Bibliography

The CARIFORUM Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation project (CarIPI), has published a manual on regional geographical indications (GI), intended as a comprehensive guide for producers or producer groups, control bodies and IP offices. The manual outlines the necessary steps, requirements and outcomes associated with GI protection.

Since 2021, CarIPI has been working on the development of this GI manual through several consultation meetings with stakeholders, IP offices, interested parties and IP experts. The final version of the manual reflects the culmination of this collaborative effort and provides insights into the development and implementation of codes of practice and controls, as well as the registration process of geographical indications in the CARIFORUM region.

The 219-page manual covers key topics, starting with a general overview of what GIs are, highlighting their importance and the potential impact they can have in their respective regions of production. It goes on to cover key aspects such as GI eligibility, the content of GI applications, registration procedures, the day-to-day management of GIs, and the protection and enforcement of GI rights.

The final chapters of the manual are specifically tailored for IP examiners and control bodies, providing them with a detailed overview of the application process and GI control procedures, equipping them with the necessary tools to effectively manage and protect GIs in the CARIFORUM region.

The Interreg Sudoe AGROSMARTglobal project has identified the need to strengthen the protection of agricultural and agri-food products with Geographical Indications (GIs) on the Internet.

GIs play an important role in terms of exports for EU countries and are particularly affected by counterfeiting and cybersquatting because of their reputation and attractiveness, which are attracting growing interest from third parties.

Thus, professionals who are legitimate holders of geographical indications must develop a comprehensive, prudent and exhaustive defence strategy, in order to take advantage of the undeniable benefits of an Internet presence, while minimising the risks of infringements, which are often complex to contain.

It is in this context that AREPO has decided to draw up a practical guide for GI producer groups and their members, aimed at providing them with deciphered and clarified information on the functioning of the Internet in terms of intellectual property law and to present the concrete steps to be taken to effectively protect their GI from infringement on the Internet.

The guide focuses more particularly on the procedures applicable to France, with highlights on the specific cases of Spain and Portugal. It is nevertheless relevant for all producer groups in the EU, given the similarities in the approaches and procedures of European countries in this area.

Correspondence: Anne CLERMONTELLE, eu-projects@arepoquality.eu

In recent years, the European Union (EU) GI systems for agricultural products, foodstuffs, wines and spirit drinks have become increasingly popular: on 27 October 2020, the eAmbrosia database totalled no less than 3300 designations of origin or geographical indications registered under four different regulations and 197 pending applications.
The legal framework secures producers’ rights and their products’ value-added. It affords broad protection to PDOs/PGIs registered at EU level, not only against direct or indirect uses but also against evocations, with the aim of combatting misleading and deceptive practices and preventing traders from taking unfair advantage of the protected names’ reputation. This article examines the jurisprudence of the EU’s General Court and Court of Justice related to the protection of registered designations against evocation, and highlights the open issues that remain to be addressed to clarify the legal arsenal and tighten the protection scheme.

The EU free trade agreements have become the single most influential force shaping the Geographical Indication landscape today. While their critics may see GIs as an unwelcome ‘Trojan horse’ to be let in in exchange for access to the European market, this legal figure has the potential of becoming greatly beneficial for developing countries.
It looks in particular at Costa Rica before and after the signature of the EU–Central American Association Agreement of 2012. We examine the practicalities of its implementation on the ground and its impact on the local industry of cheese ‘generics’. It also explores its potential effect on the coffee industry and assess how a developing country of modest size like Costa Rica can embrace this foreign legal transplant and use it to its advantage.

This article focuses on the development and expanded importance placed by the European Union and its trading partners on Geographical Indications. As a result of this importance, and the related inclusion as a competent of international trade, this article seeks to assess how the European Union has included ever-higher levels of protection to Geographical Indications within its trade agenda. The article further addresses how the European Union wields the competence to act in this field but also how this is balanced against the related human rights concerns which may be at risk as a result of this increased level of protection. This article offers some guidance for future development in the area, as the European Union is currently engaged in a number of similar agreements at the global stage, in which is it ever more becoming the dominant player.

This article discusses the current position in Australia regarding the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) at both the national and international level. It explains the current difference in the protection offered at the national level to Australian regional names used on wine labels vis-à-vis on food labels. It explains that, at the national level, Australia has had a dedicated wine GI framework since 1994 that regulates the usage of regional names on wines labels, in the form of GIs. However, up until now, Australia has relied on consumer protection, trade mark and passing off laws to protect the value that exists in regional names that are used on food labels to make an origin claim. Furthermore, this article explains that, at an international level, Australia complies with its international obligations to provide a protection mechanism for GIs by protecting international GIs for wines or grape products pursuant to its dedicated wine GI framework, while protecting international GIs for all other products as certification trade marks (CTMs).
This article discusses that there is a strong case for the implementation of a dedicated food GI framework in Australia at the national level and this is particularly given the current negotiations between Australia and the EU in relation to the Australia–European Union Free Trade Agreement (A-EUFTA).

Country names are incomparable value creators, synonymous with a State’s national competitive identity, and deserve sui generis protection. Three broad approaches to amplifying protection of country names against misuse and free riding in international commerce have emerged. First, the ‘Swissness’ model, which is a national statutory framework for the protection of the appellation ‘Swiss’. It is characterized by co-branding regulations,¹ and supplementing intellectual property (IP) protection with diplomacy through bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements.
Secondly, French jurisprudence affirmed—in France Atout v France.com—that the appellation ‘France’ constitutes for the French government a reference to its economic, geographic, historic, political and cultural identity, and is understood by the public as signifying goods and services made in France. Thirdly, the multilateral approach, whereby the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) mechanism is being used to sift through divergent views of member states on protection of country names and coalesce recommendations into a norm setting instrument, has made some incremental cede way. The critical question that continues to provoke debate is whether member states should adopt an instrument modifying international IP policy to embrace increased IP protection of country names in keeping with the vicissitudes of modern global trade. The article highlights the recommendations made by the international community on this issue. A new IP classification, ‘country name designation’, is considered to encompass the extended function of country names as well as the author’s proposal for the creation of a sui generis multilateral IP framework. Exceptions and limitation to the scope of protection are also explored.

This article critically analyses the recent reform of the Russian Geographical Indications (GI) Law which came into force on 27 July 2020. This has deeply transformed the sui generis system of the country, in an effort to introduce a regime inspired by the EU experience as well as by the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement. On the basis of the best available legal and economic sources, the article investigates this legal framework from two perspectives. First, the new provisions of this law are critically assessed. Next, the article discusses whether and to what extent this reform can achieve the ambitious goals that it has set itself. It will be concluded that, first, although this is an interesting attempt to introduce an improved GI system that will probably fix some of the previous dysfunctions, this is still incomplete and distant from the international best practices. Secondly, the analysis will lead to the conclusion that the policy goals of the reform will be difficult to achieve at least in the short term. This article represents the first scholarly analysis of the new Russian sui generis GI regime, thus filling a gap in international academic literature.

This article addresses how much Turkish law on infringement of Geographical Indications (GIs) is in alignment with the EU law.
It is divided into two broad parts. While the first part will portray the types of GIs that exist in Turkey, the second part will explore the grounds for infringement of a GI in the light of case law.

Geographic Indications (GIs) are an internationally recognised form of protection for goods based on their quality or reputation and a fairly recent instrument in Brazilian law. In this context, there is an ongoing discussion in academia regarding the relevance of GIs as a tool to promote the sustainable development of territories. This debate considers that there is a strong connection between a good’s reputation and quality and its traditional and sustainable production practices. This research aims to understand how Brazilian GI regulation of agricultural products protects and encompasses socio-environmental sustainability dimensions, discussing the main gaps and opportunities thereof. For that, from an interdisciplinary perspective, this study provides a small-N qualitative content analysis of 30 Brazilian GIs, identifying their socio-environmental provisions, and debating whether GIs can become a mechanism for greater environmental protection in Brazil.

At a Diplomatic Conference in May 2015, the Special Union of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin amended the Lisbon Agreement which sees the subject matter and scope of protection extending beyond appellations of origin to include geographical indications. The amendment, the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications opens the pathway for international registration of geographical indications, which previously never existed under the Lisbon Agreement and which failed to materialise under the TRIPS Agreement. This article examines key provisions of the Geneva Act that could make it attractive to African countries. It explores the state of GIs on the continent and the interest in GIs as an avenue for rural development as reinforced by the African Union Continental Strategy for GIs. It makes a case for the Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI) to consider joining the Geneva Act and seek the international registration of Oku White Honey from Cameroon as one of the first GIs in the region.

This article explores the possibility that geographical indications (GIs) may enhance value addition for avocados grown in Kenya. It concludes that factors that are attendant to the registration of GIs in Kenya provide a basis upon which the commercial value of avocados grown in Kenya can be enhanced.

This article analyzes the current laws, regulations and legal doctrines applicable to the registration of geographical indications in Indonesia. Notably, this contribution considers the complications in implementing the protection for geographical indications for non-agricultural products in Indonesia following the adoption of the Minister of Justice and Human Rights Regulation (MJHR) 2019. Non-agricultural products have a strong link with local cultural factors but, in some instances, a weaker link with natural factors. This makes them difficult to be registered as geographical indications under the current language and requirements of MJHR 2019. This article uses primary and secondary sources as well as semi-guided and in-depth interviews to make its conclusions and recommendations. In particular, the article proves the current text of Regulation 2019 is in contradiction with the trade mark and geographical indications law of 2016 as well as the previous regulation of 2007. Accordingly, it suggests that the current requirements of MJHR Reg. 2019 be harmonized.

Increasing threats to Ghana’s kente textile have intensified the need for its urgent defensive intellectual property (IP) protection. While Ghana’s Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690) protects the kente styles and designs from being copied, it can neither address the problem of third parties producing kente imitations for sale nor the cultural misappropriation of Ghana’s textile tradition. Additionally, the world’s largest free trade agreement, the comprehensive African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA), has the potential to further damage Ghana’s kente trade where it has no extensive IP protection. This article makes a case for why Geographical Indication (GI) protection should be an important part of a comprehensive IP strategy to protect Ghana’s kente. From a global perspective, the African Union (AU) and European Union (EU) agreed to enhance cooperation through a commitment to an AU-EU Continental strategy for Geographical Indications in Africa with an action plan to improve Africa’s GI systems. Notably, the action plan identifies Ghana’s kente as having GI potential. This article argues that supportive pan-African, regional and national GI policies are needed to link people, places and products, and calls for the enforcement of Ghana’s Geographical Indications Act to preserve Ghana’s traditional kente from wider misappropriation.

Recently the European Commission has launched two road maps affecting geographical indications (GIs) regulations from two different perspectives: one regarding a revision of agricultural products, wine and spirits regulations and another regarding intellectual property. In this second plan, special attention will be paid to upgrading the system for IP protection, by exploring ways to strengthen the protection system for GIs of agricultural products and considering the introduction of an EU protection system for non-agricultural GIs. This article aims to explore the principal challenges of reforming the GI legal regime, and the opportunity to establish core common principles for those rights by considering the unitary legal nature of GIs as an intellectual property right while analysing and preserving differences within each sector. The article shows the value of analysing GIs as an intellectual property right in a coordinated way, as an essential element of the EU Action Plan addressed to upgrade the EU IP system to facilitate the digital and green transition. The study analyses EU GIs case law, in comparison with other jurisdictions such as Spain.

This article looks into wine as a credence product, whose bond of trust is vested in the concept of terroir as a signal to the consumer that the wine she or he is buying originates from a specific location and is made in specific circumstances. The main question of the present analysis is what the legal consequences are when such terroir is shared between two EU Member States, looking into the examples of wines Tokaj and Teran. Arguments advanced in the article are that, on the EU-wide level, there are two effects of the shared terroir. The first effect is a shared PDO, and the second effect is an artificial enlargement of terroir that is not linked to the original geographical position.

The European Union Geographical Indications (GI) framework has granted, from the outset, a broad scope of protection to producers of GI-protected products. This already broad scope of protection has been expanded further by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), particularly in evocation cases, where its case-specific approach has resulted in a gradual expansion of the protection of registered names against evocation. Based on CJEU decisions, the authors attempt to propose a systematic test for GIs’ evocation, the goal being to contribute to greater coherence and legal certainty on decisional practice. Moreover, they advocate for a more principled approach which ensures an appropriate balance between the goals of the GI system and GIs’ scope of protection with a special reference to the—recently decided—Morbier case.

On 17 September 2015, Interprofession du Gruyère (IDG), a Swiss registered association, and Syndicat Interprofessionnel du Gruyère (SIG), a French syndicate, filed an application for a standard character certification mark for GRUYÈRE, claiming first use as early as 1982. IDG is also the owner of the certification mark No 4398395 for LE GRUYÈRE SWITZERLAND AOC’ (design), registered in 2013. In its certification, the mark indicates that the cheese originates in the Gruyère region in Switzerland and lists the various cantons and districts of origin. The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), US Dairy Export Council (USDEC), Atalanta Corporation (‘Atalanta’), and Intercibus Inc (‘Intercibus’) (collectively ‘the Opposers’) filed notices of opposition alleging that IDG and SIG had failed to exercise legitimate control over the proposed certification mark. Hence, ‘GRUYÈRE’ would be incapable of functioning as a certification mark under Sections 4 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 USC section 1052(e)(1).
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (‘the Board’) concluded that US consumers of cheese understand the term ‘gruyère’ as a designation that primarily refers to a type of cheese that can come from anywhere, and not specifically from Switzerland or France.

The Supreme Administrative Court Rhineland-Palatinate has allowed a winegrower to use the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Rheinhessen’ for wine grown on his vineyard located in the geographical area according to the product specification with no need to meet additional requirements prescribed by national legislation.
The PDO ‘Rheinhessen’ did not undergo a specific application, but was part of Germany’s list of quality wines forwarded to the European Commission according to Article 54 Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. This means that ‘Rheinhessen’ was automatically granted protection. Germany, as the EU Member State of origin, was required to submit the technical file for the PDO, including, in particular, the product specification for the PDO. The product specification had to include at least the name to be protected, a description of the wine, the specific oenological procedures for producing wine (where applicable), the wine production guidelines, and the demarcation of the geographical area concerned. The single document for the PDO ‘Rheinhessen’ published in the database eAmbrosia containing the product specification defines the geographical area as the vineyard areas of 148 municipalities in Rhineland-Palatinate, which are expressly enumerated in alphabetical order (from Albig to Zotzenheim). This text aims to present the facts and the legal context, addressing an analysis of how the dispute was resolved in the field of legal protection of intellectual property rights.

Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation on, and protection of, geographical indications (signed on 14 September 2020). The recently signed EU-China Agreement for the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) will provide a framework and increase the knowledge of the respective systems of GIs protection. However, for EU GIs owners, it will not replace registration and enforcement under Chinese law.

In its ground-breaking decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union has extended protection of a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication to the reproduction of shape or appearance of the product itself. The Defendant, Société Fromagère du Livradois, had been producing Morbier cheese since 1979. Until 11 July 2007 they used the name ‘Morbier’ without AOC indication. After the expiry of the transition period, Defendant changed the name, but not the appearance of their cheese, from then on marketed as ‘Montboissié du Haut Livradois’. The Claimant brought proceedings against the Defendant before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (Regional Court, Paris), basically requesting an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from producing and marketing a cheese that would reproduce the visual appearance of ‘Morbier’, and in particular, any use of a black line separating two parts of the cheese. this text aims to present the facts and the legal context, addressing analysis of how the dispute was resolved in the field of the legal protection of intellectual property rights.

In a decision on 20 January 2021, the EU General Court confirmed that there is no likelihood of confusion between the EU collective trademark ‘HALLOUMI’ and ‘BBQLOUMI’. In July 2014, M.J. Dairies EOOD (the Intervener) applied to register the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark (EUTM). In November 2014, the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (the Applicant), filed an opposition. This text aims to present the facts and the legal context, addressing the analysis of how the dispute was resolved in the field of the legal protection of intellectual property rights.

• This article discusses the structure of a geographical indication (GI), that is the model behind the rules, ie European Union (EU) rules. In fact, this industrial property right is complex, but some options were taken under EU law—a model that corresponds to the legal functions of this right as well as to its legal nature. However, the structure has some flexibility. It mays identify—making a horizontal analysis of all the rules in force in the EU—three pillars: a group of producers (which will be the applicant and must be representative); a product specification (the GI function, the guaranteed quality function and the assurance of trade loyalty in a collective right); and a control and certification body (which must comply with the principles of objectivity, independence and impartiality—but this body can be public or private).

Geographical indications (GIs) serve to designate goods with quality, characteristics, or reputation attributed to their 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 states, we show that global harmonization is underway with 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. 

This chapter aims to develop a theoretical approach identifying the main factors which contribute to successful Geographical Indications (GIs). To achieve this objective, we highlight the interactions between the mechanisms of intellectual property rights protection, those linked to economic transactions and those linked to sustainable rural development. Consequently, our theory will take into account three levels of interactions: markets, organisations (or institutions) and territory. As far as GIs are concerned, we refer to the special case of traditional products whose names can be potentially protected under international treaties, such as those qualifying as GIs under Art 22.1 of TRIPS, or subject-matter-specific protection regimes, such as Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) or Protected Geographical Indication (PGIs) recognized in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 on Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs. The intellectual property protection of GIs, as defined in TRIPS, must be implemented by national regulations in each member state. The foundation of the actual legal basis of protection is the ‘unfair competition’ framework, which regulates the conduct of firms in the marketplace: they obtain the means to fight against unfair imitations, produced outside the geographical area of the traditional product, in almost all the cases at lower prices because of less demanding processes, and by abusing the trust of the consumers about the genuine provenance of the product.

This three-volume collection comprises a selection of research articles and papers on geographical indications by the leading academics in this field. The collection examines the functions and economic underpinnings of this form of product designation, together with the various forms of legal protection of geographical indications, both national and international. It contains a number of contributions which examine the potential impacts of geographical indications in developing countries, which explore this form of marketing through case studies.

This paper develops five theses to analyze the distribution of economic, social and environmental effects connected with the system of geographical indications (gis). The authors claim that the distribution of benefits for the agricultural sector largely differentiates among European countries (Thesis 1); non-organized outsiders in the region who do not financially support the common pool resource can profit particularly greatly from a gis system (Thesis 2); among gis consortia, those with a clear marketing leadership of a focal supplier profit whereas those with many small suppliers are easier to get pressed by dominant buyers (Thesis 3); the role of public authorities may represent a significant bias in the application phase (Thesis 4) and environmental benefits attached to the gis such as biodiversity preservation are largely overestimated (Thesis 5).

This book seeks to set geographical indications (GIs) in the context of the overall development of today’s economies and societies as marked by globalization and the interaction of cultures that this entails. The book is divided into two parts. The first part (chapters 1-6) sets out the findings of a decade of research into GIs in Europe in the global context. The second part (chapters 7-10) is based on the existence of GIs as a sector in itself in the context of globalization. Included in the appendixes are GI case studies in Europe and maps of protected designations of origin and geographical indications (PDOs and PGIs). Also included are a glossary and a subject index.

This book seeks to set GIs in the context of the overall development of today’s economies and societies as marked by globalization and the interaction of cultures that this entails. GIs are products that are both very ancient in terms of their ancestral function and very modern in terms of what is at stake. GIs provide a fine example of how the economic development of the planet might be envisioned so that it takes account of this classic opposition and the complexity of the main issues involved. . One assumption made here is that in the future we will see a trade economy increasingly structured by quality standards. These standards will be reached and managed through the cooperation of both public and private entities, a situation described by the term ‘quality fora’, which is explained and discussed in Chapter 8. Among the variety of such arrangements that can be expected to emerge, GIs provide a particularly interesting and forward-looking example. The book is divided into two parts. The first (Chapters 1–6) sets out the findings of a decade of research into GIs in Europe in the global context. The second part of the book is based on the existence of GIs as a sector in itself (validated, potentially at least, by the market and its externalities) in the context of globalization.

The protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs is one of the major pillars of the Common European Agricultural Policy and has become an important part of the transition from supporting commodity markets to enabling producers to market goods that satisfy consumer tastes. According to estimates, a total annual sales volume of approximately €14 bn is generated with protected geographical indications (PGI) and protected designations of origin (PDO). Nevertheless, the increase in the utilization of the protection systems made obvious a number of problems in the practical application of the law. The Commission recognized these criticisms and announced a discussion on the regulation that was to commence officially in the autumn of 2008 with a Green Book about the PDO/PGI protection regime. In this context, the most recent problems are discussed and proposals are made that should be taken into account in order to accomplish the main goals of the regulation. Therefore this article is addressed to agricultural policymakers, consumer associations, as well as food producers and producer associations in Europe in order to provide a starting point for the Green Book debate.

En s’appuyant sur les résultats du projet européen DOLPHINS (Development of Origin Labelled Products : Humanity, Innovation and Sustainability) , le but de ce papier est de contribuer à la compréhension des controverses dans les débats internationaux par l’analyse des réseaux d’acteurs qui participent de près ou de loin à la construction de ces instruments. Après avoir rappelé les enjeux et l’historique de la réglementation (section 1), nous analyserons comment et sur quelles justifications se sont développées dans différents pays européens (France, Italie, Royaume-Uni et Suisse) et au niveau de l’Union Européenne (UE) des politiques de protection et de promotion des Indications Géographiques (section 2), ce qui nous permettra d’analyser dans chacun des cas les phases de développement de ces politiques (section 3).

The essay aims to investigate the link between product and territory.
Agricultural products linked to the concept of local are inextricably linked to culture.
The result of the research is set out in three parts: these deal with the identification and knowledge of the product, the regulations that protect them and, finally, their valorisation.