European Commission Opens Objection Window for 75 Thai Product Names

The European Commission has opened a public consultation on whether the European Union should protect a second group of geographical indications put forward by Thailand as part of the two sides’ free trade talks, giving governments, companies and other interested parties two months to file objections.

The move was published in an official notice in the EU’s Official Journal and covers 75 Thai geographical indications that Thai authorities want protected under the future trade agreement. The Commission said 47 of those names relate to agricultural products. It is now assessing whether the Thai names should qualify for protection as geographical indications under the standard set out in the World Trade Organization’s agreement on intellectual property.

Geographical indications are place-based product names tied to a specific origin and reputation. In the European market, they can carry strong legal value because they limit how a protected name may be used on labels, in marketing and in trade. The system is well known in food and drink through protected names for wines, spirits and regional agricultural products.

The notice is procedural, but it matters because it opens the formal opposition stage. The Commission said any EU member state, any third country, or any natural or legal person with a legitimate interest and based in the EU or in a third country may object by submitting a duly substantiated statement. Those objections must arrive within two months of the publication of the notice.

Under the terms laid out by the Commission, an objection will be considered only if it is filed on time and shows one of several specific grounds. One is that the Thai name would conflict with the name of a plant variety or animal breed in a way that could mislead consumers about the product’s true origin. Another is that the proposed name is wholly or partly identical to a name already protected in the EU under Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, the bloc’s current framework for geographical indications covering wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, or to a non-EU geographical indication already protected in the Union under an existing bilateral agreement.

The Commission also said objections can be based on trademark concerns. That includes cases where a proposed protected name could mislead consumers in light of a trademark’s reputation, notoriety and duration of use. Another possible ground is that protection of the Thai name would jeopardize an identical or partly identical name, an existing trademark, or products that have been legally on the market for at least five years before the notice was published. The final ground listed in the notice is that the name under review is generic.

The Commission added that those tests will be assessed in relation to the territory of the Union. For intellectual property rights, that means only the territory or territories where those rights are protected.

The Thai names are not being protected yet. The Commission made clear that any future protection in the EU depends on the successful conclusion of the trade negotiations with Thailand and on a later legal act. In other words, the current consultation is an intermediate step in a longer trade and legal process.

Even so, the consultation is likely to draw close attention from the drinks sector. Because the EU rulebook used for assessing conflicts also covers wine and spirit drinks, the process could eventually create new protected Thai names in the EU market under the future agreement. That has potential implications for producers, importers, distributors and trade groups that monitor naming rights, competition, labeling and brand strategy in beverages. If a Thai name overlaps with an existing protected indication, a trademark, or a term used on products already sold legally in the EU, this is the stage at which businesses would be expected to raise that issue.

The case also reflects a broader pattern in EU trade policy. Brussels has increasingly used free trade agreements to expand mutual recognition of geographical indications with partner countries, extending protection beyond domestic EU names and creating new legal limits on the use of certain regional terms inside the single market. For countries outside the bloc, EU protection can be commercially important because it can improve recognition, strengthen price positioning and make it harder for competing products to use similar names.

For European producers, the same process can bring risk as well as opportunity. A newly protected foreign indication can affect how a term is used in advertising or packaging, especially when a business relies on names that resemble place-based products or older trademarks. That is one reason the opposition window matters. It gives producers and rights holders a chance to argue that a proposed name is too close to an existing protected indication, conflicts with a known trademark, or has become generic in the market.

The notice refers to the Thai names as a second list presented by Thai authorities during the negotiations. It also says the names have been registered in Thailand. The publication does not set out the full outcome the Commission may eventually recommend for each name, only that the review is underway and that objections are now invited.

The consultation comes as EU-Thai trade talks continue to include a chapter on geographical indications. Such chapters are often closely watched in wine, spirits and specialty foods because they can shape market access and legal protection long after a trade deal enters into force. In this case, the immediate next step is the opposition period, with submissions to be sent to the Commission by email within the deadline set out in the notice.