Introduction

Geographical indications have recently become a topic of public interest, and interest and attention to it has grown in recent years. And this increase in interest stems in large part from the WTO members' commitment to protecting geographical indications under the TRIPS Agreement. In many countries, the need to comply with the commitments under the TRIPS Agreement prompted this focus on geographical indications, and countries soon realized that there was potential value in this form of IP (intellectual property). But beyond that, the nature of these signs is a useful tool in marketing strategies and public policies that has generated increasing interest in the last two to three decades (AMINI; KHODADADI 2017). The fact that geographical indications are embedded in a territory means that they can be an effective tool for promoting local development. Their close connection with tradition shows that they can have a positive effect on the preservation of cultural expressions and traditional knowledge (ZAHEDI; MOHAMMADI, 2015). The fact that specific geographical locations may be specifically related to natural conditions (climate, soil, water, etc.) or the tradition and knowledge of local artisans, makes products of distinctive quality, produced and consumers of the status and value of these characteristics. Geographical indications are more than just a name or a symbol and reflect the reputation, quality and quality that are deeply related to geographical areas of different sizes. Reputation is a geographical indication of a collective and intangible asset that, if not protected, can be exploited without limitation, its value diminished, and eventually destroyed. Therefore, preserving and protecting them as the collective cultural, social and economic heritage of a region, land and country, is important and noteworthy in various aspects, and it is important to preserve the value of these tokens as intangible assets. For this purpose, we must consider different angles of the issue. One of the most important aspects of the issue, which can have a profound effect on the protection of this valuable asset, is legal protections and attention to the issue of geographical indications. Trademarks are an intellectual property (IP) aspect that has received increasing attention since the ratification of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, known as the TRIPS Agreement in 1994, part of which is geographical indications. It has attracted the attention of policymakers and business experts, as well as producers, mostly agricultural products, lawyers and economists around the world. Undoubtedly, it is because of the section on geographical indications that the agreement is now appealing to more countries beyond the limited list of countries that have traditionally and actively pursued a policy of geographical indications.

In the science of intellectual property law, the term "sui generis" means a special form of protection system that is outside the existing mechanisms. Such a system is designed to respond to a specific need. That is, the specific characteristics, requirements, and needs of a subject require a special system of protection. From the perspective of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), new letters must be created when it becomes clear that existing mechanisms cannot respond appropriately to the characteristics of an issue. The field of protection of new plant species, methods of building integrated electronic circuits and geographical indications are areas that are supported in a special way (BROOKMAN, 2016). This support system, as it follows from the above description, is specifically created for a specific issue and in accordance with its conditions. Therefore, the creation of a special support system raises the conceptual and practical issues. The definition of the subject and objectives of the protection and the conditions required for it, the scope of the rights granted, the right holders (including individuals and groups), the methods of use, the duration of the protection and the like should be specified. "One of the questions that the special protection system has to answer is who gets this protection; "In other words, who are the rights holders in relation to these manifestation”?

Acquiring a geographical indication provides a competitive advantage for a product in domestic and global markets, increases consumer confidence in the authenticity and distinction of products and manufacturers, and allows manufacturers to better differentiate their products. Also, identifying and supporting the name of these products in the market allows the community of manufacturers to invest in maintaining the specific quality of the product for which it is famous. Most importantly, as fame spreads across borders and demand increases, investment may be directed towards the environmental sustainability of the products in which they are produced.

The present study, understanding the importance and necessity of the subject and considering the study gaps around the issue, proceeded to the present study. Also, the importance of geographical indications as a collective right for the culture and economy of the country, which justifies and justifies the need for legal protection and protection, is another motivation for the researcher to address the issue of legal protection of geographical indications in Iran. And the need for such protections and gaps in this regard in Iranian law was compared to the provisions of international agreements (CALBOLI; LEE, 2014). Given that Iran is a country with many geographical indications, the protection of which requires legal support and familiarity with different angles of the issue, which itself goes through scientific research.

Materials and methods

Approaches to the protection of geographical indications

Geographical indications in different countries and regional systems are supported by a wide range of approaches - often a combination of two or more approaches - developed in accordance with different legal traditions and within specific historical and economic contexts. In general, there are three main methods of protecting geographical indications: a) unique protection systems or so-called (sui generis); B) collective marks and certificates; And (c) trade-focused methods, including the permanent administration of product approval plans. These approaches vary considerably depending on the circumstances or area of ​​support. On the other hand, the first two cases, namely sui generis systems and collective mark or certificate systems, have some features in common, such as creating rights for collective use by individuals if they meet defined standards.

Unique systems / Special support systems (Sui generis)

The importance of geographical indications and related rights highlights the need to establish special systems to protect these signs. In this regard, the possibility of individual instances of intellectual property rights in relation to plant species, industrial designs, trademarks and other instances for their special protection has been examined by the World Trade Organization and especially the World Intellectual Property Organization.

Protection through legal means of intellectual property

Since geographical indications are a branch of intellectual property and are rooted in indigenous popular culture and tradition, it is only natural that this type of property should be protected by legal means. The World Intellectual Property Organization defines the protection of traditional knowledge and manifestations of popular culture as the use of the tools and principles of intellectual property rights to prevent the unauthorized or improper use of traditional knowledge or manifestations of this culture by third parties. More broadly, advocacy includes applying the laws, values, and principles of intellectual property to prevent abuse, misappropriation, copying, misappropriation, and other items of illicit exploitation. In short, the purpose of supporting the vision of the organization is to ensure that the innovation and creativity in these manifestations are not misused. It is said that there are two forms of protection in meeting the expectations of traditional indigenous communities from the perspective of intellectual property rights: positive and negative (defensive).

Rules focused on business procedures

In addition to protection through intellectual property laws, geographical indications may be exercised through other means, such as focusing on business practices, including product-approval procedures or specific laws that focus on business practices, such as unfair competition law. Protect consumer protection laws or product labeling laws. These laws, however, do not establish an individual industrial property right over a geographical indication. However, they indirectly protect geographical indications to the extent that they prohibit certain acts that may involve their unauthorized use. Support for geographical indications can be applied internationally in the following two ways.

Multilateral agreements

Some of them deal with geographical indications directly and some implicitly. As stated at the beginning of all these conventions, the members of these agreements form a union, within the framework of which the rights and goods of the members among the members of the union are protected all over the world. This means that the union has no duty to non-members and only guarantees the rights of its members. According to Article 1-1 of the Paris Convention, "the States Parties to the present Convention are formed in the form of an association for the protection of industrial property"; According to Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Madrid Agreement (1981), "the countries to which this Agreement applies shall form special unions for the international registration of marks"; Also, according to Article 1 بند 1 of the Lisbon Treaty, "the countries to which this agreement applies shall establish a special union within the framework of the Union for the Protection of Industrial Property". All measures are applicable in the form of a union.

1. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883

The Paris Agreement is for the protection of industrial property (in the broadest sense, including patents, trademarks, utility models, service marks, trademarks, geographical indications and the fight against unfair competition). The basic principles of the treaty are divided into three main categories: national conduct, the right of precedence, and common law. The convention covers most instances of industrial property, including patents, trademarks, industrial designs, consumer models, and geographical indications, and aims to create a system for inventors to support their invention internationally (CAMERON; GELBACH; MILLER, 2011). States Parties undertake to make arrangements for the protection of the geographical indications of the Allies. The provisions of this convention state that according to the "principle of national conduct", there is no difference between the citizens of the member states in the registration of intellectual property and the filing of lawsuits, and the courts will treat the inventors of the member states equally. According to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 1, "Subject of protection of industrial property of patents, samples of equipment for meeting needs, designs or industrial samples, factory marks or trademarks, trade names and marks of place of issue or titles and names of origin, as well as prevention Its competition is illegitimate; Industrial property is considered in its broadest sense and includes not only industry and trade - in the specific sense - but also agricultural and extractive industries and all manufactured or natural products such as wines, grains, tobacco leaves, fruits, livestock, minerals, beers. Are also flocks and flours; "Patents include various types of industrial patents, such as import patents, supplementary patents, patents or accreditation certificates, etc., which are accepted by the laws of the member countries of the Union." Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Paris Convention also specifies the origin of the subject matter, and Article 10 deals with the origin of the product.

2. Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Trademarks and Related Protocols (1891)

This system allows a trademark to be protected internationally in many countries. The Treaty of Madrid was ratified in 1891 (CALBOLI, 2015). However, an annexed protocol was adopted in 1989 with the aim of making the Madrid system more flexible and more compatible with the domestic laws of certain countries that were unable to accede to the agreement. Iran became a party to the Madrid Agreement in 200.

3. The Lisbon Treaty for the Protection of Designations of Origin and their International Registration, adopted in 1958 (WIPO, 1958).

The Lisbon Treaty was signed in 1958 to revise the Madrid Agreement to protect designations of origin and to facilitate the international registration of such names. Under Article 1 of this Agreement, States Parties are required to protect the originating names of products of other Member States protected in the country of origin. The name of origin means the geographical name of the country, region or place where the product is produced and exported and the quality of the product can be considered due to the geographical environment and the popularity of the product is due to the country of origin. In the subsequent amendments, in addition to the geographical conditions, the requirements of this treaty were extended to the culture and traditions of a region. Currently 28 countries are parties to the Lisbon Treaty: Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, North Korea, France, Gabon, Georgia, Haiti, Hungary, Iran, Israel, Italy, Macedonia. Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Togo and Tunisia and about 9,000 geographical indications were registered by the members of the Lisbon Treaty. The Paris Convention and the Lisbon Treaty of International Trade highlighted efforts to harmonize the different approaches and standards that governments used to register intelligence. The first attempts to do so were made at the Paris Convention on Trademarks (1883, still in force, 176 articles; WARDHAN; MANCHICKANTI, 2013), followed by a much more precise clause in the 1958 Lisbon Treaty on the Protection of Registration of Origin and Registration.

4- Madrid Treaty in order to prevent the installation of unrealistic or deceptive signs of the source on the goods (1989)

Under this agreement, the importation of all goods bearing the false or misleading mark of the source, which directly or indirectly identifies its place of production as a Member State or other region, must be stopped or such imports prohibited, or other measures or legal guarantees enforced. Apply in connection with their import. The agreement provides for the seizure and confiscation of the product for such cases. This Agreement prohibits the use, sale, supply or offering for sale of any goods which carry a sign of public deception about the source of the goods. The agreement allows the courts of the member states to decide which of the origin names (other than the source names related to the source of the wine products) do not fall within the scope of the agreement in terms of their unique characteristics. This agreement does not provide for the creation of a union, the appointment of an executive body or a budget. Membership in this Agreement is open to all members of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883). Instruments of ratification or accession shall be deposited with the Director-General of WIPO.

5. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1994

This agreement, which is an integral part of the final document of the Uruguay Round and one of the three pillars of the WTO Agreements (including the Agreements on Trade in Goods, Services and Intellectual Property) and the most comprehensive international document on intellectual property rights, entered into force on 1 January 1995. It is by far the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property, and the areas it covers are: copyright and related rights (i.e., the rights of performers, producers of recorded sounds and broadcasting organizations). Trademarks including service marks. Geographical indications, including letters of origin; industrial plans; Inventions include the protection of new plant species; Integrated circuit design; and undisclosed information including trade secrets and experimental data. Since the 1970s, due to the shortcomings of previous conventions and agreements and the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism in them, intellectual property rights have been raised by the developed countries in the Uruguay Round negotiations under the GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which eventually Thrips led to the ratification of the Intellectual Property Commercial Agreement. Implementation of this agreement has started since 1995. When negotiations on trade-related aspects of the World Trade Organization (TRIPS) ended in 1994, the governments of all OIC member states (164 countries, in August 2016) agreed on specific basic standards for trademark protection. Determine geographical locations in all member countries. During the Doha WTO Development Round, which began in December 2001, WTO member states were negotiating the creation of a "multilateral registration" of geographical indications. Some countries, including the European Union, are trying to register legally. While other countries, including the United States, were pushing for a non-binding system, in which the WTO would be informed only of the relevant geographical indications of its members. Some participating States (especially european societies; INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTRE; WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION, 2003; WESSEL et al., 2020) were willing to go further and negotiate the inclusion of a geographical indication in products other than wine and alcohol under Article 23 of the TRIPS. These governments argued that the extension of Article 23 would increase protection of these marks in international trade. However, this is a controversial proposal that has been opposed by other governments, including the United States, which has called into question the need to extend stronger Article 23 protection to other products. They are concerned that Article 23 protection is, in most cases, beyond what is necessary to secure the interests of the consumer, which is the primary purpose of GI law.

6- Geneva Document of the Lisbon Treaty 2015

The law was passed in Geneva in 2015 and entered into force in early 2020 with the accession of the European Union. Geneva Law is a bridge between the Lisbon system of origin and the Thrips system of geographical indications.

Results and Discussion

The results of the study showed that, although in theory, there are several ways to protect a geographical indication, and even ancillary laws such as the "Fight against Unfair Competition" and the "Consumer Protection Law", and other similar rules and regulations. , Protect these valuable intellectual assets. But in practice, there are limitations to protecting them. For example, while patents and trademarks have been established by practical and efficient methods and used by many inventors, innovators, and corporations, the conditions for geographical indications are due to the wide variety of protection systems. Available, slightly different. For example, if geographical indication registration and patent rights are not available in a particular geographic area, there is a risk of problems with geographical indication protection. Because despite the existence of certain rules in some countries and territories with geographical indications, there is still no global consensus and a single legal authority to fully support these indications at the international level. Inevitably, the rules and regulations for the protection of geographical indications are scattered in different territories, and this has led to the desired result, despite the targeted efforts in the protection of these signs (PIETKIEWICZ, 2021). Experience shows that recognizing a geographical indication, whether through registration, court, administrative decision or other means, is not in itself sufficient to realize the potential benefits of protecting a geographical indication. Also, although the protection of a geographical indication is important, it is not the only condition for its success. Therefore, in order for a geographical indication to effectively create brand equity for a product or have a positive impact on rural development or the preservation of traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions or biodiversity, it is necessary to create a comprehensive geographical indication design. This set of rules and mechanisms underlies the operation of a geographical indication. Successful experiences with geographical indications show that these tokens, if well managed, are intangible assets with strong potential for product differentiation, added value, and side effects in areas related to the primary product. But despite all the efforts to use and support geographical indications, the use of brands with a geographical origin also poses challenges. Among other things, due to the collective nature of the issue, those who produce and market products with geographical indications, must act collectively according to production methods, quality and control standards, as well as product distribution and marketing. Finally, it should be noted that a sign acts as a geographical indication depending on national law and consumer awareness (BAETENS, 2022). As well as the first step towards supporting geographical indications at the international level, supporting them at the national level; And it is necessary to register the mark inside the country. Because, as we have seen, although Iranian law protects all geographical indications, both registered and unregistered, international conventions, treaties and agreements only support signs. Which are first registered at the national level. In other words, at the international level, a mark, after registration, provides the right to use the geographical name belonging to the community of producers in a certain geographical area and can add value due to the geographical name and mark at the level Achieved very widely. The final results of the study indicate that the geographical indication as a phenomenon with special nature and characteristics, can not be protected and protected based on general rules and regulations and therefore requires a special and unique legal protection system that can comply with It should have all its features, conditions and attributes and cover all its angles, otherwise, it will be inevitable that the mentioned signs will be endangered and their rights will be abused and violated. As at present, in the role and weakness of the special protection system for the marks in question, its goods and products are governed more by intellectual property laws and then by commercial laws and procedures, which can not provide adequate protection. And have faith in it. With these interpretations, it seems that despite the independent nature and index of geographical indications, it is still treated as a subset of intellectual property and has not found an independent personality

Conclusions

The subject area is geographical indications, handicrafts, industrial products and especially its main territory in agriculture and related products. In the case of legal protection, they give their countries the opportunity of global trade and significant benefits due to their access to global markets. The issues related to them are not only economic, but also political and cultural. Legal protection of geographical indications is now common in several ways. The first is through sui generis systems, which are almost independent and grant relatively strong patents. The second form of trademark protection is expanding to new product types through trade agreements and amendments to national and regional laws globally, and governments are part of their public policy to legally protect the trademarks in question. Have been assigned. The protection of such marks under intellectual property laws is also part of the International Intellectual Property (IP) Agenda. For this reason, the protection of geographical indications, especially by some developing countries, is growing as a form of intellectual property.

References

AMINI, Mansour; KHODADADI, Mohammad. Recognition of the mark and its types in comparison with other trademarks and trademarks. Private Law Journal, v. 15, n. 1, p. 11-22, 2017.

BAETENS, Freya. Protecting Foreign Investment and Public Health Through Arbitral Balancing and Treaty Design. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, v. 71, n. 1, p. 139-182, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589321000488

BROOKMAN, Adam. Trademark Law: Protection, Enforcement and Licensing. 2nd ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwe, 2016.

CALBOLI, Irene. Geographical Indications of Origin at the Crossroads of Local Development, Consumer Protection and Marketing Strategies. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, v. 46, p. 760-780, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-015-0394-0

CALBOLI, Irene; LEE, Edward (Ed.). Trademark Protection and Territoriality Challenges in a Global Economy. [S.l.]: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014.

CAMERON, A. Colin; GELBACH, Jonah B.; MILLER, Douglas L. Robust inference with multi-way clustering. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, v. 29, n. 2, p. 238-249, 2011.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTRE - ITC; WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION – WIPO. Secrets of Intellectual Property: A Guide for Small and Medium-Sized Exporters. 2003. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=294. Accessed on: Sept. 21, 2022.

PIETKIEWICZ, Michał. Legal status of Caspian Sea – problem solved? Marine Policy, v. 123, 104321, 2021.

WARDHAN, Prerna; MANCHIKANTI, Padmavati. A relook at inventor’s rights. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, v. 18, n. 2, p. 168-173, 2013.

WESSEL, Ramses A. et al. The future of EU Foreign, Security and Defence Policy: Assessing legal options for improvement. European Law Journal, v. 26, n. 5-6, p. 371-390, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12405

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION – WIPO. Lisbon Agreement on the Protection of Designations of Origin and their International Registration. Oct. 31, 1958. Available at: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/textdetails/12827. Accessed on: Sept. 21, 2022.

ZAHEDI, Mehdi; MOHAMMADI, Amid. Challenges in Protection of Geographical Indications in the Iranian Legal System: Opportunities and Recommendations. Judicial Law Views Quarterly (Law Views), v. 20, n. 69, p. 67-96, 2015. Available at: https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article-1-769-en.html. Accessed on: Sept. 21, 2022.

Notas de autor

Información adicional

redalyc-journal-id: 3373

Enlace alternativo

https://periodicos.uff.br/revistapassagens/article/view/54252 (html)