Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:02:10.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fair Use of Geographical Indications: Another Look at the Spirited Debate on the Level of Protection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2022

Xinzhe Song Open the ORCID record for Xinzhe Song [Opens in a new window]  and
Xiaoyan Wang
Xinzhe Song
Affiliation:
Law School, Hainan University, People's Republic of China
Xiaoyan Wang*
Affiliation:
Civil, Commercial and Economic Law School, China University of Political Science and Law, People's Republic of China
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: cu202008@cupl.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the most contested issues in international trade negotiations is the level of protection granted to geographical indications (GIs). WTO Members are divided between the ‘Old World’ represented by the European Union and the ‘New World’ headed by the United States. For decades, conventional wisdom has suggested that the debate is indeed a disagreement over the terroir idea. This article tackles the debate from a largely unexplored perspective, namely, fair use exceptions, which allows us to find the opposite: even if countries embraced the terroir idea equally, the divide on protection level would persist because of divergent approaches to the fair use of GIs. This divergence derives from countries’ different preferences for balancing conflicting interests, different policy goals, and different understandings of what is ‘fair’. Other countries should take these considerations into account when choosing a protection level suitable for their national conditions and goals.

Keywords

Geographical indicationfair uselevel of protectionTerroirWTO
Type
Original Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 21 , Issue 5 , December 2022 , pp. 597 - 618
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See A. Taubman et al. (eds.) (2020) A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85–86; J. Hughes (2006) ‘Champagne, Feta, and Bourbon: The Spirited Debate about Geographical Indications’, Hastings Law Journal 58, 299, 302.

2 See G.E. Evans and M. Blakeney (2006) ‘The Protection of Geographical Indications after Doha: Quo Vadis?’, Journal of International Economic Law 9(3), 575.

3 See X. Wang (2018) ‘Absolute Protection for Geographical Indications: Protectionism or Justified Rights?’, Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 8(2), 73, 74.

4 This example is given by Michael Handler. See M. Handler (2016) ‘Rethinking GI Extension’, in D. Gangjee (ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Geographical Indications. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 146, 147.

5 This example is given by Andrew F. Smith. See A.F. Smith (2007) The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107.

6 See Handler, supra note 4, 160.

7 See T. Engelhardt (2015) ‘Geographical Indications under Recent EU Trade Agreements’, IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 46(7), 781, 783–787.

8 See S. Feng (2019) ‘Geographical Indications: Can China Reconcile the Irreconcilable Intellectual Property Issue between EU and US?’, World Trade Review 19(3), 424; M. Huysmans (2020) ‘Exporting Protection: EU Trade Agreements, Geographical Indications, and Gastronationalism’, Review of International Political Economy 1, 7–10; B. O'Connor and G. De Bosio (2017) ‘The Global Struggle Between Europe and United States over Geographical Indications in South Korea and in the TPP Economies’, in W. van Caenegem and J. Cleary (eds.), The Importance of Place: Geographical Indications as a Tool for Local and Regional Development. Cham: Springer, 47, 49–51.

9 See S.D. Goldberg (2001) ‘Who Will Raise the White Flag – the Battle between the United States and the European Union over the Protection of Geographical Indications’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 22, 107; M. Torsen (2005) ‘Apples and Oranges: French and American Models of Geographic Indications Policies Demonstrate an International Lack of Consensus’, Trademark Reporter 95, 1415; J.M. Waggoner (2007) ‘Acquiring a European Taste for Geographical Indications’, Brooklyn Journal of International Law 33, 569; L. Montén (2006) ‘Geographical Indications of Origin: Should They Be Protected and Why? An Analysis of the Issue from the US and EU Perspectives’, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal 22, 315; J. Chen (1996) ‘A Sober Second Look at Appellations of Origin: How the United States Will Crash France's Wine and Cheese Party’, Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 29.

10 See T. Josling (2006) ‘The War on Terroir: Geographical Indications as a Transatlantic Trade Conflict’, Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, 337; T. Broude (2005) ‘Taking “Trade and Culture” Seriously: Geographical Indications and Cultural Protection in WTO Law’, Journal of International Law 26, 623, 651–652; E. Barham (2003) ‘Translating Terroir: The Global Challenge of French AOC Labeling’, Journal of Rural Studies 19, 127; Hughes, supra 1, 304; See also note 28, below.

11 See TRIPS Agreement art. 17: ‘Members may provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, such as fair use of descriptive terms, provided that such exceptions take account of the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties.’

12 In practice, a few GIs are composed of terms with weak or even no geographical connotation for a significant proportion of consumers (e.g., Feta). See C-317/95 Canadane Cheese Trading and Afoi G. Kouri v. Ypourgou Emporiou and Others [1997] I-04681, paras. 14–15 (AG Opinion); D. Ganjee (2007) ‘Say Cheese! A Sharper Image of Generic Use through the Lens of Feta’, European Intellectual Property Review 29, 172.

13 See Hughes, supra 1, 382.

14 See Case C-614/17 Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego (ECJ 2 May 2019), para. 36.

15 See D. Gangjee (2012) Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79.

16 The EU has established four EU-wide sui generis systems of GIs for wines (Regulation 1308/2013), spirits (Regulation 2019/787), aromatized wines (Regulation 251/2014) and agricultural products and foodstuffs (Regulation 1151/2012). In April 2022, a fifth system was proposed for craft and industrial products (COM(2022) 174 final). This article focuses on Regulation 1151/2012 because of its widest coverage of products. See Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 [2012] OJ L343.

17 See Joined Cases C-129/97 & C-130/97 Criminal Proceedings against Yvon Chiciak and Fromagerie Chiciak and Jean-Pierre Fol [1998] ECR I-03315, para. 25.

18 However, in the case of non-compliance with the requirement of the EU GI Regulations, the national measures should be adjusted to ensure compliance. See Case C-6/02 Commission v. France [2003] ECR I-02389; C-132/05 Commission v. Germany [2008] ECR I-00957, paras. 68–69.

19 See Section 2.2.

20 See Section 2.3.

21 The underlying causes will be examined in Section 3.

22 See D. Gervais (2014) ‘A Cognac after Spanish Champagne? Geographical Indications as Certification Marks’, in R. Dreyfuss and J. Ginburg (eds.), Intellectual Property at the Edge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 130.

23 See notes 3–8.

24 B. Prats (1983) ‘The Terroir is Important’, Decanter 8, 16; A. Zappalaglio (2021) The Transformation of EU Geographical Indications Law: The Present, Past and Future of the Origin Link. Abingdon: Routledge, 45.

25 Zappalaglio, supra 24, 43.

26 INAO, ‘Guide Du Demandeur d'une AOP-IGP’ (November 2017) 26.

27 Case C-159/20 European Commissionv. Kingdom of Denmark (AG Opinion 17 March 2022), para. 64.

28 D. Gangjee (2012) Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153.

29 M. Kolia (1992) ‘Monopolising Names: EEC Proposal on the Protection of Trade Descriptions of Foodstuffs’, European Intellectual Property Review 14, 233.

30 C. Geiger (2013) Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 186.

31 Case C-343/07 Bavaria NV and Bavaria Italia Srl v. Bayerischer Brauerbund eV [2009] ECR I-05491, para. 96–98.

32 WIPO (2004) WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use (WIPO Publication No. 489 (E). Geneva, 120.

33 European Commission (2020) ‘Commission Notice on the Application of the Provisions of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011’, [2020] OJ C32/01 art. 2.4.4.

34 J.T. McCarthy (2021) McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (5th edn. Thomson West 2021 update) § 11:45.

35 Ibid. § 23:11.

36 Many nominative uses also describe the characteristics of the products offered by a defendant and thus can be accommodated by the classic descriptive fair use provision. See G.B. Dinwoodie (2009) ‘Developing Defenses in Trademark Law’, Lewis & Clark Law Review 13, 99, 131.

37 Waco Intern Inc v. KHK Scaffolding Houston Inc (2002) 278 F.3d 523, 534 (5th Circuit).

38 Sunmark Inc v. Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc (1995) 64 F.3d 1055, 1058 (7th Circuit).

39 Dessert Beauty Inc v. Fox (2008) 89 USPQ2d 1432 (Southern District of New York).

40 Smith v. Chanel Inc (1968) 402 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Circuit).

41 Lanham Act § 33(b)(4), 15 USCA 1115(b)(4).

42 See Leathersmith of London Ltd v. Alleyn (1982) 695 F.2d 27, 31 (1st Circuit).

43 See KP Permanent Make-Up Inc v. Lasting Impression I Inc (2004) 543 US 111, 123; Mi. B. Weitman (2006) ‘Fair Use in Trademark in the Post-KP Permanent World – How Incorporating Principles from Copyright Law Will Lead to Less Confusion in Trademark’, Brooklyn Law Review 71, 1665, 1678 (2006); J. Gupta (2010) ‘Descriptive Trademarks and the Assumption of Risk’, University of San Francisco Law Review 45, 811.

44 Century 21 Real Estate Corp v. Lendingtree Inc (2005) 425 F.3d 211, 228 (3rd Circuit).

45 Under the EU GI scheme, a product lawfully bearing a GI should meet all the conditions set out in the product specification that includes, apart from the delimited geographical area of production, quality or production method requirements. See Regulation 1151/2012 art. 7.

46 The EU GI quality scheme is a ‘voluntary scheme’. Local producers can choose whether to join the scheme by subjecting themselves to a monitoring system, which is one of the preconditions for the lawful use of a GI. See European Commission (2015) ‘Report Regarding the Mandatory Indication of the Country of Origin or Place of Provenance’, COM(2015) 205 final, pp, 2–3; Regulation 1151/2012 art. 46(2).

47 Case C-614/17, supra 14, paras. 33–36.

48 Case C-490/19 Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier v. Société Fromagère du Livradois (ECJ 17 December 2020).

49 D. Wright (trans.) (2020) ‘Evocation of the Protected Geographical Indication through Indication of the Place’, GRUR International 69, 756.

50 V. Paganizza (2015) ‘More Holes than Cheese: PDOs, Evocation and a Possible Solution’, European Food and Feed Law Review 10, 222.

51 Code rural et de la pêche maritime art. L. 643-2, 1, 2.

52 However, the use of a place name constituting a GI may be prohibited by other provisions (e.g. Article L. 643-1 of the French Rural Code).

53 Réponse à la question écrite n° 26573 du 20 octobre 2003, JO, 12 April 2005, p. 3711.

54 The two examples are provided by Jean Pinchon, former president of the French National Institute of Appellations of Origin (INAO), to illustrate the appropriate way to use a place name as a simple indication of provenance on products without GIs. See Assemblée Nationale, Compte rendu de la commission de la production et des échanges, n° 49, 17 June 1998.

55 Décret n° 86–1361 du 29 décembre 1986 relatif à l'appellation d'origine « Camembert de Normandie », JO, 1 January 1987, p. 19, art. 7.

56 Décret n° 2008-984 du 18 septembre 2008 relatif à l'appellation d'origine contrôlée « Camembert de Normandie », JO, 21 September 2008, texte n° 11, art. 3.

57 N. Olszak (2008) Appellations d'origine et indications de provenance, Répertoire Dalloz de droit pénal et de procédure pénale (actualité 2015), para. 86.

58 Réponse du Ministère de l'Economie à la question écrite n° 16070, JO, 19 September 1996.

59 Conseil d’État, 24 December 2020, n° 447374.

60 Ibid.

61 See B. Beebe (2008) ‘The Semiotic Account of Trademark Doctrine and Trademark Culture’, in G.B. Dinwoodie and M.D. Janis (eds.), Trademark Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 51.

62 Although the Council of State observes that the DGCCRF's opinion does not intend to introduce a general prohibition dispensing with a case-by-case examination, the opinion shows that the examination is not to test consumer confusion risk but to test ‘the existence of a reprehensible evocation’. See DGCCRF, Avis aux opérateurs économiques sur la protection de la dénomination enregistrée en AOP « Camembert de Normandie », NOR : ECOC2017335V.

63 See J.C. Daniels (2009) ‘The Branding of America: The Rise of Geographic Trademarks and the Need for a Strong Fair Use Defense’, Iowa Law Review 94, 1703, 1731.

64 See McCarthy, supra 34, § 11:46.

65 See note 43.

66 See note 112–115.

67 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 [2018] OJ L9/2 art. 46(6).

68 Décret n° 2012-655 du 4 mai 2012 relatif à l'étiquetage et à la traçabilité des produits vitivinicoles et à certaines pratiques œnologiques, JO, 6 May 2012, texte n° 26, art. 1er.

69 Association nationale interprofessionnelle des vins de France (Anivin de France), Charte des bonnes pratiques d’étiquetage de vin de France, 26 August 2021.

70 Décret du 19 août 1921 portant règlement d'administration publique pour l'application de la loi du 1er août 1905, JO, 21 August 1921, p. 9755.

71 See R. Brauneis (2010) ‘Geographic Trademarks and the Protection of Competitor Communication’, Trademark Reporter 96, 782, 805.

72 See McCarthy, supra 34, § 14:12.

73 Case C-381/05 De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v. Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA [2007] ECR I-03115, para. 72.

74 Examples are provided by the Advocate General Mengozzi in his Opinion in Case C-381/05. However, the CJEU did not endorse his opinion on this subject. See Ibid., para. 119 (AG Opinion).

75 Ibid., paras. 64, 65, 70.

76 See C. Le Goffic, Indication géographique en droit français, J.-Cl. Marques: Dessins et modèles, fasc. 8100, para. 220.

77 See SSP Agricultural Equipment Inc v. Orchard-Rite Ltd (1979) 592 F.2d 1096, 1103 (9th Circuit).

78 Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 [2006] OJ L376 art. 4(g).

79 Case C-487/07 L'Oréal v. Bellure [2009] ECR I-05185, para. 84 (AG Opinion).

80 Saxlehner v. Wagner (1910) 216 US 375, 380.

81 See TRIPS Agreement art. 24(6); Regulation 1151/2012 art. 6(1); Lanham Act § 14(3), 15 USCA 1064(3).

82 In re American Fertility Soc (1999) 188 F.3d 1341 (US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit); Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97 Chiciak and Fol [1998] ECR I-03315.

83 In trade agreements, the EU does not seek to protect generic components such as ‘Gouda’. Otherwise, the EU's demands are subject to suspicion of clawing back currently generic food names. See M. Huysmans (2021) ‘On Feta and Fetta: Protecting EU geographical indications in Australia’, Journal of Agricultural Economics 6.

84 Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97, supra 82, para. 37; Case C-432/18 Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v. Balema GmbH (ECJ 4 December 2019), para. 26.

85 Case C-490/19, supra 48, para. 38.

86 Ibid.

87 This example is fictional based on a case under US law. See the discussion of the US case: Forschner Group v. Arrow Trading Co (1997) 43 USPQ2d 1942 (2nd Circuit).

88 However, US unfair competition law may offer remedies for the abusive use of generic names. See Blinded Veterans Ass'n v. Blinded American Veterans Foundation (1989) 872 F.2d 1035 (District of Columbia Circuit).

89 OBX-Stock Inc v. Bicast Inc (2009) 558 F.3d 334, 339–340 (4th Circuit).

90 Lanham Act § 6(a), 15 USCA 1056.

91 DeWalt Inc v. Magna Power Tool (1961) 289 F.2d 656, 662 (US Court of Customs and Patent Appeals).

92 Dena Corp v. Belvedere Intern Inc (1991) 950 F.2d 1555, 1560 (Federal Circuit).

93 Dranoff-Perlstein Associates v. Sklar (1992) 967 F.2d 852, 862 (3d Circuit).

94 G.E. Evans and M. Blakeney (2007) ‘The International Protection of Geographical Indications Yesterday Today and Tomorrow’, in G. Westkamp (ed.), Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property: Trade, Technology and Market Freedom. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 283.

95 CPTPP art. 18.33.

96 RCEP art. 11.31(3).

97 Regulation 1151/2012 art. 13(2).

98 Lanham Act § 14(3), 15 USCA 1064(3).

99 Commission Regulation (EC) 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 [2002] OJ L277/10 recital 23. ‘Feta’ was registered as a PDO once again, after cancellation, because a significant percentage of EU consumers perceive feta as a cheese associated with the Hellenic Republic. See Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02 Germany and Denmark v. Commission [2005] ECR I-09115, paras. 86–88.

100 Ibid. See also D. Gangjee ‘Genericide: The Death of a Geographical Indication?’, in D. Gangjee (ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Geographical Indications, supra 6, 524.

101 Lanham Act § 14(3), 15 USCA 1064(3).

102 X. Song (2021) ‘A Closer Look at the Elephant in the Room: The Distinctiveness of Geographical Indications’, Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 11, 25, 36.

103 Case C-3/91 Exportur v. LOR [1992] ECR I-05529, para. 11.

104 See note 47.

105 See note 51.

106 See note 75.

107 Goffic, supra 76, para. 124.

108 Regulation 1151/2012 Recital 18.

109 Case C-614/17, supra 14, para. 29.

110 See note 51.

111 I. Roujou de Boubée, Marque – Signes illicites ne pouvant constituer des marques valables, J.-Cl. Marques: Dessins et modèles, fasc. 7115, para. 22.

112 Cass. crim., 29 November 1972, n° 69-90.594.

113 Cass. com., 23 October 2007, n° 06-12.022.

114 Cass. com., 9 November 1981, n° 80-12.943.

115 Cass. crim., 19 April 2005, n° 04-84.854.

116 Assemblée Nationale, Compte rendu de la commission de la production et des échanges, n° 50, 17 June 1998.

117 Case C-614/17, supra 14, para. 20 (AG Opinion); C-478/07 Budĕjovický Budvar [2009] ECR I-07721, para. 109.

118 Regulation 1151/2012 Recitals 2, 3, 18.

119 See Case C-44/17 Scotch Whisky Association v. Michael Klotz (ECJ 7 June 2018), paras. 38, 69; Case C-393/16 Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v. Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co.OHG (ECJ 20 December 2017), para. 38; Case C-490/19, supra 48, para. 35; Case C-56/16 P EUIPO v. Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto (ECJ 14 September 2017), para. 39; But see Case C-490/19, supra 48, para. 29 (AG Opinion).

120 See Case C-44/17, supra 119, paras. 69–71.

121 F. Pollaud-Dulian, CA Paris, 1re ch. A, 5 déc. 1993 – Commentaires, La Semaine Juridique Edition Générale, n° 11, 16 March 1994, II 22229.

122 Sénat, Rapport sur le projet de loi relatifà la reconnaissance de qualité des produits agricoles et alimentaires, n° 72, 3 November 1993, p. 51.

123 Sénat, Rapport sur le projet de loi d'orientation agricole, n° 129, 16 December 1998.

124 Assemblée Nationale, Compte rendu intégral 2e séance du lundi 12 octobre 1998, JO, 13 October 1998, p. 6366.

125 TGI Versailles, 12 December 2005, n° 0030080098.

126 See note 59.

127 Joanna Schmidt-Szalewski, Le miel a un goût amer…, Propriété industrielle, n° 5, May 2003, comm. 46.

128 Ibid.

129 Ibid.

130 See note 68.

131 See Hughes, supra 1, 380.

132 Case C-490/19, supra 48, para. 37.

133 In this situation, phrases such as ‘X type’ are arguably deceptive. See Hughes, supra 1, 367.

134 See note 30. See also D. Gangjee (2020) ‘Sui Generis or Independent Geographical Indications Protection’, in I. Calboli and J. Ginsburg (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 256, 264.

135 See note 79.

136 Joined Cases C-108/97 & C-109/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee [1999] ECR I-2779, para. 25.

137 Although the argument is directed at the product under label and cerficat de conformité, it applies to ordinary products. See Sénat, supra 123.

138 See note 59.

139 Cass. com., 23 October 2007, n° 06-12.022.

140 Séverine Visse-Causse, La guerre des camemberts est déclarée…, Droit rural, n° 406, October 2012, étude 11.

141 Case C-490/19, supra 48, para. 36.

142 Ibid., para. 38.

143 See note 84–86 and the accompanying context.

144 See note 87.

145 Meneely v. Meneely (1875) 62 NY 427; Ida May Co v. Ensign (1937) 20 Cal. App. 2d 339.

146 Canal Co v. Clark (1872) 80 US 311.

147 LE Waterman Co v. Modern Pen Co (1914) 235 US 88, 94; Elgin Nat'l Watch Co v. Illinois Watch Case Co (1901) 179 US 665.

148 See note 37–40.

149 See note 80.

150 McCarthy, supra 34, § 25:52.

151 Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corp v. Lenox Laboratories Inc (1987) 815 F.2d 500, 504 (8th Circuit).

152 S.L. Dogan and M.A. Lemley (2003) ‘Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet’, Houston Law Review 41, 777, 791.

153 S.L Dogan and M.A. Lemley (2007) ‘Grounding Trademark Law through Trademark Use’, Iowa Law Review 92, 1669, 1698.

154 TrafFix Devices Inc v. Mktg Displays Inc (2001) 532 US 23, 29.

155 L.P. Ramsey (2003) ‘Descriptive Trademarks and the First Amendment’, Tennessee Law Review 70, 1095, 1160.

156 See note 92.

157 Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97, supra 82. However, the EU clarifies the generic component for which no protection is sought in trade agreements with third countries. See Huysmans, supra 83.

158 See note 41.

159 Lanham Act § 43(c), 15 USCA 1125(c). D. Gangjeen and R. Burrell (2010) ‘Because You're Worth It: L'Oréal and the Prohibition on Free Riding’, The Modern Law Review 73, 282, 287.

160 Sykes Laboratory Inc v. Kalvin (1985) 610 F.Supp. 849, 854 (Central District of California).

161 C.H. Farley (2000) ‘Conflicts between US Law and International Treaties Concerning Geographical Indications’, Whittier Law Review 22, 73, 75.

162 European Commission (2021) ‘Evaluation of Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed Protected in the EU’, SWD(2021) 427 final, 20 December 2021, p. 16.

163 European Commission (2022) ‘Proposal for a Regulation on Geographical Indication Protection for Craft and Industrial Products’, COM(2022) 174 final, p. 15.

164 Case C-490/19, supra 48, para. 29 (AG Opinion).

165 When balancing the interest of EU GI producers against the liberalisation of trade, the Advocate General of the CJEU appears to lean towards the former in interpreting the legislative intent of the EU GI Regulations in the context of the intellectual property interpretive framework, rather than the trade liberalisation interpretive framework. She noted: ‘That policy [which can increase the competitiveness of producers of such products] militates in favour of interpreting the scope of Regulation No 1151/2012 as embracing the prohibition of exports of fake PDOs to the markets of third countries.’ See Case C-159/20 European Commission v. Kingdom of Denmark (AG Opinion 17 March 2022), paras. 72–75.

166 Advisory Group International Aspect of Agriculture (2012) ‘DG AGRI Working Document on International Protection of EU Geographical Indications: Objectives, Outcome and Challenges’, Ref Ares (2012) 669394-06/02/2012, 25 June 2012.

167 A. Matthews (2016) ‘What Outcome to Expect on Geographical Indications in the TTIP Free Trade Agreement Negotiations with the United States?’, in F. Arfini et al. (eds.), Intellectual Property Rights for Geographical Indications: What is at Stake in the TTIP?. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 18.

168 See Farley, supra 161, 74; D. Snyder (2008) ‘Enhanced Protections for Geographical Indications under TRIPs: Potential Conflicts under the US Constitutional and Statutory Regimes’, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 18, 1297, 1315.

169 S.I. Akhtar et al., ‘Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade’ (12 May 2020) Congressional Research Service Report RL34292, p. 43.

170 R. Johnson (2017) ‘Geographical Indications (GIs) in US Food and Agricultural Trade’ (Congressional Research Service Report, 21 March 2017) 11; X. Wang and X. Song (2022) ‘Terroir and Trade War: Reforming China's Legislation on Generic Terms under the Influence of the EU and US’, Journal of World Trade 56, 165.

171 W. van Caenegem (2004) ‘Registered GIs: Intellectual Property, Agricultural Policy and International Trade’, European Intellectual Property Review 26, 170, 171.

172 European Commission (2020) ‘Making the Most of the EU's Innovative Potential – An Intellectual Property Action Plan to Support the EU's Recovery and Resilience’, (Communication) COM(2020) 760 final, 25 November 2020, p. 6.

173 A. Buckwell (1998) ‘Agenda 2000 and Beyond: Towards a New Common Agricultural and Rural Policy for Europe’. Florence: Academy of Georofili, 2–5.

174 L. Beresford (2007) ‘Geographical Indications: The Current Landscape’, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 17, 979, 986–987.

175 See Regulation 1151/2012 Recital 4; D. Barjolle and B. Sylvander (2000) ‘Protected Designations of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications in Europe: Regulation or Policy?’, Final Report of FAIR 1-CT 95-0306, June 2000, 32.

176 European Communities (2006) Fact Sheet: European Policy for Quality Agricultural Products. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EC, 5.

177 European Commission (2021) ‘A Greener and Fairer CAP’, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/factsheet-newcap-environment-fairness_en.pdf (accessed 1 February 2022).

178 M. Handler (2004) ‘The EU's Geographical Indications Agenda and its Potential Impact on Australia’, Australian Intellectual Property Journal 15, 173, 177–178; C. Lister (1996) ‘A Sad Story Told Sadly: the Prospects for US-EU Food Trade Wars’, Food and Drug Law Journal 51, 303, 309.

179 Caenegem, supra 171, 173.

180 See the website of the US Department of Agriculture,www.usda.gov/topics (accessed 1 February 2022).

181 A. Marshall, ‘Vilsack: Biotech, Geographical indications, Cloning Discussed at “Historic” TTIP Meeting’ (17 June 2014), www.agri-pulse.com/articles/4152-vilsack-biotech-geographical-indications-cloning-discussed-at-historic-ttip-meeting. (accessed 1 February 2022).

182 European Parliamentary Research Service, ‘EU and US competition policies-Similar objectives, different approaches’ (27 March 2014), www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/140779/LDM_BRI(2014)140779_REV1_EN.pdf. (accessed 1 February 2022).

183 Case C-490/19, supra 48, para. 29 (AG Opinion).

184 Agriculture and Rural Development of the EC, ‘GI and TSG Schemes Benefit Producers’ (December 2021), https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/gi-and-tsg-schemes-benefit-producers-2021-dec-15_en. (accessed 1 February 2022); London Economics and others, ‘Evaluation of the CAP Policy on Protected Designations of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGI)’ (November 2008) 182–191; European Communities, Fact Sheet, supra 176, 5; European Commission, ‘WTO Talks: EU Steps Up Bid for Better Protection of Regional Quality Products’ (IP/03/1178, 28 August 2003), https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_03_1178 (accessed 1 February 2022).

185 B. O'Connor (2015) ‘Geographical Indications in TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’, International Trade & Customs; H. Moir (2016), ‘Geographical Indications: EU Policy at Home and Abroad’, in IP Statistics for Decision Makers (IPSDM) Conference Paper, 10–12.

186 P. Buccirossi et al. (2002) ‘Competition Policy and the Agribusiness Sector in the European Union’, European Review of Agricultural Economics 29, 373, 374; W.E. Kovacic (2007) ‘Competition Policy, Consumer Protection, and Economic Disadvantage’, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 25, 101, 114.

187 European Communities, Fact Sheet, supra 176, 18.

188 Regulation 1151/2012 Recital 18; Agriculture and Rural Development of the EC, supra 184; London Economics, supra 184, 181.

189 European Commission, ‘The Single Market Programme’, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/single-market-programme/overview_en (accessed 1 February 2022).

190 Kovacic, supra 186, 114–115.

191 M. LaFrance (2011) ‘Passing Off and Unfair Competition: Conflict and Convergence in Competition Law’, Michigan State Law Review 2011, 1413, 1414.

192 M. LaFrance (2020), ‘Fairness for Authors and Performers: the Role of Law’, in D. Gervais (ed.), Fairness, Morality and Ordre Public in Intellectual Property. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 32.

193 See note 159.

194 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark [2017] OJ L154 art. 8(5).

195 C.J. Romano (2004) ‘Comparative Advertising in the United States and in France’, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 25, 371, 379.

196 M. LaFrance, ‘Fairness for Authors’, supra 192, 32.

197 M. LaFrance, ‘Passing Off’, supra 191, 1442.

198 W.J. Derenberg (1955) ‘The Influence of the French Code Civil on the Modern Law of Unfair Competition’, American Journal of Comparative Law 4, 1, 3.

199 Gustavo Ghidini (2010) Innovation, Competition and Consumer Welfare in Intellectual Property Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 237–238.

200 See note 170.