US embassy cable - 05NAIROBI4343

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NAIROBI 004343 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TPP/MTA, AF/E, AF/EPS, AND AF/PD 
DEPT PASS USTR 
USAID FOR AFR/EA 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: ECON, ETRD, EAGR, KIPR, KE, WTO 
SUBJECT:  ADDITIONAL KENYAN RESPONSE TO WTO GEOGRAPHICAL 
INDICATIONS DEBATE 
 
REF: (A) NAIROBI 03813 (B) STATE 165908 
 
1.  On October 17, Post received a more detailed response on 
Kenya's position on the WTO debate on Geographical 
Indications (GIs) from David Nalo, Permanent Secretary at 
the Ministry of Trade and Industry.  Kenya's position paper 
was drafted by the Kenya Industrial Property Institute 
(KIPI); text in para 2.  In short, the current GOK position 
is that an extension of GIs should benefit Kenyan producers 
and not create trade distortions.  Kenya also believes that 
GIs can be effectively managed as an Intellectual Property 
Rights Issue. 
 
2.  Begin Text: "Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI) 
WTO Technical Level Consultation on GIs Extension, 20 
September 2005 - Brief Response to USA Concerns of September 
14, 2005." 
 
(1) Solidarity Support 
    ------------------ 
 
Kenya is a founder member of the Group of Friends of 
Geographical Indications (Friend of GIs).  The Friends of 
GIs advocate for extension of the provisions of Article 23 
of the TRIPS Agreement to products other than wines and 
spirits.  The Friends holds that `Extension' will open new 
market opportunities by preventing trade distortions and 
misappropriation.  The benefits resulting from `extension' 
will foster development of local rural communities and 
encourage a quality agricultural and industrial policy.  In 
a time of trade liberalization in these sectors, `extension' 
will help make GIs a valuable tool for the marketing and 
promotion of quality products from developing and developed 
countries alike. 
 
(2) Consultation Topics 
    ------------------- 
 
     a.  Extension in Trips Vs in Agriculture Negotiations: 
The issue of Extension should be pursued at the TRIPS 
Council independently from the goings-on in Agriculture or 
any other WTO body. 
 
     b.  Scope of Extension:  Product Range and No. of GIs: 
The Extension should be to all products.  No listing of 
products.  One product should have as many GIs as legitimate 
under the TRIPS Agreement. 
 
     c.  Extension Effect on Trademarks:  No negative effect 
- in consideration of Arts. 22.3 and 23.2.  Enough saving 
clauses under Arts. 24.5 and 24.7.  Furthermore, Kenya does 
not currently have GIs registered as trademarks. 
 
     d.  Extension Effect in Third Country Markets: 
Positive.  Extension will enhance market access for all WTO 
Members during the GIs system. 
 
(3) Extension Effect on Parties 
    --------------------------- 
 
     a.  Extension Effect on Producers in GIs Area(s): 
Positive:  Extension will facilitate market access for these 
areas to other areas. 
 
     b.  Extension Effect on Other Producers:  Positive: 
Enough saving clauses under the TRIPS Agreement. 
 
     c.  Extension Effect on Consumers:  Positive:  No 
further deceit. 
 
     d.  Extension Effect on Governments:  Positive:  Users 
to pay for cost of running the system.  Besides, enhanced 
market access without trade distortion implies enhanced 
foreign exchange and thus national growth.  Besides, GIs 
just like any other Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are 
private rights acquired and enforced by owners who meet all 
the costs and thus the issue of EU registering many GIs in 
Kenya is only to benefit EU and not Kenya does not arise. 
The same scenario holds for all other IPRs that we already 
protect successfully.  GIs should not be an exception. 
 
(4) Extension Effect on WTO System 
    ------------------------------ 
 
     a.  Extension Effect on Distribution of Rights and 
Obligations of WTO Members:  None. 
 
     b.  Extension Effect on WTO Trade Liberalisation 
Objective:  Supportive. 
 
End Text. 
 
Bellamy