「風土戰爭」在亞洲地理標示近期國際談判分析與對臺灣的啟示

The War on Terroir in Asia?: Legal Issues of Geographical Indications in Recent International Trade Negotiations and Implications for Taiwan

《與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定》規定世界貿易組織會員應提供地理標示基本保護之後，究竟是否應繼續加強地理標示保護，形成了美國主導的反對加強保護，與歐盟主導追求更高標準保護的兩派立場衝突。此衝突亦常被稱為新世界與舊世界的「風土戰爭」。然而，風土戰爭的內涵到底是什麼？歐、美如何藉由雙邊協定，在亞洲各自推廣對地理標示相異的觀點？亞洲國家又如何在自由貿易談判中，因應歐、美的不同觀點？臺灣是否因為尚未與歐、美簽訂自由貿易協定，至今仍可置身事外？
為回答上述問題，本文首先探討為何歐、美兩派持續堅持風土戰爭的理由，並彙整兩派在地理標示談判中，最無法取得共識的法律議題。接下來探討風土戰爭的法律工具，觀察歐、美對地理標示議題究竟採取哪些協議模式，推廣自身的理念。其後，本文探討風土戰爭在亞洲的現況，以四個亞洲國家——韓國、日本、越南、新加坡為分析對象，探討它們如何利用內國已有之法制基礎，同時面對並調和歐、美貿易協定上分殊的要求。最後，由於歐、美兩派相異的地理標示保護義務，早已藉由臺灣與其他國家自由貿易協定的簽署，進入臺灣，本文一方面提出修法建議，他方面取法其他亞洲國家，擬定臺灣未來協商之策略選擇。

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) stipulates that the members of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) should provide basic protection of geographical indications (“GI”) and recognizes that WTO members can continue to negotiate on strengthening protections of individual GI. Following the requirement of TRIPS, the GI protection is usually considered to be a struggle between the European pursuit of higher protection level and the opposition led by the United States (“US”) to strengthening the GI protection. The struggle is also described as the war on terroir between the “New World” and the “Old World”. However, what is the war on terroir? How do the US and the European Union (“EU”) promote their differing perspectives on geographical indications through bilateral agreements in Asia? How do Asian countries respond to those irreconcilable requirements when signing the agreements with the EU and the US? Is it possible for Taiwan to stay out of the war on terroirs between the US and the EU?
In order to answer the above questions, this article summarizes the most controversial substantive legal issues included by the conflicting perspectives between the EU and the US and analyzes the models adopted by different countries to reconcile conflicting views in current bilateral agreements. Furthermore, since the perspectives of the EU and the US have entered the domestic laws of the four Asian countries (South Korea, Singapore, Japan, and Vietnam) through free trade agreements, it is worthwhile to analyze how these countries use their dual legislation of the sui generis system and trademark law to respond to substantive legal issues that have not yet reached a consensus between the EU and the US. Finally, although Taiwan has not signed a free trade agreement with either the EU or the US, it should be noted that Taiwan has been bound by the differing obligations of GI protection through the signing of trade agreements with other countries. Therefore, this article provides the suggestions for Taiwan to revise its domestic law based on its international obligations and to formulate a better strategy for negotiating future free trade agreements by learning from the four Asian countries.