Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Dispute Resolution for Geographical Indications: A New Frontier in Intellectual Property Governance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26422/RIPI.2025.2300.varKeywords:
geographical indications, artificial intelligence, alternative dispute resolution, intellectual property, regulatory councils, digital governance, legal innovationAbstract
Geographical indications, as cultural and economic assets, face a growing volume of disputes that traditional litigation methods fail to manage efficiently. This article proposes an innovative solution to this issue through the proposal of an alternative dispute resolution model enhanced by artificial intelligence. Employing a documentary analysis methodology, which includes the review of international treaties and academic literature from databases such as Scopus and HeinOnline, the necessity and viability of the proposed system are substantiated. The results identify four recurrent types of conflicts—unauthorized use of the name, misleading imitation, internal conflicts, and labeling disputes—and detail how an AI-powered alternative dispute resolution model for geographical indications can automate their detection and preliminary analysis. The model operates in phases, combining a technical-legal analysis by artificial intelligence with indispensable human-in-the-loop oversight to ensure fairness and due process. It is concluded that an AI-powered alternative dispute resolution model can become an effective tool that modernizes the protection of intellectual property, enabling Regulatory Councils to shift from reactive to proactive management, thereby optimizing resources and strengthening the integrity of geographical indications in the global market.
Downloads
References
Beresford, L. (2007). Geographical Indications: The Current Landscape. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 17(4), 979-997. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol17/iss4/3/
Cañellas, A. M. (2023). Los Consejos Reguladores como autoridad de control de las indicaciones geográficas protegidas. La Ley Mercantil, 103 (junio). https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=9000313
Caserta, S. y Rask Madsen, M. (2019). The legal profession in the era of digital capitalism: Disruption or new dawn. Laws, 8(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws8010001
Chávez Zárate, V. (2021). Ponderación de la eficiencia y eficacia de la solución de conflictos por nombres de dominio .MX en las vías alternativa y contencioso-administrativa. Revista Iberoamericana de la Propiedad Intelectual, (14), 7-40. https://doi.org/10.26422/RIPI.2021.1400.cha
Cook, T. (2010). EU Intellectual Property Law. Oxford University Press.
Córdova Mendoza, K. T., Ochoa Espinoza, A. M. y Durán Ocampo, A. R. (2019). Algunas consideraciones sobre la mediación y arbitraje. Revista Universidad y Sociedad, 11(4), 287-295. https://rus.ucf.edu.cu/index.php/rus/article/view/1304
Cremona, M. (2010). The Single Market as a Global Export Brand: Exporting the Single Market. European Business Law Review, 21, 663-680. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/EULR2010033
Daele, K. (2004). Regulation 1383/2003: A New Step in the Fight against Counterfeit and Pirated Goods at the Borders of the European Union. European Intellectual Property Review, 5, 214-232. https://library.opi.gr/en/articles/foreign-articles/daele-k-2004-european-intellectual-property-review-26-2004-5-p-214/
De la Torre Olid, F. (2023). Tratamiento conjunto y concordado de la propiedad intelectual e industrial. Mecanismos de protección para su mayor significación y proyección práctica. CEFLegal. Revista Práctica de Derecho, 272, 25-60. https://doi.org/10.51302/ceflegal.2023.19009
Deere, C. (2008). The Implementation Game: The TRIPS Agreement and the Global Politics of Intellectual Property Reform in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press.
Deere, C. (2009). EU Intellectual Property Law and Policy. Elgar European Law.
Fisher, R. y Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Gayo, S. (2022). The use of mediation as an alternative dispute resolution in the resolution of intellectual property rights disputes. International Journal of Asian Law, Business and Money Laundering, 1(2), 101-106. https://iaml.or.id/index.php/home/article/view/18
Geuze, M. (2009). The Provisions on Geographical Indications in the TRIPS Agreement. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, (52). https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/48792?v=pdf
Goebel, B. y Gröschl, M. (2014). The long road to resolving conflicts between trademarks and geographical indications. The Trademark Reporter, 104(3), 829-868.
Heath, C. (2010). Customs Seizures, Transit and Trade. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, (881), 1-28.
Hensler, D. R. (2003). Our courts, ourselves: How the alternative dispute resolution movement is re-shaping our legal system. Penn State Law Review, 108, 349-382. https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlr/vol122/iss1/28/
Lari-Williams, S., Rutten, S. y Van Zimmeren, E. (2024). Enhancing the IP system through dispute system design. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 19(4), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf005
Lewis, D. (2021). The adoption of international arbitration as the preferred ADR process in the resolution of international intellectual property disputes. Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 26(5), 41-62. https://reference-global.com/article/10.15290/bsp.2021.26.05.03
Magaña Rufino, J. M. y Sandoval, A. (2023). Centro de arbitraje y mediación de la OMPI. Revista Iberoamericana de la Propiedad Intelectual, (19), 63-94. https://doi.org/10.26422/RIPI.2023.1900.mag
Margono, S. (2000). Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and arbitration: Institutional process and legal aspects. PT. Ghalia Indonesia.
Margono, S. (2023). The role and challenge of the IP (intellectual property) attorneys in valuation of IP asset portfolios as collateral. Russian Law Journal, 11(6), 146-166. https://www.russianlawjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/3328
Matthews, D. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty, Trade Agreements and the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. European Intellectual Property Review, 32(3), 104. https://tind.wipo.int/record/25923?ln=en
Morán García, M. E. (2023). Mecanismos combinados de mediación y arbitraje en la resolución de controversias relativas a operaciones comerciales transfronterizas. Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales, (46), 195-216. https://doi.org/10.36151/reei.46.06
Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual. (1883). Convenio de París para la Protección de la Propiedad Industrial. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/es/text/288515
Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual. (1958). Arreglo de Lisboa relativo a la Protección de las Denominaciones de Origen y su Registro Internacional. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/es/text/285840
Organización Mundial del Comercio. (1994). Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio. https://www.wto.org/spanish/docs_s/legal_s/27-trips_01_s.htm
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico. (2008). The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy. OECD Publishing.
Rabinovich-Einy, O. y Katsh, E. (2014). Digital justice: Reshaping boundaries in an online dispute resolution environment. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 1(1), 5-36. https://law.haifa.ac.il/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Digital_Justice_Reshaping_Boundaries_in_an_Online_Dispute_Resolution_Environment.pdf
Rajagukguk, E. (2000). Arbitration in court decision. Chandra Pratama.
Raustiala, K. y Munzer, S. R. (2007). The Global Struggle over Geographical Indications. European Journal of International Law, 18(2), 338-365. https://www.ejil.org/article.php?article=227&issue=7
Sell, K. (2003). Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights. Cambridge Studies in International Relations.
Seville, C. (2009). Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. Edward Elgar.
Ury, W., Brett, J. M. y Goldberg, S. (1993). Getting dispute resolved. Pan Books.
Vallespín Pérez, D. (2022). Mediación mercantil y eficiencia procesal. Bosch.
Viju, C., Yeung, M. T. y Kerr, W. A. (2013). Geographical indications, conflicted preferential agreements, and market access. Journal of International Economic Law, 16(2), 409-437. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgt013
Viju, C., Yeung, M. y Kerr, W. (2012). Geographical Indications: Barriers to Market Access and Preferential Trade Agreements (CATPRN Trade Policy Brief). https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/122743?v=pdf
Vivas-Egui, D. y Oliva, J. (2010). The WTO Dispute on Trademarks and Geographical Indications: Some Implications for Trade Policymaking and Negotiations. En Correa, C. M. (Ed.), Research Handbook on the Interpretation and Enforcement of Intellectual Property under WTO Rules, Intellectual Property in the WTO Volume II (pp. 123-151). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Yu, P. K. (2009). The Objectives and Principles of the TRIPS Agreement. Houston Law Review, 46, 997-1046. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/457/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Iván Vargas-Chaves
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This license allows the copy, distribution, exhibition and representation of the work provided authorship is acknowledged and the work is properly quoted. Commercial use of the original work or the generation of derived works are not allowed.
The authors hereby guarantee the right to the first publication of the work to the Revista Iberoamericana de la Propiedad Intelectual.
