In South Africa, geographical indication, or GI, is synonymous with tea – Rooibos tea, which, according to http://coffeetea.about.com, is technically not even a tea. It is the name of the Afrikaans ‘red bush’ a small shrubby bush that only grows in South Africa. The needlelike leaves are green, but turn the characteristic red after fermentation. But I digress. There is, of course, more to the South African GI than merely tea. Maybe even your product is a potential GI.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (Wipo), a United Nations agency dedicated to the use of intellectual property, such as patents, copyright, trademarks and designs, a GI is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, the reputation or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place of origin. Most commonly, a GI includes the name of the place of origin of the goods. Agricultural products typically have qualities that derive from their place of production and are influenced by specific local factors, such as climate and soil. Whether a sign is recognised as a GI is a matter of national law. GI may be used for a wide variety of products, whether natural, agricultural or manufactured.

The GI initiative, launched in 1998, forms part of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO’s) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellec- tual Property Rights, or Trips, agreement. This implies that should a country classify a product as a GI, all WTO member countries would be obliged to protect it.

According to the WTO, there are three Trips Articles of relevance to GIs: Articles 22, 23 and 24. Article 22 covers all products, defining a standard level of protection, and states that GIs have to be protected in order to avoid misleading the public and to prevent unfair competition. Article 23 provides a higher or enhanced level of protection for GIs for wines and spirits, subject to a number of exceptions. It requires that these products be protected even if misuse would not cause the public to be misled. Article 24 deals with exceptions in instances where GIs do not have to be protected or protection can be limited. The WTO indicates that among the exceptions that the agreement allows is the instance where a name has become a common, or generic, term, such as ‘cheddar’, which refers to a particular type of cheese not necessarily made in Cheddar, in the UK. Or the instance where a term has already been registered as a trademark.

Responding to a research exercise, WTO members revealed that a wide variety of legal means are employed to protect GIs, ranging from specific GI laws to trademark law, or consumer pro- tection legislation and common law.

But what, if any, is the role of Wipo in the protection of GIs? According to the organisation, it is in charge of the administration of a number of international agreements which deal partly or entirely with the protection of GIs, in particular, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and Their International Registration. Further, through the work of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications, which is made up of representatives of Wipo member States and interested organisations, Wipo explores new ways of enhancing the international protection of GIs.

In my view, GIs are indicative of a country’s heritage, and, as such, should be protected at all costs.

It might be time for you to enjoy that cuppa, and while you do, why not look around and think what is uniquely South African and could thus be afforded GI protection. You might be surprised at what you find. Why not have a Hertzoggie with your tea?

Chicken Meat Probe
On June 12, 2013, the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (Itac) issued the following media release titled ‘Investigation of an increase in tariffs on imported chicken meat’.

On June 11, 2013, the commission met to evaluate the outcomes of the investigation on the application by the South African Poul- try Association (SAPA) for an increase in the duty on a range of categories of frozen chicken meat.

At its meeting, the commission heard and considered submissions by interested parties making both written and oral presentations to it. The interested parties that made submissions included SAPA, the applicant, and those opposing the application, namely the Association of Meat Importers and Exporters (AMIE), Merlo and Boxer.

In its consideration and deliberations on the production, trade and financial information pertaining to the poultry industry, the Commission concluded that further in-depth and rigorous analy- sis of the information at its disposal was needed. It therefore decided to make a final determination on this matter at its next meeting, scheduled for July 9.

After the meeting of July 9, a recommendation will be made to Trade and Industry Minister Dr Rob Davies. The power to decide on import tariffs resides with the executive authority and Itac is an expert body that provides advice to government.

It must be noted that there was also a High Court hearing in relation to this investigation that was scheduled for June 18. The High Court hearing was on an application launched by the AMIE to access confidential information pertaining to this investigation.

Creation Notice – Screws, Bolts and Nuts Increase
Comment is due by July 5 in respect of the proposed increase in the rate of customs duty on certain screws, bolts and nuts classifiable under tariff subheadings 7318.15.39, 7318.15.43 and 7318.16.80 from the existing 10% ad valorem to the 30% ad valorem bound rate. The customs duty increase on other hexagon nuts would be carried out by creating an eight-digit tariff subheading, 7318.16.80.