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
Date: 2022-04-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: World Intellectual Property Organisation, accession to an agreement, consumer information, craft production, designation of origin, industrial product, intellectual property, labelling, product designation, quality control of industrial products

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}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 6 

Political and legal context ......................................................................................................... 6 
1.1. 
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 ACT? ........................................................................................................ 24 

3.1. 
3.2. 
3.3. 

Legal basis ............................................................................................................................... 24 
Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ....................................................................................... 24 
Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .................................................................................. 25 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 25 

4.1.  General objectives ................................................................................................................... 25 
Specific objectives ................................................................................................................... 25 
4.2. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY 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 OPTIONS? ........................................................... 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 COMPARE? ................................................................................................. 54 

7.1 Comparison of impacts ................................................................................................................. 54 
7.2 Coherence ...................................................................................................................................... 56 
7.3 Compliance with the proportionality principle .............................................................................. 58 

8. PREFERRED OPTION ............................................................................................................................ 58 

1 

 
 
 
9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ....................................... 59 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 61 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 64 

ANNEX 2A: DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ................................................. 74 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 78 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 82 

ANNEX  5:  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  REGIONS  WITH  GEOGRAPHICALLY  ROOTED 

PRODUCTS ........................................................................................................................................ 94 

ANNEX 6: INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION ............................................................................................ 98 

ANNEX  7:  KEY  DIFFERENCES  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  GENERIS  GI  LAWS  AVAILABLE  FOR  THE 

PROTECTION OF CRAFTS AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS .................................................... 113 

ANNEX 9: REGISTRATION PROCESS OPTIONS ................................................................................ 120 

PART A: Methodology and Analysis design .................................................................................... 122 
PART B: Analysis of sui generis GI EU level procedure options ..................................................... 129 
Option 1.0 [MS/EU] MS  COM Decision ......................................................................... 130 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Option 1.1 [MS/EU] MS  AGENCY Opinion  COM Decision ..................................... 139 

Option 1.2 [MS/EU] MS  AGENCY Decision  COM appeal ....................................... 147 

Option 1.3 [MS/EU] MS  MS  AGENCY Decision  Appeal body ............................ 154 

Option 1.4 [EU only – AGENCY only] AGENCY – MS Consultation ................................ 162 

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. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Customer-focused procedure ................................................................................................. 178 

Accessible procedure ............................................................................................................. 179 

Predictable procedure ............................................................................................................ 181 

Quality of the application ...................................................................................................... 182 

Quality of the output ............................................................................................................. 183 

Transparency ......................................................................................................................... 185 

Efficient procedure ................................................................................................................ 186 

7.1 Length (timeliness of the procedure) ........................................................................................... 186 

7.2 Costs ............................................................................................................................................. 187 

8. 

9. 

Advantages and Risks ........................................................................................................... 189 

eRegister ................................................................................................................................ 193 

PART D: EU certification marks ...................................................................................................... 194 
Timeliness ............................................................................................................................. 195 
1. 

2. 

3. 

Cost ....................................................................................................................................... 195 

Key advantages and main risks ............................................................................................. 196 

2 

 
ANNEX  10:  THE  EU  ENTITY  TO  ADMINISTER  THE  NEW  EU  GI  SCHEME  FOR  CI 

PRODUCTS AT THE EU AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL ........................................................ 198 

ANNEX  11:  INTERPLAY  BETWEEN  EXISTING  NATIONAL  SYSTEMS/  FUTURE  EU 

SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................... 208 

ANNEX 12: COHERENCE OF OPTIONS WITH OTHER EU POLICY OBJECTIVES ........................ 210 

ANNEX 13: COST CALCULATIONS...................................................................................................... 212 

ANNEX 14: COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF SUB-OPTIONS OF OPTION 2 ................................... 215 

3 

 
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 the 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 the 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 mechanical 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 

Geographical 
indication 

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” 

Sign indicating the geographical 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 mass 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 

Trade 
mark/Individual 
mark 

Intellectual property right protecting a geographical indication as such 

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 

4 

 
 
Term or acronym 

how 

Meaning or definition 

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 service 

5 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Political and legal context 

Geographical  indications  (GIs)  establish  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 logos, 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, aromatised wines, as well as agricultural products and foodstuffs. 
However,  there  is  currently  no  harmonized  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  products  in  the  EU,  for  example  Limoges  porcelain, 
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 location. 
More than 800 products have been identified to qualify as geographical indications for CI 
products 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 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 Member State as available at 
national  level.  This  situation  may  disincentivise  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 products in not only an 
internal  issue,  though.  In  November  2019,  the  EU  acceded  to  the  Geneva  Act  of  the 
Lisbon  Agreement  on  Appellations  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  

6 

 
                                                 
Consequently, 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  

law 

international 

is  obliged  under 

to  protect  all  GIs 

The  EU 
(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  that  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 position. 

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 protection 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  2021,  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 property 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 EU. 
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. 

7 

 
                                                 
In  autumn  2015,  the  European  Parliament  endorsed  an  own  initiative  report  on  the 
possible  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 would be too burdensome for public administrations 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  geographical 
indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products, 2015/2053(INI).  
12 Oral question to Commissioner Bienkowska 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 

8 

 
                                                 
Commission  is looking at  ways to  strengthen, modernise, streamline and better enforce 
GIs  for  agricultural  products,  foodstuffs,  wines  and  spirits.  This  Impact  Assessment  is 
aimed  at  achieving  the  greatest  possible  synergies  with  that  reform,  to  ensure  that  any 
new EU GI scheme for  CI products would fit  appropriately  within the EU’s GI  regime 
and its protection at international level.  

Learnings  from  the  evaluation  report  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 fair 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 objective examination procedure. The evaluation also 
points out that EU GIs schemes show coherence with Trade Mark protection, and are a 
strong asset of rural territories, promoting regional identity, growth and jobs. Finally, the 
GIview  platform  enhances  transparency  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,  in  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 alternative 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 from the following eight sectors as shown in: 
porcelain,  ceramics  and  glassware,  apparel,  natural  stones,  lace,  jewellery,  textiles, 
furniture  and  cutlery.29  However,  the  number  of  registrable  products  is  likely  to  be 
significantly  higher.  Marie-Vivien  states  that  France  alone  has  at  least  100  possible 
candidates for CI GI protection30. MABS International Marketing Services31 identifies 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 products. 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  and  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. 

9 

 
                                                 
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 
consumers’ 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  20th  century.  While  cutlery  or  furniture  producers  were  more 
resilient  and  adapted  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  cultural  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  change  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.calzado_de_ElcheC_Rev.pdf  
40 ‘Artisanal Collaborations and the Preservation of Intangible Cultural Heritage (richmond.edu) (Susan G. 
Goodwin  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. 

10 

 
                                                 
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 dominant 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,  knife  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 unemployment 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 crude rate of 
total population change between 2010 and 2019. Finally, geographically rooted 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 geographical 
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  obtaining  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 
concentration  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 of 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  2020  New  Industrial  Strategy: 
Building a stronger Single Market for Europe's recovery COM(2021) 350 final. 

11 

 
                                                 
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,  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. This prevents producers, their regions and consumers from fully 
grasping  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. 

Figure 1: Problem Tree 

EU Accession to 
Geneva Act  

Existing EU laws 
not suitable 

Divergent national 
protection rules across 
Member States 

Drivers 

Problems 

Limits to international protection 

Missed opportunities for 
European CIGI producers 

Consequences 

PRODUCERS 

 Foregone revenues 
Lower investments 
Stifled innovation 

CONSUMERS 

Less informed 
choices 

CULTURAL 
HERITAGE 

Weakly 
preserved 

REGIONS 
Missed opportunities for 
tourism revenue 

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 
administered  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 2020). 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, Democratic 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 interested to join the Lisbon System/Geneva Act. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
European  Union  and  seven  EU  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Czechia,  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  be 
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  which  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 
products originating in the EU by means of using the Lisbon/Geneva route, as there 
can be no EU registration to start with. Moreover, the EU will have to refuse protection 
of GIs for CI products 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  products  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 Lisbon 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  international  system  on  their 
own,  due  to  the  EU’s  exclusive  competence.  Therefore,  producers  in  Member  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 protection 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). 

13 

 
                                                 
Similarly, producers of  CI products in  non-EU  countries have limited opportunities  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  products  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 territories. 
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 products 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  triggers  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 available 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, the EU cannot grant protection of GIs for CI products 
via bilateral trade agreements.  

This results in missed opportunities for GI producers. Trade partners such as India, China 
or  MERCOSUR  attach  great  importance  to  protecting  their  GIs  for  CI  products. 
However, the EU  cannot include CI  GIs in  bilateral  negotiations, as  there is  no  unitary 
EU-level  protection.  For  example,  the  Goiabeiras  clay  pots  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  despite  the  fact  that 
some  partners  could  offer  GI  protection  in  their  territories  also  for  EU  CI  products.52 
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 and greater protection for EU GI products in third countries against fraudulent 
practices affecting EU GI products.  

50 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  appellations of origin relating to 
non-agricultural products originating in third countries. EU Member States in question can keep 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  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.  

14 

 
                                                 
Moreover,  lack  of  GI  protection  at  EU  level  for  crafts  an  industrial  products  may  also 
limit  the  EU  development  agenda  policy  to  support  CI  GIs  in  developing  countries. 
Today,  the  EU  development  agenda  promotes  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 than 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  products  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 products, 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 products than individual marks. However, the obligatory 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 originates 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, See 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  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1001  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2017/1431. 

15 

 
                                                 
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 certifying 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 rooted 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  products.  Furthermore,  a  key  limitation  is  that  a  certification  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 products 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  private  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  protecting  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 products at national level. 

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. massage). 
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. 

16 

 
                                                 
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. 

Box 2: Different IP rights imply different scope 

If  producers  wish  to  protect  product  names  such  as  “Porcelain  of  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  origin  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  protection 
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. 

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 among 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 published  a Cost of Non-Europe 
report66  in  which  costs  arising  from  the  lack  of  EU  legislation  protecting  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). 

17 

 
                                                 
and rural development. More precisely, after approximately 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  regional-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 decades.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  consumers  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 behavioural experiment from 2020 studied how consumers perceive sui generis GI-
protected CI  products  in  comparison  to  other authentic 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  about  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 Panorama (2020), supra note. 
68  Special  Eurobarometer  504  Survey  (2020,  October)  Europeans,  Agriculture  and  the  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  Development:  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  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities guaranteed (TSGs) Final Report p. 102. 
75 Ibidem. 

18 

 
                                                 
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 see 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  niche  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 the 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 
products  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 between 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  presentation  of  Association  Française  des  Indications  Géographiques  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  INPI  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 Kennedy, Marketing and Business Development Consultant, notes that the lack of 
intellectual  property  protection  on  the  EU  and  international  level  harms  the  traditional  craft  sectors 
(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 geographical indications for non-agricultural products. 
84 Insight Consulting et al. (2013), supra note, p. 103. 

19 

 
                                                 
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 čipka (Pag lace) and others86 – face a constant challenge to protect themselves by 
launching campaigns, registering trade marks and taking legal action87. In their replies to 
the  Public  Consultation,  producers  of  geographically  rooted  products  underlined  that 
regulatory  fragmentation  makes  the  protection  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  preventive  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 would 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)  consultation91,  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  and/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 ceramics 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 final, 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:  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. 
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 MARQUES. 
93 VVA et al. (2020), supra note, Section 5.  

20 

 
                                                 
provided clarity on the geographical 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  incomplete.  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 
considered that consumers benefit from a higher level of GI protection, because it gives 
valuable  information  about  product  characteristics.96  The  vast  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 for 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  foodstuffs,  wine  and  spirits,  delivering  higher  added  value, 
more  jobs  and  safeguarding  a  product’s  identity  and  heritage  through  the  notion  of 
terroir.97 Furthermore, it has been shown 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  responsible  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 tourism 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 note; 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 TOPOSOPHY 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/  

21 

 
                                                 
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 found 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 reduce the problem of tourism seasonality, as craftsmanship offers 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 
fourth 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 aftermath 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 explained 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, the lace produced in the area of Gorizia has to be understood as regional cultural heritage. 
Due  to  its  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  generations.’  in  Commission  Staff  working 

22 

 
                                                 
 
key incentive to create an EU scheme for the protection of CI products 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 national 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 limited 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  deposited  its  instrument  of  accession  on  31  August  2021  and  its  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  Mongolia,  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 international 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  simple  search  in  WIPO  Lex,  WIPO’s  global  database  of  IP  laws,  in 
respect  of  the  subject  matter  ‘geographical  indications’  among  legal  information  on  intellectual  property 
from  around  the  world  in  WIPO  Lex  displayed  251  records  from  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. 

23 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
products  is  expected  to  grow.  For  example,  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: Necessity 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  geographically 
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 market.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 internal 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  procedure,  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 competence 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 area of the internal market. 

24 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

An EU-wide approach for GI protection would 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 
application  and  submit  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 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  incentives  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 GI protected products.  

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

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  system  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. 

25 

 
                                                 
be  applicant  friendly  and  affordable  at  the  registration  stage.  Furthermore,  as  shown  in 
the  problem  section,  affordable  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  not  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 AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

The baseline scenario is to keep the current fragmented regulatory framework in the EU 
and sustain the lack of recognised protection at international level. 

If the EU does not take action, many producers may be discouraged from continuing to 
produce 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  administrative  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. 

26 

 
5.2.2. Option 1 - Extending the existing PGI/PDO schemes to CI products (PO1) 

Under  this  option,  a  GI  protection  system  for  CI  products  would  be  integrated  in  the 
existing  GI  protection  schemes  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 production 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  levels  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  the  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 objectors 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 Parliament 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 and 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 alcoholic 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  indications  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 increasingly 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 
Transformation  of  EU  Geographical  Indications  Law:  The  Present,  Past  and  Future  of  the  Origin  Link. 
Routledge. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
agency  (most  likely  EUIPO).  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  GIs  may  be  subject  to  a  fee  at  the  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  international  level,  the  Commission  is  the 
Competent 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  Regulations133  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 products. They check the compliance of the products 
with the corresponding 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/ 
certification 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  agricultural  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); prevent 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 protected 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  setting  out  the  requirements  for  accreditation  and  market 
surveillance relating to the marketing of products. 

28 

 
                                                 
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 Auditing 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 regards 
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 designations 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) and in Art. 10 (4) TM Directive. In addition, similar 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  Designations  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. 

29 

 
                                                 
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  policy  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 Union. 
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 link  

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  characteristics  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,  because  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 Exceptions would include the pre-existing national titles registered by “old” Lisbon states which would 
have acceded to the Geneva Act. 

30 

 
                                                 
PO2 - 2.2. Involvement of national 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  charge  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 such 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 as 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 control 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  conformity  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). 

31 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

the verification, which includes the checks on the product characteristics 
and production 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 firms 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 conformity 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 authorities 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 
annual  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 authorities 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 accompanied 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 Decision 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 much sooner. 

32 

 
                                                 
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 products, 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 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 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  goods,  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.  The  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 distinguish 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  governed  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  designate  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). 

33 

 
                                                 
EU  collective  mark  can  designate  the  geographical  origin  of  the  goods  or  services  it 
covers. The regulations governing the use of a mark referred 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 allow 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  an  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  against  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 the content of the regulations governing 
the use of EU certification marks according to Article 17(1) EUTMIR152, e.g. name of the 
applicant, representation of the EU certification mark, goods to be covered, as well as the 
characteristics  of  the  goods  or  services  to  be  certified  by  the  EU  certification  mark. 
However,  the  EUIPO  does  neither  verify  whether  the  relevant  products  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 
geographical  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 trade mark. 

34 

 
                                                 
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 basic protection period is ten 
years. Cost of each 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. Recommendation 

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 would 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, certification 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  the  Geneva Act.  The Geneva Act 
requires the EU as a signatory to put in place a system which allows for the protection of 
third countries’ GIs within the EU and the protection of EU GIs in the contracting states. 
This  option  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/Geneva 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  Member 
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 have 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.  First,  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 if 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). 

35 

 
                                                 
5.3.2. Approximation of national laws 

An EU directive could be adopted in order to approximate national laws 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  such  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 with 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  approximation  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 protection 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, compared 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.” 

36 

 
                                                 
directive would take 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 OPTIONS? 

Policy options 1 (Extending the existing PGI/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  options  for  the  cost 
and benefits for key stakeholders: 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  conditions  for  the  GI  label:  the  characteristics  of  the  product,  the 
production method, and the geographic area of production. Such involvement gives  the 
producer group a strong role in managing and regulating the GI asset. The PGI scheme is 
inclusive  to  all  producers  in  the  region.  Once  a  PGI  for  a  product  is  registered,  all 
producers  within  the  geographical  region  who  comply  with  the  product  specification, 
regardless of whether or not they are a member of the association that originally applied 
for  the  registration,  are  entitled  to  use  the  PGI  label  on  their  product.  Adding  between 
164  and  300  EU  CI  GIs157  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 observations. 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 CI 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,  almost  a 
quarter of respondents (28) preferred a one-stage procedure at EU level only. 

Registration cost: When it comes to the registration cost, the 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 is 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. 

37 

 
                                                 
range  between  EUR  145  in  CZ  and  EUR  900  in  DE,159  and  represent  a  marginal  cost 
from  the  perspective  of  the  producer  group  (or  individual  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  registering  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 
products.  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  

Enforcement cost as % of turnover 
Cost in EUR**  

Micro* 
1.7% 
8,500 

Small 
1.0% 
52,500 

Medium-sized 
0.5% 
143,500 

Large 
0.1% 
790,500 

All 
0.2% 
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 International et al. (2020) pages 176-178.  

Table  6.1.1  provides  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  affordable  for  larger,  more  industrialized  clusters  of  GI 
producers. 

Table 6.1.2. Overview of control costs (single producer) for CI products in France (2021) 

Verification 

Control 
Other controls 

Action 

Cost without VAT 

Drafting of the control plan 
between EUR 1,100 and EUR 2,300 
First certification assessment/audit   between EUR    350 and EUR    730 
between EUR    290 and EUR    600 
Follow-up audit 
between EUR    150 and EUR  1,000 
Additional controls * 

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  independent  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. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
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  craftswoman  needs  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, only individual craftsmen 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 products. There are currently three certification institutions existing 
in France162 and there are about ten for agricultural products, foodstuffs and drinks. Little 
competition may result in 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 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   
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. 

39 

 
                                                 
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 for 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 trust such scheme. Some producers, are therefore in favour of voluntary use of 
GI label as it allows 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 streamlining 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  lowering  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  the  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  than 
agricultural ones, thus cost of assessment was estimated at EUR 20,000 (see Annexes 4, 
13). Moreover, EU level enforcement and management costs are estimated at EUR 9,000 
per  CI  GI  annually,  including  e.g.  operation  costs  connected  with  publication  of  CI  GI 
registrations in the existing eAmbrosia171. 

Cost  for  Member  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  for  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 which 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 EASME 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 across the EU. 

40 

 
                                                 
generis GI protection for CI products, the registration process is 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  twelve 
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. Member States’ 
overall annual registration cost is expected at EUR 7,500 per CI GI and verification cost 
at EUR 600. 

Cost for Member 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  production  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 GIs of these two 
countries could almost quadruple the enforcement budget of EU Member States 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 they 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  existing  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 product 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  for 
consumers  to  make  informed  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 become 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. 

41 

 
                                                 
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 

National 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

15,000 
6,000 
3,000 
24,000 

7,500 
600 
3,900 
12,000 

Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

0.45 
0.18 
0.09 
0.72 

0.23 
0.02 
0.12 
0.36 

EU 

20,000 
0 
9,000 
29,000 

0.60 
0.00 
0.27 
0.87 

Total 

42,500 
6,600 
15,900 
65,000 

1.28 
0.20 
0.48 
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 qualify 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 characteristic 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 
is  better  suited  for  the 
(Option  2.1.B)  rather  than  PDO  (Option  2.1.A) 
characteristics of CI GI products.177 

However,  not  all  products  falling  into  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. 

42 

 
 
                                                 
specific  product  characteristics  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. In 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  replicating  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  product  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 products 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 
sufficient  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 justified 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. Such 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  coupled  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  protecting  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 Legislation 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. 

43 

 
                                                 
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 of 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, under 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 holders 
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  responding  to  the  public  consultations  were  selecting  PO2  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 around 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  coordination  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 national 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  existing  national  GI  titles/regime  with  the  EU 

181 VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p. 65. 
182 .eu top-level domain (TLD) for further information see: .eu top-level domain | Shaping Europe’s digital 
future (europa.eu) 
183 Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Germany. 
184 VVA & AND International (2021), supra note, p. 66. 
185 SWD(2018)160, p. 26. 
186 13% of enforcement cost of Option 1. 

44 

 
                                                 
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  national  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. Consequences 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  through  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  engagement  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  consultations  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 stage 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  competence  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 decisions. 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 

45 

 
Commission 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  dealing 
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 specialised 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  approach  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 EUIPO’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  17,000  (this  includes 
cost  for  registration  and  management  of  EUR6,000  and  cost  of  translation  (machine  + 
human  verification)  of  files  to  all  EU  languages  of  EUR11,000).  Additionally  all  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  system),  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  requires 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, cost 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 legal GI register of the names of agricultural products and foodstuffs, 
wine, aromatised wine products and spirit drinks that are 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. Even 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  

46 

 
                                                 
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 schemes 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 protection 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 harmonized. As there are two types of systems at national level 
(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  approximation  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  title  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 
Intellectual  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 
members 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 property action plan to support 
the EU’s recovery and resilience (2021/2007(INI)). 

47 

 
                                                 
national  systems  /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  (86%)  of  EU  citizens,  NGOs  and  researchers  who  replied  to  the  public 
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 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

Producers 
(group) 

Authorities 

National 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 

15 000 
5 700 
3 000 
23 700 
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

7 500 
100 
3 900 
11 500 

EU 

17 000 
0 
0 
17 000 

Total 

39 500 
5 800 
6 900 
52 200 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 
* 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 

0.23 
0 
0.12 
0.35 

1.19 
0.17 
0.21 
1.57 

0.45 
0.17 
0.09 
0.71 

0.51 
0 
0 
0.51 

6.3. Option 3 - Trade mark reform  

Producers 

Management:  In  case  of  collective  trade  marks,  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  case 
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 objectives see annex 14. 
194 VVA and AND International (2021), p. 46. 

48 

 
 
                                                 
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 

Albacete Cutlery 
(ES) 

No of 
producers 
10 

Owner 

Albacete Council 

Artesanato dos 
Açores (PT) 
Made in Toruń (PL) 
Sámi Duodji (SE) 

100 

150 
N/A 

Regional Centre for the 
Support of Handicraft 
Toruń Council 
Saami Council 

Source: VVA and AND International (2021), p. 43. 

Eligibility Criteria 

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 
material,  method  of  manufacture,  quality,  precision 
or other characteristics 
business services and products linked to Toruń city 
specific techniques and materials 

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, EUIPO 
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 systems 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 marks, 
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  verification.  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 complex 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. 

49 

 
                                                 
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  registered  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 consultation, 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 
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 information offline), the  geographical 
distances involved, and the small size of the consortium. 

the  difficulties 

Conversely,  the  monitoring  system  for  Plauener  Spitze  (DE  lace)  was  deemed  to  be 
‘extremely  effective’  due  to  increased  digitization  and  online  sales  which  facilitates 
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  Member  States).  In  case 
authorities do not want to engage as owners, their direct cost would be reduced to zero. 
Nevertheless,  they  could  still  support  mark  holders  e.g.  by  organizing  cooperation, 
supporting  payment  of  EUIPO  fees,  or  organizing  national  and  international  promotion 
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  experienced  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 International (2021), supra note, p.62. 
199 EUIPO “Annual activity report 2020” https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/annual-report  

50 

 
                                                 
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  fragmentation  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  general.  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 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

Producers 
(group) 

Authorities 

National 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 

7 650 
6 000 
3 000 
16 650 
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

0 
0 
0 
0 

EU 

1 500 
0 
0 
1 500 

Total 

9 150 
6 000 
3 000 
18 150 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 
* 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. 

0.27 
0.18 
0.09 
0.54 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.23 
0.18 
0.09 
0.50 

0.05 
0.00 
0.00 
0.05 

In  addition  to  all  the  above  considerations,  two  further  points  are  also  to  be  taken  into 
account.  First,  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 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. 

51 

 
 
                                                 
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  and  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 
profitability  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 strongly 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 sustainable 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  more 
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 protected 
by  geographical  indications  do  not  remain  static  but  evolve  both  with  regard  to  the 
production and to the marketing.206 Nevertheless, it is important to underline that, having 
control over the product specification, group of producers have the power to stimulate or 
stifle  innovation.207  Around  half  of  respondents  to  consultations  expected  positive 
impacts 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 national 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 innovation 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  other,  producers  can  cooperate  in  upgrading 
quality  or  in  updating  product  specifications  (VVA  et  al.  (2020),  supra  note,  p.  29).  In  addition  some 

52 

 
 
                                                 
 
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 dishwashers 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 geographical 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  signalling  effects  of  the  CI  GI  title  lifts  consumer  willingness  to  pay.  This  is 
indeed the case as 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  they  fulfil  the  relevant 
criteria. And there 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  business  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 opposing 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  is  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  innovation:  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). 

53 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
produced  in  the  EU  (hence  reduced  transport).210  Third,  consumers  who  express 
preference of such credence goods are 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 COMPARE? 

The  following  tables  provides  information  comparing  the  policy  options  in  the  light  of 
the effectiveness and efficiency criteria 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 

Baseline 
Option 1  
Modified 
Agri 
system 

Option 2 
New 
system 

Effectiveness (contribution to achieving objectives) 

Applicant friendly 
and affordable 
registration system 

Effective and affordable  
system of:  

control 

enforcement 

0 
(++)Authorities 
enforce out of 
their own 
initiative,  
high benefit to 
producers 

(++) authorities 
enforce out of 
their own 
initiative,  
high benefit to 
producers  

0 
(+) Strict 
control based 
on third party 
assessment 
high benefit to 
customers 

0 
(++) Registration at 
no or low cost with 
local authorities 
who provide 
additional support 
to producers (form 
filling, 
collaboration 
building) 
2.2A (++) as in PO1  2.4B (++) new 

approach 
control based 
on self 
declaration 
and random 
controls; low 
cost, 
comparable 
effectiveness 
to PO1 

Low cost for 
public 
authorities 
0 
(--) High cost of 
both control and 
enforcement 
system  

(+)   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 
(++) No cost on 
public 
authorities, 
EUIPO profit 
from additional 
registrations 

Efficiency 
(costs and benefits) 

0 
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: EUR1.95m for 30 GI, 
37% of costs borne by producers 
Net effect: (++) 
Benefit: middle option. More 
engagement of authorities in 
quality control and enforcement. 
Possibility to use voluntarily 
PGI logo. Authorities bear 55% 
of costs 
Cost: EUR 1.57m for 30 GI. 
Producers bear 45% of costs 

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 borne by producers 

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 

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”. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table 7.2 Comparison of the impact of viable policy options on stakeholders 

CI Producers group* 
0 

National administration 
0 

EU administration 
0 

Citizens 
0 

Baseline 
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 

Costs per GI: EUR 24,000 per producer 

group with 60% directed to 
preparation of registration 
files 

Benefits: Potential for higher prices 

Option 2 
New system 

by up to 20%-50% and 
higher demand by 20-30% 
or even 100%211; cheap 
enforcement as mostly by 
public authorities; 
Borrowed reputation of 
Agri GI system, voluntary 
use of PGI logo; 
producers in 16 MS already 
familiar with system. Public 
enforcement lowers burden 

Costs per GI: EUR 23,700 

(--) 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, accelerating 
growth and turism 

EUR 12,000 with 60% 
directed to registration; 
Difficult enforcement for 
some GIs (e.g. monitoring PL 
lace counterfiting by PT 
authorities) 

(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 local production and 
heritage  

(-) Potentially higher prices by 
up to 20%-50% of CI 
protected products 

EUR 29,000 with 70% 
directed towards 
registration; 
Cost at EUIPO not 
covered by any fees + 
cost of final decision at 
Commission level 

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)   

(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-declaration and 
random checks limits costs;  
EUR 11,500 

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 and 
heritage 

EUR 17,000 

Use of existing 
expertise of EUIPO 
(2.3B), 

(-) Potentially higher prices by 
up to 20%-50% of CI 
protected products 
(++) Assured quality and local 
origin (unquantifiable)   

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 

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 indications (GIs) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) 
Final Report p.102 available under KF0419562ENN.en.pdf.  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
National administration 

(0) No legal obligation for 
authorities to engage in 
activities connected with 
cooperation building or 
promotion campaigns of local 
producers; 

EU administration 
(0, +) Reuse of existing 
system with existing 
EUIPO procedures; 
Additional registration 
expected to marginally 
increase EUIPO budget 
surplus 

Citizens 

(++) quality assured by trust 
in private brands; 
Important for those placing 
value on local production and 
heritage  

Option 3 
Modified TM 
system 

CI Producers group* 
(+) 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 

Costs per GI: EUR 16,650 per producer 

EUR 0 

group, with 46% directed to 
registration 

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 

EUR 1,500 - Marginal 
cost at EUIPO to 
handle additional 
applications 
Revenues from 
registration higher than 
direct costs 

(-) Potentially higher prices by 
up to 20%-50% of CI 
protected products 

(++) 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 assesses coherence of each considered option with other EU policy objectives, 
including  the  Charter  for  fundamental  rights,  and  with  other  policy  initiatives  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 foresees 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 beneficial 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  cooperation,  and  promoting  and  protecting  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 facilitating recovery in hard-hit EU regions.  

56 

 
 
 
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 relation 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,  producers  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 low in coherence with the EU Trade Mark policy.  

Moreover, PO3 also ranks low on coherence with the EU international GI protection 
policy.  First,  under  PO3, CIs products  would  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,  particularly  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, first, 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 ‘evocation’ 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”. 

57 

 
                                                 
marginalised  among  schemes  focused  on  agricultural  products  and  within  an 
administration used to dealing with agricultural matters, under the Common Agricultural 
Policy and the rural development. And secondly, CI products would require to amend the 
existing Quality Control Regulation and 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 problems/objectives. 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  instruments  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  towards  Member  State  as  no  new  obligations 
would  be  created.  It  scores,  however,  lower  in  terms  of  support  to  micro/artisanal 
producers (no assistance from authorities in application or enforcement). It may also be 
problematic to implement due to required changes 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  option  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 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).  

58 

 
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  third  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 paper 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 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

Producers 
(group) 

Authorities 

National 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 

15 000 
5 700 
3 000 
23 700 
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

7 500 
100 
3 900 
11 500 

EU 

17 000 
0 
0 
17 000 

Total 

39 500 
5 800 
6 900 
52 200 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 
* 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. 

1.19 
0.17 
0.21 
1.57 

0.23 
0 
0.12 
0.35 

0.45 
0.17 
0.09 
0.71 

0.51 
0 
0 
0.51 

9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS 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  lists  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  their  size,  whether  they  had 
registered  trademark  or  sui  generis  GI  prior  to 

eAmbrosia/TM 
GIview; 
Reports from 
Members States 
(every 4 years); 
Survey 
(producers) 

59 

 
 
registering in the new system; 
Feedback should also be gathered from owners of the 
products  that  would  qualify  for  protection  under  the 
new system but who did not apply for it; 

Number and origin of the potential infringing products 
that they observe on the market; 
Changes to the number of 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 
authorities  as  well  as  any  subsidies  by  national 
authorities/EU funds);  

Cost of registration, monitoring and enforcement 

Reports from 
Members States 
(every 4 years); 
Survey or case 
studies (producers + 
national authorities) 

Survey (national and 
EU authorities) 

Effective and affordable 
system of control and 
enforcement 

Low cost for public 
authorities 

60 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

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 Interservices 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 contribute 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 Scrutiny 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 

61 

 
 
Impact  Assessment  was  discussed  with  the  RSB  on  15  December  2021.  Based  on  the 
RSB recommendations, the Impact Assessment has been revised in accordance with the 
following points: 

Board's recommendation  
(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. 
(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 clearly 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 option 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 other options. 
(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 the 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. 
(4) Even in the absence of empirical evidence, the 
potential impacts of the various options on 
competition, innovation and the environment 
should be better analysed and explained. 

(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. 
(6) The monitoring and in particular evaluation 
arrangements are missing in the report and need to 
be clearly established. 
Technical comments 

how the IA report has been modified in response 
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. 

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 suboptions of Option 2. 

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. 

- impacts on innovation and competition are further 
developed. Examples 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. 
- The report is now consistently referring to the 
voluntary use of logo. The rationale for voluntary 
use is also added.  

Timing of the propose evaluation was added. 
Monitoring indicators were updated 

- Views by stakeholder categories were added, 
opposing views of stakeholders were analysed in 
Annex 2a 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
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  received  from  the  stakeholders  in  the  framework  of  targeted 
consultations and workshops (see Annex 2). 

  DG AGRI/EUIPO Conference on Strengthening 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 products in the EU, EUIPO (2017) 

o  Geographical  indications  for  non-agricultural  products.  Cost  of  non-
Europe  report,  Study  by  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service 
(EPRS), The European Parliament (2019). 

63 

 
 
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. Consultations started already in 2013 and have intensified in 2020 
and 2021. Stakeholders have been asked to express their views in particular on:  

-  The  existing  fragmented  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 international and trade-related dimensions);  

-  The  available  policy  options  and  their  impacts  (in  particular  on  economy, 
competitiveness  including  prices  and  demand,  capacity  to  export,  innovation, 
regions,  public 
free-riding, 
authorities); and  

jobs,  environment,  consumer's 

information, 

-  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 organisations.  

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 products);  

  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; 

64 

 
  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  broadly 
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 development 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 
associations, 
than  80  participants 
national/regional/local authorities, and academics. 

including  producers/consumer 

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 geographical 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 

65 

 
was  extended  for  a  total  of  7  weeks  (30  November  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  stakeholders  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  collective 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  to 
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 consumer 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  the  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 are  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  enforcement  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  always  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 will 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. 

66 

 
  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  large-size  organisations  (50  to  249  employees  and  250  employees  or 
more, respectively). 

Responses by organisation size (153 replies): 

67 

4438241797543333322221111111111105101520253035404550ItalyFranceSpainGermanyBelgiumPolandRomaniaSwedenCroatiaCzechiaFinlandIrelandPortugalDenmarkLithuaniaSwitzerlandUnited KingdomAustriaBahamasEstoniaHungaryIcelandIndiaKenyaLuxembourgNorwayRussiaUruguayCountry of respondents683528278852101020304050607080Responses by stakeholder type 
 
 
More  than  one  third  of  the  responses  in  question  came  from  the  natural  stones  sector 
(33).  Other  key  sectors  were  porcelain/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: 

Responses by sector of producers

4

6

33

6

10

13

20

Natural stones

Other

Porcelain/Ceramics

Cutlery

Furniture

Textiles

Jewellery/Gems

As to the sales activities 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  of  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: 

68 

31%29%24%16%Responses by organisation sizeMicro (1 to 9 employees)Small (10 to 49 employees)Medium (50 to 249 employees)Large (250 or more) 
 
 
Responses by sales activities of producers

5 3

16

68

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

  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 expressed 
no specific view on the matter.  

Responses by need for an EU-wide initiative

7 4 3

168

Yes

No

No Answer

I do not know

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 burden/ costs, for example related to the application’.  

69 

 
 
 
  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  preferred)  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: 

70 

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 scheme3%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 
 
 
  
-  The most preferred policy option (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 preference 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 policy 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 respondents (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  less  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 including 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 

71 

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 MemberStates and producers to agree on voluntary measures in order to certify the origin ofindustrial and handcraft products.Trade mark reform - This option would consist of a reform of the EU trade marksystem. Producers of industrial and handicraft products would have the possibility toapply for the registration of a name guaranteeing a certain quality linked to a specificgMerger - Under this option, a GI protection system for industrial and handicraftproducts would merge with the current GI protection system for agriculturalproducts.Harmonisation - an EU directive setting out specific objectives for the protection ofGIs for non-agricultural products, for example protection duration, scope, territoriallink, 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 preferred4321 - least preferredNo 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. 
 
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  20%  (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 jointly. 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  public 
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  been  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  protection.  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  and  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. 

72 

 
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 Member 
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  applications  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 typically 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. 

73 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2A: DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 

The  public  consultations  revealed  divergences  in  opinions  on  several  issues.  The  most 
striking differences concerned 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 statements? Please rate 
from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (disagree) 

It is not fair that non-agricultural GI products do not 
have similar level of protection as agricultural GI 
products. 
It is difficult for producers to protect their non-
agricultural products within the Single Market. 
It is difficult for producers to protect their non-
agricultural products nationally. 
At EU level, it is sufficient that producers can 
indicate the origin of their products using a collective 
or individual trade mark. 

GI countries* 

5+4 (Agree) 

1+2 
(Disagree) 

Non GI countries** 
1+2 
(Disagree) 

5+4 (Agree) 

96% 

90% 

55% 

2% 

2% 

29% 

50% 

23% 

31% 

50% 

46% 

62% 

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 States 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)  were 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* 

5+4 
(important) 

1+2 (not 
important) 

Non GI countries** 
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. 
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. 
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 

74 

93% 

1% 

42% 

50% 

72% 

86% 

6% 

2% 

33% 

58% 

38% 

46% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
challenge 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 geographical names or indications for non-agricultural products? 

Yes 
No 

Number of replies 

GI countries* 

Non GI countries** 

100% 
0% 

151 

53% 
47% 

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? 

Administrative burden/Costs, for example relating to the application 
Stricter inspections 
Uncertainty related to combatting misuse of protected name and fraud 
Higher production costs 
Missing regional roots (lack of local identity) 
Higher marketing costs 
Other 
Uncertainty of market demand or low demand 
No need because we have an own trade mark 
No added value 
No need because strong market position already 
Lower productivity 
A GI would prevent innovation in the production/commercialisation 
No need because unfair competition law is sufficient 

GI 
countries* 
67% 
45% 
30% 
23% 
23% 
22% 
11% 
10% 
6% 
5% 
5% 
4% 
3% 
1% 

Non GI 
countries** 
56% 
31% 
13% 
6% 
19% 
6% 
0% 
31% 
31% 
44% 
19% 
0% 
19% 
50% 

Number of replies 
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 

141 

16 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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) 

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. 
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. 
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. 

GI countries* 

5+4 
(preferred) 

1+2 (not 
preferred) 

Non GI countries** 
5+4 
(preferred) 

1+2 (not 
preferred) 

90% 

6% 

46% 

38% 

61% 

23% 

38% 

46% 

49% 

28% 

45% 

36% 

30% 

55% 

38% 

46% 

10% 

2% 

79% 

95% 

29% 

53% 

50% 

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 with 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). 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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) 

 Producers 
 Cultural heritage 
 Consumers 
 Regions 
 Competitiveness 
 Competition 
 Tourism 
 Capacity to export 
 Employment 
 Environment 
 Innovation 
 Public authorities 

GI countries* 

5+4 
(positive) 

1+2 
(negative) 

Non GI countries** 
1+2 
5+4 
(negative) 
(positive) 

91% 
89% 
89% 
86% 
86% 
83% 
83% 
82% 
77% 
59% 
55% 
53% 

1% 
1% 
1% 
2% 
3% 
1% 
5% 
3% 
3% 
9% 
5% 
13% 

67% 
71% 
53% 
69% 
36% 
15% 
77% 
45% 
43% 
38% 
40% 
23% 

8% 
14% 
20% 
8% 
43% 
38% 
8% 
9% 
21% 
31% 
40% 
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. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

1.  PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 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 

GI producer  

GI producer 
group 

Member States 

Practical implications of the initiative 

–  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  enforce  the 
implementation  of  the  GI  specifications  in  line  with  the  self-standing 
regulation 

Integrate obligatory GI specifications requirements into their production line 

–  Comply with GIs specifications  
– 
–  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 

  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. overcome 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 
  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 control). 
If necessary, designate 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,  inform  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 

 

 

78 

 
 
 
 
National 
authority – 
procedures 

Competent 
authority - 
enforcement  

of first and second instance 

National  authorities  will  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  

  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 use of the EU logo 
  Co-operate with authorities within the Member State and across the Member 

States 

EU (Commission/ 
EU body (EUIPO) 

  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  applications  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.  

Description 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 
Amount 
Direct benefits 

Comments 

Economic benefits 

Social 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 

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 

Help producers seize 
opportunities to develop and 
commercialize CI products 

Raise the willingness to pay of 
the consumers 

Positive effect on 
employment219 

216 2020 Study p. 82 
217 2020 Study p. 82 
218 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 EU Geographical indications. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Consumer benefits 

Environmental benefits 

Tourism benefits 

Cultural heritage 

e.g. producers of Perpignan Garnet Jewellery 
mentioned that demand has increased by 20-30 
percent, since the recognition under the French 
GI regime220  

visibility 

Enhanced 
on 
authenticity  and  quality  of 
products 

Indirect benefits 

GI protection is a way to 
increase economic 
sustainability to the benefit of 
all stakeholders221 

Potential reputational effects 
for the region: raise the 
visibility of the product and the 
region, benefiting also the 
related industries such as 
tourism222  

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 

Consumers  

Producers of GI 
products  

MS Authorities 

Commission/ EU 
body (EUIPO) 

Action 

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  sustainable  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. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
(b) administration and monitoring of the CI GI protection system: annual cost per one GI (EUR) 
15,000 

 17,000 

7,500 

registration 

Direct 
costs 

verification 

Management / 
monitoring / 
enforcement 

Direct 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

5,700 

100 

3,000 

3,900 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  proposed  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 three 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: 

2013 Study  

Objective  
 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 

Geographical scope 
 In the 27 Member 
States of the EU, 
Iceland, 
Liechtenstein, 
Norway and 
Switzerland  
 With a specific 
emphasis on the 
following countries: 
Bulgaria, Czechia, 
Estonia, France, 
Germany, Hungary, 
Italy, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, 
Slovakia, Slovenia, 
Spain, Sweden, 
United Kingdom 

Protection systems 
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 guaranteeing 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  measures;  ii)  Approximation  of 
national laws. 

82 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2020 Study on 
Economic aspects  

2021 Study on 
Monitoring and 
enforcement rules  

be protected as 
geographical indications 
in the future. 

 In light of the above, 
relevant and feasible 
options for the possible 
creation of a unitary title 
of protection of 
geographical indications 
for CI products across 
the EU. 

 To evaluate factors 

 In the EU28 Member 

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 protection 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 generis 
GI) protection 
instruments. 

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 
geographical regions 
at European level 
(North, East, South 
and West229). 

 To collect and synthesise 

 The selection aimed 

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 

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 

 Sui generis GI 

systems. 

 Sui generis GI 
protection  

 Individual trade mark  
 Collective trade mark  
 Certification mark  
 Industrial design right 
  Certificate of 
authenticity 

 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, Finland, 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, Netherlands. 

83 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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  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. 

The calculations are based on the following assumptions230: 

  average number 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, pp. 157-158. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 groups), 

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 verification 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 applications (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  estimated  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 multiplying the average FTE cost by 12 

85 

 
 
                                                 
 
for  translation  of  documents  into  all  official  languages  (mostly  machine 
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 differently 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 Legislation 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 machinery directive SWD(2018)160, p. 26. 

86 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
Study 
2013 Study on 
geographical 
indication (GI) 
protection at EU 
level for non-
agricultural 
products in the 
internal market 
(Insight 
Consulting, REDD, 
OriGIn 
Consortium) 

2020 Study on 
Economic aspects 
of geographical 
indication (GI) 
protection at EU 
level for non-
agricultural 
products in the EU 
(VVA) 

Used Methods 

Limits 

Corrective measures 

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 
analyse 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 
market 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 of 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, input 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  
framework  either 
Option  1Option  1:  new  EU 
approximating  national  laws  (Directive)  or  fully  harmonising 
(Regulation)  

legal 

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 representation 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 
from  non-authentic 
customer  can  distinguish  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 

87 

3°) Do the 129 products 
represent the EU 
market? not detailed 

3°) Method of selection refined 
in later studies 

3°) 4°) Product sample 
insufficient to gather 
quantitative data 

3°) 4°) Product sample treated 
as mere qualitative data (case 
studies) 

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°) 102 visited shops are 
not a statistically 
representative sample for 
the shops selling the five 
types of products in the 
EU 

7°) Answer to survey treated as 
mere case studies (qualitative 
data) 
8°) Limits to the analysis of 3 
options highlighted in the study 

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, 
the 
mystery  shopping  where  taken 
into  account  to  interpret  the 
behavioural experiments. 

results  of 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  

2021 Study on 
Monitoring and 
enforcement rules 
for geographical 
indication (GI) 
protection for non-
agricultural 
products in the EU. 
(VVA Consortium) 

provided feedback and insights for the study. 
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  national  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 
associations 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 producers 
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  complement  the  desk  research  and 
interviews  conducted  for  the  products  from  the  research 
sample that cover the same protection systems. 

4°) Options: elaborating 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.  link  between  the  product  characteristics  and  the 
territory,  verification  of  the  products  and  production  process, 
monitoring  of  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  Stakeholder  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 

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 

88 

 
 
 
 
corresponding  criteria  (production  and  geographical  link  of  the  product  with  a  specific 
area;  specific  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 (with 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 approach 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  initial  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 instruments, 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  representative  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 instruments 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 

89 

 
 
 
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  analyse  the 
benefits,  costs  and  effectiveness  of  the  monitoring  and  enforcement  mechanisms,  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 whether 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 geographically 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  compatibility  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  mystery  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) population based on 
gender, age and state-level regions.  

90 

 
The experiment consisted of six stages which are summarized in the below  

Figure 1 of the Study. 

Figure 1: Six stages of the experiment

Stage 1
Introduction

Stage 2
Warm-up 
questions

Stage 3
Willingness to 
pay

Stage 4
Authenticity

Stage 5
Search Costs

Stage 6
Additional 
questions

• information on the survey and experimental procedure

• basic socio-demographics
• attitudinal aspects

• direct WTP measure
• certainty rating

• authenticity quiz
• follow-up questions

• decision time in Stage 3 and 4 (no additional task)
• further questions

• familiarity with products in general and GI-protected 

products in specific

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 pay 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  randomly  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 authenticity 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 

91 

 
 
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 analysis 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  resulting  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 

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 

Regula
- tory 
charge
s 

Direct 
costs 

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 

EU GI protection 
for agricultural, 
food and drink 
products 

No costs at EU 
level (there may 
be some cost at 
MS level: EUR 
605 in Austria for 
instance) 

Non-EU GIs 

From free up to 
EUR 58 (India) 

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 

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 

Enfor-
cement 
costs 

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 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
Public authorities 

Few hours per 
application 

Few hours per 
application 

court trial (even 
higher for long 
and complex 
court trial) 

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 

Spanish case: 
estimated at 
EUR 128 for a 
new registration 
French case: 
data to be 
provided 

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 systems 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 in a table Overviewing the costs and 
effectiveness of each protection system (see Study, Table 20, pages 91-92). 

93 

 
 
 
ANNEX 5: CHARACTERISTICS OF REGIONS WITH GEOGRAPHICALLY 

ROOTED PRODUCTS  

More  than  800  products  with  characteristics  of  geographical  indications  were 
mapped  in  two  studies conveyed  in  2013  and 2020.235  These  products  typically  stem 
from the following eight sectors as shown in: porcelain, ceramics and glassware, apparel, 
natural stones, lace, jewellery, textiles, furniture and cutlery (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 categories out of 322 products analysed under VVA et al (2020), supra note, page 18. 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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  area as 
identified  in  the  product  specification.  Second,  for  products  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. Montafon 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 capita below 75% of the EU average. 

237 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/rural-development/methodology  

95 

 
 
 
                                                 
  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  located  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 susceptibility 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  yearly  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  vertical  line  indicates  a  6.8 
average EU unemployment rate as of 2019. The horizontal 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. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure A.5.2. Vulnerability in the tourism sector (2016) 

Source: DG GROW calculations using data published in Batista e Silva et al. (2019). 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION 

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 2007) 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 the 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  appellations  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  of  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 with 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 protection 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  and  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 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/gi_e.htm 

Geographical 

Organization 

Indications, 

Briefing 

World 

Trade 

on 

– 

98 

 
 
                                                 
The Lisbon system currently has a membership of 37241, 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  International  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 existing 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 system 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  requirements  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  time,  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 (Islamic 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/publications/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  attributable  to  its  geographical  origin.  (Article  2(1)(ii)  of  the 
Geneva Act) 

99 

 
 
                                                 
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  regulate  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  are  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 (EUCJ) of 25 October 
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  EUCJ  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 in 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 administration 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 Commission 

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 Indications; 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), Émaux 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. 

100 

 
 
                                                 
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  holders  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 products  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 level. 

  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, it 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 available 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 maintained 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. 

101 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 our 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 agreements, 
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  lists  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 Lisbon system by other parties to the Geneva 
Act). 

in 

the 

to  voluntary 
The  options  outlined 
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: 

Impact  Assessment 

relating 

- 

- 

- 

“The  extension  option”:  extending  the  GI  protection  system  for  agricultural 
products to GIs for CI products; 

“The  sui  generis  option”:  creating  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. 

102 

 
 
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 products. 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 the 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 
take  place 
through sui generis or 
labelling  or  unfair 
competition laws etc.).”254 

the  Contracting  Party  of  Origin  (e.g. domestic  protection  may 

trade  mark  systems,  special  decrees, 

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 appears 
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) 

103 

 
 
                                                 
“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 
registered 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 agricultural 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 stand-alone sui generis scheme. First, agricultural products 
and foodstuffs are different in nature 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  the  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  distinctive  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 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  CAP  reform.  For  the  other  regimes,  the 
streamlining  of  the  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  products  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 

104 

 
 
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 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  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  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: 

  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 filing 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  replace  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 related 
to the provisions on “Subject Matter” of the Regulation, which currently refer 

105 

 
 
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  interface  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. The 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  study  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 value 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 Decision does not touch upon the issue of CI GIs at all. 

106 

 
 
                                                 
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 respective 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  Peru/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 Indonesia, 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 agreements 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  the 
agreements.  

107 

 
 
 
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 trade 
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  from  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 collective 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 member 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. 

108 

 
 
 
                                                 
Furthermore, there are differences with regard to the scope of protection. In contrast to 
trade  mark  systems,  GIs  in  sui  generis  systems  are  protected  against  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: 

Type 

Trade mark 

Function 

Example 

Guarantees the 
origin from a 
specific 
company. It 
distinguishes 
goods and 
services from a 
specific company 
from another’s. 

The name (word 
mark) and logo 
of a big coffee 
chain (figurative 
mark) 
distinguishes its 
goods and 
services from 
those of another 
coffee chain.  

Geographical 
Indications 

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. 

Only wine from 
the Bordeaux 
region can carry 
the name 
“Bordeaux”. 

Trade marks 

EU Collective 
mark263 
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.  

The collective 
mark “Genuine 
Bavarian Beer” 
helps distinguish 
the beer of the 
association of 
Genuine Bavarian 
Beer producers 
from beer 
producers from 
other areas. 

EU Certification mark264 

Distinguishes goods or 
services 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 cannot be registered 
as certification marks. 

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.  

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 characteristics (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 right 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. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 and 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  certification  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 for 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 
geographical 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  EUTMR  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 kind. 
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 EUCJ, 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 mark 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. 

110 

 
 
                                                 
Should  the  change  to  the  EUTMR  take  place,  it  is  still  necessary  to  analyse  to  what 
extent this change would fulfil 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). 

Definition 

Essential 
Function 
Geographical 
Terms 

Right to Use 

Generic use 
Link with the 
environment 

Geographical Indications 
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. 
Geographical origin and compliance with a 
specification. 
Name must identify a product originating from a 
region having specific characteristics and include 
geographical terms but not always. 
Any operator complying with the specifications. 
Generic terms cannot be protected. 

Protected against becoming a generic term. 
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 link, as well as the description of the product, 
are verified by a registering body. 

Control and 
verification of 
goods 

Control and verification mechanisms outside the 
producers’ group. This includes certification or 
administrative enforcement by MS in the 
marketplace (in line with food law) and private 
and IPR mechanisms. 

EU Certification marks 
Distinguishing goods or services 
certified by the proprietor from 
those that are not. 

Compliance with a Certification 
Scheme. 
NO (at EU level). 

Certified Users 
Bona Fide Third Parties* 
Not the Proprietor. 
Can become a generic term. 
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 
environment 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. 
With the Proprietor. 

As is  shown above, the current  framework for EU certification marks is  not  a tool 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 control/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  regime,  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 producers whose  products meet 
these defined criteria benefit from the protection and may use the geographical indication on their products.  

111 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
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  particular  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 perceived 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  and/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 on 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  undermining  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 standards are controlled by the owner of the certification mark. 

112 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
ANNEX 8: OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL SUI GENERIS GI LAWS AVAILABLE FOR 

THE PROTECTION OF CRAFTS AND INDUSTRIAL 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 deception 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  controls.  The 
requirements  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 protect 

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 one 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 producers themselves (e.g. for the Halas Lace), to technical boards 
created  by  a  municipality  (like  the  Geographical  Indication  Committee  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  Indication  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  Indication  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. 

113 

 
 
                                                 
collective body, a government or local authority competent for the territory to which 
the  geographical  indication  refers,  an  association  of  legal  or  natural  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 
specifications.  

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 case 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 bodies. 

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,  Estonian, 
Hungarian, Slovak and Slovenian sui generis legal instruments277. 

  There are various requirements as regards the link 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. 

114 

 
 
                                                 
that, 

in  addition 

-  Concerning the nature of the link with the geographical origin, the French 
the  quality,  reputation  and  other 
to 
law  provides 
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  origin  can  be  based  on  human 
traditional  crafts  with  a 
factors.  The  Portuguese 
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. 

law  provides 

that 

-  Concerning  the  place  of  production,  in  some  countries  (e.g.  Croatia, 
Czechia,  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  the 
fact that 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 these 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  renewed  to  remain 
valid. 

  When  assessing  the  GI  application,  in  several  Member  States,  such  as  Bulgaria, 
Czechia  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  the 
products  as  an  official  confirmation  that  the  applicant  produces,  transforms  and 
prepares the relevant. The French sui generis legislation, however, foresees the use of 
certification  by  a  third  party  conformity  body,  both  for  the  verification  phase 
(before the registration of the GI) and the control phase, to monitor that GI Producers 
continue meeting the GI requirements (every two years)278. 

  There  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. 

115 

 
 
                                                 
production 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 Geographical 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 details 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) 

Verification 

Control 
Other controls 

Action 

Cost without VAT 
between EUR 1,100 and EUR 2,300 
Drafting of the control plan 
First certification assessment/audit   between EUR    350 and EUR    730 
between EUR    290 and EUR    600 
Follow-up audit 
between EUR    150 and EUR  1,000 
Additional controls * 

Notes: * in the event of a serious violation of the specifications 
Source: Association Française des Indications Géographiques Industrielles et Artisanales (AFIGIA).  

The  above  table  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 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). 

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. 

116 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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  –  independently  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  performed 
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 product 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  minimum  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. 

117 

 
 
                                                 
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) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

Austria 
Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Croatia 

Czechia 

Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 
Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 
Malta 
The 
Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 
Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

(*) plus 19 for waters  
(**) in the last five years 

X 

X 

X 

X 

3 

62 

0 

12 
1 

10 

< 1 
22 

0 

0 

0 

27 

0 

2 
2 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

13* 

7 

BGN 220 (± € 
110) 

HRK 300 (€40) + 
right to use HRK 
400 (€53) 

CZK 4,000 (± 
€158,50)  

6 

10 

6-12 

N/A 

3 exam. 
(part time) 
0 

1 

€350 

8-10 

2 exam. 
(part time) 
< 1 FTE 
N/A 

N/A 

0 

HUF 107,000 (± € 
292) 
€177 
€337 
€150 + € 30 per 
add. class 
€240 + € 40 per 
add. class 

N/A 

3 

0 

N/A 
N/A 

PLN 300 (± € 64) 
+1000 (± € 
215,34) 
(Registration) 
€254,98 (€127,50 
online)  

RON 1948 (€ 
400) 
€ 0 
€ 0 

€197.89 
+ 
€192.98  per  add. 
class,  (€253.21  + 
€164.03 online) 
SEK 2000 (±€ 
200)+ SEK 1000 
(±€100) per add. 
class  

3-4 

N/A 
6 

5,5 

2 

N/A 

4 

8 

N/A 
N/A 

10 

3,8 

30** 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

119 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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, procedural 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  procedural  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 groups considered. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
Benefits 

Indicators 

For GI Applicants/Producer Groups: 

Perception of transparency 

  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 

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) 

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 

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 stakeholders 

Modern procedures 

Perception of transparency 

Access to information 

Efficient procedures 

Well-functioning, customer-focused, effective, 
efficient, transparent, delivering quality outputs, 
sustainable GI system integrated within the 
broader IP System for craft and industrial 
products 

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 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 activity 
(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), hereafter 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,  documentation  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 binding 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 performance 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.. 

122 

 
 
                                                 
heavily influenced by the opponent’s responses. Nevertheless, average time estimations 
are included in the analysis. 

The indicators 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 options, 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 affected 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  registration 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  analysis  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/understand  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. 

123 

 
 
The following indicators are selected: 

1.  Customer-focused procedure 

Modern, scalable, and customisable procedure 

Indicator 

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 ‘accessible’ 

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 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

Level of satisfaction with the information received on each dossier 

Indicator 

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 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
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 by 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 considered 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 considered 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, Impact 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  GROW.  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 

126 

 
 
                                                 
 
-  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 similar 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 are 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 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, 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 document 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 geographical 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  /  AGENCY  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. 

127 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
-  Building methodologies, processes, registries, and tools, including templates, etc. 

It is assumed 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 or 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 consultation 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. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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  listed  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  considered  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.  Advantages  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 
AGENCY’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. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1. 

Option 1.0 [MS/EU] MS  COM Decision 

MS Level scrutiny; EU-level assessment, opposition, and decision on registration with 
COM 

Assumptions: 

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 implementing 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  could  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. 

130 

 
 
 
                                                 
131 

Need to register a GITriggerMS Scrutiny OppositionPrepares dossier and sends it to the MS authority Decision and specification made public Answers Deficiency Letter Not favourable decisionOpposition solvedApplication Dossier/Update sent to the COM/DG GROW Receipt DG GROWTranslation EN/FR DG GROW1st publication (SD published in the C series  for OPPOSITION) (visible in eRegister)No oppositionOppositionReception 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 decisionInter Service ConsultationTranslation into 23 languagesCISComments / ObservationsNo Comments / Comments solved Opposition admissibleAgreement not reachedOpposition admissibility checkLaunch consultationsNotification of consultations resultRe-examination of dossier, changes to draft Commission Implementing Regulation2nd CIS Committee procedureRegistration / Rejection (adoption of Commission Implementing Regulation)Opposition not admissibleAgreement reachedPublished in the Official Journal – L Series. Visible in an eRegisterEnd of ProceesGI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE TECHNICAL UNITCOMMISSIONV.01 05.07.2021SUI GENERIS 1.0 MS -> COM DECISIONNeed to register a GITriggerWIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT 
 
 
 
 
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 additional 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 

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’ 

1/5 

40 % 

50 % 

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 available 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, Impact Assessment 
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal. 

132 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

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 

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 ‘accessible’ 

1/5 

1/5 

1/5 

1/5 

3/5 

2/5 

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 

Proactive information of the applicants 

Level of satisfaction with the predictability of 
the registration outcome 

1/5 

1/5 

1/5 

133 

 
 
 
 
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 applicant,  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) 

Link description deficiency rate 

Product description deficiency rate 

10 % 

50 % 

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 

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 on the application file sent to the MS 

Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration 
procedure 

60 % 

50 % 

80 % 

70 % 

134 

 
 
 
 
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 

Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the 
latest changes to scrutiny practice 

Level of the satisfaction with their engagement in the decision-
making at EU level 

50 % 

50 % 

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) 

Number of deficiency letters sent per file 

Time taken to send the first letter of observations 

10 months 

4 on average 

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. 

135 

 
 
 
                                                 
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 rounded 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 incurred 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 Operations 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 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,  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 during 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 knowledge 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. 

136 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 

Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 

20 306 

0 

Costs for the MS 307 

Cost of the MS Scrutiny procedure 

8.  Key advantages and main risks 

Stakeholder 

Key advantage 

PGs 

MS 

Procedure to register craft and industrial GIs at EU level available 

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. 

137 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Stakeholder 

Key risks 

PGs 

MS 

Risk of a lengthy and burdensome procedure for registering craft and industrial 
GIs 

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 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
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 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  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 procedure 
for craft and industrial products. 

-  COM is the competent authority for the Lisbon agreement 311. 

308 Current GIview database to be customised 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, Impact Assessment 
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal. 
311 More details in the introductory part of the ANALYSIS section. 

139 

 
 
 
                                                 
140 

Receipt AGENCY (automatic)Translation EN (automatic translation for working purposes)1st publication (SD) in eRegister and/or OJ of the AgencyAgency 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 fileDeficiency(Automatic) Translation into 23 languagesData available in eRegisterEnd of ProceesObservation/Confirmation letter (translated) to the MSAnswer  letterPublish registration in the eRegister (automatic?)Inter Service ConsultationDG GROW formulates decision and sends the file for CIS DG GROW addresses ISC commentsPublished in the Official Journal – L SeriesEnd of ProceesACTION BEFORE THE ECJSUI GENERIS 1.1 MS -> AGENCY -> COM DECISIONGI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCYNeed to register a GITriggerMS Scrutiny E-OppositionFiles an electronic applicationDecision and specification made public Answers Deficiency Letter Not favourable decisionOpposition solvedApplication Dossier/Update sent to the AGENCY Favourable decisionEU Level Opposition DG GROW assessesre-assessment neededCOMMISSIONDeficiency not solvedGI Application rejected and decision published in the eRegister  and /or OJEnd of ProceesV.01 23.06.2021Need to register a GITriggerWIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT 
 
 
 
 
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  moment  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 

Level of the MS’ satisfaction with the front and back office 
processes, including tools 

Level of satisfaction with the overall registration procedure 

Services characterised as ‘customer-centric’ 

2/5 

70 % 

50 % 

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. 

141 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

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 ease of understanding and 
responding to the process and requirements 

Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 

4/5 

2/5 

3/5 

2/5 

3/5 

3/5 

3/5 

3.  Predictable GI registration procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

Perception of the predictability/satisfaction with how long the 
procedure takes 

Applicants are proactively informed on the status and the 
next steps to registration 

Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration 
outcome 

1/5 

1/5 

1/5 

4.  Quality of the application 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

Formalities deficiency rate (completeness of the file) 

Link description deficiency rate 

Product description deficiency rate 

5 % 

14 % 

7 % 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

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 on the application file sent to the MS 

Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration 
procedure 

60 % 

70 % 

80 % 

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 

Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the 
latest changes to scrutiny practice 

Level of satisfaction with their involvement in the decision-
making at EU level 

80 % 

80 % 

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. 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 

Time taken to register – all cases (EU level) 

Time taken to register – all cases (MS+EU level) 

Level of satisfaction with the duration of the registration 
procedure 

2 months 

Max 3 years 

Max 5 years 

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,  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 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 consistent 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 reserved for the oppositions. 

314 See additional details in the introductory part of the Analysis section. 

144 

 
 
 
                                                 
-  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 
recommended 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 

No change 

MS control fees if applicable 

Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level 

No application fee 

Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 

Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 

Costs for the MS 315 

6 

9 

Cost for the MS Scrutiny 
procedure 

8.  Key advantages and main risks 

Stakeholder 

Key advantage 

PGs 

MS 

User-friendly and efficient procedure to register craft and industrial GIs at 
EU level available 

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. 

145 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Stakeholder 

Key risks 

PGs 

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. 

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 matters 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 duplication of efforts between the AGENCY and the COM. 

Consumers 

Risk of bearing the cost of a burdensome registration procedure. 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
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, during 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 Working Document, Impact Assessment 
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal. 
317 More details in the introductory part of the ANALYSIS section. 

147 

 
 
                                                 
148 

Receipt AGENCY (automatic)Translation EN (automatic translation for working purposes)1st publication (SD) in eRegister and/or OJ of the AgencyEU Level OppositionRegistrationNo opposition / Opposition not accepted /Examination of the fileDeficiencyNo Deficiency(Automatic) Translation into 23 languagesOpposition acceptedDeficiency not solvedGI 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 ProceesGI Application rejected  and decision published in the eRegister and/or OJ of the AgencyEnd of ProceesAnswer letterManage Appeal (including internal processes)COMMISSION Opposition partially acceptedSUI GENERIS 1.2 MS -> AGENCY DEC -> COM APPEALGI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCYNeed to register a GITriggerMS Scrutiny E-OppositionFiles an electronic applicationDecision and specification made public Answers Deficiency Letter Not favourable decisionOpposition solvedApplication Dossier/Update sent to the AGENCY  Favourable decisionAppeal filedTriggerACTION BEFORE THE ECJAppeal accepted: Case reopened at the stage when the appeal was filedAppeal refused and refusal decision published in the  OJ and eRegisterV.01 23.06.2021Need to register a GITriggerWIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT 
 
 
 
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 

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’ 

5/5 

75 % 

90 % 

3/5 

2.  Accessible procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

Availability of the procedure related information using 
appropriate channels and formats 

Comprehensibility of procedure related information by 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 ease of understanding and 
responding to the process and requirements 

Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 

4/5 

4/5 

4/5 

5/5 

3/5 

2/5 

3/5 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  Predictable GI registration procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

Perception of the predictability/satisfaction with the duration 
of the procedure 

Applicants are proactively informed on the status and the 
next steps to registration 

Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration 
outcome 

4/5 

4/5 

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) 

Link description deficiency rate 

Product description deficiency rate 

5 % 

14 % 

 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 

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 on the application file sent to the MS 

80 % 

70 % 

95 % 

Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration 
procedure 

70 % 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the 
latest changes to scrutiny practice 

Level of the satisfaction with their engagement in the decision-
making at EU level 

95 % 

95 % 

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) 

Number of deficiency letters sent per file 

Time taken to send the first letter of observations 

Time taken to register – all cases (EU level) 

Time taken to register – all cases (MS+EU level) 

Level of satisfaction with the duration of the registration 
procedure 

6 months 

Max 2 

2 months 

Average 2 years 

Average 3 years 

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 increasing 
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 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 

151 

 
 
 
 
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 chosen318.  

The costs for MS during the first 3 years from the moment of the entry into force of the 
GI legal 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  organisational  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 FTEs 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 

No change 

MS control fees if applicable 

Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level 

No application fee 

Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 

Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 

Costs for the MS 319 

2 

10 

Cost of the MS Scrutiny 
procedure 

8.  Key advantages and main risks 

Stakeholder 

Key advantage 

PGs 

MS 

Modern procedure, integrated with other IPRs if applicable 

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.  

152 

 
 
 
                                                 
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 means 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 

MS 

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. 

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 reputational 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 
structure 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 integrated 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. 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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  scientific  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. 

154 

 
 
                                                 
155 

Receipt AGENCY (automatic)Translation EN (automatic translation for working purposes)1st publication (SD) in eRegister and/or OJ of the AgencyEU Level OppositionRegistrationNo opposition / Opposition not accepted /Examination of the fileDeficiencyNo Deficiency(Automatic) Translation into 23 languagesOpposition acceptedDeficiency not solvedGI 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 ProceesGI 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 BOARDGI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCYNeed to register a GITriggerMS Scrutiny E-OppositionFiles an electronic applicationDecision and specification made public Answers Deficiency Letter Not favourable decisionOpposition solvedApplication Dossier/Update sent to the AGENCY Favourable decisionSCIENTIFIC BOARDProvide input (MANDATORY/OPTIONAL)Manage Appeal (including internal processes)APPEAL BODYAppeal accepted: Case reopened at the stage when the appeal was filedAppeal filedTriggerACTION BEFORE THE ECJCall scientific boardProvide input (MANDATORY/OPTIONAL)SCIENTIFIC BOARDAppeal refused and refusal decision published in the  OJ and eRegisterV.01 23.06.2021Need to register a GITriggerWIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT 
 
 
 
 
1.  Customer-focused procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

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’ 

5/5 

80 % 

90 % 

4/5 

2.  Accessible procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

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 ease of understanding and 
responding to the process and requirements 

Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 

5/5 

4/5 

4/5 

4/5 

5/5 

3/5 

4/5 

156 

 
 
 
 
3.  Predictable GI registration procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

Perception of the predictability/satisfaction with the duration 
of the procedure 

Applicants are proactively informed on the status and the 
next steps to registration 

Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration 
outcome 

4/5 

4/5 

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) 

Link description deficiency rate 

Product description deficiency rate 

5 % 

14 % 

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 

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 on the application file sent to the MS 

Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration 
procedure 

80 % 

95 % 

95 % 

90 % 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the 
latest changes to scrutiny practice 

Level of the satisfaction with their engagement in the decision-
making at EU level 

95 % 

95 % 

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) 

Number of deficiency letters sent per file 

Time taken to send the first letter of observations 

6 months 

Max 2 

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  dossiers  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. 

158 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Considering  the  current  efficiency  rate  of  the  AGENCY  in  processing  the  TM 
applications 325 and the help provided 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 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,  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 products, 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; 

No change 

MS control fees if applicable. 

324 Under the current SLA with the Commission/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 the 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 specifically 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 details in the introductory part of the Analysis section. 

159 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level 

No application fee 

Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 

Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 

Costs for the MS 327 

0 

12 

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  and 
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. 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Stakeholder 

Key risk 

PGs 

MS 

No significant risk has been identified for this stakeholder, relative to the other 
options included in this paper. 

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. 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
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 is 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. 

162 

 
 
                                                 
163 

Answers deficiency letterMS provides input to the consultation (recommendation to the Agency)Translation EN (automatic translation for working purposes)Examination of the fileDeficiencyNo DeficiencyDeficiency answered / Time endedDeficiency not solvedSends observation letter (translated) to the ApplicantAnswer deficiency letterFormality/ admissibility checkConsults the MSSends observation (deficiency) letter to applicantDeficiencyNo Deficiency1st publication (SD) in eRegister and/or OJ of the AgencyEU Level ONLY Opposition procedureRegistrationNo opposition / Opposition not accepted(Automatic) Translation into 23 languagesOpposition accepted / agreement not reachedPositive recommendationNegative recommendationOpposition partially accepted SCIENTIFIC BOARDProvide input (MANDATORY/OPTIONAL)SUI GENERIS 1.4 AGENCY – MS CONSULTATIONGI APPLICANT MEMBER STATE AGENCYNeed to register a GITriggerFiles an electronic applicationGI 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 ProceesGI 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 ProceesManage Appeal (including internal processes)BOAAppeal accepted: Case reopened at the stage when the appeal was filedAppeal filedTriggerACTION BEFORE THE ECJCall scientific boardProvide input (MANDATORY/OPTIONAL)SCIENTIFIC BOARDAppeal refused and refusal decision published in the  OJ and eRegisterNeed to register a GITriggerWIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT 
 
 
 
 
1.  Customer-focused procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

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’ 

5/5 

75 % 

80 % 

4/5 

2.  Accessible procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

Availability of the procedure related information using 
appropriate channels and formats 

Comprehensibility of procedure related information by 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 ease of understanding and 
responding to the process and requirements 

Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 

3/5 

4/5 

3/5 

5/5 

5/5 

5/5 

3/5 

164 

 
 
 
 
3.  Predictable GI registration procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

Perception of the predictability/satisfaction with the duration 
of the procedure 

Applicants are proactively informed on the status and the 
next steps to registration 

Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration 
outcome 

4/5 

5/5 

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) 

Link description deficiency rate 

Product description deficiency rate 

5 % 

14 % 

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 

Level of satisfaction with the consistency of the outcome of the 
GI application assessment 

Level of the PGs’ satisfaction with the clarity of the 
observations on the application file sent to the MS 

Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration 
procedure 

80 % 

95 % 

95 % 

85 % 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the 
latest changes to scrutiny practice 

Level of the satisfaction with their engagement in the decision-
making at EU level 

95 % 

95 % 

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) 

Number of deficiency letters sent per file 

Time taken to send the first letter of observations 

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 

11 months 

Max 2 

2 months 

1.2 years average 

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 for 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 

166 

 
 
 
 
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 

Not applicable 

MS control fees if applicable 

Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level 

Application fee 

Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 

Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 

Costs for the MS 330 

0 

15 

Costs of MS Consultation 
procedure 

8.  Key advantages and main risks 

Stakeholder 

Key advantage 

PGs 

MS 

Modern procedure, integrated with other IPRs if applicable 

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. 

167 

 
 
 
                                                 
Consumers 

Benefit from a quality and guarantee scheme for crafts and industrial products 

Stakeholder 

Key risk 

PGs 

MS 

Risk of perception of lack of nearness of the EU administration, including 
language availability. 

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 needed expertise to assess the link with the area. 

Consumers 

N/A 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 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 332. 

331 Annex 11: GI registration process options, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment 
Report accompanying the AGRI-GI regulation proposal. 
332 More details in the introductory part of the ANALYSIS section. 

169 

 
 
                                                 
170 

GI APPLICANT AGENCYReceipt AGENCY (automatic)1st publication (SD) in eRegister and/or OJ of the AgencyEU Level ONLY OppositionNo opposition / Opposition not acceptedExamination of the fileLetter (translated) with the ApplicantDeficiencyNo Deficiency / Deficiency solvedAutomatic Translation into 23 languagesOpposition accepted / agreement not reachedDeficiency not solvedAnswer letterOpposition partially accepted SCIENTIFIC BOARDProvide input (MANDATORY/OPTIONAL)SUI GENERIS 1.5 [EU ONLY - AGENCY ONLY] NO MS LEVELRegistrationGI 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 GITriggerFiles an electronic applicationGI Application rejected  and decision published in the eRegister and/or OJ of the AgencyEnd of ProceesManage Appeal (including internal processes)APPEAL BODYAppeal accepted: Case reopened at the stage when the appeal was filedAppeal filedTriggerACTION BEFORE THE ECJCall scientific boardProvide input (MANDATORY/OPTIONAL)SCIENTIFIC BOARDAppeal refused and refusal decision published in the  OJ and eRegisterV.01 23.06.2021Need to register a GITriggerWIPO – LISBON AGREEMENT 
 
 
1. Customer-focused procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

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’ 

5/5 

75 % 

80 % 

4/5 

2. Accessible procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

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 ease of understanding and 
responding to the process and requirements 

Procedures characterised as ‘accessible’ 

2/5 

4/5 

3/5 

5/5 

5/5 

5/5 

2/5 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Predictable GI registration procedure 

Indicator 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

Perception of the predictability/satisfaction with the duration 
of the procedure 

Applicants are proactively informed on the status and the 
next steps to registration 

Level of satisfaction with the predictability of the registration 
outcome 

5/5 

5/5 

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) 

Link description deficiency rate 

Product description deficiency rate 

5 % 

14 % 

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 

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 on the application file sent to the MS 

Level of the PG/MS’ satisfaction with the overall registration 
procedure 

80 % 

95 % 

90 % 

80 % 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Level of satisfaction with the quality of the information on the 
latest changes to scrutiny practice 

Level of the satisfaction with their engagement in the decision-
making at EU level 

95 % 

95 % 

95 % 

7. Efficient GI registration procedure 

7.1 Timeliness of the procedure 

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 

Time taken to register – all cases (EU level) 

Time taken to register – all cases (MS+EU level) 

Level of the PG/MS satisfaction with the duration of the 
registration procedure 

Craft and Industrial GI 
projected 

6 months 

Max 2 

2 months 

1-year average 

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. 

173 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
-  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 

Not applicable 

MS control fees if applicable 

Costs for the PGs: application fees at EU level 

Application fee 

Costs (in FTEs) for the COM 

Costs (in FTEs) for the AGENCY 

Costs for the MS 334 

0 

20 

0 

8. Key advantages and main risks 

Stakeholder 

Key advantage 

PGs 

MS 

Modern procedure, integrated with other IPRs if applicable. 

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 bodies 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 this document. 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Stakeholder 

Key risk 

PGs 

MS 

Risk of higher cost as communicating directly with an EU Level 
AGENCY. 

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 expert 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.  

175 

 
 
 
 
 
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  options 
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  explored  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 
purpose 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 building pilot project in assessment of agricultural GIs on the side of the 
EUIPO. 

176 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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. 

[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] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY 
+ Consult MS 
+ APPEAL 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
only 

1.5 
AGENCY 
only 

Benefit indicator 

Customer focused 

Accessible 

Predictable 

Quality of the 
application 

Quality of the 
assessment 

Transparent 

Efficient: 
timeliness 

Efficient: Costs 

Risks 

eRegister 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

5 

1 

0 

1 

5 

0 

6 

3 

3 

4 

5 

4 

2 

6 

8 

3 

6 

5 

5 

9 

5 

6 

2 

8 

11 

3 

6 

7 

6 

9 

6 

16 

2 

74 

6 

10 

4 

6 

7 

6 

11 

5 

13 

2 

70 

6 

8 

6 

6 

6 

6 

12 

4 

7 

2 

63 

Total 

10 

33 

55 

The following sections summarise the indicators’ behaviours and the underlying 
assumptions for each of the improvement vectors identified. 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY + 
Consult MS + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
only 

1.5 
AGENCY 
only 

0 

1/5 

1 

2/5 

6 

5/5 

8 

5/5 

6 

5/5 

6 

5/5 

40 % 

70 % 

75 % 

80 % 

75 % 

75 % 

50 % 

50 % 

90 % 

90 % 

80 % 

80 % 

1/5 

1/5 

3/5 

4/5 

4/5 

4/5 

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’ 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 its 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  customised 
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 factor. 

Benefit indicator 

Availability of the 
procedure related 
information using 
appropriate channels 
and formats 

Comprehensibility of 
procedure related 
information by non-
specialised public 
(derivative material) 

Customised support 
available when filing 
the application 

User-friendly and 
easy-to-use 
application filing step 

[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] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY + 
Consult MS + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
only 

1.5 
AGENCY 
only 

1 

5 

8 

11 

10 

8 

1/5 

4/5 

4/5 

5/5 

3/5 

2/5 

1/5 

2/5 

4/5 

4/5 

4/5 

4/5 

1/5 

3/5 

4/5 

4/5 

3/5 

3/5 

1/5 

2/5 

5/5 

4/5 

5/5 

5/5 

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[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] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY + 
Consult MS + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
only 

1.5 
AGENCY 
only 

1 

5 

8 

11 

10 

8 

3/5 

3/5 

3/5 

5/5 

5/5 

5/5 

2/5 

3/5 

2/5 

3/5 

5/5 

5/5 

1/5 

3/5 

3/5 

4/5 

3/5 

2/5 

Benefit indicator 

Customised support 
available throughout 
the registration 
procedure 

Perception of 
simplicity and ease of 
understanding and 
responding to the 
process and 
requirements 

Procedures 
characterised as 
‘accessible’ 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 industrial 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. 

[MS/EU] 

COM 
only 

1.0 MS 
+ COM 

[MS/EU] 

AGENCY 
+ COM 

1.1 MS+ 
AGENCY 
opinion + 
COM 
decision 

[MS/EU] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
+ COM 

AGENCY 
only 

AGENCY 
only 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM 
appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY 
+ Consult MS 
+ Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
only 

1.5 
AGENCY 
only 

0 

0 

1/5 

1/5 

3 

4/5 

3 

4/5 

4 

4/5 

6 

5/5 

1/5 

1/5 

4/5 

4/5 

5/5 

5/5 

1/5 

1/5 

4/5 

4/5 

4/5 

5/5 

Benefit indicator 

Perception of the 
predictability/Satisfaction 
with the predictability of 
the delay of the 
procedure 

Applicants are 
proactively informed on 
the status and the next 
steps to registration 

Level of satisfaction with 
the predictability of the 
registration outcome 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 applications (‘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  effectively  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] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY + 
Consult MS + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
only 

1.5 
AGENCY 
only 

0 

6 

6 

10 % 

5 % 

5 % 

6 

5 % 

6 

5 % 

6 

5 % 

50 % 

14 % 

14 % 

14 % 

14 % 

14 % 

20 % 

7 % 

7 % 

7 % 

7 % 

7 % 

Formalities 
deficiency rate 
(completeness 
of the file) 

Link description 
deficiency rate 

Product 
description 
deficiency rate 

182 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 same 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 mechanisms 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  and  advisory  services,  hence  why  the  scores  for 
option 1.0 and 1.1 are lower for the first 3 years. 

[MS/EU] 

COM 
only 

1.0 MS 
+ COM 

[MS/EU] 

AGENCY 
+ COM 

1.1 MS+ 
AGENCY 
opinion + 
COM 
decision 

[MS/EU] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
+ COM 

AGENCY 
only 

AGENCY 
only 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM 
appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY 
+ Consult MS 
+ Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
only 

1.5 
AGENCY 
only 

2 

3 

5 

7 

7 

6 

60 % 

60 % 

80 % 

80 % 

80 % 

80 % 

50 % 

70 % 

70 % 

95 % 

95 % 

95 % 

80 % 

80 % 

95 % 

95 % 

95 % 

90 % 

Benefit 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 on the 
application file sent to 
the MS 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[MS/EU] 

COM 
only 

1.0 MS 
+ COM 

[MS/EU] 

AGENCY 
+ COM 

1.1 MS+ 
AGENCY 
opinion + 
COM 
decision 

[MS/EU] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
+ COM 

AGENCY 
only 

AGENCY 
only 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM 
appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY 
+ Consult MS 
+ Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
only 

1.5 
AGENCY 
only 

2 

3 

5 

7 

7 

6 

70 % 

50 % 

70 % 

90 % 

85 % 

80 % 

Benefit indicator 

Level of the PG/MS’ 
satisfaction with the 
overall registration 
procedure 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  where 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] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY + 
Consult MS + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
only 

1.5 
AGENCY 
only 

0 

3 

5 

6 

6 

6 

50 % 

80 % 

95 % 

95 % 

95 % 

95 % 

50 % 

80 % 

95 % 

95 % 

95 % 

95 % 

60 % 

75 % 

80 % 

95 % 

95 % 

95 % 

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 
satisfaction 
with their 
engagement in 
the decision-
making at EU 
level 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

2. 

3. 

4. 
5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

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 preparation of the registration documentation 336. 
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 aspects can be measured). 
For  Option 1.1,  4 months  are  allowed  for  the  COM’s  consultation  and  decision 
procedures. 
For Option 1.4, 5 months are allowed for the MS consultation step. 
The benchmark used for the 2-month period used until the first action is issued (i.e. 
examination  completed,  and  observation  letter  sent  out)  is  other  IPR  service 
standards. 
The  benefits  realisation  time  is  estimated  at  minimum  3  years,  allowing  for  a 
transition period. 
Target time is understood as an internal organisational objective, 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. 
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] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
+ COM 

AGENCY 
only 

AGENCY 
only 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM 
appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

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 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Benefit indicator 

[MS/EU] 

COM 
only 

1.0 MS + 
COM 

[MS/EU] 

AGENCY 
+ COM 

1.1 MS+ 
AGENCY 
opinion + 
COM 
decision 

[MS/EU] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
+ COM 

AGENCY 
only 

AGENCY 
only 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM 
appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

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 

7.2 Costs 

50 % 

50 % 

80 % 

80 % 

90 % 

90 % 

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 proportionally 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  for  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 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

COM 
only 

1.0 MS 
+ COM 

[MS/EU] 

[MS/EU] 

AGENCY + 
COM 

[MS/EU] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY + 
COM 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.1 MS+ 
AGENCY 
opinion + 
COM 
decision 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

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 

Costs for the 
PGs: 
application 
fees at EU 
level 

Costs (in 
FTEs) for the 
COM 

Costs (in 
FTEs) for the 
AGENCY 

No 
change 

No change 

No change 

No change 

N/A 

N/A 

No fee 

No fee 

No fee 

No fee 

Application fee 

Application 
fee 

20 

0 

6 

9 

2 

10 

0 

12 

0 

15 

Costs for the 
MS 

MS 
scrutiny  

MS scrutiny   MS scrutiny   MS scrutiny 

MS 
consultation  

0 

20 

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  estimated  2020 
360FTEs / 2500 appeals filed = 0.14 FTEs/appeal dossier.  

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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  are  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  that  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 responsibility 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 

[MS/EU] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY + 
COM 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.1 MS+ 
AGENCY 
opinion + COM 
decision 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY + 
Consult MS + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY only 

1.5 AGENCY only 

Totals 

PGs 

1 

4 

6 

16 

13 

7 

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 
application 
itself) 

No equivalent 
risk detected 

Risk of 
confusion over 
choosing the 
applicable 
administrative 
procedure for 
the appeals 

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 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefit 
indicator 

[MS/EU] 

COM only 

1.0 MS + 
COM 

[MS/EU] 

AGENCY + 
COM 

[MS/EU] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY + 
COM 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.1 MS+ 
AGENCY 
opinion + COM 
decision 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY + 
Consult MS + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY only 

1.5 AGENCY only 

MS 

Risk of 
unclear 
communicati
on channel 
leading to 
legal 
uncertainty 

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 having 
to deal with 
divergent 
practices 
between the 
examination 
body and the 
appeal body 

Risk of long 
delays until a 
political 
agreement is 
reached in 
case of 
appeals with 
no agreements 

Risk of 
reputational 
damage in 
case the 
appeals’ 
outcomes are 
consistently 
changing the 
first instance’s 
decisions 

No appeal 
possible, only 
action before the 
Court 

Risk of 
confusion at MS 
and PG level 
over the division 
of 
responsibilities 
between the 
AGENCY and 
the COM 

No appeal 
possible, only 
action before the 
Court. 

Risk of 
duplication of 
efforts between 
the AGENCY 
and the COM 

Risks of 
reputational 
damage due to 
potential 
conflicts over 
the ownership of 
the decision / 
assuming the 
responsibility of 
the decision on a 
political level 

190 

Risk of not having a 
say in the protection 
of nationally rooted 
products 

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 lack of 
expertise in 
product sectors 
in the 
AGENCY 

Risk of lack of 
expertise in 
product sectors 
in the AGENCY 

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 

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 

No equivalent  Risk of lack of  Risk of lack of local 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefit 
indicator 

[MS/EU] 

COM only 

1.0 MS + 
COM 

[MS/EU] 

AGENCY + 
COM 

[MS/EU] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY + 
COM 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.1 MS+ 
AGENCY 
opinion + COM 
decision 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

1.4 AGENCY + 
Consult MS + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

[EU only] 

AGENCY only 

1.5 AGENCY only 

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 

No equivalent 
risk detected 

No equivalent 
risk detected 

No equivalent risk 
detected 

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 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; 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefit 
indicator 

[MS/EU] 

COM only 

1.0 MS + 
COM 

[MS/EU] 

AGENCY + 
COM 

[MS/EU] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY + 
COM 

AGENCY only 

AGENCY only 

1.1 MS+ 
AGENCY 
opinion + COM 
decision 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

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; 

Risk of 
confusion and 
feeling 
overwhelmed 
by the 
complexity of 
the issues 

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 

No equivalent 
risk detected 

No equivalent 
risk detected 

No equivalent risk 
detected 

Consumers 

Risk of 
bearing the 
cost of a 
burdensome 
registration 
procedure 

Risk of bearing 
the cost of a 
burdensome 
registration 
procedure 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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] 

[MS/EU] 

[EU only] 

AGENCY 
+ COM 

AGENCY 
only 

AGENCY 
only 

1.2 MS + 
AGENCY 
decision + 
COM 
appeal 

1.3 MS + 
AGENCY + 
Appeal 
body/Scientific 
Board 

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 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART D: EU certification marks 

194 

Application filedTrigger1. Process incoming communications2. Examine EUTM applicationUserExaminer3. Perform TranslationApplication OKApplication NOT OK5. Handle OppositionChanges to Register/ InspectionsTrigger8. IP ManagementDecision appealed6. Register and publish EUTMAppeal filedDecision appealedOpposition filedTrigger4. Publish EUTM applicationUserInvalidity/Revocation filedTrigger7. Handle Invalidity/ Revocation (Cancellation)DecisionappealedAppeal filedApplication refused (totally / partially)OutputAppeal filedEUTM bulletin publishedOutputEUTM application refused (totally/partially)/limitedOutputOpposition rejectedOutputEUTM revoked/invalid (totally/partially)OutputRevocation/invalidity rejectedOutputOppo filedOppo not filedEUTM registered and publishedOutputRegister maintainedEnd of ProceesUserUserDecision not appealedDecisionDecision not appealedDecision not appealedDecisionDecisionDecision not appealedDecisionappealedAppeal filedInternational Registration TriggerWIPOProduct & Service Quality ActivitiesProduct & Service Quality ActivitiesExaminere-businesse-businesse-businesse-businesse-businesse-businesse-businesse-businesse-businesse-business3. CERTIFICATION TRADE MARK  
 
 
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  product  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 reform 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  requirement  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  proprietor  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  geographical  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. 

195 

 
 
                                                 
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 the 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 exist 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 indeed 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 proving 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 trade 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. 

196 

 
 
 
                                                 
Stakeholder 

Key advantage 

For PGs 

For MS 

User-friendly  and  efficient  procedure to  register  a  trade  mark  at  EU  level 
available. 

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 effectively 
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 the product’s origin) 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 10: THE EU ENTITY TO ADMINISTER THE NEW EU GI SCHEME FOR 

CI PRODUCTS AT THE EU AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL 

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 
the 
CI  products  at  EU  and  International 
administration of the EU CI GI scheme to an EU Agency, EUIPO). It also describes in 
detail the steps required to outsource the Role of Competent Authority in WIPO’s Lisbon 
System for CI GIs to an EU agency (EUIPO), notably, revisiting Council Decision (EU) 
2019/1754 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1753.  

level  (i.e.  Commission  outsourcing 

1.  Some Key Aspects for the Policy Choice  

The introduction of a new EU level GI scheme for 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 specialised 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 intrinsically 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 Parliament 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  for  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 would 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 
procedures 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  the  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 

198 

 
 
generis  GI  schemes  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 groups to the national authorities as their closest 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 recognised within 
the EU, as is case with the Lisbon system. This approach would be comparable to 
the trade mark and design systems, 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 acquired 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  designated  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  Annexes  3  and  9,  tasks  of  an  EU  entity  to  administer  non-
agricultural GIs in such double capacity would include: 

-  Managing 

the  registration  procedure, 
oppositions, amendments, cancellations, and appeals; 

including  examination,  publication, 

-  Liaising  with  WIPO  for  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 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. The Contracting Party shall notify the name and contact details of 
such Competent Authority 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.  When  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 International Bureau. 

199 

 
 
                                                 
the EU as well as processing those international 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 internal 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. Furthermore, 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 agricultural 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  place,  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  stemming  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. 

200 

 
 
  
                                                 
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  product  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 healthy 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  food  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  involving  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 authorities 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  competence  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  procedures, 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 procedures for several IP rights.  

346  According  to  the  2013  legal  study,  such  countries  are:  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Latvia, 
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. France is now in a similar situation. 

201 

 
 
 
                                                 
-  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: the 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  valuable  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  other  side  of  the  coin,  possible  arguments  in  favour  of  the 
Commission as the EU institution in charge could be: 

  EU  internal  market  registration  purposes:  Agricultural  GIs  are  administered 
by the Commission, which is a tradition rooted in exclusive EU competence 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 
characteristics 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  gradually  transferred  to  EUIPO,  which  has  already  been  tested  under  the 

202 

 
 
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  Authority  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 practice 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  considerable  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 above, 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  Preferred  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  Lisbon  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  respect  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 amendments, 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”). 

203 

 
 
 
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  has  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 GIs 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  corresponding  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, either 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 “crafts 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 registrations. 

  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 Commission. 

  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 its 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. 

204 

 
 
                                                 
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 also 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).  

  Publication 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 product 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 respect 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 from 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  the  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 registration 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  no  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. 

205 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
  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 possible 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  Regulation)  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 to 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 with 
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 

206 

 
 
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 availability 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 the 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 with 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 Article 7(5) of the Regulation. 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
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,  harmonisation 
would  also  require  continuous  investment  to  maintain  convergence  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 harmonisation is the replacement of national GIs by 
the  EU  framework. This  approach  has  the  advantages  of  creating  a  unique  regulatory 
framework throughout the Internal Market creating legal certainty as well as predictable 
and  relatively  low  costs  for  producers.  Moreover,  an  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 enhance 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  indications  and 
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. 

208 

 
 
                                                 
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 
information  necessary  for 
registration to the 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  

the 

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  applications  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  framework 
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. 

209 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 

++ 
Yes: EU trade mark legislation 
would not be disrupted to 
accommodate additional special 
requirements relating to 
geographically rooted product 
quality 

+ 
Different nature and policy context 
of agricultural and CI products 
problematic to properly reflect 

EU trade marks 

EU rules 
protecting sui 
generis 
geographical 
indications for 
agricultural 
products 

-  
No: EU trade mark legislation 
would be disrupted by inserting 
additional special requirements 
relating to geographically rooted 
product quality 

- 
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 

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 

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 origin 

++ 
Yes: EU trade mark legislation 
would not be disrupted to 
accommodate additional special 
requirements relating to 
geographically rooted product 
quality 

++ 
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  

+ 
Yes, EU-wide sui generis GI 
protection coherent with national 
sui generis GI protection in some 
Member States 

++ 
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. 

210 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Wider EU 
policies 
(international 
agreements) 

EU policies to 
support 
preservation of 
intangible 
cultural heritage 
skills  
Actions aiming 
to promote 
sustainable 
tourism 

The Work Plan 
for Culture 
2019-2022 
selects gender 
equality as one 
of the five 
sectoral 
priorities for EU 
action 
Innovation and 
competition 
policies 

++ 
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 

- 
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 

++ 
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) 

No, inconsistency with the EU’s 
leading role in advocating the 
highest possible protection for all 
GI products 

Yes, consistency with the EU’s 
leading role in advocating the 
highest possible protection for all 
GI products (WTO and WIPO) 

++ 
Specific GI protection is 
acknowledged as preserving and 
developing cultural heritage both in 
the agricultural and the craft and 
industrial areas  
++ 
Enhances the visibility of products 
(impact on regions) 

Encourages producers to cooperate 
with each other and also with local 
authorities  

+ 
Protect more commercial interest 
than common, in particular cultural 
heritage 

++ 
Promote preservation of know-
how as an important part of 
European heritage  

+ 
Provides a limited collaborative 
environment (more focused on 
private interest than on public 
interest) 

++ 
Enhances the visibility of 
products (impact on regions) 

Encourage producers to 
cooperate with each other’s and 
also with local authorities + 

++ 
Yes, compatible with gender 
equality promotion 

++ 
Yes, compatible with gender 
equality promotion 

++ 
Yes, compatible with gender 
equality promotion 

++ 
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, 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, through linkage with a 
geographical area benefits also 
related industries such as tourism, 
with positive impacts on regional 
economy and jobs, facilitating 
recovery 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

Producers 
(group) 

Authorities 

National 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 

15 000 
6 000 
3 000 
24 000 
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

7 500 
600 
3 900 
12 000 

EU 

20 000 
0 
9 000 
29 000 

Total 

42 500 
6 600 
15 900 
65 000 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 
* 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. 

1.28 
0.20 
0.48 
1.95 

0.23 
0.02 
0.12 
0.36 

0.45 
0.18 
0.09 
0.72 

0.60 
0.00 
0.27 
0.87 

Table A13.2. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under PO3 

Action 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

Producers 
(group) 

Authorities 

National 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 

7 650 
6 000 
3 000 
16 650 
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

0 
0 
0 
0 

EU 

1 500 
0 
0 
1 500 

Total 

9 150 
6 000 
3 000 
18 150 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 
* 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. 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.27 
0.18 
0.09 
0.54 

0.23 
0.18 
0.09 
0.50 

0.05 
0.00 
0.00 
0.05 

PO2 – Self-standing EU Regulation 

Below costs of selected combinations of sub-options: 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

Producers 
(group) 

Authorities 

National 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 

15 000 
6 000 
3 000 
24 000 
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

0 
600 
3 900 
4 500 

EU 

20 000 
0 
0 
20 000 

Total 

35 000 
6 600 
6 900 
48 500 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 
* 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. 

0.00 
0.02 
0.12 
0.14 

1.05 
0.20 
0.21 
1.46 

0.45 
0.18 
0.09 
0.72 

0.60 
0.00 
0.00 
0.60 

Table A13.4. Summary of cost of CI GI protection under 2.2A Two stage system 
national and EU +  2.3A The European Commission at the EU level +  2.4A (control and 
enforcement of PO1) 

Action 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

Producers 
(group) 

Authorities 

National 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 

15 000 
6 000 
3 000 
24 000 
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

7 500 
600 
3 900 
12 000 

EU 

20 000 
0 
0 
20,000 

Total 

42 500 
6 600 
6 900 
56 000 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 
* 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. 

0.23 
0.02 
0.12 
0.36 

1.28 
0.20 
0.21 
1.68 

0.45 
0.18 
0.09 
0.72 

0.60 
0.00 
0.00 
0.60 

Table A13.4. 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.A (control and enforcement of 
PO1) 

Action 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

Producers 
(group) 

Authorities 

National 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 

15 000 
6 000 
3 000 
24 000 
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

7 500 
600 
3 900 
12 000 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 

0.45 
0.18 
0.09 

0.23 
0.02 
0.12 

EU 

17 000 
0 
0 
17 000 

0.51 
0.00 
0.00 

Total 

39 500 
6 600 
6 900 
53 000 

1.19 
0.20 
0.21 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total 
* 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. 

0.36 

1.59 

0.72 

0.51 

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 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 

Producers 
(group) 

Authorities 

National 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 

15 000 
5 700 
3 000 
23 700 
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

7 500 
100 
3 900 
11 500 

EU 

17 000 
0 
0 
17 000 

Total 

39 500 
5 800 
6 900 
52 200 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 
* 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. 

1.19 
0.17 
0.21 
1.57 

0.23 
0 
0.12 
0.35 

0.45 
0.17 
0.09 
0.71 

0.51 
0 
0 
0.51 

214 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 of CI GI protection under PO2 

Action 

Registration* 

Verification/Control* 

Enforcement & management** 
Total 

Producers 
(group) 

Authorities 

Total 

National 

EU 

Annual Cost of one GI (EUR) 
15 000 

0 (2.2B) – 7 500 
(2.2A) 
100(2.4B) – 
600(2.4A) 
3 900 
4 – 12k 

5 700(2.4B) - 
6 000(2.4A) 
3 000  
23.7 (2.4B)– 
24k(2.4A) 
Annual Cost of 30 GI (EUR million) 

17 000(2.3B) – 20 
000 (2.3A) 
0 

0 
17(2.3B) – 
20k(2.3A) 

32 – 42.5k 

5.8-6.6k 

6.9k 
44.7-56k 

Registration* 
Verification/Control* 
Enforcement & management** 
Total 
* 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. 

0-0.23 
0-0.02 
0.12 
0.12-0.36 

0.45 
0.17-0.18 
0.09 
0.71-0.72 

0.96 – 1.28 
0.17-0.2 
0.21 
1.34-1.68 

0.51-0.6 
0 
0 
0.51-0.6 

Table A14.2 Comparison of policy sub-options against 
effectiveness and efficiency criteria 

Option 

Effectiveness (contribution to achieving objectives) 

Applicant friendly 
and affordable 
registration 
system 

Effective and affordable system of:  

control 

enforcement 

Low cost for 
public authorities 

Efficiency 
(costs and benefits) 

Baseline 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2.2. Involvement of national authorities in the registration procedure 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

(A) Two stage 

(B) One 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); 

(+) potential 
problems for 
micro producers if 
local authorities 
do not engage (as 
in PO3) 

(-) 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 
EUR17,000 (2.3B) or 
EUR20,000 (2.3A) per 
GI registered 

(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 
EUR17,000 (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 

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Effectiveness (contribution to achieving objectives) 

Option 

Applicant friendly 
and affordable 
registration 
system 

Effective and affordable system of:  

control 

enforcement 

(B) EUIPO 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

2.4 Control & enforcement 

(A) Agri GI 

N/A 

 (B) self 
declaration 

N/A 

(+) Strict control 
based on third 
party assessment 
high benefit to 
customers (as in 
PO1); 

(++) lower cost, 
comparable 
effectiveness to 
(A) 

(++) authorities 
enforce out of 
their own 
initiative,  
high benefit to 
producers 

2.5. Co-existence of EU and national titles and regimes 

(A) Replace 

(B) Coexist 

Efficiency 
(costs and benefits) 

registered 

Cost at EU level at 
EUR17,000 per GI 
registered 

Control cost for 
national authorities at 
EUR600 per GI; 
Enforcement cost at 
EUR3,900 per GI 

Control cost for 
national authorities at 
EUR100 per GI; 
Enforcement cost at 
EUR3,900 per GI  

Low cost for 
public authorities 

(0/-) more 
efficient than (A) 

(--) High cost of 
both control and 
enforcement 
system 

(+) lower cost of 
control due to 
random checks,  

(+) lower cost for 
national 
authorities 

(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 

Baseline 

Option 2 
(preferred 
combination) 

Benefits 

CI Producers group* 

National administration 

EU administration 

Citizens 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Borrowed reputation of 
Agri GI system, voluntary 
use of PGI logo; 
producers in 16 MS already 
familiar with system. Public 
enforcement lowers burden 

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) – self financing 
option 

(++) quality assured by 
system similar to Agri, 
voluntary use of same 
logos as in Agri; 
Important for those 
placing value on local 
production and heritage 

(++) Assured quality and 
local origin 
(unquantifiable)   

2.2. Involvement of national authorities in the registration procedure 

 (A) Two or 

N/A 

(B) One stage 

N/A 

Costs per GI 

n/a  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

(+) local authroties involved 
(as in PO1) but more 
streamlined due to no COM 
just EUIPO;  

(0) no legal incentives for 
involvement of local 
authorities (as in PO3) 

(A): EUR 7,500 
(B): EUR 0 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

 (B) EUIPO 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Costs per GI 

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 

(–) involvement of 
COM more expensive 
and reduced also in the 
new Agri GI system 

(+) outsourcing to 
EUIPO most efficient 
and self-financing 
option 

(A): EUR 20 000 
(B): EUR 17 000 

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 

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 

(B) Co-exist 

N/A 

(0) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

(+)  

(-) potential confusion of 
different 
certifications/logos 

Legend: ++ significant positive impact; + positive impact; 0 neutral; - negative impact; -- significant negative impact; 

217