Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Global Struggle Between Europe and United States Over Geographical Indications in South Korea and in the TPP Economies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Importance of Place: Geographical Indications as a Tool for Local and Regional Development

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 58))

Abstract

The WTO TRIPs Agreement does not set out the means by which countries must achieve the standards laid down for GIs. Thus, the legal means for the protection of GIs can vary from country to country. The two largest trading blocks, the EU and the US, have very distinct views on the nature of GIs and the appropriate means for their protection. The different approaches taken by the EU and US are, in turn, reflected in the different FTAs that both entities have, and are currently, negotiating in Asia. This raises issues of law for any Asian country wishing to conclude an FTA with both the EU and the US. The analysis in the Chapter shows that the global arm-wrestling between the EU and the US with regard to specific GIs is coming down to a new version of the “first come first served” rule in relation to FTAs: the first to conclude a trade deal with an Asian country determines the space remaining for concluding a different deal on GIs with the other. This Chapter analyses the protection of GIs in South Korea and how that country has addressed the potentially conflicting commitments under the FTAs it has concluded with the EU and US respectively. The Chapter concludes that South Korea, in its struggle to find a balance between the different requirements under the two FTAs, risks introducing discrimination between GIs into its domestic law in order to comply with its international obligations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Notice concerning the provisional application of the KOREU, 2011 O.J. L 168, Volume 54, 28 June 2011.

  2. 2.

    KOREU, Article 10.18(3)(4).

  3. 3.

    KOREU, Article 10.18(6).

  4. 4.

    See infra par. 4.1.

  5. 5.

    KOREU, Article 10.67(1), footnote 76(c)(iv).

  6. 6.

    KOREU, Article 10.21(5).

  7. 7.

    KOREU, Article 10.23(1).

  8. 8.

    KOREU, Article 10.23(2)(a).

  9. 9.

    KOREU, Article 10.23(2)(b).

  10. 10.

    According to Article 10.26 of the KOREU the provisions of this Sub-section are without prejudice to the right to seek protection of a geographical indication through individual applications under the relevant legislation of the European Union or Korea.

  11. 11.

    See Article 6(1) of the Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 and Article 32 (9)(4) of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (AFPQCA), as amended by Act No. 10885, July 21, 2011.

  12. 12.

    Regulation (EU) 1151/2012, Article 13(2).

  13. 13.

    AFPQCA, Article 44.

  14. 14.

    KORUS, Article 18.2(14).

  15. 15.

    KORUS, Article 18.2(4), gives the owner of a TM the exclusive right to prevent all third parties from using confusingly similar signs for like goods or services.

  16. 16.

    TRIPs, Article 24(6).

  17. 17.

    KORUS, Article 18.2(14).

  18. 18.

    KOREU, Article 10.21(1)(b).

  19. 19.

    KORUS, Article 10.2(4)(15).

  20. 20.

    KOREU, Article 10.21(5).

  21. 21.

    Article 25 of the Framework Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Korea, signed in Luxembourg on 28 October 1996 and entered into force on 1 April 2001.

  22. 22.

    KOREU, Article 10.18(1)(2).

  23. 23.

    KOREU, Article 10.18(3)(4), Article 10.19 and Article 10.21.

  24. 24.

    KOREU, Article 10.21(5).

  25. 25.

    KOREU, Article 10.22.

  26. 26.

    KOREU, Article 10.24 and 10. 25.

  27. 27.

    KORUS, Article 18.2(2).

  28. 28.

    KORUS, Article 18.2(14)(e).

  29. 29.

    KORUS, Article 18.2(15).

  30. 30.

    AFPQCA, Article 3.

  31. 31.

    AFPQCA, Article 32, Article 33 and Article 39.

  32. 32.

    Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 2(1)(d)(e).

  33. 33.

    Act No. 10810, June 30, 2011.

  34. 34.

    Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 3-2(1).

  35. 35.

    Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 3-2(3).

  36. 36.

    Act No. 10810, June 30, 2011.

  37. 37.

    KOREU, Article 10.21(5).

  38. 38.

    Trademark Act, Article 2(3-2).

  39. 39.

    Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 2(d)(e).

  40. 40.

    The Constitution of the Republic of Korea, as amended on 29 October 1987.

  41. 41.

    In the case law see: KCCR May 29, 2008, 2007Hun-Ma1105; KCCR February 3, 2005, 2001Hun-Ga9; KCCR August 30, 2007, 2004 Hun-Ma670; KCCR June 28, 2007, 2004 Hun-Ma 644.

  42. 42.

    Information on the refusal of US TMs’ applications in relation to “gorgonzola”, “fontina” and “asiago” can be accessed at: http://engportal.kipris.or.kr/engportal/search/total_search.do.

  43. 43.

    Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Article 3-2.

  44. 44.

    TPP, Article 18.33, footnote 24.

  45. 45.

    However, questions may arise as to whether Codex Standards can be taken as an “enforceable” point of reference with regard to IPRs. In fact, it should be kept in mind that Codex Standards can be adopted by non-consensual proceedings and therefore a certain name may be inserted in the list even without the approval of those CAC Member States where IPRs corresponding to these standards exist. According to an opinion that can be shared, non-unanimous approval of Codex Standards, with no formal implementation in domestic law, cannot “overrule” basic principles of international IP and GI law, namely the principle of pacta sunt servanda (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26) in relation to existing bilateral and multilateral treaties and the principle of territoriality of IPRs (Simon 2009: 323).

  46. 46.

    TPP, Article 18.36(4).

  47. 47.

    TPP, Article 18.36(6).

  48. 48.

    TPP, Article 18.20.

  49. 49.

    TPP, Article 18.20 combined with Article 18.32(a)(b).

  50. 50.

    EUVFTA, Article 6.2 and Article 6.7.

  51. 51.

    EUVFTA, Article 6.4.

  52. 52.

    EUVFTA, Article 6.4(2).

  53. 53.

    EUVFTA, Article 6.5a(1)(2).

Bibliography

Books and Articles

  • BARHAM E., 2003, Translating Terroir: the global challange of french AOC labeling, in Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • BELLA P., 2014, European Union declares cheese war on America, available at: http://www.chicagonow.com/cooking-cop/2014/03/european-union-declares-cheese-war-on-america/.

  • CÀCERES E.O., 2007, Perspectives for Geographical Indications, paper presented at the International Symposium on Geographical Indications, jointly organised by the World Intellectual property Organization (WIPO) and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, June 26-28, 2007, WIPO/GEO/BEI/07/13.

    Google Scholar 

  • COOPER W.H. et al., 2008, The Proposed U.S-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications, Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service (CRS).

    Google Scholar 

  • COOPER W.H., et al., 2011, The EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and Its Implications for the United States, Congressional Research Service (CRS).

    Google Scholar 

  • DI MAMBRO A., 2015, Così il TPP affossa Dop e Igp: l’accordo USA-Pacifico tutela solo i marchi registrati, ItaliaOggi.

    Google Scholar 

  • ENGELHARDT T., 2015, Geographical Indications Under Recent EU Trade Agreements, in IIC - International Review on Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 46: 781–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUGUI D.V. – SPENNEMANN C., 2006, The treatment of geographical indications in recent regional and bilateral free trade agreements in M.P. Pugatch (ed.), The Intellectual Property Debate, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • FERIDHANUSETYAWAN T., 2005, Preferential Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region, International Monetary Fund, Working Paper WP/05/149.

    Google Scholar 

  • FLYNN S. et al., 2011, Public Interest Analysis of the US TPP Proposal for an IP Chapter, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of Law, available at: http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TPP-Analysis-12062011.pdf.

  • GARCIA M., 2014, Squaring the Circle? Approaches to Intellectual Property Rights and the TTIP, UACES Conference, Cork, Ireland, available at: http://www.uaces.org/documents/papers/1401/garcia.pdf.

  • HANDLER M. – MERCURIO B., 2015, Intellectual Property, in S. Lester – B. Mercurio (eds.), Bilateral and regional trade agreements: commentary and analysis, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2nd edit.

    Google Scholar 

  • HORN et al., 2009, Beyond WTO? An Anatomy of EU and US preferential trade agreements, Brussels, Bruegel Blueprint Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • JEON H.J. - LEE J.H., 2010, A study on the Problems of Geographical Indications and a Regional Development Plan in Korea, Kyobo Book Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • C.K. JUNG, 2013, A Study on the Protection of Geographical Indications, Master Thesis, Korea University.

    Google Scholar 

  • KIM D., 2007, Geographical Indications Surfacing as Obstacle to Korea-EU FTA Talks, The Korea Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • KIM H., 2011, Future Prospects of Korea-Latvia Trade Relations in the Framework of the Korea-EU FTA, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, available at: http://www.mfa.gov.lv/data/Prezentacijas/Korea_EU_FTA.pdf.

  • KIM Y.H. - JEONG H.C., 2015, Basic Classes of Constitution, Seoul, Willbes. (Korean title: 정회철, 기본강의 헌법 2015,사법시험 및 변호사시험 대비, 저자 김유향, |윌비스).

    Google Scholar 

  • I. KIREEVA - B. O’ĉonnor, 2010, Geographical Indications and the TRIPS Agreement: What Protection is Provided to Geographical Indications in WTO Members?, in The Journal of World Intellectual Property, Vol. 13, No. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • LEE J., 2014, Korea’s Intellectual Property Law Strategies in the Korea-China FTA Negotiations in Comparison with Other International FTAs, Master Thesis, Seoul National University.

    Google Scholar 

  • LUPONE A., 2009, Il dibattito sulle indicazioni geografiche nel sistema multilaterale degli scambi: dal Doha Round dell’organizzazione mondiale del commercio alla protezione TRIPs plus, in B. Ubertazzi - E.M. Espada (eds.), Le indicazioni di qualità degli alimenti, Milano, Giuffrè Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • MACMAOLAIN C., 2007, EU Food Law: Protecting Consumer and Health in Common Market, Portland, Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • MANDEL O., 2011, The Recognition and Protection of key EU geographical indications in South Korea following the adoption of the EU - South Korea Free Trade Agreement, available at: http://www.mandel-office.com/the-recognition-and-protection-of-key-eu-geographical-indications-in-south-korea-following-the-adoption-of-the-eu-south-korea-free-trade-agreement/.

  • MASSMANN O., 2016, Overview on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement - Commitments above WTO Level - An Analysis, available at: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d69941cf-2f7b-4ea2-a36e-a278d81e7174.

  • O’CONNOR B., 2014a, The European Union and the United States: Conflicting Agendas on Geographical Indications – What’s happening in Asia?, in Global Trade and Customs Journal, Vol. 9, Issue 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’CONNOR B., 2014b, Geographical Indications in CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU, at: http://www.origingi.com/images/stories/PDFs/English/14.11.24_GIs_in_the_CETA_English_copy.pdf.

  • O’CONNOR B. – RICHARDSON L., 2012, The Legal Protection of Geographical Indications in the EU’s Bilateral Trade Agreements: moving beyond TRIPS, in Rivista di Diritto Alimentare, Anno VI, No. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • RAUSTIALA K. - MUNZER S.R., 2007, The Global Struggle over Geographic Indications, in The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, Issue 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • SANBURN J., 2014, Europe’s War on American Cheese, at: http://time.com/22011/europes-war-on-american-cheese/.

  • SEMERTZI, 2014, The Preclusion of Direct Effect in the Recently Concluded EU Free Trade Agreements, in Common Market Law Review, Vol. 51: 1125–1158.

    Google Scholar 

  • SIMON J., 2009, Geographical Indications (GIs), Trademarks and International Standards (e.g. Codex Alimentarius), in B. Ubertazzi - E. M. Espada (eds.), Le Indicazioni di Qualità degli Alimenti, Milano, Giuffrè Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • TROJANOVÀ K., 2014, Intellectual Property Rights in Preferential Trade Agreements: The Comparison of KORUS FTA and EU-South Korea FTA, Milan, E-Leader.

    Google Scholar 

  • WATSON K.W., 2015, U.S: Trying (and Failing) to Contain the Spread of European Geographical Indications, Cato at Liberty, at: http://www.cato.org/blog/us-trying-failing-contain-spread-european-gis.

  • VIJU, 2013, CETA and Geographical Indicators: Why a Sensitive Issue?, Canada-Europe Transatlantic Dialogue: Seeking Transnational Solutions to 21st Century Problems, CETA policy Briefs Series, at: http://carleton.ca/ces/wp-content/uploads/CETD_CETA-policy-brief_GIs_Viju.pdf.

  • YOOK S.Y., 2014, A study on Geographical Indication under FTAs and Its Domestic Implementation, Korea Legislation Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Others

  • Dg-Agri, 2012, working document on international protection of EU geographical indications: objectives, outcome and challenges, Ref. Ares(2012)669394–06/06/2012, Advisory Group International Aspects of Agriculture, Meeting of 25 June 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2011, The EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement in practice, European Union Publication Office, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2015, EU and Vietnam reach agreement on free trade deal, Press Release, IP/15/5467.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2015, Facts and Figures: Free Trade Agreement between EU and Vietnam, MEMO/15/5468.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITAC, 2007, The U.S. - Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA): The Intellectual Property Provisions, Report of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights (ITAC - 15).

    Google Scholar 

  • Italian Intellectual Property Rights DESK (IIPRD), Ufficio ICE di Seoul, 2010, Protection of Geographical Indications in the Republic of Korea, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Italia in Corea, Italian Trade Commission, Seoul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letter sent by the Singaporean Minister for Trade and Industry L.H. Kiang to the Trade Commissioner Mr. Karel De Gucht concerning Geographical Indications in the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement on 21 January 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Official Letter sent by Ambassador Ron Kirk to the Minister of Trade in the Republic of Korea Jong-hoon Kim on June 09, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Official Letter sent by the Minister of Trade in the Republic of Korea Jonh-hoon Kim to Ambassador Ron Kirk on June 20, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart and Stewart, 2015, The Trans-Pacific Partnership, A Side-by-Side Comparison with: The United States - Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement of 2012; The United States - Korea Free Trade Agreement of 2012; the United States - Peru Free trade Agreement of 2009, Comparison, Vol. 3, TPP Chapter 18: Intellectual Property.

    Google Scholar 

  • Testimony by Shawna Morris, Vice President of Trade Policy, U.S. Dairy Export Council & National Milk Producers Federation to the United Stated Senate Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness, 2014, The U.S. – Korea Free Trade Agreement: Lessons Learned Two Years Later, at: http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony%20to%20Senate%20Trade%20Subcommittee%20on%20Korus_July%2029%2014_FINAL.pdf.

  • The Hagstrom Report, 2014, GI supporters express puzzlement at U.S. dairy position, Vol. 4, No. 217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevisan&Cuonzo, 2009, Free Trade Agreement EU-South Korea: for the first time in a Bilateral Agreement between the EU and a Third Country, the EU provides for the Protection of European GIs for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, at: http://www.trevisancuonzo.com/pubblicazioni-e-legal-update/legal-update/index.html?page=20.

  • USTR, 2015, Overview on Chapter 18: Intellectual Property, at: https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/intellectual-property-3479efdc7adf#.jcqjgds85.

  • USTR, 2015, Special 301 Report.

    Google Scholar 

Free Trade Agreements

Websites

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Bernard O’Connor & Giulia de Bosio

Authors
  1. Bernard O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giulia de Bosio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bernard O’Connor or Giulia de Bosio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia

    William van Caenegem

  2. University of Adelaide, Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Global Food and Resources University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Jen Cleary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Connor, B., de Bosio, G. (2017). The Global Struggle Between Europe and United States Over Geographical Indications in South Korea and in the TPP Economies. In: van Caenegem, W., Cleary, J. (eds) The Importance of Place: Geographical Indications as a Tool for Local and Regional Development. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 58. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53073-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53073-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53072-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53073-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation