The Escalating Battle Between the U.S. and the EU on Geographical Indications – EJIL: Discuss! – Cyber Tech

In a time when the views of the European Union and america of America seem like drifting additional aside every day, long-standing points are resurfacing as soon as once more. Tim Josling’s 2006 article “The Conflict on Terroir” describes the transatlantic commerce battle between the U.S. and the EU regarding Geographical Indications (GIs) via the lense of its time, remaining hopeful in view of an ample multilateral conclusion in the course of the Doha Spherical on the World Commerce Group (WTO). Now, precisely 20 years later, this battle has reached unexpected heights as a result of unprecedented belligerence of the Trump Administration in issues of overseas agricultural commerce coverage and its conviction to fight European commerce alliances. All through the conclusion of recent pluri- and bilateral free commerce agreements and the reformation and renewal of multilateral fora, the EU will discover itself in an previous, however acquainted battlefield: meats and cheeses.

Terroir, Geographical Indications and an Eternal Battle

Terroir describes the intrinsic worth of an important connection between the origin of a product and its high quality or repute attributed to it particularly because of that origin. The authorized expression of this worth might be present in the kind of mental property often called “Geographical Indications”. Outstanding examples embrace Bordeaux, Feta, Darjeeling Tea and Nuremberg Sausages. Protected all through totally different worldwide devices since 1883, Artwork. 22 (1) of the Settlement on Commerce-Associated Features of Mental Property (TRIPS) defines GIs as “indications which establish as originating within the territory of a Member, or a area or locality in that territory, the place a given high quality, repute or different attribute of the great is basically attributable to its geographical origin”. This arguably minimalist safety of GIs in Artwork. 22, 23 TRIPS might be attributed to a central underlying battle between the U.S. and the EU regarding their view on the necessity for strict GI regulation and safety.

The U.S. place on GIs has traditionally been one in all restraint. As an alternative of implementing a sui generis safety system for GIs, they’ve opted for an incorporation via certification marks established below trademark legislation, particularly 15 U.S. Code § 1054 carried out via the Lanham Trademark Act, in addition to particular necessities below which common emblems utilizing geographical terminology could also be accepted. Any regulatory enlargement past these measures, particularly a stricter regulation on the multilateral degree and in overseas commerce coverage, has been deemed as a possible type of protectionism by excluding market entry for incoming producers. 

The European place however emphasizes cultural and financial benefits of GI regulation in addition to the necessity for client and producer safety via dependable info. Regulation (EU) No. 2024/1143, amending Laws (EU) No. 1308/2013, (EU) 2019/787 and (EU) 2019/1753, supplies for a sui generis “unitary and exhaustive system” for GI safety. Extending this safety past regional borders, particularly negotiated clauses on GIs are included in most newly concluded free commerce agreements by the EU to strengthen the worth of its GI safety. These traditionally grown and politically entrenched positions have been a bone of competition all through all GI negotiations in worldwide fora and had been often solved via minimalist compromises or regional avoidance.

A New Period: 2025 Particular 301 Report 

The Workplace of america Commerce Consultant has ushered in a brand new period on this battle via revisions of U.S. overseas commerce coverage described within the 2025 Particular 301 Report. It states that “[t]he EU GI agenda stays extremely regarding as a result of it considerably undermines safety of emblems held by U.S. producers and imposes boundaries on market entry for U.S.-made items that depend on using frequent names (…)”. Particularly, the U.S. goals to confront the “EU’s aggressive promotion of its exclusionary GI insurance policies” by guaranteeing that GI safety doesn’t deprive events of the power to make use of such frequent names. 

Relating to the priority for frequent names, it ought to be emphasised that Artwork. 28 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 declares generic phrases to be not match for registration as GIs. It thereby follows that because of this formulation, the U.S. considers a number of European GIs to be frequent and seeks to minimize their world safety. In regards to the enforcement of such ambitions, the Report states the aspiration to “bilaterally (…) handle issues ensuing from the GI provisions in current EU commerce agreements (…)”, then naming a non-exhaustive listing of related international locations. It follows that as a substitute of bilateral consultations with the EU instantly or via multilateral fora, such because the WTO, the U.S. seeks to strongarm sure international locations, with which the EU both has a commerce settlement or is presently negotiating one, to select sides based mostly on preferential agricultural coverage and market entry. Because it stands, this growth in U.S. overseas commerce coverage doesn’t solely widen the ditch between two international locations with opposing views, however to separate two techniques of GI safety and establishing a transparent partition between these international locations that select to comply with one or one other.  

Negotiating for Allegiance

A transparent present of energy on this coverage change have been the lately concluded Agreements on Reciprocal Commerce. A distinguished instance right here is the state of affairs of Argentina. The USA of America – Argentine Republic Settlement on Reciprocal Commerce and Funding of February 2026 consists of in Artwork. 2.5 the duty to not limit U.S. market entry because of using particular person cheese and meat phrases listed in an annex to the settlement, resembling Feta, Asiago and Gorgonzola. In battle with this obligation stands the obligation of Argentina below Artwork. 13.33 (4) of the EU-Mercosur interim Commerce Settlement. Therein, Argentina commits to guard these GIs included in Annex 13-B to the settlement, particularly as soon as once more Feta, Asiago and Gorgonzola. Ensuing from this open battle of obligations, Argentina could determine to deem the phrases listed within the settlement with the U.S. to be generic, thereby instantly violating Artt. 13.35 (10), 13.38 of the EU-Mercosur interim Commerce Settlement by nonetheless permitting for using phrases on merchandise imported from the U.S., which usually fall below European GI safety. 

Whether or not such a choice would additionally violate Artwork. 18 (b) of the Vienna Conference on the Legislation of Treaties by defeating (not less than partially) the item and objective of the EU-Mercosur Commerce Settlement, as Argentina has beforehand taken first legislative steps to make sure the ratification of the settlement, stays a degree of dialogue. Additional,  from a regional perspective, such a unilateral choice may also violate Artwork. 1 of the 1991 Treaty of Asunción. The events thereto, together with Argentina, dedicated themselves to establishing a typical market which shall contain “the adoption of a typical commerce coverage in relation to 3rd States or teams of States (…)”. Whether or not a potential violation of the foundations of the commerce bloc as a complete has occurred is presently below investigation by Brazil.

Regarding the potential for an identical situation in a commerce settlement between the EU and Malaysia, such negotiations being formally relaunched since January 2025, the U.S. has included an similar phrase in Artwork. 2.5 of the Settlement Between america of America and Malaysia on Reciprocal Commerce of October 2025. Nonetheless, this doesn’t stay the only concern, as Artwork. 2.4 features a distinctive reference that reads “[f]or better certainty, Malaysia shall not shield or acknowledge a predetermined listing of geographical indications”. Such an try and preemptively withhold recognition for sure GIs particularly opposes the European strategy, which frequently consists of an agreed upon listing of protected GIs, and will instantly battle with the EU textual content proposals on Mental Property in Part 2, Sub-Part 4. The latest third spherical of negotiations between the EU and Malaysia claims that additional discussions between the States will comply with within the coming weeks, as undoubtedly the formulation of an accepted GI framework stands below the stress of bilateral obligations between Malaysia and the U.S.

Related conditions could come up in regard to the safety afforded below Artwork. 246 (1) of the EU-Central America Affiliation Settlement and its battle with Artwork. 2.4 of the Settlement Between america of America and the Republic of El Salvador on Reciprocal Commerce, in addition to Artwork. 2.4 of the Settlement between america of America and the Republic of Guatemala on Reciprocal Commerce, each of January 2026.

Regarding rising commerce agreements by the EU, the U.S. has carried out similar phrases in agreements with Cambodia and Taiwan. On the twentieth of February 2026, such an settlement was additionally concluded with Indonesia, sparking renewed curiosity because of its impact on the lately finalized EU-Indonesia Complete Financial Partnership Settlement.  

With Hesitance Europe Will Not Succeed

The way forward for European commerce and agricultural coverage will critically depend on the resilience and enforcement of EU commerce agreements in gentle of parallel overseas makes an attempt to undermine their software. Because the latest aggressive stance in U.S. overseas agricultural commerce coverage awaits a European response, the EU should act swiftly and implement pending agreements in addition to finalize negotiations regarding new ones to reaffirm and strengthen its place with overseas companions. Hesitance within the implementation, such because the latest referral of the EU-Mercosur Settlement to the Courtroom of Justice of the European Union by the European Parliament, will put each the EU and its buying and selling companions in a troublesome state of affairs, as authorized uncertainty concerning the software of the settlement and the shortcoming to concurrently adjust to opposing obligations would possibly weaken the worldwide European place. As a multilateral answer presently appears out of attain, solely the implementation of current agreements and negotiations for future ones will present whether or not the European or the U.S. rationale will emerge victorious in internationally establishing their ideology on the safety of terroir.