Demanding Stronger Protection for Geographical Indications: The Relationship between Local Knowledge, Information and Reputation

Unlike patents and intellectual property rights in plant genetic material, TRIPs negotiations concerning geographical indications have not entered wider public imagination. However, TRIPs negotiations in this area have been and continue to be contentious. One area of contention is the explicit hierarchy in the level of protection, whereby indications for wines and spirits are offered stronger protection through Article 23 that indications for other products through Article 22. Demandeurs, which include many developing and transition countries, want a removal of this hierarchy with other products being offered protection similar to indications of wines and spirits. The paper critically reviews one aspect of the debate on GI-extension at the TRIPs Council: the comparison between Article 22 and Article 23. It presents a theoretical basis for analysing the rationale for protecting GIs in terms of local knowledge, informational asymmetries and the role of reputation.Intellectual Property Rights, Indigenous Knowledge, Geographical Indications, TRIPs