These terms long ago became generalized. There are already trademarked brands, what does this extra layer of protectionism add. I don't think we should allow anyone to call a hamburger, they can call them ground beef patties on a bun - which is what they are.
Same with sandwiches outside of sandwich. Probably the same with indian pale ales, etc.... The geographic term describes a style.
It allows people to know the origin of a product, which is the intended purpose.
Your other examples have nothing to do with geographical origin, hamburger, sandwich or IPA have never been from Hamburg, Sandwich or India, so they are irrelevant.
IMO, calling Cognac a product that does not come from Cognac is straight up fraud, and some kind of notoriety theft.
If you produce something similar to Cognac in Innsmouth, why don't you just call it Innsmouth then?
Note that Cognac has a generic name: brandy. You can create brandy anywhere and name it that with no issue.
Same with Champagne which is sparkling wine, we have tons of sparkling wines in France with their own name and no ambiguity regarding Champagne. If you call everything « Champagne », you lose information. And ultimately it’s good only for big corporations.
GI describes what words are protected as a region/ location description vs what words are generalized/ part of the dictionary
it is a style of something yes, but a style thats linked to a town/ region/ county, that the product has always been created in
IPAs are deffo not a location specific decription, since it's a style or make of beer with no location. the indian part in IPA was the destination of the beer. It could be created anywhere
