Skip to main content
  • Print publication year: 2017
  • Online publication date: November 2017

15 - Geographical Indications in the Accessions Landscape

from PART III - Accessions Acquis: Thematic Perspectives and Implementation Challenges


Geographical indications are signs used to identify the origin of goods characterized by a given quality or reputation that is essentially linked to their geographical origin. They preserve traditional knowledge, foster the growth of local production and satisfy the needs of increasingly quality-conscious and demanding global consumers. Governments acceding to the World Trade Organization (WTO) have reformed their rules on geographical indications in order to achieve WTO consistency. In doing so, they have added value to the multilateral trading system by clarifying the scope of WTO obligations in the field of geographical indications in the following ways: minimum standards of protection; requirements for application to geographical indication protection; the relationship between geographical indications and trademarks; and the scope of substantive provisions with regard to geographical indications. This heightened understanding of the regulation of geographical indications has set new standards in the multilateral trading system. Acceding economies have followed international best practices and sometimes gone a step further by undertaking commitments that exceed those in effect among incumbent WTO members. Rule-making on geographical indications has also helped to prevent disputes on related issues. The lessons learned in the WTO accession process can serve other developing countries and emerging economies to unravel the legal and economic potential of geographical indications.

The significance of geographical indications (GIs), such as ‘Champagne’, ‘Darjeeling tea’ and ‘café de Colombia’, has been increasing steadily. Not all products carry GIs, but those that do are called GI products. Worldwide sales of GI products – mainly wines and spirits – exceed US$ 50 billion annually (Giovannucci et al., 2009). GIs owe their origin to the fifteenth-century French concept of terroir – a distinct, identifiable quality reminiscent of a place, region or locality (Raustiala and Munzer, 2007). As the ‘distinct’ quality of the product is linked to a geographic location, GIs preserve traditional know-how and enhance local economic activity and rural development.

From an economic standpoint, a GI can be seen as a group asset. In general terms, a limited group of producers in a certain geographic area comes together on a voluntary basis in order to derive mutual benefits from sharing production costs, legal protection expenses and advertising, among others. To preserve the uniqueness of the GI, the group of producers, ‘the club’, has a finite membership (Benavente, 2010).

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Trade Multilateralism in the Twenty-First Century
  • Online ISBN: 9781108367745
  • Book DOI:
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
Agence française de développement (2015). Laos Strengthens the Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications Thanks to a Regional Project Financed by AFD. Retrieved from
Benavente, D. (2010). ‘The Economics of Geographical Indications: GIs Modeled as Club Assets’, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Working Paper No. 10/2010. Retrieved from
Blakeney, M. (2012). ‘Geographical Indications and TRIPS’, University of Western Australia – Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2012-09. Retrieved from
Bodenhausen, G. H. C (1968). Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property as Revised at Stockholm in 1967. United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property. Retrieved from
Brookman, A. L. (2014). Trademark Law: Protection, Enforcement and Licensing, 2nd ed. New York, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Cortés Martín, J. M. (2004). ‘The WTO TRIPS Agreement: The Battle Between the Old and the New World Over the Protection of Geographical Indications’, The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 7(3): 287–326.
Deselnicu, O. C., Costanigro, M., Souza-Monteiro, D. M. and McFadden, D. T. (2013). ‘A Meta-Analysis of Geographical Indication Food Valuation Studies: What Drives the Premium for Origin-Based Labels?’, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 38(2): 204–19.
Ehring, L. (2014). ‘Nature and Status of WTO Accession Commitments: ‘WTO-Plus’ Obligations and Their Relationship to Other Parts of the WTO Agreement’, in Cremona, M., Hilpold, P., Lavranos, N., Schneider, S. Staiger and Ziegler, A. R. (eds.), Reflections on the Constitutionalisation of International Economic Law: Liber Amicorum for Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Leiden, Brill Nijhoff.
European Commission (EC) (2012). EU–China Geographical Indications – ‘10 plus 10’ project is now complete. Press Release of 30 November. Retrieved from
Gervais, D. J. (2003). The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, 2nd ed. London, Sweet & Maxwell.
Gervais, D. J. (2010). ‘Reinventing Lisbon: The Case for a Protocol to the Lisbon Agreement (Geographical Indications)’, Chicago Journal of International Law, 11(1): 67–126.
Giovannucci, D., Josling, T., Kerr, W., O'Connor, B. and Yeung, M. T. (2009). Guide to Geographical Indications – Linking Products and their Origins. Geneva, International Trade Centre (ITC).
Höpperger, M. (2003). Introduction to Geographical Indications and Recent Developments in the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO/GEO/SFO/03/1. Retrieved from
Hughes, V. (2015). ‘WTO Rule-Making: WTO Accession Protocols and Jurisprudence’, in Dadush, U. and Osakwe, C. (eds.), WTO Accessions and Trade Multilateralism: Case Studies and Lessons from the WTO at Twenty. WTO, Cambridge University Press, pp. 309–47.
Josling, T. (2006). ‘The War on Terroir: Geographical Indications as a Transatlantic Trade Conflict’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(3): 337–63.
Kerr, W. A. (2006). ‘Enjoying a Good Port With a Clear Conscience: Geographic Indicators, Rent Seeking and Development’, Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 7(1).
Kimsay, H. (2013). ‘Kampot Pepper in Demand’, The Phnom Penh Post, 1 April. Retrieved from
Meier-Ewert, W. (2011). ‘Geographical Indications in the WTO: News from the Doha Round of Negotiations’. WIPO Worldwide Symposium on Geographical Indications. Retrieved from
Ministry of Commerce of Cambodia (2010). Protected Geographical Indications in Cambodia. Retrieved from
Musungu, S. F. (2008). ‘The Protection of Geographical Indications and the Doha Round: Strategic and Policy Considerations for Africa’, Quaker United Nations Office IP Issue Paper No. 8. Retrieved from
O'Connor, B. (2004). The Law of Geographical Indications. London, Cameron May.
Raustiala, K. and Munzer, S. R. (2007). ‘The Global Struggle Over Geographic Indications’, European Journal of International Law, 18(2): 337–65.
Trade Negotiations Committee (2008). ‘Draft Modalities for TRIPS-Related Issues’, WTO Document TN/C/W/52.
Vivas-Eugui, D. and Spennemann, C. (2006). The Treatment of Geographical Indications in Recent WTO Discussions and in Regional and Bilateral Agreements. Recent Multilateral and Bilateral Trends in IP Policy Making: Lessons and Challenges for Africa, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Retrieved from
WIPO (2014). Geographical Indications: An Introduction. WIPO Publication No. 952. Retrieved from
Working Party Report of Afghanistan, WT/ACC/AFG/36 WT/MIN(15)/6.
Working Party Report of Cambodia, WT/ACC/KHM/21.
Working Party Report of China, WT/ACC/CHN/49 & Corr.1 WT/MIN(01)/3.
Working Party Report of Chinese Taipei, WT/ACC/TPKM/18 WT/MIN(01)/4.
Working Party Report of Jordan, WT/ACC/JOR/33 WT/MIN(99)/9.
Working Party Report of Kazakhstan, WT/ACC/KAZ/93.
Working Party Report of Lao PDR, WT/ACC/LAO/45.
Working Party Report of Latvia, WT/ACC/LVA/32.
Working Party Report of Liberia, WT/ACC/LBR/23 WT/MIN(15)/2.
Working Party Report of the Russian Federation, WT/ACC/RUS/70 WT/MIN (11)/2.
Working Party Report of Samoa, WT/ACC/SAM/30 WT/MIN(11)/1.
Working Party Report of Saudi Arabia, WT/ACC/SAU/61.
Working Party Report of Tonga, WT/ACC/TON/17 WT/MIN(05)/4.
Working Party Report of Vanuatu, WT/ACC/VUT/17.
Working Party Report of Yemen, WT/ACC/YEM/42.
Zheng, H. (2016). ‘Geographical Indications Protection in China’, in Gangjee, D. S. (ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Geographical Indications. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 337–58.