Comptes rendus ‒ Session extraordinaire du Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention /la déclaration

Ambassador Eui-yong Chung (Korea, Republic of)
C.i Definition of the term "geographical indication" and eligibility of geographical indications for inclusion in the system
54. The representative of Argentina said that the definition should be that contained in Article 22.1, which was applicable to wines and spirits as well as to other products. In general terms and by way of example, her delegation considered that "indications of source" ("denominaciones de procedencia") were not covered by the protection foreseen by the system of notification and registration because they referred only to the area from which the product came and the link of quality, reputation or other characteristics with the origin was missing. It also considered that "traditional expressions" should not be included since they were generic terms in common language that identified part of a production process and other elements but did not involve a geographical link. With respect to possible discrepancies regarding whether a definition might or might not be included, it was her delegation's view that discrepancies might arise as a result of the interpretation of the definition in Article 22.1, since interpretation was the exclusive competence of each Member. Possible discrepancies should be resolved by the national jurisdictions. This issue should be analysed neither in the Special Session, that is to say during negotiations, nor on a case-by-case basis as a collective exercise once the system came into force. The inclusion of the issue seemed to prejudge the fact that the system would have an opposition procedure, but there was no agreement so far. Determination, during the course of negotiations, of the geographical indications "eligible for protection" seemed to push forward an interpretation of the definition and in particular of the links that the product must have with its geographical origin. In sum, the question of eligibility for protection and possible differences were issues that Members should interpret and resolve within their national jurisdictions, bearing in mind the territorial nature of intellectual property rights.