Due to the globalization of economy, the protection of intellectual property rights becomes very important, not only on a national and local basis but also on an international basis. The evidence is coming from the negotiation and ultimately the inclusion of the TRIPS Agreement, or Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, into the World Trade Organization. In the TRIPS Agreement, one of the protections to a local intellectual property on an international level is the protection of geographical indications, and such protection can be found in Articles 22 through 24 of the TRIPS Agreement. Geographical indications identify goods as originating in a particular territory or region, and also indicate quality by letting consumers know that the goods come from an area where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to their geographical origin. The protection of geographical indications has always been on the table and been mentioned in various international treaties, and eventually came together under the TRIPS Agreement. The different ways for geographical indications protection is examined in order to understand the different national regulations used in various countries as a tool to protect the geographical indications, hence, to protect intellectual property rights. The major issue regards the scope of protection is the extension of the TRIPS Article 23; diverse opinions and suggestions are coming from US and EU, the two biggest sovereignties. This also can be seen in the result of the WTO dispute case of EC – Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The future developments such as the negotiations for a multilateral system of register for geographical indications, the progress of developing countries toward protection of geographical indications and the involvement of the traditional knowledge, all play very crucial roles on the enforcement of geographical indications protection. This paper will explore all these matters.

No description available.

The relationship between international regimes regulating intellectual property, traditional knowledge and biodiversity has received much attention in recent times. Of the many complex and controversial issues in contemporary international legal discourse on this matter, the protection of traditional knowledge (TK) stands out as a significant challenge. Choices abound in the search for modalities to regulate rights to use and control TK systems and their underlying biodiversity. In recent times, the protection of geographical indications (GIs) has emerged as an option for protecting TK. Despite the considerable enthusiasm over it, there is appreciable research dearth on how far and in what context GIs can be used as a protection model. Indeed, not only is the concept of GIs itself widely misunderstood. As well, analyses as to their applicability for protecting TK often reflect underlying cultural differences in the nature, scope and the jurisprudence regarding GIs across jurisdictions. This thesis examines the relationship between GIs and TK, focusing on the responsiveness of GIs to the needs and desires of indigenous peoples and local communities (ILCs). The thesis posits that the search for a model to protect TK should involve identifying different modalities, including those based on intellectual property, to fit to the nature and uses of TK in particular contexts. The analysis conceptualizes GIs as a form of IP that are structurally and functionally suitable to protect aspects of TK in traditional knowledge-based agricultural products (TKBAPs). Substantively, the thesis draws attention to the conceptual underpinnings of GIs as encompassing cultural and economic objectives in the protection of TK. As such, it is argued that stronger protection of GIs should be achieved by integrating the negotiations and discussion concerning GIs and TK at the international level. Further, the case is made for the determination of immediate challenges and long-term opportunities in choosing a legal means for protecting GIs at the national level. In this connection, the thesis suggests that the potential of GIs to meet national and local imperatives to protect TK be assessed, inter alia, based on their instrumentality for economic, biodiversity, cultural and food security objectives in protecting TKBAPs.

L’internationalisation du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, initiée à la fin du XIXe siècle, a pris depuis la fin du XXe siècle une toute nouvelle tournure avec son inclusion dans le champ des disciplines commerciales multilatérales. La signature de l’accord ADPIC marque en effet l’émergence d’une véritable gouvernance mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle : l’ambition affichée par l’OMC est d’encadrer, substantiellement parlant, la marge de manœuvre des membres dans la mise en place de leurs politiques de protection. Bien qu’initié plus tardivement, la communautarisation du droit de la propriété intellectuelle revêt désormais une portée considérable : outre une conciliation effective des régimes nationaux de protection avec les principes cardinaux du traité, d’importantes directives d’harmonisation ont été édictées, et des titres européens de protection ont même été créés dans certains secteurs. Notre étude a pour vocation de montrer comment la communautarisation, au-delà de son rôle traditionnel de source du droit, officie comme un indispensable vecteur de structuration de la position européenne vis-à-vis de la mondialisation du droit de la propriété intellectuelle. Dans son versant ascendant tout d’abord – du local au global –, le vecteur communautarisation joue un rôle de mutualisation des objectifs à promouvoir sur la scène internationale. L’enjeu n’est autre que celui de façonner une gouvernance mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle qui corresponde au système d’intérêts et de valeurs de l’Union, conformément aux objectifs ambitieux assignés par le Traité. Ce processus de mutualisation n’a toutefois rien d’automatique : d’importantes contraintes institutionnelles – malgré plusieurs révisions du Traité et la progression graduelle de l’harmonisation en interne – contrarient l’émergence d’une véritable politique européenne extérieure intégrée. Mais c’est précisément à l’aune de ces contraintes qu’il convient d’apprécier la portée des accomplissements de l’UE, qui a su s’imposer comme un acteur central de la gouvernance mondiale du droit de la propriété intellectuelle. Dans son versant descendant ensuite – du global au local –, le vecteur communautarisation s’accompagne d’une montée en puissance du juge de Luxembourg dans l’arbitrage des situations d’interactions normatives fréquentes et complexes entre le droit de l’Union et le droit international de la propriété intellectuelle. L’étude systématique de la résolution par la Cour de ces interactions normatives montre combien celle-ci s’attache à préserver l’autonomie de l’ordre juridique de l’Union, en ménageant une marge d’appréciation significative dans la mise en œuvre des obligations découlant de la mondialisation du droit de la propriété intellectuelle. Cette marge d’appréciation est mise à profit pour assurer la défense d’un modèle européen original en construction, tirant parti des flexibilités du cadre normatif mondial. / The internationalization of IP Law, initiated at the end of the 19th century, has taken since the end of the 20th century a brand new twist with its inclusion in the field of multilateral trade disciplines. The signing of the TRIPS agreement marks the emergence of a global IP governance. Indeed, the ambition displayed by the WTO is to supervise the margin of maneuver of its Members in implementing their policies. Although Communitization of IP law started much later, it now has a considerable scope: national protection regimes have been conciliated with the cardinal principles of the Treaty, some important harmonization directives have been enacted, and various European titles of protection have even been created. Our study is designed to show how Communitization, beyond its traditional role of source of law, officiates as a necessary and efficient vector for structuring the European position towards the Globalization of IP Law. In its ascendant side first -- from Local to Global, the Communitization vector plays a role of merging the objectives to be promoted on the international scene. The issue at stake is to shape an IP global framework that corresponds to the system of interests and values of the EU, in accordance with the far-reaching objectives assigned by the Treaty. This merging process is, however, not automatic. In spite of several amendments to the Treaty and of the progress of internal harmonization, various institutional constraints thwart the emergence of a fully integrated external European policy in the field of IP. But it is precisely in light of these constraints that the scope of the achievements of the EU, which in now recognized as a central actor in the global IP governance, must be appreciated. In its down side then -- from Global to Local, the Communitization vector is accompanied by a rise of the European Court of Justice in arbitrating complex normative interactions between national, EU and International IP Laws. A systematic analysis of the resolution by the ECJ of these normative interactions reveals its determination to safeguard the autonomy of the EU legal order, by arranging for significant discretion in implementing international commitments. This margin of appreciation is used to defend an original European model under construction, taking advantage of the flexibilities of the global normative framework