Abstract
AbstractThe EU regime for protecting geographical indications (GIs) is the most advanced – and at the same time the most debated – model of this sui generis intellectual property right in the world. The current reform is introducing innovations in many aspects of this regime, including that of digital markets. However, one very important aspect stemming from the evolution of EU case-law is missing – the extension of GI protection against services. EU case-law leaves open significant questions about this multi-faceted issue: not only how to construe the “front” side of directly excluding the (even evocative) use of a geographical name for services, but also, and mostly, how to deal with the “reverse” side of actively exploiting the same name on the market, following an authorization model resembling that for trademarks, as indeed the reform seems to admit elsewhere for the first time. There is also the “other” side of market services, where GIs act as intellectual property rights that affect the free movement of goods: here, ever more frequent references to “prestige” as a justification for protecting GIs further complicate the picture. This has potential implications for freedom of competition in the resale of typical products under the principle of exhaustion in terms of foreseeable legitimate reasons for opposition, again following the trademark model. This article aims to set out a more balanced approach tackling such new challenges, in order to make the EU regime fit for the future but still consistent with the founding principles of GIs as special intellectual property rights.
Funder
Università degli Studi di Verona
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference36 articles.
1. Borghi M (2021) Exceptions as users’ rights? In: Rosati E (ed) The Routledge handbook of EU copyright law. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 263–280
2. Calabrese B (2021) Rebreeding geographical indications beyond agriculture: of genotype and phenotype in territorial products. In: Gervais D (ed) The future of intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 304–321
3. Calabrese B (2023) EU geographical indications used as ingredients or components: a reform in ‘sharp’ contrast with Circular Economy (to say the least). JIPLP 18:339–343
4. Calboli I (2015) Time to say local cheese and smile at geographical indications of origin? International trade and local development in the United States. Houst Law Rev 53:373–419
5. Calboli I (2017) Geographical indications between trade, development, culture, and marketing: framing a fair(er) system of protection in the global economy? In: Calboli I, Ng-Loy WL (eds) Geographical indications at the crossroads of trade, development, and culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–35
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. ‘Designating’ the future of geographical indications;Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice;2024-05-21