The Times reports that the EU plans to scrap the “Made in Britain” label in favour of a “Made in the EU” label that will be applied to all goods manufactured within the European Union. The plan is that this will challenge the “Made in the USA” and “Made in Japan” mega-labels and will enhance the EU’s image abroad. However, UK business and even the UK Government is none too happy about the proposal. Tom Blackett, Deputy Director of Interbrand, has said that the mark is meaningless to consumers while John Cridland, the Deputy Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry, has said: “The move would only obscure where products have come from at a time when consumers are asking for more information, not less”. Italy and Greece are pushing for a compromise solution which would allow Member States to use the “Made in the EU” label together with a label indicating the precise country of origin.
The IPKat thinks it’s strange that, in a time when the EU is putting so much effort into promoting precise indicators of geographical origin in the form of geographical indications and trying to build reputations around those indicators, it is also arguing for a pan-European indication of source which will be of limited informational value.
Made in Britain here and here
Maid in Britain here, here and here
Made in the USA here
The IPKat thinks it’s strange that, in a time when the EU is putting so much effort into promoting precise indicators of geographical origin in the form of geographical indications and trying to build reputations around those indicators, it is also arguing for a pan-European indication of source which will be of limited informational value.
Made in Britain here and here
Maid in Britain here, here and here
Made in the USA here
LABELLING CONTROVERSY MADE IN THE EU
![LABELLING CONTROVERSY MADE IN THE EU]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html