Implementation of A-EU Free Trade Agreement—options for protecting wine geographical indications
Submission Date: 30 September 2026
The Intellectual Property Committee (the Committee) of the Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia provided a submission to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to the consultation on the Implementation of A-EU Free Trade Agreement—options for protecting wine geographical indications.
Question 1
“Of the options put in this consultation paper, which is your preferred option to implement the Wine Agreement and A-EUFTA? Please explain why.”
The Committee unanimously prefers Option A (a single system for all geographical indications, or GIs), but only subject to significant caveats. The key reasons for favouring a single system are as follows.
- Risk of divergent decisions: Two separate systems create the possibility of inconsistent judgments or decisions on the same terminology under two different Acts.
- Divergence and overlap: Two systems would tend to diverge in processes and standards over time, causing confusion as to whether “wine-adjacent” products fall within one system or the other.
- Consumer confusion: Two systems would likely cause consumer confusion.
- Product-specific rules still possible: A single system can still accommodate product-specific regulation (for example, for wine or rice) without a separate legislative framework.
However, the Committee was emphatic that it does not endorse Option A as described in the Document. Its principal concerns are as follows.
- The Document suggests the new system could “take advantage of existing architecture within the trade marks framework”. The Committee considers this a dangerous approach. GIs are fundamentally different from trade marks: they are not indicators of source, they are not owned, and they operate on entirely different principles.
- The Committee is strongly concerned that embedding the GI system within the trade marks framework would allow the Trade Marks Office, trade mark examiners and trade mark concepts to dominate and undermine a GI system that differs from a trade mark system in many respects.
- The suggestion that GIs would need to be renewed every 10 years is also inappropriate. GIs are normally registered indefinitely until removed for nonuse, and a renewal requirement is a trade mark concept being improperly imported.
In summary: the Committee prefers a single system but does not endorse Option A as framed. The system must not sit within the Trade Marks Act or be administered through the trade marks framework, and must instead be a standalone, sui generis GI system. This is essential to deliver the certainty and predictability that GI holders and the broader industry require.
Last Updated on 08/10/2026
Share
Tags
Most recent items in Business Law Section
Business Law Section
Reforms to the bankruptcy system
Business Law Section
The Australian Taxation Office's management of small business collectable debt
Trending Items in Business Law Section
Business Law Section
Forsyth/Pose Scholarship
Business Law Section
Santow Scholarship
Business Law Section