RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/W/204/Rev.1
2 October 2000
(00-4005)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
COMMUNICATION FROM BULGARIA, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, EGYPT, ICELAND,
INDIA, KENYA, LIECHTENSTEIN, PAKISTAN, SLOVENIA, SRI LANKA,
SWITZERLAND AND TURKEY
Revision
The Secretariat has received the attached paper, by means of a communication dated
15 September 2000, from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Iceland, India, Liechtenstein, Slovenia,
Sri Lanka, Switzerland and Turkey with the request that it be circulated to Members.  At the TRIPS
Council meeting of 21 and 22 September 2000, Egypt, Kenya and Pakistan requested their delegationsto be reflected as co-sponsors, as well.
1
_______________
                                                     
1 The incomplete reference to Article 24.2 of the TRIPS Agreement in paragraphs 3 and 9 of the paper
attached to document IP/C/W/204 has been corrected in the present document.IP/C/W/204/Rev.1
Page 2
WORK ON ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE PROTECTION OF
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 24.1 – EX TENSION OF ADDITI ONAL PROTECTION
FOR GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS TO PRODUCTS OTHER THAN
WINES AND SPIRITS
Introduction and objective
1. The introduction of Section 3 of Part II of  the TRIPS Agreement during the Uruguay Round
gives evidence of the importance Members attach to the protection of geographical indications.  Atthat time, however, it was decided to limit additional (or so-called "absolute") protection to wines and
spirits, despite the insistence of a number of countries that such protection include other products as
well.  The issue of an enlarged scope of protection was left open to be dealt with at a later date.
2. Geographical indications have considerable potential for commercial use;  something which
has been neglected for a long time.  Since the adoption of the TRIPS Agreement, awareness of theneed for extending additional protection to products other than wines and spirits has been steadily
growing among developing and developed countries a like, and with it, awareness of the need for more
efficient protection of geographical indications.  On the global market, geographical indications have
become an invaluable marketing tool in trade.  Th eir role in identifying commercial, national, regional
or local characteristics is an asset for all countries, and in particular for those which rely on the addedvalue given to goods by nature and/or man.  A high and effective protection of geographical
indications is a corollary of the efforts to liberalize trade in all sectors in order to foster the exchange
of goods with higher added value.
3. In 1996, the TRIPS Council identified in the TRIPS Agreement three built-in agenda items
concerning geographical indications:  Article 23.4, Article 24.1 and Article 24.2.
2  Furthermore, the
Council agreed that a review of the application of the provisions of the Section on Geographical
Indications conducted under the latter provision permitted inputs from delegations on the issue of
scope of the additional protection.3  The Czech Republic, India and Switzerland had addressed the
matter of extension in their respective communications in 1997.4  Without repeating what was stated
in the three communications, we would like to confirm our support for what is said therein.
Moreover, a large number of other countries have registered, both in the TRIPS Council and in
preparations for the Seattle Ministerial Conference, their strong interest in extending the additionalprotection to other products.  However, the matter of extension has not been discussed separately by
the TRIPS Council to date.
4. The following Communication is intended as a contribution to the Council's decisions
mentioned in paragraph 3 and an impetus to the debate on the issue of extension.  Its objective is to
clarify on the basis of the existing framework why the issue of extending the scope of additionalprotection to products other than wines and spirits has to be part of the Council's built-in agenda of
negotiations on issues relevant to the protection of geographical indications.  Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Iceland, India, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland and Turkey reserve the right
to make further amendments or additions to this communication at a future Council meeting,
especially regarding the question of how to proceed in this matter in the TRIPS Council.
                                                     
2 Report (1996) of the Council for TRIPS, IP/C/8, paragraphs 26 to 28.
3 Ibid., paragraph 34.
4 Communication from the Czech Republic of 28 July 1997 (Job No. 4486, 4 August 1997);
communication from India (Job No. 5023, 16 September 1997);  communication from Switzerland of15 July 1997 (Job No. 4152, 31 July 1997).IP/C/W/204/Rev.1
Page 3
Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement
5. Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement provides for two different levels of protection
for geographical indications.  First, the general standards of protection that must be available for all
geographical indications against misleading and unfair practices.  Second, the additional or "absolute"protection which must be accorded to geographical indications for wines and spirits.  Under the
provisions of the latter, there is, among other elements enhancing the protection, no need to prove that
the public is misled or that there is unfair competition.
6. This differential treatment of geographical indications can only be explained in the light of
the negotiations of the Uruguay Round.  The relevant TRIPS provisions are the result of trade-offs
which were specific to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the Uruguay Round negotiations, in
particular during the Brussels Ministerial Conference (1990).  This was, to some extent, due to thelink at that time between the negotiations on geographical indications and the negotiations on
agriculture.
7. There is no systematic or logical explanation for the distinction made in Section 3 of Part II of
the TRIPS Agreement.  This distinction ignores that geographical indications for categories of goods
other than wines and spirits are equally important for trade.  The economic and political significanceof geographical indications is growing as increasing quality awareness and higher quality
requirements promote the demand for products of a specific geographical origin.  The added value to
exported goods increases the chances for such legitimate goods to reach the market which is part of
the global vision for a multilateral trading system.  That is why, since the end of the Uruguay Round,
the awareness of the need for an extension of additional protection to products other than wines andspirits has continuously increased and spread among Members.
8. Since not all issues relevant to the protection of geographical indications were settled in the
Uruguay Round, the built-in agenda of the TRIPS Agreement provides for the basis for further
negotiations on increasing the protection of geographical indications.
The TRIPS built-in agenda on geographical indications
9. In 1996, the TRIPS Council identified three built-in agenda items of the TRIPS Agreement:
Article 23.4;  Article 24.1;  and Article 24.2.
5
(a) Article 23.4
10. This communication is not dealing with the built-in issue of the establishment of a
multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications under Article 23.4 for
wines and spirits.  Nevertheless, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Iceland, India, Liechtenstein,Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland and Turkey are seizing this opportunity to stress the importance they
attach to the negotiations in this area.
(b) Article 24.1
11. This provision requires that Members enter into negotiations aimed at increasing the
protection of individual geographical indications under Article 23.  This sentence, in ourunderstanding, inter alia , forms the basis for negotiations to extend the additional protection of
Article 23 to products other than wines and spirits.
12. It appears that some Members have a different reading of this sentence.  They claim that the
built-in mandate should only cover an increase or extension of the protection of individual
                                                     
5 Report (1996) of the Council for TRIPS, IP/C/8, paragraphs 26 to 28.IP/C/W/204/Rev.1
Page 4
geographical indications for wines and spirits.  In our view, such an interpretation of Article 24.1 is
too narrow.  It would be illogical to limit the ma ndated negotiations to an improvement of protection
of geographical indications for wines and spirits because they already benefit from the additional
protection under Article 23.  Moreover, such an approach would add to the imbalances already
existing in Section 3 which is not consistent with the spirit and basic objectives of the TRIPSAgreement.  In order to address all issues left for further clarification and improvement by the
Uruguay Round compromise, the negotiations required by the built-in agenda of Article 24.1 should
include not only the question of additional protection for geographical indications for wines and
spirits and/or of mitigating the exceptions to protection contained in paragraphs 4 to 8 of Article 24,
but should also deal with the issue of increasing the protection of individual geographical indications
to products other than wines and spirits.  In other words, the provisions of Article 24.1 are of general
application to all products and the reference to Article 23 does not relate to products contained thereinbut to a means of additional protection to be provided.  An additional argument for this interpretation
of Article 24.1 can be found in the inherent structure of Section 3 of Part II.  The title of Article 23
clearly denotes this provision to deal exclusively with geographical indications for wines and spirits.
Article 24, however, is not limited to wines and spirits, except where the provisions explicitly mention
so in the text.
(c) Article 24.2
13. Article 24.2 contains three additional elements which support the view of extending the
additional protection of Article 23 to products other than wines and spirits in the built-in negotiations.
14. Firstly, the first sentence of paragraph 2 mandates the Council to review the application of the
provisions of Section 3 on geographical indications.  Apart from the fact that any review of theapplication of provisions might lead to an improvement and an increase of the protection granted by
the provisions under review, the TRIPS Council  reported to the 1996 Ministerial Conference in
Singapore explicitly "...that a review of the application of the provisions of the Section on
Geographical Indications as provided for in Article 24.2...permits inputs from delegations on the issue
of scope...".
6  The same statement can be found in the Background Paper to the General Council's
Special Session on Implementation.7
15. Secondly, Article 24.2 provides in its second sentence that any matter affecting the
compliance with the obligations under these provisions may be drawn to the attention of the Council.
16. Thirdly, the last sentence of paragraph 2 mandates the Council to take such action as may be
agreed to facilitate the operation and further the objectives of this Section.
The possible procedure for the negotia tions on the built-in agenda elements
17. Instead of dealing with each item of the built-in agenda on geographical indications
separately, it was, inter alia , advocated at the Council Meeting of June 2000 to examine them
concomitantly.  Such a global (or so-called "basket") approach offers the advantage that Members
with a stake in the negotiations could introduce all in terests relevant to the built-in work and discuss
them in a global and balanced manner.  This approach takes into consideration the fact that thedifferent questions the TRIPS Council has to deal with under Section 3 of Part II are intertwined.
18. As mentioned in paragraph 6 of this document, an important argument for the outcome of the
negotiations on geographical indications in the Ur uguay Round was the link made at the time with the
negotiations on agriculture.  This link is still relevant for some Members and could guide us in our
future work.
                                                     
6 Document IP/C/8, paragraph 34.
7 Document JOB(00)/4217, page 4, paragraph 5.IP/C/W/204/Rev.1
Page 5
Conclusion
19. For all of the arguments set out above, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Iceland, India,
Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland and Turkey take the view that the negotiations of the
TRIPS Council on the issue of extension of additional protection to products other than wines andspirits are an integral part of the built-in agenda  of the TRIPS Agreement.  Accordingly, the built-in
negotiations of the TRIPS Council on issues relevant to the protection of geographical indications
should also include the issue of extension of additional protection to products other than wines and
spirits.  Only by doing this, can an overall satisfactory solution in the field of geographical indications
be found which is in line with the spirit and the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement and to the benefit
of all Members.
__________