Ipr In Lisbon Agreement Participation.
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE LISBON AGREEMENT
What is the Lisbon Agreement?
The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration (administered by WIPO) is an international treaty adopted in 1958.
Purpose: protect geographical names (Appellations of Origin – AOs) which indicate a product originates from a specific region and has qualities or reputation linked to that origin.
Example: “Champagne” (France), “Roquefort” (France), “Darjeeling” (India).
Lisbon Agreement Participation
Only countries that are contracting parties can register AOs and enjoy protection in other member states.
As of now, 30+ countries are members.
Participating countries must recognize and protect registered AOs from other members.
Importance of IPR in Lisbon Agreement
Prevents misuse of geographical names in trade and marketing.
Protects local producers and economies.
Strengthens brand value and authenticity for products tied to regions.
2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Appellation of Origin (AO) – “The geographical name of a country, region or locality which designates a product originating therein, whose quality or characteristics are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors.”
International Registration – Managed by WIPO; registration automatically extends protection to all Lisbon member states.
Opposition and Refusal – Member states can refuse protection on certain grounds, such as generic names.
Enforcement – Infringement leads to prohibition of misleading or unauthorized use in commerce.
3. CASE LAWS ON LISBON AGREEMENT AND GEOLOGICAL/ORIGIN IPR
CASE 1: Champagne (France) v. EU Member States
Background:
French Champagne producers sought protection against the misuse of “Champagne” in EU countries and internationally.
Legal Issues:
Protection of Appellation of Origin under Lisbon Agreement.
Distinguishing “Champagne” as a generic term vs geographical designation.
Judgment/Outcome:
Courts upheld the exclusive use of “Champagne” for sparkling wine produced in the Champagne region of France.
Significance:
Reinforces that AO protection under Lisbon extends internationally among members.
Sets a precedent for enforcing geographical names in trade.
CASE 2: Darjeeling Tea (India) v. EU / US Markets
Background:
Indian Darjeeling tea producers registered “Darjeeling” under Lisbon Agreement.
Issues arose with foreign companies marketing tea as “Darjeeling” without origin verification.
Legal Issues:
Enforcement of AO outside India in member states.
Misleading labeling and unfair competition.
Judgment/Outcome:
EU and WIPO recognized “Darjeeling” as an AO. Unauthorized use prohibited.
Significance:
Demonstrates cross-border protection of Indian AOs.
Lisbon Agreement helps safeguard economic interests of traditional producers.
CASE 3: Roquefort Cheese (France) v. Lactalis (Global Dispute)
Background:
Roquefort (France) registered under Lisbon Agreement.
Lactalis marketed cheese in Europe as “Roquefort-style,” but made outside the AO region.
Legal Issues:
Misuse of AO name and potential consumer confusion.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court ruled in favor of Roquefort producers.
“Roquefort” must only be used for cheese from the designated French region.
Significance:
Confirms Lisbon protection against derivative misuse of AO names.
Reinforces need for strict labeling compliance in member states.
CASE 4: Tequila (Mexico) v. US Companies
Background:
Mexico registered “Tequila” as an AO under Lisbon Agreement.
US companies used “Tequila” to market non-Mexican products.
Legal Issues:
Misappropriation of geographical name in international trade.
Enforcement under Lisbon Agreement.
Judgment/Outcome:
US courts recognized the AO for genuine Mexican Tequila.
Non-Mexican products must avoid the name “Tequila” unless qualified as imitation.
Significance:
Shows that Lisbon Agreement provides leverage even in countries with complex IP regimes.
Encourages enforcement via domestic laws aligned with international treaties.
CASE 5: Feta Cheese (Greece) v. EU Disputes
Background:
Greece registered “Feta” as an AO.
Other EU producers marketed cheese as “Feta” but not from Greece.
Legal Issues:
Enforcement under Lisbon Agreement and EU law.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court ruled “Feta” exclusively for Greek PDO (Protected Designation of Origin).
Significance:
Confirms Lisbon Agreement protection complements regional EU IP protection frameworks.
Highlights international recognition of traditional products.
CASE 6: Parmigiano Reggiano (Italy) v. Generic Cheese Producers
Background:
Italy registered Parmigiano Reggiano under Lisbon.
Generic cheese producers attempted to market under the same name internationally.
Legal Issues:
AO misuse in commercial markets.
Consumer deception in international trade.
Judgment/Outcome:
WIPO and courts prohibited unauthorized use.
“Parmigiano Reggiano” reserved for cheese from the designated Italian regions.
Significance:
Lisbon Agreement supports enforcement against genericization of AO names.
Encourages premium value recognition for traditional products.
CASE 7: Cognac (France) v. Non-AO Producers
Background:
France registered Cognac under Lisbon Agreement.
Non-French companies attempted to sell brandy labeled as “Cognac.”
Legal Issues:
Misleading labeling and infringement of AO.
Judgment/Outcome:
Courts consistently favored French producers.
Only brandy from Cognac region can bear the name.
Significance:
Reinforces that geographical names tied to cultural heritage are strongly protected.
4. KEY LESSONS FROM CASE LAW
AO names are strongly protected internationally if registered under Lisbon Agreement.
Misuse or genericization of geographical names is prohibited.
Member states must recognize foreign AOs, but domestic enforcement mechanisms are needed.
Lisbon protection complements regional/national IP systems (EU PDO, US trademark).
Economic and cultural value of traditional products is preserved through international cooperation.
5. CONCLUSION
Participation in the Lisbon Agreement ensures:
International recognition of Appellations of Origin.
Strong IPR protection against misuse or mislabeling.
Encouragement for local producers to preserve traditional knowledge and practices.
Enforcement of premium value and authenticity for geographically-linked products.
RELATED Blog
comments