Champagne is not a trademark like Nike. While I think everyone should be able to produce Champagne under the name Champagne, I think only Veuve Clicquot, Bollinger, ... should be able to use those specific names. Those are trademarks like Nike.

I still don't understand why you would call Champagne something that does not come from Champagne, can't you just call it New South Wales or Napa Valley or wherever you are making it?

How is it not misleading to call it by the name of a place that it does not come from?

Because champagne is a synonym for 'sparkling wine' as well as a region at this point.

That's the point of PDOs though. That they are essentially a form of trademark.

But it's not a trademark - it's a location.

Can beef made outside of England be called beef? Can any english name for food be used outside of England? Can french onion soup be sold outside of France?

Beef made outside of England can be called beef, but not English beef, which is the point of protected geographical indications (although this case doesn't need PGI, it's already protected under other laws regarding the indications of the origin of products).

But we don't call it french champagne, we just call it champaign or cognac.

champagne is a region in france ie a location, no need to call it 'french' champagne.

so they're able to say champagne can only be made in the region of champagne

You're free to say sparkling wine - which is what champagne is

These terms long ago became generalized. There are already trademarked brands, what does this extra layer of protectionism add. I don't think we should allow anyone to call a hamburger, they can call them ground beef patties on a bun - which is what they are.

Same with sandwiches outside of sandwich. Probably the same with indian pale ales, etc.... The geographic term describes a style.

> what does this extra layer of protectionism add

It allows people to know the origin of a product, which is the intended purpose.

Your other examples have nothing to do with geographical origin, hamburger, sandwich or IPA have never been from Hamburg, Sandwich or India, so they are irrelevant.

IMO, calling Cognac a product that does not come from Cognac is straight up fraud, and some kind of notoriety theft.

If you produce something similar to Cognac in Innsmouth, why don't you just call it Innsmouth then?

Note that Cognac has a generic name: brandy. You can create brandy anywhere and name it that with no issue.

Same with Champagne which is sparkling wine, we have tons of sparkling wines in France with their own name and no ambiguity regarding Champagne. If you call everything « Champagne », you lose information. And ultimately it’s good only for big corporations.

>These terms long ago became generalized

GI describes what words are protected as a region/ location description vs what words are generalized/ part of the dictionary

it is a style of something yes, but a style thats linked to a town/ region/ county, that the product has always been created in

IPAs are deffo not a location specific decription, since it's a style or make of beer with no location. the indian part in IPA was the destination of the beer. It could be created anywhere

IPAs were made in Britain.

It's not a trademark, but the point of this system is to afford it a similar protection to that afforded to trademarks.

Then you should be allowed to apply the Nike brand to them. Producers' interests don't matter. They only exist to serve the customer.

Which is why the Nike brand shouldn't be on them. As a consumer I want to know who made it.

By all means sell the same shoes and call them "Victoria" or "Kratos" or something, and I might even buy them if I felt they were an appropriate value.

The packaging should make clear that these Nike shoes aren't made by Nike. But there is no reason to restrict what the shoes themselves look like. At most, a label on the soles would be reasonable so second hand buyers can identify who made their shoes.

So we'd end up with Nike made by Nike and Nike made by someone else? Then, in general public eyes, Nike-made-by-Nike would become true Nike.

If someone is willing to pay extra for an identical product because it's made by a more famous company they have only themselves to blame.

How long must one keep his IT infrastructure as cattle instead of pets to come to believe that such a thing like an „identical“ product exists? :p In the real world almost nothing is fungible. Additionally, even with white labelling there is value created (look at Xiaomi for an example).

Have you met humans? Most status-symbols are all about the brand name, identical products made by other people don't count.

And im ok with that. If someone makes a shitty knock-off,i dont think the original manufacturer should get the blame.

> shitty knock-off

I wrote "identical"

Sure, it's also their choice. I wouldn't buy Nike trainers or Levi jeans, but I'm sure some people do, and by taking away that choice you are stealing from them.

What choice am I taking away from them?

The choice of where to spend their money - if they choose to spend it with Adidas, despite you and me thinking the product is terrible, and a far cheaper copy is better - that's their choice. By preventing them from knowing where the money is going, you are harming the consumer.

This is different to copyright or patents where the consumer is prevented from buying the alternative.