Terroir 1996 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Tutela legale delle denominazioni di origine nel mondo (con aspetti applicativi)

Tutela legale delle denominazioni di origine nel mondo (con aspetti applicativi)

Abstract

Uno degli aspetti più importanti nel commercio internazionale dei vini a denominazione è quello del riconoscimento dei diritti di esclusiva garantiti sui e dal territorio geografico d’o­rigine. Al fine di cautelarsi nei confronti della sempre più agguerrita concorrenza mondiale, è opportuno adottare adeguate protezioni ufficiali e legali delle denominazioni che possono derivare sia dalla “naturalità” del prodotto stesso che dalla “originalità” più particolare. Per proteggere è importante, quindi, conoscere la diversa valenza commerciale e giuridica che ciascun Paese attribuisce ai termini “marchio” e “denominazione”.
L’Accordo TRIPS – Ginevra, 15 dicembre 1993 – si fonda essenzialmente sulla con­statazione della insufficiente omogeneità e garanzia offerta dalle discipline legali, giuridiche e commerciali nei diversi Paesi per i marchi non industriali e tale disomogeneità comporta una grave distorsione del mercato internazionale con evidenti effetti, non solo nella pro­duzione ma anche sulla lealtà concorrenziale e sulla tutela del consumatore finale.
La legge italiana pone sullo stesso piano dei marchi, costituiti da indicazioni proprie del prodotto, le indicazioni sulla sua origine o provenienza geografica: cioè, quando il nome geografico identifica per il consumatore una qualità tradizionale o una caratteristica del prodotto, esso è tutelabile solo come denominazione d’origine.
I marchi collettivi, come è nota, sono segni distintivi usati da soggetti diversi, anche nello stesso momento, per contraddistinguere prodotti uguali o affini e sono destinati a garantire l’origine, la natura e le caratteristiche tipologiche di determinati prodotti o servizi. Il mar­chio collettivo non si limita quindi solo ad una funzione di notificazione. Quello che è deter­minante non è la semplice provenienza del prodotto, ma è anche la correttezza profession­ale degli imprenditori che fornisce affidamento al consumatore sulla qualità o sull’origine del prodotto. Quando coesistono questi segni distintivi legati ad un prodotto, è fondamen­tale predisporre un regolamento o disciplinare d’uso della denominazione di origine del prodotto, in cui si devono ricomprendere anche attività di controllo e sanzioni contro un uti­lizzo della denominazione contrario alle sue finalità, compreso quelli attuati dai produttori stessi.
La denominazione d’origine è, di solito, costituita da un nome geografico di località, città o regione, per uno specifico prodotto di una determinata zona, avente caratteristiche merceo­logiche o qualitative che derivano dall’opera dell’uomo o da fattori naturali, tipici dell’ambi­ente e dei fattori antropici di produzione.
Con l’indicazione di provenienza, invece, si indica un segno distintivo relativo ad un prodot­to ottenuto con metodi di produzione o di tecnica costanti, che non abbia caratteristiche essenzialmente collegate ad una certa zona geografica, quindi viene utilizzato per indicare essenzialmente il luogo di produzione.
Giustamente, una recente pubblicazione dell’Assocamerestero fa notare che non sempre l’indicazione di provenienza può essere intesa e registrata come denominazione d’origine, qualora questa crei “una situazione di ingiustificato privilegio” o comunque sia tale da recare pregiudizio allo sviluppo di altre analoghe iniziative nella stessa regione.
Proprio per i motivi sopra esposti e per le ancora troppo ampie disquisizioni formali e giuridiche generali e particolari sugli accordi bilaterali fra gli Stati (che hanno una legi­slazione in materia assai differente) diventa fondamentale definire e catalogare inter­nazionalmente un nuovo disposto giuridico che codifichi la denominazione da proteggere tale da non essere classificata come un marchio di impresa, o un marchio industriale, o un marchio solo collettivo, o una indicazione solo di provenienza poiché rappresentano solo “parziali” definizioni di supposta tutela dell’origine geografica del prodotto, del vino nel nostro caso.

DOI:

Publication date: March 3, 2022

Issue: Terroir 1998

Type: Article

Authors

GIAMPIETRO COMOLLI

Direttore Consorzio per la Tutela del Franciacorta, Erbusco (Brescia) – ltalia

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 1998

Citation

Related articles…

Spatial variability of temperature is linked to grape composition variability in the Saint-Emilion winegrowing area

Elevated temperature during the grape maturation period is a major threat for grape quality and thus wine quality. Therefore, characterizing the grape composition response to temperature at a larger scale would represent a crucial step towards adaptation to climate change. In response to changes in temperature, various physiological mechanisms regulate grape composition. Primary and secondary metabolisms are both involved in this response, with well-known effects, for example on anthocyanins, and lesser known effects, for example on aromas or aroma precursors. At the field scale or at the regional scale, however, numerous environmental or plant-specific factors intervene to make the effects of temperature difficult to distinguish from overall variability. In this study, it was attempted to overcome this difficulty by selecting well-characterized situations with differing temperatures.
A long-term study of air temperature variability across several Merlot vineyards in the Saint-Emilion and Pomerol wine producing area found significant temperature differences and gradients at various time scales linked to environmental factors. From this study area, a few sites were selected with similar age, soil and training system conditions, and with repeated and contrasted temperature differences during the maturation period. The average temperature difference during the maturation period was about 2°C between cooler and warmer sites, a difference similar to that expected under future climate change scenarios. In close vicinity to the temperature sensors at each site, grape berries were sampled at different times until full maturity during 2019 and 2020. Also, berries from bunches on either side of the row were analyzed separately, allowing an investigation of bunch exposure effect associated with the coupling of berry temperature and solar radiation. Four replicates of pooled berries for each time – site – bunch exposure combination were obtained and analyzed for biochemical composition. Analyses of variance of the biochemical composition data collected at different sampling times reveal significant effects associated with temperature, site, and bunch azimuth. For instance, anthocyanins in grape skins are clearly influenced by temperature and solar radiation exposure, with up to 30% reduction in warmer conditions.

Mapping and tracking canopy size with VitiCanopy

Understanding vineyard variability to target management strategies, apply inputs efficiently and deliver consistent grape quality to the winery is essential. However, despite inherent vineyard variability, the majority are managed as if they are uniform. VitiCanopy is a simple, grower-friendly tool for precision/digital viticulture that allows users to collect and interpret objective spatial information about vineyard performance. After four years of field and market research, an upgraded VitiCanopy has been created to achieve a more streamlined, technology-assisted vine monitoring tool that provides users with a set of superior new features, which could significantly improve the way users monitor their grapevines. These new features include:
• New user interface
• User authentication
• Batch analysis of multiple images
• Ease the learning curve through enhanced help features
• Reporting via the creation of colour maps that will allow users to assess the spatial differences in canopies within a vineyard.
Use-case examples are presented to demonstrate the quantification and mapping of vineyard variability through objective canopy measurements, ground-truthing of remotely sensed measurements, monitoring of crop conditions, implementation of disease and water management decisions as well as creating a history of each site to forecast quality. This intelligent tool allows users to manage grapevines and make informed management choices to achieve the desired production targets and remain profitable.

Comparison of imputation methods in long and varied phenological series. Application to the Conegliano dataset, including observations from 1964 over 400 grape varieties

A large varietal collection including over 1700 varieties was maintained in Conegliano, ITA, since the 1950s. Phenological data on a subset of 400 grape varieties including wine grapes, table grapes, and raisins were acquired at bud break, flowering, veraison, and ripening since 1964. Despite the efforts in maintaining and acquiring data over such an extensive collection, the data set has varying degrees of missing cases depending on the variety and the year. This is ubiquitous in phenology datasets with significant size and length. In this work, we evaluated four state-of-the-art methods to estimate missing values in this phenological series: k-Nearest Neighbour (kNN), Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (mice), MissForest, and Bidirectional Recurrent Imputation for Time Series (BRITS). For each phenological stage, we evaluated the performance of the methods in two ways. 1) On the full dataset, we randomly hold-out 10% of the true values for use as a test set and repeated the process 1000 times (Monte Carlo cross-validation). 2) On a reduced and almost complete subset of varieties, we varied the percentage of missing values from 10% to 70% by random deletion. In all cases, we evaluated the performance on the original values using normalized root mean squared error. For the full dataset we also obtained performance statistics by variety and by year. MissForest provided average errors of 17% (3 days) at budbreak, 14% (4 days) at flowering, 14.5% (7 days) at veraison, and 17% (3 days) at maturity. We completed the imputations of the Conegliano dataset, one of the world’s most extensive and varied phenological time series and a steppingstone for future climate change studies in grapes. The dataset is now ready for further analysis, and a rigorous evaluation of imputation errors is included.

Delaying irrigation initiation linearly reduces yield with little impact on maturity in Pinot noir

When to initiate irrigation is a critical annual management decision that has cascading effects on grapevine productivity and wine quality in the context of climate change. A multi-site trial was begun in 2021 to optimize irrigation initiation timing using midday stem water potential (ψstem) thresholds characterized as departures from non-stressed baseline ψstemvalues (Δψstem). Plant material, vine and row spacing, and trellising systems were concomitant among sites, while vine age, soil type, and pruning systems varied. Five target Δψstem thresholds were arranged in an RCBD and replicated eight times at each site: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 MPa (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively). When thresholds were reached, plots were irrigated weekly at 70% ETc. Yield components and berry composition were quantified at harvest. To better generalize inferences across sites, data were analyzed by ANOVA using a mixed model including site as a random factor. Across sites, irrigation was initiated at Δψstem = 0.24, 0.50, 0.65, 0.93, and 0.98 MPa for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. Consistent significant negative linear trends were found for several key yield and berry composition variables. Yield decreased by 12.9, 15.9, 19.5, and 27.4% for T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively, compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) across sites that were driven by similarly linear reductions in berry weight (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, berry composition varied little among treatments. Juice total soluble solids decreased linearly from T1 to T5 – though only ranged 0.9 Brix (p = 0.012). Because producers are paid by the ton, and contracts simply stipulate a target maturity level, first-year results suggest that there is no economic incentive to induce moderate water deficits before irrigation initiation, regardless of vineyard site. Subsequent years will further elucidate the carryover effects of delaying irrigation initiation on productivity over the long term.

Climate projections over France wine-growing region and its potential impact on phenology

Climate change represents a major challenge for the French wine industry. Climatic conditions in French vineyards have already changed and will continue to evolve. One of the notable effects on grapevine is the advancing growing season. The aim of this study is to characterise the evolution of agroclimatic indicators (Huglin index, number of hot days, mean temperature, cumulative rainfall and number of rainy days during the growing season) at French wine-growing regions scale between 1980 and 2019 using gridded data (8 km resolution, SAFRAN) and for the middle of the 21th century (2046-2065) with 21 GCMs statistically debiased and downscaled at 8 km. A set of three phenological models were used to simulate the budburst (BRIN, Smoothed-Utah), flowering, veraison and theoretical maturity (GFV and GSR) stages for two grape varieties (Chardonnay and Cabernet-Sauvignon) over the whole period studied. All the French wine-growing regions show an increase in both temperatures during the growing season and Huglin index. This increase is accompanied by an advance in the simulated flowering (+3 to +9 days), veraison (+6 to +13 days) and theoretical maturity (+6 to +16 days) stages, which are more noticeable in the north-eastern part of France. The climate projections unanimously show, for all the GCMs considered, a clear increase in the Huglin index (+662 to 771 °C.days compared to the 1980-1999 period) and in the number of hot days (+5.6 to 22.6 days) in all the wine regions studied. Regarding rainfall, the expected evolution remains very uncertain due to the heterogeneity of the climates simulated by the 21 models. Only 4 regions out of 21 have a significant decrease in the number of rainy days during the growing season. The two budburst models show a strong divergence in the evolution of this stage with an average difference of 18 days between the two models on all grapevine regions. The theoretical maturity is the most impacted stage with a potential advance between 40 and 23 days according to wine-growing regions.