Lisbon party -- but is there so much so celebrate?

According to a World Intellectual Property Organization Press Release earlier today ("Ceremony Marks 50th anniversary of the Lisbon Agreement", 2008UPD/2008/307) some 200 participants, including government representatives from 50 nations, joined the new WIPO Director General Francis Gurry at a ceremony in Lisbon last week to mark the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Lisbon Agreement on the international protection of appellations of origin.

Right: the trouble with appellations of origin is that, after the first three or four glasses, it's quite difficult to tell one from another ...

The IPKat wonders why representatives from 50 countries were busy partying, when in the past half century only 26 countries have even bothered to become contracting parties -- and it' not as if the Lisbon Agreement has been at the top of everyone's agenda; arguably recent post-TRIPs debate has done far more to get people motivated to respect, if not protect, appellations of origin. Merpel notes that, apart from a paw-full of European countries, there aren't exactly many of the world's economic powers among the 26 contracting states, several of which could probably have put the cost of the party to good use if it could have been pumped into their economy without passing through the hands of corrupt officials.

Organise your own Titanic party here
Lisbon party -- but is there so much so celebrate? Lisbon party -- but is there so much so celebrate? Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, November 06, 2008 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.