Emmanuel Gillet

Geographical Indications

The protection of wine geographical indications: legislative efforts since Pliny

Wine counterfeiting is as old as the wine trade itself: Pliny the Elder already complained of it, in 1849 Russia was drinking three million bottles of fake Champagne, and an 1843 report to the French Chamber of Deputies described ordinary wines sold under prestigious names at great cost to Paris and the Treasury. The article takes stock at a symbolic moment, shortly after the entry into force of the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement (26 February 2020) and while recent cases showed some enforcement: a Shanghai court convicted a counterfeiter of Bordeaux wines, and the Italian authorities dismantled a network refilling grand cru bottles with cheap wine. The author's thesis is nevertheless sobering: legal arsenals — including the 2019 EU-China agreement protecting one hundred geographical indications — will remain wishful thinking as long as suspended sentences and light penalties leave counterfeiting more profitable than risky. Without rigorous enforcement, the law does not deter.

Read the article on IPTwins ↗︎

Read next

Geographical Indications

Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 on the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products

Adopted on 18 October 2023 and published in the Official Journal on 27 October, Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 creates the first EU-wide framework for protecting geographical indications for craft and industrial products. The article presents the new regime: eligibility criteria requiring a demonstrable link between the product and its geographical area together with specific quality attributes, a registration procedure, and a dedicated register bringing transparency for producers and consumers alike. It situates the reform in a global perspective — drawing a parallel with India's GI system, which has protected traditional fabrics such as Pochampalli Ikat and Chanderi sarees since 2005-2006 — and in an economic one, the GI market being valued at some €77 billion. It closes on enforcement: like trademarks, craft and industrial GIs will face counterfeiting across marketplaces, social media and domain names, and their managing bodies will need genuine online protection strategies.

Counterfeiting · European Intellectual Property Law

10 November 2023

Initially published on iptwins.com

Geographical Indications

Geographical indications cybersquatting: the Gorgonzola case

The Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola's fight against cybersquatting makes an instructive scoreboard: two initial defeats over gorgonzola.city (WIPO D2017-0253) and gorgonzola.club (D2017-0554), then a victory over gorgonzola.blue (D2021-0722, 30 May 2021). The article uses this trilogy to expose the structural difficulties geographical indications face in UDRP proceedings. Some panels, it argues, show real naivety towards cybersquatters' good-faith narratives, and unduly territorialise the mechanism — as if a PDO's reputation stopped at the borders of its home region, when the product's fame often far exceeds that of the place itself. Yet the gorgonzola.blue win shows that careful factual analysis can pierce dubious claims. Pending a reform giving GIs explicit status in the UDRP, the article calls for vigilance from GI consortia and from panelists alike.

Cybersquatting · European Intellectual Property Law · UDRP

11 June 2021

Initially published on iptwins.com

Third-Party Liability

Lacoste v Shein: When a Platform Can No Longer Hide Behind Hosting Status

A platform is not one legal object. In Lacoste v Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. and Infinite Styles Services Co. Ltd. (Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 1, 8 July 2026, RG 25/12454), the Court of Appeal refused to let the operators of shein.com shelter behind the hosting exemption of Article 6 of the Digital Services Act: goods “sold by Shein”, Shein labels and packaging, and the Commission’s designation of the service as a very large online platform revealed a hybrid activity, and the characterisation attached not to the platform as a whole but to the role actually played in the disputed transactions. The judgment reaches beyond the twenty offending products. “Lacoste”, typed into the internal search engine, infringes the word marks; “crocodile”, a free word, grounds unfair competition and parasitism. Interim damages rise from €30,000 to €300,000 — the defendants’ own failure to disclose their turnover counting against them — and the measures run across the European Union.

Counterfeiting · Court Litigation · European Digital Law · Marketplace Enforcement · Trademark Law

28 August 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

Domain Name Law

COSHIELD: The Scope of the UDRP in Trademark Disputes

Not every dispute involving a trade mark and a domain name amounts to cybersquatting. In Polyco Healthline Limited v. David Beatson (WIPO Case No. D2026-1893), the panelist denied the complaint brought against coshield.com, a domain used since 2020 to sell personal protective equipment in the very sector where the complainant has exploited its SHIELD trade mark since 1997, and despite a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in 2021. The decision turns on the moment of acquisition: created in 2014, the domain name appears to have changed hands in May 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the combination of “Co” and “Shield” could describe the business rather than target Polyco. The evidence being “finely balanced”, bad faith was not established. This article examines why trade mark infringement and cybersquatting are two paths that do not necessarily converge.

Cybersquatting · Domain Name Law · Trademark Law · UDRP

23 August 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

← All articles

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

3 July 2020

Jurisdiction

Topics

Counterfeiting · Intellectual Property

Industry

Related Decision(s)