CULTURAL APPROPRIATION AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION

CULTURAL APPROPRIATION AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION

A retired Filipino businessman, Mr. Art Pacho, emailed me recently from Los Angeles. While shopping at Costco—yes, that giant American supermarket chain—he stumbled upon something that made him pause. On the shelf was a coconut drink brand boldly named “COPRA.” At first glance, that might not raise eyebrows. But here’s the kicker: the name has been trademarked in the United States by a Thai company.

Now, for us Filipinos, copra is not a brand. It is a generic word, a part of our agricultural vocabulary. Copra is simply dried coconut meat, the backbone of our coconut oil industry. To trademark it is like claiming ownership of rice, sugarcane, or corn. And yet, there it was— “COPRA”—not as a product descriptor, but as someone’s exclusive intellectual property.

Mr. Pacho likens this to how a Japanese company once trademarked “Ylang-Ylang.” Imagine that—a flower native to our soil, long part of our culture and perfumery, now tied up in legal branding far away from its roots. Understandably, he sees this as a form of cultural appropriation. And he asks: what’s next? Will words like tuba, basi, or tapuy—all traditional Filipino drinks—also be taken from us unless we act?

He may be on to something. In fact, he is now exploring how Filipinos themselves could patent or protect these terms. Personally, I think “patent” may not be the right path. What comes to mind instead is the concept of geographical indication (GI).

Consider Mexico’s example: “Tequila.” Since 1974, it has been protected by a formal GI declaration. Only spirits made from blue agave in specific regions of Mexico can legally be called tequila. The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property oversees this, while the Consejo Regulador del Tequila certifies compliance. This way, Tequila is not just a drink—it is a cultural treasure guarded by law.

Why can’t we do the same for tuba, basi, tapuy, or even lambanog and laksoy? These are not mere beverages; they are vessels of heritage. Each has a story: tuba from coconut or nipa sap, basi from sugarcane in Ilocos, tapuy as Cordilleran rice wine tied to rituals, lambanog from Quezon’s coconut plantations, and laksoy from the nipa palm traditions of Butuan. These drinks embody identity, history, and craftsmanship.

Trademark protection and geographical indication are, to me, the twin shields against cultural appropriation. One protects brands, the other protects traditions tied to place and method. If Mexico could marshal its bureaucratic will to safeguard tequila, surely the Philippines can do the same. But here lies the question: will our government act?

I think the responsibility should not fall only on IPOPHIL, our Intellectual Property Office. Yes, they must lead, but this is bigger than just technical filings. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) should join in, because legal expertise is crucial. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) must have a say, since many of these products are tied to indigenous knowledge. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the National Museum, even the NCAA—all have roles to play. Protecting cultural assets is not just about law; it is about heritage, economics, and pride.

There’s also the unfinished business of safeguarding our weaving traditions and artisanal crafts. From the Inabel of Ilocos to the T’nalak of Mindanao, we are sitting on treasures vulnerable to the same fate as “copra.” But that’s another conversation.

For now, let’s stay with what Mr. Pacho has put on the table. His Costco discovery should be a wake-up call. If we don’t act now, foreign entities will continue scooping up pieces of our identity and selling them back to us in shiny packaging.

So, I ask: should “tuba” be protected by GI, the way “Champagne” is in France? Should “basi” carry legal weight like “Scotch whisky”? Should “tapuy” be guarded as carefully as “Tequila”? My answer is yes, yes, and yes.

But it will take political will, legal creativity, and cultural pride. This conversation is just beginning, and it must be sustained. Let IPOPHIL, IBP, NCIP, DTI, NCAA, and the National Museum join the circle. Let communities and cooperatives lend their voices. And let us Filipinos, ordinary consumers included, remain vigilant.

Because if we don’t guard our cultural vocabulary, someone else will trademark it—and sell it to us at Costco.

So, tell me—did I miss anyone who should be part of this conversation?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

11-05-2025