Coğrafi İşaretli Ürünlerin Uluslararası, İki Taraflı ve Bölgesel Anlaşmalar Açısından İncelenmesi

Abstract

Öz Coğrafi işaret, tüketiciler için ürünün kaynağını, karakteristik özelliklerini ve ürünün söz konusu karakteristik özellikleri ile coğrafi alan arasındaki bağlantıyı gösteren ve garanti eden kalite işaretidir. Coğrafi işaret tescilinin alınması, kalitesi, gelenekselliği, yöreden elde edilen hammaddesi ile yerel niteliklere bağlı olarak belli bir üne kavuşmuş ürünlerin korunmasını sağlamaktadır. Coğrafi işaretler, sadece ülke içinde yerel kültürü gelecek nesillere aktarma ve ekonomik kalkınma aracı değil aynı zamanda uluslararası ticarete de konu olabilen ve önemli bir kazanç sağlama imkânı sağlayan ürünlerden de oluşabilir. Özellikle peynir türleri, işlenmiş hayvansal ürünler, doğal yetişen ürünler (fındık, üzüm, incir vb. gibi) uluslararası ticarete konu olabilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı uluslararası, iki taraflı ve bölgesel anlaşmaların menşe adı ve mahreç işaretli ürünleri kapsayan coğrafi işaretler açısından incelenmesidir. Bu kapsamda 1883 Paris Sözleşmesi, 1891 Madrid Sözleşmesi, 1958 Lizbon Anlaşması ve nihai olarak en güncel anlaşma olan WTO’nun ticaretle bağlantılı fikrî mülkiyet haklarını konu alan anlaşmalar ve ülkeler arasında coğrafi işareti de konu alan ikili ve bölgesel anlaşmalar değerlendirilmiştir. Bu anlaşmalar coğrafi işaretli ürünlerle ilgili uluslararası uyuşmazlıklar ve ticaret sorunlarına çözüm sunsa da, ülkeler arasında bu ürünlerle ilgili çeşitli sorunlara yol açabileceği sonucuna varılmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Tarımsal Ticaret, Coğrafi işaret, TRIPS, Uluslararası Ticari Anlaşmalar, DTÖ, Fikri Mülkiyet JEL Sınıflandırması: F13, F15, O34, Q17

Keywords

• Tarımsal Ticaret
• Coğrafi işaret
• TRIPS
• Uluslararası Ticari Anlaşmalar
• DTÖ
• Fikri Mülkiyet

An Analysis of Geographical Indications in Terms of International, Bilateral and Regional Agreements

Abstract

Abstract A geographical indication (GI) serves as a quality label that identifies and assures a product’s origin for consumers, highlighting its unique features and the link between these characteristics and its geographical source. Registering a GI provides protection for products that have earned a reputation based on their quality, tradition, regionally sourced raw materials, and local attributes. GIs play a dual role: they not only help transmit local culture to future generations and promote economic development within a country, but they also encompass products with substantial profit potential in international trade. Items such as cheeses, processed animal products, and naturally grown goods (e.g., hazelnuts, grapes, figs) are commonly traded internationally under GI protections. This study aims to analyze international, bilateral, and regional agreements related to GIs, specifically those covering appellations of origin. The analysis includes the 1883 Paris Convention, the 1891 Madrid Convention, the 1958 Lisbon Agreement, and more recent agreements on trade-related intellectual property rights under the World Trade Organization (WTO), as well as bilateral and regional agreements on GIs among countries. Although these agreements address international disputes and trade matters concerning GI products, findings indicate that they can also lead to various challenges between countries regarding the protection and trade of these products. Keywords: Agricultural Trade, Geographical Indication, TRIPS, International Trade Agreements, WTO, Intellectual Property JEL Classification: F13, F15, O34, Q17

Keywords

• Agricultural Trade
• Geographical Indication
• TRIPS
• International Trade Agreements
• WTO
• Intellectual Property

References

1. Acharya, R. (2016). Regional trade agreements: recent developments, Introduction. In Regional Trade Agreements and the Multilateral Trading System, Ed.; Acharya, R, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-18.
2. Amadeo, K. (2021). Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): What Happened to the Big EU-US Trade Deal?, the balance WEB, https://www.thebalance.com/transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip-3305582 (11.12.2021).
3. ARIPO. (2004). Lusaka Agreement on the Creation of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO). https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/301376 (20.01.2022).
4. Avşar, M. and Eryılmaz, B. (2022). Coğrafi işaretli ürünlerin Amasya turizminin gelişimine katkısının değerlendirilmesi. Türk Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(4), 988-1003.
5. Bannakorn, J. (2023). Legal Issues relating to Geographical Indications. The Journal of Pacific Institute of Management Science (Humanities and Social Science), 9(2), 315-327.
6. Berber, A., Gül Ekşi, G. and Naçar, A. (2024). Coğrafi İşaretin Tüketici Davranışlarına Etkisinin Analizi: Konya İli Selçuklu İlçesi Örneği. Turkish Journal of Agricultural & Natural Sciences, 11(3).
7. Bidav, Y. and Doğan, M. (2022). Coğrafi İşaretlerin Kırsal Kalkınmadaki Rolü: Ulukale Dutu Örneği. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 5(1), 109-128.
8. Bimbo, F., Bonanno, A. and Viscecchia, R. (2023). Geographical indications' prices and marketing margins: the role of group size, longevity and production decisions. British Food Journal, 125(1), 286-301.

9. Blasetti, R. (2020). Geographical Indications: A Major Challenge for MERCOSUR. GRUR International, 69(11), 1113-1122.
10. Bozgeyik, H. and Macit, Y. (2024). Türk Marka Hukukunun AB Hukuku ile Olan İlişkisi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 573-601. https://doi.org/10.52273/sduhfd..1401385
11. Calabrese, B. (2024). The Evolving Protection of Geographical Indications Against Services:“Brand” New World?. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55(3), 348-367.
12. Cam, O. and Çılgınoğlu, H. (2024). Gastronomi Turizmi Kapsamında Coğrafi İşaretli Ürünlerin İncelenmesi: Ağrı Örneği. Safran Kültür ve Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 107-128.
13. Cebeci, H. and Şen, M. (2020). Coğrafi İşaret Tescilli Soğuk Bir Lezzet: Görele Dondurması. Gastroia: Journal of Gastronomy and Travel Research, 4(2), 197-217.
14. Cheng, W. (2023). China Engages in International Regulation of Geographical Indications. In: China in Global Governance of Intellectual Property. Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 39-79, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24370-7_2.
15. Cremona, M. (2010). The European Union and regional trade agreements, Chapter 11. In European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2010: European Yearbook of International Economic Law, Eds.; C, Herrmann ve J, Terhechte, Springer Publishing, Berlin, pp. 245-268
16. Crescenzi, R., De Filippis, F., Giua, M. and Vaquero-Piñeiro, C. (2022). Geographical Indications and local development: the strength of territorial embeddedness. Regional Studies, 56(3), 381-393.
17. Coşkun, C., Bişiren, A. and Gençer, K. (2024). Coğrafi işaretli yiyecek ve içeceklerin gastronomi turizmine etkileri. Turizm ve İşletme Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 203-217. Curzi, D. and Huysmans, M. (2022). The impact of protecting EU geographical indications in trade agreements. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 104(1), 364-384.
18. Demirarslan, G. (2022). Türkiye'deki coğrafi işaretli ürünlerin uluslararası ticaretteki potansiyeli. Doktora Tezi (yayımlanmamış), Bartın Universitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, İşletme Ana Bilim Dalı, Bartın, 177 p.
19. Durmuş, E., Yüceer, S. E. and Tan, S. (2022). Coğrafi işaret tescilinin yaratacağı sosyo-ekonomik etkilerin incelenmesi: Bozcaada Çavuş Üzümü örneği. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 28(1), 21-29.
20. Esen, M. K. (2022). Yöresel lezzetlerin gastronomi turizmi açısından önemi: Türkiye’deki helvalar. Aydın Gastronomy, 6(2), 283-294.
21. EU-1 (2024). AB Marka Mahreç Logoları, Avrupa Birliği WEB, https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/ certification/quality-labels/quality-schemes-explained_en#logos (21.09.2024).
22. EU-2 (2024). Son Yıllarda AB'nin Odaklandığı Bölgesel ve İkili Anlaşmalar, Avrupa Birliği WEB, https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_under-adoption (21.09.2024).
23. EU-3 (2024). Türkiye'nin AB'de Yer Alan Cİ'li Ürünleri, Avrupa Birliği WEB, https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/ certification/quality-labels/geographical-indications-register/ (21.09.2024).
24. EU-China Agreement. (2020). Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation on, and protection of, geographical indications. (22020A1204(01)), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.LI.2020.408.01.0003.01. ENG (21.01.2022). European Union Law.
25. EU-MERCOSUR (2019). EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement. European Commission WEB, https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/eu-mercosur-association-agreement/ (10.02.2021).
26. European Commission (2020). Geographical Indications – a European treasure worth €75 billion, Brussels: European Commission., https://ec.europa.eu/commission/ presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_683 (20.01.2022).
27. European Commmision Regulation. (1992). Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006R0510 (23.09.2019).
28. Falasco, S., Caputo, P. and Garrone, P. (2024). Can Geographical Indications promote environmental sustainability in food supply chains? Insights from a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141100.
29. Flinzberger, L., Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Peppler-Lisbach, C. and Zinngrebe, Y. (2022). Why geographical indications can support sustainable development in European agri-food landscapes. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 2(752377).
30. Frankel, S. (2017). Geographical Indications and Mega-Regional Trade Agreements and Negotiations, Chapter 6. In Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture: Focus on Asia-Pacific, Eds.; Calboli, I. ve Loon, Ng-Loy W.; Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 147-167.
31. Gangjee, Dev S., Sui Generis or Independent Geographical Indications Protection (August 20, 2020). Irene Calboli and Jane Ginsburg (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative, Trademark Law, (Cambridge University Press) 256, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3677873 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3677873
32. Goldstein, S.C. ve Pevehouse, J.C. (2016). Uluslararası İlişkiler, Çev: Haluk Özdemir, BB101 Yayınları, Ankara, 660 p.
33. Heath, C. (2005). Geographical Indications: International, Bilateral and Regional Agreements. IIC; Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, (25), 97-132.
34. Hari, A. S. and Raju, K. D. (2022). Free trade agreements and geographical indications standards in Asia. In Geographical Indication Protection in India: The Evolving Paradigm, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, pp. 49-73.
35. Henckels, C. (2022). The compatibility of the European Union’s geographical indications regulations for wines with the World Trade Organization Agreement on technical barriers to trade. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 23(2), 293-312.
36. Huysmans, M. (2022). Exporting protection: EU trade agreements, geographical indications, and gastronationalism. Review of International Political Economy, 29(3), 979-1005.
37. İçli, G. E. and Anıl, N. K. (2022). Coğrafi İşaretler ve Kırklareli Beyaz Peyniri. Balkan & Near Eastern Journal of Social Sciences (BNEJSS), 8(4).
38. Kanberoğlu, Z. and Yıldırımçakar, İ. (2022). Coğrafi İşaretlerin Bölgesel Gelişmedeki Rolü: Van Kahvaltısı Örneği. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (58), 23-39.
39. Kırıkcı, S. and Çetiner, N. (2021). “Coğrafi İşaretli El Sanatlarının Turistik Ürün Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi: Bartın İşi Telkırma Örneği”, International Academic Social Resources Journal, (e-ISSN: 2636-7637), 6(27), 1150-1157.
40. Kisuule, Y. (2015). Least developed countries and geographical indications: how can Uganda position itself to benefit from geographical indications? Yüksek Lisans Tezi (yayınlanmamış), University of Cape Town, Faculty of Law, Intellectual Property Research Unit, Cape Town, 68 p.
41. Kneller, E. (2020). EU‐Australia FTA: Challenges and potential points of convergence for negotiations in geographical indications. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(3-4), 546-578.
42. Kohsaka, R. and Uchiyama, Y. (2019). Geographical indications and regional trade agreements: Facilitating international partnerships for sustainable development. Partnerships for the Goals. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Ed.; Leal Filho W, Azul A, Brandli L, Özuyar P ve Wall T; Springer Cham, s. 1-13. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-71067-9_15-1.
43. Lightbourne, M. (2021). What’s in a Name? The Journey of Geographical Indications from Paris 1883 to Geneva 2015. GRUR International, 70(10), 932-942.
44. Lisbon Agreement (1958). Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration, https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/textdetails/12586 (10.12.2020).
45. Madrid Agreement (1981). Malların Kaynağı ile İlgili Sahte veya Aldatıcı Kaynak İşaretlerinin Önlenmesi Hakkında, https://www.wipo.int/treaties/ en/registration/madrid/summary_madrid_marks.html (10.23.2019).
46. Marie Vivien, D. (2010). The role of the state in the protection of geographical indications: from disengagement in France/Europe to significant involvement in India. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 13(2), 121-147.
47. Marie‐Vivien, D. (2020). Protection of Geographical Indications in ASEAN countries: Convergences and challenges to awakening sleeping Geographical Indications. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(3-4), 328-349.
48. Mece, M. (2023). Geographical Indications-a marketing strategy tool for small farms in Albania. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 8(2), 133-140.
49. MERCOSUR (1999). European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/trade/ policy/countries-and-regions/regions/mercosur/ (21.01.2022).
50. Mogol, N. (2021). Geographical Indications: Eastern Partnership Countries case. Eastern European Journal for Regional Studies (EEJRS), 7(2), 121-141.
51. NAFTA (1994). Text of the North American Free Trade Agreement. http://www.nafta-sec- alena.org/en/view.aspx?x=343 (21.01.2022).
52. OAPI (1999). Agreement Revising the Bangui Agreement of March 2, 1977, on the Creation of an African Intellectual Property Organization. African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/181151 (20.01.2022).
53. O'Connor, B. (2008). Geographical indications and TRIPs: 10 Years Later… A roadmap for EU GI holders to get protection in other WTO Members. European Lawyers Insight Consulting, 456 s, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2007/june/tradoc_135088.pdf.
54. Oye, K.A. (1993). Economic Discrimination And Political Exchange: World political economy in the 1930s and 1980s, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 236 p.
55. Paris Agreement (1883, Mart 20). Sınai Mülkiyetin Korunmasına İlişkin Paris Sözleşmesi. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_201.pdf (20.01.2022)
56. Prescott, C., Pilato, M. and Bellia, C. (2020). Geographical indications in the UK after Brexit: An uncertain future?. Food Policy, 90, 101808.
57. Raimondi, V., Falco, C., Curzi, D. and Olper, A. (2020). Trade effects of geographical indication policy: The EU case. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(2), 330-356.
58. Regulation of EU (2012). Regulation (EU) of the european parliament and of the council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. Regulation No: 1151/2012, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1151/oj, (22.01.2022).
59. Rodrik, D. (2018). What do trade agreements really do?, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2), 72-90.
60. RTA-1 (2024). Yürürlükte olan BTAlar, World Trade Organization WEB, https://rtais.wto.org/UI/charts.aspx (21.09.2024).
61. RTA-2 (2024). Türlerine Göre BTA, World Trade Organization WEB, https://rtais.wto.org/UI/publicsummarytable.aspx (21.09.2024).
62. RTA-3 (2019). BTA Fikri Mülkiyet Hakları Dağılımı, World Trade Organization WEB, https://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx (19.01.2019).
63. RTA-4 (2024). Bölgelere Göre BTA, World Trade Organization WEB, https://rtais.wto.org/UI/charts.aspx (21.09.2024).
64. Suluk, C. (2018). 6769 sayılı sınai mülkiyet kanununun getirdiği yenilikler. Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi, 4(1), 91-109.
65. Sunner, L. (2021). How the European Union is expanding the protection levels afforded to Geographical Indications as part of its global trade policy. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16(4-5), 341-347.
66. Şentürk, B. (2011). Coğrafi işaretlerin ekonomik etkileri: mikro ve makro açıdan bir değerlendirme. Yüksek Lisans Tezi (yayımlanmamış), Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İktisat Ana Bilim Dalı, Muğla, 108 p.
67. Tekelioğlu, Y. (2016). Coğrafi işaretleme: yöresel ürünler, coğrafi işaretler ve Türkiye uygulamaları. Gastro Dergisi, 59: 118-122.
68. TPMK. (2018). Coğrafi İşaretlerin Uluslararası Tescili Semineri, https://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/TURKPATENT/allNews/newsDetail?newsId=935 (10.06.2020).
69. TRIPS. (1994, Nisan 15). TRIPS: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. (Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197). Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
70. TTIP. (2013). The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/ (21.01.2022).
71. Uçuk, C. and Perçin, N. Ş. Sürdürülebilirlik Kapsamında Coğrafi İşaretli Yemekler ve Yerel Yemekler İçin Duyusal Analiz Yöntemi ile Geliştirilmiş Standart Reçete: Deneysel Bir Araştırma. Journal of Gastronomy, Hospitality and Travel, 5(4). DOİ: 10.33083/joghat.2022.242
72. URL-1 (2018). Amastris Görseli, çılgınrotalar WEB, https://www.cilginrotalar.com/amasra/ (20.01.2022).
73. URL-2 (2020). Made in Türkiye, akşam WEB, https://www.aksam.com.tr/ekonomi/ihracatta-made-c2in-turkiye-donemi/haber -1039693 (20.01.2022).
74. Vecchio, Y., Iddrisu, A. L., Adinolfi, F. and De Rosa, M. (2020). Geographical indication to build up resilient rural economies: A case study from Ghana. Sustainability, 12(5), 2052.
75. Viju, C., Yeung, M.T. ve Kerr, W.A. (2012). Geographical Indications, barriers to market access and preferential trade agreements. Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network: CATPRN Commissioned Paper 2012-01 No. 1617-2016-134614, 1, 1-61.
76. WIPO (2004). WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use. WIPO Publication, 489, Cenevre, 488 p.
77. WIPO (2020). Paris Sözleşmesine Üye Ülkeler, World Intellectual Property Organization WEB, https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/ShowResults? start_year=ANY&end_year=ANY&search_what=C&code=ALL&treaty_id=2 (23.09.2020).
78. WIPO (2021). Lisbon Anlaşmasına Üye Ülkeler, World Intellectual Property Organization WEB, https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/treaties/en/ documents/pdf/lisbon.pdf (04.02.2021).
79. Wong, C. Y. and Elbegsaikhan, M. (2020). Geographical indications in development contexts: Function, supply chain and pursuit of rural industrial development. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(5-6), 712-735.
80. WTO-1 (2021). Understanding the WTO: The Organisation. Members and Observers, World Trade Organization WEB, https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm (23.01.2022).
81. WTO-2 (2021). Member Information: Turkey and the WTO, World Trade Organization WEB, https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/turkey_e.htm (21.01.2022).
82. WTO-3 (2021). Intellectual Property: TRIPS - Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, World Trade Organization WEB, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm (21.01.2022).
83. WTO-4 (2021). Regional Trade Agreement Database, World Trade Organization WEB, https://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx (21.01.2022).
84. Yıldız, B. (2007). Coğrafi işaretlere ve coğrafi köken gösteren diğer işaretlere ilişkin olarak uluslararası sözleşmelerde ve Avrupa Birliği hukukunda kullanılan kavramların kapsamı ile bu kavramların hukukumuza uyarlanması sorunu. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, 7(4), 33-95.
85. Yılmaz, D. H. (2020). Bölgesel ticaret anlaşmaları (BTA)’nin gelişimi ve derin ticaret anlaşmaları: Türkiye’nin serbest ticaret anlaşmaları (STA) açısından bir analiz. TESAM Akademi, 7(1), 39-64.