Such protection, however, while intensive and satisfactory in the countries of origin, is not maintained at a global level, since, unlike other sectors (such as trademarks and patents) where the positions of economically advanced countries are (albeit with some differences) substantially homogeneous, in the sector of traditional products there is a strong opposition of interests between countries with a strong tradition in the production of high-quality agri-food products characterized locally, and countries that, conversely, lack any such tradition and therefore tend to favor all producers who seek to use denominations and symbols that evoke the traditions upon which they are based. From another perspective, this opposition of interests also explains why the minimum standard of protection granted to these marks remains relatively low under the TRIPS Agreement, which was enacted in 1994 to establish an irremovable level of protection for intellectual property rights in the member countries. Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement, in fact, provides protection for geographical indications solely in cases of deceptive use. Therefore, the use of geographical indications accompanied by terms such as “type” and/or “model,” although it may imply a connection to the reputation of the “original” product, does not constitute a deception regarding the origin of the product and is only prohibited in the context of wine indications, for which, conversely, the level of protection is traditionally much higher (Article 23). The same applies to the Lisbon Agreement of 1958: an agreement that is undoubtedly of great importance at the international level, as it provides, with regard to the protection of geographical indications, a mechanism for the international registration of indications of origin of products, the objective characteristics of which are linked to the geographical environment from which they derive. Such indications are, in fact, protected, pursuant to Article 3, “against any usurpation or imitation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or the indication is translated and accompanied by expressions such as ‘type,’ ‘kind,’ ‘manner,’ ‘imitation,’ or similar.” However, the agreement has, in practice, been of limited effectiveness due to the lack of adhesion by many foreign countries. Lastly, the Paris Union Convention is also relatively ineffective, as its Article 10 sanctions only the “direct or indirect use of a false indication concerning the origin of the product.” 380 FRANCESCO TORCHIA
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==