Muutke küpsiste eelistusi

Transformation of EU Geographical Indications Law: The Present, Past and Future of the Origin Link [Kõva köide]

  • Formaat: Hardback, 250 pages, kõrgus x laius: 234x156 mm, kaal: 526 g, 15 Tables, black and white; 9 Line drawings, black and white; 2 Halftones, black and white
  • Sari: Routledge Research in Intellectual Property
  • Ilmumisaeg: 26-May-2021
  • Kirjastus: Routledge
  • ISBN-10: 0367338416
  • ISBN-13: 9780367338411
Teised raamatud teemal:
Transformation of EU Geographical Indications Law: The Present, Past and Future of the Origin LinkSuurem pilt
  • Formaat: Hardback, 250 pages, kõrgus x laius: 234x156 mm, kaal: 526 g, 15 Tables, black and white; 9 Line drawings, black and white; 2 Halftones, black and white
  • Sari: Routledge Research in Intellectual Property
  • Ilmumisaeg: 26-May-2021
  • Kirjastus: Routledge
  • ISBN-10: 0367338416
  • ISBN-13: 9780367338411
Teised raamatud teemal:
Püsilink: https://www.kriso.ee/db/9780367338411.html
Märksõnad:

Linking traditional and local products to a specific area is increasingly felt as a necessity in a globalised market and GIs (Geographical Indications) are emerging as a multi-functional tool capable of performing this, and many other, functions. This book analyses the evolving nature of EU sui generis Geographical Indications by focusing on their key element, the origin link, and concludes that the history of the product in the broad sense has become a major factor to prove the link between a good and a specific place.

For the first time, this area of Intellectual Property Law is investigated from three different, although interrelated, perspectives: the history and comparative assessment of the systems of protection of Indications of Geographical Origin adopted in the European jurisdictions from the beginning of the 20th century; the empirical analysis of the trends emerging from the practice of EU GIs; the policy debates surrounding them and their importance for the fulfilment of the general goals of the EU Common Agricultural Policy. The result is an innovative and rounded analysis of the very nature of the EU Law of Geographical Indications that, starting from its past, investigates the present and the likely future of this Intellectual Property Right.

This book provides an interesting and innovative contribution to the field and will be of interest to GI scholars and Intellectual Property students, as well as anyone willing to gain a better understanding of this compelling area of law

List of figures
xiv
List of tables
xv
List of cases
xvi
Table of legislation
xvii
National laws and statutes xix
Foreword xxi
Preface xxiii
Abbreviations xxv
Introduction 1(1)
1 This book: a research on the `origin link' in the EU Law of Geographical Indications
1(2)
2 The concept of `origin link'
3(3)
3 The origin link in EU Regulation 1151/2012
6(1)
4 EU policy and debates on GIs: the state of the art
7(3)
5 The academic debate on GIs and the contribution of the present research
10(4)
6 Structure of the book
14(3)
7 A note on methodology
17(12)
References
21(8)
PART I The origin link: roots, nature and structure
29(72)
1 Terroir, the early sui generis IGO regimes and the roots of PDO
31(45)
1.1 Introduction
31(4)
1.2 The French legislation: brief chronology and context
35(5)
1.2.1 Phylloxera and its consequences: adulteration and fraud
35(1)
1.2.2 The French legislation from 1905 to 1935: an outline
36(4)
1.3 Terroir or terroirs? Origin and evolution of the concept
40(8)
1.3.1 Terroir today: overview of the concept
40(2)
1.3.2 A possible classification of terroir(s): a tripartite structure
42(1)
1.3.2.1 Terroir as a dual concept
43(1)
1.3.2.2 Physical terroir
44(1)
1.3.2.3 Cultural terroir
45(1)
1.3.3 The genesis of terroir in France
45(3)
1.4 The evolution of terroir in the French parliamentary debate on AO and AOC
48(10)
1.4.1 Terroir in the French AO policy: phase I (1905--1925)
48(1)
1.4.1.1 The period 1905--1913
48(1)
1.4.1.2 The road to the Law of 1919 and the early 1920s
49(2)
1.4.2 The turning point: the protection of Roquefort and the doctrine of Capus
51(1)
1.4.2.1 Joseph Capus and his doctrine
51(1)
1.4.2.2 The Roquefort AO
52(3)
1.4.3 The Law of 1927 and Calmel's definition of terroir; phase II begins
55(1)
1.4.4 The 1930s: the transformation of terroir outside and inside the parliament
56(1)
1.4.4.1 Outside the parliament
56(1)
1.4.4.2 Inside the parliament
57(1)
1.5 IGO rules and terroir; only a French story? The case of Italy
58(10)
1.5.1 Background: the Italian situation
58(2)
1.5.2 The main features of the Italian system in the 1920s
60(1)
1.5.2.1 The consortia
60(2)
1.5.2.2 The definition of vino tipieo' and identification of the designated areas
62(1)
1.5.3 The reforms of the 1930s and the demise of the system
63(2)
1.5.4 The first Italian law on AOs for wines (1963): an outline
65(1)
1.5.5 Terroir in Italy?
66(2)
1.6 Conclusion
68(8)
References
69(7)
2 The reputational link and the roots of PGI
76(25)
2.1 Introduction
76(4)
2.2 The origin of the reputational link
80(7)
2.2.1 Alternatives to appellation of origin: indication of source and unfair competition law
80(3)
2.2.2 IGO protection based on unfair competition law and passing off in Europe before 1992
83(1)
2.2.2.1 The German approach to IGO protection before 1992
83(2)
2.2.2.2 The British approach to IGO protection before 1992
85(2)
2.2.3 Conclusions on the origin of the reputational link
87(1)
2.3 Mapping the reputational link: literature review and proposal for a twofold structure
87(2)
2.4 Analysis of the twofold structure of the reputational link
89(8)
2.4.1 The market reputation
89(2)
2.4.2 The historical element: general concept and structure overview
91(2)
2.4.3 The historical element: analysis of its three-part structure
93(1)
2.4.3.1 Part 1: historical information and recount of the roots of the product
93(2)
2.4.3.2 Part 2: traditional know-how
95(1)
2.4.3.3 Part 3: socio-economic relevance and importance for rural development
96(1)
2.5 Conclusion
97(4)
References
99(2)
PART II The origin link in the evolution of EU GI law and policy
101(78)
3 Joining terroir and reputation: the path to the EU sui generis GI regime
103(32)
3.1 Introduction
103(2)
3.2 The Sekt and Bocksbeutel cases and the need for harmonisation
105(2)
3.3 The foundations of the policy of the EU sui generis GI system: brief history of the CAP from 1985 to 1992
107(4)
3.3.1 The Green Paper (1985)
108(1)
3.3.2 The report on `Environment and Agriculture' and the communication on `The Future of Rural Society' (1988)
109(1)
3.3.3 The reflection paper on `The Development and Future of the CAP' (1991) and the MacSharry reforms
110(1)
3.4 The role of the EC in the Uruguay Round
111(6)
3.4.1 The 1988 EC proposal: the definition of `Geographical Indication' and the emergence of the reputational link
112(3)
3.4.2 The 1988 EC proposal: the level of protection granted
115(2)
3.5 The path to Regulation 2081/1992 and the making of PGI
117(10)
3.5.1 The report of the WIPO Committee of Experts (28 May to 1 June 1990)
118(2)
3.5.2 The proposal of the Commission and the opinion of the EESC
120(2)
3.5.2.1 The Wiesbaden GI symposium (17-18 October 1991)
122(1)
3.5.2.2 The discussions of the European Parliament and the role of the supporters of a broad regime
123(2)
3.5.2.3 The agreement on the final text: the role of PGI
125(2)
3.6 The early years of the EU sui generis GI regime
127(3)
3.6.1 The Exportur decision and the recognition of `reputation' as a standalone origin link
127(1)
3.6.2 Applicants and nature of the origin link in the specifications of the first registered EU GIs
128(2)
3.7 Conclusion
130(5)
References
131(4)
4 The evolution of the origin link in the EU sui generis GI regime: the centrality of the historical element
135(44)
4.1 Introduction
135(1)
4.2 The evolution of the EU sui generis GI rules and of the CAP after 1992
136(5)
4.3 The evolution of the origin link in the EU sui generis GI regime: methodology
141(2)
4.4 Quantitative assessment of the evolution of the origin link in the EU sui generis GI regime: general trends
143(5)
4.4.1 Overview
143(1)
4.4.2 Regional trends: northern/central Europe
144(2)
4.4.3 Regional trends: southern Europe
146(2)
4.5 GI policies in the `new EU member states'
148(7)
4.5.1 The legal background
148(3)
4.5.2 The choice of PGI and the use of TSG by the new EU member states
151(4)
4.6 The nature of the origin link in the quality schemes: empirical assessment
155(3)
4.6.1 Reputation and historical element in PDO specifications
155(1)
4.6.2 Qualitative link and historical element in PGI specifications
156(1)
4.6.3 The importance of the historical element
157(1)
4.7 Focus 1: why the PGI quality scheme has become predominant
158(9)
4.7.1 PGI is more flexible than PDO and grants the same level of protection
159(1)
4.7.2 PGI protects local products that do not qualify for PDO
160(1)
4.7.2.1 Overview of the issue
160(2)
4.7.2.2 Specific focus: fruit, vegetables, cereals - fresh or processed
162(1)
4.7.3 The majority of PDOs were registered at the beginning of the EU sui generis system
163(2)
4.7.4 Do the national competent authorities influence the type of GI that is granted?
165(2)
4.8 Focus 2: the why of the success of the historical element as a linking factor
167(6)
4.8.1 Is mentioning the history of the product in the specifications a legal requirement?
167(2)
4.8.2 The relevance of the history of the product in the text of Regulation 1151/2012
169(1)
4.8.2.1 The relevant provisions in Regulation 1151/2012
169(1)
4.8.2.2 The EU `Guide to Applicants'
170(1)
4.8.3 History has always been an inherent component of the origin link
171(2)
4.9 Conclusion
173(6)
References
174(5)
PART III The historical element and its role in the future of the EU sui generis GI regime
179(58)
5 The suitability of history to constitute the basis of the origin link
181(34)
5.1 Introduction
181(1)
5.2 Why history constitutes a valid basis for the origin link
182(4)
5.2.1 History and terroir are related and operate in a similar way
182(3)
5.2.2 History is the description of the interaction between a place and a human community
185(1)
5.3 History outlines the identity of a product: case studies
186(5)
5.3.1 History and appellation of origin: the case of Gruyere cheese
186(1)
5.3.2 History and PGI: selected case studies
187(1)
5.3.2.1 Product class 1: pasta
188(1)
5.3.2.2 Product class 2: baker's wares
189(1)
5.3.2.3 Product class 3: cured meat
190(1)
5.4 Evidence
191(3)
5.4.1 The function of evidence
191(2)
5.4.2 Types of acceptable evidence
193(1)
5.4.2.1 Official and public documents
193(1)
5.4.2.2 Newspapers, magazines and other
193(1)
5.4.2.3 Oral sources
194(1)
5.5 The limits of history as a basis of the origin link
194(5)
5.5.1 The history and the tradition of the product can be invented or mystified
195(1)
5.5.1.1 Objection 1: tradition is an invention
196(1)
5.5.1.2 Objection 2: the traditional version of the product is a mere marketing tool
197(1)
5.5.2 The product is not linked to its tradition and history
198(1)
5.6 When history does not establish an origin link: practical cases
199(7)
5.6.1 Scenario 1: the production method does not match the traditional image of the product
200(2)
5.6.2 Scenario 2: the raw materials are sourced from areas completely unrelated to the reputation of the product
202(1)
5.6.2.1 The raw materials are unrelated to the area to which the reputation of the product is linked
202(1)
5.6.2.2 The area of origin of the raw materials is excessively broad
203(2)
5.6.3 Scenario 3: the present and the historical versions of the product are unrelated
205(1)
5.7 Some policy prescriptions for a stronger origin link
206(2)
5.8 Conclusion
208(7)
References
209(6)
6 Protection for non-agricultural products: the future of the EU sui generis GI regime?
215(22)
6.1 Introduction
215(3)
6.2 The debate on non-agricultural GIs in the EU
218(3)
6.3 Sui generis and guasi-sui generis' approaches: some case studies from France and Italy
221(4)
6.3.1 The French sui generis regime for the protection of non-agricultural products
221(2)
6.3.2 Two case studies from Italy: the trade marks `Ceramica artistica e tradizionale' and cVetro di Murano'
223(1)
6.3.2.1 Ceramica artistica e tradizionale (artistic and traditional pottery)
223(1)
6.3.2.2 Vetro artistico di Murano (artistic Murano glass)
224(1)
6.4 The possible role of the EU quality schemes in the protection of non-agricultural IGOs
225(3)
6.4.1 Dual or single system of protection? The opinion of the stakeholders in 2014
225(1)
6.4.2 An argument in favour of a single system of protection based on PGI
226(2)
6.5 The Geneva Act and its possible impact on the protection of non-agricultural products in the EU
228(5)
6.6 Conclusion
233(4)
References
234(3)
General conclusions 237(5)
Index 242
Andrea Zappalaglio is a Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Sheffield and an affiliated researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition.