Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Matthew Rippon

British pie aficionados associate the town of Melton Mowbray with the production of pork pies of exceptional quality. The “Melton Mowbray” name became a Geographical Indication (GI) in 2009. However, the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie... more
British pie aficionados associate the town of Melton Mowbray with the production of pork pies of exceptional quality. The “Melton Mowbray” name became a Geographical Indication (GI) in 2009. However, the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association (MMPPA), formed to obtain GI status, was founded as long ago as 1998. This paper uses the Melton Mowbray case to explore the GI model that operates in the European Union (EU). Articles 22, 23 and 24 of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement are actualised through the national legislation of each World Trade Organization (WTO) member. This occurred in the EU at the time of the Melton Mowbray example via Regulation 2081/92. The paper draws upon material gleaned from interviews with the Melton Mowbray producers and Chairman of the MMPPA which are supplemented by transcripts of the legal conflict which pitted the MMPPA against a powerful rival manufacturer. The MMPPA argued that its adversary was too distant from Melton Mowbray and that it applied inauthentic methods of production. The out-of-place producer, in response, claimed that the “Melton Mowbray” name was generic and hence ineligible for GI protection. This detailed study of one of Britain’s most iconic regional foods investigates the conceptual and legal infrastructure that is common to all GIs. It provides an in-depth analysis of the constructions of place, boundaries and tradition that are deployed to generate GIs and legitimise the system. Moreover, this work demonstrates that the intricacies and nuances of the GI model can result in differing interpretations of these notions and thus lead to legal challenges from aggrieved producers.
Copyright, patents and trademarks are well-known types of Intellectual Property (IP). However, there is another form of IP known as Geographical Indications (GIs). Foods, drinks and agricultural products can be certified as GIs. The... more
Copyright, patents and trademarks are well-known types of Intellectual Property (IP). However, there is another form of IP known as Geographical Indications (GIs). Foods, drinks and agricultural products can be certified as GIs. The quality of each GI is considered to exclusively or significantly derive from the
supposedly unique physical attributes of the defined and bounded locations from which they originate. The use of GIs discriminates between producers who are categorised as in-place or out-of-place. This determines the firms that are permitted to invoke economically valuable geographical names. Producers
of GIs rely on notions of place, boundaries and terroir to validate their claims to GI status. These are intrinsically geographical factors with which our discipline has long engaged. However, the GI system itself has rarely been studied from a geographical perspective. This paper interrogates the constructions of place, boundaries and terroir common to the conceptual infrastructure of all GIs. It employs Stilton Cheese – one of Britain’s most iconic territorial foods – to illustrate these ideas. The Stilton case also
shows that taken-for-granted ideas of place and production methods can be challenged by motivated adversaries who introduce new evidence in their quest to destabilise this GI. The overall aim of this work is to draw attention to the geographical infrastructure of this expanding regulatory system and more fully
reveal the interests served by the GI model.
Review Essay: Cheese and Culture: A History of Cheese and Its Place in Western Civilization and Pacific Northwest Cheese: A History.