Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Australia argued that the EC Regulation was discriminatory and in violation of
the national treatment obligations and the most-favoured-nation obligations in
Articles 3 and 4 of the TRIPS Agreement and Articles I and III of the GATT
1994. The US and Australia argued that: (i) Regulation 2081/92 did not
provide the same treatment to other nationals and products originating outside
the EC that it provided to the EC's own nationals and products; (ii) the EU did
not accord immediately and unconditionally to the nationals and products of
each WTO Member any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted to
the nationals and products of other WTO Members; (iii) the EU diminished
the legal protection for trade marks; (iv) the EU did not provide legal means for
interested parties to prevent the misleading use of a GI; (v) it did not define a
GI in a manner that was consistent with the definition provided in the TRIPS
Agreement; (vi) the EU was not sufficiently transparent in its registration
procedures; and (vii) it did not provide adequate enforcement procedures.
2.96
The US and Australia claimed that the EU Regulation imposed two require-
ments which contravened the national treatment principle contained in Art
2(2) of the Paris Convention as incorporated by Art 2.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement: (i) the requirement that enterprises seeking to register GIs pos-
sessed a commercial establishment in the EU; and (ii) the requirement that GIs
located in the territory of a WTO Member outside the EU could only be
registered if that Member had adopted a system for GI protection that was
equivalent to that in the European Communities and provided reciprocal
protection to products from the European Communities.
The Panel Report in the dispute was adopted at a meeting of the Dispute
Settlement Body on 20 April 2005. Concerning the discriminatory conditions
regarding the registration of foreign GIs and the requirement for reciprocity of
protection, the Panel decided in favour of the US and Australia. Pursuant to Art
19.1 of the DSU, the Panel recommended that:
2.97
(a) the European Communities bring the Regulation into conformity with the TRIPS
Agreement and GATT 1994;
(b) the European Communities could implement the above recommendation with
respect to the equivalence and reciprocity conditions, by amending the Regulation
so as for those conditions not to apply to the procedures for registration of GIs
located in other WTO Members.
In an affirmation of the GI as intellectual property, the Panel endorsed the
European principle of its coexistence with all but the most famous of prior trade
marks. The Panel found that Art 14(2) of the Regulation was a 'limited
exception' permitted by Art 17 of TRIPS because it only allows use by those
2.98
