Efeitos da falsificação de produtos de indicação geográfica: um estudo de caso sobre a indicação de procedência microrregião Abaíra.

Abstract

The present work aims to investigate who is responsible for monitoring and combating acts of counterfeiting of products with a geographical indication. Since geographical indications, in addition to protecting the products themselves, have effects on other sectors of the economy, preserving the know-how and traditions of a given geographical area, the marketing of these counterfeit products and services, as if they were authentic, goes against the purpose of the institute, which is to protect the name of a place from improper use by third parties, making acts of usurpation more difficult. The TRIPS Agreement, in section 3, article 22, when addressing the protection of geographical indications, provides, in item 2 and its subparagraphs, that the signatory countries must establish legal means so that interested parties can prevent the improper use of the distinctive sign of the geographical indication, as well as any act that constitutes unfair competition. Law No. 9,279/96 (Industrial Property Law) and the INPI’s manual on geographical indications do not say anything about who is responsible for inspecting acts of counterfeiting against products with geographical indications. Not even the INPI's normative acts were found in this regard. Given this gap, this research aims to fill it by investigating who is responsible for these inspections. The research is explanatory, with a qualitative approach, using as techniques the case study on the counterfeiting of cachaça in the Abaíra Microregion Indication of Origin; documentary, and bibliographic research. Interviews were conducted with a producer and a representative of APAMA and COOPAMA, entities that handle the management of geographical indications; and with two employees of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA). Based on the analysis of the primary and secondary data obtained in the research, it was possible to verify that the actions of state agencies in the face of the problem of counterfeiting of cachaça originating from the IP Microregion Abaíra do not take into account the violation of an industrial property right, but only the aspects related to the counterfeiting of the beverage cachaça. This is due to the provision in the LPI that criminal action in crimes against geographical indication is private, which grants the individual, holder of the violated right, the prerogative to seek civil and criminal liability, as well as the respective compensation for damages suffered by the usurpation of the geographical name.