Opinion of the AGRI Committee on the alignment of the Geneva Act (Lisbon Agreement) revisions and the EU Geographical Indications framework

Procedural changes at international level must not, under any circumstances, undermine the effectiveness of protection in non-EU markets. The implementation of the Geneva Act should be used as an reactive and proactive tool. The Union must firmly defend the uniqueness of farmers’ products against any attempt at misappropriation, imitation or evocation, and oppose the misuse of geographical terms as generic names.

2. Transparency in the management of “limited effect” protection

We express strong concern regarding terminological ambiguities relating to possible partial protection. For the agri-food sector, clarity is synonymous with commercial survival. Any limitation on the protection of a European GI in a third country must be notified with full transparency and timeliness. Producer groups must enjoy absolute legal certainty on the scope of protection in order to plan investments and manage export channels without legal uncertainty.

3. Radical simplification and direct support for producers

Interaction between the Commission and the International Bureau of WIPO must aim for maximum efficiency. The amendment to Regulation (EU) 2019/1753 should not result in new bureaucratic burdens or hidden costs for producer groups. These stakeholders already ensure, at their own expense, certification and market monitoring: the Union should facilitate their work rather than add further administrative formalities.

4. Rigour, reciprocity and the defence of acquired rights

In the examination of GI protection applications from third countries, we call on the European Commission to apply the utmost rigour. Any potential conflict with existing European GIs or established rights of EU farmers must be resolved under a principle of substantive reciprocity. The protection of foreign products in the Union must be matched by equally strong and effective recognition of EU high-quality products in partner markets.

5. Strengthen international protection

It is worth noting that, as part of the 2024 reform on agri-food GIs, amendments were introduced to strengthen international protection by allowing recognised consortia whose GI has an international market to be automatically registered under the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement. This provides for rapid and indefinite protection in all signatory countries, including those outside the EU. No backsliding is acceptable on this point; rather, a further simplification of procedures, in, particular for recognised producer groups is desirable.

6. Keep the geographical indications synchronised between the European Union system and the international Geneva Act.

Whenever a product's specifications or production area are amended within the EU, the Commission must be authorised to update the corresponding international registration, ensuring that both systems are aligned. However, minor administrative changes that do not alter the EU's core GI definition, such as updates to the list of beneficiaries, do not require these alignment procedures, as they do not create legal discrepancies between the two frameworks.

Moreover, for the sake of clarity, we call on the Committee on Legal Affairs to incorporate the following amendments into its report:

Article 2a – par 2

Modifications of geographical indications in the International Register

Upon request of a Member State, following the adoption, in accordance with Union law, of an amendment of the geographical area or of elements concerning the quality, reputation or characteristics of the product specification of protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications or geographical indications originating in the Union and protected in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 or Regulation (EU) 2023/2411, the Commission or, in respect of geographical indications for craft and industrial products, the Office, may present to the International Bureau requests for modifications of the geographical area or of the particulars concerning the quality, reputation or characteristics, as laid down in Rule 5(3) of the Common Regulations, of the corresponding appellation of origin or geographical indication registered in the International Register and referred to in points a) and b) of paragraph 1.’

Article 7a new par. 2

Modifications of third country geographical indications registered in the International Register

Upon request of a Member State or on its own initiative, the Commission may apply the procedure set out in Articles 4 to 7, mutatis mutandis, with reference to a modification of the particulars of the appellations of origin or geographical indications referred to in paragraph 1, or to a correction of an appellation of origin or geographical indication registered in the International Register in respect of which the Contracting Party of Origin, as defined in point (xv) of Article 1 of the Geneva Act, is not a Member State, notified to the Commission or, in respect of geographical indications for craft and industrial products, to the Office, pursuant to Rule 18(3) of the Common Regulations.

We trust that the JURI Committee, as the lead committee, will duly take into account the considerations set out above.

Yours sincerely,

Veronika Vrecionová