Geographical Indications (GIs) have become one of the most important and debated areas of intellectual property law and international trade. Different countries follow different legal philosophies regarding the protection of geographical names associated with products. These contrasting approaches are commonly described as the “Old World” and “New World” perspectives on Geographical Indications. The distinction primarily reflects the differing attitudes of European countries and countries such as the United States, Australia, Canada, and certain other non-European states toward the protection of regional product names.
The “Old World” approach is mainly associated with European countries, particularly members of the European Union, which strongly support extensive and independent legal protection for GIs. The “New World” approach is followed largely by countries such as the United States and Australia, where geographical names are generally protected through trademark law and market-based principles rather than through a separate GI system.
A Geographical Indication refers to an indication identifying goods as originating from a particular territory, region, or locality where a given quality, reputation, or characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to their geographical origin. Under Section 2(1)(e) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, GIs may apply to agricultural goods, natural goods, handicrafts, manufactured products, and food products associated with specific geographical regions.
Examples of well-known GI products include Champagne, Scotch Whisky, Darjeeling Tea, Roquefort Cheese, Banarasi Sarees, Basmati Rice, and Kanchipuram Silk. These products derive their uniqueness and commercial reputation from geographical conditions, traditional methods of production, local craftsmanship, and cultural heritage.
The Old World perspective views GIs as collective cultural and economic rights closely connected with history, tradition, regional identity, and rural development. European countries have historically attached great importance to preserving regional food traditions, wines, agricultural products, and artisanal practices. Consequently, the European Union developed a strong sui generis system specifically designed for GI protection.
The Old World approach is based on the belief that certain products are inseparably linked to the geographical regions from which they originate. According to this philosophy, geographical names should remain reserved exclusively for producers within the designated region using traditional methods and maintaining prescribed quality standards.
For example, under the European system, only sparkling wine produced in the Champagne region of France according to recognized production standards may legally be called “Champagne.” Similarly, only cheese produced in specific regions under traditional methods may use names such as Roquefort or Parmigiano Reggiano.
The European Union provides GI protection mainly through two systems: Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). PDO protection requires that production, processing, and preparation occur entirely within the designated geographical region, while PGI requires at least one stage of production to occur in the region and emphasizes reputation associated with the area.
The Old World approach grants strong protection against imitation, misuse, translation, evocation, or unauthorized commercial exploitation of geographical names. Even expressions such as “style,” “kind,” or “type” may be prohibited if they exploit the reputation associated with the protected GI.
The European perspective also emphasizes the collective nature of GI rights. Unlike trademarks, which belong to individual businesses or companies, GIs belong collectively to producer communities within the geographical area. No individual can independently own or transfer the GI separate from the region.
The Old World system considers GI protection important for preserving cultural heritage, supporting rural economies, promoting sustainable agriculture, and maintaining traditional knowledge systems. GI protection is therefore closely connected with agricultural policy, regional development, and cultural identity.
In contrast, the New World perspective adopts a more commercial and market-oriented approach toward geographical names. Countries such as the United States generally protect geographical indications through trademark law rather than separate sui generis legislation.
Under the New World approach, GIs are treated similarly to trademarks because both function as indicators helping consumers identify goods. Protection is primarily provided through certification marks and collective marks under trademark law.
A certification mark certifies that goods possess certain qualities, standards, or geographical origin. Producers satisfying prescribed conditions may use the certification mark under supervision of the mark owner. For example, geographical names such as Idaho Potatoes or Napa Valley Wines receive protection in the United States through certification marks.
The New World approach focuses mainly on consumer protection and prevention of deceptive commercial practices rather than preservation of cultural or regional exclusivity. According to this philosophy, geographical terms should not receive broad monopolistic protection if they have become generic descriptions understood by consumers as common product categories rather than indicators of specific origin.
For instance, terms such as Parmesan, Chablis, and Feta are often considered generic in the United States because consumers associate them with styles or categories of products rather than exclusively with European geographical regions.
Another important feature of the New World perspective is the emphasis on trademark rights and prior commercial use. Businesses that have long used geographical names in good faith may resist restrictions imposed through GI protection. The New World system seeks to balance geographical protection with free competition and commercial branding rights.
Unlike the European Union, New World countries generally oppose broad restrictions preventing producers outside the original geographical region from using certain names if consumers are not likely to be misled. They argue that overly expansive GI protection may interfere with market competition and established business practices.
The differences between Old World and New World approaches have created major international trade disputes. One of the most contentious issues concerns whether names such as Champagne, Parmesan, Feta, and Chablis should receive exclusive GI protection or remain available as generic product descriptions.
The European Union consistently advocates stronger international GI protection through international agreements and Free Trade Agreements. The United States and several New World countries often oppose such expansion on the ground that it may unfairly restrict competition and existing trademark rights.
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) under the World Trade Organization attempted to establish minimum standards for GI protection. Articles 22 to 24 of TRIPS provide general protection for GIs and additional protection for wines and spirits.
However, disagreements remain regarding extension of the higher level of protection beyond wines and spirits to all GI products. The European Union, India, and several developing countries support broader protection, while New World countries generally oppose it.
India largely follows the Old World approach because it has adopted a sui generis GI protection system through the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. India recognizes GIs as collective rights linked with traditional knowledge, regional identity, and cultural heritage.
Products such as Darjeeling Tea, Banarasi Sarees, Alphonso Mangoes, Pashmina Shawls, and Kanchipuram Silk reflect India’s strong interest in protecting regional products through independent GI legislation rather than relying solely on trademark law.
At the same time, India also recognizes certain practical concerns emphasized by New World countries, including trademark conflicts, generic use disputes, and international market access challenges.
The Old World and New World debate reflects broader differences in legal philosophy, economic policy, and historical development. European countries possess centuries-old agricultural and artisanal traditions closely connected with regional identity. New World countries historically developed commercial agriculture and industrial production systems emphasizing branding, trade expansion, and market competition.
The WTO dispute titled European Communities — Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs highlighted many of these differences. The dispute examined the compatibility of the European Union’s strong GI protection system with international trade obligations and trademark rights.
In conclusion, the distinction between Old World and New World perspectives on Geographical Indications reflects two fundamentally different approaches toward intellectual property protection, regional identity, and market regulation. The Old World approach, represented mainly by the European Union, treats GIs as collective cultural and economic rights deserving strong independent protection. The New World approach, followed primarily by countries such as the United States, relies mainly on trademark principles and emphasizes free competition, consumer perception, and commercial flexibility. These contrasting philosophies continue to shape international intellectual property law, trade negotiations, and global debates concerning the protection of geographical names and traditional products.
Leave a Reply