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}   
 
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 AC T? ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  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 PO LICY 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 OPTIO NS? ................................ ...........................  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 COMP ARE?  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 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 I MPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?  ................................ ....... 59 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION  ................................ ................................ ............................  61 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER C ONSULTATION  ................................ ................................ .......................  64 
ANNEX 2A: DETAILED A NALYSIS OF PUBLIC CO NSULTATIONS  ................................ .................  74 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFE CTED AND HOW?  ................................ ................................ ..........................  78 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 82 
ANNEX 5: CHARACTERISTICS O F REGIONS WITH GEOGR APHICALLY ROOTED 
PRODUCTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  94 
ANNEX 6: INTERNATION AL DIMENSION  ................................ ................................ ............................  98 
ANNEX 7: KEY DIFFERE NCES 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 GENERI S GI LAWS AVAILA BLE FOR THE 
PROTECTION OF CRAFTS  AND INDUSTRIAL PROD UCTS  ................................ ....................  113 
ANNEX 9: REGISTRATIO N 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 Decis ion ................................ ................................ .........  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. Quali ty of the application  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 182 
5. Quality of the output  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  183 
6. Transparency  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  185 
7. Efficient pro cedure  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  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 ENT ITY TO ADMINISTER TH E NEW EU GI SCHEME F OR CI 
PRODUCTS AT THE EU A ND INTERNATIONAL LEV EL ................................ ........................  198 
ANNEX 11: INTERPLAY BETWEEN EXISTING NAT IONAL SYSTEMS/ FUTUR E EU 
SYSTEM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  208 
ANNEX 12: COHERENCE OF OPTIONS WITH OTHE R EU POLICY OBJECTIV ES ........................  210 
ANNEX 13: COST CALCU LATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 212 
ANNE X 14: COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF SUB -OPTIO NS 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 th e 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 t he 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 mecha nical 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 geographi cal 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 mas s 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 servi ce 
 
  
 
6 1. INTRODUCTION  
1.1. Political and legal context  
Geographical indications (GIs) e stablish 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 lo gos, 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, aromati sed wines, as well as agricultural products and foo dstuffs. 
However, there is currently no harmoni zed 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 product s in the EU, for example Limoges p orcelain, 
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 lo cation. 
More than 800 products have been identified to qualify as geographical indications for CI 
product s 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 product s and provide for the use of 
consumer protection laws or trade  marks. When producers of CI product s seek protection 
throughout the EU, they can only do so separately in each Member State as available at 
national level. This situation may disincentivi se 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 product s in not only an 
internal issue, though. In November 2019, the EU acceded to the Geneva Act of the 
Lisbon Agreement  on Appe llations 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 Consequen tly, 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 th at 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 positio n. 
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 prote ction 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 2 021, 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 proper ty 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 E U. 
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 
possib le 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 wo uld be too burdensome for public administration s 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 ge ographical 
indication protection of the European Union to non -agricul tural products, 2015/2053(INI) .  
12 Oral question to Commissioner Bienkow ska 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.  
14https://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 Assessme nt is 
aimed at achieving the greatest possible synergies with that reform, to ensure that any 
new EU GI scheme for CI product s would fit appropriately within the EU’s GI regime  
and its protection at international level .  
Learnings from the evaluation repor t 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 fai r 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 obj ective examination procedure. The evaluation also 
points out  that EU GIs schemes show coherence with T rade Mark protection , and are a 
strong asset of rural territories , promoting regional identity, growth and jobs. Finally, the 
GIview platform enhances tra nsparency 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, i n 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 alter native 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 f rom the following eight sectors as shown in: 
porcelain, ceramics and glassware, apparel, natural stones, lace, jewel lery, textiles, 
furniture and cutlery.29 However, t he number of registrable products is likely to be 
significantly higher . Marie -Vivien state s that France alone has at least 100 possible 
candidates for CI GI  protection30. MABS International Marketing Services31 identifi es 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 product s. 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 a nd 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  
consumer s’ 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 20t h century . While cutlery or furniture producers were more 
resilient and ad apted 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 c ultural 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 c hange 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.cal zado_de_ElcheC_Rev.pdf   
40 ‘Artisanal Collaborations and the Preservation of Intangible Cultural Heritage (richmond.edu)  (Susan G. 
Good win 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 domi nant 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, kni fe 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 unemploym ent 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 c rude rate of 
total population change between 2010 and 2019. Finally, geographically roote d 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 geog raphical 
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 obtai ning 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 
concent ration 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 o f 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 202 0 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, d iscrepancies 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 p roducers , their regions  and consumers from fully 
grasp ing 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 
administ ered 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 20 20). 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, Democr atic 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 interes ted to join the Lisbon System/Geneva Act . Figure 1: Problem Tree  
 
Divergent national 
protection rules acr oss 
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, Czech ia, 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 b e 
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 w hich 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 
product s originating in the EU by means of using the Lisbon/Genev a route , as there 
can be no EU registration to start with . Moreover, the EU will have  to refuse protection 
of GIs for CI product s 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 product s 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 L isbon 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 interna tional  system on their 
own, due to the EU’s exclusive competence . Therefore, producers in Mem ber 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 protec tion 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 opportunit ies 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 product s 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 t erritories.  
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 product s 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 trigge rs 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 availabl e 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, t he EU cannot grant protection of GIs for CI product s 
via bilateral trade agreements .  
This results in missed opportunities for GI producers. T rade partners such as India, China 
or MERCOSUR attach great importance to protecting their GIs for CI product s. 
However, the EU cannot include CI  GIs in bilateral negotiations,  as there is no unitary 
EU-level protection. For example, the Goiabeiras clay po ts 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 d espite the fact that 
some partners could offer GI protection in their territor ies also for EU CI product s.52 
Furthermore, trade partners often ask for reciprocity when it comes to adding names to 
the initial GI lists protected under FTAs. A dding CI  names could facilitate such 
reciprocity  and greater protection for EU GI products in t hird countries against fraudulent 
practices affecting EU GI products.  
                                                 
50 As to existing registrations protected by EU Memb er 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 k eep 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 pos sibility 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 i n trade agreements.  
 
15 Moreover, lack of GI protection at EU level for crafts an industrial products may also 
limit the EU develop ment  agenda  policy to support CI GIs in developing countries. 
Today, the EU de velop ment  agenda promot es 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 tha n 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 product s 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 product s, 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 product s than individual marks. However, the ob ligatory 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 origi nates 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, S ee 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 Regu lation (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 cer tifying 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 root ed 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 product s. Furthermore, a key limitation is that a certifica tion 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 product s 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 pri vate 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 protecti ng 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 product s at national le vel. 
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. massa ge). 
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 a mong 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 publish ed a Cost of Non -Europe 
report66 in which c osts arising from the lack of EU legislation prote cting 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 o f 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 o rigin 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 protect ion 
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 approxima tely 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 regio nal-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 dec ades.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 c onsumers 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 b ehavioural experiment  from 2020  studied how consumers perceive sui generis  GI-
protected CI products in comparison to other a uthentic 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 abou t 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 Pa norama (2020), supra note.  
68 Special Eurobarometer 504 Survey (2020, October ) Europeans, Agriculture and th e 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 Develo pment: 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 sch emes, 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 s ee 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 ni che 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 t he 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 
produ cts 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 be tween 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 p resentation of Association Française des Indications Géographiqu es 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 IN PI 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 Ken nedy, Marketing and Business Development Consultant, notes that the lack of 
intellectual property protection on the EU and international level harms the traditional craft sector s 
(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 geograph ical 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 čip ka (Pag lace) and others86 – face a constant challenge to protect themselves by 
launching campaigns, regis tering trade marks and taking legal action87. In their replies to 
the Public Consultation, producers of geographically rooted products underlined th at 
regulatory fragmentation makes the protecti on 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 preve ntive 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 w ould 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) consultatio n91, 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 an d/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 cerami cs 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 fin al, 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: Amo ng 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 MARQUE S. 
93 VVA et al.  (2020), supra note, Section 5.  
 
21 provided clarity on the geographic al 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 incomp lete. 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 
conside red that consumers benefit from a higher level of GI protection, because it gives 
valuable information  about product characteristics .96 The v ast 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 f or 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 foodstuff s, wine and spirits , delivering higher added value, 
more jobs and safeguarding a produc t’s identity and heritage through the notion of 
terroir.97 Furthermore, it has been show n 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 respons ible 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 tour ism 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 n ote; 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 TOPOSO PHY 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 fou nd 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 reduc e the problem of tourism seasonality , as craftsmanship offer s 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 
fourt h 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 aftermat h 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 explain ed 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, t he lace produced in the area of Gorizia has to be understood as regional cultural heritage. 
Due to it s 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 ge nerations. ’ in Commission Staff working 
 
 
23 key incentive to create an EU scheme for the protection of CI product s 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 nati onal 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 lim ited 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 deposit ed its instrument of accession on 31 August 2021 and it s 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 Mong olia, 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 internatio nal 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 simpl e search in WIPO Lex, WIPO’s global database of IP laws, in 
respect of  the subject matter ‘geographical indication s’ among legal information on intellectual property 
from around the world in WIPO  Lex displayed 251 records f rom 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 exampl e, 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)121of 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: Necessit y 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 geog raphically 
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 mar ket.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 inter nal 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 proc edure, 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 competenc e 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 are a 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 
opportunitie s 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 sub mit 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 fragmentat ion 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 a nd 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 ACHIEVE D? 
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 syste m 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 , affordabl e 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 n ot 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 AVAILABL E POLICY OPTIONS ? 
5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed?  
The b aseline scenario is to keep  the current fragmented regulatory framework in the EU  
and sustain the lack of recognised protection at interna tional level . 
If the EU does not take action , many producers may be discouraged from  continu ing to 
produc e 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 a dministrative 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 s ystem  for CI products would be integrated in the 
existing  GI protection s chemes  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 prod uction 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 level s 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 t he 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  object ors 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 Parlia ment 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 a nd 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 alc oholic 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 indicati ons 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 increasi ngly 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 
Tran sformation of EU Geographical Indications Law: The Present, Past and Future of the Origin Link . 
Routledge.  

 
28 agency  (most likely EU IPO) . 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 GI s may be subject to a fee at t he 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 internat ional level, the Commission is the 
Compe tent 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 Regulation s133 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 product s. They check the compliance of the products 
with the correspondi ng 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/  
certificatio n 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 agricult ural 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); pre vent 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 prote cted 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 se tting 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 Audit ing 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 regar ds 
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 designation s 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) an d in Art. 10 (4) TM Directive. In addition, s imilar 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 Designation s 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 p olicy 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 U nion. 
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 l ink  
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 char acteristics 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, becau se 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 Exception s 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 nat ional 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 cha rge 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 s uch 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 a s 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 c ontrol 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 conformit y 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 pro duction 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 fir ms 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 conformit y 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 authoritie s 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 
annua l 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 au thorities 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 accompa nied 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 Decisio n 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 m uch 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 pr oducts, 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 syste m, 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 goo ds, 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. T he 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 distingu ish 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 g overned 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 de signate 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 refe rred 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 al low 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 a n 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 aga inst 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 t he content of the regulations governing 
the use of EU certification marks according to Article 17(1) EUTMIR152, e.g. name of the 
applica nt, representation of the EU certification mark,  goods to be covered, as well as the 
characteristics of the goods or servi ces to be certified by the EU certification mark. 
However, the EUIPO  does neither verify whether the relevant product s 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 
geographi cal 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 trad e 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 basi c protection period is ten 
years. Cost of e ach 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. Recommendatio n 
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 woul d 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, certificati on 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 t he Geneva Act. The Geneva Act 
requires the EU  as a signatory  to put in place a system which allow s for the protection of 
third countries’ GIs within the EU and the protection of EU GIs in the contracting states. 
This o ption  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/Ge neva 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 M ember 
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 hav e 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. Fi rst, 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 i f 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 la ws 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 suc h 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 wit h 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 approximati on 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 protec tion 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, c ompared 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 t ake 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 OPTION S? 
Policy options 1 (Extending the existing P GI/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 opti ons for the cost 
and benefits for key stakeholder s: 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 condit ions for the GI label:  the characteristics of t he product, the 
production method, and the geographic area of pro duction.  Such involvement gives the 
producer group a strong role in managing and regulating the GI asset.  The P GI scheme is 
inclusive to all producers in the region . Once a PGI for a product  is reg istered, all 
producers within the geographic al region who comply with the product specifi cation, 
regardless of whether or not they are a member of the  association that originally ap plied 
for the registra tion, are entitled to use the PGI label on the ir product . Adding between 
164 and 300 EU CI GI s157 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 observation s. 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 C I 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, a lmost a 
quarter of respondents (28) preferred a one -stage procedure at EU level only.  
Registration cost : When it comes to the registrati on cost, t he 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 i s 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 c ost 
from the perspective of the producer group  (or indivi dual 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 registe ring 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 
product s. 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 Inter national et al.  (2020) pages 176 -178.  
Table 6.1.1 provide s 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 af fordable 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 VA T 
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 i ndependent 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 craftswoma n need s 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, o nly individual craf tsmen 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 product s. There are current ly three certification institutions existing 
in France162 and there are about ten for agricultural  products , food stuffs  and drinks. Little 
competition may result i n 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 N ational 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 repea ling 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 fo r 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 t rust such scheme . Some producers, are therefore in favour of voluntary use of 
GI label as it allow s 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 stre amlining 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 lower ing 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 t he 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 tha n 
agricultural ones, thus cost of assessment was estimate d at EUR 20, 000 (see Annexes 4, 
13). Moreover, EU level enforcement and management cost s are estimated at EUR  9,000 
per CI GI annually , including e.g. operation costs con nected with publication of CI GI 
registrations in the existing eAmbrosia171. 
Cost for M ember 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 fo r 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 wh ich 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 EASM E 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 acro ss the EU . 
 
41 generis  GI protection for CI product s, the registration process i s 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 twe lve 
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.  Mem ber States ’ 
overall annual registration cost is expected at EUR 7, 500 per CI GI  and verification cost 
at EUR  600. 
Cost for M ember 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 pr oduction 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 GI s of these two 
countries could almost quadruple the enforcement budget of EU Member Stat es 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 the y 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 exist ing 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 pr oduc t 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 fo r 
consumer s to make inform ed 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 bec ome 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 quali fy 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 charact eristic 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 i nto 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 chara cteristics 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. I n 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 r eplicating 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 pr oduct 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 produc ts 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 
sufficie nt 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 justif ied 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. S uch 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 couple d 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 pr otecting 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 Legis lation 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 o f 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, u nder 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 holde rs 
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 respondin g to the pub lic consultations w ere selecting PO 2 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 a round 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 c oordination 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 nati onal 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 exis ting national GI titles/regime with the EU 
                                                 
181 VVA & AND Interna tional (2021), supra note, p. 65.  
182 .eu top -level domain (TLD) for further information see: .eu top -level domain | Shaping E urope’s digital 
future (europa.eu)  
183 Bulgaria, Czech  Republic , France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Germany.  
184 VVA & AND Interna tional (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 n ational 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 . Conseque nces 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 thr ough 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 engage ment 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 consult ations 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 stag e 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 compet ence 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 decisio ns. 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 Commissio n 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 deali ng 
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 specialise d 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 appr oach 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 EUI PO’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 1 7,000 (this includes 
cost for registration and management of EUR6,000 and cost of translation (machine + 
human verification) of files to all EU languages of EUR1 1,000). Additionally a ll 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 s ystem) , 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 require s 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, c ost 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 l egal GI register of the names of agricultural products and foodstuffs, 
wine, aromatised wine products and spirit drinks that a re 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. Ev en 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 sch emes 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 protectio n 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 harmoniz ed. As there are two type s of systems at national lev el 
(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 app roximation 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 titl e 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 
Intelle ctual 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 
member s 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 propert y action plan to support 
the EU’s recovery and resilience (2021/2007(INI)) . 
 
48 national syste ms /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 (8 6%) of EU citizens, NGOs and researchers who replied to the p ublic 
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  mark s, 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 cas e 
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 objective s 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 Counc il 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, EUIP O 
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 system s 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 mark s, 
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 veri fication. 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 co mplex 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 regis tered 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 consultati on, 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 informa tion 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 facilitate s 
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 M ember States). In cas e 
authorities do not want to engage as owners, their direct cost would be reduce d to zero. 
Nevertheless, they could still support mark holders e.g. by organizing cooperation, 
support ing payment of EUIPO fees, or organizing national and international  promot ion 
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 experience d 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 Inter national (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 fragmentatio n 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 gener al. 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, t he 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 leve l 
(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 C I 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 a nd 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 
profitabilit y 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 strong ly 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 sust ainable 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 mor e 
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 pr otected 
by geographical indications do not remain static but evolve both with regard to the 
production and to the marketing.206 Nevertheless, i t is important to underline that, h aving 
control over the product specification, group of producers have the power to stimulate or  
stifle innovation.207 Around half of respondents to consultations expect ed positive 
impact s 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 na tional 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 innovati on 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 ot her, 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 dishwash ers 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 geographi cal 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 signa lling effects of the CI GI title lifts consumer willingness to pay.  This is 
indeed the case a s 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 the y fulfil the relevant 
criteria . And t here 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 busi ness 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 opp osing 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 i s 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 inno vation: 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 a re 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 CO MPARE ? 
The following tables provides information comparing the policy options in the light of 
the effectiveness and efficiency criteri a 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: EUR 1.95m for 30 GI, 
37% of cost s 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 u se voluntarily 
PGI logo. Authorities bear 55% 
of cost s 
Cost : EUR 1.57m for 30 GI . 
Producers bear  45% of cost s 
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 born e 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, acce lerating 
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 loc al 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 -decla ration 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 an d 
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 indicat ions (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  assess es coherence of each considered option with other EU policy objectives, 
including the Charter for fundamental rights, and with other policy initi atives 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 forese es 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 benefici al 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 coopera tion, and promoting  and protect ing 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 fac ilitating 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 relatio n 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, pr oducers 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 l ow in coherence with the EU Trade Mark policy.   
Moreover, PO3  also ranks l ow on coherence w ith the EU international GI protection  
policy. First, under PO3, CIs products w ould 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, particul arly 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, f irst, 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  ‘evoc ation’ 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 foc used on agricultural products and within an 
administration used to dealing with agricultural matters , under the Common Agricultural 
Policy and the rural development. And s econdly, CI products would require to amend the 
existing Quality Control Regulation a nd 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 problem s/objective s. 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 instrum ents 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 towar ds Member State as no new obligations 
would be created. It scores , however , lower in terms of support to micro/artisan al 
producers  (no assistance from authorities in application or enforcement). It may also be 
problematic to implement due to required chang es 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 o ption a ll EU producers can obtain EU -wide  GI protection for CI 
products. Such protection  encourages producers’ cooperation, strengthen s local supply, 
creat es niche markets, and encourag es producers’ cooperation with local authorities. As 
within the GI syst em 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 th ird 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 p aper 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 IMPAC TS 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 list s 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 th eir 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 own ers 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 o f 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 
authoriti es 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 INFORMATIO N 
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 In terservices 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 contri bute 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 Scr utiny 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 Im pact 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 clea rly 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 o ption 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 othe r 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 subopti ons 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 t he 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 evi dence, 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. E xamples 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 rec eived from the stakeholders in the framework of targeted 
consultations and workshops (see Annex 2).  
 DG AGRI/EUIPO Conference on Str engthening 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 produc ts in the EU , EUIPO (2017)  
o Geographical indications for non -agricultural products. Cost of non -
Europe report , Study by European Parliamentary Rese arch 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. Consultation s started already in 2013 and have intensified in 2020 
and 2021.  Stakeholders have been asked to express their views in particular on:  
- The existing fra gmented 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 internatio nal 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, publ ic 
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 o rganisations.   
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 produc ts);  
 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 b roadly 
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 dev elopment 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 geogr aphical 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 Novemb er 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 stakeholde rs 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 collect ive 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 t o 
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 c onsumer 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 th e 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 ar e 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 enforce ment 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 alw ays 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 w ill 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 la rge-size organisations (50 to 249 employees and 250 employees or 
more, respectively).  
Responses by organisation size (153 replies) : 
44
38
24
17
975433333222211111111111
05101520253035404550
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
UruguayCountry of respondents
68
35
28 27
8 852 1
01020304050607080Responses by stakeholder type
 
68  
More than one third of the responses in question came from the natural stones sector 
(33). Other key sectors were porcelai n/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 ac tivities 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 o f 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
201310664Responses 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 expr essed 
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 burde n/ costs, for example related to the application’.  681653Responses 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
168743Responses 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 prefe rred) 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%OtherLimit competition on the marketHigher price premiumIncrease/secure market shareIncrease own firm's reputationAccess to new markets within/beyond EU Internal MarketAffinity with the regionStrengthened position of producer groups in the value chainDifferentiation of productTraceability toolIncrease credibility of productRegional development and tourismQuality assurance signal for consumersProtection of traditions/cultural heritageUseful marketing tool/better visibility for consumersBetter enforcement, combatting misuse of protected name and fraudIncentives 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 productivityA GI would prevent innovation in the production/commercialisationNo need because unfair competition law is sufficientNo need because strong market position alreadyNo added valueNo need because we have an own trade markOtherUncertainty of market demand or low demandHigher marketing costsMissing regional roots (lack of local identity)Higher production costsUncertainty related to combatting misuse of protected name and fraudStricter inspectionsAdministrative burden/Costs, for example relating to the applicationDisincentives to participate in an EU scheme
 
71 - The most preferred policy o ption (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 pr eference 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 po licy 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 responden ts (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 l ess 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 inc luding 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
gMerger - 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 leavinEU 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 opinionHarmonisation -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 certification trade 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 2 0% (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 joint ly. 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 pub lic 
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 bee n 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 pr otection. 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 an d 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 Memb er 
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 a pplications 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 typica lly 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 O F PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS  
The public consultations revealed divergences in opinions on several issues. The most 
striking differences concern ed 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 sta tements? 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 St ates 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) w ere 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 
challeng e 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 geographi cal 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 handi craft 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 t he 
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 wi th 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 H OW? 
1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION S 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 e nforce 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. over come 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 c ontrol).  
 If necessary, d esignate 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, i nform 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 w ill 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 u se of the EU logo  
 Co-operate with authorities within the Member State and across the Member 
States  
EU (Commission/ 
EU body (EU IPO)  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 applicat ions 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 incre ase 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 
produc ts 
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 sust ainable 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 pro posed 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 th ree 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, Czec hia, 
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 guaranteein g 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 measure s; 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 poss ible 
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 pro tection 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 ge neris  
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 
geographic al 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, F inland, 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, Netherlan ds. 
 
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 caut ion 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 pro duct 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 num ber 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, p p. 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 gro ups), 
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 ver ification 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 applica tions (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 es timated 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 multip lying the average FTE cost by 12 
 
 
86 for translation of documents into all official languages (mostly machi ne 
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 diffe rently 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 Legis lation 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 mach inery 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 
analys e 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 
mark et 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 o f 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, inp ut 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 lega l 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 repre sentation 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 nati onal 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 
associa tions 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  produ cers 
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 co mplement the desk research and 
interviews conducted for the products from the research 
sample that cover the same protection systems.  
4°) Options: elaborat ing 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. l ink between the product characteristics and the 
territory,  verification of the products and production process,  
monitoring o f 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 St akeholder 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; speci fic 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 (wit h 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 appro ach 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 initi al 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 i nstruments, 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 repre sentative 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 instr uments 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 analys e the 
benefits, costs and effectiveness of the monitoring and enforcement mecha nisms, 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 wheth er 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 geog raphically 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 co mpatibility 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 myste ry 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) p opulation 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 pa y 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 random ly 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 authentici ty 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 analys is 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 r esulting 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 syst ems 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 i n a table Overviewing the costs and 
effectiveness of each protection system (see Study, Table 20, pages 91 -92). 
 
 ANNEX 5: CHARACTERISTICS OF R EGIONS WITH GEOGRAPH ICALLY 
ROOTED PRODUCTS   
 
More than 800 products with characteristics of geographical indications were 
mapped in two studies conveyed in 2013 and 2020 .235 These products typical ly stem 
from the following e ight sectors as shown in: porce lain, ceramics and glassware, ap parel, 
natural s tones, lace, jewel lery, textiles, furniture and cut lery (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 catego ries 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 a rea as 
identified in the product specification. Second, for product s 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. Montaf on 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 capi ta 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 l ocated 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 susc eptibility 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 ye arly 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 v ertical line indicates a 6.8 
average EU unemployment rate as of 2019. The h orizontal 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 DIMENSI ON 
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 20 07) 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 th e 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 a ppellations 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 o f 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 w ith 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 prot ection 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 an d 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 3 7241, 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 Internation al 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 existi ng 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 sy stem 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 re quirements 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 t ime, 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 (I slamic 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/publi cations/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 at tributable 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 regula te 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 ar e 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 (E UCJ) of 25 O ctober 
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 E UCJ 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 i n 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 adm inistration 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 Com mission 
                                                 
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 Indi cations; 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), Ém aux 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 ho lders 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 produ cts 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 le vel. 
 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, i t 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 availabl e 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 maintain ed 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 o ur 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 agreeme nts, 
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 lis ts 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 Lisb on 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”: e xtending the GI protection system for agricultural 
products to GIs for CI products ; 
- “The sui generis  option”: cr eating 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 produc ts. 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 t he 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 a ppears 
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 
registe red 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 agricultu ral 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 stan d-alone sui generis  scheme. First, agricultural products 
and foodstuffs are different in na ture 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 th e 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 di stinctive 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 produc ts 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 th e 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 produ cts 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 bet ween 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 fo llowing 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 fil ing 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  replac e 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 rela ted 
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 interfac e 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. Th e 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 s tudy 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 v alue 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 Decisio n 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 respe ctive 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 Per u/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 Ind onesia, 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 agre ements 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 t he 
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 t rade 
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 fro m 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 co llective 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 membe r 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 again st 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 
servic es 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 canno t 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 b eer 
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 characteris tics (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 righ t 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 a nd 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 certific ation 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 fo r 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 
geogra phical 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 EU TMR 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 ki nd. 
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 E UCJ, 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 mar k 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 fu lfil the objectives of a GI system for CI products 266. 
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 
specifica tion. 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 lin k, 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 
environmen t 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. Thi s 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 to ol 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 contr ol/verification of the final product by an independent body 268. 
                                                 
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 regim e, 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 pro ducers 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 particul ar 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 per ceived 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 an d/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 o n 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 under mining 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 stan dards are controlled by the owner of the certification mark.  
 
113 
 ANNEX 8: OVER VIEW OF NATIONAL SUI GENERIS GI LAWS AVAILABLE FOR 
THE PROTECTION OF CRAFTS AND INDUSTRIA L 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 de ception 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 control s. The 
requi rements 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 p rotect 
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 on e 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 produce rs themselves (e.g. for the Halas Lace), to technical boards 
created by a municipality (like the Geographical Indication Comm ittee 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 Indicati on 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 Indicat ion 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 n atural 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 
specification s.  
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 c ase 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 bodi es. 
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, Est onian, 
Hungarian, Slovak and Slovenian sui generis  legal instruments277. 
 There are various requirements as regards the li nk 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 or igin 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, 
Czech ia, 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 t he 
fact tha t 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 t hese 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 ren ewed to remain 
valid.  
 When assessing the GI application, in several Member States, such as Bulgaria, 
Czech ia 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 th e 
products as an  official confirmation  that the applicant produces, transforms and 
prepares the relevant. The French  sui generi s legislation, however , foresees the use of 
certification by a third party conformity body , both for the verification phase 
(befo re the registration of the GI) and the control phase, to monitor that GI Producers 
continue meeting the GI requirements (every two years)278. 
 Ther e 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 
 prod uction 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 Geo graphical 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 d etails 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 t able 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 f irst 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 – independentl y 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 performe d 
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 produc t 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 m inimum 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, p rocedural 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 pr ocedural 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 group s 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, effe ctive, 
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 stake holders  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 activi ty 
(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), her eafter 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, doc umentation 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 system 284, 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 b inding 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 performan ce 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 indicator s 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 optio ns, 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 affect ed 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 regis tration 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 analy sis 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/unde rstand 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 ‘accessi ble’ 
 
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 b y 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 co nsidered 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 
document 285. The following assumptions are consid ered 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, I mpact 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 GR OW. 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 800 288. 
- 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 s imilar 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 a re 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 regis tration 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 applica ble, 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 docum ent 292, 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 geograp hical 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 / AGEN CY 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 assu med 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 o r 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 consultat ion 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 list ed 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 products 294 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 considere d 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. Advan tages 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 
AGENC Y’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  
Assum ptions:  
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 i mplementing 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 eAmbrosia 295 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 coul d 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 agreement 296. 
 
                                                 
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 GITrigger
MS Scrutiny 
OppositionPrepares 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 statementsExamination of the file 
(translation + input from 
the technical unit)
Cross check 
Letter with MSDeficiencyNo Deficiency / Deficiency solved / 
Deficiency not solvedTechnical UnitFavourable decision
Inter Service Consultation
Translation into 23 languagesCIS
Comments / Observations
No Comments / Comments solved 
Opposition admissible
Agreement not reachedOpposition 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 
eRegisterEnd of ProceesGI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE 
TECHNICAL UNITCOMMISSION
V.01 05.07.2021SUI GENERIS 1.0 MS -> COM DECISION
Need to register a GITriggerWIPO – 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 
improvements 297): 
- 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 additio nal 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 
improvements 298): 
- High -level process description would have to be availab le 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, Im pact 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 appli cant, 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 GROW 303 
- Estimated number of incoming applications ro unded to 800 304 
- 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 in curred 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 Operati ons 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 o f 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 re gistration 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 dur ing 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 knowled ge 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  20 306 
Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY  0 
Costs for the MS 307 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 Opt ion 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 eRegister 308. 
- The flow is similar to Option 2.1 agricultural GI 309 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 
analysis 310 are assumed to be implemented/integrated already in the GI proce dure 
for craft and industrial products.  
- COM is the competent authority for the Lisbon agreement 311. 
 
                                                 
308 Current GIview database to be cust omised for this purpose.  
309Annex 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, I mpact 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 
GROWExamination of the file
Deficiency
(Automatic) Translation into 23 
languages
Data available in 
eRegisterEnd of ProceesObservation/Confirmation letter 
(translated) to the MS
Answer  letter
Publish registration in the 
eRegister (automatic?)Inter Service ConsultationDG GROW formulates decision 
and sends the file for CIS 
DG GROW addresses ISC 
comments
Published in the 
Official Journal – L 
SeriesEnd of Procees
ACTION BEFORE THE ECJSUI GENERIS 1.1 MS -> AGENCY -> COM DECISION
GI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCY
Need to register a GITrigger
MS Scrutiny 
E-OppositionFiles 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 neededCOMMISSION
Deficiency not solved
GI Application rejected 
and decision published 
in the eRegister  and /or 
OJEnd of 
Procees
V.01 23.06.2021Need to register a GITriggerWIPO – 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 mom ent 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 GROW 313. 
 
                                                 
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, addre ssing 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 consis tent 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 r eserved 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 
recommende d 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 MS 315 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 matte rs 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 dupl ication 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, duri ng 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 
agreement 317. 
                                                 
316 Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Work ing 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
RegistrationNo opposition / 
Opposition not 
accepted /Examination of the file
DeficiencyNo Deficiency
(Automatic) Translation into 23 
languages
Opposition acceptedDeficiency not solved
GI application registered and 
published in the eRegister 
and/or OJ of the AgencyEnd of ProceesDeficiency (Observation) letter 
(translated) to the MSGI Application rejected 
and decision published 
in the eRegister  and /or 
OJ of the AgencyEnd of 
Procees
GI Application rejected  and 
decision published in the 
eRegister and/or OJ of the 
AgencyEnd of 
ProceesAnswer letter
Manage Appeal (including 
internal processes)COMMISSION Opposition partially 
acceptedSUI GENERIS 1.2 MS -> AGENCY DEC -> COM APPEAL
GI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCY
Need to register a GITrigger
MS Scrutiny 
E-OppositionFiles 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 filedTrigger
ACTION BEFORE THE ECJAppeal accepted: Case 
reopened at the stage when 
the appeal was filedAppeal refused and refusal 
decision published in the  
OJ and eRegister
V.01 23.06.2021Need to register a GITriggerWIPO – 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 i ncreasing 
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 s upport 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 d ossier 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 lega l 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 organisationa l 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 FT Es 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 MS 319 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 mean s of 
registration certificates issued by the AGENCY 320. 
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 rep utational 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 
structur e 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 integra ted 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 scienti fic 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 
agreement 322. 
                                                 
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
RegistrationNo opposition / 
Opposition not 
accepted /Examination of the file
DeficiencyNo Deficiency
(Automatic) Translation into 23 
languages
Opposition acceptedDeficiency not solved
GI application registered and 
published in the eRegister 
and/or OJ of the AgencyEnd of ProceesDeficiency (Observation) letter 
(translated) to the MSGI Application rejected 
and decision published 
in the eRegister  and /or 
OJ of the AgencyEnd of 
Procees
GI Application rejected  and 
decision published in the 
eRegister and/or OJ of the 
AgencyEnd of 
ProceesAnswer letter
 Opposition partially 
acceptedSUI GENERIS 1.3 [MS/EU - AGENCY ONLY] MS -> AGENCY DECISION -> APPEAL BODY + SCIENTIFIC BOARD
GI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCY
Need to register a GITrigger
MS Scrutiny 
E-OppositionFiles 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 filedAppeal filedTrigger
ACTION BEFORE THE ECJCall scientific board
Provide input (MANDATORY/
OPTIONAL)SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Appeal refused and refusal 
decision published in the  OJ 
and eRegister
V.01 23.06.2021Need to register a GITriggerWIPO – 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 dossier s are expected to be already assessed by the MS, and the AGENCY 
scrutinises323 the dossiers similarly to the existing agricultural GI procedures 324. 
                                                 
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 
applications 325 and the help provide d 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 con sists 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 completi ng 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 pr oducts, 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 Commi ssion/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 t he 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 speci fically 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 deta ils 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 MS 327 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 an d 
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 i s 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 agreement 329. 
                                                 
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 
DeficiencyDeficiency answered / 
Time ended
Deficiency not solvedSends observation letter 
(translated) to the ApplicantAnswer deficiency letterFormality/ admissibility 
check
Consults the MSSends observation 
(deficiency) letter to applicantDeficiency
No Deficiency
1st publication (SD) in eRegister 
and/or OJ of the Agency
EU Level ONLY Opposition 
procedure
RegistrationNo opposition / Opposition not accepted(Automatic) Translation into 23 
languages
Opposition accepted / agreement not reachedPositive recommendationNegative 
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 GITrigger
Files an electronic 
application
GI Application rejected  and 
decision published in the 
eRegister and/or OJ of the 
AgencyEnd of 
ProceesGI Application rejected  and 
decision published in the 
eRegister and/or OJ of the 
AgencyEnd of 
Procees
GI application registered and 
published in the eRegister 
and/or OJ of the AgencyEnd of ProceesGI Application rejected  and 
decision published in the 
eRegister and/or OJ of the 
AgencyEnd of 
Procees
Manage Appeal (including 
internal processes)BOA
Appeal accepted: Case 
reopened at the stage when 
the appeal was filedAppeal filedTrigger
ACTION BEFORE THE ECJCall scientific board
Provide input (MANDATORY/
OPTIONAL)SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Appeal refused and refusal 
decision published in the  OJ 
and eRegisterNeed to register a GITriggerWIPO – 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 th roughout 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 f or 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 MS 330 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 neede d 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 estimat ed 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 agreement 332. 
                                                 
331 Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessm ent 
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 
acceptedExamination of the file
Letter (translated) with the 
ApplicantDeficiency
No Deficiency / 
Deficiency solved
Automatic Translation into 23 
languages
Opposition accepted / agreement 
not reachedDeficiency not 
solvedAnswer 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 AgencyEnd of ProceesGI Application rejected  and 
decision published in the 
eRegister and/or OJ of the 
AgencyEnd of 
ProceesNeed to register a GITrigger
Files an electronic 
application
GI Application rejected  and 
decision published in the 
eRegister and/or OJ of the 
AgencyEnd of 
Procees
Manage Appeal (including 
internal processes)APPEAL BODY
Appeal accepted: Case 
reopened at the stage when 
the appeal was filedAppeal filedTrigger
ACTION BEFORE THE ECJCall scientific board
Provide input (MANDATORY/
OPTIONAL)SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Appeal refused and refusal 
decision published in the  OJ 
and eRegister
V.01 23.06.2021Need to register a GITriggerWIPO – 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 dossier 333. 
                                                 
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 MS 334 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 bo dies 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 thi s 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 ex pert 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 opt ions 
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 explo red 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 
purpo se 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 bu ilding 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 M S + 
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 it s 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 cus tomised 
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 fact or. 
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 indus trial 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 applicati ons (‘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 effecti vely 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/S cientific 
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 sam e 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 mech anisms 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 an d 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 w here 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 preparatio n of the registration documentation 336. 
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 a spects 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 is sued (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 obje ctive, 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 indicato r [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 indicato r [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 proport ionally 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 f or 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 estimate d 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 a re 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 tha t 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 respons ibility 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 
applicat ion 
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 na tionally 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 filedTrigger
1. Process incoming 
communications
2. Examin e EUTM 
applicationUser Examine r
3. Perform TranslationApplication OKApplication 
NOT OK
5. Handle Opposition
Changes to 
Register / 
InspectionsTrigger
8. IP ManagementDecision 
appealed
6. Register  and publish  
EUTMAppeal filedDecision 
appealed
Opposition filedTrigger
4. Publish EUTM application
UserInvalidity/
Revocation filedTrigger
7. Handle Invalidity/ 
Revocation (Cancellation)
Decision
appealedAppeal filedApplication refused 
(totally / partially)Output
Appeal filed
EUTM bulletin 
publishedOutput
EUTM application 
refused (totally/
partially)/limitedOutputOpposition rejectedOutput
EUTM revoked/invalid  
(totally/partially)OutputRevocation/invalidity 
rejectedOutputOppo filedOppo not filed
EUTM registered and 
publishedOutput
Register maintainedEnd of ProceesUser
UserDecision not appealed
DecisionDecision  not 
appealed
Decision  not 
appealed
Decision
DecisionDecision  not 
appealed
Decision
appealedAppeal filed
International 
Registration TriggerWIPO
Product & Service Q uality Activities
Product & Service Q uality ActivitiesExamine re-businesse-businesse-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business
e-business3. 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 
defined 338. 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  1500 339. 
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 documentation 341. The produ ct 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 ref orm 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 requirem ent 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 proprieto r 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 geo graphical 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 t he 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 ex ist 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 
mark 342. 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 ind eed 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 pro ving 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 authorities 343. 
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 tr ade 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 e ffectively 
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 th e product’s origin)  
 
 
  
 
198 
 ANNEX 10: THE EU ENTITY TO ADMINISTER THE NEW EU GI SCHEME FOR 
CI PRODUCTS AT THE EU AND INTERNATIONAL L EVEL  
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 Ro le of Competent Authority in WIPO’s Lisbon 
System for CI GI s 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 f or 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 specialis ed 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 intrinsical ly 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 Par liament 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 f or 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 wo uld 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 
procedure s 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 t he 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 sc hemes 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 g roups to t he national authorities as their closes t 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 re cognised within 
the EU, as is case with the Lisbon system . This approach would be comparable to  
the trade mark and design system s, 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 acqu ired 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 designa ted 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 Anne xes 3 and 9, t asks 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 fo r 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 shal l 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 Auth ority 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. Whe n 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 Int ernational Bureau.  
 
200 
 the EU as well as processing those internationa l 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 i nternal 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. F urthermore, 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 agricultur al 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 p lace, 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 stemmi ng 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 pr oduct 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 h ealthy 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 fo od 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 inv olving 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 authoriti es 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 com petence 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 proc edures, 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 procedure s for several IP rights.   
 
                                                 
346 According to the 2013 legal study, such countries are: Bulgaria, Czech ia, 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: t he 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 va luable 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 oth er side of the coin, possible arguments in favour of the 
Commission as the EU institution in charge could be:  
 EU i nternal market registration purposes: Agricultural GIs are administered 
by the Commission, which is a tradition rooted in exclusive EU compete nce 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 
characteri stics 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  grad ually 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 A uthority 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 pr actice 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 consid erable 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 abov e, 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 Pr eferred 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 Lisb on 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 resp ect 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 am endments, 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 ha s 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 GI s 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 correspondi ng 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, e ither 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 “craft s 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 regist rations.  
 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 Co mmission . 
 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 it s 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 al so 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).  
 Publica tion 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 produc t 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 respec t 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 fr om 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 th e 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 registr ation 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 n o 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 possibl e 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 Regulatio n) 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 t o 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 wit h 
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 availabili ty 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 t he 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 w ith 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 Ar ticle 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, harmoni sation 
would also require continuous investment to maintain conve rgence 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 harmoni sation is the replacement of national GIs by 
the EU framework.  This approach has the adva ntages of creating a unique regulatory 
framework throughout the Internal Market creating legal certainty as well as predictable 
and relatively low costs for producers . Moreover, a n 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 en hance 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 indicat ions 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 th e 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 ap plications 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 f ramework 
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 ori gin ++ 
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 com mercial 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)  
 
Encou rage 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 p ositive 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 Commiss ion 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 unde r 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 o f 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 
EUR1 7,000 (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 
EUR1 7,000 (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 
EUR1 7,000 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  (++) qu ality 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 1 7 000  
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;