study on the protection of geographical indications for products
TRANSCRIPT
1
Study on the protection of
geographical indications for products other than wines, spirits, agricultural products or foodstuffs.
November 2009
This study was commissioned by the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission. The views expressed herein are those of the Contractor and do not represent
any official views of the European Commission.
2
Project team
Team Leader: David THUAL, Insight Consulting
Senior Economist: Dominique BARJOLLE, Agridea
Legal Experts: Massimo VITTORI, oriGIn, and Erik THÉVENOD-MOTTET, Agridea
Field experts: Luis BERENGUER, Chao CAI, Edyta CALKA, Gail E. EVANS, Ivan IVANOV, Irina KIREEVA, Barna KOVACS, Sobad KUMAR, Marianne LEVIN, Fanny LOSSY, Anna PERRET, Pier Maria SACCANI, Fernando Henrique SCHWANKE, Ana SOEIRO, Katerina STROSSOVA, Talis TISENKOPFS, Hielke VAN DER MEULEN, Dana VELEBOVA, Daniela Ida ZANDONA.
3
TABLE OF CONTENT OF THE FINAL STUDY
Executive summary ..................................................................................................................5
1. Non agricultural GIs in the EU and at the International level..............................................10
1.1 Geographical Indications in the International Framework.............................................10
1.1.1. Definition and legal protection of GIs ....................................................................10
1.1.2. A long history of legal protection of GIs at the international level .........................11
1.1.3. A wide definition of GIs at the international level ..................................................16
1.2. Non agricultural Geographical Indications in the European framework: a fragmented approach.............................................................................................................................17
1.2.1. Non agricultural GI products protected through different legal schemes at the national level ...................................................................................................................17
1.2.2. No specific scheme at the EU level for the protection of non agricultural GI products ..........................................................................................................................18
1.2.3. Shortcomings of a fragmented EU approach on the protection of non agricultural GIs...................................................................................................................................20
2. A tentative assessment of the economic value and presentation of the legal protection systems of non agricultural GIs in the EU and in some key third countries ...........................22
2.1. General overview.........................................................................................................22
2.2. Non agricultural GIs in the EU .....................................................................................27
2.2.1. Overview ...............................................................................................................27
2.2.2. Case studies .........................................................................................................28
2.3. Non agricultural GIs in third countries..........................................................................82
2.3.1. Overview ...............................................................................................................82
2.3.2. Case studies .........................................................................................................83
3. Comparative analysis of the protection systems available to non agricultural Geographical Indications ............................................................................................................................115
3.1. Economic facts and comparative assessment...........................................................116
3.1.1. A sector composed mostly of SMEs but GI-products can be pillars of employment in some regions.............................................................................................................116
3.1.2. Relatively low economic value and importance of export markets for GI products......................................................................................................................................118
4
3.1.3. High quality products with collective promotion ..................................................120
3.1.4. GI products face medium to strong competition and have interest in protection 122
3.2. Comparative assessment of the legal instruments used for the protection of non agricultural GI products.....................................................................................................126
3.2.1. Legal protection is very diverse, often recent, fragmented and limited with regard to its geographical scope ..............................................................................................126
3.2.1.1. Protection at the national level: different legal tools used sometimes in combination ...............................................................................................................126
3.2.1.2. Very few products enjoy protection at the EU level ......................................127
3.2.1.3. Very few products are protected at the International level ...........................127
3.2.2. Extent and costs of the protection: a patchwork of situations .............................130
3.2.2.1. Extent of the protection.................................................................................130
3.2.2.2. Duration of the protection .............................................................................136
3.2.2.3. The costs of protection vary from one country to the other ..........................136
3.2.3. A very diverse situation with regard to the structure and the production requirements .................................................................................................................139
3.2.3.1. In 9 of the 28 products studied, there is no organisation of producers. ........139
3.2.3.2. 21 of the 28 products have a codified collective standard of production with clear rules regarding the production ..........................................................................140
3.2.3.3. Only over half of the products studied have a certification system in place (15 out of 28). ..................................................................................................................140
4. Conclusions......................................................................................................................142
Annex - List of the 400 products identified in the 1st phase of the study ..............................149
5
Executive summary
Geographical Indications (GIs) are one type of intellectual property rights. A geographical
indication is an indication which identifies a good as originating in a specific place (country,
region or locality) where a given quality, reputation or other characteristics of the good is
essentially attributable to its geographical origin1.
There is a long history of GI protection in some countries, in particular in Europe, as well as
at the International level through International treaties dating back to the end of the 19th
century.
Although a lot of the most well-known GI products come from the agricultural sectors, many
non agricultural GI products from around the world are protected through different legal
instruments.
Over the years, the European Union (EU) has adopted a comprehensive legal framework for
the protection of intellectual property rights. With regard to the protection of GIs, the EU has
set up a sui generis system for the protection of GIs in the 27 Member States that is limited in
scope to wines, spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs. The protection of GIs is at the
core of the EU agricultural policy and covers a wide variety of products from both EU
Member States and third countries. At the EU level, the sui generis protection of GIs dates
back to 1970 for wines, 1989 for spirits and 1992 for other agricultural and foodstuff products.
As far as the protection of non agricultural GI products2 at the EU level is concerned,
producers can rely on the Community trade mark (CTM) regime which allows for the
protection of geographical names under certain conditions. It must be stressed that the CTM
is also available to agricultural products.
The Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission has commissioned this
study, the purpose of which was:
• To identify 15 to 20 economically most significant EU non-agricultural products that
enjoy protection at Member State level, either via a sui generis GI protection system,
1 - This legal definition is provided for by article 22.1 of the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, known as the TRIPs Agreement. See: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm 2 - In the context of this study, non agricultural GI products are traditional typical locally-made products which can be regarded as meeting the definition of geographical indication laid down in article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
6
specific laws and/or case-law, or through registration of a collective or certification
trademark;
• To identify 5 to 10 economically most significant non-agricultural products from third
countries including China, Russia, India, Switzerland and Brazil, protected at national
level, either via a sui generis GI protection system, specific laws and/or case-law, or
through registration of a collective or certification trademark;
• To identify the relevant legal instruments used for the protection of such products;
• To collect economic and market data related to the products;
• To assess the main differences, strengths and weaknesses in the protection systems
identified, including positive aspects and difficulties in protection and enforcement of
rights.
A network of 17 national experts was set up covering 21 Member States and five third
countries: Brazil, China, India, Russia and Switzerland. The methodology used was based on
a four step and funnel approach. In the first phase, the experts identified the most significant
non-agricultural GI products from the EU and from relevant third countries, including the legal
frameworks available for their protection. The second phase focused on the selection of the
most significant products. All the information gathered during the first phase were inserted in
a database (Excel document) that includes the following elements: the name of the product,
the origin of the product, the type of legal tool providing protection and the economic value of
the product. Based on this information, we identified the most important products from an
economic perspective per country (up to three per country). The database and a proposed
list of products to be studied in more details were submitted to the European Commission for
discussion. In defining the list, we also tried to strike a balance between the different types of
protection and the products covered in order to have a wide spectrum with regard to the
products and protection tools. At a meeting with DG Trade representatives, it was agreed
that 28 products - 18 products from 13 EU Member States and 10 products from the five third
countries – would be analyzed in the next phase. In the third phase, the experts conducted
in-depth case studies of the 28 selected products. In the last phase of this study, the team
leader, in association with the legal consultants and the economist, conducted a detailed
comparative analysis of the main elements provided by the experts. They assessed in
particular the cost-effectiveness of the legal protection enjoyed at national level and in third
countries, the economic performance of the selected products and the importance and
impact of the protection system when looking at the sales.
This document provides an overview of the information gathered by the experts. It also
contains a tentative assessment of the economic value and a presentation of the legal
7
protection systems of the identified non agricultural GIs in the EU, Brazil, China, India,
Russia and Switzerland. This report includes a comparative economic and legal analysis of
the protection systems available to non agricultural GIs and draws out some conclusions on
the strengths and weaknesses of the protection systems identified.
The non agricultural GI sector is mostly composed of micro, small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs). The general economic trend shows that most of the EU and the third
country products covered by this study experience growth and have export rate which tends
to increase, Europe and the USA being the most favourite export countries. Looking at the
number of jobs provided by the non agricultural GI products studied, it is clear that some are
economically important for their region of origin. A lot of producers use a geographical name
on their label and engage in collective promotional activities using a common logo.
Most of the products studied face strong competition from other goods, as well as from
counterfeit products produced on their national market and/or abroad. Many producers of
these non agricultural traditional typical locally-made products have expressed concerns
regarding the current economic downturn. Many suffer from the current crisis and the future
of some of these products is in jeopardy.
As far as the intellectual property (IP) protection of the products covered by this study is
concerned, only a limited number of producers have invested in the protection and
enforcement of their collective rights. However, it would appear that IP protection is
becoming an increasingly important issue for the producers of non agricultural products who
consider that one of their main challenges is to secure a better legal protection at the national
and the international level.
The study shows that the legal protection differs from one product to another and from one
country to the other.
In the five third countries covered, it is interesting to note that Brazil, India and Russia
provide for the protection of non agricultural GI products through a sui generis GI system,
while the Chinese products are protected under both the trademark law and the sui generis
GI system. In Switzerland, GIs are protected in a specific way, without any registration, under
the federal law on the protection of trademark and indications of source. Only one Chinese
product and the two Swiss products have secured protection outside of their country of
origin.
8
In the EU, there is no harmonised approach for the protection of non-agricultural GI products.
The legal frameworks used in the Member States for their protection differ quite significantly.
However, most of the products studied benefit from trademark protection that is 15 out of 18.
Only two products are protected under a sui generis GI system and one product is protected
under the law on unfair competition. 4 products combine different protection tools: sui generis
and trademark protection, trademark and specific law. Furthermore, this study shows that 13
products are protected outside of their country of origin, although only three products have
secured protection at the EU level (in all the Member States).
A comparative analysis of the legal instruments used for the protection of the non-agricultural
products in the Member States and in the five third countries shows differences with regard
to the scope, the costs and the length of protection.
In general, the protection of non-agricultural GI products granted under specific laws and sui
generis GI systems goes beyond the protection available through trademark laws. In
particular, several sui generis GI systems and specific laws provide for protection by public
authorities, direct protection against translation, against the use of the name with delocalizers
and expressions and against genericity. In addition, under specific laws and sui generis GI
systems, protection can be granted for an unlimited period of time, although this is not
systematic (see the Indian and Russian examples). Finally, under trademark laws, the
registration is made against the payment of a fee while protection granted under specific law
or sui generis GI systems can be free of costs.
With regard to the protection of non agricultural GIs in the EU, against the picture of
fragmented Member States protection schemes, producers must choose the trademark
route, should they wish to secure protection at the EU Community level via a single
instrument. This is possible provided that some conditions are met under the Community
trademark regime.
At the international level, three of the 28 products studied are protected in the 26 countries
that are contracting parties of the Lisbon Agreement for the protection of appellations of
origin3. Three other products have used the Madrid system of international registration of
marks to secure protection in third countries. The Lisbon Agreement route costs 500 CHF;
the Madrid system is more costly for producers. However, protection via the Madrid system 3 - Algeria, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, France, Gabon, Georgia, Haiti, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Togo, Tunisia. 5 countries have signed the Agreement in 1958 and 1959 but have not ratified it: Greece, Morocco, Republic of Moldova, Spain and Turkey.
9
can arguably be more efficient as it allows producers to secure protection on important
markets not covered by the Lisbon Agreement, in particular in the USA and the Member
States not contracting parties to the Lisbon Agreement. Protection has also been granted to
some of the non agricultural GI products studied in the context of bilateral agreements signed
mostly by European countries.
It has proved difficult to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of each legal instrument with
regard to the enforcement of rights as our experts found very little information available on
this point. Many producers explained that they are confronted with counterfeit products and
some reported serious economic loss due to counterfeiting. However, only a few of them
have been tackling this issue through legal actions. Actions undertaken have generally relied
on the trademark protection, especially when confronted with abuses outside of the country
of origin.
Most of the producers of non agricultural GI products contacted in the context of this study
have a limited understanding of the differences that exist between the legal instruments
available for the protection of their products. A limited number of them have sought
protection of their IPR beyond their country of origin. For most of them, the protection of their
intellectual property rights appears to be a relatively new priority. Their main concern is to be
able to secure a cost effective and wide protection of their GI name.
Many (90% of the producers covered by the study) see the existing EU legal framework for
the protection of Protected Denomination of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications
for wines, spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs as an interesting route. They consider
that such an instrument could (1) provide them with an effective EU wide protection system
and (2) be used as a promotional tool, allowing them to better position their products on the
market as typical products rooted in a specific territory.
In conclusion, the economic and social impact of some of the non agricultural GI products in
the EU, and in Brazil, China, India, Russia and Switzerland can be significant. Intellectual
property protection is becoming an increasingly important issue for producers and is
becoming an important element of their development strategy. There is an interest from
producers for an EU wide system of protection of non agricultural GIs that would be efficient
and cost effective.
10
1. Non agricultural GIs in the EU and at the International level 1.1 Geographical Indications in the International Framework
Local and national laws protecting the geographical origin of products have existed for
hundreds of years in Europe. With the expansion of international trade during the 19th
century, Geographical Indication (GI) protection was included in international agreements on
the protection of intellectual property. This protection does not distinguish between
agricultural and non-agricultural GIs.
1.1.1. Definition and legal protection of GIs
Geographical Indications are one type of intellectual property rights. According to the World
Trade Organization Agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPs), Geographical Indications are indications which identify a good as originating in the
territory of a [WTO] Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality,
reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical
origin4.
GIs are different from an “indication of source” (e.g. “Made in Belgium”) which merely refers
to the origin of a product and bears no requirements, nor expectations regarding specific
characteristics linked to the origin of the product.
The term “Geographical Indications” covers different concepts such as the appellation of
origin, a term which has been defined at the international level in the Lisbon Agreement for
the Protection of Appellation of Origin (see point 1.1.2. below). Appellation of origin is a type
of GI which has a strong link between the origin of the product and it characteristics: “the
quality and characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical
environment, including natural and human factors” 5.
Geographical indications are mostly geographical names, such as Champagne, Parma Ham,
Scotch Whisky, Porto, etc. However, GIs may also be non geographical names that are
associated to a specific geographical origin, such as Feta.
4 - See article 22 TRIPs available at : http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04b_e.htm#3 5 - See article 2 of the Lisbon Agreement available at: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/lisbon/en/docs/lisbon_agreement.pdf
11
In some countries, GI protection also covers services, for example in Azerbaijan, Bahrain,
Croatia, Singapore, etc6.
Geographical indications are protected in international treaties and national laws under a
wide range of concepts which include laws against unfair competition and/or consumer
protection laws, passing off, trademark laws (collective or certification marks), and special
laws for the protection of geographical indications or appellations of origin (also known as sui
generis GI protection systems).
The extent of legal protection offered to GIs varies in accordance to the legal instrument
available at the international and/or national levels. In essence, unauthorized parties may not
use a geographical indication in respect of products that do not originate in the place
designated by that indication. Some legal framework provide for the protection of GIs by the
public authorities, a procedure by which governments take responsibility on the enforcement
of the law. Applicable sanctions range from court injunctions preventing the unauthorized use
to the destruction of the counterfeit good and the payment of damages and fines or, in
serious cases, imprisonment.
1.1.2. A long history of legal protection of GIs at the international level
International protection of geographical indications started with the Paris Convention on the Protection of Intellectual Property of 1883,7 which included “indications of source or
appellations of origin” as separate objects of protection. The Paris Convention identifies
geographical indications as a separate intellectual property right, but does not clearly define
this concept. It provides for some remedies in respect to unlawful use of indications of source
on goods, meaning that no indication of source may be used if it refers to a geographical
area from which the products in question do not originate.
The 1891 Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source of Goods8 is specific to indications of source, as it was the first international
agreement to provide specific rules for the repression of false and deceptive indications of
source. The Madrid Agreement did not add much to the protection already given by the Paris
6 - For an presentation of GI protection systems around the world, please see the European Commission Handbook on GIs available at: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/pr270607_en.htm 7 The Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property was agreed in 1883 and complemented by the Madrid Protocol of 1891. As of 5 May 2007 the Paris Convention had 171 signatory states. See on www.wipo.org, “Treaties”, “Intellectual Property Protection Treaties”, “Paris Convention”. 8 The Madrid Agreement had a membership of 35 signatory states as of 5 May 2007. See on www.wipo.org, “Treaties”, “Intellectual Property Protection Treaties”, “Madrid Agreement”.
12
Convention, but it extended protection to deceptive indications of source in addition to false
indications. A deceptive indication of source can be the true name of the place where the
good originates from, but nevertheless confusing the purchaser in respect to the true origin
and quality of the good.
The 1951 Stresa Convention9 provided protection to designations of origin only to one
specific category of products, i.e. cheese. This Convention attracted a limited number of
signatories (only some European countries). It established for the first time the protection of
the use of appellations of origin and denominations of products. This principle was confirmed
in 1958 by the signature of the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin
and their International Registration.10
The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin (AOs) of 1958 was
the first specific international treaty providing for the protection of AOs and establishing
International Register for their protection. The World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) started work on the preparation of a new international treaty for the protection of
appellations of origin and indications of source in 1974. However, when the work on the draft
treaty was terminated, it became obvious that further progress on GIs would require the
revision of provisions of the Paris Convention. In 1975, WIPO issued a proposal for a Model Law on geographical indications.11 A model law is not a draft international treaty. It is
intended for use in national law as a standard or template, which can be adjusted or adapted
to local conditions.
The most significant step in international protection of GIs came through the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPs) which
has a specific section dedicated to GIs. This was the first multilateral text dealing with GIs as
such.
The conclusion of the Uruguay Round of negotiations has provided for the incorporation of
intellectual property rules in the multilateral trading system. The TRIPS Agreement is a
minimum standards agreement, which allows Members to provide more extensive protection
of intellectual property rights if they so wish. WTO Members are left free to determine the 9 International Convention on the Use of Appellations of Origin and Denominations of Cheeses, http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/i8/0.817.142.1.fr.pdf 10 The Agreement for the Protection of Appellation of Origin and their International registration was concluded in Lisbon on 31 October 1958. As of 5 May 2007, there were 26 states party to the Agreement. See on www.wipo.org “Treaties”, “Intellectual Property Protection Treaties”, “Lisbon Agreement”. 11 Model Law for Developing Countries on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications, 1975, PJ/91/2, January 1975. WIPO Monograph “Model Law for Developing Countries on Appellations of Origin and Indications of Source”. Geneva, 1975, Sign. 6/W.
13
appropriate method of implementing the provisions of the Agreement within their own legal
system and practice.
Protection of geographical indications required under the TRIPS Agreement is defined in two
articles (articles 22 and 23) while exceptions are provided for in article 24.
Article 22 of the TRIPs Agreement provides a definition of geographical indications (§1) and
certain minimum standards of protection for all GIs:
• WTO Members must provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent both (a)
the use of any means in the designation or presentation of a good that indicates or
suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the
true place of origin in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical
origin of the good and (b) any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within
the meaning of Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention.
• WTO Members shall, ex officio or at the request of an interested party, refuse or
invalidate the registration of a trademark which contains or consists of a GI with
respect to goods not originating in the territory indicated but if use of the indication in
the trademark for such good in that Member is of such a nature as to mislead the
public as to the true place of origin
Here, the central element is either unfair competition or that the public should not be misled
as to the geographical origin of the good.
Article 23 provides for an additional protection of GIs for wines and spirits:
• Legal means must be provided to prevent the use of a GI identifying wines and spirits
not originating in the place indicated by the GI, even where the true origin of the
goods is indicated (and, therefore, arguably not misleading the public) or the GI is
used in translation or accompanied by expressions such as “kind”, “type”, “style”,
“imitation” or the like
• The registration of a trademark which contains or consists of a GI identifying wines or
spirits, must be refused or invalidated ex officio or at the request of an interested party
with respect to wines or spirits not having this origin
• In case of homonymous GIs for wines, protection must be accorded to each indication
provided that consumers are not misled and producers are equally treated
Article 23.4 provides that negotiations should be undertaken concerning the establishment of
a multilateral system of notification and registration of GIs for wines eligible for protection in
14
those Members participating in the system. The scope of the negotiations has been extended
to cover spirits12.
Article 24 sets out requirements for future negotiations and exceptions:
• A standstill clause: article 24.3 states that WTO Members shall not diminish the
protection of GIs that existed immediately prior to the date of entry into force of the
WTO Agreement.
• A genericity exception: article 24.6 provides that nothing shall require a Member to
apply its provisions in respect to a GI of any other Member with respect to goods or
services for which the relevant indication is identical with the term customary in
common language as the common name of such goods or services in the territory of
that Member.
• Two grandfather clauses:
o Article 24.5 states that when a trademark has been acquired or registered in
good faith before the date of application of the TRIPS Agreement or before the
GI was protected in its country of origin, measures to implement GIs in the
TRIPS Agreement shall not prejudice eligibility for or the validity of registration
or the right to use a trademark, on grounds that such trademark is identical to
the GI.
o Article 24.4 refers specifically to wines and spirits. It provides that nothing
prevents a Member to continue the use of a particular GI of another Member
identifying wines or spirits in connection with goods or services by any of its
nationals who have used that GI in a continuous manner with regard to the
same goods or services in the territory of that Member either (a) for at least 10
years preceding 15 April, 1994 or (b) in good faith preceding that date.
• The right to use a person’s name: article 24.8 recognizes the right of any person to
use, in the course of trade, his name or the name of his predecessors in business,
except where such name is used in such a manner as to mislead the public.
• An extinction clause: article 24.9 states that in order to be protected in a third country,
a GI must be protected or in use in its country of origin.
12 - See WTO Doha Declaration’s paragraph 18: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.htm
15
• Conditions for resolving GI and trademark issues: article 24.7 provides that any
request made in connection with the use or registration of a trademark must be
presented within five years of the adverse use of the protected GI has become
generally known or after the date of registration of the trademark. In addition, the GI
should not be used or registered in bad faith.
With regard to international negotiations, article 24.1 states that WTO Members availing
themselves of the use of these exceptions must be willing to enter into negotiations about
their continued application to individual geographical indications (paragraph 1).
In addition, article 41 of the TRIPs Agreement provides that WTO Members shall ensure that
enforcement procedures are available under their law to permit effective action against any
act of infringement of intellectual property rights, while stipulating in particular that they may
not be used to create trade barriers. In addition, article 42 of the TRIPs Agreement provides
that WTO Members must ensure that fair and equitable civil judicial proceedings are
available to right holders to enforce their intellectual property rights.
As explained above, the TRIPs Agreement has a built-in agenda on GIs: article 23.4 provides
for the negotiation on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and
registration of GIs for wines and spirits (so-called multilateral register). The Fourth WTO
Ministerial meeting, held in Doha in November 2001 identified two issues relating to the
protection of GIs:
• the extension of the higher level of protection for wines and spirits to other goods;
and
• the establishment of a multilateral register of GIs for wines and spirits.
Both issues are still being negotiated. With regard to the extension of the additional
protection to all GI products, there are clearly two opposing positions: those who are
supporting the extension, arguing that this issue is part of the single undertaking of the Doha
Development Agenda (DDA) of the WTO, and those against it who consider that this issue
does not fall within the scope of the DDA. As to the negotiations on the multilateral register,
several proposals have been tabled with the WTO,13 but no progress has been achieved on
the content and legal value of the proposed system of registration yet.
13 - Proposals on multilateral register are from the EU, a US led group of countries and Hong Kong, China: All documents can be found at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/gi_background_e.htm#wines_spirits.
16
Bilateral agreements have also been instrumental in improving GI protection at the
international level with the EU leading the way. The EU has first concluded bilateral
agreements on wines and spirits and is now introducing GI provisions in almost all of its
bilateral agreements. Other countries have followed suit, such as Switzerland.
1.1.3. A wide definition of GIs at the international level
International treaties do not limit the scope of the protection of geographical indications to
specific types of products. The Paris Convention, the Lisbon and Madrid Agreements as well
as the TRIPS Agreement clearly apply to all products: agricultural and non-agricultural ones.
Article 1(2) of the Paris Convention states: “The protection of industrial property has as its
object patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names,
indications of source or appellation of origin, and the repression of unfair competition”.
Article 2 of the Lisbon agreement covers all types of products that can be protected as
appellations of origin: “appellation of origin” means the geographical name of a country,
region, or locality, which serves to designate a product originating therein, the quality and
characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment,
including natural and human factors”14.
Article 1 of the 1891 Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive
Indications of Source of Goods covers all goods15.
Article 22 of the TRIPs Agreement which defines geographical indications refers to “a good”
and does not exclude any type of products from its coverage.
As described in the second part of this study, a large number of non agricultural products
have been protected as geographical indications for a long time at the national and
sometimes international level. The Lisbon Agreement’s register offers concrete examples of
protected non agricultural GI products16.
14 - See article 2 of the Lisbon Agreement available at: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/lisbon/en/docs/lisbon_agreement.pdf 15 - http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/madrid/trtdocs_wo032.html 16 - see : http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/search/lisbon/search-struct.jsp
17
1.2. Non agricultural Geographical Indications in the European framework: a fragmented approach
1.2.1. Non agricultural GI products protected through different legal schemes at the national level
Non agricultural GI products covered by this study enjoy protection in the Member States
level through different legal instruments. They are protected under consumer protection
legislation and unfair competition laws, by specific or regional laws, through the trademark
system or under sui generis GI systems. Some of these products are protected under a
combination of legal instruments that always includes trademark registration.
All of the products studied benefit from a minimum protection under their national consumer
protection and/or unfair competition laws. Koniakow Laces from Poland is the only product
studied that is protected only under the Law against unfair competition. The extent of this
protection is often limited and requires producers to demonstrate that consumers are
deceived and/or producers are victims of unfair competition.
Two products, the Solingen knives and Bordado da Madeira, are protected through a specific
national law. Both of them are also protected under trademark law.
In a few countries, non agricultural GI products are protected under a sui generis GI
protection system. These systems have been in place for some time - 1947 in Portugal, 1966
in the Czech Republic and 1967 in Hungary.
15 out of 18 EU non agricultural products studied are protected under their national
trademark law, sometimes in combination with other instruments. They enjoy protection
either as word or figurative marks, collective marks17 and/or certification marks18. The
Hungarian non agricultural GI product is protected as a trademark ; the Austrian product is
also protected as a trademark in combination with another name ; the Dutch product is
protected as a certification mark but other individual marks containing the name Texel have
been registered; the British product is protected as a certification mark. All the other products
are covered by a collective mark protection. 17 Collective marks are owned by an association whose members use the mark to identify themselves with a level of quality and other requirements set by the association. 18 - Certification marks are given for compliance with defined standards, but are not confined to any membership
18
As it will be shown in the third part of this study, the very diverse legal protection means that
the extent and costs of the protection granted in the 27 Member States to non agricultural GI
products vary significantly.
1.2.2. No specific scheme at the EU level for the protection of non agricultural GI products
First, it must be noted that some of the products studied have secured protection in 8
Member States that are contracting parties to the Lisbon Agreement: Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. In addition, some non
agricultural GI products are protected in other Member States through bilateral agreements.
In the EU, agricultural products benefit from a Community sui generis GI protection system. It
is available to wines, spirits and other agricultural products and foodstuffs19 under the
following Regulations:
• wines (Council Regulation (EC) 479/2008 of 29 April 2008)20
• spirits (Regulation (EC) 110/2008 of 15 January 2008)21
• agricultural products and foodstuffs (Council Regulation (EC) 510/06 of 20
March 2006)22
Through these regulations, the wines, spirits and other agricultural products and foodstuffs
GI products from the EU and from third countries can enjoy a far-reaching protection in the
27 Member States23. Right-holders have the exclusive use of the GI name for products that
comply with the specification. Moreover, GIs are protected against any direct or indirect
commercial use of the protected name; any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true
origin is indicated or if the name is translated or accompanied by an expression such as
“style”, “type”, “method”, etc; any other false or misleading indication as to the provenance,
origin, nature or essential qualities of the product on packaging, advertising material or
document relating to the product; any other practice liable to mislead the public as to the true
origin of the product. In addition, the EU provides for enforcement of the protection of
19 - Not all food and agricultural products are within the scope of EC Regulation 510/2006. Regulation 510/2006 does not apply to pre-cooked meals, prepared condiment sauces, soups and broths, ice cream and sorbets, chocolate (and other food preparations containing cocoa). 20 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:148:0001:0061:EN:PDF. The wine regulation has since been incorporated in the Regulation on the single common market organisation 21 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:039:0016:0054:EN:PDF 22 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:093:0012:0025:EN:PDF 23 - See in particular articles 13 and 14 of Regulation 510/2006, articles15, 16, 19 and 23 of Regulation 110/2008 and article 42, 44 and 45 of Regulation 479/2008.
19
registered GIs by public authorities at the request of interested parties as well as at their own
initiative with respect to manifest infringements.
There is no Community sui generis GI system for non agricultural GI products. However, non
agricultural GI producers seeking protection of their GI name at the EU level can apply for
registration of a mark under the Community trade mark (CTM) system administered by the
Office for Harmonization of the Internal Market (OHIM). The CTM system is based on Council
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009, and various Commission Regulations24.
As the CTM regime covers the whole of the EU, a registered Community mark is valid in all
the 27 Member States. It provides for the exclusive right to use the mark.
Trademark protection is available to marks that meet the requirements set out in EC
Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trademark.
As a general principle, the trademark regime provides for the protection of distinctive
marks25. Under the trademark law, it is forbidden to register a descriptive trademark – which
would be the case for most GI products – as well as deceptive trademarks. As a result, the
registration of trademark that merely consists of a geographical name is possible only as an
exception. However, article 66 of EC Regulation 207/2009 provides that signs or indications
which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods or services may
constitute Community collective marks26.
24 - See : http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/CTM/legalReferences/regulations.en.do 25 - See articles 7 and 66 of Regulation 207/2009 – see : http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:078:0001:0042:EN:PDF Indistinctiveness is an absolute grounds of refusal: a trademark which consists exclusively of signs or indications which may serve in trade to designate in particular the quality or the geographical origin of the goods, except if the trade mark has become distinctive in relation to the goods or services for which registration is requested in consequence of the use which has been made of it 26 - Article 66: 1. A Community collective mark shall be a Community trade mark which is described as such when the mark is applied for and is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of the members of the association which is the proprietor of the mark from those of other undertakings. Associations of manufacturers, producers, suppliers of services, or traders which, under the terms of the law governing them, have the capacity in their own name to have rights and obligations of all kinds, to make contracts or accomplish other legal acts and to sue and be sued, as well as legal persons governed by public law, may apply for Community collective marks 2.In derogation from Article 7(1)(c), signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods or services may constitute Community collective marks within the meaning of paragraph 1. A collective mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using in the course of trade such signs or indications, provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; in particular, such a mark may not be invoked against a third party who is entitled to use a geographical name.
20
Producers of non agricultural GI products can seek protection at the EU level through the
registration of a Community collective mark. The Community collective mark must be owned
by an association which allows its members to use the protected name. The Community
collective mark protection can be used by any person who is entitled to use the geographical
name in accordance with the collective mark’s regulations.
In a nutshell, producers of non agricultural GI products can only use the trademark route to
get protection at the EU level, provided that they meet the requirements set out in the EC
Regulation 207/2009. If they want to find another route, they have to go to each Member
State and use the legal instruments available. Bilateral agreements and the Lisbon
Agreement on the protection of appellations of origin cannot provide for an EU wide
protection.
1.2.3. Shortcomings of a fragmented EU approach on the protection of non agricultural GIs
Non agricultural GI products can be protected in each of the 27 countries of the EU through
various national legislative instruments.
In practice, this means that producers would have to decide on a case-by-case basis which
legal tool to use examining whether or not they meet the requirements set out at the national
level and what is the cost effectiveness of each instrument. Considering the different legal
tools that are available for the protection of non agricultural GI products, it is likely that the
protection would not be the same in all the 27 Member States. Bearing this in mind, the
national route for the protection of non agricultural GIs could prove uneven, extremely
complicated, time-consuming and/or costly for producers that are often SMEs.
At the EU level, producers can choose to file a registration request for a trade mark or
collective mark through the Community Trademark regime (CTM) which is a straightforward
procedure. As explained above, this protection is available to marks that meet the specific
requirements set out in EC Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trademark as regards
collective marks, which are different from the requirements set out in Article 22.1 of the
TRIPS Agreement.
The trademark route does not guarantee an automatic protection as each trademark
application has to be examined by the OHIM on a case-by-case basis. There can be
oppositions and the OHIM can refuse the registration of a trade mark or collective mark.
21
It is important to underline that most of the EU non agricultural products covered by this
study which enjoy protection under the trademark system have registered a collective or a
certification mark at the national level. However, others have registered individual trademarks
and could face difficulties with the registration of these individual trademarks at the OHIM as
they are clearly descriptive and could be perceived as lacking distinctiveness.
Furthermore, there are differences between the protection given through national sui generis
GI systems and the Community sui generis GI system for wines, spirits, other agricultural
products and foodstuffs on the one hand and the protection available to non agricultural
products through the CTM system on the other hand (for more details see the third part of
this study). The protection under the latter is arguably more limited in scope than the one
obtained via sui generis GI protection tools. In addition, although the CTM route is not very
expensive, it still requires the payment of a registration fee while most of the sui generis GI
systems do not. Finally, trademark registration is valid for a limited period of time, 10 years,
while under the EU existing sui generis GI systems the protection is valid for an indefinite
period of time. It must be stressed that only 2 out of the 18 EU products studied have
registered a Community mark with the OHIM.
With regard to third countries, it is interesting to note that the five countries covered by this
study have established besides their trademark regime, a sui generis system for the
protection of GI that is available to all products, agricultural and non agricultural ones. As a
result, in these countries, both the trademark and the sui generis GI systems can be used by
producers to secure protection.
Some of the third countries’ products studied are not protected under the trademark regime
in their country of origin, but through other legal instruments. Should producers of these
products decide to seek protection in the EU, they could follow the national non trademark
route, when the protection as a GI is available in the Member State. This would be extremely
complicated and could arguably provide limited protection. Alternatively, they could seek
protection under the Community trademark regime provided that they meet the CTM
regime’s requirements for the registration of trademarks or collective marks.
From a general point of view, one should bear in mind the constraints of a GI approach, for
instance the need and the requirements linked to a collective approach (e.g. organisation of
producers), the requirements in terms of controls and potentially limiting effects on
innovation. On the other hand, in view of the position of the EU as the leading promoter of GI
22
protection at the International level and its call for the enhancement of that protection, third
countries could question the absence of a sui generis GI system for the protection of non
agricultural products in the EU. Although from a legal point of view, there is no obligation for
the EU to set up such a system as long as other non discriminatory instruments are available
to protect third countries’ non agricultural GIs in the 27 Member States, such a system could
give more credibility and leverage to the EU’s approach on GIs in the international – bilateral
and multilateral – negotiations. In addition, third countries interested in securing a far-
reaching protection of their non agricultural GIs in the EU are likely to call for a level of
protection equivalent to the one given to wines, spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs
and this would not be possible through the CTM system.
In conclusion, in the light of the various instruments available at the national level, there is
not the same level of protection for all non agricultural GI products in the EU. The only
European protection available is through the registration of a Community trademark or a
collective mark with the OHIM. There is a difference in treatment of non agricultural GI
products vis-à-vis agricultural GI products in the EU as the latter benefit from a more
Community far-reaching and cost effective protection via a sui generis GI system.
2. A tentative assessment of the economic value and presentation of the legal protection systems of non agricultural GIs in the EU and in some key third countries
2.1. General overview
During the first phase of the study, 17 local experts covering 21 Member States and 13 third
countries have sought to identify as many protected non agricultural GI products as possible.
They have performed this task via desk research (databases, publications and studies) and
by contacting producers and/or local authorities and/or intellectual property organizations in
their respective countries by phone and e-mails. The experts reported the information
collected to the team leader which reviewed the data. The information was put on an excel
sheet document (the database).
At the end of this phase, the 17 experts had identified 400 non agricultural GI products in 25
countries (no protected non agricultural GI products were found in Ireland, Luxembourg and
Romania). The list of the 400 products identified can be consulted in the Annex of this study.
23
As planned in the methodology, we then established two lists of products that we
recommended to study in detail: an A list including a priority list of 30 EU products and 15
products from third countries, a B list covering 10 additional EU products EU and 5 products
from third countries. The lists have been drafted with the support of the local experts which
have provided the team leader with information as to the economic value, legal protection
and reputation of the products identified. The final selection process was been made by the
team leader, the legal consultants of Agridea and oriGIn, as well as by the economic
consultant of Agridea who has reviewed the economic data provided by the experts.
Based on these lists, the selection of the products to study in more details was done by the
European Commission and the tenderer. We tried to ensure that the products chosen cover
a wide spectrum of countries and legal situations regarding the protection of the non-
agricultural GI products. To that end, we used in particular the following criteria:
• Origin of the product: the products studied come from the old and the new Member
States, as well as from countries from the North and the South of the EU.. As for third
country products, we proposed case-studies on products originating from the five key
countries identified in the terms of reference (Brazil, China, India, Russia and
Switzerland).
• Type of protection enjoyed: we tried to strike a right balance between the different
protection systems that are used in order to provide a good basis for the comparative
analysis carried out at a later stage in the study.
• Economic and trade value of the product: we analyzed the economic value of each
of the products entered in the database and ranked them accordingly.
• Reputation: we took into consideration the international reputation acquired by some
of the products.
The second part of study (case study and detailed analysis approach) covers 18 products
from 13 EU Member States and 10 products from the 5 third countries.
The products studied in depth in the second phase are listed below:
24
18 products from the EU
• Austria:
1. Ferlacher Waffen (firearms)
• Belgium:
2. La Pierre Bleue de Belgique – petit granit d’âge géologique tournaisien (stone)
• Czech Republic:
3. Český křišťál (Crystal) 4. Jablonecká bižuterie (jewellery)
• France:
5. Dentelle de Calais (lace) 6. Couteaux de Thiers (knives)
• Germany:
7. Solinger Schneidwaren (knives) 8. Schwarzwälder Kuckucksuhr/Schwarzwalduhr (Cuckoo-clock)
• Hungary:
9. Herend (porcelain)
• Italy:
10. Marmo di Carrara (marble) 11. Vetro Artistico di Murano (glass)
• The Netherlands:
12. Texel Quilt (duvet)
• Poland:
13. Koniakow Laces
• Portugal:
14. Bordado da Madeira (embroidery)
• Spain:
15. Cuero de Ubrique (leather) 16. Calzado de Elche (shoe)
• Sweden:
17. Glasriket (Crystal glass)
• United Kingdom:
18. Shetland Woolen Outwear (textile)
25
10 products from third countries
• Brazil
1. Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos 2. Mud Pans of Goiabeiras
• China
3. Liuyang Fireworks 4. Jingdezhen Porcelain
• India
5. Kashmir Pashmina, Kashmir Sozani Craft, Kani Shawls (textile) 6. Mysore Sandal Soap
• Russia
7. Gzel (ceramics) 8. Tula Samovar (metal container)
• Switzerland
9. Swiss Watches 10. St. Galler Stickerei (embroidery)
The experts conducted the in-depth data gathering for each of the product (case-studies).
The tenderer prepared three fiches which were reviewed and approved by the European
Commission. These fiches were drafted to provide a guide to the experts on how to collect
the data and how to report the information needed to complete the study. The fiches were
sent to the experts who completed them for each product and returned them to the team
leader.
The three fiches were defined as follows:
• Fiche 1: Detailed description of the product
o Name
o Area of production
o Specification or standard of production and control
o Description of the product: type, history, production steps, origin of raw
material, specific packaging and labelling rules
o Link between the geographical area and the reputation, quality or
characteristics of the product
• Fiche 2: Legal protection granted to the product
o Protection at the regional / national level: scope, cost, length
o Protection in third countries
o Protection via international agreements
26
o Certification system
o Existence of a collective organization
o Interest in a sui generis GI protection system in the EU
• Fiche 3: Economic significance of the product
o Number of producers and employees
o Type of enterprises
o Economic value
o Market share
o Marketing strategy
o Economic perspectives and challenges
The experts combined desk research and contact with producers’ groups and other relevant
national or regional administrations and/or institutions such as sector specific federations,
chambers of commerce, etc. Some undertook file trips to collect the information.
The team leader, in association with the legal consultants of Agridea and oriGIn and the
economist, conducted an in-depth and detailed comparative analysis of the main elements
provided by the experts in the fiches. They assessed in particular:
• the cost-effectiveness of the legal protection enjoyed at national level and in third
countries
• the economic performance of the selected products
• the importance and impact of the protection system when looking at the sales.
Summaries of the fiches concerning the 18 EU products and the 10 non-EU products were
made to facilitate the comparison between the products. You will find them below.
27
2.2. Non agricultural GIs in the EU
2.2.1. Overview
Eighteen products from thirteen EU Member States have been studied: seven textile
products (two laces, one duvet, one embroidery, one leather, one type of shoes, and one
outwear), two stones, three glass products (one glass and two crystals), two knives, one
porcelain, one firearm, one jewel, one cuckoo-clock.
All the EU products studied benefit from a general and indirect protection under the national
unfair competition and/or consumer protection laws. It is interesting to note that a lot of them
enjoy protection under a combination of legal instruments. However, most of the EU products
studied are protected under the trademark regime, either as an individual mark or a collective
mark. One of these products is protected by a specific law and a trademark27. One is
protected by a regional law and a trademark28. Another is protected by the unfair competition
law29. Two products are protected under a GI sui generis system30 and ten others by
trademarks only31. Two products are protected by both a trademark and a GI registration32.
The non agricultural GI sector is mostly composed of micro, small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs). The general economic trend shows that most of the EU country products
covered by this study experience growth and have export rate which tends to increase,
Europe and the USA being the most favourite export countries. Looking at the employment
figures, some products can be considered as economically important for their region of
origin. However, many suffer from the current crisis and the future of some of these products
is in jeopardy.
Many producers explained that they are confronted with counterfeit products and some
reported serious economic loss due to counterfeiting. Intellectual property protection is
becoming an increasingly important issue for the producers of non agricultural products who
consider that one of their main challenges is to secure a better legal protection at the national
and the international level.
27 Solingen Schneidwaren, Germany 28 Pierre bleue de Belgique Arduin, Belgium 29 Koniakow Laces, Poland 30 Jablonecka bizuterie and Cesky Kristal, Czech Republic 31 Ferlacher Waffen, Austria; Dentelle de Calais, France; Couteaux de Thiers, France; Schwarzwälder Kuckucksuhr/Schwarzwalduhr, Germany; Marmo di Carrara, Italy; Vetro Artistico di Murano, Italy; Cuero de Ubrique, Spain; Calzado de Elche, Spain; Glasriket, Sweden; Texel Wool Quilt, The Netherlands and Shetland Woolen Outwear, UK 32 Herend, Hungary, and Bordado da Madeira, Portugal.
28
Most of the producers of non agricultural EU GI products contacted in the context of this
study have a limited understanding of the differences that exist between the legal
instruments available for the protection of their products. They consider that a sui generis
protection such as the one existing in the EU for the protection of Protected Denomination of
Origin and Protected Geographical Indications for wines, spirits, agricultural products and
foodstuffs could be an interesting route to enhance the protection of their product.
2.2.2. Case studies
29
Austria
Ferlacher Waffen
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Ferlacher Waffen” are handmade hunting guns with engravings, produced in the Community
of Ferlach (southern border of Austria). The weapon tradition in Ferlach goes back to the 15th
century, when gunsmiths from Belgium settled in Ferlach around the mountain “Hüttenberg”
where they found iron. The first documents attesting the production of handguns in Ferlach
date from 1551 and 1556. During the second half of the 19th century, gunsmiths in Ferlach
formed a cooperative and started specializing in the production of civilian hunting weapons.
Legal protection “Ferlacher Waffen” are protected in Austria in particular:
• As an individual trademark “Ferlacher Jagdwaffen“(Ferlach hunting weapons) which
protects against designations for products of the same or other category. The owner
of the trademark is the company Herbert Scheiring in Ferlach.
• Through the Federal Law against Unfair Competition which protects against
delocalizers and the use of the geographical name with expressions. The scope of
the protection of the Federal Law against Unfair Competition depends on how
misleading each particular case is.
“Ferlacher Waffen” are protected outside of Austria:
• As an Austrian denomination (GI) since it is mentioned in the bilateral agreement with
Italy (1952), Greece (1972), France (1972), Spain (1977) and the Czech Republic
(1981).
There is no common written specification with regard to the production rules; each gunsmith
looks after the quality of his own gun production. However, in accordance with the long
established local tradition, the steel comes from the state of Styria (Austria), the walnut wood
30
from Turkey and Caucasus and all production steps take place in Ferlach. There are no
specific rules for the packaging or the labelling of Ferlacher Waffen. Each producer uses his
own name together with the name Ferlach.
The Cooperative of Master Gunsmiths was created in 1872. Since 2004, the enterprises
Ferlacher Waffen Präzisionstechnik Produktions and Magnum Waffen und Präzisionstechnik
have taken over. Their role is to buy the raw material and the ammunition for all the
producers in order to get a better price. They also do the important mechanical work of the
gun production for their members.
Economic data There are 12 gunsmiths and between 100 and 200 employees. 300 to 400 hunting weapons
are produced every year. This volume has been constant for the last few years, following a
massive drop after the Second World War.
There is no precise information on the sales. However, the average price per gun being
€40.000 and the number of guns produced about 400, the annual sales figure should be
around €16 millions. Most of the guns are exported to the successor states of the Soviet
Union and to the Arab countries. The market share is less than 1% of the gun market; it is a
niche market. There are no shops that sell Ferlacher Waffen; they are made on order.
Marketing practices Each producer uses his name together with the indication Ferlach as a marketing tool; both
the producer name and the indication Ferlach are valuable. Each gunsmith searches for his
own clients and does his own advertisement. There is no common logo.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are English and German firms.
The technical school for weapon engineering in Ferlach trains many foreign students which
return to their countries after their studies. Some former students have become gunsmiths in
other countries and use the indication Ferlach to sell their guns, as they have been trained
there. Apart from that, it is very difficult to counterfeit Ferlacher Waffen, as every weapon is
marked with a number that identifies the producer.
31
Main challenges
• The hardening of the law on weapons, which does not make the difference between
military and hunting guns anymore. So the strategy is to sell as many guns as
possible outside the EU.
• The recruitment of young people to carry on the business.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created to
protect non agricultural GI products, there was no clear support from the representatives of
Ferlacher Waffen’s producers. They only acknowledged that it could be positive in the long
term.
32
Belgium
La Pierre Bleue de Belgique – petit granit d’âge géologique tournaisien
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The « Pierre Bleue de Belgique – petit granit d’âge géologique tournaisien » (PBdB) is a
lower Carboniferous limestone with a more or less pronounced blue-grey colour, which is
characterised by the presence of large quantities of remains of crinoids. This limestone is
exploited in the following areas: the Plateau hennuyer and brabançon de Soignies, the
Condroz and the Central Ardenne. For several centuries, Belgian Blue Stone has been used
in buildings.
Legal protection There is an organization of producers named “Fédération des Carrières de Pierre Bleue -
Petit Granit”. It is a non for profit organization which role is to promote the PBdB and to
represent towards public and private institutions the interests of its members. Furthermore,
some producers of PBdB can voluntarily be members of another non profit organization:
“Pierres et Marbres de Wallonie”.
The « Pierre Bleue de Belgique – petit granit d’âge géologique tournaisien » is protected in
Belgium particular by:
• An AOL, which stands for « Appellation d’Origine Locale » and is an instrument
developed by the Walloon region under a Regional law to protect GIs at local level (not
at the federal level). It has been registered by the “Fédération des Carrières de Pierre
Bleue - Petit Granit”.
33
• A trademark registered in the Benelux register by the “Fédération des Carrières de
Pierre Bleue - Petit Granit”. The registration protects against the use in translation (in
the Benelux languages) and against designations or trademarks for products of the
same category or for products of other categories. The Fédération had registered a
European Trade Mark but it expired in August 2008; it is currently discussing whether to
register it again. An “agrément technique avec certification” (a general declaration of
aptitude for the use of the natural stone identified above has been established by the
“Fédération des Carrières de Pierre Bleue - Petit Granit”.
• Under the Unfair competition law which protects against “delocalizers” and against the
use of the GI name with expressions if consumers are misled.
The Federation decided to register a trade mark to protect its intellectual property rights since
it finds it more “useful” than the AOL, even if they are very interested in the AOL concept.
However, the AOL is not perceived as an effective protection and promotion tool as it is only
a regional concept that is not a well known. The PBdB is not protected in third countries, nor
via international agreements.
There is a specification attached to the AOL which has been published in the Belgian Official
Journal (Moniteur Belge) on the 20th of May 1999. There are no specific rules with regard to
the packaging but there are particular rules regarding the labelling of the limestone since
there are formal rules regarding the origin of the stone determined by EC standards
(denomination in accordance with standard NBN IN 12440): traditional name: “Petit Granit -
Pierre Bleue de Belgique®” and petrographic name: “limestone with crinoids”.
Economic data There are currently 8 enterprises that extract and polish this limestone:
• 7 of these enterprises are SMEs (less than 250 employees),
• 1 is a large company (les “Carrières du Hainaut”).
In 2007 the total turnover of these enterprises relating to the production of Pierre Bleue was
of 93.728.603,06 Euros (in 2000 79.949.677,61 Euros, in 2001 76.753.475,16 Euros, in 2002
74.855.433,69 Euros, in 2003 76.615.148,56 Euros, in 2004 81.452.084,79 Euros, in 2005
83.046.230,40 Euros, in 2006 90.800.364,25 Euros). More economic information was
unfortunately not disclosed by the enterprises.
34
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are Asian producers since they produce a cheap version of a blue
stone.
There are cases of usurpation (ex. Asian markets). In fact, names such as “Pierre Bleue”
(without indicating the geographical name but alluding to the notoriousness of the PBdB) are
used to mislead as to the real origin/nature of the product (i.e. stones from Asia especially
China; sandstone stoneware instead of natural stone). A very interesting example that the
Federation of the PBdB put forth was the problem with the recent site in “Place Flagey” in
Brussels (for the past 10 years there have been important works in this square to renovate
the area). On the billboards next to the square it is said that the stones used were “Pierre
bleue” without mentioning “de Belgique” because the stoned used came from Asia. However,
the information on these boards made a direct reference to the NIT220, a technical
information note that is specifically dedicated to the «Pierre Bleue de Belgique®».
Main challenges
• To increase the quality of the finished product
• To improve and further develop the services that can be provided
• To work on the environmental issue in order to be more competitive at the national,
European and international level.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When questioned on the usefulness of a EU sui generis GI system, if it were to be created,
PBdB producers replied positively stressing that such a system has proved very useful for
agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of view. They would
welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide additional legal
protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
35
Czech Republic
Český křišťál
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Český křišťál” are glass products of household character, smooth or treated by various
techniques produced in Bohemia (West of the Czech Republic). The origin of the Český
křišťál is linked to the renaissance period. At the beginning of the 17th century, Italian and
German cutters came to the court of Emperor Rudolf II and discovered the specific qualities
of Czech glass. In 1683, chalk glass was discovered and started to be used in all factories.
At the beginning of 18th century Bohemian sellers started to export on the world’s markets. In
the first half of the 19th century, the production shrank but was re-established in the second
half of the 19th century.
Legal protection “Český křišťál” was originally protected by the Executive Order N° 22/Dr.P/66-109 of
December 20, 1966 of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs.
It is protected in the Czech Republic in particular:
• Under Act N°452/2001 Coll., on the Protection of Designations of Origin and
Geographical Indications and on the Amendment to the Act on Consumer Protection.
This Act on Protection of Designations of Origin ensures protection against
unauthorized use of the name for products coming from another area and for products
which do not fulfil the qualitative parameters. “Český křišťál” is protected in translation,
against “delocalizers”, against the use of expression as “type”, against genericity and
against designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for products
of other categories. Moreover, the entitled user of registered Designation of Origin may
register the relevant trademark.
36
It is protected outside the Czech Republic in particular:
• Through bilateral agreements in Austria, Portugal and Switzerland
• Under the WIPO Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin.
There is a written specification. All production steps must take place within the delimited
geographical area. Raw materials for the components production have to fulfil the qualitative
and technological requirements. The packaging takes place within the delimited geographical
area with a view to prevent undesirable damages of the final product. However, there are no
specific rules for labelling. Some producers use a graphic trademark such as ‘Bohemia
Crystal’.
The Association of the Glass and Ceramic Industry of the Czech Republic regrouped, in May
2005, 58 members. Its main activities are notably to organize the members’ collaboration, to
support the interests and demands to the state executive authorities within the framework of
the Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic, to search for foreign partner’s activity,
and to find arrangements for collective negotiation with an authorised trade union and
concluding collective agreements. The Czech glass society is a member of the former
Association. It organises events and professional courses to improve qualifications of
personnel in the glass industry; publishes a magazine and professional publications; and
gives advices to its members.
Economic data
• In the first degree in the production chain, there are 25 enterprises.
• In the second degree, more than 100.
The production in volume was 94 tons in 2002, 85 tons in 2003, 74 tons in 2004, 67 tons in
2005, 76 tons in 2006, and 70 tons in 2007.
The sales in value were approximately of €330 millions in 2002, €155 millions in 2003, €180
millions in 2004, €206 millions in 2005, €202 millions in 2006, and €216 millions in 2007.
The exports were approximately of €273 millions in 2006 and €287 millions in 2007. In 2007,
45.1 % of the exports went to the EU, 13.6% to the other European countries, 12.5% to the
USA and Canada and 19.8% to other countries.
Marketing practices The profitability is negative and, at the moment, there is no clear marketing strategy, the
focus being simply to survive.
37
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting There is no data concerning the main competitors.
There are counterfeiting cases but no detail was given.
Main challenges
• Research and development: finding new uses of rare glass (on the table or in hotels)
and new methods of glass processing,
• Combining it with others materials, and
• Using the light guiding properties of crystal glass.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Český křišťál” replied positively stressing that such a system has proved
very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of view. They
would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide additional legal
protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
38
Jablonecká bižuterie
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Jablonecká bižuterie” is jewellery from glass, ceramics, metals, plastic materials, and from
natural materials of organic and inorganic origin, produced in the areas of Jablonec nad
Nisou, Semily, Liberec (North of Czech Republic). “Jablonecká bižuterie” started to be
produced during the 18th century and the produced rose in the 19th Century. After 1948, the
process of nationalisation started. In 1958, the Group of producers of “Jablonecká bižuterie”
was established. After 1989, the state firms were privatised.
Legal protection “Jablonecká bižuterie” was originally protected by the Executive Order N°22/Dr.P/66-101 of
December 12, 1966 of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs.
It is protected in the Czech Republic in particular:
• by Act N°452/2001 Coll., on the Protection of Designations of Origin and Geographical
Indications and on the Amendment to the Act on Consumer Protection. This Act on
Protection of Designations of Origin ensures protection against unauthorized use of the
name for products coming from another area and for products which do not fulfill the
qualitative parameters. “Jablonecká bižuterie” is protected in translation, against
“delocalizers”, against the use of expression as “type”, against genericity and against
designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for products of other
categories. Moreover, the entitled user of registered Designation of Origin may register
the relevant trademark.
It is protected outside of the Czech Republic in particular:
• Through bilateral agreements in Austria, Portugal and Switzerland and
39
• Under the WIPO Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin.
There is a specification. All production steps must take place within the delimited
geographical area. Raw materials for the components production have to fulfil the qualitative
and technological requirements. The packaging takes place within the delimited geographical
area, with a view to prevent undesirable damages of final product. However, there are no
specific rules for labelling.
The Union of Fashion Jewellery Producers is a national organisation founded in 1991. It
represents the interests of fashion jewellery and related glass industry of the Czech
Republic. It incorporates 22 members, employing about 10.000 persons, and represents the
interests of practically all the fashion jewellery and glass industry, concentrated mainly in the
area of Jablonec n.N. The Union fulfils coordination, publicity and information functions. It
also has a role of employers’ organisation to negotiate collective agreements with the trade
unions.
The association of the producers of Jablonec goods is a member of the former organisation
and has more than 30 members. It associates all the stakeholders of the jewellery industry
from producers of tools and equipment for glass to jewellery smiths. It aims notably at
protecting their interests and promoting the jewellery.
Economic data
• After the privatisation of the State-owned companies, two dominant enterprises
emerged: Jablonex Group Inc. and Preciosa Inc.
• There are also 20-30 SMEs.
• This first degree in the production, the Fashion Jewellery Components industry,
employs circa 3000-4000 persons.
• In the second degree of the production, the Fashion jewellery industry, there are 1
large and about 20 small companies employing circa 1500 persons.
The sales in value were approximately of €413 millions in 2003, of €458.5 millions in 2004, of
€541 millions in 2005, of €480 millions in 2006 and of €387 millions in 2007.
40
The export values were approximately of:
Billions of CZK (est.) intra EU outside the EU
2003 1,5 (€56 millions) 8,0 (€300 millions)
2004 1,7 (€64 millions) 9,0 (€338 millions)
2005 1,9 (€71 millions) 10,6 (€398 millions)
2006 1,6 (€60 millions) 9,5 (€356 millions)
2007 1,4 (€53 millions) 7,5 (€281 millions)
Jablonecká bižiterie is exported to Asia, USA, Canada, and other countries of Central and
South America.
Marketing practices The market share of “Jablonecká bižuterie”, comparing with other comparable glass
products, in Europe is about of 20-35%. When counting Asian goods (comparable but
frequently containing plastic components or even components containing nickel in non-
conformity with EU nickel free directive), the market share is below 10%. The profitability is
low and decreasing as much as the Chinese goods are being supported by State through the
exchange rate, subventions and low level of social standards, as well as by the support due
to the low level of the quality and safety control on the EU borders. “Jablonecká bižuterie” is
in the middle and higher price segments of the market. It is distributed through the local
distributor and retail chains and tries to use the country of origin and the trademarks, whose
logos are mostly used. The promotion is made in trade fairs and exhibitions.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are Far Eastern producers and Indian producers, Swarovski, local
European producers and retail chains that outsource mostly in the Far East.
There is no information on counterfeiting.
Main challenges
• Be quick and new in the design,
• Come closer to the customers’ needs,
• Use more effectively the country of origin and trademarks to protect and promote the
products,
• Stress the social and qualitative standards of the production to the
consumers/customers.
41
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Jablonecká bižuterie” replied positively stressing that such a system has
proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of
view. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide
additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
42
France
Couteaux de Thiers
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The « Couteaux de Thiers » are hand-made knives and kitchen tools from the city of Thiers
(centre of France). A legend says that the Crusaders from the region came back from the
Middle-East with the fabrication secret. The tradition of knives-making in this region goes
back to the 16th Century (historic proofs) and the know-how was developed during the
subsequent centuries. In order to use the name “Couteaux de Thiers”, producers must
respect the production’s specifications.
Legal protection A Federation, created in 1999, brings together 130 producers; it protects and promotes the
knives. It has registered, in France, a figurative trademark and a collective trademark that its
member can use if they respect the specifications, that-is-to-say that all the production steps
have to take place in the area of production. The logo and the trademark must be on the
label.
The « Couteaux de Thiers » are protected in France in particular by:
• A figurative trademark and a collective trademark, which protect against designations
or trademarks for products of the same category or for products of other categories;
• The unfair competition law, which protects against the use of delocalizers and the use
of expression as “type” if consumers are misled.
The protection through trademark was chosen because it was perceived as the only effective
protection available in France for the product (lack of legal certainty and indirect protection of
producers under the unfair competition law).
The Trademark “le Thiers” was also registered by the Confrérie le Couté de Tié which has
also registered a model. This Confrérie has fewer members than the Federation and
43
constitutes more a “traditional” form of association which is similar to the guilds of the Middle-
Age.
The « Couteaux de Thiers » are not protected in third countries nor via international
agreements.
Economic data In 2007, the whole sector regrouped nearly 200 enterprises:
• Producers of raw materials: in 2006, around 100 enterprises employing approximately
500 employees
• Knives producers: in 2007, 64 enterprises, employing 1419 persons. 30 micro
enterprises producing the knives (less than 10 employees), 12 small enterprises
(between 11 and 20 employees) and 22 enterprises with between 21 and 100
employees
In 2006, 350 000 knives were produced every day and represented a turnover of €190
millions. In 2007, the turnover was a bit more than €167 millions. In 2006, 17% of the
turnover was made through exportation and the main exports markets were the other
Member States of the EU, the USA and the Middle East. The « Couteaux de Thiers »
represented 70% of the French production of knives in 2007.
Marketing practices In October 2007, 500 shops were selling the products. The Federation wants to set up a
network of authorised/franchised shops to distribute the products and create an after-sales
service. The promotion is done through common communication of the producers in the
specialised press, participation to international fairs, publication of books/papers presenting
the production of Thiers and websites.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are located in Germany, Brazil, and China. There is a growing
competition and counterfeiting from Asia (e.g. Pakistan, China).
Main challenges
• Gain more recognition amongst the public through communication, to extend the
notoriety in third countries and to gain market shares.
• Labelling of origin: the Federation is working with other European Member States
cutlery Federations to obtain a EU legislation on the labelling (marquage) of the origin
44
of the knives. This is perceived as a useful tool to enhance the protection of the
European knives.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Couteaux de Thiers” replied positively stressing that such a system has
proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of
view. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide
additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
45
Dentelle de Calais
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The « Dentelle de Calais » is lace produced in the Cities of Calais and Caudry (North of
France) on “métiers Leavers” (Leavers weaving looms). The “métiers Leavers” were invented
in England in 1809 and exported to France more or less ten years later. They were made
durable in Calais and Caudry, thanks to the adjunction of the jacquard system in 1834, a
technique which allows the production of lace which looks like hand-made lace. In order to
use the name « Dentelle de Calais », producers must respect the production’s specifications
Legal protection A Federation, created in 1935, brings together 18 producers. It protects and promotes the
« Dentelle de Calais ».
The « Dentelle de Calais » is protected in France in particular by:
• A figurative trademark and a collective trademark, registered by the Federation and
which its members can use. The Federation owns the trademarks since 1958. They
protect against designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for
products of other categories. The protection through trademark was chosen because it
was perceived as the only effective protection available in France for the product (lack
of legal certainty under the unfair competition law).
• The unfair competition law, which protects against the use of expression as ‘type’ and
against delocalizers if consumers are misled.
The « Dentelle de Calais » is protected outside of France in particular by:
• The registration by the Federation of the Trademark “Dentelle de Calais” in several
countries through the international trademarks registration system of WIPO: Algeria,
46
Austria, Benelux, Bulgaria, Cuba, Germany, Hungary, Italia, Liechtenstein, Morocco,
Monaco, Mongolia, North Korea, Portugal, Romania, Saint Martin, Spain, Sudan,
Switzerland, and Vietnam.
• The direct registration by the Federation of the trademark in several countries:
Argentina, Croatia, Denmark, Japan, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, South
Korea, and the USA.
Economic data There are 7 producers employing 756 persons in Calais (2008) and 11 producers employing
660 persons in Caudry (2008):
• There are 2 enterprises with less than 30 employees.
• 13 enterprises have between 30 and 50 employees, 5 of them are grouped into a
holding which thus have between 150 and 200 employees.
• 1 enterprise is a medium enterprise (between 50 and 100 employees) and
• 2 are big enterprises (more than 250 employees).
The turnover was:
• For Calais, €36 millions in 2005, €40 millions in 2006 and €32 millions in 2007.
• For Caudry, €60 millions in 2005, €72 millions in 2006 and €54 millions in 2007.
In 2005, the production represented 15% of the world production of lace. Caudry exported
71% of its production in 2006 (€51 millions) and 72% in 2007 (€39 millions). Calais exported
60% of its production in 2006 (€48 millions) and 58% in 2007 (€39 millions). 70% of the
exportations went to Europe, 20% to Asia and 10% to the USA. The lace can have a
profitability of 5%-6% and the dresses a profitability of 15%-18%. The « Dentelle de Calais »
bases its sale strategy on its good reputation and high quality.
Marketing practices Concerning the promotion of the « Dentelle de Calais », a new logo was launched at the
beginning of the 1990’s. An Economic Interest Group, gathering the producers, was set up to
ensure the promotion and received an important budget. However, there has not been a real
collective promotion. The enterprises use the trademark in different ways: the label
“Dentelles de Calais“ is used more by the dentelliers producing the lingerie than the
producers working for the haute couture. Two of the three biggest enterprises prefer to
communicate on their own brand for which they have specific communication budgets. The
47
Federation does a global promotion and communication on the trademark but it has not got a
specific budget. However, at the last governing board meeting, the need to reinforce and
maybe to modernise the collective promotion of the trademark was raised.
On 11 June 2009, the International City of lace and fashion of Calais (Cité internationale de
la dentelle et de la mode de Calais) opened in Calais. This museum aims at presenting
know-how and techniques, economic and social history, customs, as well as the more
contemporary aspects of lace.
Main competitors There is little competition, for small volumes, for the dresses with Dentelle Leavers (mostly
from Italy and Spain). Concerning the lingerie, the main competitor is Japanese, delocalised
in China and Thailand; they have 50% of the market share. Other smaller competitors are
based in Italy, Spain, UK, the USA and in Central and South America.
Other lace techniques, notably the knitted lace (dentelle maille), compete with the “Dentelle
de Calais”. It is produced on electronic and automatic weaving looms and is costing 2 to 3
times less. Concerning dresses, this technique, even if it does not have the quality of the
“Dentelle de Calais”, can be destabilising when the markets have economic difficulties. It is
the main competitor on the Middle-East and South-East Asian markets. However, this type of
product is often dissuasive for the luxury clients because they can not take the risk to find the
same kind of lace on their luxury products and on middle quality or low quality products.
Cases of counterfeiting
The most common form of counterfeiting of the “Dentelle de Calais” is the usurpation of the
name and the logo, the copy of the "Dentelle de Calais"'s motifs, and the use of the
reputation of the products for products of less good quality, notably in China.
Main challenges
• Secure a better protection at the national and international levels;
• Ameliorate the production process to lower the costs;
• Accentuate the efforts of creation because it is a competition advantage and
• Communicate more on the lace.
The future and the profitability of the “Dentelle de Calais” also lie in the fashion industry and
its needs. The main challenge for 2009 will be to survive the economic crisis and to preserve
the know-how.
48
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Dentelle de Calais” replied positively stressing that such a system has
proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of
view. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide
additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
49
Germany
Schwarzwälder Kuckucksuhr/Schwarzwalduhr
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Schwarzwälder Kuckucksuhr/Schwarzwalduhr“ are Cuckoo Clocks produced in the
Schwarzwald Region (South West of Germany). The first Schwarzwalduhren were made as
early as 1650, but without the present decorations on the cases and shields and without the
cuckoo mechanism. The first Black Forest cuckoo clock was made around 1740 and its
present form was developed around 1850. The regional government founded a clockmaker
school in Furtwangen in 1850. In order to use the name “Schwarzwalder Kuckucksuhr“,
producers must respect the production’s specifications.
Legal protection There is a “Verein die Schwarzwalduhr” (Black Forest Clock Association) which exists for 23
years.
“Schwarzwalder Kuckucksuhr“ is protected in Germany in particular:
• through the registration of collective marks “Original Schwarzwalder Kuckucksuhr” /
“Original Black Forest Cuckoo Clock” at the German “Patentambt” (2005).
The protection through collective marsk was chosen because, according to the
association, there is no better alternative. “Schwarzwalder Kuckucksuhr“ are
protected against designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for
products of other categories under the trademark law.
• “Schwarzwalder Kuckucksuhr“ are also protected against the use of expression as
“type”under the unfair competition law, if consumers are misled.
50
“Schwarzwalder Kuckucksuhr“ is not protected at the international level. However, a
certificate of authenticity is requested by importers in the USA
There is a specification. The area of production is precisely indicated. All the production
steps are made in the area and the wood comes from this area. The association has a
certificate label.
Economic data
• There are 20 supplying firms in the area (suppliers of raw wood and brass excluded)
and 8 of them are members of the association. They employ 25 persons (estimation).
• There are 10 producing / assembling firms, which are all members of the association,
and which employ in total 50 employees (estimation).
All firms are SMEs, employing between 2 and 30 persons maximum. The value added to
local production factors is around € 25 millions. The tourism sector is also a source of
additional value added through visits to manufactures, and indirectly through the provision of
regional identity to the area.
The production and sales have gradually fallen from over 300,000 clocks in 1999 to about
170,000 clocks in 2008 (of which 90% are traditional cuckoo clocks). The value of the sales
is estimated at €30 millions. About 90% of all cuckoo clocks are exported, mainly to the USA
(value: € 27 million). “Schwarzwalder Kuckucksuhr“ has almost 100% of the market share.
There is no real competition. At the retail level, the sales margin is estimated at 40%.
Marketing practices “Schwarzwalder Kuckucksuhr“ are sold through local shops, and through exclusive importers
in the USA and other countries. There also are direct sales at the yearly Oberammergau
Passion Play (since 1634), which is visited by many foreigners. There is no particular sales
strategy. The certificate of the association is applied on the final product “in good faith”. The
name of individual producers is also on the label.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are imported cheap imitations form the Far East, which do not
constitute a real competition, because of major differences with the original product.
51
There have been only a few cases of counterfeiting of unauthorized use of the certificate by
traders/retailers since the introduction of the certificate. They have been corrected within a
few days, thanks to the well-established, personal trading relationships.
Main challenges
• The recession in 2009 in the USA which is the main buyer,
• The necessity to gain market shares. One of the leading producers is indeed
developing a more modern designed cuckoo clock (under the prevailing requirement of
the certificate), which seems to attract German consumers again.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Schwarzwalder Kuckucksuhr“ replied positively stressing that such a
system has proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion
point of view. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would
provide additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective
way.
52
Solingen knives
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The “Solingen knives” are knives, cutlery and other kitchen tools produced in the city of
Solingen (North-West of Germany). The appellation “Solingen” started to be a geographical
indication in 1571, when the Duke Wilhelm von Berg gave the order to label every blade
made in Solingen with the Latin words “ME FECIT SOLINGEN” (= “Me made Solingen”). In
order to use the name “Solingen knives”, producers must respect the production’s
specifications.
Legal protection The “Solingen knives” are protected in Germany in particular by:
• A specific law called the "Decree for the Protection of the Name Solingen" (Solingen
Decree) of 16 December 1994
• The general trademark legislation of 1995. The Owner of the marks is the Chamber of
Industry and Commerce Wuppertal-Solingen-Remscheid. There is no collective
organisation of producers.
The “Solingen knives” are protected outside of Germany through:
• a collective Community mark at the EU level since 2002.
• registered trademarks, collective and certification marks in circa 50 countries in the
world, e.g. in the European Union, USA, China, Russia, Canada, Asia, and South-
America.
The “Solingen knives” benefit from a protection by the public authorities in some countries
(Germany, China), and are protected against the use of expressions as “type”, against
53
genericity and against designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for
products of other categories.
They are protected by bilateral agreements, notably with Italy, France, Switzerland, Greece,
Spain and under the general principles of international intellectual property agreements.
The Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the Wuppertal-Solingen-Remscheid drew up a
list of the "Minimum requirements for the use of the name Solingen" in 1997. All the key
manufacturing stages have to be processed and finished within the industrial boundaries of
Solingen. Raw materials do not come from Solingen but mostly from other places in
Germany and sometimes from abroad (e.g. France, Japan). Concerning the packaging,
under the "Minimum requirements for the use of the name Solingen", the cutlery, which is not
from Solingen, must not create the impression that it was made in Solingen. Solingen brand-
name manufacturers generally mark their products with their brand name, the company
name and include details of the material.
Economic data Most companies are small or medium size ones; there are only three large enterprises
employing about 2000 persons. The number of employees of the entire sector is 4000 to
5000.
The value of the sales was of €511 millions in 2003, €532 millions in 2004, €560 millions in
2005, €568 millions in 2006 and €625 millions in 2007. 54.4 % of the production was
exported in 2003, 53.7 % in 2004, 53.7 % in 2005, 53.7 % in 2006 and 54 % in 2007. Each
company has its own strategy. The name “Solingen” is used in different ways in combination
with the companies’ brands.
Main competitors The main competitors are WMF (cutlery, kitchen knives) in Germany, and different
companies in USA, Japan and the European Union (high quality products) and China, Korea,
and the Far East (low quality products).
Cases of counterfeiting Concerning counterfeiting, the first documented fakes appeared during the 19th century. The
name “Solingen” is often misappropriated. Cheap-quality products manufactured elsewhere
being offered for sale worldwide under the famous name of Solingen. Most fakes come from
China and the Far East. The Chamber of Industry and Commerce Wuppertal-Solingen-
54
Remscheid estimates the damage to the Solingen industry up to several €100 millions per
year.
Main challenges
• The world economic crisis
• The counterfeits which is on the increase. Vast financial and human resources would
be necessary to stop piracy, more than Solingen can raise.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Solingen knives“ replied positively stressing that such a system has proved
very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of view. They
would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide additional legal
protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
55
Hungary
Herend Porcelain
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The Herend Porcelain is produced in Herend (small town near the city of Veszprém). An
earthenware factory was founded in Herend in the first half of the XIX century. Although the
raw material is not sourced in the region, the knowledge and savoir-faire is localised in the
region. Herend has acquired over the centuries a strong reputation as a high quality
porcelain.
Legal protection There is no federation since it is one company - Herend Porcelain Manufactory Exclusive
PLC - which produces the porcelain.
The Herend porcelain is protected in Hungary in particular:
• By the Decree n°3/1967 O.T. through the sui generis GI system developed in the
Hungarian legislation and
• By two trademarks (“HEREND”, “Herendi Porcelán Manufaktúra”) which protect more
than 30 decorations. When asked, no explanation was given as to why they choose
these kinds of protection.
The Herend porcelain benefits from a protection by the public authorities and is
protected against “delocalizers”, against genericity and against designations or
trademarks for products of the same category or for products of other categories.
The Herend porcelain is protected outside Hungary:
• Directly in more than 30 countries around the globe, where the trademark is registered
• Through the Lisbon agreement.
56
All the steps of the production take place in the area but the raw material can be imported.
We have no information as far as the packaging rules are concerned, nevertheless there are
clear rules regarding the labelling: there is an established logo (which varied through time)
and the signature of the painter.
Economic data The Herend Porcelain Manufactory has a capacity of producing more than 16,000 various
forms, around 4,000 patterns and their free variations. This, theoretically, is the equivalent of
64 million various products. Today the manufacture has approximately 1000 employees.
Herend is the first porcelain manufacture of the world disposing of the ISO 9001 certificate. In
1996 it received the title of IIASA-SHIBA as recognition of its quality development; in 2001 it
gained the “Hungarian Heredity Prize”.
The production in value in 2002 was of 35 million Euros (in 2001 30,6 million Euros). Around
85-90% of the production is exported, the main markets being: the United States, Japan,
Italy, Russia, Germany and the Asian market.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting On the domestic market, there are two other famous porcelain producers (Zsolnai and
Hollohazi porcelain, the second one also being a GI) and on the international market there
are around 6 main competitors, among them Meissen, Augarten and Ludwigsburg.
The product is being counterfeited.
Main challenges
• Be competitive not only vis-à-vis of other porcelain products, but also with respect to
other luxury items.
• Link it to other products (i.e. prize for the Hungarian Grand Prix Formula 1, organizing
special exhibitions as the one in the Tsarskoe Selo palace in St. Petersburg) in order
to keep the up the reputation of the name.
• The delocalization of the competitors' production to places where the cheap labour
makes them more profitable. In order to face this, the manufacture aims to emphasize
the link to the origin, the local knowledge and the handmade style.
57
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Herend” replied positively stressing that such a system has proved useful
for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of view. They would
welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide additional legal
protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
58
Italy
Marmo di Carrara
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The “Marmo di Carrara” is a white or blue-grey marble found in the Carrara region (Apuan
Alps, north of Tuscany, Italy). Carrara marble has been used since the time of Ancient Rome.
The Pantheon, the Trojan’s Column in Rome and many sculpture of the Renaissance, as
Michelangelo’s David, were carved from Carrara marble. The most famed and prized of
these marbles are in 3 principal “canali” (gullies): Torano, Miseglia and Colonnata.
Legal protection Nowadays there is no federation but numerous consortiums, the two most important being
Consorzio Marmo Artistico di Carrara and Consorzio Carrara Export.
The “Marmo di Carrara” is protected by in particular:
• By two individual trademarks – Marmo tradizionale di Carrara and Marmo artistico di
Carrara – owned by the Consorzio Marmo Artistico di Carrara. The trademarks protect
against designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for products
of other categories,
• Under the Unfair Competition Law protects against “delocalizers” and against the use
of the name with expressions, if consumers are misled.
In 2008, the Chamber of Commerce of Carrara-Massa in partnership with the different
consortiums and enterprises gravitating around the Carrara marble industry launched a
project: develop an umbrella consortium associating all the different consortiums currently
existing and depositing a trademark to protect the origin. This “umbrella” consortium, the
"Consorzio per la tutela del marmo del distretto di Carrara" was created in July 2009. The
59
specification of this product will state that each block should be marked with: the marble-pit,
the trademark, and the type of marble.
Economic data The elaboration of the “Marmo di Carrara” takes place in two phases.
• In the first phase, the excavation, there are 100 active Carrara marble quarries (four of
the most important are Fantiscritti, La Facciata, Fossa degli Angeli and La Piana).
• In the second phase, the processing/transformation, there are 400 enterprises. All of
these enterprises are SMEs.
It is estimated that the annual turnover is of 1.250 millions Euros. It is interesting to notice
that the area of Carrara is the most productive marble area in the world with 1 billion tons of
white marble per year. The expert estimated that the exports are worth 50% of the production
and that the main export markets are the Far East (29.2%), the UE (23.7%), of which
Germany (10.3%), the Middle East (19.9%), Hong Kong (12.6%), and the USA (11.6%).
Marketing practices In order to promote this product, the different consortiums spend annually around 700.000
Euros and participate to numerous fairs and exhibitions.
Main competitors The main competitors are the other marble areas which produce high quality marble such as
Macael (Spain), Vermont (USA) and the Greek island of Paros and Naxos but also countries
such as India, China, and Turkey that mine marble of lower quality.
Main challenges The main challenge for the future for this industry is to set up the umbrella consortium and to
enhance the intellectual property protection through the registration of a trademark to protect
the origin.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Marmo di Carrara” replied positively stressing that such a system has
proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of
view. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide
additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
60
Vetro artistico di Murano
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The « Vetro Artistico di Murano » is an artistic glasswork produced on the Island of Murano
(Province of Venice, Region of Veneto, Italy). Murano glass has been a famous product of
the Venetian island of Murano for many centuries. Murano’s reputation as a centre for
glassmaking was born in 1291 when the Venetian Republic, fearing fire and destruction,
ordered glassmakers to move their foundries to Murano. Nowadays, these artisans are still
using century-old techniques to craft glass.
Legal protection A Consortium – Promovetro Murano – created in 1985 brings together 48 enterprises. It
promotes the image of Murano’s artistic glass with the intent of conserving and defending
Murano’s glass making and it develops as well the marketing of this cultural heritage.
The « Vetro Artistico di Murano » is protected in Italy in particular by:
• The collective figurative trademark “Vetro Artistico ® Murano”, owned by the Region of
Veneto. This trademark can be used by the members of the Consortium. The Region
of Veneto also makes sure that the specification is rigorously followed. This trademark
protects against designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for
products of other categories,
• The Unfair Competition Law, which protects against “delocalizers” and against the use
of the name with expressions, if consumers are misled.
61
“Vetro Artistico di Murano » is protected throughout the EU thanks to the registration of a
Community collective mark at the OHIM.
All the production steps must take place in the Island of Murano and the silica sand used to
produce this special glass either comes from Fontainebleau (France) or from Pola (Croatia).
Economic data There are 48 enterprises which are all SMEs. It is estimated that the annual turnover is of
100 million Euros per year. In 2008, 400 000 stamps were distributed by the consortium to
the enterprises meaning that 400 000 glass objects were created. The exports in 2005 were
of 102 million Euros, in 2006 116 million Euros and in 2007 117 million Euros. The main
countries of export are the United States, France, Slovenia, Poland and Spain.
Marketing practices The labelling of the Murano glass is very specific: a logo which is “anti-counterfeiting” (which
is either blue or red depending on the production method) is applied to the glass (it has a
number which is traceable to the enterprise) and each object is “firmato a fuoco” meaning
that each “Maestro” fire marks the glass with a distinctive sign. Each article is sold with a
guarantee which certifies that pure 24 carat gold has been used in the workmanship. It is
interesting to point out that in Venice and Murano a certain number of stores can display a
sign/logo on their window demonstrating that they have been certified to sell “Vetro Artistico
® Murano”.
The Consortium has launched several campaigns to promote the notoriousness of this
product. It participates to fairs (ex. Berlin Fair), exhibitions (ex. Opera of Murano) and
folkloristic events (the “Regata” of Venice). Furthermore, it organizes workshops for its
members to help them conquer new markets and invites buyers to come to the consortium.
The consortium’s ultimate goal is to create a link between the logos and the quality origin of
the product.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competition comes from cheap products that imitate Murano Glass but that are
actually reproductions that are painted (the colours of Murano Glass are not hand painted by,
the Glass is fabricated like this) and that come from countries such as China and Romania. It
is interesting to notice that the Court of Venice in 2004 has ruled in a preliminary injunction
against a label that stated “made in Italy-Murano-Venice”: the product was not produced on
the island of Murano.
62
There are cases of counterfeiting.
Main challenges
• Invest in new “Maestri” by forming young professionals to this art,
• Innovate in the style and shapes using centuries old techniques and
• Invest in preserving the nature of the island of Murano (it pollutes the waters)
• Reinforce the protection of the link between the origin and the product
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the « Vetro Artistico di Murano » expressed strong interest noting that such a
system has proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion
point of view. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would
provide additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective
way.
63
Poland
Koniakow Laces
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Koniakow lace” is a lace produced in the village of Koniakow and in the neighbouring
villages of Istebna and Jaworzynka, in the south of Poland (Beskidy Mountains). It is
produced since the end of XIX century. After the First World War, the production suddenly
developed. In 1949, Koniakow Lace-Making Co-operative was established but it ceased its
activities.
Legal protection “Koniakow lace” is protected under the Polish Law against Unfair Competition. This law
guarantees protection by usage, but not by registration. The law protects in translation,
against the use of expression as ”type”, and against designations or trademarks for products
of the same category and, for reputable indications, against designations or trademarks for
products of other categories (which would be the case of “Koniakow lace”).
Furthermore, according to the Polish law on Industrial Property Law it is also possible to
register geographical names, as trademarks or as geographical indications. Koniakow lace-
makers have not registered the name “Koniakow lace” neither as trademark, nor as
geographical indication. It was not specified why the producers did not do so.
“Koniakow lace” is not protected at the international level.
There is no specification (collective standard of production), or certification scheme. There
are no specific rules concerning the labelling or the packaging. However, all production steps
64
take place in the geographical area. The laces are usually made from white or cream cottons
produced in Poland (Lodz), Czech Republic or Turkey.
There is currently no collective organization of lace-makers in Koniakow. However, 105 lace-
makers from Koniakow are registered members of the Folk Artists Association in Lublin. Its
main activities are to promote and represent the Polish folk culture and to cooperate with
other folk organizations at national and international level.
Economic data There are circa 500 professionals, usually individual producers. Approximately 300 000 units
are produced each year, for a turnover of €3 750 000. €375 000 worth of lace is exported,
mainly to Italy, Japan and the USA. “Koniakow lace” represents 3% of the of the Polish lace
market. The profitability is 80%.
Marketing practices The distribution practices include retail and wholesale, direct selling, sale by internet and sale
by art galleries. The promotion is made through mass media, folk products exhibitions and
handicraft competitions.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main usurpations come from enterprises producing industrial laces, especially Chinese
producers of cheap crocheted table clothes and curtains. They often use typical Koniakow
themes.
Main challenges
• The future of “Koniakow lace” mainly depends on fashion and the competition of
industrial laces. Indeed, fashion is very changeable and regional lace-makers have to be
‘flexible’. In the opinion of the expert, this should not be a problem.
• Industrial laces seriously compete with regional handicraft because they are much
cheaper than “Koniakow lace”, as they are not very labour-intensive. However, are not
of as good quality as “Koniakow lace”, even if at first sight they look very similar to it.
• The expert thinks that the protection and the promotion of the “Koniakow lace” should be
reinforced.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Koniakow lace” replied positively stressing that such a system has proved
65
very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of view. They
would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide additional legal
protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
66
Portugal
Bordado Da Madeira
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The “Bordado da Madeira” is an embroidery which is produced in the Madeira and Porto
Santo Islands (Portugal). The oldest testimony on Madeira embroidery dates back to the end
of the 16th century, but it is only since the mid-twentieth century that this hand made product
has gained the dimension of an industrial market product.
Legal protection The “Bordado da Madeira” is protected in Portugal in particular:
• As a GI since 1947 but this legal instrument is not used. The “Bordado da Madeira”
was registered as a GI but without any specification and control system. Since then, a
specification has been developed.
• By a collective mark with an indication of source owned by the “wine, embroidery and
handicrafts Institute of Madeira”. They decided to opt for the collective trademark
since the GI system was not well known. Thanks to the trademark system the
“Bordado da Madeira” is protected against “delocalizers”, against the use of the GI
name with expressions and against designations or trademarks for products of the
same category or for products of other categories.
• By the unfair competition law, if consumers are misled.
Outside of Portugal, “Bordado da Madeira” is protected through the registration of the
collective mark in the United States, in Italy and in Switzerland.
However, it is not protected via international agreements.
67
All the production steps take place in Madeira and/or Porto Santo Islands. However, even if
the raw materials used are legally well defined (usually cotton or linen fabrics) it does not
necessarily have to proceed form the area (may come from Portugal or other countries).
There exists specific rules regarding the labelling (a Guarantee Stamp affixes by IVBAM) but
no rules as far as the packaging is concerned.
Economic data There are currently 27 producers (all SMEs) and 189 employees. In 2007, 8.918,725 kg of
“Bordado da Madeira” was produced (in 2003 12.565,545 kg, in 2004 10.425,575 kg, in 2005
9.445,890 kg and in 2006 8.711,291 kg) for a total value of 2.339.887,54 Euros (in 2003
2.916.219,58 Euros, in 2004 2.442.366,98 Euros, in 2005 2.046.169,25 Euros and in 2006
2.202.896,64 Euros). Still in 2007, they exported in the EU 447.107,53 Euros worth of
material (in 2003 643.778,58 Euros, in 2004 554.353,60 Euros, in 2005 509.161,73 Euros
and in 2006 519.889,83 Euros) and outside of the EU 576.694,44 Euros (in 2003 728.296,37
Euros, in 2004 602.487,91 Euros, in 2005 528.184,58 Euros and in 2006 621.186,88 Euros),
there main export countries being the United States, Italy the United Kingdom and
Switzerland.
Main challenges The perspective for coming years is not very positive since “Bordado da Madeira” is an
expensive product and it is not easy to sell. The use of cloths with “Bordado da Madeira” is
also not easy, as it requires to be washed separately and a specific ironing. They are making
an effort to link “Bordado da Madeira” to the fashion market and they want to insist on the
issue of the use of GI as a real tool and not only as a souvenir.
Interest in further protection at the EU level The producers would be interested in benefiting from a sui generis GI protection system for
their GI product at the EU level.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Bordado da Madeira” replied positively stressing that such a system has
proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of
view. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide
additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
68
Spain
Calzado de Elche
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The “Calzado de Elche” are shoes produced and elaborated historically in the boundary of
the city of Elche in the Province of Alicante (Spain). The footwear manufacturing industry and
that of its component parts have been part of Elche’s economic engine for decades. The
design, the assembly and the packaging of the shoes take place in the area of Elche.
Legal protection The “Asociación de Industriales del Calzado de Elche”, created in 1977, protects and
promotes the interests of its members (around 800). It is the owner of the registered
trademark.
The “Calzado de Elche” are protected in Spain in particular:
• By a figurative and collective trademark. The trademark protects against designations
or trademarks for products of the same category or for products of other categories.
There are no labelling or packaging requirements. The protection through trademark
was chosen because there is no DO/IG protection system available at the EU or
national level for non agricultural GI products.
• Under the Spanish unfair competition law which protects against “delocalizers” and
against the use of the GI name with expressions, if consumers are misled.
The “Calzado de Elche” are not protected in third countries nor via international agreements.
69
Economic data There are over 2,100 production and sales centres, which constitute 12% of the city’s 12,400
registered businesses. This sector employs in total 13,480 persons and it is made up of 815
SMEs and of 5 big enterprises (Grupo Pikolinos, Grupo Mustang, Wonders, Newkers and
Tempe).
From 2002 to 2007 the total turnover was of 4,364 million Euros (263.330.000 pairs of shoes)
and the export value was of 3,573 million Euros (important presence in the EU and the USA).
Furthermore, the “Calzado de Elche” represents 40% of the Spanish national market.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are producers from some areas close to Elche (Elda and Villena)
where shoes production is one of the main activity and other similar production in the South-
East of Asia and in Italy.
It is interesting to note that up to date no usurpation or counterfeiting on the
national/international market has been reported.
Main challenges
• Maintain and increase the quality of the product and
• Face the competition of shoes produced in South-East Asia (i.e. China).
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
representatives of the “Calzado de Elche” producers replied positively stressing that such a
system has proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion
point of view. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would
provide additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective
way.
70
Cuero de Ubrique
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The “Cuero de Ubrique” is leather from the city of Ubrique (Province of Cádiz, Spain) that is
processed in different kind of products (wallets, handbags and other). This tradition dates
back to the Roman and Arab period.
Legal protection The “Administradora de la marca y denominacion del artículo de piel de Ubrique, S.A.”
certifies the quality of the manufacturing of the leather product. It is the owner of the
registered trademarks.
The “Cuero de Ubrique” is protected in Spain by in particular:
• A figurative and collective mark. It protects against designations or trademarks for
products of the same category or for products of other categories. The protection
through trademark was chosen because there is no DO/IG protection system available
at the EU or national level for non agricultural products.
• Under the Spanish unfair competition law which protects against “delocalizers” and
against the use of the GI name with expressions, if consumers are misled.
The “Cuero de Ubrique” is protected in the EU through:
• A figurative and collective Community mark registered at the OHIM.
The “Cuero de Ubrique” is not protected in third countries nor via international agreements.
71
The members of the “Administradora de la marca y denominacion del artículo de piel de
Ubrique, S.A.” can use the registered marks if they respect the specifications. The raw
material (i.e. the leather) comes from different areas of Spain but the manufacturing takes
place in Ubrique. There are specific rules for the labelling and the packaging and they are
detailed in the Regulation for the Certification Trademark.
Economic data Currently, 286 SMEs and 2 big enterprises (DIMOPEL and IVERCUMBRE) use the “Cuero
de Ubrique” in their finished products. From 2002 to 2007 the total turnover was of was of
1.749.680.000 Euros and the export value was of 328.150.000 Euros. This sector employs in
total 2.770 persons. Moreover, this product represents 16.55 % of the Spanish national
market.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are leather products originating in South-East Asia.
Cases of usurpation and counterfeiting at the national level have been reported.
Main challenges
• Maintain and increase the quality of the product and
• Be able to face the competition of cheap products coming from South-East Asian
countries.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Cuero de Ubrique” replied positively stressing that such a system has
proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of
view. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide
additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
72
Sweden
Glasriket
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The « Glasriket » is a crystal glass produced in the region of Småland, a region in the
Southern part of Sweden, since 1742. The glassmaking activity expanded during the 19th
century.
Legal protection The Swedish Crystal Manufacturers’ Association (Svenska Glasbruksföreningen) operates
as a lobby group.
« Glasriket » is protected in Sweden in particular by:
• A figurative collective trademark, registered by the Swedish Crystal Manufacturers’
Association,
• By trademarks, containing geographical names of the place of production, registered
by some companies producing it, e.g. Orrefors, Pukeberg and Kosta Boda.
The trademarks protect against designations or trademarks for products of the same
category.
• Under the Unfair Competition Law, which protect against “delocalizers”, if consumers
are misled,
Orrefors and Kosta Boda are registered in the USA as trademarks.
From a general point of view, there is no tradition in Sweden of using a collective mark
instead of an individual trademark in the marketing of products, or even to act under a
collective mark. This means that where collective marks exist, both the individual trademark
and the collective mark are used in parallel and support each other: the trademark to
73
emphasise the individual profile/origin, and the collective mark showing the belonging to the
group, which in turn often functions as a sort of certified guarantee and/or emphasizes
credibility signal to the public.
There is no common standard of production but all the steps of production must take place in
the area. There are no specific rules concerning packaging, nor labelling.
Economic data The first degree in the production chain is the making of pelletized batches of glass out of
sand and different materials. These pelletized batches are then delivered to each glasswork
and studio. There is just one single producer of this product, GLASMA, which is located in
Emmaboda in the Glasriket region in Småland in the South East part of Sweden. Every
glasswork or studio has a special mixture which GLASMA produces on their behalf. All
glassworks and studios in the Glasriket region are customers of GLASMA and it is the only
producer of its kind in Sweden. It employs about 15 people. GLASMA has since long been
certified to ISO 9001:2000 and its production is also environmental friendly and certified to
ISO 14001.
The second degree in the production chain is the transformation of the pelletized pellets into
glass/crystal. Nowadays, 15 artistic glasswork companies produce “Glasriket”.
The biggest producer of crystal glass in the Glasriket region is Orrefors Kosta Boda, which is
the result of successive mergers between the biggest and most reputed glass producers.
This company today has 3 (4 before November 2008) glassworks in the Glasriket area
(Orrefors, Kosta Boda and Åfors) and employs about 550 people. Orrefors Kosta Boda also
runs a large tourist business at their glass factories/studios in Småland.
The second biggest enterprise with around 50 employees is Målerås, followed by Reijmyre
with 23, Lindshammar with 20, and Johansfors after a reconstruction in 2008 with 11
employees. Along with these “medium size” enterprises there are also a few smaller
glassworks. These glassworks employ approximately 5–10 people each. Additionally, there
are some very small studios that only employ 1–2 persons.
The sales in value have mounted up to 50,8 million Euros in 2007 (in 2003 58,4 million
Euros, in 2004 56,4 million Euros, in 2005 53,8 million Euros and in 2006 56,4 million Euros)
and the exports to 18,83 million Euros (in 2003 25,48 million Euros, in 2004 24,63 million
Euros, in 2005 22 million Euros and in 2006 22,44 million Euros).
74
Marketing practices The glass products are basically sold under the respective geographical names, which (as an
exception) function as trademarks and trade names in these cases: Bergdala, Boda,
Johansfors, Kosta, Lindshammar, Målerås, Nybro, Orrefors, Pukeberg, Rosdala, Transjö,
and Åfors.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competition the crystal manufacturers face are imports from low cost countries,
primarily China, as well as products from low cost stores with own design/manufacturing
such as IKEA, with a (Swedish) designers’ production of hand blown glass made in low cost
countries such as Poland or Portugal.
Up to date, no usurpations of the name have been recorded.
Main challenges
• Maintain the high artistic and production quality and
• Invest in R&D as well as in the education in the profession (glass blowers and glass
artists).
• Further develop Glasriket as a great tourist attraction.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the “Glasriket” replied positively stressing that such a system has proved very
useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of view. They
would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide additional legal
protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
75
The Netherlands
Texel Wool Quilt
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Texel Wool Quilts” are bed quilts filled with shaved wool from Texelaar sheep living on the
island of Texel (Province of Noord-Holland) or in the coastal area (North of the Netherlands).
The sheep breed has been present on the island for a long time. The production of quilts on
Texel started about 23 years ago, when the habit to sleep under stuffed quilts came into
fashion in The Netherlands. Before that date, the wool was sold on the international wool
market.
Legal protection There is no association of producers. However, there is an association of the 40 producers of
”Real Texel Produce”. There are no specific rules on packaging or labeling, but there are
some voluntary labels. The certification is private.
There is no collective protection of “Texel Wool Quilt” because of the low number of
producers; the difference in size of the firms; the relatively recent history of the product; and
the absence of a producers’ organization.
The geographical origin “Texel” is protected in The Netherlands in particular by:
• Several private trademarks containing the name “Texel” or “Wadden”33: Texelana,
Texeltopper, TexelWool, Texeler, Texel Nightdream (pillows), Waddenglorie,
Waddenparel, Waddendroom (pillows).
• Local certification marks:
33 The latter refers to the Dutch Wadden islands of which the Texel Island is part.
76
- “Waddengoud” label, carried by 1 producer. It is owned by the foundation Stichting
Waddengroep, which certifies food products for the Dutch Wadden islands and
adjacent coastal areas.
- “Echt Texels Produkt” label (Real Texel Produce), carried by 2 producers. It is
owned by the association “Vereniging Texelse Productie Promotie”. The
requirements to use it are that 75% of the essential primary materials must come
from the island, and that 75% of all processing must take place on the island.
- Woolmark (international)
• The Unfair Competition Law which protects against delocalizers and the use of the
name with expressions, if consumers are misled.
They are protected outside of The Netherlands in particular by:
• The local certification trademarks are registered as collective marks at the Benelux
intellectual property office.
Thank to the trademarks, the “Texel Wool Quilts” are protected in translation in the different
languages of the Benelux and against designations or trademarks for products of the same
category or for products of other categories.
“Texel Wool Quilts” are not protected at the international level.
Economic data There are around 150 local sheep breeders, with 30 000–35 000 newborn lambs per year.
Only about 25% of the wool of each sheep can be used for the quilts. There are 3 producers
employing 50 persons (10-25 per firm) and all enterprises which produce are SMEs. 100 000
quilts are produced per year.
As the average factory gate price is €60 per quilt, the production is worth at least € 6 million
(estimation). There are no exact data on the sales. “Texel Wool Quilts” are largely sold within
The Netherlands. Export to Belgium are worth 5% of the total, that-is-to-say €300 000
(estimation). “Texel Wool Quilts” represent 8% of the Dutch market for sleeping quilts
(estimation) but are high quality products. The profitability of the production appears at the
level of the breeders and at the level of the products. The sheep breeders’ price is 10%
higher than other Texelaar wools.
77
Marketing practices The producers are in a niche market where both costs and margins are higher than average.
The sales are mostly direct. Each company does its own promotion towards retailers, but
also through the association of producers of Texel products. The three logos (“Echt Texels
Product”, “Waddengoud” and “Woolmark”) are of a great help.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are industrial manufacturers of sleeping quilts, in particular of quilts
that contain wool. There seems to be no competition from products with Texel origin.
There is no information on counterfeiting.
Main challenges
• Optimize the use the locally produced wool from Texelaar sheep, which is in limited
supply. The rather recent and successful promotion of Texel lamb may increase the
local livestock and thus wool supply.
• Increase the reputation of Texel wool quilts within The Netherlands, where it is well
established, and increase and extend it to adjacent regions across the Belgium and
German borders.
• Create some collective action among the 3 existing producers.
Interest in further protection at the EU level The expert said that the producers are probably not yet interested in benefiting from a sui
generis GI protection system for their GI product at the EU level because of for lack of
collective action at the local level.
78
United Kingdom
Shetland woollen outerwear
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics ”Shetland woollen outerwear” is a woollen outerwear which dates from at least the 6th century
BC. The wool for the Islands’ knitting tradition is provided by the Shetland sheep, a hardy
breed that produces a hard-wearing fleece. Early knitwear designs were often plain, but as
early as the 18th century travellers to Shetland noted the colourfully patterned knitwear.
These multi-coloured patterns called Fair Isle became popular, and their production spread
to the other islands of Shetland. Until 50 years ago it was spun by hand by the women, but
today most of the wool crop is spun by machine on the main island.
Legal protection The Shetland Knitwear Trades Association (SKTA) was formed in 1982 to represent the
knitwear producers of Shetland. Its primary aims are to protect and promote Shetland
Knitwear and to provide a contact point for those wishing to make direct contact with
Shetland based knitwear producers.
”Shetland woollen outerwear” is protected in the United Kingdom in particular by:
• A 'Shetland Lady' certification mark, owned by the SKTA, since 1991. In order to
maintain certified requirements, SKTA has a quality assurance programme. The
Shetland Council arranges for inspection of the garments.
• A certification mark registered by Anderson & Co., wholesalers and retailers of
Shetland Knitwear.
• The UK unfair competition law, if consumers are misled.
79
The trademark regime protects against designations or trademarks for products of the same
category or for products of other categories.
The certification marks are applied to knitwear which is produced in the Shetland Islands.
While there is no legal requirement for a “delimited area” of production in relation to a UK
certification mark, the producers are exclusively established in the Shetland Islands. The
garments are inspected before being sold. In both cases, the raw material comes from the
islands and all the process of production take place on the islands.
The trademark system was chosen to protect the product because it is the only system
available in the UK for the protection of geographical indications for handicrafts. A
certification mark was chosen over an individual trademark because it is available for all of
producers.
Outside of the UK, a “Shetland Lady” certification mark has been registered in Japan
Economic data
• In the first degree of production, there are between 30 and 40 producers. Each
producer has an average of 1-3 employees.
• In the second degree of production, there are approximately 30-35 producers. Some
producers work individually, but on average they have 4-5 employees. This work is
also outsourced to women individually. The largest producer, Anderson & Co., has
about 60 workers.
• The Shetland Woollen Knitwear enterprises are small consisting; there are no big
enterprises.
The value of the production was €3.5 millions in 2002, €2.95 millions in 2003 and €3.5
millions in 2006. Japan is the largest export market for the two largest producers (Anderson
& Co. and Jamieson’s of Shetland). 80% of the products of the former and 90% of the
product of the latter are exported to Japan. The fact that Japan is a principal market for
Shetland knitwear is also evidenced by the general statistics for Shetland knitwear export
markets for 2002 and 2004. In 2002, 75% of all ”Shetland woollen outerwear” was sold in
Asia (including Japan), 12% in Europe, 8% in the UK and 5% in the Americas. In 2004, 36%
was sold in Japan, 31% in the local market, 10% in Scotland, 5% in the rest of UK, 5% in the
Americas and 13% elsewhere. The profitability is assessed as being 15%.
80
Marketing practices Concerning the promotion, the largest producer/wholesaler Anderson’s of Shetland have an
agent in the largest market, Japan. The sale strategy is also based on wholesale and retail.
The promotion is made through brochures, magazine and the internet. Sales strategy and
marketing are largely based on the use of the origin of the product and the use of the
geographical designation ‘Shetland’ combined with the name of the business and/or a
distinctive device. Both trademarks have a logo.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competition comes from China where genuine Shetland Knitwear has to compete
with cheap, industrially produced imitations.
There are cases of counterfeiting. The geographical name 'Shetland' is commonly used to
promote knitwear, which is often of inferior quality, produced beyond the islands. The major
problem is unauthorized use by manufacturers of knitwear in emerging economies, in
particular China, who free ride on the reputation that attaches worldwide to the quality of
Shetland woollen outerwear.
Main challenges The main challenge is to secure the protection of ”Shetland woollen outerwear” as a
designation of origin for specialist knitwear. The designation Shetland is renowned worldwide
for knitwear, in particular for the distinctive, colourfully patterned Fair Isle designs and the
knitted lace. The Shetland Island Council has identified the usurpation of ‘Shetland’ by
knitwear manufacturers all over the world as the major marketing problem facing the
Shetland knitwear industry.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers of the ”Shetland woollen outerwear” replied positively stressing that such a system
has proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a promotion point of
view. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that would provide
additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient and cost effective way.
The producers of ”Shetland woollen outerwear” understand a EU sui generis GI system to
have the following advantages:
• GI protection would be more cost effective than trademark protection, since there
would be no renewal fees.
81
• The protection offered by Regulation 510/2006 on the protection of geographical
indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs has a
broader scope than their current trademark protection. Protection would not only be
EU wide, but the Association would also be able to take legal action again those who
used the sign with the words ‘style’ and ‘type’. Furthermore, the ”Shetland woollen
outerwear” would be protected against genericity.
• The certification mark for the UK as well as any international registrations could be
retained in addition to the protection granted by an EU sui generis GI system.
82
2.3. Non agricultural GIs in third countries
2.3.1. Overview After having presented the European products, we will now focus on the 10 non-agricultural
GIs from Brazil, China, India, Russia and Switzerland included in the case-study part of this
research. These are:
• In Brazil : Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos and Mud Pans of Goiabeiras
• In China: Liuyang Fireworks and Jingdezhen Porcelain
• In India: Kashmir Pashmina, Kashmir Sozani Craft, Kani Shawls (textile) and
Mysore Sandal Soap
• In Russia: Gzel (ceramics) and Tula Samovar (metal container)
• In Switzerland: Swiss Watches and St. Galler Stickerei (embroidery)
These products are very different in nature since they include items such as porcelains,
leathers, watches, embroideries, textiles, pans, fireworks, soaps and traditional water boilers.
It is interesting to note that in the five countries studied, the authorities have established both
a trademark and a sui generis GI protection system. With regard to the legal instrument used
to protect these 10 non agricultural GI products in their country of origin, Brazil, India and
Russia provide for the protection of non agricultural GI products through a sui generis GI
system, while the Chinese products are protected under both the trademark law and the sui
generis GI system. In Switzerland, GIs are protected in a specific way, without any
registration, under the federal law on the protection of trademark and indications of source.
As far as the protection of these products is concerned, only one Chinese product and the
two Swiss products have secured protection outside of their country of origin.
An analysis of these third country non agricultural GI products shows that like in the EU, the
sector is mostly composed of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However
the economic and social impact of these products is often much more important than in the
EU; some of these products contribute significantly to the local employment and economy.
For those that are exported, the main markets are the developed countries’ markets, in
particular the USA and the EU, as well as Asian and Middle East markets.
Many of the third countries’ producers explained that they are confronted with counterfeit
products and some reported serious economic loss due to counterfeiting. Intellectual
83
property protection is an important issue for most of these producers who consider that it is
important to secure a better legal protection outside of their country of origin.
The producers of these GIs were very much divided on the usefulness of a specific GI sui
generis system at the EU level for non-agricultural products.
Five of them (the producers from India and Russia, as well as of “Swiss watches”) said that
they would welcome the establishment of such sui generis system at the EU level. The
producers of “Swiss watches” are interested in the establishment of such a scheme because
it would provide a further legal protection and would help to fight against counterfeiting and
usurpations. The producers of the “Liuyang Firework” from China are interested to benefit
from a sui generis GI protection system for their GI product at the EU level, but their
preference would go to a trademark protection at this stage.
The other four (the producers from Brazil and China and “St.Galler Stickerei”) do not find an
interest or do not understand how their products could benefit from such a system. The
Brazilian producers are currently not interested in benefiting from a EU sui generis GI
protection system, as the protection of these products as a GI is recent: the “Finished
Leather of Vale dos Sinos” are protected as a GI since 2009 and the process of registration
is underway for the “Mud Pans of Goiabeiras”. Finally, the producers of the “Jingdezhen
Porcelain” are not fully aware of the influence and of the importance of benefiting from a sui
generis GI protection system for their GI product at the EU level.
You will find hereinafter a detailed analysis of the selected GI case studies.
2.3.2. Case studies
84
Brazil
Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The “Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos” is produced in the Vale dos Sinos Region, in the
State of Rio Grande do Sul, in the southern tip of Brazil. The finished leather is used for
different purposes, such as the manufacture of footwear, accessories, clothing, and
upholstery. The production of finished leather in the Valley of Sinos is closely related to the
arrival of German immigrants to Brazil in 1824. In 1829, there were eight leather industries,
signalling the role that the leather industry would exercise in the history of the city and the
region of Vale dos Sinos.
Legal protection The “Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos” is protected in Brazil:
• By the Law 9279 of 14.05.1996 and normative acts 134 of 15.04.1997 and 143 of
31.08.1996.
• As a GI since April 2009, when the National Institute of Industrial Property registered
it. It is the first non-agricultural product to be granted a GI in Brazil.
The “Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos” is protected against the use of expression as
“type”, against genericity, and against designations or trademarks for products of the same
category or for products of other categories.
The owner of the GI is the Association of Leather Industries of the State of Rio Grande do
Sul (AICSUL). The GI protection was chosen because the entrepreneurs thought it would
bring a better protection and an added value to their products.
The “Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos” is not protected at the international level.
85
There is a technical regulation of production and control. All the steps of production must
take place in the Vale dos Sinos. There are numerous companies in the region of
components for the leather and footwear industry. The Vale dos Sinos region does not have
tradition of production of raw leather, but became famous as a centre of production of
finished leather of excellent quality. The origin of most of the raw material is the Central West
Brazil.
The products of "Vale dos Sinos" can be identified on the packaging, through labels or tags,
and in the documentation for the product as follows:
• Identification of the geographic name followed by "Indication of Origin" as follows:
VALE DOS SINOS - Indication of Origin
• Labelling standard for control of the seal on the packaging, labels or tags, and
corresponding documentation. The seal contains the following words: "Vale do Sinos
- Indication of Origin" and the number of control. The seal is used by the company in
accordance with the Manual for Use with the conditions defined by the Technical and
Regulatory Council.
The products, which are not protected by the indication of Origin "Vale dos Sinos", cannot
use the names specified above. If these products come from Vale dos Sinos, they can only
contain the address label, without emphasizing the geographic area and thus its reputation.
Economic data There are 88 finished leather industries employing directly 10 000 persons. The footwear
industries count 9.032 enterprises and 298.659 employees, and the artefacts 2.818
enterprises and 38.294 employees. There are 85 SMEs and
3 large-sized companies.
9 million pieces of finished leathers were produced in 2003, 9.5 million in 2004; 10 million in
2005; 10.5 million in 2006 and 11 million in 2007.
The value of the sales was ~€483 millions in 2003, ~€520 millions in 2004, ~€557 millions in
2005, ~€594 millions in 2006 and ~€743 millions in 2007.
The value of the export was ~€265 millions in 2003, ~€300 millions in 2004, ~€315 millions in
2005, ~€357 millions in 2006 and ~€394 millions in 2007.
The exports to the EU were ~€81 millions in 2003, ~€76 millions in 2004, ~€75 millions in
2005, ~€86 millions in 2006, and ~€103 millions in 2007.
86
The “Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos” represents 40% of the Brazilian market share and
3% of world market share. The profitability of the 88 industries is about 10%. The products
are distributed at 60% on the international market and at 40% on the Brazilian market.
Marketing practices The sale strategy is to differentiate the product through the GI. The sector still lacks a
marketing strategy to promote its products but it is represented at international trade fairs.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are Italian companies of finished leather.
Regarding counterfeiting, the name of the Vale dos Sinos is abused by producers of finished
leather from other parts of Brazil. As far as the international market is concerned, there is no
information on counterfeiting at the present time.
Main challenges
• A market increasingly demanding aspects of the design, performance and
environment.
• Greater and faster production to meet the needs of end consumers.
• Use of leather into products of higher added value and replace it by synthetic
materials in products of lower price.
• Develop a plan for marketing the GI brand to include finished leather of Vale dos
Sinos in the domestic and international markets;
• Improving the efficiency of management, processes and research of leather, creating
more competitive products;
• Increasing integration in the production chain.
Interest in further protection at the EU level For the time being, the producers expressed no interest in benefiting from a sui generis GI
protection system for their GI product at the EU level
87
Mud Pans of Goiabeiras
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The “Mud Pans of Goiabeiras” are produced in the District of Goiabeiras, State of Espírito
Santo (East of Brazil). The main product is the traditional circular mud pan with cover for
handle. This product is the result of 400 years of indigenous activity, predominantly female,
passed from mother to daughter by successive generations within the family and the
community.
Legal protection The “Mud Pans of Goiabeiras” are protected in Brazil:
• By the law 9279 of 14.05.1996 and the normative acts 134 of 15.04.1997 and 143 of
31.08.1996.
• As an intangible cultural heritage in the “book of registered Knowledge” (25.11.2008)
of the Brazilian National Institute of History and Artistic Heritage.
• By a Fair Trade certification.
The “Mud Pans of Goiabeiras” are not protected at the international level.
There is a project underway to register it as GI. The owner of the geographical indication will
be the Association of Producers of Mud Pans of Goiabeiras. The GI protection was chosen
because the “Mud Pans of Goiabeiras” fully meets the GI definition and because there is a
need for protection and for a collective marketing strategy. When registered as a GI, the
“Mud Pans of Goiabeiras” will be protected against the use of expression as “type”, against
genericity, and against designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for
products of other categories.
88
There are unwritten rules of production but no controls. The ongoing project is working on
writing the rules and setting up the control system. All Mud Pans are made with the same
material and the same technique; only the diameter, height and shape vary. All the steps of
production take place in the area and the raw materials come from the near mangrove.
There are no rules concerning labelling. The association uses a label it created but there are
no controls concerning its use.
Economic data The production of “Mud Pans of Goiabeiras” remains a family business. It is a way of life for
more than 120 families. The Association of producers of Mud Pans from Goiabeiras has 118
members. There are 82 affiliates involved actively in the production. Around 10 people are
involved in the removal of the mud (8) and the bark of mangroves (2).
In the last 5 years, the production has been stable but it does not follow a business line. It is
a handmade production, and there are no economic data recorded. In 2008, the Association
produced 158.000 mud pans, sold at an average price of US$6 (€4.5). The total sale value is
~€709 000. The volume of exported items is small (less than 1%) and concerns mainly
tourists. The Association has records of sales to the U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany and
Alaska. From what the expert gathered, the profit margin exceeds 80%. However, because
of the lack of organization of the producers, the producers do not add value to the product
and sell it for very low prices.
Marketing practices There are no marketing strategy or distribution practices. One of the objectives of the
Association is to use the GI as a powerful marketing tool. The State of Espírito Santo assists
the association in the promotion of the pans.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are the industries of clay pans, which produce in scale and sell at a
low price, often using the fame of the Mud Pans of Goiabeiras.
Regarding counterfeiting, the name of Goiabeiras for Mud Pans is abused, on the regional
market, by other producers of pans from other parts of the State.
Main challenges
• Organize the producers and the production;
89
• Protect and add value to the production through the Geographical Indication;
• Add value in the production with a strong marketing strategy;
• Organize the exploitation of natural resources that are used as raw material for the
pans;
• Add other ways to preserve the native culture of the people producing the pans,
through partnerships and agreements with organizations that have focus on
preservation has deteriorated type of culture;
• Find a good way to package the Mud Pans. The producers are currently studying the
most feasible form of packing.
Interest in further protection at the EU level At this stage, the producers are not interested in benefiting from a sui generis GI protection
system for their GI product at the EU level.
90
China
Jingdezhen Porcelain
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Jingdezhen Porcelain” is a porcelain produced in the administrative region of Jingdezhen
City, Jiangxi Province (South-East of China). The pottery industry started during the III
Century in Xinping, the old name of Jingdezhen. In 1004, the emperor determined to levy the
porcelain wares produced in the city for imperial use with the wording “Made during the
Jingde Reign” printed on the bottom of every piece. Hence the city was named “Jingdezhen”
afterwards. Around 1370, Jingdezhen became the center of porcelain industry in China. The
most famous four patterns, blue and white, famille rose, rice-pattern and color glaze were
developed.
Legal protection “Jingdezhen Porcelain” is protected in China under:
• The GI sui generis system34 (AQSIQ). The owner of the IP right is the Municipal
Government of Jingdezhen City. Under the GI sui generis system, “Jingdezhen
Porcelain” benefits from a protection by the public authorities and is protected in
translation, against delocalizers, against use of the GI name with expressions as
“type”, and against designations or trademarks for products of the same category or
for products of other categories.
34 "Provisions on the Protection of Geographical Indication Products", which was issued by Decree No. 78 of State Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) and took effect on 15 July 2005
91
• The trademark system as a mark with a geographical reference which is quite a
special type of trademark unique concept. The owner of the IP right is the Chinaware
Association of Jingdezhen. The trademark system is more popular and better known.
Under the trademark system, the name is protected against designations or
trademarks for products of the same category or for products of other categories.
“Jingdezhen Porcelain” is not protected at the international level.
The Notice of Protected Designation of Origin of Jingdezhen Porcelain (by the AQSIQ35) sets
the standards of production. The raw materials come from the area and all production steps
must take place in the area. However, there is no certification scheme or packaging rules.
Rules concerning labeling are clearly established by measures for the Protection of
Intellectual Property Rights of Jingdezhen Porcelain (issued by Municipal Government of
Jingdezhen City and put into practice on 7th December 2008).
The Chinaware Association of Jingdezhen (CAJ) represents the whole industry (local
porcelain enterprises, porcelain-related affiliated institutions and other stakeholders) with
more than 400 members. It was established on December 1997 as a NGO.
Economic data In 2007, there were over 2877 porcelain enterprises, 76 of which are above-scale enterprises
(annual sales in value above ~€ 545.000), the rest are SMEs.
The production in value was more than ~€193 millions (2003), ~€226 millions (2004), ~€271
millions (2005), ~€353 millions (2006), ~€463 millions (2007) and ~€775 millions (2008).
The value of the sales was more than €176 million in 2003, ~€222 million in 2004, ~€264
million in 2005, ~€317 million in 2006 and ~€412 million in 2007.
The value of the exports was ~€14.38 millions in 2003, ~€12.1 millions in 2004, ~€17.4
millions in 2005, ~€27.4 millions in 2006, and ~€36.3 millions in 2007.
Marketing practices “Jingdezhen Porcelain” covers the whole porcelain market, but the advantageous market
segments are ornamental porcelain, domestic porcelain and artistic porcelain markets. The
distribution practices are channel, direct and online sales. “Jingdezhen Porcelain” bases its
sale strategy on its good reputation and high quality. Promotion is made through domestic
35 General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China
92
and international porcelain exhibitions and trade fairs. Some big and high-end producers also
adopt brand strategy, including establishing stores and show rooms in big cities.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are Porcelain producers in Guangdong Province. In 2005, the
production in value of Chaozhou, Foshan and Dehua of Guangdong Province are all above
~€1 milliard respectively, compared to the ~€220 millions of the Jingdezhen Porcelain
industry. There are also strong competitors from Japan.
Counterfeiting of Jingdezhen Certification Trademark is a serious issue; it exists for long time
on a large scale. The counterfeiters abusing the certification trademark are mainly producers
outside Jiangxi Province (e.g. from Guangdong Province).
Main challenges
• Overcome the competition within China and abroad,
• Develop R&D capacity and activities,
• Fight counterfeiting,
• Reduce the pollution made by the resource consuming porcelain industry,
• Position more clearly the “Jingdezhen Porcelain” on the market.
Interest in further protection at the EU level The expert stated that local producers are not interested at the present time in benefiting
from a sui generis GI protection system for their GI product at the EU level.
93
Liuyang Firework
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Liuyang firework” are firework and firecracker from a region located in the Hunan Province
(South-East of China): Jili Village, Hehua Village, Guankou Village, Xijiang Village, Gugang
Town, Gaoping Village, Sankou Village, Yanxi Town, Guandu Town, Dahu Town, Daweishan
Town, Zhangfang Town, Xiaohe Town, Dengtanjiang Town, Zhonghe Town, Wenjiashi Town,
Dayao Town, Yanghua Village, Jingang Town, Gejia Village, Taipingqiao Town, Chengchong
Town, Puji Town, Dongyang Town, Beisheng Town, Jiaoxi Town, Longfu Town, and
Shegang Town of Liuyang City.
The first firecracker was invented during the VII Century, by a member of the Liuyang people.
Around 1830, manufacture of firecrackers had been prevalent all over Hunan Province with
an annual increase of the fireworks production volume. From the end of the XIX century,
Liuyang firecrackers became famous and started to be sold in Hong Kong, Macau and
Southeast Asia.
Legal protection “Liuyang firework” is protected in China under:
• The GI sui generis system36 (AQSIQ37). Under this system, the owner of the right is
the Municipal Government of Liuyang City. “Liuyang firework” benefits from a
protection by the public authorities and is protected in translation, against
delocalizers, against use of the GI name with expressions as “type” and against
designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for products of
other categories.
36 "Provisions on the Protection of Geographical Indication Products", which was issued by Decree No. 78 of State Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) and took effect on 15 July 2005 37 General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China
94
• The trademark system as a mark with a geographical reference which is quite a
special type of trademark unique concept. The owner of the right is the Federation of
Fireworks and Firecracker of Liuyang. It is protected against designations or
trademarks for products of the same category or for products of other categories.
“Liuyang firework” is protected outside of China under:
• The trademark system: the Liuyang Firework certification mark has been registered
in several countries via WIPO’s Madrid Agreement for International Registration of
Trademarks.
• At the international level, some producers registered their own trademarks in third
countries (the USA and Europe).
The “Serial Standards on Liuyang Firework Product” has to be followed in order to be
allowed to use the certification trademark of Liuyang Firework. All the steps of the production
have to take place in the geographical area as required by ”the Administration Rules on the
Use of Liuyang Firework Certification Trademark”. The raw materials come from the
administrative region of Liuyang City. “Product Safety and Quality Standard of Liuyang
Firework", which is part of the “Serial Standards on Liuyang Firework Product”, set out some
requirements on the packaging and transport of Liuyang firework. Rules concerning labeling
are clearly established under the ”Administrative Rules on the Use of Liuyang Firework
Certification Trademark” and in the “Provisions on the Protection of Geographical Indication
Products” under AQSIQ's sui generis system.
The trademark system is more popular in Liuyang and is used by a lot of producers,
particularly SMEs, because of it has a longer history in protection and a wider promotion
potential as it is more known. Furthermore, various measures encourage the use of Liuyang
Firework Certification mark. Indeed, it is prioritized by the government in supporting plants
construction and administrative approval.
The Federation of Fireworks and Firecracker of Liuyang (FFFL) was established in 1995 as a
NGO of producers and sales companies. It is headed by the local government. Its main tasks
are industry management, regulating production and marketing activities, improving product
quality, facilitating safe production, extending public communication, enhancing technical and
marketing information exchange and protecting the legal rights of producers and operators.
95
Economic data As of 2006, there were 1060 firework enterprises with 118,700 employees. Of these 1060
firework enterprises, 255 of which are above-scale firework enterprises (annual sales in
value above ~€ 545 000).
The production in value was ~€278 millions in 2003, ~€360 millions in 2004, ~€410 millions
in 2005, ~€548 millions in 2006 and ~€978 millions in 2007.
The sales in value were ~€ 238 millions in 2003, ~€ 327 millions in 2004, ~€ 396 millions in
2005, ~€ 543 millions in 2006 and ~€742 millions in 2007.
The export value was ~€ 125 millions in 2004, ~€ 159 millions in 2005 and ~€ 189 millions in
2006.
In 2006, the main export markets were the USA and the EU. “Liuyang firework” accounted for
31.2% of the USA market and around 73% of the EU market. “Liuyang firework” accounts for
less than 15% of the domestic market and for 70% on exporting markets. In 2006, annual
profit of firework industry was ~€40 millions. The distribution practices are commissioned,
affiliate, direct and online sales.
Marketing practices Concerning the sale strategy, the GI label, well-known trademarks, the “Liuyang Firework”
certification mark and the Production License are combined together on the label of the
products. “Liuyang Firework” is regarded as a high quality product with a good reputation.
The most important “tools” of promotion are regular international firework festivals,
exhibitions and trade fairs. “Liuyang firework” also got a great opportunity for expanding the
popularity of the brand by winning the contract for supplying fireworks to the 2008 Beijing
Olympic Games.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are enterprises in the Guangdong Province.
There are counterfeiting of “Liuyang Firework” brand.
Main challenges
• Since 2007, the reduction of tax rebate, the increase of material and transportation
costs and the appreciation of RMB have seriously undermined the exports and
squeezed the profit of enterprises.
• Technical and safety barriers set up by firework importing countries poses pressures
on producers in technology upgrading.
96
• Lack of human resources, modernized management system and strategic
development plan will restrict the development of Liuyang firework enterprises and
the establishment of influential brands.
• Firework industry cannot be fully mechanized and has to absorb a large number of
workers. Given the increase trend on Chinese labor market, the producers face
serious challenge of the short of labor and increase of labor costs.
The firework industry in Liuyang is well established. “Liuyang Firework” has already taken a
large proportion of domestic and international market. The space for future development lies
in regulating local production activities and market, building up world-renowned brand, taking
more advantage of GI protection, research and developing high-end and value-added
products to win market premium.
Interest in further protection at the EU level The expert stated that local producers are interested to benefit from a sui generis GI
protection system for their GI product at the EU level, but their preference would go to using
the trademark protection at this stage.
97
India
Kashmir Pashmina / Kani Shawl / Kashmir Sozani Craft
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Kashmir Pashmina” are textiles produced in the State of Kashmir in India (North). The
inhabitants of Kashmir were the first to use the undercoat of the Himalayan Mountain goats
to protect themselves from the harsh weather conditions. Although fine wool is commonly
marketed in the West as “cashmere”, the Kashmiri name is “Pashm” which is the wool of
Pashmina goat. All the steps of the production of “Kashmir Pashmina” have to take place in
the defined area and the raw materials come from the Himalayan Mountain goats.
“Kani Shawls” are produced in the State of Kashmir in India (North). They are produced from
fine hand spun fibres of Pashmina wool. The origin of Kani Shawl can be traced back to the
11th century thanks to wall paintings at the Archie Monastry, Ladak which depict finely woven
Kani Shawls. The earliest surviving examples of Kashimiri woven Kani Shawl are dated to be
of the pre 1650 period. All the steps of productions have to take place in the defined area.
80% of the contemporary Kani Shawl continues to be produced only with Pashmina wool.
However, silk and other fine wools are also used for its production.
“Kashmir Sozani Crafts” are embroidery produced in the State of Kashmir in India (North).
The craft has been introduced in 14th Century by the Sadat who came to Kashmir to save
themselves from the persecution of the Tyrant rulers in Central Asia. All the steps of
productions have to take place in the defined area. The threads are obtained from different
parts of India.
The following information covers the three products.
98
Legal protection The three products are registered as GI in India. The owner of the right is Tahafuz, a
registered society of diverse Kashmiri Handicraft Artisan. Under the Indian GI Act, the three
products are protected in translation, against “delocalizers”, against use of the expressions
as ‘type’, against genericity, and against designations or trademarks for textiles and textiles
goods made of Kashmir Pashmina.
The three products are not protected at the international level.
There is a specification (standard of production) for the three products.
Economic data There are more than 50,000 artisans involved in the production process (Micro & Small
Enterprises).
The production in value was (in millions Euros):
Year Pashmina Sozani Kani 1 2003– 04 41.05 16.42 2.98
2 2004-05 47.02 20.15 5.22
3 2005-06 46.27 19.4 4.48
4 2006-07 47.76 22.4 5.97
5 2007-08 62.77 29.85 7.64
The sales value varies on the distribution chain: at the artisan level, the profit margins vary
from 10% to 15%, and at the retail level, it varies from 30% to 70% depending on the
location.
The value of the sales was (in millions Euros):
Year Pashmina Sozani Kani 1 2003 – 04 70.15 27.91 20.9
2 2004 -05 79.11 34.33 22.4
3 2005-06 77.62 33.58 21.64
4 2006 -07 78.63 35.82 29.85
5 2007 -08 10.66 50.75 33.58
99
The estimate market share is 10%. The main export markets are the USA, Europe, UK, the
Middle East, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia and Nepal.
The value of the exports was (in millions Euros):
Year Pashmina Sozani Kani 1 2003 – 04 29.25 21.94 16.42
2 2004 -05 31.34 23.58 17.63
3 2005-06 32.84 24.62 18.36
4 2006 -07 41.05 30.75 23.34
5 2007 -08 46.31 34.78 26.12
The market segment is the middle to higher income group of consumers and tourists. The
distribution practice corresponds to a two pronged approach: directly from the artisans, and
secondly in retail outlet and markets. The value of IPRs was not known until the GI
Certificate was awarded in the year 2008. Therefore the strategy to leverage IPRs is in a
nascent stage.
Marketing practices The promotion of these products is steered by large governmental Agencies like the
Development Commissioner, Handicrafts, of the Ministry of Textiles (Government of India);
the Development Commissioner, Handlooms, Directorate of Handicrafts, (Government of
Jammu & Kashmir); J& K Kashmir Arts Emporia and Cottage Industry emporia.
There are specific logos for the three products.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are as follows:
• Pashmina: Machine Made Pashimna, Blended Pashmina & Hand woven Pashmina
• Sozni: Machine Needle work
• Kani shawl: Jacquard loom woven products
These products enter Indian Markets through neighbouring countries like Nepal, China, and
Tibet.
100
There was a case of counterfeiting reported, in China, where the shawls bore the Pashmina
name but were not pure pashmina wool, did not use the traditional embroidery and costed
much less.
Main challenges The main challenge is to obtain best commercial benefit by relying on the GI registration
granted in India. This would include:
• GI promotion,
• Creation of awareness on the use of the GI product,
• Initiating market watch, and
• Undertaking investigations to ascertain the infringement of the GI and undertaking
appropriate infringement action.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers replied positively. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument
that would provide additional legal protection to the trade mark protection in the 27 Member
States in an efficient and cost effective way.
101
Mysore Sandal Soap
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Mysore Sandal Soap” is an oval shaped soap, derived out of hundred percent
biodegradable pure vegetable oil soap base, produced in Mysore City, State of Karnataka in
India (South West of India). The Mysore Sandal Soap factory is one of the oldest factories
and was founded by the Mysore Maharaja in 1918. After the Indian Independence and the
abolition of princely States, the management of the Government Soap Factory and
Government Sandalwood Oil Factories, Mysore & Shimoga was under the government of
Mysore/ Karnataka. Karnataka Soaps & Detergents ltd. (KSDL) a wholly owned undertaking
of the government of Karnataka is managing the activities of the Soap factory and is the only
manufacturers of “Mysore Sandal Soap”. All the steps of the production take place in the
area. There is a specification.
Legal protection “Mysore Sandal Soap” is registered as a GI in India and the owner of the right is KSDL (A
Govt. of Karnataka Enterprise). This is no producers’ organization. Under the Indian GI Act,
“Mysore Sandal Soap” is protected in translation, against “delocalizers”, against use of the
expressions as ‘type’, against genericity, and against designations or trademarks for
products of the same category or for products of other categories.
“Mysore Sandal Soap” is not protected at the international level.
Economic data Karnataka Soaps & Detergents ltd. is a medium size enterprise. The sales in values were
approximately of €1.61 millions in 2002-2003, €1.39 millions in 2003-2004, €1.54 millions in
2004-2005, and €1.80 millions in 2005-2006.
102
The exports in values were approximately of €1.16 millions in 2002-2003, €1.04 millions in
2003-2004, €1.14 millions in 2004-2005, and €1.37 millions in 2005-2006. The estimated
market share is less than 1 % and the estimated profit is 10%.
Marketing practices There are lot of soaps in the market which claim that they are Sandal Soap. KSDL has been
successful in its sales strategy among the consumers to demonstrate that it is the genuine
product which utilises the Original Sandal Oil in the Soap. The GI Tag has emphasised the
Uniqueness & Quality standards. There is a specific logo.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The Cosmetic Soap Market is an extremely competitive one. The Market segment is mainly
dominated by Multinationals like Hindustan Lever, Proctor & Gamble, Godrej etc.
There are lot of soaps in the market which claim that they are Sandal Soap. However no
information was available on counterfeiting.
Main challenges
• Leveraging GI as a marketing tool and creating a niche in the consumer market for
“Sandal wood Soap”.
• Enforcing the GI through legal instruments and combating fake sandalwood products
in the market.
• Consumer awareness on the originality of the product.
• Create a wider export market for these products.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether it would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
enterprise replied positively. It would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that
would provide additional legal protection to the trade mark protection in the 27 Member
States in an efficient and cost effective way.
103
RUSSIA
Gzhel « Гжель»
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Gzhel” is a porcelain with a blue/white design from Russia from the Ramensky sub-region of
the Moscow region. “Gzhel” has long been famous for its white-burning clay; the origin of this
name is connected with the verb “zhech” – “to fire, to burn”. The raw materials must come
from the area and all the steps of production take place in the area.
Legal protection “Gzhel” is protected in the Russian Federation as:
• An Appellation of Origin under the Federal Law “on Trademarks, Service Marks and
Appellations of Origin” of Goods of 11 December 2002. In accordance with the Patent
Office Registrar of Trademarks and Appellations of Origin public open database,
there are 10 registered owners of the IP right (AO registrations).
Under this Law, it is protected in translation, against use of the GI name with
expressions, against genericity and against designations or trademarks for products
of the same category or for products of other categories. This Law does not contain
provisions applicable to “delocalizers” but that it provides a possibility to invalidate a
registered AO.
• A name for a traditional art and folk craft by the Federal Law "On the Arts and Crafts".
The registered Appellation of Origin “Gzhel” is not protected in other countries (including in
the EU) even though negotiations on possible agreements have already been contemplated
with Ukraine, Belarus and other countries.
104
The major problem with the protection of the appellation of origin “Gzhel” in the opinion of
expert is not due to the lack of protection per se, but rather lack of enforcement of protection
in practice (case of vodka “Gzelka”). The major problem with the protection of the AO Gzhel
is the fact that there is no protection by the public authorities. The demand in porcelain
imitating Gzhel is so high that practically every ceramics shop would sell openly imitations
along with the real products. The exceptions to this situation would be only very fashionable,
expensive department stores or specialized art shops and galleries.
There is no collective organization of “Gzhel” producers established in the Russian
Federation. There is no common standard of production but there are some individual
descriptions of Gzhel (which could be seen as specifications) provided by producers in the
process of application for registration of an Appellation of Origin.
There are strict rules on packaging developed by each manufacture. All Gzhel porcelain
bears the special mark «Гжель» as well as an attached paper sticker with the name of the
painter, year of production and the name of the object. Furthermore, a certificate holder may
affix as the Appellation of Origin a precautionary marking in the form of a word sign
"registered appellation of origin of the good" or "registered AOG" indicating that the name
used is an appellation of origin registered in the Russian Federation.
Economic data The first degree in the production chain consists of the activities connected to the creation of
the forms and porcelain making. There are 10 registered private users which employ over
5.000 persons. As far as the second degree of production is concerned, there are over 30
small and medium size producers (mostly individual producers since they are painters).
In 2007, 2 million items were produced (in 2006 2,3 million, in 2005 2,1 million, in 2004 1,9
million and in 2003 1,75 million) for a total value of 6,3 million Euros (in 2006 7,2 million, in
2005 6,9 million, in 2004 6,5 million and in 2003 5,9 million) and the sales amounted to 5,8
million Euros (in 2006 6 million, in 2005 5,75 million, in 2004 5,5 million and in 2003 5,25
million). The major exports are to Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, the United
States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (in 2007 2.3 million Euros).
Marketing practices There are various marketing techniques used for selling Gzhel, among them, sales through
direct distribution chain, on-line from the web sites of producers and through specialized
105
shops of souvenirs and Russian art crafts. It represents less that 15% of the national market
share.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are other porcelain and ceramics factories, which imitate the
techniques used in production of “Gzhel” items. Their products are cheaper but have inferior
quality in comparison with genuine Gzhel. It is also known that a lot of porcelain is imported
from China (blue on white design imitating Gzhel).
90% of the market share in the Russian Federation and abroad belongs to imitations and
counterfeit products.
Main challenges
• Educate the general public
• Propagate the importance and meaning of protecting the industrial property.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers replied positively. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument
that would provide additional legal protection to the trade mark protection in the 27 Member
States in an efficient and cost effective way.
106
Tula Samovar “Tульский самоваp”
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The “Tula Samovar” is a heated metal container traditionally used to heat and boil water in
the Russian Federation produced in the town of Tula. The Tula region is located in the centre
of the East European Plain and occupies the north-eastern part of Middle Hills. The samovar
is a Russian invention and is considered nowadays to be a symbol of Russian culture and
tradition. All the steps of production must take place in the area: design and the decoration of
Tula samovars takes place in Tula and Kursk.
Legal protection The “Tula Samovar” is protected in Russia as an Appellation of Origin under the Federal Law
“on Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin” of Goods of 11 December 2002.
The owner of this IPR is the Russian Federal State plant “Shtamp” ("Штамп"), which is the
only producer of samovars in the Russian Federation. The law protects this product in
translation, against the use of the GI name with expressions, against genericity and against
designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for products of other
categories. It is interesting to note that the Russian Law “On Trademarks, Service Marks and
Appellations of Origin” does not contain provisions applicable to “delocalizers”, nevertheless
it provides a possibility to invalidate a registered AO.
The registered AO “Tula Samovar” is not protected in other countries (including in the EU)
even though negotiations on possible agreements have already been contemplated with
Ukraine, Belarus and other countries.
There is no specification (or any text setting the standards of production and of controls)
established by law. However, “Tula samovars” are produced in accordance with the GOST
(state established standards) for samovars and must be accompanied by compliance and
hygiene certificates. Samovars sold without GOST conformity and hygiene certificates are
107
considered to be counterfeit products (mainly produced of old samovars simply repainted or
Chinese samovars of inferior quality). They are made of particular types of metal (such as
copper, nickel and brass) and these metals come from the Tula region.
There are no specific rules concerning the packaging established by law. Concerning the
labelling, traditionally, the name of the craftsman and the town of Tula where the workshop
was situated was usually engraved on the lid of the samovar used as a sign of good quality
but this practice has not been maintained. Before 1980, a particular guild sign was used: the
arms of Tula with the inscription “Tula” and “Штамп” in Russian. At present only high quality
heat samovars have such signs or samovars manufactured on request as individual models.
Economic data There are more or less 800 employees working in this specific sector.
In 2007, the production amounted to approximately 200.000 samovars worth 71,5 million
Euros (in 2006 210.000 samovars worth 82 million Euros, in 2005 215.000 samovars worth
88,2 million Euros, in 2004 210.000 samovars worth 80,5 million Euros and in 2003 190.000
samovars worth 77 million Euros) and the registered sales amounted to 65,5 million Euros (in
2006 75 million Euros, in 2005 85,2 million Euros, in 2004 76,5 million Euros and in 2003 74
million Euros). Exports vary from 12 to 16% of the total value and the major export countries
are Germany, France, the United States, Italy, China, Australia and Canada.
The company is overall profitable, as over 90% of production is sold annually. Since 2003
there has been a steady increase in production and sales. As of 2007 there is a clear
decrease in sales and consequently in production due to financial crises. However, the
popularity of samovars seems to be indisputable at present.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The major ‘competitor’ ironically recognized by the producer are electric kettles for boiling
water. However, imports of electric samovars from Germany are also known to be competing
with Tula Samovars.
At least 5% of samovars marketed are counterfeit goods.
Main challenges
• Connect with the reduction of sales since they considered as “luxury goods”
108
• Update of the plant’s equipment and technological practices, particularly in the light of
the novelty of electric samovars produced in Germany without using electric spirals.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether they would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
producers replied positively. They would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument
that would provide additional legal protection to the trade mark protection in the 27 Member
States in an efficient and cost effective way.
109
SWITZERLAND
St.Galler Stickerei
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics The “St-Galler Stickerei“ is a high quality mechanical embroidery that is used in the “haute
couture” and is produced in the region of East Switzerland (St-Gallen, Appenzell, Thurgau).
The embroidery industry in St-Gallen started with the invention of the manual embroidery
machine in 1828. The region of St-Gallen was once one of the biggest and most important
export areas of embroidery. Around 1910, the embroidery production was the most important
export branch of the Swiss economy (18%) and over 50% of the world embroidery came
from St-Gallen. After two major technical developments (the invention of the
“Schifflistickmaschine” and then the “Automaten”), the decline of the industry started in 1914
with the beginning of the First World War. At least one of the main production steps must
take place in the geographical area.
Legal protection The “St-Galler Stickerei“ is protected in Switzerland as a GI under the general provisions of
the Law on the protection of trademarks and indications of source (Art. 47 ss). The benefit of
the protection as a GI is independent of any registration. In other words, any indication of
source that is perceived as such by the consumers should correspond to the real
geographical origin of the product (being registered as a trademark or not). For Swiss non
agri-food products, and according to the decision of the Commercial Tribunal of St-Gallen in
1968, the minimum requirements would be that at least 50% of the industrial costs occur in
Switzerland as well as the essential part of the industrial process.
Under this law, the “St-Galler Stickerei” benefits from a protection by the public authorities
and is protected in translation, against “delocalizers, against the use of expressions as
110
“type”, and against designations or trademarks for products of the same category or for
products of other categories in Switzerland.
Outside Switzerland, “St-Galler Stickerei” benefits from the protection provided by the
Agreement on Free Trade and Economic Partnership (FTEPA) Switzerland-Japan of 2009.
This Agreement provides a comprehensive protection to all Swiss GIs in Japan. It is the first
time that St-Gallen embroidery is explicitly mentioned in a bilateral agreement in relation to
the protection of GIs.
There is no common standard of production. However, at least one of the main production
steps must take place in the geographical area. The raw materials come from Europe and
Asia. There are no rules concerning packaging, notably because “St-Galler Stickerei” is a
semi finished product. It is delivered as large fabric rolls to the clients who will transform it.
There are no rules concerning the labelling and no common logos are used.
There is no association of producers. The Textilverband Schweiz is an association which
gathers the producers of the entire textile branch and thus is much larger than the
embroidery sector.
Economic data No information was found on the number of producers and employees in the entire “St-Galler
Stickerei industry”. Only one producer gave the following numbers to the expert: Foster
Rohner AG in St-Gallen has 140 employees; Foster Rohner (Suzhou, China) Embroidery
CO. 400 employees, Inter-Spitzen SRL Lugoj (Romania) 400 employees and Foster Rohner
GmbH Lustenau (Austria) 25 employees. In Switzerland, there are 5 bigger enterprises and
many small enterprises. In 2000, 1368 tons were produced; in 2006, 689 tons; and in 2007,
667 tons.
The value of the sales in Switzerland was approximately of €113 millions in 2000, of €70
millions in 2005, of €65.5 millions in 2006, and of €64 millions in 2007. 95% of the production
is exported and was worth approximately €156 millions in 2000, €94 millions in 2006, and
€90 millions in 2007. No information was found on the market share of the entire “St-Galler
Stickerei” industry. Only one producer gave the expert the following numbers: Foster Rohner,
obviously the largest producer of “St-Galler Stickerei”, has 20-40%.
111
Marketing practices The market segment corresponds to the luxury market since “St-Galler Stickerei” is a semi-
finished product used in Lingerie, Haute Couture and Prêt-à-Porter. The origin (St-Gallen or
Switzerland) is used as a marketing tool. The promotion is made through the museum in St-
Gallen, fashion shows, St-Galler Kinderfest. Recently, Ms. Michelle Obama promoted “St-
Galler Stickerei” by wearing a dress made out of “St-Galler Stickerei”.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting The main competitors are the Indian producers of handmade embroidery (different product
but still a competitor) and cheaper industrial embroidery from China and Turkey.
It seems that that there have always been cases of usurpation, especially of patterns. If the
copies are good ones, they can be as expensive as “St-Galler Stickerei”. Only bad copies
would be much cheaper.
Main challenges
• Adapt to changes,
• Continue to be innovative and
• Keep up the good quality.
Interest in further protection at the EU level One enterprise said that a sui generis protection at the EU level would not be effective in our
globalized world and doubts that it would really protect the “St-Galler Stickerei”.
112
Swiss watch
Description of the product and of its GI characteristics “Swiss watch” covers watches, clocks and alarm clocks produced in Switzerland. In 1541,
reforms implemented by Jean Calvin and the banning of the wear of jewels forced the
goldsmiths and other jewellers to turn into a new craft: watch making. By the end of the
century, Geneva watches were already reputed for their high quality, and watchmakers
created in 1601 the Watchmakers' Guild of Geneva, the first to be established anywhere.
One century later, many of them decided to leave the city for the receptive region of the Jura
Mountains. The mass production of watches began at the turn of the 20th century. The
increase of the productivity, the inter-changeability of components and the standardization
progressively led the Swiss watch industry to its world supremacy.
All the steps of production have to take place in the area. There is no a requirement nor data
on the geographical source of these materials
Legal protection “Swiss watch” is protected in Switzerland:
• By the Federal ordinance regulating the use of the name “Swiss” for watches, of the
23rd of December 1971 (OSM) adopted in the framework of the general provisions of
the Law on the protection of trademarks and indications of source. Under this
ordinance, the “Swiss watch” benefits from a protection by the public authorities and
is protected in translation, against “delocalizers”, against the use of expressions as
“type”, against genericity and against designations or trademarks for products of the
same category or for products of other categories.
This protection was chosen because the watch sector wanted a protection that would
go beyond what the trademark regime offers. It obtained a more comprehensive
protection and a more restrictive definition of the indication “Swiss” through the
adoption of this ordinance.
113
“Swiss watch” is protected outside of Switzerland in particular:
• By a certification trademark, which was registered by the Federation of the Swiss
Watch Industry (FH) in two of the main markets, the USA and Hong Kong, in order to
get a protection in these legal systems where sui generis protection for GIs is not
recognized.
• Under bilateral agreements protecting GIs and indications of source, “Swiss” being
included, which Switzerland has signed with Czechoslovakia in 1973, France in 1974,
Spain in 1974, and Portugal in 1977. In the Agreement on Free Trade and Economic
Partnership (FTEPA) Switzerland-Japan of 2009, the following designations are
protected for watches: “Geneva”, “Neuchâtel”, “Schaffhausen” and “Swiss”.
The Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry (FH) regroups more than 500 members,
representing more than 90% of the Swiss watch industry. It aims notably at contributing to
the development of the Swiss watch industry, representing the Swiss watch industry in
dealing with the Swiss, foreign and international authorities and economic or standardization
organizations and protecting the interests of its members. It has offices in Hong Kong and
Japan.
The specification is the Federal ordinance regulating the use of the name “Swiss” for
watches, of the 23rd of December 1971 (OSM). All the steps of production have to take place
in the area. There is no a requirement nor data on the geographical source of these
materials. The requirements for the use of the name “Swiss” concern the packages and other
commercial documents as well as the products themselves. The OSM provides rules on the
labelling of watches using the name “Swiss”.
Economic data The watch making industry counts 600 firms employing 42 000 persons. Around 10 firms
employ more than 500 employees. In 2008, 26.1 million timepieces were exported. 95% of
the production is exported and worth 11.22 billion €. There was an increase of the exports of
67% in 5 years. For direct exports of watches, Switzerland is the world leader in value,
followed by Hong Kong with ~€5.3 billion (less than 50% of the Swiss exports value).
Considering the number of timepieces, China (550.3 million) and Hong Kong (425.8 million)
rank before Switzerland (26.1 million). In 2008, the main export markets were Asia (46%, ~€
4.9 billion), Europe (33%, ~€3.5 billion), Americas (19%), Africa (1%) and Oceania (1%). The
main national markets were Hong Kong (15.8%), USA (13.9%), Japan (6.8%), France (6.6%)
and Italy (6.2%).
114
Marketing practices The market segment is the high quality/luxury market. The watches are mainly sold by
authorised dealers. There is a strong value attached to the Swiss origin. The Federation of
the Swiss Watch Industry and the Fondation de la Haute Horlogerie do some collective
promotion. There is however no logo.
Main competitors and cases of counterfeiting There are a few German and French competitors on the same market of luxury timepieces.
The Federation estimates the annual loss due to counterfeiting to €528 million. It estimates
that more than 40 million fake Swiss watches are produced per year, compared to the 26
million Swiss watches exported in 2008.
Main challenges The market for the Swiss watches is closely linked to the economic situation for the high and
medium categories of income. The main challenge for the future is the economic crisis which
could reinforce the attraction for fake Swiss watches.
Interest in further protection at the EU level When asked whether it would use a EU sui generis GI system, should it be created, the
Swiss watch industry said that it would welcome the establishment of a legal instrument that
would provide additional legal protection to the trade mark protection in the 27 Member
States in an efficient and cost effective way.
115
3. Comparative analysis of the protection systems available to non agricultural Geographical Indications In accordance with the terms of reference of this study, you will find below an overview as
well as a comparative analysis of the economic and legal protection elements gathered for
the 28 non agricultural GI products that were studied in details. Through this exercise, we
have tried to assess the main differences, strengths and weaknesses in the protection
systems identified, including positive aspects and difficulties in protection and enforcement of
rights.
The economic information gathered shed light to a sector that is mostly composed of small
and medium sized enterprises. Some of the products covered by this study are pillars of
employment for their regions. However, a large number of them have small turnovers. Many
are suffering from the current economic crisis. Overall, their production and export are stable
except for a few products which experience a significant growth. It would appear that
producers tend to use more and more a common logo to promote their GI product. The
analysis shows that these GI products face medium to strong competition.
The case studies demonstrate that there is a growing if not strong interest from the
producers for the protection of their intellectual property right.
The legal facts and comparative assessment show that the legal protection granted to these
non agricultural GI products is very diverse, often recent, fragmented and limited with regard
to its geographical scope. There are different legal instruments available for the protection at
the national level and these tools are sometimes used in combination. Very few products
currently enjoy protection at the EU and international level.
Finally, there is a quite diverse situation with regard to the structure and the production
requirements relating to these 28 non agricultural GI products.
116
3.1. Economic facts and comparative assessment
3.1.1. A sector composed mostly of SMEs but GI-products can be pillars of employment in some regions
According to the 28 products covered by this study, it would appear that the non agricultural
GI sector is mostly composed of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in
particular in the European Union.
However, as shown in Table 1 below, the economic importance with regard to employment in
the defined areas can be very high for some products. It is particularly important for the
Chinese Liuyang Firework, the Swiss watches and the Calzado de Elche (SP). Not all of the
products studied have to use raw materials from the defined region. However, for those who
do, the number of people employed in the sector can be significant, such as for the Indian
Kashmir textile products.
117
Table 1: Number of firms / employees.
P roduc t C ountryraw m at.
P roduc ersraw m at.
E m ployeesP roduc ers
produc ers em ployees
F erlac her Waffen Aus tria 12 150L a P ierre B leue de B elg ique B elgique 8 1.000
F inis hed L eather of Vale dos S inos B raz il 88 10.000Mud P ans of G oiabeiras B raz il 120
J ing dez hen P orcelain C hina 5.000 2.877L iuyang F irework C hina 1.060 118.700
C es ký kris t'ál C z ech R ebublic 25 100J ablonec ká biz uterie C z ech R ebublic 25 3.500 21 1.500
C outeaux de T hiers F rance 100 500 64 1.419Dentelle de C alais F rance 18 1.500
S chwarz walder K uc kucks uhr Germany 20 500 10 50S oling en kniv es Germany 15 4.500T exel Wool Q uilt T he Netherlands 150 150 3 50
Herend P orcelain Hungary 1.000K ani S hawl India 16.667
K as hmir P as hmina India 16.667K as hmir S oz ani C raft India 16.667
Mys or S andal S oap IndiaMarmo di C arrara Italy 1.160 8.800 200 1.800
Vetro artis tic o di Murano Italy 175 260 1.200K oniakow L ac es P oland 500
B ordado da Madeira P ortugal 27 189G z hel R us s ia 10 5.000
T ula S amov ar R us s ia 800C alz ado de E lche S pain 820 13.480
C uero de Ubrique S pain 288 2.770G las riket S weden 10 1.100
S wis s watc h S witz erland 600 42.000S t G aller S tikerei S witz erland 100 1.000
S hetland Woollen O uterwear United K ingdom 35 70 35 185
118
3.1.2. Relatively low economic value and importance of export markets for GI products
Regarding the economic importance of the 28 products in terms of turnover, the value of
production is often limited (largely under a billion € per year). The “Swiss watches” GI
represents an exception with an annual turnover of 11,2 billion €; the Italian GI “Marmo di
Carrara” coming second with 1,125 billion €. However, the fact that some of these products
come from developing countries has to be taken into account in the analysis; some of them
remain a strong economic asset for the region where they are produced.
Looking at the economic trend, the study shows that the 28 products have a relatively stable
production, except for a few which experience a significant growth, in particular the Chinese
ones and the Brazilian “finished leather of Vale dos Sinos”. A lot of them suffer from the
current economic crisis and some are fighting for survival, especially in the European Union.
The export rate is high for almost all of the products. Europe, North America and Japan are
the most favourite export destinations, with Asia, the former Soviet Union countries and the
Middle East being also important markets. This is not surprising as a lot of the products
under review can be considered as luxury products.
119
Table 2: Value of the production / export 38
38 The data highlighted in yellow are the value of 2008.
P roduc t C ountry
Value of the
produc tion (in m illions euros 2007)
Value tendanc y
Unit
Volum e 2007
(in m illions units )
E xport Volum es
(2007)
E xport tendanc y
E xport c ountries
F erlac her Waffen Aus tria 16,00 piece 0,00035L a P ierre B leue de B elg ique B elgique 93,70 +
F inis hed L eather of Vale dos S inos B raz il 743,00 ++ piece 11 53% increas e E urope, North AmericaMud P ans of G oiabeiras B raz il 0,71 piece < 1%
J ing dez hen P orcelain C hina 463,00 ++ piece 7%L iuyang F irework C hina 742,00 +++ 90% increas e E urope, US A, C hina
C es ký kris t'ál C z ech R ebublic 216,00 + piece 70 91% E urope, US A, C anadaJ ablonecká biz uterie C z ech R ebublic 387,00 -- piece 9% dec reas e As ia. US A, C anada and S outh America
C outeaux de T hiers F rance 167,00 piece E U, US A, Middle E as tDentelle de C alais F rance 90,00 - piece 60% E urope, As ia, US A
S chwarz walder K uckuc ks uhr Germany 30,00 piece s table US AS oling en kniv es Germany 625,00 + piece 54% s tableT exel Wool Q uilt The Netherlands 6,00 piece 5% B elgium
Herend P orcelain Hungary 35,00 =+ piece 90% US A, J apan, Italy, R us s ia, Germany, As ia
K ani S hawl India 0,60 + 78% s table US A, E urope, UK , Middle E as t, J apan, Thailand, Malays ia, Nepal
K as hmir P as hmina India 4,80 + 52% s table US A, E urope, UK , Middle E as t, J apan, Thailand, Malays ia, Nepal
K as hmir S oz ani C raft India 2,25 + 66% s table US A, E urope, UK , Middle E as t, J apan, Thailand, Malays ia, NepalMys or S andal S oap India 1,80 =+ s table
Marmo di C arrara Italy 1.250,00 piece 50% F ar E as t, UE , Hong K ong and the US AVetro artis tic o di Murano Italy 150,00 piece 75% increas e US A, F rance, S lovenia, P oland, S pain
K oniakow L aces P oland 3,75 piece 0,3 10% Italy, J apan, US A
B ordado da Madeira P ortugal 2,34 =+ kg 0,09 45% US A, Italy, United K ongdom & S witz erlandG z hel R us s ia 6,30 = piece 2 37% E urope, North America, O ceania
T ula S amov ar R us s ia 71,50 = piece 0,20 15% D E , F R , US A, IT , C hina, Aus tralia, C anadaC alz ado de E lche S pain 762,00 - piece 263
C uero de Ubrique S pain 312,13 + pieceG las riket S weden 51,00 - piece 36% decreas e
S wis s watc h S witz erland 11.220,00 = piece 95% 67% in 5 years As ia, E U, US AS t G aller S tikerei S witz erland 64,00 - kg 0,67 65% decreas e
S hetland Woollen O uterwear United K ingdom = J apan, As ia, E urope, local market
120
3.1.3. High quality products with collective promotion Most of the producers covered by this study use the geographical name on the label of their
products. They often engage in collective promotion campaigns. When doing so, they generally
combine the collective geographical denomination and/or logo with their individual name and/or
trademark. It is very congruent with the export strategy: when the product is exported, the need of
bundling the individual strategies is higher than if the product is only sold on the domestic market.
When producers do collective promotion, they often use a common logotype to identify their
products, in many cases this is a registered certification or collective mark. Some products have
developed selective distribution channels (like Swiss watches sold in authorised stores only) or
direct/on-line sales.
121
Table 3: Market segments / distribution channels / ways of promotion
P roduc t C ountry Market s egm entDis tribution
prac tic esUs e of G I P rom otion L ogos
F erlacher Waffen Aus tria niche market on order Y ind. NL a P ierre B leue de B elg ique B elgique Y N
F inis hed L eather of Vale dos S inos B raz il N - NMud P ans of G oiabeiras B raz il - - N - N
J ing dez hen P orc elain C hinaretailers , direc t s ales ,
online s ales Y ind. / c oll.
L iuyang F irework C hina high quality productaffiliate retailers , other retailers , online s ales Y coll. Y
C es ký kris t'ál C z ech R ebublic Y
J ablonec ká biz uterie C z ech R ebublicin trade fairs &
exhibitions Y NC outeaux de T hiers F ranc e s tores Y coll. Y
Dentelle de C alais F ranc e Y ind. YS chwarz walder K uckucks uhr Germany quality, tradition local s hops Y ind. N
S oling en kniv es Germany Y NT exel Wool Quilt The Netherlands niche market direc t s ales Y ind./c oll. Y
Herend P orc elain Hungary luxury good Y coll. Y
K ani S hawl Indiamiddle to higher
inc ome groupretailers , direc t s ales Y coll. Y
K as hmir P as hmina Indiamiddle to higher
inc ome groupretailers , direc t s ales Y coll. Y
K as hmir S oz ani C raft Indiamiddle to higher
inc ome groupretailers , direc t s ales Y coll. Y
Mys or S andal S oap India quality Y coll. YMarmo di C arrara Italy Y Y
Vetro artis tico di Murano Italy luxury good s hop Y coll. Y
K oniakow L aces P oland
retail, wholes ale, direct s elling, internet, art
galleries Y coll. NB ordado da Madeira P ortugal luxury good Y N
G z hel R us s iaretailers , direc t s ales ,
online s ales Y YT ula S amov ar R us s ia luxury good retailers Y ? N
C alz ado de E lc he S pain s hop Y NC uero de Ubrique S pain Y Y
G las riket S weden quality / luxury Y ?S wis s watc h S witz erland quality / luxury authoris ed s tores Y ind. / c oll. Y
S t G aller S tikerei S witz erland luxury good s tores Y ind. NS hetland Woollen O uterwear United K ingdom retailers , online s ales Y ind. Y
122
3.1.4. GI products face medium to strong competition and have interest in protection
The majority of the products are facing medium to strong competition. Competition arises
from products from the same category but coming from other regions of their country of origin
and/or from counterfeits produced in third countries.
According to producers, IP protection is becoming an increasingly important issue; they
consider that one of their main challenges is to secure a better legal protection at the national
and the international level.
However, it must be underlined that despite the fact that all producers are confronted with
counterfeit products and some reported serious economic loss due to counterfeiting only a
limited number of them have invested in the protection of and actions to enforce their
collective intellectual property rights. Swiss watches producers have developed a strategy to
fight against counterfeited products, e.g. the campaign “Fake watches are for fake people”39
the Murano Glass producers too40.
It is difficult to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of each legal instrument with regard to
the enforcement of rights as our experts found very little information available on this point.
Some producers explained that when they decided to launch a legal action to defend their
right, they have relied mostly on the trademark protection, because it is often the only one
available, especially when confronted with abuses outside of the country of origin.
From a general point of view, most of the producers of non agricultural GI products contacted
in the context of this study have a limited understanding of intellectual property rights. They
are not familiar with the differences that exist between the legal instruments available for the
protection of their products. A limited number of them have sought protection of their IPR
beyond their country of origin. For most of them, the protection of their intellectual property
rights appears to be a relatively new priority. Their main concern is to be able to secure a
cost effective and wide protection of their GI name.
Some producers covered by the study see the existing EU legal framework for the protection
of Protected Denomination of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications for wines,
spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs as an interesting route. They consider that such 39 - see www.hautehorlogerie.org/en/haute-horlogerie-preservation/anti-counterfeiting-campaign/ 40 see www.promovetro.com/portal/istituzionale.php?id=370
123
an instrument could (1) provide them with an effective EU wide protection system and (2) be
used as a promotional tool, allowing them to better position their products on the market as
typical products rooted in a specific territory. However, others have no understanding of
and/or interest for such a system in the short term.
More specifically, when asked about their potential interest for the establishment of a sui
generis GI system at the EU level for the protection of non agricultural products, nearly all EU
producers expressed interest for such a system because:
• It has proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a
promotion point of view.
• It would provide additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient
and cost effective way.
The producers of ”Shetland woollen outerwear” were more precise in their response and said
they understand a EU sui generis GI system to have the following advantages:
• GI protection would be more cost effective than trademark protection, since there
would be no renewal fees.
• The protection offered by Regulation 510/2006 on the protection of geographical
indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs has a
broader scope than their current trademark protection. Protection would not only be
EU wide, but the Association would also be able to take legal action again those who
used the sign with the words “style” and ”type”. Furthermore, the ”Shetland woollen
outerwear” would be protected against genericity.
• The certification trademark for the UK as well as any international registrations could
be retained in addition to the protection granted by a EU sui generis GI system.
The only exception is the “Texel Wool Quilt”. According to our field expert, Texel Wool
producers are not yet interested in the setting-up of a sui generis protection for their GI
product at the EU level.
As far as the third countries’ products are concerned, most of them have expressed some
interest for the establishment of a sui generis GI system at the EU level for the protection of
non agricultural products. The producers from India and Russia, as well as of “Swiss
watches” said that they would welcome the establishment of such sui generis system at the
EU level. The producers of “Swiss watches” are interested in the establishment of such a
scheme because, according to them, it would provide a further legal protection and would
help to fight against counterfeiting and usurpations. The producers of the “Liuyang Firework”
124
from China are interested to benefit from a sui generis GI protection system for their GI
product at the EU level, but their preference would go to a trademark protection at this stage.
125
Table 4: Competition and interest for a better protection
Pro
du
ct
Co
un
try
Inte
nsi
ty o
f th
e co
mp
etit
ion
Mai
n
com
pet
ito
rs
Inte
rest
s o
f th
e p
rod
uce
rs
for
a G
I p
rote
ctio
n
F erlac her Waffen Aus tria little German and E nglis h firms YL a P ierre B leue de B elg ique B elgique medium to s trong As ian producers Y
F inis hed L eather of Vale dos S inos B raz ilcouterfeiting from other
part of the B raz il Italian compagnies NMud P ans of G oiabeiras B raz il lot of counterfeiting indus tries of c lay pans N
J ing dez hen P orc elain C hina s trong Guangdong P rovince Y/N
L iuyang F irework C hinamedium to s trong
E nterpris es in the Guangdong P rovince Y/N
C es ký kris t'ál C z ech R ebublic - Y
J ablonec ká biz uterie C z ech R ebublicmedium to s trong
F ar E as tern & Indian producers , S warovs ki Y
C outeaux de T hiers F rance DE , B raz il, C hina YDentelle de C alais F rance little Italy and S pain, J apanes e, As ian Y
S c hwarz walder K uc kuc ks uhr Germany little - Y
S oling en kniv es GermanyWMF (Germany), US A, J apan & then E uropean Union, F ar E as t Y
T exel Wool Q uilt The Netherlands medium indus trial maufacturers Y
Herend P orc elain Hungaryvery s trong
6 (Meis s en, Augarten & Ludwigs burg) Y
K ani S hawl India medium to s trong J acquard loom woven products Y
K as hmir P as hmina Indiamedium to s trong
Machine Made P as hmina, B lended P as hmina & Hand woven
P as hminaY
K as hmir S oz ani C raft India medium to s trong Machine Needle work YMys or S andal S oap India s trong Multinationals (P rocter & Gamble) Y
Marmo di C arrara Italy ?Vetro artis tic o di Murano Italy medium O ther glas s factories , als o abroad Y
K oniakow L ac es P oland s trong C hines e producers YB ordado da Madeira P ortugal little Y
G z hel R us s ia s trong (90% counterfeit) O ther porcelain factories (C hina) Y
T ula S amov ar R us s ia
5% is counterfeighting products / imports of
electric s amovar from D E E lectric kettles YC alz ado de E lc he S pain s trong E lda and Villena, As ia and Italy Y
C uero de Ubrique S pain S outh-E as t As ia YG las riket S weden medium to s trong C hina, IK E A, P oland and P ortugal Y
S wis s watc h S witz erlandS trong but not on the
s ame s egmentHong K ong, C hina, but on luxury
s egment: F R , D E YY
S t G aller S tikerei S witz erlandmedium, bec aus e partly
owned by the C H indus try India, C hina, Turkey NS hetland Woollen O uterwear United K ingdom s trong (a lot of counterfeit) As ian producers Y
126
3.2. Comparative assessment of the legal instruments used for the protection of non agricultural GI products
3.2.1. Legal protection is very diverse, often recent, fragmented and limited with regard to its geographical scope
3.2.1.1. Protection at the national level: different legal tools used sometimes in combination
As shown in table 5 below, out of the 28 products studied (18 EU products, 10 non EU
products), 2 are protected by a specific law: “Solingen knives” and the “Swiss watches”. 17
products are protected under the national trademark system, 15 are EU products and 2 are
Chinese products. 11 products are protected under a sui generis national GI protection
system, 7 of which are non EU products. 3 products (“Mud Pans of Goiabeiras”, “Koniakow
Laces” and “St-Galler Stikerei”) are protected through a general law relating to respectively
cultural heritage, unfair competition, general law on trademark and indication of provenance.
It must be noted that all products except the Swiss ones – which enjoy protection without
registration - are actually registered in their country of origin either through the trademark
system or another legal tool (sui generis, specific law or other horizontal law).
6 products benefit from a combination of legal protection tools. 1 EU product, “Solingen
knives” (Germany), is protected under both a specific national law and the trademark system;
while 1 product benefits from trademark and regional law protection: “Pierre bleue de
Belgique”. 4 products benefit from a GI and a trademark protection: the two Chinese
products, “Herend” (Hungary) and “Bordado da Madeira” (Portugal) although it must be noted
that the GI obtained in 1938 is not used as a legal tool for the protection of Bordado da
Madeira.
For a lot of products studied, intellectual property protection has been secured quite recently.
Only few products protected through the Lisbon Agreement on appellations of origin (see
below) and some products from the old Member States have been protected for a long
period of time (since the middle of the 20th century). In general, non EU products (with the
exception of Switzerland) from Brazil, China and Russia have secured protection in their
country of origin at a late stage, i.e. after 1995. 2 products, “Mud Pans of Goaibeiras” and
“Marmo di Carrara”, are in the process of securing further protection, respectively as a GI at
127
the Brazilian level and as a trademark registered by the “umbrella” consortium associating all
the different consortiums currently existing at the Italian level.
3.2.1.2. Very few products enjoy protection at the EU level
Our research has shown that only 3 products benefit from a protection throughout the EU:
“Solingen knives”, “Vetro artistic di Murano” and “Cuero de Ubrique”. This protection has
been secured through a Community trademark registration system administered by the
OHIM. No third country product covered by this study enjoys such protection.
It is unclear why other products, in particular European ones, are not registered at the EU
level. The main reason could be linked to the fact that most of the producers had so far not
seen the necessity to protect their collective intellectual property right. Another reason could
be the lack of sufficient budget dedicated to the IP protection.
3.2.1.3. Very few products are protected at the International level
Only 10 of the 28 products studied have secured protection outside of their country of origin
(not counting the EU protection mentioned above).
This protection has been obtained either through international or bilateral agreements:
• the Lisbon Agreement on appellations of origin for the 2 Czech products and the
Hungarian one.
• through the Madrid Agreement for “Liuyang Firework”, “Dentelles de Calais”,
“Shetland Woolen Outwear” and “Solingen Knives”.
• thanks to bilateral agreements mostly between EU countries and Switzerland.
Switzerland also signed a bilateral agreement with Japan that protects these
names41.
Furthermore, 8 products benefit from legal protection in some of their main export markets
via the direct registration of marks in these countries, e.g. the “Swiss Watches” are protected
in the USA and Hong Kong.
41 - See : www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/switzerland/epa0902/agreement.pdf (article 119) and http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/switzerland/epa0902/annex10.pdf
128
Here again, it is unclear why most of the products, in particular European ones, have not
tried to secure protection in third countries. The main reason could be linked to the fact that
most of the producers had so far not seen the necessity to protect their collective intellectual
property right. Other reasons could be the lack of sufficient budget dedicated to the IP
protection and, for some of them, the fact that they are not exported to many countries.
129
Table 5: Overview of the type and geographical scope of protection42
42 UCL : Unfair Competition Law
Country Product EU protection
Protection directly secured in other countries by the owner of the right
Specific law
Sui generis GI
protection system
Trademark Other Lisbon
Agreement Madrid
Agreement Bilateral agreement with Name of the countries
Austria Ferlacher Waffen x UCL* Italy, France, Spain, Czech Republic
Belgique La pierre bleue de Belgique Regional x UCL
Brazil Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos x
Brazil Mud Pans of Goiabeirasprotection underway Cultural heritage
China Jingdezhen Porcelain x x
China Liuyang Fireworkx x x Individual registration in USA and Europe
Czech Republic Cesky Cristal x x Austria, Portugal, Switzerland
Czech Republic Jablonecka bizuterie x x Austria, Portugal, Switzerland
France Couteaux de Thiers x UCL
France Dentelle de Calaisx UCL x
Argentina, Croatia, Denmark, Japan, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia,
South Korea, and the USA
Germany Schwarzwalder Kuchucksuhr x UCL
Germany Solingen knivesx x x x
notably Italy, France, Switzerland, Greece, Spain
Protected in 50 countries, notably USA, China, Russia, Canada, Asia, and South-America
Hungary Herend x x x 30 countries
India Kashmir Pashmina / Kani Shawl / Kashmir Sozani Craft x
India Mysore Sandal Soap x
Italy Marmo di Carrara x UCL
Italy Vetro artistico di Murano x UCL x
Poland Koniakow Laces UCL
Portugal Bordado da Madeira x x UCL USA, Italy, SwitzerlandRussia Gzhel xRussia Tula Samovar x
Spain Calzado de Elche x UCL xSpain Cuero de Ubrique x UCL x
Sweden Glasriket x UCL USASwitzerland St Galler Stickerei x Japan
Switzerland Swiss watch x xCzechoslovakia, France, Spain,
Portugal and Japan USA and Hong Kong
The Netherlands Texel Wool Quilt x UCL BeneluxUnited Kingdom Shetland Woolen Outwear x UCL Japan
National protection International protection
130
3.2.2. Extent and costs of the protection: a patchwork of situations
In this section, we examine the extent, the cost and the duration of the protection provided by
the different legal instruments from which the non-agricultural products covered by this study
benefit. The situation is very diverse from one legal instrument to the other.
3.2.2.1. Extent of the protection
In order to analyze the protection available under the four types of legal instrument identified
in this study, namely consumer deception and unfair competition laws, specific laws which
protect individual non agricultural GI products, trade mark laws and sui generis GI systems,
we looked into the following elements:
• Protection against the use of the name for products of the same category or other
categories
• Protection against the use of the name in translation*
• Protection against the use of the name with “delocalizers”*
• Protection against the use of the name with expressions, such as “kind”, “type”,
style”, or the like*
• Protection against genericity
• Public enforcement
• International protection
* With regard to this protection, we refer to an objective and automatic protection, i.e. a
protection that does not require to show that the public is misled or that the use constitutes
an act of unfair competition, except if specified otherwise.
A. Consumers Deception and Unfair Competition Law
While there is no registration under those schemes, unfair competition and consumer
deception laws aim at preventing various deceptive practices by business43. In the national
legal systems, these concepts are implemented in different ways. In practice, these laws
often focus largely on the protection of consumers; they do not protect producers directly.
They provide for remedies against infringements if it can be demonstrated that consumers
43 - For a general definition of unfair competition, see article 10bis of the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property: http://ompi.ch/treaties/en/ip/paris/trtdocs_wo020.html
131
are deceived on some of the characteristics of the good, for instance the origin of the
product. Here, the consumer deception test is key; this can be difficult and costly to prove.
It is interesting to note that only 1 product – “Koniakow Laces” – out of the 28 studied is
protected only under the law against unfair competition. Many other non agricultural GI
products also benefit from this “standard” level of protection but rely on additional legal
instruments to have a higher level of protection.
With regard to the scope of protection:
o Protection against the use of the name for products of the same category or other categories: the consumer deception and unfair competition laws can provide
such a protection if it can be shown that consumers are misled with regard to the
origin of the product or that the criteria related to unfair competition are met. o Protection against the use of the name in translation: the consumer deception
and unfair competition laws usually do not provide such a protection, but if the
consumer deception can be established or the criteria related to unfair competition
are met, this could be achieved. o Protection against the use of the name with delocalizers: the consumer
deception and unfair competition laws can provide such a protection if it can be
shown that consumers are misled or the criteria related to unfair competition are met
with regard to the origin of the product. o Protection against the use of the name with expressions such as "type" or the
like: all the products protected under consumers deception and unfair competition
laws benefit from such a protection, if it can be shown that consumers are misled or
the criteria related to unfair competition are met. o Protection against genericity: consumer deception and unfair competition laws do
not provide for such a protection. o Public enforcement: consumer deception and unfair competition laws do not
provide for such a protection. o International protection: the protection secured under consumer deception and
unfair competition laws is only granted at the national level and is arguably indirect. It
would not facilitate the protection under similar or other legal instruments in third
countries.
B. Specific laws44
44 2 products are protected under a specific law: Solingen Schneidwaren (Germany) and Swiss watch (Switzerland)
132
2 of the 28 non agricultural GI products covered by this study are protected through a
specific ad hoc national law. These are: “Solingen knives” (Germany) under the “Decree for
the Protection of the Name Solingen” (Solingen Decree) and the “Swiss watch” under the
Federal ordinance regulating the use of the name “Swiss” for watches. These laws provide
an extensive protection of the GI names.
o Protection against the use of the name for products of the same category or other categories: both products are protected against the use of their name for
products of the same category, only Solingen is protected against the use of the
name for other categories. o Protection against the use in translation: both products enjoy this protection under
the specific law. o Protection against the use of the name with delocalizers: The two products are
protected against the use of the name with delocalizers. o Protection against the use of the name with expressions such as "type" or the
like: The two specific laws provide for the protection of the 2 GI names against the
use of the name with expressions. o Protection against genericity: Only the «Swiss watch» is protected against
genericity. o Public enforcement: Only the «Solingen Schneidwaren» (Germany) are protected
through administrative action by public authorities. o International protection: The specific laws provide for the protection at the national
level. This national protection means that, as provided for by the TRIPs Agreement,
the holder of the right can seek protection of its GI name in the WTO Members
(Article 24§9 TRIPs).
C. Trade mark laws45 15 out of 18 EU and the 2 Chinese non agricultural products studied are protected under
their national trademark law, sometimes in combination with other instruments. They enjoy
protection either as word or figurative marks, collective marks46 and/or certification marks47:
45 The following products are protected under trade mark laws:
- At the EU level: Ferlacher Waffen (Austria); Pierre bleue de Belgique Arduin (Belgium); Dentelle de Calais (France); Couteaux de Thiers (France); Schwarzwälder Kuckucksuhr/Schwarzwalduhr (Germany); Solingen Schneidwaren (Germany); Herend (Hungary); Marmo di Carrara (Italy); Vetro Artistico di Murano (Italy); Bordado da Madeira (Portugal); Cuero de Ubrique (Spain); Calzado de Elche (Spain); Glasriket (Sweden); Texel Wool Quilt (The Netherlands) and Shetland Woolen Outwear (UK)
- In third countries: Jingdezhen Porcelain (China) and Liuyang Firework (China)
133
• The Hungarian non agricultural GI product is protected as a trademark ;
• the Austrian product is also protected as a trademark in combination with another
name ;
• the Dutch product is protected as a certification mark but other individual marks
containing the name Texel have been registered;
• the British product is protected as a certification mark;
• the 2 Chinese products are also protected as certification marks.
• All the other products are covered by a collective mark protection.
With regard to the extent of the protection, it must be underlined that the trademark regime
provides for the protection of distinctive marks. It relies largely on consumer confusion; this
requires that the consumer has a previous knowledge about the meaning of the name place.
The trademark system normally prohibits the registration of descriptive trademarks – which
would be the case for most GI products – and deceptive trademarks. As a result, the
registration of trademark that merely consists of a geographical name is often impossible. In
some countries, signs that distinguish the geographical origin (i.e. GIs) can be protected as
collective or certification marks.
The registration of a mark can provide the following protection:
o Protection against the use of the name for products of the same category or other categories: as a general principle, a trademark or collective/certification mark
registration gives the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark for the goods or
services for which the mark is registered. As a result, the scope of protection varies
for marks depending on the number of class(es) for which the owner has obtained
trademark or collective / certification mark registration. In practice, the more classes
covered by the registration, the wider the protection is. All the products studied that
are protected under the trademark regime are protected against the use of their name
for products of the same category; some of them are protected against the use of
their name in other categories. o Protection against the use in translation: the trademark regime does not normally
provide for an “automatic” protection against the use of the name in translation. The
only exception is the trademark registration in the Benelux countries, which provides
for the automatic protection in the other languages of these three countries, that-is-to-
46 Collective marks are owned by an association whose members use the mark to identify themselves with a level of quality and other requirements set by the association. 47 - Certification marks are given for compliance with defined standards, but are not confined to any membership
134
say Dutch, French and German. As a result, «Pierre Bleue de Belgique» and «Texel
Wool Quilt» are protected in these three languages. However, trademark holders can
always seek to register their GI name in other languages through other trademark
applications.
o Protection against the use of the name with delocalizers: trademarks can provide
such a protection if there is a risk that consumers are misled with regard to the origin
of the product. o Protection against the use of the name with expressions such as "type" or the
like: trademarks can provide such a protection if there is a risk that consumers are
misled with regard to the origin of the product. o Protection against genericity: The trademark regime does not provide that marks
may not become generic. o Public enforcement: None of the products protected through the trademark regime
enjoy such protection. o International protection: the registration of a trademark in third countries either
directly or through international instruments such as the Madrid system for the
international registration of marks is possible provided that the local trademark offices
are satisfied that the conditions for the registration are met. Many of the products
covered by this study have used the trademark regime to secure protection in third
countries.
D. Sui generis GI system48 11 products covered by this study are protected under a sui generis national GI protection
system, 7 of which are non EU products. Sui generis GI regimes are specific laws adopted to
define and protect geographical indications. These regimes vary from one country to the
other, in particular with regard to the registration of the GI name, as some regimes require
that GIs are registered to secure registration while other provide protection of the GI without
registration (ex: Switzerland). As far as the extent of the protection is concerned, the sui
generis systems provide an extensive protection of the GI name.
48 The following products are protected under a sui generis GI system:
- At the EU level: Jablonecka bizuterie (Czech Republic); Cesky Kristal (Czech Republic); and Herend (Hungary)
- In third countries: Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos (Brazil); Mud Pans of Goiabeiras (Brazil) protected as intangible cultural heritage, protection under a sui generis system underway; Jingdezhen Porcelain (China); Liuyang Firework (China); Kashmir Pashmina / Kani Shawl / Kashmir Sozani Craft (India), Mysore Sandal Soap (India), Gzhel (Russia), Tula Samovar (Russia); St Galler Stickerei (Switzerland); Swiss watches (Switzerland)
135
o Protection against the use of the name for products of the same category or other categories: All products enjoy protection against the use of their name for
products of the same category or other categories. o Protection against the use in translation: All the non-EU products which are
protected under a sui generis system, except the 2 Brazilian ones, benefit from the
protection against the use in translation. At the EU level, only the 2 Czech products
benefit from such a protection; the Hungarian GI “Herend” does not, neither does the
Portuguese GI “Bordado da Madeira” (however, it must be underlined that in practice
the GI sui generis protection is not used as a legal protection tool for this product). o Protection against the use of the name with delocalizers: The four EU products
are protected against the use of the name with delocalizers, as well as the two
Chinese ones. o Protection against the use of the name with expressions such as "type" or the
like: All the non-EU products, the 2 Czech products and the Portuguese product,
protected under a sui generis system, enjoy such protection. The only product, which
does not enjoy this protection, is the «Herend» (Hungary).
o Protection against genericity: All the products, except the Chinese are protected
against genericity through specific sui generis GI systems. o Public enforcement: 5 out 11 products enjoy such a protection under their national
sui generis regime: the 2 Chinese and Swiss products and «Herend» (Hungary). o International protection: The protection of GIs at the international level is possible
as long as they are protected at the national level, including through sui generis GI
systems. The WIPO Lisbon Agreement, which has a limited number of Contracting
Parties, provides for the possibility to register these GIs. Only 3 out the 28 products
covered by this study are currently protected in third countries through this
Agreement: «Jablonecka bizuterie» (Czech Republic), «Cesky Kristal» (Czech
Republic) and «Herend» (Hungary).
As far as the extent of the protection is concerned, the sui generis GI systems appear to
provide the most extensive protection together with the specific laws. In comparison with the
trademark regime, these two types of legal instruments are of interest to producers as they
can offer direct protection of the name in translation, against the use of the name with a
delocalizer on the basis of an objective criterion and against genericity. Another very positive
element for producers is the fact that the sui generis and specific law regimes can provide a
protection by the public authorities. However, regarding the protection of the GI name outside
of the country of origin, the trademark system is clearly the most preferred route as it is often
136
the only way available to secure an effective protection in all the export countries of
importance to the producers.
3.2.2.2. Duration of the protection
With a view to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the different legal instruments used
for the protection of non agricultural GI products, it is important to examine the length of
protection that they enjoy. The study shows that 19 out of the 28 products benefit from a
legal protection for a 10 year period of time that is renewable. This is true for all the products
that are protected via the trademark regime but also for the products protected via a sui
generis GI system in India and Russia.
As several products enjoy both trademark and sui generis GI protection, the number of
products that are protected for an unlimited period of time is: 12. That includes «Solingen
knives» through a specific law, the 2 Chinese, the 2 Brazilian, the 2 Swiss and the 2 Czech
products, as well as «Herend» and «Bordado da Madeira» via sui generis GI systems and
«Koniakow Laces» through the unfair competition law.
The duration of the protection granted is to be taken into account in particular with regard to
the costs of protection which is of importance to producers.
3.2.2.3. The costs of protection vary from one country to the other
The cost of protection varies a lot from one product to the other. It depends on the legal tool
used as well as the specificity of each legal system at the national level, in particular on
whether a name has to be registered to be protected.
In some countries, the products do not need to be registered to secure the protection as a
GI. As a result, there is no protection cost for the products: ”Koniakow laces” under the
Polish unfair competition law, ”St Galler Stikerei“ and ”Swiss watches“ under the Swiss sui
generis GI system.
In the Czech Republic, under the sui generis system, GIs must be registered to secure
protection; however, there is no registration fee. As a result, the two products did not entail
any costs at the time of registration. In some of the countries that have established a sui
generis GI protection system, the registration is not free of costs. This is true in Brazil
137
(around 1.000 € for an unlimited length of protection), in India (around 1.500 € for a 10 year
period) and in Russia (from 490 € to 600 € for a 10 year period).
The registration of a mark under the trademark regime is made against the payment of fees.
These fees vary from one country to the other and the costs of registration depend on
several elements, in particular on:
whether the protection is sought at the national and/or regional or EU level and/or in
third countries,
how extensive it is in terms of classes and number of marks registered,
what system is being used to secure trademark protection (the Madrid systems
makes it more cost efficient for instance).
Table 2 below, which includes the information collected by our experts via the producers’
representatives, shows a wide discrepancy of situation in this regard with trademark costs’
registration ranging from just above 100 € to over 27.000 €. The latter covers 36 national
marks and two Community collective marks registered by Cuero de Ubrique in Spain.
Table 2 below provides an overview of the scope and the length of the protection as well as
the costs associated to the registration of the 28 products covered by the study.
138
Table 6: Extend and costs of the protection49
49 *UCL: Unfair competition law - the protection is not automatic but subject to consumer deception *LPM: Loi fédérale sur la protection des marques et des indications de provenance *OSM: Ordonnance réglant l'utilisation du nom «Suisse» pour les montres ²Total at the national and EU levels
Country Product Costs of the registration(in euros)
Public enforcement
In translation Against
“delocalizers”
Against use of the GI name
with expressions
Against genericity
Against designations for products of the same or other
categories
Limited Unlimited
Austria Ferlacher Waffen UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years 500
Belgique La pierre bleue de Belgique UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years2500 to 3000
(EU protection)Brazil Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos GI GI GI GI ~ 1000
Brazil Mud Pans of Goiabeiraswhen protected as a GI GI GI GI GI ~ 1000
China Jingdezhen Porcelain GI GI GI GI GI & TM TM: 10 years GI TM: ~650China Liuyang Firework GI GI GI GI GI & TM TM: 10 years GI TM: ~650
Czech Republic Cesky Cristal GI GI GI GI GI GI NoCzech Republic Jablonecka bizuterie GI GI GI GI GI GI No
France Couteaux de Thiers UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years 500France Dentelle de Calais UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years 618
Germany Schwarzwalder Kuchucksuhr UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years 300
Germany Solingen knives Law Law Law & UCL Law & TM Law Law & TM TM: 10 years Law TM: ~4000
Hungary Herend GI GI GI GI & TM TM: 10 years GI
India Kashmir Pashmina / Kani Shawl / Kashmir Sozani Craft GI GI GI GI GI GI: 10 years ~1500
India Mysore Sandal Soap GI GI GI GI GI GI: 10 years ~1500
Italy Marmo di Carrara UCL UCL TM ~1500Italy Vetro artistico di Murano UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years ~1500
Poland Koniakow Laces UCL UCL UCL UCL UCL NoPortugal Bordado da Madeira UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years GI 100
Russia Gzhel GI GI GI GI GI: 10 years From 490 to 600Russia Tula Samovar GI GI GI GI GI: 10 years From 490 to 600
Spain Calzado de Elche UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years 1500Spain Cuero de Ubrique UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years ²27000
Sweden Glasriket UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years 125Switzerland St Galler Stickerei LPM* LPM LPM LPM LPM LPM NoSwitzerland Swiss watch LPM OSM* & LPM OSM & LPM OSM & LPM OSM LPM OSM No
The Netherlands Texel Wool Quilt TM: Benelux languages UCL UCL TM TM: 10 years 240 at the Benelux level
United Kingdom Shetland Woolen Outwear UCL UCL TM 10 years ~236
Scope of the protection Length of the protection
139
3.2.3. A very diverse situation with regard to the structure and the production requirements
The study has shed light on major differences between the 28 non agricultural products with
regard to the existence of (A) an organisation of producers, (B) a product specification and
(C) a certification process is extremely diverse as shown in table 3 below.
3.2.3.1. In 9 of the 28 products studied, there is no organisation of producers.
In two cases, the right is owned by a single publicly-owned company: Karnataka Soaps &
Detergents ltd. (a Government of Karnataka Enterprise) is the owner of the “Mysore Sandal
Soap” GI and Russian Federal State plant “Shtamp” the owner of the Tula Samovar GI.
As far as “Ferlacher Waffen” (Austria), “Solingen Knives” (Germany), “Herend” (Hungary),
“Koniakow Laces” (Poland), “Texel Wool” (The Netherlands) and “St Galler Stickerei”
(Switzerland), there is no organisation of producers in place.
The study shows that, in many cases, the owner of the right is not the group of local
producers but a public authority (“Vetro artistic di Murano” trademark owned by Region of
Veneto, “Jingdezhen porcelain” mark by the Chinaware Association of Jingdezhen ,
“Liuyang Fireworks” mark by the Federation of fireworks and firecrackers of Liuyang ) or a
private authority (“Solingen” trademark owned by the chamber of commerce and industry,
“Dentelles de Calais” collective mark by the Fédération Française des dentelles et broderies,
“Esprit de Thiers” collective mark by the Fédération Française de la Coutellerie, “Bordado da
Madeira” collective mark by the wine, embroidery and handicrafts Institute of Madeira,
“Glasriket” collective mark by the Swedish Crystal Manufacturers’ Association, the “Shetland
Lady” certification mark by the Shetland Knitwear Trades Association).
As for the “Gzhel” GI (Russia), there are by law 10 registered owners of the intellectual
property right (the Appellation of Origin registrations). Meanwhile, the owner of the
“Jingdezhen porcelain” GI is the Municipal Government of Jingdezhen City and the owner of
the “Liuyang Fireworks” GI is the Municipal Government of Liuyang City
As the existence of an organisation of producers is a pre-condition to the registration of a
collective mark, it would be impossible for the producers mentioned in the first and second
paragraphs above to register a collective trade without the prior setting-up of such an
140
organisation. They would have to apply for the registration of either a trademark or a
certification mark. As stated before, the registration of an individual trademark containing a
geographical name is not easy. Furthermore, the registration of a certification mark means
that the mark could not belong to these companies but should belong to an independent
certification body. This could also prove difficult to implement in practice.
3.2.3.2. 21 of the 28 products have a codified collective standard of production with clear rules regarding the production
“Ferlachen Waffen” (Austria), “Koniakow Laces” (Poland), “Glasriket” (Sweden), “Gzhel” and
“Tula Samovar” (Russia) and “St Galler Stickerei” (Switzerland) do not have a codified
collective production standard for the GI product. The “Mud pans of Goaibeiras” have an
uncodified production and control process that is currently being written down in the context
of their work towards registering the name as a GI.
When a specification exists, it is sometimes quite vague when it comes to the link to the
area. In one case, “Dentelles de Calais”, we found out that there is no requirement that
production must take place in the defined area. Currently the preparation of the thread, the
making of the lace and most of the work of the dying, cutting, etc. are taking place in the
area. The specific area of production is not specified in the specification because historically
the production took place in the cities of Calais and Caudry. The producers have recently
realized that they need to change it to make sure that the production cannot be delocalized.
3.2.3.3. Only over half of the products studied have a certification system in place (15 out of 28).
The products which do not have a certification system are: “Ferlachen Waffen” (Austria), the
“Mud pans of Goaibeiras” (Brazil but work in progress), the 2 Chinese products, the 2 Czech
products, the 2 Indian products, “Koniakow Laces” (Poland), “Bordado da Madeira”
(Portugal), “Gzhel” and “Tula Samovar” (Russia) and “St Galler Stickerei” (Switzerland).
This means that these 13 products have no control system in place to verify that the
conditions set out in the standard of production (if any) are met. As this is a key element of
the current EU legal framework relating to the protection of wines, spirits and agricultural
products, this lack of control would pose a problem, should the sui generis GI protection of
non agricultural GI products be explored at the EU level.
141
Table 7: Producers’ organisation, specification and certification
Country Product Producers' organisation Specification Certification
Austria Ferlacher Waffen No No NoBelgique La pierre bleue de Belgique Yes Yes Yes
Brazil Finished Leather of Vale dos Sinos Yes Yes YesBrazil Mud Pans of Goiabeiras Yes No NoChina Jingdezhen Porcelain Yes Yes NoChina Liuyang Firework Yes Yes No
Czech Republic Cesky Cristal Yes Yes NoCzech Republic Jablonecka bizuterie Yes Yes No
France Couteaux de Thiers Yes Yes YesFrance Dentelle de Calais Yes Yes Yes
Germany Schwarzwalder Kuchucksuhr Yes Yes YesGermany Solingen knives No Yes YesHungary Herend No Yes Yes
India Kashmir Pashmina / Kani Shawl / Kashmir Sozani Craft Yes Yes No
India Mysore Sandal Soap No Yes NoItaly Marmo di Carrara Yes YesItaly Vetro artistico di Murano Yes Yes Yes
Poland Koniakow Laces No No NoPortugal Bordado da Madeira Yes Yes No
Russia Gzhel No No NoRussia Tula Samovar No No No
Spain Calzado de Elche Yes No YesSpain Cuero de Ubrique Yes Yes Yes
Sweden Glasriket Yes No YesSwitzerland St Galler Stickerei No No NoSwitzerland Swiss watch Yes Yes Yes
The Netherlands Texel Wool Quilt No Yes YesUnited Kingdom Shetland Woolen Outwear Yes Yes Yes
142
4. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to identify in the EU, Brazil, China, India, Russia and
Switzerland, a number of economically important non-agricultural products the production of
which is linked to a specific geographical origin and that enjoyed a legal protection. This work
was carried out with a view to collect economic and market data related to the products, as
well as to assess the main differences, strengths and weaknesses in the protection systems
identified, including positive aspects and difficulties in protection and enforcement of rights.
Our team of 17 experts covering 21 Member States and 5 third countries has identified 400
products that can be considered as non agricultural GI products. They have gathered
detailed information on 28 of these products (18 from the EU and 2 from each of the 5 third
countries). A comparative assessment of the elements found provides a good overview of
the economic importance of these products for the EU and the five third countries covered by
the terms of reference. It is also interesting to try to draw out some conclusions as to the
strengths and weaknesses of the different legal systems used to protect the 28 products
included in the second phase of the study.
Conclusions on the economic importance of the non agricultural GI products
In the first phase of the study, nearly 400 non agricultural GI products were identified by our
experts in 21 Member States and the 5 third countries chosen by the European Commission.
Thanks to the in-depth analysis conducted in the second phase of the study, it has become
clear that only a limited number of the 28 chosen most significant products are economically
and socially significant for their region of origin.
Most of the producers of these products are SMEs with a relative stable production. It would
appear that in the EU, only “Calzado de Elche” from Spain bring a significant contribution to
the local economy, in particular with regard to employment figures and, arguably, the Italian
GI “Marmo di Carrara” with an annual turnover of 1,125 billion €. The situation differs when
looking at third countries’ product where the Chinese “Liuyang Firework”, the “Swiss
watches” and the Indian Kashmir textile products do bring a significant contribution to the
economy.
A lot of the products studied can be considered as luxury products, hence their export
destinations which are mainly Europe, North America and Japan with Asia, the former Soviet
Union countries and the Middle East being also important markets. The export rate is
143
relatively high. Exports play a very significant role for most of the products studied with 13
out of the 28 products exporting outside of their country of origin50 more than 50% of their
production. In 4 cases (“Liyuang Fireworks”, “Cesky Cristal”, “Herend” and “Swiss watch”)
more than 90% of the production is exported. Producers recognize the importance of using a
common banner and to engage in collective communication and promotion campaigns to
develop their markets, in particular in third countries. Most of the producers use a
geographical name on their label and engage in collective promotional activities putting
forward a common logo.
However, these products are facing a number of similar challenges.
Many of them have expressed concerns regarding the current economic downturn and some,
especially in the EU, are fighting for survival, such as the “Czech crystal” and jewellery GI
products. In fact, a large portion of these producers have oriented their production to the
luxury market and they are alarmed that the actual crisis will lead to fewer sales.
Many have stated that they need to modernise their approach and to innovate in order to
attract new generations of both producers and consumers. A lot of these non agricultural GIs,
in particular within the EU, are considered to be traditional products and they sometimes do
not attract young generations. Some GIs are trying to make their products look younger by
working with new designers, notably the laces and crystal products. The new collections with
new designs or colours aim at attracting a broader public. They also face a challenge in
trying to promote their products as long-lasting products in contrast with the cheap and low-
quality products commonly found.
From a general point of view, many non agricultural European GIs fear that their knowledge,
know-how, traditions and product will disappear because of the competition of cheaper but
low-quality products and because of the growing counterfeiting. According to the study,
counterfeiting has become a very serious issue for all the products. It is undermining their
development. This, in turn, is forcing them to pay much more attention to the intellectual
property protection in their development strategy.
However, it must be underlined that so far only a limited number of producers have invested
in the protection of their collective intellectual property rights. “Swiss watches” producers
50 - It has not been possible to obtain information on the export outside of the European Union for the 18 products from the EU covered by this study
144
have developed a strategy to fight against counterfeited products, e.g. the campaign “Fake
watches are for fake people”51 the Murano Glass producers too52.
Conclusions on the strengths and weaknesses of the different legal regime used for the
protection of the non agricultural GI products
It is difficult to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of each legal instrument with regard to
the enforcement of rights as our experts found very little information available on this point.
Our analysis and conclusions are therefore mainly based on the assessment of the legal
instruments available from a systemic point of view.
This study shows that intellectual property protection for non-agricultural GI products appears
to be quite recent as for most of the products studied. Several bilateral agreements signed
between European States (including Switzerland) in the 1980s contain provisions to protect
of these products but there appears to have no comprehensive and consistent approach
towards their protection.
The study shows that the legal protection granted to these products is very diverse, often
recent, fragmented and limited with regard to its geographical scope. The protection is
granted through consumer deception and unfair competition laws, specific laws which protect
individual non agricultural GI products, trade mark laws or sui generis GI systems. All these
legal tools have their own merits and drawbacks. They have often developed at the national
differently based on historical and economical conditions.
In this document, we have tried to make a comparative analysis of the extent, duration and
cost of protection granted by each of the identified four legal instruments used to protect non
agricultural GI products.
As far as the extent of the protection is concerned, the sui generis GI systems appear to
provide the most extensive protection together with the specific laws. In comparison with the
trademark regime, these two types of legal instruments are of interest to producers as they
can offer direct protection of the name in translation, against the use of the name with a
delocalizer and against genericity. Some of these legal effects can be obtained via the
trademark route but this is subject to the ability of the right holder to demonstrate consumer
deception, something that is often quite difficult. Another very positive element for producers
51 - see www.hautehorlogerie.org/en/haute-horlogerie-preservation/anti-counterfeiting-campaign/ 52 see www.promovetro.com/portal/istituzionale.php?id=370
145
is the fact that the sui generis and specific law regimes can provide public protection. On that
note, it is interesting to highlight that all the third countries studied have chosen to protect
their products through a sui generis GI system or a specific law. In one country, China, the
products also enjoy protection through the trademark regime.
However, regarding the protection of the GI name outside of the country of origin, the
trademark system is clearly the most preferred route as it is often the only way available to
secure an effective protection in all the export countries of importance to the producers.
With regard to the duration of the protection, the cost for securing protection must be taken
into account to assess the interest for producers to use one legal tool rather than the other.
In that sense, it must be noted that the cost of protection varies significantly not only from
one legal instrument to the other, but also from one country to the other. In some countries
such as in Poland or Switzerland the legal tool for the protection of the GI does not require its
registration; its protection is therefore cost free. Some sui generis GI systems, such as the
Indian and Russian ones require the payment of a fee to register the GI name, some do not
such as the Czech or Chinese ones. The trademark regime provides for a 10 year protection
but so does the sui generis GI system in India and Russia. In the other countries where a sui
generis GI system or a specific law is in force to protect GIs (Brazil, China, Czech Republic,
Germany, Hungary, Portugal and Switzerland), the protection is granted for an indefinite
period of time.
In general, trademark regimes appear to be more costly than other legal tools but, in
practice, they give producers more effective protection when it comes to securing protection
outside of their country of origin on important markets. Some producers explained that when
they decided to launch a legal action to defend their right, they have relied mostly on the
trademark protection, as the only legal instrument available, especially when confronted with
abuses outside of the country of origin. This is the case of the “Swiss watch” and “Solingen
knives” producers for instance.
At the EU level, the Community trademark regime is the only tool available to secure a
protection in the 27 Member States via a single instrument. The alternative is to go to each
Member State and use the national legal instruments available which vary from one country
to the other. This is neither practical nor cost effective for producers and proves difficult to
do. The Community trademark regime provide for a good protection of trademarks and
collective marks at a reasonable cost. However, only 3 out of the 28 products studied –
146
“Solingen knives” (Germany), “Vetro artistic di Murano” (Italy) and “Cuero de Ubrique”
(Spain) - have registered marks with OHIM.
At the international level, only the 2 Czech products and “Herend” are protected in the 26
countries that are contracting parties of the Lisbon Agreement for the protection of
appellations of origin53. Three other products – “Liuyang Firework”, “Solingen” and “Dentelles
de Calais” have used the Madrid system of international registration of marks to secure
protection in third countries. The Lisbon Agreement route is free of charge; the Madrid
system is more costly for producers. However, protection via the Madrid system is arguably
more efficient as it allows producers to secure protection on important markets not covered
by the Lisbon Agreement, in particular in the USA and the Member States not contracting
parties to the Lisbon Agreement. Protection has also been granted to some of the non
agricultural GI products studied in the context of bilateral agreements signed mostly by
European countries but the effectiveness of this protection is not clear.
Most of the European non agricultural GI products consider that one of their main challenges
is to secure a better protection of their products at the national and the international level.
Bearing this in mind, it is difficult to understand why so few of the products studied have not
sought protection outside of their country of origin. The main reason could be linked to the
fact that most of the producers had so far not seen the necessity to protect of their collective
intellectual property right. Another reason could be the lack of sufficient budget dedicated to
the IP protection and, for some of them, the fact that they are not exported to many
countries.
From a general point of view, it must be underlined that most of the producers of non
agricultural GI products contacted in the context of this study have a limited understanding of
intellectual property rights. They are not familiar with the differences that exist between the
legal instruments available for the protection of their products. A limited number of them have
sought protection of their IPR beyond their country of origin. For most of them, the protection
of their intellectual property rights appears to be a relatively new priority. Their main concern
is to be able to secure a cost effective and wide protection of their GI name.
53 - Algeria, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, France, Gabon, Georgia, Haiti, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Togo, Tunisia. 5 countries have signed the Agreement in 1958 and 1959 but have not ratified it: Greece, Morocco, Republic of Moldova, Spain and Turkey.
147
Some producers covered by the study see the existing EU legal framework for the protection
of Protected Denomination of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications for wines,
spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs as an interesting route. They consider that such
an instrument could (1) provide them with an effective EU wide protection system and (2) be
used as a promotional tool, allowing them to better position their products on the market as
typical products rooted in a specific territory. However, others have no understanding of
and/or interest for such a system in the short term.
More specifically, when asked about their potential interest for the establishment of a sui
generis GI system at the EU level for the protection of non agricultural products, nearly all EU
producers expressed interest for such a system because:
• It has proved very useful for agricultural GI products from a protection and a
promotion point of view.
• It would provide additional legal protection in the 27 Member States in an efficient
and cost effective way.
The only exception is the “Texel Wool Quilt”. According to our field expert, Texel Wool
producers are not yet interested in the setting-up of a sui generis protection for their GI
product at the EU level.
As far as the third countries’ products are concerned, most of them have expressed some
interest for the establishment of a sui generis GI system at the EU level for the protection of
non agricultural products. The representatives of the Indian and the Swiss watch producers
have more particularly explained that they would welcome the creation of such an
instrument.
The study has shed light on major differences between the 28 non agricultural products with
regard to some important aspects of the GI concept as it is understood in the EU. In
particular, in 9 cases54, there is no organisation of producers while 7 products have no
codified production standards55 and only 15 products have a certification system in place56.
54 - Ferlacher Waffen (Austria), Solingen Knives (Germany), Herend (Hungary), Koniakow Laces (Poland), Texel Wool (The Netherlands) and St Galler Stickerei (Switzerland), In two other cases, the right is owned by a single publicly-owned company: Karnataka Soaps & Detergents ltd. (a Government of Karnataka Enterprise) is the owner of the “Mysore Sandal Soap” GI and Russian Federal State plant “Shtamp” the owner of the Tula Samovar GI. 55 - Ferlachen Waffen (Austria), Koniakow Laces (Poland), Glasriket (Sweden), Gzhel and Tula Samovar (Russia) and St Galler Stickerei (Switzerland) 56 - Ferlachen Waffen (Austria), The Mud pans of Goaibeiras (Brazil but work in progress), the 2 Chinese products, the 2 Czech products, the 2 Indian products, Koniakow Laces (Poland), Bordado da Madeira (Portugal), Gzhel and Tula Samovar (Russia) and St Galler Stickerei (Switzerland) have no certification system in place.
148
As an organisation of producers is in general a prerequisite to register a collective mark or a
GI under a sui generis GI system, the absence of such an organisation could prove
problematic to secure protection. Other challenges should also be taken into account, such
as calls for innovation and other consumer demands.
In conclusion, the limited legal protection enjoyed by most of these products in particular
outside of their country of origin and at the EU level should be a source of concern. This is
especially troublesome considering the share of exports in their economic results. With
regard to the enhancement of their protection, there is a clear need to better promote the
importance of intellectual property protection towards the producers of non agricultural GI
products. In addition, it could be interesting to explore ways to facilitate the protection of
these products in particular at the EU level. Moreover, considering that the third countries
covered by this study (Brazil, China, India, Russia, and Switzerland) have chosen to go
beyond the trademark regime and to offer either a sui generis GI system or specific laws for
the protection of their non agricultural GI products, there are some merits in looking at the
creation of a specific and effective legal framework for their protection at the EU level. Such
an approach could be based on the existing sui generis GI system available to wines, spirits
and agricultural products which is perceived by producers as both an interesting protection
and promotion tool. Finally, this could arguably give more credibility and leverage to the EU’s
approach on GIs in the international – bilateral and multilateral – negotiations. This could
especially facilitate the enhancement of all European GIs at the international level in
particular if some of the EU’s important trading partners seek to obtain in the future an
extensive protection of their non agricultural GIs in the EU.
17 November 2009
149
Annex - List of the 400 products identified in the 1st phase of the study
The 17 experts identified 400 non agricultural GI products in 25 countries in the first phase of
the study. At the EU level, 251 products from 18 Countries were found. 149 products were
found in 7 third countries.
EU Products
Austria 1. Adneter Marmor (marbel) 2. Alpenlândisches Konglomerat
conglomerate) 3. Augarten Porzellan (China) 4. Ausseer Hüte (Textile) 5. Ausseer Trachten (Textile) 6. Ausseer Tücher (Textile) 7. Berndorfer (Metallwaren) 8. Ferlacher Gewehre 9. Ferlacher Waffen (firearms) 10. Frauenthaler Porzellanisolatoren
(China) 11. Frauenthaler Porzellanwaren
(China) 12. Friesacher Leinen (Linen) 13. Gebhartser Syenit (stone) 14. Gmundner Keramik 15. Herschenberger Granit (Granite) 16. Hirtenberger Munition 17. Hirtenberger Patronen 18. Hirtenberger Zündhütchen 19. Imster Tonwafen 20. Ischler Hut (Textile) 21. Karlsteiner Uhren (clocks) 22. Lechtaler Teppiche (Textile) 23. Linzer Goldhauben (Golden
headdress for women) 24. Mandlinger Loden (Textile) 25. Mannersdorfer Kalkstein (stone) 26. Margarethner Kalksandstein
(stone) 27. Mühlviertler Leinen (Textile) 28. Mühlviertler Leinengewebe
(Textile) 29. Mürztaler Keramik (ceramics) 30. Murauer Wollwebereiwaren
(Textile)
31. Naarntaler Granit (Granite) 32. Naintscher Mineralprodukte (stone) 33. Neuhauser Granit (Granite) 34. Neuzeug-Besteck 35. Neuzeug-Hohlwaren 36. Neuzeug-Messer 37. Neuzeug-Tischgeräte 38. Perger Granit (Granite) 39. Plansee-Produkte (Metallwaren) 40. Schladminger Loden (Textile) 41. Schladminger Loden 42. Schladminger Socken 43. Schladminger Walkjanker
(Lodenwalker) (textile products) 44. Schwarzenseer Marmor (Marbel) 45. St. Egydener Feilen 46. St. Egydener Skistockrohre 47. St. Peter Keramik (ceramics) 48. Stoober Tonwaren 49. Stubaier Eisenwaren (iron goods) 50. Stubai-Werkzeuge 51. Talkum Naintsch (stone) 52. Tauerngrün (stone) 53. Ternitzer Konglomerat
(conglomerate) 54. Treibacher Feuerzeuge (Lighters) 55. Treibacher Gasanziinder 56. Treibacher Zündsteine 57. Veitscher Magnesit (conglomerate) 58. Vöcklabrucker Keramik (ceramics) 59. Wachauer Goldhauben (Textile) 60. Waldviertler Filetvorhange, Tisch-
und Bettdecken (Textile) 61. Waldviertler handgestochene
Zwirnknöpfe (Textile) 62. Waldviertler Strickhandschuhe
(Textile) 63. Weingrabner Granit (Granite) 64. Wöllersdorfer Wollwaren (Textile)
150
Belgium
1. Dentelle de Binche (lace) 2. PBPG Petit Granit – Pierre Bleue
de Belgique Arduin (natural stone)
Bulgaria
1. Kaolinovski Kaolin (Kaolin) 2. Kvarcov Pjasâk Junak (Quartz
sand) 3. Kvarcov Pjasâk Kaolinovo (Quartz
sand) 4. Kvarcov Pjasâk Senovo (Quartz
sand) 5. Kvarcov Pjasâk Vjatovo (Quartz
sand) 6. Mramor Ilindenci (Marble) 7. Mušelkalk Manastirište (Marble) 8. Perlit Kârdžali (Perlite) 9. Senovski Kaolin (Kaolin) 10. Trojanska Keramika (ceramic
objects) 11. Vjatovski Kaolin (Kaolin) 12. Vracanski Varovik (limestone)
Czech Republic
1. Ceský Porcelán and Duchcovský
Porcelán (household china) 2. České Sklo (glass household
products) 3. Český Granát, Český Granátový
Šperk (natural garnet or jewellery and objects made with Czech garnets)
4. Český Křišťál (glass household products)
5. Chodská Keramika (household, artistic and decorative pottery)
6. Jablonecká Bižuterie (paste jewellery - bijouterie)
7. Jablonecké Sklo / Jablonecká Krystalerie (household and decorative glass)
8. Jindřichohradecký Gobelín (tapissery )
9. Karlovarská Sůl, Karlovarská Vřídelní Sůl, Karlovarská Přírodní Vřídelní Sůl (thermal salt)
10. Karlovarský Porcelán (household china)
11. Kunštátská Keramika (household and decorative pottery)
12. Pirkenhammer (household, decorative and figural china)
13. Sedlecký Kaolín kaolin (china clay) 14. Sokolovské Brikety, Sokolovské
Uhelné Brikety (Coal patent fuel) 15. Valašskomeziříčský Gobelín
(tapissery) 16. Vamberecká Krajka (handmade
braided lace) 17. Železnobrodské Sklo (Free bown
glass, cut glass, cast glass) 18. Zeleznobrodské Figurky (small
glass figures and glass souvenirs)
Estonia
1. SAMSALA BLACKSMITHS (“Saaremaa Sepad”) Traditional construction and interior items
France
1. Couteaux de Thiers (knives) 2. Dentelle d’Alençon (lace) 3. Dentelle de Calais (lace) 4. Dentelle du Puy (lace) 5. Emaux De Limoges (Enamels) 6. Faïences de Gien (China) 7. Emaux de Longwy (Enamels) 8. Faïences de Quimper (China) 9. Monoï de Tahiti (oil) 10. Mouchoirs de Cholet (Cloth) 11. Pocelaine De Limoges (China) 12. Poterie De Vallauris (Pottery) 13. Toile de Cholet (Cloth)
Germany
1. Erzgebirge Woodart /
Erzgebirgische Holzkunst (wooden puppets, toys and Christmas items)
2. Hutschenreuter (China) 3. Idar-Oberstein Gemstone products
/ Edelstein Smuck aus Idar-Oberstein
4. Königliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Berlin GmbH (china)
5. Meissen Porcelain / Meissener Porzellan (Porcelain pottery, sculptures, decorative items)
6. Ober-Ammergau Woodart / Oberammergauer Holzschnitzerei (Sculptures, Christmas items)
151
7. Porzellan Manufaktur Nymphenburg (china)
8. Rhön Woodart / Holzschnitzkunst aus dem Bayerischen Rhön (Wooden sculptures and Christmas items)
9. Schwarzwald (Black Forest) Cuckoo-clock / Schwarzwalduhr (clock)
10. Solingen cutting utensils / Solinger Schneidwaren (Knifes, scissors, blades, food utensils)
11. Vogtland Music Instruments / Musikinstrumente aus dem Vogtland concert instruments, accordions)
Hungary
1. Bonyhád (Enameled pots) 2. Budafok (Enameled pots) 3. Gérce (Alginates and Salt of algin
acid) 4. Halas (Hand-made lace, lace
collar, lace cover) 5. Herend (China, i.e service and
fancy goods) 6. Hollóháza (China, i.e service and
fancy goods) 7. Parád (Ferrous alum. and Salt for
medical bath and medical purposes)
Italy
1. Alabastro in Volterra (Alabaster
handmade goods) 2. Artigiani in Liguria (Hand-crafted
products) 3. Biella the art of excellence
(textiles) 4. Cardato Pratese (carded wool) 5. Ceramiche tradizionali di Bisignano
(Ceramics) 6. Ceramiche tradizionali di Rogliano
(Ceramics) 7. Coltello Artigiano- Sardegna (kife) 8. Cremona Liuteria (Violin, viola,
violoncello, contrabass, guitar, harp)
9. DiValenza (jewellery) 10. Ferrara Terra e Acqua
(Advertising, paper, stickers, magazines, clothing)
11. Filigrana Artigiana- Sardegna (jewellery)
12. Gioielli di Torre del Greco (jewellery)
13. Glasses Dolomiti (glasses) 14. Legno Arredo Arezzo (Wood
handmade goods) 15. Marmo Di Carrara (Marble) 16. Matera Doc Artigianato Artistico
(Ceramics, leather, wrought iron, wood, jeweller’s art, terracotta, tufa)
17. "Marche eccellenza artigiana" (Handmade goods)
18. “Marchio della Pietra di Vicenza” (stone)
19. “Marchio distretto della sedia del Friuli” (Artistic furniture factory)
20. “Marchio del mobile d’arte del Bassanese” (Artistic furniture factory)
21. “Marchio Lago Maggiore casalinghi” (Household goods)
22. “Marchio Spazio Gran Paradiso” (Handmade goods)
23. “Mobile d’arte in stile della Pianura Veronese” (Artistic furniture factory)
24. “Parco Nazionale del Gran Sasso” (handmade goods)"
25. "Parco di Portofino” (handmade goods)
26. "Parco Regionale di Veio” (handmade goods)
27. Pietra di Comiso (Stones handmade goods)
28. Ricami di Comiso (Ceramics, leather, wrought iron, wood, jeweller’s art, terracotta, tufa)
29. Pietre Originali della Bergamasca (Marble handmade goods)
30. Produttori Pipe Varese (Pipes of tobacco)
31. Salento d’amare (handcraft) 32. Terme di Montecatini (cosmetics) 33. Terme di Salsomaggiore
(cosmetics) 34. Terme di Saturnia (cosmetics) 35. Terme di Tabiano (cosmetics) 36. Tessuti di Longobucco (textile) 37. "Tuscia Viterbese” (ceramics,
handcraft goods) 38. Valdinievole- Artieri Toscani (shoe
factory)
152
39. Vetro Artistico di Murano (Artistic venetian glasswork)
Latvia
1. Baltic Textiles Latvia 2. Baltic Traditional Ancient Jewelry 3. Kurzeme Textiles Kuldīga Applied
Art Group “Varavīksne“ 4. Latgale ceramics (pottery) 5. Latgale textiles (“skalu deķi”) 6. Latvia knitwear (mittens) 7. Latvia wickerworks 8. Sigulda (walking) sticks 9. traditional flax oil – based paints /
linseed oil paints “raitums paint factory”"
10. Vidzeme Flax Linen textiles
Lithuania
1. Baltic Textiles / Lithuania
The Netherlands
1. Delfts Blauw (Porcelain pottery, tiles, and decorative items)
2. Dutch Clog 3. Leerdam Glass (Wine glasses,
platters, artistic glass items) 4. Makkumer (Ceramics: pottery,
tiles, and decorative items) 5. Texel Quilt (duvet)
Poland
1. Banded flint 2. Boleslawiec ceramics 3. Great poland carriages 4. Krosno glass 5. Koniakow laces 6. Strzegom granite
Portugal
1. Artesanato dos Açores (handicraft
covering wood, shell, lace and others)
2. Bordado da Madeira (embroiderie) 3. Bordado de Guimarães
(embroideries) 4. Bordados de Viana do Castelo 5. (embroideries) 6. Cerâmica criativa de Coimbra
(pottery)
7. Faiança Artística de Coimbra (faience or glazed earth-enware and porcelain) or Louça de Coimbra (porcelain)
8. Ferro forjado de Coimbra (forged iron)
9. Lenços de Namorados do Minho (handkerchiefs with particular embroideries)
10. Renda de Bilros de Peniche (fine lace)
11. Tecelagem de Almalaguês (weaving)
Slovakia
1. Banskobelanský Dinas (Silica
bricks and unworked silica) 2. Modranská Majolika (household
and decorative pottery) 3. Piešťanské Bahno (silt) 4. Slovenský Magnezit (Raw material
for manufacturing refractory pastes)
Spain
1. Alfombras De Crevillente (Carpets
from Crevillente) 2. Alfombras de esparto de Ubeda
(textiles) 3. Alfombras de La Alpujarra (textiles) 4. Armas de fuego de Eibar
(Weapons) 5. Artesania de Eibar (jewellery) 6. Artesania de Toledo (jewellery) 7. Bisuteria de Menorca (jewellery) 8. Bordados de Lagartera (textiles) 9. Bordados de Mallorca (textiles) 10. Calzado De Elche (“Shoes from
Elche”) 11. Calzado de Elda (shoes) 12. Calzado de Inca (shoes) 13. Calzado de Menorca (shoes) 14. Ceramica de Manises (Ceramics) 15. Cerámica De Sargadelos
(Sargadelos Pottery) 16. Cerámica De Talavera De La
Reina (Pottery from Talavera de la Reina)
17. Ceramica de Talavera (Ceramics) 18. Cuchillería De Albacete (Knives
from Albacete) 19. Cuero De Ubrique (Leather from
Ubrique)
153
20. Espadas y cuchillos de Toledo (Weapons)
21. Filigrana de Cordoba (jewellery) 22. Goyescas, mantillas y vélos de
Granada (textiles) 23. Hierros artisticos de Toledo
(jewellery) 24. Manias de Palencia (textiles) 25. Marmol De Alicante (Marble of
Alicante) 26. "Marmol De Macael (Marble from
Macael) 27. Marroquinerîa de Ubrique (textiles) 28. Muebles De La Sénia (Furniture
from La Sénia) 29. Muebles de Manacor (Furniture) 30. Muebles de Sonseca (Furniture) 31. Navajas y cuchillas de Albacete 32. (Weapons) 33. Paîios de Tarrasa (textiles) 34. Panos de Sabadell (textiles) 35. Perlas de Manacor o de Mallorca
(jewellery) 36. Porcelana del Bidasoa (Ceramics)
Sweden
1. Dalecarlia horse (“dalahäst”)
Painted wooden horses 2. Falu rödfärg (Special read paint) 3. Glasriket (Crystal glass) 4. Morakniv (Mora knife) 5. Reijmyre (crystal glass) 6. Svensk Slöjd (Swedish handicraft)
United Kingdom
1. Butler Sheffield (Cutlery) 2. North Staffordshire Pottery
(pottery, domestic tableware) 3. Nottingham lace (lace and
embroidered lace) 4. Hand-Knitted Woollen Clothing Of
The Shetland Islands 5. Shetland Woollen Outerwear
154
Products from third countries
Brazil
1. Finished leather of Vale dos Sinos 2. Gems and Jewelry of Opal Pedro II 3. Irish Lace of Divina Pastora 4. Miriti Handicraft of Abaetetuba 5. Mud Pans of Goiabeiras 6. Renaissance Lace of Cariri
Paraibano
China
1. 浏阳花炮 - Liuyang Hua Pao (Liuyang firework and firecracker)
2. 来凤漆筷 - Laifeng Qi Kuai (Laifeng Lacquer Chopsticks)
3. 藏毯 - Zang Tan (Tibet Blanket)
4. 巴林石 - Balin Shi (Balin Stone)
5. 无棣贝瓷 - Wudi Bei Ci (Wudi Shell Porcelain)
6. 醴陵瓷器 - Liling Ci Qi (Liling Porcelain)
7. 紫阳蓝黑板石 - Ziyang Lan Hei Ban Shi (Ziyang Blue and Black Stone)
8. 德化白瓷 - Dehua Bai Ci (Dehua Porcelain)
9. 永春篾香 - Yongchun Mie Xiang (Yongchun Thin Bamboo Strip Incense Stick)
10. 遂昌竹炭 - Suichang Zhu Tan (Suichang Bamboo Charcoal)
11. 扬州漆器 - Yangzhou Qi Qi (Yangzhou Lacquerware)
12. 昌邑丝绸 - Changyi Si Chou (Changyi Silk)
13. 英石 - Ying Shi (Ying Stone)
14. 岫岩玉 - Xiuyan Yu (Xiuyan jade)
15. 南京云锦 - Nanjing Yun Jin (Nanjing Cloud-Pattern Brocade)
16. 合浦南珠 - Hepu Nan Zhu (Hepu South Pearl)
17. 端砚 - Duan Yan (Duan Ink Stone)
18. 宣纸 - Xuan Zhi (Xuan Paper)
19. 汝瓷 - Ru Ci (Ru Porcelain)
20. 蓝田玉 - Lantian Yu (Lantian Jade)
21. 钧瓷 - Jun Ci (Jun Porcelain)
22. 龙泉青瓷 - Longquan Qing Ci (Longquan Porcelain)
23. 景德镇瓷器 - Jingdezhen Ci Qi (Jingdezhen Porcelain)
India
1. Agates of Cambay (Handicrafts) 2. Alleppey Coir (Coir Products) 3. Andhra Pradesh Leather Puppetry
(Leather Goods, Wall Hangings & Toys, Playthings)
4. Applique – Khatwa Patch Work of Bihar (Handicrafts)
5. Arani Silk (Textiles & Textile Goods)
6. Aranmula Kannadi (Handicrafts) 7. Bagh Prints of Madhya Pradesh
(Handicrafts) 8. Bastar Dhokra (Handicrafts) 9. Bastar Iron Craft (Handicrafts) 10. Bastar Wooden Craft (Handicrafts) 11. Bell Metal Ware of Datia and
Tikamgarh (Handicrafts) 12. Bhavani Jamakkalam (Textiles,
Carpets) 13. Bidriware (Handicrafts) 14. Blue Pottery of Jaipur (Handicrafts) 15. Brass Broidered Coconut Shell
Crafts of Kerala (Handicrafts) 16. Budhiti Bell & Brass Craft (Bell &
Brass metal items) 17. Chamba Rumal (embroidery) 18. Chanderi Fabric (Textiles) 19. Channapatna Toys & Dolls
(Handicrafts)
155
20. Coimbatore Wet Grinder (Wet Grinder)
21. East India Leather Leather) 22. Ganjifa cards of Mysore
(Handicrafts) 23. Ilkal Sarees (Textiles) 24. Kancheepuram Silk (Textiles) 25. Kani Shawl (Textiles) 26. Karnataka Bronze Ware
(Handicrafts) 27. Kashmir Pashmina (Textiles)
Uniquely Interlinked with the two following products:
28. Kashmir Sozani Craft (fine needle based embroidery)
29. Kani Shawls (produced from fine hand spun fibres of Pashmina Wool)
30. Kashmir Sozani Craft (Handicrafts) 31. Kasuti Embroidery (Embroidery -
Textiles) 32. Kathputlis of Rajasthan
(Handicrafts) 33. Konark Stone carving (Handicrafts) 34. Kondapalli Bommallu (Handicrafts) 35. Kota Doria (Textiles) 36. Kotpad Handloom fabric (Textiles) 37. Kovai Cora Cotton (Textiles &
Textile Goods) 38. Kullu Shawl (Traditional
Handloom) 39. Kutch Embroidery (Handicrafts) 40. Lucknow Chikan Craft (embroidery
works) 41. Machilipatnam Kalamkari (Textile
& Textile Goods) 42. Maddalam of Palakkad
(Handicrafts) 43. Madhubani Paintings (Paintings) 44. Madurai Sungudi (Textiles) 45. Molakalmuru Sarees (Textiles) 46. Molela Clay Work (Handicrafts) 47. Muga Silk (Textiles) 48. Mysore Agarbathi (Incense Sticks) 49. Mysore Rosewood Inlay
(Handicrafts) 50. Mysore Sandal soap (Soap) 51. Mysore Silk (Textiles) 52. Mysore Traditional Paintings
(Paintings) 53. Nakshi Kantha (Textiles) 54. Navalgund Durries (Textiles) 55. Nirmal Furniture (Furniture) 56. Nirmal Paintings (Paintings & Art
Works of Wood)
57. Nirmal Toys and Craft (Handicrafts)
58. Orissa Ikat (Textiles) 59. Orissa Pattachitra (Paintings) 60. Pipli Applique Work (Handicrafts) 61. Pochampalli Ikat (Textiles) 62. Salem Fabric (Textiles) 63. Salem Silk (Textiles & Textile
Goods) 64. Sankheda Furniture (Handicrafts) 65. Santiniketan Leather Goods
(Leather Goods) 66. Screw Pine Craft of Kerala
(Handicrafts) 67. Sikki Grass Work of Bihar
(Handicrafts) 68. Silver Filigree of Karimnagar
(Handicrafts) 69. Solapur Chaddar (Textiles) 70. Solapur Terry Towel (Textiles) 71. Srikalahasthi Kalamkari (Textiles) 72. Sujini Embroidery Work of Bihar
(Handicrafts) 73. Swamimalai Bronze Icons
(Handicrafts) 74. Temple Jewellery of Nagercoil
(Handicrafts) 75. Thanjavur Art Plate (Handicrafts) 76. Thanjavur Doll (Toys) 77. Thanjavur Paintings (Paintings) 78. Toys of Indore (Handicrafts)
Russia
1. Chochloma «Семеновская
Хохлома» (Wood painting handicraft)
2. Fedoskino «Федоскино» (lacquer miniature painting on papier-mâché)
3. Gzhel «Гжель» (ceramics) 4. Palekh «Палех» (Russian folk
handicraft of miniature painting) 5. Pavlov Posad «Павловский
посад» (lace) 6. Tula Samovar «Тульский
самовар» (metal container) 7. Vologodskoe lace «Вологодское
кружево» 8. Zhostovo «Жостово» (Handicraft
of painting on metal trays)
Turkmenistan
1. Turkmen Tekin carpets
156
Uzbekistan
1. Uzbek silk – Han Atlas from
Margilan «Хан-атлас»
Switzerland
1. Articles de canalisation de Rondez 2. Boîtes à musique de Sainte-Croix
(music instrument) 3. Brienzer Holzschnitzereien (wood
sculptures) 4. Brienzer Uhren (cuckoo clock) 5. Calcaire de Lägern 6. Cristal de Sarnen (Crystal) 7. Etoffe de Truns (Trunser Stoffe) 8. Fil d’Aegeri (Aegeri Garne) 9. Fil de la Lorze (Lorze-Garne) 10. Granite de Andeer (Granite) 11. Granite de Calanca (Granite) 12. Gravier de Weiach
13. Handgewebe 14. Langenthal (porcelain) 15. Lötschentaler Masken (masks) 16. Machines, produits en métal léger
de Menziken 17. Meubles de Saas (furniture) 18. Papier de Cham (paper) 19. Papier de Landquart (paper) 20. Profilé spécial de Gerlafingen 21. Quartzite de Calanca 22. Quartzite de San Bernardino 23. Quartzite de Soglio 24. Robinetterie de Klus 25. Saint-Gall - Sankt Galler Stickerei
(embroidery) 26. Serpentine de Poschiavo 27. Swiss watches 28. Tissage à la main de Saas
(Saaser) 29. Tissage de Hasli (Hasliweberei) 30. Tuyaux de Choindez (Pipes) 31. Verre de Bülach (Glass) 32. Verre de Saint-Prex (Glass)