oriGIn on Geographical Indications compilations

oriGIn on Geographical Indications compilations

Patricia Covarrubia   June 16, 2022   No comments:

Yesterday afternoon I attended the event on oriGIn worldwide GI compilations. It comprises several speakers from around the world but relatable to Latin America, Sergio Chuez from INAPI was present.

The welcoming was led by Erik Thevenod-Mottet from the Swiss IPO, followed up by Massimo Vittori representing oriGIn. The idea was to share the wonderful tool, that much needed, GI compilation. The talk started by ‘some figures’ 

1. recognising that there are over 13,000 GIs around the world [oriGIn has compiled 9,047 – that are ‘recognized’], and here I made a pause. It was an important remark made by Massimo that ‘recognised’ may not label it as ‘registered’ as some countries may not legally registered a particular GI but still there is recognition. This is important to know because a GI is appreciated by us, society/consumers and while perhaps a GI has not obtained the legal status of registered GI, it still, in our minds, has goodwill. 

2. There are different legal systems, mainly sui generis around the world that protect GI e.g. China, the EU, Africa (OAPI), the Andean countries (South America), Canada, Mexico, Chile, etc 

3. GI is applicable to several sectors not only agro-products but also includes non-agricultural products such as craft [Brazil protects services too] 

4. International legal frameworks are in place: TRIPS, Lisbon Agreement and more recently the Geneva Act 

5. There are over 200 bilateral agreements covering GIs [mainly they follow the bilateral agreement between France and Germany signed back in the 60s - adding an annex with a list of GIs]. 

Massivo moved to explain how the search works (database can be accessed here). I must say that I have tried and it is not complicated at all [I do not consider myself tech-savvy] and it is, I may say ‘ straightforward’. You may search by regions (e.g., South America (you can see all 444); Central America (with 74), etc), or by country. There is also interesting data such as ‘legal protection’ under which the said GI is protected, for instance, sui generis, trade marks, legislative act, etc; as well as per ‘type of product’. Under this, I have been intrigued by ‘services’, knowing the case of ‘Porto Digital’ in Brazil reported in this blog here. The data shows THREE GIs for services; aside from the Brazilian case, there is one in Chile ‘Calidad Aysen Paragonia-Chile (protected as a trade mark); and another, that of ‘Duzdag’ from Azerbaijan as a sui generics GI. Under types of products there is a very meticulous selection e.g., food products/dairy; food products fruits; food products/vegetable oils and fats; non-food product/ wood; non-food product leather; etc. There are 7846 GIs protected under sui generic rights which Massivo asserted is a legal system which is more robustic and solid. 

While I (virtuality) attended all speakers, I engaged with a couple of question when Chuez spoke about the work they do at the INDECOPI. Relating to this report today was the fact that by mere coincidence, yesterday morning I had published in this blog, about collective marks, and the QR code as well as the application been done for free. I therefore asked if there were any incentives for nationals to apply for GIs, here is the answer: ‘…[while GI applications are not free], we offer free and complete technical assistance for the filing, including the organization of the regularity council’ . This is indeed a pretty good offer, and I am sure many micros and SMEs do and will benefit from this. Peru, as many other countries in Latin America, is rich on natural resources and traditional knowledge. Yet, as of today, there are only 10 national GIs: ONE for a spirit, ONE for handcraft and EIGHT for food related products. 

If you attended the event, what are your thoughts? The next GI event would be in Montpellier (5th July), I will be in (physical) attendance, would you? More info on the Worldwide Perspectives on GI here.

Read More

University of Buckingham: Publication of the week

University of Buckingham: Publication of the week

Patricia Covarrubia   March 14, 2016   No comments:

Patricia Covarrubia, “Protection of non-agricultural GIs: a window on what is happening in Latin America”, European Intellectual Property Review, E.I.P.R. 2016, 38(3), 129-131.
This piece examines “the laws in South American states on the protection of geographical indications (GIs) relating to non-agricultural products, including textiles and craft works. Presents data on the number of such GIs that are registered proportional to the agricultural product GIs. Considers why these states extend GI protection to non-agricultural products. Notes that a proposal to do likewise is under consideration in the EU.”
Dr Covarrubia compares different national legislations in Latin American countries as well as observing the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS, WTO) and the Lisbon Agreement for the protection of appellation of origin and their international registration (WIPO).

The publication is based on a paper presented in September 2015 at the Symposium on Geographical Indications (GIs), sponsored by Grana Padano and CIIPM. The symposium covered the policy aspects as well as the practical implications, challenges, and opportunities that GI involves. Nick Coppola who is currently writing his PhD on "The EU Agricultural Quality Policy Reform" was the one that organized such a wonderful event (a nutshell of the event can be read here). Nick has also wrote a couple of post for this blog in the topic of GIs. Indeed, we can not wait to read his thesis which surely will become a monologue published by a reputable editorial in the UK (hopefully I will read it before it becomes expensive).

For more information on GI in Latin America, specifically in the trade bloc Mercosur, there is a webinar provided by the Latin America IPR SMEs here.

Read More

Symposium: Geographical Indications in the EU -- Policy aspects and future regulation

Symposium: Geographical Indications in the EU -- Policy aspects and future regulation

Patricia Covarrubia   September 14, 2015   No comments:

Starting a new week and I am still not able to detach from a symposium that I attended last week. The reason could be that the high standard of the speakers and the friendly debate have woken up my Latin passion. While I am not an expert on GI, I followed every single speaker with such an understanding and desire that I may have found my topic for years to come [watch up Nick!]

Yet, you may wonder why I am covering GI in the EU since this blog is dedicated to Latin America. Well, for a start I was invited to speak in the symposium (I am not sure why if as I said I am not an expert on GI) but it was not until the end of the debate that I realised a key point (I will come to this later on). The majority of speakers while assessing the situation in the EU some extended as to cover international law, bilateral trade agreements, and the basic understanding of what is protected and why, and thus, relevant to any other jurisdiction. Generally, speakers when covering GIs provided opinions on: territorial development and the creation of public goods (Dev Gangjee – University of Oxford)); the principle of coexistence between trade marks and GIs (Gail Evans – Queen Mary University of London); insight field work and stories from farmers and the registration process (Funda Lancaster DEFRA); consumer confusion (Vito Rubino - Universita del Piemonte Orientale); the controversies between EU legislation and national protection (Nicola Coppola aka Nick – University of Bournemouth); the protection of non-agricultural products (Natasha Chick – UK IPO); and the Lisbon system and the Geneva Act (Matteo Gragnani - WIPO). While the speakers focused on these issues there were also some comments or remarks noting sustainable development, know-how, and biodiversity. Actually there were two questions from the audience that were identifying cultural heritage (one coming from a heritage consultant). By writing this remarks you can just grasp the different approaches that one system (GI) may have.

I was the last speaker and been not an expert on the area I was getting nervous by the minute. My topic was the protection of non-agricultural products in Latin America and perhaps what I brought to the table was something that maybe was not fully addressed by the previous speakers i.e. to preserve and safeguard culture. The point been that while it is important to ‘protect’ meaning preventing unauthorised or inappropriate use (IP negative right), it is also important to connect this protection to conservation of biological diversity and the rights of indigenous peoples. As I undertook to cover Latin America I gave examples from Brazil, Panama, the Andeans countries and Chile. I also indicated that GIs are not for everyone and gave the example of ‘chulucanas’ in Peru (see Rosemary Coombe). Other jurisdictions use IPs as a way to improve their quality of life (trade mark: Coopa Roca (Brazil)); or helping to reconstruct a region (Collective marks: Afloralta (Brazil)); adding value -tourism (Sello de Marca (Chile)); while for example Panama is using a specific sui generis right that helps protecting non-agricultural products GIs. Another issue that I needed to put across was that in some of the Latin American GI’s systems, the product/service become part of the goods of a nation i.e. become state property. This is an important issue since there exists amongst farmers, artisans and indigenous peoples mistrust -- resulting in having less GIs and more collective marks or nothing at all. Many of you may believe that actually when covering cultural heritage the IP regime is actually not appropriate at all, I may be of the same thought, however it is important to realise that for some products, it has helped. It has helped communities into social unity and it has helped us as citizens/consumers to create a sense of pride.

Indeed the conference raised a number of fascinating questions and I thank Nick for putting this symposium all together and for the generous sponsors that made it a reality (Grana Padano and CIIPM).

Read More

Chile registered its own prosciutto #yummy

Chile registered its own prosciutto #yummy

Patricia Covarrubia   June 04, 2015   No comments:

Back in 2012, the Chilean President, Sebastián Piñera, together with the Minister of Economy and the National Director of the National Institute of Industrial Property (INAPI) launched the program ‘sello de origen’ (Origin Mark or ‘Label of Origin’). The program aims to recognize and protect via industrial property Chilean products. The origin mark recognizes a products’ traditions, reputation or geographical locations.

More specifically, the program aims to promote the use and protection of Chilean products through the registration of geographical indications (GI), denominations of origin (DO), collective marks and certification marks and thus, promoting entrepreneurship and productive development of communities.

On May 2015, three years after the launch of the program and on the occasion of the inauguration of the stand "Label of Origin" in the food fair CHILE A LA CARTA, INAPI granted yet another DO (the fifth for a Chilean product) and a ‘Label of Origin’ (the fourteen) to the ham ‘Prosciutto de Capitán Pastene’. The certificate was handed in by INAPI’s director and received by representatives of the Regional Government of Araucanía, who together with the producers of the ham started the DO process (January 2014).

In Chile a DO identifies a “product as originating in the country, region or locality of the national territory, where the quality, reputation or other characteristic thereof is essentially attributable to its geographical origin, taking into consideration natural and human factors that affect the product’s characterization.” The definition is indeed a resemblance of Art 2 Lisbon Agreement.

The application was based on “the quality and uniqueness of this ham, which is historically associated with their geographical origin in the town Capitan Pastene, and using processing techniques inherited from the Italian immigrants [then it makes sense why they call it ‘prosciutto’ rather than ‘jamon’], supplemented by the local culture and the particular climatic conditions due to the geographical location where it occurs. It is a product made by hand, incorporating the smoked wood as part of its process, the maturation takes place in natural conditions and in the presence of cold air from the Nahuelbuta Mountains allowing long periods without loss of moisture, using only salt and no added preservatives, which is made exclusively from the rear legs of the pork.”

Finally the note indicates that this recognition (as many others) is expected to “contribute to the rescue of the local culture, increase the demand for these products originating and encourage the establishment of new tourist routes in the region.”


Other products that are waiting to be granted a recognition are: ‘Sal de Cahuil’ – a salt (DO) ‘Dulces de La Ligua’ – sweet (GI) and ‘Aceitunas de Azapa’ – olives (GI).

Read More