Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs" (COM(2002) 139 final — 2002/0066 (CNS))
Date: 2002-07-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: agricultural product, designation of origin, foodstuff, location of production, product designation, product quality

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/57

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
amending Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs’

(COM(2002) 139 final — 2002/0066 (CNS))

(2002/C 241/10)

On 15 April 2002 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 37
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 June 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr de las Heras Cabañas.

At its 392nd Plenary Session (meeting of 17 July 2002) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion with 124 votes in favour, no dissenting votes and three abstentions.

1. The Commission proposal

1.1.
The Commission proposes to amend Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 in order to provide better protection for geo-
graphical indications and designations of origin and ensure
compliance with binding bilateral and multilateral agreements
that transcend EU borders.

1.2.

The proposed amendments are as follows:

1.2.1.
The regulation’s current sphere of application is to
be extended to include wine vinegar, while mineral and spring
waters are to be excluded (Annex II).

1.2.2.
Clarifications are to be provided regarding the regis-
tration of names with identical spelling or pronunciation (i.e.
homonyms).

1.2.3.
The Commission proposes to extend the right to
object to a registration to all nationals of WTO member
countries who have a legitimate concern and rights within the
EU. Article 7 of the current regulation grants this right to
EU citizens only. The TRIPS Agreement on trade-related
intellectual property rights, adopted by WTO member
countries in 1994, contains specific provisions on geographical
indications, whereby WTO members are to ensure that this
protection does not cause distortions of trade.

1.2.4.
The Commission also proposes to allow the holder
of a protected designation of origin (PDO) or protected
geographical indication (PGI) to cancel the registration if there
are good grounds for doing so.

Article 12 of

the current regulation allows the
1.2.5.
registration of products originating in third countries. A special
procedure will be provided for the registration of such products
on the Community market, while the third countries concerned
are asked to introduce the EU designation of origin system on
their territory on a reciprocal basis.

In cases of conflict between a trademark and a
1.2.6.
geographical indication, the solution adopted by the regulation
will apply not only to registered trademarks but also to
trademark rights acquired through use. In these cases too, the
reference date will be the date of submission of the application
for PGI/PDO registration, this being the date already used in
the case of registered trademarks.

1.2.7.
procedure. This article is to be deleted.

Article 17 of the regulation provided for a simplified

2. General comments

2.1.
Since the adoption of the original Regulation No 2081/
92, the Committee’s opinions on this subject have championed
the development of policies to consolidate at EU level the
production and protection of high-quality agricultural prod-
ucts and foodstuffs. It is important that the value of these
products should be recognised, and that production of them
should have an impact on rural society as a whole, helping to
keep up local customs, tradition and cultures which, while
acting as a storehouse for the special skills of a huge range of
EU rural areas, can also draw on the benefits of technological
progress.

C 241/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

2.2.
The Committee’s stance and its earlier work in this
field are reflected in its Own-initiative Opinion on the
Promotion of local speciality agricultural products as a devel-
opment instrument under the new CAP (1). More recently, in
its Opinion on The future of the CAP (2), the Committee
stressed the need for European agriculture to focus on safe,
high-quality production. Protected geographical
indications
and designations of origin guarantee these two basic character-
istics.

2.5.
Protection of product names has encouraged producers
to undertake voluntarily to meet specific production standards
which they themselves help to set and which cover all stages
of the food-production chain. The traceability of these products
receives meticulous attention; this not only ensures compliance
with the food-safety requirements which apply in all spheres
of production but also underpins the added value resulting
from the product’s recognised specific quality and origin

2.3.
form a
High-quality local speciality products still
limited percentage of EU agricultural production. This percent-
age should be increased so that these products acquire a
significant market share, thereby furthering the economic
development of the most disadvantaged rural areas. Differen-
tiating agricultural products and foodstuffs by protecting their
name and laying down production rules for them is an
important tool for adding value, especially when quality is
itself viewed as a market strategy. These aims must continue
to be pursued within the context of CAP measures.

2.4.
Although PGI/PDO products come from a wide variety
of regions, quality products with specific characteristics are
mainly produced in disadvantaged, outlying and upland areas.
By virtue of their intrinsic character and production methods,
traditional products can play a key role in the development
and promotion of rural society. They:

— help to keep the local population in place and create jobs,

especially in disadvantaged areas;

— promote balanced use of existing resources;

— in more general terms,

thanks to their methods of
production, conserve and improve the natural environ-
ment;

— respect existing ecosystems, biodiversity and the gene

pool by using local varieties and breeds;

— represent the culture and tradition of an area or region.

( 1) CES 972/98, OJ C 284 of 14.9.1998, page 62, rapporteur:

Ms Santiago.

( 2) CES 362/2002, rapporteur: Mr Ribbe.

Regulation No 2081/92 should explicitly enshrine the
2.6.
right of PDO/PGI holders to require protected products to be
packaged within the area of production, if they so wish, with
a view to guaranteeing checks on quality. The term packaging
here refers to the operations needed to prepare the product for
sale, e.g. bottling or canning.

2.7.
The Committee supports the tightening-up of PDO
and PGI systems as an effective way of protecting the rights of
the consumer and meeting the consumer’s legitimate wish for
safe, high-quality food. Technically speaking, a protected
designation of origin is granted when there is a firm, proven
link between product quality and the inherent natural and
human factors in its region of origin, while a protected
geographical indication is granted when a product possesses a
specific reputation or characteristics which are attributable to
its geographical origin. Labelling a product with the protected
designation and numbered certification mark guarantees that
it has been checked at all stages of the production chain and
can be traced back to its origin.

2.8.
Any quality guarantee ensures that a product is well
received on the markets. This leads to a host of imitations that
seek to exploit the prestige which a particular geographical
designation confers. Action must be taken to stamp out
fraudulent use of a designation by products that do not come
from the protected geographical area. The Committee calls on
the Commission and Council
to tighten up monitoring
provisions, with a view to ensuring that all Member States
effectively monitor the protection granted under the regu-
lation. By the same token, the regulation should protect PDO/
PGI by explicitly banning the export from the EU to third
countries, of products — or imitation products — which
wrongfully use a PDO or PGI.

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/59

2.8.1.
Holders of a designation must strive to ensure that
their products meet the relevant standards. At the marketing
stage, steps must be taken to safeguard traceability and to
ensure that the information given to the consumer is accurate.
Furthermore, given that the aim of PGI and PDO is to promote
quality, the Member States and the Commission must ensure
that they continue to meet the criteria required for their
recognition, registration and protection. PDO and PGI are
based on the specific nature of
region or
production and/or processing system. The Committee thinks
that due rigour must continue to be exercised before granting
a PDO or PGI, so as to avoid abuses which undermine the
supposed distinctive characteristics of the product.

the product,

types of product (e.g. oils, honey, flowers and ornamental
plants, cork)
in recent years bears witness to producers’
growing concern to protect product names.

2.12. With a view to extending the number of traditional
products eligible for these protection measures and thereby
encouraging the development of a larger number of rural
areas, the Committee considers that Annex II of Regulation
No 2081/92 could easily be extended to other agricultural
products.

2.13.
At the same time the Committee would highlight the
possibility of providing a legal framework to protect non-
agricultural craft products with special characteristics linked
to a particular geographical area.

Turning to the relation between trademarks and
2.8.2.
level, the
PGI/PDO, at both Community and international
Committee considers that although priority must be given to
the general and public interest represented by PGI/PDO, both
forms of intellectual property deserve proper protection as
they both provide a means of addressing such issues as unfair
competition or misleading advertising.

3. Specific comments

Scope of protection

2.9.
The rapid rise of market liberalisation and agricultural
policies which encourage mass production make it all the
more necessary to differentiate and diversify supply. The
exclusive nature of distinctive products which stand out from
others of a similar nature should offer them a certain stability.
Revision of the current regulation is necessary by virtue of the
TRIPS agreement.

2.10.
Rules are needed to allow the inclusion of quality
products without losing their exclusivity. International protec-
tion is currently below European standards. The Committee
opposes ‘globalisation’ without proper rules to protect quality
products which are important for the development of very
specific rural areas. The Committee therefore calls on the
Commission to devise an aggressive strategy to improve
protection of PDO and PGI under the TRIPS agreements so
that the level of protection and requirements are on a par with
those that apply within the Community market.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 (1) laying down
3.1.
special provisions relating to quality wines produced in
specific regions does not cover wine vinegar. There have been
designations of origin for quality vinegars for some time, but
hitherto they have not been protected at Community level and
processors have not had many possibilities for promoting their
product. The inclusion of wine vinegar in the PDO/PGI register
will help to develop this market and will benefit all the sectors
concerned, from producers to consumers.

3.2.
The purpose of the regulation is to lay down rules for
the registration and monitoring of PDO and PGI for agricul-
tural products and foodstuffs, so as to guarantee their protec-
tion. It is logical that mineral and spring waters should be
excluded as they are a different type of product. Also bearing
in mind the problems which have already arisen in the
registration of these designations under Regulation No 2081/
92, the Committee considers that the Commission is right to
exclude mineral and spring waters from the register of
agricultural products and foodstuffs.

Council Directive 80/777/EEC of 15 July 1980 (2)
3.2.1.
concerns the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to exploitation and marketing of natural mineral
waters. Although the directive does not specifically protect

2.11.
It is important that an increasing number of products
should benefit from protection outside their country of origin,
in the certainty that their added value and distinctive quality
status will continue to be guaranteed. The addition of new

(1) OJ L 84 of 27.3.1987.
(2) OJ L 229 of 30.8.1980.

C 241/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

geographical designations of waters, the Committee agrees
that this is an appropriate instrument for regulating the use of
such designations for mineral and spring waters.

The Committee would like to mention some further
3.3.
agricultural products and foodstuffs, other agriculture-based
products and fisheries products whose specific characteristics
and origin are linked to a particular geographical region and
which could therefore be brought under the present regulation.
The Committee would propose the following products: wool,
wicker, mustard and pasta.

third-country products to be registered on the Community
market if this means equal protection for EU products in those
countries. Third countries which wish their product names to
be protected on the Community market must first show that
their evaluation, objection and monitoring system is equivalent
to the Community system.

3.8.
The Committee stresses that ensuring that protection
standards for third-country PDO/PGI products are as rigorous
as those for EU products will prevent unfair competition and
price dumping on the quality products market. By the same
token, protection of the EU’s PDO/PGI on third-country
markets must prevent unfair competition from imitation or
counterfeit products; the relevant third countries must ensure
adequate checking mechanisms.

The international situation

Guarantee of differentiation between designations

As already noted, the TRIPS agreements lay down the
3.4.
procedures which members must
follow to prevent the
fraudulent use of a geographical indication (Article 22), and to
resolve conflicts between trademarks and PGI. All members
are entitled to object to the registration of a designation if it
can be shown to be prejudicial to the interests of the nationals
of the requesting country.

3.5.
Given the possibility that a third country could instigate
the panel procedure against the EU for failure to comply
with the TRIPS agreements,
the Committee supports the
amendments proposed by the Commission as a way of
protecting EU designations at world level. This will make it
possible for all members to object to a registration and will
also help avoid conflicts.

3.9. Much of the added value of PDO/PGI products derives
from their exclusivity, together with the intrinsic quality
derived from the special way they are produced.

The name conferred by a geographical

3.10.
indication,
and the protection of that name by virtue of the quality of the
products concerned, underpins their identification as exclusive
products of a particular region that can only be obtained under
those conditions and by means of the traditional local practices
mentioned.

Protection of the exclusive nature of a designation
3.11.
guarantees recognition of
its quality in all spheres. The
Committee considers that homonyms between PGI and trade
marks, whether registered or not, should as a general rule be
avoided.

3.6.
However, the Committee thinks that rigorous checks
and a careful examination must be conducted before an
indication must only
objection is accepted. A geographical
be excluded from the register if
the allegations are duly
substantiated. At all events, the justification can only be based
on the situation within the Community market of the party
raising the objection.

3.12.
The rules must ensure that any conflicts which arise
between PGI and trade marks are dealt with rigorously,
although the Committee thinks that fair treatment is needed in
the case of conflicts between PDO/PGI and existing trademarks
(whether the latter are registered or acquired through use) if
they do not give rise to geographical confusion.

3.7.
The growing trade in products with designations of
origin means that they are increasingly being traded with third
countries. Community designations of origin must enjoy the
same protection outside the EU as they do within it. A policy
of reciprocity is a logical step, with the possibility of allowing

3.13.
The addition of trademarks acquired through use
ensures wider protection against possible unfair competition
on the quality products market. However it also allows the co-
existence of a trademark acquired through use and a PGI in
justified cases. This will penalise PGI as there is a possibility —
even if minimal — that consumers will be misled; such a
situation must be avoided.

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/61

3.14.
The alteration of the reference dates used to resolve
these conflicts will make it possible to be more restrictive
about allowing the co-existence of a trade mark and PGI that
share the same name. The Committee therefore supports the
Commission’s proposal that the reference date should be the
date on which an application for PDO/PGI registration was
submitted, and not the date of the notice conferring the right
to object. This is in line with existing practice for registered
trademarks.

3.15.
The Committee also endorses the proposal to tighten
up the requirements for the registration of two names that are
homonyms, with the aim of keeping each name as exclusive
as possible and avoiding confusion or the downgrading of
quality product recognition.

The use of the simplified procedure for registering
3.16.
existing names gave rise to various problems, and Regulation
No 2081/92 has now been in force for a number of years,
giving people time to adapt (only one product — a cheese —
has yet to receive its designation). For these reasons, and
bearing in mind that the simplified procedure does not
include the right to object which is required under the TRIPS
agreement, the Committee approves the proposal to delete
Article 17 of the regulation. This provision was intended as a
transitional measure to ensure rapid harmonisation of the
national registration systems of each Member State. Neverthe-
less, the Committee thinks that PDO/PGI registration pro-
cedures which have already been launched under Article 17
should be concluded normally.

4. Conclusions

The Committee broadly supports the Commission’s

4.1.
proposed amendments to Regulation No 2081/92.

Brussels, 17 July 2002.

4.2.
As explained in points 2.8 and 2.9 above, the Com-
mittee urges the Commission and Council to increase the
protection of PGO/PDI in the WTO. Compliance with inter-
national agreements on protection for quality products must
be tied in with the requirements which Member States wish to
safeguard, without losing sight of the real beneficiaries of these
designations and their social importance for the development
of the Community’s rural areas. The aim in international
negotiations must be to secure effective application of the
multilateral notification and registration system which has
already been agreed for wines and spirits, and to extend the
protection which the TRIPS agreement currently accords
to wines and spirits (including the multilateral registration
mechanism) so that it covers all agricultural products and
foodstuffs.

4.3.
The Committee reiterates the need to improve moni-
toring provisions, so that all Member States effectively exert
PDO/PGI protection under Regulation No 2081/92.

4.3.1.
The protection of a larger number of products should
be encouraged, although this must not lead to an unjustified
proliferation of PDO and PGI for products which do not
precisely meet the required tenets (i.e. typical, specific charac-
teristics), as that would undermine the standing of protected
products in general.

4.4.
Lastly, the Committee highlights the importance of
promoting PDO/PGI products. Alongside quality policies,
promotion policies should also be stepped up, with the focus
on communication and information for the consumer, so as
to protect the consumer’s right to opt for the specific qualities
of a product made using traditional methods that have
been meticulously conserved and adapted by producers and
processors in a particular geographical region.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS