Scope:

• GIs and TSGs for agricultural products and foodstuffs: 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 (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1);

• GIs for wines: 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 and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671);

• GIs for spirit drinks: 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 (OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 1) and

• GIs for aromatised wine products: 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 (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 14)

Evaluation findings:

Overall, the objectives of GIs and TSGs have been achieved effectively. The schemes offer a wide range of possible benefits for stakeholders, such as securing fair return and competition for farmers and producers. However, they are not applied systematically in all Member States.

The main limits are the low consumer awareness and understanding in some Member States, as well as certain weaknesses in controls at the downstream stages of the value chain. The other core policy objectives - ensuring the respect of GIs as intellectual property and the integrity of the internal market and helping the producers of TSG to safeguard traditional methods of production and recipes- are in general achieved. During the period 2010 to 2020, the number of registered GI names increased by 27%, while the number of registered TSG names doubled.

However, as regards TSGs, the specific objective of the regulation is not fully achieved. The main element, which hinders the success of TSGs, is the perceived low added value for producers to register a TSG. This is due to a combination of different factors: a low consumer awareness of TSG; a complex registration process; no Intellectual Property Right protection, so TSG does not prevent operators from other geographical regions from using the name as long as they respect the product specifications.

GIs/TSGs are assessed to be efficient. They provide several benefits for producers despite of the complex and lengthy procedures for registration, while the costs for public bodies (at EU and national levels) are low, at an estimate 0.12% of the total sales value.

The schemes are assessed to be relevant for both private stakeholders and public authorities. Although environmental protection and animal welfare are not the main objectives for GI/TSG production, the producer groups that were surveyed stated that some product specifications take account of environmental and animal welfare issues.

In terms of coherence, no major incompatibility was identified, regarding GIs and EU trade marks, GIs/TSGs and national/regional schemes, and GIs/TSGs and other EU policies.

There is a clear EU added value, because GIs and TSGs contribute both to the integrity of the internal market and common standards for trade with non-EU countries.

Which objective(s) does the Commission pursue?

The proposal contributes to the objectives pursued by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), in particular to improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on economic, social and environmental sustainability of agricultural production. It aims to strengthen the current systems of geographical indications as intellectual property rights. The proposal extends coverage to all agricultural products, better promotes sustainable-product designations linked to origin, gives producers more powers, reduces new forms of infringements (internet), improves the enforcement that consumers rely on, addresses legislative gaps, and modernises registration procedures.

The proposal addresses two general objectives:

1. Ensuring effective protection of IP rights in the EU, including efficient registration processes, to fairly reward producers for their efforts.

2. Increasing the uptake of GIs across the EU to benefit the rural economy.

These two general objectives are detailed into six specific objectives:

1. Improve enforcement of GI rules to better protect IPR and better protect GIs on the internet, including against bad faith designations and uses in the domain name system (DNS), and combat counterfeiting.

2. Contribute to making the EU food system more sustainable by integrating specific sustainability criteria.

3. Empower producers and producer groups to better manage their GI assets and encourage the development of structures and partnerships within the food supply chain.

4. Increase correct market perception and consumer awareness of GI schemes and logos to enable consumers to make informed purchasing choices. 

5. Streamline and clarify the legal framework to simplify and harmonise the procedures for application for registration of new names and amendments to product specifications.

6. Safeguard the protection of traditional food names to better valorise and preserve traditional products and production methods.

The fifth objective above is a REFIT objective. The aim is to:

• Increase benefits of the EU regulatory framework and reduce associated regulatory costs; the proposal lays down unique rules for protection, procedures for and control of geographical indications (currently different for agricultural products and foodstuffs, wine and spirit drinks) and thus decreases the regulatory cost on public administration; it includes technical assistance by EUIPO for the scrutiny of applications to register a name, amend a product specification or cancel an existing name thus ensuring a more efficient use of resources;

• Simplify EU regulatory framework; the proposal clarifies certain legal terms and concepts; and requirements for producers of geographical indications and thus makes the rules more understandable and easier to implement;

• Maintain EU acquis fit for purpose; the proposal ensures a modern framework for the protection of geographical indications, notably by increasing protection on internet, includes sustainability aspects in the production of geographical indications and aligns procedures for and control of geographical indications’ protection for all sectors which fall in the scope of the proposal (as regards the controls, the proposal maintains specific provisions for the controls in the wine GI sector due to its specificities). 

Estimated savings and benefits

The harmonisation of the EU level procedures, with the same simplified set of rules for the registration, amendment, cancellation and opposition procedures of all GIs should considerably reduce the complexity of the current system. Streamlined procedures will result in faster processing of the applications and leave room for resource savings both for producers and public authorities. This will be reinforced by guidance and information activities that will help producers and national authorities to draft applications of a higher quality, further shortening the registration times.

Up to 30% efficiency gains are expected for Member States’ authorities in managing the files as well as a decrease in FTEs at Commission level, which is partially offset by dedicated resources of EUIPO. A maximum reduction of the time for a geographical indication’s registration is estimated at 2 to 4 years. Besides time savings, producers could benefit from increased transparency of the registration process. No detailed analysis could be carried out at producer level due to lack of quantified data.

Faster treatment of applications, and better monitoring thereof, will also be achieved by making a full use of the IT-tool eAmbrosia. Further development of the interface portal GIview, in collaboration with EUIPO, provides for better and easier access to GI information. Due to its transparency and the possibility for Member States’ authorities to introduce information about GIs, this portal is an important tool for producers and authorities in the enforcement of GI rights. 

The new domain name information and alert system to be established by EUIPO shall provide GI applicants with an additional digital tool as part of the application process to better protect and enforce their GI rights.