US embassy cable - 05WELLINGTON816

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 WELLINGTON 000816 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/ANP/RICCI AND EB/IPE/WILSON 
STATE PASS TO USTR MULLANEY 
USDA FOR FAS/ITP/ZIMMERMAN, MIRELES, AND HURST AND 
FAS/FAA/YOUNG 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD, EAGR, ECON, NU, KIPR, NZ, WTRO 
SUBJECT: NEW ZEALAND SUPPORTS U.S. POSITION ON GEOGRAPHIC 
INDICATIONS IN WTO 
 
REF:  SECSTATE 180474 
 
1. Summary:  New Zealand shares the concern of the United 
States that the EU and others may attempt to hold up 
negotiations at the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial unless 
their demands on geographical indications (GIs) are met. 
New Zealand will work closely with the United States to 
prevent this from occurring.  New Zealand supports U.S. 
efforts to keep the discussion of geographical 
indications in the TRIPS Council and outside of the 
negotiations taking place within the Agriculture 
Committee.  End Summary. 
 
2. Embassy's Agricultural Attache met with Reuben 
Levermore, Policy Officer at the Trade Negotiations 
Division of New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 
Trade, to discuss issues raised reftel.  New Zealand 
views the primary focus of the agriculture negotiations 
as the improvement of market access and concurs with the 
United States that singling out products of particular 
groups of producers for special intellectual property 
protection is not compatible with meeting this goal.  New 
Zealand does recognize the value of GIs and supports 
preserving the integrity of GIs within the context of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  New Zealand also shares our concern 
that negotiating GIs in two separate WTO Committees 
undermines the effectiveness of one set of rules and runs 
the risk of creating conflicting agreements and 
obligations. 
 
3.  New Zealand fully appreciates that GI-related 
obligations established in the Agriculture Committee 
would be outside the context of intellectual property and 
therefore would pose a risk of interfering with WTO 
member countries' ability to individually implement GI 
obligations in accordance with national laws.  New 
Zealand also is concerned that GI obligations set under 
the Agriculture Committee could upset the careful balance 
established in the TRIPS Agreement between trademarks and 
GIs. 
 
4. New Zealand will vigorously oppose EU efforts to 
establish provisions in the agriculture agreement that 
will obligate companies in all WTO Member states to 
abandon generic terms used to describe products if the EU 
considers the term a GI.  New Zealand industry would 
potentially face significant marketing and trade costs if 
GI protection were afforded to products on the EU's 
clawback list.  New Zealand further views the regulatory 
costs imposed on governments by such an action as trade 
inhibiting. 
 
5. Extending GI protection to the EU's clawback list 
would be particularly harmful to New Zealand's dairy 
industry (feta, parmesan, gorgonzola, and mozzarella 
cheese products) and wine (port and sherry).  Also of 
concern to New Zealand is the potential impact of 
Greece's GI claim on kalamata olives. 
 
6. New Zealand supported the United States last July at a 
Rome meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  The 
EU had been inappropriately using Codex to advance its 
interest in geographical indication recognition of 
"parmesan" and had been blocking the development of an 
international Codex standard for this cheese type.  New 
Zealand, along with the United States, argued for the 
development of a standard, maintaining that parmesan is 
internationally recognized as being a generic name and 
that consumers do not expect parmesan cheese to 
necessarily originate from the "Parma" region.  New 
Zealand expressed the view at the Rome meeting that Codex 
was not the appropriate forum for the issue of GI 
protection to be addressed, but rather the World 
Intellectual Property Organization and the WTO Agreement 
on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
(TRIPS). 
 
7. New Zealand may soon enter into negotiations with the 
EU related to wines and spirits.  New Zealand looks 
forward to this as an opportunity to address access 
issues for its products in EU markets and anticipates 
that the EU will seek to gain New Zealand GI recognition 
for clawback listed products.  While these generic names 
are commercially less important today to New Zealand's 
wine industry than previously, the local trade seeks to 
preserve future rights.  A New Zealand court ruled in the 
early 1990s that Champagne could not be used on 
Australian product sold in New Zealand.  The court 
reserved its ruling exclusively for this product and no 
other judicial determination or New Zealand law affords 
GI protection to other products found on the EU's 
clawback list. 
 
8. New Zealand firmly opposes the EU's intent to achieve 
the results for geographical indications called for in 
the October 10 Statement of its Conditional Negotiating 
Proposals in the Doha Round.  This includes the EU's 
request to engage on "intensive negotiations on the 
Register and to have a firm agreement in Hong Kong to 
commence negotiations immediately on the extension of the 
register" from wine and spirits to include GIs for other 
products.  New Zealand agrees with the U.S. position that 
the EU's proposed register goes beyond the mandate in the 
TRIPS Agreement and in DOHA to establish a voluntary 
system and opposes EU efforts to create an automatic 
supranational system that establishes binding GI rights 
on all WTO members for all products.  New Zealand further 
agrees with the United States that Article 23 Extension 
are not validated by evidence that existing TRIPS 
obligations for protection of other products is 
inadequate.  In addition to the policy considerations 
expressed above, New Zealand's position on GIs takes into 
account its economic assessment that the EU's efforts to 
obtain a "more certain legal environment" (enhanced) for 
marketing its products globally through increased GI 
protection would result in significant real costs and 
commercial uncertainty for New Zealand's own agricultural 
trade. 
BURNETT