Article

The Protection of Geographical Indications: Ambitions and Concrete Limitations

Authors:
Andrea Zappalaglio
Andrea Zappalaglio
Andrea Zappalaglio
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

The aim of this article is to compare and contrast the European Union (“EU”) rhetoric on GI protection with some concrete practical cases that show the results achieved (or not achieved) by the protection of geographical names worldwide. It will be concluded that, although GIs are an innovative strategic asset to achieve modern goals, they are not by themselves decisive and can be truly effective only when they are part of a broader successful action.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... Nonetheless, there are several U.S. examples of GIs including Vidalia onions, Florida oranges, and Idaho potatoes. For further information on GIs, readers are directed to Zappalaglio (2015). ...
The Foundations, Continuing Evolution, and Outcomes from the Application of Intellectual Property Protection in Plant Breeding and Agriculture
Chapter
  • Nov 2019
Respect for developers of improved crop varieties underpins civil society. Using these contributions in seed production and further development without prior informed consent (PIC) threatens the sustainability of varietal improvement. Procedures other than formal Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) can help prevent unauthorized appropriation but can also be undermined without effective recourse, so prompting the development of formal IPR mechanisms. These comprise “sui generis” systems, specially developed to protect plant varieties per se (Plant Variety Protection or Plant Breeders’ Rights) and utility patents. The ultimate goal of IPR is to provide benefits to stakeholders and, ultimately, the public at large. Achieving this goal depends upon balancing the possibility of reward to the developer with benefits that can then flow to others. While not necessarily providing a “silver‐bullet,” the availability of effective IPR is an important component of business decisions affecting research and product development. Complementarity and individual flexibilities allow tailoring of IPRs to best support agricultural production and societal needs. Research, product development, socioeconomic, and cultural environments are complex, interactive, and dynamic. Consequently, IPRs are subject to scrutiny and change. This review provides examples of these complexities, their influence upon IPRs to date, and upon associations between IPRs and accrual of benefits.
View
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.