ABSTRACT
The industrial revolution brought with it massive expansion and development. This expansion impacts technology, culture, scientific fields and industries. The new kinds of property in the form of Geographical Indications (GIs), patents, copyrights, and industrial designs, began to surface in the form of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). IPRs are now recognised on a similar footing with movable and immovable property. Specifically, GIs are signs used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin. This research focuses on GIs and aims to assess the effectiveness of protecting GIs under Part IX of the Trade Mark Act (hereinafter “TM Act”). It also aims to analyse whether it is tenable at law and in fact to protect GIs under the law of Trademark from an international and regional perspective. It equally aims to advocate for an independent legal framework with respect to protection of GIs. Generally, the research establishes that there is no specific legislation in Zambia which deals with GIs. However, the TM Act provides for GIs which seeks to protect GIs in Zambia. It has equally established that Zambia is a State party to the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 1994 (hereinafter “TRIPS Agreement”), the Madrid Agreement on Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods, 1891 (hereinafter “Madrid Agreement”) and the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration, 1958 (hereinafter “Lisbon Agreement”). However, the present research paper has observed a number of practical problems and deficiencies under part IX of the TM Act. It establishes that there has not been significant progress in the protection of GIs in Zambia despite Part IX of the TM Act. The TM Act does not meet the minimum standard for the protection of GIs set both at regional and international level. Therefore, the TM Act is inadequate for protection of GIs in Zambia.
Keywords – Trademark, Geographical Indications, Intellectual Property Rights
INTRODUCTION
This paper aims to assess the area of GIs in Zambia with respect to their importance and protection. Particularly, this paper will analyse whether the Zambian legal framework should continue to protect GIs under the law of trademarks (TMs). In this regard, it aims to assess the extent of their protection under the TM Act. It equally aims to recommend legal reforms to the TM Act with respect to GIs in Zambia. Lastly, it aims to establish whether it is tenable at law and in fact to protect GIs under the law of TMs from a regional and international legal perspective.
The traditional classification of property as being movable and immovable took a turn owing to the results of the industrial revolution and the rapid development made in the fields of science, technology and culture. The new forms of property to be recognized include GIs, patents, copyrights, and industrial designs.[1] Thus intellectual property (hereinafter “IP”) is recognized as property proper, on equal and similar footing as immovable and movable property.
Since then, a number of national, regional and international laws which recognize and protect IPRs emerge. The laws formulated on an international scale include, among others, the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Trade Related Aspects on Intellectual Property (hereinafter “TRIPS Agreement”) and the Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property 1883 (hereinafter “Paris Convention”). Zambia is an instance at national scale. It has formulated the TM Act[2], the Copyright and Performance Rights Act, as well as the Patents Act[3].
Further, there are three main stream branches or conventional types of IPRs recognised and protected. These are TMs, patents and copyright. However, there are other categories of IPRs that do not fall under the main stream branches require separate protection. Instances of such IPRs include GIs.[4] The examples of GIs in the world include the Swiss chocolates that are manufactured in Switzerland. The other example of GIs is coffee manufactured from Jamaica and Tequila from certain parts of Mexico. Besides, the sparkling Champagne wine is named after the protected GI region in the Champagne region of France.[5]
Zambia is a party to the Paris Convention, Lisbon Agreement, the Madrid Agreement and the TRIPS Agreement. The Paris Convention has been domesticated as indicated from the long title of the Patents Act[6] which indicates that Zambia has domesticated the Paris Convention. The preamble to the Protection of Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Expressions of Folklore Act[7] indicates that Zambia is a member of ARIPO. The TRIPS Agreement is domesticated in Zambia as evidenced from the long title of the Industrial Designs Act.[8] In this regard, Article 22 of TRIPS Agreement gives discretion to member States to prescribe the mode of protection for GIs. Consequently, Zambia relies on the TM Act to protect GIs through CTMs.
It is continually realised that Zambia does not have an independent legal framework to maintain and protect GIs. It protects GIs under the TM Act. The question which begs an answer is whether it is tenable at law and in fact to effectively protect and enforce GIs under the law of TMs as anticipated under, among others, Articles 22 and 41 of the TRIPS Agreement.
It is therefore pertinent that the study was undertaken to clarify the state of affairs with specific focus on Zambia with respect to legislation dealing with GIs in Zambia which took take into account the current trends from a regional and an international perspective.
The objectives of this research are to:
1. Assess whether it is effective to protect GIs under the TM Act;
2. Establish whether it is tenable at law and in fact to protect GIs under the law of TMs from a regional and international legal perspective;
3. Recommend legal reforms with respect to the Zambian legislation on GIs;
CONCEPT OF GIs
Lisa Bench Nieuwveld[9] makes a comparison between TM and GIs by referring to Articles 15 and 22 of the TRIPS Agreement respectively. The scholar then concludes that GIs may fall under the broader definition of TM. It is argued that GIs fulfill two main functions. Firstly, they promote products which have certain characteristics distinctive to that particular region, and second is that they assist consumers in selecting a specific product amongst an increasingly diverse market. Moreover, the scholar argues that TMs containing a geographic source similar to GIs is different. This is because the former identify the commercial enterprise attached to the product as opposed to the latter which identify the region in which the product is made.
Nagarajan[10] states that TM containing a GI cannot be protected if the use of the TM misleads the public about the true origin of the product. It is argued that Article 22(3) of the TRIPS Agreement requires that countries should keep in place legal means to invalidate the registration of TMs, which contain or consist of a GI with respect to goods not originating in the territory indicated. It is applicable only if the use of the GI is such that it leads to misleading the public as to the true place of origin of the product. The GIs are essentially collective marks that are put to use for the collective benefit of the producers in a given region.
Peter Drahos and Susy Frankel[11] states that the important conflict rules between GIs and TMs are contained in TRIPS under Articles 24.5 and 24.6. It provides that a GI conflicting with a TM does not supersede the mark. The condition is that there should have been an application made for registration of the mark or that the mark was registered. Further, the right should have been acquired by use in good faith.
V.K. Ahuja[12] argues that GIs are as valuable as TMs yet their functions are different. TMs are owned by enterprises and used to identify products and services in the market. This aims to distinguish them from competing products and services which is not the case with GIs. This is because they are used by several enterprises at the same time, provided that for which it is used originates in the geographical area to indication refers. The scholar notes that the Paris Convention and the Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False Indications of Origin, 1891 (hereinafter Madrid Agreement) deals with indication of source and indication of origin respectively. Further, it is stated that the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration, 1958 (hereinafter “Lisbon Agreement”) also deals with 'appellations of origin'. Lastly, reference is made to the TRIPs Agreement which equally uses the expression 'geographical indications'.
T Paul Cox[13] states that unlike patents and trademarks, GIs confer collective rights that belong to all individuals in an area that respect the product’s specifications. The collective rights demand an equally collective approach by the producers and others in the value chain. This is meant to set up, govern and market GIs to be regulated by national laws. Thus, public authorities fix and oversee the conditions under which a GI is conferred, maintained and protected against imitations and appropriation. The public authorities also oversee the framework that ensures quality control depending on the legal system chosen to protect GIs at national level.
GianCarlo Moschini, Luisa Menapace and Daniel Pick[14] acknowledge that the protection of GIs has a long history in Europe. GIs are protected under two similar yet two distinct legal notions. These are appellations of origin and marks. The former requires a special tie between the quality of the product and the geographical origin while such relation is not necessary for the latter. The natural institutional setting for GIs is competitive marketing. Contrary to standard TMs, which are owned and used by a single firm, GIs are essentially public goods and are owned and used by many firms simultaneously. Moreover, the use of GIs cannot be denied to any producer in the specified geographical area provided all product specifications and the geographical origin are met.
Graham Dutfield[15] states that TMs is similar in function to GIs. However, the scholar notes the difference between the former and the latter in terms of the duration of protection. Some national laws provide for indefinite protection of either GIs or TMs provided that it is subject to continuous use of the mark. This article also makes reference to collective marks and certification trademark. The former refers to ownership of a trademark that may be shared by a group of producers, each of whom will have the right to use the mark. The latter refers to an association which may own a trademark but allow producers to use the mark subject to certain conditions established by the association. This article differentiates the concepts of GIs, TMs, collective marks and CTMs.
Nicole Coutrelis and Pierre Yves Corre[16] analyses the inter play between GIs and TM. The interplay in this article explores and compares the specificities of each system of protecting GIs in the European Union (EU). The first one is the EU legal framework for PGI and collective EU TM. Second, is the notion and requirements for registration of a PGI or a collective EU TM. Lastly, is the comparison of the scope of protection offered by each system. Similarly, Marsha A. Echols[17] argues that GIs are increasingly given recognition and protection at the national level. The regional agreements related to the recognition and protection of GIs includes the Bangui Agreement of 2 March, 1977 on the Creation of an African Intellectual Property Organization Agreement (Bangui Agreement).
Legal positivism is a philosophy of law that emphasizes the conventional nature of law—that it is socially constructed. According to legal positivism, law is synonymous with positive norms, that is, norms made by the legislator or considered as common law or case law. Formal criteria of law's origin, law enforcement and legal effectiveness are all sufficient for social norms to be considered law. Legal positivism does not base law on divine commandments, reason, or human rights. Under positivist theory, the source of human rights is found only in the enactments of a system of law with sanctions attached to it. This study shall utilize Austin’s Legal Positivism theory of law.
METHODOLOGY
The present research will employ desktop research. It will be carried out by referring to primary sources of law such as statutes and cases. It will equally rely on materials published by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and African Region Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO). Lastly, secondary data in the form of books and journal articles will also be considered.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
The Trade Marks Act[18] provides for GIs as follows:
A geographical indication shall only be protected if that geographical indication is registered under this Act. A geographical indication shall not be protected under this Act if that geographical indication—
(a) designates a good where the given quality, reputation or other characteristic of that good is not essentially attributable to the geographical origin of the good;
(b) is a generic name or a name that is generally used in the trading of that good;
(c) is contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality;
(d) is not protected or has ceased to be protected in the country of origin;
(e) has become a common name of a good and is being used to designate the kind, quality, variety or other property or characteristic of that good; or
(f) although true as to the geographical origin of the good, may falsely represent to the public that the good originates in another geographical area.
Zambia is a State party to the Paris Convention, Lisbon Agreement, the Madrid Agreement and the TRIPS Agreement. The Paris Convention has been domesticated as shown from the long title of the Patents Act[19] which indicates that Zambia has domesticated the Paris Convention. The preamble to the Protection of Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Expressions of Folklore Act[20] indicates that Zambia is a member of ARIPO. The TRIPS Agreement is domesticated in Zambia as evidenced from the long title of the Industrial Designs Act.[21] In this regard, Articles 22, 23 and 24 read together with Articles 41 and 42 of the TRIPS Agreement gives discretion to member states to prescribe the mode of protection for GIs in the national law. Currently, Zambia relies the TM Act to protect GIs.
The scope of protection of GIs as outlined under the Trademarks Act is substantially similar to the scope of the protectable subject matter for GIs under the TRIPS Agreement, the Paris Convention, Madrid Protocol and the Lisbon Agreement. This is because the TM Act incorporates the elements which are advocated for in the protection of GIs under the international and regional treaties. For instance, it refers to the aspects of protecting goods based on their origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy or other characteristics of goods. This form of protection is substantially in line with the protectable subject matter for GIs.
On the basis of the preceding paragraph, it can be argued that the TM Act offers protection to GIs in Zambia. It is on this premise that it can be argued that Zambia does have a law in place meant to protect, regulate, maintain and enforce GIs.
An evaluation of the TM Act with respect to the standard of protection of GIs set at regional and international treaties and/or convention. Firstly, the TM Act does set out objectives dealing with GIs in the Act. The TM Act has also defined the concept of GIs in Zambia and there is an established register dealing with GIs as is the case with the law dealing with patents[22] and industrial designs[23] in Zambia. The dispute resolution mechanisms are set specifically for matters relating to GIs. It is also evident that there is a clear protectable subject matter for GIs with respect to the regions or provinces in Zambia. The TM Act does specify the rights, obligations, limitations and duration of registration for GIs based on particular regions in the country. The TM Act does envisage the need for registration of foreign GIs despite Zambia being a State party to the international and regional treaties and conventions.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The study evaluated the standard of protection for GIs in Zambia through an evaluation of the standard of protection of GIs currently applicable in Zambia pursuant to the TM Act. The evaluation has been based on the minimum standard of protection as espoused at international and regional levels. It has equally been informed by an analysis of the scholarly works highlighted in the present research paper. There should be a deliberate policy in Zambia which is meant to enhance international and regional co-operation with respect to GIs. This should aim to protect GIs in Zambia at regional and international levels.
Zambia should aim to enhance the standard of GIs like other regions. This is meant to enhance the reputation of the goods and services in different regions in the country. For instance, the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter “CJEU”) in the case of Commission of the European Communities v the Federal Republic of Germany[24] has recognised the concept of GIs as IPRs in Europe. The purpose(s) can be realised if GIs are able to describe the product with respect to its quality and characteristics. The quality and traits of the product should be attributed to a specific geographical area. Similarly, the CJEU in the case of Establissements Delhaize frères and Compagnie Le Lion SA v Promalvin SA and AGE Bodegas Unidas SA[25] is of the view that the specific purpose of the GIs is to guarantee that the product(s) originates in a particular region and that it possesses qualities with respect to that region. The CJEU expressed the foregoing view in a case in which it considered the Spanish rules in relation to the indication of origin, Rioja for wines. This was required to be bottled at Bodega. However, the Supermarket chain Delhaize escaped liability despite buying the wine in bulk and bottling it in Belgium.
The legal framework protecting and regulating GIs in Europe is categorised into groups. These are the Quality Scheme Regulation[26], the Spirits Regulation[27], the Wine Regulation[28] and the Aromatised Wines Regulation.[29] The Quality Scheme Regulation covers the agricultural products and foodstuffs. The Spirits Regulation is meant to define, describe, present, label and protect GIs in relation to spirit drinks. The Wines Regulation on the other hand establishes a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products. Lastly, is the Aromatised Wines Regulation which is meant to protect, describe, present, label and protect GIs of aromatised wines.[30]
The first point of consideration is the European mode of protecting GIs under the four different pieces of legislation.[31] It is evident that the protection of GIs traces the long history in Europe. It is equally true that the various court decisions of the CJEU have played a vital role in the recognition and protection of indications of geographical origin in Europe. It can be argued that the various court decisions in Europe have greatly contributed to the current legal framework at European level which is categorised into groups. The four categories which deal with a specific subject matter in relation to the recognition and protection of GIs is a clear indication of the broad subject matter of GIs as IPRs.
The Paris convention sets up an international system for the protection of industrial property. It achieves this by utilising the national treatment rule which grants an exclusive right to countries. Article 1 spells out the objectives of the convention. This includes the protection of inter alia, the indications of source or appellations of origin. The Lisbon Agreement is a special agreement which emanates from Article 19 of the Paris Convention. It puts in place the detailed rules that were missing in the Paris convention. It is the first international instrument that deals in detail with indications of geographical origin. The impact of the Convention is limited as few countries signed up the agreement.[32]
The purpose of the TRIPS Agreement is set out in its preamble. It aims to promote effective enforcement of IPRs. It is meant to overcome international trade barriers. Therefore, it is realized that the enforcement of IPRs should not in themselves hinder international trade. The preamble equally recognizes the special needs of the least-developed country members. This relates to the maximum flexibility in the domestic implementation of laws and regulations.[33] The Madrid Agreement is mainly concerned with TMs. In its quest to deal with the collective marks, it does touch upon the protection of indications of geographical origin. Article 1[34] provides for the seizure of goods that bear a false or deceptive indication of the place of origin or country. Article 2[35] places the obligation of the seizure on the customs authorities who in turn should inform the interested party.
[1] Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property (Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008) 7.
[2] Act No. 11 of 2023 of the laws of Zambia.
[3] Act No. 2 of 2016 of the laws of Zambia.
[4] W.R Cornish. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 4th ed. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1999) 3.
[5] Cornish, Intellectual Property.
[6] Patents Act, 2016.
[7] Act No. 2 of 2016.
[8] Act No. 22 of 2016.
[9] Lisa Bench Nieuwveld, “Is This Really About What We Call Our Food or Something Else? The WTO Food Name Caseover the Protection of Geographical Indications.” The International Lawyer, Vol. 41, no. 3 (FALL 2007): 895-896, accessed May 14, 2018, at 08:21 UTC, Published by American Bar Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40708034.
[10] S. Nagarajan, “Current Science.” Vol. 92, No. 2 (25 January 2007): 168-170, accessed May 14, 2018, at 08:50. Published by Current Science Association http://www.jstor.org/stable/24096681.
[11] Peter Drahos, Susy Frankel (Eds). “Indigenous Peoples' Innovation: Intellectual Property Pathways to Development. Indigenous Peoples' Innovation. ANU Press. (2012): 131-132 in Daniels Gervais.” Traditional Innovation and the ongoing Debate on the Protection of Geographical Indications http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24hfgx.12.
[12] V.K. Ahuja, “Protection Of Geographical Indications: National and International Perspective.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute. Vol. 46, no. 2, Intellectual Property Rights Special Issue (April-June 2004): 269-287, accessed May 14, 2018, at 07:17 UTC. Published by Indian Law Institute, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43951907.
[13] T Paul Cox. “Origin Linked Product: Certifiably one of a kind. Spore” no. 171 (August-September 2014): 14, accessed May 14, 2018, at 08:35 UTC, Published by Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), http://www.jstor.org/stable/24344601.
[14] GianCarlo Moschini, Luisa Menapace and Daniel Pick. “Geographical Indications and the Competitive Provision of Quality in Agricultural Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 90, No. 3 (Aug., 2008): 795-796, accessed May 14, 2018, at 08:24 UTC, Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20492329.
[15] Graham Dutfield, “Intellectual Property Tools For Products Based On Bio-cultural Heritage.” A legal review of geographical indications, trademarks and protection from unfair competition. International Institute for Environment and Development, (2011): 22, Accessed May 14, 2018, at 08:26 UTC, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep01380.
[16] Nicole Coutrelis and Pierre Yves Corre, “The Protection of a Name Registered as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) under the Simplified Procedure against a Trade Mark.” European Food and Feed Law Review, Vol. 6, no. 2 (2011): 116, Accessed May 14, 2018, at 08:18 UTC, Published by Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24325159.
[17] Marsha A. Echols, “Geographical Indications for Foods, Trips and the Doha Development Agenda.” Journal of African Law, Vol. 47, no. 2 (2003): 200, accessed May 11, 2018, at 14:42 UTC, Published by School of Oriental and African Studies, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038563.
[18] Trade Marks Act No. 11 of 2023
[19] Patents Act, 2016
[20] Act No. 2 of 2016
[21] Act No. 22 of 2016
[22] Section 10, Patents Act
[23] Section 10, Industrial Designs Act No. 22 of 2016
[24] Commission of the European Communities v the Federal Republic of Germany [1975] ECR 181 [7] Case 12/74.
[25] Establissements Delhaize frères and Compagnie Le Lion SA v Promalvin SA and AGE Bodegas Unidas SA [1992] ECR 1-3669 [17].
[26] Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012 of the European Parliament of the Council of 21st November, 2012 on Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs.
[27] Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the Definition, Description, Presentation, Labeling and the Protection of Geographical Indications of Spirit Drinks and Repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89.
[28] Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 of the European Parliament of the Council of 17 December, 2013 in the Wine Sector and Amending Commission Regulation (EC) No. 555/2008.
[29] Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1601/91 (3) and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 122/94 (4) of 10th June, 1991.
[30] Pila and Torremans, European Intellectual Property Law,
[31] Ibid
[32] Pila and Torremans, European Intellectual Property Law
[33] ibid.
[34] Madrid Agreement.
[35] ibid.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATUTES
Constitution of Zambia, Amendment Act No. 2 of 2016, Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia
Copyright and Performance Rights Act, Chapter 402 of the Laws of Zambia
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1601/91 (3) and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 122/94 (4) of 10th June, 1991 on Aromatised Wines Regulation.
Industrial Designs Act No. 2 of 2016
Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the laws of Zambia
Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration, 1958
Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False Indications of Origin, 1891
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883
Patents Act, No. 20 of 2016
Protection of Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Expressions of Folklore Act, 2016
Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the Definition, Description, Presentation, Labeling and the Protection of Geographical Indications of Spirit Drinks and Repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89
Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012 of the European Parliament of the Council of 21st November, 2012 on Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs
Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 of the European Parliament of the Council of 17 December, 2013 in the Wine Sector and Amending Commission Regulation (EC) No. 555/2008
Trade Marks Act, Chapter 401 of the laws of Zambia
Trademarks Act No. 11 of 2023 of the laws of Zambia
World Trade Organisation Agreement on Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)
CASES
Commission of the European Communities v the Federal Republic of Germany [1975] ECR 181 [7] Case 12/74
DH Brothers Industries (PTY) Limited v Olivine Industries (PTY) Limited SCZ Judgment No. 10 of 2002
Establishements Delhaize frères and Compagnie Le Lion SA v Promalvin SA and AGE Bodegas Unidas SA [1992] ECR 1-3669 [17]
Glaxo Group LTD v Dowelhurst LTD [2000] EWHC CH 134 [UK]
Scandecor Developments AB v Scandecor Marketing AB [2001] UKHL 21 [UK]
The Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services and The Attorney General v Chembo and other SCZ Judgment No. 11 OF 2007
BOOKS
Cornish, W.R. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 4th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1999.
Harms, L. The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Case Book. 3th ed. South Africa: Word Intellectual Property Organisation.
Kanja, G.M. Intellectual Property Law. Lusaka: The University of Zambia Press, 2006.
Kinsella, S. Against Intellectual Property. Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008.
Pila, J and Torremans, P. European Intellectual Property Law. London: Oxford University Press, 2016.
JOURNAL ARTICLES
Ahuja, V.K. “Protection Of Geographical Indications: National And International Perspective.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 46, No. 2, (April-June 2004): 269-287. Accessed May 14, 2018, at 07:17 UTC. Published by Indian Law Institute http://www.jstor.org/stable/43951907.
Couter, Y. V and d'Ath, F. “Protecting the Origin of Foodstuffs in the European Union: Indications of Origin and Trademarks as Intellectual Property Tools.” European Food and Feed, Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 4 (2016): 290. Accessed may 14, 2018, 08:15 UTC. Published by Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH http://www.jstor.org/stable/43958399.
Coutrelis, N and Corre, P. Y. “The Protection of a Name registered as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) under thesimplified Procedure against a Trade Mark.” European Food and Feed Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2011): 116. Accessed May 14, 2018, 08:18 UTC. Published by Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH http://www.jstor.org/stable/24325159.
Cox. T.P “Origin Linked Product: Certifiably one of a kind. Spore.” No. 171 (August-September 2014): 14. Accessed May 14, 2018, 08:35 UTC. Published by Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) http://www.jstor.org/stable/24344601.
Drahos, P and Frankel, S (Eds). “Indigenous Peoples' Innovation: Intellectual Property Pathways to Development.” Indigenous Peoples' Innovation. ANU Press. (2012): 131-132 in Daniels Gervais. “Traditional Innovation and the ongoing Debate on the Protection of Geographical Indications. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24hfgx.12.
Dutfield, G. “Intellectual Property Tools For Products Based On Bio-cultural Heritage.” A legal review of geographical indications, trademarks and protection from unfair competition. International Institute for Environment and Development, (2011): 22. Accessed May 14, 2018, 08:26 UTC. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep01380.
Echols, M. A. “Geographical Indications for Foods, Trips and the Doha Development Agenda.” Journal of African Law, Vol. 47, No. 2 (2003): 200. Accessed May 11, 2018, 14:42 UTC. Published by School of Oriental and African Studies http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038563.
Michael Handler. “The WTO Geographical Indication Dispute.” The Modern Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jan., 2006): 70. Accessed May 14, 2018, 08:12 UTC. Published by Wiley on behalf of the Modern Law Review http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877211.
Moschini, G, Menapace, L and Pick, D “Geographical Indications and the Competitive Provision of Quality in Agricultural Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 90, No. 3 (Aug., 2008): 795-796. Accessed May 14, 2018. 08:24 UTC. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association http://www.jstor.org/stable/20492329.
Nagarajan, S. “Current Science.” Vol. 92, No. 2 (25 January 2007): 168-170. Accessed May 14, 2018, 07:50 UTC. Published by: Current Science Association http://www.jstor.org/stable/24096681.
Ndhlovu, J. National Initiatives on Protecting GIs. Presentation made at ‘National Roving Seminar on Making Better Use of Intellectual Property for Business Competitiveness and Development in Africa’ PACRA, 12 May, 2015 Lusaka.
Nieuwveld, L.B. “Is This Really About What We Call Our Food or Something Else? The WTO Food Name Caseover the Protection of Geographical Indications.” The International Lawyer, Vol. 41, No. 3 (FALL 2007): 895-896. Accessed May, 14 2018, 08:21 UTC Published by American Bar Association http://www.jstor.org/stable/40708034.
Rao, C. N. “Geographical Indications in Indian Context: A Case Study of Darjeeling Tea.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 42 (Oct. 15-21, 2005): 4545. Accessed May 14, 2018, 08:06 UTC Published by Economic and Political Weekly http://www.jstor.org/stable/4417300.
