U.S. Wins WTO Case Against EU Over Geographical Food Names

U.S. Wins WTO Case Against EU Over Geographical Food Names EU registry discriminates against non-EU products, panel rules

The United States has won a case in the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the European Union (EU) system for protecting certain geographical food names -- called geographical indications, or GIs -- as trademarks.

According to a December 21 press release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), a WTO dispute-settlement panel in Geneva has ruled that the EU GI registry violates the WTO intellectual property rights agreement (TRIPs) because it discriminates against non-EU products.

A U.S. trade official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said in a teleconference with reporters that the EU would have to change its system to let U.S. and other non-EU producers submit applications for GI protection to the EU registry.

At issue was national treatment, the WTO principle of giving others the same treatment as one's own nationals. As the EU already protects products such as Parma ham and Roquefort cheese, USTR said, now it would have to offer the same sort of protection for U.S. GIs such as Florida oranges, Idaho potatoes and Vidalia onions.

In a second aspect of the case, USTR said, the WTO panel ruled that the EU registry could protect GI names only as registered and not foreign language translations of the registered name.

"This is a big win for American farmers and food processors," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said. "We brought this case because we believed that, under WTO rules, U.S. farmers, ranchers and other food producers should have the same access to protection for 'geographical indications' as European food producers."

The EU could appeal the panel ruling after it is circulated among all WTO members, probably in March.

On another issue, the unidentified trade official said the United States would appeal a different WTO panel ruling, this one against U.S. countervailing duties imposed on imports from the South Korean semiconductor producer Hynix to counter alleged subsidies.

The panel reportedly found that the United States had not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Korean government had ordered Korean banks to provide Hynix subsidized loans.

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Executive Office of the President Washington, D.C. 20508

WASHINGTON -- United States Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick announced today that the United States had prevailed in its WTO case against the European Union regarding geographic food names known as "geographical indications." Geographical indications, or "GIs," are geographic names that have a particular association with a product, such as Idaho potatoes or Florida oranges.

In its report issued today, the WTO panel agreed with the United States that Europe's regulation discriminates against U.S. products and producers and is therefore contrary to WTO rules. The panel also agreed with the United States that Europe could not, consistent with WTO rules, deny U.S. trademark owners their rights. The panel emphasized that any exceptions to trademark rights for the use of registered GIs were narrow and limited to the actual GI name as registered.

"This is a big win for American farmers and food processors. We brought this case because we believed that, under WTO rules, U.S. farmers, ranchers, and other food producers should have the same access to protection for 'geographical indications' as European food producers. Europe clearly failed to provide this access," said Zoellick. "We also welcome the panel's findings that protecting GIs need not and should not harm the rights of trademark owners. These findings are important to the rights of U.S. companies protecting their trademarks in Europe."

Zoellick noted the interest in this case by the House [of Representatives] Agriculture Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and worked closely with him and his staff on this issue. Under WTO rules, both parties will have an opportunity to appeal the panel report to the WTO Appellate Body after the report is circulated to the WTO membership and the public, probably sometime in the next few months.

"Geographical indications" (GIs) indicate the geographic origin of a product, where the product has some attribute or reputation associated with that origin. Examples could include Parma ham, Roquefort cheese, Florida oranges, Vidalia onions, or Idaho potatoes. The WTO TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) defines GIs as "indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographic origin."

"Protection" of GIs can take many forms, but generally consists of ensuring that consumers are not misled as to the geographic origin of the good.

The United States has a robust system for protecting geographical indications, primarily through rights provided to private rightholders under the U.S. trademark system. This system gives access to GI protection on a non-discriminatory basis and in a manner that fully protects the rights of trademark owners.

By contrast, the EC [European Community] has a special regulatory regime for geographical indications, separate and apart from its trademark system, which depends in significant part on government intervention. It is this GI regime that the United States challenged in this dispute.

Separate from this dispute, there are on-going discussions in the context of the Doha round of WTO negotiations. The EC has advocated expanding GI obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. This panel has found, however, that the EC has not complied with its current TRIPS obligations. From the U.S. perspective, current TRIPS Agreement obligations are sufficient, and a priority should be placed instead on Members meeting current obligations.

At issue is an EU regulation on the protection of GIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs (but not including wine or spirits, which are subject to a separate regulatory system). The United States challenged the EU GI Regulation on two primary grounds: (1) discrimination against U.S. GIs (national treatment) and (2) failure to protect U.S. trademarks.

First, with respect to national treatment, although the EU GI Regulation creates a system for the EU-wide registration and protection of GIs, the United States was concerned that the Regulation imposed significant barriers to registration and protection for non-EU persons and non-EU products. Under the EU system of protection, companies are prohibited from using words in connection with their products that even "evoke" the name of a registered GI, unless they are one of the authorized users of the GI. The U.S. concern was that, for instance, while producers of Parma ham in Italy can stop others from using the name Parma or similar names in the EU market, the GI Regulation would not permit U.S. producers to do the same with respect to their products. The United States alleged that this aspect of the GI Regulation was inconsistent with the EU's national treatment obligations under the TRIPS Agreement (with respect to protection of intellectual property rights of non-EU nationals) and under the GATT 1994 (with respect to treatment of non-EU goods).

Second, the United States was concerned that the EU GI Regulation would not permit trademark owners to enforce their trademarks -- that is, they would not be able to stop the confusing uses of similar GIs, which is one of their rights under the WTO TRIPS Agreement. The specific concern was the use of linguistic variations of GIs, where those linguistic variations are confusingly similar to European trademarks of U.S. companies and are used to market the European GI product, causing consumer confusion. The panel agreed with the United States that this would present concerns under the TRIPS Agreement, and found that the GI Regulation could only protect GI names as registered, and not linguistic variations of the GIs. This is an important principle for U.S. trademark owners. With this understanding, the panel found this aspect of the GI Regulation to be consistent with the TRIPS Agreement.

The United States requested WTO dispute consultations on the EU GI Regulation in June 1999. On August 18, 2003, the United States requested the establishment of a panel, and panelists were appointed on February 23, 2004. The panel issued a confidential draft interim report on November 19, 2004, the results of which were widely reported in the Press.

At issue was national treatment, the WTO principle of giving others the same treatment as one's own nationals.

Am I the only one troubled by this statement?

This principle is exactly the principle that justifies illegal immigrants getting social security, health care and free education for themselves and their children-- not that I know many citizens who get those things for free.

Do you think politicians really realize the meaning of the principle that you must treat everyone the same whether they are "one's own nationals" or not? Do they have any idea of the consequences of this statement, intended or unintended?

3 posted on 12/21/2004 10:04:19 PM PST by farmfriend ( Congratulation. You are everything we've come to expect from years of government training.)

I think this is a good decision. The regions built up their reputations over hundreds of years. If a U.S. or Chinese manufacturer wants to sell ham he mustn't call it "Parma" or cheese "Parmesan". The cheap sparkling wine which gets industrially manufactured in California or Australia and then sold at Wall-Mart for $ 1.99 isn't "Champagne" either. This is name piracy.

U.S. brewer Anheuser-Busch issued a statement asserting that the ruling prevents a rival Czech brewer from using the name Budweiser along with its registered name Budvar (Budweiser is the German for the Czech place name Budvar).

"This is a big win for American farmers and food processors," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick

This is scandal! Czech Budweiser is the REAL Budweiser, not a "rival". It tasts great and was made for SEVEN CENTURIES, long before Columbus discovered America. The Budweiser was the beer of the kings made for the royal court and regulated by the crown.

Anheuser-Busch is a $#%!&@ [I should not be more explicit].

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.