> geographic monopolies seem stupid. The issue isn't so much that there are / are not geographic monopolies, but that you have 2 different IP/economic/governan

> geographic monopolies seem stupid. The issue isn't so much that there are / are not geographic monopolies, but that you have 2 different IP/economic/governance models expecting to be speaking the same language - Appellations are connected to producers associations which ultimately have their roots in feudalism/guilds/etc. Generally, it's not the region that promotes an appellation, it's the producers association of that product/region. Producers associations are essentially a "cartel" in modern economic terms which would be illegal under modern IP/economic regulatory regimes. Where appellations are used, this is not the case, and the associations are allowed certain legal space, some of which include creating appellations, which to some extent provide a way to 'brand' and so add value to otherwise commodity products. So, to allow for appellations, you create some provision in the legal system to recognize them. However, since allowing appellations ultimately means granting some political legitimacy to organically occurring cartel-like organizations rooted in feudalism, this can be problematic if using a post-feudal legal framework. The US comes down more radically anti-feudal and pro capitalist in it's legal code than other western countries, and so you have more resistance to appellations. In this model, 'champagne' itself is the brand and the trademark. Nothing else is champagne. Unfortunately, no specific entity 'owns' this brand, because the 'brand' was developed according to an informal patchwork of local organizations, customs and traditions, and so you have some systems (e.g. USA) denying the legitimacy of the claims to the 'brand'/'trademark' since it isn't 'owned' by 'someone'.