1.

INTRODUCTION:
The term of G.I. is not new in market. It’s a term which is
commonly used for those products, which have some identification
relating to their place of origin. The term G.I. is used not only for
the agro-products but also for handicrafts, manufactured goods,
industrial goods like food items etc. Geographical Indication is a
kind of sign that a product possesses due to the fact of its origin.
A product to function as G.I. it should be identified as a product
originating from a given place.
G.I. is a kin to the trademark. G.I. is the products which are
identifies due to their origin from a particular place, which
attribute special qualities in it which cannot get replicated
elsewhere. Place of origin in G.I. is playing a very prominent role
as it stops, other producers of other region to use its name or
replicate it and gain profit. So, the basic difference between
Geographical Indication and Trademark are as follows:
1. Geographical Indication and Trademarks are distinct signs that
are used for the products and services, which distinguish them
from the other products available in the markets.
2. Trademark informs consumers about the source and services
of the goods i.e. from which company the goods coming from. It
helps the consumers to identify the product with specific quality
or reputation, based on the reputation of the company. Whereas
Geographical Indication helps consumer to identify the products
which having specific quality, characteristics and reputation.
3. Trademark is a sign, which is used by the owners or other
person to whom it is assigned or licensed. Whereas, Geographical
Indication is a sign which is given to the product which originates
from a particular place. It can be used by all, who are residing in
that particular area or region. It cannot be assigned or licensed to
any other person because it is given to the product which
originates from a particular region, locality or country.
The purpose behind protection of Geographical Indication is to
grab attention of the consumers, in order to increase the market
and popularity of the G.I. products. As these products are unique
in their own way because of their climatic conditions, regions,
usage of traditional skills etc. by which it makes difficult for others
to replicate it. But, with every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction. If we are protecting the rights of the authentic
manufacturers of G.I products, there is every possibility that there
can be misuse of the geographical name of any product in order to
confuse consumers and gain profits. So, in order to save
consumers from deception, the need for the protection of G.I.’s
arose internationally, because, protection of G.I.’s adds to the
financial gains of the producers and also indirectly helps in the
economic development of the country.
1.1 Protection of Geographical Indication under US and EU:
The method of protecting G.I. under US and EU has always been
different. In US, the protection of G.I. is coming from long
tradition. But nowadays, the protection of GI is dealt under the
Trademark regime and Unfair Competition Law, they doesn’t deal
with G.I. as an independent Intellectual Property. On the hand,
EU provides protection to G.I. under sui generis legislation. In EU,
public law approach is used for the protection of G.I. and private
law approach is used in US for protecting G.I.
The concept of protecting G.I. initially came into existence by US
law which is known as Lanham Act, 1946; it was applicable to all
goods and services. Earlier, geographical indication weren’t
included in trademarks. But, Lanham Act introduced collective
marks and certification marks which were used as the main
method of protecting G.I. in US.
The term “certification mark” is defined as a mark used by a
person other than its owner to certify geographic origin or certain
standards met (e.g. quality or other characteristics of the
good/service) or work performed by member of a union.
The holder of the certification mark does not use it (because he is
not the producer of the goods) but controls usage of the mark by
others, who apply it to the goods and services in order to indicate
the consumers that the standards set forth by the certifier are met.
This means that various producers in the particular region are
allowed to use specific (geographic) certification mark. Moreover,
the owner cannot deny any producer from using the mark as long
as the characteristics which the mark certifies are maintained. So
certification marks are not exclusive but must be available to all.
In European context we can understand that to use G.I. for a
product is open to all the members of its region. In short that is
similar to the French “Appellation d’ Origine”.
Role of G.I. as discussed above, it is important to understand and
analyse legal regime of G.I. at International level constitutes of
multilateral agreements between nations to protect IPR and G.I. in
particular. More than a century ago G.I. was a nascent concept,
but, in a temporary times G.I. has grown in nature, scope and
concept. The evolution of G.I. as concept of IPR can be attributed
by several conventions. Some of the important conventions are as
follows:
2. PARIS CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, 1883:
Granting protection to the product as G.I is not new. It originates
way back in fifteen century, when Roquefort identifies a
characteristics blue cheese made in the Southwest region of
France, near the municipality of [Link] Europe,
laws relating to the protection of GIs existed for hundreds of years.
For instance in 1222 in Yugoslavia a charter of Steven I governed
the sale of wine in the region. In the middle-ages in the south- west
of France and in other French wine producing regions, the sale of
wines from other regions were prohibited. Only wines produced in
that region were allowed entry into its town.
One of the first G.I. system was used by France way back in 20th
century known as Appellation d’ Controle’e (AOC). The items which
use to meet the required standards stated by the government, then
they use to issue a stamp which use to act as the certification of
originality for the product and even for the consumers.
There was no definition of G.I. which was universally accepted,
so, because of the constant force of France and other European
nations, the basic definition of G.I. was derived from the
international agreements.
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property was
accepted in year 1883. This was the first convention which took
initiative to provide protection to the Industrial Property in the
widest sense including industrial design, patents, trademarks,
utility models, trade names, service marks geographical indication
(indication of source and appellation of origin) and repression of
unfair competition.
During the last century, it was difficult to have protection for
industrial properties in various countries of the world because,
each country had its own laws, so there was a hard desire to
overcome these problems. When Paris Convention came into
existence it provided protection to the national of the country who
is the members of the convention.
Paris Convention protected IPR by providing certain basic
principles which were applicable to all its member states.
 National Treatment- Article 2 and 3 of Paris Convention,
deals with the principle of National Treatment. This
principles states that the State shall not discriminate the
members of the other State, in terms of content of IPR and
the fee thus charged.
 Right of Priority- Article 4 of Paris Convention, deals with
the Right of Priority when it comes to the Registration of
Industrial property. As per the principle, the date of
Application in one member country would be deemed to be
the date of Application in other member countries, if the
priority is claimed within the prescribed time of the earlier
Application from which the priority is claimed.
 The convention lays down certain common rules for all the industrial
property but especially for Geographical Indication it lays down, that
the effective measures must be taken by every contracting state
against direct or indirect use of a false indication of the source of
goods or the identity of their producer, manufacturer or trader.
Though Articles in Paris Convention provided certain protection to
the indication of source and appellation of origin but the Convention
didn’t specified any requirements as to the characteristics, quality or
reputation of the product. Hence, it mainly focussed on the actual
geographical source or origin of the product, rather than on its
features.
3. MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL
REGISTRATION OF MARKS, 1891:
It was established in 1891 under Article 19 of Paris Convention,
which allows for special agreements within its member states. It was
born out of dissatisfaction with the original Article 10 of Paris
Convention. The French and British proposal at the Rome Conference
of 1886 to extend the scope of Article 10, were consolidated into a
new compromise by prohibiting all false indications of origin,
provided the courts of each member could determine which
expression were generic.
Madrid agreement is the multilateral agreement, which addressed
the issue of deceptive Indication. Though Paris Convention came
before, but it dealt only with the origin of the product. But, it is not
necessarily that consumer think only about origin. Once, the other
country uses the name of the Indication of Source of goods from the
origin country then Madrid Agreement comes in front.
The Madrid system for the International Registration of Marks is
governed by the Madrid Agreement, which got concluded in 1891,
and its Protocol relating to the agreement concluded in 1989. Madrid
Agreement, helped in protecting the marks by providing International
Registration which is applicable to all the countries who are party to
it.
 Madrid Agreement 1891, made lots of improvements relating to
Geographical Indication. It laid down that, G.I. can be protected in
several countries, as certification marks or collective marks It gives
an opportunity to protect a mark by filing only one application.
Registration under Madrid System has same effects for the
Contracting Parties, as of national registration.
Indication of source of goods or products includes not only the
country but also the place of origin of a product. And most
importantly, Indication of Source of goods must be related to its
geographical origin only and not to other kind of origin.
The Lisbon Agreement 1958 represents the high water mark in the
international protection of IGOs. The agreement creates another
special union, permitted under Article 19 of the Paris Convention. It
came into existence to overcome the failures under the Paris
Convention and Madrid Agreement.
4. LISBON AGREEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF
APPELLATION OF ORIGIN AND THEIR INTERNATIONAL
REGISTRATION:
Lisbon Agreement for the protection of Appellation of origin and their
International Registration 1958 is the first agreement which actually
stated the definition of “Appellation of origin”. Under Article 2 of the
agreement states that the “Appellation of Origin”, means the
geographical denomination of a country, region or locality, which
serves to designate a product originating therein, the characteristics
or quality of which are due exclusively or essentially to the
geographical environment including natural and human factors.
The words of Article 2 of Lisbon Agreement only suggest
“Geographical Denominations”. So, there has been a debate over this,
some say it is limited to the place names per se and some includes
designations which can directly or indirectly indicate geographical
origin. The problem basically have arose from the WIPO’s text, which
translated the term ‘denominations’ as the French text as ‘name’.
 One of the surveys of Lisbon Agreement, included a proposal that
geographical name, might be replaced by the geographical indication,
which can identify the product originating in order to encompass also
traditional denominations with a geographical connotation.
When Lisbon agreement is compared to TRIPS, its Article 2 does not
include Appellation of origin, which is constituted by sign, or other
than geographical name. TRIPS can be considered broader when it
envisages ‘indications’ which includes not only words, but also
images, symbols and even shapes. The Lisbon agreement clearly
states the usage of both direct and indirect, geographical
denominations.
Geographical Indications or an even designation of origin doesn’t
always come from the same place which consists of geographical
names. They can be direct if they do and they can be indirect if they
don’t provided the name of the indication or designation, which at
least inform the consumers about the product i.e. from which place
its coming, its origin, its region or its country. For example: the words
‘Cava’ or ‘Grappa’ recalls of the Spanish and Italian birthplaces of a
sparkling wine and of a liqueur respectively, ‘Feta’ recalls of Greek
cheese.
G.I. protection is helpful in protecting the rights of the producer,
because when the product is labelled it acquires certain amount of
commercial value which can be easily misused by others, leading to
financial loss to the producers. The concept of G.I. not only protects
the goods but also makes goods different from the league.
In other words we say that, it is always necessary to inform the
consumers about the product i.e. from where it is coming , its origin,
its region, locality and country. Its main motive is to raise the demand
of those products in the market which possess certain qualities
which are attributable by its locality, region or country. If the product
gains the reputation in the market it automatically affects the export
of the country and it attracts lots of consumers who are fond of the
authentic products and it can also be directly helpful in upgrading
the status of the producers and manufactures. As per Article 2(2), in
order to identify the country of origin we have to look into the place
which has given it a reputation. Article 1(2) of Lisbon Agreement
shows that it is the members who are under the obligation to protect
the appellation of origin. In fact, the basic feature of Lisbon
Agreement is to provide protection to the appellation of origin in their
home country. If the appellation of origin is protected in their home
country, then other Lisbon countries are obliged to protect it. The key
features of the Lisbon Agreement are as follows:
1. Recognition of the AO as distinct subject matter,
2. International registration based on prior recognition at the
national level,
3. Desirable consequences flowing from this registration, including
the prohibition of a range of uses beyond misleading ones and the
prevention of subsequent generic use after registration.
 Definition of Geographical Indication:
TRIPS Agreement has defined the term Geographical Indication
under Part 3, Section 3, of Article 22.1, as follows: “Geographical
Indications are for the purposes of this agreement, indication which
identify a good as originating in a territory of a member, or a region
or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other
characteristics of the good is essentially attributable to its
geographical origin”.
According to WIPO, Geographical Indication is defined as following:
“A used on goods that have specific geographical origin and possess
qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially
attributable to that place of origin. Most commonly, a geographical
indication includes the name of the place of origin of the goods.”
5. GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT):
During World War II, the situation became very haphazard when it
came to trade, so after World War II, some nations got together and
signed the agreement of their choice in which all the member states
gave consensus accordingly, for their own benefit without thinking
the pros and cons of the agreement. But still the trade related issues
didn’t got solved as GATT agreement was only provisional agreement
as Section 2 Part II of GATT Agreement itself says that it shall be
suspended on the day as soon as the Havana Charter comes into
force. But Havana Charter never came into force and GATT
agreement remained in force only on provisional basis. GATT was
lacking not only in this area but also in the field of dispute settlement
mechanism, it was merely compensatory in nature. So, again some
nations came together in the last negotiation which is popularly
known as Uruguay Round and formed WTO which superseded GATT
provisions and amended the previous GATT agreement and formed
the new GATT agreement 1994.
5.1 Origin of GATT:
Initially ITO (International Trade Organisation) was the organisation
to deal with the matters relating to the legal documents, which were
mentioned in the Havana Charter. GATT (General Agreement on
Tariff and trade) was ITO’s extensive projects. ITO was negotiated
only for Breton Woods, World Bank and IMF (International Monetary
Fund). There were basically two reason behind having all these
negotiations which took place between 1946 to 1948 in London, New
York, Geneva and finally in Havana, Cuba, was firstly to promote
International cooperation amongst each other, after the disaster of
world war II, and secondly, to distinguish from the United Nations
(UN) which was working towards avoidance of another world war.
However, ITO then took many important steps to promote
International trade among nations, by providing them technical
assistance, in order to address, trade related issues. At that time
many financial policies were made to deal with the problems of
International communities, just to overcome the causes of their
conflicts. It was basically an ambitious project which couldn’t fulfil
the expectations of the International community.
But, on the other hand, some nations wanted a less ambitious
project, so in order to begin with their discussion, nations came
together for negotiation in Lake success, New York, between January
and February 1947 and the GATT was concluded. The main purpose
of GATT was to reduce and bind the custom tariffs. Again the
members of the Preparatory Committee conducted a round table
negotiation between April and October 1947 at the European office
of UN. This was the first multilateral negotiation.
So, the conclusion of both the negotiation constituted the Geneva
Final Act, which also included PPA (Protocol of Provisional
Application). The involvement of PPA and other nations governments
took the initiative to apply the provisions of GATT especially Part I of
GATT, which deal with the Most Favoured Nation clause, and Part III
of GATT, which deal with articles dealing with administrative issues.
After the application of above mentioned parts of GATT, the members
took the responsibility to apply Part II of GATT, which deal with the
most important issues including national treatment, anti- dumping ,
subsidies, safeguards, balance of payments, prohibition of
quantitative restrictions, exception to the obligations etc.
GATT came into force on 1st January 1948, but it was provisional
because as per Section 2 of Part II of GATT Agreement, GATT shall be
suspended on the day when the Havana Charter comes into force.
But, unfortunately Havana Charter never came into force, so, GATT
in its entire 47 yrs was applied on the provisional basis.
5.2 GATT:
An Agreement and Institution GATT agreement over the time became
an institution itself and its Articles became an umbrella in order to
protect the nations, inspite of ITO existence. The fact that GATT
agreement didn’t failed was that, its member nations use to take
decisions with consensus and its Articles were according to the needs
of its members, unless it is opposed by its contracting parties.
5.3 GATT and US:
Under US law it was classified as a congressional executive
agreement. GATT agreement is basically laid on the foundation of the
“most favoured nation treatment”. GATT totally held eight rounds.
 5.4 Geneva Round:
The first Round got conducted in Geneva in 1947, 23 countries
participated and it continued for the duration of 7 months. Signing
of GATT agreement took place and, 45,000 tariff concessions
affecting $10 billion of trade was negotiated.
5.5 Annecy Round:
1949 The second Round, of negotiations of GATT took place in
Annecy, France. In this Round, around 26 countries participated.
The focus of the talk was the reduction of tariff.
5.6 Torquay Round 1951:
The third Round took place in Torquay, England in 1950 and 38
countries participated. In this 8, 700 tariff concessions were made
totalling the remaining amount of tariffs to thre fourths of the tariffs
which were in effect in 1948.
5.7 Geneva Round:
The fourth Round took place gain in Geneva in 1955 and 26
countries took part in it. $2.5 billion in tariffs were reduced.
5.8 Dillion Round:
Fifth Round once again got conducted in Geneva, and this round was
named after the former US Treasury Secretary and former under
Secretary of State Douglas Dillion. In this round they spoke about
creating the EEC (European Economic Community).
5.9 Kennedy Round:
It took place in between 1964 to 1967.
5.10 Tokyo Round:
Tokyo Round of GATT agreement took place since 1973, in which 97
countries agreed to participate. The reason why Tokyo Round was
called upon was that, the GATT dispute settlement mechanism was
not satisfactory. And hence, members wanted more effective dispute
settlement mechanism. The purpose behind establishing any
International structure is that, its members abide by its rules and
procedures and its non compliance make them face strict actions but
GATT chose not to be coercive, rather, it was only compensatory. As
per GATT Article XXIII (2), permits the contracting parties to
authorise governments to suspend obligations (i.e. impose prohibited
trade restrictions) against the government that violate the General
Agreement.
In Tokyo Round, the main concerned was the dispute settlement, but
the government nations chose not to have coercive mechanism.
Inspite of this entire lacuna’s GATT dispute settlement mechanism
didn’t changed, and by continuance of these procedures GATT risked
its prestige also in wrong cases.
After Tokyo Round also, there was hardly any improvement in the
protection of intellectual property rights. GATT though it deals with
the trade and tariff between countries but the other vital issues is
also involved when it comes to IPR. So the Uruguay Round of
Negotiations took place in order to overcome the drawbacks relating
to the Intellectual property protection.
6. URUGUAY ROUND:
Uruguay Round was the multilateral trade negotiation, which took
place within the framework of GATT between 1986 to 1994. In this
Round 123 contracting states participated. This negotiation took
place in order to extend the GATT and include all those issues which
previously haven’t got discussed in GATT e.g.: Agriculture, textile,
intellectual property rights, investment etc. But we will be dealing
only intellectual property issues. After Uruguay Round TRIPS came
into existence by WTO in order to regulate intellectual property by
laying down the minimum standards for the protection of intellectual
properties
7. THE AGREEMENT ON TRADE RELATED ASPECTS OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (TRIPS):
In 1994, for the first time International agreement came into
existence in order to govern or to regulate the international monetary
policy, and it was Breeton Woods, which created two institutions to
govern international monetary policy, they were IBRD (International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development) 1945 and IMF
(International Monetary Fund) 1946. And later on in 1947 GATT was
also got established, to regulate trade between countries. GATT
underwent eight negotiations in order to extend its scope and to form
stringent rules and procedures, which can be helpful to regulate
trade and tariff.
The first Five Rounds mainly dealt only on tariffs. Sixth Round then
focussed on the Anti- Dumping Rules and Provisions in order to help
the member states to control the dumping of goods into their territory
by other nations which can affect the member nation’s
[Link] Round discussed tariff and non tariff measures.
And its last round was Eight Round which was Uruguay Round
which was meant to extend the provisions of GATT, to agriculture,
intellectual property rights, investment, textile etc.
After all these discussions and negotiations WTO came into existence
in 1994 and it became effective on 1st January 1995. All these
treaties basic principles were:
7.1 Most Favoured Nation Treatment (MFN):
It is a clause which gives a level of status to a particular country
which is enforced by WTO. It is granted in order to increase the trade
with that country. It is helpful in reducing tariffs on imported goods
etc.
7.2 National treatment:
It prohibits discrimination between imported and domestically
produced goods with respect to internal taxation or other government
regulation.
The agreement is the first agreement under which its members are
required establishing legal norms in their domestic system, along
with the enforcement measure and procedures. There are three
important features of the agreement which are as follows:-
a. Standards
b. Enforcement
c. Dispute Settlement
7.3 TRIPS provisions relating to Geographical Indication:
As per Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, member states are
required to provide protection for Geographical Indications. The term
‘Indications’ is used to identify goods as originating in the territory of
a member nation, region or locality where a product attains its
distinct characteristics and reputation because of its geographical
origin.
The TRIPS Agreement does not specify any legal form in order to
protect geographical indications. In fact it has left this to the member
nations. In practice, various means are used in order to protect
geographical indications, which include laws on business practices,
Sui generis (i.e. a system created especially for this purpose),
trademark law and GI laws.
TRIPS Agreement Article 22.2 requires two basic forms of protection
in respect of all GIs, against use in a manner which would mislead
the public as to the true origin of the goods and against the use which
would constitute an unfair means of competition, within the meaning
of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention.
Article 23 of the agreement, provides the higher level of protection for
the geographical indications for wines and spirits. And it plainly
prohibits the use of wines and spirits which do not originate in the
specific geographical origin, whether the true origin has been
identified or not. In fact, under Article 23, the legitimate holders have
to prove that the following product on which the GI has been used,
does not originate in the geographic area, identified by its indication.
Thus, under Article 23, the competitors of geographical indications
of wine and spirits, which are not producing the product within the
geographical area, are simply prohibited from using corresponding
denominations such as ‘kind’, ‘type’, ‘style’, ‘imitation’ or ‘the like’.
Article 22 and 23 deals with certain restrictions, which are subject to
certain restrictions, which have been dealt in Article 24. The
exceptions are following:
i. WTO members have a right to use the similar GI of another
member, for identifying its wines and spirits, and it is only
permitted when GI have been used in a continuous manner,
in the territory of that member for at least ten years.
ii. It relates to those GIs which have a generic, in a particular
country and yet not protected. So, a member can expect
protection of GI by other members if it protects its own GIs
through its national measures.

7.5 Additional Protection of GIs for wines and spirits in Article

23 of TRIPS:
Article 23 of TRIPS Agreement deals exclusively with wines and
spirits. According to Article 23(1) “Every member nation shall provide
a legal measure to the legitimate holders, in order to prevent the use
of geographical indication identifying wines and spirits, not
originating from the place, which is indicated by the geographical
indication in question or identifying the spirits not originating from
the place, which is indicated in question, even where the true origin
of the goods is indicated by the expression such as “type”, “like”,
“style”, “imitation” etc. This is also been dealt under Section 22(2)
and 22(3) of the GI Act.
Article 23(2) of TRIPS Agreement is the complete opposite of Article
22(3). As Article 22(3) allows the, refusal or invalidation of
trademarks containing an illegal GI, irrespective of whether it mislead
the public.
According to Section 25(b) of GI Act deals with similar provisions but
for all products which central government may notify.
Article 23(3) of the TRIPS Agreement, deals with the ‘homonymous’
GIs for wines and not for spirits, whose use is not deceptive or
misleading under Article 22(4) of the TRIPS Agreement.
Article 23(4) of TRIPS, provides for negotiations for the establishment
of a multilateral system of notification and registration of such GIs.
8. ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS:
The agreement aim was not only to provide minimum standards for
protecting IPR, but also to provide enforcement for the same. The
agreement provided minimum standards for the protection of IPR,
which allowed the legitimate holders to protect their interests
through civil or administrative proceedings. It is not required for the
WTO members to establish a separate courts or special courts for
IPR. Part III of the agreement, lays down that for the enforcement of
IPR, the member nations are under obligation to establish domestic
judicial and administrative mechanism, through which legitimate IPR
holders can seek effective protection of their interests and it is the
obligation of the member nation to provide “fair and equitable”
enforcement procedures and not unnecessarily complicated or costly.
The agreement also provides that both the parties should have a
equal rights of presentation and contest evidence, and the adequate
remedial measures should be available.
The agreement allows the member nations to exclude the grant of
injunctions in the circumstances like compulsory licenses and other
uses are involved.
The agreement obligates the member nations to make provisions in
order to prevent the entry of infringing goods into the channel of trade
and commerce. This means that the IPR holders are entitled to seek
a prompt action against the infringement.
9. THE DOHA DEVELOPMENT ROUND:
Doha Development Agenda, often referred as Doha Round, was
negotiated under the umbrella of WTO (World Trade Organisation).
Nine negotiations came into existence, but it was Doha Round, to be
first which focussed to help developing countries to join Global
Market, and to boost their economies as well. The Round was
officially launched at WTO Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha,
Qatar, in November 2001. The purpose behind all these talks was to
regulate the tariffs on things which include wheat to cars, banking to
consulting, negotiating new Intellectual Property rules on things
such as drugs and copyrighted work. Basically it had three main
objects; Firstly, to strengthen the global multilateral trading system,
Secondly, to establish conditions in order to increase global welfare
with a special focus on the needs of a developing countries and
thirdly, to reform agricultural subsidies.
Doha Round’s main aim was to cover trade facilitation and not the
broad liberalisation. It included some interesting clauses such as
cutting customs red tape could raise annual global output by $400
billion, which much of a gain flowing to developing economies. In fact,
it took years effort to gain this success. The problem of WTO was it’s
of all or nothing approaches of seeking a jumbo accord which has to
be approved by all its 159 members. This is the way to ensure trade
liberalisation globally. In practice it allowed all its members to have
a veto power which is actually a recipe for deadlock and handing
power to obstructionists.
In all the negotiations Doha Round has its own importance because
it was the first negotiations which dealt with the issue of the
economic development of the developing countries. So, that they can
grow economically and should also be treated equally amongst all the
nations and be able to compete with the developed countries, when
it comes to the protection of their rights in the entire field possible.
The following objects of the DDA had its importance because, it
intends to support the developing countries to reach the standards
which they are aiming for and integrate them further, for a global
market. Though the initial negotiations failed all of the unsettled
items from the DDA, it still remained at the centre of all follow up
ministerial Rounds, which failed all together.
The fifth WTO Ministerial Conference took place in Cancun, Mexico
was held in Mid September 2003. The issues raised in this conference
were as same as raised in Doha Round. The talks in this conference
failed because all the developed countries wanted to talk about new
issues but the developing countries wanted to discuss the previous
issues which mattered them the most. This was the first time when
all the developing countries took stand as united against the
developed countries.
This conference basically dealt with whether all members together
agree on completing remaining negotiations. But the meeting ended
on soured discord when it came to the issue of agriculture including
cotton and ended in deadlock on the “Singapore Issues”. And the real
progress on the Singapore Issues and agriculture were not available
until early hours of August 1, 2004, with a set of decisions in the
General Council.
In 2003, the Doha Development Agenda, suffered severely, when the
Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico, failed terribly, when all its
members didn’t agreed upon how to proceed with the remaining
negotiations. In this conference, basically, the developed countries
didn’t agree to commit to decreased agricultural protection and
subsidies and on the other hand developing countries couldn’t
engage themselves in a Singapore Issues which included investment,
competition policy, government procurement and trade facilitation.
The meeting hence failed to deliver any consensus.
Because of all the ruckus which got created in the fourth ministerial
Conference, a deadlock came between them, while all these things
were undergoing, EU and US, tried their level best to break the unity
of the developing countries and force their own interest at the
expense of poor countries using intimidation at the WTO but they
failed miserably.
After the deadlock, the WTO members again met and started talking.
The agreement reached the level of package of framework agreement
by the end of July 2004. Its first draft was known as “July package”
which got circulated on 16th July and its negotiation started on 19th
July. The meeting achievements included a manual which indicated
the future elimination of agriculture export subsidies, new
commitments to discipline trade distorting farm subsidies and most
important commitment to reduce agriculture tariffs in order to
achieve substantial improvement in the market access while allowing
them more flexibility in the treatment of sensitive products.
There were also other negotiations which intended to initiate
negotiations on trade facilitation, with the object to expedite the
movement, release and clearance of goods and improved custom
procedures all around the world. But other Singapore Issues were
dropped. Here, the delay in reaching the agreement means that the
original January 1st 2005, deadline for finishing the talks could not
be met. So, the members planned to meet unofficially in order to
complete the next phase of the negotiations, which was at Hong Kong
Ministerial Conference in December 2005, which included full
modalities in agriculture and market access for non agriculture
products and to finish the talk by the end of the following year.
Since, the launch of the Doha Round of Multilateral Trade
Negotiations, the WTO members, among other subjects, has also
negotiated for the possible rules for enhancing the protection of GIs.
There were mainly two issued got discussed in the negotiation, the
first issue was, the establishment of a multilateral register for wines
should be made compulsory under Article 23 of the TRIPS
Agreement, and the second issue was, related to whether the level of
protection provided for wines under Article 23 of TRIPS, should be
extended to cover all products.
In these issues WTO members remained sharply divided on a range
of procedural and technical points. The difference between the
members actually arose on political issues, such as, to mandate
through to substantive questions regarding the costs and benefits of
the various proposed solutions.
But the opposing countries argued that the existing Article 22, level
of protection is adequate because, they feared that the enhanced
protection would be a burden and will disrupt the existing marketing
practices. But India, along with other countries stressed upon the
enhancement of Article 23, in order to cover all categories of goods.
However, the countries like U.S.A, Chile, Argentina, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay and Guatemala, were the countries
which opposed to any kind of “enhancement”. But, the
“enhancement” issue became the integral part of the Doha Work
Programme 2001. However, there was the vast difference of opinion
among the WTO members, so, not much progress could be achieved
in the negotiations and the same remains as an “outstanding
implementation issue.
The topic of GI is rather vexed; involving significant differences of
opinions in WTO/TRIPS agreements regarding protection of GI,
protection is currently limited to GIs for wines and spirits. Along with
India, there are other countries like European Union, Thailand,
Kenya, Switzerland, Turkey, Poland and Hungary, wish to extend
Article 23 of TRIPS Agreement, in order to protect all GI products,
along with the establishment of a legally binding multilateral register
for GI products.
However, a very important issue came into light in the Doha
Development Agenda about food GIs policy regarding GIs and rural
development, private (personal) versus communal rights, traditional
versus creation, the expansion of the protection offered for foods
other than wines and spirits and its trade effects.
India, along with other countries appealed for the extended
protection of GIs especially under Article 23 of TRIPS Agreement. The
additional protection has also been appealed for products other than
wines and spirits.