6 ms·

The problem is that there are always others who will piggyback of your product to boost their own sales, while not maintaining the quality standards that led to

The problem is that there are always others who will piggyback of your product to boost their own sales, while not maintaining the quality standards that led to the name recognition in the first place. In California they also sell "Californian Champagne", some legal quirk allows it. There is no problem with their wine, it's fine wine (the one time I had it). It's just NOT Champagne. That doesn't make it bad wine, but it's just distinctively not the same product. Just like Prosecco is also not Champagne. And if you don't protect your name soon "Champagne" doesn't mean anything anymore, including for the original, quality maintaining, wine makers from the Champagne region in France.

Scaevolus 6y ago
PDO laws don't have standing in the United States, so you can buy domestic Parmesan and Champagne wjthout difficulty.
- freeflight 6y ago
  How comparable is that to ignoring other countries trademarks/patents? Couldn't the same argument be used to justify Chinese patent/IP theft, as American patent law does not apply in China? What are the legal difference here why one of these is defensible because of "not their jurisdiction", and the other is something whole economies get sanctioned over even tho patent jurisdiction also doesn't apply?
  - twoodfin 6y ago
    There are international conventions & treaties, to which the US is a signatory, that codify international trademark and IP law.
    - freeflight 6y ago
      But the US being signatory to something does not mean that everybody else is a signatory too. The closest to that I could actually find is the World Intellectual Property Organization for trademarks. But afaik copyrights and patents entirely depend on separate registrations in the individual countries, the only thing the WIPO helps with patents is simplifying the patent application process by filing it in multiple countries for the applicant, but those filings can still be denied by the individual countries. [0] In that context I just find it a bit curious how American "trademark" theft of EU PDO is handwaved away with "no jurisdiction", yet the American government still insists that its patents, trademarks and IP be respected everywhere around the world, even in places where it too has no jurisdiction. [0] https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/does-your-us-patent-trademark-or-copyright-protect-you-overseas https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/does-your-us-patent-trade... edit: Apparently the WTO TRIPS Agreement actually covers geographical indications, and the US is a member to that [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement
      - TT3351 6y ago
        Just as the case with US disrespect/neglect of provincial specific good restrictions, other countries also don't fully enforce our [American] notions of intellectual property rights.
      - kmeisthax 6y ago
        The American government insists that patents, trademarks, and copyrights are respected worldwide without jurisdiction because they got everyone else in the room to agree to do that in exchange for import market access. That's why the WTO TRIPS agreement exists. Everyone agreed to the same laws, and agreed to allow foreigners to sue domestic businesses, so it doesn't matter who has jurisdiction over what. America doesn't buy your cheese unless you agree to protect their movies. The only outliers are countries which have already pissed off America so much that market access without regime change is off the table. So, if you see someone say, for example, "but DMCA doesn't apply in my country", they're either wrong, or you should start looking up the export regulations involved with knowingly talking to Iranians before you wind up in federal prison. This isn't even exclusively an American problem. The EU and Japan do it too, and more countries will start doing that as they start getting stronger domestic creative industries. The more money a country makes from owning copyrighted works, the more protection they will demand from other countries. Hell, the last major copyright term extension (the "Sonny Bono" one in the US) was started by the EU doing the same thing to America. The EU passed a term extension that had a reciprocality requirement: if America didn't agree to the term extension, then American works would enter the public domain in the EU quicker than EU-origin works did. This is a fiendishly clever way to ratchet in term extensions, and it works because the WTO treaties only specify maximums for copyright exceptions, not protection. You're always allowed to go stricter.
        freeflight 6y ago
        > That's why the WTO TRIPS agreement exists. As far as I can tell, TRIPS includes the EU PDO protections, so why are US companies selling "fake" EU food products when the US government agreed to respect EU PDO trough TRIPS? Do EU companies simply not sue against that in US courts? I tried looking for cases like that, but I couldn't really find any examples. > Everyone agreed to the same laws, and agreed to allow foreigners to sue domestic businesses, so it doesn't matter who has jurisdiction over what. China is also member of TRIPS, don't have Americans the right to sue in China? Why is that not good enough when it's apparently good enough for EU PDO being violated in the US?
- TwoBit 6y ago
  That's not true. Champagne became protected in USA in 2006, though existing makers were grandfathered.
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> In California they also sell "Californian Champagne", some legal quirk allows it. It basically depends on the trade deal. Anywhere in the EU, "Champagne" has a very definite geographic meaning involving a region in France. Likewise "Feta" cheese, "Port" wine etc etc. But elsewhere it depends on the nature of the deal with the EU. E.g. Western Cape, South Africa makes good sparkling wine, but the EU flexed muscles in the trade deal, and now they don't call it "Champagne" or even "Champagne-style". 1) Though local "Port" and "Feta" got to keep those names. I assume that the USA had a stronger hand and got a better deal in this regard. A quirk of brexit is that the name "Scotch" Whisky may lose EU protection. 2) To Scotland's loss here. 1) https://www.bubbleclub.co.uk/blog/whats-methode-cap-classique/ https://www.bubbleclub.co.uk/blog/whats-methode-cap-classiqu... 2) https://www.forbes.com/sites/felipeschrieberg/2019/01/16/no-deal-brexit-would-be-really-bad-for-scotch-whisky/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/felipeschrieberg/2019/01/16/no-... https://www.businessforscotland.com/scotch-whiskys-protected-status-at-risk-post-brexit/ https://www.businessforscotland.com/scotch-whiskys-protected...
- SeanLuke 6y ago
  In the US, most feta is incredibly made with cow's milk. So no, the US doesn't have strong protection there.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    Or to put it differently, The US cheese industry has strong protection from the EU cheese industry's naming rules. For Feta: > According to the relevant EU legislation, only those cheeses produced in a traditional way in particular areas of Greece (Peloponnese, Central Greece, Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, Thrace, and the islands of Lesbos and Cephalonia), which are made from sheep's milk, or from a mixture of sheep's and up to 30% of goat's milk from the same area, can be called feta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feta I would assume though that US or ZA feta is _never_ exported and sold anywhere in the EU under that name. That would be against the laws in place where it is sold.
    - 6y ago
DNied 6y ago
>Prosecco is also not Champagne Indeed: Prosecco is a spumante.

Scaevolus 6y ago

PDO laws don't have standing in the United States, so you can buy domestic Parmesan and Champagne wjthout difficulty.

freeflight 6y ago
How comparable is that to ignoring other countries trademarks/patents? Couldn't the same argument be used to justify Chinese patent/IP theft, as American patent law does not apply in China? What are the legal difference here why one of these is defensible because of "not their jurisdiction", and the other is something whole economies get sanctioned over even tho patent jurisdiction also doesn't apply?
- twoodfin 6y ago
  There are international conventions & treaties, to which the US is a signatory, that codify international trademark and IP law.
  - freeflight 6y ago
    But the US being signatory to something does not mean that everybody else is a signatory too. The closest to that I could actually find is the World Intellectual Property Organization for trademarks. But afaik copyrights and patents entirely depend on separate registrations in the individual countries, the only thing the WIPO helps with patents is simplifying the patent application process by filing it in multiple countries for the applicant, but those filings can still be denied by the individual countries. [0] In that context I just find it a bit curious how American "trademark" theft of EU PDO is handwaved away with "no jurisdiction", yet the American government still insists that its patents, trademarks and IP be respected everywhere around the world, even in places where it too has no jurisdiction. [0] https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/does-your-us-patent-trademark-or-copyright-protect-you-overseas https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/does-your-us-patent-trade... edit: Apparently the WTO TRIPS Agreement actually covers geographical indications, and the US is a member to that [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement
    - TT3351 6y ago
      Just as the case with US disrespect/neglect of provincial specific good restrictions, other countries also don't fully enforce our [American] notions of intellectual property rights.
    - kmeisthax 6y ago
      The American government insists that patents, trademarks, and copyrights are respected worldwide without jurisdiction because they got everyone else in the room to agree to do that in exchange for import market access. That's why the WTO TRIPS agreement exists. Everyone agreed to the same laws, and agreed to allow foreigners to sue domestic businesses, so it doesn't matter who has jurisdiction over what. America doesn't buy your cheese unless you agree to protect their movies. The only outliers are countries which have already pissed off America so much that market access without regime change is off the table. So, if you see someone say, for example, "but DMCA doesn't apply in my country", they're either wrong, or you should start looking up the export regulations involved with knowingly talking to Iranians before you wind up in federal prison. This isn't even exclusively an American problem. The EU and Japan do it too, and more countries will start doing that as they start getting stronger domestic creative industries. The more money a country makes from owning copyrighted works, the more protection they will demand from other countries. Hell, the last major copyright term extension (the "Sonny Bono" one in the US) was started by the EU doing the same thing to America. The EU passed a term extension that had a reciprocality requirement: if America didn't agree to the term extension, then American works would enter the public domain in the EU quicker than EU-origin works did. This is a fiendishly clever way to ratchet in term extensions, and it works because the WTO treaties only specify maximums for copyright exceptions, not protection. You're always allowed to go stricter.
      - freeflight 6y ago
        > That's why the WTO TRIPS agreement exists. As far as I can tell, TRIPS includes the EU PDO protections, so why are US companies selling "fake" EU food products when the US government agreed to respect EU PDO trough TRIPS? Do EU companies simply not sue against that in US courts? I tried looking for cases like that, but I couldn't really find any examples. > Everyone agreed to the same laws, and agreed to allow foreigners to sue domestic businesses, so it doesn't matter who has jurisdiction over what. China is also member of TRIPS, don't have Americans the right to sue in China? Why is that not good enough when it's apparently good enough for EU PDO being violated in the US?
TwoBit 6y ago
That's not true. Champagne became protected in USA in 2006, though existing makers were grandfathered.

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

> In California they also sell "Californian Champagne", some legal quirk allows it. It basically depends on the trade deal. Anywhere in the EU, "Champagne" has a very definite geographic meaning involving a region in France. Likewise "Feta" cheese, "Port" wine etc etc. But elsewhere it depends on the nature of the deal with the EU. E.g. Western Cape, South Africa makes good sparkling wine, but the EU flexed muscles in the trade deal, and now they don't call it "Champagne" or even "Champagne-style". 1) Though local "Port" and "Feta" got to keep those names. I assume that the USA had a stronger hand and got a better deal in this regard. A quirk of brexit is that the name "Scotch" Whisky may lose EU protection. 2) To Scotland's loss here. 1) https://www.bubbleclub.co.uk/blog/whats-methode-cap-classique/ https://www.bubbleclub.co.uk/blog/whats-methode-cap-classiqu... 2) https://www.forbes.com/sites/felipeschrieberg/2019/01/16/no-deal-brexit-would-be-really-bad-for-scotch-whisky/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/felipeschrieberg/2019/01/16/no-... https://www.businessforscotland.com/scotch-whiskys-protected-status-at-risk-post-brexit/ https://www.businessforscotland.com/scotch-whiskys-protected...

SeanLuke 6y ago
In the US, most feta is incredibly made with cow's milk. So no, the US doesn't have strong protection there.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  Or to put it differently, The US cheese industry has strong protection from the EU cheese industry's naming rules. For Feta: > According to the relevant EU legislation, only those cheeses produced in a traditional way in particular areas of Greece (Peloponnese, Central Greece, Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, Thrace, and the islands of Lesbos and Cephalonia), which are made from sheep's milk, or from a mixture of sheep's and up to 30% of goat's milk from the same area, can be called feta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feta I would assume though that US or ZA feta is _never_ exported and sold anywhere in the EU under that name. That would be against the laws in place where it is sold.
  - 6y ago

DNied 6y ago

>Prosecco is also not Champagne Indeed: Prosecco is a spumante.