The IPKat is generally happy at this development. If European GIs are worth protecting then there can be no principled reason why extra-European GIs should not benefit from similar protection. He wonders though what will happen to those European who have an established usage of extra-European terms which, at the time use began, would not have infringed because the terms were not protected.
The IPKat is generally happy at this development. If European GIs are worth protecting then there can be no principled reason why extra-European GIs should not benefit from similar protection. He wonders though what will happen to those European who have an established usage of extra-European terms which, at the time use began, would not have infringed because the terms were not protected.
Dear IPkat,
ReplyDeleteI’ve read your post regarding Napa Valley, but I believe that your info is not completely correct.
This IG is not the first “third country IG” recognized by the EU. In fact, Napa Valley is just recognized because there is a bilateral agreement between the EU and USA.
There are several bilateral agreements between the EU and third countries (Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Australia, etc.)
Information about this here:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/wine/third/index_en.htm
Napa Valley is not registered as IG under the rules provided by the EU.
You can check it here:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/foodqual/quali1_en.htm
The confusion may be caused by the “List of quality wines produced in specified regions” recently published. Please give special attention to page 73 (IG’s from Brazil and USA)
Here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/c_106/c_10620070510en00010073.pdf
Finally, please be informed that the first IG application filed under EU rules by a third country is Café de Colombia.
Publication here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/c_320/c_32020061228en00170020.pdf
Kind regards,
Gilberto Macias