| Abstract [eng] |
System of Geographical Indication Protection and Impact of the Lisbon Treaty on This System Geographical indications are one of a few objects of intellectual property, diversely regulated at both the national and international levels. This is the case due to the abundance of interests protected on the basis of this object, as well as due to a prolonged development of geographical indication protection within each country. The first attempt to create an international system for protecting appellations of origin was Lisbon agreement in 1958, which was not effective due to strict and rather vague formulation of provisions. It was followed by TRIPS agreement, which addressed the imperfections of Lisbon system by broadening the application of geographical indications protection, introducing new concept of geographical indications and corresponding provisions related to priority protection of trademarks. The content of the aforementioned international agreements could suggest that in case of the first one, the priority is given to the sui generis systems of geographical indications protection, while TRIPS agreement is based on the priority to the protection of trademarks. Recent Geneva act is an obvious attempt to combine these two different poles of geographical indications protection. This was to be achieved by broadening the application of Lisbon system, introducing the concept of geographical indications, taxing innovations, specifying its relation with trademarks; all this was used to set Lisbon system closer to the regulation of the states of common law tradition based on trademark law. However, the clash between trademarks and systems sui generis made it difficult to make a compromise decision and, regarding the aim not to violate the principles of Lisbon system by its content, the principles common to geographical indications protection systems sui generis were more appreciated. Although there are some opinions that the final result of the negotiations accommodates miscellaneous systems of geographical indications protection, the states of common law tradition react to the changes in Lisbon system negatively. During the negotiations the attempt was made to combine the incompatible, and as a means to terminate long-lasting negotiations, it was chosen to restrict the right to vote. Such actions evoke many discussions on their legitimacy and validity, and reveal that the priority in Lisbon system has always been given to the sui generis systems of geographical indications protection. |
