On my desk as I write this sits a superb Indian Dokra brass Nandi (the bull ridden by the God Shiva), one of India’s most iconic Geographical Indications (GIs).
The European Union has a long history of protecting its geographical indications—iconic food and drink names—from “Champagne” and “Feta” to “Prosciutto di Parma” and “Porto.” It protects from copying or usurpation over three thousand names, while almost all Free Trade Agreements secure high protection for the commercially most significant names, often after strenuous negotiations, some of which I did personally.
But until recently there was no EU-wide scheme for handicrafts or industrial GIs, like Limoges porcelain, Bohemian crystal, Donegal tweed, Transylvanian embroidered blouses, or indeed Indian brass Dokras.
Northern EU member states considered it protectionist to protect “industrial” products that, in their view, could be made anywhere with no umbilical connection to the land. They warned against following the Swiss example of protecting the term “Swiss Watches”—an alleged anti-competitive measure destined simply to fix movable practices in amber. Sweden was the ringleader of those rejecting the notion of protecting handicrafts. Some less critical member states protected their goods from copying through trademark or other rules, others not at all.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Working in the European Commission as the EU’s chief agriculture negotiator between 2013 and 2023, I lobbied hard to get an agreement on an EU-wide system to protect handicraft GIs. After all, the WTO TRIPS Agreement does not distinguish between agri and non-agri GIs. Why should vodka (which can be a pretty industrial product in some countries) be protected better than handweaving?
But I had other reasons. Europe’s craft producers wanted to protect their goods from imitations that stole their cachet and eroded their value. We had proof in the food sector of the benefits GI protection could bring in terms of sales and reputation. GIs are the sole sector of the economy that cannot relocate to Shenzhen.
And secondly, in trade negotiations with China and India, they insisted they would only protect the EU’s GIs if we in turn protected their handicrafts. Of China’s 4000 GIs, half are non-agricultural—stoneware, baskets, and silk products. India similarly: over half of its 800 GIs are handicrafts—bronze, brassware (like my Dokra), saris, and the like.
The European Parliament also consistently supported an EU scheme to protect handicraft GIs, a vote winner in rural areas and amongst SMEs.
The tide turned around 2020. The UK had left the EU, Germany changed position, and with my explanation that we would not secure food deals with China or India without protecting their handicrafts, the Council accepted to explore an EU-wide law.
In the case of the EU-China Agreement, concluded in 2019 and in force in May 2021, before any EU-wide scheme was agreed, I had to fudge it.
First with an article promising to protect a list of 10 Chinese craft GIs “as and when” there was an EU legal instrument… The Chinese accepted my explanation that it would come about.
And secondly, by generously interpreting Article 2 of the EU’s then agricultural GI Regulation, which allows protection of products “derived from agricultural products or linked to the rural economy,” I shovelled under this definition some Chinese silks and straw baskets….
In heated discussions in Council I promised disgruntled Swedish and Dutch officials that this would not be a precedent.
Luckily it was not. Because in 2023, on the back of a renewed Commission study showing the benefits to small businesses, along with EP pressure and third-country demands, the EU adopted its Regulation on Craft and Industrial GIs (CIGIs), which opened its doors in December 2025.
It has been a success. Less than one year in, over a hundred names have been protected, from a wide range of member states.
What no-one expected is that some of the most critical member states are asking to protect their names. I felt distinct schadenfreude just last week seeing protection given to the famous Swedish-painted Dalahäst horses. Finland is planning to protect two names. Czechia has protected its Bohemian crystal decorations, and there are more in the pipeline. Unlike for food and drink, the CIGI register is not dominated by France and Italy. More industrialized member states now see an interest.
The last interesting twist on this European success story is about who decides on the protection. For food and drink GIs, the European Commission decides, including for foreign GIs, thus wielding considerable leverage—deployed in many negotiations. Member States of the EU are secretly happy that the Commission decides which foreign GIs can be protected and in exchange for which other trade concessions.
But for Craft and Industrial GIs, the approach was different. The EU Intellectual Property Office in Alicante (EUIPO) was delegated the power to receive, vet, and approve CIGI applications. But the Commission reserved the right to step in in respect of CIGIs covered by trade negotiations, since these could have international repercussions. It was felt that EUIPO, as a technical agency of the Commission, has no political mandate to have the final say on the protection of these GIs in the framework of an international negotiation.
So, notwithstanding the ostensibly technical nature of decisions on IPR protection, the Commission kept the power to accept or reject third-country names, for example, in an FTA negotiation. And frankly it would have been illogical that the Commission can negotiate GI protection with other countries for food or wine, but have no control over protection of handicrafts or industrial goods. Member States, including France, insisted that the Commission retain this highly political power to decide on whether to protect third country names.
The first test of this is in a few weeks’ time with the imminent decision to protect several more Chinese handicraft GIs under the bilateral Europe-China GI Agreement. I have little doubt that the EU will protect every proposed Chinese name with only limited scrutiny, since it is asking China to protect 175 additional European food and drink names in return! And as an aside, these names are worth protecting. It’s not only in the field of electric vehicles and drones that China is now rivalling, or even in front of, European creativeness.
The second big test of Europe’s CIGI scheme will also arrive soon, with the completion of long overdue negotiations with India on a bilateral GI Agreement. India has submitted a long list of craft GIs for protection. Perhaps my Dokra will finally rest at ease on my bookshelf—in the knowledge that all imitators will be herded out of Europe?
