GIs toolbox

Bibliography

AUBARD, A., CLERMONTELLE, A., Manual on Geographical Indications for CARIFORUM States, CarIPI. Bordeaux. (2024)

Click here to consult the publication

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 [...]

Read more

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.

MOVING – Analysis of the implementation of the EU optional quality term “mountain product” (2024)

Click here to consult the publication

As part of the MOVING project, AREPO, in collaboration with Euromontana and Highclere Consulting (HCC), conducted an analysis on the implementation of the EU OQT “mountain product”. The analysis aimed to update existing data, assess its impact on farmers' incomes and local economies, evaluate consumer perception, and explore its relationship [...]

Read more

As part of the MOVING project, AREPO, in collaboration with Euromontana and Highclere Consulting (HCC), conducted an analysis on the implementation of the EU OQT “mountain product”. The analysis aimed to update existing data, assess its impact on farmers’ incomes and local economies, evaluate consumer perception, and explore its relationship with other quality schemes. This analysis builds on Euromontana’s previous studies on OQT implementation, focusing on legislative status and farmer uptake. Through double surveys directed at regional administrations and producers using the OQT “mountain product”, this report presents key findings to inform evidence-based recommendations for strengthening the scheme.

This deliverable gather the 5 Policy Briefs elaborated for each of the 5 Clusters of VCs established in WP5: • Cluster S: Social and Demographic aspects • Cluster V: Value and Quality products • Cluster I: Innovation and Infrastructures • Cluster N: Nature and Ecosystem Services • Cluster G: Governance, Cooperation and Territoriality Every documents stand as [...]

Read more

This deliverable gather the 5 Policy Briefs elaborated for each of the 5 Clusters of VCs established in WP5:
• Cluster S: Social and Demographic aspects
• Cluster V: Value and Quality products
• Cluster I: Innovation and Infrastructures
• Cluster N: Nature and Ecosystem Services
• Cluster G: Governance, Cooperation and Territoriality
Every documents stand as an individual one.

MOVING – D5.1 Comparative cross-case report on Mountain Value Chains (2024)

Click here to consult the publication

This deliverable assembles the outcomes of a critical benchmarking process involving the cross-regional analysis of five clusters of mountain value chains. The analysis focused on assessing the contributions of these value chains to the sustainability and resilience of European mountain areas. The examination also delved into the trade-offs between the [...]

Read more

This deliverable assembles the outcomes of a critical benchmarking process involving the cross-regional analysis of five clusters of mountain value chains. The analysis focused on assessing the contributions of these value chains to the sustainability and resilience of European mountain areas. The examination also delved into the trade-offs between the provision of public and private goods by value chains. This work is part of the WP5-Cross-case Comparison and Benchmarking of the MOVING project.

The objective of WP5 was to critically benchmark cross-regional clusters of value chains, focusing on vulnerability, sustainability and resilience criteria and analysing the trade-offs between the provision of public and private goods in mountain areas.
To achieve this objective, the 23 value chains were classified into five clusters addressing key challenges faced by mountain areas: Social and Demographic aspects (Cluster S), Value and Quality Products (Cluster V), Innovation and Infrastructures (Cluster I), Nature and Ecosystem Services (Cluster N), and Governance, Cooperation, and Territoriality (Cluster G). Each cluster grouped five to seven value chains.

Within each cluster, a comparative participatory analysis was conducted, evaluating the contribution of value chains to the sustainability and resilience of mountain areas. This analysis focused on identifying how the value chains within each cluster impacted seven objectives, previously defined as crucial to enhance both aspects: Human Capital, Cooperation, Sustainable Use of Local Assets, Inclusiveness, Adaptive Capacity, Ecological Resilience, and Attractiveness and Wellbeing. Additionally, each cluster identified trade-offs, challenges and solutions, and the provision of public goods by value chains.

In addition to this document, each cluster has elaborated a Policy Brief (D5.2).

CLERMONTELLE, A., LELLINGER, A. & AUBARD, A. The protection of Geographical Indications on the Internet, AREPO practical guide. Bordeaux. (2023)

Click here to consult the publication

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 [...]

Read more

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