The Conference "Geographical indication (GI) protection for non-agricultural products: What do we learn from the public consultation? What’ next?" on the results of the public consultation on geographical indication protection for non-agricultural products was held on 19th January. It was organised by the Industrial Property Unit J, DG Growth. 

The conference basically provided a summary of the results of the Green Paper consultation made by the EU Commission on protection of geographical indication protection for non-agricultural products in the EU – aimed at taking a decision about the possible (and likely) creation of a EU scheme on the protection of GIs for non-agricultural products - and to which MARQUES submitted a contribution on 24th October last year.

Some of the most interesting results presented at the conference are summarised below.

The group which sent most responses was that of the associations/organisations: these amounted to 37.5% of the responses received, followed by public authorities (26.5%).

The points triggering most comments were those regarding the need for action, the debate on the necessity of sector-specific rules, the nature of the link to the territory and monitoring/enforcement.

A majority of respondents considered that the current situation provides insufficient protection and that an EU-wide GI protection would increase legal security and would allow better coordinated action against infringement.

In the same line a majority of respondents agreed that there is a need for action for the benefit of consumers, business and regions.

A vast majority was in favor of an EU unitary system (60%), instead of harmonisation (5%) and more replies supported not maintaining national systems in parallel (34% versus 24.3%).

As to the link with the place of origin, contributors have advocated a strong link. The majority was also in favour of a high level of protection as is provided for agricultural goods.

A vast majority of contributors supported a registration system, where a national element was involved. It was also supported that there could be other applicants than producers, that individual producers could apply and that an objection procedure should be provided. The support for the payment of a fee for the registration process and for the unlimited duration of the registration was higher than for other options.

The replies which supported the principle that the pure “first in time, first in right” principle regarding trade marks and GIs did not apply (43.4%) doubled those which supported that it did (23.9%). Those who defended that GIs prevailed over trade marks (53%) more than quadrupled those who defended that they did not (12.2%). In both questions the percentage of “n/a” was about 33%. It was also mentioned that co-existence should be possible and that experience shows that, after some time, prior trade mark owners join the GI system.

Finally, as to enforcement/monitoring, the biggest group of contributors (43.7%) were in favour of a type of monitoring system which combined private and public means, basically consisting of an independent authority – preferably a public one – when granting GI protection, followed by controls by authorised private bodies during the life of the products and supplemented by an “ex officio” support for enforcement.
More details are available here.

Miguel Angel Medina is a partner of Elzaburu in Madrid.

Upcoming MARQUES events

MARQUES Media Roundup

Unsubscribe:
You can unsubscribe from this emailing list or change the frequency and type of information you receive from MARQUES at anytime by logging into the MARQUES website and clicking on the Preferences tab in the My Profile section of the My Account page.  Alternatively you can reply to this email with the subject 'NewsChannel - Unsubscribe' to be removed from this mailing list.