COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products and amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/1753 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 13.4.2022
SWD(2022) 115 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL
on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products and amending
Regulations (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/1753 of the European Parliament and of the
Council and Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754
{COM(2022) 174 final} - {SEC(2022) 193 final} - {SWD(2022) 114 final} -
{SWD(2022) 116 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0174 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
1
Table of contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.1. Political and legal context ......................................................................................................... 6
1.2. Craft and industrial products in the EU..................................................................................... 9
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................. 11
2.1. What are the problems?........................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 Limits to international protection for CI products.......................................................................12
2.1.2 Missed opportunities for European CI producers........................................................................15
2.2. Consequences of the problems ................................................................................................ 17
2.3. What are the problem drivers? ................................................................................................ 23
2.4. How will the problem evolve? ................................................................................................ 23
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 24
3.1. Legal basis............................................................................................................................... 24
3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action....................................................................................... 24
3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action.................................................................................. 25
4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 25
4.1. General objectives................................................................................................................... 25
4.2. Specific objectives................................................................................................................... 25
5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 26
5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .......................................................... 26
5.2. Description of the policy options ............................................................................................ 26
5.2.1. Option 0 - Doing nothing...........................................................................................................26
5.2.2. Option 1 – Extending the existing PGI/PDO schemes to CI products (PO1) ............................27
5.2.3. Option 2 - Self-standing EU-Regulation creating sui-generis GI protection (PO2)...................30
5.2.4. Option 3 - Trade mark reform (PO3) .........................................................................................33
5.3. Options discarded at an early stage ......................................................................................... 35
5.3.1. Recommendation .......................................................................................................................35
5.3.2. Approximation of national laws.................................................................................................36
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ...........................................................37
6.1. Option 1 - Extending the existing GI scheme to CI products....................................................... 37
6.2. Option 2 – Self-standing EU Regulation...................................................................................... 42
6.3. Option 3 – Trade mark reform ..................................................................................................... 48
6.4. Shared impacts ............................................................................................................................. 52
7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ................................................................................................. 54
7.1 Comparison of impacts ................................................................................................................. 54
7.2 Coherence...................................................................................................................................... 56
7.3 Compliance with the proportionality principle.............................................................................. 58
8. PREFERRED OPTION............................................................................................................................ 58
2
9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ....................................... 59
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION............................................................................................ 61
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION....................................................................................... 64
ANNEX 2A: DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS................................................. 74
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 78
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 82
ANNEX 5: CHARACTERISTICS OF REGIONS WITH GEOGRAPHICALLY ROOTED
PRODUCTS........................................................................................................................................ 94
ANNEX 6: INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION............................................................................................ 98
ANNEX 7: KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUI GENERIS GI AND TRADE MARK
REGULATION................................................................................................................................. 108
A.7.1. Comparison of different IP tools ............................................................................................ 108
A.7.2. EU certification mark legal reform......................................................................................... 110
ANNEX 8: OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL SUI GENERIS GI LAWS AVAILABLE FOR THE
PROTECTION OF CRAFTS AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS.................................................... 113
ANNEX 9: REGISTRATION PROCESS OPTIONS ................................................................................ 120
PART A: Methodology and Analysis design .................................................................................... 122
PART B: Analysis of sui generis GI EU level procedure options..................................................... 129
1. Option 1.0 [MS/EU] MS  COM Decision .........................................................................130
2. Option 1.1 [MS/EU] MS  AGENCY Opinion  COM Decision.....................................139
3. Option 1.2 [MS/EU] MS  AGENCY Decision  COM appeal .......................................147
4. Option 1.3 [MS/EU] MS  MS  AGENCY Decision  Appeal body............................154
5. Option 1.4 [EU only – AGENCY only] AGENCY – MS Consultation................................162
6. Option 1.5 [EU only – AGENCY only] No MS level...........................................................169
PART C: Comparison of sui generis GI EU level procedure options............................................... 177
Comparison summary ........................................................................................................................177
1. Customer-focused procedure.................................................................................................178
2. Accessible procedure.............................................................................................................179
3. Predictable procedure............................................................................................................181
4. Quality of the application......................................................................................................182
5. Quality of the output .............................................................................................................183
6. Transparency.........................................................................................................................185
7. Efficient procedure................................................................................................................186
7.1 Length (timeliness of the procedure) ...........................................................................................186
7.2 Costs.............................................................................................................................................187
8. Advantages and Risks ...........................................................................................................189
9. eRegister................................................................................................................................193
PART D: EU certification marks ...................................................................................................... 194
1. Timeliness .............................................................................................................................195
2. Cost .......................................................................................................................................195
3. Key advantages and main risks .............................................................................................196
3
ANNEX 10: THE EU ENTITY TO ADMINISTER THE NEW EU GI SCHEME FOR CI
PRODUCTS AT THE EU AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL ........................................................ 198
ANNEX 11: INTERPLAY BETWEEN EXISTING NATIONAL SYSTEMS/ FUTURE EU
SYSTEM........................................................................................................................................... 208
ANNEX 12: COHERENCE OF OPTIONS WITH OTHER EU POLICY OBJECTIVES........................ 210
ANNEX 13: COST CALCULATIONS...................................................................................................... 212
ANNEX 14: COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF SUB-OPTIONS OF OPTION 2 ................................... 215
4
Glossary
Term or acronym Meaning or definition
Appellation of origin A special kind of geographical indication generally consisting of a geographical name
or a traditional designation used on products which have a specific quality or
characteristics that are essentially due to the geographical environment in which they
are produced
Authenticity effect Impact of the perceived authenticity of a product on the willingness to pay of a
consumer
Certification mark Sign indicating that a product or service complies with specific standards as certified
by the owner of the mark
Cluster Groups of firms, related economic actors and institutions that are located near each
other and have reached a sufficient scale to develop specialised expertise
Collective mark Sign indicating that the goods or services protected by the mark originate from
members of an association, rather than from just one trader
Craft or handicraft
products
Products produced by craftsmen, either totally by hand or with the aid of manual tools
or including by mechanical means, whenever the direct manual contribution of the
craftsman is still the most important component of the finished product
Cultural heritage Shared source of identity encompassing a broad spectrum of resources in all forms
and aspects, tangible and non-tangible
Evocation Use of a geographical indication amounting to its imitation, even if the true origin of
the goods is indicated, particularly by using terms such as “style”, “kind” or “type”
Geographical
indication
Sign indicating the geographical origin of a product or service
Geographically
rooted product
Product the quality or reputation of which is linked to its geographical origin, either
by natural or human factors
Industrial products Products made in a standardised way, typically on mass scale and through the use of
machines
Less developed
regions
Region where gross domestic product per inhabitant is less than 75% of the EU
average
Monitoring Control of the market (both offline and online) to ensure the correct use of protected
signs, notably with regard to product specifications and general legal requirements
Non-genericity Protection against being considered as generic
PTO Patent and Trade mark Office
Price premium The percentage by which a product's selling price exceeds (or falls short of) a
benchmark price
Sui generis
geographical
indication
Intellectual property right protecting a geographical indication as such
Trade
mark/Individual
mark
Sign indicating the commercial origin of a product or service as stemming from a
specific company
Traditional know- Know-how, skills and practices that are developed, sustained and passed on from
5
Term or acronym Meaning or definition
how generation to generation within a community, often forming part of its cultural
identity
Traditional
specialties
guaranteed (TSG)
Traditional Specialties Guaranteed highlights the traditional aspects, such as the way
the product is made or its composition, without being linked to a specific
geographical area
Verification Control (typically prior to putting a product on the market) to ensure that a product
has the required product characteristics and/or that it has been produced with the
required materials and according to the required production steps
Willingness to pay
(WTP)
The maximum price a consumer is willing to pay for a product or service
6
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Political and legal context
Geographical indications (GIs) establish intellectual property rights for products whose
qualities are specifically linked to the area of production. They identify goods as
originating in a country, region or locality where a particular quality, reputation or other
characteristic of the product is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.1
These
indications, supported by labelling and specific logos, help consumers identify authentic,
original products of a particular quality.
At European Union (EU) level, special or sui generis GI protection has been established
for wines, spirit drinks, aromatised wines, as well as agricultural products and foodstuffs.
However, there is currently no harmonized or unitary GI protection for non-
agricultural products, hereinafter referred to as craft and industrial (CI) products, at
EU level.
There are numerous authentic CI products in the EU, for example Limoges porcelain,
Solingen knives, Carrara marble, Yecla furniture, Bohemian crystal or Madeira
embroidery. Such products are typically based on traditional know-how and production
methods, rooted in the cultural and social heritage of a particular geographical location.
More than 800 products have been identified to qualify as geographical indications for CI
products in the EU2
.
Sixteen EU Member States have national sui generis GI schemes in place to cover CI
products. These regimes differ in terms of protection, administration, fees, and do not
offer producers protection beyond the national territory3
. Other Member States have no
GI protection scheme in place at national level for CI products and provide for the use of
consumer protection laws or trade marks. When producers of CI products seek protection
throughout the EU, they can only do so separately in each Member State as available at
national level. This situation may disincentivise artisans and producers to invest in
traditional crafts in the EU, in view of the increased costs and legal uncertainty around
achievable protection. The absence of EU-level protection for CI products in not only an
internal issue, though. In November 2019, the EU acceded to the Geneva Act of the
Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origins and Geographical Indications4
, a treaty
administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The purpose of
the Geneva Act is to develop the international framework for the registration and
protection of geographical indications (Lisbon system). The Geneva Act offers a route to
obtain protection of appellations of origins and geographical indications regardless of the
nature of the goods to which they apply, including agricultural products, foodstuffs, wine
and spirit drinks, handicrafts, industrial products and natural products. A particular
shortcoming of the current EU legislation is that it only provides for GI protection for
certain designated product markets, unlike most GI legislations around the globe.
1
Article 22(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
2
See Annex III of Insight Consulting, REDD & OriGIn (2013) Geographical indications protection for
non-agricultural products in the internal market; Study for Directorate-General for Internal Market,
Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (European Commission).
3
See Annex 8 for a detailed overview of sui generis GI national laws available for the protection of crafts
and industrial products in the EU.
4
Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications
https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=3983
7
Consequently, all products outside the range covered by agricultural GIs fall into a
regulatory gap. WIPO has been calling for the establishment of an EU-wide GI system
concerning CI products.5
The EU is obliged under international law to protect all GIs (not
only agricultural GIs) to comply with the Geneva Act. Discretion exists only
about how (the legal vehicle) to protect the remaining (non-agricultural) products.
The Geneva Act is, in theory, open to embrace various legal regimes. However, it is
worth noting that all current members of the Lisbon System use a sui generis system.
While the EU is obliged to meet its international obligations under the Geneva Act
and establish a protection scheme for CI products at EU level, there is still room for
manoeuvre on how to do this in the most cost effective way. Room for discretion
exists as to detailed elements of a new EU scheme, such as the registration procedure, the
authorities in charge, control and enforcement and so forth.
In addition to the context of the Lisbon System, the EU has taken a leading role in
promoting the sui generis GI regime in the international arena including WIPO and
the World Trade Organization. The EU position in these fora consequently advocates for
the highest possible level of protection to be provided for all GI products. However, in its
bilateral trade agreements with third countries, the EU can only offer GI protection to
agricultural products, hence putting craft and industrial products from the EU and third
countries in a weaker position.
In the IP Action Plan adopted on 25 November 2020, the European Commission
announced that it would consider the feasibility of a GI protection system for non-
agricultural products at EU level.6
In a broader context, the IP Action Plan is part of the
Industrial Strategy7
and of the recovery strategy of the EU.
For several years, many stakeholders (producers, public authorities or governments, the
European Parliament) have called on the European Commission to create a regulatory
framework for the protection of geographically linked craft and industrial products. For
example, at the hearing following the public consultation on the 2014 Green Paper8
on a
possible extension of geographical indication protection of the EU to non-agricultural
products, a majority of participants made the case for enhanced and unitary GI protection
for CI products in the EU.9
More recently in 2021, an alliance named “Craft Europe”
launched an initiative calling on the EU to ensure that its craft heritage is protected and
easily identifiable internationally.10
5
See the WIPO presentation at the Max Planck Institute Workshop on Geographical Indications in
Munich, 13-14 February 2020.
6
Making the most of the EU’s innovative potential An intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s
recovery and resilience, COM/2020/760 final. The 2020 IP Action Plan also foresees the possibility of
broadening the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)’s mandate to prevent counterfeit goods from entering
the Single Market and act against illicit production of counterfeit goods within the EU.
7
A New Industrial Strategy for Europe, COM(2020)102.
8
GREEN PAPER Making the most out of Europe's traditional know-how: a possible extension of
geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products, COM/2014/0469.
9
Results of the public consultation (15 July - 28 October 2014) and public conference (19 January 2015,
Brussels), p. 36. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/public-consultation-possible-extension-geographical-
indication-protection-eu-non_en, see also the position paper of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise of
9 March 2020.
10
Costalonga S. (2021, September). Provenance and heritage in the European Union: Why we should
preserve products of origin. Guest Op-Ed. World Trademark Review.
8
In autumn 2015, the European Parliament endorsed an own initiative report on the
possible extension of the EU acquis on geographical indication protection to non-
agricultural products, and called on the Commission to make a legislative proposal.11
The
Parliament reiterated this call in response to the Single Market Strategy in May 201612
, in
the resolution establishing an EU Strategy for Sustainable Tourism, of 25 March 202113
,
and more recently, on 10 November 2021, in its report on the IP Action Plan. The same
call was made by the European Economic and Social Committee on 18 February
201514
, and also in the opinion adopted by the European Committee of the Regions on
12 February 201515
, reiterated on 13 October 2021.16
On 10 November 2020, the Council communicated its readiness to consider the
introduction of a system for sui generis protection of CI products, on the basis of a
thorough impact assessment of its potential costs and benefits17
, and recalled this in its
Conclusions of 25 June 202118
. On 15 June 2021, eight Member States19
expressed their
support to the creation of a protection system based on a sui generis intellectual property
right at EU level, asking the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal in
light of the time line set out in the IP Action Plan20
. On 15 October 2021, nine Member
States21
sent a joint-non paper to the Commission, expressing their strong support for a
forthcoming legislative proposal on EU-wide sui generis protection of geographical
indications for non-agricultural products. There are also four Member States22
that have
expressed their reluctance to establish a new sui generis GI protection system at EU
level23
. The main reasons for this reluctance are, on the one hand, the fear that a new sui
generis system would be too burdensome for public administrations and may increase the
price of the product, and, on the other hand, the assumption that the existing trade mark
system already provides sufficient protection.
This initiative is linked to the ongoing reform of the system of geographical
indications for agricultural products24
. Building on the results of the evaluation25
, the
11
Report of the European Parliament of 6 October 2015 on the possible extension of geographical
indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products, 2015/2053(INI).
12
Oral question to Commissioner Bienkowska during the presentation of the Single Market Strategy.
13
European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2021 on establishing an EU strategy for sustainable tourism
(2020/2038(INI)), para 64 f.
14
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/eu-geographical-
indicationnon-agricultural-products
15
CoR opinion ECOS-V-064 COR-2014-05386-00-00-AC-TRA on Extending geographical indication
protection to non-agricultural products available under
16
CoR opinion of 13 October 2021 on protecting industrial and craft geographical indications in the
European Union
17
Council conclusions on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial designs system in
the Union of 10 November 2020.
18
Council conclusions on intellectual property policy of 25 June 2021.
19
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovakia.
20
Statement 9381/21 ADD 1 of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and
Slovakia added to the Council conclusions on Intellectual Property of 15 June 2021.
21
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Germany.
22
Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden.
23
Expert Group on IP Policy meeting of 22 April 2020
24
See Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regulating the schemes for
protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, wine and spirit drinks, and
of traditional specialities guaranteed for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Publications Office of the
EU (europa.eu)
25
AND International, ECORYS & COGEA (2020, December). Evaluation support study on geographical
indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in the EU. https://op.europa.eu/s/sWcI
9
Commission is looking at ways to strengthen, modernise, streamline and better enforce
GIs for agricultural products, foodstuffs, wines and spirits. This Impact Assessment is
aimed at achieving the greatest possible synergies with that reform, to ensure that any
new EU GI scheme for CI products would fit appropriately within the EU’s GI regime
and its protection at international level.
Learnings from the evaluation report of the EU GIs protection schemes for
agricultural products26
point to their positive effect on the internal market, boosting
intra-EU trade, and ensuring a homogeneous level of protection, scrutiny and control
procedures. EU agricultural GIs allow for fair competition for farmers and producers in
the GI value chain, and a better income for the value-adding characteristics of their
products. They also offer common standards facilitating trade with third country markets,
who benefit from an efficient and objective examination procedure. The evaluation also
points out that EU GIs schemes show coherence with Trade Mark protection, and are a
strong asset of rural territories, promoting regional identity, growth and jobs. Finally, the
GIview platform enhances transparency and improves the enforcement of Intellectual
Property Rights. However, several areas can be improved in particular raising awareness
and understanding of the schemes in some Member States, and improving the registration
and amendment procedures.
Finally, in accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines27
, impact assessments
transposing an international agreement to EU law should focus on the margin of
discretion available for the Commission. Consequently, this impact assessment focuses
on alternative ways of meeting the EU’s obligations stemming from the Geneva Act of
the Lisbon Agreement.
1.2. Craft and industrial products in the EU
The European Union (EU) is rich in authentic craft and industrial (CI)
geographically rooted products, i.e. products the quality or reputation of which is
linked to its geographical origin, either by natural or human factors. More than 800 of
products with such characteristics were mapped in two studies conveyed in 2013
and 2020.28
These products typically stem from the following eight sectors as shown in:
porcelain, ceramics and glassware, apparel, natural stones, lace, jewellery, textiles,
furniture and cutlery.29
However, the number of registrable products is likely to be
significantly higher. Marie-Vivien states that France alone has at least 100 possible
candidates for CI GI protection30
. MABS International Marketing Services31
identifies as
much as 171 different CI GIs in the Spanish region of Andalusia.
26
Evaluation support study on geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in
the EU, December 2020, And International, Ecorys and Cogea.
27
Better Regulation toolbox, tools 9 “When is an impact assessment necessary?” and 13 “How to
undertake a proportional IA”.
28
Insight Consulting et al. (2013), supra note; VVA, ECORYS & ConPolicy (2020). Economic aspects of
geographical indication protection at EU level for non-agricultural products. Study for Directorate-General
for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (European Commission).
29
Main product categories out of 322 products analysed under VVA et al (2020), supra note, page 18.
30
See Delphine Marie-Vivien, Do Geographical Indications for Handicrafts Deserve a Special Regime?
Insights from Worldwide Law and Practice in van Caenegem, W. & J. Cleary (eds), The Importance of
Place: Geographical Indications as a Tool for Local and Regional Development (Springer 2017) 223.
31
MABS International Marketing Services. (2019). Los Intangibles comerciales como motor de
emprendimiento en Andalucía. A study commissioned by Andalucia Emprendre.
10
The 2020 study found that many of the 800 products identified in the 2013 mapping were
simply not produced anymore. Other products had lost their geographical roots, for
example because multinational companies preferred the use of trade marks without main-
taining any actual presence in the region of origin, which may contribute to the decline of
local craftsman skills. Decline of skills is well documented and reflects socio-economic
and environmental challenges that globalization poses on traditional forms of craftsman-
ship.32
Mass production (allowing for the supply of goods at low cost) and the change in
consumers’ taste moving away from traditional design have put competitive pressure on
the traditional craftsman profession in the EU, leading to a strong decline of this sector in
the second half of the 20th century. While cutlery or furniture producers were more
resilient and adapted to changes brought by the industrial revolution, others including
laces and embroidery strongly declined.
According to the Panorama Skills33
, in 2018, 1.2 million persons were employed as craft
and printing workers representing less than 0.6% of total EU27 employment34
. This
number reflects a drop from 29 per cent between 2006 and 2018 resulting in employment
falling from 1.7 to 1.2 million.35
Over half of the workers have medium-level
qualifications, and this share is expected to remain stable over the period up to 2030. The
share of low qualified workers is expected to decrease from 29 to 25 per cent, whereas
the share of highly qualified workers will grow from 14 to 21 per cent.36
Women make a substantial part of employees in certain types of handicraft
products. These include: lace, embroidery, tapestry, glass, ceramics/pottery as well as
wool products.37
For example, nowadays there are around 700 mostly self-employed
female lace makers in Koniaków (Poland);38
or Elche shoes production employs over
9,000 full-time workers, 41-60% of which are women39
. Furthermore, women also have a
major role in preserving cultural heritage through craft40
. By contrast, men are more
represented in the technical crafts. For example, the Bourgogne Stone sector is composed
of 100 quarries used by 40 enterprises, 39 industrial and extraction enterprises and 118
enterprises making stone cut and other activities. It represents around 700 full time jobs
and only 20% of workers are women.
Today, a large majority (80%) of craft and industrial products are made by micro and
small-sized enterprises.41
Groups of mostly small or micro-sized producers (less than 50
32
E.g. Study of the Austrian Commission for UNESCO commissioned by the Austrian Federal Chancellery
and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs (Vienna, 2019).
33
Skills Panorama (2020, January). Handicraft and printing workers: skills, opportunities and challenges
(2019 update).
34
According to Eurostat, in 2018Q4 a total of 193.7 million persons were employed in the EU.
35
Insight Consulting et al. (2013), supra note, p. 133 GI craft and industrial products contributed to 1.6
million equivalent full-time jobs in the EU.
36
Ibidem. The change in the qualifications profile of the occupation can be attributed to the growing
complexity and diversity of both developing production techniques, new forms of employment and
different business management techniques.
37
Towards gender equality in the cultural and creative sectors Recommendations of the OMC (open
method of coordination) working group of Member States’ experts. (June, 2021) (ed) Amelie Menzel,
European Experts’ Network on Culture.
38
https://centrumkoronkikoniakowskiej.pl/tradycja-sila-przetrwania/
39
https://www.origin-gi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1.3.calzado_de_ElcheC_Rev.pdf
40
‘Artisanal Collaborations and the Preservation of Intangible Cultural Heritage (richmond.edu) (Susan G.
Goodwin The University of Richmond School of Continuing and Professional Studies Advisor: Dr.
Andrew Schoeneman May 11, 2021).
41
Insight Consulting et al. (2013), supra note, p. 129.
11
employees) are fairly typical for all product categories. Two exceptions are laces and
embroideries, where clusters are composed by individual artisans. For some products
(e.g. Royal Copenhagen porcelain), only one monopoly or dominant producer exists.42
More sophisticated clusters are more likely to be export-oriented.43
The total turn-
over for the 72 analysed products is estimated to amount to EUR 4.2 billion.44
The recent
2020 Study confirms these observations. Across products, knife and cutlery products
tend to be the most export oriented, reflecting the sophistication of clusters in this
category. Furthermore, jewellery, precious stone products, luxury furniture and apparel
are also export oriented with destinations such as the US and China. Artisanal products
are deeply integrated into the EU regions. Results of the analysis presented in Annex 5
shows that at least 17% of NUTS3 regions in the EU (197 out of 1166) have a GI
product. Some regions have more than one GI products, for example: Cerámica de
Totana, Jarapa de Lorca, Cerámica de Lorca, Belén de Murcia and Mueble de Yecla
originate from Spanish region Murcia (NUTS3 - ES620). Other products span across
bordering regions: Sámi Duodji (Saami craft), Baltic Amber or Espadrilles Catalanes.
In 2018, two thirds of these regions had GDP per capita (purchasing power standard,
EU27) below EU average and two thirds are located outside urban areas. Prior to the
pandemic, in 2019, 75% of the regions have either GDP per capita or unemployment rate
below the EU average; 30% are less developed regions i.e. regions with GDP per capita
below 75% of the EU average; 45% have declining population measured as crude rate of
total population change between 2010 and 2019. Finally, geographically rooted products
are over-represented in regions with higher vulnerability in the tourism sector as
compared to regions without geographically rooted products45,46
. Such regions have been
severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.47
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
Today, CI products that have a specific quality or characteristics that are essentially due
to the geographical environment in which they are produced cannot enjoy from an EU
wide level certified protection. First, this means that the EU cannot secure geographical
indication protection to EU producers in third countries by using the Lisbon/Geneva
route or international trade agreements. The EU is also unable to protect GIs for CI
products in the EU territory originating in third countries. Second, due to a complex
landscape of available protection routes within the EU (EU trade mark, EU collective
mark, national GI right where available, national collective mark, national certification
mark where available), it is hard for producers to navigate towards obtaining and
42
VVA et al. (2020), supra note, p. 68 and 69.
43
VVA et al. (2020), supra note, p. 69.
44
Ibidem, p. 139.
45
The vulnerability index takes into account the following elements: tourism intensity (number of yearly
nights-spent as a share of the number of residents), tourism seasonality (indicating the level of
concentration of nights-spent in few months of the year) and share of foreign tourists. It has been
developed in Batista E Silva, F., Kavalov B., Lavalle C. (2019, August). Territorial patterns of tourism
intensity and seasonality in the EU. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN
978-92-76-09681-8, doi:10.2760/961265, JRC117669
46
Own calculations using data from Batista E Silva et al. (2019) supra note. See Annex 5 for details
47
Commission Staff Working Document - Annual Single Market Report 2021 - Accompanying the
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Updating the 2020 New Industrial Strategy:
Building a stronger Single Market for Europe's recovery COM(2021) 350 final.
12
enforcing protection in the EU. The variety and divergence of national initiatives results
in legal uncertainty for producers seeking protection, may mislead consumers, weaken
intra-Union trade, and make way for abuses of GI infringements offline and online.
Hence, discrepancies among various protection routes result in complicated and costly
ways of securing protection that are unworkable for a typical cluster of small firms
producing CI products. This prevents producers, their regions and consumers from fully
grasping the benefits of an EU wide system of GI protection at EU level. These
problems, their drivers and consequences are illustrated in Figure 1 and described in
detail in this Section.
2.1. What are the problems?
2.1.1 Limits to international protection for CI products
The two major multilateral tracks for GI protection in the international context are the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS
Agreement) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Lisbon system
administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The EU is
member to the TRIPS Agreement (in force since 1 January 1995) and also to the Lisbon
system under the Geneva Act (date of accession: 26 November 2019, entry into force on
26 February 2020). The Lisbon system currently has a membership of 3748
, including the
48
Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote
d’Ivoire (not yet in force), Cuba, Czechia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic,
European Union, France, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Peru,
Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Samoa, Serbia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia. WIPO has indicated
that Mongolia, Georgia, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Jamaica, Senegal, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Moldova,
Bhutan, the Gulf countries, Russia and China are interested to join the Lisbon System/Geneva Act.
Figure 1: Problem Tree
Divergent national
protection rules across
Member States
EU Accession to
Geneva Act
Existing EU laws
not suitable
Limits to international protection
Missed opportunities for
European CIGI producers
PRODUCERS
Foregone revenues
Lower investments
Stifled innovation
CONSUMERS
Less informed
choices
CULTURAL
HERITAGE
Weakly
preserved
REGIONS
Missed opportunities for
tourism revenue
Drivers
Problems
Consequences
13
European Union and seven EU Member States (Bulgaria, Czechia, France, Hungary,
Italy, Portugal and Slovakia). To the best of our knowledge, all current members use a
sui generis system.
While the TRIPS Agreement sets minimum substantive standards for protection of IPRs
that all parties have to comply with, the Lisbon system creates a procedural regime of an
international registration system where IPRs protected in one member state can be
protected also in other member states through a central registration to WIPO. However,
both the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the Lisbon system apply to all kind of products
in providing protection for geographical indications.
As opposed to the EU legislation where names of craft and industrial products are not
protected, the Geneva Act (like the Lisbon Agreement itself) offers a route to obtain
protection of appellations of origins/geographical indications regardless of the
nature of the goods to which they apply, including agricultural products, foodstuffs,
wine and spirit drinks, crafts, industrial products and natural products. The EU is obliged
under international law to protect all GIs (not only agricultural GIs) to comply with
the Geneva Act. Discretion exists only about how (the legal vehicle) to protect the
remaining (non-agricultural) products.
In this context, the EU cannot secure protection in third countries for GIs for CI
products originating in the EU by means of using the Lisbon/Geneva route, as there
can be no EU registration to start with. Moreover, the EU will have to refuse protection
of GIs for CI products originating in third countries, as such protection is not available at
EU level. To make the situation even more complex, the seven EU Member States were
already party to the Lisbon Agreement before the EU’s accession to the Geneva Act in
2019. Some of them actually protect their GIs relating to CI products in the Lisbon
system49
and offer at national level the same protection for other Lisbon members.
Box 1: The producers’ perspective of the EU in the Lisbon system
Currently producers of CI products in the EU may or may not have access to protection
through the international registration system depending on which EU Member State
they are based in. Only seven EU Member States are party to the Lisbon system under
the Lisbon Agreement. Producers in such Member States (for example French or Czech
producers), after obtaining GI protection in their own country, can request the filing of
an international application and possibly obtain protection in all other countries party to
the Lisbon Agreement (for example, Mexico or Tunisia). However, producers in all
other EU Member States (for example, German, Belgian, Spanish or Polish producers)
do not have any opportunity to use the Lisbon system – not even if they can register a
geographical indication in their home country. Since the accession of the EU to the Geneva
Act in 2019, it is not possible for EU Member States to join the international system on their
own, due to the EU’s exclusive competence. Therefore, producers in Member States not
already party to the Lisbon Agreement could only have a chance to benefit from access
to the international system if they could obtain protection at EU level, and only on the
basis of such registration would it become possible to seek protection in all countries
party to the Geneva Act. The Geneva Act is the gateway to new parties joining the
Lisbon System, which may expand significantly in the future.
49
Examples are: Senovski Kaolin (BG), Bohemia Crystal (CZ), Émaux de Limoge (FR), Monoï de Tahiti
(FR), Herend (HU), Halas, Kiskunhalas (HU), Slovenskŷ opál (SK).
14
Similarly, producers of CI products in non-EU countries have limited opportunities to
use the international system in order to get protection in the EU. International
applications filed under the Geneva Act could result in such protection only if the EU
provided a GI title for CI products in the first place. As it does not, international
applications for craft and industrial products have to be refused protection in the EU. It
is only possible to get protection in EU Member States which were already party to the
Lisbon system before the EU joined it, and which also protect CI GIs in their territories.
Moreover, EU producers can only obtain GI protection under bilateral trade agreements
with third-countries for agricultural products.
The lack of an EU protection system for GIs relating to CI products results in the impos-
sibility for CI producers from 20 Member States to benefit from the EU’s accession
to the Geneva Act by means of using an EU-level GI registration for the purposes of
obtaining protection for their GIs in third countries which are parties to the Geneva
Act. It also triggers practical complications for the EU as to compliance with the
obligations resulting from the Geneva Act. CI GIs originating in third countries
cannot be protected in the whole of the EU using the Lisbon/Geneva route without
such protection being available at EU level.50
On the bilateral level, the EU has already concluded and is currently negotiating a
number of ambitious trade agreements that include comprehensive provisions on the
protection of listed GIs. However, to date, the scope of such protection is limited to GIs
of agricultural origin.51
Hence, the EU cannot grant protection of GIs for CI products
via bilateral trade agreements.
This results in missed opportunities for GI producers. Trade partners such as India, China
or MERCOSUR attach great importance to protecting their GIs for CI products.
However, the EU cannot include CI GIs in bilateral negotiations, as there is no unitary
EU-level protection. For example, the Goiabeiras clay pots from Brazil could not be
protected under the EU/MERCOSUR Agreement. Likewise, the EU can only protect its
GIs for agricultural products in such bilateral agreements. This is despite the fact that
some partners could offer GI protection in their territories also for EU CI products.52
Furthermore, trade partners often ask for reciprocity when it comes to adding names to
the initial GI lists protected under FTAs. Adding CI names could facilitate such
reciprocity and greater protection for EU GI products in third countries against fraudulent
practices affecting EU GI products.
50
As to existing registrations protected by EU Member States already party to the Lisbon Agreement in
their territories, Articles 12(3)-(4) provides for transitional protection of appellations of origin relating to
non-agricultural products originating in third countries. EU Member States in question can keep protecting
third country CI GIs in their territory, under their sole responsibility. However, this has no effect on intra-
Union or international trade.
51
The EU Trade Agreement with Colombia and Peru signed on 26 June 2012 exceptionally lists two non-
agricultural GIs: Guacamayas Handicrafts (Colombian), and Chulucanas (Peruvian) Pottery. See:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/march/tradoc_147725.pdf
52
As shown in latest FTAs concluded by the EU, e.g. with Mercosur or Mexico, as well as in the EU-China
GI Agreement, there are separate lists for CI GIs (not included in the annexes of protected GI names) and a
provision in the Agreement referring to the future possibility of considering such names as potential
candidates for protection in the event that the EU develops harmonised legislation on CI GIs. This
illustrates that the EU is more and more confronted with requests from trade partners to recognise CI
names in trade agreements.
15
Moreover, lack of GI protection at EU level for crafts an industrial products may also
limit the EU development agenda policy to support CI GIs in developing countries.
Today, the EU development agenda promotes quality policy in developing countries
devoting significant EU budget on the development of GIs e.g. in Africa to add value to
their agri-food production.53
More than 50% of the replies to the 2021 public consultation confirmed that lack of an
EU protection scheme for CI products reduces EU producers opportunities to benefit
from the EU’s accession to the Geneva Act, as they cannot obtain protection in non-EU
countries using the Lisbon system.54
Furthermore, 44% of the replies also confirmed the
limited benefits derived from bilateral trade agreements for EU CI producers.55
Annex 6 provides further insights into issues related to the international dimension.
2.1.2 Missed opportunities for European CI producers
Producers face a complex landscape of available protection routes in the EU. Possible
means for IP protection for CI products can be divided into two big clusters: seeking
protection at EU level, or seeking protection at national level.
At EU level, GI protection is currently not provided for CI products, therefore the only
EU IP title available is governed by EU trade mark law. The European Union trade
mark regulation (EUTMR)56
distinguishes between three different kinds of EU marks:
trade marks (or individual marks), collective marks and certification marks.
EU collective marks can in principle designate geographical origin, and their function is
to indicate that a product or service comes from a certain group of companies (members
of the association that owns the mark). Such features make them more suitable for
producers of CI products than individual marks. However, the obligatory information that
is required to be submitted in the regulation of use does not contain elements focused on
geographically rooted product quality. Such product characteristics may or may not be
specified and controlled by members of the association applying for protection. The IP
office (EUIPO) would only assess the Regulation of Use against the legal requirements,
which do not refer to any specific link between the goods and the geographical area/term
contained within a sign.57
Therefore, there may be no guarantee either by a public
authority or by producers that products bearing the EU collective mark comply with
a given product specification or meet any criteria linked to their geographical
origin. Without certifying geographically linked product quality (specific product
characteristics linked to geographical origin), collective marks do not allow for producers
and regions to fully grasp all the benefits derived from a GI right. At the same time, con-
sumers are only informed that the product originates from the owner association.
53
From 2014 until 2020, the EU budget foresaw € 8.5 billion for food security, nutrition and sustainable
agriculture in 62 partner countries, of which 36 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, including to support
Geographical indications, See SWD(2018) 301 final, 1.6.2018.
54
Question 10, 2021 Public Consultation.
55
Ibidem.
56
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the
European Union trade mark – EUR-Lex - 32017R1001 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)
57
Article 16 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626 of 5 March 2018 laying down
detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2017/1431.
16
EU certification marks were introduced by the EUTMR as from 1 October 2017 as a
new kind of EU trade mark. Certification marks are used to indicate that goods or
services comply with the certification requirements of a certifying institution or organisa-
tion. While a collective mark indicates that goods or services come from a collective or
group, a certification mark acts as a sign of supervised quality. This feature would appear
suitable for certifying geographically rooted product quality.
However, the EUTMR explicitly excludes the possibility of certifying the geo-
graphical origin of goods or services.58
Such EU marks are thus currently not available
for producers of CI products. Furthermore, a key limitation is that a certification mark
cannot be owned by a person running a business involving the supply of the goods and
services of the kind certified59
. The owner of a certification mark is precluded from
using the mark for the certified goods or services covered, to safeguard the neutrality
of certification. This means that producers of CI products would not be able to apply for
EU certifications marks and become owners of the resulting IP right even if it they were
currently available for them.
At national level, 16 countries have sui generis GI schemes available for the protection
of CI products (Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, France, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovakia and Slovenia).
Whereas trade marks are private rights, sui generis GIs are of a different nature, i.e.
public rights. Their rationale is protecting the collective asset represented by a product
reputation embedded in and derived from a localized cultural heritage.60
The reputational
benefits of GIs accrue to all producers in the region. The majority of these schemes are
horizontal GI laws available for the protection of CI products61
. There are also some
specific legal instruments dedicated to recognising and protecting specific sectors (e.g.
ceramics in Italy) or products (e.g. Solingen knives or Madeira embroidery). These laws
differ in scope, definitions, procedures (application, opposition, and registration),
competent authorities, fees, and types of control, and reflect a very fragmented approach
to GIs that may negatively affect producers (and regions), particularly when seeking
wider protection beyond national borders. Annex 8 provides an overview of sui generis
GI schemes available for CI products at national level.
As to trade marks, individual and collective marks are available for producers in all
Member States at national level, under rules harmonized by an EU directive.62
Nine
Member States have also opted to provide for national certification marks that can serve
to designate geographical origin63
. Limitations of trade mark protection also apply to
these national IP titles. Moreover, protection by these national rights is limited to specific
58
Article 83(1) EUTMR.
59
Article 83(2) EUTMR.
60
Addor (2002) Geographical indications beyond wines and spirits - —A Roadmap for a Better Protection
for Geographical Indications in the WTO TRIPS Agreement, The Journal of World Intellectual Property
Volume 5, Issue 6, p. 865.
61
With the exception of provisions in the French IP Code explicitly focused on GI protection for industrial
and artisanal products, these national sui generis laws are not specifically dedicated to GI protection of CIs
but cover all kinds of GI products, or in some cases even services (e.g. massage).
62
Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks - EUR-Lex - 32015L2436 - EN - EUR-
Lex (europa.eu)
63
As of January 2021, nine Member States have established national certification marks that can serve to
designate geographical origin: Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Sweden and
Spain.
17
national markets only. See Annex 7 for further insights into issues related to EU trade
mark law and the differences between trade mark protection and sui generis GI
protection.
CI producers in Europe rely on either a national sui generis GI scheme (where
available) or trade mark protection. Results of the 2020 Study64
shows that among 332
products, 12 % (40) are protected by national sui generis GI rights and 153 are protected
by a trade mark (individual or collective). Some producers also use national certification
marks65
. 27 products benefit from both sui generis GI and trade mark protection,
illustrating that sui generis GI and trade mark protection are complementary. However,
about half of the studied CI products (156) are neither protected by a registered trade
mark nor by sui generis GI protection.
2.2. Consequences of the problems
In 2019 the European Parliamentary Research Service published a Cost of Non-Europe
report66
in which costs arising from the lack of EU legislation protecting GIs for CI
products are quantified. Results of this report show that introducing EU-wide GI
protection for CI products would have an overall positive effect on trade, employment
64
VVA et al. (2020), supra note, p. 20.
65
Sami Duodji, made in Toruń or Albacete cutlery. VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p. 43.
66
European Parliament (2019). Geographical indications for non-agricultural products. Cost of non-Europe
report. Study by European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS).
Box 2: Different IP rights imply different scope
If producers wish to protect product names such as “Porcelain of Limoges” or
“Ceramics of Gmunden” in their own country, there are two major routes to take. They
can either file an application for a geographical indication, or file an application for
trade mark protection. The first route is not available in eleven EU Member States. For
example, “Porcelaine de Limoges” can be, and is, protected in France as a
geographical indication, whereas “Gmundner Keramik” cannot be protected in the
same way in Austria.
As to the trade mark route, which includes (individual) trade marks, collective marks
and certification marks, there are some difficulties to overcome. In general, such marks
cannot consist entirely of words that are not distinctive, in particular, if such words
only describe the type of product or the geographical origin of the product. The
producers therefore have to devise a so-called composite mark (or “logo”), using
special script or adding figurative elements, so that the mark can pass the bar of
distinctiveness. Even if that is achieved, the resulting scope of protection will not be
the same for a GI and a trade mark, collective mark or certification mark.
For example, the holder of the “Gmundner Keramik” trade mark will not be able to
stop the use of the name on the ground that a user does not keep to specific production
methods resulting in particular product characteristics, unlike the holder of the
“Porcelaine de Limoges” GI. A trade mark will not protect against the name becoming
generic, or used in combination with words such as “type” or “kind”. GI protection
will be broader, as such protection is provided for by legal provisions tailor-made to
suit this special kind of intellectual property, whereby the public authorities play a
stronger monitoring role.
18
and rural development. More precisely, after approximately 20 years of implementation,
such a protection scheme would yield an overall expected increase in intra-EU trade, in
the relevant sectors, in a range between 4.9 and 6.6 % of current exports (between EUR
37.6 to 50 billion). Expectations are that regional-level employment would rise by
between 0.12 and 0.14% and that between 284,000 and 338,000 new jobs would be
created in the EU as a whole. These benefits should be benchmarked against half a
million jobs lost in the craft sector during the last two decades.67
Consequences by stakeholder groups are presented as follows:
Producers
Foregone revenues: The Special Eurobarometer Survey 50468
shows that around 80% of
Europeans agree that factors such as the respect of local traditions and know-how, quality
labels or the geographical origin of a product play an important role in buying food
products. Furthermore, a recent FAO & EBRD Report69
shows that consumers value
quality that comes with the territorial link and are willing to pay price premiums between
20 and 50 percent on average. A recent literature review confirms that willingness-to-pay
(WTP) for products certified by PDO and PGI labels is higher than for products that are
not certified.70
PGI schemes allow for farmers and producers producing beverages and
foodstuff to get a price premium and better income for the value-adding characteristics of
their products. A recent evaluation study of PGI and PDO schemes in Europe shows that
64% of GIs products increased in sales value between 2010 and 2017, 46% in volume.71
The behavioural experiment from 2020 studied how consumers perceive sui generis GI-
protected CI products in comparison to other authentic and non-authentic products (see
Annex 4 for details). The results show that WTP for an ‘authentic’ product increases with
its value.72
Evidence at the product level shows that the use of the name Solingen raises
the willingness to pay (WTP) by about 30%, while producers of Perpignan Garnet
Jewellery mentioned that demand has increased by 20-30% since the recognition under
the French GI regime.73
Sales could even double based on Agri-GI example.74
Problems identified in Section 2.1 limit the possibility of producers to signal the geo-
graphically linked quality of their products in a systematic way across the EU, resulting
in limited abilities of CI producers to raise their profit margin and sales potential.
Evidence gathered in a mystery shopping75
shows that in addition to brands, producers
use further marketing techniques to signal the characteristics of their products. These
include direct sales at producers’ own stores (e.g. Liffol chair) and in case of distribution
67
Skills Panorama (2020), supra note.
68
Special Eurobarometer 504 Survey (2020, October) Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP available at
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2229
69
FAO & EBRD (2018). Strengthening sustainable food systems through geographical indications: An
analysis of economic impacts. Rome.
70
Cei et al. (2018). From Geographical Indications to Rural Development: A Review of the Economic
Effects of European Union Policy. Sustainability, 10, 3745.
71
AND International et al. (2020), supra note, see Executive Summary.
72
VVA et al. (2020), supra note, Section 5.
73
VVA et al. (2020), supra note, p. 82.
74
In the agricultural sector, ‘The sales value of GI products was on average (weighted) 2.07 times higher
than the sales value for comparable standard products without a GI label. ‘ AND-International & Ecorys
(October, 2019) Economic value of EU quality schemes, geographical indications (GIs) and traditional
specialities guaranteed (TSGs) Final Report p. 102.
75
Ibidem.
19
via third party, the retailer’s special presentation and display arrangement. Furthermore,
products are often accompanied by a certificate of origin or have “Made in” labels
embedded on them (e.g. Solingen or Royal Copenhagen porcelain). The same study76
shows that producers see the benefits of GI protection in name recognition and branding.
When producers are unable to send a clear signal, they are less incentivised to invest in
geographically linked products, to cooperate in order to specify product qualities and to
create niche markets. According to the Panorama Skills77
, employment in craft
occupation is falling. At the same time, introduction of sui generis GI protection in
France in 2014 led to increasing attractiveness of handicraft jobs78
and increasing
employment.79
While current fragmentation of quality certification schemes at EU level
and limited access to international protection cannot explain the declining trend in crafts,
they can be considered as factors hindering commercial development of the craft sector
in the EU.80
Finally, changing consumer preferences and technological progress create a considerable
economic potential for CI producers. While many craft trades are centred on human
input, emerging technologies are increasingly being used to facilitate the design and
production processes.81
Free-riding and lost revenues: In consequence of the lack of EU-wide protection of CI
GIs, certain producers including producers from third countries try to pass their products
off as authentic, e.g. by imitation or by way of evocation of the protected name (“free-
rider problem”).82
IP fragmentation is challenging not only for protection but also for enforcement. Better
enforcement as well as combatting misuse of a protected name and fraud is identified by
89% of the respondents of the 2021 public consultation as an incentive in favour of a new
EU protection scheme for GIs.83
Already the 2013 Study on geographical indications
revealed that producers and their associations are concerned by the number of counterfeit
products abusing their name, or by IP infringements. Accordingly, a majority of
producers (60%) reported a small loss of revenues due to infringements (below 5% of the
turnover), about 21% of the producers a loss between 5 and 30% and 12% of producers a
loss between 30% and 50%.84
In addition, more recently, online counterfeiting becomes
76
Ibidem, Section 4.4.
77
Skills Panorama (2020), supra note.
78
According to presentation of Association Française des Indications Géographiques Industrielles et
Artisanales in 2019 at the Workshop on Economic aspects of geographical indication protection at EU
level for non-agricultural products in the EU, in France, the introduction of a GI system promoted local
industries and had resulted in young people returning to rural areas.
79
According to presentation of INPI at the 2019 Workshop on Economic aspects of geographical
indication protection at EU level for non-agricultural products in the EU after the GI registration of
Porcelaine de Limoges, more ceramic painters moved back to Limoges.
80
For example, Muiris Kennedy, Marketing and Business Development Consultant, notes that the lack of
intellectual property protection on the EU and international level harms the traditional craft sectors
(Workshop on economic aspects of geographical indication protection at EU level for non-agricultural
products in the EU, Brussels, 18 November 2019).
81
Examples include computer-aided design software, metal cutting devices or digital fabrication.
82
EUIPO (2016) Infringement protected GIs for wine, spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs in the
EU, pp. 14, 15.
83
Question 12 of the 2021 public consultation aimed at characterising incentives to participate in an EU
scheme for the protection of geographical indications for non-agricultural products.
84
Insight Consulting et al. (2013), supra note, p. 103.
20
of concern to the craft sector.85
In 2015, the European Economic and Social Committee
(EESC) reported that producers of CI products – Bohemian Crystal, Marmo di Carrara,
Paška čipka (Pag lace) and others86
– face a constant challenge to protect themselves by
launching campaigns, registering trade marks and taking legal action87
. In their replies to
the Public Consultation, producers of geographically rooted products underlined that
regulatory fragmentation makes the protection and the enforcement of their rights
difficult and costly within the internal market.
Producers have to take various approaches to protect their rights across the EU, such as
taking action on the basis of preventive trade mark registrations (examples include
Donegal Tweed from Ireland and Solingen knives from Germany).88
Producers point out
that a harmonised EU GI protection scheme for CI products could help defend
themselves against imitation and abuse, and it would be less costly to take action.89
Some
evidence shows that the adoption of sui generis protection at national level has improved
the legal basis for enforcement.90
Finally, according to the respondents to the Inception
Impact Assessment (IIA) consultation91
, EU wide GI protection could help enforcing
rights not only within the EU, but also at international level, in particular against bad
faith trade mark registrations in third countries.92
Ultimately, for producers of authentic products, free-riding means loss of market
opportunities with fewer revenues to re-invest in production and commercialisation.
Consumers
Consumers attach value to the products which quality stems from the territorial link (the
origin). Limited scope of the EU trademark protection and/or lack of harmonized GI
protection for CI products, therefore, may increase consumers search cost. Mystery
shopping conveyed in the context of the 2020 Study93
found that product information on
CI products is often unclear or, in some cases, even ambiguous. While some shops
85
Examples: The Asociación de Cuchillería y Afines (Association of cutlery producers located in Albacete
and neighbouring areas, Spain), indicates that importers of low quality (essentially Chinese) products are
marketing/repackaging those products as if they had been produced in Albacete (although the blade is not
engraved, the product is repackaged or simply advertised/marketed as produced in Albacete), Meeting
Report of 30 September 2015.
86
Schwarzwälder Kuckucksuhr, Ceramica Artistica e tradizionale di Vietri sul Mare, Brački kamen (Brač
stone and sculpture), Deruta ceramics and Murano.
87
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green Paper - Making the most out of
Europe's traditional know-how: a possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European
Union to non-agricultural products COM(2014) 469 final, 18 February 2015 available at: EU geographical
indication/non-agricultural products | European Economic and Social Committee (europa.eu)
88
See the contributions of the Bergische Chamber of Commerce responsible for monitoring and
enforcement of Solingen cutlery to the Roadmap consultation, January 2021; and Insight Consulting et al.
(2013), supra note, pp. 109-111.
89
See the contribution of SME United to the Inception Assessment consultation, January 2021.
90
See the contributions of Porcelaine de Limoges and Pierre de Bourgogne to the 2020 IIA consultation on
the Intellectual Property Action Plan. For details, see the case study on Pierre de Bourgogne, annex 1 of the
2021 Study on control and enforcement: Among 100 infringements identified, in 90% of cases the issue
was solved through the submission of registered letters by the producers’ group; about 10 situations were
solved through the formal notice from a lawyer and only one infringement has led to a court case.
91
See Annex 2.
92
See the contribution of the Bergische Chamber of Commerce and of the Confederazione Nazionale
dell’Artigianato e della Piccola e Media Impresa to the IIA consultation, January 2021, see also the
contribution of IP association MARQUES.
93
VVA et al. (2020), supra note, Section 5.
21
provided clarity on the geographical origin and production techniques of products, with
additional information such as brochures or certificates, in other shops information on
authenticity and quality was lacking or incomplete. Where mystery shoppers reported
information to be incomplete, they also reported higher search costs (time spent
identifying relevant products in the shops).94
Many producers see visibility as a key benefit of GIs protection.95
Generally, it is
considered that consumers benefit from a higher level of GI protection, because it gives
valuable information about product characteristics.96
The vast majority (80%) of
respondents to the 2021 public consultation see the value of GI protection, reflected in an
EU logo, as a useful marketing tool and a way to facilitate better visibility of their
products vis-à-vis consumers.
Missed opportunities for tourism revenue – regional development
Sui generis GI schemes are regarded as important endogenous rural development
mechanisms by the European Union. GIs have proven successful for producers of
agricultural products and foodstuffs, wine and spirits, delivering higher added value,
more jobs and safeguarding a product’s identity and heritage through the notion of
terroir.97
Furthermore, it has been shown that GI value chains have a strong relationship
with tourism and on-farm processing, contributing to regional diversification of
income.98
No such mechanism is available for CI products at the EU level today. This
constrains the choice of strategies to promote sustainable development in regions that are
today characterised with GDP per capita below or employment rate below the EU
average (see Annex 5 for a description of the characteristics of regions with CI GIs).
The European Travel Commission (ATC) Handbook99
documents that consumers seek
authenticity (i.e. valuing individual, authentic experiences over ‘products’) as well as
develop responsible and ethical purchasing habits (i.e. looking to favour ‘local
heroes’; SMEs that are integral to local economies). Consumers also show increasing
interest to embrace sustainable tourism practices. CI products, therefore, have a poten-
tial to boost tourism attractiveness.
Cremona (IT),100
Limoges (FR),101
Carrara (IT)102
or Fiskars village (FI)103
are examples
of villages that have started to build sustainable tourism around CI products. Further-
more, initiatives like the ‘European route of ceramics’ give visitors a chance to discover
94
For details on design and sampling of mystery shopping see Annex 4.
95
VVA et al. (2020), supra note, p. 78.
96
Menapace and Moschini (2012). Quality certification by geographical indications, trademarks and firm
reputation. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 39(4), 539-566; Insight Consulting et al. (2013),
supra note (pp. 206 – 207) also explains that the majority of producers and non-producers took the view
that consumers will be better informed on the specific features or characteristics of the product if a new EU
wide protection scheme for GIs would be created.
97
Cei et al. (2018), supra note; AND International et al. (2020), supra note; Dumangane M., Granato S.,
Lapatinas A. & Mazzarella G. (April, 2021). Causal estimates of Geographical Indications' effects on
territorial development: feasibility and application, JRC Technical Report.
98
AND International et al. (2020), supra note.
99
European Travel Commission (September, 2021) Encouraging Sustainable Tourism Practices, A report
produced for the European Travel Commission by TOPOSOPHY Ltd.
100
https://www.in-lombardia.it/en/tourism-in-lombardy/tourism-cremona
101
https://www.limoges-tourisme.com/en/What-to-see/Skills-and-excellence/Porcelain
102
https://www.carraramarbletour.it/en/tours/
103
https://www.fiskarsvillage.fi/en/tapahtumat-ja-aktiviteetit/
22
what goes on behind the scenes of ceramics production around cities like Limoges (FR),
Delft (NL), Faenza (IT), Selb or Höhr-Grenzhausen (DE).104
Other Cultural Routes of the
Council of Europe Programme also promote awareness and understanding of the
European cultural identity. That Programme has a growing number of network members
each year105
. Similarly, Rauma Lace (FI) is an important image and tourism product for
the city during the Lace Week and beyond106
.
CI GI products are found in regions characterised by higher vulnerability to the tourism
sector. Those regions could benefit by pursuing sustainable development strategies
building on their GI assets. On the one hand, sustainable tourism developed around a CI
GI asset may reduce the problem of tourism seasonality, as craftsmanship offers have a
potential to attract tourism all over the year (see examples above); on the other hand,
promotion of industrial CI GI clusters (e.g. Elche shoes) can contribute to the economic
diversification of regions highly dependent on tourism.
Finally, the Annual Single Market Report107
of 2021 shows that “tourism” was the
hardest hit ecosystem during COVID-19. In the first three quarters of 2020, it lost one
fourth of its turnover. Consequently, CI producers and their regions were also severely
affected108
. Helping these regions attract work force and promoting sustainable tourism
initiatives are of special importance for the recovery of these regions in the aftermath of
the pandemic.109
Impediment to the preservation of cultural heritage
Geographically linked products are often made based on local know-how and following
local production methods that are rooted in the cultural and social heritage of their home
region.110
As shown in Section 1.2, craft is declining, partly due to the high cost of labour
in Europe as compared to other regions such Asia, as well as due to increased automation
of tasks (mass production).
Currently, intangible cultural heritage is preserved by clusters of individual artisans and
producers that have a strong motivation to keep traditions alive.111
Efficient IP protection
has potential to contributing to the increased profitability and attractiveness of the
traditional craft professions (as explained above). Specific GI protection is acknowledged
as preserving and developing cultural heritage both in the agricultural and the craft and
industrial areas.112
The protection of tradition and cultural heritage was identified as a
104
https://www.coe.int/en/web/cultural-routes/the-european-route-of-ceramics
105
https://www.coe.int/en/web/cultural-routes/-/300-new-network-members-join-the-cultural-routes-of-the-
council-of-europe-during-2020-2021
106
Annexes to VVA et al. (2020), supra note; Photo gallery of the Rauma Lace Week
107
COM(2021)350 final.
108
See Annex 5
109
See e.g. ‘The economic impact assessment of the Design and Crafts Sector of Ireland’ report authored
by Grant Thornton, August 2021
110
For example, the UNESCO Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage was used as a source to shortlist
products for the VVA et al. (2020) Study.
111
For example, the lace produced in the area of Gorizia has to be understood as regional cultural heritage.
Due to its being a niche product, there is no such thing as “the lace industry”. The Laces Foundation in
Gorizia, besides holding lace-making courses, is the main producer of traditional laces in the area (students
and teachers can sell their final products through the official laces retailer in town). VVA et al. (2020),
supra note, see p.92 in the Annex.
112
‘Culinary traditions making part of the EU gastronomic and cultural heritage, GIs and Traditional
Speciality Guarantee (TSGs) help keeping alive traditional production techniques and through their
reputation ensure a diversity of authentic foods for new generations.’ in Commission Staff working
23
key incentive to create an EU scheme for the protection of CI products in 80 % of replies
to the 2021 public consultation113
.
2.3. What are the problem drivers?
As presented in the previous section (2.1), there are three problem drivers:
 EU accession to the Geneva Act
 Divergent national IP protection rules across Member States
 Existing EU laws not suitable
2.4. How will the problem evolve?
The problem would most likely worsen if the EU does not take action. First, building on
the trend identified in the 2020 Study114
, whereby many CI GI products have disappeared
from the list identified in the 2013 Study, many producers may be discouraged from
continuing to produce CI products, thus negatively affecting regions and their possible
recovery, the attractiveness of crafts, and limiting the preservation of cultural heritage. In
addition, with the current fragmentation at national level and the lack of an EU scheme
and registration for CI products, producers will continue to have difficulties to protect
their GI at EU level and globally, facing unnecessary administrative burdens and costs, as
well as less effective enforcement remedies. Second, at the international level, and in
view of the increasing number of third countries introducing GI protection for their
products115
, the protection of GI becomes more important, making the need for an EU-
wide regime even more urgent. Growing frustration of parties to the Geneva Act with
refused protection of their non-agricultural GIs in the EU, as well as of EU producers
experiencing limited opportunities to seek protection through the Lisbon system, can be
foreseen. With the expectation of the geographical expansion of the Lisbon system due to
new accessions to the Geneva Act, such concerns may become more pronounced.
Switzerland deposited its instrument of accession on 31 August 2021 and its accession
will be in force as of 1 December 2021. Ghana deposited its instrument of accession on 3
November 2021 and its accession will be in force as of 3 February 2022. WIPO has
indicated that Mongolia, Georgia, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Jamaica, Senegal,
Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Moldova, Bhutan, the Gulf countries, Russia and China are
also interested in joining the Lisbon System/Geneva Act.
In addition, GIs remain an essential interest in international trade negotiations which may
get blocked should no solution be found. For example, under the trade agreement with
China, 100 GIs from both sides are protected, and the agreement is to cover additional
175 GIs from both sides in the four years following the entry into force of the agreement.
China protects CI GIs domestically and attributes great importance to such GIs.116
With
more such pending bilateral negotiations, the untapped potential for the protection of CI
document evaluation of geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in the EU
p. 38.
113
Question 12, 2021 public consultation.
114
VVA et al. (2020), supra note.
115
This can be illustrated by e.g. a simple search in WIPO Lex, WIPO’s global database of IP laws, in
respect of the subject matter ‘geographical indications’ among legal information on intellectual property
from around the world in WIPO Lex displayed 251 records from 01/01/1975 to 01/01/1995 and 942
records from 01/01/1995 to 01/11/2021.
116
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.
24
products is expected to grow. For example, on May 2021 the EU and India agreed to
resume FTA negotiations. As of today, India has 361 registered117
and 222 pending
applications118
under the Geographical Indications of Goods Act, 1999. Among them
57.9% belongs to the category “handicrafts”.119
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?
3.1. Legal basis
An EU intervention could be based on Article 118(1) 120
and/or on Article 207(2)121
of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). A new EU-wide GI protection system for
CI products would notably achieve the objective of the internal market with regard to the
protection of certain product qualities linked to a specific geographical region. In
addition, it would establish the link between an EU wide protection scheme as well as the
Lisbon system.
3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action
EU Action is necessary to fulfil EU’s obligations stemming from accession to the Geneva
Act of the Lisbon Agreement. The Geneva Act falls under exclusive competence of the
Union under the common commercial policy.122
EU action can help maximize profits not
only from the EU’s accession to the Lisbon system for producers in the EU but also from
the potential in the EU’s bilateral trade agreements.
Moreover, EU action can create a functioning internal market for CI geographically
linked products, by establishing an efficient and harmonized regulatory framework for
their protection. In this regard, this initiative forms part of an area of shared competence
between the EU and the Member States and concerns the internal market.123
The problem of regulatory fragmentation cannot be solved by the Member States alone.
Various GI protection systems for CI products have developed at national level. These
frameworks are not mutually recognised, hence producers face legal uncertainty and
costly and complex administrative burdens to protect and enforce their GI product across
the internal market.
117
https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/GI_Application_Register_10-09-2019.pdf
118
https://search.ipindia.gov.in/GIRPublic/
119
https://spicyip.com/2020/03/should-india-join-the-geneva-act-of-the-lisbon-agreement-2015.html
120
“In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market, the European Parliament and
the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish measures for the
creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property
rights throughout the Union and for the setting up of centralised Union-wide authorisation, coordination
and supervision arrangements.”
121
“The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the
ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the measures defining the framework for implementing the
common commercial policy.”
122
The European Court of Justice clarified on 25 October 2017 in case C-389/15 - Commission vs. Council
that the draft revised Lisbon Agreement, i.e. the Geneva Act, is essentially intended to facilitate and govern
trade between the European Union and third States and, secondly, that it is such as to have direct and
immediate effects on such trade, so that its negotiation fell within the exclusive competence which Article
3(1) TFEU confers on the European Union in the field of the common commercial policy envisaged in
Article 207(1) TFEU.
123
According to Article 4(2)(a) TFUE, shared competence between the Union and the Member States
applies notably in the area of the internal market.
25
3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action
An EU-wide approach for GI protection would enable the EU to fully benefit from the
opportunities offered by the international system of appellations of origin and GIs
(Lisbon system). National protection systems alone cannot achieve this objective, as only
those Member States which are parties to the Lisbon Agreement may maintain
application and submit new ones in this limited framework. It would also allow EU
producers to benefit from the additional protection granted by EU international trade
agreements in third countries, which Member States alone cannot offer.
The problem of regulatory fragmentation would be effectively solved at EU level. An EU
initiative could provide for equal protection conditions in all Member States, thus
creating legal certainty and incentives for investment in geographically rooted CI
products. In comparison, the variety and divergence of national initiatives results in legal
uncertainty for producers seeking protection, mislead consumers, impede intra-Union
trade, and make way for unequal competition in marketing GI protected products.
4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?
4.1. General objectives
The proposed initiative aims to address the following two general objectives:
– O 1: Fulfill the EU’s obligations under the Geneva Act of the Lisbon
Agreement, maximize profits from the EU’s accession to the Lisbon system
for producers in the EU and from bilateral trade agreements.
– O 2: Create a functioning internal market for CI geographically-linked
products, by establishing an adequate and harmonized regulatory framework
for their protection.
4.2. Specific objectives
The specific objectives are set to evaluate which system at EU level would be more
effective and efficient in order to allow the EU to provide GI protection under the
Geneva Act for CIs products. The Geneva Act allows Contracting Parties to use any type
of legislation124
to protect products registered under the Lisbon System, provided that the
legislation in question meets the requirements of the Geneva Act125
. As party to the
Geneva Act, the EU must provide legal means to prevent the use of an internationally
registered GI, from any use amounting to the imitation of an appellation of origin or GI.
Such protection system has to guarantee registration and enforcement at EU level of CI
products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation or
characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place. For further details on the
Geneva Act see Annex 6.
In addition, such protection system hast to be adapted to producers group composed of
small and micro enterprises and self-employed craftsman. Therefore the system should
124
Members may use special laws that apply specifically or exclusively to geographical indications and/or
appellations of origin, trademark laws, administrative provisions, or other legal means (See: Main
Provisions and Benefits of the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement (2015) (wipo.int)
125
According to the Geneva Act, the scope of protection of GIs extends to protection against evocation and
GIs cannot become generic.
26
be applicant friendly and affordable at the registration stage. Furthermore, as shown in
the problem section, affordable and effective enforcement of controls is expected by
stakeholders to assure that consumers seeking assurance about the quality, authenticity
and traceability of products, are not misled. Finally, due to concerns of some Member
States, the system should not pose significant burden for national authorities.
Consequently our specific objectives are:
– SO 1: Applicant friendly and affordable registration system
– SO 2: Effective and affordable system of control and enforcement
– SO 3: Low cost for public authorities
5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS?
5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed?
The baseline scenario is to keep the current fragmented regulatory framework in the EU
and sustain the lack of recognised protection at international level.
If the EU does not take action, many producers may be discouraged from continuing to
produce such products, thus negatively affecting the attractiveness of crafts and regions
and their possible recovery, and limiting the protection of cultural heritage. In addition,
with the current fragmentation at national level and the lack of an EU scheme and
registration for CI products, producers will continue to have difficulties to protect their
GIs at EU level and globally, facing unnecessary administrative burdens and costs, as
well as less effective enforcement remedies.
The EU will continue to be obliged to reject applications for CI GIs coming from third
countries and will be unable to protect EU CI GIs in bilateral trade agreements, putting
agricultural products covered by a GI in a more favourable position.
5.2. Description of the policy options
The main policy options (PO) identified:
 PO 0 - Doing nothing
 PO 1 - Extending the existing GI system for agricultural products, wines and
spirits to CI products
 PO 2 - A self-standing EU Regulation creating a unitary exclusive protection
system for CI products based on a sui generis IP right at EU level
PO 3 - A reform of the trade mark system allowing for guaranteeing a specific
product quality linked to a specific geographical region, on the basis of
certification or collective trade marks
5.2.1. Option 0 - Doing nothing
This option maintains the status quo.
27
5.2.2. Option 1 - Extending the existing PGI/PDO schemes to CI products (PO1)
Under this option, a GI protection system for CI products would be integrated in the
existing GI protection schemes that cover agricultural products and foodstuffs126
,
wines127
, spirits128
and aromatised wines129
(hereafter “PGI schemes”). This current
scope of the sui generis GI regime foresees that the link to the territory is characterised
by both geographical as well as historical and reputational factors130
.
Box 3: Link between the product and the region
 for PDOs, the quality or characteristics of the product are essentially or
exclusively linked to the particular geographical environment of the place
of origin. This geographical environment encompasses natural and human
factors, such as climate, soil conditions, topography, local know-how, etc.
(natural and human factors); and all production stages must take place in
the defined geographical area;
 for PGIs and GIs, the quality, reputation or other characteristic is
essentially attributable to its geographical origin. For most products, at
least one of the production steps takes place in the defined geographical
area;
Source: AND International et al. (2021), p. 7.
The PGI schemes already implemented at EU level include differentiated levels of the
link to the territory for Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) and Protected
Geographical Indications (PGIs) in the agri-food and wine sectors, and Geographical
Indications (GIs) in the spirit drinks and aromatised wine products sectors. As explained
in Box 3, the link with the territory is stronger for PDOs than for PGIs. Under this option,
we consider the use of the existing logos also for CI GI products.
Administration and registration: There is a two-stage registration procedure whereby an
application is submitted first at the level of Member States and then transferred to the
European Commission. Under the proposed revision, Member States would continue
with a preliminary procedure at the national level that includes scrutiny, publication and
the opposition procedures in which objectors from the same Member State can oppose to
an application by a producer. At the EU level, the revision of the GI system would give
powers to the Commission to outsource the scrutiny of applications and oppositions to an
126
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on
quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
127
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products.
128
Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the
definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in
the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications for spirit
drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 110/2008.
129
Regulation (EU) No 251/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on
the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of
aromatised wine products and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91.
130
From the 19th
century onwards the basis for authenticating territorial link has shifted from prioritising
geographical factors (the influence of soil, climate) to increasingly recognising historical and reputational
ones (production techniques, breeding choices or historical regions of production and distribution). This
transition sets the stage for EU GI law recognising crafts and textiles. Zappalaglio, A. (2021). The
Transformation of EU Geographical Indications Law: The Present, Past and Future of the Origin Link.
Routledge.
28
agency (most likely EUIPO). The agency would be involved up to finalising the
assessment of the application, including the opposition procedure if launched, but the
decision of the registration would be kept with the Commission131
.
Registration of GIs may be subject to a fee at the national level (for the application,
registration, amendment and cancellation). The protection offered by the GI is unlimited
in time provided the GI producer continues to meet the product specifications and
complies with the EU regulations. At international level, the Commission is the
Competent Authority to deal with GI registrations under the Geneva Act.
Control and enforcement:
A system of control and enforcement includes verification (aimed at ensuring compliance
with the product specification before the product is placed on the market); monitoring
such compliance after the product has been placed on the market; and enforcement,
which is related to action against infringement of the GI right132
.
 Third party conformity assessment: The current control system is based on the
specific rules defined in each of the four sector-specific Regulations133
and the
Official Control Regulation (OCR)134
. In this system Member States are
responsible for:
- The verification, control and monitoring of all GI products produced
and marketed in their territory (independent of the territory of production).
Member States define their control and monitoring strategies according to
risks analysis of the products. They check the compliance of the products
with the corresponding product specification.
- To do so, Member States designate central authorities responsible for the
organization of official controls which can be delegated to third parties
(control bodies), be it a legal person (conformity assessment bodies/
certification bodies) or a natural person (experts).
- Control bodies (i.e. certification bodies) have to be accredited in accord-
ance with EN ISO/ IEC 17020135
by a national accreditation body136
. The
131
Impact assessment accompanying the Regulation (COM(2022) 134 final) on European Union
geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, and quality schemes for
agricultural products. Under the preferred Option 2, sub-option 1 assessment and publication for opposition
by an agency; decision on registration or rejection with the Commission; and under Option 2, sub-option 2
assessment and decision on registration or rejection by an agency; open right of appeal to the Commission;
and management of eRegister with an agency.
132
IP enforcement rules are defined in the Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
133
Sectoral GI legislations guiled by four Regulations (see footnotes 117-120) are outlining the rules for
controls on the verification of compliance with the product specification (PS), before placing the product
on the market; checking the proper use of the names registered on the market (agri-food products and spirit
drinks); prevent or stop the unlawful use of PDOs and PGIs on products marketed in their territories (wines
and spirit drinks) within the Union. (See Commission Staff Working document evaluation of geographical
indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in the EU p. 22).
134
Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official
controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on
animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products.
135
‘Requirements for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection’.
136
See in this regard Regulation 765/2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market
surveillance relating to the marketing of products.
29
costs of accreditation are absorbed by the certification bodies. Costs
derived from the controls carried out by delegated bodies (certification
bodies) are usually paid by the producer, who may be reimbursed by the
Member State through the EU rural development fund137
.
Planning, Reporting and Auditing obligations: Member States have to comply
with certain planning and reporting obligations to the Commission. They are
obliged to conduct their official controls on the basis of a multi-annual national
control plan (MANCP) containing e.g. general information on the structure and
organization of the control systems138
. In addition, Member States shall submit to
the Commission an annual report setting out among others the outcome of
official controls performed under their respective MANCP including types and
numbers of non-compliances. In this regard, Member State shall carry out checks
based on a risk analysis and apply appropriate administrative penalties in case of
breach, and take all necessary measures. The European Commission in turn has
obligations to audit the control activities carried out at national level.
 Enforcement: Member States shall take appropriate measures, in particular
administrative and judicial steps, to prevent or stop the unlawful use of PDO
and PGI, including without any prior claim or request having been made (“ex
officio” protection). For spirit drinks the agricultural scheme provides protection
against unlawful use also with regard to goods entering the customs territory of
the Union without being released for free circulation, e.g. goods in transit.139
Ongoing agricultural GI’s Impact Assessment (IA): At the time of writing this impact
assessment report (autumn 2021), no legislation has been proposed yet140
. Therefore, the
relevant features of the new system described in this section of the IA, are based on the
draft impact assessment on the reform of existing PGI schemes141
, and its preferred
option. Hence, under this option, the ongoing agricultural PGI schemes revision would
cater for extending registration at EU and international level to CIs products. As regards
protection and enforcement, the preferred option points to the establishment of a single
set of control rules for all sectors while leaning on the general framework of the OCR.
This would also apply to CI products, which would also be covered by the OCR and by
the extended protection of “goods in transit”. The revision may also foresee the
possibility of eliminating the Commission’s audit obligations.
137
There are currently 16 Member States that have applied for reimbursement of control costs under the
EU rural development fund.
138
The MANCP shall cover not only controls related to the use and labelling of protected designations of
origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed but also all other controls
governed by the Official Control Regulation (EU) 2017/625.
139
Art. 21 (4) Regulation (EU) 2019/787 (see also recital 24). Similar provisions also exists in Art. 9 (4)
EUTM Regulation (see also recital 16) and in Art. 10 (4) TM Directive. In addition, similar provisions are
intended to be inserted into the EU Design Regulation and the Design Directive in the course of the
upcoming design reform.
140
The final proposal of the Commission, as well as the legislation adopted by the European Parliament
and the Council, may be partially different from what is the outcome of the impact assessment.
141
The ongoing reform of PGI schemes will uphold the specific GI requirements for wines and spirit drinks
and hence maintain distinctive rules in the common market legislation for wines and in the spirit drinks
regulation. The different forms of GIs will be maintained: ‘Protected Designations of Origin’ and
‘Protected Geographical Indications’ for wines and for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and
‘Geographical Indications’ for spirit drinks. One of the current 4 schemes (aromatized wines) will be
absorbed into the agricultural products and foodstuffs GIs under the 2021 Common Agriculture Policy
(CAP) reform.
30
Existing national sui generis CI titles would be absorbed into the EU wide scheme.
5.2.3. Option 2 - Self-standing EU-Regulation creating sui-generis GI protection (PO2)
This policy option would consist of adopting a regulation to establish a sui generis GI
protection system for CI products, building on the existing GI scheme for agricultural
products but adapting it further than PO1 to craft and industrial products.142
GIs would be
protected by an EU title in all EU Member States, which would be the basis for obtaining
international protection of a GI in the framework of the Lisbon system and under
bilateral trade agreements.143
The term of protection of the EU title would be unlimited,
provided the conditions continue to be met by the producers. The EU title would also be
accompanied by a voluntary use of GI logo to increase visibility and raise awareness for
consumers. Under a language regime similar to the one used for PO1, the documents,
such as the product specification, its summary (so called “single document”) and
accompanying documents would be submitted in one of the official languages of the
Union. Before publishing the application for worldwide opposition in an electronic
register, the single document would be translated into all official languages of the Union.
Decisions on registration and on rejection would be published in the register in all
official languages of the Union.
Distinct elements compared to PO1 would relate to decision on the type of territorial link
required to offer protection, the level of involvement of national authorities in the
registration procedure, the EU entity in charge of registration at EU and international
level, and the system of control of enforcement including the role of private operators
therein.
PO2 - 2.1. Territorial link
To qualify as a GI under the new protection scheme, a specific ‘causal link’ between the
CI product’s quality, reputation or other characteristics and its designated geographical
origin would be required. The GI could be either a PDO or a PGI, depending on how
much of the product’s raw materials must come from the area, or how many production
steps take place within the specific region (see Box 3 above). Hence, two sub-options can
be specified:
A. PDO: Under a PDO protection, the quality or characteristics of the product are
essentially or exclusively linked to the particular geographical environment of the place
of origin; and all stages of the production process must take place in the defined
geographical area;
B. PGI: Under a PGI protection, a particular quality, reputation or other characteristic of
the CI product are essentially attributable to its geographical origin; at least one of the
stages of production, processing or preparation takes place in the region.
142
Using the term “craft and industrial” defining the scope of the new regulation would avoid ambiguity
and avoid overlaps with the existing regulation on agricultural products, because it would distinguish
between the raw material and the final product (e.g. “wool” or “leather” as opposed to “tweed” and “leather
shoes”). The term “industrial” products could be considered as being too vague as it could extend to mass
production. On the other hand, it should be taken into account that production methods evolve and that
therefore, the definition of the scope should be flexible. Also, authentic products might be produced at
mass scale (e.g. Solingen cutlery, Limoges porcelain).
143
Exceptions would include the pre-existing national titles registered by “old” Lisbon states which would
have acceded to the Geneva Act.
31
PO2 - 2.2. Involvement of national authorities in the registration procedure
A. Two-stage system: The new EU GI title could be based on a two-stage registration
model, following the GI scheme for agricultural products. The first stage would be at the
level of Member States, where national or local authorities would play a first
examination role over local producers’ agreed product specifications and GI applications.
This examination would be based on a set of EU eligibility criteria, and national
authorities would be allowed to charge administrative fees (for the application,
registration, amendment and cancellation). Following the first stage of the national
scrutiny, the second stage would be at EU level, with an EU entity taking a decision on
registration144
, where no fees would be charged. Exceptionally, a flexible mechanism
could be foreseen for those Member States that would have no interest in setting up the
necessary infrastructure for the purposes of handling the first stage of the CI GI
applications procedure, by delegating such role to the EU level or to another interested
national competent authority.
B. One-stage system: The alternative would be to create a one-stage registration system
whereby national authorities do not participate in the examination and registration
(similar to PO3).
PO2- 2.3. EU entity in charge of registration at EU level and at international level
A. The European Commission would be in charge of the EU level stage of registration
and act also as the Competent Authority under the Geneva Act of WIPO’s Lisbon
Agreement to handle registrations of EU GIs at international level. All costs of running
the system would be covered from the EU budget.
B. The specialised IP Agency, EUIPO would be in charge of the EU level stage
registration and would also act as Competent Authority under the Geneva Act of WIPO’s
Lisbon Agreement to handle registrations of EU GIs at international level. All costs of
running the system would be covered from the EUIPO budget.
PO2 - 2.4. Control and enforcement
A. Replicating the control and enforcement model of the PDO/PGI agricultural schemes
(see PO1)
B. Streamlined control with a strong enforcement model
This option would foresee the following distinctive elements compared to Option A:
 Self-certification (first party conformity assessment): Member States would
designate competent public authorities who would be responsible for the control
and organisation of verification, monitoring and enforcement. However, public
authorities could foresee the right of producers to self-certify compliance with the
product specifications and the CI GI regulation. Hence, producers could have the
choice between self-certifying compliance with the GI specifications and the CI
GI Regulation, or have recourse to eligible (accredited) private entities like
certification bodies or natural persons (experts).
The producers’ right to self-certify compliance could apply to:
144
In addition, the Board of Appeal would be at EU level (See Annex 9 for further information).
32
– the verification, which includes the checks on the product characteristics
and production processes of specific candidate GI producers, and/or;
– the controls and monitoring on GI producers, after the GI title is granted.
Format of this declaration should be as simple as possible, flexible and adjusted
especially to the needs of micro firms that are frequent among artisan producers.
This option is inspired in the New approach and New Legislative Framework
applied to EU harmonised products and the conformity assessment procedures
foreseen therein, notably the so-called first-party conformity assessment or self-
declaration of conformity assessment (Module A)145
.
 Random inspections by national authorities (or delegated certification
bodies) coupled with a deterrent system of penalties. As with the New
Legislative Framework, where market surveillance authorities play a pivotal role
carrying checks to ensure that only compliant products are placed in the market,
and self-declarations from producers are reliable1
, this Option would foresee the
possibility by the national competent authorities to carry out random inspections
and impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in case of GI
infringements, including against GI producers that provide inaccurate or
misleading information in their self-declarations. This would increase the “ex-
officio” activities carried out by national authorities to monitor GI products in the
market.
 Streamlined reporting obligations by national authorities: Contrary to Option
A where Member States have to submit multi-annual control programmes and
annual reports to the Commission, coupled with audits performed by the
Commission, this option would only foresee a reporting obligation every four
years by the national authorities to the Commission on their GI control and
enforcement strategy and results.
 Enforcement: The basic features of the enforcement scheme under the currently
revised agricultural GI system (PO1) should be maintained, including the
protection against unlawful use of “goods in transit” entering the customs
territory. Hence, enforcement authorities designated by Member States shall take
appropriate administrative and judicial measures to prevent or stop the unlawful
use of protected CI products that are produced or marketed in the respective
national territory. This scheme should be accompanied by an alert system against
the abusive use of CI GI in the internet, in the context of domain names
registrations, as it is in place for EUTM as regards the .eu top level domain.146
Applicants (producer groups) when filing an application would have the
possibility to opt-in to receive an alert as soon as a .eu domain name is registered
that contains the protected CI GI.
145
See Annex 2, Module A of Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision
93/465/EEC (Text with EEA relevance).
146
As part of the collaboration between .eu TLD Registry and EUIPO holders and applicants of a EUTM
can opt-in to receive alerts as soon as .eu domain name is registered that is identical to their EUTM
(application). By receiving such alert, EUTM holders are informed much faster and may take appropriate
action much sooner.
33
PO2 - 2.5 Co-existence of EU and national titles and regimes
A. CI GIs would be protected by an EU title that replaces the existing national GI
regimes and absorbs national GI titles. This would be in line with the GI schemes for
agricultural products, resulting in an EU GI regime uniformly based on EU-level rights
only.
B. The alternative would be to introduce an EU GI title for CI products, while keeping a
parallel system for national GI applications. This would result in a similar EU legal
framework as for designs and trade marks.
5.2.4. Option 3 - Trade mark reform (PO3)
This option would consist of reforming the EU trade mark system, in particular the EU
trade mark regulation (EUTMR), so as to make available to producers of CI products the
possibility to apply for the registration at the EU level of a name guaranteeing a specific
product quality linked to a geographical region.
Option 3 could either be based on the reform of the EU collective mark or the EU
certification mark. Under current law, neither of these IP titles allows for, or adequately
ensures, certifying a specific product quality linked to a geographical origin at EU
level147
. Both the EU certification trade mark and the EU collective trade mark would
therefore have to be adapted under option 3:
 EU certification mark
The certification mark allows its owner to certify goods in respect of material, mode of
manufacture of goods, quality, accuracy or other characteristics. The owner of a
certification mark (a natural or legal person, an institution, or authorities and bodies
governed by public law) cannot run a business involving the supply of the goods of the
kind certified. The owner has a duty of neutrality in relation to the interests of the
producers of the goods it certifies.
The EU certification mark expressly prohibits the certification of geographical origin
(Article 83(1) EUTMR). Option 3 would therefore require removing this prohibition,
which would mean an exception to the principle of trade mark law that purely descriptive
signs should not be protected.148
 EU collective mark
The essential function of the EU collective mark is to distinguish the goods or services of
the members of the association which is the proprietor of the mark from those of other
undertakings (Article 74 EUTMR). Only associations of manufacturers, producers,
suppliers of services or traders, as well as legal persons governed by public law may
apply for EU collective marks. As an exception to the principle of distinctiveness149
, the
147
See Annex 7 – Key differences between sui-generis GI and trade mark regulation.
148
See Art. 7(1)(c) of the EUTMR which prohibits the registration of trade marks which consist
exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity,
intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or other
characteristics (absolute ground of refusal).
149
The Court of Justice of the EU defines distinctiveness as capacity of the mark to identify the goods or
services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish
those goods or services from those of other undertakings (cf. judgment of 22 June 1999, C-342/97, Lloyd
Schuhfabrik).
34
EU collective mark can designate the geographical origin of the goods or services it
covers. The regulations governing the use of a mark referred to in Article 74(2) EUTMR
shall authorise any person whose goods or services originate in the geographical area
concerned to become a member of the association which is the owner of the mark.
It should be noted that the EU collective mark does not allow for the certification of the
link between product qualities and the geographical origin. Its essential function is to
guarantee the collective commercial origin of the goods sold under that trade mark, and
not to guarantee their collective geographical origin.150
PO3 would therefore require
introducing the function of certifying the “quality-geographical origin” link to the
collective mark. Also, given that the EU collective mark today shall not be invoked
against a third party who is entitled to use a geographical name (Article 74(2) EUTMR),
this aspect would need revision to also ensure an effective system of control and
enforcement (see Specific Objective 2).
In addition, both the EU collective mark and the EU certification mark would have to be
adapted in order to comply with the international obligations resulting from the
Geneva Act. In particular, the Geneva Act sets out that the scope of protection of GIs
extends to protection against evocation, which is not the case for trade marks. Also,
according to the Geneva Act, GIs cannot become generic, meaning that they cannot, as
is the case for trade marks, become the common name in the trade for a product or
service for which they have been registered.151
Administration and registration: the registration system would be based on the current
EUTMR which entrusts the registration, opposition and cancellation procedures of EU
trade marks with the EUIPO. The EUIPO examines the signs filed for application on the
basis of absolute grounds for refusal (e.g. trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive
character) and relative grounds for refusal (e.g. risk of confusion with existing trade
marks).
For the certification mark, the EUIPO assesses the content of the regulations governing
the use of EU certification marks according to Article 17(1) EUTMIR152
, e.g. name of the
applicant, representation of the EU certification mark, goods to be covered, as well as the
characteristics of the goods or services to be certified by the EU certification mark.
However, the EUIPO does neither verify whether the relevant products meet the
requirements of the regulations of use, nor whether the certification bodies indicated in
the regulations of use correctly control the conformity with the latter.
For the collective mark, the EUIPO assesses the regulations governing use against the
legal requirements provided for in detail in Article 16 EUTMIR. These mandatory
content requirements do not refer to any specific link between the goods and the
geographical area contained within a sign. As a result, even if the applicant would
include in the regulations of use information on this specific link, the EUIPO’s
assessment would not extend to verification of its existence because it is not mandated by
the legal text and the EUIPO should go no further than assessing whether the
requirements under the EUTMR are met.
150
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 20 September 2017, The Tea Board, Joined Cases
C‑673/15 P to C‑676/15 P.
151
See Articles 11 (Protection against evocation) and 12 (Protection against becoming generic) of the
Geneva Act.
152
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain
provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark.
35
Registration of a certification mark or of a collective trademark at the EUIPO is subject
to a fee of EUR 1,500 (EUR 1,800 if in paper form). The basic protection period is ten
years. Cost of each renewal for another ten year period is the same as above.153
Control and enforcement: Control and enforcement are in the responsibility of the trade
mark holders (private law-approach).
5.3. Options discarded at an early stage
The options below as well as Option 0 are not considered as viable policy choices as they
do not result in compliance with the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement.
5.3.1. Recommendation
This option would consist of adopting a recommendation at EU level proposing to
Member States to establish national protection systems in order to certify the link
between specific product qualities and the origin of CI products.
Such a recommendation would not create new intellectual property titles. It would merely
aim at encouraging Member States to establish national protection systems. Member
States would be free to determine through what kind of system they would try to achieve
this objective (i.e. by means of a sui-generis protection system, certification trade marks
etc.), how the registration would work and how compliance with the system would be
monitored and enforced.
We disregard this option since a recommendation or voluntary measures would be
questionable regarding the obligations resulting from the Geneva Act. The Geneva Act
requires the EU as a signatory to put in place a system which allows for the protection of
third countries’ GIs within the EU and the protection of EU GIs in the contracting states.
This option would not create the basis for the Commission to file international
applications to WIPO’s International Bureau to seek protection for registered EU GIs in
third countries nor to protect GIs from third countries within the EU (see Section ‘2.1.1
Lisbon/Geneva international protection route barred’ and Annex 6). Member States alone
could not ensure such protection as, except for seven, they are not party to the Lisbon
system on their own under the Agreement, and the opportunity for new EU Member
States not party to the Agreement to join the Geneva Act following the EU’s accession
remains uncertain154
.
Furthermore, a recommendation directed at Member States could merely raise the
awareness about the problems producers of authentic CI products face. It would have a
very limited harmonizing effect concerning the scope, the eligibility conditions, the
monitoring and the enforcement of GI protection schemes. It would most likely not have
any effect on the fragmentation of GI protection within the Internal Market. First, this
option would work only on a voluntary basis and secondly, there are already significant
differences between national laws with regard to the level and scope of protection
currently provided at national level which are likely to remain. And it is uncertain if the
six EU Member States with neither GI protection nor certification marks currently would
follow the recommendation (see Table A.8.1 in Annex 8).
153
Fee for the second class of goods included in application is EUR50, and for third and above EUR 150,
https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/fees-payable-direct-to-euipo
154
EUCJ case C-24/20 (pending).
36
5.3.2. Approximation of national laws
An EU directive could be adopted in order to approximate national laws on the protection
of GIs for CI products. By a directive, the EU would create obligations to achieve
specific objectives for the protection of GIs, for example in terms of the term and scope
of protection, the territorial link, or procedural aspects such as application and
registration. The directive would leave it to Member States how to reach these objectives,
including with regard to the nature of the protection system (i.e. sui-generis protection
system, certification trade marks etc.) as well as with regard to control and enforcement.
In addition, the directive would provide for an obligation to mutually recognise a national
decision to protect a GI for a specific CI product.
On the basis of this option, producers would obtain national GI protection titles, which
would be recognised in all other EU Member States. These titles would be registered in
national databases.
Given that this option would be based on the approximation of national laws, and on
setting up national GI titles rather than an EU GI title and an EU GI registration scheme,
it would not foresee an EU body competent to deal with the registration of GIs titles at
EU and international level. The option could foresee that the listing of all national GIs
titles in the EU are made public.
Approximation of national laws would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the
Geneva Act. According to Article 9 thereof, the EU, as contracting party, shall protect
registered geographical indications on its territory, within its own legal system.
Approximation of national laws and mutual recognition, even based on full
harmonisation, would not establish an EU right protected on its territory, but rather create
a bundle of national GI rights.155
In addition, it would still require the creation of an
entity at EU level that handles GI registrations for the purposes of international GI
registration system throughout the EU and for the communications with the WIPO
international bureau as required under the Geneva Act.156
As a result, through the approximation of national laws in the EU, a GI owned by a
producer in a third country could not be effectively protected throughout the EU. As
noted in the section above, Member States alone could not ensure such protection as most
of them are not party to the Lisbon system on their own under the Agreement, and the
opportunity for new EU Member States not party to the Agreement to join the Geneva
Act following the EU’s accession remains uncertain. Moreover, harmonised national GI
rights would not qualify for EU protection under EU bilateral trade agreements with third
countries.
Compared to a recommendation, a directive could result in more clarity and legal
certainty regarding the scope, the eligibility conditions, the monitoring and the
enforcement of GIs for CI products with the EU. (See Annex 11 for further details related
to the possible harmonisation of existing national systems). Still, compared to a directly
applicable regulation (foreseen in policy options 1 to 3), the implementation of a
155
Cf. the Madrid and Hague Agreements for international registrations of trade marks and designs where
the EU is contracting party based on the EU trade marks and designs, not on the basis of national IP rights.
156
Article 3 of the Geneva Act: “Each Contracting Party shall designate an entity which shall be
responsible for the administration of this Act in its territory and for communications with the International
Bureau under this Act and the Regulations.”
37
directive would take a long time and be subject to divergent national implementations. In
practice, legal uncertainty might therefore be diminished, but not completely disappear.
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?
Policy options 1 (Extending the existing PGI/PDO schemes for agricultural products), 2
(Self-standing GI regulation) and 3 (Trade mark reform) allow to link the quality of the
product with its territorial origin at the EU level.
The following assessment focuses on the distinctive impact of the options for the cost
and benefits for key stakeholders: producers, public authorities and consumers. Impacts
that do not differ by option – such as shared impact on employment or economic growth
- are presented at the end of this Section. For a detailed assessment of the costs of the
policy options see Annex 12 on Costs calculations.
6.1. Option 1 - Extending the existing GI scheme to CI products
Producers
The PGI scheme gives the producer groups control over the product specification and
the choice over a certifying body allowing them to effectively manage their GI asset. The
process of applying for a PGI requires the definition of so-called “specifications,” which
identify the required conditions for the GI label: the characteristics of the product, the
production method, and the geographic area of production. Such involvement gives the
producer group a strong role in managing and regulating the GI asset. The PGI scheme is
inclusive to all producers in the region. Once a PGI for a product is registered, all
producers within the geographical region who comply with the product specification,
regardless of whether or not they are a member of the association that originally applied
for the registration, are entitled to use the PGI label on their product. Adding between
164 and 300 EU CI GIs157
to the PGI scheme would increase the number of protected
PGIs by around 25%158
, and thus is not expected to become such a major part of the
existing GI system as to overburden it with new registrations.
Registration procedure: Currently the first stage of the two-stage system with national
authorities carrying out a preliminary procedure includes scrutiny of the application
(including as to the territorial link) and opposition. The latter allows local producers who
are not part of the producer groups and other parties to submit their observations. Local
authorities are best placed to identify and describe the quality due to the territorial link as
well as to deal with potential local conflicts. Once the application passes the national
phase, it is transferred to the EC for further assessment. 133 producers of CI GI products
gave their opinion in the public consultation on how many steps the registration process
should involve. Almost three-quarters of them (96) preferred a two-stage procedure
including first a national stage, next an EU-level stage. On the other hand, almost a
quarter of respondents (28) preferred a one-stage procedure at EU level only.
Registration cost: When it comes to the registration cost, the legal procedure to register a
PGI indication at EU level is free of charge. At the first application step, eight Member
States (out of 27) charge application fees. These fees amount to a few hundred EURs, in
157
163 is estimated by VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.157; 300 products was identified
in the VVA et al (2020).
158
There were 1,182 PGI protected on 1/1/2020, out of total of around 3,200 protected Geographical
Indications in the Agricultural system, AND International et al. (2020), supra note, p. 33.
38
range between EUR 145 in CZ and EUR 900 in DE,159
and represent a marginal cost
from the perspective of the producer group (or individual producers if there is no
producer group). This is comparable to the level of fees that national patent and trade
mark offices (PTOs) charge for registering a GI title for CI products at national level
(between EUR 130 to EUR 500 as reported in Annex 8). We therefore expect that a
similar level of fees would apply to the national phase for European PGI scheme for CI
products. All costs connected with drafting an application are estimated on average at
EUR 15,000.160
Control and enforcement: Under PO1, the control assessment (CA) activity is performed
by a third party (person or organization) that is independent of the seller or the buyer.
This is usually called ‘certification’ and provides the highest level of assurance regarding
the state of a given product.
Table 6.1.1. Annual control and enforcement cost by size of producer group
Micro* Small Medium-sized Large All
Enforcement cost as % of turnover 1.7% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2%
Cost in EUR** 8,500 52,500 143,500 790,500 190,000
Notes: Case studies carried out in the context of the evaluation support study estimate that enforcement
costs (control and compliance costs) represent, on average, 34.2% of a producer group budget. * 50% of
GIs were under EUR 1 million sales value in 2017. ** Based on middle of range of turnover for a given
size class. Source: Own calculations based on AND International et al. (2020) pages 176-178.
Table 6.1.1 provides an overview of annual control and enforcement cost under the
existing PGI scheme. This cost was estimated to be around 1.7% of the turnover for a
producer group with total sales below EUR 1 million, 1% for a small producer group
(sales below EUR 10 million), 0.5% for a medium-sized producer group (sales < EUR
50m) and around 0.1-0.2% for the rest161
. The relative cost of certification decreases with
turnover, making it more affordable for larger, more industrialized clusters of GI
producers.
Table 6.1.2. Overview of control costs (single producer) for CI products in France (2021)
Action Cost without VAT
Verification
Drafting of the control plan between EUR 1,100 and EUR 2,300
First certification assessment/audit between EUR 350 and EUR 730
Control Follow-up audit between EUR 290 and EUR 600
Other controls Additional controls * between EUR 150 and EUR 1,000
Notes: * in the event of a serious violation of the specifications;
Source: Association Française des Indications Géographiques Industrielles et Artisanales (AFIGIA).
Another control cost benchmark is shown in Table 6.1.2 and refers to the cost by
producers of CI products protected under the French sui generis system where the control
has to be performed by independent and accredited Conformity Assessment Body (see
Box 4 for description). Drafting of the control plan and first audit costs between EUR
1,450 and 3,030 and reflects verification costs. The cost of follow up audit is between
EUR 290 and EUR 600 to be covered every one, two or three years in case of stone
mining (see Box 4).
159
See AND International et al. (2020), supra note, p. 175.
160
Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021). See Annexes 4 and 13 for assumptions.
161
See AND International et al. (2020), supra note, Table 41 on page 176.
39
The limitation to the third party conformity assessment is that it encourages the creation
of companies rather than individual crafts to join the PGI scheme. This point can be
illustrated with the following example. In a French producer group of 100 self-employed
lace makers, each craftsman and craftswoman needs to bear the bi-annual certification
cost. This results in EUR 35,000 and 73,000 of control cost (based on table 6.1.2). This
should be compared to a company employing 100 lace makers that would need to pay for
one certification only (EUR 730). Furthermore, only individual craftsmen who are able to
get high mark-ups, i.e. producers of luxury products such as diamonds or haute couture
garment, will find the system of third party conformity assessment attractive and
affordable.
Using third party conformity assessment for CI products may have further limitations.
Competition between private bodies offering such service may be limited given little
demand. It may not be attractive for private certification bodies to develop certification
schemes fit for CI GI products. There are currently three certification institutions existing
in France162
and there are about ten for agricultural products, foodstuffs and drinks. Little
competition may result in high costs for the groups of producers.
Box 4: Control under the French national sui generis system for CI GIs. 163
Independent and accredited164
Conformity Assessment Bodies (CAB) carry out the
controls. The French law does not determine the frequency of control. Producers can
choose between two kinds of CABs: either an inspection or a certification body. The
inspection bodies carry out the control operations and send their report to the Defence
and Management Body (DMB) that represents the professionals for the GI concerned.
DMB decides on measures to sanction in case of failure. The certification bodies decide
whether to grant, maintain or extend the certification, as well as on measures sanctioning
failures. The French Intellectual Property Office (INPI), which grants CI GIs, supervises
the work of CABs.
Producers of CI products will benefit from additional enforcement actions that will be
carried out by public bodies.165
Stakeholders including AREPO166
advocate that the same rules of protection that are put
today under the EU PGI schemes, ex officio included, should apply to CI GI products.
They claim that the quality of the existing GI schemes is well-established among EU
consumers and its credibility stands from controls and enforcement that should not be
undermined.
162
CERTIPAQ, Bureau Veritas Certification and FCBA.
163
See Article L-721-1 to L722-17 of the French Intellectual Property Code : Section 2 : Indications
géographiques protégeant les produits industriels et artisanaux (Articles L721-2 à L721-10) - Légifrance
(legifrance.gouv.fr)
164
by a National Accreditation Body within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market
surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93. In France
this body is the Comité Français d’Accréditation (COFRAC) www.cofrac.fr
165
EUIPO (December, 2017) Protection and Control of Geographical Indications for Agricultural products
in the EU.
166
AREPO, Position on an EU-wide Protection of Geographical Indications for Industrial and Artisanal
Products, June 2021.
40
The study on enforcement assessed verification cost at EUR 6,000 per producer group
(composed of 10 members) for all the options 1 to 3; and enforcement and management
cost at EUR 3,000 for this option (see Annexes 4 and 13 for assumptions).
Less than half of businesses responding to the public consultations (46%) were in favour
of PO1 while almost a quarter (27%) were against it.
Use of the GI label: Information about the product’s qualities is conveyed principally by
the producers or producer groups. In some cases, a private logo may be a good vehicle to
communicate GI’s specific qualities to consumers. This is the case where consumers are
aware and trust such scheme. Some producers, are therefore in favour of voluntary use of
GI label as it allows them to label the product in the way they consider most appealing to
consumers, according to their marketing strategies. Furthermore, in case of CI GI
products it might not be feasible to place it on certain products (e.g. diamonds).
Public Administration
The current PGI system for agricultural products and foodstuffs, wine and spirit drinks is
under revision. Ongoing revision aims, among others, at streamlining the process of the
first registration that should shorten the time frame in which the applications are
registered today (22 months on average as of 2018),167
lowering the control cost for the
Member States (EUR 23,500 per GI today)168
as well as lowering the effective
registration cost per application at the EU level (EUR 33,500 for an average 12-page
application file169
that is entirely paid from the EU budget) by outsourcing the
registration to EUIPO.
EU level expenses: Currently registration cost at the EU level is estimated at EUR
33,500. Given the ongoing reform of the existing PGI/TSM schemes, the efficiency gains
of up to 26% could be expected due to outsourcing registration activities to the existing
EU agency170
. Moreover, CI GI applications are likely to be less complex than
agricultural ones, thus cost of assessment was estimated at EUR 20,000 (see Annexes 4,
13). Moreover, EU level enforcement and management costs are estimated at EUR 9,000
per CI GI annually, including e.g. operation costs connected with publication of CI GI
registrations in the existing eAmbrosia171
.
Cost for Member States (registration): Under PO1 Member States will have to decide
which body to designate for the first step of the registration process. Under the current
PGI schemes, the first step is managed either by the Ministry of Agriculture or an
administrative body related to it (e.g. Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité
(INAO) in FR). Exception is SK where it is a PTO. In the Member States that provide sui
167
Impact assessment accompanying the Regulation (COM(2022) 134 final) on European Union
geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, and quality schemes for
agricultural products..
168
AND International et al. (2020), supra note, page 173.
169
Ibidem. This cost includes administration, translation of files and letters and decision/regulation,
scrutiny and cross-check, internal consultations in the European Commission Directorate General for
Agriculture and Rural Development which manages registration at the EU level.
170
Based on ICF GHK. 2013. Cost Benefit Analysis for the delegation of certain tasks regarding the
implementation of Union Programmes 2014-2020 to the Executive Agencies (Final Report 19 August
2013), pages 63 and 135. (e.g. delegation of programme management to EASME was estimated to deliver
savings of 26% relative to implementation by the Commission itself)
171
A legal register of the names of agricultural products and foodstuffs, wine, aromatised wine products
and spirit drinks that are registered and protected across the EU.
41
generis GI protection for CI products, the registration process is managed by the national
PTO. This process requires 1 FTE (FR) or part time engagement of two examiners (HU).
PTOs are very efficient in examining the CI GIs as it takes between four and twelve
months to complete national registration for CGI as opposed to 22 months for PGI (see
Table A.8.1. in Annex 8). As 16 MS have already resources committed to CI GI, for the
remaining 11 addition/reallocation of 0.6 to 1 FTE should be necessary. Member States’
overall annual registration cost is expected at EUR 7,500 per CI GI and verification cost
at EUR 600.
Cost for Member States (control and enforcement): For the current EU PGI schemes the
cost of control and enforcement amounts to 80% of the total national authorities costs.172
While PO1 would exempt certain controls that are not relevant for CI GI (e.g. food
quality), monitoring the market and launching actions against potential infringers (e.g.:
misuse of protected name, infringement on rules of production or origin of product)
would still constitute the bulk of national expenses. The cost of enforcement and
management of one GI was estimated at around EUR 3,900.
Impact of international registrations: An increase in international registrations of CI GI
following EU accession to the Lisbon agreement can be substantial. As reported in the
problem definition, China and India alone can contribute up to 800 GIs in the near future.
This is expected to put a considerable strain on public budgets in the system where public
authorities are responsible for most of the enforcement. Just to check CI GIs of these two
countries could almost quadruple the enforcement budget of EU Member States to EUR
4.3 million.
Almost half (48%) of public authorities responding to the public consultations were
against selecting PO1 and around third (35%) were supporting it.
Consumers
The Study supporting the evaluation of the EU PGI schemes173
shows that they provide
true and fair view of the products and authenticity and clear and reliable information to
consumers. This credibility is built on three blocks: verification of the territorial link by
national authorities as well as strict system of controls (verification and monitoring) and
enforcement. By extending the existing GI system to CI product, consumers of CI GI
products could benefit from the credibility and trust attach to existing GI schemes.174
Consumers, in their purchasing decisions, rely on their own knowledge and information
put on product labelling. For product categories, that has built their brand recognition on
quality of origin or benefit from origin information embedded in the existing labels,
consumers may be able to make the right choice (condition that they are aware and trust
those schemes). For other categories, the use of specific PGI label may be critical for
consumers to make informed decisions. Therefore, mandatory use of GI label may be
desirable from consumer point of view.175
172
AND International, ECORYS & COGEA (2020, December), supra note, page 174.
173
AND International et al. (2020), supra note, see Executive Summary.
174
Knowledge of other GI-protected products appears to be relevant for the probability of correctly
identifying the authentic CI product. VVA et al. (2020), supra note, p. 61.
175
During the January 2022 meeting of the Commission expert Group on Industrial Property Policy
Member States were divided on the issue of logo, with ten asking for the logo to become mandatory and
four asking for it to be voluntary. Six Member States would prefer the use of the existing PGI logo while
four would prefer the use of a new CI GI logo.
42
More than half (57%) of EU citizens, NGOs and researchers who replied to the public
consultations favoured PO1, while around a quarter (23%) were against it.
Table 6.1.3. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under PO1
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 15,000 7,500 20,000 42,500
Verification/Control* 6,000 600 0 6,600
Enforcement & management** 3,000 3,900 9,000 15,900
Total 24,000 12,000 29,000 65,000
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.45 0.23 0.60 1.28
Verification/Control* 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.20
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.12 0.27 0.48
Total 0.72 0.36 0.87 1.95
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 4 and 13 for detailed calculations and assumptions.
6.2. Option 2 - Self-standing EU Regulation
Producers
Territorial link: CI products differ in their link to the territory. On one hand, products
such as marble stone can prove link to the geographical environment based on the soil
conditions as well as local know how related to the processing of the stone (methods of
production). On the other, Antwerp Diamonds are mined worldwide but processed (cut
and polished) in Antwerp. The former would qualify for protection under PDO and the
latter for PGI scheme. Research has shown that the link to a specific place for CI
products is predominantly based on the product’s history and on its distinctive traditional
method of production and not so much on the link to elements of the geographical
environment such as soil or weather conditions. There are thus only few products that
would qualify for PDO.
Stakeholders agree with these findings. 67 of respondents of the public consultation
expressed an opinion about the definition of the link between the product and its place of
origin. More than 80% of these (55) selected elements characteristic of the definition of
EU geographical indications, where the required link is less strict as compared to the
definition of EU appellations of origin. The limited use of the PDO schemes for artisanal
products is also highlighted by the Association of European Regions for Products of
Origin (AREPO) in their position paper.176
Therefore, we conclude that PGI scheme
(Option 2.1.B) rather than PDO (Option 2.1.A) is better suited for the
characteristics of CI GI products.177
However, not all products falling into the scope of application will qualify for GI
protection. The proposed regulation will condition GI protection on eligibility criteria to
qualify for protection as a GI, particularly based on the so-called territorial link between
176
AREPO, Position on an EU-wide Protection of Geographical Indications for Industrial and Artisanal
Products, June 2021.
177
The empirical analysis showed that the method of production is often essential in order to identify the
product and distinguish it from its generic and non-localised variants. See Zappalaglio, A., Guerrieri, F., &
Carls, S. (2020). Sui Generis Geographical Indications for the Protection of Non-Agricultural Products in
the EU: Can the Quality Schemes Fulfil the Task? IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and
Competition Law, 51(1), 31-69.
43
specific product characteristics and a geographical place. To be granted GI protection,
the product has to originate in a specific place, region or country and its given quality,
reputation or other characteristic has to be essentially attributable to its geographical
origin. In addition, at least one of the productions steps has to take place in the defined
geographical area.
As an additional “safety valve”, a designated registration authority will establish
guidelines for examination. They will specify the above mentioned eligibility criteria to
ensure legal certainty and to avoid an overly broad GI protection.
Control and enforcement are meant to ensure that products carrying PGI labels comply
with the product specifications and that the information conveyed via labelling is
verifiable and credible. There are two sub-options replicating the control and
enforcement model of the PDO/PGI agricultural schemes (2.4.A.) and streamlining
control with a strong enforcement model.
These sub-option differ among other aspects, in their approach to conformity assessment
(CA): third party CA (Option 2.4.A) and first party CA, also referred to as self-
declaration (Option 2.4.B).
Third party conformity assessment provides the highest level of assurance regarding the
compliance of a given product with its specification but can be costly as certification
bodies are usually for profit organizations. The costs and limitations of the third party
CA are discussed in Section 6.1. On the contrary, self-declaration is suitable for the low
risk products where producers can be trusted to provide reassurance that the specification
has been followed. Today, first party CA is used to assess health and safety of the vast
majority of machinery put on the EU single market.178
Consequently, it should be
sufficient also in relatively less important (compared to health) case of declaring
conformity with GI product specifications. Cautious estimates show that self-declaration
lowers compliance cost by EUR 300 per producer group.179
In general, third party CA is justified when the level of risk is higher or when a market is
big enough to justify the expenditure. CI GI market is very diverse and often small. Self-
declaration may therefore be seen as an affordable option for micro companies and self-
employed artisanal. Self-declaration alone, however, may not deter potential fraud
behaviour and may dilute the consumers’ trust embedded in the PGI label. Such concern
is put forward in the recent oriGIn position paper.180
Under Option 2.4.B, therefore, self-
declaration is an option that can be introduced by Member States, either for the
verification phase or/and the monitoring and control. This would be coupled with a
system of random ex-officio checks by public authorities and a set of effective,
proportionate and dissuasive penalties for non-compliance that aims at deterring possible
fraud behaviour by producers. Consequently, Option 2.4B seems preferred from the
point of view of producers.
Box 6. Example of fines under Italian sui generis GI law
178
According to Commission evaluation supported by a study this option is effective in protecting the
health and safety of machinery users and cuts costs significantly. SWD(2018)160 - Evaluation of the
Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/29232.
179
Evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products (SWD (2014) 23) determined that
an average cost of conformity assessment with third-part did not represent more than 5% of the total
compliance costs incurred by firms.
180
oriGIn EU, Position on a future system for craft and industrial GIs, November 2021.
44
In the case of Ceramics from Faenza, the use of the marks ‘Artistic and Traditional
Ceramics’ and ‘Quality Ceramics’ by a registered producer without the fulfilment of the
law requirements concerning production standards is punished with a fine between
EUR1,000 and 25,000 and, in case of reiterated infractions, with the cancellation from
the register of producers.181
Enforcement: same assessment as in PO1. In addition, under this option, producers would
also profit from an EU alert system against the abusive use of CI GI in the internet, in
the context of domain names registrations, that could be organised between .eu TLD182
Registry and EUIPO mirroring the existing system set up for EU TMs. Holders and
applicants of a CI GI could opt-in to receive alerts as soon as .eu domain name is
registered that is identical to their GI (application). By receiving such alert, CI GI holders
would be informed much faster and may take appropriate action much sooner. Such alert-
system does not represent a cost for producers. The nine Member States which expressed
on 15 October 2021 in a joint-non paper their strong support for an EU-wide sui generis
protection system also gave importance to effective measures to stop the misuses and
fraud of GIs in the internet including domain names.183
Box 7. Example of how infringements on Burgundy Stone are solved
Among 100 infringements identified, in 90% of cases the issue was solved through the
submission of registered letters by the producers’ group; about 10 situations were solved
through the formal notice from a lawyer and only one infringement has led to a court
case.184
Businesses responding to the public consultations were selecting PO2 as their most
preferred choice (83% in favour, 13% against).
Public administration
Control and enforcement: Option 2.4.B has a potential to lower the cost of control for
public authorities. Assuming inspections target around 13% of companies (same level as
in the context of machinery),185
the cost of controls for Member States are estimated at
EUR 100 per GI186
. Given the preference of some Member State for low cost
solution, Option 2.4.B seems also more appropriate for national administrations.
Member states would retain the right to require the use of third party certification for the
verification phase and or the control and monitoring. Moreover, enforcement would be
reinforced, entitling the competent authorities in coordination with producer groups to
prevent the entry of CI GI infringing goods and their placement in all custom situations
including transit, also when such goods are not intended to be placed on the EU market.
Proportionate reporting obligations on national authorities to the Commission on their GI
control and enforcement strategy and results would be expected only every four years.
Involvement of national authorities in the registration procedure: One stage v. two
stages: Option 2 would replace the existing national GI titles/regime with the EU
181
VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p. 65.
182
.eu top-level domain (TLD) for further information see: .eu top-level domain | Shaping Europe’s digital
future (europa.eu)
183
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Germany.
184
VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p. 66.
185
SWD(2018)160, p. 26.
186
13% of enforcement cost of Option 1.
45
protection scheme. The resulting unique title would be granted at EU level only (like in
the GI scheme for agricultural products). The proposed registration process at EU level
under the new scheme could involve national authorities (Option 2.2.A: two-stage
system) or not (Option 2.2.B: one-stage system). Annex 9 on procedural options carries
out a thorough assessment of several options both for a two-stage system (see options
1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 in Annex 9) and for a one-stage system (options 1.4 and 1.5).
The two-stage approach would follow the example of the GI schemes for agricultural
products outlined in PO1 (as described in Section 6.1). Involvement of national
authorities at the first stage, would allow for including local and regional expertise
necessary to assess product specifications. Arguably it would be easier for local
micro/artisan producers that could communicate in their own language, interact with
administration they are familiar with and receive any other help and support. Resulting
cost for national authorities would be the same as in PO1 (EUR 7,500).
Registration just at the EU level could be faster and more efficient due to elimination of
national step as shown in the Annex 9. Consequences of no local scrutiny could be that
applications are assessed only formally on correctness of the filled form. More thorough
verifications of territorial links would require either contacts with local administration or
some independent verification through e.g. independent research, consulting or
requirement for supporting analysis attached to application form. Such option would be
attractive for Member States that do not have necessary infrastructure for the purposes of
handling the first stage of the CI GI application procedure. Furthermore, in case where
local authorities would act on behalf of a producer and register the GI at EU level, the
one stage procedure would be identical to the two stage one. However while the two
stage approach forces engagement of local authorities (with advantages as described
above, as well as disadvantages such as e.g. lack of expertise), such engagement for the
one stage approach would remain voluntary (similarly to option 3).
Opinions received during the public consultations shows that the vast majority of
stakeholders (96 out of 133) prefer a two stage procedure. Also producers associations -
AREPO and oriGIn – are in favour of two-stage registration procedure. Furthermore, the
nine Member States mentioned the two stage procedure as their preferred solution in the
said joint-non paper to the Commission. Consequently, Option 2.2.A is the preferred
sub-option.
EU entity in charge of registration at EU level and at international level: The relevant
EU body in charge of managing the EU-level stage of the registration process could be
the Commission services (Option 2.3.A) or a specialised EU body like the EU IP Office
(EUIPO) (Option 2.3.B). Both have already an experience in dealing with case by case
administration of applications or amendments procedures related to specific rights. The
Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI),
for historical and policy reasons stemming from the EU’s exclusive competence on
agricultural GIs and the EU’s common agricultural policy together with its link to the
rural policy area, is the EU entity dealing with agricultural EU PGI Schemes. They are
equipped with all appropriate technical specialisation and expertise. This situation is
untypical as the Commission’s role focuses usually on instigating and implementing EU
policies. As producers would be closer to the core of political decisions, this could lead to
criticism of the transparency and bias of registration decisions. Cost for the Commission
are estimated at EUR 20,000 as in PO1.
The Commission and the EUIPO can also both rely on their expertise and network in the
field of cooperation with national IP authorities. That kind of practical routine within the
46
Commission is currently limited to national agricultural authorities and would have to be
established at a different operational level in respect of national authorities dealing with
CI GIs. The EUIPO is already more extensively linked to national authorities dealing
with IP rights. For instance, the EUIPO cooperates with all intellectual property offices,
that register trade marks, many of which do also handle CI GIs.
Outsourcing of standard task to an agency brings efficiency gains.187
The EUIPO is an
EU specialised agency with proven experience in handling registrations of other IP rights
at EU and international level. The EUIPO has advanced IT tools that could support the
new GI right (including management of registration at WIPO). EUIPO is already
handling GIView188
, a database that offers a comprehensive overview of all EU
(agricultural) GIs protected within the EU and in non-EU countries. EUIPO’s further
connectivity to the Commission’s legal register database189
for GI registration could
ensure a comprehensive approach for all GIs (agricultural and CIs). In respect of
agricultural GIs the EUIPO is envisaged by the ongoing AGRI reform to take over most
activities from the Commission by means of outsourcing. Further efficiency gains would
also be achieved by using EUIPO’s appeal body (Boards of Appeal), thus eliminating a
need to create a new structure in the EC to handle CI GI related appeals. There are clear
synergies between CI GIs and TMs and Designs procedures also in view of the existing
EUIPO’s cooperation with .eu TLD registry on the alert-system for TMs and the
registration of domain names.190
Cost for EUIPO are put at EUR 17,000 (this includes
cost for registration and management of EUR6,000 and cost of translation (machine +
human verification) of files to all EU languages of EUR11,000). Additionally all costs
would be covered by the current EUIPO budget with no new expenses for the EU
budget.191
As regards the role of Competent Authority in the Lisbon system (see Annex 10:
Competent authority, link with Lisbon system), the EUIPO currently has the same
capacity in respect of two other international registration systems administered by WIPO:
the Madrid system for trade marks and the Hague system for designs. Handling the
interface with international systems requires familiarity with highly specific procedures
and with the operation of WIPO’s International Bureau and registries. EUIPO has the
valuable asset of institutional knowledge in this regard.
The European Parliament in its resolution of 11 November 2021 called for the
establishment of an efficient and transparent EU sui generis scheme, pointing to EUIPO
as responsible entity for the registration of CI GIs in order to ensure their uniform
187
Due to specialisation and standardisation of administrative activities such agencies are very cost
efficient. For instance, cost analysis of Union Programmes 2014-2020 has shown that delegation of
programme management to one agency was expected to bring savings of 26% relative to implementation
by the Commission. Source: ICF GHK. 2013. Cost Benefit Analysis for the delegation of certain tasks
regarding the implementation of Union Programmes 2014-2020 to the Executive Agencies (Final Report
19 August 2013), pages 63 and 135.
188
See: GIview (tmdn.org).
189
eAmbrosia is the Commission’s legal GI register of the names of agricultural products and foodstuffs,
wine, aromatised wine products and spirit drinks that are registered and protected across the EU.
190
See Annex 10 for further information.
191
With the total EUIPO budget at EUR534 million in 2021, the estimated cost of 30GIs registrations per
year of EUR54,000 amounts just to around 0.01% of the EUIPO budget. Even taking into account higher
estimations done by the EUIPO (annex 9, Option 1.3) with fixed annual cost of 12 FTE, the CI GI costs of
EUIPO should amount to around 0.2-0.3% of the total EUIPO budget. EUIPO budgets available at:
https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/transparency-portal/economic/office-budget
47
examination and protection throughout the Union.192
On the other hand, less than three-
quarters of total respondents of the public consultation (i.e. 82) preferred the Commission
to be in charge over an EU Agency. As further explained in Annex 9, there would be no
registration fee at EU level applied by EUIPO or the Commission. Due to higher
efficiency, the EUIPO sub-option 2.3.B is preferred.
Co-existence of EU and national titles and regimes: existing national GI titles could, on
the one hand, be absorbed by the new EU framework (Option 2.5.A) or co-exist in
parallel (Option 2.5.B). In both cases, GIs currently protected at national level would not
lose protection and a new EU title would be created.
The first approach (Option 2.5.A) builds on the experience of the agricultural GI schemes
which replaced national GI titles when the EU scheme was first put in place. Keeping a
single EU regulatory framework throughout the Single Market for producers, would
lighten the burden on Member States and administrative bodies. First, because they
would not need to invest on national GI schemes but on the first-stage procedure, which
is lighter as it does not require registration at national level. This is especially important
for those Member State who do not have GI system already and prefer to keep the costs
low. Second, there would be no need to create rules to avoid regulatory conflicts and
overlaps between the EU and the national levels. Thirdly, the new EU regulatory
framework, incorporating existing national GI titles, would be used for the purposes of
granting international protection through the Lisbon route. For the purpose of absorption
of existing around 40 national GIs by the EU scheme, the owners would have to express
their interest to do so. Consequently, we have not treated their costs differently in cost
calculations.
To make option 2.5.B operational and guarantee a successful co-existence between the
new sui generis EU title and the current heterogeneous GI protection systems at national
level, the latter should be harmonized. As there are two types of systems at national level
(trade mark and sui generis) which are additionally quite different from one another, this
would imply various degree of harmonisation depending on the level of similarity of the
considered national system with the landing (EU) system.
A meaningful approximation of GI protection at national level would practically imply
that certain Member States would have to establish a full new regulatory system for
national GIs in addition to complying with the new EU sets of rules aiming to establish
the EU GI title and system. Harmonisation might therefore create a disproportionate
amount of regulatory and administrative burden for those Member States. In addition,
harmonisation would also require continuous investment by all Member States to
maintain convergence between national protection systems as the experience with the
harmonised trade mark system has shown. The EUIPO estimates that an effort of a
minimum of five full time equivalents (FTEs) are currently invested across the EU
Intellectual Property Network (EUIPN) on a yearly basis in the maintenance of
convergence of practices and keeping the stakeholders informed and engaged.
Having two parallel systems at EU and national levels might eventually carry the risk of
confusing consumers and producers. Producers from certain Member States (that are not
members to Lisbon already) might need to go through EU protection to get protection in
a third country (see Annex 6). For further information on the interplay between existing
192
European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2021 on an intellectual property action plan to support
the EU’s recovery and resilience (2021/2007(INI)).
48
national systems /future EU system see Annex 11. Due to relative simplicity, Option
2.5.A An EU title replacing existing national GI regimes is preferred.
The vast majority (92%) of public authorities responding to the public consultations were
supporting PO2 and only 4% were against it.
Consumers and Innovation: same assessment as in PO1.
Vast majority (86%) of EU citizens, NGOs and researchers who replied to the public
consultations favoured PO2, while only 6% were against it.
Based on the analysis above and to allow comparison with other options, Option 2
consists of the following combination of the best performing sub-options: options 2.1.B
(PGI protection), 2.2.A (two-stage system), 2.3.B (EUIPO), 2.4.B (streamlined control
with a strong enforcement) and 2.5.A (EU title replacing national GIs)193
.
Table 6.3.1. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under PO2
(preferred combination of sub-options)
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 15 000 7 500 17 000 39 500
Verification/Control* 5 700 100 0 5 800
Enforcement & management** 3 000 3 900 0 6 900
Total 23 700 11 500 17 000 52 200
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.45 0.23 0.51 1.19
Verification/Control* 0.17 0 0 0.17
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.12 0 0.21
Total 0.71 0.35 0.51 1.57
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 3, 4 and 13 for detailed calculations and assumptions
6.3. Option 3 - Trade mark reform
Producers
Management: In case of collective trade marks, the producers would have to form an
association (a collective composed of members) in order to apply for an EU collective
mark. Rules on associations are set by respective laws of Member States, cost of setting it
up are marginal, and one of the members could be in charge of running it. The
association would have to set the rules and standards for using the mark, product
specifications, including limitation on territory. In order to use the mark a producer
would have to become a member of the association.
In case of existing collective trade marks (such as Belgian Linen (BE) or Botticino
Classico Marble (IT)), owners enjoy the freedom to manage their product specification as
much as the producers group under the sui generis GI scheme. Furthermore, the case
studies put forward in the study on enforcement194
show that producer associations
frequently endorse verification actions that go beyond the EUTMR (which does not
require any product standards to be set as part of an EU collective mark), suggesting that
the mere presence of the group encourages investment in quality standards.
193
For comparison of cost of different combinations of sub-options of Option 2 please see annex 13. For
impact of different combinations of sub-options on stakeholders and objectives see annex 14.
194
VVA and AND International (2021), p. 46.
49
For certification marks, the owner of the mark has to be a third party not engaged in the
supply of certified goods and service. As the owner is independent from the producers,
its oversight corresponds to third party control under the sui generis GI option. In case of
existing CI GI products this role is taken by a local authority or an association (see Table
below). Eligibility criteria may include non-discrimination clauses meaning that if a
producer complies with the criteria, the owner of the certification mark cannot deny the
use of the mark. At least in the case of the four examples presented below, there is an
open channel of communication between producers and owners.
Table 6.3.1. Examples of national certification marks for CGI products
Mark
No of
producers
Owner Eligibility Criteria
Albacete Cutlery
(ES)
10 Albacete Council the whole process of production of the knife, from
the tempering phase to the end, is done exclusively
with original materials and in the city and province
of Albacete
Artesanato dos
Açores (PT)
100 Regional Centre for the
Support of Handicraft
material, method of manufacture, quality, precision
or other characteristics
Made in Toruń (PL) 150 Toruń Council business services and products linked to Toruń city
Sámi Duodji (SE) N/A Saami Council specific techniques and materials
Source: VVA and AND International (2021), p. 43.
Currently at least five Member States (IE, IT, LV, LT, SE) charge for certification marks
for GI protection. The fees are between EUR 150 and 340 (see Annex 8) – so between
10% and 23% of the EUIPO fees. Annualized cost of preparation of registration, EUIPO
fees and renewal fees are estimated at EUR 7,650 per TM for GI annually.
As in the TM system, EU wide and national protection systems coexist, it would be up to
the owners of these national certification marks to decide if they want to apply for EU
wide protection, however according to today’s EU legislation on EU certification marks,
they cannot be used to certify the link between product qualities and the geographical
origin (which could be changed but which would imply an opposite policy approach to
the one followed so far by the EU).
Control and enforcement Owners of collective and certification marks have high
flexibility regarding the definition of product characteristics and other eligibility criteria,
the choice of verification, monitoring and enforcement tools. In case of national
certification marks, controls vary between on-site controls (of the manufacturing
process), product checks (sometimes based on photographs), checks of the origin of the
materials used, self-assessment and even no verification. Frequency varies from only
once upon application to yearly. In the case of small producer group, social control is an
important factor that may partly replace formal verification. Very few cases of non-
compliance were reported.
Costs depend on the scope of verification put in place. It can be low, if limited formal
verification is performed, or up to EUR 6,000 as in PO1195
. Furthermore, in cases when a
local authority is the owner of a certification mark it could decide to bear the cost of
controls, thus limiting the cost for producers.
195
Cost depend on use of certifying bodies, can be up to EUR 20,000 / year for a single company when
verification systems are complex for large-scale companies (VVA & AND International (2021), supra note,
p. 73). It must be noted that the quoted study puts the same maximum cost for both trade mark and sui
generis options in case of use of independent certifier.
50
Enforcement Under trade mark option enforcement is private, that is TM owner has to
gather evidence and sue the potential infringer. The costs for light enforcement are
limited (few euros for a registered letter, and few hundred euro for a registered letter
written by a lawyer). The costs for strong enforcement may reach EUR 2,500-EUR 5,000
for a court case (maximum of EUR 30,000 in case of complex and long procedure)196
.
With majority of GI groups being micro producers (50% based on PGI) with no internal
legal capacity, such cost may prove prohibitive and consequently render enforcement
ineffective. This can disincentivise protection especially in light of the importance
attached to it by producers as demonstrated in the problem section. Nevertheless as bulk
of potential infringements can be solved with a letter197
, the cost of enforcement also for
these options are set at EUR 3,000.
Among respondents to the public consultation, almost the same number of stakeholders
(65) express their preference for a general system based on IP rights enforcement as for a
specific GI enforcement system (58).
Box 5. Monitoring the market under TM
Marmo Botticino Classico (IT marble producers) reported the difficulties in
systematically monitoring ex-ante the market, with costs outweighing the benefits of
such an exercise. Mainly due to technical difficulties (including human and economic
resources, both for online research and obtaining information offline), the geographical
distances involved, and the small size of the consortium.
Conversely, the monitoring system for Plauener Spitze (DE lace) was deemed to be
‘extremely effective’ due to increased digitization and online sales which facilitates
market monitoring, while off line monitoring remained difficult. 198
Businesses responding to the public consultations were slightly against selecting this
option (48% against, 41% in favour).
Public authorities
Registration: If local authorities engage as owners of e.g. certification mark, they would
take all the responsibilities for registration, use by producers, quality control, link to the
territory. They could charge fees (as they already do in five Member States). In case
authorities do not want to engage as owners, their direct cost would be reduced to zero.
Nevertheless, they could still support mark holders e.g. by organizing cooperation,
supporting payment of EUIPO fees, or organizing national and international promotion
campaigns. Such supportive action would however be voluntary and not connected to any
obligations imposed by this option. At central Member States level, there would be no
need to determine rules or designate national authorities for scrutiny, official controls,
and to prevent or stop the unlawful use of geographical names.
One benefit of this option is that the trade mark system is already available at EU level
through the EU Trade mark Regulation. The EUIPO is experienced with handling TM
registrations. With around 177,000 TM applications199
in 2020 an increase by 300 CI GI
in ten years’ time will be insignificant for both cost and revenues of the EUIPO. Also due
196
VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p. 135.
197
See Box 7 below.
198
VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.62.
199
EUIPO “Annual activity report 2020” https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/annual-report
51
to the fact that EUIPO TM fee revenues are twice as high as corresponding direct
costs200
. Nevertheless full fee of EUR 1,500 was attributed to EU cost to cover also fixed
cost of the EUIPO.
The majority (58%) of public authorities responding to the public consultations were
against selecting this option while around 21% were in favour.
Consumers
Amending Trade Mark Regulation to allow for CI GI protection will coexist with sui
generis EU PGI/PDO schemes for agricultural, foodstuff and drinks that are available at
EU level. Such approach would only add to fragmentation of GI protection in the EU.
This could be detrimental to producers in their efforts to distinguish their products on the
market on an equal playing field and, for example, benefiting from the use of PGI/PDO
logos and the promotion of GIs schemes in general. It would be detrimental to the
consumer who would continue to experience difficulties in understanding different
approaches, thus undermining their (informed) decision at the point of purchase.
More than half (57%) of EU citizens, NGOs and researchers who replied to the public
consultations were against PO3, while one fifth (20%) were in favour of it.
Table 6.3.2. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under PO3201
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 7 650 0 1 500 9 150
Verification/Control* 6 000 0 0 6 000
Enforcement & management** 3 000 0 0 3 000
Total 16 650 0 1 500 18 150
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.27
Verification/Control* 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.18
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.09
Total 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.54
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 4 and 13 for detailed calculations and assumptions.
In addition to all the above considerations, two further points are also to be taken into
account. First, the EU is generally perceived as the champion of the sui generis GI
regime in the international arena including WTO and WIPO. Many countries embracing
a sui generis regime have taken the EU as a reference model, in particular given the very
successful outcomes on GIs in EU’s bilateral negotiations. At multilateral level
(TRIPS/WIPO) the EU has consistently promoted the extension of a high level of
protection to all GIs, beyond wines and spirits. It may therefore appear rather inconsistent
with this well-established approach to divert from such standards in the case of CI GIs
protection by establishing a new EU scheme based on trade mark reform.
Second, while not in principle excluded, it would appear inconsistent for the EU to
provide one kind of legislation (sui generis protection) for agricultural GIs and another
kind (trade mark protection) for CI GIs.
200
EUIPO forecast for 2021-25 budget: direct expenditures for TM account for around 52% of fee
revenues. Source: EUIPO.
201
See Annex 13 on Cost estimations.
52
6.4. Shared impacts
All three policy options assessed above are going to contribute to solving higher level
objectives and problems as described in Section 2. They provide a single registration
point at the EU level and uniform protection that will enable producers to protect and
signal quality of their products due to geographical origin in the internal market. Such
protection should unlock the potential for additional sales, contributing to the increased
profitability and attractiveness of the craft professions that often belongs to the EU
cultural heritage. The shared impacts on employment, innovation, competition and
environment are as follows.
Employment
The Cost of Non-Europe Report202
estimates that between 284,000 and 338,000 new jobs
(between 14,200 and 16,900 annually) would be created in the EU over the period of 20
years. Employment in craft sector is strongly declining, hence, this initiative may reverse
this trend. Furthermore, CI producers will benefit from the overall expected increase in a
range between 4.9 and 6.6% in intra-EU trade in these goods over the same period.203
Such opportunities for commercial development in addition may create conditions for the
development of sustainable tourism offers and economic diversification of regions highly
dependent on tourism. Around 75% of respondents to the consultations anticipated
positive impact of CI GI system on employment204
.
Innovation
A GI is a distinctive sign used to identify a product whose quality, reputation or other
such characteristics relate to its geographical origin. These characteristics are not
observable. As GI label restore this information to consumers, it gives producers more
incentive to produce high-quality products.205
Furthermore, evolution of consumer
preferences (c.f. Section 2.2) will require product upgrades (e.g. Box 8). Case studies for
agricultural products in IT, DE and BE demonstrate that product characteristics protected
by geographical indications do not remain static but evolve both with regard to the
production and to the marketing.206
Nevertheless, it is important to underline that, having
control over the product specification, group of producers have the power to stimulate or
stifle innovation.207
Around half of respondents to consultations expected positive
impacts on innovation with one in ten having the opposite view. 208
202
European Parliament (2019), supra note.
203
See also: Raimondi, V., Falco, C., Curzi, D., & Olper, A. (2020). Trade effects of geographical
indication policy: The EU case. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(2), 330-356 who study the impact
on food geographical indication policy on trade margins.
204
43% in case of respondents from Member States without national CI GI system (see Annex 2a).
205
Akerlof, G. A. (1978). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. In
Uncertainty in economics (pp. 235-251).
206
Gocci, A., Luetge, C., & Vakoufaris, H. (2020). Between Tradition and Sustainable Innovation:
Empirical Evidence for the Role of Geographical Indications. International Business Research, 13(9), 101-
101.
207
On the one hand, very stringent product specifications and quality standards might have the potential to
stifle innovation as producer might be reluctant to experiment with non-traditional designs or production
methods if this could cause them to lose out on the protection and reputation provided by geographical
indications. (VVA et al. (2020), supra note, p. 75). On the other, producers can cooperate in upgrading
quality or in updating product specifications (VVA et al. (2020), supra note, p. 29). In addition some
53
Box 8. Example of innovation in CI GI
There are two lace making societies in Rauma (Finland), one focusing on preserving the
traditional methods and styles, and the other focusing on innovative and artistic uses of
lace and lace materials. However, also the latter emphasises the importance of the
tradition as the basis of innovation and art, and more recently the former has been more
open to occasionally using non-traditional colours and creating new kinds of decorative
pieces on request.
Bolesławiec Pottery (PL): innovation in functionality - ceramics are now suitable for use
in dishwashers and cookers.
Donegal tweed (IE) weaving developed from handwoven to power looms.
Connemara marble (IE) is designed by 3D design modelling 209
Competition
CI GIs are upmarket products. They are based on tradition, convey information about
their geographical origin, and address specific demand of consumers who attach value to
such specific qualities (e.g. manual manufacturing techniques). Accordingly, even if
market rivalry would be muted if a previously non-GI product turns GI, the resulting
quality signalling effects of the CI GI title lifts consumer willingness to pay. This is
indeed the case as the willingness to pay for an ‘authentic’ CI product increases with its
value (see Section 2.2). And thus with the GI protection, consumer surplus is unlikely to
be affected.
Furthermore, the number of CI products eligible for GIs protection is rather limited, and
close non-GI covered functional substitutes are abundant. Also, competing producers are
able to enter and produce CI GI covered substitutes, if only they fulfil the relevant
criteria. And there is no legal limit to how many firms might produce GI products. For
these reasons, market power is very unlikely to be created or enhanced by the initiative in
question.
Around 80% of all respondents as well as business respondents to the public
consultations considered that CI GI should have positive impacts on both competition
and competitiveness of producers. Only respondents from Member States without
national CI GI system and around 5% of all respondents had opposing views.
Finally, all conduct within the framework of GIs is subject to EU competition law.
Environment
As regards impact on the environment, the scale of production generated by the handful
of CI GI products is likely limited. Second, CI GI generates a more durable good
compared to cheaper non-CI GI mass production alternatives and is more likely to be
scholars stresses the importance of adequate public oversight in order to ensure the product improvements,
e.g. Moerland, A. (2019). Geographical indications and innovation: what is the connection? In The
Innovation Society and Intellectual Property. Edward Elgar Publishing., p. 33.
208
Respondents from Member States without national CI GI system were split on this point with 40%
expecting positive impact and 40% negative (see Annex 2a).
209
Economic aspects of geographical indication protection at EU level for non-agricultural products in the
EU, VVA at al 2020).
54
produced in the EU (hence reduced transport).210
Third, consumers who express
preference of such credence goods are likely to be the environmentally cautious ones and
thus quite likely expect CI GI producers to join them in environmental virtue signalling
(see Section 2.2). For all those reasons, the environmental effect – however small – is
likely to be positive. Such positive impact is also expected by almost 60% of the
respondents to the public consultations.
7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?
The following tables provides information comparing the policy options in the light of
the effectiveness and efficiency criteria as well as impact on most affected stakeholders.
7.1 Comparison of impacts
Table 7.1 Comparison of policy options against effectiveness and efficiency criteria
Option
Effectiveness (contribution to achieving objectives)
Efficiency
(costs and benefits)
Applicant friendly
and affordable
registration system
Effective and affordable
system of:
Low cost for
public
authorities
control enforcement
Baseline 0 0 0 0 0
Option 1
Modified
Agri
system
(++) Registration at
no or low cost with
local authorities
who provide
additional support
to producers (form
filling,
collaboration
building)
(+) Strict
control based
on third party
assessment
high benefit to
customers
(++)Authorities
enforce out of
their own
initiative,
high benefit to
producers
(--) High cost of
both control and
enforcement
system
Net effect: (++)
High cost and high benefits, esp.
as regards quality control and
assurance, and enforcement. Use
of recognised PGI logo.
Authorities bear bulk of cost
Cost: EUR1.95m for 30 GI,
37% of costs borne by producers
Option 2
New
system
2.2A (++) as in PO1 2.4B (++) new
approach
control based
on self
declaration
and random
controls; low
cost,
comparable
effectiveness
to PO1
(++) authorities
enforce out of
their own
initiative,
high benefit to
producers
(+) lower cost
of control due to
random checks,
(-) additional
costs for MSs
that do not have
and (0) no costs
for MS that
have sui generis
GI system in
place; 2.3B (0)
more efficient
EUIPO
registration and
management
Net effect: (++)
Benefit: middle option. More
engagement of authorities in
quality control and enforcement.
Possibility to use voluntarily
PGI logo. Authorities bear 55%
of costs
Cost: EUR 1.57m for 30 GI.
Producers bear 45% of costs
Option 3
Modified
TM
system
(+) Registration at
EUIPO, potential
problems for micro
producers if local
authorities do not
engage
(0,+) private
self governed
control
system,
potential for
use external
certifiers
(-) private
enforcement
with high cost
on producers
(++) No cost on
public
authorities,
EUIPO profit
from additional
registrations
Net effect: (++)
Benefit: low cost option with
private control and enforcement.
Need for private logo. Most cost
born by producers
Cost: EUR 0.54m for 30 GI,
92% of cost borne by producers
Legend: ++ significant positive impact; + positive impact; 0 neutral; - negative impact; -- significant negative impact;
210
For instance, since 2019, three manufacturing criteria must be respected when producing slippers
Charentaise de Charente-Périgord (FR): production in Charente or Périgord, use of the sew-and-turn
technique, without any glue, and a wool felt sole of French origin. Source: Le Monde (3/12/2021). “Tout le
monde n’aura pas sa charentaise sous le sapin”.
55
Table 7.2 Comparison of the impact of viable policy options on stakeholders
CI Producers group* National administration EU administration Citizens
Baseline 0 0 0 0
Option 1
Modified Agri
system
(++) same system as for
Agri GI (one stop shop);
producers in 16 MS already
familiar with system. Public
enforcement lowers burden
Use existing reputation of
Agri GI system
(--) Costly enforcement
system, additional reporting
obligations
Could be exacerbated by
expected influx of foreign
registrations
(+) experience with the
current system;
Opportunity for mobilising
local community, accelerating
growth and turism
(0,-) additional cost
both at agency and at
Commission to grant
around 30 GI per year;
Single system for both
Agri and CI GIs
(++) quality assured by
already recognizable system
and logos;
Important for those placing
value on local production and
heritage
Costs per GI: EUR 24,000 per producer
group with 60% directed to
preparation of registration
files
EUR 12,000 with 60%
directed to registration;
Difficult enforcement for
some GIs (e.g. monitoring PL
lace counterfiting by PT
authorities)
EUR 29,000 with 70%
directed towards
registration;
Cost at EUIPO not
covered by any fees +
cost of final decision at
Commission level
(-) Potentially higher prices by
up to 20%-50% of CI
protected products
Benefits: Potential for higher prices
by up to 20%-50% and
higher demand by 20-30%
or even 100%211
; cheap
enforcement as mostly by
public authorities;
High support to local
producers; could result in
strong growth of niche
markets + promotion of region
Use of existing
expertise of EUIPO and
Commission
(++) Assured quality and local
origin (unquantifiable)
Option 2
New system
Borrowed reputation of
Agri GI system, voluntary
use of PGI logo;
producers in 16 MS already
familiar with system. Public
enforcement lowers burden
(0/-) Limited aditional
reporting obligations
(+)Opportunity for mobilising
local community, accelerate
growth and turism
2.2 A (+) local authroties
involved as in PO1 but more
streamlined due to no COM
just EUIPO;
2.4 B (-) Control system
based on self-declaration and
random checks limits costs;
2.3 B – outsourcing to
EUIPO most efficient -
self-financing option
(++) quality assured by system
similar to Agri, voluntary use
of the same logos as in Agri;
Important for those placing
value on local production and
heritage
Costs per GI: EUR 23,700 EUR 11,500 EUR 17,000 (-) Potentially higher prices by
up to 20%-50% of CI
protected products
Benefits: Potential for higher prices
by up to 20%-50% and
higher demand by 20-30%;
or even 100% free
enforcement by public
authorities;
High support to local
producers; with lower
enforcement cost (2.4B) could
result in strong growth of
niche markets + promotion of
region
Use of existing
expertise of EUIPO
(2.3B),
(++) Assured quality and local
origin (unquantifiable)
211
In the agricultural sector, ‘The sales value of GI products was on average (weighted) 2.07 times higher
than the sales value for comparable standard products without a GI label.’ see 2019 Study on economic
value of EU quality schemes, geographical indications (GIs) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs)
Final Report p.102 available under KF0419562ENN.en.pdf.
56
CI Producers group* National administration EU administration Citizens
Option 3
Modified TM
system
(+) Use of established TM
system, familiar to
producers in 9 MS for GI
protection and already used
for half of protected GIs,
system used by main
trading partners in US and
UK; (-) costly registration
and enforcement for small
producers; uncertain
support from authorities;
cost of building brand
awareness as PGI logo not
available
(0) No legal obligation for
authorities to engage in
activities connected with
cooperation building or
promotion campaigns of local
producers;
(0, +) Reuse of existing
system with existing
EUIPO procedures;
Additional registration
expected to marginally
increase EUIPO budget
surplus
(++) quality assured by trust
in private brands;
Important for those placing
value on local production and
heritage
Costs per GI: EUR 16,650 per producer
group, with 46% directed to
registration
EUR 0 EUR 1,500 - Marginal
cost at EUIPO to
handle additional
applications
(-) Potentially higher prices by
up to 20%-50% of CI
protected products
Benefits: Potential for higher prices
by up to 20%-50% and
higher demand by 20-30%
or even 100%; free
enforcement by public
authorities;
No cost for authorites
stemming from legal
obligations
Revenues from
registration higher than
direct costs
(++) Assured quality and local
origin (unquantifiable)
*Assumption that there are 10 producers per producer group
Legend: ++ significant positive impact; + positive impact; 0 neutral; - negative impact; -- significant negative impact;
7.2 Coherence
This part assesses coherence of each considered option with other EU policy objectives,
including the Charter for fundamental rights, and with other policy initiatives and
instruments.
The three options (PO 1, 2 and 3) have an acceptable level of coherence with the other
EU policy objectives and with other policy initiatives and instruments.
In relation to other EU policy objectives, the three options are coherent with the principle
of free movement of goods and with the right to property enshrined in the Charter for
Fundamental Rights of the EU. More broadly, the IP Action Plan of 2020 foresees the
possibility of creating an EU level IP protection for CI GI products as part of the
Industrial Strategy and the recovery strategy of the EU. A harmonized IP system for
CI products under either of the three options (PO1, PO2 or PO3) could be beneficial for
the EU economy, as it could help producers stay competitive.
However, through the development of product specifications, PO1 and PO2 would
particularly rank high in helping artisans and producers to work together in niche
markets, fostering cooperation, and promoting and protecting traditional know-how
and innovation, at EU level, in coherence with and respect of EU competition rules.
PO1 and PO2 benefit not only the producers, but also the related ecosystems, such as
tourism, as GIs raise the visibility of the product and the region. With tourism being
a sector particularly hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, PO1 and PO2 can prove to be
an important step in putting these regions, often underdeveloped, back on track towards
economic recovery and help improve attractiveness of EU regions for tourism.
Moreover, this will impact the regional economy and jobs, by fostering economic
activity and employment in these, often underdeveloped regions. PO1 and PO2 can
therefore prove to be a vital part in facilitating recovery in hard-hit EU regions.
57
In addition, the three options rank high on coherence with the EU gender equality
promotion.
However, there are important differences between PO 1 and 2 on the one hand and PO 3
on the other when it comes to coherence with the EU Trade mark policy and the
international EU Policy on GIs. PO1 and 2 score positively on all criteria and are in
particular coherent with the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement, whereas PO3 ranks
lower also in relation to the EU Trade Mark policy (See Table 7.3 in Annex 12).
Under PO 1 and 2, producers will fully benefit from the EU accession to the Lisbon
system granting protection to EU companies in third countries and third country
companies in the EU. Moreover, producers could benefit from additional protection in
third country markets through EU international trade agreements. Both Options are also
fully coherent with the EU Trade Mark policy. Often, producers and industries combine
different instruments, both collective and individual ones. Some producers might
combine an individual trade mark of their brand with a collective trade mark, or if
available, sui generis GI protection. Concretely, a producer might e.g. consider that a
trade marks is a good option to start in promoting awareness and also pave the way for
the later GI by having that designation already protected quickly as a mark.212
However, under PO3, to meet the obligations resulting from international treaties,
notably the Geneva Act, it would require modifications affecting the overall coherence
of the EU Trade mark Regulation213
. For example, by requiring that a GI TM could
become generic214
and that it would also protect against evocation.215
(see the overview
of the differences between sui generis GIs and trade marks in Annex 7). Hence, PO3 is
ranking low in coherence with the EU Trade Mark policy.
Moreover, PO3 also ranks low on coherence with the EU international GI protection
policy. First, under PO3, CIs products would not cater for enhanced protection in third
country markets by means of their specific inclusion in EU bilateral trade agreements
under the GI provisions. Second, PO3 would create two different protection systems at
international level: one for agricultural GIs (sui generis protection) and another for CI
products (EU TM protection). This would appear inconsistent with the EU’s leading role
in the international arena, particularly in the context of the Geneva Act - where all
members support GI sui generis protection - in promoting the sui generis GI regime and
advocating for the highest possible level of protection for all GI products.
Finally, when comparing coherence with the existing EU rules protecting sui generis
GIs for agricultural products, while PO2 and PO3 rank high, PO1 appears less
coherent. This is mainly for two reasons, first, under PO1, CI products would risk being
212
Cf. VVA et al (2020), p. 76.
213
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the
European Union trade mark EUR-Lex - 32017R1001 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu).
214
In the context of geographical indications, generic terms are names which, although they denote the
place from where a product originates, have become the term customary for such a product. An example of
a GI that has become a generic term is Camembert for cheese.
215
The notion of ‘evocation’ extends to the case in which the term used to designate a product like ‘feta
like cheese’, incorporates a part of the GI (in this case ‘Feta’) so that consumers are led to have in mind, as
a reference image, the products protected under this GI. Article 11(2) of the Geneva Act extends protection
in particular “to use of the appellation of origin or geographical indication amounting to its imitation, even
if the true origin of the goods is indicated, or if the appellation of origin or the geographical indication is
used in translated form or is accompanied by terms such as “style”, “kind”, “type”, “make”, “imitation”,
“method”, “as produced in”, “like”, “similar” or the like”.
58
marginalised among schemes focused on agricultural products and within an
administration used to dealing with agricultural matters, under the Common Agricultural
Policy and the rural development. And secondly, CI products would require to amend the
existing Quality Control Regulation and procedures (which are specifically designed for
agricultural products) in order to cover CIs and take into account their characteristics.
7.3 Compliance with the proportionality principle
All options (PO1, PO2 and PO3) are basically proportioned. None of them go beyond
what is necessary to achieve the identified problems/objectives. Their respective scope is
limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactory on their own and
where the Union can do better.
As far as the instruments of their implementation are concerned (e.g. self-standing EU
Regulation in case of PO2) all options are justified with view to the fragmented national
regulatory framework and the necessity of having a single title due to international
obligations.
PO2 has additional advantages in comparison to PO1 by making the system less
burdensome. These include the possibility for direct application to the EUIPO or use of
infrastructure of another Member State for the countries that do not want to set up a
national GI examination system. Self-certification and random controls should lower the
application and verification costs as well. Finally national reporting obligation every four
years instead of annually (PO1).
PO3 would be the most proportionate towards Member State as no new obligations
would be created. It scores, however, lower in terms of support to micro/artisanal
producers (no assistance from authorities in application or enforcement). It may also be
problematic to implement due to required changes in the existing trade mark legislation.
8. PREFERRED OPTION
Based on the assessment and comparison of sub-options and their impacts, the preferred
policy option is PO2: Self-standing EU Regulation. The overall preferred option
package is a combination of sub-options 2.1.B (PGI protection), 2.2.A (two-stage
system), 2.3.B (EUIPO), 2.4.B (streamlined control with a strong enforcement) and 2.5.A
(EU title replacing national GIs). This package of measures is the best performing
(including in terms of effectiveness and proportionality), with all the different sub-
options being coherent together: the different sub-options are all either independent of
each other, or strengthen each other.
Under the preferred option all EU producers can obtain EU-wide GI protection for CI
products. Such protection encourages producers’ cooperation, strengthens local supply,
creates niche markets, and encourages producers’ cooperation with local authorities. As
within the GI system for agricultural products, producers can advertise the protected GI
by a voluntary use of logo on the product labelling. The preferred policy option protects
geographically rooted products in the interest of the wider public, making the best out of
local expertise and heritage, involving public authorities in product quality control while
allowing producers to self-declare conformity, and stimulating activities like tourism, in
particular in rural or less developed regions (very relevant in particular in the COVID-19
aftermath).
59
Consumers, who are often willing to pay a premium for protected GI products, are better
informed.
At international level, the preferred option enables EU producers to seek international
protection for their CI products available in other parties to the Geneva Act, and enables
third countries or organisations parties to the Geneva Act to obtain GI protection for their
CI products in the entire EU territory. It also allows for increased protection for EU CI
producers in third markets such as China and India, through robust GI provisions in
bilateral trade agreements concluded by the EU.
The preferred option further contributes to defend the EU’s leading role in the
international arena in promoting the sui generis GI system and the highest possible level
of protection for all GI products.
Finally, the preferred option is aligned with the outcome of the public consultation as
well as with the preferred policy approach expressed by the nine Member States in the
said joint-non paper and more recently by the European Parliament. The preferred option
is also respectful and coherent with the existing agricultural GI schemes.
The table below summarises estimated average costs of the preferred option.
Table 8.1. Summary of costs of the preferred option
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 15 000 7 500 17 000 39 500
Verification/Control* 5 700 100 0 5 800
Enforcement & management** 3 000 3 900 0 6 900
Total 23 700 11 500 17 000 52 200
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.45 0.23 0.51 1.19
Verification/Control* 0.17 0 0 0.17
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.12 0 0.21
Total 0.71 0.35 0.51 1.57
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p. 160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 3, 4 and 13 for detailed calculations and assumptions.
9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?
This initiative will be evaluated after five years from entry into force. Commission will
assess whether the specific objectives of the new system are met.
The table below lists monitoring indicators. They should allow for assessment of the
performance of the new CI GI system.
Operational objectives Monitoring indicators Data source
Applicant friendly and
affordable registration
system
Total number of EU GI registration;
Time to register;
Cost of registration at national and EU level in case of
two-step procedure (including direct cost by producers
group as well as any subsidies by national
authorities/EU funds);
Characteristics of producer groups including: number
of firms/craftsman and their size, whether they had
registered trademark or sui generis GI prior to
eAmbrosia/TM
GIview;
Reports from
Members States
(every 4 years);
Survey
(producers)
60
registering in the new system;
Feedback should also be gathered from owners of the
products that would qualify for protection under the
new system but who did not apply for it;
Effective and affordable
system of control and
enforcement
Number and origin of the potential infringing products
that they observe on the market;
Changes to the number of CI GI marked products sold
on the market and their average price;
Changes to the value and share of exports of the GI
protected products;
Cost of control and enforcement procedure (including
direct cost by producers group; direct cost by public
authorities as well as any subsidies by national
authorities/EU funds);
Reports from
Members States
(every 4 years);
Survey or case
studies (producers +
national authorities)
Low cost for public
authorities
Cost of registration, monitoring and enforcement Survey (national and
EU authorities)
61
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
1. Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references
Lead DG
– DG European Commission’s Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry,
Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW)
Co-Responsible DG:
 AGRI
Other services involved:
– SG, SJ, BUDG, CLIMA, CNECT, COMP, ENV, JRC, JUST, REGIO,
OLAF, SANTE, TAXUD, TRADE
EU agency involved:
- EUIPO
Agenda Planning references:
– Ref. PLAN/2020/9272
– The initiative is included in the Intellectual Property (IP) Action Plan, that
the Commission adopted on 25 November 2020
2. Organisation and timing
The inception impact assessment was published on 30 November 2020. It was followed
by a feedback period that lasted until 18 January 2021. 70 stakeholders submitted
feedback.
The Commission held a public consultation from 29 April to 22 July 2021. This
consultation was available on the Better Regulation Portal of the Commission and open
to anyone who wished to reply. The public consultation received 182 replies through the
EU survey.
The work on the Impact Assessment was carried out from January 2021 to November
2021, during which an Interservices Group (ISG) met five times to give an update on the
ongoing work and discuss preliminary versions of the Impact assessment report, together
with all the supporting documents.
The following DGs (Directorates General) have been invited to contribute to this impact
assessment: SG (Secretariat-General), COMP (Competition), ENV (Environment),
CNECT (Communications Networks, Content and Technology), JRC (Joint Research
Centre), JUST (Justice and Consumers), SJ (Legal Service), OLAF (European Anti-
Fraud Office), TAXUD (Taxation and Customs Union), REGIO (Regional and Urban
Policy), TRADE (Trade), BUDG (Budget), CLIMA (Climate Action), SANTE (Health
and Food Safety). The EUIPO also participated in the ISSG.
3. Consultation of the RSB
The Regulatory Scrutiny Board was consulted in an upfront meeting on 7 May 2021. The
present impact assessment report was submitted to the RSB on 19 November 2021. The
62
Impact Assessment was discussed with the RSB on 15 December 2021. Based on the
RSB recommendations, the Impact Assessment has been revised in accordance with the
following points:
Board's recommendation how the IA report has been modified in response
(1) The report should clarify the degree of
discretion the EU has to comply with the Geneva
Act of the Lisbon Agreement. It should better
explain what constitutes ‘crafts and industrial
products’ and how the boundaries of application
will be determined.
It is now clearly stated that EU has to introduce
protection for CI GI to meet its international
obligations.
Additional analysis on limitations to scope of GI
protection was added to Chapter 6.2.
(2) The report should allow a more transparent
assessment of the strengths and weaknesses as
well as costs and benefits of the options with a
view to bring out more clearly the available
substantive policy choices. As option 5 (self-
standing EU Regulation) builds on many elements
of option 3 (extending the existing GI system), the
sequencing of the options should be improved by
presenting it directly after option 3 with option 4
(reform of the trade mark system) presented last.
As option 5 presents a set of alternative sub-
options, the report should identify the most
relevant and best performing combination of
suboptions upfront and subsequently compare
them along all other options.
The order of options has been changed
Analysis in Chapter 6 of the option on Self-
standing EU Regulation (now Option 2) ends with
identification of the best performing combination
of suboptions. Annex 14 was added to summarize
impacts of suboptions of Option 2.
(3) Building on a better comparison of the
options, the choice of the preferred option
should be better argued, also considering the
substantial equivalence between the estimated
costs for option 3 and option 5. Taking into
account that the envisaged eligible craft and
industry GIs are rather limited, the proportionality
assessment of the preferred option should be
strengthened. As to option 4, the report should
better assess how realistic it is to
reform trade mark law in order to include GI
features.
The proportionality of the preferred option PO2 is
now better explained in section 7.3, also presenting
differences to PO1.
The difficulties in conducting trade mark reform
where further highlighted.
(4) Even in the absence of empirical evidence, the
potential impacts of the various options on
competition, innovation and the environment
should be better analysed and explained.
- impacts on innovation and competition are further
developed. Examples of innovation in CI GI
products are added to Chapter 6.
- although environmental impacts are rather
limited, a short paragraph was added to Chapter 6.
(5) The report should clarify its position on the
use of a mandatory or a voluntary protected
geographical indication (PGI) logo, in view of the
fact that consumer awareness of the PGI logo for
agricultural products is low.
- The report is now consistently referring to the
voluntary use of logo. The rationale for voluntary
use is also added.
(6) The monitoring and in particular evaluation
arrangements are missing in the report and need to
be clearly established.
Timing of the propose evaluation was added.
Monitoring indicators were updated
Technical comments
- Views by stakeholder categories were added,
opposing views of stakeholders were analysed in
Annex 2a
63
4. Evidence, sources and quality
The impact assessment uses the following main evidence:
 The Inception Impact Assessment of an EU-wide system for protecting the
geographical indications of non-agricultural products that the Commission
published on 30 November 2020.
 The studies carried out on behalf of the Commission on:
o Geographical indication protection for non-agricultural products in the
Internal Market published in 2013.
o The economic aspects of GI protection at EU level for non-agricultural
products published in February 2020.
o Control and enforcement rules for GI protection for non-agricultural
products in the EU published in August 2021.
 The public consultation on
o a possible extension of geographical indication protection of the EU to
non-agricultural products that ran from July to October 2014 (as part of
the 2017 intellectual property rights strategy).
o EU-wide protection of geographical indications for non-agricultural
products that ran from 29 April 2021 to 22 July 2021 (in the framework of
the impact assessment)
 Information received from the stakeholders in the framework of targeted
consultations and workshops (see Annex 2).
 DG AGRI/EUIPO Conference on Strengthening geographical indications (25-26
November 2020), in particular its 25 Nov. Panel on geographical indication
protection for non-agricultural products.
 Two main documents from the agricultural area (DG AGRI):
o Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional
Specialities Guaranteed protected in the EU, 2020.
o Study on economic value of EU quality schemes, geographical indications
(GIs) and traditional specialties guaranteed (TSGs), AND-I for DG AGRI,
2019: this study provides economic data on GIs/TSGs at EU level and in
Member States.
 The following other studies:
o Study on Protection and Control of Geographical Indications for
Agricultural products in the EU, EUIPO (2017)
o Geographical indications for non-agricultural products. Cost of non-
Europe report, Study by European Parliamentary Research Service
(EPRS), The European Parliament (2019).
64
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
1. Introduction
The Commission announced in its communication of 25 November 2020 entitled
‘Making the most of the EU’s innovative potential – An intellectual property action plan
to support the EU’s recovery and resilience’ that as part of the overall reform of the GI
system, the Commission will, on the basis of a thorough impact assessment of its
potential costs and benefits, consider the feasibility of creating an efficient and
transparent EU GI protection system for non-agricultural products. Hence, the
Commission has put in place a vast consultation strategy gathering the views of all
relevant stakeholders. Consultations started already in 2013 and have intensified in 2020
and 2021. Stakeholders have been asked to express their views in particular on:
- The existing fragmented legal protection within the internal market of
geographical indications related to authentic geographically-rooted craft and
industrial (CI) products; the importance of the problem identified (subsidiarity,
EU/internal market, as well as international and trade-related dimensions);
- The available policy options and their impacts (in particular on economy,
competitiveness including prices and demand, capacity to export, innovation,
free-riding, jobs, environment, consumer's information, regions, public
authorities); and
- The benefits and risks of the EU acting.
In developing the stakeholder engagement strategy, the stakeholder mapping included:
- Public authorities (federal/national, regional and local authorities in Member
States and non-EU countries) including intellectual property (IP) offices;
- Consumers (citizens and consumer organisations);
- Producers (individuals, enterprises in particular SMEs, and associations or
organisations);
- Legal practitioners and academics;
- Other stakeholders e.g. training organisations.
From a geographical point of view, the consultation strategy covered the EU-28 and after
BREXIT, the EU-27.
The consultation included a series of broad and targeted consultations, in particular:
 Public consultations;
 Face to face interviews, with selected stakeholders among those consulted
through the public consultation most concerned by the initiative (in the
framework of the study on controlling and enforcement rules for geographical
indications (GIs) for non-agricultural products);
 Workshops organised with the contractor to share the results of the study on
controlling and enforcement rules for GIs for non-agricultural products with
stakeholders;
65
 A targeted meeting with the Member States (so called ‘GIPP meeting’), followed
by a targeted written consultation with IP offices of Member States on the basis
of two targeted Questionnaires.
2. Consultation activities prior to 2021
Within the framework of an external study run in 2013, a survey was conducted on
stakeholders' needs and expectations with regard to a possible legal protection of
indications of authentic geographically-rooted products at the EU level. The survey led to
a conclusion that existing legal instruments available for producers are insufficient at an
internal market scale. A large majority of the respondents considered that legal protection
at EU level could help producers communicate on the products, while some producers
added that it could help eliminate unfair competition. In addition, many stakeholders
attending the subsequent public hearing supported the study's call for better protection of
the indications used for authentic geographically-rooted products at EU level. The results
of the survey were presented on 22 April 2013 at a public hearing.
The public consultation organised in 2014 led to 136 responses from stakeholders in 27
countries: producers were best represented (60%), followed by EU Member States
authorities (27%), lawyers and academics (8%) and consumers (6%). A large majority of
respondents identified tangible benefits in economic, consumer protection and cultural
terms from a strong protection system of indications for authentic geographically rooted
CI products at EU level and saw therefore a need for action at EU level. A broad majority
believed that only a system based on registered specific (sui generis) IP rights could
provide the necessary legal certainty and ensure effective enforcement of rights, and that
any new system should take into account the experience gained with the existing EU
“geographical indication” system for agricultural products, while seeking improvements
where appropriate. Stakeholders attending the subsequent public conference broadly
confirmed these results in discussions. The results of the public consultation were
presented at a public conference on 19 January 2015 and published in June 2015.
In October 2016, a workshop on the "contribution of non-agricultural geographically
rooted products to regional inclusive economic development" was organised in the
framework of the European Week of Regions and Cities 2016. Panellists and participants
confirmed that CI geographically rooted products using geographical indications have a
strong potential to boost economic development in particular for the benefit of SME and
micro structures in weak and remote areas, not least via strong synergies with other
economic activities like tourism.
On 18 November 2019, a workshop presented the results of the “Study on Economic
aspects of geographical indication protection for non-agricultural products at EU level”
to more than 80 participants including producers/consumer associations,
national/regional/local authorities, and academics.
On 25 November 2020, a Panel in the framework of the online conference organised by
DG AGRI and EUIPO on Strengthening Geographical Indications gathered the views of
more than 130 participants on possible approaches to EU protection for CI GIs.
3. Inception Impact Assessment feedback
Stakeholders provided feedback about the Commission’s intention of assessing the
impact of an EU-wide initiative on geographical indications for CI products. Initially this
impact assessment was open for feedback for 4 weeks (30 November 2020 – 28
December 2020). However, following requests from stakeholders, the feedback period
66
was extended for a total of 7 weeks (30 November 2020 – 18 January 2021). The
Commission received 70 submissions originating from 14 Member States and 2 non-EU
countries (CH, US). Participants were 37 business associations, 15 public authorities
(including 8 regional/local authorities), 9 companies, 3 non-governmental organisations,
2 individual EU citizens, 2 other stakeholders as well as 1 academic/research institution.
Overall, there was broad support for an EU initiative establishing a protection regime for
GIs for CI products. Among the stakeholders in favour of an EU initiative, most
preferred a specific (sui generis) protection system. Several stakeholders, however, took
the view that GI protection of CI products could be achieved by developing trade mark
legislation, more specifically on collective or certification marks. In particular, such an
approach would be cost-effective, as the costs would be borne by the individual
beneficiary of the protection.
Several producers of geographically rooted products underlined that the regulatory
fragmentation made the protection and enforcement of their rights in the internal market
difficult and costly. Producers complained about having to take various approaches to
protect their rights in different countries, resulting in substantive legal uncertainty and
significant barriers for producers.
Several contributors pointed to positive impacts of creating EU-level protection for
SMEs (greater visibility among consumers, protecting crafts with the risk of
disappearing, collective structuring of production and marketing processes); regional
economies and jobs (particularly in rural and underdeveloped regions, helping re-
localisation of European industries); and consumer choice (boosted consumer confidence
in the authenticity and quality of protected products, increased knowledge as to origin
and production). At the same time, several stakeholders voiced concerns that a new EU
GI scheme would lead to more costs and inefficiencies.
4. Workshop relating to the 2021 Study
On 13 July 2021, a workshop presented and discussed the preliminary findings of the
“Study on Control and Enforcement Rules for geographical indication (GI) protection for
non-agricultural products in the EU”. Panellists and participants confirmed that the
landscape and needs were very diverse, ranging from producers’ needs for protection to
authorities’ needs (both national IP authorities in a supervisory function and local /
regional authorities, who are often involved from the perspective of the products being
rooted culturally and historically in the region) to the needs of consumers. In cases where
infringing products are not seen as a particular issue, public involvement in the
monitoring and enforcement processes may not be seen as necessary. Equally, the
stronger the value we see in protecting such products from a cultural and historical point
of view, the more interest there may be in models where public involvement is stronger.
GI systems will always be more costly than trade mark-based systems due to a greater
role being needed from public authorities, yet these need to be we weighed against the
positive impacts. Costs might also fall naturally over time once a strong protection is in
place that will deter infringing producers, thereby reducing infringements.
5. Public Consultation: “EU-wide protection of geographical indications for
non-agricultural products” – summary of the replies
The consultation was open during 12 weeks between 29 April 2021 and 22 July 2021 via
the EU Survey online system in 24 EU languages, and received 182 responses from 28
countries, including from 18 EU Member States.
67
 Main characteristics of the respondents
The majority of replies came from respondents in four EU Member States: Italy (44) and
France (38), followed by Spain (24) and Germany (17).
Responses by country of origin:
As regards the type of respondents, the majority of replies (86,8%) came from
companies/business organisations (68), business associations (35), public authorities (28)
and EU citizens (27).
Responses by stakeholder type:
60% of the responses came from micro-size and small-size organisations (1 to 9
employees and 10 to 49 employees, respectively). 40% of the responses came from
medium-size and large-size organisations (50 to 249 employees and 250 employees or
more, respectively).
Responses by organisation size (153 replies):
44
38
24
17
9 7 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Italy
France
Spain
Germany
Belgium
Poland
Romania
Sweden
Croatia
Czechia
Finland
Ireland
Portugal
Denmark
Lithuania
Switzerland
United
Kingdom
Austria
Bahamas
Estonia
Hungary
Iceland
India
Kenya
Luxembourg
Norway
Russia
Uruguay
Country of respondents
68
35
28 27
8 8 5 2 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Responses by stakeholder type
68
More than one third of the responses in question came from the natural stones sector
(33). Other key sectors were porcelain/ceramics (13) and cutlery (10), followed by
furniture (6), textiles (6) and jewellery/stones (4). More than 20% of responses (20) came
from various other sectors.
Responses by sector of producers of geographically rooted CI products:
As to the sales activities of responding producers of geographically rooted CI products,
more than 70% of such respondents (68) sell their product(s) in both EU countries and
non-EU countries, while about 17% of producers in question sell their product(s) in their
country of origin and other EU countries. Only 3 respondents sell their products
exclusively on their domestic market.
Responses by sales activities of producers of geographically rooted IC products:
31%
29%
24%
16%
Responses by organisation size
Micro (1 to 9 employees)
Small (10 to 49 employees)
Medium (50 to 249 employees)
Large (250 or more)
33
20
13
10
6
6
4
Responses by sector of producers
Natural stones
Other
Porcelain/Ceramics
Cutlery
Furniture
Textiles
Jewellery/Gems
69
 Need and (dis-)incentives for an EU-wide initiative
A vast majority of respondents (92,3%=168) see the need for an EU-wide initiative to
improve the protection of geographical names or indications for CI products. Only 3,8%
of respondents (7) see no need for such initiative, while another 7 respondents expressed
no specific view on the matter.
As to the list of possible incentives (174 replies received), the ones specified in most
replies were ‘better enforcement/ combatting misuse of protected name and fraud’ (in
89% of replies), ‘useful marketing tool /better visibility for consumers’ (in 80 % of
replies) and ‘protection of tradition /cultural heritage’ (in 80 % of replies). As to the list
of possible disincentives (164 replies received), the one specified in most replies (68%)
was ‘administrative burden/ costs, for example related to the application’.
68
16
5 3
Responses by sales activities of producers
Yes, I sell my product(s) in EU countries and non-EU countries
Yes, I sell my product(s) in my country of origin and other EU countries
No answer
Yes, I sell my product(s) in my country of origin
168
7 4 3
Responses by need for an EU-wide initiative
Yes No No Answer I do not know
70
 Preferred policy option for an EU-wide initiative
The baseline of “No action” was set against five different policy options and
respondents were asked to rate possible approaches from 5 (most preferred) to 1
(least preferred). From 143 to 147 replies were received depending on the policy
option. As the graph below demonstrates, the following basic trends can be observed
as to the preferences among possible policy options:
9%
14%
22%
30%
55%
56%
57%
61%
64%
66%
67%
67%
75%
80%
80%
89%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Limit competition on the market
Higher price premium
Increase/secure market share
Increase own firm's reputation
Access to new markets within/beyond EU Internal Market
Affinity with the region
Strengthened position of producer groups in the value chain
Differentiation of product
Traceability tool
Increase credibility of product
Regional development and tourism
Quality assurance signal for consumers
Protection of traditions/cultural heritage
Useful marketing tool/better visibility for consumers
Better enforcement, combatting misuse of protected name and fraud
Incentives to participate in an EU scheme
3%
4%
7%
8%
9%
10%
10%
13%
21%
23%
23%
29%
45%
68%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Lower productivity
A GI would prevent innovation in the production/commercialisation
No need because unfair competition law is sufficient
No need because strong market position already
No added value
No need because we have an own trade mark
Other
Uncertainty of market demand or low demand
Higher marketing costs
Missing regional roots (lack of local identity)
Higher production costs
Uncertainty related to combatting misuse of protected name and fraud
Stricter inspections
Administrative burden/Costs, for example relating to the application
Disincentives to participate in an EU scheme
71
- The most preferred policy option (rated 5) in the opinion of most respondents is a
sui generis system establishing an EU title to protect GIs for CI products. The
preference rate of the sui generis option (68% of the respondents on this option)
is by far higher as compared to the preference rates of the next-favoured options,
namely the harmonisation option and the option of extending the GI protection
system for agricultural products (neither of which amount to 25% of the
respondents on the respective option).
- The least preferred policy option (rated 1) in the opinion of most respondents is
the baseline scenario of no action taken at EU level. More than 80% of
respondents on this option are decisively against maintaining the current
situation.
 Features of the preferred option
As to various possible sub-options within the overall favoured policy option of a new sui
generis EU GI scheme, a set of questions (16-27) addressed specific elements of such
possible new regime.
Scope and definition (Questions 16 and 17): 93% of respondents (170) expressed a view
on what kind of products should be covered by the new EU GI regime. The majority of
these (101) preferred to cover all CI GI products. About 40 % (69) preferred to cover
only a limited categories of products. Only about a third of respondents (67) expressed an
opinion about the definition of the link between the product and its place of origin. More
than 80% of these (55) selected elements characteristic of the definition of EU
geographical indications, where the required link is less strict as compared to the
definition of EU appellations of origin. Such preferred link would require only one of the
production steps to be carried out at the place of origin, and would stress the importance
of human factors, reputation or traditional know-how.
Registration of the new EU GI title (Questions 19 and 21): 73% of respondents (133)
expressed an opinion on how many steps the registration process should involve. Almost
three-quarters of such respondents (96) preferred a two-stage procedure including first a
national stage, next an EU-level stage. Almost a quarter of respondents (28) preferred a
one-stage procedure at EU level only. On the question whether it should be the
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No action – The EU would not act. The current situation will remain.
Voluntary measures - a recommendation at EU level proposing both to Member
States and producers to agree on voluntary measures in order to certify the origin of
industrial and handcraft products.
Trade mark reform - This option would consist of a reform of the EU trade mark
system. Producers of industrial and handicraft products would have the possibility to
apply for the registration of a name guaranteeing a certain quality linked to a specific
g
Merger - Under this option, a GI protection system for industrial and handicraft
products would merge with the current GI protection system for agricultural
products.
Harmonisation - an EU directive setting out specific objectives for the protection of
GIs for non-agricultural products, for example protection duration, scope, territorial
link, but also procedural aspects such as application and registration, but leavin
EU specific (or sui generis) system – a regulation establishing a specific GI protection
system for industrial and handicraft products. An EU title would protect GIs.
Preferences on policy approach
5 - most preferred 4 3 2 1 - least preferred No opinion
Harmonisation - an EU directive setting out specific objectives for the protection
of GIs for non-agricultural products, for example protection duration, scope,
territorial link, but also procedural aspects such as application and registration,
but leaving it to Member States how to reach these objectives.
EU specific (or sui generis) system – a regulation establishing a specific GI
protection system for industrial and handicraft products. An EU title would
protect GIs.
Merger - Under this option, a GI protection system for industrial and handicraft
products would merge with the current GI protection system for agricultural
products.
Trade mark reform - This option would consist of a reform of the EU trade mark
system. Producers of industrial and handicraft products would have the possibility
to apply for the registration of a name guaranteeing a certain quality linked to a
specific geographical region, e.g. based on certificationtrade marks.
Voluntary measures - a recommendation at EU level proposing both to Member
States and producers to agree on voluntary measures in order to certify the origin
of industrial and handcraft products.
No action – The EU would not act. The current situation will remain.
72
Commission or an EU Agency to manage the registration process at EU level, 62% of
respondents (113) expressed an opinion. Less than three-quarters of such respondents
(82) preferred the Commission to be in charge, and over a quarter of respondents
preferred and EU Agency.
Control and enforcement (Questions 23-27): Only about a third of respondents (67)
provided opinions on questions related to verification and monitoring. About 40% of
these (28) preferred verification carried out jointly by public authorities and
producers/producer associations (hereinafter: producers), while 20% (15) preferred
verification by producers only and 13% (9) verification by public authorities. In the view
of more than half of respondents in question (36) the costs of verification should be borne
by producers, while in the view of about a third of them (21) by producers and public
authorities jointly. Only about 10% (9) were of the opinion that public authorities alone
should bear such costs. As to monitoring, again, the majority of respondents (68%=46)
found that it should be carried out jointly by public authorities and producers, while only
about a third (21) preferred monitoring by public authorities (16), or by producers (5). As
to the costs of monitoring, more than half of respondents (38) found that they should be
borne by public authorities and producers jointly, while 28% (19) thought by public
authorities, and only 9 found by producers. As to enforcement, the number of
respondents who expressed an opinion was significantly higher (75%=136). 48% (65)
preferred a general system based on IP rights enforcement while 43% (58) preferred a
specific GI enforcement system.
6. Consultation in the GIPP (Expert Group on Industrial Property Policy)
On 22 April 2021 the Commission organised an informal discussion on an EU
protection system for CI GIs. A discussion paper was prepared and circulated to GIPP
members before the meeting. Experts from the IP administrations of 24 Member States
and two observers from EEA Member States as well as the European Parliament and the
Council Secretariat participated.
Participants from some Member States with sui generis schemes available to protect CI
GIs at national level expressed strong support and preference for the introduction of a sui
generis system at EU level. These participants were of the view that experience with the
EU level system for agricultural GIs has been very favourable and explained their
expectation of a boosting effect of creating similar protection for CI GIs. They also made
reference to the EU’s accession to WIPO’s Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement, which
is a strong incentive to create EU level protection. They foresaw multiple and very
positive impacts, such as on the promotion of regions and rural development including
employment, job growth and social capital building; the incentive for producers at local
level to invest in traditional skills and the comparative advantage for EU SMEs,
including increased trade and export revenues; positive impacts on consumers as regards
high quality, authentic local products; and positive impacts on tourism. Some participants
reported on existing sui generis systems at national level but little experience or only
scarce use of these systems domestically.
Participants from some Member States having no specific sui generis scheme available to
protect CI GIs at national level were of the initial view that there was no need for, or any
added value in, creating a sui generis system in the EU, as trade marks, collective marks
and certification marks were already available. They could not see how positive impacts
could be made, as there were already sufficient means of protection in place. However,
they feared negative impacts on competition in the internal market and needed to see
solid evidence on positive impacts for industries.
73
Following the GIPP meeting, a written consultation process with GIPP members was
launched on 24 June 2021 with the feedback period open until 12 July 2021. Two
targeted questionnaires were circulated, on the one hand to gather feedback from
Member States with a national sui generis system for CI products, and on the other hand,
from Member States whose law allows for certification marks to certify the geographical
origin of a product. Responses were received from 10 Member States to the first
questionnaire (BG, CZ, FR, HR, HU, IT, PL, PT, RO, SI) and from 8 Member States to
the second questionnaire (ES, IE, IT, LT, LV, PL, RO, SE). Responses from 2 Member
States (DE, DK) and Iceland referred to neither targeted schemes being established at
national level.
Questionnaire 1 addressed details concerning existing national procedural routines. It
emerged from replies that the average number of applications per year does not exceed 3
in any responding Member States, while some Member States have not received any in
the past five years. The number of registrations range between 0 and 62. Fees (where
charged) vary in a range of 40 to 400 €. Staff examining these applications is barely
dedicated to them full time. The registration procedure does not take longer than 12
months, and it is generally lasting 4 to 10 months. There is no separate register kept,
opposition may or may not be available, and renewal is typically not required (indefinite
term of protection). Replies to Questionnaire 2 concerning national certification mark
regimes typically reported the lack of special statistics available on marks certifying
geographical origin.
74
ANNEX 2A: DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
The public consultations revealed divergences in opinions on several issues. The most
striking differences concerned responses from EU countries with and without national CI
GI protection systems respectively. This annex presents a selection of questions where
the differences were especially pronounced.
Table 2A.1.1. Q8.To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Please rate
from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (disagree)
GI countries* Non GI countries**
5+4 (Agree)
1+2
(Disagree) 5+4 (Agree)
1+2
(Disagree)
It is not fair that non-agricultural GI products do not
have similar level of protection as agricultural GI
products. 96% 2% 50% 50%
It is difficult for producers to protect their non-
agricultural products within the Single Market. 90% 2% 23% 46%
It is difficult for producers to protect their non-
agricultural products nationally. 55% 29% 31% 62%
At EU level, it is sufficient that producers can
indicate the origin of their products using a collective
or individual trade mark. 12% 68% 54% 15%
Number of replies (range) 121-125 13-14
Note: * Respondents from countries with national CI GI system: Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia,
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain; ** Respondents from countries with
no national CI GI system: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden
Respondents from Member States with GI protection (GI countries) almost unanimously
agreed that the situation where non-agricultural products do not have similar protection
to agricultural ones is unfair. Respondents from countries with no national CI GI system
(Non GI countries) were split on the issue. Respondents from GI countries also agreed
that it is difficult to protect non-agricultural products on the Single market as well as at
national level. They also disagreed that trade mark protection is sufficient to indicate
product origin.
On the other hand, respondents form Non GI countries considered trade marks as
sufficient means for indicating product origin. They also largely disagreed that protection
of non-agricultural products is difficult on the EU or national markets.
Table 2A.1.2. Q10. In your view, which are the most important challenges resulting from
international developments? Please rate from 5 (most important) to 1 (least important)
GI countries* Non GI countries**
5+4
(important)
1+2 (not
important)
5+4
(important)
1+2 (not
important)
Producers of EU GIs for non-agricultural products
cannot benefit from the EU’s accession to the
Lisbon/Geneva Act to get protection in third
countries using the Lisbon/Geneva route, as there is
no EU registration to start with. 93% 1% 42% 50%
Producers of non-agricultural GI products from third
countries cannot get protection in the whole of the
EU using the Lisbon/Geneva route, as such protection
is not available at EU level. 72% 6% 33% 58%
The EU cannot secure protection of non-agricultural
GIs via bilateral trade agreements. This is because the
EU cannot include non-agricultural GIs in the lists of 86% 2% 38% 46%
75
GIs to be protected by such agreements, due to the
lack of EU-wide protection for non-agricultural GIs.
Number of replies (range) 106-109 12-13
Note: * Respondents from countries with national CI GI system: Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia,
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain; ** Respondents from countries with
no national CI GI system: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden
While respondents from GI countries considered that not being able to use the
Lisbon/Geneva route to get protection outside and inside the EU is an important
challenge as is the EU’s inability to include CI GI products in bilateral agreements, the
respondents from Non GI countries had the opposite views.
Table 2A.1.3. Q11. Do you believe there is a need for an EU-wide initiative to improve
the protection of geographical names or indications for non-agricultural products?
GI countries* Non GI countries**
Yes 100% 53%
No 0% 47%
Number of replies 151 15
Note: * Respondents from countries with national CI GI system: Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia,
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain; ** Respondents from countries with
no national CI GI system: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden
Respondents from GI countries were unanimous on the need for an EU initiative to
improve protection of geographical names or indications for non-agricultural products,
the respondents from Non-GI countries were split on the issue.
Table 2A.1.4. Q 13. What could be the disincentives to participate in an EU scheme for
protection of geographical indications for non-agricultural products?
GI
countries*
Non GI
countries**
Administrative burden/Costs, for example relating to the application 67% 56%
Stricter inspections 45% 31%
Uncertainty related to combatting misuse of protected name and fraud 30% 13%
Higher production costs 23% 6%
Missing regional roots (lack of local identity) 23% 19%
Higher marketing costs 22% 6%
Other 11% 0%
Uncertainty of market demand or low demand 10% 31%
No need because we have an own trade mark 6% 31%
No added value 5% 44%
No need because strong market position already 5% 19%
Lower productivity 4% 0%
A GI would prevent innovation in the production/commercialisation 3% 19%
No need because unfair competition law is sufficient 1% 50%
Number of replies 141 16
Note: * Respondents from countries with national CI GI system: Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia,
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain; ** Respondents from countries with
no national CI GI system: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden
76
Respondents from both groups of the EU Member States considered administrative costs
as the most important potential disincentive to participate in the EU CI GI scheme.
Stakeholders from Non-GI countries considered that there is no need for joining the EU
scheme as unfair competition law is sufficient to deal with the matter or it would bring no
added value, while respondents from GI countries did not consider these two arguments
as valid.
Table 2A.1.5. Q14. Which is your preferred overall policy approach regarding the
possible creation of an EU-wide protection mechanism of geographical indications for
non-agricultural products? The Commission proposal on GIs may result in a mix of
different options. Please rate from 5 (most preferred) to 1 (least preferred)
GI countries* Non GI countries**
5+4
(preferred)
1+2 (not
preferred)
5+4
(preferred)
1+2 (not
preferred)
EU specific (or sui generis) system – a regulation
establishing a specific GI protection system for
industrial and handicraft products. An EU title would
protect GIs. 90% 6% 46% 38%
Harmonisation - an EU directive setting out specific
objectives for the protection of GIs for non-
agricultural products, for example protection
duration, scope, territorial link, but also procedural
aspects such as application and registration, but
leaving it to Member States how to reach these
objectives. 61% 23% 38% 46%
Merger - Under this option, a GI protection system
for industrial and handicraft products would merge
with the current GI protection system for agricultural
products. 49% 28% 45% 36%
Trade mark reform - This option would consist of a
reform of the EU trade mark system. Producers of
industrial and handicraft products would have the
possibility to apply for the registration of a name
guaranteeing a certain quality linked to a specific
geographical region, e.g. based on certification trade
marks. 30% 55% 38% 46%
Voluntary measures - a recommendation at EU level
proposing both to Member States and producers to
agree on voluntary measures in order to certify the
origin of industrial and handcraft products. 10% 79% 29% 50%
No action – The EU would not act. The current
situation will remain. 2% 95% 53% 33%
Number of replies (range) 119-126 11-15
Note: * Respondents from countries with national CI GI system: Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia,
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain; ** Respondents from countries with
no national CI GI system: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden
Respondents from GI countries favoured the EU specific sui generis system from CI GI
protection. It would be, however, the second best choice for respondents from Non-GI
countries (albeit with a very narrow difference from those opposing it). No action at EU
level would be the favourite choice for Non-GI countries, whereas it was the least
favoured choice for GI countries participants to the consultations. Interestingly neither GI
nor Non-GI respondents preferred the trademark reform (although difference for Non-GI
countries was very slim).
77
Table 2A.1.6. Q15. How do you assess the likely impact from the creation of EU-wide
protection of geographical indications for non-agricultural products? Scale from 5 (very
positive) to 1 (very negative)
GI countries* Non GI countries**
5+4
(positive)
1+2
(negative)
5+4
(positive)
1+2
(negative)
Producers 91% 1% 67% 8%
Cultural heritage 89% 1% 71% 14%
Consumers 89% 1% 53% 20%
Regions 86% 2% 69% 8%
Competitiveness 86% 3% 36% 43%
Competition 83% 1% 15% 38%
Tourism 83% 5% 77% 8%
Capacity to export 82% 3% 45% 9%
Employment 77% 3% 43% 21%
Environment 59% 9% 38% 31%
Innovation 55% 5% 40% 40%
Public authorities 53% 13% 23% 46%
Number of replies (range) 130-150 11-15
Note: * Respondents from countries with national CI GI system: Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia,
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain; ** Respondents from countries with
no national CI GI system: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden
The majority of respondents from GI countries considered that EU-wide CI GI protection
would bring positive effects on all the aspects from the table above (from cultural
heritage to innovation, competitiveness and competition). Respondents from Non-GI
countries replied similarly, except for impact on public authorities, competitiveness and
competition, which they considered as negative, and they were split on the impact on
innovation.
78
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW?
1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE
The table below indicates how the main stakeholders will be affected by the preferred
option as explained in Section 8 of the Impact Assessment, by listing the key obligations
that they will have to fulfil in relation to CI products, and over what timescale.
Stakeholder Practical implications of the initiative
GI producer – Set up (jointly with other producer and authorities) producer group and rules
– Define (jointly with other producer and authorities) GIs specifications
(including link to territory, eligible users, their rights and obligations) in line
with the self-standing regulation
– Define (jointly with authorities) means to verify, control, and enforce the
implementation of the GI specifications in line with the self-standing
regulation
– Comply with GIs specifications
– Integrate obligatory GI specifications requirements into their production line
– Use the GI logo on the product/product label
– Comply with verification, control and enforcement rules (including on
reporting) during the GI lifetime
– Involve themselves actively including financially (possible fee) in the GI
producer group during GI lifetime
GI producer
group
 Set up (jointly with producers and authorities) producer group legal entity
and functioning rules
 Define (jointly with producers and authorities) the GI specifications
(including link to territory, eligible users, their rights and obligations) in line
with the self-standing regulation
 Define (jointly with producers and authorities) rules to check compliance of
the GI production with GI specifications (e.g. how: on the spot/online
investigation, reporting obligations; when: frequency, etc.) in line with the
self-standing EU regulation
 Monitor compliance to ensure product conformity with the GI specifications
and EU logo
 May bear the costs of verification of compliance with the specifications
 File GI application including specifications, pay the corresponding fee, and
follow up incl. overcome challenges like opposition
 Maintain GI title (incl. file amendments)
 Maintain and enhance quality/quality control and inspection at different
levels
 Promote their GI and product
 Monitor infringement and take actions
Member States  Set up the relevant national authority taking up roles for scrutiny and
verification of GI applications and submit them to the EU body in charge of
registration
 Set up the relevant competent national authority (or authorities) taking up
roles for checking at national level compliance of all CI GI products with the
self-standing regulation requirements and the product specifications before
the product is placed on the market and when the product is on the market
(monitoring and control).
 If necessary, designate in their territories national courts and tribunals of first
and second instance competent for disputes concerning the infringement and
validity of EU GIs for CI products
 If necessary, inform the Commission of the names and addresses of the
national authority taking up roles for monitoring the national registration
procedure, the competent authority(ies), and the national courts and tribunals
79
of first and second instance
National
authority –
procedures
National authorities will be competent for the main assessment of GI
applications, hence:
 Monitor the preliminary procedure (main assessment) that includes scrutiny,
publication and opposition of GI applications
 When the application qualifies for the favourable decision, obligatorily issue
a declaration that it considers that the application lodged would meet the
common standards set out in the self-standing regulation
 Provide information to the EU body for each registration and updates during
the GI lifetime (can be delegated to the GI producer group)
 May contribute (with producers) to costs for verification of compliance with
the specifications
Competent
authority -
enforcement
 Check at national level compliance of CI GI products with the self-standing
regulation requirement and the product specifications before the product is
placed on the market and when the product is on the market
 Control the labelling requirements, notably use of the EU logo
 Co-operate with authorities within the Member State and across the Member
States
EU (Commission/
EU body (EUIPO)
 Shares competence for the assessment of GI applications including the ‘link
to the territory’ checks with the EU Member States checks the GI
applications for manifest errors only
 Assess (either itself or by delegation) and registers the CI GI in the EU
Registry
 Handles applications for international registrations based on EU level
registrations
 Assess international applications from third country Lisbon members
seeking protection in the EU
2. SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS
Table I and II present systematically the costs and benefits identified and assessed during
the impact assessment process.
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Economic benefits
In the longer term, it could lead to economic
development of GI region and yield an overall
expected increase in intra-EU trade of these
goods of about 4.9-6.6 % of current intra-EU
exports (€ 37.6-50 billion) 216
In the case of Solingen producers estimate that
the use of the name Solingen raises the
willingness to pay by about 30 percent 217
Help producers seize
opportunities to develop and
commercialize CI products
Raise the willingness to pay of
the consumers
Social benefits
The analysis shows a potential increase of
regional level employment by 0.12-0.14 %.
Overall, this move would help create between
284 000 and 338 000 new jobs across the
EU218
Positive effect on
employment219
216
2020 Study p. 82
217
2020 Study p. 82
218
The analysis shows a potential increase of regional level employment by 0.12-0.14 %. Overall, this
move would help create between 284,000 and 338,000 new jobs across the EU Geographical indications.
80
Consumer benefits
e.g. producers of Perpignan Garnet Jewellery
mentioned that demand has increased by 20-30
percent, since the recognition under the French
GI regime220
Enhanced visibility on
authenticity and quality of
products
Indirect benefits
Environmental benefits GI protection is a way to
increase economic
sustainability to the benefit of
all stakeholders221
Tourism benefits Potential reputational effects
for the region: raise the
visibility of the product and the
region, benefiting also the
related industries such as
tourism222
Cultural heritage Help save products that have a
long history behind them like
Swiss watches, or Baluchari
saree223
II. Overview of costs (in million EURO)*– Preferred option
Stakeholders
Action
Consumers Producers of GI
products
MS Authorities Commission/ EU
body (EUIPO)
One-off Recurrent One-off Recur-
rent
One-off Recurrent One-off Recur-
rent
(a) Setting up a
CI GI
protection
system
Direct
costs
Time for
staff to
acquire
new
procedures
224
Cost to
implement
the MS
Scrutiny
procedure
225
.Time for
staff to
acquire
new
procedures
.2 years is
estimated
to
implement
the IT
system for
CI GIs
application
files226
for non-agricultural products, Cost of non-Europe report (2019)
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU(2019)631764 pp. II,
24-27.
219
Ibidem.
220
VVA et al (2020), supra note, p. 81.
221
2021 Study on Monitoring and enforcement rules for geographical indication (GI) protection for non-
agricultural products in the EU, p.137 and 167; and in the agricultural area, some MS authorities use the
specific GI protection as a tool to encourage sustainable development (Evaluation support study on
Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed protected in the EU p.246-247).
222
VVA et al (2020), supra note,, p. 81.
223
VVA et al (2020), supra note, Annex 1: Case study 6: GI and trade mark protection in non-EU countries
pp.7-9.
224
See Annex 9.
225
See Annex 9.
226
See Annex 9.
81
(b) administration and monitoring of the CI GI protection system: annual cost per one GI (EUR)
registration
Direct
costs
15,000 7,500 17,000
verification
Direct
costs
5,700 100
Management /
monitoring /
enforcement
Direct
costs
3,000 3,900
82
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS
Analysis of the potential impacts of the different policy options for a future geographical
indication (GI) protection system at EU level for craft and industrial (CI) products (i.e.
other than already protected at EU level) is based on the methodology proposed in the
Better Regulation Guidelines for impact assessment of the Commission227
.
Likely economic, social and environmental impacts, as well as their distribution across
stakeholders were identified in relation to the five different options228
. Next we compared
the different options with regard to their effectiveness, efficiency and coherence, as well
as their compliance with the proportionality principle. The analytical framework used for
the purpose of this impact assessment draws in particular on the three support studies on
specific aspects of CI GI protection i.e.:
- 2013 Study on geographical indication protection at EU level for non-agricultural
products in the internal market;
- 2020 Study on Economic aspects of geographical indication protection at EU
level for non-agricultural products in the EU;
- 2021 Study on Monitoring and enforcement rules for geographical indication (GI)
protection for non-agricultural products in the EU.
This annex focuses on a description of the models used there which are also explained in
the Studies directly.
I. Common methodology:
Objective Geographical scope Protection systems
2013 Study  An assessment of the
current regional, national
and international legal
means and models of
protection available in
EU Member States for
the protection of
geographical indications
of CI products;
 An economic analysis of
the market for CI
products bearing
geographical indications
which are currently
protected in EU Member
States and of the CI
products bearing names
which could potentially
 In the 27 Member
States of the EU,
Iceland,
Liechtenstein,
Norway and
Switzerland
 With a specific
emphasis on the
following countries:
Bulgaria, Czechia,
Estonia, France,
Germany, Hungary,
Italy, Poland,
Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden,
United Kingdom
output (on the basis of
an international
definition of
geographical indication
protection i.e. Article
22 of the trade-related
aspects of
intellectual property
rights i.e. TRIPS
Agreement):
Consumer deception
and unfair trade
practices laws
 Specific laws which
protect
individual CI GI
products
Trade mark laws
227
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/better-regulation-guidelines-impact-assessment.pdf
228
Option 1: Merging the existing system for agricultural products, wines and spirits with a new regulation
on GIs for CI products; Option 2: A self-standing EU Regulation creating a unitary protection system
exclusive for CI products based on a sui generis IP right at EU level;; Option 3: A reform of the trade mark
system with the aim of accommodating the need of producers to market their products as guaranteeing a
certain quality linked to a specific geographical region, e.g. on the basis of certification or collective trade
marks; and two discarded options: i) Recommendation or voluntary measures; ii) Approximation of
national laws.
83
be protected as
geographical indications
in the future.
In light of the above,
relevant and feasible
options for the possible
creation of a unitary title
of protection of
geographical indications
for CI products across
the EU.
Sui generis GI
systems.
2020 Study on
Economic aspects
 To evaluate factors
limiting the availability
of non-authentic
products and misleading
commercial practices;
 To assess the value of sui
generis GI protection to
consumers, as well as the
impact of such protection
on consumers;
 To assess the value of sui
generis GI protection to
producers of authentic
geographically rooted
products;
 To assess the value of sui
generis GI protection in
comparison with other IP
instruments; and
 To assess whether the
same level of protection
could be attained through
other (i.e. not sui generis
GI) protection
instruments.
 In the EU28 Member
States.
 Experimental research
and interviews was
carried out in a
diverse set of
countries so that its
results can be
considered relevant,
representative and, to
the extent possible,
allow extrapolation to
the EU28.
 At least one third of
the EU Member
States figure in the
shortlist of 25
products, and these
Member States reflect
the balance of
products among the
geographical regions
at European level
(North, East, South
and West229
).
 Sui generis GI
protection
 Individual trade mark
 Collective trade mark
 Certification mark
 Industrial design right
 Certificate of
authenticity
2021 Study on
Monitoring and
enforcement rules
 To collect and synthesise
data on control and
enforcement mechanisms
under existing EU and
national protection
systems,
 To assess the
effectiveness, cost-
effectiveness and
relevance of the existing
control and enforcement
mechanisms,
 To develop
recommendations for
control and enforcement
under a potential EU
system for the protection
of geographically rooted
 The selection aimed
to cover a
representative sample
of EU Member States,
including in particular
Member States where
the number of
protected
geographically rooted
products is low or
very low.
 Three non-EU
countries:
Switzerland, India
and Mexico, from
three world regions
(Europe, America and
Asia), with a relevant
 EU collective marks,
 EU certification
marks,
 National certification
marks,
 National sui generis
GI protection of CI
products,
 EU sui generis GI
protection of
agricultural, food and
drink products,
 GI and trade mark
protection systems in
non-EU countries.
229
North: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, United Kingdom; East: Bulgaria,
Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia; South: Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy, Portugal,
Slovenia, Spain; West: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands.
84
CI products. number of
geographically rooted
products, and
representing three
different levels of
trade integration via
international
agreements.
As regards objectives, the first study focused on mapping the existing legal means of
protection, while the 2020 Study covered economic aspects in particular consumers’
perception of the existing means of protection, and the 2021 study completed the
landscape with data on control and enforcement mechanisms under existing protection
systems. The geographical coverage focussed on the EU and, in 2013 and 2021, also on
a few third countries chosen according to their relevance to the subject of each study. As
regards the scope, the three studies aimed at covering all possible existing protection
systems determined in accordance with international standards (Article 22 of the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights –TRIPS-
Agreement). While the first study had identified the category ‘unfair competition and
consumer protection laws’ as a protection system, search and experimentation on the
basis of this category had been discarded afterwards because protection under this
scheme remains largely theoretical and costly and is therefore not used in practice. In
addition, the ‘specific laws which protect individual CI GI products’ category identified
in the first study has been grouped in the last two studies with the ‘specific (sui generis)
system’ to which it belongs.
As regards the overall methodology, each study was carried out in three phases
(inception, data collection, analysis). An overview of the used methods is provided
below.
Estimation of costs
Cost were estimated based on “2021 Study on Monitoring and enforcement rules” with
some modifications due to changes in the policy options that were not considered at the
time the study was launched.
Disclaimer: Cost estimation should be treated with caution as they are based on
assumptions made by contractor (AND International & VVA, 2021) on the basis of
research, surveys and interviews. These are average estimation of cost and the
actual cost may vary with the size of the producer, complexity of the product and
production method as well as individual choices as regards control and certification.
These cost estimations, however, allow for comparison of different options on
common basis.
The calculations are based on the following assumptions230
:
 average number of 10producers per GI producer group
 Time needed to draft an application by producer group (there are no detailed data
on this aspect so this assessment is theoretical; however, it can be considered that
230
VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, pp. 157-158.
85
costs are higher for PO1 and 2 compared to PO3 due to the higher complexity of
the application process):
o EUR 7,500 / application for PO3,
o EUR 15,000 / application for PO1 and 2,
 Assessment of application by national authority: EUR 7,500 / application for
PO1 and 2 (estimated based on data from French authorities, no national
assessment of application for PO3),
 Assessment of application by EU authority:
o EUR 1,500 / application for PO3 (compared to a few hundred euros for
trade marks), this would be paid as a registration costs by producer
/producer groups),
o EUR 20,000 / application for PO1 and 2 (compared to EUR 33,500
/application for DG AGRI; it is considered that the application file will be
less complex for non-agricultural GIs products than for agriculture, food
and drinks GIs).
 Annual costs of verification for each producer involved: EUR 600 / year,
 Annual monitoring and enforcement costs by GI: EUR 300 / year,
 Annual costs for verification when public bodies are involved: the costs for
public authorities are estimated at 10% of the costs for producers (most of the
costs being are paid by producers, for the verification at production stage).
 Management by national authority: it is considered that there are specific
management costs only in those Member States with at least 15 GIs applications.
In other Member States (with a limited number of GIs), costs are considered only
for each single application (see above). The costs for management by national
authorities are estimated based on data from the INPI in France: EUR 93,000 /
year for 17 applications (prorata based on the number of GIs in Member States
with significantly higher number of GIs, namely Germany and Spain).
 Management by EU authorities: two full-time equivalents (FTE) at EU level are
considered with costs / FTE at EUR 75,000 (total estimated at EUR 150,000
FTE).
Additional Commission assumptions to assess sub options of PO2:
 Inclusion of renewal fee of EUR150 into annual producer registration cost of
PO3 (renewal every ten years, cost of EUR15,000).231
 Cost of PO2.2.B for EUIPO are estimated at EUR 17,000 per CI GI. This
includes around EUR6,000 for cost connected with registration – based on
calculations from the EUIPO (Annex 9, Option 1.3)232
. And around EUR11,000
231
EUIPO fee structure: https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/fees-payable-direct-to-euipo
232
EUIPO estimated that around 12 FTE will be necessary annually to handle 267 CI GI registrations (they
assume that 800 CI GI will be registered within the first three years). Based on EUIPO budgets for 2021
and 2022 we have calculated an average FTE cost of EUIPO. By multiplying the average FTE cost by 12
86
for translation of documents into all official languages (mostly machine
translation followed by a human verification).
 Cost of verification/control for producer under PO2.4B set at 95% of the same
cost of PO1 to take account of savings due to self-declaration.233
 Cost of random verification/control for authorities under PO2.4.B set at 13% of
the same costs of PO1 and rounded to EUR100.234
 For the purpose of absorption of existing around 40 national GIs by the EU
scheme, the owners would have to express their interest to do so. Consequently,
we have not treated their costs differently in cost calculations.
and dividing by 267 we arrived at an average cost of registering one CI GI of around EUR6,000. EUIPO
budgets are available at: https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/transparency-portal/economic/office-budget
233
Evaluation of the Internal Market Legislation for Industrial Products (SWD (2014) 23) determined that
an average cost of conformity assessment with third-part did not represent more than 5% of the total
compliance costs incurred by firms.
234
Based on evidence from evaluation of the machinery directive SWD(2018)160, p. 26.
87
Study Used Methods Limits Corrective measures
2013 Study on
geographical
indication (GI)
protection at EU
level for non-
agricultural
products in the
internal market
(Insight
Consulting, REDD,
OriGIn
Consortium)
1°) Select a team of experts
2°) Define ‘geographical indication’ in accordance with
international standards (TRIPS Agreement)
3°) Select sample of 129 products in (targeted) 31 countries
through identifying 834 products (presence of one of the three
TRIPS criteria + link with territory) + actually produced + for
which info is available
4°) Draft and translate legal and economic questionnaires,
gather survey information back (and when needed complete
with desk research and/or follow-up interview), and eventually
analyse and compare through inductive empirical method the
. legal instruments available in the 31 countries, as well as the
relevant international legal framework (legal part + 31 country
sheet)
. structures of the supply-chain and market (number, size and
market share of enterprises, number of competitors and market
share of 3 main, number of consumers), economic value of the
market, as well as other indicators (employment rate,
geographical area of the market, imports from third countries,
estimation of loss of producers’ revenues caused by counterfeit
products, including costs of court actions). (Economic part)
6°) Draft 29 case studies
7°) Survey 700 producers and other public or private
stakeholders on their satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the
existing means of protection, and positive or negative views
about a possible future EU-wide system
8°) 3 options for the protection of CI GI products at the EU
level identified on the basis of the legal and economic analysis
as well as the stakeholders survey, input from the experts, EU
(subsidiarity and proportionality principle) and international
contexts and eventually fine-tuned in line with the input from
the Study workshop
Option 1: no policy change
Option 2: soft law approach
Option 1Option 1: new EU legal framework either
approximating national laws (Directive) or fully harmonising
(Regulation)
3°) Do the 129 products
represent the EU
market? not detailed
3°) 4°) Product sample
insufficient to gather
quantitative data
7°) Answer to survey
(219) insufficient to
gather quantitative data
8°) very limited 3
options analysis:
- restricted to the
subsidiarity and
proportionality
principles only
(effectiveness and
efficiency missing,
nothing on costs)
- modelled on the
existing sui generis legal
system
- supported by a non-
quantitatively
representative
stakeholders survey
3°) Method of selection refined
in later studies
3°) 4°) Product sample treated
as mere qualitative data (case
studies)
7°) Answer to survey treated as
mere case studies (qualitative
data)
8°) Limits to the analysis of 3
options highlighted in the study
2020 Study on
Economic aspects
of geographical
indication (GI)
protection at EU
level for non-
agricultural
products in the EU
(VVA)
1°) Literature review based on relevant, important, and
rigorous assessed studies on GIs starting from recent studies,
covering as well key word search on Google Scholar in 6
European languages.
2°) country experts selecting a sample of 25 products from 322
Geographically rooted products in the EU on the basis of
- Representativeness of the chosen products and product
groups
- Variation of protection instruments in place for the chosen
products
- Comparability of products
- Geographical representation of EU
- Compatibility with consumer experiments
3°) Mystery shopping (in 102 shops, i.e. about four shops per
each of the 25 products) to assess whether the average
customer can distinguish authentic from non-authentic
products in the shops.
4°) Behavioural experiment to assess the participants’
willingness to pay for authentic products, their ability to
identify authentic products and related search costs, conducted
in July and August 2019 and carried out in an actively
managed online panel (sample size N = 3,005 with approx. n =
500 participants per country covering six EU countries from
different regions and of different size, sample within each
country representative of the (online) population based on
gender, age and state-level regions).
5°) For all 25 products producers, business associations,
municipalities and other stakeholders were interviewed (+ 50
interviews) between March and July 2019 in 10 countries on
the products, the industries, and the ways in which producers
use and protect the use of the geographical origin.
6°) A Stakeholder workshop held in November 2019 to share
the findings of the study with producers, associations,
academics, European Commission and other stakeholders, who
3°) 102 visited shops are
not a statistically
representative sample for
the shops selling the five
types of products in the
EU
3°) However, the results
provide some indications on
how different types of products
are protected
4°) Study stresses that it is
important to take into account
the context when interpreting
the results of the behavioural
experiments e.g. that all
products are rather unknown to
participants and not many
participants have recently
purchased the products from
the experimental tasks.
In addition, results of the
mystery shopping where taken
into account to interpret the
behavioural experiments.
88
provided feedback and insights for the study.
2021 Study on
Monitoring and
enforcement rules
for geographical
indication (GI)
protection for non-
agricultural
products in the EU.
(VVA Consortium)
1°) Screening of the trade mark and GI databases of the
EUIPO and the national intellectual property offices and
selecting a sample of 30 GIs or marks that are currently
protected by the existing protection EU and national systems
representing the six protection systems under the scope of this
study equally (i.e. five GI products/marks for each protection
system) and covering 17 countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Germany, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland,
Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Mexico,
India.
2°) A team of national researchers
- conducted online-based desk research into the 30 products
from the sample, consulting national legislation, relevant
databases, practical information available on the websites of
national or regional bodies responsible for the registration,
and any other relevant reports or data.
- contacted 130 key stakeholders (national and public
authorities responsible for registration, business and producer
associations or regional local authorities owning or managing
the marks/GIs and monitoring products on the market,
individual producers of the protected products) and
conducted 78 semi-structured interviews
3°) Launching a stakeholder survey, targeting 220 producers
of non-agricultural GI products in all 27 EU Member States
and certain non-EU countries (identified from the mapping of
non-agricultural geographically rooted products that was
carried out for the 2020 study, but excluding the producers of
the sample).
- Among the 57 submitted complete responses from thirteen
different countries the feedback of 23 representing a
geographically rooted product that is not currently protected
by any protection system was introduced in the study to
explore why producers are currently not using the existing
protection systems, and what their needs would be from a
potential protection system.
- Feedback from the other 34 respondents, representing
products already benefiting from various existing protection
systems was used to complement the desk research and
interviews conducted for the products from the research
sample that cover the same protection systems.
4°) Options: elaborating six comprehensive case studies (one
for each of the six protection systems) based on the findings
from the desk research, the interviews and the survey,
structured by the four phases of the control and enforcement
process (i.e. link between the product characteristics and the
territory, verification of the products and production process,
monitoring of the market, enforcement and sanctions). The
case studies present how each phase is implemented in practice
for each protection system, also looking into the effectiveness,
the costs and the relevance for stakeholders associated with
each phase.
5°) A Stakeholder workshop held in July 2021 to share the
findings of the study with producers, associations, academics,
European Commission and other stakeholders, provided
feedback and insights for the study
1°) The sample of GIs on
which the study is based
is not exhaustive
1°) The sample of shops
visited for this study is
not large enough to be
representative
1°) The list was then screened
to represent the diversity of GI
products in the EU, for an
unbiased selection of products
for further analysis.
1°) Limits to the analysis on the
basis of the sample of visited
shops highlighted in the study
With regard to the collection of data, the following key methodological and analysis tools
were implemented in the three studies:
- Desk research;
- Interviews with stakeholders;
- Case studies;
- Workshops with key stakeholders.
All three studies followed the same approach to selecting geographically rooted
products: They started by defining ‘geographical indication’ in accordance with
international standards (see above reference to the TRIPS Agreement), determined the
89
corresponding criteria (production and geographical link of the product with a specific
area; specific know-how and/or method of production; reputation), ascertained the
presence of the product on the market and the willingness of producers to cooperate, then
reviewed existing EU and national sources (public and/or private databases) and
identified (with the help of country experts) products corresponding to this model in the
geographical area covered by the study. The geographical area was slightly distinct in
each study but always focused on the EU territory at that time (EU28 or EU27).
Then the approach was fine tuned to match the objective of each study.
 In the 2013 Study, the objective was to collect as much information as possible on
the legal protection and economic value of CI GI products. The limited resources
available to conduct the study, prevented from looking for detailed information
on the initial 834 screened products. A sample of 129 as wide a variety of
products as possible from as many countries as possible was selected based on
several criteria (different sectors, unprocessed and processed products, products
protected through various legal instruments, products with an important economic
significance, and products monitored by an association of producers or
equivalent). However the study did not detail the quantity of products allowed to
each category. Whether the products are therefore representative of the EU
market is therefore difficult to establish.
 In the 2020 Study, as appears under the below figure:
The 322 products had been selected from the list of 834 products identified in the
2013 Study. The list was then screened to represent the diversity of GI products in
the EU, for an unbiased selection of 25 products for further analysis. The
following fixed set of criteria were taken into account: representativeness of the
chosen products and product groups, variation of protection instruments in place
for the chosen products, comparability of products, geographical representation of
EU Member States, compatibility with consumer experiments.
 After the first screening, the 2021 Study selected a sample of 30 GIs or marks that
are currently protected and representing the six protection systems under the
scope of this study equally (i.e. five GI products/marks for each protection
system) and covering 15 EU MS plus three third countries. The selection aimed to
cover a representative sample of Member States, including in particular Member
90
States where the number of protected geographically rooted products is low or
very low. Then, the sample was further developed or not depending on the
research activity carried out:
- The desk research was conducted directly into the respective products
from the sample.
- 78 interviews were conducted on the basis of 130 requested placed on key
stakeholders from three main categories (national and public authorities
responsible for granting trade marks and GIs, business and producer
associations or regional local authorities owning or managing the
marks/GIs and monitoring products on the market, individual producers
of the protected products)
- The survey was shared directly with 220 stakeholders identified based on
the mapping of CI geographically rooted products that was carried out for
the 2020 Study but excluding the producers of the 30 products from the
research sample. In total, 145 stakeholders accessed the survey, of which
57 submitted complete responses.
II. Specific approaches
The 2020 Study developed in addition very specific mystery shopping and behavioural
experiment methods to analyse EU consumers’ perception. While, to analyse the
benefits, costs and effectiveness of the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, the
2021 Study developed a cost-effectiveness analysis.
a) Mystery shopping and behavioural experiment methods in the 2020 Study
To present how consumers perceive sui generis GI-protected products in comparison to
other authentic and non-authentic products, the 2020 Study chose two methods that
complement each other very well: mystery shopping and behavioural experiment.
The purpose of the mystery shopping was to assess whether the average customer can
distinguish authentic from non-authentic products in the shops. The 2020 Study visited
102 shops in 10 countries i.e. about four shops per each of the 25 products chosen of the
sample selected for in-depth analysis from 322 geographically rooted products in the EU
on the basis of the representativeness of the chosen products and product groups,
variation of protection instruments in place for the chosen products, comparability of
products, geographical representation of EU and compatibility with consumer
experiments (see above table). For each of the 25 products, a comprehensive product
fiche was drafted. The 102 completed mystery shopping protocols were then processed
into a central database for the analysis of the findings.
The purpose of the behavioural experiment was to assess the participants’ willingness
to pay for authentic products, their ability to identify authentic products and related
search costs. The experiment was conducted in July and August 2019 and carried out in
an actively managed online panel.
The total sample size was N = 3,005 with approx. n = 500 participants per country
covering six EU countries from different regions and of different size. The six countries
were a subset of the ten countries where mystery shopping took place. Countries were
selected such that they were balanced across all European regions (Western, Northern,
Southern, Eastern) covering both small and large Member States.
The sample within each country was representative of the (online) population based on
gender, age and state-level regions.
91
The experiment consisted of six stages which are summarized in the below
Figure 1 of the Study.
Figure 1: Six stages of the experiment
Under stage 3, the (Willingness To Pay) WTP-decision format consisted of three main
components:
 Product presentation with product name, neutral image and three key attributes
(e.g. geographical origin, manufacturing technique and material) based on
insights from the mystery shopping
 WTP Question where participants indicated the maximum amount they would be
willing to pay for the product
 Certainty rating where participants indicated how sure they are that they would
really buy the product for the indicated amount
Within each product category six different variants were tested. Over the five rounds
participants were randomly assigned to all five different product categories, i.e. each
participant rated the knife, porcelain, lace, piece of furniture and jewellery, as well as five
out of the six product variants. The results only included participants that indicated to be
certain about their WTP.
In the authenticity quiz (stage 4) participants were asked to make pairwise comparisons
between (simulated) non-authentic and (simulated) authentic sui generis GI-protected
products respectively and other protected products within the same category. The basic
task was to decide which product is authentic. The decision was repeated for five rounds
and for each correct decision participants received an additional amount of money on top
of their general payment. Products in the authenticity quiz were presented with a neutral
image, product name and three key attributes (e.g. geographical origin, manufacturing
technique and material). In each product category nine different pairs were tested. The
pairs were constructed based on results from the mystery shopping and composed of
three variations of the authentic GI-protected product (tested without further information
Stage 1
Introduction
• information on the survey and experimental procedure
Stage 2
Warm-up
questions
• basic socio-demographics
• attitudinal aspects
Stage 3
Willingness to
pay
• direct WTP measure
• certainty rating
Stage 4
Authenticity
• authenticity quiz
• follow-up questions
Stage 5
Search Costs
• decision time in Stage 3 and 4 (no additional task)
• further questions
Stage 6
Additional
questions
• familiarity with products in general and GI-protected
products in specific
92
on the protection instrument / “no label”, with the PGI-label, and with a TM
-sign) and
three potentially misleading practices for non-authentic products. Over the five rounds
participants were randomly assigned to all five different product categories, as well as
five out of the nine product pairs.
As a direct measure of search costs (stage 5), the time necessary to detect the
authentic product in the authenticity quiz was measured and additional questions
eliciting participants’ preferences when buying a product were asked.
Then the study analysed the results of the mystery shopping and behavioural experiment
methods. This analysis included information about weaknesses in the methodology (see
details in the above table).
b) cost-effectiveness analysis in the 2021 Study
Having assessed first the effectiveness of the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms,
to analyse their costs-effectiveness, the 2021 Study mapped the costs and benefits at
the distinct stages of the control and enforcement process for the different stakeholders
involved, with a focus on quantifiable costs. The study considered the different types of
costs resulting from the implementation of public policies as defined in the Better
Regulation Toolbox. Three types of costs: direct costs, enforcement costs and indirect
costs were assessed as further detailed in the following table.
EU collective
mark
EU
certification
mark
National
certification
mark
National non-
agricultural GI
EU GI protection
for agricultural,
food and drink
products
Non-EU GIs
Direct
costs
Regula
- tory
charge
s
Registrati
on costs
(one-off)
From EUR 1,500 to 1,800 for a
registration and from EUR 850
to 1,000 for a renewal
From EUR 97
to EUR 300
From EUR 0 to a
few hundred
euros
No costs at EU
level (there may
be some cost at
MS level: EUR
605 in Austria for
instance)
From free up to
EUR 58 (India)
Costs
related to
the right
to use the
mark
(gene-
rally
annual)
From EUR
100 to EUR
4,000
From about
EUR 1,000 to
EUR 10,000
From free up to
EUR 1,100
From free or
about EUR 100,
up to EUR 6,000
for larger
companies in one
GI
From free to few
thousand EUR
From free to few
thousand EUR
Substantive
compliance costs
(annual)
Generally a
few hundred
euros / year,
up to a few
thousands
Generally
from EUR
10,000 up to
EUR 20,000
for each
company
From 0 EUR
(no
verification) up
to EUR 20,000
From EUR 0 up
to EUR 700 /
year
From a few
hundred euros for
farmers to a few
thousand euros for
processors
EUR 905 for one
product, no data or
negligible costs
for others
Enfor-
cement
costs
Monitoring of the
market
Very limited Very limited No information Very limited No information
No detailed
information,
limited costs;
included in
verification
procedure for one
GI
Enforcement and
sanctioning
Limited
Rarely occurs,
several
thousand of
euros for legal
action
No specific
costs
For one GI: a
few euros for
notification
letter, a few
hundred euros
for a letter
written by a
lawyer, up to
EUR 2,500 to
EUR 5,000 for a
From EUR 3,000
up to EUR 3,600
(no court costs,
based on two
PDOs)
No general
assessment;
from EUR 7,000
to 18,000 for court
cases for one
product
93
court trial (even
higher for long
and complex
court trial)
Public authorities
Few hours per
application
Few hours per
application
Spanish case:
estimated at
EUR 128 for a
new registration
French case:
data to be
provided
French case: 1.5
FTE to manage
the scheme in
national
authority (EUR
93,000)
21-52 working
days needed for a
new GI (EUR
4,300 to EUR
10,700)
The costs of public
authorities (EC
and MS) are
estimated at EUR
93 million,
accounting for
0.12% of total
sales value under
GI/TSG
The costs for a
new application
for EC are at
EUR 33,500
No data available
Details on costs for each protection system were integrated and presented in tables. As
indirect costs were complicated to determine from the information gathered in the case
studies, these costs were integrated in the other costs, as well as administrative burden
expenses. A specific analysis was provided on cost incurred by public authorities for the
different protection systems.
Next the study identified and assessed the qualitative benefits of the different
protection systems for their users: the applicants.
As a final step of the methodological approach, the 2021 Study developed a Cost-
effectiveness analysis to compare the costs incurred by producers, associations and
authorities with the benefits provided. This ended up in a table Overviewing the costs and
effectiveness of each protection system (see Study, Table 20, pages 91-92).
ANNEX 5: CHARACTERISTICS OF REGIONS WITH GEOGRAPHICALLY
ROOTED PRODUCTS
More than 800 products with characteristics of geographical indications were
mapped in two studies conveyed in 2013 and 2020.235
These products typically stem
from the following eight sectors as shown in: porcelain, ceramics and glassware, apparel,
natural stones, lace, jewellery, textiles, furniture and cutlery (see Figure 5.1).236
Figure 5.1: Type of GI products in the EU
Mapping products into regions
The Commission has carried out a mapping exercise of the 300+ geographically rooted
products described in the VVA et al. (2020) study into the European regions (NUTS3
level) map. The objective is to uncover characteristics of the regions where these
products are being produced.
Figure 5.2: Mapping of GI products into nuts3 regions
235
Insight Consulting et al. (2013), supra note; VVA et al. (2020), supra note.
236
Main product categories out of 322 products analysed under VVA et al (2020), supra note, page 18.
95
Note: The picture maps 300 craft and industrial products for which a complete set of information allowing
for determining product features (e.g. name and description of the product, nature of territorial link, and
information on producers) was identified in VVA et al. (2020).
Source: DG GROW analysis based on the product listed in VVA et al. (2020).
Methodological process: First, for geographically rooted products that are protected
today under national sui generis GI protection regime, we use the geographical area as
identified in the product specification. Second, for products that do not benefit today
from a sui generis GI regime, we map the name of the relevant city or village. In cases
where the name of the product includes a geographical region (e.g. Montafon table), we
map the current location of production rather than the whole geographical region, as the
later may be too broad. Finally, we map the products that are based on natural resources
(such as stones) from the location of the mine(s).
Main trends characterising regions with CI geographical rooted products, including
on tourism
 Crafts and industrial GI products described in the VVA et al. (2020) are located
in 197 NUTS3 level regions (see map in Section 2.1 and above).
 66% can be defined as non-urban regions according to Eurostat methodology.237
 Figure A.5.1. below shows economic and labour market conditions in regions
with GI products; 75% of the regions have either GDP per capita or
unemployment rate below the EU average; and 30% are less developed regions
i.e. regions with GDP per capita below 75% of the EU average.
237
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/rural-development/methodology
96
 45% of the regions with CI geographical rooted products have declining
population measured as cure rate of total population change between 2010 and
2019.
 Finally, geographically rooted products are located in the regions with
significantly higher vulnerability in the tourism sectors when compared to regions
without geographically rooted products (see Figure A.5.2 below).
 The tourism vulnerability reflects the susceptibility of a region to be affected in
case of shocks or disruptions in the tourism sector.238
It is constructed as a
composite index that takes into account the following regional characteristics
calculated at NUTS3 level: tourism intensity (number of yearly nights-spent /
number of residents), tourism seasonality (indicating the level of concentration of
nights-spent in few months of the year) and share of foreign tourists.
Figure A.5.1. Economic (2018) and labour market (2019) conditions in regions with GI products
Source: DG GROW calculations using Eurostat Regional Statistics. The vertical line indicates a 6.8
average EU unemployment rate as of 2019. The horizontal lines indicate the EU average GDP per capital
(grey) and 75% of the EU average (red). Below the red line appear less developed EU regions.
238
Measure of vulnerability in tourism sector as developed in Batista e Silva et al. (2019), supra note.
97
Figure A.5.2. Vulnerability in the tourism sector (2016)
Source: DG GROW calculations using data published in Batista e Silva et al. (2019).
98
ANNEX 6: INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION
This Annex provides a more detailed description of the problems identified in section 2
related to the GI international context, the existing and future multilateral and bilateral
agreements, including the recent EU’s accession to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon
Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications (“Geneva Act”); and
possible options and practical implementation of the preferred option as identified in
Section 8 to address the identified problems.
1. Problem description: International dimension – Multilateral and bilateral
agreements
1.1. Multilateral agreements
The two major multilateral tracks for GI protection are the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement) of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), and the Lisbon system administered by the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO). The EU is member to the TRIPS Agreement (date of
acceptance: 30 November 2007) and to the Lisbon system under the Geneva Act (date of
accession: 26 November 2019, entry into force on 26 February 2020).
With regard to the legal instruments available at the international level, none of the
international treaties that provide for the protection of geographical indications exclude
from their scope craft and industrial products. The Paris Convention, the Lisbon
Agreement and the TRIPS Agreement clearly apply to all kind of products. These treaties
include different definitions of the appellations of origin (AO) and geographical
indication (GI) (together “GIs”) concepts. They also establish provisions with regard to
the legal instruments that can be used for the protection of AOs and/or GIs, which are
very diverse. Similarly, the scope of the protection granted to GIs differs significantly
from one treaty to the other. The WTO TRIPS agreement provides the overall legal
framework for the protection of GIs around the world; it includes derogations and
limitations to GI protection, notably with regard to generic names and prior trade mark
rights.239
As regards the TRIPS Agreement, members employ a wide variety of legal means to
protect geographical indications, ranging from specific geographical indications laws to
trade mark law, consumer protection law, and common law. The TRIPS Agreement and
current TRIPS work in the WTO takes account of that diversity.240
Such flexibility is also characteristic of WIPO’s Lisbon system, which facilitates the
international protection of appellations of origin and geographical indications through
one single registration procedure for a single set of fees in multiple jurisdictions.
239
Study on Geographical Indication Protection for Non-Agricultural Products in the Internal Market
(2013), p-12-13, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/14897
240
World Trade Organization – Briefing on Geographical Indications,
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/gi_e.htm
99
The Lisbon system currently has a membership of 37241
, including the European Union
and seven EU Member States (Bulgaria, Czechia, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and
Slovakia). The Lisbon system is based on the Lisbon Agreement and its most recent
revision, the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement242
. Both are administered by WIPO,
the International Bureau of which keeps the International Register of appellations of
origins/geographical indications and the “Lisbon Express” database allowing for search
on international registrations.
The Geneva Act was adopted in 2015, aimed at the revision and modernisation of the
Lisbon Agreement (1958) in order to help the system expand and obtain increased
geographical coverage. The Geneva Act updates and enhances the existing international
registration system through a number of changes.
The Lisbon Agreement applies only to appellations of origin – a special kind of
geographical indication for products that have a particularly strong link with their place
of origin. The Geneva Act extends protection to geographical indications243
(GIs)
alongside appellations of origin, to better take into account existing national or regional
systems for the protection of distinctive designations in respect of origin-based quality
products.
The Geneva Act also allows certain intergovernmental organizations (such as the
European Union) to join, making the international system of protection more inclusive.
As to the extent of protection, Contracting Parties to the Act must provide legal means to
prevent the use of an internationally registered AO or GI in respect of goods of the same
kind, or goods that are not of the same kind, or services, under certain conditions. They
must also provide legal means to prevent any use amounting to the imitation of an AO or
GI.
The Geneva Act introduces several flexibilities into the Lisbon System. In addition to
choosing how to meet the requirements of the Act through domestic law, each
Contracting Party can make various optional declarations when it accedes to the Act. The
Geneva Act leaves it to the signatory states to decide how the GIs are protected in their
jurisdiction.
At the same time, the Geneva Act (like the Lisbon Agreement itself) offers a route to
obtain protection of appellations of origins/geographical indications regardless of the
nature of the goods to which they apply, including agricultural products, foodstuffs, wine
241
Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote
d’Ivoire (not yet in force), Cuba, Czechia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic,
European Union, France, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Peru,
Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Samoa, Servia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia
242
Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications
https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=3983
243
A geographical indication means any indication protected in the Contracting Party of Origin consisting
of or containing the name of a geographical area, or another indication known as referring to such area,
which identifies a good as originating in that geographical area, where a given quality, reputation or other
characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. (Article 2(1)(ii) of the
Geneva Act)
100
and spirit drinks, crafts, industrial products and natural products. This is in contrast to EU
legislation, where protection for GIs for CI products is not available.
1.2. The EU’s accession to the Geneva Act
The EU acceded to the Geneva Act on 26 November 2019 (entry into force on 26
February 2020). With a view to the EU’s accession, the interface between current EU
legislation on GIs and the international instrument was addressed by Council Decision
(EU) 2019/1754 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1753. This new legislation was specifically
adopted to regulate EU action following accession to the multilateral registration
system.244
Seven EU MSs were already party to the Lisbon Agreement before EU’s
accession to the Geneva Act. Some of them actually protect their GIs relating to CI
products in the Lisbon system245
and offer the same protection for other Lisbon members,
thus creating an uneven level playing field among producers coming from different
Member States. To address the fate of registrations relevant for these EU Member States,
it was necessary to include complex transitional provisions for AOs originating in EU
Member States and already registered under the Lisbon Agreement, contemplating
various scenarios, essentially depending on the eligibility of the respective AO for
protection under EU law. There are also rules for transitional protection for AOs
originating in a third country and registered under the Lisbon Agreement before the
accession of the Union to the Geneva Act.246
Notably, the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EUCJ) of 25 October
2017 (C-389/15, European Commission v Council of the European Union) clarified that
the EU has exclusive competence for the Geneva Act since the revised Lisbon
Agreement is covered by the EU’s common commercial policy (trade aspects of
intellectual property). The EUCJ found that it is essentially intended to facilitate and
govern trade between the EU and third states and, secondly, that it is such as to have
direct and immediate effects on such trade. To be able to exercise its exclusive
competence in this domain, the EU had to accede to the Geneva Act.247
Special legislation clarified that it is for the Commission to represent the EU in the
Lisbon Union of WIPO. The Commission is also the Competent Authority
designated by the EU responsible for the administration of the Geneva Act.248 In the
latter capacity, the Commission has two roles.
First, it files international applications to WIPO’s International Bureau to seek protection
for registered EU GIs in third countries.249
Member States may request the Commission
244
Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754 of 7 October 2019 on the accession of the European Union to the
Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications; Regulation
(EU) 2019/1753 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the action of the
Union following its accession to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement.
245
Examples are: Senovski Kaolin (BG), Bohemia Crystal (CZ), Émaux de Limoge (FR), Monoï de Tahiti
(FR), Herend (HU), Halas, Kiskunhalas (HU), Slovenskŷ opál (SK).
246
Klaus Günter Blank: Multilateral Protection of Geographical Indications in WTO and WIPO. [2021]
Int.T.L.R.,Issue 1, 2021Thomson Reuters and Contributors, p. 50. See also Articles 11 and 12 of
Regulation (EU) 2019/1753.
247
Klaus Günter Blank: Multilateral Protection of Geographical Indications in WTO and WIPO. [2021]
Int.T.L.R.,Issue 1, 2021Thomson Reuters and Contributors, p. 49.
248
Article 4 of Decision (EU) 2019/1754, Article 3 of the Geneva Act.
249
Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1753.
101
to register in the International Register under the Geneva Act GIs that originate in their
territory if these are protected and registered under EU law. Such requests can be based
on a request by GI holders or their own initiative. This gives GI holders a lead role in
deciding which GIs should be protected under the Geneva Act.250
Nevertheless, such
advantages are limited for holders of GIs relating to CI products, as the prerequisite for
using the Lisbon/Geneva route is an existing registration at EU level.251
Second, as Competent Authority designated by the EU the Commission assesses third
country GIs registered in the International Register to ascertain if they can be protected in
the EU. Practically speaking, in all cases concerning GIs for CI products the refusal of
protection is foreseen252
.
In this context, the consequences of the absence of EU-wide protection system for GIs
for CI products are thus threefold:
 The EU cannot secure protection in third countries for GIs for CI products
originating in the EU by means of using the Lisbon/Geneva route, as there can be
no EU registration to start with.
 The EU has to refuse protection of GIs for CI products originating in third
countries, as such protection is not available at EU level.
 There is an uneven level playing field for EU producers stemming from Member
States that are not direct members of the Lisbon/Geneva route.
As a result, the lack of an EU protection system for geographical indications relating to
CI products incur reduced opportunities for producers of CI products originating in
the EU to benefit from the EU’s accession to the Geneva Act by means of obtaining
protection for their GIs in third countries using the Lisbon system.
In addition, it also triggers practical complications as to compliance with the obligations
resulting from the Geneva Act, as GIs relating to CI products originating in third
countries cannot be protected in the whole of the EU using the Lisbon/Geneva route
without such protection being available at EU level.253
250
Klaus Günter Blank: Multilateral Protection of Geographical Indications in WTO and WIPO. [2021]
Int.T.L.R.,Issue 1, 2021Thomson Reuters and Contributors, p. 49-50.
251
As regards AOs for non-agricultural products originating in EU Member States already party to the
Lisbon system under the Lisbon Agreement, Article 11(3) of Regulation 2119/1753 provides that existing
registrations under the Lisbon Agreement may be maintained in the International Register. In the case of
new registrations originating in an EU Member State party to the Lisbon Agreement, the Commission takes
the role of Competent Authority towards WIPO, with the possibility for Commission intervention in the
form of a negative opinion on a draft new application in exceptional cases.
252
Articles 4(1)(b), 5(2), 6(1), 6(2)(e), 7(2) and 7(4) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1753.
253
As to existing registrations protected by EU Member States already party to the Lisbon Agreement in
their territories, Articles 12(3)-(4) provides for transitional protection of AOs relating to non-agricultural
products originating in third countries. EU Member States in question can keep protecting third country
non-agri GIs in their territory, under their sole responsibility. However, this has no effect on intra-Union or
international trade.
102
1.3. Bilateral trade agreements
On the bilateral level, the EU negotiates and has already concluded a number of
ambitious trade agreements that include comprehensive provisions on the protection of
geographical indications as well as lists of GIs protected under the agreement. However,
to date, the scope of protection for GIs in bilateral agreements is limited to GIs of
agricultural origin. The EU cannot grant protection of CI GIs via bilateral trade
agreements by means of including CI GIs in the list of GIs to be protected by such
agreements, as protection of GIs for CI products is not available at EU level, contrary to
agricultural GIs.
A number of most recently concluded bilateral agreements by the EU include, following
requests of our trading partners, a reference under the GI provisions to a future possibility
to consider widening the scope of protection of GIs, subject to legislative developments
that create the legal basis for EU-wide protection of CI GIs. In some of these agreements,
there is a list of foreign CI names suggested by our counterparts as potential candidates
for future protection.
As shown in latest FTAs concluded by the EU, e.g. with Mercosur or Mexico, as well as
in the EU-China GI Agreement, there are separate lists for CI GIs (not included in the
annexes of protected GI names) and a provision in the Agreement referring to the future
possibility of considering such names as potential candidates for protection in the event
that the EU develops harmonised legislation on CI GIs. This illustrates that the EU is
more and more confronted with requests from trade partners to recognise CI names in
trade agreements. Furthermore, trade partners often ask for reciprocity when it comes to
adding names to the initial GI lists protected under FTAs. Adding CI names could
facilitate such reciprocity.
2. Options to address the identified problems
The EU currently remains unable to provide protection for CI products GIs to its own
producers and to those from third parties in its whole EU territory in a uniform way. It is
therefore key to explore which option(s) would best suit the purposes of de facto
compliance with the requirements of the Geneva Act (i.e. providing protection to GIs for
all products applied for registration in the Lisbon system by other parties to the Geneva
Act).
The options outlined in the Impact Assessment relating to voluntary
measures/recommendations or harmonisation would not result in any change in the
existing EU legislation as regards the protection of CI GIs. By contrast, the remaining
three options would imply the change in question in the existing EU legislation. These
are:
- “The extension option”: extending the GI protection system for agricultural
products to GIs for CI products;
- “The sui generis option”: creating a stand-alone Regulation to provide for sui
generis GI protection for CI products;
- “The trade mark reform option”: amending the existing EU legislation on trade
marks to allow for protection of geographically rooted CI products.
103
Out of the above three options, the extension option and the sui generis option would
result in the same situation from the perspective of the Lisbon system: the EU as a party
to the Geneva Act would provide sui generis GI protection for all kind of products. By
contrast, by means of the trade mark reform, the EU as a party to the Geneva Act would
provide sui generis GI protection for agricultural GIs and trade mark protection for CI
GIs.
As mentioned above in point 1, the Geneva Act leaves it open through which approach
members provide GI protection. As Article 10(1) of the Geneva Act makes it clear:
“Article 10
Protection Under Laws of Contracting Parties or Other Instruments
(1) [Form of Legal Protection] Each Contracting Party shall be free to choose the type of
legislation under which it establishes the protection stipulated in this Act, provided that
such legislation meets the substantive requirements of this Act.”
WIPO also explains this feature in the framework of general information on the Lisbon
System:
“One condition to register AOs/GIs internationally
To qualify for international protection under the Lisbon System, AOs and GIs must be
already protected as such in their Contracting Party of Origin, by means of either
legislative or administrative provisions, judicial decisions or any form of registration.
The Lisbon System leaves ample flexibility on how this protection may be formalized at
the national or regional level, which is determined by the applicable domestic legislation
of the Contracting Party of Origin (e.g. domestic protection may take place
through sui generis or trade mark systems, special decrees, labelling or unfair
competition laws etc.).”254
Nevertheless, at least three factors weigh in favour of providing protection by a sui
generis GI law:
1. It is not clear how trade mark protection could possibly meet requirements of
Chapter III “Protection” (Art. 9-14) of the Geneva Act, which practically set the
criteria of a level of protection characteristic of sui generis GI regimes. It appears
that at least two elements of the level of protection required by the Geneva Act
would be problematic to include within the EU trade mark framework:
 Article 11(2)
“[Content of Protection in Respect of Certain Uses]
Paragraph (1)(a) shall also apply to use of the appellation of origin or
geographical indication amounting to its imitation, even if the true origin of the
goods is indicated, or if the appellation of origin or the geographical indication is
used in translated form or is accompanied by terms such as “style”, “kind”,
254
Lisbon – The International System of Geographical Indications (wipo.int)
104
“type”, “make”, “imitation”, “method”, “as produced in”, “like”, “similar” or the
like.”
 Article 12
“Protection Against Becoming Generic
Subject to the provisions of this Act, registered appellations of origin and
registered geographical indications cannot be considered to have become generic
in a Contracting Party.”
2. The EU is generally perceived as the champion of the sui generis GI regime in the
international arena including WTO and WIPO. Many countries embracing a sui
generis regime have taken the EU as a reference model, in particular given the
very successful outcomes on GIs in EU’s bilateral negotiations. At multilateral
level (TRIPS/WIPO) the EU has consistently promoted the extension of a high
level of protection to all GIs, beyond wines and spirits. It may therefore appear
rather inconsistent with this well-established approach to divert from such
standards in the case of CI GIs protection.
3. While not in principle excluded, it would appear inconsistent for the EU to
provide one kind of legislation (sui generis protection) for agricultural GIs and
another kind (trade mark protection) for CI GIs.
The above three factors narrow down the most suitable options to the option extending
the GI protection system for agricultural products to GIs for CI products and the stand-
alone sui generis scheme. As commented in the Impact Assessment, several factors
weigh in favour of creating a stand-alone sui generis scheme. First, agricultural products
and foodstuffs are different in nature to CI products. They do not require the same rules,
in particular with regard to integration in the food sector and complexities of food
processing and use of ingredients. In addition, the GI protection system for agricultural
products is part of the common agricultural policy (CAP) which pursues specific
objectives, in particular market and income support policies and which includes specific
requirements notably for GIs in wine and other CAP sectors, as well as flanking policies
aimed at protecting the natural resources or landscape of the production area or
improving the welfare of farm animals that impact producers of food GIs.
Finally, the ongoing AGRI reform will uphold the specific GI requirements for wines and
spirit drinks and hence maintain distinctive rules in the common market legislation for
wines and in the spirit drinks regulation. The different forms of GIs will be maintained:
‘protected designations of origin’ and ‘protected geographical indications’ for Wines and
for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and ‘geographical indications’ for spirit drinks.
One of the current 4 schemes (aromatized wines) will be absorbed into the agricultural
products and foodstuffs GIs under the 2021 CAP reform. For the other regimes, the
streamlining of the four current separate GI schemes will focus on unified rules on
protection, procedures, and to an extent on control and enforcement, in the sense of a
single set of procedural rules. The fact that three protection schemes would remain
(agricultural products and foodstuffs, wines, and spirits) could therefore additionally
complicate their extension to CI products.
In light of all the above considerations, the option of creating a stand-alone scheme
providing sui generis GI protection for CI products is the most suitable option from
105
the international perspective. This option would not only secure the fullest possible
compliance with the Geneva Act of WIPO’s Lisbon Agreement. It would at the
same time be fully consistent with the EU’s position taken in WIPO and WTO in
favouring the highest possible level of protection to be provided for all GIs.
3. Practical implementation of the preferred option in the international context
With the introduction of a new sui generis GI scheme to protect CI products, there would
be implications for the EU’s GI regime in the international context. The preferred option
would result in some changes as outlined below.
3.1 The EU as Party to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement
As noted above, the interface between current EU legislation on GIs and the international
instrument is addressed by Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754 and Regulation (EU)
2019/1753, regulating EU action following accession to the multilateral registration
system. With the establishment of a new EU GI scheme for CI products, such interface
legislation calls for review at least as regards the following aspects.
In a nutshell, the major consequences of the introduction of EU level GI protection for CI
GIs in the context of the Lisbon system are twofold:
- The EU would be able to secure protection for EU GIs in question in third
countries using the Lisbon/Geneva route, as there could be an EU registration to
start with.
- The EU would be able to offer protection of third country GIs in questions, as
such protection would become available at EU level.
As noted above, the interface between current EU legislation on GIs and the international
instrument is addressed by Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754 and Regulation (EU)
2019/1753, regulating EU action following accession to the multilateral registration
system. With the establishment of a new EU GI scheme for CI products, such interface
legislation calls for review at least as regards the following aspects:
 As it would become possible to file international applications to WIPO also in
respect of CI products, details as to EU Member States’ requests to protect
their GIs in the Lisbon system and the form of action taken by the EU to
achieve an international filing need to be revisited. (To which EU body such
requests for an international application be addressed, and whether an
implementing act would be necessary, are questions relating to the choice on the
relevant EU body in charge, as discussed by the Impact Assessment and its
Annex 10 in particular.
 It was a necessity for the Regulation to foresee that in all cases concerning GIs for
CI products from third countries, protection should be refused. The current
procedure needs to be remodelled in order to replace the existing systemic
refusal bar by a real and effective examination process applying to CI
products. Details relating to relevant EU body in charge are to be revisited as
well.
 A further consequence of the introduction of new EU GI scheme would be related
to the provisions on “Subject Matter” of the Regulation, which currently refer
106
only to EU titles in respect of the existing GI schemes for agricultural GIs.255
Such references would need to be completed to encompass the newly
established EU GI scheme on CI products.
 Similarly, the category of “non-agricultural GIs” (which is tacitly construed in
various ways in the Regulation) may need revisiting, too. While non-agricultural
or craft and industrial GIs are not explicitly mentioned as such anywhere in the
Regulation256
, complicated tacit nuancing in its provisions did provide for the
specific situation of these GIs. With the emergence of the new EU GI scheme, a
simple positive reference to industrial and craft products may be preferable in
cases where distinction in respect of these products remains necessary – for
example, due to some differences in the applicable registration procedure relating
to the EU body in charge.
Despite some amendments in the interface legislation, as also discussed further and in
more detail in Annex 10, one key aspect would remain untouched:
 Special legislation has clarified that following accession, the Union and any
Member States which ratifies or accedes to the Geneva Act shall be
represented by the Commission in accordance with Article 17(1) TEU. The
Union shall be responsible for ensuring the exercise of the rights and fulfilment of
the obligations of the Union and of the Member States which ratify or accede to
the Geneva Act. The Commission shall make all the necessary notifications under
the Geneva Act on behalf of the Union and those Member States (Art. 4(1) of the
Decision). It appears that no change is called for in this regard. The same
arrangement would automatically cover industrial and craft GIs following
from the adjustment of “Subject Matter” as discussed above.
3.2 The EU as negotiator of Free Trade Agreements
The EU attaches great importance to the protection of intellectual property rights at the
international level. Regional and bilateral trade agreements concluded by the EU include
comprehensive IPR chapters and provisions for the protection and enforcement of
geographical indications rights, which are fully in line with EU GI rules. Some relevant
data from a 2019 study on economic value of EU quality schemes, geographical
indications and traditional specialities guaranteed include that agri-food and drink
products whose names are protected by the European Union as “Geographical
Indications” (GIs) represent a sales value of €74.76 billion. Over one fifth of this amount
results from exports outside the European Union. Export of geographical indications:
geographical indications represent 15.5% of the total EU agri-food exports. Wines
remained the most important product both in terms of total sales value (51%) and extra-
EU trade (50%). The U.S., China and Singapore are the first destinations for EU GI
products, accounting for half of the export value of GI products. The EU has concluded
255
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1753: “For the purpose of this Regulation, the term ‘geographical
indications’ covers appellations of origin within the meaning of the Geneva Act, including designations of
origin within the meaning of Regulations (EU) No 1151/2012 and (EU) No 1308/2013, as well as
geographical indications within the meaning of Regulations (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 1308/2013,
(EU) No 251/2014 and (EU) 2019/787.”
256
The Decision does not touch upon the issue of CI GIs at all.
107
more than 30 international agreements, which allow the recognition of many EU GIs
outside the EU and the recognition of non-EU Geographical Indications in the EU. GIs
play an increasingly important role in trade negotiations between the EU and other
countries. The Commission also dedicates around €50 million every year to promote
quality products in the EU and around the world.
The protection of GIs via trade agreements is an equivalent avenue to the protection of
foreign GIs via EU GI regulations, since both achieve the same high level of protection,
which is effective in the whole territory of the EU for the GIs listed in the FTA. For the
time being this applies only to agricultural/food GIs and would leave CI GIs outside the
scope of the negotiations.
Up to 2008 the EU action to improve GI protection in bilateral negotiations had
concerned exclusively wine and spirits, in the so-called "old generation" agreements
(beginning with Australia (1997), Chile (wine and spirits, 2002), South Africa (wine and
spirits, 2002), Canada (wine and spirits, 2003) and the USA (wine, 2006).
Since 2008, the EU has progressively adopted a more comprehensive approach in
negotiations covering GIs. The negotiations concluded by the EU with its neighbourhood
countries provide for a very high degree of integration of the respective GI systems and
have very high standards of approximation with the EU acquis on GIs (e.g. DCFTAs
with Moldova, Georgia or Ukraine).
Comprehensive FTAs have been concluded with a number of key trading partners, like
South Korea in 2010, followed by Peru/Columbia/Ecuador, Central America, Canada,
Singapore, Vietnam or Japan, already in force; worth to mention the stand-alone GI
Agreement with China, as well as FTA negotiations concluded with Mexico and
Mercosur, and the on-going FTA negotiations with Indonesia, Chile, Australia and New
Zealand.
All these agreements include comprehensive provisions on GIs and a list of GIs to be
protected under the agreement.
The extension of GI protection to CI GIs at EU level would allow to include them in
bilateral agreements of the EU with trade partners.
This would imply broadening the scope of GIs covered by the agreement and including
CI GIs from both the EU and counterparts in the lists of GIs protected under the
agreements.
108
ANNEX 7: KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUI GENERIS GI
AND TRADE MARK REGULATION
A.7.1. Comparison of different IP tools
The EU trade mark system provides for EU trade mark titles as well as a harmonised
regulatory framework for national trade mark titles. There are similarities between trade
marks and geographical indications. Both have the function to protect names for
particular products. Both need to be registered.
However, there are differences, in particular as to the nature of the rights. Whereas trade
marks are private rights which can be transferred or licensed, GIs are public rights. Their
rationale is protecting the collective asset represented by a product reputation embedded
in and derived from a localized cultural heritage.257
The reputational benefits of GIs
accrue to all producers in the region. In contrast, the benefits of trade marks accrue either
only to the individual right owners, or with regard to collective trade marks or
certification marks only to those producers that are a member of the organisation that has
registered the collective trade mark or respectively issued the certification mark.258
In addition, trade marks and GIs differ with regard to their functions. Individual trade
marks guarantee the origin from a specific company, collective trade marks the origin
from a member of an association which owns the collective trade mark. A geographical
name can constitute, under certain circumstances, an individual or collective trade mark.
However, in contrast to GIs, these trade marks types aim at indicating the commercial
origin of a good or service, not the geographical origin.
Certification marks certify the compliance of a product or service with specific quality
criteria. The EU certification trade mark does expressly not allow for certifying the
geographical origin259
. Indeed, this is different on the national level. As of January 2021,
nine Member States have established national certification marks that can serve to
designate geographical origin: Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,
Romania, Sweden and Spain.260
However, such certification marks shall not entitle the
proprietor to prohibit a third party from using in the course of trade GIs, provided that the
third party uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial
matters. In particular, such a mark may not be invoked against a third party who is
entitled to use a geographical name.261
257
Addor, Geographical indications beyond wines and spirits, The Journal of World Intellectual
PropertyVolume 5, Issue 6, p. 865.
258
Economic Study 2020, p. 26.
259
Article 83(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June
2017 on the European Union trade mark, OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1–99.
260
2021 Study on Monitoring and enforcement rules for geographical indication (GI) protection for non-
agricultural products in the EU, p. 21.
261
Article 28(4) of the Directive (EU) 2015/2436 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
trade marks, OJ L 336, 23.12.2015, p. 1–26.
109
Furthermore, there are differences with regard to the scope of protection. In contrast to
trade mark systems, GIs in sui generis systems are protected against any use or any
evocation, even if it does not cause consumer confusion, and can never become
generic.262
Also, in contrast to GIs, the validity of trade marks can be conditioned on
their use on the market. Trade marks need to be renewed periodically. The protection of
GIs is not limited in time.
Overview:
Trade marks Geographical
Indications
Type Trade mark EU Collective
mark263
EU Certification mark264
Function Guarantees the
origin from a
specific
company. It
distinguishes
goods and
services from a
specific company
from another’s.
Guarantees the
origin from a
member of an
association which
owns the
collective trade
mark. It
distinguishes the
goods/services
from a specific
association from
those of other
undertakings.
Distinguishes goods or
services that are certified
by the proprietor of the
certification mark from
goods/services that are
noncertified (for example
in respect of material,
mode of manufacture of
goods or performance of
services, quality,
accuracy or other
characteristics).
GIs cannot be registered
as certification marks.
Identifies a product
originating from
a specific place,
region, or
country.
Its given quality,
reputation or other
characteristic is
essentially
attributable to its
geographical
origin.
Example The name (word
mark) and logo
of a big coffee
chain (figurative
mark)
distinguishes its
goods and
services from
those of another
coffee chain.
The collective
mark “Genuine
Bavarian Beer”
helps distinguish
the beer of the
association of
Genuine Bavarian
Beer producers
from beer
producers from
other areas.
Each producer or
importer of coffee,
chocolate, tea, honey,
bananas or oranges can
become a license holder
of the “Max Havelaar”
certification mark,
provided they comply
with certain conditions of
trade and are prepared to
submit themselves to
control by the holder of
the certification mark.
Only wine from
the Bordeaux
region can carry
the name
“Bordeaux”.
Resulting from their divergent nature and function, trade marks and GIs differ also with
regard to the intensity of public intervention, especially with regard to verification,
control and enforcement. Authorities are involved in all the GI systems when it comes to
the definition of the origin link and the product characteristics (meaning they verify these
definitions) but not in any of the trade mark-based systems, for which the criteria are
defined by the owner of the mark. This difference plays a role especially if it is
considered that GIs should not only be a private right but also carry an element of public
262
Indications géographiques: le virus “générique”, Audier, Propriétés Intellectuelles, Volume 8, p. 252.
263
Art. 74ff. EUTMR, Art. 29 EUTMD.
264
Art. 83ff. EUTMR, Art. 28 EUTMD.
110
interest.265
Also, with regard to enforcement, public authorities play a more important
role when it comes to GIs compared to essentially private trade mark enforcement.
A.7.2. EU certification mark legal reform
Nature and objective of EU certification marks
Contrary to the TM Directive, the EUTMR does not allow for an EU certification trade
mark to certify goods/services with respect to their geographical origin. This means that,
although GIs can be protected as certification marks at MS level, this is not currently
possible at the EU level.
The respective provisions currently read:
Article 83 (EU certification marks)
An EU certification mark shall be an EU trade mark which is described as such when the
mark is applied for and is capable of distinguishing goods or services which are certified
by the proprietor of the mark in respect of material, mode of manufacture of goods or
performance of services, quality, accuracy or other characteristics, with the exception of
geographical origin, from goods and services which are not so certified. (…)
Hence, this option would require the current EUTMR to be changed and certification in
respect of the geographical origin of goods/services allowed. Nevertheless, such a change
in the EUTMR would inevitably mean that any geographically linked products
(agricultural, CI, i.e. quasi GI) would benefit from such a change. This, therefore, might
be seen as opening up the trade mark system to compete with the current agricultural GI
system at EU level, or even diluting it to the extent that simple geographical terms (i.e.
terms without any link to the quality or attributes of the product) could be protected on
the same footing as GIs, if used in conjunction with a certification scheme of any kind.
This should be seen as a risk.
Additionally, even if the EUTMR changes and the geographical ban is lifted, or the use
of geographical terms is expressly allowed as in the case of collective marks, it has to be
considered that the current state of trade mark law entails a prohibition on
monopolising/acquiring exclusive rights on geographical names, especially those that are
known or could be known in relation with certain products. This conforms with the
current practice of the EUIPO, which has recently been confirmed by the EUCJ, whereby
collective marks must be distinctive and must abide by Article 7(1)(b) regardless of the
fact that there is a derogation permitted from pure descriptiveness under Article 7(1)(c).
In a nutshell, this means that trade mark protection which gives an exclusive right to a
particular sign would not be the appropriate means to protect purely geographical names
by which GIs are to be known on the market. This is clearly supported by the main
difference between the two systems – namely, the exclusiveness of the trade mark system
is in contradiction to the GI system, which is inherently perceived as having a public
domain character as the GI names are essentially linked to a specific region and are
dependent on a specific link, and not to a proprietor. The GI rights, unlike trade marks,
are not to be seen as exclusive rights which might be dispensed of by their proprietor.
265
2021 Study on GI enforcement, p. 13.
111
Should the change to the EUTMR take place, it is still necessary to analyse to what
extent this change would fulfil the objectives of a GI system for CI products266
.
In setting up an EU level system for protecting geographically linked CI products, the
objectives of a trade mark system must be compared/analysed against the objectives of a
sui generis GI system.
The two systems are of a different nature and serve different objectives(267)
.
Geographical Indications EU Certification marks
Definition Name or indication which identifies a product of
a specific geographical origin produced by
operators who have joined the GI scheme and
are bound to adhere to the specification.
Distinguishing goods or services
certified by the proprietor from
those that are not.
Essential
Function
Geographical origin and compliance with a
specification.
Compliance with a Certification
Scheme.
Geographical
Terms
Name must identify a product originating from a
region having specific characteristics and include
geographical terms but not always.
NO (at EU level).
Right to Use Any operator complying with the specifications.
Generic terms cannot be protected.
Certified Users
Bona Fide Third Parties*
Not the Proprietor.
Generic use Protected against becoming a generic term. Can become a generic term.
Link with the
environment
GIs include:
Product specification with a description of the
influence of the local natural factors/know how of
producers in the local area on the final product, or
product linked to the place of production by
reputation (environmental link not always
present).
This link, as well as the description of the product,
are verified by a registering body.
No particular link with the
environment required.
Regulations of use are to
describe the use of a trade mark.
No specific qualities stemming
from the link with the
environment required.
A registering body (the EUIPO)
does not verify the link or the
description of the product as this
is not part of the trade mark
assessment.
Control and
verification of
goods
Control and verification mechanisms outside the
producers’ group. This includes certification or
administrative enforcement by MS in the
marketplace (in line with food law) and private
and IPR mechanisms.
With the Proprietor.
As is shown above, the current framework for EU certification marks is not a tool that
would allow for GI protection. The most notable difference can be found in the most
important objectives of GI protection: the link of the product with the environment/
geographical area, including its specific qualities stemming from that relationship, and
the control/verification of the final product by an independent body268
.
266
See, in general, Insight Consulting et al. (2013), p 87-91.
267
Additionally, see Insight Consulting et al. (2013), p 44-46.
268
See VVA et al (2020), supra note, p 14. Sui generis GI protection protects the use of GI on a product to
indicate that the product comes from a specific territory and has specific qualities linked to that territory.
Under a sui generis GI protection regime, the territory of production, the product’s link to the territory
(traditional skills/knowledge and/or local raw materials) and the specific product features are recognised by
a public authority that also controls compliance with these criteria. Only producers whose products meet
these defined criteria benefit from the protection and may use the geographical indication on their products.
112
In the event that the reform of the EUTMR goes ahead, to allow for the certification of
geographical origin, this would not mean that an EU certification mark could be used to
fulfil the role of sui generis GI protection. Namely, within the EUTMR process, the
applicant is not requested to show the three basic identifiers of any GI product, these
being ‘quality (1a), reputation (1b) or other characteristics (1c) of the good [that] is
essentially attributable (2) to its geographical origin (3)’. Certifying a geographical origin
simply translates into ‘good coming from (3)’ without any additional value being set
against this origin. As with agricultural GIs, this added value is what distinguishes GI
products from products which are simply produced in a particular geographical area
without owing any of its characteristics to this area (whether through the influence of the
environment as natural factors and/or via traditional knowledge and skills as human
factors).
The assumption that consumers are willing to pay a higher price is absolutely dependent
on the premise of a guarantee of quality (independent/public verification of the
geographical link) not attainable through a private (certification) scheme – as the one
under the certification mark scheme would be perceived by the public.
Finally, regulating CI GIs differently to the current agricultural GI scheme available at
EU level could be seen as undermining the EU GI scheme. Any product owing its
qualities to the geographical area it comes from (be it natural and/or human factors,
which might be decisive) should be regulated in the same manner/framework. Further
fragmentation of GI protection, depending on the sector, would be detrimental to
producers in their efforts to distinguish their products on the market on an equal playing
field and, for example, benefiting from the use of GI logos and the promotion of GIs in
general. It would also be detrimental to the consumer who would continue to experience
difficulties in understanding different approaches, thus undermining their (informed)
decision at the point of purchase. By regulating CI GIs via a trade mark scheme, these
sectors would be unduly discriminated of all the benefits the current agricultural GI EU
level scheme has provided for its users.
Certification mark: a name or sign indicating that a product complies with certain standards. Compliance
with the standards are controlled by the owner of the certification mark.
113
ANNEX 8: OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL SUI GENERIS GI LAWS AVAILABLE FOR
THE PROTECTION OF CRAFTS AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
A wide range of specific (sui generis) GI laws for the protection of craft and industrial
(CI) products has developed at national level, in particular in sixteen Member States.
These specific national GI laws at national level differ notably regarding their objectives,
e.g. promotion or protection. Certain laws only define authentic products and refer
producers to other legal means of protection available, i.e. unfair competition and
consumer deception laws, trade mark law.269
Further aspects where these laws diverge include the scope of protection, procedures (e.g.
application, opposition and registration), competent authorities, fees and controls. The
requirements are so different from one country to the other that it is difficult for
producers to secure protection outside of their country of origin.270
The following examples might illustrate these difficulties:
 A large majority of countries protect goods only. Estonia, Croatia and Latvia protect
both goods and services.
 In all countries, except in Latvia, where there is no registration requirement, an
application for GI protection must be submitted for registration, and the associated
costs differ from one country to another. From the electronic survey carried out in a
recent case study, it emerges that the average cost for registering as producers of GI
goods and/or being recognised as legitimate beneficiaries of GI protection can vary
from 130€ to 500€ but there are cases where expenses can rise up to 4000€ with
recurring annual costs comprised between EUR 500 and EUR 1,500.271
 The majority of competent authorities in charge of the GI registration or protection
for crafts and industrial products are the national IP Offices, however in some
countries like Belgium and Germany, for example, a judge or an administrative
authority (Ministry, or regional authority) is the competent authority272
.
 The authorities in charge of verifying the compliance of the production process
with the established standards are also diverse ranging from an internal monitoring
committee of the producers themselves (e.g. for the Halas Lace), to technical boards
created by a municipality (like the Geographical Indication Committee of Idrijska
Čipka)273
, to Independent external certification bodies (in the case of the Burgundy
stone)274
. There are several types of applicants recognised by the national
provisions, such as an individual producer or a group of producers, a private
269
Study on Geographical Indication Protection for Non-Agricultural Products in the Internal Market
(2013), p. 49-55 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/14897.
270
Study on Geographical Indication Protection for Non-Agricultural Products in the Internal Market
(2013), page 12, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/14897.
271
Case Study on National Sui Generis GI Protection of Non-agricultural Products (2021), p. 7.
272
Study on Geographical Indication Protection for Non-Agricultural Products in the Internal Market
(2013), p. 61 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/14897.
273
See VVA et al (2020), National sui generis GI protection of non-agricultural products Case study 4, p. 5
274
See VVA et al (2020), National sui generis GI protection of non-agricultural products Case study 4, p.
7.
114
collective body, a government or local authority competent for the territory to which
the geographical indication refers, an association of legal or natural persons,
chambers, communes, larger local communities or State authorities. The same
applicant is therefore not necessarily allowed to submit an application under all
national legislations. Box below give a detailed overview of how Control system is
organized under the French national sui generis system for CI GIs.
Box 8.1: Control under the French national sui generis system for CI GIs. 275
An example of how control is performed for CI GIs can be found in the French national
sui generis system for CI GIs. A producer may only use a GI if it is a member of the
Defence and Management Body (DMB) for that GI and lists among the ‘operators’ in the
product specification. A DMB represents the professionals concerned, draws up the
specifications and ensures that they are respected, but also participates in the defence,
promotion and development of the GI. Each DMB, by keeping an up-to-date control
plan, partly contributes to checking that the producers properly implement the products
specifications.
Independent and accredited276
Conformity Assessment Bodies (CAB) carry out the
controls. The French law does not determine the frequency of control. However, for
products like Burgundy stones, controls take place every one to two years with the
exception of stone mining where control takes place every three years. Producers can
choose between two kinds of CABs: either an inspection or a certification body. The
inspection bodies carry out the control operations and send their report to the DMB,
which decides on measures to sanction in case of failure. The certification bodies decide
whether to grant, maintain or extend the certification, as well as on measures sanctioning
failures. Up to now, the French CI producers have opted to have their products control
assessed by certification bodies.
The French Intellectual Property Office (INPI), which validates CI GIs, checks that
CABs assesses (in accordance with the assessment rules defined in the specification) that
the producers manufacture their products in conformity with the specification, and that
the corrective measures (e.g. fines) and warnings, and exclusions of producers provided
for in the specification are implemented as well. If a discrepancy is found, the DMB will
invite the producer to comply. If they do not, they may be excluded from the DMB.
 Many national regulations do not foresee an opposition in the context of the
registration procedure to allow interested third parties to give their opinion on the GI
protection request. This is the case for example of the Belgian, Czech, Estonian,
Hungarian, Slovak and Slovenian sui generis legal instruments277
.
 There are various requirements as regards the link with the geographical origin:
275
See Article L-721-1 to L722-17 of the French Intellectual Property Code : Section 2 : Indications
géographiques protégeant les produits industriels et artisanaux (Articles L721-2 à L721-10) - Légifrance
(legifrance.gouv.fr)
276
by a National Accreditation Body within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market
surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93. In France
this body is the Comité Français d’Accréditation (COFRAC) www.cofrac.fr
277
Ibidem.
115
- Concerning the nature of the link with the geographical origin, the French
law provides that, in addition to the quality, reputation and other
characteristics, the origin link for CI products can also be based on traditional
local know-how. Similarly, the Polish law specifically provides that the link
between certain qualities of goods and their origin can be based on human
factors. The Portuguese law provides that traditional crafts with a
geographical reference may also be protected as a geographical indication,
provided that it is a product of cultural importance that has the characteristics
that give it its own identity and whose production proves to be of economic
and social importance, translated into the number of workshops and artisans
dedicated to this activity.
- Concerning the place of production, in some countries (e.g. Croatia,
Czechia, Hungary, Estonia) the production, processing or preparation of the
product has to take place within the defined geographical area. Other
legislations (e.g. Slovenia, Slovakia) provide no specific rule concerning the
fact that some of the production steps must take place in the geographical area
concerned. In Poland, the production or processing steps, or both, must take
place in the geographical area. The Polish law adds that geographical
indications are also understood to mean indications used for goods that are
produced from raw materials or semi-products originating in a given territory
larger than the territory in which a good is produced or processed if they are
prepared in special conditions and there is an inspection system in place to
ensure that these conditions are met.
 In most countries, GIs are protected for an indefinite period of time, supposing the
requirements for protection remain to be met. In Belgium and Romania, GIs are
granted protection only for a period of 10 years and need to be renewed to remain
valid.
 When assessing the GI application, in several Member States, such as Bulgaria,
Czechia and Romania, a competent authority of the country must certify the
geographical area of production. IP offices ask for a statement of evidence from
state administration body in the relevant territory in which the product production,
processing and preparation takes place. This statement certifies that the establishment
is situated on the given territory and that the applicant produces or processes the
products as an official confirmation that the applicant produces, transforms and
prepares the relevant. The French sui generis legislation, however, foresees the use of
certification by a third party conformity body, both for the verification phase
(before the registration of the GI) and the control phase, to monitor that GI Producers
continue meeting the GI requirements (every two years)278
.
 There are few “GI Registers” foreseen under the different national sui generis
regulations identified, which makes it difficult to find clear lists or databases of GI
craft and industrial products already registered in Member States. In almost all cases
there are systems in place to verify the quality of the products during the
278
Loi Française n° 2014-344, du 17 mars 2014 relative à la consommation.
116
production phase. However in certain cases such as the Vratsa Limestone there is no
verification body at all.279
 When control exists, they can take various form:
o a ‘light’ form with the premises of the producers being checked before
registration only (e.g. for the ceramic of Faenza the local ‘Comitato di
Disciplinare’ can request information, visit the production facilities -always
with the consent of the owner-, visit the shops and areas of the production
facilities opened to the public280
, and the Geographical Indication Committee
checks first the quality of the Idrija Lace during the registration process
whereas the lacemaker is not monitored after).
o At the other end of the spectrum, under the French system, regular controls
are conducted (e.g. in the case of Burgundy Stone: every year for the
extraction sites and every three years for shaping sites). An independent and
accredited certification body (the Conformity Assessment Body -see Box 4
for description-) runs the controls to monitor the compliance with the rules of
production and the traceability system.
 The costs for controls vary too:
o where controls are carried out on a regular basis like for Burgundy Stone, the
costs of the controls both for the producers and for the control bodies is
estimated281
at 500€ per each control, plus 400€ every 2 years for mechanical
tests. Box 5 below provides details on the costs of controls under the French
system.
Table 6.6.1: Overview of control costs (single producer) for CI products in France (2021)
Action Cost without VAT
Verification
Drafting of the control plan between EUR 1,100 and EUR 2,300
First certification assessment/audit between EUR 350 and EUR 730
Control Follow-up audit between EUR 290 and EUR 600
Other controls Additional controls * between EUR 150 and EUR 1,000
Notes: * in the event of a serious violation of the specifications
Source: Association Française des Indications Géographiques Industrielles et Artisanales (AFIGIA).
The above table refers to the cost by producers of CI products protected under the French sui generis
system where the control has to be performed by independent and accredited Conformity Assessment Body
(see Box 4 for description). Drafting of the control plan and first audit costs between EUR 1,450 and 3,030
and reflects verification costs. The cost of follow up audit is between EUR 290 and EUR 600 to be covered
every one, two or three years in case of stone mining (see Box 4).
279
See VVA et al (2020), National sui generis GI protection of non-agricultural products Case study 4, p.
7.
280
According to the competent authority, the procedure described in the Decreto Ministeriale 15 Luglio
1996 n. 506, art 1, available at: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1996/09/28/096G0521/sg280
is ‘not
burdensome at all’.
281
See VVA et al (2020), National sui generis GI protection of non-agricultural products Case study 4, p.
8.
117
o Where the monitoring is not conducted on a regular basis, costs are virtually 0
€.
 Downstream, when the product reach the market, there are no formal monitoring
activities in place. These are left to the individual producers who conduct them
‘informally’ by monitoring the internet, checking who is selling what etc… Only one
exception shows that the Geographical Indication Committee of Idrijska Čipka
monitors the Idrija Lace market. The national trade inspection – independently or
upon request of the Geographical Indication Committee or if a physical person filed a
report- can control the use of the geographical indication. Controls are performed on-
the-spot in shops. These are carried out randomly and occasionally, or performed
after an infringement has been identified. In case of unrightful use of the indication,
the Geographical Indication Committee revokes the right to use it for a period of one
year. The costs of the monitoring are therefore very low or even close to zero. In their
reply to the electronic survey, the producers of the French ‘Porcelaine de Limoges’
estimate they yearly expenses in approximately 1,000-1,500€. The cases of
infringement are in any event extremely low. 282
As a result of the existing fragmentation and legal patchwork of different rules and
approaches in the Single market, a product covered by a geographical indication in one
state might not be able to qualify for similar protection in another state. For example,
artisanal woollen blankets created by using traditional local techniques could qualify for
protection in France, Portugal or Poland, but would not be protected under legislations
where human factors/traditional know-how are not accepted to establish the sufficient
link between the product and its geographical origin. Diamonds, meeting standards
regarding stone cutting but not originating from the region of production, may not be
protected under legislations which require that raw materials must be local. In the case of
furniture, an end product linked to a certain geographical place may not be protected if
there is a requirement that all the production of the raw materials and the development or
processing of a GI product have to take place entirely in the defined geographical area.
Finally, Table A.8.1 below provides and overview of the IPR currently granted at
national level to the names of the CI GI products in the EU-27.
It shows in particular that;
 CI GI names are protected under various national legal means including sui generis
law, specific law / decree protecting a specific CI sector/product, and national
certification mark aiming at certifying the geographical origin of a product
 The average time to complete registration in months varies significantly between
Member States, with a minimum of 2 months in Lithuania to for example, a
maximum of 12 months in Czechia.
 Application fees are charged in certain Member States while others do not. Except in
cases where they amount to zero, there are in any event no two identical amount for
taxes. The highest fee is €400. Certain Member States have additional taxes like the
right to use (e.g. CZ) or registration (e.g. PL) tax.
282
See VVA et al (2020), National sui generis GI protection of non-agricultural products Case study 4.
118
Table A.8.1. Overview of national protection rules for GI products in the EU
Member
State
Sui generis
GI law
available
for the
protection
of all CI GI
products
Specific law
/ decree
protecting a
specific CI
sector/prod
uct
National
Certification
mark aiming at
certifying the
geographical
origin of a
product
Num-
ber of
registra
tions
Staff
(in FTEs or
examiners)
Application fees Average
time to
complete
registrati
on (in
months)
Austria
Belgium X
Bulgaria X 13* 7
BGN 220 (± €
110)
6
Cyprus
Croatia X 3 N/A
HRK 300 (€40) +
right to use HRK
400 (€53)
10
Czechia X 62
3 exam.
(part time)
CZK 4,000 (±
€158,50)
6-12
Denmark 0 0
Estonia X
Finland
France X 12 1 €350 8-10
Germany X 1
Greece
Hungary X 10
2 exam.
(part time)
HUF 107,000 (± €
292)
3-4
Ireland X < 1 < 1 FTE €177 N/A
Italy X X 22 N/A €337 6
Latvia X X 0 N/A
€150 + € 30 per
add. class
5,5
Lithuania X 0 0
€240 + € 40 per
add. class
2
Luxembourg
Malta
The
Netherlands
Poland X X 0 N/A
PLN 300 (± € 64)
+1000 (± €
215,34)
(Registration)
N/A
Portugal
X X 27 3
€254,98 (€127,50
online)
4
Romania X 0 0
RON 1948 (€
400)
8
Slovakia X 2 N/A € 0 N/A
Slovenia X 2 N/A € 0 N/A
Spain X 30** N/A
€197.89 +
€192.98 per add.
class, (€253.21 +
€164.03 online)
10
Sweden X N/A N/A
SEK 2000 (±€
200)+ SEK 1000
(±€100) per add.
class
3,8
(*) plus 19 for waters
(**) in the last five years
119
Source: elaboration from the Commission services on the basis of Table 7 (by Insight consulting)
of the 2013 Study283
and information collected through questionnaires sent to Member States in
July 2021.
283
i.e. 2013 GI Study, Table 7: List of countries where a national sui generis GI legislation exists p. 48.
120
ANNEX 9: REGISTRATION PROCESS OPTIONS
Introduction
The Impact Assessment identifies in Section 5, the setting up of a new, stand-alone sui
generis geographical indication system at EU level for the protection of craft and
industrial (CI) products (PO2). Various options are explored for a registration procedure
to operate such new system. In addition, procedural elements are addressed in the context
of the policy option of a possible trade mark reform (PO3). This annex presents
registration process options in respect of both PO2 and PO3. It does not make any
assumptions regarding the substantive aspects of any potential future legal instrument for
CI products at the EU level. It focuses only on the procedural aspects.
This annex is structured as follows:
Part A contains a description of the methodology and analysis design, including concept
definitions.
Part B contains exploration, analysis and assessment of six specific options for the GI
registration/amendment procedure, with a particular focus on key advantages and
identification of main risks, as well as on a customer-focused, effective, efficient,
transparent, quality oriented, accessible and sustainable procedure/system. It also
highlights several aspects related to the management of the GI eRegister.
Part C presents a comparison of the six options proposed in Part B.
Part D presents the existing procedural flow for EU certification marks and contains
commentary focused on its possible application for the IP protection of CI products.
For the purposes of Parts A, B and C, the table below presents the key benefits sought for
the main stakeholder groups considered.
121
Benefits Indicators
For GI Applicants/Producer Groups:
 Strengthen craft and industrial GIs as IPRs
 Give legal certainty
 Support businesses and innovation by allowing them to
benefit from a modern, customer-focused, efficient, and
effective GI registration system, with the possibility of
amendments, and enforcement procedures for craft and
industrial products
Perception of transparency
Satisfaction related to the processes and the added
value
Accessibility of the GI system for craft and
industrial products
Satisfaction with the quality of the registration
procedure
For Member States:
 Strengthen craft and industrial GIs as IPRs
 Improve awareness of the value of IP
 Promotional tool
 Economic boost to regions/local communities
 Preserve local/traditional savoir faire
 Increase access to employment and promote staff retention
(especially in rural areas)
Modern procedures
Perception of transparency
Access to information
Efficient procedures
For COM/DG GROW:
 Strengthen craft and industrial GIs as IPRs;
 Provide a sustainable procedure for registering GIs for craft
and industrial products
 Provide a cost-effective procedure
 Provide a transparent and accessible GI system for craft and
industrial products
Well-functioning, customer-focused, effective,
efficient, transparent, delivering quality outputs,
sustainable GI system integrated within the
broader IP System for craft and industrial
products
For the EU AGENCY:
 Strengthen craft and industrial GIs as IPRs
 Interlink various IPRs for an overall better protection of
IPRs at the EU level
 Offer integrated, efficient, and quality services in support
of innovation, businesses, and Member States, as well as
producer groups and citizens in the EU.
 Improve service to IP stakeholders
Efficient procedures
User satisfaction with the quality of the
registration procedure outputs
Perception of transparency
Perception of consistency
User satisfaction with the overall registration
experience
For EU Citizens (Consumers):
 Raise awareness on craft and industrial GIs
 Help inform buying decisions
 Provide a guarantee of authenticity
Perception/Awareness
122
PART A: Methodology and Analysis design
PROBLEM FRAMING AND METHODOLOGY
For craft and industrial products, instruments to protect the use of geographical
indications do not exist at EU level, and implicitly no GI registration/amendment
procedure exists at EU level.
Each procedure included in this analysis is presented by means of a process flow diagram
consisting of the following elements: stakeholders (roles or owners of a specific activity),
activity lanes, a trigger (element that triggers a specific action), activities undertaken by
the roles considered (in dark blue), decision points (diamonds) and output of an activity
(green/black rectangle), and an output that triggers another flow (grey shape). The
sequence of steps included in the diagram is represented by arrows.
A number of indicators have been proposed to quantify the expected benefits. These have
been detailed for the following four main stakeholders actively involved in the
registration process: the producer groups (PGs), the European Commission (COM), the
Member State (MS) bodies responsible for managing the GI dossiers, an existing IP
agency (the EUIPO), hereafter called the AGENCY.
Throughout this document, an application for a GI registration/amendment is understood
as a pack of documents presenting sufficient information for a decision granting the EU
protection for the respective craft and industrial GIs to be taken. There are three main
elements: the single document (a summary of the information detailed in the product
specification); the product specification document, mainly based on the description of the
object of the GI registration, and finally, documentation related to the identification of
the PG. This set of documents is equivalent to the requirements of the current EU-level
GI protection for agricultural products.
The benchmark for all target value proposals consists in the Annex 11 to the SWD
Impact Assessment of the [agricultural] Geographical Indications system284
, the latter
having been benchmarked against average values across the EU IP Network members
(the EUIPO and the national MS IP Offices for TMs). The values in absolute figures are
not binding but, for the comparative analysis, the relative difference among the various
options is considered. Also, a particular consideration is to be given to the scenarios built
on the basis of the assumptions stated for each indicator and option, as they are the basis
for the relative difference between the scores awarded to each of the quantitative
benefits.
The measurement of the length of the procedure between different steps of the flow is
done by means of average time and/or by comparing the performance against a set target.
In this document, performance is defined as the time needed to handle all the pending
cases. No target value is suggested for indicators measuring the length of procedures that
are not under the full control of the public body. For example, no target time to register
all GI applications is included since the time needed to close oppositions or appeals is
284
Annex 11: GI registration process options, impact assessment accompanying the Regulation
(COM(2022) 134 final) on European Union geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural
products, and quality schemes for agricultural products..
123
heavily influenced by the opponent’s responses. Nevertheless, average time estimations
are included in the analysis.
The indicators are customised to each of the procedure options considered. The impact of
the changes on the performance of the GI registration procedures is presented by
specifying a proposed target value, always considering the assumptions listed for each of
the options, or assumptions that are valid for several procedural options.
The advantages and risks identified for each of the options are presented mainly from the
perspective of the consumers, the PGs, the MS, and the EU body involved directly, or
which is affected by the procedure option in discussion in the respective section of this
document.
ANALYSIS MODEL
Currently there is no GI registration procedure for craft and industrial products at EU
level. Though some MS currently have a national sui generis GI registration system in
place or provide protection to geographically linked craft and industrial products by
means of collective or certification trade marks, the system in the Single market is
fragmented and not harmonised. Considering these aspects, the analysis model is
designed by looking at the desired characteristics of a potential future procedure option
for the registration/amendment of craft and industrial GIs at EU level, which should be:
- Customer focused
- Accessible
- Predictable
- Easy to comply with/understand or respond to requirements (the application
dossier is of good quality)
- The output of the examination/scrutiny process is of good quality (consistency,
clarity)
- Transparent
- Efficient (in terms of costs and length of procedures)
- Offers a good balance between the advantages and risks associated with the
respective procedure in discussion.
Each of the attributes are going to be detailed and quantified through a number of
indicators as presented below.
A 3 year transition period is included. All projected values in the tables in this document
are at T0 + 3 years, where T0 is the date of entry into force of the legislative act enabling
the protection of craft and industrial GIs in the EU.
The selected indicators can be measured in percentage values, duration of time (e.g.
months or years), or a qualitative assessment on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is awarded
for a basic, minimal, manual process, covering the basic needs, while at the other
extreme, 5 is awarded if a process is optimally automatised and built according to the
latest best practices in terms of quality management, customer oriented, technology
available, or environmentally sustainable standards.
A very important aspect of this analysis consists in the assumptions used for estimating
the expected evolution of the indicators. These are listed throughout this document and
are summarised in the Analysis and Comparison of the Options section.
124
The following indicators are selected:
1. Customer-focused procedure
Indicator
Modern, scalable, and customisable procedure
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the front and back office processes, including tools
Level of satisfaction with the overall registration procedure
Services characterised as ‘customer-centric’
2. Accessible procedure
Indicator
Availability of the procedure-related information using appropriate channels and formats
Comprehensibility of procedure-related information by a non-specialised public
(derivative material)
Customised support available when filing the application
User-friendly and easy-to-use application filing step
Customised support available throughout the registration procedure
Perception of simplicity and easiness to understand and respond to the process and
requirements
Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’
3. Predictable GI registration procedure
Indicator
Perception of the predictability of the duration of the procedure
Applicants have access to relevant information regarding the status of their application
Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration outcome
125
4. Quality of the application
Indicator
Formalities deficiency rate (completeness of the file)
Link description deficiency rate (the link to the geographical area is not sufficiently
described)
Product description deficiency rate (the product is not correctly/sufficiently described)
5. Output quality of the GI application assessment
Indicator
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the consistency of the preliminary results of the
assessment
Level of satisfaction with the consistency of the outcome of the GI application assessment
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the clarity of the observations communicated to the
applicant
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration procedure
6. Transparency for the MS and PGs, while the dossier is scrutinised at EU level
Indicator
Level of satisfaction with the information received on each dossier
Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the latest changes to scrutiny
practice
Level of the satisfaction with the MS engagement in the decision-making process at the EU
level
7. Efficient GI registration procedure
7.1 Timeliness of the procedure
126
Indicator
Duration of registration procedure for applications with no link or product description
issues (EU level, no oppositions)
Number of deficiency letters sent per file
Time taken to send the first letter of observations following the assessment of the craft and
industrial GI application files. This action can be performed by the MS, the COM or the
AGENCY, as described in each of the options considered in this analysis.
Time taken to register – all cases (EU level)
Time taken to register – all cases (MS+EU level)
Level of the PGs satisfaction with the duration of the registration procedure
7.2 Cost of the procedure
Throughout this document, it is implied that the organisation assuming the role of
keeping the EU register of GI for crafts and industrial products will also play the role of
competent authority for the Lisbon agreement. In terms of costs, it is assumed that the
same amount of resources will be used for dealing with the international dossiers either
in the COM or in the AGENCY, therefore they are not considered in this analysis.
Regarding potential IT costs, at this stage it is impossible to estimate the costs of using
an IT system for dealing with international craft and industrial GI dossiers, therefore
these costs are not considered either.
Costs for the PG: application fee at MS level if applicable
MS control fees if applicable
Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level
Costs (in full-time equivalents (FTEs)) for the COM: the time needed to perform the tasks described in the
flows for each of the options proposed. The estimations of resources (FTEs) needed for performing the
tasks are benchmarked with similar flows included in the Annex 11 of the Commission Staff Working
document285
. The following assumptions are considered for all options:
- Approx. 20 FTEs/year were needed to handle 800 agricultural GI dossiers (applications and
amendments) between 2018 to 2020(286)
.
- The expertise in handling GI applications is available to DG GROW287
.
285
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
286
Ibidem 2.
287
This analysis does not include the effort and costs dedicated to capacity building within DG GROW but
is under the assumption that such expertise becomes available to DG GROW. There are several
possibilities for ensuring or progressively building expertise in DG GROW, to be explored at the
appropriate moment. For example: the expertise could be made available by means of an exchange of
127
- Estimated number of incoming applications during the first 3 years since the entry into force
rounded to 800288
.
- The majority of these applications are filed within 3 years from when the regulation enters into
force.
- Monetary cost of the EU level dossier management is estimated to be similar to the agricultural
GI files.
Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY: in particular IT and Operations resources are envisaged, with
the corresponding proportional overhead costs.
Costs for the MS: a questionnaire was launched to the MS for the purpose of this exercise during summer
2021. Considering the answers received, two possible scenarios have been identified:
- MS where there is an existing infrastructure in place289
,
- MS where there is no infrastructure290
in place for granting GI protection for craft and industrial
products291
.
For the purpose of this analysis, the relative difference between the costs for the MS depending on the
procedure options presented in this paper, are considered. Due to a lack of data, the absolute values for
each individual MS are impossible to estimate, nor are they relevant for the purpose of comparatively
assessing the procedure options proposed.
The typical costs for the MS scrutiny step consists in the cost of the resources used for handling the
applications for the GI registration for crafts and industrial products, covering the full lifecycle of such an
application: pre-application (providing support and guidance to applicants for completing the application
dossier; the assessment step including the handling of an opposition phase if applicable, and the
publication in a register; and the post registration phase, addressing modifications of the dossier if
applicable; and liaising with an EU body (COM or AGENCY) for the EU level part of the registration
procedure.
In the case of a MS where no infrastructure exists whatsoever, it is implied that the size of the structure
can be determined by benchmarking it with other MSs expected to receive a similar number of craft and
industrial GI applications. Alternative options are presented in this document292
, the costs of which are
assumed to be comparable/not higher than the cost of the scenario where a MS creates a designated
organisational structure of a size that is proportional to the expected number of applications for the
protection of the geographical indication for craft and industrial products.
Additional costs may be incurred by the COM/MS during the first 3 years from the moment of the entry
into force. These costs would be in the form of time spent by staff on the following type of tasks:
- Liaising with the COM/MS on existing and potential files.
- Training staff on the new procedures.
- Building organisational knowledge and build consistent practices.
experts, or by shadowing DG AGRI / AGENCY staff in handling agricultural GI files and adapting the
procedures, etc.
288
See Study on geographical indications protection for non-agricultural products in the internal market,
2013, p. 31.
289
For example: FR, PL, CZ, HR, HU, IT, SI, BG, PT, RO.
290
Member states where offering the possibility that geographical indication is protected by means of
certification TMs are considered as having no existing sui generis infrastructure in place.
291
For example: IE, LT, ES, LV, SE, DK, DE.
292
See introductory part of the ANALYSIS section.
128
- Building methodologies, processes, registries, and tools, including templates, etc.
It is assumed that GIs expertise in craft and industrial products is available in the MS, and the efforts
considered for each option include building knowledge and consistency of practice for the EU-level
protection of the craft and industrial GIs293
.
Either the COM or the AGENCY will assume the role of competent authority in the sense of the Lisbon
Agreement, as proposed in each of the procedure options presented below. This will have an almost
negligible differential impact on the cost of the MS scrutiny or consultation part of the procedure.
Considering all the above, the ANALYSIS section of this document considers the
- Cost of the MS Scrutiny step for all options where a MS Scrutiny step is part of the EU GI
registration procedure (options 1.0 to 1.3)
- Cost of the MS Consultation step for option 1.4, which is considered to be lower than the Cost of
the MS Scrutiny step, considering that the formalities and initial liaison with the applicant is
handled by the AGENCY.
- The cost for the MS is considered to be 0 in the case of option 1.5, considering that the MS is not
participating in the GI registration process.
8. Key advantages and main risks
The key advantages and main risks will be identified and listed for each of the options
analysed. Following stakeholders are considered for this exercise: Consumers, PGs, MS,
and EU BODY (COM or AGENCY).
293
Even if such knowledge exists in relation to agricultural GIs, it is presumed that knowledge sharing
between different national institutions will be possible.
129
PART B: Analysis of sui generis GI EU level procedure options
Six sui generis procedure options for registering a craft and industrial GI are proposed
for the purpose of this analysis, numbered 1.0 to 1.5. The analysis model described in the
previous section is applied for each of the options considered, and the selected indicators
are provided with estimated target values, considering the generic and specific
assumptions listed for each of them. The corresponding agricultural GI option used as
benchmark is mentioned as well for each of the GI procedure options for craft and
industrial products294
discussed in this analysis paper.
Another aspect to be considered is the choice of competent authority for the Lisbon
agreement; this role could be played either by the AGENCY or by the COM. Throughout
this document, for consistency reasons, it is implied that the organisation assuming the
role of keeping the EU register of GI for crafts and industrial products will also play the
role of competent authority for the Lisbon agreement. In terms of costs, it is assumed that
the same amount of resources will be used for dealing with the international dossiers,
therefore they are not considered in this comparative analysis. Regarding potential IT
costs, at this stage it is impossible to estimate the costs of using an IT system for dealing
with international craft and industrial GI dossiers, therefore these costs are not considered
either. Advantages of choosing between the AGENCY or the COM to play the role of
competent authority are discussed in the respective sections.
COM AGENCY
Resources for reaching an outcome of the scrutiny of
the application
Resources for reaching an outcome of the scrutiny of
the application
Lengthier GI registration procedure by means of an
Implementing Regulation
Shorter GI registration procedure by means of
registration certificate
Resources for building and maintaining knowledge
on WIPO files
The AGENCY can reuse the experience and contacts
it has with WIPO if acting as competent authority
for the Lisbon agreement
Lengthier GI registration procedure due to there not
being an automated handling of WIPO files
Possibility to reuse, at least partially, the
AGENCY’s TM and Designs automated flows and
processes for both inbound and outbound GI
dossiers in relation with the WIPO
294
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
130
1. Option 1.0 [MS/EU] MS  COM Decision
MS Level scrutiny; EU-level assessment, opposition, and decision on registration with
COM
Assumptions:
1. A structure/team/network of available resources will have to be created in DG
GROW to assess the application files, liaise with the MS to remedy any potential
deficiencies of the dossiers, take a decision and create the legal instrument for the
GI registration (e.g. implementing regulation as in the case of agricultural GI).
This structure does not exist currently in DG GROW.
2. A flow similar to the agricultural GIs, in particular the Inter Service Consultation,
input from the technical unit and the implementing regulation as a means to enter
into force/registration of craft and industrial GIs is assumed to be created. Note:
currently the mentioned flow does not exist in DG GROW.
3. Customised eAmbrosia295
will be used for craft and industrial GIs. Note: this tool
is currently used for the agricultural GIs and will have to be customised for the
craft and industrial GIs. Currently there are no IT resources available for this
purpose in DG GROW.
4. The existing IT team in the COM could take over the customisation of the
eAmbrosia tool to accommodate the handling of the craft and industrial GI
applications. Estimated implementation time until functional: minimum 1 year. In
the meanwhile, many of the improvements planned for agricultural GIs would be
put on hold and the GI process for craft and industrial products will be kicked off
with manual forms.
5. COM is the competent authority for the Lisbon agreement296
.
295
DG AGRI Tool for management of GIs and communication with MS.
296
More details in the introductory part of the ANALYSIS section.
131
Need to register a GI
Trigger
MS Scrutiny
Opposition
Prepares dossier and
sends it to the MS
authority
Decision and specification
made public
Answers Deficiency Letter
Not favourable decision
Opposition solved
Application Dossier/
Update sent to the COM/
DG GROW
Receipt DG GROW
Translation EN/FR
DG GROW
1st
publication (SD published in
the C series for OPPOSITION)
(visible in eRegister)
No opposition
Opposition
Reception of notice of Oppo
and reasoned statements
Examination of the file
(translation + input from
the technical unit)
Cross check
Letter with MS
Deficiency
No Deficiency / Deficiency solved /
Deficiency not solved
Technical Unit
Favourable decision
Inter Service Consultation
Translation into 23 languages
CIS
Comments / Observations
No Comments / Comments solved
Opposition admissible
Agreement not reached
Opposition admissibility check
Launch consultations
Notification of consultations
result
Re-examination of dossier,
changes to draft Commission
Implementing Regulation
2nd
CIS
Committee procedure
Registration / Rejection
(adoption of Commission
Implementing Regulation)
Opposition
not admissible
Agreement reached
Published in the Official Journal
– L Series. Visible in an
eRegister
End
of
Procees
GI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE
TECHNICAL UNIT
COMMISSION
V.01 05.07.2021
SUI GENERIS 1.0 MS -> COM DECISION
Need to register a GI
Trigger
WIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT
132
1. Customer-focused procedure
The below scores awarded to the selected indicators for this characteristic, are based on
the following assumptions (Benchmark agricultural GI - Baseline with IT
improvements297
):
- eAmbrosia (DG AGRI GI front and back office tool) will have to be customised
to be able to accommodate craft and industrial GI dossiers and tasks and flows
and procedural matters. Until this customisation is ready to be used, the process
will be kicked off with manual forms and processes.
- Currently eAmbrosia is not used by all MS, and not for all types of agricultural
GIs. It would be mandatory for craft and industrial GIs.
- 6 FTEs in DG AGRI handle the maintenance and improvement of eAmbrosia and
no additional resources are expected to be required.
- Currently, for agricultural GI dossiers, the PGs do not have access to the
registration journey through any IT tool, but they are informed/notified by the
MS.
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Modern, scalable, and customisable procedure 1/5
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the front and back
office processes including tools
40 %
Level of satisfaction with the overall registration procedure 50 %
Services characterised as ‘customer-centric’ 1/5
2. Accessible procedure
The below scores awarded to the selected indicators for this characteristic, are based on
the following assumptions (Benchmark agricultural GI - Baseline with IT
improvements298
):
- High-level process description would have to be available publicly.
- Webinars and presentations would have to be organised for the MS.
- Promotional material would have to be available on DG GROW website.
- Several follow-ups may be needed with the MS, especially until a consistent
practice is built.
297
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
298
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
133
- Information on a GI dossier, while scrutinised at the EU level, would have to be
available in the back office tool to the MS only; the PGs are informed/notified by
the MS.
- COM staff (e.g. country rep/point of contact) would have to be available to
discuss the status quo of dossiers via email, face to face, or side conversations, as
the need arises.
- Understanding and practice would be built progressively during the first 3 years.
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Availability of the procedure related information using
appropriate channels and formats
1/5
Comprehensibility of procedure-related information by a non-
specialised public (derivative material)
1/5
Customised support available when filing the application 1/5
User-friendly and easy-to-use application filing step 1/5
Customised support available throughout the registration
procedure
3/5
Perception of simplicity and easiness to understand and
respond to the process and requirements
2/5
Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 1/5
3. Predictable GI registration procedure
Assuming that:
- The date of or delay until the next action from COM is not predictable due to
possible political implications.
- MSs have access to the status of their application in eAmbrosia.
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI projected
Perception of the predictability of the delay of
the procedure
1/5
Proactive information of the applicants 1/5
Level of satisfaction with the predictability of
the registration outcome
1/5
134
4. Quality of the application
Assuming that (benchmark with agricultural GI Baseline with IT improvements option)
- The completeness and correctness of the file depends on the amount of time and
effort invested by the COM in making the requirements easy to understand and to
comply with, and/or by using mandatory requirements in the front office tool
(eFilling form), e.g. it is mandatory to attach a product specification document, or
it is mandatory to attach a declaration of compliance, it is mandatory to complete
the address of the applicant, or it is made mandatory to add a link to a register,
etc.
- Agricultural GI benchmark: link description deficiency rate projected at 50 %
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Formalities deficiency rate (completeness of the file) 10 %
Link description deficiency rate 50 %
Product description deficiency rate 20 %
5. Output quality of the GI application assessment
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the consistency of the
preliminary results of the assessment
60 %
Level of satisfaction with the consistency of the outcome of the
GI application assessment
50 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the clarity of the
observations on the application file sent to the MS
80 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration
procedure
70 %
135
6. Transparency for the MS and PGs, while the dossier is scrutinised at EU level
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of satisfaction with the information received on each
dossier
50 %
Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the
latest changes to scrutiny practice
50 %
Level of the satisfaction with their engagement in the decision-
making at EU level
60 %
7. Efficient GI registration procedure
7.1 Timeliness of the procedure
The estimated values for this option are considered in corelation with the below
assumptions, and that may imply that a transition period will have to be allowed before
these values can be confirmed (Benchmark agricultural GI - Baseline with IT
improvements):
- The expertise in handling GI applications is available to DG GROW299
.
- Number of deficiency letters sent per file: 2-6
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI projected
Duration of registration procedure for applications with
no link or product description issues (EU level, no
oppositions)
10 months
Number of deficiency letters sent per file 4 on average
Time taken to send the first letter of observations 4 months
Time taken to register - all cases (EU level)300
3 years on average
Time taken to register - all cases (MS+EU level)301
5 years on average
299
This analysis does not include the time dedicated to capacity building within DG GROW but is under
the assumption that such expertise becomes available to DG GROW. In the contrary, all the above
estimates on the timeliness of the procedure should be doubled at least.
300
Benchmark agricultural GI estimated procedures, see Annex 11: GI registration process options,
Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation
proposal.
301
Ibidem 16.
136
Level of satisfaction with the duration of the registration
procedure
50 %
7.2 Cost of the procedure
The following assumptions are considered:
- The same amount of resources is required as for the agricultural GI procedures
(800 agricultural GI dossiers (applications and amendments) between 2018 to
2020 required 20 FTEs a year approx.)302
.
- The expertise in handling GI applications is available to DG GROW303
- Estimated number of incoming applications rounded to 800304
- The majority of these applications are filed within 3 years from when the
regulation enters into force.
- Monetary cost of the EU level dossier management is estimated to be similar to
the agricultural GI files.
- This option assumes that the incurred costs will be borne by the COM, contrary to
options 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, where an existing IPR agency (the EUIPO/AGENCY)
will be able to absorb the effort necessary to process the applications by using
existing resources, in particular IT and Operations resources, with no impact on
the COM’s budget.
The typical costs for the MS scrutiny step consists in the cost of the resources used for
handling the applications for the GI registration for crafts and industrial products,
covering the full lifecycle of such an application: pre-application (providing support and
guidance to applicants for completing the application dossier; the assessment step
including the handling of an opposition phase if applicable, and the publication in a
register; and the post registration phase, addressing modifications of the dossier if
applicable; and liaising with an EU body (COM or AGENCY) for the EU level part of
the registration procedure, or alternative options may be chosen305
.
Additional costs may occur for the COM/MS during the first 3 years from the moment of
the entry into force in the form of time spent by staff on the following type of tasks:
- Liaising with the COM/MS on existing and potential files,
- Training staff on the new procedures,
- Building organisational knowledge and build consistent practices.
- Building methodologies, processes, and tools, including templates, etc.
302
Source: DG AGRI, May 2021.
303
Ibidem 4.
304
See Study on geographical indications protection for non-agricultural products in the internal market,
2013, p. 31.
305
See additional details in the introductory part of the Analysis section.
137
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI projected
Costs for the PG: application fee at MS level if
applicable
MS control fees if applicable
MS application fee if applicable
MS control fees, if applicable.
Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level No application fee
Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 20306
Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 0
Costs for the MS307
Cost of the MS Scrutiny procedure
8. Key advantages and main risks
Stakeholder Key advantage
PGs Procedure to register craft and industrial GIs at EU level available
MS Similar procedures to the agricultural GIs, advantage for the MS that have a
designated public body to deal with all GIs (e.g. IP offices)
EU/COM Opportunity to offer the EU internal market the possibility to benefit from GI
protection for craft and industrial products at the EU level.
Consumers Benefit from a quality and guarantee scheme for craft and industrial products
306
IT resources needed for customising the IT tool not included.
307
See additional details in the Analysis Model section of this document.
138
Stakeholder Key risks
PGs Risk of a lengthy and burdensome procedure for registering craft and industrial
GIs
MS Unclear communication channel leading to legal uncertainty
EU/COM Capacity building associated cost implying public administrative burden.
Risk that the craft and industrial GI procedure does not consider the lessons
learnt from the agricultural GI procedure.
Risk of lack of economies of scale and significant loss of opportunity to take
advantage of available resources and synergies in the AGENCY.
Consumers Risk of bearing the cost of an inefficient procedure
139
2. Option 1.1 [MS/EU] MS  AGENCY Opinion  COM Decision
MS Level scrutiny; EU-level assessment and opposition with the AGENCY; COM’s
decision on registration;
Assumptions:
- AGENCY to develop and maintain the IT tools necessary for the reception of the
applications, examination, and communication with MSs;
- For all proposed options where the AGENCY is participating to some extent in
the GI registration process, (all options except Option 1.0 – no involvement of the
AGENCY), a minimum period of 2 years is estimated to be required to
implement the necessary IT infrastructure to support the assessment of GI
application files.
- AGENCY to update IT tools for the management of eRegister308
.
- The flow is similar to Option 2.1 agricultural GI309
and by and large will use the
same values for the indicators used in the analysis. In particular, it is assumed that
the file is duly processed by the AGENCY.
- Currently there are no dedicated teams/structures in DG GROW dedicated to GI
registration related tasks, and such structure/team/network of available resources
will have to be created in DG GROW to review the files from the AGENCY and
to take decisions and create the legal instrument for the GI registration (e.g.
implementing regulation as in the case of AGRI GI). Efforts are expressed in
FTEs.
- A number of proposed improvement ideas described in the agricultural GI
analysis310
are assumed to be implemented/integrated already in the GI procedure
for craft and industrial products.
- COM is the competent authority for the Lisbon agreement311
.
308
Current GIview database to be customised for this purpose.
309
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
310
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
311
More details in the introductory part of the ANALYSIS section.
140
Receipt AGENCY (automatic)
Translation EN (automatic
translation for working purposes)
1st publication (SD) in eRegister
and/or OJ of the Agency
Agency issues proposal to
register/reject the dossier,
including the result of the
opposition if applicable)
Registration / Rejection (adoption
of Commission Implementing
Regulation)
Dossier + OPINION sent to DG
GROW
Examination of the file
Deficiency
(Automatic) Translation into 23
languages
Data available in
eRegister
End
of
Procees
Observation/Confirmation letter
(translated) to the MS
Answer letter
Publish registration in the
eRegister (automatic?)
Inter Service Consultation
DG GROW formulates decision
and sends the file for CIS
DG GROW addresses ISC
comments
Published in the
Official Journal – L
Series
End
of
Procees
ACTION BEFORE THE ECJ
SUI GENERIS 1.1 MS -> AGENCY -> COM DECISION
GI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCY
Need to register a GI
Trigger
MS Scrutiny
E-Opposition
Files an electronic
application
Decision and specification
made public
Answers Deficiency Letter
Not favourable decision
Opposition solved
Application Dossier/Update
sent to the AGENCY
Favourable decision
EU Level Opposition
DG GROW assesses
re-assessment needed
COMMISSION
Deficiency not solved
GI Application rejected
and decision published
in the eRegister and /or
OJ
End
of
Procees
V.01 23.06.2021
Need to register a GI
Trigger
WIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT
141
1. Customer focused procedure
The following assumptions are considered for the below estimated values (Benchmark
agricultural GI - Option 2.1 AGENCY Opinion – COM decision)312
- The AGENCY will handle applications dossiers directly with the MS and will
prepare the file for the COM to take a decision.
- The IT tool will be ready to be used for craft and industrial GIs in less than
2 years from the date the legal instrument enters into force. This period is
estimated by benchmarking against the average duration of similar projects/IT
products at the AGENCY, provided the necessary budget and resources are
available to be reserved at the moment when the project and the respective
budgetary commitment are approved.
- There will be a complex system to be shared, coordinated, and synchronised
between the COM and the AGENCY.
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Modern, scalable, and customisable procedure 2/5
Level of the MS’ satisfaction with the front and back office
processes, including tools
70 %
Level of satisfaction with the overall registration procedure 50 %
Services characterised as ‘customer-centric’ 1/5
2. Accessible procedure
Assumptions:
- Information on files available to MS only in the back-office tool, the PGs are
informed by the MS, the PGs do not have access to the information on their file in
the back office tool.
- Several follow-ups, as needed.
- Guidelines with examples and templates would be made available.
- During the first 3 years there would not be a user-friendly application step. If a
new tool is created, then probably it will be a minimum value product (MVP)
- A country representative would be appointed to liaise with the MS on the
evolution of files.
- The MS would have access to the dossier status.
312
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
142
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Availability of the procedure-related information using
appropriate channels and formats
4/5
Comprehensibility of procedure-related information by a non-
specialised public (derivative material)
2/5
Customised support available when filing the application 3/5
User-friendly and easy-to-use application filing step 2/5
Customised support available throughout the registration
procedure
3/5
Perception of simplicity and ease of understanding and
responding to the process and requirements
3/5
Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 3/5
3. Predictable GI registration procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Perception of the predictability/satisfaction with how long the
procedure takes
1/5
Applicants are proactively informed on the status and the
next steps to registration
1/5
Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration
outcome
1/5
4. Quality of the application
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Formalities deficiency rate (completeness of the file) 5 %
Link description deficiency rate 14 %
Product description deficiency rate 7 %
143
5. Output quality of the GI application assessment
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the consistency of the
preliminary results of the assessment
60 %
Level of satisfaction with the consistency of the outcome of the
GI application assessment
70 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the clarity of the
observations on the application file sent to the MS
80 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration
procedure
50 %
6. Transparency for the PGs and MS, while the dossier is scrutinised at EU level
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of satisfaction with the information received on each
dossier
80 %
Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the
latest changes to scrutiny practice
80 %
Level of satisfaction with their involvement in the decision-
making at EU level
75 %
7. Efficient GI registration procedure
7.1 Timeliness of the procedure
Assumption: the expertise in handling GI applications is available to DG GROW313.
313
Ibidem 4.
144
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Duration of registration procedure for applications with no
link or product description issues (EU level, no oppositions)
10 months
Number of deficiency letters sent per file 3-4 on average
Time taken to send the first letter of observations 2 months
Time taken to register – all cases (EU level) Max 3 years
Time taken to register – all cases (MS+EU level) Max 5 years
Level of satisfaction with the duration of the registration
procedure
50 %
7.2 Cost of the procedure
The typical costs for the MS scrutiny step consists in the cost of the resources used for
handling the applications for the GI registration for crafts and industrial products,
covering the full lifecycle of such an application: pre-application (providing support and
guidance to applicants for completing the application dossier; the assessment step
including the handling of an opposition phase if applicable, and the publication in a
register; and the post registration phase, addressing modifications of the dossier if
applicable; and liaising with an EU body (COM or AGENCY) for the EU level part of
the registration procedure, or alternative options may be chosen314
.
The costs for MS/COM during the first 3 years from the moment the GI legal instrument
for crafts and industrial products enters into force:
Time spent by staff on tasks such as:
- Liaising with the COM/MS on existing and potential files,
- Training staff on the new procedures,
- Building organisational knowledge and build consistent practices,
- Building methodologies, processes, and tools, including templates, etc.
This option assumes that the AGENCY will be able to absorb the effort necessary to
process the applications by using existing resources, in particular IT and Operations
resources, with no impact on the COM’s budget.
The COM’s FTEs below are estimated on the basis that it is the AGENCY that prepares
the dossiers up to the ‘ready to take a decision’ point. The 6 FTEs estimated below are
broken down as follows:
- 2 FTEs are reserved for the oppositions.
314
See additional details in the introductory part of the Analysis section.
145
- 2 FTEs are reserved for the interservice consultation and for moving the file
through the COM’s administrative procedure for publication.
- 2 FTEs max dedicated to reviewing the AGENCY’s opinions, in particular for the
recommended negative outcome of the assessment process. It is assumed that the
number of applications recommended for rejection would be relatively low,
considering the customer-oriented approach in the AGENCY, with the aim of
helping applications reach a sufficient level of quality to meet the necessary
registration requirements.
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Costs for the PG: application fee at MS level if applicable
MS control fees if applicable
No change
Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level No application fee
Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 6
Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 9
Costs for the MS315
Cost for the MS Scrutiny
procedure
8. Key advantages and main risks
Stakeholder Key advantage
PGs User-friendly and efficient procedure to register craft and industrial GIs at
EU level available
MS Accessible and transparent craft and industrial GI registration procedure,
faster timeliness to assess the application files
COM/AGENCY Opportunity to offer the EU internal market the possibility to benefit from
GI protection for crafts and industrial products at the EU level.
Efficiency gains for the COM, economies of scale for the EU institutions,
IPR system for the AGENCY.
Consumers Benefit from a quality guarantee scheme for craft and industrial GI
products
315
See additional details in the Analysis Model section of this document.
146
Stakeholder Key risks
PGs Potential risk of confusion at PG and MS level over the division of
responsibilities between the AGENCY and the COM.
Risk of lengthy procedure with two different EU bodies involved.
Risk of lack of legal certainty.
No appeal possible, only action before the Court.
MS Potential risk of confusion at PG and MS level over the division of
responsibilities between the AGENCY and the COM.
Risk of lengthy procedure with two different EU bodies involved.
Risk of lack of legal certainty.
No appeal possible, only action before the Court.
EU/COM/AGENCY Risk of lack of legal certainty; the COM’s decision has a dual nature (i.e. it
pronounces itself on two matters at the same time – the recommendation of
the AGENCY and the GI application itself).
Risks of reputational damage due to potential conflicts over the ownership
of the decision/assuming the responsibility of the decision on a political
level.
Risk of duplication of efforts between the AGENCY and the COM.
Consumers Risk of bearing the cost of a burdensome registration procedure.
147
3. Option 1.2 [MS/EU] MS  AGENCY Decision  COM appeal
MS-Level scrutiny; EU-level assessment and decision by the AGENCY; appeal to the
COM;
Assumptions (benchmark AGRI GRI Option 2.2 [MS/EU] MS -> AGENCY Decision ->
COM appeal (access to DOCs))316
:
- The AGENCY front and back office IT tools are used for the management of the
craft and industrial GI file lifecycle (before, during and after registration).
- For all proposed options where the AGENCY is participating to some extent in
the crafts and industrial GI registration process, (all options except Option 1.0 -
no involvement of the AGENCY), a minimum period of 2 years is estimated to be
required to implement the necessary IT infrastructure to support the assessment of
crafts and industrial GI application files.
- The AGENCY assumes the role of competent authority for the Lisbon
agreement317
.
316
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
317
More details in the introductory part of the ANALYSIS section.
148
Receipt AGENCY (automatic)
Translation EN (automatic
translation for working purposes)
1st publication (SD) in eRegister
and/or OJ of the Agency
EU Level Opposition
Registration
No opposition /
Opposition not
accepted /
Examination of the file
Deficiency
No Deficiency
(Automatic) Translation into 23
languages
Opposition accepted
Deficiency not solved
GI application registered and
published in the eRegister
and/or OJ of the Agency
End
of
Procees
Deficiency (Observation) letter
(translated) to the MS
GI Application rejected
and decision published
in the eRegister and /or
OJ of the Agency
End
of
Procees
GI Application rejected and
decision published in the
eRegister and/or OJ of the
Agency
End
of
Procees
Answer letter
Manage Appeal (including
internal processes)
COMMISSION
Opposition partially
accepted
SUI GENERIS 1.2 MS -> AGENCY DEC -> COM APPEAL
GI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCY
Need to register a GI
Trigger
MS Scrutiny
E-Opposition
Files an electronic
application
Decision and specification
made public
Answers Deficiency Letter
Not favourable decision
Opposition solved
Application Dossier/Update
sent to the AGENCY
Favourable decision
Appeal filed
Trigger
ACTION BEFORE THE ECJ
Appeal accepted: Case
reopened at the stage when
the appeal was filed
Appeal refused and refusal
decision published in the
OJ and eRegister
V.01 23.06.2021
Need to register a GI
Trigger
WIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT
149
1. Customer-focused procedure Benchmark AGRI GI (Option 2.2 MS -> AGENCY
Decision -> COM appeal)
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Modern, scalable, and customisable procedure 5/5
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the front and back
office processes including tools
75 %
Level of satisfaction with the overall registration procedure 90 %
Services characterised as ‘customer-centric’ 3/5
2. Accessible procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Availability of the procedure related information using
appropriate channels and formats
4/5
Comprehensibility of procedure related information by non-
specialised public (derivative material)
4/5
Customised support available when filing the application 4/5
User-friendly and easy-to-use application filing step 5/5
Customised support available throughout the registration
procedure
3/5
Perception of simplicity and ease of understanding and
responding to the process and requirements
2/5
Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 3/5
150
3. Predictable GI registration procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Perception of the predictability/satisfaction with the duration
of the procedure
4/5
Applicants are proactively informed on the status and the
next steps to registration
4/5
Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration
outcome
4/5
4. Quality of the application
The following indicators are proposed for analysing the quality of the applications:
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Formalities deficiency rate (completeness of the file) 5 %
Link description deficiency rate 14 %
Product description deficiency rate
7 %
5. Output quality of the GI application assessment
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the consistency of the
preliminary results of the assessment
80 %
Level of satisfaction with the consistency of the outcome of the
GI application assessment
70 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the clarity of the
observations on the application file sent to the MS
95 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration
procedure
70 %
151
6. Transparency for the MS and PGs, while the dossier is scrutinised at EU level
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of satisfaction with the information received on each
dossier
95 %
Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the
latest changes to scrutiny practice
95 %
Level of the satisfaction with their engagement in the decision-
making at EU level
80 %
7. Efficient GI registration procedure
7.1 Timeliness of the procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Duration of registration procedure for applications with no
link or product description issues (EU level, no oppositions)
6 months
Number of deficiency letters sent per file Max 2
Time taken to send the first letter of observations 2 months
Time taken to register – all cases (EU level) Average 2 years
Time taken to register – all cases (MS+EU level) Average 3 years
Level of satisfaction with the duration of the registration
procedure
80 %
7.2 Cost of the procedure
For options 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, the AGENCY will be able to absorb the effort necessary to
process the applications by using existing resources, in particular the IT and Operations
budget, with no impact on the COM’s budget. Given the intensive efforts in increasing
the efficiency of the AGENCY’s operations undertaken under the last two strategic plans,
it is estimated that the AGENCY is able to absorb the craft and industrial GI necessary
effort, regardless of the evolution of the TM/DS applications filed.
The typical costs for the MS scrutiny step consists in the cost of the resources used for
handling the applications for the GI registration for crafts and industrial products,
covering the full lifecycle of such an application: pre-application (providing support and
guidance to applicants for completing the application dossier; the assessment step
including the handling of an opposition phase if applicable, and the publication in a
152
register; and the post registration phase, addressing modifications of the dossier if
applicable; and liaising with an EU body (COM or AGENCY) for the EU level part of
the registration procedure, or alternative options may be chosen318
.
The costs for MS during the first 3 years from the moment of the entry into force of the
GI legal instrument for crafts and industrial products, to include as well the:
- Time dedicated by staff to liaise with the AGENCY on existing and potential
files,
- Time dedicated to train staff on the new procedures,
- Time dedicated by staff to build organisational knowledge and build consistent
practices,
- Time dedicated by staff to build methodologies, processes, and tools, including
templates, etc.
Two FTEs are estimated to be needed for the appeal procedure in the COM, assuming a
very low appeal rate. The two FTEs are considered as available rather than used
resources.
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Costs for the PG: application fee at MS level if applicable
MS control fees if applicable
No change
Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level No application fee
Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 2
Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 10
Costs for the MS319
Cost of the MS Scrutiny
procedure
8. Key advantages and main risks
Stakeholder Key advantage
PGs Modern procedure, integrated with other IPRs if applicable
MS Harmonised procedures within the IPRs family
EU/COM/AGENCY Moderate economies of scale for the EU bodies;
Integrated IPR system, except the appeal step;
318
See additional details in the introductory part of the Analysis section.
319
See additional details in the Analysis Model section of this document.
153
Efficiency gains for the EU bodies overall if the AGENCY’s experience in
dealing with the WIPO files is reused by the AGENCY playing the role of
competent authority for the Lisbon agreement;
Efficiency gains for the EU bodies overall if the international dossiers are not
registered in the EU by means of Implementing Regulations, but by means of
registration certificates issued by the AGENCY320
.
Consumers Benefit from a quality and guarantee scheme for crafts and industrial products.
Stakeholder Key risk
PGs Risk of confusion when choosing the applicable administrative procedure for
appeals;
Risk of long delays until a political agreement is reached in case of appeals
with no agreements;
Risk of having to deal with divergent practices between the examination body
and the appeal body.
MS Risk of long delays until a political agreement is reached in case of appeals
with no agreements;
Risk of increased organisational costs given the need to invest in knowledge
building and maintenance thereof regarding the examination and appeals
practice of two organisations.
EU/COM/AGENCY Risk of reputational damage in case the appeal outcomes are consistently
changing the first instance decisions;
Risk of creating a costly procedure for EU bodies (COM and AGENCY) due to
not re-using an existing AGENCY’s appeal body and instead creating a new
structure in COM/DG GROW to handle GI appeals;
Risk of decreased legal certainty for the PG groups and other IPR owners due
to not re-using the consistency seeking mechanisms in place in the AGENCY’s
appeal body;
Risk of losing the opportunity to create an integrated IPR system joining and
reusing efficient customer-driven procedures for several types of IP rights.
Consumers Risk of confusion and being overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues.
320
More details in the introductory part of the ANALYSIS section.
154
4. Option 1.3 [MS/EU] MS  MS  AGENCY Decision  Appeal
body
MS Level scrutiny; EU-level assessment and decision by the AGENCY; appeal to the
appeal body of the AGENCY;
Assumptions (Benchmark AGRI GI (Option 1Option 1.1 [MS/EU - AGENCY only] MS
-> AGENCY Decision -> Appeal body + Scientific Board)321
- For all proposed options where the AGENCY is participating to a different extent
in the craft and industrial GI registration process, (all options except Option 1.0 -
no involvement of the AGENCY), a minimum period of 2 years is estimated to be
required to implement the necessary IT infrastructure to support the assessment of
craft and industrial GIs application files.
- A scientific board is established and called upon request to provide the members
of the appeal body or of the opposition team with a scientific opinion on cases
where such scientific opinion is required for the objective and impartial
assessment of the file.
- The AGENCY assumes the role of competent authority for the Lisbon
agreement322
.
321
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
322
More details in the introductory part of the ANALYSIS section.
155
Receipt AGENCY (automatic)
Translation EN (automatic
translation for working purposes)
1st publication (SD) in eRegister
and/or OJ of the Agency
EU Level Opposition
Registration
No opposition /
Opposition not
accepted /
Examination of the file
Deficiency
No Deficiency
(Automatic) Translation into 23
languages
Opposition accepted
Deficiency not solved
GI application registered and
published in the eRegister
and/or OJ of the Agency
End
of
Procees
Deficiency (Observation) letter
(translated) to the MS
GI Application rejected
and decision published
in the eRegister and /or
OJ of the Agency
End
of
Procees
GI Application rejected and
decision published in the
eRegister and/or OJ of the
Agency
End
of
Procees
Answer letter
Opposition partially
accepted
SUI GENERIS 1.3 [MS/EU - AGENCY ONLY] MS -> AGENCY DECISION -> APPEAL BODY + SCIENTIFIC BOARD
GI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCY
Need to register a GI
Trigger
MS Scrutiny
E-Opposition
Files an electronic
application
Decision and specification
made public
Answers Deficiency Letter
Not favourable decision
Opposition solved
Application Dossier/Update
sent to the AGENCY
Favourable decision
SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Provide input (MANDATORY/
OPTIONAL)
Manage Appeal (including
internal processes)
APPEAL BODY
Appeal accepted: Case
reopened at the stage when
the appeal was filed
Appeal filed
Trigger
ACTION BEFORE THE ECJ
Call scientific board
Provide input (MANDATORY/
OPTIONAL)
SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Appeal refused and refusal
decision published in the OJ
and eRegister
V.01 23.06.2021
Need to register a GI
Trigger
WIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT
156
1. Customer-focused procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Modern, scalable, and customisable procedure 5/5
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the front and back
office processes including tools
80 %
Level of satisfaction with the overall registration procedure 90 %
Services characterised as ‘customer-centric’ 4/5
2. Accessible procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Availability of the procedure-related information using
appropriate channels and formats
5/5
Comprehensibility of procedure-related information by a non-
specialised public (derivative material)
4/5
Customised support available when filing the application 4/5
User-friendly and easy-to-use application filing step 4/5
Customised support available throughout the registration
procedure
5/5
Perception of simplicity and ease of understanding and
responding to the process and requirements
3/5
Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 4/5
157
3. Predictable GI registration procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Perception of the predictability/satisfaction with the duration
of the procedure
4/5
Applicants are proactively informed on the status and the
next steps to registration
4/5
Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration
outcome
4/5
4. Quality of the application
The following indicators are proposed for analysing the quality of the applications:
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Formalities deficiency rate (completeness of the file) 5 %
Link description deficiency rate 14 %
Product description deficiency rate 7 %
5. Output quality of the GI application assessment
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the consistency of the
preliminary results of the assessment
80 %
Level of satisfaction with the consistency of the outcome of the
GI application assessment
95 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the clarity of the
observations on the application file sent to the MS
95 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration
procedure
90 %
158
6. Transparency for the MS and PGs, while the dossier is scrutinised at EU level
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of satisfaction with the information received on each
dossier
95 %
Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the
latest changes to scrutiny practice
95 %
Level of the satisfaction with their engagement in the decision-
making at EU level
95 %
7. Efficient GI registration procedure
7.1 Timeliness of the procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Duration of registration procedure for applications with no link
or product description issues (EU level, no oppositions)
6 months
Number of deficiency letters sent per file Max 2
Time taken to send the first letter of observations 2 months
Time taken to register – all cases (EU level) Average 1.5 years
Time taken to register – all cases (MS+EU level) Average 3 years
Level of satisfaction with the duration of the registration
procedure
80 %
7.2 Cost of the procedure
For options 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, the AGENCY will be able to absorb the effort necessary to
process the applications, by using existing IT and operations resources and corresponding
proportional overhead costs, with no impact on the COM’s budget.
The dossiers are expected to be already assessed by the MS, and the AGENCY
scrutinises323
the dossiers similarly to the existing agricultural GI procedures324
.
323
The scrutiny of a GI dossier refers to the assessment of an application file against the legal requirements
for an application to be registered, including the exchange of letters with the MS/applicant for the remedy
of any missing or insufficient elements.
159
Considering the current efficiency rate of the AGENCY in processing the TM
applications325
and the help provided to the COM in the assessment of the agricultural GI
files, it is estimated that the AGENCY will be able to handle all expected incoming
applications with 10 FTEs. Two FTEs are reserved for potential appeals.
The typical costs for the MS scrutiny step consists in the cost of the resources used for
handling the applications for the GI registration for crafts and industrial products,
covering the full lifecycle of such an application: pre-application (providing support and
guidance to applicants for completing the application dossier; the assessment step
including the handling of an opposition phase if applicable, and the publication in a
register; and the post registration phase, addressing modifications of the dossier if
applicable; and liaising with an EU body (COM or AGENCY) for the EU level part of
the registration procedure, or alternative options may be chosen326
.
The costs for MS/COM, during the first 3 years from the moment of the entry into force
of the GI legal instrument for crafts and industrial products, to include as well:
- Time dedicated by staff to liaise with the AGENCY on existing and potential
files,
- Time dedicated by staff to acquire the new procedures,
- Time dedicated by staff to build organisational knowledge and build consistent
practices,
- Time dedicated by staff to build methodologies, processes, and tools, including
templates, etc.
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Costs for the PG: application fee at MS level if applicable;
MS control fees if applicable.
No change
324
Under the current SLA with the Commission/DG AGRI, the Agency already provides as a service to the
Commission, the assessment of the agricultural GI files, which includes scrutiny of the files, drafting
deficiency letters, re-examination, etc. The basis for the Administrative Agreement was the Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) – C(2009)2779 between DG GROW (acting for the Commission) and the EUIPO,
signed in April 2019. It provides a framework for the conclusion of detailed working arrangements with
individual Commission departments and specifically envisages in Section 7 to deepen practical cooperation
between the EUIPO and DG AGRI.
325
Study on control and enforcement rules for geographical indication (GI) protection for non-agricultural
products in the EU, 2021, page 59.
326
See additional details in the introductory part of the Analysis section.
160
Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level No application fee
Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 0
Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 12
Costs for the MS327
Cost of the MS Scrutiny
procedure
8. Key advantages and main risks
Stakeholder Key advantage
PGs Modern procedure, integrated with other IPRs if applicable;
Legal certainty from a consistent and integrated IPR system covering the full
IPR lifecycle (before, during and after registration);
Accessible IP system thanks to the consistent practice of an AGENCY and
appeal body;
MS Harmonised procedures within the IPRs family;
Less resources invested in understanding and keeping up to date with one set of
practices of the AGENCY and its appeal body.
EU/AGENCY Significant economies of scale by using available knowledgeable resources of
the AGENCY’s appeal body;
Efficiency gains for the EU bodies (COM and AGENCY) by using an
AGENCY’s appeal body rather than creating a new structure in COM/DG
GROW to handle craft and industrial GI appeals;
Legal certainty for the PG groups and other IPR owners by re-using the
consistency seeking mechanisms in place in the AGENCY’s appeal body;
Integrated IPR system, by joining and reusing efficient customer driven
procedures for several types of IP rights;
Efficiency gains for the EU bodies overall if the AGENCY’s experience in
dealing with the WIPO files is reused by EUIPO playing the role of competent
authority for the Lisbon agreement;
Consumers Benefit from a quality and guarantee scheme for crafts and industrial products.
327
See additional details in the Analysis Model section of this document.
161
Stakeholder Key risk
PGs No significant risk has been identified for this stakeholder, relative to the other
options included in this paper.
MS No significant risk has been identified for this stakeholder, relative to the other
options included in this paper.
EU/AGENCY Risk of lack of expertise for the product sectors in the AGENCY.
Consumers No significant risk has been identified for this stakeholder, relative to the other
options included in this paper.
162
5. Option 1.4 [EU only – AGENCY only] AGENCY – MS Consultation
No MS level, but MS consulted as part of the EU level registration procedure; AGENCY
decision with input from the MS; appeal to the appeal body of the AGENCY;
Assuming that (Benchmark AGRI Option 1Option 1.2 [EU only - AGENCY only]
AGENCY – MS Consultation)328
- For all proposed options where the AGENCY is participating to a different extent
in the craft and industrial GI registration process, (all options except Option 1.0 –
no involvement of the AGENCY), a minimum period of 2 years is estimated to be
required to implement the necessary IT infrastructure to support the assessment of
craft and industrial GIs application files.
- AGENCY assumes the role of competent authority for the Lisbon agreement329
.
328
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
329
More details in the introductory part of the ANALYSIS section.
163
Answers deficiency letter
MS provides input to the consultation
(recommendation to the Agency)
Translation EN (automatic
translation for working
purposes)
Examination of the file
Deficiency
No
Deficiency
Deficiency answered /
Time ended
Deficiency not solved
Sends observation letter
(translated) to the Applicant
Answer deficiency letter
Formality/ admissibility
check
Consults the MS
Sends observation
(deficiency) letter to applicant
Deficiency
No Deficiency
1st publication (SD) in eRegister
and/or OJ of the Agency
EU Level ONLY Opposition
procedure
Registration
No opposition / Opposition not accepted
(Automatic) Translation into 23
languages
Opposition accepted / agreement not reached
Positive recommendation
Negative
recommendation
Opposition partially
accepted
SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Provide input
(MANDATORY/
OPTIONAL)
SUI GENERIS 1.4 AGENCY – MS CONSULTATION
GI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCY
Need to register a GI
Trigger
Files an electronic
application
GI Application rejected and
decision published in the
eRegister and/or OJ of the
Agency
End
of
Procees
GI Application rejected and
decision published in the
eRegister and/or OJ of the
Agency
End
of
Procees
GI application registered and
published in the eRegister
and/or OJ of the Agency
End
of
Procees
GI Application rejected and
decision published in the
eRegister and/or OJ of the
Agency
End
of
Procees
Manage Appeal (including
internal processes)
BOA
Appeal accepted: Case
reopened at the stage when
the appeal was filed
Appeal filed
Trigger
ACTION BEFORE THE ECJ
Call scientific board
Provide input (MANDATORY/
OPTIONAL)
SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Appeal refused and refusal
decision published in the OJ
and eRegister
Need to register a GI
Trigger
WIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT
164
1. Customer-focused procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Modern, scalable, and customisable procedure 5/5
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the front and back office
processes including tools
75 %
Level of satisfaction with the overall registration procedure 80 %
Services characterised as ‘customer-centric’ 4/5
2. Accessible procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Availability of the procedure related information using
appropriate channels and formats
3/5
Comprehensibility of procedure related information by non-
specialised public (derivative material)
4/5
Customised support available when filing the application 3/5
User-friendly and easy-to-use application filing step 5/5
Customised support available throughout the registration
procedure
5/5
Perception of simplicity and ease of understanding and
responding to the process and requirements
5/5
Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 3/5
165
3. Predictable GI registration procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Perception of the predictability/satisfaction with the duration
of the procedure
4/5
Applicants are proactively informed on the status and the
next steps to registration
5/5
Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration
outcome
4/5
4. Quality of the application
The following indicators are proposed for analysing the quality of the applications:
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Formalities deficiency rate (completeness of the file) 5 %
Link description deficiency rate 14 %
Product description deficiency rate 7 %
5. Output quality of the GI application assessment
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the consistency of the
preliminary results of the assessment
80 %
Level of satisfaction with the consistency of the outcome of the
GI application assessment
95 %
Level of the PGs’ satisfaction with the clarity of the
observations on the application file sent to the MS
95 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration
procedure
85 %
166
6. Transparency for the MS and PGs, while the dossier is scrutinised at EU level
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of satisfaction with the information received on each
dossier
95 %
Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the
latest changes to scrutiny practice
95 %
Level of the satisfaction with their engagement in the decision-
making at EU level
95 %
7. Efficient GI registration procedure
7.1 Timeliness of the procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Duration of registration procedure for applications with no link
or product description issues (EU level, no oppositions)
11 months
Number of deficiency letters sent per file Max 2
Time taken to send the first letter of observations 2 months
Time taken to register - all cases (EU level)
1.2 years average
Time taken to register - all cases (MS+EU level)
Level of the PGs satisfaction with the duration of the
registration procedure
90 %
7.2 Cost of the procedure
For options 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, the AGENCY will be able to absorb the effort necessary to
process the applications, in particular the IT and operations resources, with no impact on
the COM’s budget.
It is estimated that the overall costs for the MS consultation cost is expected to be lower
than the costs of the MS when performing the MS scrutiny part of the EU level craft and
industrial products GI registration procedure.
It is estimated that a significant amount of time will be invested by the MS in assessing
the file and issuing a recommendation for the AGENCY on each craft and industrial GI
file, however, this time is expected to be lower than the MS performing the full
assessment of the dossiers. The difference between the two levels of assessment and the
167
implied responsibility on the completeness and correctness of dossiers is considered to be
low.
In the case of this option, the applicant files the applications to the AGENCY first.
Compared to option 1.3, an additional three FTEs are expected to be needed for the
formality checks and for liaising with the producer groups until the moment the dossier is
sufficiently complete and correct for a decision to be taken.
The 15 FTEs estimated for the AGENCY below, are broken down as follows:
- Three FTEs for the formalities assessment and ensuring the completeness of the
dossiers for decision taking, including the consultation step with the MS.
- Ten FTEs for the full processing of the dossiers until the moment the dossiers are
registered and visible on the register.
- Two FTEs reserved for potential appeals.
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Costs for the PG: application fee at MS level if applicable
MS control fees if applicable
Not applicable
Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level Application fee
Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 0
Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 15
Costs for the MS330
Costs of MS Consultation
procedure
8. Key advantages and main risks
Stakeholder Key advantage
PGs Modern procedure, integrated with other IPRs if applicable
MS Harmonised procedures within the IPRs family
EU/AGENCY Economies of scale
Integrated IPR system
Efficiency gains for the EU bodies overall if the AGENCY’s experience in
dealing with the WIPO files is reused by the AGENCY playing the role of
competent authority for the Lisbon agreement;
(330)
See additional details in the Analysis Model section of this document.
168
Consumers Benefit from a quality and guarantee scheme for crafts and industrial products
Stakeholder Key risk
PGs Risk of perception of lack of nearness of the EU administration, including
language availability.
MS Risk of losing that special connection to the local producers, risk of lack of
recognition of their work in the creation of registrable dossiers.
EU/AGENCY Moderate likelihood that the MSs will oppose the EU-only level procedure,
given their added value in relation to the PGs.
Risk of a decrease in the number of new applications due to a low reach in the
potential number of interested PGs.
Risk of not having the needed expertise to assess the link with the area.
Consumers N/A
169
6. Option 1.5 [EU only – AGENCY only] No MS level
No MS involvement; full procedure, including appeals at the EU level only;
Assuming that (benchmark Option 1Option 1.3 [EU only - AGENCY only] No MS
level)331
- For all proposed options where the AGENCY is participating to different extents
in the craft and industrial GI registration process, (all options except Option 1.0 –
no involvement of the AGENCY), a minimum period of 2 years is estimated to be
required to implement the necessary IT infrastructure to support the assessment of
craft and industrial GIs application files.
- AGENCY assumes the role of competent authority for the Lisbon agreement332
.
331
Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal.
332
More details in the introductory part of the ANALYSIS section.
170
GI APPLICANT AGENCY
Receipt AGENCY (automatic)
1st publication (SD) in eRegister and/
or OJ of the Agency
EU Level ONLY Opposition
No opposition /
Opposition not
accepted
Examination of the file
Letter (translated) with the
Applicant
Deficiency
No Deficiency /
Deficiency solved
Automatic Translation into 23
languages
Opposition accepted / agreement
not reached
Deficiency not
solved
Answer letter
Opposition partially
accepted SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Provide input (MANDATORY/
OPTIONAL)
SUI GENERIS 1.5 [EU ONLY - AGENCY ONLY] NO MS LEVEL
Registration
GI application registered and
published in the eRegister
and/or OJ of the Agency
End
of
Procees
GI Application rejected and
decision published in the
eRegister and/or OJ of the
Agency
End
of
Procees
Need to register a GI
Trigger
Files an electronic
application
GI Application rejected and
decision published in the
eRegister and/or OJ of the
Agency
End
of
Procees
Manage Appeal (including
internal processes)
APPEAL BODY
Appeal accepted: Case
reopened at the stage when
the appeal was filed
Appeal filed
Trigger
ACTION BEFORE THE ECJ
Call scientific board
Provide input (MANDATORY/
OPTIONAL)
SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Appeal refused and refusal
decision published in the OJ
and eRegister
V.01 23.06.2021
Need to register a GI
Trigger
WIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT
171
1. Customer-focused procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Modern, scalable, and customisable procedure 5/5
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the front and back
office processes including tools
75 %
Level of satisfaction with the overall registration procedure 80 %
Services characterised as ‘customer-centric’ 4/5
2. Accessible procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Availability of the procedure-related information using
appropriate channels and formats
2/5
Comprehensibility of procedure-related information by a non-
specialised public (derivative material)
4/5
Customised support available when filing the application 3/5
User-friendly and easy-to-use application filing step 5/5
Customised support available throughout the registration
procedure
5/5
Perception of simplicity and ease of understanding and
responding to the process and requirements
5/5
Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 2/5
172
3. Predictable GI registration procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Perception of the predictability/satisfaction with the duration
of the procedure
5/5
Applicants are proactively informed on the status and the
next steps to registration
5/5
Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration
outcome
5/5
4. Quality of the application
The following indicators are proposed for analysing the quality of the applications:
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Formalities deficiency rate (completeness of the file) 5 %
Link description deficiency rate 14 %
Product description deficiency rate 7 %
5. Output quality of the GI application assessment
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the consistency of the
preliminary results of the assessment
80 %
Level of satisfaction with the consistency of the outcome of the
GI application assessment
95 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the clarity of the
observations on the application file sent to the MS
90 %
Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration
procedure
80 %
173
6. Transparency for the MS and PGs, while the dossier is scrutinised at EU level
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Level of satisfaction with the information received on each
dossier
95 %
Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the
latest changes to scrutiny practice
95 %
Level of the satisfaction with their engagement in the decision-
making at EU level
95 %
7. Efficient GI registration procedure
7.1 Timeliness of the procedure
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Duration of registration procedure for applications with no link
or product description issues (EU level, no oppositions)
6 months
Number of deficiency letters sent per file Max 2
Time taken to send the first letter of observations 2 months
Time taken to register – all cases (EU level)
1-year average
Time taken to register – all cases (MS+EU level)
Level of the PG/MS satisfaction with the duration of the
registration procedure
90 %
7.2 Cost of the procedure
For options 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, the AGENCY will be able to absorb the effort necessary to
process the applications, with no impact on the COM’s budget.
Assumptions:
- It is estimated that the overall costs for the MS is 0 since the MS is not involved
in the registration process of the dossier333
.
333
See additional details in the Analysis Model section of this document.
174
- The cost for the AGENCY increases, since additional resources (five FTEs) will
have to be invested in ensuring the necessary technical and specialist expertise for
taking a correct decision.
Indicator Craft and Industrial GI
projected
Costs for the PG: application fee at MS level if applicable
MS control fees if applicable
Not applicable
Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level Application fee
Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 0
Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 20
Costs for the MS334
0
8. Key advantages and main risks
Stakeholder Key advantage
PGs Modern procedure, integrated with other IPRs if applicable.
MS Harmonised procedures within the IPRs family (within the AGENCY),
considering that the internal procedures and guidelines are the same for
all products, IPR applications.
EU/AGENCY Economies of scale for the EU overall;
Integrated IPR system by applying consistent procedures for several
types of IPRs;
Efficiency gains for the EU bodies overall if the AGENCY’s experience
in dealing with the WIPO files is reused by the EUIPO playing the role
of competent authority for the Lisbon agreement.
Consumers Benefit from a quality and guarantee scheme for crafts and industrial
products.
334
See additional details in the Analysis Model section of this document.
175
Stakeholder Key risk
PGs Risk of higher cost as communicating directly with an EU Level
AGENCY.
MS Risk of not having a say in protection of nationally rooted products.
EU/AGENCY Risk of a substantial decrease in the effectiveness of the GI quality
scheme due to the lack of direct MS involvement;
High likelihood that the MS will oppose the EU-only level procedure,
given their added value in relation to the PGs;
Risk of lack of local expertise to assess the geographical link thus
leading to a high cost in expert assistance;
Risk of a decrease in the number of new applications due to a low reach
in the potential number of interested PGs.
Consumers No significant risk identified.
176
MANAGEMENT OF THE GI eREGISTER 335
The GI eRegister is understood to play a significant role in achieving a positive impact
on all aspects detailed in this analysis: a reduction in the length of the GI registration
procedure and a reduction in the perceived burden. It is also particularly relevant to
increasing the transparency of the GI registration procedure and to creating a shared IT
user experience among EU producer groups.
The AGENCY would have certain advantages in managing the IT systems needed to
support the smooth running of the GI registration process. Therefore, the options
explored in the previous section look at the involvement of the AGENCY in the
management of the eRegister, with a view to taking advantage of the AGENCY’s
experience, flexibility, agility and the availability of resources and knowledge, as well as
synergies with other IPRs, if handled by the EUIPO as the IP AGENCY of the EU.
As a first step, the AGENCY currently managing the GIview database, which is the most
complete database of registered agricultural GIs globally (EU and non-EU alike) could
be explored into becoming the new eRegister for craft and industrial GIs, liaising with
the back office tools. The estimated time to set up the eRegister would be a minimum of
12 months. The AGENCY would further develop and manage a front/back office for the
purpose of craft and industrial GI applications which would:
 allow users to track changes in their craft and industrial GI files;
 have a new modern user interface with extended search capabilities;
 display craft and industrial GIs that have protection in the EU by means of
international agreements;
 integrate with existing IP enforcement tools;
 provide search services to third party tools.
The management of an eRegister management with the AGENCY is considered to have a
positive impact on each of the benefits considered in this analysis.
335
Additionally, see Study on geographical indications protection for non-agricultural products in the
internal market, 2013, p 318-319. To be noted that the disadvantages mentioned in the Study have already
been rectified due to the capacity building pilot project in assessment of agricultural GIs on the side of the
EUIPO.
177
PART C: Comparison of sui generis GI EU level procedure options
Comparison summary
The table below reviews the ranking of options according to the overall scores received.
The figures are not used in terms of absolute values. They are relevant only as
comparative values: a higher score implies a better score.
Benefit indicator
[MS/EU]
COM
only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY
+ Consult MS
+ APPEAL
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
Customer focused 0 1 6 8 6 6
Accessible 1 5 8 11 10 8
Predictable 0 0 3 3 4 6
Quality of the
application 0 6 6 6 6 6
Quality of the
assessment 2 3 5 7 7 6
Transparent 0 3 5 6 6 6
Efficient:
timeliness 1 4 9 9 11 12
Efficient: Costs 5 5 5 6 5 4
Risks 1 4 6 16 13 7
eRegister 0 2 2 2 2 2
Total 10 33 55 74 70 63
The following sections summarise the indicators’ behaviours and the underlying
assumptions for each of the improvement vectors identified.
178
1. Customer-focused procedure
Main assumption used for the below scores is that customers prefer: receiving local
support, maybe even face-to-face discussions, direct help and even co-creation of the
necessary documentation to ensure that it meets the legal requirements. Therefore, the
presence of the MS scrutiny step in the sui generis procedure essentially influenced the
scores awarded.
Benefit
indicator
[MS/EU]
COM only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY +
Consult MS +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
0 1 6 8 6 6
Modern,
scalable, and
customisable
procedure
1/5 2/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5
Level of the
PG/MS’
satisfaction
with the front
and back office
processes
including tools
40 % 70 % 75 % 80 % 75 % 75 %
Level of
satisfaction
with the
overall
registration
procedure
50 % 50 % 90 % 90 % 80 % 80 %
Services
characterised
as ‘customer-
centric’
1/5 1/5 3/5 4/5 4/5 4/5
179
2. Accessible procedure
Summary of the main criteria used to compare the options on the perception of the
burden of the GI registration procedures (including amendments).
- Accessibility of the process is an essential characteristic of any IP system.
- Ensuring 100 % accessibility of the system (tools, knowledge, support) is
considered cost intensive if processes and practices need to be created anew. The
AGENCY could extend its existing successful practices to cover the handling of
craft and industrial GIs as well, hence the higher scores awarded for the options
where the AGENCY plays a more substantive role.
- Options 1.4 and 1.5 received a lower score on the availability of customised
support, assuming that customers prefer to receive support from someone who
knows their area of business, from the same country and in their language, hence,
dealing directly with the AGENCY, without the MS step could be considered a
hindering factor.
Benefit indicator
[MS/EU]
COM only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY +
Consult MS +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
1 5 8 11 10 8
Availability of the
procedure related
information using
appropriate channels
and formats
1/5 4/5 4/5 5/5 3/5 2/5
Comprehensibility of
procedure related
information by non-
specialised public
(derivative material)
1/5 2/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 4/5
Customised support
available when filing
the application
1/5 3/5 4/5 4/5 3/5 3/5
User-friendly and
easy-to-use
application filing step
1/5 2/5 5/5 4/5 5/5 5/5
180
Benefit indicator
[MS/EU]
COM only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY +
Consult MS +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
1 5 8 11 10 8
Customised support
available throughout
the registration
procedure
3/5 3/5 3/5 5/5 5/5 5/5
Perception of
simplicity and ease of
understanding and
responding to the
process and
requirements
2/5 3/5 2/5 3/5 5/5 5/5
Procedures
characterised as
‘accessible’
1/5 3/5 3/5 4/5 3/5 2/5
181
3. Predictable procedure
Main assumptions:
- Predictability of the process and of the outcome is an aspect intensively requested
by the AGENCY’s users and also mentioned by the MS for the agricultural GIs,
hence its inclusion in the list of desired attributes of the GI procedures for crafts
and industrial products.
- Achieving predictable process and outcome is considered cost intensive if
processes and practices need to be created anew. The AGENCY already reached a
high maturity in this area, and could extend its existing successful practices, reuse
existing methodologies and structures to cover the handling of craft and industrial
GIs as well. Therefore, higher scores were awarded for the options where the
AGENCY plays a more substantive role.
Benefit indicator
[MS/EU]
COM
only
1.0 MS
+ COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.4 AGENCY
+ Consult MS
+ Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
0 0 3 3 4 6
Perception of the
predictability/Satisfaction
with the predictability of
the delay of the
procedure
1/5 1/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 5/5
Applicants are
proactively informed on
the status and the next
steps to registration
1/5 1/5 4/5 4/5 5/5 5/5
Level of satisfaction with
the predictability of the
registration outcome
1/5 1/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 5/5
182
4. Quality of the application
Summary of the main criteria used to compare the options on the quality of the
application for the GI registration procedures (including amendments).
- The quality of the application is an essential aspect of the efficiency in dealing
with IPR applications. The AGENCY has developed mechanisms for speedier
treatment of perfect applications (‘straight-through’ applications), which could be
put to good use for the GI process for crafts and industrial products.
- The quality of the applications depends heavily on the applicant, either the MS, or
the PG, and therefore additional effort needs to be invested in the ‘before filing’
part of the process, to ensure that the applicant has the appropriate level of
knowledge and understanding of the process, and that additional (automatic)
checks are implemented in the forms and tools used when effectively filing the
application. Again, these are cost and time intensive measures, and it is assumed
that during the first 3 years, they will not be fully operational, hence the lower
scores awarded for option 1.0.
Benefit
indicator
[MS/EU]
COM only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY +
Consult MS +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
0 6 6 6 6 6
Formalities
deficiency rate
(completeness
of the file)
10 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 %
Link description
deficiency rate
50 % 14 % 14 % 14 % 14 % 14 %
Product
description
deficiency rate
20 % 7 % 7 % 7 % 7 % 7 %
183
5. Quality of the output
Summary of the main criteria used to compare the options on the transparency of the GI
registration scrutiny procedures (including amendments).
Main assumptions:
- The AGENCY has invested heavily in the last 10+ years in creating and
perfecting its mechanisms to ensure that the output of the examination processes
(decisions and registrations publications) are consistent, meaning that similar
cases are treated the same way, thus resulting in a similar outcome and ensuring
that the reasoning/argumentation of the decision/observations is drafted using
plain words, in easy-to-understand language for the benefit of both specialised
and non-specialised customers. These mechanisms could be extended to the craft
and industrial GI files at very little marginal cost to the AGENCY, and no impact
at all on the COM’s budget.
- The creation of said quality assurance and control mechanisms is costly, even
with customised consultancy and advisory services, hence why the scores for
option 1.0 and 1.1 are lower for the first 3 years.
Benefit indicator
[MS/EU]
COM
only
1.0 MS
+ COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.4 AGENCY
+ Consult MS
+ Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
2 3 5 7 7 6
Level of the PG/MS’
satisfaction with the
consistency of the
preliminary results of
the assessment
60 % 60 % 80 % 80 % 80 % 80 %
Level of satisfaction
with the consistency
of the outcome of the
GI application
assessment
50 % 70 % 70 % 95 % 95 % 95 %
Level of the PG/MS’
satisfaction with the
clarity of the
observations on the
application file sent to
the MS
80 % 80 % 95 % 95 % 95 % 90 %
184
Benefit indicator
[MS/EU]
COM
only
1.0 MS
+ COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.4 AGENCY
+ Consult MS
+ Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
2 3 5 7 7 6
Level of the PG/MS’
satisfaction with the
overall registration
procedure
70 % 50 % 70 % 90 % 85 % 80 %
185
6. Transparency
Summary of the main criteria used to compare the options and of the main assumptions:
The craft and industrial GI applications will receive a significant amount of attention and
will be advertised both at the EU and at the MS level. Hence the pressure on keeping all
affected stakeholders informed on the progress of the file through the registration journey
is essential, and that requires additional effort if the process needs to be separately
created. The AGENCY already has a number of relevant customer engagement strategies
and processes implemented, hence the higher scores awarded for the options where the
AGENCY is assuming a more substantive role in the overall scenario (options 1.2 to
option 1.5).
Benefit
indicator
[MS/EU]
COM only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY +
Consult MS +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
0 3 5 6 6 6
Level of
satisfaction
with the
information
received on
each dossier
50 % 80 % 95 % 95 % 95 % 95 %
Level of
satisfaction
with the
quality of the
information
on the latest
changes to
scrutiny
practice
50 % 80 % 95 % 95 % 95 % 95 %
Level of
satisfaction
with their
engagement in
the decision-
making at EU
level
60 % 75 % 80 % 95 % 95 % 95 %
186
7. Efficient procedure
7.1 Length (timeliness of the procedure)
Summary of the main criteria used to compare the options on the length of the GI
registration procedures (including amendments).
1. 6 months are envisaged for the registration of a GI in the event of ‘perfect
applications’ – where no interaction with the MS/PG is needed – split as follows:
2 months for examination/scrutiny, 3 months for the opposition period, 1 month for
the preparation of the registration documentation336
.
2. In addition, 2 months are allowed for clearing any product description or link
description issues for 95 % of the dossiers (i.e. excluding those cases where long
waiting times are needed, until specific geographical aspects can be measured).
3. For Option 1.1, 4 months are allowed for the COM’s consultation and decision
procedures.
4. For Option 1.4, 5 months are allowed for the MS consultation step.
5. The benchmark used for the 2-month period used until the first action is issued (i.e.
examination completed, and observation letter sent out) is other IPR service
standards.
6. The benefits realisation time is estimated at minimum 3 years, allowing for a
transition period.
7. Target time is understood as an internal organisational objective, while the average
time / performance time can be calculated based on previous year(s), assuming that
sufficient cases are handled for the data to become relevant.
8. See all the assumptions made in the detailed analysis of each option.
Benefit indicator
[MS/EU]
COM
only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.4 AGENCY
+ Consult MS
+ Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
Totals 1 4 9 9 11 12
Duration of registration
procedure for applications with
no link or product description
issues (EU level, no oppositions)
10 months 10 months 6 months 6 months 11 months 6 months
Number of deficiency letters sent 4 on 3-4 on Max 2 Max 2 Max 2 Max 2
336
See https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/euipo-service-charter
187
Benefit indicator
[MS/EU]
COM
only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.4 AGENCY
+ Consult MS
+ Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only
per file average average
Time taken to send the first letter
of observations
4 months 2 months 2 months 2 months 2 months 2 months
Time taken to register - all cases
(EU level)
3 years on
average
Max
3 years
Average
2 years
Average
1.5 years
1.2 year
average
1 year
average
Time taken to register - all cases
(MS+EU level)
5 years on
average
Max
5 years
Average
3 years
Average
3 years
1.2 year
average
1 year
average
Level of the PGs satisfaction
with the duration of the
registration procedure
50 % 50 % 80 % 80 % 90 % 90 %
7.2 Costs
Summary of the main criteria used to compare the options on the costs of the GI
registration procedures for crafts and industrial products (including amendments).
 For options 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, the AGENCY will be able to absorb the effort
necessary to process the applications, with no impact on the COM’s budget.
 The costs of the AGENCY are assumed to increase proportionally with the level of
the AGENCY’s responsibility and autonomy in managing GI files.
 The MS’ costs consider potential effort (time dedicated) to accompanying the
applicant throughout the full life cycle of the GI IPR, assessing the application
dossier and moving it through the registration journey, liaising with the EU (COM
or AGENCY), preparing informative material and communication campaigns for
the potential customers, etc.
 The costs, or changes in costs, presented in the table below are estimated for the
first 3 years from the date of entry into force and they refer to the availability,
rather than time effectively spent (e.g. there are 2 FTEs reserved for handling
appeals, however, it is highly unlikely that that amount of time will be effectively
188
spent on handling appeals during the first 3 years, given that the appeal rate is
expected to be low).337
 See all the assumptions made in the detailed analysis of each option.
Benefit
indicator
[MS/EU]
COM
only
1.0 MS
+ COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY +
COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY +
COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY
+ Consult MS
+ Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5 AGENCY
only
Totals 5 5 5 6 5 4
Costs for the
PG:
application
fee at MS
level if
applicable
MS control
fees if
applicable
No
change
No change No change No change N/A N/A
Costs for the
PGs:
application
fees at EU
level
No fee No fee No fee No fee Application fee
Application
fee
Costs (in
FTEs) for the
COM
20 6 2 0 0 0
Costs (in
FTEs) for the
AGENCY
0 9 10 12 15 20
Costs for the
MS
MS
scrutiny
MS scrutiny MS scrutiny MS scrutiny
MS
consultation
0
337
Source: MS questionnaire 2021, estimated appeal rate (the highest possible appeal rate scenario): max
2%, reference EUTM appeal rate approx. 10% at a volume of rounded 150k TM applications per year.
Optimistic scenario: 800 non AGRI GI over 3 years, 2% appeals=16 appeals. EUIPO estimated 2020
360FTEs / 2500 appeals filed = 0.14 FTEs/appeal dossier.
189
8. Advantages and Risks
The scoring for the risks included in the table below is built in such a way that the
principle higher score implies a better option is maintained, as follows: low impact-low
probability risks are marked in green and awarded 2 points, medium impact and
probability risks are marked in yellow and given 1 point, and finally, high impact and
high probability risks are marked in red and given 0 points. Where no significant risks
have been identified, the respective option is marked N/A in green and given 2 points,
thus giving a higher score for the options with less impact risks.
The summary of the main criteria used to compare the options on the risks identified for
the craft and industrial GI registration procedures (including amendments) are presented
below.
 It is assumed that the MS are in favour of maintaining/creating a MS-level
procedure.
 It is assumed that the greater the number of stakeholders involved, the greater the
probability of complexity, and therefore the greater the probability of confusion,
diffusion of responsibility and potential confusion of the PGs.
 See all the assumptions made in the detailed analysis of each option.
Benefit
indicator
[MS/EU]
COM only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY +
COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion + COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY +
COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY +
Consult MS +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.5 AGENCY only
Totals 1 4 6 16 13 7
PGs Risk of a
lengthy and
burdensome
procedure for
registering
craft and
industrial GIs
Risk of lack of
legal certainty;
the COM
decision has a
dual nature (i.e.
it pronounces
itself on two
matters at the
same time – the
recommendation
of the AGENCY
and the GI
application
itself)
Risk of
confusion over
choosing the
applicable
administrative
procedure for
the appeals
No equivalent
risk detected
Risk of the
perception that
the EU
administration is
too
geographically
far or that there
will be linguistic
barriers or no
availability of
speakers of a
given language
Risk of higher cost
as communicating
directly with an EU
Level AGENCY
190
Benefit
indicator
[MS/EU]
COM only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY +
COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion + COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY +
COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY +
Consult MS +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.5 AGENCY only
No appeal
possible, only
action before the
Court
Risk of having
to deal with
divergent
practices
between the
examination
body and the
appeal body
MS Risk of
unclear
communicati
on channel
leading to
legal
uncertainty
Risk of
confusion at MS
and PG level
over the division
of
responsibilities
between the
AGENCY and
the COM
Risk of long
delays until a
political
agreement is
reached in
case of
appeals with
no agreements
No equivalent
risk detected
Risk of losing
that special
connection to the
local producers,
risk of lack of
recognition of
their work in the
creation of
registrable
dossiers
Risk of not having a
say in the protection
of nationally rooted
products
No appeal
possible, only
action before the
Court.
EU/COM/
AGENCY
Risk of lack
of economies
of scale and
significant
loss of
opportunity
to take
advantage of
available
resources and
synergies in
an IP
AGENCY
Risk of
duplication of
efforts between
the AGENCY
and the COM
Risk of
reputational
damage in
case the
appeals’
outcomes are
consistently
changing the
first instance’s
decisions
Risk of lack of
expertise in
product sectors
in the
AGENCY
Risk of lack of
expertise in
product sectors
in the AGENCY
Risk of a substantial
decrease in the
effectiveness of the
GI quality scheme
due to the lack of
direct MS
involvement
Risks of
reputational
damage due to
potential
conflicts over
the ownership of
the decision /
assuming the
responsibility of
the decision on a
political level
No equivalent
risk detected
Moderate
likelihood that
the MS will
oppose the EU-
only level
procedure, given
their added value
in relation to the
PGs
High likelihood that
the MS will oppose
the EU-only level
procedure, given
their added value in
relation to the PGs
No equivalent Risk of lack of Risk of lack of local
191
Benefit
indicator
[MS/EU]
COM only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY +
COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion + COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY +
COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY +
Consult MS +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.5 AGENCY only
Risk of
creating a
costly
procedure for
EU bodies
(COM and
AGENCY)
due to not re-
using an
existing
AGENCY’s
appeal body
rather than
creating a new
structure in
DG GROW to
handle GI
appeals;
risk detected local expertise to
assess the
geographical
link leading to
high cost in
expert assistance
expertise to assess
the geographical
link leading to high
cost in expert
assistance
Risk of
decreased
legal certainty
for the PG
groups and
other IPR
owners for not
re-using the
consistency
seeking
mechanisms
already in
place in the
AGENCY’s
appeal body;
No equivalent
risk detected
No equivalent
risk detected
No equivalent risk
detected
192
Benefit
indicator
[MS/EU]
COM only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY +
COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion + COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY +
COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.4 AGENCY +
Consult MS +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY only
1.5 AGENCY only
Risk of losing
the
opportunity to
create an
integrated IPR
system joining
and reusing
efficient
customer
driven
procedures for
several types
of IP rights;
No equivalent
risk detected
Risk of a
decrease in the
number of new
applications due
to a low reach in
the potential
number of
interested PGs
Risk of a decrease in
the number of new
applications due to a
low reach in the
potential number of
interested PGs
Consumers
Risk of
bearing the
cost of a
burdensome
registration
procedure
Risk of bearing
the cost of a
burdensome
registration
procedure
Risk of
confusion and
feeling
overwhelmed
by the
complexity of
the issues
No equivalent
risk detected
No equivalent
risk detected
No equivalent risk
detected
193
9. eRegister
Summary of the main criteria used to compare the options on the eRegister with the
AGENCY:
 It is assumed that a positive impact will be achieved if the eRegister is managed by
the AGENCY, by taking advantage of the resources available and the readiness of
the AGENCY to invest resources in adding value to the GI quality scheme.
 See all the assumptions made in the detailed analysis in the previous section of this
document.
Benefit indicator
[MS/EU]
COM
only
1.0 MS +
COM
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.1 MS+
AGENCY
opinion +
COM
decision
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
+ COM
1.2 MS +
AGENCY
decision +
COM
appeal
[MS/EU]
AGENCY
only
1.3 MS +
AGENCY +
Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.4 AGENCY
+ Consult MS
+ Appeal
body/Scientific
Board
[EU only]
AGENCY
only
1.5
AGENCY
only +
Appeal
body
Totals 0 2 2 2 2 2
eRegister with the
AGENCY
NO YES YES YES YES YES
194
PART D: EU certification marks
Application filed
Trigger
1. Process incoming
communications
2. Examine EUTM
application
User Examiner
3. Perform Translation
Application OK
Application
NOT OK
5. Handle Opposition
Changes to
Register/
Inspections
Trigger
8. IP Management
Decision
appealed
6. Register and publish
EUTM
Appeal filed
Decision
appealed
Opposition filed
Trigger
4. Publish EUTM application
User
Invalidity/
Revocation filed
Trigger
7. Handle Invalidity/
Revocation (Cancellation)
Decision
appealed
Appeal filed
Application refused
(totally / partially)
Output
Appeal filed
EUTM bulletin
published
Output
EUTM application
refused (totally/
partially)/limited
Output
Opposition rejected
Output
EUTM revoked/invalid
(totally/partially)
Output
Revocation/invalidity
rejected
Output
Oppo filed
Oppo not filed
EUTM registered and
published
Output
Register maintained
End
of
Procees
User
User
Decision not appealed
Decision
Decision not
appealed
Decision not
appealed
Decision
Decision
Decision not
appealed
Decision
appealed
Appeal filed
International
Registration
Trigger
WIPO
Product
&
Service
Quality
Activities
Product & Service Quality Activities
Examiner
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
3. CERTIFICATION TRADE MARK
195
1. Timeliness
The timeliness for EU certification mark registration is not representative of the full
process as these do not include the preparatory work required at the PG level. The
preparatory work on drafting the product specification and actually setting up the scheme
by a PG is the main goal of the exercise. Without this step, a PG cannot even file for a
certification TM. For some products a challenge for defining the territorial link starts
early on in the process, with the question arising as to how the region should even be
defined338
. Without a clear public/collective component, PGs will struggle to draft their
own product specifications, thus setting the rules of all the potential users of the name.
They may also fail to see the benefit of that effort.
2. Cost
The cost for the PGs consists in application fees, the costs for creating/formalising the
necessary control systems and the cost of creating the application documentation pack.
While the latter may vary according to the choices of the PGs and local economic
conditions, the basic fee for the application for a certification EUTM by electronic means
is EUR 1500339
.
The EUIPO’s (AGENCY) administrative costs for managing the lifecycle of the trade
mark, including the tasks necessary before, during and after the registration (application,
opposition, renewal, cancellation, appeal, recordals340
, etc.) of the IPR are monitored
through the concept of a unit cost, calculated according to the rules published by the
COM. The AGENCY monitored and published its workforce product unit costs in the
institutional planning and reporting documentation341
. The product workforce unit cost
does not include any overhead costs. This indicator cost was around EUR 650 per unit of
product. Therefore, one could surmise that the administrative costs for the complete
lifecycle of a certification EUTM, after the legislative reform is effectively implemented,
could reach similar values, excluding overhead costs (IT licences, office space, etc.).
Registering a craft and industrial GI through a certification TM would imply an
additional condition regarding the use of the trade mark. This is not currently the case
with the agricultural GIs, and that may give way to the possibility that a registered craft
and industrial GI is challenged due to lack of use after a period of time has passed since
its entry on the register. This requirement can add unnecessary burden and may prove
challenging especially for the small producers at the moment when such proof of use
may be requested.
Another aspect to be highlighted is the risk that with time certain names become generic
should the proprietor not take appropriate action to defend its IPR against generic use,
and that implies additional cost and effort.
338
See Study: Study: Economic aspects of geographical indication protection at EU level for non-
agricultural products, 2020, p 72.
339
https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/fees-payable-direct-to-euipo
340
A recordal is an entry in the EUIPO Register, the database containing particulars of all trade marks and
designs registered by the EUIPO, which implies the amendment of certain information therein.
341
https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/annual-report, p. A6.
196
The costs to the AGENCY and MSs are not comparable, since the procedure will consist
only in the examination of the TM, and not of the product specification (the GI scheme).
Hence the mere cost of the TM registration could be, to the best extent, only comparable
to any administrative fee that might be put in place for the GI scheme, which is highly
unlikely, as the current agricultural GI scheme does not involve any administrative fee
for the registration of a GI at EU level, and therefore the assumption is that there would
be no administrative fee imposed to craft and industrial GI applications under a possible
sui generis option (depending on the option chosen this may vary). In that respect it is
clear that while under the TM option the PG would have to bear all the costs of setting up
the scheme as well as the administrative fees of filing a TM and further enforcement, this
burden would not exist in case of sui generis EU protection if comparison drawn to the
current agricultural GI EU level scheme.
In conclusion, and under the assumption that the assessment of a craft and industrial GI
under a sui generis option, would be assumed by the AGENCY, which is already in
charge of trade marks, it can be clearly made that in both options the administrative
burden for the AGENCY would be comparable.
Finally, when it comes to enforcement, it should be borne in mind that the enforcement
efforts would be entirely the responsibility of the proprietor of the certification trade
mark342
. Many producers expressed concern with regard to the costs related to the use of
the trade mark system. Although registration fees are not very high, enforcement costs
have indeed proved to be quite significant for some producers who had to file oppositions
and/or take legal actions against infringements of their trade mark rights. This comes in
particular from the fact that a plaintiff in a trade mark case has the burden of proving that
the defendant’s use of a mark has created a likelihood of confusion for consumers about
the origin of the product, which is difficult to demonstrate, especially in a foreign
country. This appears to be a serious issue, in particular for small and medium-sized,
enterprises which represent a large majority of the non-agricultural sectors covered by
the study. Moreover, producers have to bear enforcement costs, without any support of
public authorities343
.
3. Key advantages and main risks
Two tables below present a number of key advantages and risks identified for the main
stakeholders, considered for the purpose of this analysis paper, in the event that the
protection of a craft and industrial GI IPR is instrumented by means of an EU
certification trade mark.
342
See Study on geographical indications protection for non-agricultural products in the internal market,
2013, p 40.
343
See Study on geographical indications protection for non-agricultural products in the internal market,
2013, p 43-44, and p 96.
197
Stakeholder Key advantage
For PGs User-friendly and efficient procedure to register a trade mark at EU level
available.
For MS Existing knowledge and practice for the MS currently offering this
protection by means of certification trade marks.
For the COM No administrative burden, economies of scale for the EU institutions,
efficiency gains.
For the AGENCY The AGENCY could make a significant contribution to the EU IPR system
with relatively low additional costs after the legal instrument is effectively
implemented. The AGENCY could also put its existing IT infrastructure to
use, which would ultimately benefit the internal market (EU/MS level).
For consumers Easy understanding of the use of a trade mark.
Stakeholder Key risks
For PGs High administrative and legal burden
High enforcement burden
For MS No verification of the link with the geographical area
Proliferation of privately owned ‘geographical terms’ diluting the existence
of cultural heritage (as provided for and expressed through geographically
linked products and their relation to a particular area)
For the COM No verification of the link with the geographical area
Legal uncertainty
No harmonisation for GIs on the EU level
No strengthening of GIs and sui generis IPR (impact on relations with non-
EU countries, including promotion of GI policy)
For the AGENCY N/A
For consumers Risk of being mislead
No verification of the link with the geographical area by a public authority
(no guarantee of the authenticity of the product’s origin)
198
ANNEX 10: THE EU ENTITY TO ADMINISTER THE NEW EU GI SCHEME FOR
CI PRODUCTS AT THE EU AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
This Annex provides a more detailed overview of the key aspects underpinning the
preferred choice for the EU entity responsible to administer the new EU GI scheme for
CI products at EU and International level (i.e. Commission outsourcing the
administration of the EU CI GI scheme to an EU Agency, EUIPO). It also describes in
detail the steps required to outsource the Role of Competent Authority in WIPO’s Lisbon
System for CI GIs to an EU agency (EUIPO), notably, revisiting Council Decision (EU)
2019/1754 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1753.
1. Some Key Aspects for the Policy Choice
The introduction of a new EU level GI scheme for non-agricultural (craft and industrial-
CI-) products raises the question which EU entity should be in charge of the tasks arising
from the new GI scheme registration process for CI products. Whether such EU entity
would be the Commission or a specialised EU Agency like the EU Intellectual Property
Office (EUIPO), taking into consideration prior acquired experience and capacity and in
view of identifying the most efficient and effective authority.
The issue of the competent EU entity is also intrinsically linked to GIs being attached to
the national cultural heritages and traditional know-how of Member States, who also play
a role in the specialised EU Agency, as full members of the Management Board of
EUIPO, together with the Commission and European Parliament representatives.
Some relevant factors that can have an impact on such crucial policy choice are
related to considerations which derived from the creation of a new EU GI scheme, and
the need to keep an approach which is consistent with the existing GI scheme for
agricultural products, wine, spirits, etc., taking due account of the differences stemming
from the nature of the products, and the respective EU policy considerations involved.
Policy considerations to take into consideration:
- The replacement of national IPRs for CI GIs by an EU CI GI scheme. Under the
preferred option, the most favoured solution as proposed in the Impact
Assessment foresees no co-existence between the new EU-level GI rights and
rights provided for by parallel national systems. In this regard, the preferred
option advocates for a system where national systems and GI titles are absorbed
by the EU new scheme and there are no possible conflicts between the national
and the EU level GI scheme. This would be coherent with the existing GI system
for agricultural products being exhaustively and exclusively regulated at EU level
- The role of national authorities in the context of a one-stage or two-stage
procedures for the handling and registration of EU CI GIs. Under the preferred
option, the most favoured solution as proposed in the Impact Assessment would
follow envisaging a two-stage registration process where the first stage entails
national scrutiny of the product specifications and GI application by the GI
producer carried out by national/regional authorities, and the second stage
(decision on registration) is to be carried at the EU level by an EU entity. The
choice of having a two-stage procedure is coherent with the existing set of sui
199
generis GI schemes provided for by EU legislation for agricultural products.
Finally, the two-stage approach is considered beneficial as it preserves the local
knowledge/expertise vested in respective MS and also due to the perceived
familiarity of producer groups to the national authorities as their closest point of
contact.
- The existing EU GI regimes for agricultural products, wines, spirits, etc… which
is currently subject to a reform. In this regard, the Impact Assessment of DG
AGRI points that the reform of the EU GI schemes for agricultural products
advocates for increased involvement of an existing EU agency in the
registration process.
- Another factor is that the capacity of an EU entity in charge of registration and
the capacity to act as the EU’s Competent Authority in the Lisbon system are
substantively entwined and optimally, they should be kept together. An EU entity
in charge of administering the EU legal scheme would be best placed to assess
whether the same kind of IPRs from outside the EU should be recognised within
the EU, as is case with the Lisbon system. This approach would be comparable to
the trade mark and design systems, where the EUIPO is a registering Office for
EU titles applied for directly to the Office or via WIPO’s Madrid or Hague
system. This way, the acquired expertise and resources could be utilised to their
maximum. This includes the existing infrastructure as a communication channel
between EUIPO and WIPO IT landscapes. Under Regulation (EU) 2019/1753,
the Commission has been designated as the EU’s Competent Authority in the
Lisbon system. Nevertheless, provisions of the Geneva Act344
allow for the
possibility to transfer such capacity to an EU Agency (EUIPO) in respect of CI
GIs or consider to have two different Competent Authorities. While it appears
general practice that Lisbon Members designate a single authority which is the IP
office/national agency in charge of IP matters, it is not precluded by the Lisbon
provisions to differ from such general trend.
As further explained in Annexes 3 and 9, tasks of an EU entity to administer non-
agricultural GIs in such double capacity would include:
- Managing the registration procedure, including examination, publication,
oppositions, amendments, cancellations, and appeals;
- Liaising with WIPO for Lisbon/Geneva related applications, including:
forwarding requests for international registrations of EU GIs, and receipt of
notifications of international registrations for non-EU GIs seeking protection in
344
Article 3 of the Geneva Act (Competent Authority): “Each Contracting Party shall designate an entity
which shall be responsible for the administration of this Act in its territory and for communications with
the International Bureau under this Act. The Contracting Party shall notify the name and contact details of
such Competent Authority to the International Bureau, as specified in the Regulations.”
Rule 4(2) of the Common Regulations: “[One Authority or Different Authorities] The notification referred
to in paragraph (1) shall, preferably, indicate a single Competent Authority. When a Contracting Party
notifies different Competent Authorities, this notification shall clearly indicate their respective competence
in respect of the presentation of applications and other communications to, and the receipt of
communications from, the International Bureau.
200
the EU as well as processing those international registration (i.e. assessment and
decision on respective requests).
- Development and management of IT systems (i.e. back and front office) to
support all of the above;
- Development and management of a CI GI eRegister.
2. The Preferred Policy Choice: an Existing EU Agency (EUIPO)
2.1 Arguments weighing in favour of EUIPO as the EU entity in charge are as
follows:
- EU internal market registration purposes:
 The EUIPO is a specialised EU agency to offer IP rights protection. Its core
business includes the registration of EU trade marks and EU registered designs
and (on the basis of Article 152 EUTMR) managing cooperation activities with
MS. By contrast, the Commission’s role focuses on instigating and implementing
EU policies. The tasks of an EU institution to administer CI GIs are focused on
case by case administration of applications for protection, managing a register,
dealing with fees and processing requests for procedures related to specific rights.
As pointed in Annex 9, the Commission (DG GROW) does not have either the
experience or the required expertise to handle a registration process for GI
applications. In addition, the Commission lacks the necessary resources to assess
and manage these processes as part of its daily tasks. Furthermore, the EUIPO has
the experience, the expertise and the IT tools that could extend to support the new
IP right (instead of building new tools).
 EU level or potentially EU-wise IP rights are overwhelmingly granted by
specialised agencies such the EUIPO, the EPO and the CPVO (Community
Plant Variety Office).345
These offices have specially trained staff dealing with
case-based files and in daily touch with applicants or right holders as their normal
clientele. While DG AGRI is the historic EU entity dealing with agricultural GIs
and equipped with all appropriate technical specialisation and expertise, this
situation is untypical for IPRs, and for DG GROW, and it does not currently
extend to established routines covering CI GIs.
 The development of agricultural GIs is closely related to the EU’s common
agricultural and rural development policy. In respect of agricultural GIs, it is
the Commission to be in charge even if in the later years a Pilot project to
delegate the registration assessment to EUIPO has been put in place, and the
current ongoing reform foresees also delegating to EUIPO some of the
registration steps/procedures. The fact that DG AGRI has been acting as EU
institution responsible for GI registration, is mainly due to historical and policy
reasons stemming from the EU’s exclusive competence on agricultural GIs and
345
Further examples of agencies involved in other policy areas where EU rights are granted include EMA,
ECHA and EFSA.
201
the EU’s common agricultural policy together with its link to the rural policy
area. Most of the agricultural GI protected titles cover agricultural products that
are subject to EU harmonised product legislation. This is different for CI
products, which may not be subject to EU harmonised product legislation and
therefore may be subject to the general product safety legislation (GSPD). The
COM does not exert direct control over their safety and healthy requirements, as
opposed to agricultural products. A newly created system does not necessarily
have to be tied by the roots of its agricultural counterpart when it comes to the
role of the EU authority responsible.
 Agricultural GIs are linked to food law and health concerns, and require
stringent checks and controls; whereas craft and industrial GIs are more related to
reputation alone, which brings them closer to the classic domain of an IP Agency.
 In case of a two-phased registration procedure involving a national phase, the
EUIPO could also rely on its extensive expertise and network in the field of
cooperation with national IP authorities. That kind of practical routine within
the Commission is currently limited to national agricultural authorities and would
have to be established at a different operational level in respect of national
authorities dealing with CI GIs.
 In several countries, including some EU Member States that provide GI
protection for CI products at national level, a divide in competence between
agricultural and CI GIs is familiar, where the ministry of agriculture deals with
agricultural GIs and the IP office with non-agricultural or CI GIs346
. A similar
divide between the Commission (in its retained role after the AGRI reform) for
agricultural GIs and EUIPO for CI GIs would thus not strike as unusual.
 The EUIPO has resources for, and extensive knowledge and experience in, three
critical aspects of the IPRs before, during and after registration lifecycle: the
operational management, including consistency and predictability practice
building; IT tools development and maintenance; and collaborative working with
staff from the EU MS within the EU IP Network. Considering the amount of
potential synergies between CI GIs and TMs and DS procedures, the impact on
the EUIPO’s budget is expected to be limited while the impact on the
Commission’s budget under this preferred policy choice is null.
 By appointing EUIPO, further efficiency gains would be achieved by using
EUIPO’s appeal body (Boards of Appeal), thus eliminating a need to create a new
structure in COM/DG GROW to handle CI GI related appeals. This would allow
for legal certainty for the producer groups by re-using the consistency seeking
mechanisms in place in the EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal. Finally, this approach
would provide for an integrated IPR system, by joining and reusing first and
second instance efficient customer driven procedures for several IP rights.
346
According to the 2013 legal study, such countries are: Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. France is now in a similar situation.
202
- EU International registration purposes:
As regards the role of Competent Authority in the Lisbon system, the EUIPO
currently has the same capacity in respect of two other international registration
systems administered by WIPO: the Madrid system for trade marks and the Hague
system for designs. Handling the interface with international systems requires
familiarity with highly specific procedures and with the operation of WIPO’s
International Bureau and registries. EUIPO has the valuable asset of
institutional knowledge in this regard. Therefore, the EUIPO would be better
suited to carrying out tasks related to such role as well.
2.2 Possible arguments in favour of the Commission as the EU Institution
responsible:
Looking at the other side of the coin, possible arguments in favour of the
Commission as the EU institution in charge could be:
 EU internal market registration purposes: Agricultural GIs are administered
by the Commission, which is a tradition rooted in exclusive EU competence and
historic reasons relating to agricultural policy. EU Member States are accustomed
to deal with their GI issues in Brussels. Given the close link with national cultural
heritages and traditional know-how, there is political prestige attached to the
place of EU level business settled in Brussels.
In this context, it appears crucial to highlight that the reform of the EU GI
schemes for agricultural products advocates increased involvement of an existing
EU agency in the registration process.
 With the creation of a new GI scheme for non-agricultural products, the EU’s GI
regime should preferably retain a uniform approach to all GIs. Traditions in the
EU related to this particular IP title would point in the direction of keeping all GIs
tied to the same venue of administration, that is, the Commission.
In this respect, it is relevant that according to the most favoured solution
proposed in the Impact Assessment, some elements of the new GI scheme for craft
and industrial products would in any case have to divert from the uniform
approach/umbrella provisions due to significant differences between agricultural
and craft and industrial products.
 There is institutional knowledge within DG AGRI to deal with special
characteristics of GIs as IPRs (such as assessing title-specific eligibility criteria or
practically dealing with product specifications). Institutional knowledge also
encompasses any kind of multiple phases within the registration procedure,
whether in cooperation with national authorities or in the framework of special
operational schemes of cooperation within the Commission. All that existing
institutional knowledge could be more optimally transferable within the
Commission services than in the case of outsourcing to EUIPO.
Again, it needs to be considered that the reform of the EU GI schemes for
agricultural products advocates for an increased involvement of an existing EU
agency in the registration process. In any case, such institutional knowledge has
been gradually transferred to EUIPO, which has already been tested under the
203
pilot carried out by DG AGRI and EUIPO would therefore be prepared to extend
it to craft and industrial products.
- EU International registration purposes:
 As regards the role of Competent Authority in the Lisbon system, the
Commission has started to gather practical experience following accession to the
Geneva Act. Although the Commission’s aptitude in handling daily operational
ties with WIPO’s International Bureau is yet to be tested in practice in the longer
run, it would be simpler for both WIPO and third country Lisbon members to deal
with one and the same EU institution in charge of all GIs.
In this respect it appears relevant to note that the Commission’s experience has
entailed considerable challenges implying time consuming exercises straining
human resources in the relatively short time since the EU’s accession to the
Geneva Act became operational. At the same time, it cannot be excluded that new
trends as prompted by the AGRI reform could potentially imply some openness to
reconsider whether the Commission should retain its role of Competent Authority
altogether or keep it only for agricultural GIs.
Based on all the complex considerations taking into account the factors outlined above, it
appears that an existing EU Agency (EUIPO) would be better suited to take up the
role as EU entity in charge of managing the EU-level stage of the registration
process under a new EU GI scheme for non-agricultural products.
3. Implementation of the Preferred Choice as to the Role of Competent
Authority in the Lisbon System: Revisiting Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754
and Regulation (EU) 2019/1753
The interface between current EU legislation on GIs and the international instrument
(Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement) is addressed by Council Decision (EU)
2019/1754 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1753, regulating EU action following accession to
the multilateral registration system. As mentioned above, currently the Commission is
the Competent Authority designated by the EU responsible for the administration of the
Geneva Act (Art. 4 of Decision 2019/1754, Art. 3 of the Geneva Act).
This role could be shifted to EUIPO in two possible ways:
- By amending this provision in the Regulation to state that in respect of non-
agricultural GIs the EUIPO is the Competent Authority, and by notifying
WIPO accordingly. (This would be accompanied by creating a definition or
reference to what „CI geographical indications” means, which could be useful in
the case of other amendments, too.)
- By formally leaving the role of Competent Authority with the Commission and
designating EUIPO as the assisting institution in a similar way as
Committees listed in respect of agricultural GIs (Art. 15 of the Regulation,
„Committee procedure”).
204
In both cases, the role of Competent Authority in the Lisbon system should follow from
the role of EU entity deciding on the registration of CI GIs. The latter capacity should be
established and detailed by legislation on the new EU GI scheme.
The former option for adjusting the interface with Lisbon appears a simpler and
better choice. EUIPO has the same position in respect of EU Trade Marks and EU
Registered Designs already.
As highlighted in the Impact Assessment, the EU’s Competent Authority has two
roles:
- „Outbound”: File international applications to WIPO’s International Bureau to
seek protection for registered EU GIs in third countries, which now becomes
possible for CI GIs (Article 2(1) of the Regulation).
- „Inbound”: Assess third country GIs registered in the International Register. This
becomes a more substantial role where administration of systemic refusal by
means of a simplified procedure is replaced by a real and effective examination
process.
In both contexts, appropriate corresponding amendments in the Regulation are
called for in view of the preferred choice of shifting the role of Competent Authority
to EUIPO.
A. Changes in provisions on filing international applications to WIPO
Article 2(1) of the Regulation focuses on three issues to regulate the „outbound” action:
 Repeating a provision in the Decision that the Commission is the Competent
Authority, while also limiting filing action to agricultural GIs. EUIPO needs to
be introduced as the Competent Authority in respect of CI GIs, either using
the same reference to the term „non-agricultural geographical indications”
as envisaged in Article 4 of the Decision, or making new references in both
instances to “crafts and industrial products”. The reference to GIs „protected
and registered under Union law” could strictly speaking be considered obsolete347
and as such deleted, but it appears appropriate to leave it in place in this specific
case, as it would now only confirm that outbound action is only possible on the
basis of EU level registrations.
 Member States’ requests to register their GIs in the International Register and
on what basis they can make such requests. Here, it is to be clarified that in
respect of non-agricultural or CI GIs requests are to be made to EUIPO and
not to the Commission.
 The form of action taken to achieve an international filing is an implementing
act in case of the Commission for agricultural GIs. It has to be clarified that
EUIPO does not need to adopt an implementing act but simply proceeds on
the basis of its own decision on granting protection for a non-agricultural or CI
GI.
347
This term was originally used to also tacitly limit the opportunity of filing action to existing EU GI
schemes for agricultural products.
205
B. Changes in provisions remodelling the examination procedure
The current model of systemic refusal of CI GIs from other countries party to the Geneva
Act in a simplified procedure is based on the elimination of at least three stages of
normal routine applicable for agricultural GIs (where protection is in fact available): the
elimination of publication, opposition and substantive examination. Logically, remedy
against the refusal is also eliminated.348
A real and effective examination procedure can be remodelled as follows:
 Following the notification of an international registration by WIPO’s
International Bureau, the assessment of the product is no longer necessary to
decide if it relates to a non-agricultural or CI GI (Art. 4(1)(b) and Art. 5(2) of the
Regulation).
 Publication will have to follow (Art. 4(1)(b) of the Regulation). The application
for international registration has to open up for opposition by admissible
opponents. Publication no longer needs to require that the international
registration “relates to a product in respect of which protection at Union level of
geographical indications is provided”. This results in the deletion of Article
4(1)(b) of the Regulation and the simplification of Article 4(1) to a single
sentence.
 It should be EUIPO to publish in respect of CI GIs, “replacing” publication in
the Official Journal by the Commission. This needs to be stated in revised Art.
4(1).
 Details of the publication by EUIPO may be further addressed in interface
provisions of the new legislation on CI GIs if necessary. For example, Article
190 of the EUTMR provides for the publication of more information in the same
context349
. If such additional rules are needed outside the Regulation, a reference
can be inserted in the Regulation accordingly.
348
This follows not from the Regulation but from Article 15(5) of the Geneva Act: [National Treatment]
Each Contracting party shall make available to interested parties affected by a refusal the same judicial and
administrative remedies that are available to its own nationals in respect of the refusal of protection for an
appellation of origin or a geographical indication.
349
1. The Office shall publish the date of registration of a mark designating the Union pursuant to Article
3(4) of the Madrid Protocol or the date of the subsequent designation of the Union pursuant to Article
3ter(2) of the Madrid Protocol, the language of filing of the international application and the second
language indicated by the applicant, the number of the international registration and the date of publication
of such registration in the Gazette published by the International Bureau, a reproduction of the mark and
the numbers of the classes of the goods or services in respect of which protection is claimed.
16.6.2017 L 154/80 Official Journal of the European Union EN.
2. If no refusal of protection of an international registration designating the Union has been notified in
accordance with Article 5(1) and (2) of the Madrid Protocol or if any such refusal has been withdrawn, the
Office shall publish this fact, together with the number of the international registration and, where
applicable, the date of publication of such registration in the Gazette published by the International Bureau.
206
 Article 5(1) of the Regulation sets out requirements as to the assessment
following publication. The safeguard relating to “a product in respect of which
protection at Union level of geographical indications is provided” is obsolete and
can be deleted. At the same time, EUIPO needs to be mentioned as a possible
player carrying out the assessment.
 The time limit for assessment under Article 5 is 4 months from the date of the
international registration (Art 5(2) of the Regulation).
 Opposition becomes possible for a rule, and not only in the case of publication
by mistake as in the old model on the basis of a specific ground (Art. 6(2)(e) of
the Regulation). Eligible opponents (Art. 6(1) of the Regulation), the grounds of
opposition (Art. 6(2) of the Regulation) and the time limit for opposition (four
months from the date of publication) are the same for all GIs. However, the
special ground for opposition listed in Art. 6(2)(e) that “the geographical
indication registered in the International Register relates to a product in respect of
which protection at Union level of geographical indications is not provided”
becomes obsolete and is deleted. At the same time, EUIPO needs to be
mentioned as a possible actor to receive and assess oppositions in Art. 6(1)
and 6(3).
 The decision on grant or refusal of protection (Art. 7 of the Regulation)
- It is based on the assessment carried out pursuant to Art. 5 if conditions laid down
are not fulfilled.
- In respect of agricultural GIs the decision is adopted by the Commission, with the
assistance of the committees competent for wine-sector products, aromatised
wine products, spirit drinks and agricultural products and foodstuffs, as listed in
Art. 15(1) of the Regulation. It needs to be specified that in respect of non-
agricultural GIs, the decision is adopted by EUIPO. (Article 7(1) and 7(2) of
the Regulation)
- Notification of refusal to the WIPO IB (Art. 15 of Geneva Act) has to take place
within one year from the receipt of the notification of the international
registration (Art. 7(4) of the Regulation). Art. 5 of the Decision and the EU’s
declaration in the notification of the instrument of accession sought an extension
by one year of this time limit of one year referred to in Article 15(1) of the
Geneva Act. However, according to Article 29(4) of the Geneva Act, this
extension would only have applied to third country GIs already registered under
the Geneva Act before the EU’s accession. As the EU’s accession coincided with
the entry into force of the Geneva Act, there were no such GIs. Therefore, the
general time limit of one year applies to the EU’s notifications of refusal. In any
event, EUIPO needs to be mentioned as a possible actor to notify a refusal of
protection.
- Formal requirements about the decision on either grant of protection (Article 7(3)
of the Regulation) or refusal of protection (Article 7(4) of the Regulation) apply
for all GIs.
- Remedy available against refusal (Art. 15(5) of Geneva Act): the EU has to
provide the same remedy as to its „own nationals”, that is, as provided for in
207
new legislation on CI GIs. The Regulation is tacit on this issue, which is
sustainable. However, a decision on refusal of protection normally contains
information on the availability of such remedy.
 When EU level protection for non-agricultural GIs becomes available, all
registrations relating to third country non-agricultural GIs necessarily refused
protection until that moment in time will have to be revisited. The opportunity of
this is secured by the possibility of withdrawal of refusal (Art. 7(5) of
Regulation, Art. 16 of the Geneva Act):
- In whole or in part;
- By means of an implementing act adopted by the Commission (in the same way
as the decision on refusal);
- Notification of the WIPO IB has to take place without delay.
The flexibility here is significant, as there is no time limit for such subsequent step,
by means of which EU level protection can be granted in a later stage.
There is need to mention EUIPO as potential actor in respect of “new refusals”
notified by EUIPO (and not the Commission under the old model).
The question arises whether such withdrawal could take place in case of “new
refusals” by EUIPO under the very same conditions as those specified in Article
7(5) of the Regulation. It appears that the opportunity for the Commission to
withdraw a refusal on its own initiative (without a duly substantiated request by a
Member State, a third country or a natural or legal person having a legitimate
interest) was secured with a view to the possible extension of EU level protection to
non-agricultural GIs. If the EUIPO is not supposed to have such opportunity, it
should be reflected in the text of Article 7(5) of the Regulation.
208
ANNEX 11: INTERPLAY BETWEEN EXISTING NATIONAL SYSTEMS/
FUTURE EU SYSTEM
As indicated in the policy options described in Section 5 of the Impact Assessment, the
establishment of an EU wide protection system raises the issue to which extent existing
national GI protection systems should co-exist in parallel. In principle, both co-existence
as well as the replacement of the national GIs by the EU framework are
conceivable.
Two fundamental objectives should be achieved. GIs currently protected at national level
should not lose protection. Regulatory conflicts and overlaps between the EU and the
national levels should be avoided.
Given the current heterogeneous protection of GIs for crafts and industrial products, co-
existence would imply harmonization. Harmonisation would be needed in order to
clarify the relationship between EU and national protection levels, avoid legal
uncertainty as well as facilitate trade and create equal protection conditions within the
Internal Market.
In contrast to trade mark and design laws, current GI protection at national level is based
on various regulatory approaches. Only 16 Member States protect GIs for CI products by
sui-generis (specific) laws (see Annex 8 Overview of National sui generis GI laws
available for the protection of crafts and industrial products). The others base the
protection on trade mark law, unfair competition and consumer protection. As a result, a
meaningful approximation of GI protection at national level would imply that certain
Member States are required to establish a full new regulatory system for national GIs in
addition to complying with the new EU sets of rules aiming to establish the EU GI title
and system.
Harmonisation might therefore create a disproportionate amount of regulatory and
administrative burden, particularly on these Member States. In addition, harmonisation
would also require continuous investment to maintain convergence between national
protection systems as the establishment of the harmonized trade mark system has shown.
EUIPO estimates that an effort of a minimum of five full time equivalents (FTEs) are
currently invested across the EU Intellectual Property Network (EUIPN) on a yearly
basis in the maintenance of convergence of practices and keeping the stakeholders
informed and engaged. Finally, having two parallel systems at EU and national levels
instead of one EU system adds to the administrative landscape and might carry the risk of
confusing consumers and producers.
The alternative to co-existence and harmonisation is the replacement of national GIs by
the EU framework. This approach has the advantages of creating a unique regulatory
framework throughout the Internal Market creating legal certainty as well as predictable
and relatively low costs for producers. Moreover, an EU framework will permit the
development of geographical indications since, by providing a more uniform approach,
such a framework will ensure fair competition between the producers of products bearing
such indications and enhance the credibility of the products in the consumers' eyes.350
350
Cf. Recital 7 of the Regulation (EEC) N° 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
209
The replacement of national GI protection by an EU GI would be consistent with the
fundamental right to property as set out in Article 17 of the Charter on fundamental rights
of the EU, including the right to intellectual property enshrined in paragraph 2 of this
provision. By replacing the national protection schemes, the new EU framework would
not remove protection, but offer producers an even more extensive protection throughout
the EU instead. There would be no need to create rules to avoid regulatory conflicts and
overlaps between the EU and the national levels. In addition, the new EU regulatory
framework would serve as connection and basis with the Lisbon system giving access to
international protection.
Concretely, after the entry into force of the EU wide regulatory framework, national GIs
should continue being protected during a reasonable transition period. During this
period, national authorities should communicate the information necessary for
registration to the competent EU body. Member States may maintain national protection
of these GIs until a decision on registration has been taken. Those Member States not
granting IP protection for GIs should inform this EU body which of their names
established by usage they wish to register.351
Any name sent for registration should fulfil the eligibility requirements, such as the link
between product qualities and the geographical origin as set out in the new EU
framework. In addition, each application should include a product specification
describing notably the name of the product, the characteristic production processes and /
or its characteristic raw materials as well as the definition of the geographical area.
The applications will be examined by the designated EU body. During the transition
period, there should be no possibility for Member States or third parties to object to a
registration.
This approach would be consistent with the establishment of the regulatory framework
for GIs protecting agricultural products, as foreseen in particular in Article 17 of the
Regulation (EEC) N° 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
351
This approach had been pursued with the establishment of the regulatory framework for GIs protecting
agricultural products, see Article 17 of the Regulation (EEC) N° 2081/92 on the protection of geographical
indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
210
ANNEX 12: COHERENCE OF OPTIONS WITH OTHER EU POLICY OBJECTIVES
Table 7.3 Coherence of option with other EU policy objectives
PO1: Extending the existing EU GI
regime to CI products
PO3: Trade mark reform
PO2: Self-standing EU
Regulation
Coherence with other EU objectives
Principle of free
movement of
goods
++
Yes, allow for free movement of
goods
Yes, GI right is open to all
producers complying with the
product specification
+
Yes, allow for free movement of
goods
But, right restricted to a group of
producers owning the trade mark or
allowed to use it (through license,
right to use certification mark)
++
Yes, allow for free movement of
goods
Yes, GI right is open to all
producers complying with the
product specification
Right to
property352
++
Yes, creates an intangible EU-wide
IPR which is part of the right to
property
Yes, collective nature of IPR held
by producers complying with the
product specification fully reflected
+
Yes, creates an intangible EU-wide
IPR which is part of the right to
property
But, collective nature of IPR held
by producers complying with the
product specification not fully
reflected
++
Yes, creates an intangible EU
wide IPR which is part of the
right to property
Yes, collective nature of IPR held
by producers complying with the
product specification fully
reflected
Coherence with other EU instruments
EU trade marks ++
Yes: EU trade mark legislation
would not be disrupted to
accommodate additional special
requirements relating to
geographically rooted product
quality
-
No: EU trade mark legislation
would be disrupted by inserting
additional special requirements
relating to geographically rooted
product quality
++
Yes: EU trade mark legislation
would not be disrupted to
accommodate additional special
requirements relating to
geographically rooted product
quality
EU rules
protecting sui
generis
geographical
indications for
agricultural
products
+
Different nature and policy context
of agricultural and CI products
problematic to properly reflect
-
Inconsistency between providing
sui generis protection for
agricultural GIs and EUTM
protection for CI products
Narrower scope of IP protection for
CI products as compared to
agricultural products
++
Yes, AGRI GI protection
schemes cover agricultural
products, while PO2 covers CI
products
Integrity of the existing EU GI
regime fully safeguarded
Synergies across the GI schemes
sustainable
National and
regional
schemes
+
Extended EU-wide GI protection
coherent with absence of national
protection of agricultural GIs
+
Coherent with TM protection in
some Member States
+
Yes, EU-wide sui generis GI
protection coherent with national
sui generis GI protection in some
Member States
Other IP
instruments
(Designs)
++
Yes, Designs protect the
appearance of a product, while PO1
protects the link between its
characteristics and its geographical
origin
++
Yes, Designs protect the
appearance of a product, while PO3
protects the indication of its
commercial origin
++
Yes, Designs protect the
appearance of a product, while
PO2 protects the link between its
characteristics and its
geographical origin
352
See the Charter for fundamental rights of the EU (Official Journal of the EU 2007/C 303/01), Article 17.
211
Wider EU
policies
(international
agreements)
++
Yes, EU-wide protection under
PO1 coherent with the obligation to
provide protection for CI GIs
originating in countries party to the
Geneva Act of the Lisbon
Agreement
Yes, consistency providing the
same sui generis GI protection for
agricultural and CI products under
the Geneva Act of the Lisbon
Agreement
Yes, consistency with the EU’s
leading role in advocating the
highest possible protection for all
GI products (WTO and WIPO)
-
No, difficulty in meeting
requirements relating to the scope
of protection to be provided under
the Geneva Act of the Lisbon
Agreement
No, inconsistency between
providing sui generis protection for
agricultural GIs and EUTM
protection for CI products under the
Geneva Act of the Lisbon
Agreement
No, inconsistency with the EU’s
leading role in advocating the
highest possible protection for all
GI products
++
Yes, EU-wide protection under
PO2 coherent with the obligation
to provide protection for CI GIs
originating in countries party to
the Geneva Act of the Lisbon
Agreement
Yes, consistency providing the
same sui generis GI protection
for agricultural and CI products
under the Geneva Act of the
Lisbon Agreement
Yes, consistency with the EU’s
leading role in advocating the
highest possible protection for all
GI products (WTO and WIPO)
EU policies to
support
preservation of
intangible
cultural heritage
skills
++
Specific GI protection is
acknowledged as preserving and
developing cultural heritage both in
the agricultural and the craft and
industrial areas
+
Protect more commercial interest
than common, in particular cultural
heritage
++
Promote preservation of know-
how as an important part of
European heritage
Actions aiming
to promote
sustainable
tourism
++
Enhances the visibility of products
(impact on regions)
Encourages producers to cooperate
with each other and also with local
authorities
+
Provides a limited collaborative
environment (more focused on
private interest than on public
interest)
++
Enhances the visibility of
products (impact on regions)
Encourage producers to
cooperate with each other’s and
also with local authorities +
The Work Plan
for Culture
2019-2022
selects gender
equality as one
of the five
sectoral
priorities for EU
action
++
Yes, compatible with gender
equality promotion
++
Yes, compatible with gender
equality promotion
++
Yes, compatible with gender
equality promotion
Innovation and
competition
policies
++
Yes, a harmonised IP system for CI
products would be beneficial for
innovation and could help
cooperation of producers
Yes, through linkage with a
geographical area benefits also
related industries such as tourism,
with positive impacts on regional
economy and jobs, facilitating
recovery
+
Yes, a harmonised IP system for CI
products would be beneficial for
innovation and could help
cooperation of producers
++
Yes, a harmonised IP system for
CI products would be beneficial
for innovation and could help
cooperation of producers
Yes, through linkage with a
geographical area benefits also
related industries such as tourism,
with positive impacts on regional
economy and jobs, facilitating
recovery
212
ANNEX 13: COST CALCULATIONS
Disclaimer: Cost estimation should be treated with caution as they are based on
assumptions made by contractor (AND International & VVA, 2021) on the basis of
research, surveys and interviews. These are average estimation of cost and the
actual cost may vary with the size of the producer, complexity of the product and
production method as well as individual choices as regards control and certification.
These cost estimations, however, allow for comparison of different options on
common basis.
Assumptions are presented in Annex 4.
Table A13.1 Summary of cost of CI GI protection under PO1
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 15 000 7 500 20 000 42 500
Verification/Control* 6 000 600 0 6 600
Enforcement & management** 3 000 3 900 9 000 15 900
Total 24 000 12 000 29 000 65 000
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.45 0.23 0.60 1.28
Verification/Control* 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.20
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.12 0.27 0.48
Total 0.72 0.36 0.87 1.95
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 4 for assumptions.
Table A13.2. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under PO3
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 7 650 0 1 500 9 150
Verification/Control* 6 000 0 0 6 000
Enforcement & management** 3 000 0 0 3 000
Total 16 650 0 1 500 18 150
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.27
Verification/Control* 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.18
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.09
Total 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.54
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 4 for assumptions.
PO2 – Self-standing EU Regulation
Below costs of selected combinations of sub-options:
213
Table A13.3. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under 2.2B One stage system: EU
level only + 2.3A The European Commission at the EU level + 2.4A (control and
enforcement of PO1)
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 15 000 0 20 000 35 000
Verification/Control* 6 000 600 0 6 600
Enforcement & management** 3 000 3 900 0 6 900
Total 24 000 4 500 20 000 48 500
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.45 0.00 0.60 1.05
Verification/Control* 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.20
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.21
Total 0.72 0.14 0.60 1.46
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 4 for assumptions.
Table A13.4. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under 2.2A Two stage system
national and EU + 2.3A The European Commission at the EU level + 2.4A (control and
enforcement of PO1)
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 15 000 7 500 20 000 42 500
Verification/Control* 6 000 600 0 6 600
Enforcement & management** 3 000 3 900 0 6 900
Total 24 000 12 000 20,000 56 000
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.45 0.23 0.60 1.28
Verification/Control* 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.20
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.21
Total 0.72 0.36 0.60 1.68
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 4 for assumptions.
Table A13.4. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under 2.2.A Two stage system
national and EU + 2.3.B EUIPO at the EU level + 2.4.A (control and enforcement of
PO1)
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 15 000 7 500 17 000 39 500
Verification/Control* 6 000 600 0 6 600
Enforcement & management** 3 000 3 900 0 6 900
Total 24 000 12 000 17 000 53 000
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.45 0.23 0.51 1.19
Verification/Control* 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.20
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.21
214
Total 0.72 0.36 0.51 1.59
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 4 for assumptions.
Table A13.5. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under 2.2.A Two stage system
national and EU + 2.3.B EUIPO at the EU level + 2.4.B Streamlined control with a
strong enforcement model. The preferred option
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 15 000 7 500 17 000 39 500
Verification/Control* 5 700 100 0 5 800
Enforcement & management** 3 000 3 900 0 6 900
Total 23 700 11 500 17 000 52 200
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.45 0.23 0.51 1.19
Verification/Control* 0.17 0 0 0.17
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.12 0 0.21
Total 0.71 0.35 0.51 1.57
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 4 for assumptions.
215
ANNEX 14: COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF SUB-OPTIONS OF OPTION 2
The tables below summarize impacts of different sub-options of Option 2.
Table A14.1. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under PO2
Action Producers
(group)
Authorities Total
National EU
Annual Cost of one GI (EUR)
Registration* 15 000 0 (2.2B) – 7 500
(2.2A)
17 000(2.3B) – 20
000 (2.3A)
32 – 42.5k
Verification/Control* 5 700(2.4B) -
6 000(2.4A)
100(2.4B) –
600(2.4A)
0 5.8-6.6k
Enforcement & management** 3 000 3 900 0 6.9k
Total 23.7 (2.4B)–
24k(2.4A)
4 – 12k 17(2.3B) –
20k(2.3A)
44.7-56k
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million)
Registration* 0.45 0-0.23 0.51-0.6 0.96 – 1.28
Verification/Control* 0.17-0.18 0-0.02 0 0.17-0.2
Enforcement & management** 0.09 0.12 0 0.21
Total 0.71-0.72 0.12-0.36 0.51-0.6 1.34-1.68
* One-off cost; ** recurrent cost
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p.160, producer group
assumed to compose of 10 members. See Annexes 34 and 13 for detailed calculations and assumptions.
Table A14.2 Comparison of policy sub-options against
effectiveness and efficiency criteria
Option
Effectiveness (contribution to achieving objectives)
Efficiency
(costs and benefits)
Applicant friendly
and affordable
registration
system
Effective and affordable system of:
Low cost for
public authorities
control enforcement
Baseline 0 0 0 0 0
2.2. Involvement of national authorities in the registration procedure
(A) Two stage 2.2A (++)
Registration at no
or low cost with
local authorities
who provide
additional support
to producers
(form filling,
collaboration
building) (as in
PO1);
N/A N/A (-) additional
costs for MSs that
do not have and
(0) no costs for
MS that have sui
generis GI system
in place
Registration cost for
national authorities:
EUR7,500 per GI;
Cost at EU level at
EUR17,000 (2.3B) or
EUR20,000 (2.3A) per
GI registered
(B) One stage (+) potential
problems for
micro producers if
local authorities
do not engage (as
in PO3)
N/A N/A (0) no costs for
MSs that do not
have and (+)
savings for MS
that have sui
generis GI system
in place
No registration cost for
national authorities;
Cost at EU level at
EUR17,000 (2.3B) or
EUR20,000 (2.3A) per
GI registered
2.3 EU entity in charge of registration at EU level and at international level
(A)
Commission
N/A N/A N/A (--) high cost of
COM registration;
Cost at EU level at
EUR20,000 per GI
216
Option
Effectiveness (contribution to achieving objectives)
Efficiency
(costs and benefits)
Applicant friendly
and affordable
registration
system
Effective and affordable system of:
Low cost for
public authorities
control enforcement
registered
(B) EUIPO N/A N/A N/A (0/-) more
efficient than (A)
Cost at EU level at
EUR17,000 per GI
registered
2.4 Control & enforcement
(A) Agri GI N/A (+) Strict control
based on third
party assessment
high benefit to
customers (as in
PO1);
(++) authorities
enforce out of
their own
initiative,
high benefit to
producers
(--) High cost of
both control and
enforcement
system
Control cost for
national authorities at
EUR600 per GI;
Enforcement cost at
EUR3,900 per GI
(B) self
declaration
N/A (++) lower cost,
comparable
effectiveness to
(A)
(+) lower cost of
control due to
random checks,
Control cost for
national authorities at
EUR100 per GI;
Enforcement cost at
EUR3,900 per GI
2.5. Co-existence of EU and national titles and regimes
(A) Replace (+) lower cost for
national
authorities
(B) Coexist (0)
Legend: ++ significant positive impact; + positive impact; 0 neutral; - negative impact; -- significant negative impact;
Table A14.3 Comparison of the impact of viable policy sub-options on stakeholders
CI Producers group* National administration EU administration Citizens
Baseline 0 0 0 0
Option 2
(preferred
combination)
Borrowed reputation of
Agri GI system, voluntary
use of PGI logo;
producers in 16 MS already
familiar with system. Public
enforcement lowers burden
High support to local
producers; with lower
enforcement cost (2.4B) could
result in strong growth of
niche markets + promotion of
region
Use of existing
expertise of EUIPO
(2.3B) – self financing
option
(++) quality assured by
system similar to Agri,
voluntary use of same
logos as in Agri;
Important for those
placing value on local
production and heritage
Benefits Potential for higher prices
by up to 20%-50% and
higher demand by 20-30%;
or even 100% free
enforcement by public
authorities;
(++) Assured quality and
local origin
(unquantifiable)
2.2. Involvement of national authorities in the registration procedure
(A) Two or N/A (+) local authroties involved
(as in PO1) but more
streamlined due to no COM
just EUIPO;
N/A N/A
(B) One stage N/A (0) no legal incentives for
involvement of local
authorities (as in PO3)
N/A N/A
Costs per GI n/a (A): EUR 7,500
(B): EUR 0
217
CI Producers group* National administration EU administration Citizens
2.3 EU entity in charge of registration at EU level and at international level
(A) EU N/A N/A (–) involvement of
COM more expensive
and reduced also in the
new Agri GI system
N/A
(B) EUIPO N/A N/A (+) outsourcing to
EUIPO most efficient
and self-financing
option
N/A
Costs per GI (A): EUR 20 000
(B): EUR 17 000
2.4 Control & enforcement
(A) Agri GI (--) Public enforcement
lowers burden
(+) Use existing reputation
of Agri GI system (as in
PO1)
(--) Costly enforcement
system, additional reporting
obligations
N/A N/A
(B) self
declaration
(+) Affordable option for
micro companies and self-
employed artisanal
(-) Control system based on
self-declaration and random
checks limits costs;
N/A N/A
Costs per GI (A): EUR 9 000
(B): EUR 8 700
(A): EUR 4 500
(B): EUR 4 000
2.5. Co-existence of EU and national titles and regimes
(A) Replace N/A (+) lower cost for national
authorities
N/A (+)
(B) Co-exist N/A (0) N/A (-) potential confusion of
different
certifications/logos
Legend: ++ significant positive impact; + positive impact; 0 neutral; - negative impact; -- significant negative impact;