000			03691cam a2200265 4500500
005			20250125070719.0
041			_afre
042			_adc
100	1	0	_aGagliani, Gabriele _eauthor
245	0	0	_aIndications géographiques et dénominations génériques en droit du commerce international : une conditio sine qua non ?
260			_c2021.
500			_a57
520			_aLa protection des indications géographiques a récemment évolué en droit du commerce international. En effet, l’Union européenne (UE) a redoublé d’efforts pour promouvoir la protection des indications géographiques au niveau international et a obtenu des résultats importants. De l’autre côté de l’Atlantique, les États-Unis ont eux aussi renouvelé leurs efforts pour préserver et étendre la part de marché des dénominations génériques (dénominations qui ne peuvent pas être protégées par le biais des indications géographiques). L’article considère que l’UE a adopté une position plus rigide sur la protection des indications géographiques qu’elle a transformées en conditio sine qua non dans ses négociations commerciales internationales et que, d’une façon similaire, les dénominations génériques ont gagné en importance dans les négociations commerciales des États-Unis avec des pays tiers. Néanmoins, il semble avéré que le clivage entre l’UE et les États-Unis ne crée pas d’incompatibilité substantielle pour les pays tiers.
520			_aGeographical indications (GIs) have been at the center of international debates for a long time. Recently, several events have led to remarkable developments in the field. The EU has doubled down its efforts in promoting GI protection at the international level. Recent international agreements, such as the 2015 Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications under the auspices of WIPO, or the bilateral trade agreements with Canada, China, and Japan, among others, have led the EU to claim important victories and progress on the international protection of GIs. Concurrently, the US has stepped up its efforts to put aside market sectors for generic names, i.e., names that are not protectable under GIs. The USMCA between the US, Canada, and Mexico, and the Economic and Trade Agreement between the US and China are good examples of the new US strategy. This article maps these recent developments and argues that GIs have recently taken up a whole new prominence in international trade law. This situation has been accompanied by a change in the stances of the EU and the US. Indeed, the EU appears to have adopted an increasingly rigid stance on GI protection, which has become a conditio sine qua non for multilateral and bilateral negotiations. In turn, and in response to this change, generic names have figured more prominently in the US international trade agenda. This notwithstanding, the gap between the positions of the EU and the US is not unbridgeable since, in reality, both parties legally recognize both GIs and generic names.
690			_aActe de Genève de l’Arrangement de Lisbonne
690			_adroit du commerce international
690			_aaccords de libre-échange
690			_aindications géographiques
690			_athe Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement
690			_ainternational trade law
690			_abilateral trade agreements
690			_ageographical indications (GIs)
786	0		_nRevue internationale de droit économique | t. XXXIV | 2 | 2021-02-23 | p. 155-181 | 1010-8831
856	4	1	_uhttps://shs.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-economique-2020-2-page-155?lang=fr&redirect-ssocas=7080
999			_c962922 _d962922