Indeed, this latter provision is particularly significant, not only because it establishes protection beyond the commercial scope against parasitic exploitation, comparable to that afforded to trademarks enjoying renown, but also because it has rendered the regulation of wine product denominations more aligned with that of other agri-food product denominations, excluding wine products. III. OTHER AGRO-FOOD PRODUCTS: PDO, PGI, AND TSG For other agri-food products, protection (against deception and reputation exploitation) was already provided for in Regulation No. 2081/92, subsequently replaced by Regulation No. 509/2006 and, thereafter, by Regulation No. 1151/2012, which consolidated, within a single legal text, also the provisions contained in Regulation No.2082/92 regarding indications of specificity (now Traditional Specialty Guaranteed – TSG), whose specific character is not determined by origin or geographical provenance4. The aforementioned protection is provided both for protected designations of origin (PDO), which are comparable to the designations provided for under the Lisbon Agreement because they presuppose that “the quality” or “the characteristics” of the marked product are “essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment and its intrinsic natural and human factors,” and that “the production stages are carried out within the delineated geographical area,” as well as for protected geographical indications (PGI), which are more similar to the indications of provenance under the TRIPS Agreement, as they only require that the “geographical origin” of the product be “substantially 4 In general, for further reference, see: AIPPI, Resolution on Relationship between trademarks and geographical indications (Q-191), available at https://www.aippi.org; Capelli, F., The Court of Justice, in an interpretative manner, attributes to the European Union exclusive competence regarding the recognition of appellations of origin and protected geographical indications, in Dir. comm. scambi int., 2010, pp. 401 et seq.; Capuzzi, G., Geographical Indications and the protection of agri-food quality: the innovations of 2009, in Studi in memoria di P. Frassi, Milan, 2010, pp. 87 et seq.; Contini, A., Possible Interferences between rights over PDO and PGI and trademark rights, in Galli, C.-Gambino, A.M., eds., Commented Code of Industrial and Intellectual Property, Turin, 2011, pp. 2299 et seq.; De Pasquale, D., The non-qualified geographical denomination: a new category, in Dir. ind., 2003, p. 569 et seq.; Galli, C., Globalization of the economy and protection of origin designations of agri-food products, in Riv. dir. ind., 2004, I, pp. 60 et seq.; La Villa, G., Designations of origin and geographical indications in Community law, in Il Dir ind., 1995, pp. 154 et seq.; Libertini, M., Information on the origin of products within Community regulation, in Riv. dir. ind., 2010, I, pp. 289-311; Sarti, D., Geographical origin indications: history, terminological issues, and interpretative proposals, in Studi in memoria di P. Frassi, Milan, 2010, pp. 619 et seq.; Sarti, D., Geographical Indications, in Il Diritto, Enc. giur., vol. VII, Milan, 2007, pp. 650 et seq.; Sordelli, L., Product identification in the market, in Riv. dir. ind., 1994, I, pp. 471 et seq.; Ubertazzi, B.- Muñiz Espada, E., Food quality indications, Milan, 2009; WIPO, The definition of geographical indications, Geneva, 2002. 382 FRANCESCO TORCHIA
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==