Publication Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

1-2014

Abstract

In this article, I criticize what I call “ambiguous geographical origin” in the concept of geographical indications of origin (GIs) and note that the current definition of GIs in Art. 22(1) of TRIPS essentially misuses, or at least misinterprets, of the terms “geographical origin.” More specifically, I expose the partial inconsistency between the legal definition under TRIPs and the dictionary definition of the terms “geographical” and “origin”. In this respect, I point out that, from a strictly linguistic standpoint, the term “geographical”, in its variation as “geographic”, is defined as “of or relating to geography” and as “belonging to or characteristic of a particular region”. Likewise, the word “origin” is defined as “the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives”. Based on these definitions, I note that Art. 22(1) of TRIPs likely misuses, or at least misinterprets, the notion of the terms “geographical” and “origin” and expands the scope of GI protection beyond the meaning of these terms. This departure from a literal interpretation contributes to granting exclusive rights to GIs beyond the original rationale for protection, which remains protecting GIs for the information they convey to the public about products’ geographical origin and as incentives for investment in local economies.

Discipline

Intellectual Property Law

Research Areas

Intellectual Property and Technology-related Law

Publication

WIPO Journal

Volume

6

Issue

1

First Page

57

Last Page

67

ISSN

2041-2029

Publisher

Sweet & Maxwell

Copyright Owner and License

Author

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Share

COinS