REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Analysis of the necessity and feasibility of a domain name information and alert system for geographical indications pursuant to Article 35(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143
Date: 2025-11-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Internet address, consumer information, designation of origin, exchange of information, information system, labelling, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, trade mark

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.11.2025  COM(2025) 673 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Analysis of the necessity and feasibility of a domain name information and alert system for geographical indications pursuant to Article 35(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143  
 
 
GLOSSARY OF KEY TECHNICAL TERMS 

ccTLD (Country-Code Top-Level Domain): 

A top-level domain assigned to a specific country or territory, consisting of two letters (e.g. 
“.fr”, “.de”) and managed by a national registry. 

Cybersquatting: 

The bad-faith registration or use of a domain name identical or confusingly similar to a 
protected name – such as a trade mark or a geographical indication – with the intention of 
taking unfair advantage of its reputation, misleading consumers or reselling the domain for 
profit. 

DNS (Domain Name System): 

The  hierarchical  naming  system  that  translates  human-readable  domain  names  (like 
“example.eu”) into numerical Internet Protocol (IP) addresses used by computers to locate 
one another on the Internet. 

DAS (Domain Availability Service): 

A service used to check whether a specific domain name is available for registration or 
already taken, typically through automated queries to domain registries. 

NS (Name Server): 

A  server  within  the  DNS  that  stores  and  manages  records  linking  domain  names  to  IP 
addresses, enabling users to access websites using names instead of numeric addresses. 

RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol): 

A standard Internet protocol that provides structured, machine-readable access to domain 
registration data, replacing progressively the older WHOIS system. RDAP offers improved 
security, standardisation and data protection features. 

WHOIS (Who Is): 

An Internet service that provides basic information about a registered domain name, such 
as its status, registrar and registration dates.  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Geographical indications (GIs) are a cornerstone of the European Union’s quality policy. 
They protect  the names  of specific products  whose qualities or  reputation are  linked  to 
their  geographical  origin  and  the  traditional  know-how  of  the  producers.  As  digital 
marketing  and  online  presence  have  become  central  to  the  commercialisation  of  these 
products, safeguarding GIs in the domain name system (DNS) has become increasingly 
important. 

To  strengthen  GI  protection  in  this  area,  Article 35  of  Regulation  (EU)  2024/1143 (1) 
requires the Commission to analyse, by 14 November 2025, the need for and feasibility of 
an EU-level domain name information and alert system for geographical indications and 
submit a report with its main findings. Where appropriate, the report may be accompanied 
by a legislative proposal.  

A domain name information and alert system would enable GI applicants to verify whether 
a GI is  already registered as a domain name and, if they wish, to receive alerts when a 
domain name identical to a GI is registered. 

This report summarises the results of this analysis and considers how a voluntary provision 
of  information  by  EU-based  ccTLD  registries  could  work  in  practice.  It  fulfils  the 
obligation  set  out  in  Article 35(3)  of  Regulation  (EU)  2024/1143  and  presents  the 
Commission’s findings. 

2.  LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY CONTEXT 

Legal basis 

Regulation  (EU)  2024/1143  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 
geographical  indications  for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural  products  recognises the 
growing  importance  of  protecting  GIs  in  the  DNS,  as  these  rights  are  increasingly 
vulnerable to, and often targeted by, abusive domain name registrations, often referred to 
as  ‘cybersquatting’.  To  strengthen  GI  protection  in  this  area,  the  Regulation  (EU) 
2024/1143 introduces the possibility of setting up a domain name information and alert 
system. 

Under  Article 35(2)  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  may  entrust  the  EUIPO  with 
setting up and managing such a system. The same provision provides for EU-based ccTLD 
registries to participate on a voluntary basis by providing relevant information and data to 
the EUIPO. 

Article 35(3) of the Regulation requires the Commission to analyse whether it would be 
necessary  and  feasible  to  set  up  such  a  system,  taking  into  account  how  the  voluntary 
provision of information and data by registries could work in practice. The Commission 
must  submit  the  analysis’  results  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  by 
14 November 2025. 

(1)  Regulation  (EU)  2024/1143  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 April  2024  on 
geographical  indications  for  wine,  spirit  drinks  and  agricultural  products,  as  well  as  traditional 
specialities guaranteed and optional quality terms for agricultural products (OJ L, 2024/1143, 23.4.2024, 
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1143/oj). 

2 

 
 
Need for coordinated action across GI sectors 

The analysis for agricultural GIs under Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 runs in parallel with 
the  obligation  set  out  in  Article 72(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  2023/2411 (2)  on  craft  and 
industrial (CI) GIs. That provision requires the Commission to analyse, by 2 June 2026, 
the feasibility of setting up an information and alert system to prevent the abusive use of 
CI GIs in the DNS. 

These  provisions  form  part  of  the  broader  EU  policy  to  strengthen  the  protection  of 
intellectual  property  rights  online,  as  reflected  in  the  EU  intellectual  property  action 
plan (3)  and  in  the  development  of  the  Commission  Recommendation  on  measures  to 
combat counterfeiting (4). The provisions also respond to concerns raised by stakeholders 
about  the  limitations  of  existing  mechanisms  to  prevent  or  address  the  misuse  of  GIs 
online. 

Agricultural  and  CI  GIs  have  similar  legal  foundations,  policy  objectives  and  potential 
system  architecture.  It  is  essential  to  ensure  policy  coherence  and  avoid  duplication  of 
effort. This report, on which the future report of 2 June 2026 will build, is a first look at 
whether it would be possible to set up a single EU-level domain name information and 
alert system covering both agricultural and CI GIs, rather than two separate systems, each 
under its own legal framework. This would help ensuring consistency and contribute to a 
unified EU approach to GI protection in the DNS.  

On 4 December 2024, the Commission and the EUIPO signed an administrative agreement 
to strengthen cooperation in areas such as GI protection and enforcement. The agreement 
specifically  records  the  parties’  readiness  to  cooperate  on  developing  a  domain  name 
information  and  alert  system  and  to  explore  whether  the  EUIPO’s  existing  system 
(currently used for EU trade marks under the .eu top-level domain) could be extended to 
GIs,  by  means  of  delegated  acts  as  provided  for  in  Article 35(2)  of  Regulation  (EU) 
2024/1143. 

The Commission has also cooperated closely with EURid – the registry for the .eu top-
level  domain.  Here,  the  focus  of  cooperation  was  on  analysing  technical  and  legal 
boundaries and on helping identify a proportionate and efficient solution. 

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on the 
protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products (OJ L, 2023/2411, 27.10.2023, 
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2411/oj). 

(3)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  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 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0760. 

25 November 

2020, 

of 

(4)  Commission Recommendation on measures to combat counterfeiting and enhance the enforcement of 
intellectual  property  rights,  C(2024) 1739,  19 March  2024,  OJ  L,  2024/915,  https://single-market-
economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/commission-recommendation-measures-combat-counterfeiting-
and-enhance-enforcement-intellectual_en. 

3 

 
 
3.  METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES 

This analysis draws on a number of complementary sources of evidence. 

•  Comprehensive  study  commissioned  by  the  European  Commission (5)  (‘the 
study’).  This  study  gathered  evidence  on  abusive  domain  name  registrations 
involving GIs and examined the technical, legal and organisational feasibility of a 
GI-focused  domain  name  information  and  alert  system.  It  also  analysed  the 
provisions  common  to  the  legal  frameworks  for  agricultural  and  CI  GIs  and 
concluded  that  a  coordinated  EU  approach  to  any  future  system  would  be 
technically feasible and desirable policy-wise. 

•  CENTR position paper (6). This formal position paper was drawn up by CENTR, 
the association representing Europe’s national domain name registries. The paper 
presents  members’  views  and  concerns  regarding  any  EU-level  information  and 
alert system. 

•  Targeted consultation of EU ccTLD registries. From August to September 2025, 
the  Commission  invited  all  EU-based  ccTLD  registries,  EURid  and  CENTR  to 
comment  on  the  proposed  technical  model  and  on  possible  forms  of  voluntary 
cooperation. Their feedback is reflected in this report. 

•  Bilateral  interservice  meetings  and  technical  exchanges.  These  involved 
Commission departments, EURid (as regards the operation of the existing EU trade 
mark alert system for .eu) and the intellectual property expert who contributed to 
the study. 

4.  ANALYSIS OF NEED 

It  is  becoming increasingly  important  to protect  geographical  indications in  the domain 
name system as online marketing and e-commerce play a growing role for GI producers. 
Although  documented  cases  of  GI  misuse  in  domain  names  appear  limited,  this  often 
reflects structural factors rather than an absence of risk. 

Many GI producer groups are small or medium-sized enterprises or associations that do 
not have the resources to systematically monitor domain name registrations. They typically 
rely  on  occasional  checks  or  act  only  once  misuse  becomes  visible  in  the  marketplace. 
Even  when  misuse  is  detected,  producers  frequently  decide  not  to  take  action  because 
existing procedures are costly and complex. While some private monitoring services exist, 
these are fee-based and designed primarily for trade marks, making them less accessible 
and not fully adapted to protecting GIs. 

EU legislation, namely Article 35(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, now requires all EU 
ccTLD registries to recognise GIs as valid prior rights in their alternative dispute-resolution 
(ADR) mechanisms. This was not always the case. Before the Regulation’s entry into force 
in May 2024, the only available remedy was often legal action before the national courts. 

(5)  Study  on  intellectual  property  domain  name  information  and  alert  system,  commissioned  by  the 
European Commission,  prepared by Wavestone in collaboration with Ivett Paulovics, Final Report  – 
December 2023. 

(6)  Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries,  CENTR Comment on the  geographical 
at: 

15 September 

available 

2022, 

indications 
https://www.centr.org/news/news/comment-gi-reform.html. 

Brussels, 

reform 

EU, 

the 

in 

4 

 
 
Since taking legal action can be lengthy, expensive and of uncertain outcome, many GI 
producers decided not to pursue this option. 

At international  level,  GIs  are not  recognised  as  rights  eligible for protection  under the 
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the main dispute-resolution 
procedure  for  generic  top-level  domains  (gTLDs)  operated  by  the  World  Intellectual 
Property Organisation. This means that the procedure is unavailable to GI producers. 

Consequently, the relatively low number of reported cases of GI misuse in domain names 
is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the actual level of risk: limited monitoring capacity 
and complex enforcement mechanisms mask the actual scale of the problem. Moreover, 
current  domain  name  dispute-resolution  mechanisms  are  inherently  reactive  and  do  not 
have a preventive function. 

A proactive EU-level information and alert system would therefore: 

•  help  GI  applicants  detect  potentially  abusive  registrations  early  and  act  before 

reputational damage occurs; 

•  provide a single point of access  to  check whether a  GI has  been  registered as a 
domain  name  across  the  otherwise  fragmented  ccTLD  landscape  –  this  would 
increase  transparency  in  domain  name  registration  without  disclosing  any 
additional personal data; and 

•  strengthen the overall enforcement framework for GIs online. 

The Commission’s analysis indicates that although instances of cybersquatting involving 
GIs  are  not  yet  widespread,  they  do  occur  and  can  cause  significant  economic  and 
reputational harm. In light of the growing online visibility of GI products, a preventive 
EU-level system may therefore be considered necessary. 

5.  FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 

5.1.  Alternative system models 

A domain name information and alert system for GIs would provide two core services: 

•  an information function, which would enable GI applicants to check whether a 

domain name identical to a GI is already registered; 

•  an alert function, which would send optional notifications when such a domain 

name is newly registered. 

These  functions  mirror  the  alert  system  already  in  place  for  EU  trade  marks  (EUTMs) 
under the .eu domain, which is operated jointly by the EUIPO and EURid. That system 
relies on exact-match searches of domain names and automatically notifies EUTM holders 
if an identical .eu domain name is registered, without any exchange of registrants’ personal 
data. 

The  Commission  first  examined  whether  the  existing  .eu  system  for  EUTMs  could  be 
extended  to  GIs  and  to  EU-based  ccTLDs.  A  number  of  architectural  alternatives  were 

5 

 
analysed, differing in terms of who would perform the matching and how the data would 
be exchanged: 

•  Decentralised matching. Each ccTLD registry would run availability checks and 

send the results to the EUIPO. 

•  Centralised matching. The EUIPO would collect registration data from registries 
and perform the checks itself, in the same way as for the existing .eu system for 
EUTMs. 

•  Third-party  model.  An  intermediary  would  collect  or  match  the  data  before 

passing results to the EUIPO. 

All these approaches are technically feasible in principle. However, each would require 
registries to make significant changes. These include developing application programming 
interfaces  (APIs),  which  are  standard 
interfaces  enabling  automated 
communication between computer systems, building matching tools or exporting domain 
name  registration  data  on  a  regular  basis.  These  changes  would  entail  costs  and 
infrastructure  changes for registries. From a legal perspective, these models  would also 
require contractual arrangements with every registry to govern data sharing and to avoid 
risks  relating  to  confidentiality  or  data  protection.  The  complexity  and  burden  of  such 
arrangements were identified as a major obstacle. 

technical 

Registries  consulted  in  the  context  of  the  study  largely  opposed  these  alternatives  and, 
more broadly, questioned the need for a GI-specific alert system. They indicated that the 
required  changes  would  impose  significant  costs  and  operational  burdens  and  raised 
concerns about data protection and confidentiality. They did not consider such a system to 
be necessary and expressed unwillingness to invest in infrastructure changes. In its position 
paper, CENTR likewise stressed that any EU system should remain voluntary and should 
avoid unnecessary obligations. CENTR underlined the low number of GI-related disputes 
in  the domain name space, the existence of ADR mechanisms,  and the need to  prevent 
additional burdens on registries. 

In view of these limitations, an additional alternative was examined that would not involve 
expanding the existing .eu system for EUTMs to GIs and to EU-based ccTLDs. Instead, it 
would  involve  creating  a  dedicated  GI  system  operated  by  the  EUIPO  and  relying 
mainly on publicly available DNS tools. It would offer the same information and alert 
functions as the current .eu system – based on exact matches with registered GIs – but it 
would not be necessary for registries to export or share registration databases. Technically, 
the system would rely by default on name server (NS) lookups, a standard DNS query 
that simply checks whether a domain name exists. Where an NS lookup returns no result 
(for  example  when  a  name  is  registered  but  not  yet  delegated (7)),  this  could  be 
complemented by automated queries through: 

• 

the  WHOIS  protocol  or  its  secure  successor,  the  Registration  Data  Access 
Protocol (RDAP); and/or 

(7)  A domain name is ‘registered but not yet delegated’ when it is recorded in the registry’s database and 
therefore unavailable for others to register, but the registrant has not yet linked it to name servers, so it 
does not lead to any website or email service. 

6 

 
 
•  a  domain  availability  service  (DAS),  where  such  a  service  is  offered  by  the 

registry. 

This model has clear advantages. It would entail no development or operational costs for 
ccTLD  registries  and  no  changes  to  their  infrastructure.  It  would  also  build  on  the 
experience  gained  by  the  EUIPO  with  the  alert  system  already  in  place  for  EUTMs, 
creating synergies. The necessary coding would be developed centrally by the EUIPO to 
enable NS and WHOIS/RDAP lookups. These methods use only publicly available DNS 
data and do not require registries to share the complete lists of registered names (known as 
‘zone files’) or personal data. A system based solely on NS lookups could function even 
without cooperation from registries. 

However,  to  improve  accuracy  and  coverage,  voluntary  cooperation  from  registries 
could take the form of: 

•  whitelisting the EUIPO’s IP address to allow automated WHOIS or RDAP queries; 

and/or 

•  granting access to a DAS, where such a service exists. 

This would ensure that the system also captures domain names that are registered but not 
yet delegated. Such cooperation would remain strictly voluntary and would not create any 
legal obligation for registries. 

5.2.  Conclusion on the alternative system models 

The analysis identifies an EU-level domain name information and alert system managed 
by  the  EUIPO  and  based  on  standard,  publicly  available  DNS  tools  as  the  most 
proportionate and technically viable model. 

Ambitious  architectural  models  are  technically  possible.  However,  they  should  be 
excluded  because  they  would  entail  disproportionate  costs,  create  legal  complexity  and 
face strong opposition from registries. By contrast, a lightweight EUIPO-managed model 
based on standard, publicly available DNS tools is technically and legally feasible, could 
be designed to comply with EU data-protection and cybersecurity requirements, and would 
minimise costs and operational burdens. It addresses many of the concerns expressed by 
registries,  provided that  participation  remains  voluntary and  appropriate safeguards and 
contractual arrangements are put in place. 

This model offers a technically feasible and low-impact solution, as described above, that: 

requires no technical adaptations or development costs for registries; 

• 
•  does not involve the sharing of zone files, personal data or other registration details; 

and 

•  would be supported by clear legal safeguards, ensuring that any data or queries are 

used solely for the operation of the system. 

Any cooperation by ccTLD registries would remain strictly voluntary and would not create 
any legal obligation for them. 

7 

 
This proposed model would give GI producer groups an EU-level preventive tool against 
cybersquatting  and  the  misuse  of  GIs  in  domain  name  registrations,  while  addressing 
registry  operators’  principal  concerns  over  operational  burden,  data  protection  and 
technical feasibility. 

6.  CONSULTATION  OF  COUNTRY-CODE  TOP-LEVEL  DOMAIN  NAME 

REGISTRIES  

6.1.  Description of the consultation 

To analyse the practicability of this model and the willingness of registries to cooperate on 
a  voluntary  basis,  the  Commission  carried  out  a  targeted  consultation  from  August  to 
September 2025. This was addressed to all 27 EU ccTLD registries, EURid and CENTR. 

In  the  consultation,  the  Commission  outlined  the  proposed  technical  model  and  asked 
whether registries would, in principle, be willing to: 

•  whitelist the EUIPO’s IP address to enable automated WHOIS queries;  

and/or 

•  grant access to a DAS, where such a service is available.  

The  registries’  input  is  reflected  in  this  report.  It  provided  an  indication of  the  level  of 
voluntary  participation  that  could  be  expected  for  a  future  EU-level  domain  name 
information and alert system for GIs. 

6.2.  Results of the consultation 

In addition to CENTR and EURid, 22 EU ccTLD registries replied. 

Support for the proposed model, subject to safeguards 

Most respondents indicated that they would, in principle, be willing to participate in the 
proposed model through at least one of the two voluntary forms of cooperation, namely: 

•  granting  automated  access  to  domain  name  registration  information  (via  the 

WHOIS protocol or the RDAP); or 

•  providing access to a DAS. 

Registries  that  were  positive  about  cooperating  consistently  underlined  a  number  of 
safeguards that would need to be put in place and practical conditions that would need to 
be met for cooperation to be acceptable. 

•  Purpose limitation. Any data must be used strictly for the operation of the EU-
level  domain  name  information  and  alert  system  and  only  for  checking  the 
availability of GI names. 

•  Data protection. Cooperation must comply with EU data-protection requirements 

and no personal data should be shared. 

8 

 
•  Cybersecurity and NIS 2 compliance. Cooperation must comply with the EU’s 
NIS 2 Directive (8), which sets common EU rules to keep networks and information 
systems secure and classifies domain name registries as ‘essential entities’ subject 
to strict security and risk-management measures. 

•  Clear operational parameters. The expected number and frequency of automated 

queries (DNS lookups) must be set and kept within reasonable limits. 

•  Exclusion of zone files. Sharing of zone files must remain excluded. 

•  Technology preference. Where possible, queries should use RDAP, the modern 

and more secure successor to WHOIS. 

•  Fair  competition.  Any  privileged  access  for  the  EUIPO  to  DNS  data  must  not 
distort competition in the brand protection services market or give the EUIPO a 
preferential advantage. Any data obtained for GI protection must therefore be used 
strictly for that purpose. 

Registries further underlined that any cooperation with the EUIPO could only be envisaged 
as part of a formal agreement. Such an agreement would need to clearly define the scope 
of  cooperation,  include  appropriate  security  clauses,  and  address  the  broader  concerns 
raised during the consultation. 

Several registries also suggested practical improvements, such as pilot projects. Examples 
included: (i) a ‘push’ model, which would involve the registry itself notifying the EUIPO 
of matching registrations rather than the EUIPO repeatedly issuing queries (DNS lookups); 
and (ii) the use of open datasets (daily lists or monthly open data) to reduce the need for 
special access. 

Reservations 

Some registries that were otherwise open to cooperation nevertheless questioned the scale 
of GI abuse in the EU domain space. They considered granting preferential access – e.g. 
through WHOIS whitelisting or DAS – to be disproportionate in this context. Instead, they 
suggested  starting  with  what  is  already  publicly  accessible,  namely  NS  lookups,  which 
simply  check  whether  a  domain  name  exists,  while  leaving  the  question of  preferential 
access for the EUIPO to be considered at a later stage. 

A minority of respondents indicated that they could not support the development of such 
a system, citing the low incidence of GI abuse and the existence of security risks and legal 
or technical constraints. 

Implications for the proposed model 

The results of the consultation confirm that the proposed model – based mainly on public 
NS lookups and, where necessary, supplemented by WHOIS/RDAP queries or a DAS – is 
technically feasible. They also show that voluntary cooperation is realistic, provided that 
the Commission and the EUIPO put in place clear legal safeguards, keep the operational 

(8)  Directive  (EU)  2022/2555  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14 December  2022  on 
measures  for  a  high  common  level  of  cybersecurity  across  the  Union,  amending  Regulation  (EU) 
No 910/2014 and Directive (EU) 2018/1972, and repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148 (NIS 2 Directive) 
(OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 80, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2555/oj). 

9 

 
 
burden minimal, and ensure standardised and secure access (preferably via RDAP) with 
reasonable limits on the number and frequency of queries.  

A phased approach  would best reflect the diversity of registry set-ups and the concerns 
expressed. Such an approach would start with what can already be achieved through public 
DNS  lookups,  before  progressively  including  registries  that  wish  to  provide  additional 
voluntary  access.  Pilot  projects,  such  as  the  ‘push’  model  or  the  publication  of  open 
datasets, could further improve efficiency. 

7.  FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The analysis confirms that misuse of geographical indications in domain names – though 
underreported and thus difficult to quantify – poses a real and growing risk to the economic 
value and reputation of GI products. The low number of reported cases more likely reflects 
the  limited  monitoring  capacity  of  many  producer  groups  and  the  reactive  nature  of 
existing dispute-resolution mechanisms rather than an absence of risk. 

Current  enforcement  tools  for  EU-based  country-code  top-level  domains  are  largely 
reactive. Alternative dispute resolution at national level provides only remedies in response 
to  a  dispute,  once  a  domain  name  has  already  been  registered.  Court  litigation  is  often 
lengthy,  costly  and  unpredictable,  and  private  monitoring  services  are  expensive  and 
primarily designed for trade marks rather than GIs. 

A preventive EU-level domain name information and alert system would help fill this gap. 
By  enabling  GI  applicants  to  check  whether  a  name  they  intend  to  protect  as  a  GI  has 
already been registered as a domain name and to receive alerts when identical names are 
registered,  such  a  system  would  enable  producer  groups  to  act  before  economic  and 
reputational damage occurs. 

The  analysis  confirms  that  setting  up  an  EU-level  domain  name  information  and  alert 
system for GIs is both necessary and technically feasible. Such a system would provide GI 
producers with a preventive tool against cybersquatting and help protect the reputation and 
economic value of GI products in the online environment. 

The most appropriate model  is  an EUIPO-managed system  based on standard, publicly 
available DNS tools and on the voluntary cooperation of ccTLD registries. This approach 
avoids the need for registries to adapt their infrastructure or share personal data. 

The analysis shows that a system based mainly on public DNS tools could be implemented 
without  requiring  registries  to  share  personal  data  or  make  technical  changes.  Such  a 
system would be based especially on name server lookups. Where needed, these would be 
supplemented by WHOIS or RDAP queries, or by a domain availability service. 

The targeted consultation of EU-based ccTLD registries, CENTR and EURid indicates that 
voluntary cooperation is realistically achievable. Most respondents expressed willingness 
in principle to grant automated WHOIS/RDAP or DAS access, provided that: 

• 

the system’s purpose is strictly limited to GI protection; 

10 

 
•  cooperation  complies  with  the  EU’s  cybersecurity  rules,  in  particular  the  NIS  2 
Directive  (Directive  (EU)  2022/2555),  which  sets  common  EU  rules  to  keep 
networks and information systems secure; and 
formal  agreements  clearly  define  the  scope  of  cooperation  and  the  necessary 
security safeguards. 

• 

Concerns raised by registries – such as the need for proportionality, strong data-protection 
safeguards and minimal operational burden – could be addressed by a lightweight design 
and strictly voluntary participation. 

This report provides the factual and policy basis required by Article 35(3) of Regulation 
(EU) 2024/1143 and fulfils the obligation to analyse the need for and feasibility of such a 
system.  On the basis of  this  analysis, the Commission  does not  intend, at this stage, to 
present a legislative proposal. 

8.  WAY FORWARD 

The  Commission  will  continue  internal  coordination  and  dialogue  with  stakeholders  to 
determine  the  most  appropriate  framework  for  a  possible  EU-level  domain  name 
information and alert system for geographical indications. 

Any step towards a legislative proposal will be considered together with:  

• 

• 

the conclusions of the Commission’s separate analysis on craft and industrial GIs 
under Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2023/2411, which (as mentioned above) is 
due by 2 June 2026; and 
further technical consultations and pilot projects with the EUIPO, EURid and the 
EU-based ccTLD registries to test practical arrangements and ensure that any future 
system is proportionate and workable. 

11