Bioprospecting is the process of discovery and commercialization of new products based on biological resources. These resources or compounds can be important for and useful in many fields, including pharmaceuticals, agriculture and nanotechnology, among others. Between 1981-2010, one third of all small molecule new chemical entities approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration were either natural products or compounds derived from natural products. Despite indigenous knowledge being intuitively helpful, bioprospecting has only begun to incorporate such knowledge in focusing screening efforts for bioactive compounds. Bioprospecting may involve biopiracy, the exploitative appropriation of indigenous forms of knowledge by commercial actors, can include the patenting of widely used natural resources, such as plant varieties, by commercial entities. Biopiracy was coined by Pat Mooney, to describe a practice in which indigenous knowledge of nature, originating with indigenous peoples, is used by others for profit, without authorization or compensation to the indigenous people themselves.
For example, when bioprospectors draw on indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants, patented by medical companies without recognizing the fact that the knowledge is not new or invented by the patenter, this deprives the indigenous community of their potential rights to the commercial product derived from the technology that they themselves had developed. Critics of this practice, such as Greenpeace, claim these practices contribute to inequality between developing countries rich in biodiversity, developed countries hosting biotech firms. In the 1990s many large pharmaceutical and drug discovery companies responded to charges of biopiracy by ceasing work on natural products, turning to combinatorial chemistry to develop novel compounds; the Maya ICBG bioprospecting controversy took place in 1999–2000, when the International Cooperative Biodiversity Group led by ethnobiologist Brent Berlin was accused of being engaged in unethical forms of bioprospecting by several NGOs and indigenous organizations.
The ICBG aimed to document the biodiversity of Chiapas and the ethnobotanical knowledge of the indigenous Maya people – in order to ascertain whether there were possibilities of developing medical products based on any of the plants used by the indigenous groups. The Maya ICBG case was among the first to draw attention to the problems of distinguishing between benign forms of bioprospecting and unethical biopiracy, to the difficulties of securing community participation and prior informed consent for would-be bioprospectors; the rosy periwinkle case dates from the 1950s. The rosy periwinkle, while native to Madagascar, had been introduced into other tropical countries around the world well before the discovery of vincristine. Different countries are reported as having acquired different beliefs about the medical properties of the plant; this meant that researchers could obtain local knowledge from one country and plant samples from another. The use of the plant for diabetes was the original stimulus for research.
Effectiveness in the treatment of both Hodgkin's Disease and leukemia were discovered instead. The Hodgkin's lymphoma chemotherapeutic drug vinblastine is derivable from the rosy periwinkle. In 1994, the U. S. Department of Agriculture and WR Grace received a European patent on methods of controlling fungal infections in plants using a composition that included extracts from the neem tree, which grows throughout India and Nepal. In 2000 the patent was opposed by several groups from EU and India including the EU Green Party, Vandana Shiva, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements on the basis that the fungicidal activity of neem extract had long been known in Indian traditional medicine. WR Grace appealed and lost in 2005; the Enola bean is a variety of Mexican yellow bean, so called after the wife of the man who patented it in 1999. The distinguishing feature of the variety is seeds of a specific shade of yellow; the patent-holder subsequently sued a large number of importers of Mexican yellow beans with the following result: "...export sales dropped over 90% among importers, selling these beans for years, causing economic damage to more than 22,000 farmers in northern Mexico who depended on sales of this bean."
A lawsuit was filed on behalf of the farmers, on April 14, 2005 the US-PTO ruled in favor of the farmers. An appeal was heard on 16 January 2008, the patent was revoked in May 2008. A appeal to the court against the revocation was unsuccessful as of October 2nd, 2008. In 2000, the US corporation RiceTec attempted to patent certain hybrids of basmati rice and semidwarf long-grain rice; the Indian government intervened and several claims of the patent were invalidated. Hoodia, a succulent plant, originates from the Kalahari Desert of South Africa. For generations it has been known to the traditionally living San people as an appetite suppressant. In 1996 South Africa's Council for Scientific and Industrial Research began working with companies, including Unilever, to develop dietary supplements based on hoodia; the San people were not scheduled to receive any benefits from the commercialization of their traditional knowledge, but in 2003 the South African San Council made an agreement with CSIR in which they would receive from 6 to 8% of the revenue from the sale of Hoodia products.
In 2008 after having invested €20 million in R&D on hoodia as a potential ingredient in dietary supplements for weight loss, Unilever terminated the project because their clinical studies did not show that hoodia was safe and effective enough to bring to market. The followi
A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark is a recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others, although trademarks used to identify services are called service marks. The trademark owner can be business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. For the sake of corporate identity, trademarks are displayed on company buildings; the first legislative act concerning trademarks was passed in 1266 under the reign of Henry III, requiring all bakers to use a distinctive mark for the bread they sold. The first modern trademark laws emerged in the late 19th century. In France the first comprehensive trademark system in the world was passed into law in 1857; the Trade Marks Act 1938 of the United Kingdom changed the system, permitting registration based on "intent-to-use”, creating an examination based process, creating an application publication system. The 1938 Act, which served as a model for similar legislation elsewhere, contained other novel concepts such as "associated trademarks", a consent to use system, a defensive mark system, non claiming right system.
The symbols ™ and ® can be used to indicate trademarks. A trademark identifies the brand owner of a particular service. Trademarks can be used by others under licensing agreements; the unauthorized usage of trademarks by producing and trading counterfeit consumer goods is known as brand piracy. The owner of a trademark may pursue legal action against trademark infringement. Most countries require formal registration of a trademark as a precondition for pursuing this type of action; the United States and other countries recognize common law trademark rights, which means action can be taken to protect an unregistered trademark if it is in use. Still, common law trademarks offer the holder, in general, less legal protection than registered trademarks. A trademark may be designated by the following symbols: ™ ℠ ® A trademark is a name, phrase, symbol, image, or a combination of these elements. There is a range of non-conventional trademarks comprising marks which do not fall into these standard categories, such as those based on colour, smell, or sound.
Trademarks which are considered offensive are rejected according to a nation's trademark law. The term trademark is used informally to refer to any distinguishing attribute by which an individual is identified, such as the well-known characteristics of celebrities; when a trademark is used in relation to services rather than products, it may sometimes be called a service mark in the United States. The essential function of a trademark is to identify the commercial source or origin of products or services, so a trademark, properly called, indicates source or serves as a badge of origin. In other words, trademarks serve to identify a particular business as the source of goods or services; the use of a trademark in this way is known as trademark use. Certain exclusive rights attach to a registered mark. Trademark rights arise out of the use of, or to maintain exclusive rights over, that sign in relation to certain products or services, assuming there are no other trademark objections. Different goods and services have been classified by the International Classification of Goods and Services into 45 Trademark Classes.
The idea behind this system is to specify and limit the extension of the intellectual property right by determining which goods or services are covered by the mark, to unify classification systems around the world. In trademark treatises it is reported that blacksmiths who made swords in the Roman Empire are thought of as being the first users of trademarks. Other notable trademarks that have been used for a long time include Löwenbräu, which claims use of its lion mark since 1383; the first trademark legislation was passed by the Parliament of England under the reign of King Henry III in 1266, which required all bakers to use a distinctive mark for the bread they sold. The first modern trademark laws emerged in the late 19th century. In France the first comprehensive trademark system in the world was passed into law in 1857 with the "Manufacture and Goods Mark Act". In Britain, the Merchandise Marks Act 1862 made it a criminal offence to imitate another's trade mark'with intent to defraud or to enable another to defraud'.
In 1875, the Trade Marks Registration Act was passed which allowed formal registration of trade marks at the UK Patent Office for the first time. Registration was considered to comprise prima facie evidence of ownership of a trade mark and registration of marks began on 1 January 1876; the 1875 Act defined a registrable trade mark as'a device, or mark, or name of an individual or firm printed in some particular and distinctive manner. In the United States, Congress first atte
In patent, industrial design rights and trademark laws, a priority right or right of priority is a time-limited right, triggered by the first filing of an application for a patent, an industrial design or a trademark respectively. The priority right allows the claimant to file a subsequent application in another country for the same invention, design, or trademark effective as of the date of filing the first application; when filing the subsequent application, the applicant must claim the priority of the first application in order to make use of the right of priority. The right of priority belongs to his successor in title; the period of priority, i.e. the period during which the priority right exists, is 6 months for industrial designs and trademarks and 12 months for patents and utility models. The period of priority is referred to as the priority year for patents and utility models. In patent law, when a priority is validly claimed, the date of filing of the first application, called the priority date, is considered to be the effective date of filing for the examination of novelty and inventive step or non-obviousness for the subsequent application claiming the priority of the first application.
In other words, the prior art, taken into account for examining the novelty and inventive step or non-obviousness of the invention claimed in the subsequent application would not be everything made available to the public before the filing date but everything made available to the public before the priority date, i.e. the date of filing of the first application. The "basic purpose is to safeguard, for a limited period, the interests of a patent applicant in his endeavour to obtain international protection for his invention, thereby alleviating the negative consequences of the principle of territoriality in patent law." The "Paris Convention priority right" called "Convention priority right" or "Union priority right", is a "priority right" under a multilateral arrangement, defined by Article 4 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883. The Convention priority right is the most known priority right, it is defined by its Article 4 A.: Article 4 B. of the Paris Convention describes the effects of the priority right: Article 2 paragraph 1 of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in conjunction with the Paris Convention provides a "derived" Convention priority right.
That is, while WTO members need not ratify the Paris Convention, they should however comply with Articles 1 through 12, Article 19, of the Paris Convention.. Some priority rights are defined by a multilateral convention such as the European Patent Convention or the Patent Cooperation Treaty; the Paris Convention does not cover priorities claimed in a European patent application or in an international application, as the EPC and the PCT have their own legal provisions regarding priority. Article 87 EPC defines the priority right system under the EPC or more recognise priority rights for first filings in or for States party to the Paris Convention or any Member of the World Trade Organization: Article 89 EPC describes the effect of the priority right: As explained by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office in its decision G 3/93 of August 16, 1994: Regarding the critical question "What is'the same invention'?" in Article 87 EPC, opinion G 2/98 prescribes a photographic approach to the assessment of priority.
According to Enlarged Board of Appeal opinion G 2/98, the requirement for claiming priority of "the same invention" means that priority of a previous application in respect of a claim in a European patent application is to be acknowledged only if the skilled person can derive the subject-matter of the claim directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the previous application as a whole. The Patent Cooperation Treaty, in its Article 8, provides the possibility of claiming a right of priority for the filing of an international application: Rule 4.10 PCT goes on to mention that: However, Rule 4.10 as amended with effect from January 1, 2000 does not apply to all designated Offices. For instance, for the European Patent Office as designated Office, the old Rule 4.10 still applied until December 12, 2007, that is, rights of priority of first applications made in a WTO member not party to the Paris Convention were not recognised. Now and more for European patent applications filed on or after December 13, 2007, the rights of priority of first applications made in a WTO member are recognized under the European Patent Convention.
Some priority rights, called "internal priority rights", are defined by some national laws. Such internal priority right allows an applicant who filed a first application in a given country to claim the priority of the first application when filing a subsequent application in the same country; the Paris Convention does not cover internal priority rights. See, e.g. provisional application in the US. Some priority rights exist on the basis of bilateral agreements. A bilateral agreement between a first and a second country may allow an applicant who filed an application in the first country to claim the priority of the first application when filing a second application in the second country; these kinds of bilateral agreements involve at least one country not party to the Paris
The public domain consists of all the creative works to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply. Those rights may have been forfeited, expressly waived, or may be inapplicable; the works of William Shakespeare and Beethoven, most early silent films, are in the public domain either by virtue of their having been created before copyright existed, or by their copyright term having expired. Some works are not covered by copyright, are therefore in the public domain—among them the formulae of Newtonian physics, cooking recipes, all computer software created prior to 1974. Other works are dedicated by their authors to the public domain; the term public domain is not applied to situations where the creator of a work retains residual rights, in which case use of the work is referred to as "under license" or "with permission". As rights vary by country and jurisdiction, a work may be subject to rights in one country and be in the public domain in another; some rights depend on registrations on a country-by-country basis, the absence of registration in a particular country, if required, gives rise to public-domain status for a work in that country.
The term public domain may be interchangeably used with other imprecise or undefined terms such as the "public sphere" or "commons", including concepts such as the "commons of the mind", the "intellectual commons", the "information commons". Although the term "domain" did not come into use until the mid-18th century, the concept "can be traced back to the ancient Roman Law, as a preset system included in the property right system." The Romans had a large proprietary rights system where they defined "many things that cannot be owned" as res nullius, res communes, res publicae and res universitatis. The term res nullius was defined as things not yet appropriated; the term res communes was defined as "things that could be enjoyed by mankind, such as air and ocean." The term res publicae referred to things that were shared by all citizens, the term res universitatis meant things that were owned by the municipalities of Rome. When looking at it from a historical perspective, one could say the construction of the idea of "public domain" sprouted from the concepts of res communes, res publicae, res universitatis in early Roman law.
When the first early copyright law was first established in Britain with the Statute of Anne in 1710, public domain did not appear. However, similar concepts were developed by French jurists in the 18th century. Instead of "public domain", they used terms such as publici juris or propriété publique to describe works that were not covered by copyright law; the phrase "fall in the public domain" can be traced to mid-19th century France to describe the end of copyright term. The French poet Alfred de Vigny equated the expiration of copyright with a work falling "into the sink hole of public domain" and if the public domain receives any attention from intellectual property lawyers it is still treated as little more than that, left when intellectual property rights, such as copyright and trademarks, expire or are abandoned. In this historical context Paul Torremans describes copyright as a, "little coral reef of private right jutting up from the ocean of the public domain." Copyright law differs by country, the American legal scholar Pamela Samuelson has described the public domain as being "different sizes at different times in different countries".
Definitions of the boundaries of the public domain in relation to copyright, or intellectual property more regard the public domain as a negative space. According to James Boyle this definition underlines common usage of the term public domain and equates the public domain to public property and works in copyright to private property. However, the usage of the term public domain can be more granular, including for example uses of works in copyright permitted by copyright exceptions; such a definition regards work in copyright as private property subject to fair-use rights and limitation on ownership. A conceptual definition comes from Lange, who focused on what the public domain should be: "it should be a place of sanctuary for individual creative expression, a sanctuary conferring affirmative protection against the forces of private appropriation that threatened such expression". Patterson and Lindberg described the public domain not as a "territory", but rather as a concept: "here are certain materials – the air we breathe, rain, life, thoughts, ideas, numbers – not subject to private ownership.
The materials that compose our cultural heritage must be free for all living to use no less than matter necessary for biological survival." The term public domain may be interchangeably used with other imprecise or undefined terms such as the "public sphere" or "commons", including concepts such as the "commons of the mind", the "intellectual commons", the "information commons". A public-domain book is a book with no copyright, a book, created without a license, or a book where its copyrights expired or have been forfeited. In most countries the term of protection of copyright lasts until January first, 70 years after the death of the latest living author; the longest copyright term is in Mexico, which has life plus 100 years for all deaths since July 1928. A notable exception is the United States, where every book and tale published prior to 1924 is in the public domain.
Paraphrasing of copyrighted material
Paraphrasing of copyrighted material may reduce the probability that a court will find that copyright has been infringed. The acceptable degree of difference between a prior work and a paraphrase depends on a variety of factors and depends on the judgement of the court in each individual case. An early example of the concept of paraphrasing as a copyright issue arose with Johann Heinrich Zedler's application in 1730 for copyright protection in Saxony for his Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon, one of the first encyclopedias; the publisher of a rival General Historical Lexicon said that Zedler's Universal Lexicon would not differ in content from this and other existing lexicons apart from paraphrasing. On 16 October 1730, the Upper Consistory court in Dresden rejected Zedler's request, warned that he would be subject to confiscation and a fine if he reproduced any material from the General Historical Lexicon in his Universal Lexicon. Laws on the degree of copying or paraphrasing, considered permissible have become more restrictive over the years.
In his 2008 book Copyright's Paradox, discussing the conflict between protecting copyright and protecting free speech, Neil Netanel says, "Yeats from Shelley. S. Eliot from Shakespeare and Baudelaire, all in ways that would infringe today's bloated copyright." Paraphrase may apply to music as well as to writing. It was commonplace for Baroque and Romantic composers to create variations on each other's work without permission; this would not be allowed today. Copyright protection in Britain dates back to the 1556 Charter of the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers; the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 gave publishers exclusive printing rights, but did not give any rights to authors. Parliament failed to renew the act in 1694 to remove monopoly and encourage a free press; the Statute of Anne in 1710 prescribed a copyright term of fourteen years, let the author renew for another fourteen years, after which the work went into the public domain. Over the years, additional acts and case law refined the definitions of what could be protected, including derivative works, the degree of protection given.
The Soviet Union's Copyright Act of 1925 in essence said that a work created by a minimal paraphrase of an existing text could be considered a new work eligible for copyright. By 1991, the Copyright law of the Soviet Union had evolved to give much more protection to the author. Free use, similar to the English common law concept of fair use, was only allowed if it did not infringe upon the normal exploitation of the work or the legitimate interests of the author. Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works that are recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions, they include the right of attribution and the right to the integrity of the work, which bars the work from alteration, distortion, or mutilation without the author's permission. Paraphrasing without permission may be seen as violating moral rights. Moral rights are distinct from any economic rights tied to copyrights. If the author has assigned their copyright to a third party, they still maintain the moral rights to the work.
Moral rights were first recognized in Germany. They were included in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1928. While the United States became a signatory to the Berne convention in 1989, it does not recognize moral rights as part of copyright law, seen as protecting commercial rights in intellectual property, but as part of other bodies of law such as defamation or unfair competition which protect the reputation of the author. Edward Gibbon published the last three volumes of his masterpiece The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1788, at a time when both copyright and moral rights were poorly enforced. With a small private income, he was not dependent on sales but was more concerned about the damage to his reputation from poor translations, a form of paraphrasing, he wrote, "The French and German translations have been executed with various success. The Irish pirates are at once my friends and my enemies...."By the start of the twentieth century, U.
S. decisions on unfair competition found that representing as the author's work a version of the work that departed from the original was a cause of action. Section §43 of the Lanham Act, which protects brands and trademarks provides similar protection to laws based on moral rights. For any goods or services, it bans false designation of origin or a false description or representation. In Gilliam v. American Broadcasting the British comedy group called Monty Python took action against the ABC network for broadcasting versions of their programs, attributed to them but had been extensively edited, in part to remove content that their audience might consider offensive or obscene; the judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was in favor of Monty Python, finding the cuts might be an "actionable mutilation" that violated the Lanham Act. In the United States, copyright was covered by common law until it was formalized in the Copyright Act of 1976. Section §107 of this act set out four "fair use" principles to be used in evaluating whether copyright had been infringed: the purpose and character of the use, includ
International Standard Serial Number
An International Standard Serial Number is an eight-digit serial number used to uniquely identify a serial publication, such as a magazine. The ISSN is helpful in distinguishing between serials with the same title. ISSN are used in ordering, interlibrary loans, other practices in connection with serial literature; the ISSN system was first drafted as an International Organization for Standardization international standard in 1971 and published as ISO 3297 in 1975. ISO subcommittee TC 46/SC 9 is responsible for maintaining the standard; when a serial with the same content is published in more than one media type, a different ISSN is assigned to each media type. For example, many serials are published both in electronic media; the ISSN system refers to these types as electronic ISSN, respectively. Conversely, as defined in ISO 3297:2007, every serial in the ISSN system is assigned a linking ISSN the same as the ISSN assigned to the serial in its first published medium, which links together all ISSNs assigned to the serial in every medium.
The format of the ISSN is an eight digit code, divided by a hyphen into two four-digit numbers. As an integer number, it can be represented by the first seven digits; the last code digit, which may be 0-9 or an X, is a check digit. Formally, the general form of the ISSN code can be expressed as follows: NNNN-NNNC where N is in the set, a digit character, C is in; the ISSN of the journal Hearing Research, for example, is 0378-5955, where the final 5 is the check digit, C=5. To calculate the check digit, the following algorithm may be used: Calculate the sum of the first seven digits of the ISSN multiplied by its position in the number, counting from the right—that is, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, respectively: 0 ⋅ 8 + 3 ⋅ 7 + 7 ⋅ 6 + 8 ⋅ 5 + 5 ⋅ 4 + 9 ⋅ 3 + 5 ⋅ 2 = 0 + 21 + 42 + 40 + 20 + 27 + 10 = 160 The modulus 11 of this sum is calculated. For calculations, an upper case X in the check digit position indicates a check digit of 10. To confirm the check digit, calculate the sum of all eight digits of the ISSN multiplied by its position in the number, counting from the right.
The modulus 11 of the sum must be 0. There is an online ISSN checker. ISSN codes are assigned by a network of ISSN National Centres located at national libraries and coordinated by the ISSN International Centre based in Paris; the International Centre is an intergovernmental organization created in 1974 through an agreement between UNESCO and the French government. The International Centre maintains a database of all ISSNs assigned worldwide, the ISDS Register otherwise known as the ISSN Register. At the end of 2016, the ISSN Register contained records for 1,943,572 items. ISSN and ISBN codes are similar in concept. An ISBN might be assigned for particular issues of a serial, in addition to the ISSN code for the serial as a whole. An ISSN, unlike the ISBN code, is an anonymous identifier associated with a serial title, containing no information as to the publisher or its location. For this reason a new ISSN is assigned to a serial each time it undergoes a major title change. Since the ISSN applies to an entire serial a new identifier, the Serial Item and Contribution Identifier, was built on top of it to allow references to specific volumes, articles, or other identifiable components.
Separate ISSNs are needed for serials in different media. Thus, the print and electronic media versions of a serial need separate ISSNs. A CD-ROM version and a web version of a serial require different ISSNs since two different media are involved. However, the same ISSN can be used for different file formats of the same online serial; this "media-oriented identification" of serials made sense in the 1970s. In the 1990s and onward, with personal computers, better screens, the Web, it makes sense to consider only content, independent of media; this "content-oriented identification" of serials was a repressed demand during a decade, but no ISSN update or initiative occurred. A natural extension for ISSN, the unique-identification of the articles in the serials, was the main demand application. An alternative serials' contents model arrived with the indecs Content Model and its application, the digital object identifier, as ISSN-independent initiative, consolidated in the 2000s. Only in 2007, ISSN-L was defined in the
A geographical indication is a name or sign used on products which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin. The use of a geographical indication, as a type of indication of source, may act as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, is made according to traditional methods, or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its geographical origin. Appellation of origin is a subtype of geographical indication where quality and reputation of a product originate from the delineated area defined under its intellectual property right registration. Governments have been protecting trade names and trademarks used in relation to food products identified with a particular region since at least the end of the nineteenth century, using laws against false trade descriptions or passing off, which protect against suggestions that a product has a certain origin, quality or association when it does not. In such cases, the limitation on competitive freedoms which results from the grant of a monopoly of use over a geographical indication is justified by governments either by consumer protection benefits or by producer protection benefits.
One of the first GI systems is the one used in France from the early part of the twentieth century known as appellation d'origine contrôlée. Items that meet geographical origin and quality standards may be endorsed with a government-issued stamp which acts as official certification of the origins and standards of the product to the consumer. Examples of products that have such'appellations of origin' include Gruyère cheese and many French wines. Among the major developing economies, India has a efficient G I tagging mechanism. Geographical indications have long been associated with the concept of terroir and with Europe as an entity, where there is a tradition of associating certain food products with particular regions. Under European Union Law, the protected designation of origin framework which came into effect in 1992 regulates the following systems of geographical indications: Protected designation of origin, protected geographical indication and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed. Geographical Indications protection is granted through the TRIPS Agreement.
See the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agreement, the Lisbon Agreement, the Geneva Act. Protection afforded to geographical indications by law is arguably two folded. On the one hand it is granted through sui generis law, e.g. in the European Union. In other words, GI protection should apply through ex-officio protection, where authorities may support and get involved in the making of GI collective dimensions together with their corresponding GI regulatory council, where ongoing discourse with the government is implied for effective inspection and quality control. On the other hand, it is granted through common law. In other words, it is similar to the protection afforded to trade marks as it can be registered through collective trade marks and through certification marks, i.e. in the United States of America. GI protection systems restrict the use of the GIs for the purpose of identifying a particular type of product, unless the product and/or its constituent materials and/or its fabrication method originate from a particular area and/or meet certain standards.
Sometimes these laws stipulate that the product must meet certain quality tests that are administered by an association that owns the exclusive right to license or allow the use of the indication. As GIs are recognised through public or private law, - depending on the GI protection system applied among the different WTO state members, either through common law or sui generis law,- the conflicts between prior trade mark registration and GIs is an international debate, yet to be resolved and what makes the GI system rather positional in terms of international trade negotiations; these conflicts are resolved through three intellectual property protection approaches: first in time -first in right approach, coexistence approach, GI superiority approach. Arguably trade marks are seen as a valuable asset in terms of private business and their economic assets while GIs are connected to socio-economic development, along the lines of sustainability in countries rich in traditional knowledge; the consumer-benefit purpose of the protection rights granted to the beneficiaries, has similarities and differences to the trade mark rights: While GIs confer a geographical origin of a good, trade marks confer a commercial origin of an enterprise.
While comparable goods are registered with GIs, similar goods and services are registered with trade marks. While a GI is a name characterised by tradition from a delineated area, a trade mark is a sign as a badge of origin for goods and services. While a GI is a collective entitlement of public-private partnership, a trade mark refers to private rights. With GIs, the beneficiaries are always a community from which regardless of, indicated in the register as applicant, they have the right to use. Trade marks distinguish goods and services between different undertakings, thus it is more individual. While with GIs its particular quality is because of the geographical area, although the human factor may play a part, with trade marks if there is any link to quality, it is because of the producer and provider. While GIs are an existing expression and is used by existing producers or traders, a trade mark is a new word or logo chosen arbitrarily. While GIs are only for products, trademarks are for products and se