Debated in Parliament on 14 Apr 2014.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Madam, the Geographical Indications Bill proposes to strengthen protection for businesses and consumers by enhancing the regime dealing with representation of geographical origins of goods, where such origins are indicative of quality.
Before going into the provisions of the Bill, it may be useful for me to explain what we mean by "Geographical Indications" or "GIs" in the context of the Bill.
Geographical Indications or "GIs" are terms which we use to inform consumers that a product comes from a particular place. Such goods would often fall under the category of food and drink.
I thought, Mdm Speaker, that it might be useful to illustrate this. And with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an Annexure to the Members?
Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mdm Speaker, this annexure is to enable the Members to appreciate the full flavour of what we mean. MinLaw exercised some creative licence to come up with a menu to illustrate what it would look like if you had food and beverage with geographical indications. So, you would have, as starters, Melon wrapped with Prosciutto di Parma, followed by Belon Oysters and Baked Camembert Cheese from Normandy. For the mains, you
Page: 79
have Chicken from Bresse braised in Red Wine from Burgundy, and followed by a Roast Kobe Beef Rib Seasoned with Sarawak Pepper. For dessert, Fresh Strawberries Drizzled with Balsamic Vinegar from Modena, a Provencal Olive Oil-Lemon Cake and a Champagne Granita. And, of course, not forgetting the wines. We have Chablis; Mosel for the White, a Bourdeaux and Brunello de Montalcino for the red with Digestifs of Grappa and Port.
Madam, the names of many of these products refer to a town, region or country, as can be seen from the menu. If Members wish to avail themselves of the menu and try it out, I can assure them that MinLaw will not be exercising its copyright in respect of the menu and they are free to do so.
We call these terms "GIs" when they signal to consumers that a product has special qualities or enjoys a certain reputation or other characteristic due to its geographical origin. Indeed, some of the terms in the menu are recognised as GIs in other countries.
Take "Bordeaux", for example. "Bordeaux" is a wine originating from the Bordeaux region in France. It is said to have a special flavour and characteristic because of its geographical origin. If "Bordeaux" is protected as a GI in Singapore, this means that only wines produced in the Bordeaux region can be labelled and marketed as "Bordeaux" wines in Singapore. Wines produced outside of Bordeaux that are labelled or marketed as "Bordeaux" wines would infringe the "Bordeaux" GI. The traders and producers of GI products, or their relevant associations, may then pursue civil action to stop the infringement or seek damages.
Why protect GIs? As indicated earlier, many GIs revolve around food and drink. Singaporeans increasingly consume and enjoy food products from all over the world, including various agricultural and dairy products, wines and spirits.
GI protection safeguards the interests of our consumers. It provides greater assurance that the products bought by our consumers truly carry the characteristics that they are known for, and which are attributable to their geographical origin.
Currently, GIs are already protected in Singapore under the Geographical Indications Act, in accordance with the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) standards.
Page: 80
TRIPS provides a two-tiered scheme of protection:
First, all GI products enjoy a basic level of protection, where GI labels cannot be used on products which do not come from the place indicated by the GI, if this misleads the public as to the true geographical origin of those products.
For wines and spirits, there is an enhanced level of protection where GI labels cannot be used even if consumers are not misled as to the true geographical origin of the goods in question. One example of this is the use of the term "Bordeaux-like". This may not mislead consumers, but is nevertheless not allowed.
The present Act does not require GIs to be registered before they enjoy the relevant type of protection under TRIPS. However, in practice, the absence of a registration system means that a term can only be conclusively determined that it is a GI through a Court ruling in a civil suit. There have not been any such disputes before our Courts. Thus far, there have not been any such disputes before our courts.
I move on to the objectives of the Bill. Under the recently concluded FTA negotiations with the EU (the European Union (EU)-Singapore Free Trade Agreement or EUSFTA), we have agreed to take steps to bring the agreement into force by strengthening our GI regime.
The Bill proposes to: first, establish a Registry of Geographical Indications or "GI Registry"; second, enhance the protection of GIs in Singapore; and third, provide improved border enforcement measures for GIs.
I will now take the House through the main features of the Bill.
Part IV of the Bill establishes a system of registration for GIs. The aim of having a system of registration is to improve the certainty of protection given to GIs. Registration will give the holder certainty that a term is recognised as a GI and is, therefore, entitled to all the protections enjoyed by a GI, without needing to confirm this before the Courts. This will facilitate the enforcement of these rights.
The proposed GI Registry will reside within the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). When established, the Registry will examine applications for GI registration in respect of: (a) wines and spirits; and (b) selected categories
Page: 81
of agricultural products and foodstuffs, such as cheese, meat and seafood.
Registration will be a three-stage process that seeks to be transparent and fair. The process is similar to the trade mark registration system in Singapore and comprises the following:
First, application. Among other things, applicants will be required to specify the quality, reputation or characteristics of the good in question and how that is attributable to the geographical origin.
Second, there will be examination. There will be a detailed examination of each application to ascertain that they fulfil certain fundamental requirements. These are largely similar to what is mandated under the present Act and TRIPS.
Third, publication and opposition. Thereafter, the application will be made public for a period of time. This is to allow third parties an opportunity to object to the registration, for example, on grounds of "generic-ness", meaning that the GI has become a common name for describing that product in Singapore. In this respect, GI terms which are proven to have become common household names in Singapore may not be registered.
Registration of a GI will last for 10 years initially. Like the trade mark registration system, this can be renewed for further periods of 10 years. To protect existing rights, GI registration will also follow the "first in time, first in right" principle. This means that a new application for GI registration may not invalidate a prior conflicting GI or trade mark which already exists.
Trade mark owners today using terms similar to GIs being registered will thus not be inconvenienced. However, the GI can still be registered if consent is obtained from the owner of the prior conflicting trade mark. Consequential amendments to the Trade Marks Act will be made to align the current Trade Marks regime with this position.
There will also be exceptions for existing users of GIs so that their business operations will not be disrupted. For instance, if a person has continuously used a GI term in Singapore for a sufficiently long period of time, or has previously used the term in good faith, he or she may continue to use the term, even if the GI is subsequently registered.
We do not foresee a significant impact on consumer choice, as the majority of products labelled with GIs in the local market are already of the correct
Page: 82
geographical origin. Moreover, for many products, there is substantial intra-GI competition. For example, there are many producers of "Bordeaux" wines, competing with one another in different segments of the market.
Businesses that import foodstuffs, wines and spirits may have to adjust their operations to comply with the new requirements. For example, they may have to work with producers to re-label such products for sale in our local market. That said, through our public and industry consults, we have already alerted our local businesses, and they have already started planning for the new GI regime. That is the first main change.
The second relates to the enhanced protection for registered GIs. Under the TRIPS two-tier system of protection, wines and spirits enjoy an enhanced level of protection. This enhanced level of protection means that protection is conferred even if consumers are not misled as to the products' true geographical origin. Clause 4 of the Bill will extend this enhanced level of protection beyond wines and spirits to all successfully registered GIs, including agricultural products and foodstuff.
The third change relates to border enforcement measures. Under Part VI of the Bill, owners of all registered GIs will have access to improved border enforcement measures. For instance, they will be able to request that our Customs authorities detain suspected infringing goods which are to be imported into or exported from Singapore. These measures are generally based on those in the Trade Marks Act, with modifications to suit the situations involving GIs.
I move on now to implementation. The changes under the Bill will be implemented in stages to correspond with the EUSFTA's ratification timeline.
The GI Registry will be established only if the EU Parliament ratifies the EUSFTA. The enhanced protection for all categories of registered GIs will only kick in when the benefits of the EUSFTA is provisionally applied both ways. Improved border enforcement measures will only be effected within three years after the EUSFTA enters into force. This will give Customs time to build up capabilities to undertake enforcement action.
The staged implementation ensures that any potential disruptions to local businesses dealing with or using GI products do not kick in before the benefits of the EUSFTA start to accrue.
Page: 83
It will also give businesses time to make the necessary changes to adjust to the new GI regime, including, for example, the re-labelling of products for sale in the local market, which is what some local businesses are already in the process of doing.
When the new GI protection regime comes into force, it will not over-ride or undermine any rights which GI holders already have under the existing regime. These rights will co-exist with those under the new regime.
However, those who wish to benefit from increased certainty of recognition, enhanced level of protection and improved border enforcement measures can opt for registration.
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, the EUSFTA, when it comes into force, could bring about the following benefits: (a) tariff concessions on our exports; and (b) greater EU market access for Singaporean companies.
The proposed changes in our GI regime will put us in a position to meet our obligations under the EUSFTA, should the conditions for implementation arise. It will also then benefit our consumers.
At the same time, we have structured the implementation in phases to minimise disruption to businesses and ensure that the benefits of EUSFTA accrue in a fair manner to both parties. Madam, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mdm Speaker, a geographical indication, or GI for short, is a legal term that refers to a sign or indication that identifies a good as originating from a particular location. These GI products are typically characterised by a special quality, reputation or unique characteristic. Well-known examples of GIs include Darjeeling tea, Champagne and Parma ham.
It is essential that we respect the geographical origins of these products as they represent a guarantee as to the quality of the products that are being purchased. Beyond that, these GIs may also promise a specific taste, aroma, appearance or characteristic which consumers are willing to pay for. Equally,
Page: 84
should there be goods produced in Singapore, their Singapore-linked GI should be respected. What I am about to do to your menu is, well, tongue-in-cheek! For example, if under the starters we had Ghim Moh chwee kway, or under the mains we had Katong laksa, or under the desserts we had Geylang ondeh ondeh, or under the beverages we had wines. The broader point I am making here is we, too, should not only have to protect GIs of other countries but, should the time come, reciprocity should be accorded to our country, Singapore, by countries in terms of relevant goods produced here or eventually produced here.
As such, it is essential that we honour the GIs of goods and products that are being sold on our shores or that are being exported or imported through our ports.
Under existing laws, GIs are automatically protected under the existing Geographical Indications Act (GI Act), as there is no requirement for parties to file an application to protect a GI. This protection applies to GIs of any country that is a member of the WTO, a party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property, or a country designated by the Minister as a "qualifying country".
Further, interested parties are able to bring civil claims to obtain a court injunction to stop third parties from using their GIs, or obtain compensatory damages or the account of profits from the infringing third party. Beyond the GI Act, interested parties may also be able to obtain protection for a GI as a certification or collective mark under our Trade Marks Act.
Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill as the re-enactment of the Geographical Indications Bill enhances and augments the existing legal regime for the protection of GIs under our domestic laws, and provides for clearer rules relating to the protection of goods and products with registered GIs.
The impetus for the repeal and re-enactment of this Bill is to ensure that Singapore continues to meet its obligations under the WTO's 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), as well as our forthcoming commitments should the EU Parliament ratify under the European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA), which I had the privilege of accompanying the Prime Minister to France and Poland last year to push for.
In the lead-up to this re-enactment, MinLaw, MTI and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) had launched public consultations to garner feedback and views from the public regarding the proposed re-enactment and
Page: 85
relevant changes to related legislation.
Could the Ministry highlight some of the key feedback that was garnered from the Public Consultations that were conducted and whether any feedback received from those consultations were incorporated into the Bill that is being debated today?
Mdm Speaker, one key component of the proposed Bill is the establishment of the Registry of Geographical Indications (GI Registry) under IPOS. This newly created GI Registry will be responsible for the registration of GIs for wines and spirits, and selected categories of agricultural products and foodstuffs. The proposed GI Registry will adopt a three-stage process for the registration of GIs, similar to that used for trade mark applications.
Agricultural products and foodstuffs that are registered with the GI Registry will be accorded enhanced protections beyond the existing regime, beyond the level accorded under Article 22 of TRIPS, while registered GIs for wines and spirits will be afforded the same level of protection that it currently possesses.
Further, the point that I want to stress is that the advantage of registration is that owners of registered GIs will have access to augmented border enforcement measures. These improved border enforcement measures will empower customs authorities to carry out active enforcement of the IP protection of GIs, rather than reactionary or passive enforcement.
Under the proposed Bill, owners of registered GIs will be able to request the Singapore customs authorities to restrict the import of infringing goods, or to seize and detain suspected infringing goods which are expected to be exported or imported into Singapore. Customs authorities will also be vested with the authority to search, examine and inspect vehicles and the baggage and belongings of persons entering into Singapore by land, sea or air.
Mdm Speaker, this pre-emptive approach to the protection of intellectual property rights is preferable as it ensures that infringing products are kept out of the market early, rather than relying on after-the-fact enforcement by the authorities.
In the event that these IP infringements fall through the cracks or go undetected at our borders, the Bill also provides adequate and effective remedies for owners and interested parties of registered GIs to obtain relief and
Page: 86
remedies against infringing parties.
Lastly, the proposed amendments to the Trade Marks Act allows for the alignment of the two registries in areas where there is potential for conflict.
Specifically, the proposed amendment to the Trade Marks Act would prevent the registration of a trade mark that contains a GI that is already registered under the GI Registry, or if an application for the registration of the GI was lodged before the application for the registration of the trade mark.
This is particularly important in cases where the trade mark is intended to be used for goods or products that are in the same category as the good for which the GI relates to, and such goods or products do not originate from the place indicated in the geographical indication.
Further amendments will be made to allow users of trade marks identical or similar to a registered GI to continue using their respective terms, if they are able to show that they have been applying for or have been continuously using the term in good faith for trade, before the application for the registration of the GI was lodged or before GI became protected in its country of origin.
Mdm Speaker, the flexible approach adopted ensures that the protection of GIs and intellectual property rights is stringent, yet ensures that it does not hamper trade through Singapore.
Taken together, all these proposed changes and augmentations will ensure that Singapore remains a champion for the protection of intellectual property rights in the region, if not globally, and will ensure that goods and products that are being sold, imported or exported through our shores are accorded the requisite protection that they deserve. Madam, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his support of the Bill and his very helpful comments. He had actually also highlighted an example which I think I should address because it illustrates what is meant by Geographical Indications. So, for example, Katong laksa would not, unfortunately, qualify as a GI, the reason being that, in order to be a GI, its components would actually have to be grown or originate from Katong. So, the laksa leaf would have to be a Katong laksa leaf, the rice flour would have to come from rice grown in Katong, the tau pok would have to come from the soya
Page: 87
bean that was grown in Katong and the clams would have to be harvested there as well.
The Member had asked about feedback from the public consultations and whether any feedback received was incorporated into the Bill. The feedback from the consultations largely revolved around particular GIs of interest to various producers from different parts of the world. The feedback related to issues that have been debated in other countries, such as whether certain GI terms were viewed as generic and can be registered. The takeaway from the exercise was to confirm the need for us to create a transparent and fair system for registration, which would examine each GI application on a case-by-case basis. This we have done through the three-stage process for registration. I have described this process in my earlier speech. But the Member may rest assured that we will work to have a fair and transparent GI regime that will enhance our reputation as an intellectual property hub in this region.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah].*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
PAPERCUTS