While the taste may be similar, manufacturers in different parts of the world may use entirely different methods to produce the product than those used in the country where the tangy, white, crumbly, slightly salty cheese was first made.

For many years, Greece did nothing to stop other countries from copying the product which originated within the borders of present-day Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria and western Turkey, whose shepherds used goat and sheep milk. Now, however, Athens is fighting to prevent other countries from using the name ‘feta’, arguing that the name should be entitled to special legal protection under both Union and international trade rules.

The European Commission, which initially took Greece’s side, bombarded all 15 EU member states with a battery of questions related to feta cheese production three months ago.

The answers to these questions, which are due next week, will be scrutinised closely not just by Athens, but also by a host of other member states which are similarly worried about protecting the names of food products traditionally made within their borders.

“We have reason to believe that some countries are just waiting behind the scenes to protect some products which at this moment everybody considers to be generic,” said Hans Bender, director of the Danish Dairy Board in Brussels, which is defending its members’ right to continue marketing products under the name ‘feta’, as they have legally been able to do since 1963 (although the practice dates back to the 1930s). “Nobody knows where it will end if we give in now,” he added Indeed, experts warn that a ‘feta accompli” for Greece could unleash a stream of applications from other countries such as the Netherlands, which may go into battle on behalf of names such as emmental and gouda; the UK in defence of cheddar, Cornish clotted cream and Jersey royal potatoes; France on behalf of brie and camembert; and Italy championing the cause of mozzarella and Parma ham.

It could also prompt an escalation of the angry war-of-words which is being waged between Italy and Germany over the latter’s use of the term ‘parmesan’, even though the name used by German producers does not refer to the region of Italy in which it is traditionally produced.

But this is small fry compared with the legal arm-wrestling over the use of terms to describe particular wine and spirits, which are a source of national pride for many countries.

Greece and Italy are threatening to sink the EU’s free-trade deal with South Africa because they feel the Union does not do enough to protect their national liquors, grappa and ouzo respectively. A separate wine and spirits agreement with New Zealand has also been held up for months by Australia, which is fighting to retain the right to use terms such as vintage and rosé to describe different kinds of port.

Grape-growing France is also touchy when vintners from elsewhere use names associated with a particular French region by, for example, referring to ‘Californian champagne’ – although many argue that this leaves no doubt as to where the bubbly stuff comes from.

Under both EU and World Trade Organisation rules, countries can seek protection for names which identify a product as originating in a certain country, or region or locality within their borders, as well as a given quality, reputation or other characteristic which is attributable to its geographic origin.

Such designations also have strong links with a country’s cultural heritage, sometimes going back hundreds of years. Since 1978, the Parma Ham Consorzio in Italy has filed more than 300 legal cases seeking to prevent others from putting the name ‘Parma ham’ on their products, even if the meat they use was purchased from the valley where it has been produced since the 14th century and repackaged.

With the rules governing this relatively new area of intellectual property becoming more and more complicated, pressure is mounting on trade experts in the EU and elsewhere to define more clearly what is in a name.

The WTO’s rules governing intellectual property rights (known as the TRIPS agreement), which entered into force in 1995, established the right of protection for product names as geographical indications, except in cases where the name has evolved into a generic term for describing a product such as Yorkshire pudding.

Wine and spirits enjoy an even higher level of protection, even in cases where no attempt is being made to mislead the public, there is no unfair competition and the true origin is either indicated or the geographical tag is accompanied by terms such as “kind”, “type”, “style” or “imitation”.

WTO members are, however, divided as to how to fine-tune the legislation to avoid future confusion, with developing countries expected to join the fray soon.

One group, led by the US, argues that a database of names entitled to this protection should be set up using information voluntarily provided by members. Another, led by the EU, is pressing for a more definitive database or record of names which would be entitled to mandatory protection, except in cases where a WTO member has launched a successful legal challenge.

Under Union law, member states are required to eliminate barriers to trade in accordance with the Treaty of Rome’s commitment to the free movement of goods and services.

Exceptions are, however, allowed on grounds such as public health as well as the protection of industrial and commercial property. In addition, EU legislation which entered into force in 1992 laid down new types of intellectual property rights. These include – from the strongest to the weakest – protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication and certificates of specific character or traditional speciality guaranteed.

Basically, a PDO mark can be sought for foodstuffs which are produced, processed and prepared in a given geographic area using recognised know-how, for example, a cheese produced in a certain region with milk used from a local herd.

But, as UK barrister Hugh Mercer points out, proving that these conditions have been met can be extremely difficult. Commission officials hope that the feta questionnaires will provide clues as to how best to deal with these kinds of disputes in future.

But the real test of the value of a product name comes at the local supermarket or liquor store when consumers decide which of a wide range of food and drink to put in their shopping baskets.

Increasingly, producers are using geographic descriptions to distinguish their merchandise from those of competitors. The value of this added information from a marketing point of view was underlined by a recent study which found that three-quarters of European shoppers would choose food produced using traditional methods.

Not only are consumers more health conscious than ever before – scrutinising foods ever more closely to see if they are, for example, organically grown or contain genetically modified ingredients – but a growing number are also more likely to buy goods from their home country or even village, both out of national pride or because they believe that this signifies that the product is of a certain quality. “It is a quite important aspect of fostering a differentiated product in the food market,” said Mercer.

In the case of feta, Denmark’s largest dairy MD Foods claims it has not calculated the cost of losing its right to use the name for its version of the cheese. However, company executives fear that if Athens wins its case, the firm will lose market share not just in Denmark but in export markets as well.

“Feta is the name that people know,” said spokeswoman Charlotte Simonsen. “We have a trademark which is very well known in the Middle East, but people recognise the name feta as a certain kind of cheese. If you have to change it, you would lose a big part of your market.”

Even though MD Foods uses cows’ milk to make its version of the cheese, rather than the goat or sheep milk used by the Greeks, the company rejects claims that it is confusing consumers by putting the name ‘feta’ on packaging.

If the dispute over feta is any indication, the wider discussion over countries’ right to use geographic names is likely to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of trade experts for several years to come.

More from ... Renée Cordes