Is it reasonable to apply the natural or human factors as restrictive locality requirements of the reputation of the product in the GI concept?

The protection of geographical indications (GIs) has been a contentious issue internationally. The TRIPS Agreement attempted to reconcile divergent approaches by establishing a minimum standard, providing a unified conceptual framework for GIs. This framework emphasizes the link between the product and its place of origin. However, variations in the understanding of GIs among different countries have led to limitations on both the product and place of origin, resulting in controversies. While the TRIPS Agreement successfully captures the characteristics of the product, such as quality and reputation, restrictions on the place of origin have generated intense debates. The EU's sui generis GI regime exemplifies this, with different approaches for Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). The PGI approach, which emphasizes reputation, has raised concerns about compromising standards. Some scholars argue that considering the one-to-one correspondence between the product's reputation and the natural and human factors of its origin is crucial. However, the author disagrees with this form of restriction. Historical research reveals objections to such restrictive elements and case studies by examples from China highlight the challenges associated with defining GIs.