What was Doha Ministerial Declaration under paragraphs 12 and 18 and what did Tea Board experience in defending GI in France, the USA and Japan ?

Paragraph 12 and 18 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration relates to the extension of the additional protection for Geographical Indications to products other than 'Wines' and 'Spirits'. According to paragraph 12 and 18 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the decision of the Trade Negotiation Committee (TNC) of 1st February 2002, the issue of 'extension' of the protection of Geographical Indications for 'Wines' and 'Spirits' to Geographical Indications for other products shall be addressed in the regular meetings of the TRIPS Council on a priority basis. Paragraphs 12 and 18 thus provide a mandate for the issue of "providing a higher level of protection to GIs to products other than 'wines and spirits' to be addressed by the TRIPS Council". According to the Tea Board, Extension of protection under Article 23 for products other than wines and spirits is required where no legal platform exists to register a GI or a CTM which is a TRIPS obligation, for example Japan; Once the scope of protection is extended it would not be necessary to establish the credentials/reputation of a GI before fighting the infringement of similar 'types', 'styles', or 'look-alikes'; and Additional protection would rectify the imbalance created by the special protection of Wines and Spirits. Despite the registration of 'Darjeeling' as a GI in France, the Tea Board was unsuccessful in defending it because French law does not permit any opposition to an application for a trade mark, similar or identical to a GI. Likewise, India's efforts to protect 'Darjeeling' in Japan did not succeed because the prefix 'Divine' has not gained currency in the Japanese language. It is felt that it is high time to evolve a rule that no application for registration of a GI of the same or similar goods or products or even similar type, style or look-alike already registered in that country be ordinarily entertained by the competent authority of the country concerned. Further, the GI status and apprehended or actual violation of GI should be published at both domestic and international levels. Moreover, adequate steps should be taken to evolve rules and procedures for GI or CTM registration in all the member countries of the WTO. This would prevent conflict to a great extent. Finally, a vigilance cell should be established to check the violation and misuse of the GI of any product.