Abstract:
Geographical Indications (GIs) are designations that identify products as originating in a specific geographical region, that have characteristics essentially linked to their territorial origin. While accepted by many countries as an important tool for differentiating products and identifying quality standards, there is an international division over the best way to protect GIs. The EU supports a sui generis regime with higher levels of protection, while the United States argues that trade mark law is sufficient. Despite being a strong agricultural food exporter, New Zealand has done little to market the geographical origin of its goods. Currently, New Zealand protects GIs through misrepresentation laws and certification marks. This paper questions whether New Zealand should introduce a sui generis system. It argues that while there are some domestic benefits from enhanced protection, these must be counterbalanced with the costs and potential detrimental rigidities of a sui generis system. The key benefits for New Zealand would be the international trade advantages, namely gaining protection in export markets with GI systems, facilitating a free-trade agreement with the EU, and putting New Zealand in a strong position if a multilateral GI register is established. New Zealand is at risk of undermining future developments if the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement proceeds as it has the potential to preclude any GI deals by granting trade marks enhanced status. This paper submits that New Zealand should remain open to the potential benefits of granting GIs greater protection, rather than missing out on future international developments.
