1. Geographical Indications The Case Against the EC
Ana Martini
Shelly Michael
Stephen Kraly

2. Geographic Indicators
Geographic Indicator (GI)-is a name or sign used on certain products or which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin (eg. a town, region, or country). The use of a GI may act as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its geographical origin. (Wikipedia 2006)
For Example: Wines and cheese
is a name or sign used on certain products or which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin (eg. a town, region, or country). The use of a GI may act as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its geographical origin. (Wikipedia 2006) The most distinct example is Champagne, it was created in the Champagne region of France.

3. History of GIs Protection Late nineteenth century European legacy
Tradition of association with food products in certain regions.
European Union Law
Protected Designation of Origin (PDO)
Protected Geographical Indication (PGI)
Traditional Specialty Guaranteed (TSG)
Governments have been protecting foodstuff trademarks and trade names since the end of the nineteenth century.(Wikipedia) The laws that were in place were made to protect products from fraud of origin meaning that a product could not be advertised as being produced in a certain origin unless it was in fact true.
Europe has a long legacy of associating foods with particular regions. Europe set up protected designation of origin system which came into effect in This law regulates three geographical indications: Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Specialty Guaranteed.
As I said before Champagne is always in the spotlight when it comes to protection by GI laws. Champagne within the EC can only have the labeling of champagne if it is from the region and follows the specific regulations of its process. However the label champagne is not protected as it is in the European Communities due to President Wilson signing the treaty of Versailles but not ratifying it with congress.

4. International law GIs harmonization 1883 Paris convention
1958 Lisbon agreement
1994 TRIPS
Article 22, 23 and 24
Harmonization of the registration of GIs came in to International law back in 1883 with the Paris convention which first tried to put the first intellectual Property Treaties. The treaty started off with 11 countries and to this date has brought on the Lisbon agreement which had more “elaborate provisions” but only had 17 members by The most recent law is TRIPs or Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. It was established in the WTO in 1994 to “set down minimum requirements for most forms of intellectual property within members of the WTO.”
There are three specific articles cover GIs in the Trips agreement they are Article 22, 23 and 24. (Wikipedia: TRIPs,Geographic Indicators)

5. Complainants and Respondent
Complainant: United States
June 1, 1991
Request for consultation
Third-Party Complaints
Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Chinese Taipei; Colombia; Guatemala; India; Mexico; New Zealand; Turkey (WTO)
Respondent: European Communities
United States requested consultation regarding “Alleged lack of protection of trademark and geographic indications (GIs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs.” against the European Communities(WTO) There were third party complainants who issue there own request for consultation such as Australia. Australia requested its own consultation April (WTO Dispute)

6. Actions taken… Request of consultation Failed consultation
June 1, 1991, April 3, 2003
EC Regulation 2081/92
Established July 14, 1992
Failed consultation
Request for panel
August 18, 200
The united states has requested two consultations with EC regarding GIs within the Trips Agreement. The US contended that European communities did not amend their EC regulation 2081/92 to conform with the Trips agreement.
EC Regulation 2081/92 stated that certain agricultural goods and foodstuffs would be protected for authenticity of origin within the European community for “consumer welfare” as long as they followed certain guidelines.
The second request for consultation was a supplement to the first request. The US further explained that the EC regulation “limits the GIs that the EC will protect and limits the access of nationals of other members to the EC GI procedures and protections provided under the regulation.” In laymen terms certain products that were inside of the EU were not covered or enforced as agreed in the TRIPS Agreement. Us also stated that EC regulation is inconsistent with articles I and III:4 of the GATT Article 1:4 deals with duties placed upon goods. And Article III:4 states “The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use.”
The consultation failed therefore the United states requested a panel on August 18, US and Australia requests were brought to the Dispute Settlement body to consider the complaints in October 2, Australia had commons discrepancies with EC regulation as well as Article II of the TBT or Technical Barriers to Trade agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. The Panel was held on February 23, 2004.(USTR)

7. Actions Taken by Third Party..
Australia
Request for consultation
April 17, 2003
EC regulation inconsistent with:
Articles 1, 2,3,4,16,20,22,24,41,42,63 and 65 TRIPS agreement
Articles I and III of GATT 1994
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Article 2
WTO agreement XVI:4
(WTO:European Communities dispute settlement)
Australia was a third party to the two request for consultation from the United States. They soon filed there own and brought up different arguments however the arguments did support that of the US consultation. Australia had commons discrepancies with EC regulation as well as Article II of the TBT or Technical Barriers to Trade agreement which states no favourable treatment to national origin products over imported similar products and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement which is in respect to recognition of difference in economic well being. The following statements were made about the EC regulation:
the EC measure seems not to accord immediately and unconditionally to the nationals and/or products of each WTO Member any advantage, favour, privilege of immunity granted to the nationals and/or like products of any other WTO Member, 2. the EC measure seems not to accord to the nationals and/or products of each WTO Member treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals and/or like products of national origin, 3. the EC measure may diminish the legal protection for trademarks, 4. the EC measure may not be consistent with the EC’s obligation to provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent misleading use of a geographical indication or any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967), 5. the EC may not have met its transparency obligations in respect of the measure, and
6. the EC measure may be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create.

8. Dispute Settlement Body
DSB
Separate Request for Panel
August 18, 2003
Consideration of complaints
Joint panel
Third party rights
Panel February 23, 2004
Us and Australia requested a panel August 18, 2003.
Many third parties reserved their third party rights between October 2-10, which included china, Brazil, Mexico New Zealand to name a few.
US and Australia requests were brought to the Dispute Settlement body to consider the complaints in October 2, There was decision to create a panel for February which included both Australia and the US.

9. (EEC) No 2081/92
Within the EU, GIs are governed by EC Regulation 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (The GI Regulation). 
This divides GIs into protected geographical indications (PGIs) , protected designations of origin (PDOs), and (TSGs).
Article 2 stipulates that, to qualify as a PGI, a food or product must:
(a)     originate in a region, specific place or country;
(b)     possess characteristics attributable to that geographical origin; and
(c)     be either produced, processed or prepared in the defined geographical area. 
PDOs are slightly more prestigious in that the food or product must be produced, processed and prepared in the defined geographical area. 
Traditional Specialities Guaranteed (TSGs) indicate a traditional production method rather than the region in which a product is made.  At present there are only nine registrations of TSGs.

10. Agreements and Provisions Involved
(1) TRIPS Agreement Articles 1.1, 2.1 (incorporating by reference Article 2 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention (1967), 3.1, 4, 16.1, 20, 22.1, 22.2, 24.5, 41.1, 41.2, 41.4, 42, 44.1, 63.1, 63.3, 65.1; and
(2) Articles I and III:4 of the GATT 1994.
__________

11. AGREEMENT ON TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
TRIPS
AGREEMENT ON TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

12. TRIPS - Article 2 Intellectual Property Conventions
1. In respect of Parts II, III and IV of this Agreement, Members shall comply with Articles 1 through 12, and Article 19, of the Paris Convention (1967).

13. TRIPS - Article 3 National Treatment
1. Each Member shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property, subject to the exceptions already provided in, respectively, the Paris Convention (1967), the Berne Convention (1971), the Rome Convention or the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits. In respect of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations, this obligation only applies in respect of the rights provided under this Agreement. Any Member availing itself of the possibilities provided in Article 6 of the Berne Convention (1971) or paragraph 1(b) of Article 16 of the Rome Convention shall make a notification as foreseen in those provisions to the Council for TRIPS.
2. Members may avail themselves of the exceptions permitted under paragraph 1 in relation to judicial and administrative procedures, including the designation of an address for service or the appointment of an agent within the jurisdiction of a Member, only where such exceptions are necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement and where such practices are not applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on trade.

14. TRIPS - Article 4 Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
With regard to the protection of intellectual property, any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by a Member to the nationals of any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of all other Members. Exempted from this obligation are any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity accorded by a Member:
(a) deriving from international agreements on judicial assistance or law enforcement of a general nature and not particularly confined to the protection of intellectual property;
(b) granted in accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention (1971) or the Rome Convention authorizing that the treatment accorded be a function not of national treatment but of the treatment accorded in another country;
(c) in respect of the rights of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations not provided under this Agreement;
(d) deriving from international agreements related to the protection of intellectual property which entered into force prior to the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, provided that such agreements are notified to the Council for TRIPS and do not constitute an arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination against nationals of other Members.

15. TRIPS - Article 16 Rights Conferred
1. The owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed. The rights described above shall not prejudice any existing prior rights, nor shall they affect the possibility of Members making rights available on the basis of use.

16. TRIPS - Article 22.1 & 21.2 Protection of Geographical Indications
1. Geographical indications are, for the purposes of this Agreement, indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a 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 origin.
2. In respect of geographical indications, Members shall provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent:
(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;
(b) any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967).

17. TRIPS - Article 24.5 International Negotiations; Exceptions
5. Where a trademark has been applied for or registered in good faith, or where rights to a trademark have been acquired through use in good faith either:
(a) before the date of application of these provisions in that Member as defined in Part VI; or
(b) before the geographical indication is protected in its country of origin;
measures adopted to implement this Section shall not prejudice eligibility for or the validity of the registration of a trademark, or the right to use a trademark, on the basis that such a trademark is identical with, or similar to, a geographical indication.

18. TRIPS - Articles 41.1, 41.2,and 41.4 ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
1. Members shall ensure that enforcement procedures as specified in this Part are available under their law so as to permit effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual property rights covered by this Agreement, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements. These procedures shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse.
2. Procedures concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights shall be fair and equitable. They shall not be unnecessarily complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted delays.
4. Parties to a proceeding shall have an opportunity for review by a judicial authority of final administrative decisions and, subject to jurisdictional provisions in a Member's law concerning the importance of a case, of at least the legal aspects of initial judicial decisions on the merits of a case. However, there shall be no obligation to provide an opportunity for review of acquittals in criminal cases.

19. TRIPS - Article 42 - Fair and Equitable Procedures
Members shall make available to right holders civil judicial procedures concerning the enforcement of any intellectual property right covered by this Agreement. Defendants shall have the right to written notice which is timely and contains sufficient detail, including the basis of the claims. Parties shall be allowed to be represented by independent legal counsel, and procedures shall not impose overly burdensome requirements concerning mandatory personal appearances. All parties to such procedures shall be duly entitled to substantiate their claims and to present all relevant evidence. For the purpose of this Part, the term "right holder" includes federations and associations having legal standing to assert such rights. The procedure shall provide a means to identify and protect confidential information, unless this would be contrary to existing constitutional requirements.

20. TRIPS - Article 44.1 Injunctions
1. The judicial authorities shall have the authority to order a party to desist from an infringement, inter alia to prevent the entry into the channels of commerce in their jurisdiction of imported goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right, immediately after customs clearance of such goods. Members are not obliged to accord such authority in respect of protected subject matter acquired or ordered by a person prior to knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that dealing in such subject matter would entail the infringement of an intellectual property right.

21. TRIPS - Article 63.1 & 63.3 Transparency
1. Laws and regulations, and final judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application, made effective by a Member pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement (the availability, scope, acquisition, enforcement and prevention of the abuse of intellectual property rights) shall be published, or where such publication is not practicable made publicly available, in a national language, in such a manner as to enable governments and right holders to become acquainted with them. Agreements concerning the subject matter of this Agreement which are in force between the government or a governmental agency of a Member and the government or a governmental agency of another Member shall also be published.
3. Each Member shall be prepared to supply, in response to a written request from another Member, information of the sort referred to in paragraph 1. A Member, having reason to believe that a specific judicial decision or administrative ruling or bilateral agreement in the area of intellectual property rights affects its rights under this Agreement, may also request in writing to be given access to or be informed in sufficient detail of such specific judicial decisions or administrative rulings or bilateral agreements.

22. TRIPS - Article 65.1 Transitional Arrangements
1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, no Member shall be obliged to apply the provisions of this Agreement before the expiry of a general period of one year following the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement.

23. GATT
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE 1994

24. GATT Article III:4
Provides that products of the territory of a Member imported into the territory of another Member must be afforded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of laws, regulations, and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution, or use

25. US AND GI
The United States protects geographical indications through a trademark system because, like trademarks, GIs are source-identifiers, indicators of quality, and business interests. As with trademarks, geographical indications are eligible for relief from acts of infringement and unfair competition.
However, while the US is pressing for strong intellectual property protections in general, it has proposed more limited protections for geographical indications.

26. THE US CLAIMS
The United States challenged the European Communities (EC) Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended, on two main grounds:
(1) discrimination against foreign nationals and foreign products with respect to geographical indication protection, and
(2) failure to protect foreign trademarks.

27. THE US CLAIMS In adopting Article 2 and its predecessors, the
EC was keenly aware that, as concerns the protection of industrial property, a Member
would have to provide the same advantages to nationals of other Members as it provides to its
own nationals, regardless of the domestic laws or regulations in those other Members relating to
intellectual property.

28. THE US CLAIMS
the EC will not register and protect the home-based GIs of another Member’s nationals unless that Member itself – not the national claiming the right, but the
Member – satisfies certain requirements.

29. EC CLAIMS
Even so, the EC argued to the Panel that the terms of the Regulation essentially do not allow for coexistence of prior trademarks and later GIs because:
1) there are very few if any trademarks that can be registered which could conflict with later GIs because geographic terms cannot be registered as trademarks in the EC if the geographic name is currently linked to the product concerned, or could be in the future;and
2) a GI will not be registered if--by virtue of the acquired distinctiveness and reputation of a prior trademark--the GI would be misleading to consumers as to the true identity of the product, i.e., if a geographic term is registered as a trademark because the name has become distinctive through use and therefore has reputation and renown, a confusing GI will not be registered.

30. EC CLAIMS
As of the date of establishment of the Panel, the EC authorities had registered
more than 600 geographical indications. The complainants have never alleged that
any of those geographical indications has resulted in a likelihood of confusion
with any prior registered trademark, let alone with a trademark owned by a US national.

31. EC CLAIMS Because of the registrability criteria
provided under EC trademark law, the risk of confusion between trademarks and
geographical indications is very limited.

32. EC CLAIMS
The Napa Valley example: The Napa Valley title is a famous geographical indication for wine. Prior to its official recognition by the US authorities, the term “Napa” had been registered as part of several trademarks, some of which were not used for wine originating in that region. On the complainants’ interpretation, the owners of those trademarks should be entitled to prevent the winemakers of Napa Valley from using that term in order to describe the origin and the characteristics of their wine. This result would be manifestly inequitable. And, indeed, the US authorities seem to agree. The applicable regulations reserve the term “Napa Valley” exclusively for the wine originating in that region. By way of exception, prior trademarks including that name are allowed to “co-exist” with that geographical indication, subject to certain labeling requirements. This solution is similar to that provided under Regulation 2081/92. The EC, therefore, fails to understand why the United States has considered it necessary to bring this claim against Regulation 2081/92.
The Napa Valley title is a famous geographical indication for wine. Prior to its official recognition by the US authorities, the term “Napa” had been registered as part of several trademarks, some of which were not used for wine originating in that region. On the complainants’ interpretation, the owners of those trademarks should be entitled to prevent the winemakers of Napa Valley from using that term in order to describe the origin and the characteristics of their wine. This result would be manifestly inequitable. And, indeed, the US authorities seem to agree. The applicable regulations reserve the term “Napa Valley” exclusively for the wine originating in that region. By way of exception, prior trademarks including that name are allowed to “co-exist” with that geographical indication, subject to certain labeling requirements. This solution is similar to that provided under Regulation 2081/92. The EC, therefore, fails to understand why the United States has considered it necessary to bring this claim against Regulation 2081/92.

33. NATIONAL TREATMENT
The principle of national treatment embodied in the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) requires WTO Members to provide the same (or better) treatment of foreign nationalsregarding intellectual property rights as provided to domestic nationals.
The United States brought the national treatment claim against the EC because foreign geographical indication (“GI”) owners do not have the same access as EC GI owners to the protections and benefits of the EC GI Regulation 2081/92 and thus are denied national treatment. This obvious feature of the EC GI Regulation is underscored by the fact that nearly 700 GIs have been registered under the EC Regulation and not one of them is a GI from a foreign country.

34. INTERESTS: US
US’s international interest is to be able to compete, in their view, more fairly with the EC which is seen as very protective of their members and therefore increase theuir market share in the EC
But the US also needs to protect their own domestic market as there are geographic indicators not only from country to country but within regions

35. INTERESTS: EC
The EC is seen international as probably the most protective group of countries that works fiercly to protect their industry and their farmers
So the EC seems to have more of a national interest of protecting their industry than an International one since they strongly believe in strict GIs

36. PANEL’S DECISION
WTO has released a dispute-settlement panel ruling in Geneva that found that the EU GI registry violates WTO agreements on protection of intellectual property rights and on trade in goods because it discriminates against non-EU products.

37. PANEL’S DECISIONS
Requirement for Foreign Government Intercession is an Unjustified Hurdle for Foreign GI Owners
Nationals of countries that do not have a system in place whereby their government accepts, examines, transmits and verifies the GI application or opposition for consistency with the EC regulations are worse off than EC nationals – whose governments are required by EC Regulations to institute such a system -- in getting a GI registration in the EC or in opposing a GI application.
The Panel noted that other sovereign governments have no obligation under EC law to establish such a system, yet the EC has delegated the task to other governments of carrying out specific steps on behalf of their nationals for the purposes of complying with the EC Regulation.9

38. PANEL’S DECISION
The Panel found that the EC never proved that cooperation by governments is necessary to ensure that the GI meets EC requirements, nor could the EC explain why the applicant – the entity most directly involved and knowledgeable about the GI – could not provide the evidence required to meet EC criteria.

39. PANEL’S DECISION
Requirement for Foreign Government Monitored Inspection Structures is Not Necessary for Compliance with Regulation and is an Unjustified Hurdle for Foreign GI owners
The Panel found that the EC allegation that public oversight of inspection structures is necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulation was not sufficiently proved by the EC. Furthermore, the Panel found that the requirement for governmentally monitored
inspection structures for GIs discriminates against foreign nationals since foreign governments are not required to establish, approve and monitor inspection structures for GIs.

40. PANEL’S DECISION
But the Panel did not find that the Regulation operated as the EC argued and that it did in fact provide for coexistence of the trademark and the later GI in some circumstances,
impermissibly impinging on the rights of the trademark owner.
The Panel found that:
1) for trademarks with reputation, whether consumers are mislead as to the “true identity of the product” is a more limited determination than as to whether the consumer is likely to be confused by the use of the later GI (the TRIPS standard for trademark infringement). The EC Regulation does not give the trademark owner the ability to argue this larger claim granted to them under TRIPS to prevent the GI from registering; and
2) for trademarks without reputation, those owners are unable to challenge the registration of the GI and must coexist with the GI.

41. PANEL’S DECISION
The EC Regulation violates Article 16.1 of TRIPS by denying the trademark owner the exclusive right to prevent confusing uses as to later applied for and registered GIs. The Panel agreed, with caveats, that the Regulation creates only a limited exception under Article 17 but only because:
1) a GI will not be registered if consumers would be mislead by the GI as it relates to a prior trademark, thus preventing registration of a GI if it would cause a high likelihood of confusion with the prior trademark;
2) a GI application is subject to direct opposition by interested third parties;
3) the EC Regulation only authorizes a right to use the GI as it appears in the GI registration certificate, and therefore, a prior trademark owner may prevent the GI from being used in a translated form which conflicts with that prior trademark and is likely to cause confusion. By virtue of this reading of the EC Regulation, the WTO Panel was able to find that the EC Regulation fit within Article 17’s narrow exception.

42. PANEL’S DECISION
The Panel agreed, finding that the EC GI Regulation is inconsistent with Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.The EC Regulation provides that the GI cannot be established if consumers would be misled as to the true identity of the product due to a conflict with a prior trademark
Panel Orders EC to Accept Direct Applications and Direct Objections

43. DISPUTE SETLEMENT BODY
The Dispute Settlement Body on 20 April 2005 adopted the panel report on the European Communities' protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs. The DSB ruled that the EC GI Regulation discriminates against foreign nationals by requiring equivalent systems of protection in the foreign country, reciprocal protection for EC GIs in that country,15 and foreign government intercession in the EC GI application 16 and objection processes.

44. DISPUTE SETLEMENT BODY
The DSB recommended that the EC bring its regulation into conformity with its obligations. Presumably, the EC will have to amend its Regulation to allow foreign nationals to apply directly and obtain protection for foreign GIs in the EC without intervention or action by their government in the process, and without any requirement that the foreign national’s own government has a GI system that is equivalent to the EC’s.

45. DISPUTE SETLEMENT BODY
Also, according to the DSB’s recommendations and rulings, the EC cannot require a foreign government to create or monitor inspection structures for ensuring GI specifications are met as a condition for the foreign national to get GI protection in the EC. The EC must also allow foreign nationals to file objections to GI applications of others directly with the Commission.

46. Implementation Europe request ample time for implementation
Agreement on allotted time for Implementation on DSB Recommendations
11 months and 2 weeks
April 3, 2006
EU claimed will implement DSB decision in allotted time.
Regulation 2081/92 No longer in Force
Europe requested after the meeting for DSB on may for ample time to implement the decision of the DSB recommendations. June United States, Europe Union and Australia agreed upon an allotted time period for Europe to implement the decision. The time that was given is 11 months and 2 weeks ending April February the EU stated that they will be able to implement the recommendations in the allotted time.(WTO Dispute) After doing the research I noticed that the regulation 2081/92 was to be said that it is no longer in force. (EURLEX)

47. Proposals Fairly new legislation
As long as EU follows through with implementation then there will be no problem.
However there are always losers
Supplier of foodstuff that are protected under the GIs.
May cause further cases the new legislation or just another form of protection

48. References
Communities - Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs (WT/DS174, WT/DS290) Comments of the United States on the Reply of the World Intellectual Property Organization To the Panel’s Letter of July 9, September 28, 2004
European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs Oral Statement of the European Communities