Geographic indications is far less intrusive and far less monopolistic than a trademark is.
If I make a search engine the exact same way Google does, I cannot call my search engine Google. Neither in America, nor in Europe or in Asia, or even Africa or South America. And this brand is not even 30 years old. One single company, Google, has trademarked the brand for relatively little money on the entire planet, and it serves a very limited group of billionaires and relatively few employees.
A geographical indication, on the other hand, serves not just one company but typically hundreds or thousands or even ten thousands of independent companies with up to hundreds of thousands employed. If I want to sell wine as Bordeaux wine, all I have to do is to have a vineyard in Bordeaux and live up to the requirements that the other Bordeaux vineyards also comply with.
Note, that Google is free to keep its trademark although it changes its services to the detriment of consumers. Meaning, it maintains the trademark that all governments of the world are paid peanuts to protect on its behalf and can continue to lure consumers to believe that it is still the same service, for example still not "doing evil". But if I change my Bordeaux wine, for example if I change the blend to include grapes that are not part of the approved Bordeaux grapes, I cannot keep the geographical indication.
I am not saying trademarks should not exist or that companies with government protected trademarks should be forced not to change their products or services. But I think it's important to remember that the trademark is often sells a lie about what a company used to be. And I think the protection of trademarks should be linked to taxes paid in the geographic markets where the trademarks apply. Please note that geographic indication as a type of intellectual property right that applies to producers of products typically leaves more revenue and taxes in the countries where they are consumed.
It is in many ways a more modern, inclusive and fair IPR.