EUROPEAN COMMISSION - DG AGRI Unit H2 L130 03 ... - Marques

2. Specific comments2.1. New definition (Article 5)The proposed new definition significantly expands the definition of designations oforigin and geographical indications, which fact increases the scope of potential conflictbetween trademarks and geographical indications and would dilute the commercialvalue of geographical indications and, in particular, of designations of origin.The current regulation limits the protection of both a designation of origin and ageographical indication to "the name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptionalcases, a country used to describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff (…)" (as well astraditional terms).Conversely, the new proposal would introduce a much wider definition based on whichit is defined as eligible a "name which identifies a product originating in a specificplace, region or, in exceptional cases, a country" (with further requirements concerninga link between the qualities of the product and the area).MARQUES believes that the above proposed change in the definition would- make the scope of the system less predictable- remove it further from its original rationale- blur the line between trademarks and geographical indications (for example,consumers may associate a trademark with the place of the seat of the trademark owner,but that does not convert a trademark into a geographical indication)- expand the possible conflict zone between trademarks and geographical indications.By broadening the definitions, significantly more designations could qualify forprotection under the regulation. This would lead to a dilution of the commercial value ofexisting geographical indications and, in particular, of designations of origin. In thefuture, it may be difficult - if not even impossible - for a consumer to associate anyvalue to the qualification of a designation as a PGI or PDO. In MARQUES’ view, inoverstretching the scheme by allowing too many designations, the system would beoverall weakened.It is noted that a broader definition had also been discussed in the course of thelegislative process that led to the adoption of Regulation 510/06 and that eventually, thedefinition of Regulation 2081/92 was maintained with some adaptations. Accordingly,MARQUES would recommend maintaining the definition of Regulation 510/06 ratherthan expanding it further.3