Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 8 • Number 41 • 1st December 2004
US Claims Victory In WTO Case On Geographically Linked Product Names
A WTO panel hearing a challenge by the US and Australia against a 1992 EU regulation governing geographically linked names of certain agricultural products issued a confidential preliminary ruling to the disputants on 16 November. Although the ruling is not yet publicly available, US officials have indicated that the panel found in their favour. The US had claimed that the EU’s legislation on geographical indications (GIs) — which protects the names of origin of more than 600 foodstuffs and agricultural products including fruits, cheeses, meats and fish — discriminated against non-EU products and among WTO Members by not according all trading partners the same advantages EU members enjoyed.
An EU spokesperson, however, claimed that the dispute panel merely found the EU system to be insufficiently clear in relation to its discriminatory effects on foreign companies seeking trademark protection in the EU similar to that enjoyed by EU companies. According to Arancha Gonzalez, "This is a technical point which the EU will be in a position to clarify in its legislation without difficulty". She added that there were no significant economic implications of the ruling for the EU, which has repeatedly emphasised that it would welcome applications for registration of foreign GIs. Moreover, Arancha Gonzalez pointed out that the US and Australia lost on their claim against an EU law that permits the co-existence of GIs with pre-existing trademarks with similar-sounding names.
Ag negotiations to drop GI discussion - for now
In related news, during the last set of negotiations on agriculture (see BRIDGES Weekly, 24 November 2004), Members decided to drop GIs as a topic for the upcoming talks in December. Agriculture Chair Tim Groser had originally proposed their inclusion, among other topics. Brazil and others felt, however, that the agenda would become overloaded and stressed that they were not yet ready to address issues "of interest but not agreed," such as GIs. The G-20 and Cairns group members (agricultural exporters) wanted to first focus on the "three pillars" of agriculture — market access, domestic support and export subsidies — since finding agreement in these areas would lay the foundation for further detailed work. The EU, on the other hand, would have liked to see GIs addressed in December, given its "own willingness to discuss issues of EU sensitivity". The EU position is that protection for GIs related to wines and spirits should be extended to other products.
In the July Package, which sets out the framework for the continuation of the Doha Round negotiations, Members agreed to address "issues of interest but not agreed: sectoral initiatives, differential export taxes, GIs".
Background
The GI case was initiated when the European Commission published a list of 41 wines, cheeses and other regional products that it sought to protect under WTO rules. The US and Australia claimed that the EU was not affording enough protection to their products, since the EU did not protect imported goods bearing GIs. The EU’s defence, however, was that the list was "a short list of 41 products whose names are being abused and parroted" by non-EU producers. Outgoing EU Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler emphasised that "this is not about protectionism. It is about fairness… it is simply not acceptable that the EU cannot sell its genuine Italian Parma Ham in Canada because the trademark ‘Parma Ham’ is reserved for a ham produced in Canada". If the final ruling, expected next year, confirms this decision, producers around the world will be able to continue using regional names for their own products.
Members are currently discussing a proposed multilateral register for geographical indications for wines and spirits in the special session of the Council for Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS; see related story, this issue).
All WTO documents on this dispute, including the parties’ claims, referenced as WT/DS174 and WT/DS290, are available here.
ICTSD reporting; "EC Disputes Characterization of Loss In WTO Ruling Over Geographical Indications," WTO REPORTER, 22 November 2004; "WTO rules against EU in dispute over protected product names," AFP, 19 November 2004; "WTO Rules Against EU Goods Protection," ASSOCIATED PRESS, 18 November 2004; "U.S. Wins WTO Complaint Against EU Food-Name Rules," BLOOMBERG, 18 November 2004.