Intellectual property rights play a significant role in negotiations for free trade agreements. Geographical indications have recently been a focal point due to conflicting interests among parties, such as the clash between the old and new continents, and disagreements over the scope of protection. However, major countries like the EU and the US employ different strategies for dealing with geographical indications in FTAs. Hence, it is essential to establish a strategy that balances these interests in future FTA negotiations. Generic or common terms of a geographical indication imply that the name of an agricultural or fishery product originates from and is associated with the place of production or sale but has been in use long enough to become a common noun. Among the issues in geographical indication negotiations within Korea's FTAs, which outline geographical indications, differences in nomenclature or idiomatic language often arise depending on each country's approach to geographical indications. Analyzing these common name or idiomatic language issues in existing FTA negotiations concerning geographical indications will be crucial in adequately preparing for future negotiations. EU countries are quite discontent with the fact that geographical indications have been absorbed by American globalism, becoming generic or common terms. Indeed, it should be acknowledged that the matter of geographical indications concerns not only trade benefits but also the defense of European culture against American globalization, along with the necessity to safeguard the traditional knowledge of developing countries. Aside from preparing countermeasures for international negotiations, Korea should also investigate the issue of intellectual property protection for locally specialized product labeling in response to the 'local era' and the 'consumer-driven era' as part of domestic policy. In anticipation of geographical negotiations within FTAs, this study examines trade norms and issues pertaining to geographical indications in major countries like the EU and the US. It includes considerations regarding common names or generic terms, aiming to establish strategies for future negotiations and formulate approaches for addressing the geographical indication field, whether by advancing ongoing FTA negotiations or enhancing future negotiations.