Camembert causing trouble: microbial entanglements, dissociated geographies, and the war on terroir

Over the past decades, traditional food systems have evolved from poorly coordinated networks to globalized complexes of regulated trade, and the geographical indications (GIs) agro-food market size is approximately $50 billion. Belonging to the intellectual property law as collective
\nproperty rights, the “GI is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation,
\nor characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place of origin” (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 2011). The global impact of “GI” is widely testified through the scientific, social, and economic importance of traditional foods (World Intellectual Property Organization
\n(WIPO), 2011; World Trade Organization (WTO), 2011). In fact, GIs are known to be the earliest type of trademarks. From an edible perspective, this concept is simply and well presented by Bisson et al. (2002): “consumers expect wine from a particular region to possess unique qualities that differentiate it from other wines of the same varietal from other regions.” The GI system is based upon the concept of “terroir,” a French word used to describe all geographical aspects of the environment, including the climate, geology, cultivar, human, technical, and cultural practices (and the interactions of these factors) that can influence local production.

This article understands geographical indications as a development tool along with a multiple-sector approach: public, private and in partnerships; the not-for-profit to add value; the academic to analyse its collective dimensions. GIs can be used as an investment incentive within public-private partnerships. Awareness-raising is linked to explaining/understanding the GI system's status quo of international law construct, under the European Union, United Nations and the World Bank Group frameworks. Consequentially, interest is sourced from the academic, private, public and not-for-profit sectors, principally professionals with social, economic, legal and environmental backgrounds. The provision of reference material is valuable for readers to fully grasp the GI link to sustainable development. It applies international relations constructivism within trade, international cooperation and intellectual property. It provides substantial evidence on policies and actions integrating the GI framework to accelerate UN SDGs. The analysis sets the ground for developing a coherent GI monitoring and evaluation system globally.

The concept of Geographical Indication (GI) has its genesis in the French regime of Appellation of Origin (AOO), which seeks a higher protection level from infringement. Most of the European countries favored this higher degree of protection from the beginning of the GI debate. Since the TRIPS Agreement envisaged only a minimum standard of protection, the discussion regarding the nature of the GI regime has seen new heights during the post-TRIPS era in the form of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). In the signed FTAs, the European Union (EU) advocates for TRIPS-plus standards, whereas the United States (US) seeks to ensure that GIs are subject to the trademark system. The Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA), signed in 2016, was a complicated compromise between the two power blocks though the US was not a party to it. During the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations, a compromise position was expected till President Donald Trump halted the same in 2018. The inclination towards stronger protection for agricultural and handicraft products is manifested in the national legislation of many Asian countries. However, a common regional arrangement for GI protection is not yet agreed upon, and this deficiency is reflected in the FTAs signed by many such countries in Asia. For example, the US-South Korea FTA (KORUS) entered into force in March 2012, and the EU-South Korea FTA (KOREU) entered into force in July 2011 eventually happened to be conflicting commitments for South Korea. On October 19, 2018, Singapore and the European Union signed the much-awaited European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA). EUSFTA is supposed to make significant changes to the GI regime of Singapore. The Japan-European Union Economic Partnership Agreement (JEFTA) entered into force on February 1, 2019, is perceived to take the GI system in Japan to an advanced level. The Japan-Vietnam FTA of October 2009 and the European Union-Vietnam FTA (EVFTA) concluded in December 2015 are examples of the changing approach on GI protection in Vietnam. India-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) signed in February 2011 contains a provision for GI under Article 107. India and the EU have been negotiating a Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) since 2007, and the same is not yet completed because of the conflicting interests. Malaysia and China also have progressing FTA negotiations with the EU, having proposed GI provisions. This research paper examines whether Asian countries need a regional arrangement in the light of the successful examples of the EU Regulation 1151/2012 (Common EU Regulations on GI) and Annex VI of the Bangui Agreement of the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI). In this research paper, Asian countries with GI legislation, GI Registry, and either a signed or negotiated FTA with GI provisions are considered the frame of reference. These countries are China, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam.KeywordsGeographical indicationsPost-TRIPS GI protectionGI in AsiaFTA provisions on GI

Copyright, patents and trademarks are well‐known types of Intellectual Property (IP). However, there is another form of IP known as Geographical Indications (GIs). Foods, drinks and agricultural products can be certified as GIs. The quality of each GI is considered to exclusively or significantly derive from the supposedly unique physical attributes of the defined and bounded locations from which they originate. The use of GIs discriminates between producers who are categorised as in‐place or out‐of‐place. This determines the firms that are permitted to invoke economically valuable geographical names. Producers of GIs rely on notions of place, boundaries and terroir to validate their claims to GI status. These are intrinsically geographical factors with which our discipline has long engaged. However, the GI system itself has rarely been studied from a geographical perspective. This paper interrogates the constructions of place, boundaries and terroir common to the conceptual infrastructure of all GIs. It employs Stilton Cheese – one of Britain's most iconic territorial foods – to illustrate these ideas. The Stilton case also shows that taken‐for‐granted ideas of place and production methods can be challenged by motivated adversaries who introduce new evidence in their quest to destabilise this GI. The overall aim of this work is to draw attention to the geographical infrastructure of this expanding regulatory system and more fully reveal the interests served by the GI model.

This study aims to protect the original product/goods related to geographical conditions due to natural and/or human factors to be registered for protection through a Geographical Indication system that can be owned by the community communally. The research method used is normative juridical using secondary data. The law can be one of the tools to protect the regime of Geographical Indications by way of registration as regulated in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications. Article 53 reads: "Geographical Indications are protected after Geographical Indications are registered by the Minister". The main function of law is to protect the interests that exist in society. According to Roscou Pound, there are three interests that must be protected by law, namely: public interest, individual interest and interest of personality. Although most intellectual property rights protect individual property rights and individual interests, geographical indications are one that can be categorized as communal property rights.


 
 
 Changes in the tourism sector are the reasons for the development and implementation of adequate approaches to formation of unique enogastronomic tourist routes, related to the use of geographical indication system as a means of individualizing subjects of tourism. Currently, there are counterfeit tourism products labeled with well-known names of geographical regional objects. The significance of the geographical indications in enogastronomic tourism becomes increasingly apparent in terms of intense competition between the regions in the country and on the international tourism market. The objective of the research was to develop theoretical and methodological foundations, scientific and practical recommendations for creating a formation approach to enogastronomic tourist routes based on the geographical indication system. In the research, we used the comprehensive method- ological approach, based on the application of the following research methods: generalization and systematization (to determine the essentials of geographical indications); calculation and analytical (to analyze the conditions of geographical indications registration); process approach (for development of new enogastronomic tourist routes); program-targeted approach (for the algorithm of formation of enogastronomic tourist routes); tabular methods (for presentation of the material). We analyzed the definition of «ethnographic tourism», identified the key problems of registration of geographical indications in Ukraine, proposing a formation approach to enogas- tronomic tourist routes based on the system of geographical indications. In our study, we considered using the European experience in the effective implementation of geographical indications in the Ukrainian regions. The formation approach to enogastronomic tourist routes based on the geographical indications system is proposed, which allows combining national history and culture, traditions of preparing local dishes and drinks, presenting them as a complex tourist product of a certain region.
 
 

Tenun Alor is one of the results of the crafts of the Alor community whose existence is recognised in the past, has different motifs and different patterns of the products of the other regions, has a particular philosophy in each motive, and is an icon of the region that is frequently used in various activities at the local, national and international level. Unfortunately, the products already known to the market have not been legally protected by intellectual property rights by the State. The aim of this research is to learn about the legal efforts undertaken by the Regional Government in order to promote wider legal protection against Geographical Indications of Alor Tea, as well as to describe the challenges facing to preserve Alor tea. This research is normative. The results of this study show that the Provincial Government has sought to protect Alor Fabrics in the Geographical Indication System because the results of the research show that legal protection is not ideal. One example is the lack of legal certainty about Geographical Indications of Alor fabrics. Furthermore, in order to raise public awareness of the importance of legal protection of Geographical Indications, proper and effective socialization is essential. Effective socialization campaigns should inform people about the importance of protecting Geographical Indications and ofining the quality and originality of products.

The first European framework for the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin was created in 1992. 1 A feature of Community policy on agriculture and product quality, 2 Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 was enacted with the twofold objective of increasing the quality of products and promoting the diversification of production, so as better to balance supply and demand, improve the incomes of farmers and benefit rural areas. 3 While recent empirical studies suggest that the protection of geographical indications (GIs) for specialty agricultural products can potentially benefit the rural economy, 4 the system remains relatively under-utilized by the majority of countries. 5 Therefore in 2006, against a background of growing global competition for agricultural commodities and value-added products, the European Commission announced a policy review of the Community system for the protection of GIs. 6 One of the chief topics identified for review was the use of the trade mark system as an alternative instrument for the protection of GIs. 7 Subsequently, in the �Green Paper on Agricultural Product Quality� of 2008 and the �Impact Assessment Report on Agricultural Product Quality Policy� of 2009, the Commission affirmed the value of identifying the complementarities between the trade mark and GI systems. 8Just as well-known geographical indications, such as Parmigiano Reggiano or Cafe de Colombia, are registered under both the GI and Community Trade Mark (CTM) systems, 9 an appreciation of the mutually supporting roles of both forms of intellectual property can assist agricultural enterprise to achieve the consumer recognition necessary to the creation of reputation based on geographical origin. Nevertheless, dual protection is a strategy that is by no means widely adopted by producer groups. In fact, filing statistics for the GI system reveal a pronounced discrepancy in the number of registrations filed by country of origin. �

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the ability of the Chinese geographical indications (GI) system to offer extra guarantees on food safety.Design/methodology/approach– Based on a network approach, the research includes a literature review and takes a sample of GI products in Jiangxi Province as a means of exploring the ability of the GI system to enhance food safety in China.Findings– The safety level of Chinese GI food products is not automatically ensured by GI schemes alone. The Chinese Government appears to be using GI labels more as a promotional tool to enhance farmers’ incomes rather than as a means of reducing safety concerns and is thus missing an opportunity to enhance food safety in tandem with adding value.Originality/value– This research is of academic value and of value to policy makers. The results suggest an urgent need to encourage producers to attend GI management programmes, to generate appropriate GI standards, to be actively involved in GI issuing processes, and thus to provide “safe” GI products. Meanwhile, with weak government enforcement, there is also a need to build an effective food safety regulatory system to ensure food safety and protect consumers’ rights.

This paper proposes institutional improvements secure global competitiveness and objective quality assurance in the Korean black tea industry by precisely analyzing the advanced appraisal systems of India, a leader in the global black tea market. India operates a hybrid appraisal model that combines traditional sensory evaluations with modern biochemical analysis, reflecting the characteristics of major production regions such as Assam, Darjeeling, and Nilgiri. In particular, India has maximized market reliability and brand value by encoding subjective sensory perceptions into objective language through “teawords,” a vocabulary of approximately 150 standardized terms, and by implementing a strict Geographical Indication (GI) system based on the terroir of each region. Based on this analysis, this paper proposes four key strategies to advance the Korean black tea industry. First, professional expertise and clear communication must be secured by establishing standardized Korean appraisal terminology tailored to local conditions. Second, product quality homogenization should be achieved by introducing the internationally accepted Orange Pekoe grading system and diversifying secondary processing. Third, the GI system must be substantialized and independent quality standards established through terroir analysis that reflects Korea’s unique topography and climate characteristics. Fourth, educated professional sensory evaluators must be systematically trained, and the continuous accumulation of biochemical research data linked to health-functional properties must be undertaken. In conclusion, establishing such a multi-layered and scientific appraisal system will serve as an essential stepping stone for Korean black tea to evolve from a general beverage into the global premium black tea market.

The article examines the importance of using geographical indications in the food industry of Ukraine, namely in winemaking. In Ukraine, a certain legal framework for the legal protection of intellectual property has been created, but the development of a market economy requires further improvement of national legislation to solve problems arising during the use of intellectual property objects from both the legal and economic side. The system of geographical indications is a principle that allows you to protect the quality of a product while simultaneously promoting this product on the domestic and foreign markets. The possibility of using the mechanism of protected geographical indications in the domestic wine industry, which exists in countries that consider it effective for the protection of national products and producers, is considered. Given the modern requirements for services in food and wine tourism, the mechanism of geographical indications is considered as a potential for innovative development of winemaking in the regions of Ukraine.

In the struggle for supremacy between two diametrically opposed systems to protect Geographical Indications (GIs), the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) gives the decisive push in favour of the trademark system. This has profound implications for generic geographical names, not only for TPP members, but also for their trade partners. Appellation d’Origine Controlee (AOC), Lisbon Agreement, EU’s Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) regime and the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement set up sui generis registration systems in order to protect the AOs, PDOs/PGIs and GIs against confusion, dilution, deception and usurpation. These sui generis systems have a shield against becoming generic in common. The question is whether the maximalist doctrine for multilateral treaties have reached its zenith with the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement. Since this multilateral treaty allows intergovernmental organizations to become members, the EU could drastically change the significance of this sui generis system. Then again, the TPP suggests that the pendulum is swinging back for multilateral treaties towards a trademark dominated GI system that protects non-wines and spirits against confusion, dilution and deception, but not against usurpation. By demanding that TPP members be able to protect GIs via trademarks, Article 18.19 TPP gave a deathblow to any exclusive sui generis regime. Nevertheless, a fortiori, the battle for hegemony of the sui generis or trademark system will continue along the vault line of the Old and New Worlds at the level of bilateral free-trade agreements and specific GI agreements.

A GI system for protection of agricultural products and foodstuffs has been recently introduced in Japan aiming to provide a tool for: i) tapping into rural development; ii) increasing exports; iii) preserving the traditional products’ heritage and iv) improve products’ differentiation. Twelve registered GIs are analysed by grouping them in four categories according to their target market and consumer awareness. Our direct survey findings show that each product category is mainly focused on one of the above-mentioned targets, has specific SWOT factors, has different expectations from the GI recognition, its GIs’ governance system works differently, and that specific well-tailored policies are needed.

Geographical Indications at the WTO: An Unfinished Agenda

The issue of Geographical Indications (GIs) has been debated in India and globally at various forums like the World Trade Organization (WTO). World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provides for the protection of GIs at an international level. 'Geographical Indication' refers to an indication of goods that have originated from a definite geographical territory, used for identifying an agricultural, natural or manufactured good. Examples of GIs in India are Basmati Rice, Kanchipuram Silk Sari, Tellicherry Pepper, Nilgiris Tea, Darjeeling Tea etc. In India, Protection and Registration of GIs relating to goods comes under The Geographic Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) deals with GIs' protection at international levels. GIs have rapidly gained importance, and the WTO has initiated actions to legalize the registration of goods as GIs in the context of an increasing integrated international regime. Major objectives of this study are: i) To understand GIs in India through overview of GIs protection, registration and the challenges faced by GIs protected-agricultural, natural and manufactured- goods in the Indian context. ii) Effort has been made to identify the difference between GIs and Trademarks through this research. iii) An overview of few GIs registration of goods in India has been conducted to know how GIs have been protected and further scope for GI registration for more goods has been explored. iv) In the present study, efforts have also been made to find out the benefits and challenges of GI certification for various goods in the Indian context. The major challenges faced by goods applying for GI status are: Origin of the goods for identifying geographic territory; Registration of GIs; Monitoring and controlling specified processes, procedure and quality of GI protected goods; Protection of GIs from infringement; and enforcement of intellectual property rights.