IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v21y2022i5p597-618_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fair Use of Geographical Indications: Another Look at the Spirited Debate on the Level of Protection

Author

Listed:
  • Song, Xinzhe
  • Wang, Xiaoyan

Abstract

One of the most contested issues in international trade negotiations is the level of protection granted to geographical indications (GIs). WTO Members are divided between the ‘Old World’ represented by the European Union and the ‘New World’ headed by the United States. For decades, conventional wisdom has suggested that the debate is indeed a disagreement over the terroir idea. This article tackles the debate from a largely unexplored perspective, namely, fair use exceptions, which allows us to find the opposite: even if countries embraced the terroir idea equally, the divide on protection level would persist because of divergent approaches to the fair use of GIs. This divergence derives from countries’ different preferences for balancing conflicting interests, different policy goals, and different understandings of what is ‘fair’. Other countries should take these considerations into account when choosing a protection level suitable for their national conditions and goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Song, Xinzhe & Wang, Xiaoyan, 2022. "Fair Use of Geographical Indications: Another Look at the Spirited Debate on the Level of Protection," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 597-618, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:21:y:2022:i:5:p:597-618_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745622000258/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:21:y:2022:i:5:p:597-618_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/wtr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.