Marie-Vivien, Delphine


Researcher in Law / Chercheur en droit

Deputy Director UMR Innovation / Directrice adjointe UMR Innovation

Intellectual Property / Geographical Indications / Food Law

 

 

Address

Tél/Fax/Mail

Research interests and field of expertise

- Field of expertise

        Intellectual property Law in the field of agriculture :

       Food Law: SPS, voluntary standards

Environmental law in the field of biological ressources: Rio Convention on Biodiversity, legal status of biological material

- Issues of interest: 

Experiences

with Cirad since 1999, in research Unit Innovation, since 2004, 

- Deputy Director of the research Unit Innovation (Cirad - Inraé - Montpellier SupAgro)since 2019

- Visiting researcher at Rudec/Ipsard (Institute of Policy and Strategy for Rural Development)/MALICA (Market and Agricultural Linkages for cities in Asia), Hanoi, Vietnam, 2012-2018

- Visiting researcher at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, India, 2005-2008

- Legal councel for Cirad regarding genetic resources, material transfer agreements, management of intellectual property rights portofolio, research and commercial contracts, 1999-2004

Before entering Cirad: Patent engineer in the field of petrochemicals industry, 1997-1999 

Education

Languages

French (mothertongue), English, Spanish, Vietnamese.  

Countries with experience

Teaching and training

Participation to Projects

Selected publications

Click here to see full list of publications.  

Delphine MARIE-VIVIEN

In: J World Intellect Prop., 2020, vol. pp. 1-22

 Delphine Marie-Vivien, Aurélie Carimentrand, Stéphane Fournier et al

In: British Food Journal, 2019, vol. 121, n°12, pp. 2995-3010

 

  Delphine Marie-Vivien and Estelle Bienabe

In: World Development (2018) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.035

Geographical indications (GIs) serve to designate goods with a quality, characteristics, or reputation attributed to its geographical origin. They are increasingly protected in many countries of the South as a tool for economic, social, territorial, and ecological development. Implemented in the wake of the weakly prescriptive WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) of 1995, the choice of the institutional framework for protecting GIs nationally as well as associated public support infrastructure was left open. This led to divergences in overarching approaches and to GI institutionalization that differs remarkably across countries. Twenty years after TRIPs, the purpose of both this paper and of the special issue is to advance our understanding of the institutionalization of GIs, as an IPR, a quality standard, and a policy instrument in harnessing all of the expected benefits of GI protection. Building upon the contributions to this special issue, we use an original multilevel governance framework to analyze all the multifaceted roles of the state, in different empirical situations worldwide. This reflects the experiences of countries that have only recently implemented GI protection, such as Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Africa, Kenya, and West African countries, as well as of regions with a long history of GI protection, including the EU and the US. Based on an analysis of the complexity and diversity of all state, we show that global harmonization is underway with a convergence toward a prominent role of the state in GI regulation, in particular for defining GI content, which is specific for GIs when compared to other IPRs or quality standards. We suggest that the intervention of the state is supported by a universal desire to guard against unfair exclusion, and to protect a common heritage.

Delphine Marie-Vivien, Laurence Bérard, Jean-Pierre Boutonnet, François Casabianca 

In: World Development (2018) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.01.001

Geographical indications in France are governed since 1935 by a unique mixed public/private Institute set-up on the failure of the State to define GIs. This mixed body, the National Institute of Appellation of Origin, composed of representatives of public authorities and producers’ Organization was weakened due to a moving context in France, Europe, and worldwide. The transfer of activities of control of GIs to private certification organization on the one end and the increased involvement of the EU Commission on the other end questions the future of INAO and affects the attractiveness of GIs and hence rural development.

 

 Delphine Marie-Vivien and Isabelle Vagneron

In: World Food Policy • Vol. 3, No. 2 / Vol. 4, No. 1 • Fall 2016 / Spring 2017

Geographical indications (GIs)—i.e. indications identifying goods originating in a specific place and having quality, characteristics, and reputation attributable to their geographical origin—are developing fast in the Southeast Asian food sector, with a wide range of new products such as Khao Hom Mali and Thung Kula Rong-Hai (fragrant rice), Kampot pepper, or Nuoc Mam Phu Quoc (fish sauce). After concentrating their efforts on registering GIs (to protect the name against counterfeit), GI promoters needed to decide how to control product compliance with GI specifications for specific quality. This paper analyzes the control and certification procedures for GIs in four Southeast Asian countries—Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos—and the challenges faced in building an efficient yet appropriate system of controls in these countries. Influenced by the “gold standard” of certification in place of organic agriculture, finding appropriate GI control systems is one of the dilemmas faced by these countries. The article discusses the main differences between GIs and other agricultural standards—specifications that are unique to each GI, endogenous, and based on local production practices—and the consequences in terms of certification. Indeed, in the case of GIs, other options than private third-party certification could better ensure that GI rules are followed, which may rely on the knowledge producers and connoisseurs have of the product.

 

  Delphine Marie-Vivien, Claude Garcia, Kushalappa, C. G., & Philippe Vaast  

In: Development Policy Review (2014), 32(4), 379–398. doi: 10.1111/dpr.12060

The  district  of  Kodagu,  also  called  Coorg,  in  the  Western  Ghats  of  India produces 2% of the world’s coffee, the expansion and intensification of which have  reduced  the  forest  cover  by  more  than  30%  in  20  years.  Innovative actions  are  therefore  urgently  required  to  link  economic  development  and biodiversity  conservation,  and  stakeholders  are  exploring  three  strategies  to add  value  to  coffee  from  Coorg  and  prevent  further  biodiversity  erosion: registration  of  trademarks;  geographical  indications;  and  environmental certification,  via  eco-labels.  This  article  analyses  their  respective  strengths and weaknesses and discusses the synergies between them.  

  

  Delphine Marie-Vivien 

In: WIPO Journal (2013). 

Many countries protect their traditional local products, particularly handicrafts, under the World Trade Organization's TRIPS agreement. However, such goods are not protected within the european Union, unlike agricultural and food products, which increases the risks of fakes. A historical analysis of protection in Europe and practices in Europe and India shows that treating different products differently is not warranted. Hence the proposal of creating an international legal framework centring on the strength of the link to the origin, which would be assessed based on natural and human factors. 

  Delphine Marie-Vivien
 
In: Editions Quae, Juin 2012, 217 p. http://www.quae.com/fr/r1464-la-protection-des-indications-geographiques.html
 

Depuis la signature de l'Accord sur les aspects de droit de propriété intellectuelle touchant au commerce (ADPIC), les membres de I'OMC doivent protéger les indications géographiques qui identifient un produit dont la qualité, la réputation  ou toute autre caractéristique peuvent être attribuées àson origine géographique. Ainsi en est-il des indications Champagne, Roquefort, café de Colombie, Darjeeling, Basmati ou encore Pashmina du Cachemire. Or l'Inde, pays émergent à l'histoire millénaire a adopté un cadre juridique pour la protection des indications géographiques qui éclaire d'un jour nouveau le concept de lien entre un produit et son origine, formalisé en France au début du 20ème siècle avec l'appellation d'origine, puis homogénéisé au niveau européen en 1992. A travers une analyse comparée, cet ouvrage montre comment l'Inde protège ses produits artisanaux en réponse aux menaces de la mondialisation. L'expérience indienne questionne le droit français et européen quant à l'existence d'un lien à l'origine par les seuls savoir-faire traditionnels, en l'absence d'influence de la nature. Par ailleurs, le rôle omniprésent de l'Etat en Inde, notamment en tant que déposant-propriétaire d'IG contraste avec le retrait de l'intervention des pouvoirs publics en France. Ceci interroge la nature juridique de l'IG. L'auteur propose de qualifier l'IG de droit d'usage, plus précisemment de droit d'usage d'une chose commune, rejetant le concept de propriété.

 


  Delphine Marie-Vivien

In : The journal of world intellectual property - (2010) vol.13: n°2 

Geographical indications (GIs) are remarkably different from other instruments of intellectual property rights (IPRs). Their acreage to the local provides an original scheme of governance. Contrary to other IPRs, GIs have only been homogenized in a very small way in the international legal framework. The issue is whether GIs are implemented as any other IPR, due to their collective and public dimensions. In particular, what is the role conferred to the state in the protection of GIs? The French legal framework, which largely influenced the European legal framework, is based on long traditions of protection of the appellations of origin and GIs where the role of the state has been declining, in order to give more responsibilities to the producer groups. The control task has been transferred from the state to the certification bodies to increase the guarantee of quality. The Indian experience, a post- TRIPS Agreement (the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) example, shows a state and its agencies which are very active in the process of filing GI applications, including being themselves the applicant and eventually the proprietor. This might be justified by the lack of strong producer organization. These different roles of the state between France/Europe and India give a new understanding of the legal nature of GIs.