'Stretching the Imagination': Geographical Indications in the EU-Australia FTA Negotiations

The launch of negotiations for an EU-Australia 'free trade agreement' (FTA) on 18 June 2018 was a confirmation of a 'like-minded' strong partnership, in which both parties had high hopes for an ambitious agreement which would test the new wave of protectionism promoted by Donald Trump.Nonetheless, the initial rounds of negotiations revealed several issues which illustrate the scale of the challenge to be addressed. One such example was the issue of Geographical Indications (GI). The EU and its member states adopt an approach which is highly regulated and prescriptive to safeguard the authenticity of its produce and encourage rural development. Australia approaches this kind of intellectual property issue via a trademark system as well as a sui generis system to better capture the benefits of innovation. This paper analyses the challenges and opportunities an accord on GI's could have for both regions, as revealed in the context of the EU-Australia negotiations. The paper claims that while an agreement on GI's was a significant outcome for the overall FTA, the process adopted by the EU and Australia was in itself a reflection of the ambition for an amicable, dynamic and innovative negotiating process.

Geographical Indications: Can China Reconcile the Irreconcilable Intellectual Property Issue between EU and US?

Geographical indications (GIs), signs used on products that identify their geographical origin and special quality or reputation, are atypical intellectual property. The conflicts of interest between the New World and Old World and the diversity of legal regimes have obstructed the international harmonization of GI protection. Neither the Lisbon Agreement nor the TRIPS Agreement have been able to establish a widely accepted international GI registration or protection system. Though the Geneva Act has remarkably improved the treaty regime of GIs, the different approaches of the European Union and United States still seem irreconcilable. This article examines the Chinese dual GI system from a treaty perspective and explores the common functions of GIs and Trademarks, concluding that China's Trademark Law can ensure GI protection that is compliant with the TRIPS Agreement and the Geneva Act. The Chinese solution can be a reference for other countries which protect GIs with a trademark system.