This article is a case-study on GI protection under the TRIPs. The case has been brought by The United States and Australia against EC concerning the protection of GI under the EC Regulation. The case has dealt with two important issues, the national treatment principle and the coexistence of GIs and Trademarks. First of all, this article talks about the general GI system under the TRIPs and studies about the EC GI system(under the Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the Protection of Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs). Then it provides the history about EU vs. U.S., Australia case and analyses the panel report in terms of the national treatment in several aspects and the relationship between GIs and prior trademarks. The panel concluded that the EC Regulation violated the national treatment under the TRIPs, but the structure of EC system itself was complied with the TRIPs. Further, the panel concluded that the EC Regulation on the coexistence was consistent with art. 17 of the TRIPs as ‘limited exceptions’. However, there are still many problems to deal with about the protection of GIs in the international relationships. Because of the characteristics of GIs, it has great economic/trade stakes and historical and socio-cultural dimensions. As a result, the degree of protection is still sensitive and controversial at both international and national levels. In our situation negotiating the GI protection with the EU, this issues deserve to appreciate. In compliance with the national treatment and the minimum standards under the TRIPs, it is necessary to measure the impotance of GIs in our marketplace and find out the adequate degree of GI protection in international trade relationships.

This article is a case-study on GI protection under the TRIPs. The case has been brought by The United States and Australia against EC concerning the protection of GI under the EC Regulation. The case has dealt with two important issues, the national treatment principle and the coexistence of GIs and Trademarks. First of all, this article talks about the general GI system under the TRIPs and studies about the EC GI system(under the Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the Protection of Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs). Then it provides the history about EU vs. U.S., Australia case and analyses the panel report in terms of the national treatment in several aspects and the relationship between GIs and prior trademarks. The panel concluded that the EC Regulation violated the national treatment under the TRIPs, but the structure of EC system itself was complied with the TRIPs. Further, the panel concluded that the EC Regulation on the coexistence was consistent with art. 17 of the TRIPs as ‘limited exceptions’. However, there are still many problems to deal with about the protection of GIs in the international relationships. Because of the characteristics of GIs, it has great economic/trade stakes and historical and socio-cultural dimensions. As a result, the degree of protection is still sensitive and controversial at both international and national levels. In our situation negotiating the GI protection with the EU, this issues deserve to appreciate. In compliance with the national treatment and the minimum standards under the TRIPs, it is necessary to measure the impotance of GIs in our marketplace and find out the adequate degree of GI protection in international trade relationships.

, , , , , ,

Geographical Indication, TRIPs, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the Protection of Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, National Treatment, Reciprocity, Equivalence, Minimum Standards