The aim of this project is the analysis and comparison of different systems of protection of geographical indications in the countries of the Old World, as represented by the European Union,and the New World, as represented by the USA. This analysis allows important conclusions to be drawn: first of all it enumerates the benefits of the different systems of protection of geographical indications and then it answers the question of whether geographical indications should be protected under an independent law in the USA.
The aim of the protection of intellectual property rights in the United States is to protect consumers from fraud. This doctrine has a basis in a fairly liberal market. Geographical indications are not protected as a special intellectual property right, but in the context of trademark rights (as a collective trademark or a certification trademark). The advantages of this protection system are multiple: consumers have confidence in trademark law and do not have to deal with unknown new rules; possible conflicts are prevented by the principle of priority. The disadvantages of this system of protection, on the other hand, are negligible.
Basically the protection of geographical indications in the EU pursues economic objectives. These objectives are achieved by protecting producers from unfair competition. A further important role in the protection of geographical indications is played by consumer protection. Unlike in the United States, this role is still only subordinate in Europe. The protection of geographical indications in the EU also has cultural aspects. Independent, strong protection of geographical indications ensures the survival of the traditional manufacturing process, which is often considered as a cultural heritage and a source of particular national pride. The EU geographical indications indirectly affect the existence of hundreds of thousands of farms. They affect not only the functioning of the internal market, but also exports from the EU and internal consumer policy. Unlike the EU, the number and importance of geographical indications that the US uses in international trade is negligible compared to the number of trademarks used. This indicates that the US has no interest in an independent national and international protection of geographical indications.
Different systems of protection of geographical indications were the reason why claims have been held under the auspices of the WTO. First, the United States filed a complaint with the WTO against Regulation 2081/92, followed by Australia. Disputes resulted in panel reports. These reports are not particularly contributed to the settlement of the dispute, primarily Budweiser dispute which was the reason for filing the complaint by the United States. The procedures initiated at the WTO are actually a political effort on the part of the United States and Australia to prevent the EU's intended expansion of protection for geographical indications to a global level.
Different systems of protection of geographical indications, among other things, have resulted in the Budweiser dispute. This dispute, for instance, has been ongoing for more than a hundred years. EU initiatives to reinstates the exclusive use of selected geographical indications (so-called claw-back), though in other countries these are considered trademarks or generic designations, has met with serious criticism from other member countries of the WTO. Independent protection of geographical indications is not therefore helpful toward resolving this dispute. A solution to this case, as well as other known cases (e.g. cases Feta and Parmesan that in the United States are considered generic names) has not been found yet under the WTO. For this reason, the main objective of this project is to analyze different systems of protection of geographical indications in order to find a solution for the problems that arise as a result of using all these different protection systems of geographical marks in practice.
