GIs for craft and industrial products
General
More than half of the Member States have created specific sui generis national protection systems for craft and industrial products (‘CI products’) with different characteristics The others only use trade marks and/or unfair competition rules to protect their intangible goods. Also, there was no cross-border system of mutual recognition of national protection systems in the internal market. At Union level, manufacturers could register individual trade marks, collective marks and certification marks. However, the use of trade mark protection did not allow producers of CI products to certify at Union level the link between quality and geographical origin, which signals qualities that are due to specific local skills and traditions.
This is now changing due to the Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products and amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/1753, which entered into force on 16 November 2023. The launch of the new application system is foreseen for December 2025, with the EUIPO being in charge of setting it up.
Content
To gain EU-wide protection against infringements, products shall meet the following criteria:
- The product must originate in a specific place, region or country;
- Its given quality, reputation or other characteristic must be essentially attributable to its geographical origin; and
- At least one of its production steps must take place in the defined geographical area.
Examination and registration will be done in two phases: Applicants will first file their GI applications to designated Member States' authorities, who will then submit successful applications for further evaluation and approval to the EUIPO. A direct application procedure to EUIPO will also be possible for Member States that obtain a derogation from the Commission, if they have no national evaluation procedure in place or lack interested producers.
Craft and industrial producers will have the opportunity to showcase their protected GI by displaying a distinct logo on their products. This labelling will enable consumers to identify craft and industrial products with specific characteristics linked to their geographical origin, helping them make informed choices when purchasing these products. Producers will have the ability to seek international protection via WIPO for their products' names, enhancing their global competitiveness. Third country producers will also be able to seek protection under this new EU scheme for their well-known craft and industrial products that comply with the EU requirements.
Relationship with national rights and deadlines
By 2 December 2026, national specific protection for GIs for craft and industrial products shall cease to exist, and pending applications shall be considered not to have been submitted, unless a request for registration and protection is made by interested Member States.
Searchability
The EUIPO is tasked with establishing and maintaining the Union register for GIs. GIs applied for and entered in the Union registers will searchable via the GIview portal.
Key points for the business
It may be worthwhile going through the product portfolio to check:
- whether there are any national protections for GIs that need to be converted to EU-wide rights;
- whether any of such products marketed by a company are worth protecting by way of GI;
- the other way around moving forward: Prior to launching products, in order to avoid infringements, it is worthwhile checking whether any names or descriptions (or names and descriptions similar to such) contemplated for the product are protected as GI.
We can help
Just let us know whether you have any questions or wish us to elaborate any issues in more detail.
Das könnte Sie ebenfalls interessieren
The European Union has implemented significant reforms to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The changes, which took effect on September 1, 2024, are designed to improve the efficiency of the court system and increase transparency in its operations.
Das Zuständigkeitsrecht bietet gerade im Schnittbereich von vertraglichen und deliktischen Ansprüchen einige Fallstricke, die in der Praxis oftmals unterschätzt werden. In diesem Beitrag besprechen wir eine Entscheidung des Oberlandesgerichts Karlsruhe, das über die Klage eines Journalisten zu entscheiden hatte, der erfolglos gegen die Sperre seines Accounts auf einer Internetplattform vorging und sich dabei auf einen Verstoß gegen Lauterkeitsrecht stützte (OLG Karlsruhe, Urt. v. 8. Mai 2024, Az. 6 U 198/23).
Sogenannte Wiederholungsmarken, die häufig zu dem Zwecke angemeldet werden, die gesetzliche Verpflichtung zur ernsthaften Benutzung der Marke zu umgehen und somit weitere Benutzungsschonfristen für die neu angemeldeten Marken in Anspruch zu nehmen, mögen attraktiv erscheinen, um insbesondere Kosten zu reduzieren. Sie bergen jedoch – zumindest nach EU-Recht – auch das Risiko, dass ihre Anmeldung als bösgläubig eingestuft und die Marke in der Folge gegebenenfalls für nichtig erklärt wird. Der Rechtsbegriff der Bösgläubigkeit ist nicht gesetzlich definiert, sondern wird durch die jeweilige Rechtsprechung geprägt. Die „Monopoly“-Entscheidung des Gerichts der Europäischen Union (EuG) hat insoweit relevante Grundsätze entwickelt und bietet wichtige strategische Wegweiser. Auch die jüngsten Entscheidungen der Nichtigkeitsabteilung des Amts der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum (EUIPO) in Bezug auf die Unionsmarken des berühmten Künstlers Banksy, welche eines seiner bekanntesten Kunstwerke, den ‚Flower Thrower‘ (dt. Blumenwerfer), wiedergeben, verdeutlichen, wie wichtig es ist, Markenanmeldungen auf eine durchdachte Strategie zu stützen. Im Folgenden werden wir diese Fälle näher beleuchten, um mögliche Risiken von Wiederholungsmarken zu veranschaulichen und anschließend Ratschläge für risikominimierende Strategien zu geben.
Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat einen Rechtsstreit um eine Werbeanzeige des deutschen Süßwarenunternehmens Katjes entschieden. Dabei ging es um wettbewerbsrechtliche Fragen bei der Nutzung der Angabe der Klimaneutralität der Produktion der Katjes-Produkte.
