TransPacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiating Parties - TPP IP Chapter-Leaked Draft- Section D: Geographical Indications lyrics

{GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS} {Section D: Geographical Indications} Article QQ.D.1: {Recognition of Geographical Indications} The Parties recognize that [US propose; CL/PE/CA/MX/SG/MY/BN/VN/JP oppose: , subject to Article QQ.C.2(1),61 (GIs eligible for protection as trademarks)] geographical indications may be protected through a trademark or sui generis system or other legal means. Article QQ.D.2: Where a Party provides administrative procedures for the protection or recognition of geographical indications, through a system of trademarks or a sui generis system, the Party shall with respect to applications for such protection or petitions for such recognition: (a) accept those applications or petitions without requiring intercession by a Party on behalf of its nationals62; (b) process those applications or petitions without imposition of overly burdensome formalities; (c) ensure that its regulations governing the filing of those applications or petitions are readily available to the public and clearly set out the procedures for these actions; (d) make available information sufficient to allow the general public to obtain guidance concerning the procedures for filing applications or petitions and the processing of those applications or petitions in general; and allow applicants, petitioners, or their representatives to ascertain the status of specific applications and petitions; (e) ensure that those applications or petitions are published for opposition and provide procedures for opposing geographical indications that are the subject of applications or petitions; and--FOOTNOTES-- 61 Negotiators' Note: [JP is still considering this issue depending on the outcome of discussions on Article QQ.C.2][AU/NZ: will go with consensus.] 62 Subparagraph (a) shall also apply to judicial procedures that protect or recognize a geographical indication.22---PAGE BREAK--- (f) provide for cancellation, annulment, or revocation of the protection or recognition afforded to a geographical indication63 Article QQ.D.3: Each Party shall, whether protection or recognition is provided to a geographical indication through [SG/CA/MY oppose: its domestic measures] [SG/CA/MY propose: the system referred to in article QQ.D.2] [CL/PE/MY/SG/VN/BN/CA/MX oppose 64: or pursuant to an agreement with another government or government entity], provide a process that allows interested persons to object to the protection or recognition of a geographical indication, [CA oppose: and for protection or recognition to be 65 refused annulled 66 or, [AU propose: where appropriate,] cancelled] [MY/VN/SG/MX oppose 67: , at least on the following grounds: (i) the geographical indication is likely to cause confusion with a trademark or geographical indication that is the subject of a pre- existing good faith pending application or registration in the territory of such Party[68]; (ii) [BN oppose: the geographical indication is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or geographical indication, the rights to which have been acquired in accordance with the Party's law[69];] and (iii) the geographical indication is a term customary in common language as the common name for such goods or services in that Party's territory.]] Article QQ.D.4: [US propose; 70 CL/PE/NZ/AU/SG/MY/MX/CA/BN/VN oppose: No Party shall, whether pursuant to an agreement with a government or a governmental--FOOTNOTES-- 63 Negotiators' Note: Parties are considering the different terms used in this provision along with similar issues that have cropped up in C6 and D3. 64 Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this language. 65 Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision depending on the meaning of this Article. 66 Negotiators' Note: subject to legal clarification on consistency of the term cancellation etc. 67 Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision including Note to (i) and (ii). 68 [US/NZ/BN propose; CL/PE/SG/MX/MY oppose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that a geographical indication that is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or with another geographical indication should be refused protection, even if that geographical indication is a translation or modification of a geographical indication that the Party already protects.] [US alternative propose; PE/MX/ SG/MY/CL oppose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that, where a translation or a modification of a geographical indication is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or geographical indication, it should be refused protection.] 69 [US/AU propose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that the prior trademarks referred to in Article QQ.D.3 include well-known trademarks.] 70 Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.23---PAGE BREAK---entity or otherwise: (a) in the case of geographical indications for goods other than wines or spirits, prohibit third parties from using or registering translated versions of the geographical indication;[71] or (b) prohibit third parties from using a term that is evoked by the geographical indication.] Article QQ.D.5: [NZ/AU/BN/US propose;72 VN/PE/SG/CL/MY/CA/MX oppose: A Party may provide the means to protect a geographical indication against use in translation by third parties only if such use would, with respect to a geographical indication for goods other than wines and spirits: (a) give rise to a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark or geographical indication in the territory of that Party; (b) mislead the public as to the geographical origin of the good; or (c) constitute an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967). Article QQ.D.6: [US/NZ/AU/CL/SG propose; 73 MX/VN/PE/MY oppose: If a Party grants protection or recognition to a geographical indication through the systems described in Article QQ.D.2 or through an agreement with another government or government entity, such protection or recognition shall commence no earlier than [CL oppose: (i) the filing date in the Party[ 74],] (ii) the date on which such agreement enters into force, or (iii) if a Party implements such protection or recognition on a date after entry into force of the agreement, on that later date 75.] Article QQ.D.7: [NZ/AU/US propose; 76 PE/CL/VN/SG/MY/BN/CA/MX oppose:--FOOTNOTES-- 71 [US: For greater certainty, nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit a Party from barring third parties from using or registering translations of geographical indications if: (1) such uses give rise to a likelihood of confusion [JP oppose: , and (2) the geographical indications became protected through means other than an agreement between a Party and a government or governmental entity].] Negotiators' Note: JP proposes to move this footnote before subparagraph (a), so that it covers subparagraph (b) as well. 72 Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision. 73 Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision. 74 [NZ propose: for greater certainty the filing date reference in Article QQ.D.6 includes the priority filing date under the Paris Convention, where applicable.] 75 Negotiators' Note: CA to consider; BN can go along with consensus: VN/BN maintains opposition to reference to agreement with another government, etc. 76 Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision. 24---PAGE BREAK--- No Party shall preclude the possibility that a term that it recognized as a trademark or geographical indication may become a term customary in the common language as the common name for the a**ociated goods or services.] Article QQ.D.8: [CL/PE/AU/US/NZ/MX/CA/VN/JP propose 77 ; BN oppose: In determining whether a term is the term customary in the common language as the common name for the relevant goods or services in a Party's territory, a Party's authorities shall have the authority to take into account how consumers understand the term in that Party's territory. Factors relevant to such consumer understanding may include [SG/CL/PE/MX/VN propose: if appropriate]: (a) whether the term is used to refer to the type of product in question, as indicated by competent sources such as dictionaries, newspapers, and relevant websites; (b) how the product referenced by the term is marketed and used in trade in the territory of that Party; and (c) [CL/PE/MX/CA oppose78: whether the term is used in relevant international standards to refer to a cla** or type of product].] Article QQ.D.9: [NZ/AU/US/VN/BN/CL propose 79; PE/MY/MX oppose: An individual component of a multi-component term that is protected as a geographical indication in a Party shall remain available for the public to use in that Party if the individual component is a term customary in the common language as the common name for the a**ociated goods.] [SG propose 80: For greater certainty, nothing in this section shall require a Party to apply its provisions in respect of any individual component contained in a GI for which that individual component is identical with the term customary in common language as the common name of such goods in the territory of that Party.]Article QQ.D.10: [US propose; 81 AU/CL/SG/PE/MY/NZ/BN/VN/MX/CA oppose: The existence of a geographical indication shall not be a ground upon which a Party--FOOTNOTES-- 77 Negotiators' Note: CA reserves its right to revisit this article once the Geographical Indication provisions have been agreed upon. MY/SG still considering this provision. 78 Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision. 79 Negotiators' Note: CA is reflecting on both proposals. JP is considering this provision. 80 Negotiators' Note: MY/PE supports SG proposal in principle but is reflecting on language. 81 Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision. 25---PAGE BREAK--- may: (a) refuse a trademark owner's otherwise permissible request to renew the registration of its trademark; or (b) refuse a trademark owner's request to register an otherwise permissible modification of its registered trademark.] Article QQ.D.11: [CL/SG/BN/VN/MX propose 82; AU/PE/US/NZ/CA/JP oppose: List of Geographical Indications The terms listed in Annex […] are recognized as geographical indications of the respective Party, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement. Subject to domestic laws [ 83], in a manner that is consistent with the TRIPS Agreement, such terms will be protected as geographical indications in the territories of the other Parties.] Article QQ.D.12: {h*monymous Geographical Indications} [NZ/CL/VN/MY/BN/SG/MX propose 84; PE/US/AU oppose: 1. Each Party may provide protection to h*monymous geographical indications. Where a Party provides protection to h*monymous geographical indications, that Party may, where necessary, lay down the practical conditions of use to make a distinction between the h*monymous geographical indications, taking into account the need to ensure equitable treatment of the producers concerned and that consumers are not misled.] [CL propose; AU/US/PE/NZ/VN/SG/MY/BN/MX/CA/JP oppose: 2. The Parties recognize the geographical indication Pisco for the exclusive use for products from Chile and Peru.] [CL/SG/BN/MX propose; AU/PE/US/NZ/CA/JP oppose: Annex […] Lists of Geographical Indications] Article QQ.D.13: {Country Names}--FOOTNOTES-- 82 Negotiators' Note: VN supports subject to this list of GIs in the Annex. 83 [CL/BN/SG propose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that geographical indications will be recognized and protected in the Parties only to the extent permitted by and according to the terms and conditions set out in their respective domestic laws.] 84 Negotiators' Note: CA is continuing to reflect on this provision but notes concerns regarding scope and operation. JP is considering this provision.26---PAGE BREAK--- [CL/AU/NZ/SG/BN/VN/MY/PE/CA/MX/JP propose 85: The Parties shall provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent commercial use of country names of the Parties in relation to goods in a manner which misleads consumers as to the origin of such goods.] Article QQ.D.14: [US propose 86; CL/PE/VN/MY/CA oppose: Each Party shall permit the use, and as appropriate, allow the registration, of signs or indications that identify goods other than wines or spirits, and that reference a geographical area that is not the place of origin of the goods, unless such use is misleading, would constitute an act of unfair competition, or would cause a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark or geographical indication that identifies the same or similar goods. The foregoing shall not be understood to prevent a Party from denying registration of such a sign or indication on other grounds, provided such denial does not derogate from the provisions of the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement.] --FOOTNOTES-- 85 Negotiators' Note: US supports the principle reflected in this Article, but has concerns about limiting the Article just to names of countries. 86 Negotiators' Note: AU/ NZ/ SG/ BN reflecting on reformulated proposal. JP is considering this provision. 27---PAGE BREAK---