TY - JOUR
T1 - Europe's GI Policy and New World Countries
AU - Moir, Hazel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Trade negotiations between the European Union (EU) and Australia and New Zealand (NZ) provide the opportunity to revisit the ongoing clash between EU and New World ( United States of America (USA), Canada, Australia, NZ etc.) countries over geographical indications (GIs). Since the EU-Canada negotiations, the EU has increased its GI demands and the Australia and NZ negotiations provide the first opportunity to assess these. NZ has agreed to privileges that exceed those in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and has fewer safeguards for NZ producers than were achieved in Canada. The EU’s GI demands to Australia are scrutinized in terms of competition, rule of law and consumer information criteria, providing a basis for considering how Australia should respond. A particular focus is the problematic issues raised in the demand that specific GI names be listed in the treaty without proper review and opposition procedures. Questions are also raised about the accuracy of EU GI labels and the relative merit of EU GI policy compared to certification mark GIs to promote regional development. On this basis it is suggested that Australia should reject a number of the EU’s GI demands as these lead to approving product labels which are deceptive for consumers
AB - Trade negotiations between the European Union (EU) and Australia and New Zealand (NZ) provide the opportunity to revisit the ongoing clash between EU and New World ( United States of America (USA), Canada, Australia, NZ etc.) countries over geographical indications (GIs). Since the EU-Canada negotiations, the EU has increased its GI demands and the Australia and NZ negotiations provide the first opportunity to assess these. NZ has agreed to privileges that exceed those in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and has fewer safeguards for NZ producers than were achieved in Canada. The EU’s GI demands to Australia are scrutinized in terms of competition, rule of law and consumer information criteria, providing a basis for considering how Australia should respond. A particular focus is the problematic issues raised in the demand that specific GI names be listed in the treaty without proper review and opposition procedures. Questions are also raised about the accuracy of EU GI labels and the relative merit of EU GI policy compared to certification mark GIs to promote regional development. On this basis it is suggested that Australia should reject a number of the EU’s GI demands as these lead to approving product labels which are deceptive for consumers
KW - European Union
KW - Geographical indications
KW - consumer Information
KW - food labelling
KW - intellectual property
KW - regional development
KW - trade policy
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85178372797
M3 - Article
SN - 1011-6702
VL - 57
SP - 957
EP - 970
JO - Journal of World Trade
JF - Journal of World Trade
IS - 6
ER -