Home » Articles

International Wine Day

Uncorking the Origins of Great Wine

As wine lovers celebrate International Wine Day, it’s a great time to look at something that goes beyond taste. Where does your wine come from? And why does that matter? For wine producers and legal experts alike, terms like Appellations of Origin (AOs) and Geographical Indications (GIs) are more than fancy labels. These are legal protections that ensure quality, tradition, and authenticity in every bottle.

What are GIs and AOs?

In simple terms, both GIs and AOs connect a wine to the place it was made, highlighting the qualities that come from that specific region of the world. A Geographical Indication shows that a product, like wine, comes from a specific area and owes its reputation or characteristics to that location. An Appellation of Origin is a type of GI with stricter rules, where the product’s qualities must be mostly or entirely due to its geographic environment, including nature and local production techniques.

Classification of Wine Origins in the EU

In the European Union, wines are further categorized under different labels. A Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) has the strictest requirements, meaning everything from growing the grapes to bottling the wine must happen in the named area. A Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) is a bit more flexible. Most of the grapes must come from the area, but not every production step has to take place there. For spirits like whisky or brandy, a GI means that at least one main part of the production must happen in the region mentioned.

Why do GIs and AOs matter?

These designations matter for several reasons. For consumers, they help build trust and make it easier to identify quality products that reflect their place of origin. For producers, GIs and AOs help them stand out in a competitive market, build their reputation, and often charge premium prices. Economically, protected names have been shown to boost exports. For example, studies on South African wine exports to the EU have shown that wines with protected GI names tend to perform better. Legally, these names are protected against misuse and imitation, especially in the EU and in countries with trade agreements. They also help support rural development and promote sustainable practices, which are increasingly important in today’s wine industry.

Moreover, a recent update to EU law, known as Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, came into effect in May 2024. It simplifies and strengthens the GI system by creating a single set of rules for wine, spirits, and food. It also improves protection online, such as against misuse in website domain names, and gives more power to producer groups to manage and enforce their geographical indications.

Conclusion

Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications are much more than just names on a label. They are a promise of quality and authenticity. On International Wine Day, they remind us why that glass of wine from Bordeaux, Napa, or Stellenbosch tastes exactly the way it should, because of where it comes from.

Sources:
https://www.oiv.int/standards/international-standard-for-the-labelling-of-wines/part-ii-compulsory-information/compulsory-information/appellation-of-origin-or-geographical-indication

https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/12/bu-changes-to-the-eu-regulations-on-wines-spirit-drinks-and-agricultural-products

https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/geographical-indications-and-quality-schemes/geographical-indications-and-quality-schemes-explained_en

https://economie.fgov.be/en/themes/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-rights/geographical-indications/geographical-indications-wine

https://www.boip.int/en/ip-professionals/news/geographical-indications-changes-and-impact-of-legislative-changes

Lubinga, M.H., Ngqangweni, S., Van der Walt, S., Potelwa, Y., Nyhodo, B., Phaleng, L. and Ntshangase, T. (2021), “Geographical indications in the wine industry: does it matter for South Africa?”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-06-2019-0041

Vienna Convention on International Sale of Goods: Inclusion or exclusion?

The French and the Dutch law perspective

In most international commercial contracts for the sale of goods, the parties choose to exclude the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods (‘CISG’). This is not always to their advantage. In this article, Mathijs van Riet, Lawyer at SPIEGELER International Attorneys-at-law & Mediators will highlight the CISG from a Dutch and French law perspective.

Background of CISG

The rules and obligations for commercial parties can differ materially in each jurisdiction. The CISG intends to uniform the legislation that applies to the international sale of goods, so that international companies are better aware of their obligations when they undertake their trading abroad. The aim is therefore to provide one legal system that applies in the jurisdictions of all the member states, to promote international commercial trade between the member states.

Exclusion of CISG’s applicability

Nevertheless, in most international commercial contracts the parties choose to exclude the applicability of CISG. This is probably because the parties are not completely aware about the provisions of the CISG and their advantages. In some situations, the CISG even provides for more favourable outcomes than the national legislation.

Annulment for breach of contracts under CISG, the Dutch and French Civil Code

In international commercial contracts it does occur that either party is not entirely satisfied with its contractor. If the other party breaches its obligations under the contract, one of the fundamental remedies is to annul the contract. Although almost every jurisdiction provides for a legal system that enables a party to annul an agreement if its counter party breaches its obligations, the requirements for this remedy seriously defer in each jurisdiction.

Under CISG, a party is entitled to annul its contract if the other party materially breaches its obligations under the contract. Under the French Civil Code, a party is entitled to annul its contract if the other party significantly breaches its obligations under the contract. Under the Dutch Civil Code, any breach of contract entitles the other party to annul the contract, unless the breach is not material enough.

Burden of proof

Even though it might seem that the legal systems under CISG, and the Dutch and French Civil Code are not so different as all systems require a certain extent of seriousness to the breach, from a burden of proof-perspective there is a substantial difference between these systems.

Under CISG and the French Civil Code it would be up to the claiming party to prove that the other party breached its obligations and that this breach was material enough to justify the annulment of the contract. Under the Dutch Civil Code, however, it would be up to the claiming party to prove that the other party breached its obligations under the contract, whereas the other party itself would have to prove that the breach is not material enough to justify the annulment.

Strategic decisions in commercial contracts

This difference in the legal systems regarding the burden of proof can have a serious impact on the outcome of a procedure. For this reason, it is very important to be aware about the potential risks to a contract and which legal system would be best to limit those risks.

Do you have a question regarding a commercial contract or are you involved in a commercial dispute? Our team at SPIEGELER International Attorneys-at-law & Mediators are happy to help.

Let’s Do Dutch!

Dutch voices make noise in AI-generated song

World Intellectual Property Day
IP and music: Feel the beat of IP

Experiment

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in music production is once again raising questions about the protection of artists’ rights. A recent experiment by the Dutch music studio Manglemoose demonstrates that AI systems are capable of generating songs that feature voices closely resembling those of well-known Dutch singers, including Jan Smit, Trijntje Oosterhuis, and Herman van Veen.

The experiment included the creation of a track by using AI music generation tools such as Udio, Riffusion, and Sonauto. According to studio representative Matties Grooten, these systems were asked to produce vocals in the style of specific Dutch artists. The results were combined into one song to show how easily AI can recreate familiar voices, often without the original artists knowing or giving permission.

This also shows how more and more often, AI is being used to create music, both for experimentation and commercial purposes. While the AI-generated track in this case is not being used for commercial purposes, its release draws attention to the broader issue of whether such technologies rely on copyrighted material or personal data being used without permission. The NOS contacted representatives of several artists featured in the song. They confirmed that no authorization had been granted for the use of their voices, further raising concerns about programming and training methods used by AI developers.

Industry organizations, including Stichting Brein, state that although the evidence is not conclusive, the strong similarity to recognizable voices suggests that the training data may include protected works. According to director Bastiaan van Ramshorst, this practice could damage artists’ reputations and mislead the public, especially when the quality of the output is poor.

Legal Action

Despite the growing concerns, no legal actions have yet been taken in the Netherlands.

These concerns are shared far beyond the Netherlands. In the United Kingdom, a group of renowned international artists—including Kate Bush, Elton John, and Hans Zimmer—recently released a protest album titled Is This What We Want?The album features twelve almost silent tracks, recorded in empty studios. The silence symbolizes a future in which artists’ voices are replaced or misused by AI without protection or payment. The initiative responds to a proposed UK law that would allow AI companies to freely use creative works for training purposes, without permission or compensation.

Make it Fair

Through the campaign Make it Fair, the artists are calling for stronger legal safeguards to ensure fair use and respect for creative ownership. Their concerns resemble those of Dutch artists, who fear that a lack of transparency and accountability in AI development threatens the foundations of the creative industry.

One reason is the difficulty of proving that an AI model was directly trained on specific copyrighted material. Another is the absence of clear legal protections for the voice as a creative asset. A voice itself is not eligible for protection according to copyright law.

AI ACT

Artificial intelligence systems rely heavily on training data, but this raises concerns about infringing intellectual property rights, particularly in fields like music and art. Developers seek to keep training data confidential, while artists aim to protect their copyrights. The EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive, in force since 2019, addresses this tension. It allows data mining of copyrighted content only under specific conditions: for scientific purposes by research institutions with lawful access (Article 3), or when rights holders haven’t explicitly prohibited the use of the work for data mining purposes (Article 4). The Directive aims to balance AI innovation and copyrights protection, though implementation is challenging.

The European Regulation on Artificial Intelligence, known as the AI Act and effective from August 1, 2024, is the first EU law to directly regulate AI systems. It provides for compliance with IP rules and introduces a transparency obligation. General-purpose AI providers must now disclose a summary of training content (Article 53.1(c)) to help safeguard copyright.

While this requirement is a step forward, it may not be practical. Identifying training data alone isn’t enough—explicit permission from rights holders would be needed, a process that could be too time-consuming for developers, potentially discouraging the use of certain content.

The Netherlands

In the case of the Dutch singers, whose voices were used, they cannot invoke copyright law, as a voice is not eligible for protection. They could, however, invoke privacy law, since a voice is biometric personal data (Art. 9 GDPR).

BumaStemra

BumaStemra is a Dutch organization representing the interests of music creators. Among other things, it regulates compensation for the use of music. Meanwhile, BumaStemra is also committed to protecting human creativity and fair compensation in the AI era. For that reason, BumaStemra has joined an international statement calling, along with other organizations, for fair and transparent regulation around AI.

Meanwhile, a third draft of the Code of Practice has been prepared. This Code of Practice is intended to help AI providers comply with the AI Act, but BumaStemra says this version falls short of securing copyrights. The final Code should be ready in May 2025. 

Copyright and AI

In addition to the requirements set out in the law for copyright protection, the work must also meet the criteria developed by the courts. These criteria consist of two additional requirements that a work must meet in order to be protected by copyright. First, a work must have its own original character. This means that the form of the work may not be derived from that of another work. The second requirement is that the work must bear the personal stamp of its creator. This means that the form of the work must be the result of the human mind. The creator must therefore make creative choices in order to produce the work.

AI-assisted works can be protected by copyright, provided that sufficient creative choices have been made. In this case, AI is regarded as a tool.

On the other hand, AI-generated works are generally not protected by copyright, as only a single prompt is used without any further creative input.

Conclusion

This has reignited urgent debates about the ethical and legal implications of AI in music creation. While the technology showcases impressive capabilities, it also exposes significant gaps in current copyright and privacy laws, especially when it comes to the unauthorized use of artists’ works and voices. As AI tools become increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the line between innovation and infringement grows blurrier. Initiatives like the EU’s AI Act and calls for stronger regulation from organizations reflect a growing consensus: legal frameworks must evolve to ensure fair use, transparency, and protection of artistic identity.

https://bumastemra.nl/artificial-intelligence/

https://bumastemra.nl/update-taskforce-ai-bescherming-van-makers-en-eerlijke-ai-ontwikkelingen/

https://nos.nl/artikel/2512594-ai-wet-neemt-laatste-horde-ook-europees-parlement-is-akkoord

https://nos.nl/artikel/2553761-bumastemra-naar-brussel-voor-strengere-ai-regels-bij-gebruik-van-muziek

https://nos.nl/artikel/2557241-muzikanten-protesteren-met-stil-album-tegen-muziekdiefstal-ai-bedrijven

https://nos.nl/artikel/2559362-nederlandse-zangers-te-herkennen-in-ai-muziek-schadelijk-voor-artiesten

By Pierina Simone, Thessa Gomes and Eline Cremers

Whose idea is it? Gender, patents, and the journey towards inclusive innovation

Out of every 100 patent applications, only 16 come from women. This stark disparity highlights the persistent underrepresentation women face in innovation and intellectual property. In the occasion of the International Girls and Women in Science Day, it is important to highlight the recurrent issue of underrepresentation that women still encounter in every aspect of their lives. Although female patent ownership has increased over time, current gender gap analyses reveal women’s systemic inequalities in the patenting sector.

WIPO’s findings and the Gender Gap

The World Intellectual Property Organization has kept raising awareness in women’s inequalities in the patent sector, finding only 16 percent of patent applications are filed by women, and estimating, based on current trends, reaching gender parity around 2061. This number varies across countries, technologies, and sectors. Even tho countries like France (11,7%) and Russia (15,7%) show a higher percentage of women inventors, and percentages have grown over time, numerical equality is still very far.

 

STEM underrepresentation issue

Among different reasons affecting the ongoing disparity, the disproportion between men and women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is one of the primary ones. For example, in 2014, only 20% of physics bachelor’s degrees were earned by women. In computer science, the gender gap is growing: from 35% of computer science women-earned bachelors, it dropped to 18% in 2014. This directly impacts the number of potential women contributing to inventions and filing patent applications.

The impact of social norms on women’s inventorship

Another factor impacting the number of women in STEM is socialization, in fact, studies suggest that women have been socialized to advocate and think less about commercialization of their work, excluding them from innovation-related opportunities and institutions, which can lead to women undervaluing their achievements and contributions, as well as not patenting their works. This becomes clear when discovering that more than half of Ph.D.’s in life sciences sectors are awarded to women, but only 15% of them patent their discoveries. Additionally, women in STEM may develop social reactions and responses that discourage patenting and commercialization of their research. This also means being less likely to consider commercialization for their inventions and being less comfortable when marketing their work to potential business partners, compared to males.

The financial and systemic barriers to women’s innovation

Another aspect that is emphasized by academics, is the difficulty level that women experience in accessing funding and resources for financing research and development of inventions. As the patenting process can be costly and time-consuming, women may lack the funding to secure their patenting rights or access patent prosecution counsel in case of a patent prosecution. Moreover, since patents and pending applications are what investors look for, women entrepreneurs may be less likely to obtain financing if they are less likely to possess IP rights.

Different studies found that the patent system itself is biased. For example, Jessica C. Lai for the Queen Mary IP Law Journal highlights how law fields cannot be neutral. Instead, she presents the Law as a social and cultural reflection of its creation context, which would attribute criteria for patentability (novelty and non-obviousness) to inherent masculine innovations and favouring them in the patenting process, finding female patent applicants more likely to be rejected.

 

The Matilda Effect and overlooked contributions

Often, historical contributions of women have been overlooked. This is referred to as the Matilda Effect, where men receive the credit for work done by women inventors. A prime example of this effect is the creation of Gatorade. Although Mary Cade and Davis significantly contributed to the development of Gatorade, they were not mentioned on the patent applications. This highlights how women are often not given credit or ignored in the patenting process, which discourages women from pursuing science and technology careers.

A legacy of discovery: the Radium Revolution and Marie Curie’s impact

 

Marie Curie represents an exceptional example of a woman breaking societal expectations by making groundbreaking contributions to science. Marie Curie is the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, the only woman to win a Nobel Prize twice, and in two different scientific fields. She paved the way for future generations of women in STEM and led to extraordinary advancements in the area of radioactivity. In fact, she made available all of her detailed research on how to isolate radium, without patenting it. Marie Curie’s story keeps inspiring women to pursue scientific research and highlights the need for an inclusive and equitable system, where women are acknowledged and celebrated.

All of these factors paint a clear picture: the patenting system is not yet gender neutral. Underrepresentation of women in STEM and the biases on how inventions are evaluated in the patenting process play a big role in the perpetuation of the Matilda Effect, which casts a long shadow. This isn’t about historical injustices, but about the ongoing loss of valuable opportunities and ideas. With all of this in mind, we must ask ourselves: how much innovation are we losing by not embracing women’s contributions?

Sources:

  • Merlin Johns, ‘Challenges Faced by Women in Protecting Intellectual Property Rights’ (2024) 7 Int’l JL Mgmt & Human 704.
  • Michael Schuster, Miriam Marcowitz-Bitton & Deborah R. Gerhardt, ‘The Gender Gap in Academic Patenting’ (2022) 56 UC Davis L Rev 759.
  • WIPO, ‘The Global Gender Gap in Innovation and Creativity: An International Comparison of the Gender Gap in Global Patenting over Two Decades’ (2023) WIPO Development Studies.
  • Sharon Bar-Ziv, Orit Fischman-Afori & Miriam Marcowitz-Bitton, ‘Where the Gender Gap Meets Academic Patenting: An Empirical Study’ (2022) 18 Ohio St Tech L J 239.
  • Allie Porter, ‘Where Are the Women? The Gender Gap within Intellectual Property’ (2020) 28 Tex Intell Prop LJ 511.
  • Jessica C. Lai, ‘Patents and Gender: A Contextual Analysis’ (2020) 10 Queen Mary J Intell Prop 283.
  • Kyle Jensen, Balazs Kovics and Olav Sorenson, ‘Gender Difference in Obtaining and Maintaining Patent Rights’ (2018) 36(4) Nat Biotechnol 307.

Article by Pierina Simone

Proof – As simple as can be!

As of 1 January 2025, the new Act on the Simplification and Modernisation of Evidence Law has come into force. This has led to several amendments to the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. Lawyer Mathijs van Riet explains the most relevant changes.

Burden of Proof and Litigation Strategy

Evidence is one of the most important aspects of civil procedural law. The question of which party bears the burden of proof – and therefore the risk associated with it – can significantly influence litigation strategy. For instance, initiating legal proceedings too hastily may inadvertently place the burden of proof and the associated risks on the initiating party.
Consider the example of a seller of goods in dispute with a buyer over whether the delivered goods meet the agreed standards. If the seller initiates the proceedings, they will need to prove that the goods are compliant. Conversely, if the buyer initiates the proceedings, they will need to prove that the goods are non-compliant.

Starting a civil procedure prematurely can thus affect the allocation of the burden of proof and, consequently, the outcome of the case. It is therefore crucial, before initiating proceedings, to thoroughly map out which facts and arguments are relevant to the court’s decision and to determine which party carries the evidentiary risk for these facts and arguments.

New Act Simplifies Evidence Gathering Before Civil Proceedings

The new Act makes it easier to gather evidence prior to initiating civil proceedings. For example, it is now possible to combine various methods of evidence collection, such as a request for witness examination alongside a request for the appointment of a court expert.

Requesting Access to Information from Third Parties

It is not uncommon for a party to lack access to critical information or documents, while a third party does possess this information. For instance, a party enters into a contract with a seller for the delivery of goods. The seller fails to deliver, and the buyer wishes to hold both the seller and the seller’s director liable.

Under the old law, the buyer could only request information from the director if they could demonstrate a legal relationship with the director, which required showing that the director could be held personally and seriously at fault – a challenging task in most cases.

Under the new law, the requirement of a legal relationship has been removed. It is now possible to request information from any third party, provided the requester has a sufficient interest in obtaining it.

A More Active Role for Judges

The role of judges has also changed as of 1 January 2025. The new Act stipulates that judges now have a more active role with regard to evidence. Judges are now allowed, on their own initiative, to discuss with the parties the foundations of their claims, requests, or defences. In practice, many judges already took this approach before the new Act came into force, aiming to identify the core issues of the dispute together with the parties.

Refusing a Judge’s Request to Provide Information

Judges may order parties to substantiate certain assertions with additional information or documents. This was already the case under the old law. What is new, however, is that judges can now refer the case to another judge to determine whether a party has a valid reason for refusing to comply with such an order. This change ensures that the judge who issued the order does not have to view the relevant information themselves and is therefore not unconsciously influenced by it.

Questions About Evidence Law or Considering Civil Proceedings?

Do you have questions about evidence law, are you involved in a civil procedure, or are you planning to initiate one? Lawyer Mathijs van Riet is happy to assist you.

French Bill 1630 to establish a copyright framework for artificial intelligence

On 12 September 2023, eight French members of parliament submitted a bill to the French National Assembly aimed at establishing a copyright framework for artificial intelligence[1].

The bill aims to regulate the creation and use of works of art generated by artificial intelligence (AI) systems by amending the French Intellectual Property Code to provide greater protection for the rights of artists and authors.

Read more

Olympe de Gouges: revolutionary feminist

Women have a lot of times been the underdog in history. Women artists, for instance, are underrepresented in museums, and women philosophers have also only been researched since the 20th century. Hence, on International Women’s Day, it is good to reflect on an important, yet relatively unknown, female figure in history: Olympe de Gouges. Along with Mary Wollstonecraft, she was one of the leading feminists at the time of the French Revolution.

The daughter of a butcher and a servant, Marie Gouze married the much older Louis-Yves Aubry against her will at the age of 16. When he died soon after the birth of their first child, she refused to bear her husband’s name. She resolved never to marry again. She changed her name to Olympe de Gouges and left for Paris. There she told everyone that her father was the writer Jean-Jacques Lefranc, marquis de Pompignan. In the village she came from, this story had been going around for quite some time. As the daughter of a respected lawyer, her mother had had a lot of contact with Jean-Jacques Lefranc and was even going to marry him, were it not for the fact that Jean-Jacque Lefrancs’ family did not consider her a suitable candidate because she was not of nobility. Lefranc then left the village but returned just before De Gouges was born. Be that as it may, in Paris she could make good use of these rumours as an entry point to Paris’ elite. Read more

Internship and elective abroad: What do I have to consider when applying? – A field report

International Students Day celebrates its annual debut on 17 November. The reason for its introduction was the constant reminder of the student protests in Prague against the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1939, which were, however, violently put down. Students Day has always served to recognise all the difficulties faced by students and young people around the world.

Compared to the wartime period, students today face different problems in shaping their future. The world of work is becoming more and more digital and international. Most (office) jobs can now be done easily and flexibly from home or other places on earth thanks to remote working, so that some colleagues never get to see each other in person.

However, the demands on junior staff have also changed. Now, good and versatile language skills (or at least good English), openness towards international partners and clients as well as stays abroad through work & travel or for at least one semester during their studies are required. During the legal clerkship in Germany, there is the possibility of completing the three-month elective station abroad. Read more

Maurizio Cattelan v. Daniel Druet: case review

3rd Chamber of Paris Judicial Court’s verdict – Friday 8th of July 2022.

Sculpture-maker Daniel Druet made sculptures for artist Maurizio Cattelan’s artworks’ projects for over twenty years. Now, he wants to be recognized as sole author for eight artworks credited to Maurizio Cattelan.

The case was brought to the Paris Judicial Court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maurizio Cattelan – Him, 2001, wax, human hair, suit, polyester resin and pigment, 101 × 43.1 × 63.5 cm, photo: Christie’s

 

Read more