The Perfect Pairing: Protecting U.S. Geographical Indications with a Sinoamerican Wine Registry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract: Chinese counterfeiters have infiltrated the world, falsely labeling products and using fraudulent geographical indications (GIs). GIs, which function as a type of brand, are internationally protected designations of a product's origin and characteristics. Recently, United States GIs, such as or Walla, have appeared on bottles of composed of Chinese grapes. By misappropriating U.S. brands, Chinese counterfeiters deceive and confuse consumers, disadvantage legitimate businesses, and causes health concerns. Unlike other brands, GIs protect regions, rather than individual producers. This creates a particular void: no single winery can register a GI and no single winery is harmed by fraudulent use, making counterfeits difficult to prevent, detect, and address. This Comment argues that Chinese law currently provides insufficient protection for U.S. GIs. As a solution, it proposes a Sino-American registry to effectively preserve GIs and protect the affected wines, producers, consumers, and countries.INTRODUCTIONSplashy headlines around the world decry the rise of Chinese counterfeits. A London Telegraph headline reads, Alert Over Bordeaux Wine Fraud,1 while a CNN.com headline laments the Counterfeits in the Grape Wall of China.2 Meanwhile, the Australian Broadcasting Company's article, titled Winemakers See Red Over Bogus Bottles, describes counterfeiters who rebadged Chinese wines as Australian.3With growing Chinese demand for foreign wines comes a corresponding increase in fraudulent products.4 For example, counterfeiters pay thousands of dollars for empty French Bordeaux bottles, only to fill them with cheap Chinese and sell them at inflated prices.5 Penfolds, an Australian that is popular and wellrecognized in China, spurred a string of knockoffs marked Benfolds in the same typeface as the original.6 Fake products bottled and packaged as Canadian ice wine are available on Chinese shelves, with frauds potentially comprising eighty percent of the ice in China.7Counterfeit wines create a number of concerns. For example, their labels falsely convey a reputation, which can deceive or confuse consumers.8 Unfortunately, fraudulent wines are often of much lower quality and sometimes even laced with chemicals.9 This can lead to dilution of legitimate brands, harming their producers.10 Meanwhile, counterfeiters receive an unfair advantage, benefitting from the reputation they are weakening.11United States wines have not escaped the counterfeit plague. Recently, a Chinese winery attempted to register itself domestically as Napa Valley.12 Though it didn't obtain that particular brand, it ultimately assumed the name Napa-despite the fact that its consisted entirely of Chinese-grown grapes-and marketed its to domestic consumers.13 In late 2012, the Chinese government finally granted protected status to the term Napa.14 However, this protection took fourteen years of work for the Valley Vintners Association,15 including a 2011 trade mission to China to promote and preserve the name.16The Valley struggle illustrates the problem with protecting geographical indications (GIs). GIs are label designations that indicate a wine's origin and often denote certain qualities associated with that origin.17 A form of intellectual property (IP), GIs function as brands, preserving reputation and truth in labeling.18While brand protection benefits any product, the protection that GIs offer is especially crucial for wine. Consumers select wines based on reputation-not merely those of the wine's producer or its ingredients, but also the reputation of the wine's geographic region.19 Strong regional reputations often result in economic profit, as was the case in Walla, Washington. Once a dying agricultural town, the region is now booming thanks to its industry.20 Walla has created a brand for itself, says Richard Kinssies, a Seattle expert. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».