By Phylicia Yeoh

Geographical Indications (GIs) serve as powerful markers in trade, distinguishing products originating from specific regions renowned for their unique qualities. These indications not only identify a product’s origin but also underscore the intrinsic link between the geographical region and its distinctive characteristics.  

In Singapore, the case the Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco v Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated has emerged as a focal point in the Geographical Indication Showdown between the Old-World and the New World including due to European migration across the world over hundreds of years. Today there are many established Italian descendant communities in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and these communities have also brought the materials and know-how of wine making across the world. Globally, this is the latest in a slew on ongoing legal disputes between the Old-World countries in Europe and the New World countries fought by proxy in Singapore. 

The dispute arose when Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco (“the Italians”), a trade body established and organized under the laws of Italy, applied to register “Prosecco” as a GI for wines in Singapore in 2019.  

This led Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated (“the Aussies”), a representative body for grape growers and winemakers in Australia, to oppose the registration of the GI “Prosecco”. The Aussies based its opposition on two grounds. Firstly, that the GI application contained the name of a plant variety and was likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product. Secondly, that the GI application did not fall within the meaning of a “geographical indication” as defined in Act..  

The Aussie’s opposition was dismissed, primarily due to the longstanding presence of Italian “Prosecco” wine in the Singapore market since 2011, with significant sales totalling 387,100 litres in 2018 alone. The popularity, reputation, and renown of these wines were considered to minimize the likelihood of consumer confusion. In contrast, Australian “Prosecco” wine entered the Singapore market in 2015, with significantly lower sales of 9,657 litres in 2018.  

Following Aussies’ appeal, the High Court ruled in favour of Aussie’s opposition based on the first ground, citing the presence of “Prosecco” grapes and wines cultivated and produced outside the specified region claimed, such as Australia, which could potentially mislead consumers due to the inclusion of the name of a plant variety. On the other hand, their opposition under the second ground of the GIA was dismissed, as the evidence presented by the Italian’s demonstrated that the essential characteristics of “Prosecco” wine originated from the specified region claimed, and Aussie’s failed to provide contrary factual evidence. 

The storm in a wineglass continues… 

The Italians subsequently appealed against the High Court’s decision in allowing the second ground of opposition to succeed on the basis that the GI application contains the name of a plant variety and is potentially misleading consumers. 

The appellate court held that two requirements had to be satisfied. Firstly, there must be an objective test to assess whether the GI is a recognised as a plant variety by a significant population of Singaporeans, and secondly, whether GI application was likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product, with the burden of proof falling on the Aussie’s. 

Although the Aussie’s were able to supply evidence such as historical records documenting, acknowledgment by authorities and official bodies in multiple countries, and recognition in numerous legislative decrees, international treaties, and agreements that “Prosecco” is a name of a grape variety, the evidence did not prove that the Singapore consumer was likely misled by the GI application of “Prosecco”.  

The Aussie’s had presented advertising materials and statistics indicating the rise in the volume of Australian “Prosecco” imported into Singapore. However, these figures merely suggest increased sales by local wine sellers and growing local demand. The crucial question remains: are Singapore consumers aware that “Prosecco” is also the name of a grape variety used to make wine of the same name? 

Therefore, with no further evidence or supporting documents from the Aussie’s, the Italians won the day after all. 

Conclusion 

This is not likely to be the last of such disputes because of historical migration of peoples from cheese and wine making countries from Europe to the New World countries such clashes are inevitable. However, as we shall see in the coming years due to the large cross border migration Asians over the last 100 years we may see future challenges and conflicts between descendants of immigrants who have not only transported and cultivated plant varieties previously exclusive to Asia in their new adoptive countries but have also utilised the inherited know how in manufacturing Asian based goods for the market. Further, with trade, there is already a growing trend of popular produce from other Asian countries being cultivated and grown in other parts of the world such as durians largely due to tourism or smuggling of biological material for profit and differing monitoring and enforcement standards from authorities The outcome of such cases will largely depend on the nature of the legislation and whether sufficient and relevant evidence is adduced.