GIs: more action promised amid ‘lazy thinking’ debate
More action to address the protection of geographical indications (GIs) was promised at a major IP case law conference in Europe last week.
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has pledged to address issues concerning GIs amid growing criticism over the treatment of this form of IP.
A panel discussion during the final session of the EUIPO case law conference in Alicante on Friday, July 8, saw the office being accused of “lazy thinking” when it came to protecting GIs and underscoring their distinction from trademarks.
Dimitris Botis, director of legal affairs at the EUIPO, acknowledged that there were ongoing issues, and confirmed that a new system to extend the GI system across the EU would be in place by 2024.
No current harmonisation
“One of the main responsibilities of the office is to resolve conflicts by ensuring that geographical indications get the protection they deserve…and that these rights are not distorted by unfair practices,” he said.
The disparity between the protections afforded to agricultural products, which enjoy pan-European protection, and non-agricultural products, which are only covered by national protections, had created confusion, the panellists agreed.
Commenting on the current situation, Botis noted that although more than half of the member states have national protection systems in place, there was “no harmonisation” between them.
“The current situation seems incomplete and sub-optimal in some of the markets in the EU,” said Botis.
The implementation of the new legislation was designed to deliver considerable improvements in this area, he explained.
‘Lazy thinking’
But the plans came under sharp criticism from Bernard O’Connor, founding partner of O’Connor and Company, who criticised “lazy thinking” in Brussels when it came to safeguarding and promoting GIs.
Warning that there were systematic flaws in “simply marrying” GIs and trademarks together under the vanguard of one office, he accused the EUIPO of failing to demonstrate that GIs are a distinct form of intellectual property.
In his view, “money was an issue” in deciding to safeguard the two forms of IP under the same official remit of the boards of appeal.
“We need a greater division, and I think that basing geographical indications within the competency of the boards of appeal is simply a mistake,” he cautioned.
There needed to be a clear division between its functions in relation to trademarks, and functions in relation to the office known principally for governing trademarks, insisted O’Connor.
GIs are not trademarks, he emphasised. “And many concepts and approaches that are appropriate to trademarks are simply not appropriate for geographical indications.
“Trademarks are aimed towards the individual, and capture differences; GIs are collective and seek to capture tradition, culture.
“The bigger picture is that we need to have a much clearer understanding of what exactly geographical indications are and the differences between geographical indications and trademarks.”
Pilar Montero, professor of intellectual property and digital innovation of the University of Alicante, added that there are many problems with GIs.
This, she explained, is mainly because the EUIPO is faced with protecting two different rights (trademarks and GIs), which “do not overlap because they have different purposes”.
Many opportunities
But Botis countered that he completely disagreed with this viewpoint. The upcoming legislation, he insisted, would deliver benefits by extending the system, ensuring the protection of craft and industrial projects.
This, he said, would result in better-informed consumers, improved transparency around production processes, as well as increased visibility for GI products.
It would also present regions with opportunities to better retain local expertise and reverse a brain drain so it could further promote the country’s heritage, he said.
“Finally, the new scheme is also expected to benefit the needs of SMEs and micro-enterprises, it presents investment opportunities and provides producers with better enforcement tools,” Botis enthused.
O’ Connor, however, stood firm. Adding that if the European Union was to continue to be a successful evangelist for the idea of geographical indications, it would need to “think carefully about its future actions” and have a clear debate about the divisions promoting GIs.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
Today’s top stories
IP rights in fashion, culture and art remain ‘unsettled and uncertain’
