RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/W/211
19 October 2000
(00-4326)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
COMMUNICATION FROM AUSTRALIA
By means of a communication, dated 20 September 2000, the attached paper has been
received from the Permanent Mission of Australia with the request that it be circulated to Members.
_______________IP/C/W/211
Page 2
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
ARTICLE 24.2 REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION
OF PART II, SECTION 3:  SOME BACKGROUND ISSUES
The protection of geographical indications (GIs) under the TRIPS Agreement has been the
subject of considerable debate in the TRIPS Council, although there has been comparatively little
analysis of the background issues and of the wealth  of information on GI protection in national laws
submitted to the TRIPS Council at the request of other Members.  This paper is intended to facilitate
progress in this debate by providing some considerations on the nature and purpose of GI protection
in national laws, with reference to the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement.  It does not represent aformal position, but is rather an attempt to shed light on the issues behind the debate.  It also considers
the provisions of Section 3 of Part II as a whole, and notes some specific issues that may be discussed
and elucidated with reference to notified national laws.
This paper is founded on the following general observations, which it also seeks to illustrate:
• The debate over "stronger" or "weaker" GI protection may be misconstrued, and the emphasis
should be on better  GI protection, with "better" determ ined according to the objectives and
principles of the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention (and not necessarily entailing
the elimination of exceptions to exclusive rights over specific terms as an end in itself).
• Ultimately it is not treaty language but actual national laws that provide "protection" or "legal
means" in relation to GIs, and the quest for be tter GI protection would most productively start
with a consideration of the actual forms of protection that are provided in national law, andwhat enhancements at that level are appropriate or necessary.
It would therefore be illuminating to consid er how the general provisions of the TRIPS
Agreement have been applied in practice, so as fi rstly to assess the practical effect of the treaty
language and secondly to gauge the actual benefits that have accrued.  This should provide a clearerbasis for discussing the policy aspects of GI protection and proposals for enhancing the protection of
GIs within the TRIPS Agreement.
Members posed some 53 questions of one another concerning their domestic arrangements for
GI protection (IP/C/13).  Equally, there is a large amount of information on national GI systems in the
document series IP/Q2/-.
1  Even though this information was provided in response to the detailed
questions posed by other Members, there has been no discussion or analysis of this material in the
TRIPS Council.  The following considerations ma y help to structure and inform the overdue
consideration of this valuable information.
1. Introduction:  the trade background
The international commercial environment has b een characterized by a long-term fall in the
relative value of raw commodities and simple manufactures.  Exporters are accordingly seeking to
market their products by making them more identi fiable and interesting in international markets, by
using distinctive labeling and branding to appeal to consumers.  Differentiation and added value in
global markets can result from traditional or regional characteristics, and from inventive or creative
marketing and product identification – frequently, fo r successful products, the two combine:  novel or
distinctive brands, trademarks and packaging are used together with established descriptions and
distinctive terms.  To take an actual example, tea is  more valuable than undifferentiated bulk tea in the
                                                     
1 A summary is provided in Chapter 2, Section II of the Informal Survey of the Notification and
Review of National Intellectual Property Laws under TRIPS, at www.dfat.gov.au/trips.IP/C/W/211
Page 3
market-place if it is sold as Darjeeling tea, more valu able still if it bears the distinctive certification
mark "Darjeeling – The Tea Board's Seal of Approval", and potentially yet more valuable again if it
bears a distinctive trademark and is packed in dist inctive packaging.  Its value in the eyes of the
consumer may also be enhanced by descriptive or laudatory material such as "the rare flavour of
Darjeeling long leaf" and "the Champagne of teas".
For developing economies and other economies which rely relatively more for their
well-being on the export of commodities such as agricultural products and processed foods, there is a
strong interest in maintaining or increasing the added value for their exports which is obtained
through the distinctive and appealing presentation of the goods.  Given the competitive pressures in
the global market-place, it is understandable that these economies should be particularly concerned to
see effective protection for the distinctive market profiles of their products, so that their unique or
distinguishing properties are communicated to the consumer in an informative and appealing way.Finding the appropriate balance for geographical indications – as for other distinctive marks, such as
trademarks, collective and certification marks, and international symbols – is therefore a significant
trade issue, reflecting genuine trade interests.
The GI system also provides practical opportunities to deal with other trade-related concerns.
One such concern relates to access to new plant varieties and genetically modified crops which maybe protected under the intellectual property system.  The strategic use of distinctive marks (brands,
trademarks, geographical indications, collective/certification marks) provides an opportunity for
stronger marketing of existing distinctive or traditional regional agricultural products and processed
foods, to preserve a strong and distinctive market presence.  Equally, there is concern over the
potential monopolization of generic descriptive terms for agricultural products and processed foods, towhich the response could be the development of balanced GI and labeling systems and flow of
information about GI protection in different economies.
2. Interests to be served by GI protection
As in trademark law, the protection of GIs under national and international law concerning
intellectual property and trade has implications for a diverse range of interests:
• The interests of the consumer:
- the consumer is entitled to protection from the use of deceptive, confusing or
misleading labelling;
- the consumer is also entitled to have a full range of choice between legitimate
(non-deceptive) products, and benefits from having sufficient information about aproduct to make an informed choice.
• The general public interest:
- the public benefits from the repression of unfair commercial practices, and
availability of remedies against misleading or deceptive commercial conduct;
- the public also stands to gain from the promotion of legitimate competition and a
wide range of choice in available products, which can be described according to
accepted practice;
- the public also benefits from the identification and promotion of distinctive national
or regional qualities in products for domestic and export markets, as this can promotechoice in the market-place and the availability of comparative information about
products;IP/C/W/211
Page 4
- the public stands to gain from a balanced application of intellectual property laws,
including an appropriate allocation of public resources, and from measures to ensure
that intellectual property laws or their enforcement do not become a barrier to
legitimate trade.
• The interests of producers and traders:
- producers and traders stand to benefit from the recognition of distinctive
characteristics and traditions, and differentiation of their products in a global market;
- producers and traders have an interest in using established product descriptions, their
own personal names, and unregistered trademarks and business names used in good
faith;
- producers and traders may have legitimate, good faith trademark rights – depending
on the circumstances, this can include the right to use and continue using existing
trademarks, and the right to prevent others from use of a trademark;
- the bona fide description of the origin of the goods.
As with any aspect of the intellectual property system, reconciling this range of interests, and
settling on an appropriate balance of measures within a national jurisdiction, is the essential task of
the policymaker dealing with this convergence of the law of intellectual property, trade andcompetition.  A review of the national laws notified under Section 3 of Part II provides an
illuminating range of approaches taken, in exercising the discretion provided to Members under
Article 1.1.  The types of legal means WTO Members have notified also reflect the wide range of
interests engaged:
- trade practices/consumer protection/unfair competition legislation;
- trademark legislation (protection against registration of recognized GIs as trademarks,
and registration of GIs as certification/collective marks);
- separate registration systems for GIs;
- industry-specific regulatory systems;
- food labeling and standards regulations;
- non-legislative common law remedies such as "passing off";
- industry codes of practice.
Each legal means chosen reflects a particular approach to reconciling those interests, and
deserves attention as an individual WTO Member's endeavour to reach an appropriate balance.
Because of the overlap of GI protection with ru les concerning consumer protection, fair trading,
labeling, food standards, other forms of intellectual property, and competition law, it may take some
analysis and dialogue to discern exactly how the balance is struck in an individual jurisdiction, and to
this end the Article 24.2 review of the application of the provisions of Section 3 has produced
invaluable information, along with the Article 63 re view of national legislation which is continuing.IP/C/W/211
Page 5
From this complex pattern, some general approaches to GI protection can be discerned:
• An exclusive global approach:  under this approach, the GI significance of a term would
supplant any other signification in use of the term in the market-place – the claim of GI
significance would negate competing claims to a term's potential significance as a descriptive
term or trademark:
- This is associated with a tendency not only to harmonize GI laws but also to prescribe
the same outcome for individual claimed GIs in different jurisdictions (a level of
pre-emption of national legal processes not applied to other intellectual property
rights, such as patents and trademarks), leading to a form of global presumption of
exclusive rights to use a particular term despite regional, cultural or historic
variations.
- For example, under this approach, if the image of a kangaroo were to be claimed as a
GI, it would lead to a presumption in international markets that any other use of
kangaroos in relation to products – for example as trademarks – should be prohibited.
• "First in time, first in right":  under this ap proach, the first use of the term would be the one
which prevailed in any conflict:  for instance,  if a term were first used as a GI then
subsequent trademark rights could not be sustained.
- Normally, this would be the first use within individual jurisdictions – so that "first
use" in different jurisdictions could be of a different nature.
- The "first use" could be use as a descriptive term, as a trademark or as a GI, and this
might be different in differing jurisdictions.
- It should also be recognized that the signif ication of terms changes over time, so that
"first use" might be overtaken by events:  for instance, some trademarks cease to bedistinctive, become generic descriptions and therefore enter the public domain.
Equally, geographic terms become descriptions of certain plant varieties and related
products – such as arabica coffee and cheddar cheese.
• Public interest and consumer protection:  under this approach, the actual signification of a
term in the mind of the public, with reference to the actual way it has been used and the
context of use, determines how the term is to be protected.  This signification can be
different:
- in different industry sectors ("champagne" could have different signification if
used on bottled wine or if used in a laudatory way, e.g. to describe "the
champagne of teas");
- in the relevant jurisdiction (the one term could conceivably have geographic
signification in one continent, be a legitimate trademark in another, and be a
descriptive term elsewhere);
- in different languages (the same term could mean strikingly different things in
different languages, whether or not it is translated).IP/C/W/211
Page 6
3. GI protection
The debate about "GI protection" is often cast in terms of "strong" or "weak" protection.  But
the term "protection" itself is ambiguous and potentially misleading.  GIs are not protected in an
absolute sense:  the TRIPS Agreement provides for legal means to be available to restrain certain
usage of GIs, but within a balanced framework.  TRIPS provisions provide protection for various
interested parties in relation to:
• deceptive or unfair use of a GI by others - deception as to the actual source or origin of the
product and other unfair competition (Article 22.2 and 22.4);
• use of a GI by others when the consumer is not misled as to the origin (Article 23.1);
• use of homonymous GIs (Article 23.3);
• use of descriptive or generic terms (Article 24.6);
• other pre-existing good faith use (Article 24.4);
• registration as a trademark (Articles 22.3 and 24.5);
• maintaining existing trademark rights (Article 24.5).
4. Exceptions to GI protection
As part of the overall GI package in the TRIPS Agreement, Article 24 provides for certain
balancing safeguards, leaving open the possibility to provide public interest exceptions to GI
protection - in cases where a term has been used in the past in good faith, where a term is also subject
to good faith trademark rights, where a term has significance as a personal name, and where
analogous to the exceptions allowable for copyright (Article 13), trademarks (Article 17), designs
(Article 26.2) and patents (Articles 30 and 31).   However, the TRIPS Agreement does include an
agreement to negotiate, either multilaterally or bilaterally, on the possible removal of such exceptions
in relation to individual GIs protected under Article 23 (additional protection for GIs for wines andspirits).
The need for a clearer idea of what "protection" is appropriate, how the balancing safeguards
need to operate, and the need for careful balance in relation to the protection of GIs may be illustrated
in more concrete terms by the example of the word "Orange".  "Orange" is a geographical place name
in five continents.  A number of these places have distinctive reputations for the production of wine(including both France and Australia), which on the face of it would be entitled to protection against
misleading use by others (they might also produce other distinctive regional products).  "Orange" is
also the only available descriptive term to describe a distinctive colour, fruit, flavour and aroma, and
could be used to describe the characteristics of a wine.  "Orange wine" (wine made from the fruit) is
also a product in itself, and is well known as the produce of certain regions of Japan.  Thousands ofindividuals bear the family name "Orange" and would,  a priori, appear to be entitled to use this word
in the course of their business.  Equally, "orange" is a trademark used by a number of traders in
distinct markets, including in information t echnology, telecommunications, and sound equipment.
Language and translation issues also arise.  For example, the slight variant "orang" means
"person" in the Indonesian and Malay languages.  The English word "orange" is derived from thePersian word "narenj" which actually refers to a bitter citrus fruit distinct from the fruit denoted as
"orange" in English, and yet the Persian term for the fruit orange is "porteghal", derived from the
geographical term "Portugal").IP/C/W/211
Page 7
Clearly, there is a complex web of interests converging on this one word, and no single use of
the word should prevail in terms of attracting exclus ive legal rights.  It is rare for all these issues to
arise in relation to this one word, but it is relatively common for at least one form of legitimate
overlap to arise, especially considering regional and cultural differences.  Existing safeguards in the
TRIPS Agreement allow for each of these forms of overlap to be managed appropriately.  As notedabove, this balancing aspect of GI law is mirrored in other elements of intellectual property law, such
as trademark law (which generally allows certain forms of "fair use" such as pre-existing commercial
use, descriptive use, and use of a personal name), and in patent law (which precludes the exercise of
exclusive rights over material already in the public  domain).  The bilateral or multilateral negotiations
envisaged under Article 24.1 are aimed at altering this balance for specific GIs, by potentially limiting
the actual application of the optional exceptions allowed for under paragraphs 4 to 8 of Article 24.
For example, in relation to the example cited above, such negotiations could lead to agreementeffectively to prevent persons bearing the personal name "Orange" from using that name in the course
of trade in a manner that is not misleading, or to prevent the use of "orange" as a customary term to
describe "orange wine".  Article 24 exceptions could be waived for other products as well - for
example, if the terms for the orange varieties Jaffa or Olinda Valencia
2 were considered actually to
have predominantly geographical reference, the TRIPS Agreement leaves open the possibilities forgovernments to bar the existing use of these, despite the optional safeguard in Article 24.6.
5. Options for GI protection
The TRIPS Agreement requires the availability of "legal means" for GI protection, but does
not require pre-emptive or presumptive forms of protection such as exclusive registration systems.
Some issues to be considered in establishing the appropriate mechanism include:
• Is the scope of protection of a claimed GI to be determined according to a worldwide system,
or case-by-case at a national level (leading to different outcomes in different jurisdictions)?
• Should there be a pre-emptive (registration) system creating presumptive exclusive rights, or
should illegitimate use of GIs be determined according to the context and the consumerinterests involved?
• What is the appropriate allocation of resources in protecting GIs?  (Should there be an active
government role in administration, policing GI use, and enforcement, or should it essentiallybe a matter of interested parties defending their interests?)
• In what circumstances is GI protection to be privileged over:
− trademark rights (registered, unregistered, concurrent, good faith, and pre-existing)?
− descriptive use of terms, and formerly geographic terms which have become generic
descriptions?
− terms which reflect an indirect connection with the original region?
− use of surnames?
− homonymous use of GIs?
− evocative use of GIs?
                                                     
2 See for instance their registration as variety na mes at: http://www.corse.i nra.fr/sra/30100018.htm and
http://www.corse.inra.fr/sra/30100538.htm.IP/C/W/211
Page 8
• How would "first in right" be determined in relation to each of these categories?  Does "first
in right" actually overrule the current commonly accepted connotation of a term in a
particular language or location?
• And how the rules vary in different markets, different countries, and different elements of the
public?
The provision of "legal means" to protect geographical indications under the TRIPS
Agreement is described within the Agreement as an element of general obligations in the Paris
Convention to repress unfair competition.  There is also a significant overlap in various TRIPS
provisions with the trademark system.  Hence a wide range of laws and other legal means has been
notified by WTO Members under the general category of  GI protection.  In some instances this was
also linked to a Member's accession to other relevant international treaties or conventions.3  F o r
instance, some notifications have indicated that geographical indications:
• are covered by separate dedicated legislation, which may provide for a sui generis  registration
system4;
• fall within the ambit of trademark legisla tion, either dealing with the overlap between
trademarks and geographical indications, or providing options for registering geographical
indications5;
• are covered by unfair competition, trade practices and/or marketing legislation6;
• are afforded protection by common law, particularly the tort of "passing off"7;  and
• are covered by other sectorally specific laws.8
The notifications therefore ranged between specific forms of geographical indication
protection to relevant portions of more general legislation and other legal provisions.  A combinationof various legal means within the one jurisdiction was often considered relevant by notifying
Members.
                                                     
3 For example:  The Madrid Agreement for the Repression of  False or Deceptive Indications of Source
on Goods ;  and The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International
Registration .
4 See, for example:  Belgium in relation to designations of origin for wine and spirits:  IP/N/1/BEL/1;
Czech Republic:  IP/N/1/CZE/1;  Greece's Ministry of Agriculture, Community Regulations and Presidential
Decrees in relation to geographical indications:  IP/N/1/GRC/1;  New Zealand:  IP/N/1/NZL/1;  Liechtenstein:IP/N/1/LIE/1;  Slovak Republic:  IP/N/1/SVK/1;  and Switzerland:  IP/N/1/CHE/1.
5 See, for example:  Australia:  IP/N/1/AUS/1/Rev.1;  Canada in relation to geographical indications for
wines and spirits:  IP/N/1/CAN/T/1;  Hungary:  IP/N/1/HUN/1;  Japan:  IP/N/1/JPN/1;  Switzerland:IP/N/1/CHE/1;  and United States:  IP/N/1/USA/1.
6 See, for example:  Australia:  IP/N/1/AUS/1/Rev.1;  Belgium:  IP/N/1/BEL/O/1;  Hungary:
IP/N/1/HUN/1;  Japan:  IP/N/1/JPN/1;  Liechtenstein:  IP/N/1/LIE/1;  Norway:  IP/N/1/NOR/1;  South Africa:IP/N/1/ZAF/1;  and Switzerland:  IP/N/1/CHE/1.
7 See, for example:  the common law tort of passing off in:  Australia:  IP/Q2/AUS/1;  and South
Africa:  IP/Q2/ZAF/1.
8 See, for example:  Switzerland and the law of Agriculture in relation to geographical indications:
IP/N/1/CHE/1;  United States Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Regulations  and Federal Alcohol Administration
Act:  IP/N/1/USA/1.IP/C/W/211
Page 9
6. Balancing the interests
The manner in which intellectual property protection is given to GIs is often described as
"strong" or "weak", but it is suggested that aiming for "better" protection would be a more productive
common goal.  If "better" protection is indeed accepted as a goal, how should this be determined?
Firstly, it must reflect the actual protection applied within domestic laws, rather than general treatylanguage.  An ideal approach to accommodating the range of interests in relation to GI protection
entails limiting the static monopoly costs of the protection afforded, while optimizing the dynamic
welfare gains – so that the net economic benefit to society is optimized.  This balance aims to serve
the objective of the TRIPS Agreement (Article 7), which requires that protection of intellectual
property rights should be "conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and
obligations".
In relation to GIs, the static monopoly costs can be limited by ensuring that the intellectual
property system only provides exclusive protection to material that is genuinely distinctive and to
which others do not have legitimate claims, with reference to the actual context and purpose of
use - so that exclusive rights only cover what the public, or other traders, were not using or able
legitimately to use before the intellectual property right is granted.  Issues to be weighed include
whether the term actually functions in the market-place as an indication of geographical origin,whether certain of a product's qualities are attributed by the public to that origin, and whether the term
is already in use as a generic description.  Monopoly costs can also be minimized by building in
safeguards against abuse of intellectual property rights (such as those contemplated under Article 40
of the TRIPS Agreement).  In addition, the social  costs of GI protection can also be limited by
reducing the costs of intellectual property right administration.
Dynamic welfare gains of GI protection may be optimized by maximizing the social and
economic gains from the intellectual property system, including the promotion of new industries and
better international recognition and competitiveness of existing industries, the promotion of
competition and consumer choice, and the creation of a market-place in which misleading information
and unfair competition is repressed.
Since GI protection essentially involves the use of the common language, which is a dynamic
instrument, it will need to be responsive to changes.  Terms do change their nature over time:
trademarks have become descriptive.  For example, Indiarubber, French horn, Jersey (garments and
cattle), chinaware, cheddar cheese, and arabica coffee are all terms with obvious geographic roots
which have now unquestionably become generic descriptive terms in the English language.  Even
recent coinages with a strong geographical reference, such as "kiwifruit", have evolved into a generic
descriptive term despite the availability of other descriptions (going the way of "Chinese gooseberry"before it).
For other words, analysis and discussion might help elucidate their current meaning, the
forms of protection available to them, and the variations in their function as indications in different
environments.  "Basmati" is a particularly topical example:  while it is not a geographical place name
in itself, it seems to refer to a specific variety of  rice, and to a distinctive regional product.  As the
much-discussed US patent 5,663,484 (entitled Basmati rice lines and grains ) itself indicates, the term
"basmati rice" is in some countries reserved for basmati rice produced in India or Pakistan.
9  T h e
                                                     
9 "...in some countries the term 'basmati rice' can be applied to only the basmati rice grown in India and
Pakistan.  For example, the Grain and Feed Trade Asso ciation in the United Kingdom (the largest basmati rice
market in Europe and one of the largest importers of basmati rice in the world) in cooperation with the UK
Local Authorities Coordinating Body on Trading Standards (LACOTS) has established a Code of Practice for
Rice which is used by companies which operate in that market.  This code allows the term basmati rice to beapplied to only the long grain aromatic rice grown in India and Pakistan.  Similarly, Saudi Arabia, the world'slargest importer of basmati rice, has labelling regulations that permit basmati rice from only India and Pakistanand not Thailand to be marketed as basmati rice".IP/C/W/211
Page 10
mutable nature of such indications over time is illustrated by the fact that the word "rice" itself is
derived from a geographical indication:  the roots of the English word "rice" lie in the Ancient Greek
ορυζον  (oruzon) or ορυζα  (oruza) meaning "of Eastern origin".  Country names are also of interest as
potential GIs:  in some instances, the entire name of a country or other distinctive national symbols
have been used or registered as trademarks, and it may be useful to clarify the status of these terms.
7. Questions concerning specific TRIPS provisions
Based on these general considerations concerning GIs, the following specific questions
concerning GI protection under the TRIPS Agreement could be considered with reference both to
existing national legal systems and to the strong interest expressed in better protection for GIs under
the TRIPS Agreement.  The following is not to suggest that these provisions are necessarily
problematic, or that there is one single way of interpreting and applying these provisions;  it is rather
to promote discussion of how these issues are dealt with in specific national legal systems as the basisfor discussions on how the overall balancing of interests in GI protection could be enhanced.
Article 22.1 :  a term would need to conform with the definition of a GI before TRIPS
obligations were triggered.  GIs are defined as "indications which identify a good as originating in the
territory.  How is this determined?  According to whose perception?  Is it a subjective indication in the
mind of the relevant consumer, or is it possible to claim GI status for a term when the relevantconsumer is not aware of any geographical connotation?
To be defined as a GI under the TRIPS Agreement, a quality, reputation or characteristic must
be "essentially attributable" to the geographical origin of the good.  Again, is this something that is
objectively determined, or is it necessary for the cons umer to be aware of this attribution for the term
to qualify as a GI?
Article 22.2 :  This Article requires interested partie s to have legal means available to prevent
certain usage of GIs, including use which misleads the public as to the geographic origin, and "any
use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10 bis of the Paris
Convention".  How are "interested parties" determined in this context?  In those jurisdictions which
have GI registration systems, is it necessary to have a registered GI to take such action, or do otherlaws provide relief?
What is the scope of "unfair competition"?  Does it extend to use of a GI other than acts
which mislead the public as to the geographical origin?  For example, is there a broader interpretation
of "unfair competition" that would overlap with the so-called "higher" protection of Article 23.1?
Article 22.4 :  This concerns use of GIs which are literally true, but falsely represent the origin
of goods.  Are there any practical examples of such GIs?  What is the nature of "false representation":
does it hinge on the consumer's likely perception?  What is the relationship between this provision andArticle 23.3 on homonymous GIs?
Article 23.1 :  This concerns the provision of legal means to deal with cases where a GI is
used to "identify" wines or spirits not originating from the place indicated by the GI, even when the
true origin of the goods is indicated and the GI is translated or accompanied by expressions such as
"kind", "style", etc.  What does it mean for a GI to "identify" a product?  What practical limitationsdoes this place on use of a term which has descriptive qualities?  How does this provision interact
with the provisions of Article 24.6 on descriptive terms and variety names?
Article 23.3 :  This concerns homonymous GIs:  what practical conditions have been applied,
and how have these led to equitable treatment of producers and the avoidance of consumer deception?IP/C/W/211
Page 11
Article 24.4 - 24.8 :  These provide for various exceptions to GI protection, allowing for the
balancing of interests as outlined above.  How have these exceptions operated in practice in Members'
legal systems, and how does this shed light on the appropriate balance of interests with a view to the
objectives of Article 7 and the need to avoid barriers to legitimate trade?
Article 24.9 :  This paragraph makes the obligation to protect GIs conditional on their current
protection in the country of origin.  What is sufficient protection in the country of origin to trigger the
obligation for protection elsewhere (for example in the absence of a formal registration system)?  In
what circumstances would Members not extend protec tion to claimed GIs on the basis that they are
not protected in the country of origin?
__________