tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5441119326277537164..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: European Council authorises signature of the EU-China agreement on geographical indicationsVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1537277595475908152020-07-29T19:57:48.719+01:002020-07-29T19:57:48.719+01:00Hey Mr François GRIESMAR,
Thanks for your informa...Hey Mr François GRIESMAR,<br /><br />Thanks for your informative and thought-provoking comments 👏Tian Luhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03816063300098373527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-39974798610126825552020-07-28T19:31:46.886+01:002020-07-28T19:31:46.886+01:00Part 2
2.3 – What is the business issue for eac...Part 2 <br /><br /><br />2.3 – What is the business issue for each partner of the Agreement?<br /><br /> Export of European (= from EU member States) GI- (= PDO + PGI) labelled products in China is a matter of € 12.8 billion (as stated by the EU Commission report you cite in your paper) and this is certainly much more than the turnover corresponding to the export to the EU of Chinese GI-labelled products. <br /><br /> Besides, even if there are “leaders” (such as Bordeaux or Cognac) among the EU GI-labelled products sold in China, this business is composed of at least several hundreds different GIs. Are the Chinese GI-labelled products sold in the EU also “split” between so many different GIs or do a few dozens of these GIs represent most of the business?<br /><br /> Only a clear knowledge of these facts combined with the few elements mentioned in § 2 above can enable to seriously evaluate the practical and business consequences of this Agreement. For example, by obtaining a protection for 100 Chinese GIs, does China secure in practice most of its GI-labelled products export business with the EU? On the other hand, obtaining a protection for 100 (or even 175) EU GIs is obviously far from securing most of the EU “GI exports” in China. If the preceding hypothesis are correct, one should not be optimistic as regards the protection of more EU GIs in China…<br /><br /> One might state that the preceding is “business speculation” rather than legal thinking. Yes and no: because if one cannot assess the actual business impact of this China-Eu Agreement on GIs, it can be feared that the comments will remain theoretical legal writing, even risking to be viewed as a paraphrase of the self-congratulation speeches made by the EU representatives, which is their role. In other words, we need critical thinking in this matter… which drives back to business issues.<br /><br /><br />François GRIESMAR<br />Siglex FranceFrançois GRIESMAR (Siglex France)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-61400726872929929172020-07-28T19:30:52.722+01:002020-07-28T19:30:52.722+01:00Part 1
Even if my professional practice deals ...Part 1<br /><br /> Even if my professional practice deals most of the time with TMs, Designs and copyright, I am “sensitive” as regards “Appellations of origin” and all other related rights (in particular EU PDOs and PGIs). Moreover, I note that often even highly qualified lawyers do not take into account economic issues, whereas the content of laws in general and of treaties in particular depends, sometimes considerably, from power balance, in particular in the business field. One cannot understand the basic underlying issues in the absence of any such light.<br /><br /> This particularly the case as regards this type of treaties and I have therefore many remarks concerning this China-EU Agreement on GIs.<br /><br /><br />1 – Do we speak of Protected designation of origin (PDO) or of Protected geographical indications (PGI)?<br /><br /> Each of these expressions corresponds to a well-defined set of rules and a range of corresponding products. However, in the Agreement and in the IPKat’s comment, it is only referred to “geographical indications”, which is not correct if one reads Annex IV enumerating the “geographical indications” covered by this Agreement : for example, most of the enumerated French “geographical indications” are actually PDOs (“Champagne”, “Médoc”, “Comté”, etc.) but “Pruneaux d’Agen” is a PGI. And this seems to be the case of many products from other EU member States cited in this Annex IV. <br /><br /> Thus, there is total confusion here and explanations are highly necessary. But this is not the main issue.<br /><br /><br />2 – China-EU Agreement on “GIs”: is there a real balance?<br /><br />2.1 – In many EU member States PDOs – and, to a lesser extent GIs – are an old and strong “industry” <br /><br /> In certain EU member States, in particular France, PDOs have been existing often for decades. In France, the “AOC” [equivalent of PDA] legislation dates back to 1935, including the creation of a specialised administration, the “Institut national des appellations d'origine”(INAO) which still plays a very important role. Eventually, a certain number of European countries have based their controlled place name systems on the French AOC classification.<br /><br /> Inter alia, there are currently, <br />- 3716 EU PDOs and PGIs, among which 1611 on the wine register (source: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-labels/geographical-indications-register/); <br />- more than 171 cheeses, butters and creams from EU member States benefitting from the EU PDO label: among them, there are 50 from France and 51 from Italy.<br /><br />2.2 – In China a recent legislation and probably a limited importance for the Chinese “GIs”<br /><br /> From a synthesis on Chinese legislation on GIs dated February 2011 (https://www.vsnews.fr/images/etudes/QA_Manual_Chinese_legislation_on_GIs1012.pdf), I understand that the first laws on GIs date back only to 1982. Unfortunately, this document apparently does not contain information regarding the actual number of registered Chinese GIs nor about the economic importance of the products protected by this legislation.<br /><br /> From a 2016 WIPO document, I understand that 7416 GIs of domestic (= Chinese) origin are in force in China in 2016: this would mean that within 34 years, China protected twice as many GIs than the EU until 2016 (3356), reminding the “strong seniority” of many PDOs in major EU member States; knowing the time and the considerable work (in-depth studies, consultations, negotiations, etc.) to create a PDO in Europe, one can wonder if we speak of the same rights in practice…<br /><br /><br /><br />François GRIESMAR<br />Siglex FranceFrançois GRIESMAR (Siglex France)noreply@blogger.com