Promoting African Traditional Textiles through Collaborative IP Models

PROMOTING TRADITIONAL TEXTILES FROM WEST AFRICAN
RURAL COMMUNTIES THROUGH COMMUNAL
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MODELS
6th
Annual AIE Conference, University of Oxford, 29-30 August, 2013
Helen Chuma-Okoro
Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS)
Open A.I.R Fellow, University of Cape Town

Exploring the role of intellectual property in open development. www.openair.org.za
 Introduction
 Profile of Traditional Textiles
 Traditional Textiles and IPRs
 The Ethiopian Initiative
 Applying the Lessons
 Recommendation/conclude
Outline

Exploring the role of intellectual property in open development. www.openair.org.za3COMPANY
Bogonlafini/mudcloth
Adire/Tie and Dye
Kente
Adinkra
Asioke
Dogon cloth
Indigo cloth
Country cloth

Exploring the role of intellectual property in open development. www.openair.org.za4
Competition/threats from
imitation/machine made
products
Challenges of small size
in the global market
arena/meeting standards
Prevent misappropriation
•Secure intangible value
•Secure income for
producers
•Preserve the knowledge
Long standing
High end/niche market
Machine made

Traditional Textiles
•Classified as TCEs
•Communal ownership,
intergenerational
transmission, etc.
•Not adequately covered
by conventional IPRs
IPRs
•Rewards
inventiveness/creativity.
•Some reward reputation
(e.g. trademarks)
•Individual ownership,
limited term of ownership,
originality, novelty, fixation.
II. Traditional Textiles and IPRS

 Provide market presence
 Secure intangible value of the product in the market
 Source identifier and identifies imitations
 But requires effective management by way of
marketing and brand promotion/management)
Traditional textiles and trademarks

Why communal/collaborative models?
 Competing individually endangers traditional methods and designs in
favour of modern and sophisticated models
 Market strategies; allow collaboration that provides synergies to
overcome small size, disjointed value chain and helps proper integration
into global market
 Used widely to address challenges of small size in the global market
 Help build group reputation which consumers find appealing
 Serve the same function as trademarks by serving as product identifiers
 Overcome the conceptual incompatibility of traditional textiles with
conventional IP norms. In harmony with communal nature of traditional
textiles

Communal trademarks

Criteria for selection/analytical
Framework
•Novelty of initiative
•Similarity of the problems
•Case analysed for problem,
unique solution, objectives of
model, result, enabling factors
and lessons
III. Case Study: Ethiopian Fine Coffee Initiative
and Panamanian

• Problem: Misappropriation, low price, farmers abandoning
coffee cultivation threatening coffee export and environmental
concerns
• Unique Solution: Trademark with royalty free licensing tied to
obligation to market to achieve the objectives
• Objective: delink coffee price from commodity market; improve
farmer’s income; secure brand/prevent misappropriation
capture intangible value for farmer’s benefit
Ethiopia’s Fine Coffee Initiative

• Trademarked three of the world’s finest coffee brands
• First to trademark specialty coffee and license distributors in order to take
control of the distribution markets
• Over 98 licensing agreements have been concluded with local and
international coffee dealers
• Licensing model allows all involved in the value chain to benefit from
coffee trade
• Create a network of licensed distributors who were committed to
promoting the registered brands to their customers in the specialty coffee
market
• Collective engagement provided solution to a typical small size problem in
the global market with regards to branding and marketing (placed cost of
branding on international coffee dealers)
• Improved and stabilised price of fine coffee guaranteeing more revenue to
farmers
• Farmers are more committed to ensuring quality and traditional organic
methods of cultivation
Results

• Exemplifies benefits of cooperation and collaboration
of all stakeholders (government and industry level).
• Importance of donor support
• Full support from the government
• Rigorous pre and post registration enlightenment
campaign. Post registration such as setting up of
designated institutions and organisations to manage
licenses
• Strong cooperative system for farmers and marketers.
Lessons/Enabling Factors

 Unique quality of Pochampally Ikat based on
high quality of materials used, hand woven
method of production and designs
Problem: survival of products threatened by
imitations and machine made products
Objective: Secure the intangible value of the
products/ greater benefits to the producers;
brand ‘Pochampally Ikat’
Solution
• Registration of Pochampally Ikat GI
• Broad definition of GIs under the GIs Act
India’s GI: Pochamally Ikat

• Not as successful as Ethiopia
• Challenges attributed to post registration weaknesses
• No single foreign registration has been achieved
• Initiatives to enforce locally have been embarked
upon
• Like Ethiopia’s case, publicity during registration
helped to boost sales
• Promotion of the GI created awareness of IP
protection as a marketing strategy
• Motivated some producers to register personal
trademarks used alongside Pochampally Ikat
Outcome

• Presents +ve and –ve lessons
• Government plays a key role in driving the initiative
• Top down approach (initiatives driven by government)
• A protected name or GI is a source of pride to the
beneficiaries
• Exemplifies strategic use of IPR to derive greatest
benefit
• Importance of post-registration plan in enforcement,
marketing/brand promotion and monitoring
• Enactment of a GIs law and definition of GI is key to
allow broad category of products
Lessons

Unique to the Kuna Community. Uniquely combined
conventional IPRs in copyright with customary law to protect and
secure the survival of a long standing unique craft
Problem: Imitation mola art flooding local and
international market
Attempts to register the mola as some kind of trademarks
by different entities
Objective: to protect and preserve the mola as TCEs and
indigenous knowledge, appropriate its intangible value,
secure income for the kuna community
There was need for a system to address the different
interests: mola has economic, cultural, historical and political
significance in Kuna
Conventional trademarks would only protect the
association entity registering it and for commercial purposes
only
•Sui generis model (Law No 20) was the answer
Panamanian Mola Panama: Law No 20 Sui Generis Model

• protected the collective rights of the indigenous community to their indigenous
cultural knowledge by allowing collective ownership and registration of tradition-
based works of expression as a form of collective rights
• allows the registration of collective rights over indigenous cultural expressions as a
form of copyright under which the Kuna community registered a collective right
over the Kuna
• promote and commercialise indigenous knowledge as guarantee social justice to
the owners
• Ensure intergenerational transmission and preservation by mandated teaching of
IK to the public and inclusion in school curricula as a responsibility of the state
• The mark serves as a trademark and a symbol of authenticity
• The law has been described as ‘the first comprehensive system of protection for
TK ever adopted in the world’ [By combining copyright principles and customary
law, it provided a sui generis system that addressed the different interests in
protecting mola.
• circumvented the limited time duration of copyright by granting a perpetual right.
• Unlike other models, it secured the mola as a brand and also the technique as a
form of technology thus circumventing limitations of core copyright which did not
secure technology
Outcome

• It does not provide for derivative works which leaves a gap in
that area
• No clear distinction between commercial entitlement and
cultural heritage to determine at what point a particular
knowledge seizes to be cultural heritage and becomes
entitled to commodification.
• Moreover, indigenes have not exhibited much eagerness in
registering any collective right as such
• Favours mostly the Kuna people and against the interests of
other indigenous communities
• These regardless, the law was a great achievement to kuna
in the use of IPRs to own their TK in mola as a brand, as their
indigenous innovation and as a source of livelihood
Weaknesses

Cases show that the following are relevant
•Relevant law, relevant institutions (government
and industry)
•Unique quality and fairly well known
•Potential to create niche and/or high end
regional and global market
•Problems: refer back to above
•Objectives (already noted – note ahead)
Applying the Lessons

Cases show that the following are relevant
•Relevant law, relevant institutions (government
and industry)
•Unique quality and fairly well known
•Potential to create niche and/or high end
regional and global market
Applying the Lessons

Nigeria Ghana Senegal Mali
All IPRs Protects trademarks
but not all
communal marks
Protects
trademarks but
not all
communal
marks
OAPI OAPI
Collective M No yes Yes yes
Certification M yes No Yes yes
GIs Not provided in
Trademarks Act or
Sui Generis System
Not in
Trademarks Act
but has Sui
Generis system
Yes yes
Policy Weak Weak National policy
identifies
traditional
textiles as area
for growth
weak
Reg.
Institutions
Weak/lack of
awareness
Weak/lack of
awareness
Weak weak
Ind. level fairly adequate Fairly adequate Fairly adequate Fairly adequate
Overview of the Legal, Institutional & Policy Framework

Certification marks
Has good potential in Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal where
producers operate in clusters
Authentication and certification already familiar concepts
among fashion and textiles designers
Collective marks
As TCEs, traditional textiles would not fit into the closed-shop
framework
GIs
Would not work in Nigeria where law is absent. Requires
national protection
Sui Generis
Sui generis model long term solution
What Models to adopted?

• Legal reform necessary in countries where all models
are not protected
• Modern tech should be adopted to improve quality
without diluting the traditional essence
• Involvement of all stakeholders (role of designers
important)
• Dynamic and living nature of culture should be
considered (not all changes are harmful)
• Proactive measures required (Panamanian Example)
• Proposal for communal model must capture interest
of targeted funders
Recommendations

Communal trademarks have potential to facilitate the branding of traditional textiles
for the benefit of the producers. While no definite model can be recommended for
any of the countries on the basis of the findings of this paper, there is sufficient basis
to encourage the West African countries to begin to seriously consider adopting
communal models if they are to preserve the knowledge of their traditional textiles .
Conclusion

THANK YOU
The Collaborative Dynamics of Innovation and Intellectual Property in Africa(Cape Town: University of Cape
Town Press, forthcoming 2013) will be launched at our Open AIR conference the week of December 9, 2013.

Promoting African Traditional Textiles through Collaborative IP Models

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Promoting African Traditional Textiles through Collaborative IP Models

Promoting African Traditional Textiles through Collaborative IP Models