Bibliography

Country names are incomparable value creators, synonymous with a State’s national competitive identity, and deserve sui generis protection. Three broad approaches to amplifying protection of country names against misuse and free riding in international commerce have emerged. First, the ‘Swissness’ model, which is a national statutory framework for the protection of the appellation ‘Swiss’. It is characterized by co-branding regulations,¹ and supplementing intellectual property (IP) protection with diplomacy through bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements.
Secondly, French jurisprudence affirmed—in France Atout v France.com—that the appellation ‘France’ constitutes for the French government a reference to its economic, geographic, historic, political and cultural identity, and is understood by the public as signifying goods and services made in France. Thirdly, the multilateral approach, whereby the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) mechanism is being used to sift through divergent views of member states on protection of country names and coalesce recommendations into a norm setting instrument, has made some incremental cede way. The critical question that continues to provoke debate is whether member states should adopt an instrument modifying international IP policy to embrace increased IP protection of country names in keeping with the vicissitudes of modern global trade. The article highlights the recommendations made by the international community on this issue. A new IP classification, ‘country name designation’, is considered to encompass the extended function of country names as well as the author’s proposal for the creation of a sui generis multilateral IP framework. Exceptions and limitation to the scope of protection are also explored.

This article critically analyses the recent reform of the Russian Geographical Indications (GI) Law which came into force on 27 July 2020. This has deeply transformed the sui generis system of the country, in an effort to introduce a regime inspired by the EU experience as well as by the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement. On the basis of the best available legal and economic sources, the article investigates this legal framework from two perspectives. First, the new provisions of this law are critically assessed. Next, the article discusses whether and to what extent this reform can achieve the ambitious goals that it has set itself. It will be concluded that, first, although this is an interesting attempt to introduce an improved GI system that will probably fix some of the previous dysfunctions, this is still incomplete and distant from the international best practices. Secondly, the analysis will lead to the conclusion that the policy goals of the reform will be difficult to achieve at least in the short term. This article represents the first scholarly analysis of the new Russian sui generis GI regime, thus filling a gap in international academic literature.

Geographic Indications (GIs) are an internationally recognised form of protection for goods based on their quality or reputation and a fairly recent instrument in Brazilian law. In this context, there is an ongoing discussion in academia regarding the relevance of GIs as a tool to promote the sustainable development of territories. This debate considers that there is a strong connection between a good’s reputation and quality and its traditional and sustainable production practices. This research aims to understand how Brazilian GI regulation of agricultural products protects and encompasses socio-environmental sustainability dimensions, discussing the main gaps and opportunities thereof. For that, from an interdisciplinary perspective, this study provides a small-N qualitative content analysis of 30 Brazilian GIs, identifying their socio-environmental provisions, and debating whether GIs can become a mechanism for greater environmental protection in Brazil.

At a Diplomatic Conference in May 2015, the Special Union of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin amended the Lisbon Agreement which sees the subject matter and scope of protection extending beyond appellations of origin to include geographical indications. The amendment, the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications opens the pathway for international registration of geographical indications, which previously never existed under the Lisbon Agreement and which failed to materialise under the TRIPS Agreement. This article examines key provisions of the Geneva Act that could make it attractive to African countries. It explores the state of GIs on the continent and the interest in GIs as an avenue for rural development as reinforced by the African Union Continental Strategy for GIs. It makes a case for the Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI) to consider joining the Geneva Act and seek the international registration of Oku White Honey from Cameroon as one of the first GIs in the region.

This article explores the possibility that geographical indications (GIs) may enhance value addition for avocados grown in Kenya. It concludes that factors that are attendant to the registration of GIs in Kenya provide a basis upon which the commercial value of avocados grown in Kenya can be enhanced.

This article analyzes the current laws, regulations and legal doctrines applicable to the registration of geographical indications in Indonesia. Notably, this contribution considers the complications in implementing the protection for geographical indications for non-agricultural products in Indonesia following the adoption of the Minister of Justice and Human Rights Regulation (MJHR) 2019. Non-agricultural products have a strong link with local cultural factors but, in some instances, a weaker link with natural factors. This makes them difficult to be registered as geographical indications under the current language and requirements of MJHR 2019. This article uses primary and secondary sources as well as semi-guided and in-depth interviews to make its conclusions and recommendations. In particular, the article proves the current text of Regulation 2019 is in contradiction with the trade mark and geographical indications law of 2016 as well as the previous regulation of 2007. Accordingly, it suggests that the current requirements of MJHR Reg. 2019 be harmonized.

Increasing threats to Ghana’s kente textile have intensified the need for its urgent defensive intellectual property (IP) protection. While Ghana’s Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690) protects the kente styles and designs from being copied, it can neither address the problem of third parties producing kente imitations for sale nor the cultural misappropriation of Ghana’s textile tradition. Additionally, the world’s largest free trade agreement, the comprehensive African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA), has the potential to further damage Ghana’s kente trade where it has no extensive IP protection. This article makes a case for why Geographical Indication (GI) protection should be an important part of a comprehensive IP strategy to protect Ghana’s kente. From a global perspective, the African Union (AU) and European Union (EU) agreed to enhance cooperation through a commitment to an AU-EU Continental strategy for Geographical Indications in Africa with an action plan to improve Africa’s GI systems. Notably, the action plan identifies Ghana’s kente as having GI potential. This article argues that supportive pan-African, regional and national GI policies are needed to link people, places and products, and calls for the enforcement of Ghana’s Geographical Indications Act to preserve Ghana’s traditional kente from wider misappropriation.