ADDITIONAL KENYAN RESPONSE TO WTO GEOGRAPHICAL

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