Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property series
Edited by Dev S. Gangjee
Chapter 7: Rethinking GI extension
It is well accepted that the final form of the GI provisions of the TRIPS Agreement represented a messy, politically expedient compromise between the EU and the US, designed largely so that the Agreement, which was otherwise so mutually beneficial to those parties, could come into being. Nowhere is this compromise more evident than in the dual minimum standards of GI protection set out in Arts 22 and 23. Under Art 22.2, WTO Members are under a general obligation in respect of other Members’ GIs to prevent: (a) the use of any means in the designation or presentation of a good that indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good; [and] (b) any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967). Nothing in the TRIPS Agreement stipulates how Members are to afford such protection under their domestic laws.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.