EN   EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Brussels, 13.4.2022  
SWD(2022) 116 final  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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)  115 final}   
 
1 
 Executive Summary Sheet  
Impact assessment on a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council  
concerning geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products  
A. Need for action  
Why? What is the problem being addressed?  
At EU level, special or sui generis  geographical indication (GI) protection has been established for 
wines, spirit drinks, aromatised wines, as well as agricultural products and foodstuffs. However, 
there is currently no harmonised or unitary GI protection for craft and industrial (CI) prod ucts at 
EU level. 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 territory. Other Mem ber States have no GI protection 
scheme in place at national level for CI products and provide for the use of consumer protection 
laws or trade marks. When producers of CI products seek protection throughout the EU, they can 
only do so separately in each M ember State as available at national level. This situation may be a 
disincentive to investment in the traditional crafts in the EU, adding up to increased costs and legal 
uncertainty for producers.  
The absence of EU -level protection for CI products is not only an internal issue, though. In 
November 2019, the EU acceded to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of 
Origin and Geographical Indications, a treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property 
Organization. The Geneva Act offers a route to obtain protection of GIs regardless of the nature of 
the goods to which they apply, including handicrafts and industrial products. While the EU should 
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.  
The Commission announced in its communication of 25 November 2020 entitled ‘Making the 
most of the EU’s innovative potential – An intellectual prop erty action plan to support the EU’s 
recovery and resilience’ ( COM(2020) 760 final ) that it would consider the feasibility of a GI 
protection system for non -agricultural products at EU level.  
The initiative aims to address two main problems in particular.  The first problem relates to the 
limits of international protection for CI GI products. In the absence of EU level protection in place, 
the EU cannot secure protection in third countries for GIs for CI products originating in the EU by 
using the Lisbon/Ge neva route, as there can be no EU registration to start with. The EU also has to 
refuse protection of GIs for CI products originating in third countries, as such protection is not 
available at EU level. Furthermore, the EU cannot grant protection of GIs fo r CI products via 
bilateral trade agreements by means of including GIs for CI products in the list of GIs to be 
protected by such agreements. The second  problem relates to missed opportunities for European CI 
producers. Due to a complex landscape of availa ble protection routes in the EU (EU trade mark, 
EU collective mark, national GI right where available, national collective mark, national 
certification mark where available), it is hard for producers to navigate towards obtaining and 
enforcing protection. Discrepancies among various protection routes result in complicated and 
costly ways of securing protection that are unworkable for a typical cluster of small firms 
producing CI products. Moreover, the variety and divergence of national initiatives results in legal 
uncertainty for producers, may mislead consumers, weaken intra -Union trade, and make way for 
abuses of GI infringements offline and online.  
What is this initiative expected to achieve?  
The general aim of the initiative is to enable effective fulfilment of the EU’s obligations under the 
 
2 
 Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement,  and to  maximize profits from the EU’s accession to the 
Lisbon system for producers in the EU and from bilateral trade agreements. Furthermore, it aims to 
create a functioning internal market for geographically linked CI products by establishing an 
efficient and harmonised regulatory framework for their protection.  
The specific objectives are set to evaluate how to achieve compliance wi th the Geneva Act 
obligations in  the most efficient and effective way. In particular the new system should achieve : (i) 
Applicant friendly and affordable registration system; (ii) Effective and affordable system of 
control and enforcement; and (iii) Low cost for public authorities.  
What  is the value added of action at the EU level?   
The problem of regulatory fragmentation would be effectively solved at EU level. An EU initiative 
could provide for equal protection conditions in all Member States, thus creating legal certainty 
and incenti ves for investment in geographically rooted CI products. In comparison, the variety and 
divergence of national initiatives results in legal uncertainty for producers seeking protection, 
mislead consumers, impede intra -Union trade, and make way for unequal competition in marketing 
products of a special, geographically rooted quality.  
An EU -wide approach would also enable the EU to fully benefit from the opportunities offered by 
the international system of appellations of origin and GIs (Lisbon system). National protection 
systems alone cannot achieve this objective, as only those Member States which are parties to the 
Lisbon Agreement may maintain registrations and submit new applications in this limited 
framework.  
B. Solutions  
What legislative and non -legislative policy options have been considered?  
Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?   
 Baseline – No change : The c urrent fragmented regulatory framework in the EU and the lack 
of recognised protection at international level.  
 Policy option 1  – Recommendation : This option would consist of a dopting a 
recommendation at EU  level, encouraging Member States to establish national protection 
systems in order to certify the link between specific product qualities and the origin of CI 
products.  
 Policy opt ion 2 – Approximation of national laws : This option would consist of adopting  
an EU directive in order to approximate national laws on the protection of GIs for CI 
products. By a directive, the EU would create oblig ations  to achieve specific objectives for  
the protection of GIs, for example as to the term and scope of protection, the territorial link, 
and procedural aspects. Producers could obtain national GI titles registered at nationa l level. 
No EU GI title would be created.  
 Policy option 3 – Extending the GI protection system for agricultural products to GIs 
for CI products: Under this option, a GI protection system for CI products would be 
integrated into the existing GI protection schemes that cover  agricultural products and 
foodstuffs. Unde r the proposed revision  of agricultural GI schemes , Member States  would 
continue with a preliminary scrutiny procedure at the national level. 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 agency (most likely EUIPO). Under this option, the 
ongoing revision in the agri -food sector would harmoni se the current monitoring and 
enforcement system and extend it to cover also CI GIs.  
 Policy option 4 – Trade mark refo rm: This option would consist of reforming the EU 
trade mark system, in particular the EU trade mark regulation (EUTMR), so as to make 
available to producers of CI products the possibility to apply for the registration at EU level 
of a name guaranteeing a specific product quality linked to a geographical region. This 
option could be based on the reform of either the EU collective mark or the EU certificatio n 
 
3 
 mark. In respect of the EU certification , Option 4 would require removing the current 
prohibition of  certifying geographical origin. In respect of the EU collective mark , Option 4 
would require introducing the function of certifying the “quality -geographical origin” link to 
the collective mark. In addition, both the EU collective mark and the EU certification mark 
would have to be adapted in order to comply with requirement s in provisions of the Geneva 
Act concerning the scope of protection .  
 Policy option 5 – Self-standing EU regulation creating sui generis  GI protection : This 
option would consist of adopting  an EU regulation to establish a sui generis  GI protection 
scheme for CI products.  It would build on the existing GI regime for agricultural products 
but adapt it further than PO3 to crafts and industrial products. CI GIs would be protected by 
an EU title in all EU Member States. Under this option, the following sub -options would be 
possible:  
- 5.1. Territorial link : 5.1.A. PDO: Under PDO protection, the quality or 
characteristics of the product are essentially or exclusively linked to the particular 
geographical environment of the place of origin;  and all stages of production, 
processing or preparation  must take place in the defined geographical area.  5.1.B. 
PGI: Under 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 prepa ration takes place in the defined 
geographical area . 
- 5.2. Involvement of national authorities in the registration procedure: 5.2.A. 
Two-stage system : 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. The second stage would be at EU 
level, with an EU entit y taking a decision on registration, where no fees would be 
charged. 5.2.B. One-stage system : National authorities would not participate in the 
examination and registration, and local producers would go directly to the EU level to 
have their GIs registered . 
- 5.3. EU entity in charge of registration at EU level and at international level: 
5.3.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 Agreeme nt. 5.3.B.   The specialised IP Agency, EUIPO  would be in 
charge of the EU level stage registration and would also act as Competent Authority 
under the Geneva Act.  
- 5.4. Control and enforcement : 5.4.A . Replicating the control and enforcement 
model of the GI agricultural schemes  (see PO3). 5.4.B. Streamlined control with a 
strong enforcement model: this sub -option would foresee the possibility to introduce 
self-certification; random inspections by national authorities (or delegated 
certification bodies), coupl ed with a deterrent system of fines; streamlined reporting 
obligations by national authorities; and the enforcement scheme under the currently 
revised agricultural GI system , with a domain names’ alert system to fight online GI 
abuses . 
- 5.5 Co-existence of EU and national titles and regimes: 5.5.A.  CI GIs would be 
protected by an EU title that replaces the existing national GI regimes  and absorbs 
national GI titles. 5.5.B . Introducing  an EU GI title for CI products, while keeping a 
parallel system for nation al GI applications .  
The preferred policy option is PO5: Self -standing EU Regulation.  The overall preferred option 
package is a combination of sub -options 5.1.B, 5.2.A, 5.3.B, 5.4.B and 5.5.A .  
5.1.B because in the case of CI products, the link to a specif ic geographical area is predominantly 
based on the history of the product and on distinctive traditional know -how and methods of 
production, and not so much on the link to elements of the geographical environment such as soil 
or weather conditions. Most CI  products would thus not qualify for protection on the basis of the 
 
4 
 latter link by means of a PDO. Therefore, a PGI scheme is better suited for the characteristics of CI 
GI products.  
5.2.A  because involvement of national authorities in the first stage woul d allow for relying on 
local and regional expertise necessary to assess product specifications. It would also be easier for 
local micro/artisanal producers to communicate in their own language, interact with an 
administration they are familiar with, and re ceive any other necessary guidance and support.  
5.3.B because t he EUIPO is the EU’s specialised IP agency with proven experience in handling the 
registration of other IP rights at EU level. EUIPO has advanced IT tools that could extend to 
support the new CI GI right . EUIPO can also rely on its established expertise and network in 
cooperating with IP offices of Member States. Further efficiency gains would be achieved by using 
EUIPO’s appeal body (Boards of Appeal) . Finally, as to the role of Competent Auth ority in the 
Lisbon system, EUIPO currently has the same capacity in respect of two other international 
registration systems administered by WIPO  and can also rely on such  institutional knowledge . 
5.4.B because i t would establish a control system that woul d be adapted to the CI GI market which 
is very diverse and small. Self-declaration may  be seen as an affordable option for micro 
companies and self -employed artisanal. It would be coupled with a system of random ex-officio  
checks by public authorities and high fines for non -compliance that aims at deterring possible 
fraud behaviour by producers. Enforcement would be reinforced, first, by extending checks over 
CI GI products “in transit”, and, second, by introducing an alert system to tackle  abusive domain 
names registrations  of CI GIs . Reporting obligations on national authorities to the Commission 
would be proportionate.  
5.5.A because due to  the current heterogeneous regulatory approach to protecting geographically 
rooted craft and industrial products, co -existence would imply harmonization of highly divergent 
national laws in Member States. Harmonization might create a disproportionate amount of 
regul atory and administrative burden and  require continuous investment to maintain convergence 
between national protection systems. Replacement of national GIs by the EU framework has the 
advantages of establishing a unique regulatory framework throughout the Internal Market, creating 
legal cert ainty as well as predictable and relatively low costs for producers. Moreover, an EU 
framework will permit the development of geographical indications by providing a more uniform 
approach .  
Who supports which option?   
Producers of CI GIs, the European Parliament, the European Committee of the Regions , the 
European Economic and Social Committee , nine Member States (qualified majority) and academia 
strongly support the establishment of a sui generis  GI scheme under Option  5, includin g support  
for the preferred combination of sub -options .  
Four Member States support the baseline option of maintaining the status quo and  are of the view 
that trade mark protection provides for  adequate means to rely on.  
C. Impacts of the preferred option  
What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?   
For producers : All EU producers can obtain EU -wide GI protection for CI products. Such 
protection encourages producers’ cooperation, strengthens local supply, creates niche markets, and 
encourages producers’ cooperation with local authorities. As within the GI system fo r agricultural 
products, producers can advertise the protected GI by a logo on the product labelling. At 
international level, the preferred option enables EU producers to seek international protection for 
their CI products available in other parties to the  Geneva Act, and enables third countries or 
organisations parties to the Geneva Act to obtain GI protection for their CI products in the entire 
EU territory. It also allows for increased protection for EU CI producers in third markets such as 
China, Russia  or India through robust GI provisions in bilateral trade agreements concluded by the 
EU. 
 
5 
 For consumers:  Consumers, who are often willing to pay a premium for protected GI products, 
are better informed.  
For the public:  The preferred policy option protects  geographically rooted products in the interest 
of the wider public, making the best out of local expertise and heritage, and stimulating activities 
like tourism, in particular in rural or less developed regions (very relevant in particular in the 
COVID -19 aftermath).  
For the EU as global policy player:  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.  
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?   
An EU body will have to manage the core activity of the GI registration system for CI products 
and obtain the operational experience and specialised skills that it is currently mis sing in the field.  
Member States will have to create a framework, too. Even if experience shows that in the 
agricultural field this burden can be light , an entirely  private -public  system of control and 
enforcement is  by definition less costly for public a uthorities . Finally, the possibility for producers 
to self -declare compliance over time, for example, once the GI title is granted can also lower the 
costs .  
An estimation of annual costs in euro for one GI is presented below:  
Action  Producers 
group  Authorities  Total  
National  EU 
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 
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021)  
How will businesses, SMEs and micro -enterprises be affected?  
See benefits for producers above.  
Will there be significant impacts  on national budgets and administrations?   
Member States’  authorities ( national IP Offices  or other departments ) will face proportional 
implementing costs a s consequence of establishing  an administrative infrastructure to take charge 
of the national stage of the registration procedure. Currently, this is estimated at 1 FTE or part time 
engagement of two examiners . 
Will there be other significant impacts?   
There are no other significant impacts to be expected.  
D. Follow -up 
When will the policy be reviewed?  
After the entry into force of the preferred option, the Commission will monitor its implementation 
with a view to assessing its effectiveness. The initiative could be considered as successful if it is 
appealing and used by local communities; improves the s ituation of GI producers as well as 
generate local spill -over effects by contributing to overall increase in wealth, to improvements in 
employment, particularly for women, and demographic conditions as well as to the development of 
sustainable tourism.