Cyprus fails to delight Turkey

The IPKat slipped up in failing to note the battle between Turkey and Cyprus regarding Turkish delight (see this article in the Times). Cyprus is to gain PGI recognition for Loukoumi Yeroskipou, used to describe the sweet which is also known as lokum, or Turkish delight. While the Turks are casting aspersions on the ability of Greek Cypriots to make lokum, the Cypriots are responding that Turkey shouldn’t be able to control the name, since the sweet is also produced in Greece and Lebanon. In fact, it seems that the Cypriots aren’t trying to control the production of the sweet, but rather to raise to the profile of their loukoumi in export markets.

The IPKat notes that now that EU GI registration has been opened up to third countries, Turkey could equally well apply for registration. Regarding the scope of registration, the IPKat wonders whether consumers could be misled, or whether Turkey could gain any real advantage from evoking the Cypriot registration, bearing in mind that Turkish production is so much more famous. Meanwhile, ever the sceptic, Merpel notes the fabulous timing of a battle about Turkish delight just before Christmas.

Cyprus fails to delight Turkey Cyprus fails to delight Turkey Reviewed by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. The Kat's friend Andy MacQueen has emailed him to say: "I wonder if we could end up in a similar situation with "Turkish Delight" as the one we are about to embark upon with whisky (regarding those far reaching geographic protections)!

    Surely this will stop the Cypriot counterfeiters passing off their (mere?) Loukoumi as the (original?) Turkish Delight?"

  2. They don't describe their sweet as "Turkish Delight" in Cyprus! Indeed, the Cypriot people, who are very good-natured nearly all the time, get most annoyed at the mere mention of Turkey. I bought some "Cyprus Delight", as they called it, and it was very nice - obviously rather like Turkish delight, but perhaps a bit lighter.


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:

Powered by Blogger.