The main objective of the study was to provide broader insight into the landscape of the control and protection systems for geographical indications (GIs) in the 28 EU Member States, through the identification of all the competent authorities and the procedures in place, including enforcement measures against infringements.
The report provides a general overview and description of each national control system on PDOs and PGIs for foodstuffs and agricultural products and wines, and GIs for spirit drinks and aromatized wine products. In addition, a guide is attached with a comprehensive inventory of all national competent authorities and control bodies together with the relevant contact data, as well as some useful information for GI users to help them in seeking better protection against infringements.
The study was conducted by the EUIPO’s European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights on a request from the EU Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI).
Diverse information
Despite a harmonized reporting structure based on a single research scheme applied to all of the Member States, the information provided is diverse in terms of level of detail and extent, as well as sometimes uneven in covering the different areas of interest. This reflects the high heterogeneity in the approach the Member States have adopted to implementation.
Some clear examples are:
- control procedures are not always specifically designed for verification of GIs (more often they are merged within the general system of national controls on safety of food and feed), and resources are not always accordingly assigned to them;
- the enforcement apparatus for GIs only includes national measures to be enacted ex officio in some cases;
- the administrative sanction systems against unlawful users are diversely detailed in terms of types of infringement and in providing for precautionary measures and remedies;
- different types of criminal offence only specifically address the infringement of rules on geographical indications of origin of food products in some cases.
Member States showed a different level of implementation of the protection system of GIs in the agri-food sector, although they did comply with the general obligations set forth by EU regulations. This is most likely due traditionally to the different weight of GIs in the national economies all across the EU (both in terms of domestic production and general consumption of high quality products), influencing the way Member States approach the implementation of official controls
General conclusions
However, detailed analysis of the data collected has allowed some general conclusions to be outlined related to the organization and the state of play of control systems for GIs across EU Member States.
As far as the official controls and relevant legislation in place for GIs for wine, spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs is concerned, the analysis has shown that for all the Member States there is a system in place. However, the effectiveness of control systems varies among Member States depending on the organizational structure and procedural measures for carrying out controls.
With reference to the role of customs, with the exception of Italy, the United Kingdom and Ireland, no relevant task is assigned to them beyond their competences and legal obligations under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 on enforcement of IPR at the borders.
The current European framework protects GIs by delegating to Member States the responsibility of enforcing ex officio protection, leaving it to Member States to determine the modalities of execution. Thus, challenges have been faced during research activities when looking for specific information on the actual control procedures carried out in several Member States. Data on control procedures in the food chain, specific information on laboratories and resources involved in controls of GI products were not available in several Member States.
According to the report, the criminal legal protection system is also fragmented, although to a lesser degree. Most national legislation of EU Member States provides for specific criminal sanctions in cases of infringements of GIs, while in some, for example, Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and the Netherlands, general criminal offences and penalties that are envisaged in cases of IPR infringements apply. Furthermore, as far as civil enforcement is concerned, there are several legal tools in national laws, such as trade mark laws, unfair competition and consumer protection laws, which provide for efficient remedies for users of GIs, as well as for consumers.
This heterogeneous picture reflects the general content of this report, which, notwithstanding a harmonized structure based on a single research scheme applied to each Member State, appears somewhat uneven as regards the coverage of all of the survey’s areas of interest in the different Member States and the level of details provided.
Paulo Monteverde is a partner of Baptista Monteverde & Associados and a member of the MARQUES GI Team
Issue 086
