Intellectual Property Report: Geographical Indications Analysis

This report delves into intellectual property, specifically focusing on geographical indications (GI) and their role in protecting authentic products. It examines an article discussing the use of GI tags to identify products linked to specific geographies, highlighting the benefits of GI in segregating original products from counterfeits and supporting local producers. The report also addresses normative perspectives, balancing the interests of authentic producers against those potentially producing imitations. It reflects on the limitations of GI, particularly the existence of global mechanisms that might undermine national GI protections, and raises unanswered questions about initiatives to strengthen the GI system. The analysis draws parallels between GI tags and trademarks, emphasizing their shared function of communicating product origin and authenticity to consumers. Desklib offers a platform to access this and many other solved assignments to aid students in their academic pursuits.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
REPORT
STUDENT ID:
[Pick the date]

I. Publication Information
For the chosen article, the title is “Providing GI tags to different products is not the end of the
story”. The newspaper in which the article has been published is “The Financial Express”.
The date of publication for the article is February 4, 2019. The name of the author is given
and is Mr. Asjadul Kibria.
II. Relevance of Article
The topic of study that is relevant to me is intellectual property and its protection. The given
article tends to highlight a method to identify intellectual property linked to geography. This
method is the practice of geographical Indication or GI. Through the article, it has been
highlighted how there are provisions both at the level of national government and
international organisations in order to protect intellectual property which is linked to
particular geography. However, through various examples, the glaring loopholes in the GI
regime and related mechanism for protection of geography linked intellectual property have
been indicated in the article. As a result, the article is highly relevant as in the future, it would
be beneficial in ensuring that the protection of these property rights is improved.
III. Description of IP
The given article relates to tagging using GI for particular products which are manufactured
or produced authentically only in a particular geography. As a result, the extension of GI
allows the customer to decipher that the product is indeed authentic. This leads to ensuring
that the original product is segregated from the counterfeit and ensures encouragement and
support to the people who are involved in the production of the same. This has significant
cultural and trade benefits as per the article.
The GI tag is applicable ot various agricultural products or manufactured products whose
production is concentrated in a particular region or town of a country. The examples in this
regard have been offered as agricultural products (mango) along with manufactured products
such as sari. GI tagging system allows these authentic products to segregate from the
counterfeits and thereby allow for protection. The practice of GI tag belongs to the
trademarks regime of IP instruments. This is because the presence of GI tag communicates to
the client that a certain product has been produced or manufactured in the mentioned region.
This is similar to how the trademark communicates that the underlying product has been
manufactured by a particular manufacturer . In case of trademark, the customer desires that

the product should be produced by the underlying manufacturer which is similar to GI where
customer desires that the product should be produced in the indicated geography only.
IV. Normative Perspectives
With regards to IP protection and the given context, it is imperative that the interests of the
people who are actually involved in the production of the GI tagged product must be
safeguarded. This is because through GI tag, the authentic products are able to demand a
premium over any counterfeit or close initiations. The competing interest is of other people
who may be involved in production of the same product in a different region. However,
considering that most of these producers are engaged in fake or imitations, it makes sense that
GI ought to be promoted. With regards to maintaining a balance, GI is able to do so as it is
defined often on the national level and hence when neighbouring coutries are also involved in
production of a similar or same product, then the other country can claim GI over the product.
This allows for a balance as has been illustrated through the use of mangoes which are
manufactured both in Bangladesh and India but the interests of neither country seems to be
jeopardised owing to GI regime.
V. Reflection
The key aspect that surprised me was with regards to how GI is not enough to safeguard the
intellectual property. There is existence of alternative global mechanisms which can provide
GI tag internationally to member countries and thereby have an adverse impact on the people
in other countries which might be producing the same product with comparable features and
quality. One aspect that I was familiar with that others may not be familiar with is that the GI
tags are applicable on a national platform. As a result, it is quite possible to have same
products arising from different geographies and have GI tags. The questions that the article
leave unanswered pertains to the mechanisms that have been introduced in order to ensure
that the GI based protection is more wholesome and does not lead to interests of any
legitimate party being unaddressed. The author has not touched upon any such initiatives
taken in wake of loopholes in the GI system.