|
|
xiv | |
|
|
xv | |
|
|
xvi | |
|
|
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) |
|
|
14 | (3) |
|
|
17 | (12) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
44 | (1) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
66 | (2) |
|
|
68 | (8) |
|
|
69 | (7) |
|
2 The reputational link and the roots of PGI |
|
|
76 | (25) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
97 | (4) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
130 | (5) |
|
|
131 | (4) |
|
4 The evolution of the origin link in the EU sui generis GI regime: the centrality of the historical element |
|
|
135 | (44) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
173 | (6) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
208 | (7) |
|
|
209 | (6) |
|
6 Protection for non-agricultural products: the future of the EU sui generis GI regime? |
|
|
215 | (22) |
|
|
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) |
|
|
233 | (4) |
|
|
234 | (3) |
General conclusions |
|
237 | (5) |
Index |
|
242 | |