Today the point is focused on a particular sentence that was published by INPI. The collective marks was granted to farmers in the community Vargem Alta in the state of Espiritu Santo with a population of 19.130 habitants. According to INPI, this collective mark is aimed to the “reconstruction and development of the region.”
Indeed, one can acknowledge that a collective mark is a ‘club asset’ shared by a group who act on a specific territory in the production of a good and/or service. In this particular case the group consist of farmers operating in the territory of Vargem Alta. But, would the collective mark develop the region? Are we just talking about economic growth?
Vast literature covers educated economic analysis of collective trade marks and geographical indication protection. In a nutshell we can establish that collective marks and/or GI do not guarantee an economic success –that is a fact. The success depend on many other things, such as reputation of the good, dynamics of the group, market structure, strategies, etc. Added to this, it could be argued that when you come from a small community a collective mark and/or GI could have a cultural impact – this goes beyond the economic effect. Whether you are a producer or a consumer, you start to be more aware of the goods and do try to preserve and maintain the value of the intangible – the name that reflects not just the good, but the community.
Would a collective mark then reconstruct and develop the region? I believe yes - of course my thought is not based on economics. A collective mark may help to provide recognition to traditional production methods and could promote conservation of natural vegetation. It is therefore argued that a collective mark may reflect a strong link between a good and culture and this at the end benefit rural development.
Do you believe that INPI's sentence refer to economic growth or cultural value?
0 Response to "Collectives marks may develop the region - looking beyond the economic factor"
Post a Comment