COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products and amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/1753 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754
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) 116 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products  Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products and amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/1753 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754 {COM(2022) 174 final} - {SEC(2022) 193 final} - {SWD(2022) 114 final} - {SWD(2022) 115 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council  
concerning geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products 

Why? What is the problem being addressed?  

A. Need for action 

At EU level, special or sui generis geographical indication (GI) protection has been established for 
wines, spirit drinks,  aromatised wines,  as well as agricultural products  and foodstuffs.  However, 
there is currently no harmonised or unitary GI protection for craft and industrial (CI) products at 
EU level.  Sixteen EU Member States have national  sui  generis  GI schemes in  place to  cover CI 
products.  These  regimes  differ  in  terms  of  protection,  administration,  fees,  and  do  not  offer 
producers  protection  beyond  the  national  territory.  Other  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 be a 
disincentive to investment in the traditional crafts in the EU, adding up to increased costs and legal 
uncertainty for producers. 

The  absence  of  EU-level  protection  for  CI  products  is  not  only  an  internal  issue,  though.  In 
November 2019, the EU acceded to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of 
Origin  and  Geographical  Indications,  a  treaty  administered  by  the  World  Intellectual  Property 
Organization. The Geneva Act offers a route to obtain protection of GIs regardless of the nature of 
the goods to which they apply, including handicrafts and industrial products. While the EU should 
meet its international obligations under the Geneva Act and establish a protection scheme for  CI 
products at EU level, there is still room for manoeuvre on how to do this in the most cost-effective 
way. 

The  Commission  announced  in  its  communication  of  25  November  2020  entitled  ‘Making  the 
most of the EU’s innovative potential  – An intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s 
recovery  and  resilience’  (COM(2020)  760  final)  that  it  would  consider  the  feasibility  of  a  GI 
protection system for non-agricultural products at EU level.  

The  initiative  aims  to  address  two  main  problems  in  particular.  The  first  problem  relates  to  the 
limits of international protection for CI GI products. In the absence of EU level protection in place, 
the EU cannot secure protection in third countries for GIs for CI products originating in the EU by 
using the Lisbon/Geneva route, as there can be no EU registration to start with. The EU also has to 
refuse  protection  of  GIs  for  CI  products  originating  in  third  countries,  as  such  protection  is  not 
available  at  EU  level.  Furthermore,  the  EU  cannot  grant  protection  of  GIs  for  CI  products  via 
bilateral  trade  agreements  by  means  of  including  GIs  for  CI  products  in  the  list  of  GIs  to  be 
protected by such agreements. The second problem relates to missed opportunities for European CI 
producers. Due to a complex landscape of available protection routes in the EU (EU trade mark, 
EU  collective  mark,  national  GI  right  where  available,  national  collective  mark,  national 
certification  mark  where  available),  it  is  hard  for  producers  to  navigate  towards  obtaining  and 
enforcing  protection.  Discrepancies  among  various  protection  routes  result  in  complicated  and 
costly  ways  of  securing  protection  that  are  unworkable  for  a  typical  cluster  of  small  firms 
producing CI products. Moreover, the variety and divergence of national initiatives results in legal 
uncertainty for producers, may mislead consumers, weaken intra-Union trade, and make way for 
abuses of GI infringements offline and online. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve?  

The general aim of the initiative is to enable effective fulfilment of the EU’s obligations under the 

1 

 
 
Geneva  Act  of  the  Lisbon  Agreement,  and  to  maximize  profits  from  the  EU’s  accession  to  the 
Lisbon system for producers in the EU and from bilateral trade agreements. Furthermore, it aims to 
create  a  functioning  internal  market  for  geographically  linked  CI  products  by  establishing  an 
efficient and harmonised regulatory framework for their protection. 

The  specific  objectives  are  set  to  evaluate  how  to  achieve  compliance  with  the  Geneva  Act 
obligations in the most efficient and effective way. In particular the new system should achieve: (i) 
Applicant  friendly  and  affordable  registration  system;  (ii)  Effective  and  affordable  system  of 
control and enforcement; and (iii) Low cost for public authorities. 
What is the value added of action at the EU level?  
The problem of regulatory fragmentation would be effectively solved at EU level. An EU initiative 
could  provide  for  equal  protection  conditions  in  all  Member  States,  thus  creating  legal  certainty 
and 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 
products of a special, geographically rooted quality. 
An EU-wide approach would also enable the EU to fully benefit from the opportunities offered by 
the  international  system  of  appellations  of  origin  and  GIs  (Lisbon  system).  National  protection 
systems alone cannot achieve this objective, as only those Member States which are parties to the 
Lisbon  Agreement  may  maintain  registrations  and  submit  new  applications  in  this  limited 
framework. 

B. Solutions 

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered?  
Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?  

  Baseline – No change: The current fragmented regulatory framework in the EU and the lack 

of recognised protection at international level. 

  Policy  option  1  –  Recommendation:  This  option  would  consist  of  adopting  a 
recommendation  at  EU  level,  encouraging  Member  States  to  establish  national  protection 
systems  in  order  to  certify  the  link  between  specific  product  qualities  and  the  origin  of  CI 
products. 

  Policy option 2 – Approximation of national laws: This option would consist of adopting 
an  EU  directive  in  order  to  approximate  national  laws  on  the  protection  of  GIs  for  CI 
products. By a directive, the EU would create obligations to achieve specific objectives for 
the protection of GIs, for example as to the term and scope of protection, the territorial link, 
and procedural aspects. Producers could obtain national GI titles registered at national level. 
No EU GI title would be created. 

  Policy option 3 – Extending the GI protection system for agricultural products to GIs 
for  CI  products:  Under  this  option,  a  GI  protection  system  for  CI  products  would  be 
integrated  into  the  existing  GI  protection  schemes  that  cover  agricultural  products  and 
foodstuffs.  Under  the  proposed  revision  of  agricultural  GI  schemes,  Member  States  would 
continue  with  a  preliminary  scrutiny  procedure  at  the  national  level.  At  the  EU  level,  the 
revision of the GI system would give powers to the Commission to outsource the scrutiny of 
applications  and  oppositions  to  an  agency  (most  likely  EUIPO).  Under  this  option,  the 
ongoing  revision  in  the  agri-food  sector  would  harmonise  the  current  monitoring  and 
enforcement system and extend it to cover also CI GIs. 

  Policy  option  4  –  Trade  mark  reform:  This  option  would  consist  of  reforming  the  EU 
trade  mark  system,  in  particular  the  EU  trade  mark  regulation  (EUTMR),  so  as  to  make 
available to producers of CI products the possibility to apply for the registration at EU level 
of  a  name  guaranteeing  a  specific  product  quality  linked  to  a  geographical  region.  This 
option could be based on the reform of either the EU collective mark or the EU certification 

2 

 
 
mark.  In  respect  of  the  EU  certification,  Option  4  would  require  removing  the  current 
prohibition of certifying geographical origin. In respect of the EU collective mark, Option 4 
would require introducing the function of certifying the “quality-geographical origin” link to 
the collective mark. In addition, both the EU collective mark and the EU certification mark 
would have to be adapted in order to comply with requirements in provisions of the Geneva 
Act concerning the scope of protection.  

  Policy  option  5  –  Self-standing EU  regulation creating  sui  generis  GI  protection:  This 
option would consist  of adopting an EU regulation  to  establish a  sui  generis  GI protection 
scheme for CI products.  It would build on the existing GI regime for agricultural  products 
but adapt it further than PO3 to crafts and industrial products. CI GIs would be protected by 
an EU title in all EU Member States. Under this option, the following sub-options would be 
possible: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5.1.  Territorial  link:  5.1.A.  PDO:  Under  PDO  protection,  the  quality  or 
characteristics  of  the  product  are  essentially  or  exclusively  linked  to  the  particular 
geographical  environment  of  the  place  of  origin;  and  all  stages  of  production, 
processing  or  preparation  must  take  place  in  the  defined  geographical  area.  5.1.B. 
PGI: Under PGI protection, a particular quality, reputation or other characteristic of 
the CI product are essentially attributable to its geographical origin; at least one of the 
stages  of  production,  processing  or  preparation  takes  place  in  the  defined 
geographical area. 
5.2.  Involvement  of  national  authorities  in  the  registration  procedure:  5.2.A. 
Two-stage  system:  The  first  stage  would  be  at  the  level  of  Member  States,  where 
national or local authorities would play a first examination role over local producers’ 
agreed product specifications and GI applications. The second stage would be at EU 
level,  with  an  EU  entity  taking  a  decision  on  registration,  where  no  fees  would  be 
charged.  5.2.B.  One-stage  system:  National  authorities  would  not  participate  in  the 
examination and registration, and local producers would go directly to the EU level to 
have their GIs registered. 
5.3.  EU  entity  in  charge  of  registration  at  EU  level  and  at  international  level: 
5.3.A.  The  European  Commission  would  be  in  charge  of  the  EU  level  stage  of 
registration  and  act  also  as  the  Competent  Authority  under  the  Geneva  Act  of 
WIPO’s Lisbon Agreement. 5.3.B.  The specialised IP Agency, EUIPO would be in 
charge of the EU level stage registration and would also act as Competent Authority 
under the Geneva Act. 
5.4.  Control  and  enforcement:  5.4.A.  Replicating  the  control  and  enforcement 
model  of  the  GI  agricultural  schemes  (see  PO3).  5.4.B.  Streamlined  control  with  a 
strong enforcement model: this sub-option would foresee the possibility to introduce 
(or  delegated 
self-certification; 
certification bodies), coupled with a deterrent system of fines; streamlined reporting 
obligations  by national  authorities; and the enforcement scheme under the currently 
revised agricultural GI system, with a domain names’ alert system to fight online GI 
abuses. 
5.5  Co-existence  of  EU  and  national  titles  and  regimes:  5.5.A.  CI  GIs  would  be 
protected by an  EU title that replaces the existing  national  GI regimes  and absorbs 
national GI titles. 5.5.B. Introducing an EU GI title for CI products, while keeping a 
parallel system for national GI applications.  

inspections  by  national  authorities 

random 

The preferred policy option is  PO5: Self-standing EU Regulation. The overall preferred option 
package is a combination of sub-options 5.1.B, 5.2.A, 5.3.B, 5.4.B and 5.5.A.  
5.1.B because in the case of CI products, the link to a specific geographical area is predominantly 
based  on  the  history  of  the  product  and  on  distinctive  traditional  know-how  and  methods  of 
production, and not so much on the link to elements of the geographical environment such as soil 
or weather conditions. Most CI products would thus not qualify for protection on the basis of the 

3 

 
 
latter link by means of a PDO. Therefore, a PGI scheme is better suited for the characteristics of CI 
GI products. 
5.2.A  because  involvement  of  national  authorities  in  the  first  stage  would  allow  for  relying  on 
local and regional expertise necessary to assess product specifications. It would also be easier for 
local  micro/artisanal  producers  to  communicate  in  their  own  language,  interact  with  an 
administration they are familiar with, and receive any other necessary guidance and support. 
5.3.B because the EUIPO is the EU’s specialised IP agency with proven experience in handling the 
registration  of  other  IP  rights  at  EU  level.  EUIPO  has  advanced  IT  tools  that  could  extend  to 
support  the  new  CI  GI  right.  EUIPO  can  also  rely  on  its  established  expertise  and  network  in 
cooperating with IP offices of Member States. Further efficiency gains would be achieved by using 
EUIPO’s  appeal  body  (Boards  of  Appeal).  Finally,  as  to  the  role  of  Competent  Authority  in  the 
Lisbon  system,  EUIPO  currently  has  the  same  capacity  in  respect  of  two  other  international 
registration systems administered by WIPO and can also rely on such institutional knowledge. 
5.4.B because it would establish a control system that would be adapted to the CI GI market which 
is  very  diverse  and  small.  Self-declaration  may  be  seen  as  an  affordable  option  for  micro 
companies  and  self-employed  artisanal.  It  would  be  coupled  with  a  system  of  random  ex-officio 
checks  by  public  authorities  and  high  fines  for  non-compliance  that  aims  at  deterring  possible 
fraud behaviour by producers.  Enforcement  would be reinforced,  first,  by extending checks  over 
CI GI products “in transit”, and, second, by introducing an alert system to tackle abusive domain 
names  registrations  of  CI  GIs.  Reporting  obligations  on  national  authorities  to  the  Commission 
would be proportionate.  
5.5.A because due to the current heterogeneous regulatory approach to protecting geographically 
rooted craft and industrial products, co-existence would imply harmonization of highly divergent 
national  laws  in  Member  States.  Harmonization  might  create  a  disproportionate  amount  of 
regulatory and administrative burden and require continuous investment to maintain convergence 
between national protection systems. Replacement of national GIs by the EU framework has the 
advantages of establishing a unique regulatory framework throughout the Internal Market, creating 
legal  certainty  as  well  as  predictable  and  relatively  low  costs  for  producers.  Moreover,  an  EU 
framework will permit the development of geographical indications by providing a more uniform 
approach.  

Who supports which option?  
Producers  of  CI  GIs,  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Committee  of  the  Regions,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee, nine Member States (qualified majority) and academia 
strongly support the establishment of a  sui generis GI scheme under Option 5, including support 
for the preferred combination of sub-options.  
Four Member States support the baseline option of maintaining the status quo and are of the view 
that trade mark protection provides for adequate means to rely on. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?  
For  producers:  All  EU  producers  can  obtain  EU-wide  GI  protection  for  CI  products.  Such 
protection encourages producers’ cooperation, strengthens local supply, creates niche markets, and 
encourages producers’ cooperation with local authorities. As within the GI system for agricultural 
products,  producers  can  advertise  the  protected  GI  by  a  logo  on  the  product  labelling.  At 
international level, the preferred option enables EU producers to seek international protection for 
their  CI  products  available  in  other  parties  to  the  Geneva  Act,  and  enables  third  countries  or 
organisations parties to the Geneva Act to obtain GI protection for their CI products in the entire 
EU territory. It also allows for increased protection for EU CI producers in third markets such as 
China, Russia or India through robust GI provisions in bilateral trade agreements concluded by the 
EU. 

4 

 
 
For consumers: Consumers, who are often willing to pay a premium for protected GI products, 
are better informed.  

For the public: The preferred policy option protects geographically rooted products in the interest 
of the wider public, making the best out of local expertise and heritage, and stimulating activities 
like  tourism,  in  particular  in  rural  or  less  developed  regions  (very  relevant  in  particular  in  the 
COVID-19 aftermath).  

For the EU as global policy player: The preferred option further contributes to defend the EU’s 
leading  role  in  the  international  arena  in  promoting  the  sui  generis  GI  system  and  the  highest 
possible level of protection for all GI products. 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?  
An EU body will have to manage the core activity of the GI registration system for CI products 
and obtain the operational experience and specialised skills that it is currently missing in the field.  
Member  States  will  have  to  create  a  framework,  too.  Even  if  experience  shows  that  in  the 
agricultural  field  this  burden  can  be  light,  an  entirely  private-public  system  of  control  and 
enforcement is by definition less costly for public authorities. Finally, the possibility for producers 
to self-declare compliance over time, for example, once the GI title is granted can also lower the 
costs.  
An estimation of annual costs in euro for one GI is presented below: 
Producers 
Action 
group 
15,000 
5,700 
3,000 

National 
7,500 
100 
3,900 

EU 
17,000 
0 
0 

Registration 
Verification/Control 
Enforcement 
management 
Total 
Source: Own calculations based on VVA & AND International (2021) 
How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  
See benefits for producers above. 

39,500 
5,800 
6,900 

Authorities 

17,000 

23,700 

11,500 

52,200 

Total 

& 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
Member  States’  authorities  (national  IP  Offices  or  other  departments)  will  face  proportional 
implementing costs as consequence of establishing an administrative infrastructure to take charge 
of the national stage of the registration procedure. Currently, this is estimated at 1 FTE or part time 
engagement of two examiners. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  
There are no other significant impacts to be expected. 

D. Follow-up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
After the entry into force of the preferred option, the Commission will monitor its implementation 
with a view to assessing its effectiveness. The initiative could be considered as successful if it is 
appealing  and  used  by  local  communities;  improves  the  situation  of  GI  producers  as  well  as 
generate local spill-over effects by contributing to overall increase in wealth, to improvements in 
employment, particularly for women, and demographic conditions as well as to the development of 
sustainable tourism.  

5