지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
TRIPs Art 22. 1 defines Geographic indications are, for the purpose of this Agreement, indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographic origin.
As early as 1935, the French government regulated geographical indications for wine having 4 levels such as AOC, AQDS, ADPs, ADP. During Uruguay round, EC claims to have more stronger protection for the geographical indications. However, having different system for protection for the geographical indications US oppose the idea. Finally EC had to settle with 3 articles. Article 22 for protection of geographical indications, Article 23 for additional protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits, Article 24 for international negotiations: exceptions.
In the meantime, EC have provided with stronger protection for the geographical indications through EC regulation 2801/92 which governs Protection of Geographical Indications and Designation of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs.
Although EC had to make a minor changes on the regulation, this case brought EC much needed confirmation on the EC’s geographical indication system by WTO. By confirming that Geographical Indications are both legal and compatible with existing trademark systems, this WTO decision helped the EC to ensure wider recognition of Geographical Indications and protection of regional and local product identities.
Using GI as way of protecting cultural heritage is also desirable having in mind that the relationship between culture and trade can be mutually supportive. Implementing GI can neither make a change of rights and duties of WTO member states nor infringe legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties.
As early as 1935, the French government regulated geographical indications for wine having 4 levels such as AOC, AQDS, ADPs, ADP. During Uruguay round, EC claims to have more stronger protection for the geographical indications. However, having different system for protection for the geographical indications US oppose the idea. Finally EC had to settle with 3 articles. Article 22 for protection of geographical indications, Article 23 for additional protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits, Article 24 for international negotiations: exceptions.
In the meantime, EC have provided with stronger protection for the geographical indications through EC regulation 2801/92 which governs Protection of Geographical Indications and Designation of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs.
Although EC had to make a minor changes on the regulation, this case brought EC much needed confirmation on the EC’s geographical indication system by WTO. By confirming that Geographical Indications are both legal and compatible with existing trademark systems, this WTO decision helped the EC to ensure wider recognition of Geographical Indications and protection of regional and local product identities.
Using GI as way of protecting cultural heritage is also desirable having in mind that the relationship between culture and trade can be mutually supportive. Implementing GI can neither make a change of rights and duties of WTO member states nor infringe legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. TRIPs협정의 지리적표시와 EU규칙 내 지리적표시
Ⅲ. 지리적표시와 상표와의 관계
Ⅳ. 한－EU FTA와 지리적표시
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (23)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000490266