The Lisbon Agreement and the Importance of Protecting Appellations of Origin
Abstract
This article examines the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration as a distinct international legal framework within intellectual property law. Employing a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, the study analyzes the normative structure of the Lisbon system, its registration mechanism, the principle of perpetual protection, and the legal grounds for termination of international registration. Particular attention is paid to the interaction between the Lisbon Agreement and other international legal regimes governing geographical indications, including trademark-based protection models and the TRIPS framework.
The article argues that, despite its limited membership, the Lisbon Agreement constitutes an autonomous and high-threshold protection regime rather than a merely supplementary instrument to trademark systems. Its relatively restricted global adoption is explained not by normative weakness, but by its strict conceptual requirements and complex coexistence with dominant intellectual property frameworks. The study concludes that the Lisbon system remains especially valuable for states seeking strong and durable protection of appellations of origin closely linked to territorial identity, traditional knowledge, and cultural heritage.
Downloads
PlumX Statistics
References
2. Rangnekar, D. (2004). The socio-economics of geographical indications: A review of empirical evidence from Europe. UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ictsd2004ipd8_en.pdf
3. Vandecandelaere, E., Teyssier, C., Barjolle, D., & Jeanneaux, P. (2018). Geographical indications, public goods, and sustainable development: The roles of actors, strategies, and public policies. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://yucita.org/file_sub_307_Diger-Geographical-Indications%2C-Public-Goods%2C-and-Sustainable-Development%3A-The-Roles-of-Actors-Strategies-and-Public-Policies.pdf
4. Sakpatenti. (n.d.). Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration. National Intellectual Property Center of Georgia. Retrieved September 9, 2025, from https://www.sakpatenti.gov.ge/media/page_files/lisbon.pdf
5. Belletti, G., & Marescotti, A. (2002). Linking products to geographical indications: The case of Tuscany. In B. Sylvander, D. Barjolle, & F. Arfini (Eds.), The socio-economics of origin labelled products in agri-food supply chains: Spatial, institutional and co-ordination aspects (pp. 75–90). INRA. Retrieved from http://www.andreamarescotti.it/Documents_GI.htm#Tradizionali
6. Bramley, C., & Kirsten, J. F. (2007). Exploring the economic rationale for protecting geographical indicators in agriculture. Agrekon, 46(1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2007.9523766
7. Josling, T. (2006). The war on terroir: Geographical indications as a transatlantic trade conflict. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(3), 337–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2006.00075.x
8. Law of Georgia on Appellations of Origin of Goods and Geographical Indications. (2011). https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/download/16186/3/ge/pdf
9. Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/lisbon/.
10. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/madrid/.
11. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (1883). Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/
12. Gangjee, D. (2019). Relocating the law of geographical indications. Cambridge University Press.
13. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2020). Geographical indications: An introduction. World Intellectual Property Organization.
14. Court of Justice of the European Union. (2003). Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Case C-216/01.\
15. Court of Justice of the European Union. (2004). Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Case C-245/02.
Copyright (c) 2026 Tornike Merebashvili
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
