Ashley Toledo | April 5, 2026
In an increasingly globalized marketplace, product names can become ubiquitous. What may begin as a regional specialty can become a global commodity, raising the question of who owns the rights to its name. Geographical indication (GI) suits lie at the center of that debate, forcing courts and companies to decide whether names like “feta” and “champagne” are common descriptors, or a legal expression of the place of origin.
The European Union utilizes geographical indications (GIs) when labeling food and products. Some critics argue that the EU applies geographical indications too aggressively, attempting to turn many common food names into protected regional labels. They contend that this approach harms competition, limits consumer choice, restricts producers outside Europe, and should be opposed by the United States during trade negotiations. In contrast, the U.S. system primarily consists of trademark and certification mark laws, which are very different from the EU model. The model used in the European Union, is considered more protective of geographical indicators. In contrast, the United States’ model provides a more flexible approach, which creates tension between the two trading partners.
What is a GI?
A geographical indication is a name of a product that links it to a particular geographical location and [missing word] that the product’s qualities, reputation, or characteristics originate from that place. Examples include the names of European wines and cheeses like champagne, parmesan, gorgonzola, and asiago, which all relate to a specific geographical area. Champagne, for example, is a region in France, while Parma, Gorgonzola, and Asiago are all towns or provinces in Italy. The core dispute between the US and EU is whether these names still reference to specific historical and geographic designations, or whether they have become ordinary product names in the grocery stores.
The U.S approach
Unlike EU law, U.S. law generally does not automatically reserve geographic terms for producers originating from a specific place. Producers often rely on trademarks and certification marks to specify a geographic attribute. A certification mark can signal that goods come from a certain region or meet specific standards. Whether product names are granted protection usually depends heavily on whether consumers are likely to be confused by products with a similar name. In the U.S., examples such as Idaho potatoes, Roquefort cheese, and other certification-mark uses to show that the U.S. system can protect region-linked goods without broadly banning outsiders from using many familiar product names. Interprofession du Gruyère v. U.S. Dairy Export Council (4th Cir. 2023) is an illustrative case which demonstrates the U.S. approach to geographic indication. In this case, the court determined that U.S. consumers associate “Gruyère” with a type of cheese rather than as a name tied to the specific Gruyère region. As a result, the court ruled that the name was considered generic and could not be registered as a certification mark. This arguably consumer friendly approach is in stark contrast to the EU model, creating significant trade tensions as a result of these two legal frameworks.
The EU Approach
The EU model is built around the idea of terroir, which is the notion that a product’s identity is deeply tied to its place of origin. Place of origin matters because it is linked to its quality, reputation, and authenticity. Producers of food and drink products must often follow detailed production rules if they are selling and distributing in the EU. The regime protects not only against direct copying of product names, but also against imitation, or the use of terms that suggest the protected region.
Chablis Fourchaume, Burgundy, CC BY 3.0
The Special 301 Report by the U.S Trade Representative (USTR) states that the “EU GI agenda remains highly concerning” and argues that the EU’s GI practices can undermine U.S. trademark protection by creating market-access barriers for U.S. goods using common names like “parmesan” and “feta.” Legal commentators such as William Watson, argue that the EU uses international trade negotiations to expand its geographical indications regime abroad, which, would force U.S. producers to stop using many common food and drink names like champagne, port, sherry, parmesan, gorgonzola, feta, even with qualifiers like “California champagne” or “parmesan-style cheese.”
An illustrative EU case, Germany & Denmark v. Commission concerned whether “feta” should be considered a valid traditional, though non-geographic, name associated with a specific region in Greece or simply a generic term for a type of white, brined cheese produced in various countries. The Court upheld the regulation, ruling that “feta” could be registered as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) for Greece. The case highlights how the EU allows a country to claim ownership of the name of a product as ubiquitous as feta cheese.
Frictions Between Legal Regimes
The central conflict in trade negotiations stems from the clash between the U.S. and the EU’s policies regarding food naming conventions. The U.S. contends that EU policies, which use Geographical Indications (GIs) to protect terms like “feta” or “parmesan,” unfairly prevent American producers from using what the U.S. considers generic terms in global markets. For U.S producers, this means that to sell in Europe, they would have to relabel products, which may add to costs and reduce market access abroad. It is possible that overly restrictive restrictions could hinder efficient business operations, limiting US companies’ ability to be competitive in European markets.
The 2025 Special 301 Report from the USTR is highly critical of the EU’s aggressive geographical indications (GI) policy, noting it functions as a major trade barrier that undermines U.S. trademark laws, and restricts market access for products with common names. This dispute is significant enough that the report highlights EU GI practices as “highly concerning.” The report further argues that these practices can potentially weaken existing trademarks and restrict the common use of food names, which the U.S. believes should be available to all producers.
The US and the EU’s fundamentally different approaches leave little room for compromise. The U.S. approach mainly uses U.S. trademark law and is mainly focused on avoiding consumer confusion. The EU approach is much more stringent, as it grants many product names protection tied to regional traditions and production methods. The EU sees brand names as a form of collective regional property, while the U.S. is willing to let such terms become generic if consumers associate a type of product with a specific name that came from a brand.
How does the dispute regarding GI law affect international commerce?
These conflicting legal regimes have complicated the US and EU’s ongoing trade negotiations. A dispute regarding this issue is the Dairy Trade Association’s revolt over common food names like “feta.” The National Milk Producers’ Federation (NMPF), a US-based organization that represents dairy farmers, has blamed the EU’s geographical indications scheme for the US dairy industry’s export deficit in Europe.
Gregg Doud, the president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation, said that “last year, the United States imported nearly $3 billion more in dairy products from the European Union than the U.S exported to Europe.” Doud claimed that this deficit is due to Europe’s restrictive GI system, which in his view only benefits European producers and stamps out competition on the international market.
These tensions are not limited to the U.S. and EU. The World Trade Organization describes an ongoing debate over whether stronger GI protection should be expanded beyond wines and spirits, and the U.S. has long favored protecting many GIs through trademark and certification-mark mechanisms instead of the more restrictive regime of the EU. These differences matter commercially, because firms may have rights in one market and lose them in another.
Because geographic indication rules vary across countries, a business cannot assume that the name, label, or brand it uses in its home country will be legal abroad. These varying regulations complicate cross-border business. For instance, a company may be permitted to sell cheese or wine in multiple countries but might need to use a different name in each market. As a result, instead of a product having a single branding, a company may have to create separate packaging, advertising, and websites for different jurisdictions. This increased complexity and resulting cost can reduce the incentive for products to be sold in different markets
Conclusion
Geographical Indications laws create a significant tension in international commerce. The central issue is whether product names should primarily serve as competitive descriptors in a global marketplace or as legally protected markers of a region’s identity. While GI protection can help preserve a product’s cultural heritage, it also restricts marketing options and prevents others from using a valuable name. GI law is not merely about regulating labeling; it is about redistributing global economic trade and shaping how products can be labeled and distributed based on the country.
Companies selling products in the EU are likely to see ongoing battles over whether stronger GI protection should be extended beyond wines and cheeses to broader categories of food products. American food producers will likely continue to face restrictions given the different legal regimes, depending on the name they use and the country in which they are selling. Ultimately, the ability to adapt and strategize effectively will be crucial for success in an increasingly competitive market.