Executive Summary

In March 2026, the European Union and Australia reached a consensus on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) after eight years of negotiations. The key barrier was Geographical Indications (GIs)—and their resolution effectively defined the architecture of the agreement. This is not merely a trade compromise; it is an example of how the logic of Intellectual Property (IP) is evolving.

1. Geographical Indications as a Market Tool

GIs are traditionally perceived as a mechanism for protecting a product’s origin. In reality, however, they perform a much broader function:

• Shaping market differentiation

• Creating barriers to entry

• Securing economic value for a region

For the EU: GIs = a tool for protecting regional economies

For Australia: GIs = a restriction for local producers who have historically used these names

This contradiction was the root cause of the prolonged negotiation stalemate.

2. Prosecco: Conflict Between Origin and Variety

The central case of the agreement was Prosecco.

The parties’ positions:

• EU (Italy): Prosecco is a Geographical Indication.

• Australia: Prosecco is the name of a grape variety.

The turning point: In 2009, the EU renamed the “Prosecco” grape variety to “Glera.” This decision allowed for the legal strengthening of GI protection but simultaneously called into question the original nature of the name.

3. Compromise Model: A Multi-layered Approach

The agreement provides protection for 396 EU Geographical Indications, but not through rigid unification; rather, through a flexible system:

• Free Use: Certain names remain generic (e.g., “Parmesan”).

• “Grandfathering” Principle: Existing producers can continue their activities (e.g., Feta).

• Transition Periods: Names are gradually phased out of the market (e.g., Ouzo).

4. Special Regime for Prosecco

The most complex solution was found specifically for Prosecco:

• Domestic Australian market: Use as a variety name is permitted.

• Export: A 10-year transition period has been established.

• Post-transition: A ban on using the name in international markets.

This is a compromise between the right to tradition and the demands of the global market.

5. Economic Dimension

For Australia:

• Potential loss of a portion of the export market.

• Simultaneously, duty-free access to the EU market.

For the EU:

• Expansion of the influence of its GI model.

• Export of regulatory standards.

6. Implications for IP Strategy

This case extends far beyond the agricultural sector. We are witnessing a paradigm shift: a product’s name is becoming a key IP asset.

7. Systemic Shift

Traditionally, Intellectual Property was built around:

• Patents

• Trademarks

Today, a third layer is being added: Geographical Indications + Regulatory Restrictions.

8. Parallel with Pharmaceuticals

This approach has a direct analogy in the pharmaceutical industry:

9. Conclusion

The EU-Australia agreement demonstrates a fundamental change: competition is no longer just about technology. It is about the right to define a product’s name.

This right determines:

• Market access

• Pricing policy

• Long-term competitive positioning

Proposed Geographical Indications – Public Objections Process https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about-us/international/eu-australia-fta/geographical-indications

Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.