"Doha's Impact on TRIPS: Balancing Geographical Indications (GIs)Protection" organized by the International Trademark Association (INTA)1 May 2002, 0900 - 1130Introduction:Doha Declaration Paragraph 18 states:With a view to completing the work started in the Council for Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights (Council for TRIPS) on the implementation of Article 23.4, weagree to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registrationof geographical indications for wines and spirits by the Fifth Session of the MinisterialConference. We note that issues related to the extension of the protection of geographicalindications provided for in Article 23 to products other than wines and spirits will beaddressed in the Council for TRIPS pursuant to paragraph 12 of this declaration.This panel considered the two aspects of Paragraph 18, namely, the multilateral system ofnotification and registrations of GIs for wines and spirits, and possible extension of TRIPSArticle 23 GI protection to products other than wines and spirits. The panel consisted of thefollowing participants:INTA: Clark Lackert, Chehrazade Chemcham EU: Antonio Berenguer US: Dominic KeatingFrench Roquefort Confederation: Anne RichardMiguel Torres SA: Luis de JavierDanish Dairy Board: Hans BenderClark Lackert, INTA Moderator (Chair of INTA International Amicus Committee andPartner in King and Spalding, New York) introduced the debate by explaining what GIs areand how they are protected. He also explained INTA concerns and the challenges that Article18 of the Doha Declaration presents. Mr. Lackert enumerated the relevant internationaltreaties protecting GIs such as: the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agreement; the LisbonAgreement, the TRIPS Agreement and regional legislation such as the EU Regulation. Heexplained INTA position on the Protection of GIs under the TRIPS Agreement which is
contained in the INTA Board of Directors Resolution of 1997 which endorses the “First inTime, First in Right” principle (available at .) found in TRIPS Article 16(1)when read together with the saving clause of TRIPS Article 24(5), and elsewhere. Thisprinciple is endorsed by other organizations such as OIV (1994), which support the concept oftreating trademarks and GIs equally, with conflicts between them being resolved by means ofthe principle of priority. He also mentioned INTA’s critical analysis of the EU FoodstuffsRegulation (2081/92) which is also available on the INTA website. INTA remains concernedabout the international or national registers of GIs. INTA has questions on the TRIPS Agreement and on whether or not these GI provisions havebeen understood. INTA believes that it is important to look at the legitimate concerns ofdeveloping countries and finally establish an ultimate balance between trademark and GIprotection.