The Times (London) | By Carl Mortished | June 26, 2002
IF IT walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...then it may not be a duck, rules the European Court of Justice.
The learned men in Luxembourg yesterday decided that Nuova Castelli, an Italian company, could not label its dried grated cheese "Parmesan", even though the cheese originates from an Italian town near Parma. The word Parmesan had not become generic, the court held, but was a "protected designation of origin" that could only apply to Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese, registered since 1996. So, hard cheese for Nuova Castelli, which is not part of the recognised club of Parmesan producers, the Consorzio del Parmigiano-Reggiano, which owns the trademark. It is also bad news for producers of Australian champagne, Chilean Bordeaux and South African port.
This is much more than a spat about copycats. It is a huge political problem and is rapidly turning into a new battleground between agribusiness interests and those wishing to protect traditional farmers. As the European Court sweeps bogus crumbs of Parmesan off the table, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is debating the extension of the convention on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights to wine and spirits.
Suddenly, the European Union is finding common cause with farmers in the developing world. Pascal Lamy, the EU Trade Commissioner, is supporting an initiative to create a worldwide register of designations of origin. Not just Parmesan, but Darjeeling tea and, perhaps even, Cheddar could become a protected mark of a distinct geographical area.
It is a call to arms in defence of cottage industries that is finding support far and wide.
Bulgaria almost derailed the WTO summit in Doha last year, demanding such protection for Bulgarian yoghurt, a designation that has huge commercial value, apparently, for some Japanese dairy companies. India has been fighting a lengthy battle against an American company, Ricetec, which claims to have patented a genetically engineered strain of Basmati rice, the fluffy, aromatic grain often used in Indian cuisine. Seeing the patent as a potential threat to Punjabi farmers, India wants the same status for Basmati as the European Court defended in the Parmesan case. In a rare show of solidarity, Pakistan is joining the Indian bandwagon - the Basmati growing region extends across the border - and Thailand has a similar claim for jasmine rice.
The WTO is the obvious institution to establish such a register, but there is huge opposition. Big farming countries, notably Australia and New Zealand, as well as the growing agribusiness powers in Latin America and, of course, the United States, are opposed.
It is easy to see why. Designations of origin are just back-door protectionism, they argue, leading to endless battles about labelling and nomenclature, obscuring the real objective of shutting out competing producers. But the US argument is hollow if you shift your gaze from the Punjabi farmer in his ricefield to the headquarters of Levi Strauss in San Francisco. Denim trousers are also a commodity. If Levi Strauss is the only permitted owner of the Levi's brand, why should the Punjabi farmer not enjoy similar protection. Indeed, this may be his best defence against globalisation of markets and it is one that appeals to consumers who are often prepared to pay more for food whose origin is guaranteed. And if more European farmers were protected by brands and trademarks, could we not take a courageous step and remove the protection of tariffs and price supports?The Times (London):
