TRIPS compatibility of Bangladeshi legal regime on geographical indications and its ramifications: A comparative review

Abstract

This paper, as the title suggests, explores TRIPS compatibility of Bangladeshi legal regime on geographical indications along with its challenges and potential impacts. The global transformation of IPRs regime, as significantly developed by TRIPS Agreement, was and still is not a pleasant journey for many countries in general and for the least developed countries (LDCs) in particular. Arguably, the developing nations and LDCs were not able to negotiate their interests adequately in the drafting process of TRIPS. However, TRIPS is a global reality now and WTO members are inherently under an obligation to replicate TRIPS principles and guidelines in their domestic legal regimes. Bangladesh, as a member of WTO, has started to redesign its legal frameworks to be among the TRIPS compliant countries. In this process of transformation, sui generis Legislation along with a Rule for the protection of geographical indications has been enacted by Bangladesh. This paper sheds light on the two key issues—TRIPS compatibility of Bangladeshi GI legal regime and unexplored challenges of geographical indications of Bangladesh. Placing the TRIPS as the guiding document, this paper compares the Geographical Indication Law of Bangladesh and provides some critical observations in appropriate cases.

Revisiting the Geograpidcal Indication Regime in Bangladesh: Trips Compatibility and Prospective Challenges

“…However, the issue of the protection of traditional and cultural IPs has long been either ignored or not precisely grasped by policy makers of the country. In 2012 when India, a neighboring country, registered a few location-based indigenous foodstuffs and handicrafts which bear the flag of the Bangladeshi national identity, the apprehension of misappropriation led the government to give attention to this economically significant area for the country (Karim, 2018).In light of this, around 73 domestic products were marked out from foodstuffs, handicrafts to weaving patterns as having the criteria annexed to the locality of their origin (Zahur, 2017). Apart from this reason, it is the empirical rationale that Bangladesh, being a signatory of TRIPS, has to comply with the minimum standard entailed by the TRIPS Agreement.…”

“…Like the European Union (EU), Bangladesh has opted for a sui generis mode which requires associations of artisans or/and producers in a geographic area to apply for registration. It is noteworthy that the aspiration for Bangladesh to adopt a sui generis method of GI protection was for two reasons (Karim, 2018). Firstly, the initiatives of other Asian countries inspired Bangladesh to frame a similar protection system of GIs, considering the socioeconomic condition of the country.…”

“…With regards to registration of GIs under the present Act, registration is compulsory as a precondition for entitlement and this can only be sanctioned in favor of any association, government body or co-operative society that represents the interest of persons producing GI goods, but not to any individual (Karim, 2018). However, unregistered GIs are also entitled to protection under the GI Act in as long as the indication is authentic in respect of its place of origin (Zahur, 2017).…”

“…Considering the enforcement mechanism of the GI Act of 2013, the Registrar, under Section 25 of the same Act has certain powers and functions, but they are administrative in nature (Karim, 2018). A party, if victimized by the decision of the Registrar may apply to the government within 60 days from the date of decision by the Registrar.…”

“…The Registrar is, after all the final authority empowered to settle the dispute regarding registration. The GI Act, however, has not specified whether any sort of further legal step can be taken against the decision of the Registrar, if aggrieved (Karim, 2018). Furthermore, registration of certain geographical indications is forbidden under the Act if it is contrary to morality or can cause confusion among the consumers.…”