The Symposium in Montevideo was attended by experts on protection of geographical indications (GI) from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, France, Mexico, Peru, Spain, United States and Uruguay, and by representatives from WIPO and WTO.

In the opening ceremony, Sergio Abreu, Minister of Industry, Energy and Mining of Uruguay emphasized the importance of the factors directly related to the competitiveness of a business: trade and service marks, quality, continuity and price. He stressed the importance of protecting intellectual property in order to become closer to other states and to cooperate in the defense of the production in each one of them. In regard to GI, he expressed that they are a means by which each country looks to identify its own particularities.

Marcus Höpperger (WIPO) recalled that the terminology traditionally used in GI related treaties distinguishes between "indications of source" (IS) and "appellations of origin" (AO). The former appears in the 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Madrid Agreement on Indications of Source of 1891 and can be defined as an indication referring to a country or a place in that country, as being the country or place of origin of a product.It may normally be preceded by words such as "made in...". On the other hand, "appellations of origin" are defined in the 1958 Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration as "the geographical name of a country, region or locality, which serves to designate a product originating therein, the quality and characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors."

GI are defined in the TRIPS Agreement of 1994 as "indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member (of the WTO), or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin".

When comparing the definitions of IS, AO and GI, it may be noted that IS is the more general term, since it includes both the GI and the AO. While in the symposium the term GI was used generally as embracing the IS and the AO it should be noted that the three terms are used in different international instruments, therefore it may not always be possible to speak of GI in an ample manner, but rather the distinction should be made within the context of the international treaty under consideration.

Finally, Mr. Höpperger mentioned that within the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications of WIPO, a document SCT/6/3 indicates that despite the continued efforts to approach the protection of GI on a multilateral scale, considerable uncertainty would still seem to prevail.

Daniel De Sousa (WTO) referred to general aspects of the TRIPS Agreement and recalled that the compromise reached regarding GI was one of the most difficult topics of negotiation during the Uruguay Round. She also indicated that the Council for TRIPS is working since 1997 to establish a multilateral system of notification and registration of GI for wines and has since also looked into the possibility of establishing such a system for spirits. She added that the matter had been discussed at the fourth WTO Ministerial Conference which took place in Doha, Qatar from 9-13 November 2001.

Users point of view: the speakers who represented the interests of users were Luis de Javier, Miguel Torres SA, of Spain and Federico Mekis of Asociación de Viñas de Chile.

Javier criticised the excessive amount of rules enacted to regulate situations in the past in an entirely different economic context to the present one. He also pointed out that the European legislator had given great protection to wines with AO to the detriment of the other wine products and that this had resulted in the loss of markets, which are been won by producers of the new world.

Mekis said that GI had not had practical importance for the success of Chilean wines. Now the issue is the exception provided in TRIPS. The message which one perceives is that "if you are looking for free trade in Europe, then you must forgo your AO rights and wave your rights under TRIPS".

Some countries like Peru, Mexico and Uruguay are very much in favor of the acknowledgement of GI.

The Argentine representative indicated that in compliance with TRIPS, Argentina had passed Law 25.163 regarding wines and spirited beverages and Law 25.380 on agricultural products and foodstuffs.

He also stated that Argentina had no intention of waiving its rights regarding the exceptions provided by TRIPS.

The Director of the Brazilian Patent Office (INPI) explained the AO registration system in her country and said that since they do not have the custom to protect AO the registration system is very slow. Currently there are three pending applications, one of which was filed by a foreign applicant.

GI and Internet: Mr. Höpperger explained that WIPO is carrying out two activities (i) protection against non authorized use of GI in the Internet and (ii) protection of GI against their unauthorised registration as domain names.

Anthony Taubman (Australia) mentioned that "the international debate could focus more fruitfully on the how of the legal means for protection of GIs under TRIPS, not the what of TRIPS standards".

Frank Z. Hellwig (INTA) referred to the conflict between trademarks and GI. For Hellwig the first in time has the right and that priority is territorial.

Jean-Marc Giradeaux, Director of Bureau National Interprofessional du Cognac (BNIC) considered that the protection of GI should be a State matter, since they form part of the patrimony of the states, as they are the result of years of efforts to obtain a particular quality. The GI is not a creation of the human mind but rather the fruit of the encounter of the natural environment with a determined human activity. A trademark cannot be considered part of the national patrimony. He considers that TRIPS does not fix a limit to the type of products protected by GI and that these should be accessible to all countries because all countries have richnesses to protect. This is the meaning of the register which they aspire to achieve in Europe.

From the final debate it was clear that countries from the old world foster a strong protection for GI and do not discard a request for voluntary resignation of rights granted under the exceptions provided by TRIPS. On the other hand, most of the countries from the new world do not have the culture of protecting GI and have for many years been using foreign AO to designate products. Nevertheless, these countries are very interested in being able to export their products to those countries where the GI are strongly protected.

Clearly, the protection of GI has long been discussed and will probably require much more discussions before a suitable protection system is widely accepted.