Next month, the European Union and the United States will likely resume their negotiation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). This ambitious and far-reaching agreement will affect not only two of the world’s largest trading powers, but also other members of the international community.
One area that has tripped up these high-stakes trade talks concerns the labeling of cheese and other foodstuffs. In many countries, specific laws exist to protect what is generally referred to as “geographical indications.”
These indicators identify the geographical source from which a product derives its essential quality, reputation or other characteristics. Examples include Champagne sparkling wine, Scotch whisky, Feta cheese, prosciutto di Parma, Café de Colombia, Idaho potatoes and Darjeeling tea.
Thus far, the E.U. and the U.S. disagree over how these indicators are to be protected. Greater protection will affect not only product labeling but also exports and jobs.
Although these two trading powers are unlikely to resolve their disagreement soon, the U.S. may be more willing to increase protection of geographical indications than many expect.
The fight between Old and New Worlds
Historically, the protection of geographical indications has been the subject of heated debates and controversy among members of the international community.
Countries in the “Old World” – primarily those in Europe – advocate for strong protection of geographical indications. They remain concerned about their consumers being confused as to the origin and unique qualities of the products identified by these indicators. They also argue that unauthorized use will tarnish the indicators’ established reputations while diluting the products’ authenticity on the international market.
By contrast, countries in the “New World” – such as Australia, Canada, Chile and the U.S. – oppose strong protection of geographical indications. They contend that most products can be replicated almost anywhere today, thanks to modern agricultural and manufacturing techniques.
They also claim that several geographical indications – such as Champagne, Feta and Gouda – have long become generic terms on their soil. In some cases, names similar or identical to these indicators have already been registered as trademarks. A prohibition on the commercial use of geographical indications – such as using Champagne for sparkling wine not made in that region of France – would therefore damage businesses while creating consumer confusion.
Growing international protection
Since 1994, the so-called TRIPS Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has introduced international minimum standards for the protection of geographical indications. The WTO also offers expanded protection to wines and spirits.
In addition, other multilateral and regional efforts have been undertaken to protect geographical indications. A case in point is the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications. Despite the continuous differences between the Old and New Worlds, the scope of this agreement was recently expanded at the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva.
Thus far, the U.S. has not offered independent protection to geographical indications. Instead, it allows these indicators to be protected as trademarks, certification marks or collective marks.
For instance, Brunello di Montalcino, Cognac, Darjeeling and Jamaica Blue Mountain coffee are all currently protected as certification marks in the U.S. Federal and state laws also offer additional protection to appellations of origin for wines.
The slowly evolving U.S. position
Although the U.S. has a longstanding skepticism toward protecting geographical indications, at least five reasons exist to suggest the country’s increasing willingness to strengthen protection in this area.
First, the protection of geographical indications has already received growing support from U.S. industries. Napa Valley Vintners, for example, has strongly advocated for such protection on behalf of its member wineries. In 2007, this trade group successfully secured protection for “Napa Valley” as a U.S. geographical indication in the E.U.
A 2013 industry study also provided a long list of potential U.S. geographical indications. This list included not only well-known wine-producing regions, but also lesser-known regions such as Alexandria Lakes in Minnesota, the Bell Mountain in Texas, the Kanawha River Valley in West Virginia and the Old Mission Peninsula in Michigan.
Second, in addition to the TTIP, the U.S. continues to negotiate bilateral and regional trade agreements with countries that have offered strong protection of geographical indications. During these negotiations, compromises on how to protect these indicators will inevitably be reached. Indeed, many U.S. free trade agreements already include provisions addressing the potential conflict between the trademark system and the protection of geographical indications.
Third, stronger protection of these indicators would offer significant trade benefits to U.S. exporters. Such protection would harmonize labeling standards while reducing marketing costs. If U.S. products are of recognized qualities or reputations, enabling foreign consumers to quickly select these products would also enhance sales.
After all, the U.S., like Europe, has its own geographical indications. These indicators include Idaho potatoes, Florida oranges, Vidalia onions, Napa Valley wines and Washington State apples.
Fourth, greater protection of geographical indications would benefit U.S. consumers by enabling them to purchase authentic products locally. Many Americans now travel abroad and have a better understanding of foreign cuisines and cultures. After tasting Parmigiano-Reggiano in Italy or sipping Darjeeling tea in India, they would certainly appreciate finding the same products in home grocery stores.
Finally, European countries and industries continue to shame the U.S. into offering stronger protection of geographical indications. In January 2013, for instance, the champagne lobby strongly protested the listing of “Korbel Natural Russian River Valley Champagne” on the menu of the inauguration dinner for the second term of the Obama administration. As the lobby’s spokesperson emphatically declared, “Champagne only comes from Champagne, France,” not Sonoma County in California.
In sum, although the U.S. is unlikely to volunteer to strengthen protection of geographical indications, it may be willing to do so if the E.U. offers the right concessions in other areas of trade or investment. Thus, the TTIP negotiations – despite the ongoing challenges – can serve as an important platform for the two trading powers to narrow their differences.