프랑스의 지리적 표시보호제도에 관한 연구

양대승 한국지식재산학회 2008 産業財産權 Vol.- No.25

A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that origin. This definition of the GI is extremely wide-ranging, such that the notion can include agricultural, agrifood or industrial products, or indeed goods originating in the handicraft industry, whose association with their geographical origin can at times be extremely tenuous. The scope of the definition also includes the notion of appellation of origin, which is a sub-category of geographical indication with tighter and more carefully defined requirements. An appellation of origin (AO) is a special kind of GI. The GI must not be confused with the indication of source, which provides information solely as to the place of production or production of a product, without indicating or guaranteeing a particular quality associated with the place of origin or the modes of production (example: made in China). Furthermore, the GI is a collectⅣe right if use that is reserved exclusⅣely for those who respect the specifications (book of requirements) they define and that are approved by a competent authority. Geographical indications of production (GI), which associate an agricultural or handicraft product with the territory from which it comes, are a collectⅣe tool for producers to promote the products of their territory. The geographical indication system aims to promote products that are part of a food and cultural heritage that is deemed to be inalienable. The period for the use of the right is the same as that of the existence of the product. This system enables territories to be promoted thanks to the criterion of authentic production techniques, reserved for the market players within the gⅣen area. Geographical indications are a means to create added value locally. When the name of a product receⅣes protection as a geographical indication, the local communities benefit from the positⅣe impact. These systems linked with the origin are also tools in the development and promotion of regions. They are of particular interest for region where agriculture has low levels of productⅣity, thanks to the added value they provide. GI help maintain and develop actⅣities in rural area that may be disadvantaged, by promoting local know-how and production centers. GI protection also provides other benefits for local communities. Geographical indications encourage the dⅣersification of production, and thereby the preservation of biodⅣersity, local know-how and natural resources. GI also have a positⅣe impact on tourism. For example, gastronomy trails are now an integral part of holidays in countries such as France. The system also provides the consumer with certain guarantees. Consumers are becoming ever more attentⅣe to what they buy and what they have in their plates. Their expectations are higher than in the past, in particular with regard to the information provided on the methods by which the product was manufactured, and the degree to which it is typical of its area of origin. If the products meet all these requirements, consumers will be more inclined to pay more for them than for standard products. The sanctions applicable to such infringements in France are of two kinds: administratⅣe and criminal. In order to benefit from a geographical indication, the products must meet production conditions that are set out in each of the specifications documents (book of requirements) that relate to geographical indications. Failure to respect the production conditions that are defined in the specifications (book of requirements) must entail a ban on using the name of the geographical indication. The fraudulent use of a geographical indication can lead to action before the criminal courts. Certain services (for example: the Directorate General for Consumption, Competition and the Repression of Fraud in France, customs) may have the power to take measures against infringements of geographical indications. Offences include deceit or attempt to deceⅣe, of usurpation of geographical indication or use of an incorrect geographical indication. Generally speaking, the regulations prohibit the use of a geographical name that constitutes the name of a GI or any other words that evoke it, for any similar product. Another possibility exists, although it is not recognised by the TRIPs agreements, the fraudulent use of reputation. This sanction prohibits the use of a geographical name that constitutes the name of a GI for any other product or service when this use is likely to dⅣert or weaken the reputation of the GI. Geographical indications, because they represent an agricultural model that brings together quality and harmonious use of rural areas, are a major economic asset that must be protected against infringement.

지리적 표시 단체표장제도의 문제점과 해결방안에 관한 고찰

정태호 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 圓光法學 Vol.27 No.4

In Trademark Act, there is a system of collective mark for a geographical indication as a protection system of geographical indication. This system admits a registration of a geographical indication by means of collective mark systems, if a non-distinctive geographical indication has earned a reputation related to a quality of a specific goods. This system looks like being organized well by means of Trademark Act, but several problems in managing this system practically have appeared. Mentioning about the problems precisely, we can raise issues, which Korean Intellectual Property Office(KIPO)’s supports have only too much focused on making collective mark rights for a geographical indication like application supports and awareness of cunsumers for collective mark for a geographical indication is not high particularly and application process is very complicated. Examining about this problems more concretely, we can raise issues like difficulty in fulfilling requirements of applicants, an internal struggle of producer group, neglect of follow-up management, and lack of understanding, promotions and supports on making economical profits in a system of collective mark for a geographical indication. For solving this problems, we will need education and supports of follow-up management, supports for solving an internal struggle of producer group, KIPO’s supports on education of application process and legal modification on simplification of application process, education and supports of commercialization after registrations and supports on promotions for raising consumers’ awareness. In conclusion, if we make solutions of problems in managing collective mark for a geographical indication, legal status of this system will be maintained continuously and this system will develop. And this solutions will distinguish this system from protected geographical indication system in the Agricultural Products Quality Management Act and will be able to make a contribution to a practical protection of a geographical indication.

자기조직과 지방혁신을 위한 한국의 지리적 표시제

이주헌(李周憲)(Lee, Joo-Heon),전현진(全鉉鎭)(Jeon, Hyun-Jin) 피터드러커 소사이어티 2011 창조와 혁신 Vol.4 No.1

In the past, everyone had a right to use any geographical indications. However, now, geographical indications are granted only to local registered producer groups. Geographical indications are now a type of intellectual property rights that are protected by governments and international agencies. In the past, because of prestigious reputations of high qualities, some famous local products that were produced from some geographical areas could sell at higher prices. However, these traditional practices are quite different from geographical indications that will provide strong legal means and regulatory powers to protect its reputations. European countries such as France, Italy, and Spain have developed their own laws and regulations to protect their local products. These European laws and regulations eventually become the basis of international laws, geographical indications. In France, since 1930s, the protection of geographical indications only for wines and spirits have been in force. After the year of 1994, most agricultural products could be internationally protected as geographical indications because of WTO/TRIPs. Recently, European countries continuously have demanded other trade partners to protect their products of geographical indications through the laws equivalent to intellectual property rights. Since 1999, the Korean government started to build its regulatory and supportive government agencies and laws for geographical indications. In Korea, not so many research studies regarding geographical indications have been performed yet. In this article, we reviewed historical developments and current protections of geographical indications in several countries. We will identify some problems of our protections and provide suggestions. 지리적 명칭은 과거 누구나 사용할 수 있는 권리로 규정되었으나 지리적 표시제로 인해 이제 해당지역의 등록법인인 민간 생산자 단체에게만 부여되고 보호되는 배타적 지적재산권이 되었다. 유명산지의 지리적 명칭은 아주 오랜 옛날부터 품질인증 기능과 가격프리미엄이 있었다. 하지만, 명성을 보호, 관리할 수 있는 강력한 수단을 제공한 현대적 개념의 지리적 표시제와는 차이가 있다. 프랑스의 경우 과거외국산 포도와 포도주의 유입으로 가격폭락, 원산지표시문란행위, 품질하락 등과 같은 문제가 발생하여 이에 대한 대응책으로 포도 및 포도주 산업보호 및 부흥정책인 원산지명칭통제제도와 원산지명칭통제 및 품질관리소를 1935년에 만들었고 이를 1990년에 이르러서 모든 농수산식품에 확대, 적용하였다. 유럽연합은 1992년 프랑스의 농수산식품 품질인증제도를 모태로 지리적 표시 및 품질인증표시 제도를 마련하였다. 유럽연합의 지리적 표시제는 1994년 세계무역기구의 무역관련 지적재산권 협정에 채택되어 전 세계의 WTO 회원국이 의무적으로 이행하여야 하는 제도가 되었다. 우리나라는 1999년 농수산물품질관리법이 도입된 이후 시행근거를 마련하고 현재 지리적 표시제를 실시하고 있다. 비록 외국에 의해 만들어지고 강제로 도입된 제도이지만 지리적 표시제는 역사성을 지닌 지역특산품을 발굴, 육성하여 국내 농수산업의 품질과 경쟁력을 키워 진정한 의미의 농어촌의 지역혁신을 유도할 수 있는 좋은 제도라고 생각한다. 하지만, 국내에서는 아직 지리적 표시제와 관련된 연구가 많이 이루어지지 않아 대외적 협상과 국내 제도시행에 필요한 문제점을 파악하고 개선방안을 만들어 가는데 어려움을 겪고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 각국의 법적보호체계를 살펴보고 국내 지리적 표시제의 문제점을 식별하고 이를 개선할 수 있는 방안에 대해 논의하는 것이다.

지리적 표시 단체표장제도의 문제점과 해결방안에 관한 고찰

정태호 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.4

In Trademark Act, there is a system of collective mark for a geographical indication as a protection system of geographical indication. This system admits a registration of a geographical indication by means of collective mark systems, if a non-distinctive geographical indication has earned a reputation related to a quality of a specific goods. This system looks like being organized well by means of Trademark Act, but several problems in managing this system practically have appeared. Mentioning about the problems precisely, we can raise issues, which Korean Intellectual Property Office(KIPO)’s supports have only too much focused on making collective mark rights for a geographical indication like application supports and awareness of cunsumers for collective mark for a geographical indication is not high particularly and application process is very complicated. Examining about this problems more concretely, we can raise issues like difficulty in fulfilling requirements of applicants, an internal struggle of producer group, neglect of follow-up management, and lack of understanding, promotions and supports on making economical profits in a system of collective mark for a geographical indication. For solving this problems, we will need education and supports of follow-up management, supports for solving an internal struggle of producer group, KIPO’s supports on education of application process and legal modification on simplification of application process, education and supports of commercialization after registrations and supports on promotions for raising consumers’ awareness. In conclusion, if we make solutions of problems in managing collective mark for a geographical indication, legal status of this system will be maintained continuously and this system will develop. And this solutions will distinguish this system from protected geographical indication system in the Agricultural Products Quality Management Act and will be able to make a contribution to a practical protection of a geographical indication.

지리적 표시와 보통명칭에 관한 FTA협상 대응방안 연구

김병일 한국지식재산학회 2023 産業財産權 Vol.- No.76

FTA 협상에서 지적재산권은 상당히 중요한 비중을 차지하고 있다. 최근 지리적 표시(Geographical Indications; GIs)가 중요한 의제로 취급되고 있는데, 이는 지리적 표시가 구대륙과 신대륙의 갈등, 보호범위의 문제 등 당사국간 의 다양한 이해관계가 충돌되는 분야이기 때문이다. 그런데 EU, 미국 등 주요국의 FTA 지리적 표시 대응 전략이 서로 다르므로, 향후 FTA 협상에서 이익균형적인 대응을 위한 전략 수립이 필요하다. 지리적표시의 일반명칭 또는 보통명칭화란 농수산물의 명칭이 기원적 (起原的)으로 생산지나 판매장소와 관련이 있지만 오래 사용되어 보통명사 화된 명칭이 되는 것을 말한다. 우리나라가 체결한 FTA에서 지리적 표시를 규정하고 있는 지리적 표시 협상 쟁점 중에 보통명칭 또는 관용어 이슈는 각국의 지리적 표시 접근방법에 따라 차이가 존재한다. 기 체결한 FTA에서 의 지리적 표시 협상의 보통명칭 또는 관용어 쟁점을 분석하여, 향후 FTA 협상을 적절히 대비하여야 할 것이다. 지리적 표시를 미국식 세계화가 소비하여 보통명칭으로 보편화되는 것 에 EU는 상당히 불만이 많다. 사실 지리적 표시문제는 단지 무역의 득실문 제만이 아니라 유럽문화의 미국식 세계화로부터의 방어라는 측면뿐만 아니 라 개발도상국의 전통적 지식의 보호에 대한 요구도 존재함을 인식하여야 한다. 우리나라도 국제교섭에 대한 대응책 마련뿐만 아니라 ‘지방시대’, ‘소비자주도의 시대’에 부응하는 지역특산물표시의 지적재산권적 보호의 문제 도 국내정책의 문제로서 새롭게 연구되어야 할 것이다. 본 연구는 FTA 지리적 협상을 대비하여 EU와 미국 등 주요국의 지리적 표시 관련 통상 규범과 쟁점 중에 보통명칭 또는 관용어 이슈를 분석하여 이를 바탕으로 향후 협상 대응을 위한 전략 수립 및 기 FTA 협상 또는 개선 협상을 추진할 때 지리적 표시 분야 대응 전략 도출하는 것을 주된 목적으로 한다. Intellectual property rights play a significant role in negotiations for free trade agreements. Geographical indications have recently been a focal point due to conflicting interests among parties, such as the clash between the old and new continents, and disagreements over the scope of protection. However, major countries like the EU and the US employ different strategies for dealing with geographical indications in FTAs. Hence, it is essential to establish a strategy that balances these interests in future FTA negotiations. Generic or common terms of a geographical indication imply that the name of an agricultural or fishery product originates from and is associated with the place of production or sale but has been in use long enough to become a common noun. Among the issues in geographical indication negotiations within Korea's FTAs, which outline geographical indications, differences in nomenclature or idiomatic language often arise depending on each country's approach to geographical indications. Analyzing these common name or idiomatic language issues in existing FTA negotiations concerning geographical indications will be crucial in adequately preparing for future negotiations. EU countries are quite discontent with the fact that geographical indications have been absorbed by American globalism, becoming generic or common terms. Indeed, it should be acknowledged that the matter of geographical indications concerns not only trade benefits but also the defense of European culture against American globalization, along with the necessity to safeguard the traditional knowledge of developing countries. Aside from preparing countermeasures for international negotiations, Korea should also investigate the issue of intellectual property protection for locally specialized product labeling in response to the 'local era' and the 'consumer-driven era' as part of domestic policy. In anticipation of geographical negotiations within FTAs, this study examines trade norms and issues pertaining to geographical indications in major countries like the EU and the US. It includes considerations regarding common names or generic terms, aiming to establish strategies for future negotiations and formulate approaches for addressing the geographical indication field, whether by advancing ongoing FTA negotiations or enhancing future negotiations.

원산지표시법상 원산지의 거짓표시와 혼동유발표시 - 상품명에 포함된 지명을 중심으로 -

박준우 ( Junu Park ) 한국경제법학회 2021 경제법연구 Vol.20 No.2

이 논문은 원산지표시법 제6조의 거짓표시 및 혼동유발표시의 해석에 관한 대법원판결을 검토하였다. 우선 원산지표시에 관한 대법원 사건을 소개하고(II), 원산지표시에 관한 법률들의 관련 규정과 연혁을 살펴보고(III), 원산지표시법과 부정경쟁방지법의 관련 규정을 비교하고(IV), 대법원판결을 검토하였다(V). 원산지표시법의 적용에 관한 대법원판결의 문제는 ① 원산지의 ‘표시의무’를 충족한 것과 ‘거짓표시 또는 혼동유발표시’를 명확히 구별하지 않은 점, ② 원산지표시법 제5조의 ‘표시의무’를 충족하면 제6조의 ‘거짓표시’와 ‘혼동유발표시’가 아니라는 식으로 판결한 점, ③ ‘거짓’과 ‘혼동’의 인식주체인 소비자의 인식을 거의 고려하지 않은 점, 그리고 ④ 원산지의 ‘거짓표시 및 혼동유발표시’의 판단대상을 ‘원산지표시란’의 표시로 제한한 점 등에 있다. 그러나 ‘표시의무’를 이행하였어도 ‘거짓표시’와 ‘혼동유발표시’일 수 있으며, ‘거짓표시’가 아니라도 ‘혼동유발표시’에 해당할 수 있다. 이는 대법원이 아직도 원산지표시법의 의미를 ‘국내산과 외국산의 구별’에 두고 ‘국내 특정지역 사이의 구별’까지 나아가지 못하고 있는 것이 원인이며, 이러한 고려가 ‘죄형법정주의’의 적용에도 영향을 미친 듯하다. 원산지표시제도의 시행 초기에는 국내 생산자와 소비자를 보호하기 위하여 ‘국내산과 외국산의 구별’만으로도 충분하였을 수 있다. 그러나 이제는 소비자를 보호하기 위하여 ‘국내의 특정지역 산을 구별’하는 것까지 필요하며, 이는 원산지표시제도 자체에 대한 소비자의 신뢰를 확보하고, 특정 지역의 생산자가 1차 상품의 품질 유지 및 향상에 투자하도록 하는 지리적표시제도가 실효성 있게 운용될 수 있는 전제가 된다. This article examined Supreme Court decisions, which interpreted the meaning of ‘false indication’ and ‘indication causing confusion’ with regard to origin of agricultural and fishery products of Article 6 of the Act on Origin Labelling of Agricultural and Fishery Products(Indication of Origin Act. IOA). This article first introduced the holdings and rationales of Supreme Court cases(II), explained acts regulating indication of origins and their legislative histories(III), compared the IOA with the Unfair Competition Prevention Act(IV), and finally evaluated the Supreme Court decisions and their rationales(V). This article criticized that Supreme Court ① failed to tell ‘the duty to indicate origin’ from ‘the duty against false indication or indication causing confusion with regard to origin,’ ② held in the way that an indication, which did not violate article 5, was also not the violation of article 6, ③ failed to consider how consumers would recognize the indications, and ④ limited the ‘false indication’ or ‘indication causing confusion’ to the indication in the ‘labelling of origin section of a product,’ excluding indications on the other parts of the product from decision. This suggests that Supreme Court still understood the function of the IOA as protecting domestic products against foreign ones. Supreme Court failed to recognize consumer expectations which distinguished products from different domestic origins, which in turn resulted in the application of the principle of nulla poena sine lege. The distinction between domestic and foreign origin might be enough when the protection of origin had first started. But now the distinction among domestic origins is necessary to meet consumer expectations, which can secure the trust on the IOA, and further can support the protection of the geographical indications.

商標와 地理的 標示의 衝突에 관한 硏究: WTO에서의 論議를 中心으로

박준우 법무부 2004 통상법률 Vol.- No.58

In the WTO negotiations on the protection of geographical indications, there are basically two issues. The first issue is the legal effects of the geographical indications registered in multilateral system. The United States wants a registration system without binding legal effects, while the European Communities wants a system with binding ones. The second issue is the extent of the goods or services to which additional protection is granted beyond wines and spirits. Currently, the United States tries to minimize the extension of those goods or services, while the European Communities argues that there should be no limitation in granting additional protection. In this article, I argued that Korea should approach the issues on the protection of geographical indications from the perspective of the protection of Korean trademarks, and of the development of Korean geographical indications. For the development of the Korean geographical indications, Korea currently needs the quality control of the agricultural products. Apart from the debate on the geographical indications in the WTO, Korea should prepare for a concrete registration and protection system for geographical indications, which can give incentives necessary to secure the minimum and consistent quality of agricultural products. On the other hand, Korea should support the U.S. proposal to protect Korean trademarks from the already genericized geographical indications and to protect Korean trademarks, which conflicts with geographical indications.

EU 지리적 표시 보호제도의 성립과 발달

이홍기,이헌희 한국지식재산학회 2022 産業財産權 Vol.- No.73

지리적 표시제도는 유럽 주요국가들을 중심으로 자국의 농산물과 그 가공품을 보호하기 위한 제도로 출발하였고, 19세기 이후 파리협약, 마드리드 협정 및 리스본 협정에 의해 구체화 되었으며, 현행의 WTO체제 및 TRIPs로 이어졌다. EU는 농산품 관리규정을 마련하여 EU내의 지리적 표시의 보호를 강화하고, 품목을 넓히며, 보호의 요건을 정교화하는 한편, FTA를 통해 대외무역에서도 강한 수준의 지리적 표시의 보호를 위해 노력한다. 최근 체결된 EU와 멕시코, 중미, 일본과의 FTA를 분석해보면, 공통적으로 EU의 지리적 표시를 협정의 부속서로 특정하면서, 추가적 보호 수준에서의 보호를 정하며, 선행상표나 일반명칭에 대해서도 보호를 하는 경향을 보인다. 또한, 회원국들이 보호하고 있는 전체 지리적 표시의 보호를 요구하면서, 상대국과의 협상을 통해 보호 리스트를 적절히 줄여나가는 전략을 취하는 것으로 파악된다. FTA에 있어 지리적 표시의 보호를 중요히 여기는 EU의 입장은 확고한 것으로 보이며, 앞으로도 우리나라와의 협상과 같이 FTA체결 이후에도 지리적 표시에 대한 지속적인 추가적 보호를 요구할 것으로 예상되므로, 이에 대한 지속적인 논의와 대비가 필요할 것이다. This article examines the origin and evolution of the EU's geographical indication system to identify implications for future FTA negotiations. The origin of the geographical indication system from the protection of agricultural products and processed products of the European countries. It is specified by the Paris Agreement, the Madrid Agreement, and the Lisbon Agreement after the 19th century, and continued to the current WTO system and TRIPs. The EU strengthens the protection of geographical indications within the EU regulations by expanding the range of items, and elaborating the requirements for protection while striving to protect strong levels of geographical indications in foreign trade through FTAs. As the recent FTAs concluded the EU and Mexico, Central America, and Japan show a tendency to specify protection at an additional level of protection while specifying geographical indications in the EU as annexes to the agreement and to protect prior trademarks or generic names as well. EU claims strong protection with all geographical indications in its member states, then strategically reduces the number through negotiations. EU attaches great importance to the protection of geographical indications. It is obvious that the EU will continue to demand a high level of protection for its FTA with Korea.

EC-農産品 및 食料品의 商標 및 地理的標示 保護 事件

李露利 법무부 2005 통상법률 Vol.- No.66

European Communities - Protection of Ira demarks a red Geographical Indication for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs case is the first dispute case concerning geographical indications protected under the TRIPS Agreement. The main issues were national treatment in the protection of geographical indications and coexistence of geographical indications and prior trademarks. Geographical indications (hereinafter 'GI') are defined under the TRIPS Agreement as indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Under this Agreement, WTO Members have an obligation to provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent the use of any means in the designation or presentation of a good that indicates or suggest that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin in a manner which mislead the public as to the geographical origin of the good; any use which constitute an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 1 Obis of the Paris Convention (1967). However the TRIPS Agreement does not specify any legal means of GI protection in detail, so how to implement this obligation falls into the discretion of WTO Members. For example, the EC have a registration system especially for GIs of agricultural products and foodstuffs while US provides GI protection of all products trough collective marks or certification marks under the Trademark Law. EC Regulation 2031/92 establishes a common regime for the protection of GIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs by means of a central registration at the level of the Commission of the European Communities. U.S and Australia made complaints to the WTO on 1 January 1999 (additionally on 3 April 2003) and 13 April in 2003 respectively that this Regulation discriminated EU members and other WTO Members in the protection of GIs by requiring additional reciprocity and equivalence requirements to the nationals of other WTO Members and failed to provide sufficient protection to pre-existing trademarks that are similar or identical to a geographical indication. The panel upheld the claims from U.S and Australia that the Regulation violated the national treatment obligation under Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article III : 4 of the GATT 1994 by requiring other WTO Members to offer the same level of protection for GIs as that set out under the Regulation in order to obtain protection for their GIs in the EC. However, the panel rejected the complainants' claims that this Regulation violated Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement by allowing for the coexistence of a GI with a similar and pre-existing product trademark. The complainants claimed coexistence could cause confusion among consumers and thus undermine the rights of trademark owner to protect their marks under the TRIPS Agreement. The panel nevertheless limited the scope of this exception, concluding that the right of coexistence only applies for GIs as they appear in the EU register and not to translations, signs, or other forms of indication, unless they are specifically entered into the register. The panel admitted that EU coexistence defense was justified under Article 17 of TRIPS Agreement, which allows limited fair use exceptions to the protection of trademarks. The panel reports were issued separately on 15 March 2005 and adopted on 2005. The EC noticed they would amend their Regulation consistent with the WTO Agreements until 3 April 2006.

입지계수를 이용한 지역 농특산물 지리적표시제의 정량적 평가기준 연구

김솔희,서교,김유안,김찬우,정찬훈 한국농공학회 2019 한국농공학회논문집 Vol.61 No.2

Using geographical indication, a type of source identification, can effectively promote local specialty agricultural products of superior quality, byidentifying the specific geographic location or origin of the produce. Agricultural products can be registered using the geographical indication bydescribing the product’s relation to its geographical origin including the reputation and quality. However, this indication has no objective standards toqualify goods as agricultural specialty products. The purpose of this study is to suggest basic criteria to define the characteristics and criteria ofagricultural specialties based on a quantitative evaluation method. To propose this basic standard, we used the proportion of arable land to denote themajor production areas and the location quotient (LQ) index to grasp the extent of the specialty of a product. The results show that the average LQvalues of registered agricultural products, particularly apples, pears, and garlic, are 3.26, 8.01, and 2.82, respectively. This indicates that they are morespecialized than produce from other areas that have not registered for a geographical indication. Low LQ values were found in some areas withregistered rice geographical indications, which are also more focused on their historical reputation as the main rice producing areas. Considering theagricultural specialty of products, the recommendation is that the producing proportion should be over 1% of the national scale and over 10% of theprovince scale, and the LQ value should be over 2.0. This recommendation is not a requirement, but the criteria can prove to be useful in identifyinga higher range of specialized agricultural products.