如何在投稿前确定期刊审稿周期

1、 Geographical Indications in the WTO and the Doha NegotiationsWorldwide Symposium on Geographical IndicationsWIPO/Italian Foreign Affairs MinistryParma, Italy, 27-29 June, 2005 Miguel Rodriguez Mendozamrodriguezictsd.ch期刊杂志 http:/Outline of the PresentationnIntroductionn“Extension” of GI protectionn

2、Developing countries and the “extension” of GI protectionnThe Decisions of the Panel on GI protection in the EUnSummary and ConclusionsnIntroductionGIs and the multilateral trading systemnGIs were not a concern to the GATT Contracting PartiesnGIs became a negotiating issue during the Uruguay RoundnG

3、Is are today an integral part of the WTO framework (TRIPS Agreement)The WTO legal framework on GIsnDefining GIs for the first timenLegal provisions in TRIPS:nArticle 22 on standard level of protectionnArticle 23 on enhanced level of protection for certain productsnArticle 24 on exceptionsDefining Ge

4、ographical Indications“Geographical indications are.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 geographical origin”O

5、n-going WTO activities on GIsnIn the Doha negotiationsnA multilateral register for wines and spiritsn“Extension” of GI protection to other productsnNegotiations on agriculture: “clawn back” proposalnThe Review of Article 24.2 of the TRIPS Agreementi.The implementation of the Panel decisions on EU pr

6、otection of GIsn“Extension” of GI protection“Extension” of GI protection:nDiscussions on “extension” have intensified since the beginning of the Doha negotiationsnDifferences between proponents and opponents remain very significantn It is unclear whether “extended” GI protection would be part of the

7、 Doha final packagenThe results of the Panel decisions may have some implications for on-going discussionsThe two camps on “extension”of GI protectionThe countries that favour it:nThe European Union. nSwitzerlandnCountries in Eastern Europe non-EU members.nTurkey, Iceland nIndia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka

8、nKenya, Nigeria, Egypt and other African countriesnCuba and some Andean countries (Venezuela)nJamaica, MauritiusThe countries against it: nUnited StatesnCanadanJapannMexiconArgentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay (MERCOSUR)nSouth AfricanPhilippinesnAustralia and New ZealandnGuatemala and other developi

9、ng countries“Extension” of GI protection: the legal issuesnThe differential level of protection and the balance of rights and obligations of WTO membersnThe principle of territoriality: which country would determine the criteria for GI protection?nAre country names to be protected?nWould non-place n

10、ames or non-geographical names be protected?nThe relationship between extended GI protection and existing trademarks“Extension” of GI protection: economic considerationsnThe economic impact for producers of goods that would benefit from enhanced GI protection: new market opportunities?nThe adjustmen

11、t costs for producers in third countries that produced goods protected so far by trademarksnThe impact on consumers“Extension” of GI protection: the costs and benefits of enhanced protectionnAdaptation of legislation and institutionsnEnforcement of new rulesnThe costs for producersnDeveloping countr

12、ies and “extension” of GI protectionGI protection and developing countriesMost registered GIs originate in developed countries(784 out of 834 registered under the Lisbon Agreement), and 70 are wines and spirits. Still, developing countries could benefit from enhanced GI protection:nIt is an opportun

13、ity to get their rights on their products to be fully recognizednIt may enhance market access for their protected productsnIt may help protect traditional knowledge and production methodsLisbon Agreement Register: Demanded GI registration by product (2000) Wines and wine products53864.7%Spirits728.7

14、%Cheeses and milk derivatives566.7%Vegetables, legumes, fruits and cereals263.1%Mineral waters161.9%Beers111.3%Meat products70.8%Pastry and cookies40.5%Spices40.5%Honey40.5%Vegetables oils20.2%Odorant plants and extracts20.2%SUB-TOTAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS74289.3%Tobacco and cigarettes334.0%Ceramic

15、and ceramics products101.2%Clothes and textiles70.8%Crystal and glass products40.5%Jewelry40.5%Products for domestic use and furniture20.2%Handicraft20.2%Musical instruments10.1%Arms10.1%SUBTOTAL INDUSTRIAL AND ARTISAN PRODUCTS647.7%Marbles, stones and mineral products172.0%Kaolin and clay40.5%Salts

16、40.5%SUB-TOTAL MINERAL PRODUCTS253.0% TOTAL831100.0%Lisbon A greement Registers by CountriesFranciaRep. ChecaBulgariaItaliaArgeliaCubaHungriaPortugalTunisiaIsraelMexico nThe Decisions of the PanelThe Decisions of the GI PanelnMore legal certainty: The EU regulation is going to be modified to make it

17、 fully compatible with WTOnMore legal clarity on the relationship between GIs and trademarks: under certain circumstances co-existence is permittednRecognition of appropriateness of higher level of protection granted by EU regulationsnSummary and ConclusionsSummary and ConclusionsnWTO debates on “extension” are so far inconclusivenIt is uncertain whether the issue will be part of the Doha final negotiating packagenThis is not a North-South issue. There may be many advantages for developing countriesnThere is a need for more empirical studies on impact of GI protectio