EU-wide protection of geographical indications
for non-agricultural products
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Introduction
Geographical indications (GIs) are names of products linked to products’ geographical origin and
producers’ know-how, and have the status of intellectual property (IP) rights (e.g. Murano glass, Solingen
cutlery, Donegal tweed, Halas lace, Macael marble, Bolesławiec ceramics, Gablonz jewellery). They
identify a good as originating in a specific place (national, regional or local) where a particular quality,
reputation or other characteristics are essentially attributable to its geographical origin.
There is currently no EU-wide system for protecting the geographical indications of non-agricultural
products (such as handicrafts and industrial goods). The IP action plan adopted on 25 November 2020
announces that the Commission will, on the basis of a thorough impact assessment of its potential costs
and benefits, consider the feasibility of creating an efficient and transparent EU GI protection system for
non-agricultural products.
This public consultation invites citizens and organisations, and national and regional public authorities to
contribute to the assessment of a geographical indications’ system for non-agricultural products. The aim is
to gather views on the major challenges identified that would need to be addressed in the assessment, the
set of policy options that can be envisaged to address these challenges and the impacts stemming from
these different options. The results of the consultation will feed the impact assessment on the best way
forward.
About you
* Language of my contribution
Bulgarian
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
French
German
1
Greek
Hungarian
Irish
Italian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Maltese
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swedish
* I am giving my contribution as
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Consumer organisation
EU citizen
Environmental organisation
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
* First name
* Surname
* Email (this won't be published)
2
* Scope
International
Local
National
Regional
* Level of governance
Local Authority
Local Agency
* Level of governance
Parliament
Authority
Agency
* Organisation name
255 character(s) maximum
* Organisation size
Micro (1 to 9 employees)
Small (10 to 49 employees)
Medium (50 to 249 employees)
Large (250 or more)
Transparency register number
255 character(s) maximum
Check if your organisation is on the transparency register. It's a voluntary database for organisations seeking to
influence EU decision-making.
* Country of origin
Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation.
Afghanistan Djibouti Libya Saint Martin
3
Åland Islands Dominica Liechtenstein Saint Pierre
and Miquelon
Albania Dominican Lithuania Saint Vincent
Republic and the
Grenadines
Algeria Ecuador Luxembourg Samoa
American Egypt Macau San Marino
Samoa
Andorra El Salvador Madagascar São Tomé and
Príncipe
Angola Equatorial Malawi Saudi Arabia
Guinea
Anguilla Eritrea Malaysia Senegal
Antarctica Estonia Maldives Serbia
Antigua and Eswatini Mali Seychelles
Barbuda
Argentina Ethiopia Malta Sierra Leone
Armenia Falkland Islands Marshall Singapore
Islands
Aruba Faroe Islands Martinique Sint Maarten
Australia Fiji Mauritania Slovakia
Austria Finland Mauritius Slovenia
Azerbaijan France Mayotte Solomon
Islands
Bahamas French Guiana Mexico Somalia
Bahrain French Micronesia South Africa
Polynesia
Bangladesh French Moldova South Georgia
Southern and and the South
Antarctic Lands Sandwich
Islands
Barbados Gabon Monaco South Korea
Belarus Georgia Mongolia South Sudan
Belgium Germany Montenegro Spain
Belize Ghana Montserrat Sri Lanka
4
Benin Gibraltar Morocco Sudan
Bermuda Greece Mozambique Suriname
Bhutan Greenland Myanmar Svalbard and
/Burma Jan Mayen
Bolivia Grenada Namibia Sweden
Bonaire Saint Guadeloupe Nauru Switzerland
Eustatius and
Saba
Bosnia and Guam Nepal Syria
Herzegovina
Botswana Guatemala Netherlands Taiwan
Bouvet Island Guernsey New Caledonia Tajikistan
Brazil Guinea New Zealand Tanzania
British Indian Guinea-Bissau Nicaragua Thailand
Ocean Territory
British Virgin Guyana Niger The Gambia
Islands
Brunei Haiti Nigeria Timor-Leste
Bulgaria Heard Island Niue Togo
and McDonald
Islands
Burkina Faso Honduras Norfolk Island Tokelau
Burundi Hong Kong Northern Tonga
Mariana Islands
Cambodia Hungary North Korea Trinidad and
Tobago
Cameroon Iceland North Tunisia
Macedonia
Canada India Norway Turkey
Cape Verde Indonesia Oman Turkmenistan
Cayman Islands Iran Pakistan Turks and
Caicos Islands
Central African Iraq Palau Tuvalu
Republic
Chad Ireland Palestine Uganda
5
Chile Isle of Man Panama Ukraine
China Israel Papua New United Arab
Guinea Emirates
Christmas Italy Paraguay United
Island Kingdom
Clipperton Jamaica Peru United States
Cocos (Keeling) Japan Philippines United States
Islands Minor Outlying
Islands
Colombia Jersey Pitcairn Islands Uruguay
Comoros Jordan Poland US Virgin
Islands
Congo Kazakhstan Portugal Uzbekistan
Cook Islands Kenya Puerto Rico Vanuatu
Costa Rica Kiribati Qatar Vatican City
Côte d’Ivoire Kosovo Réunion Venezuela
Croatia Kuwait Romania Vietnam
Cuba Kyrgyzstan Russia Wallis and
Futuna
Curaçao Laos Rwanda Western
Sahara
Cyprus Latvia Saint Yemen
Barthélemy
Czechia Lebanon Saint Helena Zambia
Ascension and
Tristan da
Cunha
Democratic Lesotho Saint Kitts and Zimbabwe
Republic of the Nevis
Congo
Denmark Liberia Saint Lucia
The Commission will publish all contributions to this public consultation. You can choose whether you
would prefer to have your details published or to remain anonymous when your contribution is published. Fo
r the purpose of transparency, the type of respondent (for example, ‘business association,
‘consumer association’, ‘EU citizen’) country of origin, organisation name and size, and its
transparency register number, are always published. Your e-mail address will never be published.
6
Opt in to select the privacy option that best suits you. Privacy options default based on the type of
respondent selected
* Contribution publication privacy settings
The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would like
your details to be made public or to remain anonymous.
Anonymous
The type of respondent that you responded to this consultation as, your
country of origin and your contribution will be published as received. Your
name will not be published. Please do not include any personal data in the
contribution itself.
Public
Your name, the type of respondent that you responded to this consultation
as, your country of origin and your contribution will be published.
* Contribution publication privacy settings
The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would like
your details to be made public or to remain anonymous.
Anonymous
Only organisation details are published: The type of respondent that you
responded to this consultation as, the name of the organisation on whose
behalf you reply as well as its transparency number, its size, its country of
origin and your contribution will be published as received. Your name will not
be published. Please do not include any personal data in the contribution
itself if you want to remain anonymous.
Public
Organisation details and respondent details are published: The type of
respondent that you responded to this consultation as, the name of the
organisation on whose behalf you reply as well as its transparency number,
its size, its country of origin and your contribution will be published. Your
name will also be published.
I agree with the personal data protection provisions
GENERAL QUESTIONS
* 1. How familiar are you with the rules for the protection of geographical indications?
Very familiar
Somewhat familiar
7
Not at all familiar
No opinion
2. Could you name a non-agricultural product bearing a protected geographical
indication?
3. Which of the characteristics do you associate with non-agricultural products
protected by a geographical indication?
The product is more expensive
The quality of the product is higher
The raw materials for the product come from a specific region
The product is hand made
The product is based on the local knowledge/ skills
The product is not counterfeit/fake
Other
Please specify:
QUESTIONS FOR PRODUCERS OF NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Please only reply to questions in this section if you are a producer of non-agricultural products.
4. In which sector do you operate?
Cutlery
Furniture
Glass
Jewellery/Gems
Lace
Natural stones
Porcelain/Ceramics
Textiles
Other
Please specify:
8
5. Does the name of your product(s) include its geographical origin?
Yes
No
In case of more products, please specify
:
6. Do you currently use any intellectual property rights to protect your product(s)?
Collective trade mark
Certification mark
Copyright
Design
Patent
Geographical indication
None of the above
I do not know
Other
Please specify:
7. Do you sell your product(s) outside your region?
No, I sell my product(s) only in my region
Yes, I sell my product(s) in my country of origin
Yes, I sell my product(s) in my country of origin and other EU countries
Yes, I sell my product(s) in EU countries and non-EU countries
Yes, I sell my product(s) only in non-EU countries
No answer
CHALLENGES RELATED TO FRAGMENTATION WITHIN THE SINGLE
MARKET
9
The current regulatory framework for the protection of GIs for non-agricultural products in the EU is
fragmented. While over half the Member States have established specific national protection systems with
different characteristics, others use only trade marks and/or rules on unfair competition. Within the single
market, there is also no cross-border system of (mutual) recognition of national protection systems.
A geographical name can constitute, under certain circumstances, an individual or collective trade mark.
However, in contrast to geographical indications, these trade marks aim at indicating the commercial origin
of a good or service, not the geographical origin.
Certification marks certify the compliance of a product or service with specific quality criteria. However, the
EU certification trade mark does explicitly not allow for certifying the geographical origin.
8.To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Please rate from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (disagree).
No
5 4 3 2 1
opinion
It is difficult for producers to protect their non-agricultural
products nationally.
It is difficult for producers to protect their non-agricultural
products within the Single Market.
At EU level, it is sufficient that producers can indicate the
origin of their products using a collective or individual trade
mark.
It is not fair that non-agricultural GI products do not have
similar level of protection as agricultural GI products.
9. Which are the most important challenges resulting from the fragmentation of
rules for the protection of the indication of the geographical origin for non-
agricultural products in the EU?
Please rate from 5 (most important) to 1 (least important).
No
5 4 3 2 1
opinion
Producers have fewer incentives to invest in geographically
linked products and to cooperate to create niche markets.
Producers have fewer incentives to retain unique skills that
would otherwise disappear.
The potential of the tourism sector in the regions where
authentic products are manufactured remains untapped.
The potential of developing the cultural heritage of these
regions remains untapped.
10
Sellers pass off their products (often made in third countries)
as authentic, thereby threatening the value of the collective
goodwill.
Consumers have more difficulties to identify authentic
products.
Other, please specify
INTERNATIONAL AND TRADE-RELATED CHALLENGES
The international GI protection system is based in particular on the so-called Lisbon system administered
by the World Intellectual Property Organization. There are currently 34 contracting parties to this system,
including the EU and seven EU Member States (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal
and Slovakia). The latest revision of the 1958 Lisbon Agreement is the Geneva Act of 2015, which entered
into force on 26 February 2020, three months after the EU acceded.
The Lisbon system offers a route to obtain protection of appellations of origins/geographical indications
regardless of the nature of the goods to which they apply, including agricultural products, foodstuffs, wine
and spirit drinks, handicrafts, industrial products and natural products.
10. In your view, which are the most important challenges resulting from
international developments?
Please rate from 5 (most important) to 1 (least important).
No
5 4 3 2 1
opinion
Producers of EU GIs for non-agricultural products cannot
benefit from the EU’s accession to the Lisbon/Geneva Act to
get protection in third countries using the Lisbon/Geneva
route, as there is no EU registration to start with.
Producers of non-agricultural GI products from third
countries cannot get protection in the whole of the EU using
the Lisbon/Geneva route, as such protection is not available
at EU level.
The EU cannot secure protection of non-agricultural GIs via
bilateral trade agreements. This is because the EU cannot
include non-agricultural GIs in the lists of GIs to be
protected by such agreements, due to the lack of EU-wide
protection for non-agricultural GIs.
Other, please specify:
11
NEED FOR EU ACTION
11. Do you believe there is a need for an EU-wide initiative to improve the
protection of geographical names or indications for non-agricultural products?
Yes
No
I do not know
12. What could be the incentives to participate in an EU scheme for protection of
geographical indications for non-agricultural products?
Better enforcement, combatting misuse of protected name and fraud
Strengthened position of producer groups in the value chain
Useful marketing tool/better visibility for consumers
Quality assurance signal for consumers
Differentiation of product
Traceability tool
Increase own firm's reputation
Access to new markets within/beyond EU Internal Market
Increase credibility of product
Higher price premium
Increase/secure market share
Limit competition on the market
Affinity with the region
Protection of traditions/cultural heritage
Regional development and tourism
Other
Please specify:
13. What could be the disincentives to participate in an EU scheme for protection of
geographical indications for non-agricultural products?
Higher production costs
Higher marketing costs
Administrative burden/Costs, for example relating to the application
12
Stricter inspections
A GI would prevent innovation in the production/commercialisation
Uncertainty of market demand or low demand
Lower productivity
Uncertainty related to combatting misuse of protected name and fraud
Missing regional roots (lack of local identity)
No added value
No need because we have an own trade mark
No need because unfair competition law is sufficient
No need because strong market position already
Other
Please specify:
POLICY OPTIONS
14. Which is your preferred overall policy approach regarding the possible creation
of an EU-wide protection mechanism of geographical indications for non-
agricultural products?
The Commission proposal on GIs may result in a mix of different options.
Please rate from 5 (most preferred) to 1 (least preferred).
No
5 4 3 2 1
opinion
No action – The EU would not act. The current situation will
remain.
Voluntary measures - a recommendation at EU level
proposing both to Member States and producers to agree
on voluntary measures in order to certify the origin of
industrial and handcraft products.
Harmonisation - an EU directive setting out specific
objectives for the protection of GIs for non-agricultural
products, for example protection duration, scope, territorial
link, but also procedural aspects such as application and
registration, but leaving it to Member States how to reach
these objectives.
13
EU specific (or sui generis) system – a regulation
establishing a specific GI protection system for industrial
and handicraft products. An EU title would protect GIs.
Merger - Under this option, a GI protection system for
industrial and handicraft products would merge with the
current GI protection system for agricultural products.
Trade mark reform - This option would consist of a reform of
the EU trade mark system. Producers of industrial and
handicraft products would have the possibility to apply for
the registration of a name guaranteeing a certain quality
linked to a specific geographical region, e.g. based on
certification trade marks.
Other - Please specify:
15. How do you assess the likely impact from the creation of EU-wide protection of
geographical indications for non-agricultural products?
Scale from 5 (very positive) to 1 (very negative).
Impact on : 5 4 3 2 1 No opinion
Capacity to export
Competition
Competitiveness
Consumers
Cultural heritage
Employment
Environment
Innovation
Producers
Public authorities
Regions
Tourism
SCOPE OF PROTECTION
14
16. In your opinion, an EU-wide protection mechanism of geographical indications
for non-agricultural products should cover (provided they fulfil the requirements as
to the link with a geographical place):
All non-agricultural goods
Only a limited list of categories of non-agricultural goods
17. How would you define the link that the non-agricultural goods originating in a
specific place, region, or locality should have with their place of origin?
(one choice only)
A given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is essentially
attributable to their geographical origin
A given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is essentially
attributable to their geographical origin; and at least one of the production
steps take place in the defined geographical area
Their quality or characteristics are essentially or exclusively due to a
particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human
factors; and all the production steps take place in the defined
geographical area
Their quality or characteristics are essentially or exclusively due to a
particular raw material; and all the production steps take place in the
defined geographical area
18. Do you think that an EU-wide protection mechanism of geographical indications
for non-agricultural products should protect geographical indications or names
already registered at national level?
Yes
No
Other
Please specify
REGISTRATION PROCEDURE
19. How many steps should the registration of EU geographical indications for non-
agricultural products involve (In any event, registration will be managed
electronically) ?
15
Only one: managed at EU level
Only one: managed at national level
Two: first a national, then an EU registration phase (as already exists in the
agricultural area)
No opinion
20. On the basis of which grounds should registration of an EU geographical
indication for non-agricultural products be accepted (provided the products fulfil the
requirements as to the link with a geographical place)?
The GI-term should meet required conditions (for example, that it is not a
customary name like 'eau de Cologne')
The protection granted should not jeopardise pre-existing rights (e.g.
homonymous GIs or trade marks likely to mislead the consumer as to the
true origin of the product)
Other
Please specify
21. On behalf of the EU, who should manage a register for non-agricultural GIs?
The services of the European Commission (like for agricultural GIs)
An EU agency
No opinion
HOW TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH PRODUCT
CHARACTERISTICS?
The unique characteristics of products to be protected are linked in particular to their geographical origin.
To achieve the required characteristics, these products need to meet certain standards as contained in the
product specifications agreed by producers or producer associations. To ensure that the required
characteristics are met, protection includes control mechanisms. First, controls need to be in place at
production stage to verify technical compliance with product specifications (referred to as ‘verification’).
Once the product has been placed on the market, controls are needed to monitor the use of the name
(referred to as ‘monitoring’ or ‘surveillance’).
22. Do you think it is important that a specification for a geographical indication for
non-agricultural products include the following elements?
Please rate from 5 (most important) to 1 (least important).
16
5 4 3 2 1 No
opinion
The name to be protected, as it is used, whether in trade or
in common language, and only in the languages which are
or were historically used to describe the specific product in
the defined geographical area
A description of the product, including the raw materials, if
appropriate, as well as the principal physical, chemical,
microbiological or organoleptic characteristics of the product
The definition of the geographical area delimited
Evidence that the product originates in the defined
geographical area
Evidence that the product uses raw materials from the
defined geographical area
Evidence that the product has a reputation
A description of the method of obtaining the product
Information concerning packaging of the product
The name and address of the authorities/bodies verifying
compliance with the provisions of the product specification
Any specific labelling rule for the product in question
Other, please specify:
23. In an EU level system of protection for non-agricultural products, who should
take care of verification, e. g. ensure that at the stage of production the product
complies with technical specifications before it is placed on the market?
Public authority
Producers or producer associations
Public authority and producers/producer associations
Other
Please specify:
24. In an EU level system of protection for non-agricultural products, who should
bear the costs of verification?
17
Public authority
Producers or producer associations
Public authority and producers/producer associations
Other
Please specify:
25. In an EU level system of protection for non-agricultural products, who should take care of monitoring, e.g.
control the use of the name once the product has been placed on the market?
Public authority
Producers or producer associations
Public authority and producers/producer associations
Other
Please specify:
26. In an EU level system of protection for non-agricultural products, who should bear the costs of monitoring?
Public authority
Producers or producer associations
Public authority and producers/producer associations
Other
Please specify:
ENFORCEMENT
For agricultural products, EU GI Regulations call Member States to take appropriate enforcement
measures, in particular administrative and judicial steps, to prevent or stop unlawful use of protected names
of products that are produced or marketed in that Member State. Besides that, Regulation 608/2013 on
customs enforcement of intellectual property rights at the EU external borders empowers customs to stop
(upon request or spontaneously) goods potentially infringing specific types of GIs from entering/exiting the
EU territory. The current European framework delegates the responsibility of carrying out ex officio controls
to Member States. Member States are free to determine the means to fulfil this requirement. In addition, the
IPR Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC (IPRED) applies to the civil enforcement of all intellectual property
rights including GIs and trade marks. Other EU harmonization, such as unfair competition and consumer
protection laws, provide for further legal tools for users of GIs and consumers to ensure national civil
enforcement.
18
27. In an EU level system of enforcing rights in relation to non-agricultural products,
there should be:
A specific GI enforcement system
A general system based on intellectual property enforcement (e.g. general
civil law, IPRED and customs enforcement)
Other enforcement (e.g. unfair competition law) rules
No opinion
Please specify:
DOCUMENT UPLOAD AND FINAL COMMENTS
28. Please indicate if there are other issues that should be considered.
1000 character(s) maximum
29. Please share any quantitative data, reports or studies to support your views.
You can also upload a concise document, such as a position paper. The maximum file size is 1MB. Please note that the uploaded document
will be published alongside your response to the questionnaire, which is the essential input to this public consultation. The document is
optional and serves as additional background reading to better understand your position.
Only files of the type pdf,txt,doc,docx,odt,rtf are allowed
30. Would you agree to be contacted by the Commission for a possible follow-up?
Yes
No
19
20
Ref. Ares(2020)7158775 - 27/11/2020
INCEPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Inception Impact Assessments aim to inform citizens and stakeholders about the Commission's plans in order to allow them to
provide feedback on the intended initiative and to participate effectively in future consultation activities. Citizens and
stakeholders are in particular invited to provide views on the Commission's understanding of the problem and possible
solutions and to make available any relevant information that they may have, including on possible impacts of the different
options.
TITLE OF INITIATIVE EU protection of geographical indications for non-agricultural products
LEAD DG (RESPONSIBLE UNIT) DG GROW F3 (Intellectual Property)
LIKELY TYPE OF INITIATIVE Legislative initiative / Regulation of the Council and the Parliament
INDICATIVE PLANNING Q4 2021
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/intellectual-property/geographical-
indications/non-agricultural-products_en
The Inception Impact Assessment is provided for information purposes only. It does not prejudge the final decision of
the Commission on whether this initiative will be pursued or on its final content. All elements of the initiative
described by the Inception impact assessment, including its timing, are subject to change.
A. Context, problem definition and subsidiarity check
Context
Geographical indications (GIs) are names of products linked to products’ geographical origin and the
producers’ know-how, and have the status of intellectual property (IP) rights. They identify a good as
originating in a specific place (national, regional or local) where a particular quality, reputation or other
characteristics are essentially attributable to its geographical origin1. As such, GIs are part of the EU’s
cultural heritage and contribute to the social and environmental sustainability of the economy.
The EU has sui generis GIs protecting wines, spirit drinks, aromatised wines and other agricultural
products and foodstuffs2. However, there is currently no EU-wide mechanism to protect the qualities
attributed to specific local skills and traditions relating to non-agricultural products, such as ceramics,
glassware, clothing, lace, jewellery, furniture and knives. Over half the Member States have national
rules providing for the specific protection of indications of geographical origin as sui generis rights, but
these differ in many respects. Non-agricultural producers who wish to protect an indication of
geographical origin throughout the EU have to seek separate protection in each Member State in which
this option is available.
GIs could help consumers identifying authentic products. It has been argued that they contribute to
ensuring fair competition for producers and to protecting the quality and integrity of their traditional
products, crafts or processes (which are often highly skilled)3. It is estimated that the introduction of EU-
wide GI protection for non-agricultural products will help producers seize opportunities to develop and
1
See Article 22(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)
2
For an overview, see: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-
labels/quality-schemes-explained_en#geographicalindications
3
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green Paper — Making the most out of Europe's
traditional know-how: a possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural
products (COM(2014) 469 final, paragraph 3.1
commercialize industrial and handicraft products. It could in the longer term yield an overall expected
increase in intra-EU trade of about 4.9-6.6 % of current intra-EU exports (EUR 37.6-50 billion)4.
The European Commission has been called on to create a regulatory framework for the protection of
geographically linked industrial and handicraft products. In 2014, a Commission green paper generated
strong stakeholder support for an initiative at EU level. In autumn 2015, the Parliament endorsed an own
initiative report on the possible extension of EU GI protection to non-agricultural products and called on
the Commission to make a legislative proposal to that effect. On 10 November 2020, the Council
adopted conclusions on IP policy and indicated that it ‘stands ready to consider the introduction of a
system for sui generis protection of non-agricultural products, on the basis of a thorough impact
assessment of its potential costs and benefits’ (paragraph 10)5.
In November 2019, the EU acceded to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of
Origins and Geographical Indications6 (under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property
Organization), which covers GIs for both agricultural and non-agricultural products. An EU instrument
for non-agricultural GIs would enable the EU to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the
World Intellectual Property Organization (‘WIPO’) Geneva Act.
The IP action plan adopted on 25 November 20207 announces that the Commission will, on the basis of
a thorough impact assessment of its potential costs and benefits, consider the feasibility of creating an
efficient and transparent EU GI protection system for non-agricultural products.
Problem the initiative aims to tackle
The current regulatory framework for the protection of GIs for non-agricultural products in the EU (e.g.
Murano glass, Solingen cutlery, Donegal tweed, Halas lace, Macael marble, Bolesławiec ceramics,
Gablonz jewellery) is fragmented. While, as indicated, over half the Member States have established
national sui generis protection systems with different characteristics, others use only trade-marks and/or
rules on unfair competition to protect their intangible assets8. Within the internal market, there is also no
cross-border system of (mutual) recognition of national protection systems. At EU level, producers can
certify the origin of their products using a collective or individual trade mark. However, using a trade
mark does not enable producers of industrial and handicraft products to certify the link between quality
and geographical origin according to pre-determined EU-level standards.
Due to this fragmentation and legal uncertainty, producers may face a challenge when launching
campaigns, registering trade marks or taking legal action9. Producers would have less of an incentive to
4
Geographical indications for non-agricultural products — Cost of non-Europe report, European Parliament (2019),
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU(2019)631764
5
Council conclusions on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial designs system in the Union, Official
Journal of the European Union, C 379I, 10 November 2020; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:C:2020:379I:FULL
6
The Lisbon System facilitates the international protection of appellations of origin and geographical indications through one
single registration procedure for a single set of fees in multiple jurisdictions. The Lisbon System is based on two
international agreements: the Lisbon Agreement (1958) and the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement (2015). The Geneva
Act is aimed at the revision and modernisation of the Lisbon Agreement in order to help the system expand and obtain
increased geographical coverage
7
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2187
8
For an overview, see Geographical indications for non-agricultural products — Cost of non-Europe report, European
Parliament (2019), p. 8-10
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU(2019)631764
9
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green Paper — Making the most out of Europe's
traditional know-how: a possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural
products (COM(2014) 469 final), paragraph 3.3
2
invest in geographically linked products, to cooperate to create niche markets, and to retain unique skills
that otherwise disappear10. In particular small producers could lose potential market opportunities11.
The regions in which these producers operate can be peripherally located and may suffer from a lack of
investment12. Their potential for tourism can remain untapped. There could also be less incentive for
preserving their cultural heritage. The initiative could help these regions attract workers and tourists with
the growing interest in visiting less well-known parts of the EU.
In addition, sellers pass off their (often in third countries made) products as authentic, thereby
threatening the value of the collective goodwill13. For producers of authentic products, this ‘free-riding’
means unfair competition, potential lost market opportunities and fewer possibilities to re-invest in
production and marketing.
In the absence of appropriate EU-wide GI rules for non-agricultural products, it has been argued that
consumers may find it more difficult to distinguish between authentic and non-authentic goods14. The
gap in the current system would call for a more coordinated approach to ensure the appropriate use of
GIs so as to guarantee authenticity, differentiate products on the market and boost the value of sales and
exports. Producers regularly consider the visibility of authenticity logos as a key benefit of GIs15.
The lack of a uniform sui generis system of protection is also perceived as weakening the EU at global
level. Non-EU countries are less likely to recognise and protect the EU’s agricultural GIs knowing that
the EU cannot recognise their non-agricultural GIs in return. There is currently no possibility to get
protection under the Geneva Act for EU producers who are currently unable to secure protection for
non-agricultural GIs under this Act while the EU has to reject other countries’ requests for such
protection16.
However, there are also counter arguments in relation to GI protection for non-agricultural products. It
has been argued that by incentivising traditional production patterns, GIs reduce innovation and
competition and therefore are not always helping the consumer. By overstressing the impact of “terroir”,
GI protection could limit the possibilities to benefit from potential global supply chains and hence
increase production costs. Furthermore, connection between quality and origin could be considered
exaggerated, in particular for non-agricultural products as the local nature of non-agricultural products is
more difficult to justify (mainly linked to human know-how and not to natural factors)17.
10
Economic aspects of GI protection at EU level for non-agricultural products in the EU (2020), p.72. In addition, the
annexes to this Study show that the lack of training of future generations is a barrier to entry e.g. to create Fonseca furniture
or Perpignan garnet, while certain sector had to create their own schools to retain specific skills e.g. for knitwear in
Albacete
11
Economic aspects of GI protection at EU level for non-agricultural products in the EU (2020), p. 26;
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c210fcc6-5463-11ea-aece-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-
PDF/source-120480323
12
Study on geographical indications protection for non-agricultural products in the internal market (2013), p. 71
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/14897
13
Study on geographical indications protection for non-agricultural products in the internal market (2013), p. 103:
Accordingly, a majority of producers (60%) reported a small loss of revenues due to infringements (below 5% of the
turnover), about 21% of the producers a loss between 5 and 30% and 12% of producers a loss between 30% and 50%
14
Cei et al. (2018), From geographical indications to rural development: a review of the economic effects of European Union
policy, p. 2 (with reference to Akerlof)
15
Economic aspects of GI protection at EU level for non-agricultural products in the EU (2020), p. 78
16
The EU cannot secure protection for EU non-agricultural GIs in third countries using the Lisbon/Geneva route because in
the absence of EU level protection to be granted to a GI, there can be no EU registration to start with in the international
system. The EU also has to refuse protection of third country non-agricultural GIs because such protection is not available
at EU level
17
See, for instance, Swedish Enterprise, Memorandum – Non-agr GI and Intellectual Property, 9 March 2020, at
https://www.svensktnaringsliv.se/bilder_och_dokument/4uy7mj_sngifinalpdf_1005341.html/BINARY/SNGIFinal
3
Basis for EU intervention (legal basis and subsidiarity check)
EU intervention could be based on Article 118 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which
establishes a legal basis for the creation of EU intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection
throughout the Union.
The problem cannot be solved by the Member States alone, as they are unlikely to establish equal
protection for authentic industrial and handicraft products throughout the EU. The lack of an EU-wide
protection regime makes it difficult or impossible to protect authentic products on the basis of national
GI titles18.
The problem would be effectively solved at EU level. An EU initiative could create a framework for
equal conditions of trade in all Member States.
This would also enable the EU to fully benefit from the opportunities offered by the international system of
appellations of origin and GIs.
B. Objectives and policy options
The general objectives of an EU initiative would be to:
explore the possibility of creating an internal market for geographically linked industrial and
handicraft products by establishing an efficient and unified regulatory framework for their
protection; and
maximise the opportunities for EU producers that arise from the EU’s accession to the Lisbon
system.
For producers, the specific objectives would be to:
improve the competitiveness of producers (often vulnerable SMEs) by facilitating a fair return on
their investment in high-quality and innovative products;
retain unique skills that otherwise disappear;
curb unfair competition from operators ‘free-riding’ on the reputation of such products; and
provide incentives to work together on product specifications ensuring high quality and
innovative production and marketing methods.
For individual regions, the specific objectives would include:
preserving economic activities and skilled jobs in often less-developed rural regions;
strengthening industrial ecosystems by providing incentives for investment in new production
capacities; and
promoting the preservation of know-how as an important part of EU heritage and thus adding to
the attractiveness of EU regions for tourism.
For consumers, the specific objective would be to:
provide reliable information on authentic geographically linked non-agricultural products.
The main policy options under consideration at this stage are the following:
do nothing;
voluntary measures (e.g. a Recommendation) to establish protection for non-agricultural products
at national level;
harmonise national protection systems for GIs for non-agricultural products;
18
See for example the contributions of the Association Pierre de Bourgogne and the Association Porcelaine de Limoges to the
2020 IP Action Plan Roadmap
4
create a single protection system for non-agricultural products based on a sui generis IP right at
EU level; and
reform the trade mark system so as to accommodate producers’ need to market their products as
guaranteeing a certain quality linked to their geographical origin, e.g. on the basis of certification
or collective trademarks.
C. Preliminary assessment of expected impacts
Likely economic impacts
The initiative will help producers seize opportunities to develop and market industrial and handicraft
products. In the longer term, EU-wide GI protection for non-agricultural products could yield an overall
increase in intra-EU trade of about 4.9-6.6% (€37.6-50 billion)19. Predictions are that a uniform system
could boost employment in the regions by 0.12-0.14% and create 284 000-338 000 new jobs in the EU as
a whole20.
Many of the producers affected are based in less-developed and/or rural regions. The initiative should
strengthen industrial ecosystems such as textiles and tourism by incentivising cooperation between
producers on the one hand and between producers and public authorities on the other. As a result,
less-developed and rural regions should particularly benefit.
As many of the operators are small producers of industrial and handicraft products, SMEs in particular
should benefit from the GI protection.
There will also be an impact on the EU’s international trade. Of the relevant non-agricultural GI-
products analysed in a 2013 study21, 16% were sold only on the national market, while 84% were sold
on EU and/or international markets. In particular, industry clusters such as knives/cutlery and high-end
products in luxury segments such as jewellery and precious stones are more likely to be export-
oriented22.
Likely social impacts
The initiative may give producers of authentic industrial and handicraft products incentives to train and
retain new recruits, and to take on skilled workers.
Many of the non-agricultural products concerned are part of the EU’s cultural heritage, which should
thus benefit from greater visibility and protection under a sui generis system of GI protection.
Likely environmental impacts
Many consumers attach importance to the impact of their consumption on the environment. The
initiative may give producers incentives to maintain high-quality and environmental-friendly
geographically linked products (using more advanced techniques e.g. to elaborate marble or textiles).
Likely impacts on fundamental rights
19
Geographical indications for non-agricultural products — Cost of non-Europe report, European Parliament (2019), p. 23
20
Geographical indications for non-agricultural products — Cost of non-Europe report, European Parliament (2019), p. 35
21
Study on geographical indications protection for non-agricultural products in the internal market (2013), p. 143.
GI protection for non-agricultural products — Cost of non-Europe report (2019), p. 14
22
Economic aspects of GI protection at EU level for non-agricultural products in the EU (2020), p. 69
5
The initiative may empower producers to protect their rights against unfair competition from operators
trying to ‘free-ride’ on the reputation of regional products. Therefore, it may have a positive impact on
fundamental rights such as the right to property and the right to an effective remedy.
Likely impacts on simplification and/or administrative burden
The initiative could give rise to a new regime of GIs with the status of IP rights. Registering and
enforcing IP rights entails costs and (administrative) burden for businesses and (national and EU)
authorities.
On the other hand, the burden could be offset by a one-stop procedure at EU level, offering blanket
protection and simplifying the acquisition and enforcement of IP protection throughout the EU.
D. Evidence base, data collection and ‘better regulation’ instruments
Impact assessment
An impact assessment will be prepared in Q3 2021 on the basis of available and forthcoming studies on
specific aspects of non-agricultural GI protection.
Evidence base and data collection
2009 Study on The protection of geographical indications for products other than wines, spirits,
agricultural products or foodstuffs (Insight consulting, OriGIn and Agridea, November 2009)
2013 Study on geographical indication protection at EU level for non-agricultural products in the
internal market
2014 Green paper and public consultation
2015 Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Extending geographical indication
protection to non-agricultural products
2019 Report on The cost of non—Europe on a sui-generis GI system for non-agricultural products
2019 Max Planck Institute analysis, Sui generis geographical indications for the protection of
non-agricultural products in the EU: Can the quality schemes fulfil the task?
2019 Study on Economic aspects of geographical indication protection at EU level for non-agricultural
products in the EU
Study on Monitoring and enforcement rules for geographical indication (GI) protection for
non-agricultural products in the EU (ongoing, publication in 2021)
Consultation of citizens and stakeholders
The main stakeholders affected are the producers of industrial and handicraft products (in particular
SMEs), individual regions, industry associations, SME intermediaries, cultural heritage associations,
consumers, the public at large and the Member States.
Stakeholders’ views have been gathered, in particular through a 2013 survey, a 2014 public consultation,
a 2016 workshop on the ‘contribution of non-agricultural geographically rooted products to regional
inclusive economic development’ and a 2019 workshop at which the Study on economic aspects of GI
protection at EU level for non-agricultural products in the EU was presented and discussed.
6
In the context of this impact assessment, an additional consultation of stakeholders will be carried out,
focusing on concrete options for the future. Replies will be possible in all 23 EU languages. The main
communication channel will be the “Have your say” portal on the Europa website.
DG GROW also considers organising targeted events (workshops or conferences) to discuss aspects of
the main policy options in more detail.
Will an Implementation plan be established?
Depending on the outcome of an impact assessment, the Commission will prepare an implementation
plan with regard to the implementation of the EU wide protection system in the Member States.
7
Patendiamet
Patendivolinike Koda
Meie 31.05.2021 nr 7-1/3604
Avalik konsultatsioon mittepõllumajanduslike
geograafiliste tähiste kaitse kohta EL-is
Lugupeetud huvirühmade esindajad
Euroopa Komisjon (edaspidi Komisjon) on algatanud avaliku konsultatsiooni mittepõllumajanduslike
geograafiliste tähiste (GT) kaitse kohta Euroopa Liidus, mis kestab kuni 22. juulini 2021 (leitav siin).
Geograafilised tähised on tootenimetused, mis on seotud toote geograafilise päritolu ja selle valmistaja
oskusteabega ning mida kaitstakse intellektuaalse omandi õigusega – näiteks Baltic Amber (Poola),
Antwerpi teemandid (Austria), Royal Copenhagen portselan (Taani), Rauma pits (Soome), Liffoli tool
(Prantsusmaa). Praegu on võimalik Euroopa Liidu ülese kehtivusega GT-na kaitsta üksnes
põllumajandusega seotud toodete nimetusi (nt veinid, toiduained). Seni ei ole loodud EL-i ülest
süsteemi mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de, s.o käsitöö ja tööstuskaupade nimetuste kaitsmiseks, mille
valmistamisel on kasutatud traditsioonilisi kohalikke oskusi või mis on valmistatud kohalikust
(toor)materjalist (levinumad kaubagrupid: portselan, keraamika, klaas; riided, jalanõud, peakatted;
ehitusmaterjalid; pits, tikandid; ehted; tekstiil; mööbel ja puitdekoratsioonid; noad, tööriistad).
Komisjon on juba aastaid kaalunud ka mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitse süsteemi vajalikkust,
korraldades muu hulgas uuringuid nii sellise süsteemi majanduslike kui ka õiguslike aspektide kohta
(viimati 2020. a veebruaris avaldatud majanduslike mõjude uuringu tulemused on leitavad siin; rohkem
infot on leitav Komisjoni veebilehel siin).
2020. aasta lõpus avaldatud intellektuaalse omandi tegevuskavas teatas Komisjon, et kaalub EL-is
mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitsmiseks tõhusa ja läbipaistva süsteemi loomist, tuginedes
põhjalikule mõjuhinnangule selle võimalike kulude ja kasutegurite kohta. Samal ajal avaldas Komisjon
ka teekaardi, milles kaardistas võimaliku EL algatuse eesmärgid, olulisemad mõjud ja peamised
poliitikavariandid (leitav siin, aga lisatud ka kirja manusena). Aprilli lõpus algatatud avalikus
konsultatsioonis kutsub Komisjon üles nii kodanikke ja organisatsioone kui ka avalikke asutusi
avaldama arvamust peamiste väljakutsete kohta, mida tuleks mõjuhinnangus käsitleda, samuti
võimalike poliitikavalikute ja nende mõjude kohta. Konsultatsiooni tulemused on sisendiks
mõjuhinnangu koostamisele. Praeguse info põhjal võib Komisjon avaldada seadusandliku algatuse
ettepaneku juba 2021. aasta lõpus.
Justiitsministeerium plaanib avalikule konsultatsioonile vastata, tehes seda eelnevalt Euroopa Liidu
koordinatsioonikogus heaks kiidetud seisukohtade põhjal. Sisendit palume ka teistelt
ministeeriumidelt. Väga oluliseks peame Eesti seisukohtade kujundamisel huvirühmade arvamusi,
kellel oleks võimaliku loodava süsteemiga kokkupuuteid mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de võimaliku
registreerijana, nendega kaitstud toodete tootja või kasutajana või muul viisil.
Eelnevast tulenevalt palume Teil esitada oma arvamus konsultatsioonis esitatud küsimuste
kohta, et saaksime sellega arvestada Eesti seisukohtade kujundamisel. Teie sisend on meile
Suur-Ameerika 1 / 10122 Tallinn / +372 620 8100 /
[email protected] / www.just.ee
Registrikood 70000898
väga väärtuslik ka edasistes diskussioonides mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitse teemal EL-is. Oma
arvamuse võite esitada erineval viisil:
a) esitades vastused kirjale lisatud dokumendis esitatud küsimustele (need hõlmavad
olulisemaid konsultatsiooni küsimustikus käsitletud teemasid)
b) esitades oma arvamuse EL-i ülese mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitse süsteemi vajalikkuse
ja sellise võimaliku süsteemi olulisemate tunnuste kohta vabas vormis
c) esitades oma arvamuse täidetud konsultatsiooniküsimustiku kujul (küsimustik on kirjale
lisatud)
Palume Teil esitada oma arvamus hiljemalt 16. juunil 2021 e-maili aadressile
[email protected].
Lugupidamisega
(allkirjastatud digitaalselt)
Heddi Lutterus
Asekantsler
Lisad:
1. Küsimustik arvamuse avaldamiseks (kasutamine vabatahtlik)
2. Euroopa Komisjoni avaliku konsultatsiooni küsimustik (kasutamine vabatahtlik)
3. Euroopa Komisjoni teekaart mittepõllumajanduslike geograafiliste tähiste kaitse kohta
Lisaadressaadid:
Eesti Advokatuuri IP/IKT komisjon
Eesti Juristide Liit
Tartu Ülikooli õigusteaduskond
Tallinna Tehnikaülikooli õiguse instituut
Eesti Kaubandus-Tööstuskoda
Eesti Ehitusmaterjalide Tootjate Liit
Eesti Kaupmeeste Liit
Eesti Keemiatööstuse Liit
Eesti Mööblitootjate Liit
Eesti Plastitööstuse Liit
Eesti Puitmajaliit
Eesti Rõiva- ja Tekstiililiit
Eesti Trüki- ja Pakenditööstuse Liit
Eesti Väike- ja Keskmiste Ettevõtjate Assotsiatsioon
Ravimitootjate Liit
Tarbijakaitse ja Tehnilise Järelevalve Amet
Eesti Mäetööstuse Ettevõtete Liit
Eesti Rahvakunsti ja Käsitöö Liit
Gea Lepik
[email protected]
Huvirühmade kaasamise küsimustik Eesti seisukohtade kujundamiseks avalikule konsultatsioonile
vastamiseks seoses mittepõllumajanduslike geograafiliste tähiste kaitsega Euroopa Liidus
Eelkõige palume Teie arvamust järgmistes küsimustes:
1. Kas oskate tuua näiteid Eesti käsitöö- ja tööstuskaupade nimetustest, mille tootmine on
seotud kohaliku oskusteabe või materjalidega ning mis võiksid seega olla geograafilise
tähisena (GT) kaitstavad? (nt Haapsalu ravimuda, Muhu tikand, Saaremaa sepad, Setu pits,
Wendre tekstiil)
2. Milliseid tunnuseid seostate kaupadega, mille nimetus on kaitstud GT-na? Nt toote kallim hind;
toote kõrgem kvaliteet; toote tooraine pärineb konkreetsest regioonist; toode on käsitsi tehtud; toode
põhineb kohalikel teadmistel/oskustel; toode ei ole võltsing.
3. Kuidas Eesti tootjad praegu mittepõllumajanduslikke tooteid (sh käsitöö ja tööstuskaubad)
ning nende nimetusi kaitsevad (kaubamärgiga, geograafilise tähisega, muul viisil) ja kas senistel
kaitsevõimalustel on puudujääke?
4. Kas näete negatiivseid tagajärgi sellel, et EL-is on mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitse
praegu killustunud (osades riikides on riigisisene GT-de kaitse süsteem olemas, teistes mitte; EL
ülest süsteemi ei ole)? Eelkõige seoses järgnevaga: tootjate motivatsioon investeerida geograafilise
asukohaga seotud toodetesse ja unikaalsete oskuste säilitamisesse; turismisektori ja
kultuuripärandi arendamise potentsiaali ärakasutamine regioonides, kus autentseid tooteid
toodetakse; müüjate võimalus eksitada tarbijaid, esitades kolmandates riikides valmistatud tooteid
autentsetena; tarbijate raskused autentsete toodete tuvastamisel.
5. Kas ja kui suur probleem on Teie hinnangul see, et tulenevalt EL-is mittepõllumajanduslike
GT-de kaitsmise süsteemi puudumisest ei saa EL-i tootjad praegu kasu EL-i liitumisest
Lissaboni lepingu Genfi redaktsiooniga, mis võimaldaks kaitsta mittepõllumajanduslikke GT-
sid ka EL-i välistes riikides?
6. Kas Teie hinnangul oleks vajalik / põhjendatud luua EL-ülene süsteem
mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitsmiseks?
7. Millised on peamised asjaolud, mis soodustaksid / takistaksid ettevõtjatel taolise süsteemi
kasutamist, s.o oma mittepõllumajanduslike toodete nimetuste kaitsmist GT-na? (vt
näidisloetelu konsultatsiooni küsimuste 12 ja 13 juures)
8. Millist Komisjoni pakutud poliitikavarianti eelistate:
1) Tegevusetus – praeguse olukorra säilitamine
2) Vabatahtlikud meetmed – soovitus EL tasandil, millega tehakse liikmesriikidele ja tootjatele
ettepanek leppida kokku vabatahtlikes meetmetes, et sertifitseerida käsitöö- ja tööstustoodete
päritolu
3) Ühtlustamine – EL direktiiv, mis seab kindlad eesmärgid ja nõuded mittepõllumajanduslike GT-
de kaitsmiseks (nt kaitsetähtaeg, olulisemad menetluslikud aspektid), jättes liikmesriikide
otsustada, kuidas need eesmärgid saavutatakse
4) EL-ülene iseseisev (sui generis) kaitsesüsteem – määrus, millega luuakse võimalus kaitsta
käsitöö- ja tööstustooteid EL-ülese õigusjõuga GT-ga
5) EL-ülene GT-de süsteem käsitöö- ja tööstustoodete kaitseks, mis seotakse olemasoleva
põllumajanduslike GT-de kaitse süsteemiga
6) Kaubamärgiõiguse reform – EL kaubamärgiõiguse reform, mille tulemusena käsitöö- ja
tööstustoodete tootjatel oleks võimalik taotleda kaitset tähisele, mis garanteerib toote teatud
kvaliteedi tulenevalt selle seosest kindla geograafilise regiooniga, nt põhinedes
sertifitseerimismärkidel
9. Kuidas hindate võimaliku EL-ülese mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitse süsteemi loomise
mõjusid (positiivseid/negatiivseid), eelkõige ekspordivõimekusele, konkurentsile,
konkurentsivõimele, tarbijatele, kultuuripärandile, tööturule, keskkonnale, innovatsioonile, tootjatele,
avalikele asutustele, regioonidele, turismile?
10. Kas võimalik EL-ülene mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitse süsteem peaks laienema
kõikidele mittepõllumajanduslikele kaupadele või ainult teatud kaubakategooriatele?
11. Kuidas võiks olla määratletud seos, mis peab GT kaitse saamiseks esinema kaupade ja
nende geograafilise päritolu vahel:
1) kaupade teatud kvaliteet, maine või muud omadused tulenevad peamiselt nende geograafilisest
päritolust;
2) kaupade teatud kvaliteet, maine või muud omadused tulenevad peamiselt nende geograafilisest
päritolust; ja vähemalt üks tootmisetappidest toimub määratletud geograafilises piirkonnas;
3) kaupade kvaliteet või omadused tulenevad peamiselt või eranditult konkreetsest geograafilisest
piirkonnast koos selle olemuslike loodus- ja inimteguritega; ja kõik tootmisetapid toimuvad
määratletud geograafilises piirkonnas;
4) kaupade kvaliteet või omadused tulenevad peamiselt või eranditult konkreetsest toorainest; ja
kõik tootmisetapid toimuvad määratletud geograafilises piirkonnas.
12. Kas EL-ülene mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitse süsteem peaks võimaldama kaitset ka
GT-dele või nimedele, mis on juba kaitstud riigisiseselt?
13. Mitmest astmest peaks EL mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de registreerimise menetlus
koosnema?
1) Ühest: hallatakse EL tasandil
2) Ühest: hallatakse riigisisesel tasandil
3) Kahest: esmalt riigisisene tasand, seejärel EL-i tasand (nagu on praegu põllumajanduslike GT-
de puhul)
14. Millist teavet peaks sisaldama mittepõllumajandusliku GT spetsifikatsioon? (vt näidisloetelu
küsimuse nr 22 juures)
15. Kes peaks EL-ülese kehtivusega mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitse süsteemi puhul
tegelema kontrollimisega (verifitseerimisega), s.o tagama, et kaup vastab valmistamise
etapis GT-ga kaitstud tootelt nõutud tehnilisele spetsifikatsioonile? Kes peaks kandma
kontrollimise kulud?
1) Avalik asutus
2) Tootjad või tootjate ühendused
3) Avalik asutus ja tootjad või tootjate ühendused
16. Kes peaks EL-ülese kehtivusega mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de kaitse süsteemi puhul
tegelema seirega, s.o kontrollima tähise kasutamist pärast seda, kui kaup on turule lastud?
Kes peaks kandma seire kulud?
1) Avalik asutus
2) Tootjad või tootjate ühendused
3) Avalik asutus ja tootjad või tootjate ühendused
17. Kuidas peaks toimuma EL-üleselt kaitstud mittepõllumajanduslike GT-de jõustamine:
1) Spetsiaalse GT-de jõustamise süsteemi kaudu
2) Üldise intellektuaalomandi õiguste jõustamise süsteemi kaudu (nt üldine tsiviilõigus, EL direktiiv
2004/48/EÜ, tollimeetmete kohaldamine)
3) Muude jõustamisreeglite (nt ebaausa konkurentsi reeglite) kaudu