Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Administrative Law Blogs -> Customs Law

Administrative Law

: Customs Law

We're All Grown Ups Here, Right?

By Larry

I like to hang out at the intersection of trade and intellectual property. I find the issues raised there to be particularly interesting.

One long-simmering issue is the question of protecting geographically descriptive designations for products. Champagne, the French argue, must come from Champagne (France); not Italy or California and not even Champaign, Illinois. Similarly, Scotch should come from Scotland and Tequila from the Tequila region of Mexico. Cheddar is a town in England and Gouda is in the Netherlands.

This issue has been the subject of negotiations at the WTO level and is part of U.S. law. It remains confusing to consumers who may buy a product like Hawaiian Punch, with a geographic indication in the name but no real connection to the locale. Arizona Iced Tea is another example. This is because some product name, even though they are geographically misdescriptive, are so well known as to have "secondary meaning" as a source identifier.

It now appears that natives of the Greek Island Lesvos (commonly spelled Lesbos) have taken up the cause of fighting to control the use of the name of their home. This comes from the AP via Law.com. Assuming this is not a joke, residents of the island have sued a gay and lesbian organization that has no connection to the island to prevent it from using the word "lesbian" in its name. According to the plaintiffs, the use of "lesbian" in this context is insults the identity of the island.

As ridiculous as it seems, this raises interesting questions. From a U.S. perspective, it seems that the term has, over the course of the 2600 years since Sappho wrote poems, moved from a specific to a generic meaning. This is what happened to former trademarks like aspirin and cellophane. Becoming generic is a step beyond having secondary meaning, so it would appear that there is no legal issue in the U.S.

But, what about the tougher question of public policy? Lesvos is a real, live place filled with real, live people. Some of those people seem to be offended by the use of "lesbian" to designate gay women. Contrast that to, for example, the Illini band of Native Americans (actually a confederation of six or more tribes). The Illini as a larger confederation is now extinct; although part of the Peoria Tribe is now found in Oklahoma. Despite that Native Americans and others sympathetic to the issue have fought the University of Illinois long and hard over its use of Fighting Illini as a team name and, more specifically, Chief Illiniwek as a dancing mascot at sporting events. As it stands now, the Chief has been retired but the team name continues.

Here's my question, do the people of Lesvos have a greater claim to control the use of their name than do the representatives of the Illini? Moreover, did the members of the GLBT community stake out a position in the Illiniwek controversy? It seems like living, breathing, suing people who can pull out a drivers license and show a connection to the region have a pretty good case in the court of the non-hypocritical public. And, since I have long supported the elimination of The Chief at Illini games, I believe I now need to find a new word for lesbian.

What about the movement to rename places with the word "squaw" in them? Maybe the people of Lesvos can offer support on that front.

Full post as published by Customs Law on May 01, 2008 (boomark / email).