinafterCommunications from Australia]; WTO Secretariat, Proposals
from Bulgaria, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Liechtenstein,
Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey and Venezuela, IP/C/W/ 247/
Rev. 1 (March 29, 2001)[hereinafter Proposal from Bulgaria].
[FN42]. See WTO Secretariat, Communications from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile Guatemala,
New Zealand, Paraguay, and the United States, IP/C/W/289 (June 29,2001)
[hereinafter Communications from Argentina]; WTO Secretariat,Communications from Australia,
IP/C/W/211 (Oct. 19, 2000) [hereinafterCommunications from Australia]; WTO Secretariat, Proposals
from Bulgaria, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Liechtenstein,
Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey and Venezuela, IP/C/W/ 247/
Rev. 1 (March 29, 2001)[hereinafter Proposal from Bulgaria].
[FN43]. Proposals from Bulgaria, supra note 6; Bowers, supra note 11, at 148.
[FN46]. Id. at 3.
[FN47]. Id.
[FN48]. Id.
[FN49]. Id.
[FN50]. Id. at 4.
[FN51]. Id.
[FN52]. Id.
[FN53]. Id.
[FN54]. Id.
[FN55]. Id.
[FN56]. Id.
[FN57]. Id.
[FN59]. Id.
[FN60]. Id.
[FN61]. Id.
[FN62]. Id. at 5
[FN63]. Id.
[FN64]. Id.
[FN65]. See WTO Secretariat, Communications from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Guatemala,
New Zealand, Paraguay, and the United States, IP/C/W/289 (June 29, 2001)
[hereinafter Communications from Argentina]; WTO Secretariat,Communications from Australia,
IP/C/W/211 (Oct. 19, 2000) [hereinafterCommunications from Australia].
[FN66]. See WTO Secretariat, Communications from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile Guatemala,
New Zealand, Paraguay, and the United States, IP/C/W/289 at 2 (June 29,2001)
[hereinafter Communications from Argentina].
[FN70]. Id.
[FN71]. During the summer of 2003, I worked as a legal intern with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO), Office of International Relations. As an intern, I received several
unpublished documents and ideas from attorneys within the office. A special thanks to each of you.
For purposes of this Comment, these documents are referred to as “USPTO unpublished documents.”
[FN72]. On March 15, 2002. EU Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler announced a proposal for
amending Europe's existing regulations. See Labelling - Food Quality: Commission Proposes Better
Protection for Geographical Names at http://www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/news/eu-02027.htm (March 15,
2002).
[FN74]. Id.
[FN75]. Id.
[FN76]. Id.
[FN77]. Id.
[FN78]. Id.
[FN79]. Id.
[FN80]. Id.
[FN81]. Id.
[FN82]. Id.
[FN83]. Id.
[FN84]. Id.
[FN86]. Milo G. Coerper, Certification Marks as a Means of Protecting Wine Appellations in the United
States, 15 NO. 4 GP Solo & Small Firm Law 42, 43 (1998).
[FN89]. Albrecht Conrad, The Protection of Geographical Indications in the TRIPS Agreement, 86
Trademark Rep. 11, 14 (1996).
[FN90]. Id.
[FN93]. Id.
[FN94]. Jim Chen, A Sober Second Look at Appellations of Origin: How the United States Will Crash
France's Wine and Cheese Party, 5 Minn. Global Trade 29 (1996).
[FN96]. Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International
Registration, Oct. 31, 1958, art.2 (1), as last revised Jan. 1, 1994, reprinted in 3 Stephen P.
Ladas, Patents, Trademarks and Related Rights: National and International Protection 1954 (1975)
[hereinafter Lisbon Agreement], available at http://clea.wipo.int/lpbin/lpext.dll?f=file[browse-j.htm
(last visited Feb. 15, 2001).
[FN99]. Id. See also Louis Lorvellec, You've Got to Fight for Your Right to Party: a Response to
Professor Jim Chen, 5 Minn. J. Global Trade 65, 69 (1996).
[FN101]. Id. See also Judgment of Dec. 15, 1993 (SA Yves Saint-Laurent Parfums v. Institut National
des Appellations d'Origine), C'our d'appeal de Paris, 1994 D.S. Jur. 145 (Fr.); Caroline Lambre, Le
champagne ou le parfum de la renommee, 27 Recueil Dalloz Sirey 213 (1994).
[FN104]. See Louis Lorvellec, You've Got to Fight for Your Right to Party: a Response to Professor Jim
Chen, 5 Minn. J. Global Trade 65, 69 (1996).
[FN108]. Id. As an example, Lorvellec states, “If I make wine in a region that has an AOC, I am
obviously not forced to comply with the list of AOC production requirements. I will thus sell my wine
under the name “Chen-Lorvellec Wine,” with just my address. If I sell my vineyard to a neighbor, who
decides to respect the AOC production requirements, she can use the AOC. I cannot of course transfer
to her a right, which I do not possess. If this neighbor then buys land outside the AOC region, she will
be unable to transfer any right to label the wines that she produces in that region with the AOC. The
AOC would thus be a type of “property” that is non-transferable, non-transportable, and without
designated title-holders. The AOC is not a brand name that a group of wine-makers own jointly.” Id.
[FN111]. Like France, Germany is also a member of the European Union (EU), which supports
extension.
[FN113]. Ralph, Beier, German Act Against Unfair Competition, Oct. 25,
1994, athttp://www.ipfirm.de/uwg_e.pdf.
[FN115]. Id.
[FN116]. Id. In determining whether a statement is misleading, courts sometimes conduct surveys.
Ordinarily, a quota of ten to fifteen percent of misled consumers is sufficient to bring an action under
Article 3 UWG. Id. at 16.
[FN118]. Id.
[FN119]. Id.
[FN120]. Burkhart Goebel, Geographical Indications and Trademarks - - The Road from Doha, 93
TMARKR 964, 965 (2003). See also Conrad, supra note 89, at 24.
[FN121]. See Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Mar. 20, 1883, art. 10bis, 21
U.S.T. 1583, 1647-1648, 828 U.N.T.S. 305, 337. [hereinafter Paris Convention].
[FN123]. Id. See Conrad, supra note 89, at 24 (stating, “Indications of Source and Appellations of
Origin are included among the objects of [protection of the Paris Convention], Article 1 ... Thus,
nationals of member countries enjoy “National Treatment,” Article 2 ... Article 10bis (3) of the [Paris]
Convention, regarding unfair competition, prohibits indications as to the “characteristics” of the goods,
if they are liable to mislead the public”).
[FN126]. Id.
[FN127]. Id.
[FN128]. Id.
[FN129]. Id.
[FN133]. Id. See also Protection for Geographical Indications in New Zealand, supra note 130.
Tunisia L. Staten
Hak Cipta © 2005 oleh Paten dan Trademark Office Masyarakat; Tunisia L. Staten
I. PENDAHULUAN
Trade-Related Aspek Perjanjian Kekayaan Intelektual, umumnya dikenal sebagai Perjanjian TRIPS, dirancang untuk
memberikan perlindungan intelektual kepada para anggota Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia ("WTO") di seluruh
dunia. [FN1] Mengingat keragaman yang ada di antara anggota WTO, maka tidak mengherankan bahwa Perjanjian
TRIPS merupakan kompromi antara negara industri dan berkembang selama lingkup perlindungan yang diberikan ke
properti intelektual. [FN2]
Pertanyaan dari standar perlindungan yang tepat yang harus diberikan kepada "indikasi geografis" telah menjadi
subjek kontroversi baru-baru ini. [FN3] Indikasi geografis adalah sumber indikator, yang menunjukkan bahwa baik
berasal di tempat tertentu atau wilayah. [FN4] Perjanjian TRIPs saat ini menyediakan sistem dua-berjenjang
perlindungan untuk barang-barang: tingkat yang lebih tinggi perlindungan diberikan untuk indikasi geografis yang
mengidentifikasi asal anggur dan roh, daripada yang disediakan untuk semua barang-barang lain.[FN5]
Kritik dari indikasi geografis yang sudah ada aturan TRIPS berpendapat bahwa aturan harus diubah untuk
memperluas perlindungan, tidak hanya untuk anggur dan roh, tetapi untuk semua barang. [FN6] Para kritikus telah
mencatat bahwa rezim saat ini adalah perlindungan memadai terhadap penyalahgunaan indikasi geografis. [FN7]
Pendukung basis geografis saat ini indikasi TRIPS skema dukungan mereka pada pandangan bahwa perubahan
apapun yang dibuat, harus dilakukan di tingkat nasional, bukan internasional. [FN8]
Pasal 23 sengketa ekstensi adalah contoh klasik dari "Old School" versus "Sekolah Baru" sengketa. Ekstensi
pendukung mewakili Old School, yang tidak melihat indikasi geografis sebagai bentuk kekayaan intelektual, atau
properti sama sekali untuk hal ini. Sebaliknya, lawan ekstensi mewakili Sekolah Baru yang dilihat indikasi geografis
sebagai bentuk kekayaan intelektual yang dimiliki oleh pihak yang berkepentingan. [FN9] Dalam memenuhi
kewajiban TRIPs, pendukung dan penentang baik ekstensi ekstensi telah menerapkan sistem perlindungan indikasi
geografis yang mencerminkan pandangan filosofis masing mereka. [FN10]
Sebuah perubahan rezim TRIPs yang ada tidak akan menyelesaikan perselisihan antara anggota WTO mengenai
indikasi geografis karena ekstensi tidak mengatasi masalah mendasar dalam sengketa: perspektif filosofis yang
berbeda dari ruang lingkup kekayaan intelektual. Perpanjangan Pasal 23 perlindungan untuk semua produk akan
memfasilitasi sengketa baru dan kritik dari aturan yang mengatur indikasi geografis di bawah Perjanjian TRIPS. Kali
ini, bagaimanapun, pengadu dan inisiator akan lawan ekstensi, yang telah terpengaruh oleh ekstensi.
Dalam rangka untuk menenangkan kedua ekstensi pendukung dan penentang Old School New School ekstensi dan
dengan demikian mengakhiri masalah yang sering diperdebatkan perlindungan indikasi geografis di WTO, kompromi
harus dilakukan oleh salah satu kelompok. Kompromi yang paling jelas adalah bahwa pendukung ekstensi bisa
setuju untuk mempertahankan status quo, meskipun ketidakpuasan mereka dengan rezim saat ini, atau alternatifnya
lawan ekstensi bisa setuju untuk memperpanjang Pasal 23 perlindungan untuk semua produk lain meskipun
merugikan mempengaruhi dan beban ekonomi yang mereka pasti akan mempertahankan . [FN11]
Sebuah kompromi lebih dramatis akan melibatkan penyatuan posisi tentang sifat kepemilikan indikasi
geografis. Dengan demikian, Old School harus mengadopsi pandangan bahwa indikasi geografis adalah milik, atau
Sekolah Baru harus mengadopsi pandangan bahwa indikasi geografis bukanlah milik. Kompromi tidak berakhir di
sini. Kelompok-kelompok kemudian akan harus setuju pada sistem yang seragam perlindungan atau setidaknya
sistem yang menghasilkan hasil yang sama.
Bagian II dari artikel ini mendefinisikan indikasi geografis dan menjelaskan mengapa dan bagaimana mereka
dilindungi di bawah Perjanjian TRIPS. Bagian III rincian argumen masing-masing dari Old School dan New School
tentang Pasal 23 ekstensi. Bagian IV menggambarkan berbagai hukum nasional dilaksanakan oleh Anggota WTO
untuk memenuhi kewajiban TRIPS. Bagian V membahas mengapa ekstensi tidak akan menyelesaikan perdebatan
indikasi geografis dalam WTO dan mengusulkan solusi alternatif: adopsi dari sistem yang seragam
perlindungan. Bagian V membahas lebih lanjut mengapa sistem Amerika Serikat 'pendaftaran merek dagang harus
menjadi model seragam untuk Anggota WTO. Bagian VI menyimpulkan bahwa perpanjangan sementara tidak akan
membatalkan perselisihan terus-menerus dalam WTO mengenai indikasi geografis, penerapan model internasional
akan.
Sebagaimana ditunjukkan oleh ekstensi perdebatan saat ini mengenai Pasal 23 perlindungan ditingkatkan,
masuknya indikasi geografis dalam Perjanjian TRIPS tidak mengakhiri kontroversi mengenai hak kekayaan
intelektual tersebut. [FN85] Sistem perlindungan yang digunakan oleh negara-negara dalam rangka memenuhi
kewajiban TRIPS tentang indikasi geografis sangat bervariasi. [FN86] Ini adalah perbedaan dalam hukum nasional,
yang telah menghasilkan apa yang pendukung ekstensi anggap sebagai "perlindungan indikasi geografis tidak
cukup," bukan tingkat yang berbeda dari perlindungan di bawah Perjanjian TRIPS. [FN87] Jika perlindungan indikasi
geografis ditingkatkan diperlukan, pertimbangan tingkat perlindungan yang tersedia di bawah hukum nasional adalah
dalam rangka. [FN88]
Sebelum Perjanjian TRIPS, indikasi geografis dilindungi di tingkat nasional dan daerah di bawah berbagai teori
hukum dan prinsip-prinsip [FN89]. Teori-teori hukum termasuk appellations asal, hukum merek dagang, dan
persaingan yang tidak adil atau lulus off hukum. [FN90] Hari ini, berbagai prinsip-prinsip hukum terus digunakan oleh
negara-negara dalam rangka untuk memenuhi kewajiban TRIPS mengenai perlindungan indikasi geografis. [FN91]
Karena perbedaan fungsional mereka, prinsip-prinsip hukum menghasilkan hasil yang berbeda untuk perlindungan
dan penegakan hak kekayaan indikasi geografis.
2. Melewati Off
Selandia Baru sesuai dengan kewajiban TRIPS dengan melindungi indikasi geografis di bawah hukum lulus
off. [FN130] Passing off terjadi ketika produser palsu mewakili produknya seperti yang lain dalam upaya untuk
menipu pembeli potensial.[FN131] Para lulus off tindakan memberikan penggugat dengan upaya hukum jika ia
kehilangan pelanggan karena terdakwa membawa mereka untuk percaya bahwa mereka membeli barang
penggugat, bukan barang terdakwa. [FN132]
Sehubungan dengan indikasi geografis, penggugat yang lulus off tindakan akan berlaku jika dia menetapkan bahwa:
(1) ia adalah pemasok barang yang suatu indikasi geografis yang digunakan, (2) goodwill atau reputasi yang melekat
pada barang-barang; (3 ) terdakwa disalahpahami kepada publik bahwa barang yang ditawarkan oleh dia adalah
barang penggugat, dan (4) penggugat telah mengalami kerusakan sebagai akibat dari keliru terdakwa. [FN133]
C. PENDAFTARAN MEREK
1. Sertifikasi Markus
Amerika Serikat melindungi indikasi geografis melalui sistem merek dagang, umumnya dikenal sebagai tanda
sertifikasi.[FN134] "Meskipun tanda sertifikasi diberi nama dan didefinisikan dalam Lanham Act, sebuah undang-
undang federal berurusan terutama dengan merek dagang, itu adalah tanda yang berbeda, yang berbeda dari merek
dagang." [FN135] Pasal 45 dari Undang-Undang Merek, 15 USC § 1127, mendefinisikan tanda sertifikasi sebagai:
setiap kata, nama, simbol, atau perangkat, atau kombinasi daripadanya (1) digunakan oleh orang lain selain
pemiliknya, atau (2) yang pemiliknya memiliki niat bonafide untuk mengizinkan orang lain selain pemiliknya untuk
digunakan dalam perdagangan dan file aplikasi untuk mendaftar pokok register didirikan oleh bab ini, untuk
menyatakan asal regional atau lainnya, bahan, cara pembuatan, akurasi kualitas, atau karakteristik lain dari barang
orang tersebut atau layanan atau bahwa pekerjaan atau tenaga kerja pada barang atau layanan dilakukan oleh
serikat buruh atau organisasi lainnya. [FN136]
Dengan kata lain, sebuah tanda sertifikasi adalah "dilindungi seperti merek dagang, tetapi masih semacam tanda
yang berbeda," yang menunjukkan kepada konsumen bahwa barang atau jasa telah memenuhi standar kualitas
tertentu atau berasal dari daerah tertentu atau diproduksi. [FN137] Para pemilik merek sertifikasi menyatakan bahwa
barang atau jasa di mana tanda sertifikasi digunakan memiliki kualitas. [FN138] Sebagai aturan dasar, pemilik
sebuah tanda sertifikasi tidak memiliki hak untuk menggunakan merek tersebut. [FN139] Prinsip ini dikenal sebagai
"menggunakan anti-oleh aturan pemilik." [FN140]
Sertifikasi adalah pihak yang memiliki tanda sertifikasi, bukan pengguna resmi atau agen bertindak di bawah instruksi
sertifikasi itu. "[FN141] Pemilik tanda sertifikasi dapat menjadi orang, bangsa, negara, kota, atau publik lainnya
atau badan hukum swasta mengelola penggunaan tanda. [FN142] Karena tanda sertifikasi hanya digunakan untuk
mengesahkan barang orang lain, produsen barang atau pemain dari layanan dilarang menjadi pemilik tanda
sertifikasi. [FN143] Dengan demikian, sebuah istilah geografis yang digunakan untuk menunjukkan daerah asal tidak
dapat dimiliki oleh produser salah satu atau bahkan oleh sekelompok produsen individu. [FN144] Namun, sebuah
organisasi seperti asosiasi perdagangan, yang tidak memiliki kepentingan ekonomi dalam penjualan produk mungkin
memiliki tanda yang digunakan untuk menyatakan asal geografis produk dari anggotanya. [FN145]
Ada tiga jenis tanda sertifikasi. [FN146] Pertama, ada tanda, yang menyatakan bahwa produk berasal di wilayah
geografis tertentu. [FN147] Tanda-tanda ini tidak perlu menyertakan nama geografis daerah dalam menandai.
[FN148] Kedua, beberapa tanda menyatakan bahwa produk memenuhi standar tertentu mengenai kualitas, bahan,
atau mode pembuatan. [FN149] Ketiga, ada tanda yang menyatakan bahwa produsen telah memenuhi standar
tertentu atau milik organisasi tertentu. [FN150] Meskipun ada tiga jenis tanda sertifikasi, tanda yang sama dapat
digunakan untuk menyatakan lebih dari satu karakteristik dari barang atau jasa di lebih dari satu kategori
sertifikasi. [FN151] Sebagai contoh, ROQUEFORT tanda digunakan untuk menunjukkan keju yang telah diproduksi
dari susu domba serta bahwa disembuhkan di gua-gua dari Komunitas Roquefort, Prancis sesuai dengan metode
panjang mapan dan proses.[FN152]
Pemilik tanda sertifikasi mengelola penggunaan merek tersebut.[FN153] Tugas administrasi pemegang tanda
sertifikasi termasuk otorisasi penggunaan merek, menjamin kualitas produk atau layanan, dan melindungi menandai
[FN154] Pemilik tanda sertifikasi harus memberikan hak untuk menggunakan merek untuk mereka yang. produk atau
jasa yang disertifikasi sebagai memenuhi standar tertentu untuk melayani sebagai pengidentifikasi sumber
daerah. [FN155] Selain itu, pemilik tanda sertifikasi harus memastikan bahwa barang atau jasa yang digunakan
sertifikasi memiliki kualitas bersertifikat. [FN156] Dalam rangka melaksanakan fungsi sertifikasi dengan cara yang
netral dan tidak memihak, pemilik tanda sertifikasi untuk file, bersama-sama dengan aplikasi untuk pendaftaran
merek sertifikasi, peraturan rinci, yang meresepkan, inter alia,karakteristik disertifikasi oleh tanda, pengguna resmi
dan rincian tentang sertifikasi dan kontrol [FN157]. Penggunaan anti dengan aturan pemilik juga menjamin
objektivitas tanda sertifikasi pemegang dalam mengijinkan penggunaan tanda sertifikasi.[FN158] Seorang pemilik
kegagalan untuk mematuhi aturan membatalkan tanda sertifikasi. [FN159] Terakhir, karena pemiliknya harus
memulai tindakan atas pelanggaran sebuah tanda sertifikasi, ia juga bertanggung jawab untuk melindungi
tanda. [FN160]
2. Merek Kolektif
Merek kolektif adalah cara lain yang indikasi geografis dilindungi di Amerika Serikat. [FN161] Berdasarkan Undang-
Undang Merek Dagang Amerika Serikat, sebuah merek kolektif adalah:
merek dagang atau merek jasa (1) digunakan oleh para anggota koperasi, asosiasi, atau kelompok kolektif lain atau
organisasi, atau (2) yang suchcooperative, asosiasi, atau kelompok kolektif lainnya atau organisasi memiliki niat
bonafide untuk digunakan dalam perdagangan dan berlaku untuk mendaftar pokok register didirikan oleh bab ini, dan
termasuk tanda yang menunjukkan keanggotaan dalam serikat pekerja, asosiasi, atau organisasi lain. [FN162]
Pada dasarnya, merek kolektif dimiliki oleh sebuah kelompok atau organisasi, misalnya, sebuah asosiasi
perdagangan atau asosiasi produsen atau produsen, dan melayani untuk menunjukkan bahwa orang yang
menggunakan merek kolektif adalah anggota kelompok. [FN163]
Ada dua jenis merek kolektif: perdagangan kolektif (atau layanan) menandai dan tanda keanggotaan kolektif. [FN164]
Ada merek dagang kolektif dan merek layanan, yang seperti biasa merek dagang dan merek jasa karena mereka
menunjukkan asal komersial barang atau jasa. [FN165] Artinya, menandai menunjukkan bahwa sumber adalah
anggota kelompok. [FN166] Petani Jeruk Florida Mark Kemurnian adalah satu contoh.[FN167] Kepemilikan kolektif
tanda tidak diberikan pada produsen atau penyedia layanan, tapi dalam kelompok, yang produsen atau penyedia
menjadi anggota. [FN168] Semua anggota kelompok menggunakan merek dan oleh karena itu organisasi kolektif
memegang gelar dengan tanda digunakan secara kolektif. [FN169] Ada juga tanda keanggotaan kolektif, yang tidak
melayani fungsi originasi. [FN170] Sebaliknya, tanda-tanda ini hanya menunjukkan keanggotaan. [FN171] Gedung
Baik Menjaga Seal adalah salah satu contoh tanda keanggotaan kolektif. [FN172]
Karena perbedaan antara tanda sertifikasi dan merek kolektif merupakan salah satu bentuk daripada substansi,
mereka sulit untuk membedakan. [FN173] Para dua tanda, bagaimanapun, adalah dapat dibedakan. [FN174] Seperti
yang dinyatakan sebelumnya, merek kolektif dimiliki oleh suatu badan kolektif, bukannya seorang pemilik
individu. [FN175] Juga, tidak seperti pemilik tanda sertifikasi, pemilik merek kolektif tidak dilarang menggunakan
tanda sendiri. [FN176]
Akhirnya, perlindungan merek kolektif diberlakukan di bawah hukum merek dagang umum. [FN177] Dan karena itu,
pemilik merek kolektif memulai sebuah tindakan untuk pelanggaran.[FN178] Sebagai contoh, tubuh kolektif akan
membawa tindakan atas pelanggaran terhadap bukan anggota yang telah menggunakan tanda. [FN179]
Perpanjangan Pasal 23 perlindungan ditingkatkan untuk semua produk yang tidak akan mengakhiri perdebatan di
WTO mengenai perlindungan indikasi geografis. Perpanjangan hanya akan menggeser peran pendukung pengadu
dari ekstensi untuk ekstensi pendukung yang telah terpengaruh dengan ekstensi.[FN188]
Hukum nasional dari Old School dan New School secara signifikan berbeda dan dengan demikian menghasilkan
hasil yang berbeda mengenai isu-isu penting seperti, obat generik dan pelanggaran. Oleh karena itu, kunci untuk
menyelesaikan perdebatan geographicalindications yang sedang berlangsung di WTO adalah penyelesaian antara
Old School dan New School mengenai sifat kepemilikan indikasi geografis dan penerapan model internasional, yang
mencerminkan penyelesaian yang.Karena posisi filosofis yang Old School indikasi geografis yang tidak hak
kekayaan intelektual tidak menahan pengawasan, bahkan menurut logika mereka sendiri, melihat Sekolah Baru
adalah lebih persuasif. Sehubungan dengan penerapan sistem internasional perlindungan indikasi geografis, tinjauan
dari sistem Amerika Serikat membuktikan bahwa pendaftaran merek dagang adalah model terbaik.
VI. KESIMPULAN
Memperluas Pasal 23 perlindungan ditingkatkan untuk anggur dan roh untuk semua produk tidak akan
menyelesaikan sengketa di WTO mengenai perlindungan indikasi geografis. Untuk menyelesaikan sengketa,
Anggota WTO, Old School dan New School, harus mencapai kesepakatan tentang sifat kepemilikan indikasi
geografis dan kemudian mengadopsi sistem yang seragam yang mencerminkan kesepakatan itu. Tidak diragukan
lagi, indikasi geografis pada dasarnya mirip dengan merek dagang. Dan untuk alasan ini, indikasi geografis harus
dilindungi di bawah sistem pendaftaran merek dagang Anggota 'sebagai hak kekayaan intelektual.
[FN1]. Stacy D. Goldberg, Komentar, Siapa yang Akan Naikkan Bendera Putih? Pertempuran Antara Amerika Serikat
dan Uni Eropa Selama Perlindungan Indikasi Geografis, 222 l U. Pa J. Int. 'Econ. L. 107, 110 (2001).