Consultation outcome

Summary of responses

Updated 25 January 2019

Introduction

Background to the consultation

This document contains the UK government’s summary of the responses received to the consultation on: Geographical Indications (GI) – creating UK schemes after Brexit.

The consultation ran for four weeks between 4 October and 1 November 2018. It set out proposals for the new UK GI schemes which will be introduced after Brexit. The consultation sought a range of views on the UK GI logos, appeals process and wine and spirit sector standards. It also provided stakeholders and the public with an opportunity to give general comments on the future UK GI schemes.

We received 92 responses from a range of organisations and individuals including: current and potential GI producers, trade associations, trading standards bodies and non-profit organisations. Defra welcomes the public interest in this consultation and would like to thank all those who contributed. A breakdown of the respondents can be seen in the table below:

Category of respondent	Number of respondents
UK GI protected food name producers	13
EU GI protected food name producers	1
UK GI wine/spirit producers	5
Non-GI producers	3
Trade associations	12
Trading standards bodies	15
Member associations	16
Public bodies	3
Charity/non-profit	5
Individuals	9
Other	9

Analysis of responses

Public consultations are not necessarily representative of the wider population. As anyone can submit their views, individuals and organisations who are more able and willing to respond are more likely to participate. In addition, a small sample of the population responded to this consultation, meaning it cannot be generalised across the wider UK population.

This summary of responses has some quantitative analysis of responses to determine where a majority of respondents share particular view. It also aims to represent the range of key issues raised by respondents, and the reasons for holding their particular views through qualitative analysis.

Overview of responses

Logo

Responses to the consultation contained suggestions for the UK GI schemes logo designs. Respondents set out that the logos should represent the key characteristics of provenance, quality and heritage. They also said that the new UK logos should be recognisable, simple, and use colours that evoke value and geographic origin. Respondents also suggested that the new logos should be able to be used with different size variations and limits, be able to be produced and used as a sticker, and be black and white compatible. The majority of respondents agreed that three years is an appropriate adoption period for existing UK GI holders to update their packaging to reflect the new logo.

Appeals

The majority of respondents who expressed a preference for or against our appeals process were happy with our proposals for the First-tier Tribunal and General Regulatory Chamber rules. However, over a third of respondents were unsure about the appeals process and requested further clarity on how this works. More generally, respondents emphasised that the appeals process should be fair, transparent and independent from government. Several organisations suggested that the First-tier Tribunal should include GI specialists. The majority of respondents said that the right to appeal should apply to all decisions listed in the consultation and that no further decisions should be added.

Other comments

There were also a number of broader comments on the UK GI schemes. Several stakeholders emphasised that the new schemes should be simple to use, easy to understand and have the same high standards as the EU schemes. Some stakeholders expressed concerns over continued protection of UK GIs in the EU. Others suggested that a good communications strategy for the launch of the new UK schemes will be crucial to promote awareness and prevent consumer confusion on the schemes/logos. Other comments are also outlined in this document.

UK logos

In creating UK GI schemes, we intend to replace the EU logos with UK logos for use in the UK after the UK leaves the EU. The government is seeking the views of GI producers and consumers to help shape the design of the UK logos.

1. What should UK logos of the PDO, PGI and TSG schemes represent, and how might this be reflected in their design?

The consultation responses highlighted the following qualities of the UK GI schemes as most important for the logos to represent: provenance (42%), quality (23%) and heritage (15%). For example, one food producer said they would like to see

something that would be easily recognisable by all customers as being a mark of quality.

There were differing views on whether the logos should convey a UK or a devolved/regional identity, with almost equal numbers of respondents in favour of each approach. Similarly, roughly equal numbers said that the new UK logos should be similar to, or different from, the current EU logos.

There were a range of creative design recommendations from respondents. Some suggested that the new logos should incorporate a map of the UK. Flags were mentioned in several responses. Of these, almost half were against flags being incorporated into the logo designs. The other respondents were roughly equally split between wanting regional or national flags and a Union flag. Other comments included that new UK logos should be recognisable, simple and use colours that evoke value and geographic origin.

Some respondents raised suggestions about the practicalities of using the UK logos including that: designs should work with size variations and limits, the shape should be compatible to be produced and used as a sticker, and designs should be black and white compatible. Some respondents suggested that logos should be tested with consumers. One large trade association said their

experience shows that customers cannot understand the difference between [the three classifications] and find the three EU different logos confusing … [they] believe some work should be done to develop a logo which is understood by British consumers.

For wine and spirit producers, the logo is optional under the existing EU schemes and the consensus from respondents is that this should continue for the UK schemes. On the cross-border GIs shared with the Republic of Ireland, spirit drink stakeholders believe that Northern Irish producers should not be required to use a logo different to that used in the Republic of Ireland. This group of stakeholders believe in minimum regulatory divergence with the EU on spirit GIs and labelling, and would see the latter as a barrier to trade.

2. Is three years an appropriate adoption period for existing UK GI holders to update their packaging to reflect the new logo?

The majority of respondents, 63%, agree with our proposals for a three year adoption period for existing UK GI holders to update their packaging to reflect the new logo. A minority, 13%, thought it was not appropriate. These respondents had mixed reasons for this. Some thought this was too long, too short or that there should be no time limit. The remainder of respondents were unsure or did not answer.

Appeals process

New appeals arrangements need to be put in place as a result of the UK assuming new responsibilities and functions relating to GI applications which are currently exercised by the EU Commission. We asked the public a number of questions to assess whether they were content with our proposals for a new appeals process.

We proposed that appeals should go to the First-tier Tribunal and use General Regulatory Chamber Rules. The First-tier Tribunal is part of the UK court system. It is independent and completely separate from the UK government. General Regulatory Chamber Rules determine how cases are handled in the General Regulatory Chamber, which deals with appeals against government regulators. The rules include how to appeal, how hearings are conducted, and how the tribunal reaches decisions.

3. Do you consider that the First-tier Tribunal is an appropriate destination for the handling of appeals against decisions by the Secretary of State?

The majority of respondents who expressed a preference for or against our appeals process were happy with our proposals for using a First-tier Tribunal. A total of 16 respondents did not answer this question. Of those who answered, 45% said they agreed with using a First-tier Tribunal, 11% said they disagreed, and 44% were unsure. The very high numbers of respondents who were unsure suggests that more clarity is required on this from Defra.

Respondents emphasised that the system should be fair, transparent and independent from government. There was also an indication from several organisations that the panel involved in the First-tier Tribunal should be GI specialists who understand the industry and/or have been through the application process. Some respondents suggested that the Judge/panel should be specialists in GI or Intellectual Property law. Several respondents also raised concerns about the cost of an appeal. Other comments included: the inclusion of devolved administrations, the speed of processing appeals and the ease of use.

Some stakeholders suggested alternative destinations for appeals. These included the High Court of England and Wales, the Patent Court and the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court. Some stakeholders suggested that it could be more appropriate for the Intellectual Property Office, as opposed to Defra, to handle the appeals process. However, the majority of respondents did not suggest using an alternative destination for the handling of appeals.

4. Do you consider that the General Regulatory Chamber Rules will suit the handling of these appeals? If not, why not?

The majority of respondents who expressed a preference for or against General Regulatory Chamber Rules were happy with our proposal to use these. 17 respondents did not answer this question. Of those who answered, 40% said ‘Yes’, 12% said ‘No’ and 48% were ‘Unsure’. As with the previous question, high numbers of respondents were unsure, highlighting that Defra needs to provide more information on General Regulatory Chamber Rules.

Most respondents indicated that their answer to this question was covered in the previous answer. From the few people who submitted a separate response, similar points were raised including that: devolved administrations should be involved, costs should not be too burdensome, particularly for small-medium sized businesses, and people who sit on the panel to judge appeals should have GI expertise. There was also a request for more clarity on the General Regulatory Chamber Rules.

5. Do you agree that the right to appeal should apply to all decisions listed in the consultation? Are there any others that should be added?

The proposed list of decisions on the right to appeal are: a decision that an application does not meet the conditions of the scheme, resulting in a decision not to proceed to the opposition procedure, thereby preventing the application from progressing any further; a decision to grant or reject an application following the opposition procedure; a decision to grant or reject applications made to amend a GI specification once awarded; and a decision to cancel a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) or Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG).

The majority of respondents, 72%, said that right to appeal should apply to all decisions listed in the consultation.

One respondent thought the right to appeal should not apply to all decisions listed. The remaining respondents were unsure or did not answer.

The majority of respondents did not think there were any further decisions where a right to appeal should apply. Five respondents suggested additional decisions. Proposals for additional decisions included the Secretary of State deciding on significant amendments to GIs and decisions granting or rejecting an application when there is no opposition. Other suggestions were that GI producers should have a right to appeal against inspection bodies following an auditing process and that decisions should include recourse following investigation of businesses in breach of the protected scheme.

Other comments

6. Do you have any other comments on the new UK GI schemes, or the wines and spirits regulations, as set out in this document?

Many stakeholders welcomed the proposals outlined to set up new UK GI schemes to provide UK GIs with continued intellectual property protection in the UK. For example, one large trade organisation said that they

welcome the UK’s confirmation that it will introduce legislation to set up a framework for GIs.

Comments on the new UK GI schemes were wide ranging. Several stakeholders emphasised that the new schemes should be simple to use, easy to understand and have the same high standards as the EU schemes. There was some concern over whether the UK would continue to provide protection to EU GIs after the UK leaves the EU, and the potential impact this could have on the continued protection of UK GIs in the EU. There was some indication that producers should not have to face extra burdens in seeking EU protection should this be necessary. For example, one large trade association representing GI products said

many businesses have spent years developing their application and securing their protections in the past.

Several respondents indicated that consumer education and a good communications strategy for the launch of the new UK schemes will be crucial to promote awareness and prevent consumer confusion on the schemes/logos. This was highlighted by a national trade association who said they

feel it important that more is done to inform consumers and the market place about the detail and meaning of the various schemes.

Stakeholders want to ensure that Defra and the devolved administrations are working together and asked for clarity on what this collaboration consists of. Some key stakeholders emphasised that new opportunities for trade deals should be explored. Other comments on the new UK GI schemes included: the number of products should be increased, the schemes should be expanded to non-agri food products, and that there should be the option to cancel a GI.

On wines and spirits regulations, one large trade association said they would like to see the replacement Spirit Drinks Regulation for 110/2008 (which includes the GI list and procedures for GI registration of Spirit Drinks) implemented as soon as possible after entry into force, in order to prevent regulatory divergence from the EU.