Geographical Indications are recognized intellectual property tool for protecting the link or relationship between product quality and the geographic region of its origin. This connection between the product and the geographic origin is the 'potential' that allows for extracting value from reputable geographic indications, for example the silk apparels from Mysore commands a value in the market because of its potential being of unique texture and good quality.
With a range of issues identifiable with geographical indications, the debate concerning GIs has shifted gear with the issue of GI-extension. The appellations of origin under Lisbon Agreement establishes that majority of the indication–product link reflect strong historical and symbolic links between the places and the products. This feature of the GI makes it amenable aimed at protecting the rights and interests of indigenous communities.
GIs are considered as somewhat more consistent form of an intellectual property instrument compared to other IPRs and therefore complementary to the culture and practices of indigenous communities. In particular, its link to a region makes it a likely candidate for protecting the rights of traditional communities. In this way geographical indications are viewed as a potential intellectual property instrument, which blends well with the ethos of the holders of traditional knowledge and as a consequence much attention has been drawn towards protecting the rights of indigenous communities over protection of their traditional knowledge via geographical indications.
The 'informal innovation system' and the cultural exchange system that are part of the communities often gives rise to peculiar features in a setting between the norms and economics of intellectual property rights and the rights & interests of indigenous communities. This brings to the fore the features, which in contrast to other intellectual property rights are relatively more amenable to the customary practices of indigenous communities.
The 'Knowledge' remains in the community domain. There is no monopolistic control over the traditional knowledge / information and hence the fear regarding the commodification of traditional knowledge on account of GI becomes unfound.
A particular GI is held as a right in perpetuity as long as the distinctive link between the good and the place is maintained which implies that the traditional knowledge is protected in perpetuity until it becomes generic which is a highly unlikely case.
The scope of the protection is limited to the class and/or location of the people who use the indication, which implies prohibition on the part of the holders of traditional knowledge to transfer the same to non-locales.
The amenability of the above features of geographical indications lies in the fact that it very well intermingles, reflecting the similar historical and symbolic link of product and region, with the complex relation between the traditional knowledge and their holders i.e. the indigenous communities.
Presently, in the world over the protection of traditional knowledge has gained momentum with demand of disclosure of the origin of the genetic resources in patent applications and some nations have also developed sui-generis systems to protect the indigenous knowledge of their communities. The attention towards extension of GIs as an IPR instrument to protect traditional knowledge is certainly a step in furtherance of the importance of intellectual property rights.
© www.lexorbis.com Lex Orbis 2008
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
