Welcome to the final instalment of our series on geographical indications (GIs) where we’ve uncorked the mysteries of GIs following the NZ-EU Free Trade Agreement, sliced through how they may be enforced and brewed up some fresh insights on some of the more unique GI conditions. Now, to wrap things up, let's take a look at what New Zealand can learn from other countries and what these lessons may mean for our future.
Let’s begin with Singapore, where the GI regime is notably robust. After the Singapore-EU Free Trade Agreement in 2019, Singapore updated its laws to create a dedicated GI registry for agricultural products, wines, spirits, beers and cheese. Their clear procedures for registration and opposition mean GI owners and third parties know exactly what’s cooking. Singapore’s robust enforcement has made it an attractive trading partner and a model for certainty and transparency, something New Zealand should consider when reviewing our own procedures.
Canada’s GI journey is much like our own. Historically, Canada only protected GIs for wine and spirits. But the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement expanded protection to include agricultural products and foods. Notably, unlike New Zealand, Canada’s “grandfathering” provisions allow products such as feta and gorgonzola to be labelled with qualifying terms like “type” or “style” provided the origin is clearly indicated. Canada’s legislative changes in 2017 beefed up GI recognition and enforcement but the process for adding new GIs has been slow-cooked and cautious, much like us.
Australia, our neighbour across the ditch, keeps things bottled up. Wine gets the GI nod but other products must navigate the certification trade mark system. Courts in Australia have taken an unsympathetic view of GIs that are in common use or where traders from different regions use similar marks. Negotiations for an AU-EU Free Trade Agreement fizzled out in 2023 over some contentious issues like naming rights for feta and prosecco, only recently resuming in June 2025.
But the GI world is a global smorgasbord and there are plenty more examples to review. Take South Korea, where the Intellectual Property Office recently served up a landmark decision. For the first time, a trade mark application was rejected on the grounds of a foreign GI, Cognac, when a local company tried to register “COGNAC” for shampoo. The authorities found this would mislead consumers and tarnish the reputation of the world-renowned French spirit. This case is a toast to the growing international recognition of GIs, showing that even outside the food and drink aisle, GIs can pack a punch and protect producers. As noted by the Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac, the ruling helps preserve the integrity of the Cognac name and ensures that its value returns to the region and its producers.
What, then, is the way forward for New Zealand? Expanding GI protection would help our producers serve up their stories to the world and add extra flavour to our exports. But this is no straightforward undertaking. We’ll need to mix together careful planning and trade commitments to ensure New Zealand producers don't continue being left on the back burner. With overseas developments in mind, New Zealand already has clearer rules for resolving GI conflicts and should aim to harness overseas learnings further in the continued development of its own GI framework.
As New Zealand continues to engage with GIs, there is an opportunity to strengthen our GI framework and ensure that our unique products and homegrown legends are recognised and protected on the global stage.
